# Thread: Qualitative Associations with Superior to Genius Level IQ

1. Originally Posted by Sanctus Iacobus
I could try to explain but apparently it's not even my idea. It's scoring on an SD24 scale where the 4th deviation (genius) begins at 172-173 instead of 145-146.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cattell_Culture_Fair_III

The number that were posted are to support what I believe common sense will agree with.
I still don't see how this could make sense under the assumption that you are using statistics correctly. I think maybe you are misinformed on how Standard Deviation works? It's intrinsic to the scale. A 172 score under the Cattell distribution is the same as a 145 score under the Stanford-Binet. The two scales don't translate directly across by numbers.

As an analogy, I think you are saying something along the lines of "4800km seems too far to be the real distance between Boston and LA. I think it's more likely that it's about 3000 miles instead."

2. No, I am apparently going out on a limb here to disagree with the widely accepted SD15 scale, or even saying a genius occurs in 1 of every 1,000 people. By my estimation, it's between about 1/10th to 1/15th of this, which is sort of like mating the SD24 scale with the SD15 rate of occurance. What started my notion here was not statistical, but that common sense tells us the meaning of genius applies to a certain level of intelligence which I believe the current scale does not represent and what I wrote was an attempt to say why. The numbers don't translate, you are correct. However I bring up SD24 because this notion got me looking at it, at least the Cattell scale which distinguishes the difference between fluid intelligence (or as I've tried to explain as wisdom, the how abouts) and crystallized intelligence (rote knowledge), a concept I've always thought to be poorly considered in standardized testing.

3. Originally Posted by Sanctus Iacobus
No, I am apparently going out on a limb here to disagree with the widely accepted SD15 scale, or even saying a genius occurs in 1 of every 1,000 people. By my estimation, it's between about 1/10th to 1/15th of this, which is sort of like mating the SD24 scale with the SD15 rate of occurance. What started my notion here was not statistical, but that common sense tells us the meaning of genius applies to a certain level of intelligence which I believe the current scale does not represent and what I wrote was an attempt to say why. The numbers don't translate, you are correct. However I bring up SD24 because this notion got me looking at it, at least the Cattell scale which distinguishes the difference between fluid intelligence (or as I've tried to explain as wisdom, the how abouts) and crystallized intelligence (rote knowledge), a concept I've always thought to be poorly considered in standardized testing.
I see. Sorry, I thought you were using the analogy as some kind of logical justification rather than just relating your inspiration.

Still, I think we have had enough explanations already for why IQ or intelligence alone doesn't qualify one for the title of 'genius'. To borrow the term and use it in a completely different manner, one's intelligence must be 'crystallized' in the form of works: discoveries, inventions, art, and so on which no ordinary person could imagine themselves capable of. Thus, someone who doesn't have a particularly high IQ could still be a 'genius' by virtue of linking two or three normally disparate and sufficiently obscure ideas or subjects in a novel and worthwhile way.

4. Originally Posted by Resonance
I see. Sorry, I thought you were using the analogy as some kind of logical justification rather than just relating your inspiration.

Still, I think we have had enough explanations already for why IQ or intelligence alone doesn't qualify one for the title of 'genius'. To borrow the term and use it in a completely different manner, one's intelligence must be 'crystallized' in the form of works: discoveries, inventions, art, and so on which no ordinary person could imagine themselves capable of. Thus, someone who doesn't have a particularly high IQ could still be a 'genius' by virtue of linking two or three normally disparate and sufficiently obscure ideas or subjects in a novel and worthwhile way.
I guess you have to wonder if luck is the same as genius.

5. Originally Posted by ReflecTcelfeR
I guess you have to wonder if luck is the same as genius.
No. Genius could be one kind of luck (sometimes regarded as good luck, but sometimes as a burden), but so is retardation, wealthy/poor parents, falling ill, successfully recovering from illness, and even whichever attributes allow a person to be a hard worker or to gain a certain level of control over his or her environment. Strong arms and a healthy heart could be as much a matter of good luck as a 172+ IQ.

6. I meant it directly towards the idea of an average IQ'd person connecting multiple ideas together in a new, unique, thought-provoking way. Are they just as inclined to come up with that idea as someone with a higher IQ? So wouldn't luck become a factor separate from genius in this sense?

7. Originally Posted by ReflecTcelfeR
I meant it directly towards the idea of an average IQ'd person connecting multiple ideas together in a new, unique, thought-provoking way. Are they just as inclined to come up with that idea as someone with a higher IQ? So wouldn't luck become a factor separate from genius in this sense?
oh, okay. I think in that sense everyone is capable of a 'stroke of genius.' But equally capable? Not so much... still, ever heard 'the person who designed X was a genius'? I guarantee at least one of those inventions was the ONLY good idea its inventor had in his or her entire lifetime.

8. We'd also have to taken in resources, but yes, that is my point. IQ does matter when dealing with statistics on the likelihood of creating, or forming a genius idea, just not necessarily bringing it to reality.

9. ooo, I see, so more intelligence = more 'luck' in that one is more likely to find a good opportunity or idea or solution etc.

Interesting concept. I still don't think it makes them equivalent but you're right that it does lend a sort of commensurability to them.

I suppose 'luck' or 'genius' is the actual manifestation, while IQ is merely a measure of probability. High IQ people are much, much more likely to be recognized as geniuses, but even someone clinically retarded could potentially do so if the stars align.

10. As a former Mensan (stop laughing, I joined for the perks - and admittedly to find new friends), I have to say that HighQ'ers are the most bloated, pretentious Squidwards I've ever had the misfortune of stumbling upon.

I got the death glare there just for asking some fatass to stand up from the booth so I could go take a piss.

Then again, this is a sample of people who joined a club intended to worship their own collective intelligence. Idk what I was thinking even trying to find down-to-earth, creative, open-minded friends there.

Most of my closest friends are Ivy League professors, engineers, scientists, etc. People who are undoubtedly smarter than average, yet I click with them beautifully. I've even contributed ideas that they implemented - successfully.

It's their humility that enables them to associate with a 21-year-old ESFP such as myself.

I don't feel intelligent at all, tbh. Outside of work, school or close friends (such as those mentioned above), I always assume the other person's smarter than me, or better-equipped with common sense.

I struggle pretty badly with rote "learning." Work my ass off just to not fail history/accounting classes.

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO