What do you think the average IQ of this forum is?

[Beamin]

I am really curious. For the most part I is like a very smart person. I done real good like with my book learnin'. At the risk of sounding really arrogant I'm usually the "smartest person in the room" (Enron movie reference: when I was younger without a conscious I was on track to end up like those people, got my series 7 63 etc etc) Amazing how you can give up being rich for being nice.

My point is that on this forum I feel right in the middle (not counting the new posters that just come ask a question or young males that tell you they know everything realize they are wrong and continue to bury themselves) as far as native intelligence, not how much I know about electronics. Its nice being able to write a one sentence thought knowing you don't have to explain it.

Tempting as it maybe to ask people IQ's this is the internet so any number would have to be averaged then multiplied by <1 to take out the bullshit factor. Much like if a guy tells you he has slept with 10 people multiply by 0.75 or a woman; X 1.35. If he tells you that on the internet multiply by 0.45. And since this forum is smarter then the average forum you would have to keep the multiplier secret and artificially lower it knowing they know that you know etc etc. On that note my IQ is like 350. 

So 135.

[coppice]

The average IQ will be around 100. Take any reasonably large group without a hard externally applied bias, even one with an intellectual skill at its core, and the average will still be around 100.

[gildasd]

Whatever it is, I bring it down.

[ucanel]

%35 110~130 %14 130~140   %01 140~140+
%35 110~130 %14 100~110   %01 100~100-

Average 120 IQ on any good technical forum.
%15 of the earth population has below 80 IQ.
 

[Beamin]

I think this one is above 100 due to the fact that the subject matter acts a filter. If you want to see some just mind bogglingly stupid people watch some of the videos people have made on bitcoins and bitconnect and read the comments. Same is true with some political sites by the usual suspects. I find the crypto videos fascinating because they tell you everything not to do and give you a feel for who is buying your crypto when you sell at insane prices. There is this one youtuber that says in a uneducated accent "I'm not a dumbass." And I laughed so hard because he really believes that, it was a textbook example of the "dunning-kruger(sp?)" effect: too stupid to realize you are stupid. By the way that guy doesn't make videos anymore because if he did what he said he was going to he has lost most if not all of his money by now and too proud to admit it. There was no excuse because almost all the comments told him not to do this and yet he called them stupid.

It would be cool if we could post an anonymous IQ test that gave you an average.

[tszaboo]

https://thetab.com/us/2017/04/10/which-major-has-highest-iq-64811

EE Students have an average IQ of 125. This is an open forum, and some non-EE people are joining, who are still very talented and intelligent, dont get me wrong.
Also, very intelligent people dont have the time to hang around here, because they are busy doing stuff.
And the less talented people are usually dont post on forums, because they are usually busy banging rocks together or ru(i)nning countries.
And when people talk about 130+ IQs, I usually laugh. Standard IQ test are not capable predicting IQ in the 130+ or the 70- region, because it has way too few questions and the accuracy is very small in that region, due to the small amount of test takers landing there. Anyone with high IQ understands that.
So, next time say somewhere in the 130-140 region, not 135.

Also, average IQ is NOT 100. In the 1920s when the tests were standardized in the UK, France and USA, they set up scores so the test takers would score around 100. Today the average word IQ is around 91 and it has much more to do with poverty and childhood diseases, than continent or racial group.

[Vtile]

So what the IQ measures except the proficiency in IQ-test. 

[Beamin]

https://thetab.com/us/2017/04/10/which-major-has-highest-iq-64811

EE Students have an average IQ of 125. This is an open forum, and some non-EE people are joining, who are still very talented and intelligent, dont get me wrong.
Also, very intelligent people dont have the time to hang around here, because they are busy doing stuff.
And the less talented people are usually dont post on forums, because they are usually busy banging rocks together or ru(i)nning countries.
And when people talk about 130+ IQs, I usually laugh. Standard IQ test are not capable predicting IQ in the 130+ or the 70- region, because it has way too few questions and the accuracy is very small in that region, due to the small amount of test takers landing there. Anyone with high IQ understands that.
So, next time say somewhere in the 130-140 region, not 135.

Also, average IQ is NOT 100. In the 1920s when the tests were standardized in the UK, France and USA, they set up scores so the test takers would score around 100. Today the average word IQ is around 91 and it has much more to do with poverty and childhood diseases, than continent or racial group.

Makes sense I have scored a near perfect score on some tests so I'm just speculating; you can't measure 4 feet perfectly with a yard stick. I think this culture of giving everyone an A+ is actually making people not use their mind to its full potential. Rather then make something work they just go ask the smart people because it's easier. That only works if there are smart people around so it forces the smartest to think harder and get furthur ahead.

[coppice]

I think this one is above 100 due to the fact that the subject matter acts a filter. If you want to see some just mind bogglingly stupid people watch some of the videos people have made on bitcoins and bitconnect and read the comments. Same is true with some political sites by the usual suspects. I find the crypto videos fascinating because they tell you everything not to do and give you a feel for who is buying your crypto when you sell at insane prices. There is this one youtuber that says in a uneducated accent "I'm not a dumbass." And I laughed so hard because he really believes that, it was a textbook example of the "dunning-kruger(sp?)" effect: too stupid to realize you are stupid. By the way that guy doesn't make videos anymore because if he did what he said he was going to he has lost most if not all of his money by now and too proud to admit it. There was no excuse because almost all the comments told him not to do this and yet he called them stupid.

It would be cool if we could post an anonymous IQ test that gave you an average.

I suppose you do realise that at least a part of the explanation for the Dunning-Kruger effect is people mistaking anecdotes for patterns of behaviour?

[wraper]

So what the IQ measures except the proficiency in IQ-test. 

It might not be extremely accurate estimate of capabilities in certain area but it sure exposes dumbasses you would not ever want to hire. <80 IQ means that one cannot be teached to do even simplest jobs. Such person will have issues to learn folding a sheet of paper, not to say incapable working at McDonalds.

[Vtile]

So what the IQ measures except the proficiency in IQ-test. 

It might not be extremely accurate estimate of capabilities in certain area but it sure exposes dumbasses you would not ever want to hire. <80 IQ means that one cannot be teached to do even simplest jobs. Such person will have issues to learn folding a sheet of paper, not to say incapable working at McDonalds.

So the same result as filling the IQ-test would be achieved by just observing how the person folds the question paper. 

[ChunkyPastaSauce]

[Cerebus]

The average IQ will be around 100. Take any reasonably large group, even one with an intellectual skill at its core, and the average will still be around 100.

Not if there is a selection bias in operation. For instance, the average IQ of university students is often quoted as something in the range 120-130. The group 'university students' is large, much larger than the group 'EEVBlog members', and by your thesis ought to come out at an IQ of 100, but does not because there is a selection bias inherent in 'university students'.

[Cyberdragon]

So what the IQ measures except the proficiency in IQ-test. 

Exactly. There are those of us with an "IQ"...and those of us who have taken the red pill.

[Cerebus]

https://thetab.com/us/2017/04/10/which-major-has-highest-iq-64811

EE Students have an average IQ of 125. This is an open forum, and some non-EE people are joining, who are still very talented and intelligent, dont get me wrong.
Also, very intelligent people dont have the time to hang around here, because they are busy doing stuff.
And the less talented people are usually dont post on forums, because they are usually busy banging rocks together or ru(i)nning countries.
And when people talk about 130+ IQs, I usually laugh. Standard IQ test are not capable predicting IQ in the 130+ or the 70- region, because it has way too few questions and the accuracy is very small in that region, due to the small amount of test takers landing there. Anyone with high IQ understands that.
So, next time say somewhere in the 130-140 region, not 135.

Actually the standard IQ tests are calibrated* out to 4 standard deviations. For Wechsler the standard deviation is 15, for Stanford-Binet it is 16. Those are the two most commonly used standard tests. So scores of 135 are well defined in both scales (Wechsler + 2.33 SD, Stanford-Binet +2.19 SD, both equating roughly to the 99%ile).

Also, average IQ is NOT 100. In the 1920s when the tests were standardized in the UK, France and USA, they set up scores so the test takers would score around 100. Today the average word IQ is around 91 and it has much more to do with poverty and childhood diseases, than continent or racial group.

My understanding is that IQ scores have been increasing with time, not decreasing - the exact opposite of what you claim. It's well enough documented that it has a name the Flynn effect.


*I do mean calibrated. The tests are given to a large population and then the scores are normalized so that the median score is equated with an IQ of 100 and the spread fits a normal distribution with the design SD of the IQ scale in question.

[coppice]

The average IQ will be around 100. Take any reasonably large group, even one with an intellectual skill at its core, and the average will still be around 100.

Not if there is a selection bias in operation. For instance, the average IQ of university students is often quoted as something in the range 120-130. The group 'university students' is large, much larger than the group 'EEVBlog members', and by your thesis ought to come out at an IQ of 100, but does not because there is a selection bias inherent in 'university students'.

I poorly worded what I said. A hard selection will bias the average IQ. 120-130 for university students seemly optimistically high, in an age when so many go to university. I suspect that is a historical figure. It should be well above 100, though.

EEVblog membership has not particular IQ bias for its membership. It is selected by area of interest, and electronics interests people across a wide IQ spectrum.

[coppice]

Also, average IQ is NOT 100. In the 1920s when the tests were standardized in the UK, France and USA, they set up scores so the test takers would score around 100. Today the average word IQ is around 91 and it has much more to do with poverty and childhood diseases, than continent or racial group.

My understanding is that IQ scores have been increasing with time, not decreasing - the exact opposite of what you claim. It's well enough documented that it has a name the Flynn effect.

I think those with a reasonable IQ would see no internal conflict in what NANDBlog said there. Hint: He said 100 in 1920 for one population group, and 91 now for another.

[Nusa]

I've not had a formal IQ test since I was a child in the 1960's. I suppose my SAT results could be used as an indicator also. Who knows if I still have all those brain cells today.

However, simple IQ doesn't say much about ones maturity, motivation, education, interests, wisdom, opportunities or experience.

[Cerebus]

Also, average IQ is NOT 100. In the 1920s when the tests were standardized in the UK, France and USA, they set up scores so the test takers would score around 100. Today the average word IQ is around 91 and it has much more to do with poverty and childhood diseases, than continent or racial group.

My understanding is that IQ scores have been increasing with time, not decreasing - the exact opposite of what you claim. It's well enough documented that it has a name the Flynn effect.

I think those with a reasonable IQ would see no internal conflict in what NANDBlog said there. Hint: He said 100 in 1920 for one population group, and 91 now for another.

Those with an adequate IQ would nevertheless realize that both points are at variance with the facts.

[Beamin]

I think this one is above 100 due to the fact that the subject matter acts a filter. If you want to see some just mind bogglingly stupid people watch some of the videos people have made on bitcoins and bitconnect and read the comments. Same is true with some political sites by the usual suspects. I find the crypto videos fascinating because they tell you everything not to do and give you a feel for who is buying your crypto when you sell at insane prices. There is this one youtuber that says in a uneducated accent "I'm not a dumbass." And I laughed so hard because he really believes that, it was a textbook example of the "dunning-kruger(sp?)" effect: too stupid to realize you are stupid. By the way that guy doesn't make videos anymore because if he did what he said he was going to he has lost most if not all of his money by now and too proud to admit it. There was no excuse because almost all the comments told him not to do this and yet he called them stupid.

It would be cool if we could post an anonymous IQ test that gave you an average.

I suppose you do realise that at least a part of the explanation for the Dunning-Kruger effect is people mistaking anecdotes for patterns of behaviour?

David packman does an interview with one of the people that made the "DK" effect theory and he asks them are we all susceptible to it? As in can we learn not to fall for it or will everyone who is not infinitely smart be susceptible to it to some extent? There wasn't a definitive answer. I think that for some people it's bad like certain political leaders. For other people it maybe negligible but not zero. An anecdote is a behavior, only way to test would be look at all the anecdotes and see if you can make a pattern mathematically. That introduces its own set of problems.

[tszaboo]

https://thetab.com/us/2017/04/10/which-major-has-highest-iq-64811

EE Students have an average IQ of 125. This is an open forum, and some non-EE people are joining, who are still very talented and intelligent, dont get me wrong.
Also, very intelligent people dont have the time to hang around here, because they are busy doing stuff.
And the less talented people are usually dont post on forums, because they are usually busy banging rocks together or ru(i)nning countries.
And when people talk about 130+ IQs, I usually laugh. Standard IQ test are not capable predicting IQ in the 130+ or the 70- region, because it has way too few questions and the accuracy is very small in that region, due to the small amount of test takers landing there. Anyone with high IQ understands that.
So, next time say somewhere in the 130-140 region, not 135.

Actually the standard IQ tests are calibrated* out to 4 standard deviations. For Wechsler the standard deviation is 15, for Stanford-Binet it is 16. Those are the two most commonly used standard tests. So scores of 135 are well defined in both scales (Wechsler + 2.33 SD, Stanford-Binet +2.19 SD, both equating roughly to the 99%ile).

Also, average IQ is NOT 100. In the 1920s when the tests were standardized in the UK, France and USA, they set up scores so the test takers would score around 100. Today the average word IQ is around 91 and it has much more to do with poverty and childhood diseases, than continent or racial group.

My understanding is that IQ scores have been increasing with time, not decreasing - the exact opposite of what you claim. It's well enough documented that it has a name the Flynn effect.


*I do mean calibrated. The tests are given to a large population and then the scores are normalized so that the median score is equated with an IQ of 100 and the spread fits a normal distribution with the design SD of the IQ scale in question.

Yes, there are tests designed to work for high deviation from normal. The test at Mensa for example would be good to measure in the 100-150 region. The typical 20-30 question test is good for the 70-130 region. Simply because having a brainfart during answering a question would place you 5 points below your actual. Therfore if you only did a simple test, which gives you a 135 point, you could be anywhere between 130 and 170.

I'm well aware of the Flynn effect. It is valid for a 1st word country. World average is slowly declining though, because of world demographics and poverty. I (and you and others posting here) grew up with a large library of books, good education, well stimulating environment. Meanwhile millions of people are born and raised, who spend their childhood playing with sticks in the dirt, and having food every other day. If only we could do something about it...

[Neilm]

There is this one youtuber that says in a uneducated accent "I'm not a dumbass."

There is a guy I see at the rugby who has a very broad West Country accent - he sounds like a farmer.

He is a noted professor of archeology with an international reputation.

[hans]

https://thetab.com/us/2017/04/10/which-major-has-highest-iq-64811

EE Students have an average IQ of 125. This is an open forum, and some non-EE people are joining, who are still very talented and intelligent, dont get me wrong.
Also, very intelligent people dont have the time to hang around here, because they are busy doing stuff.
And the less talented people are usually dont post on forums, because they are usually busy banging rocks together or ru(i)nning countries.
And when people talk about 130+ IQs, I usually laugh. Standard IQ test are not capable predicting IQ in the 130+ or the 70- region, because it has way too few questions and the accuracy is very small in that region, due to the small amount of test takers landing there. Anyone with high IQ understands that.
So, next time say somewhere in the 130-140 region, not 135.

Also, average IQ is NOT 100. In the 1920s when the tests were standardized in the UK, France and USA, they set up scores so the test takers would score around 100. Today the average word IQ is around 91 and it has much more to do with poverty and childhood diseases, than continent or racial group.

IQ and country also have some correlation with regards to the mean: https://iq-research.info/en/average-iq-by-country

Also I was watching some Jordan Peterson videos the other day, and one of this lectures were also on IQ:

The average IQ will be around 100. Take any reasonably large group, even one with an intellectual skill at its core, and the average will still be around 100.

Not if there is a selection bias in operation. For instance, the average IQ of university students is often quoted as something in the range 120-130. The group 'university students' is large, much larger than the group 'EEVBlog members', and by your thesis ought to come out at an IQ of 100, but does not because there is a selection bias inherent in 'university students'.

I poorly worded what I said. A hard selection will bias the average IQ. 120-130 for university students seemly optimistically high, in an age when so many go to university. I suspect that is a historical figure. It should be well above 100, though.

EEVblog membership has not particular IQ bias for its membership. It is selected by area of interest, and electronics interests people across a wide IQ spectrum.

The average IQ of graduate students in engineering is about 125: http://www.randalolson.com/2014/06/25/average-iq-of-students-by-college-major-and-gender-ratio/
(Theoretical) physics and mathematics is pretty much the high end of IQ in graduate programs, which is perhaps not discussed here at all though.

However I personally think that a forum like EEVblog will score above average. I think having an interest in technology and how the world works "beats" many other people even if electronics is just a recreational hobby. It doesn't have to be your job , because that could be decided on many other things, including your fortune in youth (US college = expensive), stress tolerance, area, etc.

But it is proven that there is a significant positive correlation between IQ and chosen college major (e.g. engineering vs psychology), then I think it is fair to suggest that a similar correlation could exist between IQ and chosen hobbies/interests.

[Vtile]

Meanwhile millions of people are born and raised, who spend their childhood playing with sticks in the dirt, and having food every other day. If only we could do something about it...

Well playing with sticks and dirt can and will be more stimulating for the brains than playing ping-pong on tablet.

[Cerebus]

Yes, there are tests designed to work for high deviation from normal. The test at Mensa for example would be good to measure in the 100-150 region. The typical 20-30 question test is good for the 70-130 region. Simply because having a brainfart during answering a question would place you 5 points below your actual. Therfore if you only did a simple test, which gives you a 135 point, you could be anywhere between 130 and 170.

Ah, that is not an IQ test, it's a quiz. Proper IQ tests are generally invigilated one-to-one, and even include recording of the times it takes you to complete some tasks like sorting things into proper order (the Stanford-Binet certainly does). These are not "tests designed to [especially] work for high deviation from normal" they are the basic IQ tests used for day-to-day work by educational psychologists the world over.

If one has been given a 20-30 question "IQ test" the results aren't merely good to 135 (or whatever), they're of little or no use at all.

