Question .....i'm curious about the idea that to comprehend ...say the general theory of relativity you have to have an IQ as high or higher as Einstein had . I took a basic psychology class and it listed 10 famous and supposedly very intelligent people and their IQ. Some were estimates because they lived Before the test was devised. Here are the ones i can remember , (1) Ben Franklin=155 , (2)Einstein=170 , (3)Alexander Hamilton=195 , (4)John Sturat Mill=190. I , really enjoy reading about these folks as they were definitely bright and creative. The concept of intelligence for me has always been a very interesting subject as it relates to specific people and their accomplishment(s) in their respective fields. thanks , s.kuteman

 

I believe that few reach their potential whatever their IQ and that even those with average IQ's can accomplish great things with determination and good habits. My sister was an example of this. Although she had an "average" IQ, she could focus on a task and she had good discipline, study habits and was a hard worker. With those traits and an average IQ, she graduated high school with a 98.6 average, graduated college with honors, and passed the CPA exam on the first try. From her I learned that you can accomplish almost anything if you are willing to pay the price.
Dono

 

I wouldn't say that someone would need an IQ equal to that of Einstein to comprehend the theory of relativity

if that were the case very few professers could teach it
and the ones who could would probably be too busy expanding on it to teach many students

 

i q means interesting question right?

 

Well, when I was in 4th grade, I had the day-long eval done. Said 160+. Unfortunately, as I've gotten older, I've discovered that I haven't got enough sense to pour urine out of a steel-toed protective foot covering...

 

I saw a TV special a couple years ago about this guy that had the highest IQ. He was a bouncer in a niteclub and lived in a tiny ill kept house. IQ and common sense are exclusive to each other as XR4Tisam said. I have a 24 year old stepson who is a brain acedemically but has no judgement of distance or practical grasp on simle everyday physics as they apply to your environment. He can't touch anything without breaking it, and I had a nightmare trying to teach him to drive, he would start turning into the driveway 100 feet before he got there and then as he was running in the ditch, crank the wheels to the lock the opposite way until he was in the other ditch, and repeat.
My IQ was 136 when I was in high school and a quick test off the internet recently showed it to be 139. I don't know how accurat that was, it only took about 20 minutes.

 

You cannot do a computerized IQ test, an IQ test is simply your abilitie to learn and retain information, that is the only way to test your IQ, being as such tht I may have a higher brain capacity as hamilton, however if my only schooling was in tha bronx, I mightnot know squat (this is just an ex. guys do not get ont to me...maybe I shoulda said if I went to school in Arkansas?) Therefore what a true IQ tewst is it tells you information and later on ask you to recall this information and to apply it into a situation....remember it also steers away from having to use common sense because, well for ex....my view...if you only use 10% of your brain, and 5% is smarts, then 5% is common sense, well if you be smart you use 9 % for smarts, and only 1% for common sense (that is my excuse for not having any common sense any ways )

Therefore, an IQ tests can only be taken in person with someone else actually administrating the test, teh IQ test have ALOT of falicies seeing as how you may have two people who have the equel ability to learn and retain information, but one of them can learn by reading the information on the test, the otehr needs pictures, or maybe an audio tape to learn it from. Wel, the test will show the former having a higher IQ than the latter. Hence, yet another falicie


p.s. I have had an IQ test befre, teh typically work alot better when you are younger, they are more accurate....my parents would never tell me what it was, thy let me know recently, it was over 165, problem is....it is more like 100 now with all the alcohol and cigarettes... I did score a 31 on my ACT though a few years ago.

 

Just a couple of years ago I had a battery of these tests as a pre-employment thing. I was absolutely SHOCKED.

Everyone was oooing and aaahing at my numbers. My future (now current) employer said I had the highest numbers they had ever seen.

But no one could explain why as I get older, I actually know less and less. No matter how much I study something, I usually find more questions than answers. It is *Very* frustrating at times!

Personally, I think the whole battery of tests is flawed BADLY.

