IQ and aging - personal, conflicting thoughts

[Ghost of the dead horse]

OMG, I wrote the message for an hour finding links, references etc. Hit send button, and bam - I was logged out and the message didn't get stored.

I'll cut the long story short.

THere's different ideas as to what is happening to IQ when people age. Perhaps younger generations are smarter, perhaps its adjusting to information age, perhaps they have better nutrition, or something. So in the end older people seem to get dumber as they age, by IQ. Or perhaps IQ-type mental ability does decline with age.

WHen I enrolled in my school (18), I rather reliably tested at about 140 iq (15 deviance). Otherwise reliable, but the results were above the reliability ceiling.. Good statistics from the test, reliable background. Found it during a school course on the study of scholarly verifiable information sources. Now with the same kinds of tests, I score about 133, adjusted to same norm. These scores tend to be more in the reliable range.

Have I spoiled my brains or what, I dont know, explanations are here and there. I feel bad about the process, if it's actual. I feel not so capable to rely on my smarts alone to enter the most highly demanding IQ-centered professions anymore, but I rather feel the need to rely on IQ, EQ (which I'll have to promote from disuse to good use) and good work ethics, the last of which I will have to develop from scratch. I've been a workaholic, which can be kinda used as a replacement for work ethics. Can it?

If this is short story, you can guess what the long story was.

-what is your IQ and your confidence with it?
-how much does your view of "intelligence" align with contemporary IQ views on general intelligence factor?
-are multiple intelligences a better representation of people's traits, or a hoax to cater to feelings of the dumb, or something in between?
-have you wished to be of different IQ?
-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?
-has type awareness brought different view on IQ? how so?
-have you aimed for the best job available to your intelligence?

 

[Splittet]

Intelligence is one of my favourite topics. To answer your questions:

- My IQ is 125+-5 points, I would say. Mostly I have taken a few online tests, but I also took an IQ test in the military. We didn’t get a number result, but I scored 9+/9, so I think I did pretty well … I think online tests are a pretty good measure, as long as you follow the time limits and take into consideration many tests.
- I am quite sceptical of general intelligence factor. Sure I think different mental abilities correlate, but the connections are not absolute. Take me as an example. In IQ tests I am very good at mathematical and visual tasks, but I am mediocre at tasks related to language.
- Sure multiple intelligence theory are a better representation of people’s traits than IQ, it’s a broader theory, so it covers more ground. The way I see it, IQ is basically a combined score of mathematical-logical, visual-spatial and linguistic intelligence. Or at least, I find it useful to think in those terms. Those three intelligences are however most important in academia, which make IQ useful in measuring academic talent.
- Yes, I wish my IQ was higher, that I was more intelligent. 125 in IQ are too low to understand a great deal and to figure out a great deal. And if I were more intelligent, I would learn faster. But my situation could be worse.
- I am 19, but sure, I think I was perhaps even better at IQ tasks when I was 15. I did expect to become smarter than I ended up.
- Type awareness has certainly brought some new perspectives on my views on intelligence, but more about some correlations. Anyhow I feel I am constantly learning and expanding my vision. I would be interested in using mental tasks to study differences between types. Do certain types do better on certain kind of IQ tasks? Is it possible to link that to the cognitive processes? It would be an interesting way to try to empirically prove the existence of them.

Anyhow, when it comes to IQ and age, I do think your IQ gets a bit lower with age. I think you think slower, which is why older people at some IQ tests get extra time.

I do think the younger generation is smarter, the Flynn effect … I think they mostly explain it with better education. Personally I think it is interesting to see it in type perspective. Younger people are more often N, could differences in type actually explain the whole difference? But then of course you would have to ask yourself what causes these differences in personality. What causes what and so on.

 

[prplchknz]

I'm about 109 and it's fine for me, I use to wish it was higher.

I think their are different types of "intelligiance" some that a test can not measure.

Multiple intelliagence can be helpful to people who are put in societies catagory of useless, society can be hurtful, especially when young. I know I'm contradicting myself with another thread. I'm just saying that if it makes someone feel better about themselves, what's the harm? I've changed alot in the past few years and I use to believe this, but I know longer believe this about myself. I still believe it about other people, also believe some people are going to be useless for the rest of their life, not because they can't change but because they're stubborn.

not really

still new to this, so ask me again in a few years.

nope, I know I shouldn't do science and math as I do not have the brain for it, but I do do well with History and Philosophy and anything that uses Creative Thinking.

