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

[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.