Str: 9
Int: 13
Wis: 14
Dex: 15
Con: 13
Chr: 18

I guess that's about on track, though I have to say, Masters and 169 IQ and only 13... Considering that "officialy" (in school systems and the like), gifted starts at 130...

Einstein?

So where do people like Einstein fit in?

Just a question. If IQ means nothing past age 8, or without education. Doesn't IQ still contribute to your understanding of complex functions? And can, in some people, deem them "unteachable"?

Again just questions, and views.

quote:

---

This one time, at Faeth Es'Braewyn camp:
Didn't some of the most brilliant minds, and major contributors to human society drop out of the school system? Some, not all.

Einstein?

So where do people like Einstein fit in?

Just a question. If IQ means nothing past age 8, or without education. Doesn't IQ still contribute to your understanding of complex functions? And can, in some people, deem them "unteachable"?

Again just questions, and views.

---

That Einstein dropped out of, or didn't do well in school is a myth. According to Hawking, at any rate:

quote:

---

Albert was no child prodigy, but claims that he did poorly at school seem to be an exaggeration. In 1894 his father's business failed and the family moved to Milan. His parents decided he should stay behind to finish school, but he did not like its authoritarianism, and within months he left to join his family in Italy. He later completed his education in Zurich, graduating from the prestigious Federal Polytechnical School, known as ETH, in 1900.{Emphasis mine.}

---

You do, however, raise an interesting point about "unteachability." Certainly, there are people simply incapable of performing to certain academic standards. That's why I've been arguing that education is a better measure of INT than IQ. It's performance-based rather than potential-based.

And, within a given class of new PhDs in a given subject, there will be those who barely made the cut, and those who breezed through the program. Though I'm not so bold as to suggest IQ is the distinguishing factor, here. It could be anything from self-discipline to love of the work.

But what, exactly, does IQ measure? If it's potential, at what point in a person's life do we say, "You've had your chance to prove yourself, and failed"?

Finally, when was the last time you heard anyone claim a substandard IQ? But, according to statistical theory, upon which such tests are based, the vast majority of people must fall within one or two standard deviations of the mean. Yet no one claims to be the one dragging the curve left.

"I'm too smart for school," is the most common defense. My answer: bullshit. Being bored with the material is a good excuse for being a discipline problem, but not one for failing to do well.

Especially later in life. Claiming to be hugely intelligent, but having done nothing with one's life because "I'm too smart for school" is every bit as bad as spending one's whole life reminiscing about being star quarterback of the high school football team. Not using potential is exactly the same thing, in practice, as not having it.

Hence my statement that education should be weighed more than IQ.

{edit: numberous tpyogramaphical erorrs}

[ 05-09-2002: Message edited by: Bloodsage ]

I can think of many people who were so smart that they never had to work in grade school or highschool, and when they went to college, they were so used to not having to try they got their butts kicked by the different teaching methods. Does that make them dumb? perhaps.

On the other hand, a person of average intellegence that has always worked diligently and studied can get stright A's all the way up and though college. Does that make them smart? perhaps.

For every situation there will be exceptions. And that part needs to be weeded out. For the purposes of making a test that will quickly assign an Intelligence value between 1 and 20 without taking 10 years to complete. There are too many variables that would have to be weighed to get a completely accurate representation.

For the sake of time, we take key elements of human intelligence and decide how they would weigh into an equation. That's why I added language in as a variable if you're possessed of the ability to serve as a translator. It takes a powerful brain to process input in two languages at once. But once you've moved above two languages, your brain has devised a logical system. There is no real increase in proven intelligence.

For me Intelligence means little without education. And trully intelligent people will realize the need to immerse themselves in an environment where their intellect is challenged and tested against what has come before them. But, true intelligence exceeds the bounds of education. True intelligence carries you beyond the figures and theories. When the books and professors are behind you, you're only left with your potential. That's why a ~good~ measure of IQ is so important in my estimation.

The proliferation of people getting degrees coincides with the proliferation of colleges lowering their requirements and standards. Masters and PhD level work, not so. So, I'm more inclided to draw a distinction between Masters and Doctorate level work, based on what you've said. I can see that. But I'm not inclined to award points for what is average and below (ie. HighSchool and below). I'd be more inclined to do away with points for getting a regular degree and awarding 1 point for Masters, and another for doctorate level work and above.

So back to the point, a good test of possible intelligence by a reputable Intellectual establish is worth the point, in my opinion. A dime store piece of crap that's more subjective than anything, is worth NOTHING. Unfortunately, it's this dime store crap that most people base their IQ score on, NOT a true IQ test issued by a professional.