 

[aeon]

One must keep in mind that IQ is for people under the age of 18 - otherwise the divisor does not work as it was intended.


cheers,
Ian

 

[Ghost of the dead horse]

One must keep in mind that IQ is for people under the age of 18 - otherwise the divisor does not work as it was intended.


cheers,
Ian

It was originally intended as such.

IQ Testing

The concept of IQ, or "Intelligence Quotient" was first introduced by French psychologist Alfred Binet in 1904. The "quotient" refers to Binet's definition of IQ as (Mental Age) divided by (Chronological Age) or M.A./C.A. This quotient is then multiplied by 100 to make it a whole number.

Modern IQ tests use a "deviation IQ" rather than a ratio IQ. With this method, test takers are referenced to other people of their own age. The average IQ is still 100, but deviations from the average are assigned a number which corresponds to a percentile rank.

 

[INTJMom]

I am 48 years of age. I consider myself reasonably intelligent. I have been continuing my education privately since I left high school. When I was young, I believe I scored on an IQ test in the 120 range. My overall average in high school was 86%.

One of the big controversies of my lifetime has been the dumbing down of the SATs.

I have seen Reading Primers from the early 1900s and 8th grade tests from that era, and I would say those kids learned a lot harder things than I was ever taught.
They took Latin out of the school system the year before I got to it. Many times in my life have I seen how some basic Latin would have been useful to me, and perhaps a little Greek.

Frankly, with the epidemic of kids that can't even spell or make change, I don't personally feel the world is getting smarter. As a matter of fact, I'm terrified one of those idiots may up being my surgeon some day.

I smoked pot for a few years and cigarettes, too. I presume that caused a little "drain bamage".

I took an IQ test online last year and I think I scored around 130, but I can't be positive.

I looked up Flynn Effect, and in the wiki on it, they said that intelligence growth hit a peak in the 1990's.

One of the reasons other types of intelligence measurements began to be developed besides the IQ tests is because people began to realize that high IQ isn't the only desirable trait. As a matter of fact, many or most of the people in the world with incredibly high IQs tended to be incredibly inept at other normal and useful functions in life; they were "lop-sided". The "buzz" was that they could split an atom but they couldn't balance a checkbook - I am just making something up for an example, it's not an actual quote. I have many times heard anecdotes about the "absent-minded professor" who can't get along in life.

The consensus began to lean toward the ability to have a more well-rounded intelligence and the ability to have a more well-rounded life.

Just one more thing though, in my opinion, it's impossible to be great at anything without being "lop-sided". When I hear of a genius who has just discovered a cure for a disease, or see an Olympic champion who sacrificed their entire lives for that one moment of glory, yeah, I pretty much assume their life is probably kind of lop-sided, but I'm also very thankful for that person who made the sacrifice to be extraordinary anyway.

 

[Ghost of the dead horse]

One of the big controversies of my lifetime has been the dumbing down of the SATs.

I have seen Reading Primers from the early 1900s and 8th grade tests from that era, and I would say those kids learned a lot harder things than I was ever taught.

Frankly, with the epidemic of kids that can't even spell or make change, I don't personally feel the world is getting smarter. As a matter of fact, I'm terrified one of those idiots may up being my surgeon some day.

I've been thinking that computers may have taught us to respond to things fast. It's the kind of practice that kids back then couldn't have.

Surely I dont consider it practically believable, that kids in the early 1900's would be "retarded" by common standards because of the Flynn effect. Under most theories, intelligence can't be learned, but different problems that prevent the person to actualize their intellegence can be removed. Perhaps it's easier to remove those barriers in today's hectic world, when they are related to fast information handling. After all, there's been an information explosion..

I smoked pot for a few years and cigarettes, too. I presume that caused a little "drain bamage".

I think I've killed my brain cells with alcohol..

As a matter of fact, many or most of the people in the world with incredibly high IQs tended to be incredibly inept at other normal and useful functions in life;

I recognize that, tho I haven't found out in the statistics that the high IQ would actually be a predictor of practical disability by anything really practical, like chance to be convicted of a felony or such. Of course it makes a bad impression not to be able to tie one's shoelaces at the age of 40

Exceptional IQ's (4+ std deviations above average) do get a downturn in total coping abilities, but they are so small a bunch that they only have exemplary value, but do not affect the statistical numbers that much.

The consensus began to lean toward the ability to have a more well-rounded intelligence and the ability to have a more well-rounded life.

Just one more thing though, in my opinion, it's impossible to be great at anything without being "lop-sided". When I hear of a genius who has just discovered a cure for a disease, or see an Olympic champion who sacrificed their entire lives for that one moment of glory, yeah, I pretty much assume their life is probably kind of lop-sided, but I'm also very thankful for that person who made the sacrifice to be extraordinary anyway.

I agree to great extent.

I found the idea of other intelligences misdirected for long time; I felt many statistics were on my side, and counterexamples were already included in the statistics, so they couldn't be used to invalidate the advantages of IQ.

I am sad that I didn't read Daniel Goleman's The Emotionally Intelligent Workplace any earlier. It was no wishy-washy feel-good fluffy praise, but it presented a solid case to why Emotional Quotent mattered. The key was in that IQ has been practically an entrance requirement to many fields; so in such fields, most people have had high enough iq, but different EQ.

So in the end, IQ has worked to determine whether a person can work in some IQ-heavy fields, whereas EQ has been as much as 4 times as strong a predictor of success. The IQ-EQ-importance disparity surpisingly gets higher when you go up the chain of command, or to more demanding tasks, so that EQ predicts success even more.

Needless to say, I'm embracing the EQ idea.

 

[FDG]

By enrollment standards, I got a 135.

I'm 21; I don't feel any dumber than before, but obviously the material I am being taught now is more difficult than what it used to be in high school. However, I went to a very selective elementary and middle school, and thus I lived out of the assets gained there for my adolescence years (that were used for learning social skills and sports).

I think that IQ tends to lower from 20 to 30 because of added stress on the brain. I feel that it works much faster - as fast as it used to be in my early teens - when I play a lot of sports and I study just enough. The principle that , in my opinion, is behind this happening is the same behind overtraining in sports matter. We do not give our brain enough time to compensate for the stress it's placed on it.

In any case, now to reply to your questions:
- I'm fine with it. I was able to enjoy the best years of my life without having to do any homework, whilst still getting good grades.
- I agree completely. With enough training, the people I've known that had the highest IQ were also the ones that performed better in sporting activities, could climb faster when biking, danced better, etc
- Multiple intelligences are an useless trait, and the discovery of g only strengthens this proposition. If each trait is correlated with a common factor, then only one type of intelligence is sufficient to approximately determine the level of all the others.
- Not relly.
- I notice drops when I am under excessive mental stress. When I include enough sporting activity in my daily routine, my mental abilities return to the level they were during my childhood. Santtu, you should remember to correct for selective bias, meaning that if, progressing with your life, you start hanging around people of higher intelligence than before, you will perceive the shortened differential as a regression of your ability, whereas the source you perception is only the rise in other's IQ.
- No.
- I'm still in college, but I'm aiming to. The job I have now probably falls in the 110-115 range, but I'm in a coordinating position.

Alchool definitely has a bad effect on brain cells, I agree. I have stopped completely drinking more than two glasses of wine or a beer in a given night.

In regards to lop-sidedness: for a period of my life, I was able to sustain being very good at at least 3 things - I stopped because I wasn't enjoying it any more. There are testified cases of star atlethes that were easily able to complete med school and/or get PhDs while competing.

 

[snegledmaca]

-Never tested officially, but online it's 105 with a deviance of 5 points.
-I haven't really studied the topic but I find the general intelligence factor to be satisfying in determining a person's intelligence. However I do think it is possible for intelligence to be specialized in one area. But I think this should be recognized as a special case of general intelligence.
- I view multiple intelligences are expressions of the same general intelligence with specialized areas.
-Sometimes.
- Yes. I was smarter relative to my pears when I was younger. I did not negate my "decrease" in intelligence but compensated through working harder. And presenting myself smarter then I really am.
- No. Well, perhaps that INxx-s tend to have higher intelligences then the general population (But then again they are rarer).
- I don't really know how to be anything other then who I am. My goals and aims reflect that. These kinds if things don't really influence my behavior.

