1) LII/ILE
2) ILI
3) LIE
4) IEI
5) EIE
6) EII
7) IEE
8) LSI
9) SLE
No idea how to rank the bottom 6.
Printable View
1) LII/ILE
2) ILI
3) LIE
4) IEI
5) EIE
6) EII
7) IEE
8) LSI
9) SLE
No idea how to rank the bottom 6.
As an ILE, I approve of this listing.
It would be dependent upon the people you know of the types. Most EII I know IRL are average or slow, while my I.Q. is higher than anyone I would regularly encounter. If TIM is type of processor, I would consider I.Q. to be the speed.
Today general IQ tests seem to be easier for T-N types. Other types should get high scores in less quantity, have no idea how much less.
IQ tests are very easy to learn. Especially if you are a programmer and have studied mathematics extensively. It's pretty much impossible to come up with a test that cannot be learned, or in which you cannot use existing learning.
I do agree ILE's and LII:s probably do best in the standardized IQ tests. However, I don't think these types are any smarter than others.
There is more variety of intelligence than 16 types.
Every female that has ever tested as ESTJ for me admits they are not smart, and they definitely aren't. Maybe it's because a primary purpose of basically proceduralizing everything is typically evidence of not being able to do things on a case by case basis, which translates to being poor at anything new. Really, no ST's consider themselves smart, outside of very surface-level coverup statements. Just an FYI from my experiences.Quote:
Originally Posted by suedehead
I should also throw in that most INTJs by self-testing are slow but think they are sharp. Very few are actually intelligent.
I don't like the processor speed analogy. Sounds like Intel with the old Pentiums.
lowest: Suedehead
This would make some sense if it related to the types of questions in an actual IQ test, but otherwise type has nothing to do with intelligence, IMO.
Water's wet? News flash: most people who aren't White/Ashkenazi, East Asian or upper-caste Indian are screwed IQ-wise. My ancestors probably had a penchant for inbreeding which has a detrimental effect on IQ also.Quote:
Originally Posted by Reficulris
You can have brilliant NTs and dumb NTs, brilliant NFs and dumb NFs, brilliant STs and dumb STs, and brilliant SFs and dumb SFs.
Obvious fact is obvious: IQ is ntr.
Yes, but I have yet to see an SF who is brilliant at standardized testing, which is what an IQ test basically is. I think Ti and Ni has an edge in this narrow method of determining intelligence.Quote:
Originally Posted by sapphire
IEE ranked above beta STs?Quote:
1) LII/ILE
2) ILI
3) LIE
4) IEI
5) EIE
6) EII
7) IEE
8) LSI
9) SLE
Beta STs have better common sense, but I'd imagine IEE's would be more adept at abstract pattern recognition on average.Quote:
Originally Posted by maithili
The type of intelligence that IQ measures is pretty all-encompassing. I wouldn't put street smarts, emotional intelligence, and bodily-kinesthetic intelligence on the same level as g.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neneth
It would be Ne and Ti. Generation of possible cases going into logic of the specific ordering that creates such. All visual/spatial awareness is Si, though.
That's not low. That's average.Quote:
Originally Posted by suedehead
For I.Q. to become apparent, there must be a comparison. Without myself in a group, I.Q. usually has no bearing on anything, because everyone present is generally fairly close. That said, I can usually tell what sort of I.Q. people have, and relate it to how people/work dynamics are affected by such. E.g., LSI moderate intelligence, but better for concrete task solutions than above average I.Q. IEE, so people mistake their "I.Q."s/"intelligence" most of the time.
Fixed that for you.Quote:
Originally Posted by sapphire
they are all retarded
imo standardized testing is easy...almost all tests can be "learned".
real-time analysis and adaptive situations are hard.
Eh, that's a cop out. Someone taking a timed IQ test without prior explicit practice would be using real-time analytical reasoning. IQ is a measure of how quickly you arrive at the right answer spontaneously. A lower IQ person who reads an answer sheet after taking the test might be able to understand the logic behind the correct answer in retrospect, but it would've taken him a longer than average amount of time to arrive at the answer on his own, if at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by lemontrees
I don't understand why you're so obsessed with the IQ test. It's a test in abstract logical reasoning, which would obviously tend to favor NT types. Nevertheless, there are stupid ILEs and highly intelligent ESIs. All types have different strengths that may or may not be rewarded by a standardized IQ test.Quote:
Originally Posted by suedehead
I wouldn't have a problem with the test being called an "abstract logical reasoning test," because that's the only thing that it measures.
