I don't see the usefulness of a high I.Q a all. From 135-140 or more, a higher I.Q don't mean anything more.
I believe knowledge breeds intelligence. The more knowledge you have of things the more logical one can make his decisions. Or am I wrong?
I see... I'm taking your word for it.2. I think you're confusing IQ and intelligence. You can't say "I want to improve my intelligence to a point where it is equivalent to that of a person with 160 IQ", you can say "I want to become more intelligent" or that "I want to have an IQ of 160".
1. No, I don't think so. There are many knowledgeable and stupid people out there. There is no correlation between knowledge you've gathered and the cognitive processes (quick thinking), and there's very small correlation between knowledge and...
- the ability to create a coherent and unique world view
- the ability to quickly find a solution to a problem
- ability to solve problems
- languages, skills etc.
The definition of intelligence is somewhat debatable, but I don't think that a) you're intelligent if you know the capital of Namibia and b) you'll become more intelligent if you know the capital of Namibia.
2. I think you're confusing IQ and intelligence. You can't say "I want to improve my intelligence to a point where it is equivalent to that of a person with 160 IQ", you can say "I want to become more intelligent" or that "I want to have an IQ of 160".
There are multiple concepts on the matter. Some say (I strongly disagree with this view), that "intelligence = high IQ", therefore "intelligent person = person with high IQ".
If you agree with this, developing your "intelligence" to 160 equals developing your IQ to 160, which is clearly BS (and impossible, as I've already stated).
Others say that intelligence is subjective (you can call a man "intelligent" if he behaves fine like a diplomat, if he knows how to fix a chair etc.) and IQ is an objective scale, and the connection between these two is disputable the very least (see my example above). If this is true, "transfering" a number from a scale to a subjective category doesn't seem to be logical. There may be a connection to some, and there may not be a connection to others.
Obtaining a high IQ score on an IQ test means that you have a high IQ. Nothing more, nothing less. If you score 10 points more than your friend, that means that your IQ is higher by 10, but you're not "more intelligent by 10".
tl;dr: You can develop your IQ and develop your intelligence, but the former is not possible at your age (5 points MAX), and the latter can't be measured.
Nottin gainst Nickelback !!
[YOUTUBE="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95bX7-hWWts"]xD[/YOUTUBE]
I got 137 on a psychologist proctored 10 hour test. Which is about 1/150. For multiple people in this thread to be significantly higher than that is, well, most likely a bunch of shit.
I do think it's possible to raise your IQ by practicing certain kinds of tasks.
1/200.
That's not egoistical, simply stupid - without backup data. Perhaps everybody except you has an IQ of 160 in this thread. Statistically, it's possible.
Yes it is - with a maximum of 5 points (after the age of 20 or so). This is not a rule set in stone, perhaps it's 3, perhaps it's 7. But 20 did sound kinda weird.
It is technically possible, but it seem to me much more likely that most people took internet tests that are designed to give subjects higher scores than they actually should have so that they'll pay money to read the "full report" or whatever.
I would believe the average IQ on this forum is significantly higher than the average population, but not 3 SDs higher...that's just ludicrous.
I wouldn't think so. The internet population as a whole skews higher than the general population. Now, the subset of the internet population that gives a damn about theoretical constructs of human personality? I'm guessing it's a pretty small ratio.
Considering that there are about 1 billion people on this planet who have regular internet access, that means that there are around 1.3 million who given a normal distribution, would have IQs of over 145. Now, that 30 people on a board would have that high of an IQ doesn't seem that far out of reach, does it?
lol, I don't even know how to respond to that.
Sorry, read the numbers wrong. That ten people on a board would have that high of IQs doesn't seem particularly unreasonable.
We're talking extremely high levels of self-selection on a board like this.
hm.. so does the scale of possible IQ results reflect intelligence in a somehow vaguely linear fashion? (or is a person with 195 twice as intelligent as a person with 190? just to illustrate what i mean my non linear reflection of intelligence)
Plus, IQ does not, at all, mean intelligence. It is one specific type of intelligence -- but there's no way it's only testing for ability. It also tests for knowledge. I remember leaving one blank on the math part because I didn't know derivitaves yet. But it's not like I didn't have the ability to understand them. Anyways, test-taking like this means very little.