Couple of side notes:
The Wecshler is given to children. There is a standard conversion to Stanford Binet from the Wecshler. There is a conversion tool at the bottom of that page as a matter of fact.

The Stanford Binet results show a bell curve that considers adult IQ's above 200 to be immeasurable, and hypothesizes that it's exceedingly rare to see IQ scores that exceed the 210-220 range but it is feasible.

For most of his life he excelled beyond the other students in math.

Oh and Bloodsage, I absolutely agree that if you're silly enough NOT to get a higher education that you're... well... silly. But higher education does not limit Intelligence but your potential certainly will limit you.

Education may push some people's Intelligence to a higher plateau, but for others that highest level of education may still be below their potential.

Now I've never heard of anyone boasting a subpar intelligence, but then again, I, like many of you, was in the gifted class, took AP classes, went to college. So I was never around people with subpar intelligence.

I would have to say honestly though, that if the majority of people on my mothers side of the family took an IQ test they would fall desperately short. My father on the other hand... dickhead as he may be... would do well.

[ 05-09-2002: Message edited by: Woody ]

"Unteachability" as it was applied to me at any rate, was described by my teachers as the fact: I could be given the basics of something, but would eventually get to the point where I did better figuring and applying things on my own rather than being taught. At one point they said teaching me was essentially what was holding me back, because I couldn't apply it well by being taught unless I did it myself.

I was also told my reason for bad grades was lack of interest, and the required teachings being below what I was capable of. Which is why they said I did so poorly day to day in class, but could watlz in and ace a test without thinking twice. Which was the case for the most part. I did poorly in day to day activities and work, but I could ace any test they put in front of me. They once, even, attempted to test this by giving me a test for an advanced level course of the same type that I was currently in to see how I'd do. It was a test that had the same basics as my current course, but didn't hold any information we were currently learning. I ended up acing the test, and they pulled me from my classes. This lead to me testing out of the majority of my Highschool courses, and some advanced courses. My senior year ended up being: Art, Art, Journalism, Art, Art, Indiv Studies, and Art. Because of Texas restrictions and options I could have had an early graduation, but I choose to graduate with my friends instead. So I basically had a BS year.

So education, past the basics, was concidered mostly useless for me unless I was teaching myself. That could be concidered IQ dependant right? Since I was more capable of taking something without teaching, and learning it better by self application than I was by the education system.

I am also dyslexic, which they said may explain my general overachievment in mathmatics. This one always confused me... Anyone know if this is true or false? I've heard similar since, but never found anything concrete on it. Figures since this was one of those type of conversations I'd throw that out there.

My friend Richard has a marveous mind. His level of comprehension, even of things that are new to him is incredible. Demonstration of his potential in my opinion, then education fills in the blanks. He went to Georgia Tech for 1 year, then dropped out. This was a devastating blow to me, because I do believe that education is extremely valuable. He work as the technical director of a theatre in Boston now (Theatre was always his love). But if he had finished with his degree then moved on to higher education, what could he have become?

My friend Rob works at a local ISP as a programmer. His level of intelligence is beyond that of Richard's (which is kind of scarey), but he never went to college... so here he is making $35K a year when his brain makes him worth so very much more.

And then there is Paul. Paul's not a friend, but I worked with him. His intelligence is so far beyond me it's stiffling. I'm no idiot and his intelligence DOES scare me. But, here he is... working as a Sys Admin. **shakes his head** I'm not sure what level of schooling he has gone through though, so I can't speak to that end.

quote:

---

Woody impressed everyone with:
My friend Richard has a marveous mind. His level of comprehension, even of things that are new to him is incredible. Demonstration of his potential in my opinion, then education fills in the blanks. He went to Georgia Tech for 1 year, then dropped out. This was a devastating blow to me, because I do believe that education is extremely valuable. He work as the technical director of a theatre in Boston now (Theatre was always his love). But if he had finished with his degree then moved on to higher education, what could he have become?

---

Something I would apply to this, and I've said to people before.

Sometimes you just need to do what feels right, or worth it to you. You may make less, but in some cases for some people, you'll be happier.

Some people have so much intellect, or so much schooling, that they can go just about anywhere. Once they get there though, some find it doesn't make them happy, and just stresses them out. Sometimes being at the top, or at least high on the scale, just isn't worth it.

I chose family over coledge, it was a personal choice. Probably not the wisest of choices, but one that I'm happier with. It makes things rough sometimes, but I wanted it more.

Str is right
Int should be 13
Wis surprised me, I'd guess 14 or 15
Dex is right
Con is off - I have one of 16 at least
Char is about right

My charisma is more manipulation than straight charisma, and my constitution expresses itself as not health but sheer endurance.