Unfortunately it's hard to find a example of a 'proper' IQ test. They are revised comparatively rarely and an enormous amount of work goes into standardizing and validating them. For example the Stanford-Binet was created in 1916, and revised in 1937, 1973, 1986 and 2003. Needless to say, you can only take a particular version of the test once and, just like ordinary exam papers, the test is not generally available so it's very hard to look at one to get a feel for what they really look like.

[Beamin]

There is this one youtuber that says in a uneducated accent "I'm not a dumbass."

There is a guy I see at the rugby who has a very broad West Country accent - he sounds like a farmer.

He is a noted professor of archeology with an international reputation.

Agree it wasn't until I lived in a southern sate when I learned that but:
My point was that you can tell people are not just ignorant but stupid from their limited use of language. Sure some will surprise you but most talk that way for a reason. This guy's catch phrase was "I'm not a dumbass"; he keeps trying to reassure himself over and over; saying it enough will make it true in his feeble mind. A lot of stereotypes are true.

[coppice]

The average IQ will be around 100. Take any reasonably large group, even one with an intellectual skill at its core, and the average will still be around 100.

Not if there is a selection bias in operation. For instance, the average IQ of university students is often quoted as something in the range 120-130. The group 'university students' is large, much larger than the group 'EEVBlog members', and by your thesis ought to come out at an IQ of 100, but does not because there is a selection bias inherent in 'university students'.

I poorly worded what I said. A hard selection will bias the average IQ. 120-130 for university students seemly optimistically high, in an age when so many go to university. I suspect that is a historical figure. It should be well above 100, though.

EEVblog membership has not particular IQ bias for its membership. It is selected by area of interest, and electronics interests people across a wide IQ spectrum.

The average IQ of graduate students in engineering is about 125: http://www.randalolson.com/2014/06/25/average-iq-of-students-by-college-major-and-gender-ratio/
(Theoretical) physics and mathematics is pretty much the high end of IQ in graduate programs, which is perhaps not discussed here at all though.

The plot on that page is very interesting. The majors with a high average IQ on that plot are ones which represent a small part of the student pool, so the average of all students will be well below the centre of the range that's shown. It looks like it would be in the 110 to 120 range. Its sad to see education as a major as low as 110. Hopefully that's the average across all students preparing for teaching jobs, and the ones heading for science classes are somewhat better. I was lucky enough to have pretty sharp science and maths teachers at school.

However I personally think that a forum like EEVblog will score above average. I think having an interest in technology and how the world works "beats" many other people even if electronics is just a recreational hobby. It doesn't have to be your job , because that could be decided on many other things, including your fortune in youth (US college = expensive), stress tolerance, area, etc.

But it is proven that there is a significant positive correlation between IQ and chosen college major (e.g. engineering vs psychology), then I think it is fair to suggest that a similar correlation could exist between IQ and chosen hobbies/interests.

In general, the technicians in an electronics company have an average IQ well below the graduate engineers. Many of the questions and responses on this forum suggest a lot of technician grade people are here. My experience with amateurs interested in electronics is the interest spreads across all IQ levels, and there seems to be a high proportion of amateurs here.

[mc172]

The whole IQ thing is a load of bollocks, but to answer the question I would have thought around 125. There's some pretty clever people here.

[Beamin]

The whole IQ thing is a load of bollocks, but to answer the question I would have thought around 125. There's some pretty clever people here.

For now its the best thing we have like democracy.

[Vtile]

The whole IQ thing is a load of bollocks, but to answer the question I would have thought around 125. There's some pretty clever people here.

For now its the best thing we have like democracy.

Like a sliced bread.

The interesting part is what kind of monotone circle jerk stamp it is.

I assume my IQ is more than 80, since I managed to open the computer. Btw. I do recognize it indicates something in statistical and scientific way, but in the meantime it definitely doesn't give the whole picture.

[Bud]

I don believe in it either.

[Harb]

I'd say the average could be lifted with a few button presses by the mods............

[wraper]

 And since this forum is smarter then the average forum ...

If you leave out the idiots who can't work a computer and the really smart people who don't waste their time on internet forums I think you'll find this forum is pretty close to average.

I doubt this. One doesn't need to be very smart to be interested electronics, however those with low IQ (like those ~15% below 83) are certainly cut off. Not only they are not able doing jobs which require a tiny bit of intelligence, they are barely capable of using internet, yet finding this specialized forum. Also high IQ does not mean those are busy scientists. Many people with high IQ don't bother to use it in practice like this guy with 200 IQ:

[SL4P]

My spin for many years, is that IQ should really be ICQ (long before the internet!)
Interface Context Quotient - How well you acquire, assimilate and respond to stimuli in “the prevailing context”... i.e. language, culture etc.

[Nusa]

My spin for many years, is that IQ should really be ICQ (long before the internet!)
Interface Context Quotient - How well you acquire, assimilate and respond to stimuli in “the prevailing context”... i.e. language, culture etc.

By that description, the people who win in boxing tournaments are geniuses! So are cats who are particularly good at catching mice.

[SL4P]

Exactly.
How good are you at boxing?
Catching mice?
Skills and understanding/ expertise are not always transferable, they are only relevant in context.

[Cerebus]

What a lot of people miss is that IQ was devised by educational psychologists to give them a metric for assessing the intellectual development of children. The question it was supposed to answer was "Is little Johnny developing normally, quickly or slowly?".

Hence the basic IQ formula of IQ= 100% * developmental_age/chronological_age. It's quite obvious that once one has reached the age where basic mental development stops, that formula becomes nonsensical as one's chronological age will keep increasing but one's developmental age becomes fixed. Extending IQ into adulthood, and repurposing it as a measure of 'G' (general intelligence) has methodological problems, as should be obvious, but until someone comes up with a better measure of 'G' it's all we've got.

I've generally found that those who are derisively dismissive of IQ as a measure have taken a test (possibly not a good one) and scored more poorly than they'd like, and those who are fans are people who've been given a high IQ score.  People who score more highly than 3 standard deviations out are likely to be smart enough to be somewhat sceptical of the merits of IQ testing and are also likely to keep quiet about their score - they are likely to have acquired it early in education, been labelled 'gifted' and know what unrealistic expectations and pressures to 'achieve' come with other people knowing what it is. I've watched the latter from the outside and it can often turn out badly.

I prefer people to form a balanced view of each other's capabilities and not get into a game of IQ 'top trumps' - I've seen that happen too. Leave IQ scores where they belong, in an educational psychologist's office.

[raptor1956]

I'm sure the range is from well below average to well above average with the median being somewhat above average.  I can't be more specific than that!

One thing that I've always found interesting is the fact that nearly every profession has savants that should not be able to perform based on standard measures of intelligence but nonetheless manage incredible feats.  We are an interesting species. 


Brian

[retrolefty]

I have never taken an IQ test so don't have a clue on what my score might be. However at the ripe age of 70 I have learned that assholery exits for all IQ values, no matter how low or high, so doesn't measure what I would like to know about a person.   

[SL4P]

... I have learned that assholery exits for all IQ values...

Ahh, maybe that's called 'compensating!

[MT]

I am really curious. For the most part I is like a very smart person. I done real good like with my book learnin'. At the risk of sounding really arrogant I'm usually the "smartest person in the room" (Enron movie reference: when I was younger without a conscious I was on track to end up like those people, got my series 7 63 etc etc) Amazing how you can give up being rich for being nice.

IQ is like EQ some bands are tuned up some bands down while it depends on how many bands
a individual have and of what kind of music played in brain. (EQ= Emotional Intelligence).

Btw psychopaths who by default always believe they are above everybody else has zero EQ.

So the question are, does a criminal have high IQ? Yes in current society/culture criminality is regarded an asset
by common people who obviously have lower IQ else they would have been successful criminals with lots of cash
that does not say common people are nice, to the contrary, perhaps because they are not successful in scrambling
together cash to be rich.........What was your question again?

[Gregg]

What a lot of people miss is that IQ was devised by educational psychologists to give them a metric for assessing the intellectual development of children. The question it was supposed to answer was "Is little Johnny developing normally, quickly or slowly?".
I prefer people to form a balanced view of each other's capabilities and not get into a game of IQ 'top trumps' - I've seen that happen too. Leave IQ scores where they belong, in an educational psychologist's office.

And----since the pseudo-science of psychology was “invented” by an admitted cocaine addict, where is the relevance of these biased tests to actual practical intelligence? I would like to emphasize the practical aspect; there are a lot of supposedly smart people that have a hard time functioning in the real world and lack real world skills.

[G0HZU]

Many years ago I took an intelligence test when I was a student to see if I would be suitable to become a computer programmer. There were about 300 people in the test room and I scored third highest. The two people that beat me were twice my age and looked like professors. So imagine my surprise when I went for my post test interview to find that I had failed the test. There were too many questions in the exam for anyone to complete in the time and I chose the questions that got me the most marks in the allotted time. But these weren't the questions (or the expected score) that fit their profile of a programmer. I was told I scored too highly and was too intelligent to be a programmer and advised to 'do something else'

[amspire]

I have always had a distaste for IQ tests as I think the IQ test techniques can be learnt, they are culturally biased and they are only measuring a fraction of a person's capability.