Well, if an ESI, weak in Ne-Ti scores highly on an abstract logical reasoning test, wouldn't his Fi-Se be far beyond any measure of NT's?
If I.Q. tests are Ne, and we assign a 1-10 value to it based upon I.Q., and each function of higher dimensionality is consequently ranked one point higher than the previous one, then an ESI of 5-Ne would have 6-Ti, 7-Se, and 8-Fi, for a total Mental superblock intelligence of 26. If an ILE of 7-Ne (higher I.Q.) thus had 6-Ti, 5-Se, 4-Fi, then his total Mental superblock intelligence would be 22, 4 less than the ESI of 2 less I.Q.
Well, people who score well on IQ tests typically go on to procure 6-figure salaries, so IQ-related skills are probably more useful in the real world than other skills.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hacim
This whole 'everyone is intelligent in their way' notion is tired cliche by the way. I have a low IQ and have absolutely no strengths to speak of. I'm intellectually inept, physically inept, emotionally inept, socially inept, etc. Whatever strengths I do have aren't on par with those of a high IQ person's, nor are they as extensive.
The fact that you keep saying it, tells me you haven't fully accepted it as fact yet.Quote:
Originally Posted by suedehead
Tbh, from my personal observations and others I've known, it seems like people of lower I.Q. can't really perceive I.Q. very well, outside of being able to tell if someone is mentally handicapped.Quote:
Originally Posted by Contra
Well, I can't really speak to what you are saying, but to me it's very clear that suede doesn't have a low IQ. It's more likely that he doesn't have any concrete evidence showing that he has a high IQ and is stagnating due to his current circumstances and inability to change them. Being Ne polr i imagine this is particularly nagging for him.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeremy8419
I will also say that I think when you are in a toxic or stagnant environment, it's easy to feel stupid, hence why i think his current circumstances play into this (apart from the fact that he has mentioned them in past posts).
That would be goofy, since it's easy to go take an I.Q. test lol. Overall intelligence may be average or higher, but I get the impression that he can't turn his Ne into any series of concrete planning, which is a failure between Ne and Ti.Quote:
Originally Posted by Contra
Well, sure, but there are other means by which you can assess your intelligence, though, not super reliably. Even worse though, I'm pretty sure he is just using pure observation and introspection, which is definitely not an accurate way to estimate your IQ. You may be right on the Ne-Ti point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeremy8419
I'd just find internet versions and use the various quizzes and such. E.g., the empathy one, spatial awareness one, etc. Although, he is most likely subconsciously purposefully failing those, because he thinks he is ugly, which equals stupid/worthless (to him at least).Quote:
Originally Posted by Contra
Eek. honestly I'd stay away from anything but the WAIS or stanford-binet. I don't trust the internet tests at all. I mean, sure, take them for fun, but don't rely on them as serious assessments.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeremy8419
It's better than him just magically guessing that he's slow lol.Quote:
Originally Posted by Contra
You have pretty limited experiences then.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeremy8419
Nope, though I would be inclined to agree that I don't typically go places that high I.Q. LSE women would be. In general, though, LSE has Routine as their Base, which is generally the opposite of what is considered intelligence (separate from knowledge).Quote:
Originally Posted by Myst
i misinterpreted as how SF's do on standardized tests in generalQuote:
Originally Posted by suedehead
You are completely mistaken about this. People who "procure 6-figure salaries" are people with a lot of common sense, a good grasp of where to place themselves spatially, how to make themselves irreplaceable to a company/organization.Quote:
Originally Posted by suedehead
You're both incorrect.
People who have 6-figure salaries are those who want 6-figure salaries, know the steps to achieve such, and work to achieve such. Oh, and drug dealers.
FWIW, @suedehead, I scored in the 99th percentile on my IQ tests both as a preschooler and in high school. I have never (yet?) come close to earning a 6-figure salary. Imo, @maithili amd @Jeremy8419 are correct (though I don't see how Jeremy's original description of ppl who earn 6-figure salaries excludes drug dealers so that they should be listed seperately)
Also, I know at least one high-IQ LSE. She's a doctor, and she really is pretty brilliant.
Again I'll say it: intelligence is not type-related.
I can tell that I'm stupid because of the fact that I have to strain myself to read half the posts on this forum, as well as the myopic and pathetically nihilistic nature of my thought processes. If I had a higher IQ, I'd have a vivid mental life, some semblance of dignity, and a clearer sense of direction and purpose. You guys are just easily impressed by my middle school-level vocabulary. An overly pronounced Ne-polr in the form of low openness to experience is probably a sign of low IQ btw.Quote:
Originally Posted by Contra
You're aware this could not be type related, correct? There's multiple things that could give the impression of "low I.Q." without actually being low I.Q. The ASD quiz threads are an example.Quote:
Originally Posted by suedehead
That's my bias. I don't consider law-breaking to be an achievement :PQuote:
Originally Posted by sapphire
I score low on those, although I guess it can't be completely ruled out.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeremy8419
Tangential,
I hate IQ. It feels so meaningless. I get a lot more fulfillment out of solving a practical problem and getting some kind of tangible result over being proud of a number.
It seems like clarity, because it higher. When you're higher, you just realize we're all blind, deaf, and stupid as hell.Quote:
Originally Posted by suedehead
Holy lord, this.Quote:
Originally Posted by suedehead
You seem to be either intentionally trolling, or woefully out of touch with how intelligent you (obviously, to me) actually are. Even your ability to reflect on your own experience reflects your intelligence, as does your skill in articulating what you (either pretend to or believe you) observe.
YOU ARE OF AT LEAST AVERAGE INTELLIGENCE. Have you seen how many people there are who could not even begin to understand, e.g., socionics? Or communicate clearly in writing? You are not stupid.
You claim you have high IQ then you resort to such simplistic reasoning.. uh.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeremy8419
Quite some smart geeks also do get 6-figure salaries.Quote:
Originally Posted by maithili
But yeah, it's not really just about IQ.
Do you speak French when in Japan?Quote:
Originally Posted by Myst
Yeah, this has validity. The people who range around 90ish usually just nod their heads and stare off into the distance.Quote:
Originally Posted by sapphire
No, they don't.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeremy8419
source: http://paulcooijmans.com/intelligence/iq_ranges.html
Descriptions of the I.Q. ranges
Lower than 20 — Profound retardation
Usually multi-handicapped with obvious physical deformities and short life expectancy. Heavily dependent on others. Can learn no or only the very simplest tasks.
20-34 — Severely retarded
Basic intellectual tasks, including language, are difficult to learn. Can learn some self-care behaviour but remain dependent on others. There are usually motor problems and physical anomalies. Usually not employable.
Profound and severe retardation are typically caused by brain damage during pregnancy, at birth, or early in life, and as such not genetic and not inherited.
35-49 — Moderately retarded
Can learn simple life skills and employment tasks with special education. May be employed in special settings, and achieve some independence. Often socially immature. Self-awareness — having an inner image of self, realizing that one is a person separate from the others around one — may exist from here on, but is not guaranteed to exist as it depends on more than intelligence alone. The most intelligent non-human animals, such as some crows, chimpanzees, bonobos, parrots, and dolphins, are in this range. Bonobo or chimpanzee I.Q. scores are sometimes even quoted as high as 80 or 90, but those are childhood age-peer scores that correspond to adult I.Q.'s of only just over 40.
50-69 — Mildly retarded
Educable, can learn to care for oneself, employable in routinized jobs but require supervision. Might live alone but do best in supervised settings. Immature but with adequate social adjustment, usually no obvious physical anomalies.
Moderate and mild retardation, contrary to the more severe forms, are typically not caused by brain damage but part of the normal variance of intelligence, and therefore largely genetic and inherited. This is important with regard to the question whether or not retarded persons should have children; for especially the moderate and mild forms of retardation, with which it is physically possible to have children, are the most likely to be inherited.
70-79 — Borderline retarded
Limited trainability. Have difficulty with everyday demands like using a phone book, reading bus or train schedules, banking, filling out forms, using appliances like a video recorder, microwave oven, or computer, et cetera, and therefore require assistance from relatives or social workers in the management of their affairs. Can be employed in simple tasks but require supervision.
80-89 — Below average
Above the threshold for normal independent functioning. Can perform explicit routinized hands-on tasks without supervision as long as there are no moments of choice and it is always clear what has to be done. Assembler, food service.
This is also the I.Q. range most associated with violence. Most violent crime is committed by males from this range. This does not imply that all males in this range are violent, nor that all violent males are in this range. But when the modal I.Q. of a group is in this range, one may expect trouble with with many male members of that group. When the modal I.Q. of a society or population is raised upward of this range, violence decreases as fewer males fall in this range then, given the shape of an even remotely normal distribution. When the modal I.Q. of a society is below this range to begin with though, raising it may increase violence. The causal mechanism behind the (statistical) relation between crime and below-average I.Q. is likely that lower I.Q. levels inherently tend to go with having less impulse control, being less able to delay gratification, being less able to comprehend moral principles like the Golden Rule, and being overstrained by the cognitive demands of society.
And, this is the range into which men of average or just above average intelligence sink when under the influence of alcohol; alcohol reduces I.Q. by up to about 25 points while drunk (own data), which explains why many drunk men are violent and aggressive (own hypothesis).
90-99 — Average
Able to learn a trade in a hands-on manner and perform tasks involving decisions. Craftsman, sales, police officer, clerk. Studies involving some theory are possible from this range upward.
100-109 — Average
Able to learn from written materials. Employable in senior positions.
110-119 — Above average
Able to learn in "college" format. Bachelor degrees. Manager, teacher, accountant. Just capable of taking high-range I.Q. tests.
120-129 — Above average
Capable of gathering and inferring own information. Master degrees. Attorney, chemist, executive. About 93 % of high-range test candidates score I.Q. 120 or higher.
130-139 — "Gifted"
May just be able to write a legible piece of text like an article or modest novel. Minor literary figures. Ph.D. in the "soft" sciences. In this range lies the mode of scores on high-range tests, and almost 80 % of high-range candidates score I.Q. 130 or higher. Regular psychology's I.Q. tests should not be trusted beyond this range as their validity breaks down here, if such scores are given at all.
140-149 — Intelligent
Capable of rational communication and scientific work. From this range on, only specific high-range tests should be considered. Important scientific discoveries and advancement are possible from the upper part of this range on.
We do not know if intelligence from about this range on is simply the extreme end of a normal distribution centred at 100 and largely formed by heredity, or if high intelligence in some cases has other causes (non-inherited or non-genetic) which make it deviate from the normal curve centred at 100 and form a "bump" in the far right tail, similar to the bump in the retarded range (which has non-inherited and non-genetic causes). And since we possess no physical, absolute scale of intelligence, these questions are hitherto meaningless altogether.
About one in two high-range test candidates score I.Q. 140 or higher.
150-159 — Highly intelligent
About one in four high-range test candidates score I.Q. 150 or higher. Otherwise under investigation.
160-169 — Very highly intelligent
About one in ten high-range test candidates score I.Q. 160 or higher. Otherwise under investigation.
170-179 — Pervasively intelligent
About one in a hundred high-range test candidates score I.Q. 170 or higher. Otherwise under investigation; a report on this specific group is Statistics of the top scorers.
180-185 — Exceptionally intelligent
In this range one would expect the I.Q.'s of the few most intelligent individuals alive. About one in a thousand high-range test candidates score I.Q. 180 or higher.
This excuse gets old. No one forbids you from thinking in another framework when you are reasoning for something that goes way way way beyond the limits of socionics theory.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeremy8419
I was agreeing with you. He thinks he is retarded yet is capable of following socionics to a fair degree.Quote:
Originally Posted by sapphire
It was sarcasm. Both of them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Myst
I know you were agreeing w me; I just wanted to point out that people w IQs in the 90s do not, as you wrote, usually just nod their heads and stare off into the distance.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeremy8419
Also, I don't agree that he thinks he's retarded. He is almost certainly trolling.
I'm amused that @suedehead deleted his 3:30pm post about not coming up w a clever response to the guy at McDonald's as an example of his low IQ. I'm a little disappointed, though... I had my pic of a troll doll holding a violin all ready to go :(
Assuming the types are equally distributed, most of them should be hovering around average (90-110 range). For there to feasibly be a type with an average IQ of 110+, there would have to be a type with an average IQ below 90 which seems unlikely to me.
Oh. The ones I know do. They follow MBTI well, though.Quote:
Originally Posted by sapphire
What if I.Q. is a precursor to type? Considered that?Quote:
Originally Posted by suedehead
No, I haven't. I'm clearly way out of my depth here. I can tell you're at least two standard deviations above me IQ-wise. If I were an Ashkenazi Jew or a WASP I would've been able to engage in discourse with you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeremy8419
You don't believe me? Just now I got stumped trying to respond to Jeremy's post.Quote:
Originally Posted by sapphire
I was saying, consider it lol. You have to flex your Ne muscles lol.Quote:
Originally Posted by suedehead
Say they were, yet all of the same type aren't equivalent in I.Q., could their I.Q. compared to their environment during developmental stages be a factor?
I'm trying but my brain is fried dude. It's like trying to teach a dog to understand physics. Are you saying that environmental factors = variation in IQ?
Since you have an IQ of 143, the lopsided nature of our interactions is probably an indicator that I have an IQ below 128. No surprise there.
What would you expect someone with an IQ of 92 to be like? Plenty of people in that IQ range are into pop psychology and I've seen people on the Internet with confirmed IQ's in the 80's who write about as coherently as I do, like this guy:Quote:
Originally Posted by sapphire
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php...8627200&page=0
Why don't you go get a test taken?Quote:
Originally Posted by suedehead
You know, you post a lot of pictures of attractive men, but you fail at realizing something fairly basic.
Both of them - hard to believe that excuse.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeremy8419
Surely you know that he was spewing bullshit. In the other post too where he talked about IQ vs environment.Quote:
Originally Posted by suedehead
This sounds like bullshit. You don't need an IQ of 130 to write a decently readable article.Quote:
Originally Posted by sapphire
Well, then consider it an excuse for the real reason that I lose interest lolQuote:
Originally Posted by Myst
I think one's perception of a person's intelligence is typically based on their verbal IQ: the size of their vocabulary, their capacity for abstract language-based reasoning, their ability to articulate their thoughts through speech or text, etc. My spatial/non-verbal skills are fine, but I usually feel stupid because there's a litany a lot of highschool and college level words that most English-speakers (including a daunting amount of people who speak English as a second-language) take for granted that I'm not familiar with and don't retain well. I've taken steps to mitigate the vocabulary gap superficially, but I lack the ability to express my thoughts fluidly and spontaneously, which seems to be an innate skill unfortunately.
This is what I suck at for the most part:
Quote:
Linguistic Intelligence is a part of Howard Gardner's multiple intelligence theory that deals with individuals' ability to understand both spoken and written language, as well as their ability to speak and write themselves. In a practical sense, linguistic intelligence is the extent to which an individual can use language, both written and verbal, to achieve goals.[1] In addition to this, high linguistic intelligence has been linked to improved problem solving, as well as to increased abstract reasoning.[2]
In many cases, only the verbal aspects are taken into consideration. This is usually referred to as verbal intelligence or verbal fluency, and is commonly a reflection of an individual's overall linguistic intelligence.
seems pretty good, however i've noticed that different types of intelligence are pretty obvious. SLE can be nr 1 when it comes at tactics, they are the best generals and card players or anything that involves cheating, suprise, confusion.Quote:
Originally Posted by suedehead
Every Ne type is good at general intuitive insights "i see it instantly but don't know why", EII-Ne is as powerfull as ILE-ti i've noticed.
ILI is most overrated, they are wise and down to earth, which is great, but that's all they have.
ESE has the highest EQ. Which I admire in them, i can learn from that.
SLI is most streetsmart, and in close proximity of ILI when it comes to intelligence.
i mean yeah, you can say that about any "generality", but that's why it's a general statement, applies to most, but not all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Myst
I'm smart at math, history, literature, chemistry. Didn't like biology much.
Your I.Q. is probably around 128, suede.
If it means things like super high number crunching speed then I'm out. or anything that involves super highly concentrated performance. My mind tend to drift on wrong tracks (if we think about it negatively which is not my stance BTW).
I mean I have seen SxEs who just could beat me blindfolded in visual detail recognition. Believe it or not modern IQ test involves lots of sensing stuff. I can verbal-conceptually be a feaking brilliant at twisting stuff and therefore I get labelled as having super high IQ. This is not very vanilla skill to have so people tend to put it on some sort of pedestal. I sweat the details. Math instructor's tips rarely helped me because I immediately figured out that part but I started to feel kind of retarted when it came to details. Too many stupid mistakes when my mind thinks one thing and hand does the other.