 

[Mycroft]

One of the reasons other types of intelligence measurements began to be developed besides the IQ tests is because people began to realize that high IQ isn't the only desirable trait. As a matter of fact, many or most of the people in the world with incredibly high IQs tended to be incredibly inept at other normal and useful functions in life; they were "lop-sided". The "buzz" was that they could split an atom but they couldn't balance a checkbook - I am just making something up for an example, it's not an actual quote. I have many times heard anecdotes about the "absent-minded professor" who can't get along in life.

The most intelligent person I've ever known was an utter mess. (Mind you, I still covet his IQ...)

 

[tovlo]

-what is your IQ and your confidence with it?

On the high ridge of average. My confidence in this assessment is shaky. I've never taken an official test, but there is some consistency between the online test's I've taken.

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

I'm too uneducated on this question to answer.

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

Maybe just two different ideas working on different dynamics? Multiple intelligences seems to operate on an idea of overall intellectual equality and it's focus seems to be in describing where a particular person's intellectual emphasis rests. IQ seems to describe the heirarchical quantity of a particularly defined intellectual ability.

-have you wished to be of different IQ?

Yes.

-have you noticed a drop in IQ?

No, but that is because I had no previous measure.

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

It was through exploration of type that I became interested in seeking out what my IQ was, so it heightened my awareness of the concept.

I have grown very sensitive and irritated by stratifaction of types as more or less important to society based on generalizations of which types are "smarter". I admit this sensitivity is indicative of an internal bias toward those with higher intelligence conflicting internally with my value of the overall equality of all people.

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

No. I pursue what engages me and I prefer not to tie my interests to my paid employment. I have tended to pursue employment that probably undershoots what the online assessed IQ level would place as appropriate.

 

[Totenkindly]

My IQ when I was five tested somewhere in the 140-150 range and that is what I get now (145-155) on any online test I've taken... although I would have to take a "real" IQ test to be sure.

Still, IQ tends to cater towards pattern-matching and other "N" activities, as well as to white western cultural values. Also, having a good IQ has not really improved my life, as far as I could tell, and in some ways has simply made any perception-based pain worse. I see many successful and happy people with lower scores on their IQs. So in terms of overall life success and appreciation, IQ seems to mean little. It is only one more tool to be wielded by the individual in the pursuit for pursuit fulfillment and contribution to others.

As I've gotten older, I do indeed feel "dumber" (I know my memory is shoddier than it used to be). I know intimately the embarrassment of looking in the face of someone I've known for a few years and momentarily realizing I have forgotten what their name is. doh

Part of this is based on poor physical habits. i don't get nearly enough sleep, and I need to improve my diet. I also need to "use my mind" more and stretch it and anchor data with multiple connections. I think part of the rut of adulthood is that it's easy to get into a pattern that no longer stretches you; you need security at this time of life, to provide income for a family and emotional foundations for the kids and marriage, and so you no longer have the real pragmatic need (nor the energy) to actively stretch your mind and build connections among your memories. Accordingly, "IQ" might drop; your thoughts have become somewhat entrenched and are no longer as flexible, you're far too interested in "what works" or what is practical...

 

[cafe]

Online tests put me in the 130s if I remember right. My intelligence is lopsided and concentrated mostly in verbal and to a lesser degree in non-mathematical logic. I seriously suck at spacial stuff.

I don't see where being bright has done me a whole lot of good irl. I'm pretty good at taking tests and sometimes I impress people with my mad vocab skillz, but I'm just as likely to put people off by using "big words."

I do feel less sharp than I used to, but as with Jennifer, I think exhaustion plays a part in that.

 

[Splittet]

IQ tends to cater towards pattern-matching and other "N" activities, as well as to white western cultural values

I like to say intelligence is the ability to see connections. Per definition intuitives would be better (on average). Is there anything wrong with being superior? There is tons of stuff sensors are better at than intuitives as well (on average). Let’s just admit these things, and get on with our lives …

About the bias towards western cultural values, I hate that argument. Sure some tests, especially old tests, sin in this department, but newer tests are far better. Why do you think East Asians score best in IQ tests (on average)? If they do, surely the tests can not be that biased … Results can of course be explained by average brain size differences between "races".