Apparently the great physycist Richard Feynman was not a genius at all - he only had a 125 IQ! That makes him just an average university graduate.

I remember back in university in the 1970's, I did a short psychology general studies course and were shown part of the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale test. In one test, were were shown a line drawing sketch of a fenced backyard where everything was covered in fresh snow except for a log lying on the ground and we were asked what was wrong with the scene. From memory, no-one in the class on university undergraduates was sure what was wrong as none of us in Sydney ever lived in snow conditions. We didn't know if snow would fall off a log or thaw off a log. We were looking for something definitely wrong, and to us, it wasn't the log. It would have been very obvious for people living in snow conditions, I guess.

Years later, for some reason, I was getting another Wechsler test from a psychologist and exactly the same drawing came up. I told the psychologist that I knew the answer because I had seen it before and I thought it was a very stupid test - he was really unhappy. I think I invalidated the whole test results.

[xrunner]

What do you think the average IQ of this forum is?

I see what you're doing. That question is itself one of those IQ test questions! So I think that since I recognized that fact, I should get my IQ score rasied. 

[wraper]

What a lot of people miss is that IQ was devised by educational psychologists to give them a metric for assessing the intellectual development of children. The question it was supposed to answer was "Is little Johnny developing normally, quickly or slowly?".
I prefer people to form a balanced view of each other's capabilities and not get into a game of IQ 'top trumps' - I've seen that happen too. Leave IQ scores where they belong, in an educational psychologist's office.

And----since the pseudo-science of psychology was “invented” by an admitted cocaine addict, where is the relevance of these biased tests to actual practical intelligence? I would like to emphasize the practical aspect; there are a lot of supposedly smart people that have a hard time functioning in the real world and lack real world skills.

Ad hominem fallacy.

[Cerebus]

What a lot of people miss is that IQ was devised by educational psychologists to give them a metric for assessing the intellectual development of children. The question it was supposed to answer was "Is little Johnny developing normally, quickly or slowly?".
I prefer people to form a balanced view of each other's capabilities and not get into a game of IQ 'top trumps' - I've seen that happen too. Leave IQ scores where they belong, in an educational psychologist's office.

And----since the pseudo-science of psychology was “invented” by an admitted cocaine addict, where is the relevance of these biased tests to actual practical intelligence? I would like to emphasize the practical aspect; there are a lot of supposedly smart people that have a hard time functioning in the real world and lack real world skills.

I presume you're referring to the oddly sexual obsessive psychoanalyst Sigmund Freud, who neither invented psychology (the science of mind) or educational psychology (the science of mental learning processes). He practised a form of psychiatry, treating mental disease, which is a very different kettle of fish from psychology, which is trying to figure out how the mind works (which can in some cases be very proper hard science - hard in the sense of 'hard' versus 'soft' sciences). It's rather like tarring Chemists and Physicists with the same brush because they both study matter. Just because psychiatrists and psychologists both study mind doesn't mean they are the same thing.

If you're going to rant, know what you're ranting about...

[hamster_nz]

It is nice to be smart, but I think it is smarter to be known for being nice.

Has anybody else here read 'Flowers for Algernon'? (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flowers_for_Algernon)

[sibeen]

I'd hazard a guess and say that I suspect the percentage of people who frequent this forum and have read Flowers for Algernon would be higher than the percentage of the general public who have read it

For those of you who have never read the story do yourselves a favour and track it down. You will appreciate it and strengthen my theory at the same time.

[Ampera]

-2.63267 * 10^(2563^63)

Because of me.

Sorry.

[TerraHertz]

It is nice to be smart, but I think it is smarter to be known for being nice.

Has anybody else here read 'Flowers for Algernon'? (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flowers_for_Algernon)

Oh yes. Thanks a lot for reminding me. (Curls up in corner, crying) As someone getting on in years, I now know that story was like real life, only greatly sped up. I can NOT do the things I used to easily.

Beamin, I think most on this forum are smart enough to know 'IQ' doesn't matter in the real world. Some of the thickest, most obnoxious people I knew, had high IQs. Don't know what mine is, don't want to know (or watch it continue to decline.)

[Ampera]

I took an online "IQ" test, and it was pure pattern matching. It could have just been a stupid test, but it had no bearing on intelligence whatsoever.

No person can devise a test to truly cover all bases of intelligence. The smartest physics professor may not even know how to fry an egg.

[Circlotron]

Hence the basic IQ formula of IQ= 100% * developmental_age/chronological_age.

As per the above, when I was 10 years old I considered I was as smart as the guy next door who was 23 years old. Consequently I thought I had an IQ of 230.  Serves me right for reading too much stuff from the adult side of the local library at that age. Clearly remember poring over books about refrigeration and air conditioning, TV servicing, automotive exhaust emission control, rockets, sound recording, Manhattan Project etc etc etc.

[Circlotron]

It is nice to be smart, but I think it is smarter to be known for being nice.

Has anybody else here read 'Flowers for Algernon'? (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flowers_for_Algernon)

Read it at school in 1975.
"put some flowrs on Algernons grave in the bak yard"

[trys]

Whatever someone's IQ is on this forum (or anywhere for that matter), it's a shame that they let themselves down with cursing and swearing.

[sourcecharge]

The average IQ of the forum?

Is it potato?

[Cerebus]

Whatever someone's IQ is on this forum (or anywhere for that matter), it's a shame that they let themselves down with cursing and swearing.

Ironically there is a mild positive correlation between frequency of swearing and high intelligence.

So, %*%$£&$! off dumbo! 

[Cerebus]

The average IQ of the forum?

Is it potato?

Mine is bag of chips, wrapped in newspaper, plenty of salt and vinegar.

[wraper]

Researchers at the University of Rochester quizzed 1,000 people about 400 typical behaviours, and discovered a strong like between intelligence and swearing.
This is why people swear under pressure
During the study, all participants were asked to state how often they performed 400 behaviours, and how often.

Those with higher intellects were found to be more likely to curse, eat spicy breakfasts, and walk around the house naked.

[coppice]

I took an online "IQ" test, and it was pure pattern matching. It could have just been a stupid test, but it had no bearing on intelligence whatsoever.

Pattern matching is at the very heart of intellectual ability. All IQ tests have a substantial component that is based on a variety of forms of pattern matching. People with a very high ability to match patterns, but one which is below the point where a large number of false positives starts to occur, show a high ability to solve a variety of real world problems. If you take someone like John Nash, his mental problems appear to be that he kept going over the tipping point into a regime of false positives that destroyed his capacity for rational thought. In the periods when his false positive rate dropped, but his pattern matching ability was still very high, he did his ground breaking work.

No person can devise a test to truly cover all bases of intelligence. The smartest physics professor may not even know how to fry an egg.

Frying eggs is not an intellectual ability. It is an acquired skill.

[coppice]

Those with higher intellects were found to be more likely to curse, eat spicy breakfasts, and walk around the house naked.

So, what is cause and what is effect? Does walking around the house naked, and eating SiChuan food make me smart, or does being smart make be crave spice and have a disdain for dressing while home? ****ed if I know.

[ucanel]

...
Those with higher intellects were found to be more likely to curse, eat spicy breakfasts, and walk around the house naked.

So there is a question in the test:
Are you walking naked around the house?

[trys]

There again, how do electrical & electronic engineers fare on the autistic spectrum compared to the general population?

Are they more likely to have those behaviour traits too?

[Cerebus]

There again, how do electrical & electronic engineers fare on the autistic spectrum compared to the general population?

Are they more likely to have those behaviour traits too?

I would say no more than any other (typically male dominated) technical field. I say male dominated because autistic spectrum characteristics are much more commonly found in males rather than females. But, in my experience, that's a yes to your second question.

[trys]

And here is the answer:

https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/autism-experiment-reveals-people-in-technical-professions-are-more-likely-to-have-autistic-traits-a6719956.html

Edited to add:

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=swearing+in+autism

[trys]

Or, if you prefer it from the IEEE:

https://spectrum.ieee.org/biomedical/diagnostics/engineers-and-autism

[Buriedcode]

By definition, it'll be 100.  It was originally used to highlight pupils lacking in certain areas, and was normalized to 100.  Ultimately the IQ test can only really show one thing - what a person scores on that particular test.  Sure it correlates with general intelligence, but as a number it isn't particularly accurate in determining someones intelligence - more their level of education, especially as one can learn how to get much higher scores in IQ tests: that doesn't mean they are more intelligent, just that they have practiced.

So, I'm going with 100.  Unless you are comparing those in the forum to those who ceased education when they were 12?  Or compared to college students?  Its all relative (which is why its normalised) and doesn't' have much meaning in absolute terms.

[hamster_nz]

By definition, it'll be 100.  It was originally used to highlight pupils lacking in certain areas, and was normalized to 100.  Ultimately the IQ test can only really show one thing - what a person scores on that particular test.  Sure it correlates with general intelligence, but as a number it isn't particularly accurate in determining someones intelligence - more their level of education, especially as one can learn how to get much higher scores in IQ tests: that doesn't mean they are more intelligent, just that they have practiced.

