# Cuber's IQ



## Vishal (Nov 20, 2010)

I would like to see what cubers IQ is intelligence quotient it is basically how fast you learn how good your memory(how fast you guys can memorize algorithms) is it does not mean your smart it just means you have the ability to be smart. If anyone knows their IQ please state it bellow. Also please be honest and if you are apart of Mensa please let me know to. I think most people who get into cubing have at least a above average IQ and are smart and I don't want your score from an online test like Megan Fox's IQ is 123 what's yours. A real test that an actual certified person gave you.


----------



## Joël (Nov 20, 2010)

Even though IQ tests don't say a whole lot about a person, I still think they are kind of personal...


----------



## ~Adam~ (Nov 20, 2010)

If you think it's personal simply don't post. I'm around 150. Only did a couple of tests at then end of my school days. One high 140 and a low 150.


----------



## Cubenovice (Nov 20, 2010)

Vishal said:


> If anyone knows their IQ please state it bellow. Also please be honest and if you are apart of Mensa please let me know to.



Why don't *you* start?

BTW: I'd expect a post about IQ to have atleast some proper punctuation and grammar ;-)


----------



## Zane_C (Nov 20, 2010)

Vishal said:


> I think most people who get into cubing have at least a above average IQ and are smart


 
I fail to concur.


----------



## Lucas Garron (Nov 20, 2010)

Around 140 to 150, but with the IQ inflation going around on the internet these days, maybe more like 180.

I've found IQ doesn't matter much. As long as you have a decent brain, it's more about growing up right and having passion, discipline, etc. (the good ol' stuff).


----------



## mrCage (Nov 20, 2010)

Lucas Garron said:


> Around 140 to 150, but with the IQ inflation going around on the internet these days, maybe more like 180.
> 
> I've found IQ doesn't matter much. As long as you have a decent brain, it's more about growing up right and having passion, discipline, etc. (the good ol' stuff).



I agree completely. IQ-tests do not matter much at all. They measure a very narrow set of skills. Besides, one can train oneself to do well on such tests. Pretty useless in my opinion ...

Per


----------



## shelley (Nov 20, 2010)

Vishal said:


> I think most people who get into cubing have at least a above average IQ and are smart


 
Maybe in the early days. Now with Youtube tutorials everywhere any idiot can get into cubing.


----------



## da25centz (Nov 20, 2010)

shelley said:


> Maybe in the early days. Now with Youtube tutorials everywhere any idiot can get into cubing.


 
absolutely
just last week i taught one of the stupidest people i know how to cube, its not hard. all it requires is the ability to memorize 2 or 3 things, and a little bit of practice


----------



## MagicYio (Nov 20, 2010)

I like how only the ones with an exeptional high IQ post theirs. I think too that it's irrelevant, but mine's 128. And it's not an internet-test, but an official one.


----------



## Ranzha (Nov 20, 2010)

da25centz said:


> absolutely
> just last week i taught one of the stupidest people i know how to cube, its not hard. all it requires is the ability to memorize 2 or 3 things, and a little bit of practice


 
Or with this method, you memorize one thing: the sexy move.


----------



## Vishal (Nov 20, 2010)

I see what you guys mean but 140 150 is pretty good Isaac neuron was 180 and I am around 145. IQ means how fast you learn and memorize things I agree that you can teach an idiot how to cube but an someone average is like 107 will need extra time to memorize algs and will forget them easily and they would have some problems Whith learning full fridricd or how ever you spell it or full eg or polish v. And IQ does not mean your smart it just means you have the ability to be smart and you people Whith 140 try out for Mensa its an organization for people in the top 2 percent of IQ you take a test and there are benifits like good for getting into university. I'm going to try when I'm 14 in a few months


----------



## Daniel Wu (Nov 20, 2010)

The only time I took an IQ test (not on the internet  ) was when I was in kindergarten. So it's kind of silly. I got 137 iirc.


----------



## MagicYio (Nov 20, 2010)

The grammar. Do you know it? Also, How do you know Isaac Neuron's IQ was 180?


----------



## Carrot (Nov 20, 2010)

I don't know, at one of my previous schools you needed an IQ of atleast 130 to enter, so I had to take an IQ test, which I passed.. But I didn't get my result xD


----------



## Ranzha (Nov 20, 2010)

@Vishal: PLEASE TYPE USING COMPLETE SENTENCES. I can't understand a word of what you're trying to say.