. . !! ME !! *Exceptionally Intellegent?* Bhahahahahahahahahahahaha !! I loudly proclaim myself one of the dumbest folks I have ever met - and for dang good reasons too!

 

I took a week long battery of test at Voc. Rehab a few years ago. I don't remember the anacronym for any of those tests now but I recorded some of the highest test scores they had seen in a facility that serves about 350,000 people. My lowest score was 86 percentile in a manual dexterity test and I had all the rest from 93 to 98. These are scored on a national level. And while I realize that there a probably no Rhodes scholars taking Voc. Rehab. it is still prtty good.

 

Hi skuteman,

Members of Mensa, the organization of high IQ persons, are good at solving word puzzles, logic problems and other thought games, but have not been able to apply any brainpower to social or economic problems that face us, as far as I know.

It would seem by that simple observation alone that there is no correlation between intelligence and IQ.

 

Respectfully billsco, this is grossly inaccurate.

I offer as evidence Google and the MENSA web site.

It is my opinion and personal observation that the majority of the result of the brainpower they apply is SQUASHED in public media by various . . . special interest (term loosely employed).

You do not need to have an IQ (or phenomenal intellect) to see the potential loss of tremendous profit by fixing the "plain common sense says to . . . " problems in this Country.

'just another fork full of my opinion from the barn yard, please weight it accordingly.

 

Hi ctfuzzy,

I was going to do a little research before I posted, but it was Sunday and I was feeling a bit lazy, and later felt I may get called on the carpet for it.

But I read your response and don't understand where you're coming from. I am all ears however, with no brains between.

I visited the website. Their goal is stated: "To identify and foster human intelligence for the benefit of humanity..." (hey smartypants!) "....to encourage research in the nature, characteristics, and uses of intelligence," (why am I so smart?)..."and to promote stimulating intellectual and social opportunities for its members". (NY Times crossword puzzle competition next weekend!)

I rest my case. haha

 

Billsco, you're on the right track - keep reading.

A whole bunch of sub-subjects are connected (not literally) to the:

"To identify and foster human intelligence for the benefit of humanity..."

part. Look into some of the higher profile MENSA *members* individual works as well as the "corporate entity".

The individual members work is applicable directly to this, because MENSA works not unlike this forum; it enables the exchange of ideas and information in a well informed (generally) and experienced group of peers. It's very nature lends to shaping ALL members opinions and views, not to mention a better understanding overall of any subject discussed by all the "participants".

Now, with all that out of the way, I'll try and wander a little closer back to the topic.

Ask anybody; Einstein was a duffus. That whacko Ben Franklin flew a key on a KITE thinking he could harness electricity. Stephen Hawkin thinks Barney is funny !!!!!!!!!

IQ, as I understand it "measures" your ability to learn, retain briefly, and theoretically apply knowledge.

Intelligence on the other hand, is a far less tangible thing. One I do not yet believe we are smart enough to figure out exactly how to measure.

Case in point; How many folks can you think of historically speaking turned out to be extraordinarily intelligent and we didn't "discover it" until many years (sometimes thousands of years) later?

 

Even better, I love this one (it smacks me back into reality frequently):

How many things did you know positively when you were younger, that turned out to be positively B.S. when you got older ??

 

As a general rule I think that you could at least postulate that Truly Smart people can SEE things or analyze data and formulate abstract theories that Average people just can't comprehend. If mathematics was universally(sp) understood or was simply a process of Memorization there would be awhole less frustration in Algebra I and II in high school and the classes would be taken as Electives . And , I have always felt that to really understand the basic theories of chemistry and physics at the BS degree level a person really should have about 30 college hours of college mathematics. I would also put forth a reason that your brain functions better when younger is the same reason that your simian "urges" are almost automatic is because once we turn 19 we are all in various stages of Decomposition, some faster than others. By the time that we figure out how to "bedum rather than wedum"....we might recall that phrase from our fearless leader....Mr. Mikel Jackson when he uttered the phrase...".Too soon OLD...Too late Smart". Anyway , afew ideas from an old fart..........s.kuteman