So, I'm going with 100.  Unless you are comparing those in the forum to those who ceased education when they were 12?  Or compared to college students?  Its all relative (which is why its normalised) and doesn't' have much meaning in absolute terms.

I read some very "new age-y" "post truth" attitude. "Intelligence is so multifaceted that it can't be measured", "Intelligence is just cultural bias", "Intelligence is all relative". They all have a tiny grain of truth, and there are 'black swans' like people with Savant Syndrome and Synesthesia that 'prove' very focused points.

I am sure that intelligence ("the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills") is a continuum of ability in people. Some people are more apt at it, and others are less apt.

I cannot play guitar, even after years of practice - on a music test I would get an F. Although I have ginger hair I am not Ed Sheeran.

I cannot do art - my art would ever been perceived as "like that of a five year old". I am not an artist.

But I can solve quite a few classes of useful problems better than most people I know. I can cook half a recipe without a calculator. I can bang nails and screws into wood, and get something useful. I can occasionally make a enhancement MOSFET switch on.

The earlier comment to the book "Flowers for Algernon" is especially close to home for me - my son has massive physical an intellectual disabilities. I have spent the first half of his life wishing there was a "fix" to unlock the awesome child that is in there, and completely missing the point that what makes him so awesome is that he is who he is, even if he has an IQ that puts him further down the opposite end of the IQ spectrum than the most intelligent person on here. If there was a 'fix' to allow him to see the world as the world see him, it would break my heart (and most likely his too).

So if you have a really high IQ treasure the gift you have, before life robs it from you through age, illness or disability. Use it to make a difference to others, especially those less fortunate or gifted than yourselves. Invent that next "Talker" for people with motor neuron disease, or the better can opener. Solve global warming if you can. Don't squander it.

I saw my son's orthopedic surgeon the other day - sometime after rebuilding the boy's hips he had a stroke, and now shuffles around with a cane. Time will catch up with even the best of us one day.

[Buriedcode]

I agree that its multifaceted.  Although, if there was a strict definition of "intelligence" then I'm sure we could measure it.  The trouble is, its relatively vague, and there are many many skills a person can have, some natural talents, others learnt, that one cannot possibly test for "everything".  We've all heard of "book smart vs street smart", but there are many more definitions of intelligence. those who can draw accurate pictures from memory.  Playing a piece of music after hearing it only once, might score relatively low, and yet I'm sure these talents would be considered a form of intelligence.  Also, what about the social side? "theory of mind"?  Or even the facility to manipulate others.  Testing only for pattern recognition, the ability to formulate real-world problems into equations, and knowledge of language seems to be pretty damn narrow to come up with a number that is meant to show how "intelligent" someone is.

I think our minds can be very specific in what they adapt to, so talents/skills/attributes don't always bleed into other areas: just because you are good at one thing, doesn't necessarily make you good at something else, even if they are related. Being a very successful engineer doesn't automatically give you a head start in understanding medicine.  Being a doctor doesn't mean you can easily pick up an engineering subject (it might, but my point is our perception of our skills/abilities influences positively or negatively how we actually perform).

If we could decouple the term IQ from the word "intelligence" the word would be a better place.  It has its uses, for assessing candidates for certain jobs, demographics for education, accessing for child development etc.. but all too often it is used either to inflate egos, put down others, or act as tinder for racial arguments (as often science is recruited for political ideology, more than religion).

Whatever ones IQ is, of course its fine to be proud of it but ultimately I don't think anyone really cares

Edit: it seems I didn't fully read hamster_nz's post.  I have to say again, I fully agree with everything.  And I will quote so it is mentioned at least twice:

So if you have a really high IQ treasure the gift you have, before life robs it from you through age, illness or disability. Use it to make a difference to others, especially those less fortunate or gifted than yourselves. Invent that next "Talker" for people with motor neuron disease, or the better can opener. Solve global warming if you can. Don't squander it.

[T3sl4co1l]

I'm just sad that no one has posted this in this thread yet.



FWIW, I would expect the mean to land at 105 +/- 5 (with the spread in responses following the normal range), but threads like this show that, whatever traits might be selected for in this group, troll-spotting is clearly not the dominant one.

Tim

[tszaboo]

By definition, it'll be 100.  It was originally used to highlight pupils lacking in certain areas, and was normalized to 100.  Ultimately the IQ test can only really show one thing - what a person scores on that particular test.  Sure it correlates with general intelligence, but as a number it isn't particularly accurate in determining someones intelligence - more their level of education, especially as one can learn how to get much higher scores in IQ tests: that doesn't mean they are more intelligent, just that they have practiced.

So, I'm going with 100.  Unless you are comparing those in the forum to those who ceased education when they were 12?  Or compared to college students?  Its all relative (which is why its normalised) and doesn't' have much meaning in absolute terms.

I read some very "new age-y" "post truth" attitude. "Intelligence is so multifaceted that it can't be measured", "Intelligence is just cultural bias", "Intelligence is all relative". They all have a tiny grain of truth, and there are 'black swans' like people with Savant Syndrome and Synesthesia that 'prove' very focused points.

I am sure that intelligence ("the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills") is a continuum of ability in people. Some people are more apt at it, and others are less apt.

Wow, careful there. There is Adam, and Bill. You place both of them on a pedestal, and let people judge them.

Adam is taller than Bill. Everyone agrees, it is a clear trait. You can measure it.
Bill is stronger than Adam. Everyone agrees, Bill can lift 80 Kg, while Adam only 40. It is clear. You can measure it.
Adam is more intelligent than Bill. Adam is better at problem solving. Adam scores 115 on the IQ test, while Bill only 85. This is when all hell breaks loose.

People will say, that Bill is "intelligent differently" , IQ doesnt matter, Bill probably has higher SQ and EQ (spoiler alert, none of those exist), Adam is a jerk, and what gives him the right to dumb shame Bill. People kick Adam in the guts, throw rocks at him, and hate him forever.
You dont hear intelligent people talk about IQ and intelligence in general, because there is an instant hatred towards them. And most of them are (well) intelligent enough to learn to not to talk about it at all. And hide it.

[Bassman59]

I've not had a formal IQ test since I was a child in the 1960's. I suppose my SAT results could be used as an indicator also.

Here in the US, the SAT is a reliable indicator of the test taker's ZIP code.

[Circlotron]

Here in the US, the SAT is a reliable indicator of the test taker's ZIP code.

There are entire countries where people have been marrying their first cousin for the last 1400 years. I don't know if that would have any effect.

[TerraHertz]

There are entire countries where people have been marrying their first cousin for the last 1400 years. I don't know if that would have any effect.

I think you do.

@T3sl4co1l, bait. Sure, but the lady likes to chat. Let's oblige.

During the study, all participants were asked to state how often they performed 400 behaviours, and how often. Those with higher intellects were found to be more likely to curse, eat spicy breakfasts, and walk around the house naked.

So, we now know higher IQ correlates with honesty about mildly eccentric personal behavior. I'm not surprised.
And I should eat more spicy breakfasts. Hmm... what's the best spice for muesli?

[Cerebus]

And I should eat more spicy breakfasts. Hmm... what's the best spice for muesli?

Muesli?!? Nitroglycerin, it almost guarantees complete dissolution of the muesli. You'll be telling us you're a bloody quiche eater next. 

[donotdespisethesnake]

No one is able to define what intelligence is, even less how it works. Generally speaking, it is "that thing that humans do well". Measuring it is like trying to rate astronauts, before anyone had been in space. Doctors had no clue what to test for, so they just tested everything stressful they could think of and come up with a score. It turns out anyone reasonably fit can travel in space, you only need specialists for certain things like landing, so piloting skills.

Certainly elements of intelligence are tested by IQ tests, like logical reasoning, spatial awareness etc, but otherwise an IQ score is like nailing a pudding to a tree. Even if you do it, it doesn't tell you how good the pudding is.

[NivagSwerdna]

If I was smart I would be spending my time doing something useful rather than reading this thread.

80 is my guess.

[JPortici]

Yours was the 80th post, since it can't be a coincidence you are awarded an extra 80 points of IQ. Congratulations

[SeanB]

And I should eat more spicy breakfasts. Hmm... what's the best spice for muesli?

I would recommend a little cinnamon for the flavour, and some nice Lord of the Ring salsa as the zing. I use it as salad dressing, it really makes the salad light up, though leaving it on for long does tend to cause severe wilting of the lettuce. Add just before serving, and do not store any left over, which is not a problem. Also works nicely as a pick up for scrambled eggs and bacon as well.

[wraper]

If I was smart I would be spending my time doing something useful rather than reading this thread.

80 is my guess.

80 IQ means mental impairment.

[rs20]

Want to improve your IQ? I've been led to believe that Texas Instruments offers some pretty good IQ modulators.

( Sorry )

[vk6zgo]

Hence the basic IQ formula of IQ= 100% * developmental_age/chronological_age.

As per the above, when I was 10 years old I considered I was as smart as the guy next door who was 23 years old. Consequently I thought I had an IQ of 230.  Serves me right for reading too much stuff from the adult side of the local library at that age. Clearly remember poring over books about refrigeration and air conditioning, TV servicing, automotive exhaust emission control, rockets, sound recording, Manhattan Project etc etc etc.