Additionally, I do not believe IQ tells how well someone can learn and memorize things. IQ signifies how well a person can logically assess a problem and figure ways to solve those problems. For instance, if I gave two people the letters "grtrnseo" and told them to make a word out of it, and one got the answer "stronger" in one minute while the other got the answer in three minutes, this means that the faster individual had a higher comprehension and processing level of the task at hand. This does NOT mean that the faster person has a higher IQ. IQ is based on many things, and not one single-characteristic test can determine the difference in the IQs of two different people.

From Wikipedia's article on IQ:


> The General Intelligence Factor (g)
> 
> 
> There are many different kinds of IQ tests using a wide variety of methods. *Some tests are visual, some are verbal, some tests only use of abstract-reasoning problems, and some tests concentrate on arithmetic, spatial imagery, reading, vocabulary, memory or general knowledge.*
> The psychologist Charles Spearman early this century made the first formal factor analysis of correlations between the tests. He found that a single common factor explained for the positive correlations among tests. This is an argument still accepted in principle by many psychometricians. Spearman named it g for "general intelligence factor." In any collections of IQ tests, by definition the test that best measures g is the one that has the highest correlations with all the others. Most of these g-loaded tests typically involve some form of abstract reasoning. Therefore Spearman and others have regarded g as the perhaps genetically determined real essence of intelligence. This is still a common but not proven view. Other factor analyses of the data with different results are possible. Some psychometricians regard g as a statistical artifact. The accepted best measure of g is Raven's Progressive Matrices which is a test of visual reasoning.


----------



## Stefan (Nov 20, 2010)

shelley said:


> Now with Youtube tutorials everywhere *any idiot can get into cubing*.



But do they?


----------



## Escher (Nov 20, 2010)

Vishal said:


> I see what you guys mean but 140 150 is pretty good Isaac neuron was 180 and I am around 145. IQ means how fast you learn and memorize things I agree that you can teach an idiot how to cube but an someone average is like 107 will need extra time to memorize algs and will forget them easily and they would have some problems Whith learning full fridricd or how ever you spell it or full eg or polish v. And IQ does not mean your smart it just means you have the ability to be smart and you people Whith 140 try out for Mensa its an organization for people in the top 2 percent of IQ you take a test and there are benifits like good for getting into university. I'm going to try when I'm 14 in a few months


 
Wow...

Anyway, the history of IQ tests is far more interesting than the tests themselves (or what people have scored on here). Stephen Jay Gould's 'A Mismeasure of Man' has a great chapter on the misapplications of IQ testing.

The funny thing about IQ is that the higher it is the more potential you have to waste. I'd much rather have a lower IQ but be more naturally motivated to work - only the most gifted of gifted get anywhere without having to work damn hard...


----------



## Narraeson (Nov 20, 2010)

I'm pretty sure that 130+ is genius status... Correct me if I'm wrong.


----------



## NeedReality (Nov 20, 2010)

Narraeson said:


> I'm pretty sure that 130+ is genius status... Correct me if I'm wrong.


 
I think that 130+ is gifted, with 150 or 160+ being "genius." The measure of one's IQ is hardly a measure of their intelligence however, so I don't see the point in people obsessing over numbers. Also to whoever is doing online IQ tests, as has probably been mentioned, those usually inflate your scores quite a bit.

I myself have never taken an IQ test. I used to be in Future Problem Solvers, which my school requires you to have a certain IQ to join, but they just requested that I join without testing me. I am curious to see what mine would be, but it's not important enough to me to go about taking one for fun.


----------



## amostay2004 (Nov 20, 2010)

like..85 i guess


----------



## Vishal (Nov 20, 2010)

130 is gifted 150 is genius

IQ cannot change that much when your in kindergarden and when your 30 it probably won't change more than 5

Also all the cubers that have poster are gifted which proves that most cubers did good in or are doing good in school.


----------



## Stefan (Nov 20, 2010)

Vishal said:


> all the cubers that have poster are gifted


 
I do have a poster but I did not get that as a gift, I bought it myself.


----------



## Chrish (Nov 20, 2010)

Vishal said:


> Also all the cubers that have poster are gifted which proves that most cubers did good in or are doing good in school.


