Can a really clever guy score really low on a IQ test?

[DrXparaMental]

Try defining creative adaptability, without using examples of artists you like or are world renowned. Problem is I don't think you can, there's no way to determine what is creative, without it being subjective. I mean that a new idea that involves a process that's an open playing field like music is open to subjective criticism. I agree IQ tests are lame. All I was stating was that intelligence is adaptability, not what you know now. Ability to learn is certainly part of and important to the creative process, but not necessary. In that sense I agree that IQ tests aren't a true measure of creativity, which is IMO as important as the ability to learn.

Creative Adaptability is really just the applied imagination in an original context. By "original context" I just mean ideas and adaptions that you yourself are originally and newly responsible for.

logical problem solving deals in absolutes. In other words, there is only one correct answer. The aforementioned creative adaptability applies itself to both open ended scientific and liberal undertakings.

I do see what you mean however, in that outside of loose descriptive qualifiers, how do we place a merit measurement on "genius"?

In this sense I am honestly not thinking in terms of declaring the genius of being as one would a compliment. Like the statement: "Paul McCartney is a creative genius"

This is more of a non-subjective entitlement based upon what I feel are IQ test ill-merits. More so a judgment based on actual accomplishments without the subjective nature of personal opinion attached.

The way one might state: Paul McCartney was a genius because he originally accomplished...in the same sense that Paul might contend, James Jamerson was a genius because he originally accomplished,...

Men of great analytically logical disposition assuredly can be geniuses of course, but this would be based on their accomplishments in life, not any form of appointed external examination.

My point is I think, almost identical to everyone else's that feels that IQ tests are a poor barometer for what is genius.

It seems absolutes would have to be thrown out the window for the sake of accuracy in determining such.

[jsg4z]

When you define genius as "someone extraordinary" as in "Paul Simon is a musical genius", you open it up to "Will Smith is an acting genius" and "MC Hammer is a dancing genius" It then has no other meaning than "kinda impressive at something".

For this to mean anything we have to define genius quantitatively...as in top 1% of the population at the task of "something". That something tends to be a difficult test of logic and reason...something with well defined answers. IQ tests are a perfect barometer for gauging genius as long as the test is difficult enough to differentiate to +- 1% of the test takers.



Q1. Consider a room which contains, two fathers, a brother, two sons, an uncle, and a nephew. What is the fewest number of people there could be in the room?

[gjm]

Q1. Consider a room which contains, two fathers, a brother, two sons, an uncle, and a nephew. What is the fewest number of people there could be in the room?

2

[Angstrom]

one schizophrenic

[slirak]

A lot of HR tests are about as scientifically valid as rolling down to your local Scientology office and doing their tests. (which is a lot of fun if youve never tried. Go to three different places, answer differently, and get told the same thing. "you need more auditing, and give us lots of money".

In fact, at least here in Sweden, there's a company that does HR tests, which is actually a front for the scientologists. Now I'm all for freedom of religion, but the problem with scientologists is that they often act through organisations that hide the fact that their philosophy is based upon scientology. This is the case with the HR company in question. So there are known cases where not only private enterprises but also government agencies have used their tests, without knowing that they're based upon the strange ideas of former (really bad) sci fi writer mr L. Ron Hubbard. Which are (the ideas, just like the tests) not exactly scientific...

[gjm]

one schizophrenic

nicely done...

[hurlingdervish]

one schizophrenic

nicely done...

it would be nice except that schizophrenia isn't the same thing as multiple personalities

look it up.

[ChiDJ]

I thought I was clear on page one.

No. You are retarded.

/thread.

[Angstrom]

one schizophrenic

nicely done...

it would be nice except that schizophrenia isn't the same thing as multiple personalities

look it up.

doesn't really work as a punchline though
how many people in the room?
One guy with Dissociative identity disorder

=huh?

well, that's my excuse and we're sticking to it.

[Machinesworking]

Men of great analytically logical disposition assuredly can be geniuses of course, but this would be based on their accomplishments in life, not any form of appointed external examination.