And didn't we all do that, back when we had a real world instead of a virtual one?
Kids don't know much at all these days.

An apparent effort to help solve this which I saw the other day, was an "educational toy" which purported to show kids how a car engine worked.
It was suitable for kids up to 13 years old.

Hell! When I was 11, I knew how an Otto Cycle I.C. engine worked, & by 13, had helped to pull a real one apart, repair it & place it back into service.

[vk6zgo]

In general, the technicians in an electronics company have an average IQ well below the graduate engineers. Many of the questions and responses on this forum suggest a lot of technician grade people are here. My experience with amateurs interested in electronics is the interest spreads across all IQ levels, and there seems to be a high proportion of amateurs here.

Congratulations on reviving the EEs -vs- Technicians discussion.

Your comments come over as elitist in the extreme, as well as poorly conceived.
There are many reasons why people choose to become Technicians rather than go to University & get an EE degree.

Foremost among these are lack of funds, responsibility for a young family or ailing parents.

To just say in effect:- "Techs lack the intelligence to become Engineers" neglects the large number of people who have, after some years in a Technical role, gone to University & done just that.

Others have gone on from Tech work to found businesses, do Degrees in some totally different field, or become experts in again, some other esoterica.

I have worked with very good & quite poor EEs, & have seen little sign of any innate intellectual superiority in either case.

[Halcyon]

And I should eat more spicy breakfasts. Hmm... what's the best spice for muesli?

Cinnamon, nutmeg, ground ginger?

[hamster_nz]

Hence the basic IQ formula of IQ= 100% * developmental_age/chronological_age.

As per the above, when I was 10 years old I considered I was as smart as the guy next door who was 23 years old. Consequently I thought I had an IQ of 230.  Serves me right for reading too much stuff from the adult side of the local library at that age. Clearly remember poring over books about refrigeration and air conditioning, TV servicing, automotive exhaust emission control, rockets, sound recording, Manhattan Project etc etc etc.

And didn't we all do that, back when we had a real world instead of a virtual one?
Kids don't know much at all these days.

An apparent effort to help solve this which I saw the other day, was an "educational toy" which purported to show kids how a car engine worked.
It was suitable for kids up to 13 years old.

Hell! When I was 11, I knew how an Otto Cycle I.C. engine worked, & by 13, had helped to pull a real one apart, repair it & place it back into service.

It's all a conspiracy to reduce the available labor pool, and hide that we no longer have scarcity for the essentials of life in first-world countries.

Once we have AI flipping burgers everybody will have to stay in education studying "sales administration" and "vehicular engineering" until our brains have "fully matured" at 30, then spend 40 years working in retail to pay of student loans so we can just retire for 5 years before dying.

What we don't need is intelligent people, what we need active consumers to drive economic growth!

(Poe's law may apply to this post).

[Cerebus]

In general, the technicians in an electronics company have an average IQ well below the graduate engineers. Many of the questions and responses on this forum suggest a lot of technician grade people are here. My experience with amateurs interested in electronics is the interest spreads across all IQ levels, and there seems to be a high proportion of amateurs here.

Congratulations on reviving the EEs -vs- Technicians discussion.

Your comments come over as elitist in the extreme, as well as poorly conceived.
There are many reasons why people choose to become Technicians rather than go to University & get an EE degree.

Foremost among these are lack of funds, responsibility for a young family or ailing parents.

To just say in effect:- "Techs lack the intelligence to become Engineers" neglects the large number of people who have, after some years in a Technical role, gone to University & done just that.

Others have gone on from Tech work to found businesses, do Degrees in some totally different field, or become experts in again, some other esoterica.

I have worked with very good & quite poor EEs, & have seen little sign of any innate intellectual superiority in either case.

It's just the "Rupert" effect. Officers ("Ruperts") think they run the Army, sergeants know that sergeants do, everybody else believes the sergeants. Wise junior officers ask their sergeants for an opinion of what to do, and then order them to do exactly what they just suggested. ("Very good, carry on sergeant" is sooo much quicker and simpler to say than giving complicated orders.) Some Army officers never learn this, these are almost always the very same officers who still insist on being called "the Major" or "the Colonel" down the pub after they've retired. Same in enginerding, just substitute graduates and technicians. If we bandied titles about like the Germans do then I suspect some people would insist on being called the equivalent of "Herr Doktoringenieur" down the pub after they retired.

[coppice]

In general, the technicians in an electronics company have an average IQ well below the graduate engineers. Many of the questions and responses on this forum suggest a lot of technician grade people are here. My experience with amateurs interested in electronics is the interest spreads across all IQ levels, and there seems to be a high proportion of amateurs here.

Congratulations on reviving the EEs -vs- Technicians discussion.

Your comments come over as elitist in the extreme, as well as poorly conceived.
There are many reasons why people choose to become Technicians rather than go to University & get an EE degree.

Foremost among these are lack of funds, responsibility for a young family or ailing parents.

To just say in effect:- "Techs lack the intelligence to become Engineers" neglects the large number of people who have, after some years in a Technical role, gone to University & done just that.

Others have gone on from Tech work to found businesses, do Degrees in some totally different field, or become experts in again, some other esoterica.

I have worked with very good & quite poor EEs, & have seen little sign of any innate intellectual superiority in either case.

I did say technician grade, not technicians.

[Cerebus]

In general, the technicians in an electronics company have an average IQ well below the graduate engineers. Many of the questions and responses on this forum suggest a lot of technician grade people are here. My experience with amateurs interested in electronics is the interest spreads across all IQ levels, and there seems to be a high proportion of amateurs here.

Congratulations on reviving the EEs -vs- Technicians discussion.

Your comments come over as elitist in the extreme, as well as poorly conceived.
There are many reasons why people choose to become Technicians rather than go to University & get an EE degree.

Foremost among these are lack of funds, responsibility for a young family or ailing parents.

To just say in effect:- "Techs lack the intelligence to become Engineers" neglects the large number of people who have, after some years in a Technical role, gone to University & done just that.

Others have gone on from Tech work to found businesses, do Degrees in some totally different field, or become experts in again, some other esoterica.

I have worked with very good & quite poor EEs, & have seen little sign of any innate intellectual superiority in either case.

I did say technician grade, not technicians.

Eh? You say you did not say "technicians" when there is, in black and white, a quote there with you saying it. 

[BradC]

Hell! When I was 11, I knew how an Otto Cycle I.C. engine worked, & by 13, had helped to pull a real one apart, repair it & place it back into service.

I gave my 3 year old a 30cc Ryobi 2 stroke, a bag of spanners and permission to destroy. He learned that spark ignitions hurt, got the plug out, the head off, the carb mostly to bits and drove a pile of left over IKEA screws into any available holes. He knows what a head is, what a piston is, what a spark plug is and what hurts. I call it cheap education, and I reckon he's going to be a *lot* smart than me (if I can help it).

But I was the same. Rebuilt my lawnmower at 13 and could tell the difference between leaded and unleaded by taste (maybe that's why he'll be smarter than me!)

I do like him watching the iPad though. He gets all sorts of ideas of things he'd like to build and away we go.

[LaserSteve]

Might want to watch what you say about techs vs. graduate engineers.  A few CEOs of major semiconductor firms started out on the line or in R&D  as techs..
Just saying...  The real question is whether a tech or engineer is in the right place for them and the company according to their skills and willingness to learn.

Steve

[CatalinaWOW]

I suspect this forum has a pretty high intelligence level, measured by IQ or any way you want to.  It isn't a random sampling of the human race so there is no reason to expect it to average 100 IQ.  One reason I feel this way is that my IQ has been measured at Mensa levels and I have encountered a large number of people on this forum who I evaluate as substantially smarter than me.  And only a few people who need to be spoken to quietly and calmly while explaining the operation of a broom.

[Buriedcode]

It isn't a random sampling of the human race so there is no reason to expect it to average 100 IQ. 

No but the reason the average is always 100 is because results are normalized around 100.  Whilst this isn't always done after the fact, tests are tweaked to provide this based on the target population.  Then there is also the problem of age.  You can't have "one test to rule them all" because it would either make those who succeeded in higher education seem like geniuses, or make children appear to have learning difficulties.  So there is often 'fiddling' done to normalize and bring results around a set value within a population attempting to account for differences in age (and failing, which is why there are different tests for different age groups).  If we're just talking about forum members, then that's the population, it is meant to be relative (to compare forum members results with other forum members), not absolute, which is why it is so often abused and has lost much of its meaning.

It is also where much of the controversy comes from - comparing mean scores from one demographic to another is used to somehow show a difference without in any way showing what the myriad causes of those differences are, and using that (its a number, its maths, it can't be wrong!) to justify political ideology..  Aside from highlighting the availability of education, perhaps a cultural persuasion for education, it's fairly meaningless, because it was never intended to compare apples on oranges where there are vast differences across the population.

Again, not saying it has no value, just that it has limited application.  Its just a pity it is still widely seen as an accurate measure of "smarts".