 
You'd very quickly fail if you were in a debate about anything.


----------



## uberCuber (Nov 20, 2010)

Vishal please refrain from triple-posting; it is against the rules. If you want to say something more, please use the edit button at the bottom of your post.

Anyway, I find it funny that a post about IQ contains such poor grammar...

Personally I think IQ tests are pointless, as someone said earlier, you can train for IQ tests, which says little about your actual intelligence.


----------



## 4. (Nov 20, 2010)

IQ Tests say nothing about actual intelligence.


----------



## Stefan (Nov 20, 2010)

4. said:


> IQ Tests say nothing about actual intelligence.


 
So someone with IQ 40 could be just as intelligent as someone with IQ 180?


----------



## Chrish (Nov 20, 2010)

Stefan said:


> So someone with IQ 40 could be just as intelligent as someone with IQ 180?


 
Could? Definitely. Likely not though.

edit- 

I'm not defending his statement, btw.


----------



## Karth (Nov 20, 2010)

I've done two certified tests one at 9 years and one when I was 12.
First one I scored 139, second one was 141.
When I take internet ones I seem to score significantly higher, above 150


----------



## marthaurion (Nov 20, 2010)

who takes IQ tests these days? no clue what my IQ is and i could care less


----------



## qqwref (Nov 20, 2010)

Vishal said:


> IQ cannot change that much when your in kindergarden and when your 30 it probably won't change more than 5


Wrong, because adult IQ and child IQ are not quite the same thing. Adult IQ is supposed to measure intelligence, whereas child IQ measures intelligence for your age (which really has a lot more to do with speed of mental development). The two scales aren't even set up the same way - adult IQ is a bell curve with a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15 or 16 (depending on who you ask), whereas child IQ is essentially (mental age)/(actual age). It should be entirely possible for someone to have a child IQ of 150ish (mentally developing 1.5 times as fast as a normal person) and end up with a normal adult IQ.


I probably have a pretty high IQ, but IQ doesn't matter, compared to things like problem-solving skill and natural memory (as opposed to memory ability using journey/story techniques, which is more of a practice thing). It's especially silly because of all the tests out there that sound legit but will give everyone a high value (generally averaging in the 120-140 range).


----------



## Kynit (Nov 20, 2010)

Last time I took an IQ test online I got around 120. Can't remember what test, or exactly when. Doesn't really matter, I guess.

For comparison, I average around 30 on 3x3, and have a school average of 95.


----------



## Cool Frog (Nov 20, 2010)

when i was in second grade i had an IQ score of 156, I do however remembering how amazingly easy it was (showed you picture and had to recreate them, like a house or something dumb like that)
Recently I took aptitude testing. those scores where more interesting, I scored in the 95th percentile for ideology or flow of ideas(50% is "average") 90th percentile for memory(this covers word memory, minute changes, change over time, and a couple of other areas)
And, surprisingly the 20th percentile for fine motor skills.:fp


----------



## Stefan (Nov 20, 2010)

Chrish said:


> Stefan said:
> 
> 
> > So someone with IQ 40 could be just as intelligent as someone with IQ 180?
> ...



With what definition of intelligence?



marthaurion said:


> no clue what my IQ is and *i could care less*



How much less?


----------



## Andrew Ricci (Nov 20, 2010)

Stefan said:


> How much less?


 
Stefan, your sarcasm may be unnecessary, but it always seems to make my day. Or ruin it, depending on if it is targeted toward me. 

OP: I have never taken an IQ test. But I do know that IQ has little do with cubing, so I can't see how you assume the average cuber would have a higher IQ than the average non-cuber.


----------



## Chrish (Nov 20, 2010)

Stefan said:


> With what definition of intelligence?


 
I'll let you define it since you brought up the initial question.


----------



## MTGjumper (Nov 20, 2010)

How are all of you guys getting over 100%? I got 85% and I'm very pleased with that, if I do say so myself.


----------



## Kynit (Nov 20, 2010)

MTGjumper said:


> How are all of you guys getting over 100%? I got 85% and I'm very pleased with that, if I do say so myself.


 
Because it's not in percent?


----------



## 4. (Nov 20, 2010)

Stefan said:


> So someone with IQ 40 could be just as intelligent as someone with IQ 180?


