[NT] What are your IQs?

[Virtual ghost]

To be honest with everybody I don't think that intelligence can be properly measured .

 

[capricorn009]

150...but who gives a flying fuck about where success or where others think of you can get you when using your imagination to see what works can make you discover talents
you never expected.

entj

 

[Invisiblemonkey]

My IQ score

I remember getting something like... 123 (No, that wasn't random) back a few years ago when I was going through a score of psychological tests, the results amongst them being having Asperger's Syndrome (but that's another story). Interesting fact, Einstein's IQ was estimated to be about 168, the maximum is 200. Granted, the man wasn't nearly as smart as everyone thinks he was, the anecdotal complexity of the theory of relativity is the main reason most everyone thinks he was the greatest genius of all time.

 

[Not_Me]

Interesting fact, Einstein's IQ was estimated to be about 168, the maximum is 200. Granted, the man wasn't nearly as smart as everyone thinks he was, the anecdotal complexity of the theory of relativity is the main reason most everyone thinks he was the greatest genius of all time.

Actually, it shows that IQ is not necessarily a good measure of intelligence.

 

[durentu]

IQ is a measure of how retarded you are. It's also adjusted via average.

A high IQ score only means that you are really not retarded.

 

[sLiPpY]

In the next life, I want to be a bit dumber. Thinking that I'll enjoy the experience a little more.

 

[AOA]

Interesting fact, Einstein's IQ was estimated to be about 168, the maximum is 200. Granted, the man wasn't nearly as smart as everyone thinks he was, the anecdotal complexity of the theory of relativity is the main reason most everyone thinks he was the greatest genius of all time.

I actually never thought Einstein was such a smart person, any way - and much of what he'd delivered seemed typical out of sheer hard work, and effort.

 

[Litvyak]

Interesting fact, Einstein's IQ was estimated to be about 168, the maximum is 200.

There is no 'maximum IQ'...

I actually never thought Einstein was such a smart person, any way - and much of what he'd delivered seemed typical out of sheer hard work, and effort.

How can you initiate a scientific paradigm shift with 'typical hard work'? It's a purely theoretical concept, a whole new system with new rules. Imagination and out-of-the-box thinking is absolutely necessary here imo.

 

[Craft]

Generally, IQ's cannot be a reliable source of people academic abilities. Determining people's aptitudes based on their accomplishments is much wiser. (ignoring lazy or uninterested bums)

 

[yenom]

borderline retarded.

 

[AOA]

There is no 'maximum IQ'...

(Theoretically, this is true.)

How can you initiate a scientific paradigm shift with 'typical hard work'? It's a purely theoretical concept, a whole new system with new rules. Imagination and out-of-the-box thinking is absolutely necessary here imo.

... I just know.

 

[Chloe]

My IQs are 1, 13, 26, 32 and 41.

EDIT:
Oooops..typo.. no, no, those are winning numbers for tomorrow's lottery!
fuck!!! totally useless post!

 

[EcK]

You guys'll be sorry when the overlords come and ignore us to talk to the dolphins instead.
And then kick our collective ass(that'd be one huge ass) when they find out the way we threat them.

 

[uumlau]

I actually never thought Einstein was such a smart person, any way - and much of what he'd delivered seemed typical out of sheer hard work, and effort.

The nature of really good, powerful ideas is that they simplify our understanding at one level, even as they expand our understanding to more complicated levels.

The real power of Einstein's genius is, in a way, "just luck." He predicted that gravity would bend light, very precisely. Experiment confirmed his result, with the observation of a star during a total eclipse of the sun (not the heart!). One little-told fact is that he was originally off by a factor of two, but corrected it before the experiment was performed.

He also made some catastrophic mistakes, one such being the cosmological constant. He didn't like the idea of an expanding/contracting universe, and thus made the constant (a valid solution of his equations that may have any value) nonzero in order to hold the universe at a steady size. He almost predicted galactic redshift with equations that would prove to solve most cosmological puzzles, including the eventual discovery of evidence for the big bang.