[Beamin]

The whole IQ thing is a load of bollocks, but to answer the question I would have thought around 125. There's some pretty clever people here.

For now its the best thing we have like democracy.

Like a sliced bread.

The interesting part is what kind of monotone circle jerk stamp it is.

I assume my IQ is more than 80, since I managed to open the computer. Btw. I do recognize it indicates something in statistical and scientific way, but in the meantime it definitely doesn't give the whole picture.

  I often read the political comments on you tube and wonder how those people remember to breathe. They will contradict themselves in the same statement And use Capital letters In the middle of sentences. Best part is they call YOU stupid or assume the person is an American voter when some have not even been to America.   

[expinkolator]

I would have guessed 120, but, having skimmed through this thread I'll knock 10 points off.

You should watch some of Jordan Peterson's lectures to understand how well IQ is understood and measured and how effective a predictor it is of various life outcomes.

Trying to pretend people are not born smart and dumb is as foolish as pretending they are not born short and tall.

[Elasia]

If I was smart I would be spending my time doing something useful rather than reading this thread.

80 is my guess.

I think I lost 80 reading this thread lol

[Nusa]

Trying to pretend people are not born smart and dumb is as foolish as pretending they are not born short and tall.

Actually, everyone is born short. A six-foot baby would kill the mother before birth.

[Elasia]

Trying to pretend people are not born smart and dumb is as foolish as pretending they are not born short and tall.

Political correctness. Along with hypocrisy and non coexisting gesture of exporting American democracy made my mind that I'm not living in this country.

My first year in US: this is a good place.
My second year in US: fuck Chinese communist government.
My third year in US: wait a minute.
My fourth year in US: I'm moving back to China.

If not that I had agreed my professor to work for him as postdoc for a while and the fact that I bought a house before I made my mind, I would be long gone.
After I use up my OPT, I will not do the H1B and EB3 shit. I'm done with it.

i dont blame you.. China has taken on a lot of what America used to be and took the good parts to merge into their own society.  A bunch of us yanks unfortunately are not cultured enough to think other places might actually just be better.  Europe and China have a ton more employee protections anymore.. not to much of a fan of the sole leader till death theme going on over there right now but sure as hell beats the shitshow we got from putin quite literally playing his trump card on America..

[wraper]

shitshow we got from putin quite literally playing his trump card on America..

You should watch less of CNN if you care about your intelligence. IMO propaganda on US TV is sort of Soviet Union style, if not worse. The difference is that Soviet people had a clue they were fed with BS.

[Elasia]

shitshow we got from putin quite literally playing his trump card on America..

You should watch less of CNN if you care about your intelligence. IMO propaganda on US TV is sort of Soviet Union style, if not worse. The difference is that Soviet people had a clue they were fed with BS.

I gave up cable long ago... and yeah thats mostly why personally, if anything i tend to watch the BBC.. MSNBC for the blues, Fox for the reds, and CNN is like that loud annoying car salesman screaming at you over the radio

[steverino]

... and CNN is like that loud annoying car salesman screaming at you over the radio

It's funny, I always feel CNN's website is yelling at me when I occasionally visit it.

[wraper]

if anything i tend to watch the BBC..

It basically the same as CNN, just UK style and directly state sponsored. No much difference.

[Elasia]

if anything i tend to watch the BBC..

It basically the same as CNN, just UK style and directly state sponsored. No much difference.

Think so? Other than being for the crown their world news is head and shoulders over what we normally get... just look at stuff like the olympics... we get idiot commentators and a billion commercial cuts and time lags.  Ok I will fully admit i am also jaded for the BBC because of shows like Doctor Who.

[coppice]

if anything i tend to watch the BBC..

It basically the same as CNN, just UK style and directly state sponsored. No much difference.

Think so? Other than being for the crown their world news is head and shoulders over what we normally get... just look at stuff like the olympics... we get idiot commentators and a billion commercial cuts and time lags.  Ok I will fully admit i am also jaded for the BBC because of shows like Doctor Who.

I would agree that the BBC news is head and shoulders above any news coverage I've seen in the US. However, its still really really bad. The few times the BBC covered something I was closely aware of in real life, they made no attempt to get even close to accurate reporting. They just went for the most sensational slant on the material they could access with minimal effort.

[Elasia]

I would agree that the BBC news is head and shoulders above any news coverage I've seen in the US. However, its still really really bad. The few times the BBC covered something I was closely aware of in real life, they made no attempt to get even close to accurate reporting. They just went for the most sensational slant on the material they could access with minimal effort.

Anything decent out there currently then? Oz maybe to the rescue?

[coppice]

Trying to pretend people are not born smart and dumb is as foolish as pretending they are not born short and tall.

Actually, everyone is born short. A six-foot baby would kill the mother before birth.

People are born programmed for their final adult height with surprising predictability, unless some major medical event or lack of resources limits their development. People selecting for things like sports training and ballet schools have been accurately predicting the adult height of candidates for a long time. You can give a short child human growth hormone, and see a spurt in their growth. However, by the time their growth has completed they are at roughly the height expected from their development before the medication.

So, we are born to be short or tall, although misfortune can lead to a shortfall in growth.

[Cerebus]

I would agree that the BBC news is head and shoulders above any news coverage I've seen in the US. However, its still really really bad. The few times the BBC covered something I was closely aware of in real life, they made no attempt to get even close to accurate reporting. They just went for the most sensational slant on the material they could access with minimal effort.

That's not the BBC, that's news journalism from anybody, in any medium, anywhere in the world (anywhere where they are free to not read out a script from the ministry of propaganda). There are some exceptions, but they are few and far between. Specialist news reporting (e.g. New Scientist) can be better quality, but is not necessarily so and still leaves much to be desired.

Weirdly I've found the BBC World Service coverage is far better than the domestic BBC coverage and, while not perfect, is better than most news reporting.

[Elasia]

Weirdly I've found the BBC World Service coverage is far better than the domestic BBC coverage and, while not perfect, is better than most news reporting.

Yeah the world service is what I was talking about earlier

[Beamin]

I would have guessed 120, but, having skimmed through this thread I'll knock 10 points off.

You should watch some of Jordan Peterson's lectures to understand how well IQ is understood and measured and how effective a predictor it is of various life outcomes.

Trying to pretend people are not born smart and dumb is as foolish as pretending they are not born short and tall.

Within 90 seconds of meeting someone and talking to them I can tell what range someone is in by about 10-15 points. I tested this one time where I was on business trip where everyone in the training class was given a 50 question IQ test. I guessed every ones IQ then saw their test results. The class was 50% above average lowest person was a 95. So calibrating yourself is important. I use this in everyday life to see how much responsibility I should give that person and whether I should rely on what they are telling me.

You can also tell from the way they walk. If they are pigeon toed that most always indicates they are low like <85. You can also tell if they are gay. MOST of the time not always. I knew a kid in high school that was pigeon toed that wasn't dumb but had other mental issues. I have also known a girl that had a ghetto accent that had an IQ of 140. You could tell because her misuse of words was always consistent; she had not been taught correctly, where as others have to guess at which verbiage to use. I also met a blind lady that threw me off because she seemed so dumb but her IQ wasn't low. She displayed a learned helplessness to get attention and thought saying "What? I don't get it" was cute. 

[Beamin]

I often read the political comments on you tube and wonder how those people remember to breathe. They will contradict themselves in the same statement And use Capital letters In the middle of sentences. Best part is they call YOU stupid or assume the person is an American voter when some have not even been to America.

Capital letters in the middle of sentences!!!  Where have I seen that recently?  A sure sign of an idiot, no doubt. Then there is using the same emoticon in triplicate and reading political comments on Youtube.

FYI. Intelligence is defined in the OED as "The ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills." 

If there is one thing I have observed about intelligent people, it is that they don't go around trying to convince others of their intelligence.

But I'm like a smart person. Bigly most stable genius.  Believe me the irony of this crossed my mind with the full possibility of looking like the "idiots" I was talking about. Never said I wasn't below 100 oh wait yes I did. Maybe if I keep telling people I'm really smart they will believe me. You know what I admire about some of the low IQ people is they have no shame in asking simple questions. It shows they are willing to learn unlike some of their higher intelligence counter parts.  When someone tries to convince someone they are smart I picture the look on the president/prime minister/emperor  of japans face right after trump tried to shake hands with him and didn't understand how to act normal. It said "Oh boy! I can't believe people voted for this guy. They are in for a rough ride."

So yes when I made this thread I realized that I risked sounding dumb but that's ok. IQ is not the be all end all.

[TerraHertz]

Anything decent out there currently then? Oz maybe to the rescue?

Ha ha, you jest. Exactly the same monoculture media ownership here in Oz. Possibly worse. I have to physically leave the room sometimes when there's a TV on. Comparing MSM sludge-pourings against a background of alternate media sources, is really depressing. Especially when you guess a few days beforehand what spin line the MSM is going to take on something, then they go ahead and do it.

Speaking of mind control, has anyone seen this great new idea from Samsung?
  http://www.samsung.com/se/unspoilme/eng/

I don't know if it's real. The site just sits there with a loading icon, on my system.

