ClayMeow Posted January 20, 2006 Posted January 20, 2006 A guy with a 90 IQ could study his butt off for a class while his friend with a 140 IQ could just go to class and not do any extra work. Who gets the better grade? The guy who studies more. Sure, he has a lower IQ, but he's obviously the smarter one for studying while his friend sat on his butt. Actually, I'm going to have to disagree wholeheartedly with that statement, despite thinking IQ is generally a load of crap. What IQ can show is "natural intelligence" as opposed to "learned intelligence." I don't mean to brag, but I am what I'd consider "naturally intelligent." That is, I don't have to study for hours; things come naturally to me. This is also related to me having good common sense as well, so not all intelligent people have no common sense or vice versa, as I have both. In high school, I never studied, and most of my homework was done in the period before it was due. I was rank 22 out of 333 in my class, and I'm about 95% sure that if I applied myself more and tried as hard as the "top" students, I could have been valedictorian, or at the very least saluditorian. But I didn't have to work hard to achieve good grades. In college, that's where people say "reality hits." I went to an Ivy League school, Cornell University. The saying for Cornell in the ivy world is "easiest to get in, hardest to stay in." My bad habits from highschool didn't go away in college. I did no reading for classes, and studying for exams consisted of a few hours the day before or day of...usually interupted by gaming, partying, etc. On the otherhand, I had friends who would lock themselves in their room for 2 or more days of studying. Could my GPA have been higher if I did the readings and studied for my exams? Most definitely. Would I do things differently now? Probably not. To me, it was more important to enjoy (relatively) my college life, and life in general. Some people have to study 10 hours to get a A, other people can get plastered the night before and do a 10 minute review of materials right before the exam, hungover, and still pull off an A. Even if the latter person got a mere B+, he/she's still the more intelligent of the two, it's just he doesn't care as much or try as hard. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BiPolar Posted January 20, 2006 Posted January 20, 2006 Actually, I'm going to have to disagree wholeheartedly with that statement, despite thinking IQ is generally a load of crap. What IQ can show is "natural intelligence" as opposed to "learned intelligence." As I said eralier, IQ only shows how you perform on a specific test, not intelligent as a whole. First off, it is a quotient, and not a direct representation (hence Intelligence Quotient). Second, there is no way to quantify "intelligence". There are just too many factors involved. Natural ability, work ethic, environment, etc. None of these things can be individually measured and they definitely can be measured when combined. IQ tests are an attempt to quantify the non-quantifiable. Just like trying to prove that a god exists. You can make up tests, but it is something that can't be shown empirically. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClayMeow Posted January 20, 2006 Posted January 20, 2006 As I said eralier, IQ only shows how you perform on a specific test, not intelligent as a whole. First off, it is a quotient, and not a direct representation (hence Intelligence Quotient). Second, there is no way to quantify "intelligence". There are just too many factors involved. Natural ability, work ethic, environment, etc. None of these things can be individually measured and they definitely can be measured when combined. IQ tests are an attempt to quantify the non-quantifiable. Just like trying to prove that a god exists. You can make up tests, but it is something that can't be shown empirically. The reason it's called a quotient is because it had to be compared to an array of scores to have relevance. The idea of an IQ is, if administered properly, that you can take it at age 10 and at age 40, and you should still score around the same (on the official tests, there is skewing to account for aging). This is why it's a measure of one's natural intelligence and not learned intelligence. It doesn't matter how much you learn from age 10 to 40; it may affect your overall intelligence, but it won't affect your IQ. Someone with a lower IQ may be smarter than someone with a higher one, but that is because he/she learned more. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boggs30 Posted January 20, 2006 Posted January 20, 2006 I tested at 161. Although don't put too much weight into anyone's score. A persons emotional IQ, I believe, is much more relevant. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cdoggown Posted January 20, 2006 Posted January 20, 2006 Last time I was tested (14 years ago) it was 141, but who knows now? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Puck Posted January 20, 2006 Posted January 20, 2006 Last time I was tested (14 years ago) it was 141, but who knows now? Mine was exactly 141 too lol. I got pretty crappy grades in high school but great test scores...so I dont think there is a solid correlation between IQ and GPA Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ir_cow Posted January 20, 2006 Posted January 20, 2006 i think i would be in the 70-80 range which is really quite funny that just proves those tests are pointless. im really not "dumb" i think outside the box thefore the answers i come up with are correct but not on the list. i would call myself a genius and other have too (not in a joking way). i know i lack skills in certen areas but i make up for it in otherways. im only 10% of the world. by that i mean !LEFT HANDED ALL THE WAY! yeah! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