My point is I think, almost identical to everyone else's that feels that IQ tests are a poor barometer for what is genius.

It seems absolutes would have to be thrown out the window for the sake of accuracy in determining such.

In the sense of you as an individual, yes. In the sense of the collective human race, no. Absolutes are there for a reason, it's to define a set of rules in which we all agree. Any individual can disagree with the set of rules, and to a degree they have a right to. What I love about science VS art is science treats everything as a pattern that can be analyzed and documented. Art on the other hand IMO dies a little when you do this.

For instance, to me Peter Christopherson (Coil, Throbbing Gristle) is a much more important artist than Paul McCartney, I would consider his work far more relevant to my music than Paul's. It stands to reason that another person would say I was wrong, and that in the court of public opinion McCarteny is considered far more important. I would argue that it was John Lennon that was the real genius behind the Beatles etc. ad infinitum.

This is far different and subjective than stating that for anybody that uses a computer, the guys that invented the IC chip are genius's. It's why an IQ test for creativity alone is impossible. So what defines a genius in terms of creativity in science is far less subjective than what defines a genius in terms of art. Throw politics in there and it gets creepy at best. The whole "evil genius"routine etc. Anyway we agree that the IQ test is really unimportant, and no, it's not because I scored low on them, it's because I value creativity, ethics, hard work, and people in general far too much to disregard them based on a slower ability to learn etc.

[alex.the.forge]

Yes, it's possible I would suppose. One of the more popular, though still questioned modern theories of intelligence is Howard Gardner's theory of multiple intelligence. Basically, he proposes that there are multiple categories that make someone intelligent. They are Linguistic Intelligence, Mathematical Intelligence, Musical Intelligence, Bodily-Kinesthetic Intelligence (Basically athleticism), Spatial Intelligence, Interpersonal Intelligence and Intrapersonal Intelligence. Most IQ tests I've taken have focused heavily on Mathematical Intelligence and Spatial Intelligence, which leaves people in the other categories out in the cold. Then again, does being athletic actually constitute intelligence, as well as being quick to learn and understand other people? I would say yes since the brain is ultimately behind both of those traits.

It really just depends on what one would consider to be clever since it's such a broad term.

My partner is doing a primary education degree at the moment, and I'm quite impressed to hear how much they seem to be taking on board this kind of philosophy these days - i.e. acknowledging that the system up until now has been completely geared up to specific kinds of learners, locking out kids who end up feeling stupid because they can't fit the mould

Normally those kind of views seem to be reserved for Steiner or Montesouri type schools, but it's great to see it filtering into the mainstream

or you could take the bitter cynical view one woman said to me when I was saying this to her that all they are doing is filling new teachers with idealism so that they will be even more disappointed when they start working and discover how it really works

I still think it's good that they are at least addressing it though

so to answer the question, my feeling is the whole concept of "IQ" is probably a little dated

[fishmonkey]

'intelligence' testing is big business, and being used more and more, especially in the US...

[jsg4z]

I read that a school in the US had outlawed F's because it demoralized the kids. Outlawing IQ tests to make parents of retarded kids feel better is itself retarded. The fact that some kids are above average necessitates that some kids are below average. Don't say that they "don't fit the mold". Maybe they are just dumb. Its ok.

[fishmonkey]

I read that a school in the US had outlawed F's because it demoralized the kids. Outlawing IQ tests to make parents of retarded kids feel better is itself retarded. The fact that some kids are above average necessitates that some kids are below average. Don't say that they "don't fit the mold". Maybe they are just dumb. Its ok.

ironically, the very first intelligence tests were specifically developed in France to help find kids who were having difficulty in school so they could receive extra assistance... they were not designed to provide some kind of meaningful ranking, but simply to show which kids were really struggling...

in fact the creators did not believe that it was valid to use such tests to try and order people according to 'intelligence'...

[jsg4z]

Perhaps those guys were also retarded as any test which identifies under performing children could also identify over performing children. Much like every single test ever given to any person anywhere for all time. Otherwise what is the point of giving tests and scores?