Samsung has launched a website promising to wipe your favorite TV series from your memory so you can watch it again seemingly for the first time.

 The creepy concept, known as Unspoil me, was apparently launched in January and is available through the company's Swedish site.

 The technique was developed by certified hypnotists Ulf Sandström and Frederik Praesto, who narrates the video.

 The 23-minute procedure is a guided hypnosis which tells you to focus on the show you want to erase from your memory, as it shows a hypnotic pattern and walks you through a series of instructions  ...more...

Maybe it's a parody?
Or is Samsung, known for their 'smart TVs' that listen in to your room, now experimenting with hypnotic mind control via PC screen?

This will go exciting places, I'm sure.

Added:

I often read the political comments on you tube

Your advertised kink level is becoming quite awesome. Tell me more.

[Galenbo]

...even one with an intellectual skill at its core, and the average will still be around 100.

Further split up the group "with intellectual skill" in:
"intellectual skill based on mathematics" and
"intellectual skill based on hope and drama"
and you get a group with an average around 115, and one with an average around 85.

[Galenbo]

Political correctness...

My first year in US: this is a good place.
My second year in US: fuck Chinese communist government.
My third year in US: wait a minute.
My fourth year in US: I'm moving back to China.

there's another possible reason.

The first year you were relatively poor, uneducated, and not working.
Western "social corrected" world is a very good place for people in that situation.

Smart Educated Working people are better off in de-facto kapitalist "old-communist" areas.

[Galenbo]

...  I guessed every ones IQ then saw their test results. ... I use this in everyday life to see how much responsibility I should give that person and whether I should rely on what they are telling me...

Many managers do the same. People with an high IQ, or higher than themselves, do not receive any power and responsibility.

[Galenbo]

Exactly. This is why many engineers, researchers and businessmen move back to China.
But we do have an eye on the communist government, and we usually set up off shore accounts and a safe deposit plus a way to transfer income to the free West before we leave the West.
In China we say a smart rabbit has three holes.

I experience a situation that is worse than what I read/saw/felt in China.
Belgium has a multi-head-dragon 1-party pro-monarchy system, and the 50-percentile of the population is fed propaganda to "believe" in freedom/free choice. They don't even turn their head away but loudly repeat what they are fed.

Unfortunately, for me there is no way to go "back" to somewhere else, but seriously thinking about moving to a place that has 1/3 of the GDP, and 1/3 of the political correctness.

[coppice]

Weirdly I've found the BBC World Service coverage is far better than the domestic BBC coverage and, while not perfect, is better than most news reporting.

Yeah the world service is what I was talking about earlier

The BBC World Service rides on the back of the rest of the BBC News system. Its still relies on the same lazy journalism, that's indifferent to accuracy and thoroughness.

[trys]

Actually, thinking about this topic, it begs the question: What does it matter?

It's what you do with *anything* you have for the good of others that matters. In my humble opinion. At the end of the day. Otherwise, what is the point?

Trys
(I'll crawl under my rock)

[Halcyon]

[Within 90 seconds of meeting someone and talking to them I can tell what range someone is in by about 10-15 points. I tested this one time where I was on business trip where everyone in the training class was given a 50 question IQ test. I guessed every ones IQ then saw their test results. The class was 50% above average lowest person was a 95. So calibrating yourself is important. I use this in everyday life to see how much responsibility I should give that person and whether I should rely on what they are telling me.

You can also tell from the way they walk. If they are pigeon toed that most always indicates they are low like <85. You can also tell if they are gay. MOST of the time not always. I knew a kid in high school that was pigeon toed that wasn't dumb but had other mental issues. I have also known a girl that had a ghetto accent that had an IQ of 140. You could tell because her misuse of words was always consistent; she had not been taught correctly, where as others have to guess at which verbiage to use. I also met a blind lady that threw me off because she seemed so dumb but her IQ wasn't low. She displayed a learned helplessness to get attention and thought saying "What? I don't get it" was cute.

You just have to be very careful and target your assessments depending on where people are from and what industry they work in (i.e.: Collect as much information about them before you meet). For example, I work in an environment full of Government employees, most with Police or Military backgrounds and hold Masters degrees (some have a Doctorate). Without knowing those details, it would be nearly impossible to assess their intelligence or knowledge level because most of the time, they only reveal the bare minimum and a lot of things are kept secret. It would be really easy to make a false assessment and ultimately make yourself look foolish. I think if you met them in the street and didn't know them, you would just think they are some kind of middle-grade IT professional.

[coppice]

Actually, thinking about this topic, it begs the question: What does it matter?

It's what you do with *anything* you have for the good of others that matters. In my humble opinion. At the end of the day. Otherwise, what is the point?

Trys
(I'll crawl under my rock)

IQ is only one component of an effective person, but components do matter.

[brucehoult]

Actually, thinking about this topic, it begs the question: What does it matter?

Oh dear, oh dear. That's -40 IQ points for misuse of "to beg the question".

It's what you do with *anything* you have for the good of others that matters. In my humble opinion.

OK, I'll give you +10 IQ points for H = humble not honest.

[coppice]

You just have to be very careful and target your assessments depending on where people are from and what industry they work in (i.e.: Collect as much information about them before you meet). For example, I work in an environment full of Government employees, most with Police or Military backgrounds and hold Masters degrees (some have a Doctorate). Without knowing those details, it would be nearly impossible to assess their intelligence or knowledge level because most of the time, they only reveal the bare minimum and a lot of things are kept secret. It would be really easy to make a false assessment and ultimately make yourself look foolish. I think if you met them in the street and didn't know them, you would just think they are some kind of middle-grade IT professional.

There are some rather sad statistics about the correlation between interview performance and job performance. Current studies make it look so bad that some think job interviews might disappear, perhaps being legally banned as useful for nothing more than allowing the interviewer to apply their prejudices. I find this very odd. In real life a lot of people can be quickly seen as far better or far worse than you might have expected from anything you could see before their interview. Most people who come across well enough in front of competent interviewers to be hired seem to perform somewhat close to expectations. Competent is the key word, here. Some people seem to consistently hire the worst of the candidates, but surely at least some well run studies should have tried to separate "do interviews work?" from "are there good and bad interviews/interviewers"?

[Halcyon]

You just have to be very careful and target your assessments depending on where people are from and what industry they work in (i.e.: Collect as much information about them before you meet). For example, I work in an environment full of Government employees, most with Police or Military backgrounds and hold Masters degrees (some have a Doctorate). Without knowing those details, it would be nearly impossible to assess their intelligence or knowledge level because most of the time, they only reveal the bare minimum and a lot of things are kept secret. It would be really easy to make a false assessment and ultimately make yourself look foolish. I think if you met them in the street and didn't know them, you would just think they are some kind of middle-grade IT professional.

There are some rather sad statistics about the correlation between interview performance and job performance. Current studies make it look so bad that some think job interviews might disappear, perhaps being legally banned as useful for nothing more than allowing the interviewer to apply their prejudices. I find this very odd. In real life a lot of people can be quickly seen as far better or far worse than you might have expected from anything you could see before their interview. Most people who come across well enough in front of competent interviewers to be hired seem to perform somewhat close to expectations. Competent is the key word, here. Some people seem to consistently hire the worst of the candidates, but surely at least some well run studies should have tried to separate "do interviews work?" from "are there good and bad interviews/interviewers"?

As with everything, I don't think there is a "one size fits all" approach. In my experience on interview panels (both as an interviewer and as a candidate), the biggest issue is with those on the panel itself. It's common to find people who don't know how to conduct an interview, don't understand the position and the various requirements or ask completely irrelevant questions which don't have "right or wrong" responses.

If you're interviewing for a technical role, ask about the candidates prior experience, qualification and specific technical questions. An interviewer shouldn't be asking meaningless questions like "If you were an animal, what animal would you be and why?", they not only make the interviewer appear inexperienced, but the question (and any response) is completely irrelevant, unless you're interviewing for an acting role dressed up in an animal costume.

The last interview I sat in years ago was great. The questions were mostly all technical before the discussion moved onto my personnel record. That was it. Straight to the point and relevant.

[coppice]

... An interviewer shouldn't be asking meaningless questions like "If you were an animal, what animal would you be and why?", they not only make the interviewer appear inexperienced, but the question (and any response) is completely irrelevant, unless you're interviewing for an acting role dressed up in an animal costume.

My stock answer to such a question is "Although I generally don't think anthropomorphism is helpful in understanding animal behavior I would choose Badger from Kenneth Grahame's book "The Wind in the Willows". I thought him to be wise and kind."

So, you don't want to be a homo sapien?

[NivagSwerdna]

If you're interviewing for a technical role, ask about the candidates prior experience, qualification and specific technical questions.

I've been a consultant on and off for decades so done rather a lot of interviews with rather a lot of organisations but what never ceases to amaze me is that for most of those when applying for a software role I have never been asked to actually write a program.  Just Bizarre.
The interviews I remember as satisfying always involved an actual computer and an actual problem but they were few and far between. (There have been a couple that used Codility or Hackerrank etc... not sure about those... Codility is really just out to trick you and once you know their game it is fine but it's a brutal test for the un-initiated.)