I seriously suck at spacial stuff.

You can't suck that much, since there usually is a heavy load of visual tasks in IQ tests. What do you score in this ( http://iqtest.dk/main.swf ) exclusively visual IQ test, for example?

 

[Totenkindly]

I like to say intelligence is the ability to see connections. Per definition intuitives would be better (on average). Is there anything wrong with being superior? There is tons of stuff sensors are better at than intuitives as well (on average). Let's just admit these things, and get on with our lives ...

Isn't that sort of what we're doing? (I didn't have anything else to say about it, personally, except that we should be aware of what sample of a population a particular test or type of test might cater to. I don't really have any axe to grind.)

About the bias towards western cultural values, I hate that argument. Sure some tests, especially old tests, sin in this department, but newer tests are far better. Why do you think East Asians score best in IQ tests (on average)? If they do, surely the tests can not be that biased …

Of course, Asian culture has been increasingly becoming westernized over the last few decades... so.... who's to tell? At the least, it's clearly documented that eastern and western cultural mindset makes a large difference in test scores depending on the sort of question being asked.

(For example, in picture analysis, asian cultures are trained to be more holistic, western cultures tend to look at the pieces of the picture. Still, both cultures are impacting and changing each other, so perhaps this will even out eventually...?)

 

[Splittet]

Of course, Asian culture has been increasingly becoming westernized over the last few decades... so.... who's to tell? At the least, it's clearly documented that eastern and western cultural mindset makes a large difference in test scores depending on the sort of question being asked.

(For example, in picture analysis, asian cultures are trained to be more holistic, western cultures tend to look at the pieces of the picture. Still, both cultures are impacting and changing each other, so perhaps this will even out eventually...?)

What you are saying then is that East Asians are even more intellectually superior to whites than IQ tests suggest?

 

[Randomnity]

-what is your IQ and your confidence with it?
I've never been formally tested, and I don't trust online test results enough to repeat them. My only formal indication comes from being tested as "gifted" in the school screening process--I think they tested primarily IQ but didn't tell us the number. In comparison to my classmates I'm probably in the top 10-25% in terms of raw intellect - bright but not genius level. My confidence in this assessment is quite shaky!

-how much does your view of "intelligence" align with contemporary IQ views on general intelligence factor?
I don't know what the contemporary view is. I value intelligence.

-are multiple intelligences a better representation of people's traits, or a hoax to cater to feelings of the dumb, or something in between?
Neither really. Calling things like emotions and sporting ability intelligence is a bit silly, but there are many skills/qualities which are worth as much or more than IQ.

-have you wished to be of different IQ?
No, I wouldn't want to be much higher or lower, as either one creates problems.

-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?
No, but I do feel a lot less "special" now that I'm in constant contact with people who are as smart or smarter than me at university. I felt so smart in middle/high school, which never challenged me in any way. But I'm aware that this is only a result of comparison to others; I'm not actually dumber now.

-has type awareness brought different view on IQ? how so?
I'm not sure. I read that S's are supposed to have lower IQs but this theory isn't borne out in my personal experience, and it tends to make me overly defensive as a result.

-have you aimed for the best job available to your intelligence?
I think I'm aiming at a job a step below that level, because I think the work will make me happier.

 

[Totenkindly]

What you are saying then is that East Asians are even more intellectually superior to whites than IQ tests suggest?

I'm not saying anything except what I said already, since I would be speaking from ignorance to try to draw any hard conclusions without more specific research on my part.

Why is this issue so important to you?

 

[Splittet]

I'm not saying anything except what I said already, since I would be speaking from ignorance to try to draw any hard conclusions without more specific research on my part.

Why is this issue so important to you?

Because a lot of IQ opinions annoy me like hell, because they are so politically correct. People refuse to see the obvious.

You claim there is a western bias in these tests. That would imply East Asians would score better compared to people from western countries, if the tests had no bias. Which in turn would imply they are more superior than the tests show.

 

[Totenkindly]

You claim there is a western bias in these tests. That would imply East Asians would score better compared to people from western countries, if the tests had no bias. Which in turn would imply they are more superior than the tests show.

Start a new thread about IQ "bias" and rail on about it, if you'd like. Some people might enjoy it.