I score low on those, although I guess it can't be completely ruled out.Originally Posted by Jeremy8419
I score low on those, although I guess it can't be completely ruled out.
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.
Holy lord, this.I guess what I envy most about above average IQ people is this sort of mental clarity that they seem to possess, regardless of their lifestyle choices or temperament. Whereas my perception and rationalization of things are usually incomplete or rudimentary, dooming me to a sort of perpetual adolescence mentally. Or at least that's the best way that I can describe what being dumb is like. I'm too low IQ to fully do it justice through words. I feel like this thing compared to most of the members here basically:
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.
"In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is." - Yogi Berra
You claim you have high IQ then you resort to such simplistic reasoning.. uh.
Quite some smart geeks also do get 6-figure salaries.
But yeah, it's not really just about IQ.
Do you speak French when in Japan?
Yeah, this has validity. The people who range around 90ish usually just nod their heads and stare off into the distance.
No, they don't.
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.
"In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is." - Yogi Berra
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.
I was agreeing with you. He thinks he is retarded yet is capable of following socionics to a fair degree.
It was sarcasm. Both of them.
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.
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
"In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is." - Yogi Berra
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.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.
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
What if I.Q. is a precursor to type? Considered that?
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.
Last edited by suedehead; 02-19-2016 at 10:05 PM.
You don't believe me? Just now I got stumped trying to respond to Jeremy's post.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.
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
I was saying, consider it lol. You have to flex your Ne muscles lol.
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:
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php...8627200&page=0
Why don't you go get a test taken?
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.
Surely you know that he was spewing bullshit. In the other post too where he talked about IQ vs environment.
This sounds like bullshit. You don't need an IQ of 130 to write a decently readable article.
Well, then consider it an excuse for the real reason that I lose interest lol
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:
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.
Last edited by suedehead; 02-25-2016 at 06:16 AM.
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.
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.
I'm smart at math, history, literature, chemistry. Didn't like biology much.
-
Dual type(as per tcaudilllg)
Enneagram 2w1sw(1w9) helps others to live up to their own standards of what a good person is and is very behind the scenes in the process.
Tritype 1-2-6 stacking sp/sx
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
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.
Last edited by Sanguine Miasma; 02-27-2016 at 07:21 PM.
MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
Winning is for losers
Sincerely yours,
idiosyncratic type
Life is a joke but do you have a life?
NO Private messages, please. Use Discord instead.
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
Last edited by suedehead; 02-27-2016 at 08:24 PM.
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?
"In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is." - Yogi Berra
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.
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...
MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
Winning is for losers
Sincerely yours,
idiosyncratic type
Life is a joke but do you have a life?
NO Private messages, please. Use Discord instead.
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.
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.
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
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.
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 yoursCarry on
"In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is." - Yogi Berra
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.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
