IQ and aging - personal, conflicting thoughts

[Night]

-what is your IQ and your confidence with it?

IQ is a primitive measurment of talent, useful probably only as an exercise in statistics. It means absolutely nothing. I Weschler'd a 162 when I was 14 and have very little confidence in the reliability of this number, as it relates to anything meaningful beyond a statistical deviation.

-how much does your view of "intelligence" align with contemporary IQ views on general intelligence factor?

I'm certain my ideas are echoic of others - most professional opinions cultivate a broad range of empirical sums to arrive at an erudite model far superior to my own. Although better stated, I think most research focuses on the contaminating qualities of standardized intelligence tests.

-are multiple intelligences a better representation of people's traits, or a hoax to cater to feelings of the dumb, or something in between?

I think the spirit of their approach adds credence to the structure of intelligence testing. By focusing on a multiplicity of positive intellectual ends, we can increase our awareness of it.

-have you wished to be of different IQ?

Not really. I don't believe I have an "IQ", such that it is.

-have you noticed a drop in IQ? If so, have you done a conscious effort to negate the effect? If not, what abilities or perceptions have helped to turn the situation around?

Uncertain. I'd like to think I've become more even-handed

-has type awareness brought different view on IQ? how so?

Not really. I find that IQ can be a destructive incision, as it can produce expectations that supersede and/or limit potential. MBTI is probably similar.

-have you aimed for the best job available to your intelligence? Maybe...?

Hope you find this useful -

 

[Ghost of the dead horse]

Hope you find this useful -

Thank you, I do. I enjoy reading people's views on this topic

 

[Night]

Thank you, I do. I enjoy reading people's views on this topic

Have you noticed any general patterns in the way people respond?

 

[red13]

I've never had my IQ measured properly, the highest I've scored on informal tests was a MENSA pretest where I think I came out at 137, they said top 1% of popoulation, but I wasn't interested in taking real test so never got properly validated score.

However I'm confident that I'm as smart as anyone I've met. I'm also confident that on any measure or test that could be applied to me now at age 50 that I would perform better than I did at age 21. I'm sure I could sail through a university degree or A levels etc, mainly due to my much better focus and approach compared with 30 years ago. I don't think my "IQ" has decreased with age (so far).

I read an interesting article in New Scientist magazine a year or so back analysing Genius/Talent. Their conclusion was that to be a genius had three components.

1. That you were bright, they suggested IQ of 115 or above, any higher didn't help(they gave IQ/Natural talent a 15% weighting from memory)

2. Mentoring, often from a parent, this was virtually essential to become very successful.

3. Hard work - Even with natural talent and mentoring the best generally work the hardest, although I guess that without 1 and 2 working hard is probably not enough.

 

[ptgatsby]

I read an interesting article in New Scientist magazine a year or so back analysing Genius/Talent. Their conclusion was that to be a genius had three components.

This is likely the article you are referring to;

How to be a genius

 

[red13]

This is likely the article you are referring to;

How to be a genius

Yes that's the one, alright it was over two years ago, I'm never good at estimating how long ago something happened. I've just re-read it online and I think it's quite inspiring, probably because I've never believed in natural talent and that many people could achieve great things if they really wanted to.

 

[FDG]

I played sports since I was a little kid, and I believe strongly in natural talent. Some kids would just pick up the ball and do amazing things without really trying. Some others would struggle for years before being able to reach the level of the first group. This said, if you're in the above-average group, with a lot of work you can reach the group of the most talented (this is what I've done, before switching to other interests), whereas a natural talent might remain underdeveloped without any training.