Loved problem solving. This one was the reason why I studied analytical chemistry. Analytical Chem problems deals with develpong a method which can determine specific thing accurately enough form lots of unpredictable variables on a system using wide array of different methods.
Giftedness sounds awesome.
The higher the IQ, the higher the sense of individuality and the independence of mind. Exceptionally gifted people care (much) less about what other people think of them, and are less sensitive to praise, and even less to flattery.
Because they care less about the opinion and esteem of others, they tend to be less socially oriented, but also feel less easily lonely. Maybe it is because they have a very heightened sense of the "self".
They feel pressed to tell openly what they think to others, especially when they hear something that conflicts with their reasoning or knowledge. They value more truth, facts and logic than friendship or emotional relations.
Gifted people therefore only care about social conventions they agree with, and (harshly) criticise the others. They live in an inner world where anything that is not rational is wrong and should be changed. It is unconceivable to them to bask in mediocrity. They are born perfectionists (for what they care about).
Their disregard for conventions, combined with vivid, creative and independent mind, often make them coin new words (often just for fun, to see the reaction of those who care about conventions), or use rare words (not by pedantry at all, but just because they like them better). In other words, they recreate the conventions for themselves.
Typical high-IQ people are constantly thinking about something, worried about a problem, thinking about solutions... So they end up having little time and energy left, and little motivation, for ordinary chit-chat. Because they are constantly "navigating in their thoughts", they tend to be more forgetful of trivial things ("damn, I forgot to remove the clothes from the washing machine last night !").
Their strong independence of mind and deep intellectualisation of things results in exceptionally gifted people having stronger individual interests than average ("passions" for some topics or activities). Once they get into something, they want to know everything about it (which can make them look like geeks or freaks to ordinary folk).
High IQ correlates strongly with exceptional concentration abilities. The problem is that it makes such people quite stubborn until they know or understand what they wanted. Such children are known for always asking "why" questions, and never give up until they get a satisfactory answer.
One thing that normally irritates people with high IQ is asking them to explain something (complex), then stop listening in the middle of their explanations. Exceptionally gifted people just can't understand why one would ask a question and not care about the answer, when they visibly do not understand that topic.
At school, exceptionally gifted children are easily bored by lessons, because they understand before everyone else and get irritated when the teacher has to repeat for slower people. If it is a subject they are particularily interested in, they usually have learned everything by themselves before, which can create conflicts with the teacher, as gifted children do not mind correcting the teacher's slightest mistake in front of the whole class (that's their way of showing that they shouldn't be sitting in that class in a humiliating position of inferiority - well, you know how wild and vain kids can be !).
On the whole, exceptionally gifted people tend to be hyperactive, eat a lot and sleep a lot (because the brain uses so much energy), or on the contrary eat and sleep very little (these are exceptions, like Napoleon, probably due to a different metabolism).
At work, they have difficulty understanding why other people can't do as much as they do in the same amount of time, or don't do things as well as they should. They are usually unsatisfied by others, demanding, strict, and feel like they have to do things by themselves if they want them to be done properly...
High-IQ people are very individualistic, but they usually strive for the common good (as well as their own interests). Their passion for things, their sense of logic, and their desire for perpetual improvement, make of them good politicians and philosophers. On the other hand, they usually dislike routine jobs, with predefinied tasks and little space for creativity and a sense of intellectual challenge.
Given their individualism, they rarely bear the authority of other people, and are therefore more often self-made people, free-thinkers and entrepreneurs, rather than conventional academics or professionals employed by a company.
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/24538-What-characterises-people-with-high-IQ-s
Suede, that's mostly accurate, but it involves some developmental and environmental aspects as well. The parts about adulthood are actually early adulthood or in the 120s. I once had a coworker and friend remark about how I was his favorite person to train him, because of my patience and never treating him like he was stupid. I told him that it had nothing to do with patience, but was actually part of the latter, because whenever everyone thinks slower than you, you get used to it, and all comparisons of intelligence stop, because they are all simply less.
Wow, what would you say is the hardest thing about being smarter than everybody else? Do you feel like it's a lot of responsibility, or what? How long did it take you to figure out you were the smartest, and how did you handle it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeremy8419
Probably the hardest thing is having immature and insecure people be aggressive when you answer questions regarding intelligence. Responsibilities are always accepted or assumed, regardless of situations. When I was four, and I decided to help my classmates.Quote:
Originally Posted by sapphire
BS
Lots of BS.
There are far too many outliers to make such generalizations about individuals. According to it: I would need only bit more rigor and pushiness to be in 140-149 category. I'm too lazy to spend my time with... you know... tiny stuff. Academic papers in chemistry... I have hard time at thinking that most of those are written by 140-149 IQ people. Just no...
Ok I think I get it now. This is what I meant by you appearing to be arbitrarily inconsistent since in the flat earth thread you accused The Jackal and SubT of being stupid more than once. You did not appear to have patience with them in explaining your position. Now I understand why you say it is not arbitrary though. You had your reasons even if you did not make them specifically clear. I have only been skimming parts of that thread. I found it kind of frustrating and circular.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeremy8419
I am not questioning your IQ and I happen to agree with your estimation that Suede's IQ is above average and around 128. It is just an impression I get from him. Mine is also in that range. I was able to gain ten points once just by studying for the test right before taking it.
You're always free to ask, but I prefer if people don't interfere, because I'll lose my train of thought and take way more time than I need to.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aylen
Good answer, lol. I'm not actually questioning your intelligence, btw; I just felt irked by your response -- you strike me as awfully arrogant at times and I couldn't, or maybe just didn't, resist a bit of sarcasm here. But I was a bit like that when I was younger (no idea how old you are, and that's not my point anyway) so maybe it's the fact that you remind me of a version of myself I don't like. Anyway, that's my problem, not yours :) Carry onQuote:
Originally Posted by Jeremy8419
Every type can have a higher or lower IQ.
Having said that, here is the ranking of the types in terms of stereotypically perceived IQ levels:
1. ILI
2. LII
3. ILE
4. LIE
5. IEI
6. LSI
7. EII
8. LSE
9. SLI
10. SLE
11. IEE
12. EIE
13. ESI
14. SEI
15. SEE
16. ESE
I have known certain people who did not fit into this ranking at all.
Even so, the general stereotype of the most intelligent people being NT prevails.
And who knows, maybe it is actually the case – or just a cognitive bias.
Anytime someone discusses their superiority in anything, it will come across as arrogant. Being able to discuss it, despite the known aggression, to answer questions regarding such is an act of maturity, not the other way around.Quote:
Originally Posted by sapphire
“I suspect the I.Q., SAT, and school grades are tests designed by nerds so they can get high scores in order to call each other intelligent...Smart and wise people who score low on IQ tests, or patently intellectually defective ones, like the former U.S. president George
W. Bush, who score high on them (130), are testing the test and not the reverse.”
― Nassim Nicholas Taleb, The Bed of Procrustes: Philosophical and Practical Aphorisms
Smart and wise based on what criteria? Low IQ 'wisdom' is typically comprised of frivolous truisms.
Think what you will about his egregious policies, but George Bush served two terms as the laser of the most powerful country in the world, so he's obviously reasonably intelligent. The average person with an IQ of 100-105 doesn't have the cognitive capacity to handle a job like that and would certainly fuck up harder than he did, if they even lasted a full term in office that is.
Yeah, but you can't really fuck up as President. You make decisions and as long as they are lawful and you don't get your country invaded or cause people to starve and die, it doesn't really matter how good or bad your decisions were. Though it does take some intelligence to make bad decisions and spin them so people think they were good decisions. I'd say Bush fucked up in that regard at least.Quote:
Originally Posted by suedehead
They change depending on who is doing the speaking/studying. You can find a variety of studies with widely varying conclusions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Starfall
Well he had 2 terms and put no effort into spinning things, so I'd say he won for rewards vs efforts lolQuote:
Originally Posted by strangeling
I took an IQ test as a kid, which I forgot I had done. I found the results in a box I was going through, and they said I was gifted or some such. I've probably gotten progressively dumber as time has gone on, not using my brain to its full capacity, but as far as success and such in life goes, here's an article that I really like about mental toughness or grit and its role in how much people accomplish:
http://jamesclear.com/mental-toughness
It's not IQ or talent that matters the most in the end, and its kind of a cop-out to believe that it is.
There's a certain threshold of IQ do you have to reach in order to have succeed in certain fields. An IQ of 120 isn't an instant ticket to success, but they have more potential and a wider range of options. Most attractive, fulfilling and lucrative careers require an above average IQ - what good is tenacity and grit if your only option is to work some tedious blue collar job? High IQ people get to be lawyers, journalists, high-brow artists, writers, filmmakers, surgeons, politicians, maverick CEO's, etc. Mental toughness can be learned or achieved through an injection of testosterone, fluid intelligence is innate.
Unless you want to become an astrophysicist or theoretical mathematician or something, I don't think you have much to worry about. Just like you have to have basic talent to become an elite professional athlete, but there's so so much a person can do with even average IQ that there really isn't any excuse not to pursue what you want to.Quote:
Originally Posted by suedehead
This. THIS.Quote:
Originally Posted by squark
Stephen Hawking once replied to being asked what his IQ was with, "I have no idea. Only losers brag about their IQ." And only losers obsess and let it limit them.
Go get 'em, for the love of god.
Its easy for someone with an IQ above 110 to say something like that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by suedehead
It surely is.
And it's easy for someone with an IQ of x to craft a handy dandy excuse not to do anything in life.
...although I still think it's at least as likely that you are just trolling :popcorn:
Why do you think I'm trolling? I'm genuinely slow. My posts sound like trolling to you because you don't relate to the low IQ frame of reference.
Nah. Pretty sure it's just him being lazy, as your second paragraph suggests.
Exercise, save money, fix your supposedly F'd up face, and that's that. Or whine about it for infinity and blame your problems on things supposedly out of your own control.
I think you're trolling bc, based on the admittedly limited evidence of your posts on this forum, you seem to be very clearly of at least, and likely above-, average intelligence.Quote:
Originally Posted by suedehead
But it really doesn't matter whether I'm right about that or not. To you, I'm just an internet stranger. What imo should matter to you is your own life, and your own actions are what have the power to affect that, whether you choose to keep bellyaching online or make something of yourself with whatever level of intelligence, street smarts, and gumption you choose to muster.
There are better ways to get attention.
Do you know what typically happens when I watch a mainstream tv drama? The character suddenly has an epiphany based on a seemingly benign piece of evidence and I'll have no idea how they arrived at it, and I'll have to rewind the scene and/or go through all the variables in my mind like it's some sort of math problem until I finally have a vague understanding of the character's thought process. The same thing happens with idioms, jokes, subtle power plays/gambits, etc. I'm slow when it comes to understanding implications and subtext, how one idea or event translates to or implies another. These shows are aimed at people with average IQs. That is not normal. I don't see how someone with a mind like mine can even function in the Western world.Quote:
Originally Posted by sapphire
Signs of low IQ:
http://www.ivillages.com/2015/02/08/...han-average/2/
Quote:
4. You Have A Hard Time Understanding Things
This can apply to regular jokes, books, movie plots, documentaries and everything else. If you have a difficult time understanding things that other people understand in an instant (and if this does not happen only occasionally), then your IQ may be lower than the average.
I might have Aspergers by the way, which is probably what's giving you the impression that I'm smarter than I actually am. An Aspie can have an IQ of 70 and seem vaguely intelligent because of their obscure interests. Some people assume that some nerdy interests like Socionics can only be appreciated by people with above average IQs, but an Aspie of any IQ range can easily gravitate towards those things.
Quote:
Originally Posted by suedehead
Maybe you do have a low IQ. Like I said I am judging based on 1-your writing ability, and 2-how often you post and bump threads about your low IQ, which seems like ironic trolling given your apparent communication abilities.Quote:
Originally Posted by suedehead
I could be wrong, of course, but I still say your life is up to you to do w as you choose, using whatever resources, abilities, and preferences you have.
Is there something in particular you believe a low IQ is keeping you from accomplishing? And have you tried your hand at it regardless? I really think perserverance trumps intelligence.
Fwiw, no one possesses all the skills and abilities they would if they were the ideal versions of themselves; everyone is "defective" in some way, just like everyone has something "special." Maybe, for the sake of your own (and even others') well-being, you could experiment w paying attention to the positive for a while -- seek out and cultivate wha you're good at. You could set out to do that for some finite time period, say 3 weeks, as a sort of experiment.
Perseverance only matters once you've passed a certain IQ threshold. What are you supposed to persevere at otherwise - head fry cook?