oblivescence Posted January 20, 2006 Posted January 20, 2006 If that was in away directed at me then you misunderstood my posts. I agree with you except that employers do want someone who knows what hes doing. Not just someone who will work hard. If you work hard at designing a microprocessor but have no idea what you are doing...you're not going to get very far. Also, if you don't work at all but could design a microprocessor in 3 minutes you won't get very far. You have to have both. it wasnt directed at you, but i had only a few minutes before class, so i typed kinda fast and did not take my time. and yes, you are right, you need both. i have just found that in my experience, the more intelligent people, are lazy. they generally hold B's and A's, but they dont have straight A's. they have no need to. 5 minutes of work and get a B+, or 2 hours of work to memorize the fine details and pull an A. Those that usually are valedictorians, are smart, but more importantly work hard and generally i wouldnt consider them brilliant, but they are the ones that the "gifted" people will be calling boss. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arkadiy Posted January 20, 2006 Posted January 20, 2006 For everyone saying they have decreased over the years, it is because as you grow older, the tests change. Your score and your age are mixed together to get the final outcome score. I got over 150, I think I am like 156ish <_< People call me smart-dumb though I can do anything in school with super ease, but I don't waste my time doing it so I get "average" grades (As and Bs) instead of just As, I rather live my life fun than smart any day Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kash Posted January 20, 2006 Posted January 20, 2006 Actually, I'm going to have to disagree wholeheartedly with that statement, despite thinking IQ is generally a load of crap. What IQ can show is "natural intelligence" as opposed to "learned intelligence." Some people have to study 10 hours to get a A, other people can get plastered the night before and do a 10 minute review of materials right before the exam, hungover, and still pull off an A. Even if the latter person got a mere B+, he/she's still the more intelligent of the two, it's just he doesn't care as much or try as hard. You actually agreed with what I said through your example, though I admit my response was hurried and may not have been worded exactly how I wanted it. I fall right into the same category you did back in high school. I goofed off, didn't do my homework, and studied for all my tests during study hall, and still managed a pretty decent GPA. I absorbed everything in class. I don't ever recall a day in high school where I sat down and actually studied for a class. The only reading I did was for pleasure. In college, I continued this trend. I absorbed everything in class and never did any of the optional homework. I have friends who would study two weeks for an exam, staying up well into the night, and then getting an A. Me, on the other hand, would probably start studying a day or two in advance, and study only a few hours, if that. What were my grades? Either the same as that friend who studied his butt off or a bit lower. What I wanted to prove was that if a person has a low IQ, that doesn't automatically mean he will do poorly in his classes. He just has to struggle a bit more than the guy with the higher IQ. What I hate is that people automatically assume something with a low IQ is dumb and will never achieve anything in life. I've seen many "intelligent" people do stupid things with their lives and are now suffering the consequences. Here's a good example. Look at Matt Damon's character in Good Will Hunting. In the beginning of the movie, we find that he's a genius, but look at where he's at: he's a janitor Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClayMeow Posted January 21, 2006 Posted January 21, 2006 What I wanted to prove was that if a person has a low IQ, that doesn't automatically mean he will do poorly in his classes. He just has to struggle a bit more than the guy with the higher IQ. What I hate is that people automatically assume something with a low IQ is dumb and will never achieve anything in life. I've seen many "intelligent" people do stupid things with their lives and are now suffering the consequences. Here's a good example. Look at Matt Damon's character in Good Will Hunting. In the beginning of the movie, we find that he's a genius, but look at where he's at: he's a janitor ah, alright. that's not what it sounded like you were implying earlier. In that case, I agree with you Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Psychotic_god Posted January 21, 2006 Posted January 21, 2006 psychotic_god -- so is it that somehow the corpus callosum has been physically severed? Or is it that chemicals can not cross the callosum? Or am i wrong entirely? hockeyrcks -- Studies that show links between IQ and other factors may simply show them based on the specifics of the study. I can find an equal number of studies showing that IQ is not reliable or relevant. Lol, I don't really know all the details such as medical terms ect, but I know its both, severed connections and lack of transfer. For a bit of educational purpose, thats how Im "schitzotypical", both sides of my brain can't communicate quite well, so each over the years have formed they're own functions that the other had to, such a personality, rationalization, feelings, senses, ect.... Its all actually all quite interesting to some extent, but all broken down its just my delusional hell conflicting with yours. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts