The oldest, longest lived flora and fauna on the planet aren't the most intelligent, they're the most resilient, and the only test is time.

If plants were people, how much meadow grass, how many orchids?

To most of the world, Magicians or Mentalist and IQ is a complete oxymoron. And the majority of performers prove it every day around the world.

TEB3

The IQ test is a waste of time and shows/prove nothing.

I took a timed IQ test once. 132 was my score. Apparently isn't a bad one but not the highest in history either. I do think I grasp things "space oriented" easily and also, I'm perceptive with details... but that's just that, a test with some oriented criteria. You cannot measure intelligence with those questions.

The biggest quality we can have intellectually is defined by how we survive. I see people good in math making less money... I see people clearly DUMB, making lots of money.... where's the intelligence there if we live in a capitalist society? Next time you see an armchair guy who you believe is a genius, ask him how good he is with the ladies... see where I'm going? Life shows me time and time again, we should direct our efforts to be healthy, happy and successful in our wishes. Being "intelligent" won't guarantee you any of that.

In other words: Intelligence is, by definition, the ability to learn and solve problems... and we have all kind of problems in life, not the ones asked in the IQ tests. Think about it.

Although the figure of 127 is accurate that is not the whole picture. The single test that Feinman took had a grammatical/lingusitic bias, an area in which he was notably poor. Had he taken a test with a logical/mathematical bias he would certainly have scored considerably higher. People with IQs of 127 are smart but should not delude themselves that they can ever 'do' physics to Feinman's level, which was unarguably at the genius end of the 'bell curve'.

There is probably no adequate typology to account for all of the types of intelligence, but many of the people widely acknowledged to be "intelligent" are very aware of areas in which in which they are not very intelligent. For instance, Charles Darwin reported in his autobiography that he excelled intellectually in only two areas: observation and classification.

George

The IQ test was originally created as a test for retardation and not as test for how smart person is. This is interesting because as time went by it became at test for intelligence. What I find even more interesting is that the test does not test for application of skills which seems to be a better test of how smart a person really is. For example I taken several IQ test of the years and scored high but I cannot type all that well and my grammar is often lazy. Mainly because these associated skills require a level of interest which most days I do not have time or interest in regardless of the IQ score. Plus IQ seems to drop the older one gets yet one actually becomes smarter in applied skills and in the way things are done. General I find most in the entertainment fields have a higher IQ but the applied skill of such entertainers is generally higher than the average person. Which is also interesting however I do not know if it has any actual value in either case. Plus by taking IQ tests over time one can find an average base line which I think is a better number and indication. The only reason that I still take these test is to changeling and test my skills with useless information just to assist with keeping my mind sharp. Also if you have taken these sorts of things over time you may have noticed that the scale use to grade them changes over time. Which to me seems that the test are not a good indicator of anything other than to test some logic skills and a few other things. One other thing I noticed over the years is that some people are highly brilliant in one area and not another which is one problem with Mensa as they focus on generally intelligence in a weak and failed attempt to make themselves think they're smarter than everyone else. Which in my way of thinking takes us back to the original use of the IQ test. If you can't tell I had a run in with some of these people so I took one of there test and scored 185 and told them they were a bunch of idiots with their 150 IQ the whole thing is very sad. Then took it again a couple of years later and scored higher after another run in with someone from this group that was playing smart but had his fact wrong. The test means nothing really. As I would rather hang out with a bunch of people who do than a bunch of people who talk about doing. IMO the later group is much smarter. Just my thoughts.

My IQ has consistently registered as "High Genius" or "Exceptionally Gifted", and, having received validation of what I have long deeply suspected to be true, I am naturally inclined to accept the judgment of the authors of these laughably simple tests.

:)

Seriously though, my scores have been ridiculously off the charts.

Best,

Atlas

Exactly - as Einstein said: “As our circle of knowledge expands, so does the circumference of darkness surrounding it.”

Meaning that if you drew a small circle and shaded everything outside the circle, the points in contact with darkness would be smaller than that of a larger circle. If the light interior of the circle is our intellect, we can view the points on the circle in contact with the darkness as our recognition of things we have yet to learn. As we learn more, our circle of knowledge expands, increasing the perimeter of the circle in contact with darkness - as the circumference of this circle of knowledge increases, so, therefore, does our awareness of all that we have yet to learn.

The more we know, the more we discover all that there is for us yet to learn.

Best,

Atlas

I passed the Mensa test in 1968, also with a ridiculous score (which I've never trusted). I wouldn't even attempt it now. My apparently high IQ has never translated into academic, work or life success and certainly not success with magic or mentalism.

Barry

@Atlas, mindmagic et al.
The 'Dunning-Kruger effect' describes how highly intelligent people usually underestimate their own intellectual capacity, seemingly they just can't understand that not every one is just as smart as they are. Dumb people on the other hand almost always overestimate their own intelligence, they lack the cognitive capacity to understand just how dumb they are.

It's a very interesting area of brain research that I came upon as an educator.

We must also NOT conflate knowledge with intelligence. If somebody was born in 500 bc with an IQ of 160 their lifetime acquisition of knowledge would amount to less than a grade school education.

You know IQ scores have literarly nothing to do with ones level of intelligence, right?

I rate very highly on the visual/spatial awareness elements of such tests..

Which gives me some fun 'real' experiments I can do...

Height, spaces between two objects and so on...I'm usually just a few mm off...

But I'm also mildly dyslexic and failed all 16 of my GCSEs! (Grade D in all of them, so at least I'm consistent)...

The Mensa test that I took (Cattell B) had a very strong verbal bias and I'm sure that's why I did well on it. I believe they use two separate tests now.

I'm not that smart... But I can fool almost anyone with my DL. Go figure.

I have an estimated IQ of 140.

I estimated that myself.

But seriously, the claim that IQ tests do not provide a reliable and valid measure of general intelligence is a myth. It is comforting, but false.

A number of the course centres for the doctoral training in clinical psychology around the UK require their applicants to complete IQ tests (as well as deductive reasoning and situational judgement tests) before they will even offer an interview. Why would they do this if the test result was not accepted, by those in the know, to be useful and meaningful?

DL is a psycho-motor skill not a cognitive one.

There appear to be two illogical fallacies about IQ versus intelligence. First, IQ does not really measure intelligence or a person’s ability to learn, because people have different skills and talents. IQ tests and those who administer them do not claim to measure all aspects of a person’s intellect. Rather, IQ tests simply measure the level of a person’s ability to learn – not what or if they learn.

What some do not realize is that IQ tests are *standardized* tests (not just any old test) and must meet the stringent level of becoming standardized. Plus, IQ tests are dependent upon peer results. That is, tests results are based on comparable results within a specific peer group. One will not see a six-year-old (who has just begun life) compared to a 60-year-old (who has the advantage of life-learned experience). So, the argument that IQ tests only measure one’s ability to take tests is a moot point.

Second, since IQ tests measure ONLY one’s *ability* to learn and not one’s *desire* to learn, the argument that some lower IQ people succeed while some higher IQ people fail is an untenable argument.

Standardized IQ tests do not take into account one’s personal traits, desires, drive or passion, with regard to what they are drawn to learn. Of course, a person who loves music or magic will attain greater results than one who merely likes music or magic a little. And one with a lower IQ *may* be able to learn the same thing as a person with higher IQ. It may just take more work and effort, while the person with the higher IQ may learn the same thing easier. Yet both can learn.

There is also something called the Miller Analogy Test which is considered by some to be a excellent predictor of intelligence. It is biased towards vocabulary and knowledge of western culture, as opposed to the logic and spatial reasoning stuff on the IQ test.

Here's some practice tests if you want to try it out.

http://www.majortests.com/mat/miller-ana......tice.php

I would contend that IQ is all well and good but understanding ones own propensity in character is a more introspective and useful endeavor. Those wanting to take a closer look at themselves (and be careful what you pray for) can check this out. https://www.enneagramtest.net/ Post your number (if you dare) and lets see what we will see?

I don't really think most here would take the test and even if they did I'm not real confident that they would post their real results? But with so many geniuses in the room, I have to concede to my simple average IQ score of 100. My wife scores a 110 but thinks I'm brilliant. See how easy it is to fool the lay public

I just took it. I believe I took an enneagram test a long time ago, but I don't recall what I got. I'd be curious to see if anything had changed.

There are definitely some questions where you have two options that are both applicable at one time or another, but despite that I'd say the main (first number) is pretty accurate and I definitely resonate with it. The second and third definitely have a few I agree with and a few I don't, but nothing on the first number seems really wrong.

My main is #5, the investigator, followed by #2 the helper and #7 the enthusiast.