Edit - Read last of thread and added:

I'm a reasonably smart person (I live and do fine with a bunch of engineer, doctors, etc), but I've declined college. My degenerative health makes a government career not only a better choice but something I need to get the time in on NOW before I get too sick to do it so that the gov't will take care of me later.

Sometimes college is not the wise choice.

[ 05-09-2002: Message edited by: Hireko FishSlayer ]

If a person with average IQ with a PHd, and a person with an exeptional IQ but no PHd were both put against a task that did not involved the first persons feild of choice. Negating thier PHd. Which, would you feel, has the highest probability of completing the task in the best manner?

The person with the average IQ and a PHd, or the person with just the high IQ?

Perhaps we were talking past each other. I pretty much consider a Bachelor's degree the price of admission into 21st-century life, and wasn't discussing that at all.

But I'm still curious: what do you consider the value of IQ? What is the point of measuring it, other than for obscure statistical analysis by sociologists and psychologists?

My take on human beings is that so few people reach anywhere near their potential that attaching numbers to such things is meaningless, or nearly so. I'm speaking across the board, here, and not just with respect to intelligence, however one defines such a thing.

Look at the physical sport of your choice. Bodybuilding, for example, or powerlifting. If you look back a mere 50-60 years, the "body builders" are downright puny by today's standards. Charles Atlas looks like a pencil-necked geek compared to Lee Haney. Powerlifters are lifting weights they'd not have dreamed of 50 years ago.

It ain't evolution at work--the time period is just too short. What we have are people pushing themselves truly to the limit of their genetic potential for the first time. But perhaps this is only a plateau also, and new breakthroughs in training methods will push the limits of biology further?

I think intelligence is like that. We are so far away from truly exercising human potential, on average, that assigning numbers to that untapped potential is a useless exercise unless in pursuit of statistical correlation of IQ and success, or whatever sociologic problem is most interesting these days.

It reminds me of some of the numbers environmental Chicken Littles throw about, like, "X number of undiscovered species become extinct every year due to clearcutting rainforests." I actually heard someone assign a number to that.

Sort of ridiculous on the face of it, huh?

Biology and human potential aside, there are still philosophical considerations. Why is alleged potential so much more valuable than accomplishment? Why look down on someone who worked hard to get a degree--any degree--yet respect someone who claims to have a high IQ but flunked out with the tired, "It bored me, so I didn't try," excuse?

I tend to admire people who overcome adversity to achieve their goals, rather than those who excuse their failures with airy claims of innate superiority.

In short, I value accomplishment. And I give no points for trying, unless followed by success.

I've been accused of being harsh, but it's a harsh world and I'm in a harsh business.

In conclusion, I think we are so far short of understanding human intellect that assigning numbers to its potential is premature and probably counterproductive. There's a reason it's unethical to tell kids their IQ: there simply isn't enough correlation with reality to make it worth crushing someone's dreams or setting someone up to fail through unrealistic expectations.

quote:

---

Faeth Es'Braewyn had this to say about Jimmy Carter:
Another question?

If a person with average IQ with a PHd, and a person with an exeptional IQ but no PHd were both put against a task that did not involved the first persons feild of choice. Negating thier PHd. Which, would you feel, has the highest probability of completing the task in the best manner?

The person with the average IQ and a PHd, or the person with just the high IQ?

---

Depending upon the task, I'd put my money on the PhD. Disciplined thinking is the core of any advanced academic program. Additionally, it's hard to reach that level of education without being exposed to a vast array of knowledge outside one's own field.

Would really depend on the task, though.

Let's see if I can take it a step up. (keep in mind I know the basic principles of some PHds, but not the actuall names)

Lets say the first person's PHd was in any of the English fields. American Litterature etc, etc.

And also assume the second person started coledge, he just didn't finish towards an advanced degree. He got his basics out of the way and just quit.

So assuming the only main difference is the advanced degree, and slightly more exposure internally. Concider the problem mathmatical in nature. Physics or some such. A field completely unrelated to the PHd. Possibly a problem that puts them both on equal footing for starting purposes.

(If ya can't tell this discussion interests me. I'm not going to debate in it cause I have no ansewers, but It still interests me. )

INT = Application and Booksmarts

WIS = General Understanding and Common Sense.

In math, to answer your other question, it would come down to who had had the most advanced math course, probably. Would depend on the problem; few people, regardless if "innate intelligence" are going to derive the basic principles of math, or re-invent pi, or integral calculus without having had some exposure.

I'd probably still bet on the advanced degree, though. English, especially, teaches research skills--if he didn't know the answer right off, he'd certainly be well-equipped to find out.

That's also why I stressed the value of a Rennaissance education in my earlier post. Too many people specialize too early these days. Since I've posited a 4-year degree as the new basic entry into society, much as high school used to be, I advocate a broad program of study. Have a major, sure, but certain levels of math, science, and humanities should be required of everyone.

I majored in English at the undergraduate level, too, but I also had more math than you can shake a stick at, culminating in applied differential equations; tons of engineering, including aerodynamics, astrodynamics, thermodynamics, mechanical, and electrical engineering; natural sciences, including biology, physics, and chemistry; and humanities, including political science, philosophy, and psychology. Et cetera.

One can't really be that broad with advanced degrees, though. Hell, these days, a PhD is just the beginning in many fields: students have to do post-doc study before they can truly contribute to the field.

On a personal note, my current problem is that my interests vary too widely to settle down and pick an area for exhaustive study. I hate closing doors, but it's inevitable as one gets older.

So I've just been collecting Master's degrees.

Maybe when I retire from the Air Force, I'll go get a Master's in physics, just to annoy everyone who thinks English and science are incompatible.

What would that make me??

The ability to absorb information, interpret it, and use that information effectively is the true measure of Intelligence in my opinion, irregardless of education.

A sound IQ test puts information in front of you, you must absorb that information, interpret it, and answer a given question. BUT, an IQ is often too subjective. Even the test to enter the Mensa group bears Questions like...
Which is more different?
Cat, Dog, Hampster, Rabbit, Elk
Well, let's see
Cat is the only one with ovular puils.
Dogs are the only ones that are trully trainable
Hampsters are the only ones without furry tails.
Rabbits even though they're completely different have too many resemblances to hampsters to be ruled out.
Elks are the only ones with Antlers.

My choice, elks. But for the wrong reason. I decided that antlers made them most different. The Mensa group test said Elks because they are the only one that's NOT a pet. **sighs**

There are just too many variables for any handwritten test to ever be a trully effective and reliable method of measuring Intelligence. But, I can usually tell by meeting and speaking to someone if they're 'intelligent' or not; whether they're more or less intelligent than I; and, how they likely compare intellectually to other people I know.

So mentally I'm assigning a measurement to them; ranking them. So I've assigned some sort of value to something that can NEVER trully be measured. Same as an IQ test... but I trust my guts and I'm usually not wrong. (See the Wisdom section of the test. **laughs**)

**shrugs and grins**

Edit: typo typo typo I made you out of clay...

[ 05-09-2002: Message edited by: Woody ]

Yes.

quote:

---

A sleep deprived Illanae stammered:
Str: 7
Int: 10
Wis: 17
Dex: 12
Con: 9
Chr: 18

What would that make me??

---

Either a cleric or a sorceror, most likely.

quote:

---

Karnaj Model 2000 was programmed to say:
"Losers are always complaining about their personal best. Winners go home and fuck the prom queen." - Sean Connery, The Rock

Yes.

---

Exactly my point.

quote:

---

Bloodsage had this to say about dark elf butts:
Exactly my point.

---

And my Windows startup sound.

quote:

---

The logic train ran off the tracks when Illanae said:
Str: 7
Int: 10
Wis: 17
Dex: 12
Con: 9
Chr: 18

What would that make me??

---

Hmm... cleric or bard is the easy answer.

Cleric of a deity of enlightenment would work very well

I KNEW I shoulda gone to med school!!!!!!!!

quote:

---

How.... Ferret.... uughhhhhh:
Bah, you don't need med school to be a cleric, just carry around some sort of holy symbol, like a mini 'Tcha!' in gold. Throw some glitter at someone while yelling, "You are healed by the power of [insert random diety here]!" and your a bonafide cleric!

---

okay.. I made my own cleric staff! You have gud idears!

BEHOLD THE TCHA STAFF!

Str: 13
Int: 11
Wis: 15
Dex: 12
Con: 12
Chr: 15

Meh... these questions are sorta loaded... they need to be done by someone other then yourself, otherwise people who are naturally braggers tend to over exagerate their abilities and those who are modest under exagerate their abilities...

meh... either way it looks like i would be a half decent paladin

Cleric/Magic-User/Thief perhaps

Hmmm... looks like I'd be a cleric too...

Yippy skippy.

The scary thing is that I answered dexterity honestly. I know I'm clumsy, but I didn't think I was that clumsy.

...Is there something wrong with me by any chance? (Just curious)

My STR score did go up two points, though. Huzzah for workout.

quote:

---

This insanity brought to you by Fennar:
how many times has this thread been bumped?

---

It's old skool.

quote:

---

Str: 7
Int: 13
Wis: 18
Dex: 13
Con: 8
Chr: 18

---

I've become wiser!