Yes, we have few active members so the chances of any one of us being abnormal (gifted) or subnormal (retarded) is about zero.
Yet we use 'retard' as a term of abuse, just as 'over-excitable' is pejorative.
The chances are, we are all normal, so no wonder we socially exclude the subnormal and the abnormal, 'cause we can.
What is the cutoff point, though? I'd like to think about 1/50 (~130) is gifted and 1/50 (~70) is retarded. But you could even say 1/1000, which is only an IQ of around 150.
180+ is just absurdly high -- to limit the term 'gifted' to apply to only 1/200000 people renders the word essentially useless.
I think you're making the same mistake as the one you're pointing out, only in the opposite direction.
Originally Posted by Blown Ghost
So ultimately the only thing an IQ test result can tell you is your ability to perform that particular IQ test. Getting an accurate index of comparison for actual raw intelligence/processing is impossible because you'd need two people who have the exact "nurture" circumstances in order to eliminate that and determine which is smarter by nature.
That's not necessarily true. The wider the differences, the less likely they're due to nurture factors, especially if you try to control culture-bias. You can never completely filter it out of course, but there's gonna be a huge difference in processing power between someone with 140 IQ and someone with 95. (if you compare 100 people that scored 140 to 100 people that scored 95, and then gave them some random unrelated task that took a lot of processing power, the 140 guys would win almost always.)
Of course there are multiple intelligences and IQ is a limiter in our experiences in what defines intelligence. After all besides Interpersonal, Intrapersonal, Linguistic, Spatial, Naturalistic, Logical-Mathematical, Musical, Bodily-Kinesthetic are all ways in which intelligence can be interpreted. Much like the limited perceptual definition of our senses. By definition there is only the 5 sense and quit clearly science has establish at least 9 or more. And if you combine all of that together, then one kind of rational intelligence is hardly a broad definition of intelligence.
Especially when we leave out Emotional Intelligence.
The Western world is full of IQ teaching oriented to the left brain - rational and irrational focused thought processes, but not a single school for EQ (Emotional Intelligence) which fully encompasses and integrates right brain activity - non-verbal, holistic thought processes including emotions based on perception of real experience and the resulting intuitive feelings.
EQ is the factor that our culture lacks, so that all too often, instead of acting with integrated reason and feelings, we react with the emotional maturity of spoilt children. Emotions drive our behaviour, and then we use our rational intelligence to justify such behaviour.
And then IQ tests dismiss right brain activity in favour of left brain activity.
My IQ was 119 last I tested, but I'm a highschool dropout (or rather, I got a GED). Technically, I never finished the 9th grade, and even missed 137 days one year. So you could say I'm far from gifted.. Those were stupid choices. I self-educate though, enjoy reading, can be a critical thinker when I need to be, etc.. I make do with whatever "raw" brainpower I have, without much education. So in a bizarre way, I'm kind of proud that my results aren't completely crappy, despite all of that. I'm "gifted" for someone who doesn't really give a shit.
I'm not sure why the love/hate relationship with IQ tests and scores. It's an aptitude test with scoring for specific sets of aptitudes. It's also as meaningful or meaningless as you're willing to make it.