How can you initiate a scientific paradigm shift with 'typical hard work'? It's a purely theoretical concept, a whole new system with new rules. Imagination and out-of-the-box thinking is absolutely necessary here imo.

Out of the box thinking is necessary, but entirely insufficient. When you read the literature, his papers don't seem that revolutionary. Rather, he took the existing scientific riddles of his day and solved them using techniques that already existed: Brownian motion proving the molecular theory of matter, Lorentz transformations in relativity had already been used to attempt resolving the concept of luminiferous aether with Newtonian mechanics. In fact, the only thing he did that was truly momentous was that for which he received the Nobel prize for physics: hypothesizing that light is made up of particles of energy, thus explaining the photoelectric effect and laying the groundwork for quantum mechanics. Even here, however, he was preceded by Max Planck, who had used the idea of discrete lumps of energy for light to explain black body radiation.

Every great discovery in science was predicated upon the work of others: it is ultimately a cooperative enterprise. Even the great Newton confessed to standing upon the shoulders of giants.

Pretty much all of science is really very boring detail work. The problem isn't coming up with a cool idea; the problem is writing a credible paper about your idea that passes peer review and actually contributes to knowledge. Cool ideas are a dime a dozen, and crackpots abound in physics forums worldwide. Hard work turns a cool idea into Nobel-prize-winning material.

 

[Litvyak]

Out of the box thinking is necessary, but entirely insufficient.

Typical hard work is necessary, but entirely insufficient.
My thoughts exactly.

 

[PubixCube]

what IQs have you scored?

OVER NINE THOUSAND!!!

 

[KDude]

i'm 116. average, i guess. or slightly above avg if i wanted to reach for straws and be an asshole (to whom, i don't know.. average people apparently do not exist ). years ago, right after highschool, i had a similar score, i think, so it hasn't changed much (i haven't entered college either.. so my lifestyle hasn't changed..). i get high 130s on some of those ghetto online tests. flattering, but ridiculous.

as for what a person could do with their intelligence, that's a good point. i read that richard feynman was 125.

 

[Forever_Jung]

i'm 116. average, i guess. or slightly above avg if i wanted to reach for straws and be an asshole (to whom, i don't know.. average people apparently do not exist ). years ago, right after highschool, i had a similar score, i think, so it hasn't changed much (i haven't entered college either.. so my lifestyle hasn't changed..). i get high 130s on some of those ghetto online tests. flattering, but ridiculous.

as for what a person could do with their intelligence, that's a good point. i read that richard feynman was 125.

116 is one whole standard deviation above average (plus 1), so it wouldn't be grasping at straws. I know what you're saying though. This post caught my attention because of the Richard Feynman namedrop. Loved that guy.

 

[EcK]

as for what a person could do with their intelligence, that's a good point. i read that richard feynman was 125.

Yeah, but he had the huge advantage of being an entp

btw, what are the sources for feynmann.?
I find that when I dig into it, alot of such data don't have any real basis.

 

[theadoor]

The real power of Einstein's genius is, in a way, "just luck." He predicted that gravity would bend light, very precisely. Experiment confirmed his result, with the observation of a star during a total eclipse of the sun (not the heart!). One little-told fact is that he was originally off by a factor of two, but corrected it before the experiment was performed.
Out of the box thinking is necessary, but entirely insufficient. When you read the literature, his papers don't seem that revolutionary. Rather, he took the existing scientific riddles of his day and solved them using techniques that already existed:
Pretty much all of science is really very boring detail work. The problem isn't coming up with a cool idea; the problem is writing a credible paper about your idea that passes peer review and actually contributes to knowledge. Cool ideas are a dime a dozen, and crackpots abound in physics forums worldwide. Hard work turns a cool idea into Nobel-prize-winning material.

Off topic. All of the above sounds like pure Ne(taking other ideas&developing them) + Ti (systematizing them). Guys how can you call him an INTP?