 
IQ doesn't correctly measure intelligence so your question doesn't make sense.


----------



## Stefan (Nov 20, 2010)

Chrish said:


> I'll let you define it since you brought up the initial question.



Yes, *I* asked whether it's possible. *You* asserted that it is. So it's *your* job to show how.



4. said:


> IQ doesn't correctly measure intelligence so *your question doesn't make sense.*



Yes it does. Oh... wait... maybe not to you. Sorry.



Stefan said:


> shelley said:
> 
> 
> > any idiot can get into cubing.
> ...



I take that back.


----------



## Chrish (Nov 20, 2010)

Sorry I have an IQ of 364, I don't need to answer you.

But I'll define it as the capacity for learning, reasoning, understanding. Someone's IQ might be 40 and another might be 180. One might be very uneducated and therefore didn't learn what is needed to know to answer the questions. There are homeless people (for example, their parents were very poor and the guy didn't have the same opportunities as say you or myself) that have a great brain capacity for learning and reasoning. But if it wasn't fed it won't grow, but his intelligence would (or could) be the same as the guy that got 180. 

Second edit - Basically I mean knowledge isn't directly tied to intelligence. So one person might have a higher intelligence than another, but just not as educated.


----------



## Edward (Nov 20, 2010)

Just thought I'd leave this here, cause it's kind of relevant

If I remember right, mines is about 129-130


----------



## Stefan (Nov 20, 2010)

Chrish said:


> But I'll define it as the capacity for learning, reasoning, understanding. Someone's IQ might be 40 and another might be 180. One might be very uneducated and therefore didn't learn what is needed to know to answer the questions. There are homeless people (for example, their parents were very poor and the guy didn't have the same opportunities as say you or myself) that have a great brain capacity for learning and reasoning. But if it wasn't fed it won't grow, but his intelligence would (or could) be the same as the guy that got 180.


 
1. IQ tests are designed to *not* test knowledge/education.
2. You don't really know what IQ 40 means, do you?


----------



## Chrish (Nov 20, 2010)

Well, I know an IQ of 70 is retardation, so I don't even know how measurable an IQ of 40 is.


----------



## 4. (Nov 20, 2010)

Stefan said:


> Yes it does. Oh... wait... maybe not to you. Sorry.


 
Imagine, people would actually like you if you dropped the whole "Sarcasm tough guy" act.


----------



## uberCuber (Nov 20, 2010)

4. said:


> Imagine, people would actually like you if you dropped the whole "Sarcasm tough guy" act.


 
Implying nobody likes him?


----------



## JonnyWhoopes (Nov 20, 2010)

4. said:


> Imagine, people would actually like you if you dropped the whole "Sarcasm tough guy" act.


 
I think Stefan's points are very valid. Also, if you (read: anybody) take his "criticisms" and just accept it and learn from it, I'm sure you'll come out a better person. Stefan is quite "liked" around here by enough people to make your point invalid. The people who don't like him are people who try to argue against his logic.


----------



## endless_akatsuki (Nov 20, 2010)

Chrish said:


> Well, I know an IQ of 70 is retardation, so I don't even know how measurable an IQ of 40 is.


 
So why are you arguing that one with an iq of 40 could be more intelligent than someone with 180?


----------



## Chrish (Nov 20, 2010)

endless_akatsuki said:


> So why are you arguing that one with an iq of 40 could be more intelligent than someone with 180?


 
Because my IQ is 40.


----------



## skatemaster78 (Nov 20, 2010)

I've scored 150 on a computerized test that had 40 questions and there was a time limit, but it wasn't from a certified person.


----------



## Stefan (Nov 20, 2010)

4. said:


> Imagine, people would actually like you if you dropped the whole "Sarcasm tough guy" act.


 
But how would I entertain myself then?

And yeah, just keep avoiding the question, even though it's a simple yes/no question. If you really think IQ says *"nothing"* about intelligence, then your answer should simply be "yes". But I guess you've seen the follow-up question already and aren't ready to answer it.

Also, even if IQ tests don't measure intelligence at all, they can still say something about it. Just like pirates and global warning don't really have much to do with each other, and yet there's a correlation (*).

(*) I'm fairly certain that statistic is made up, but I hope you do get the point. Another example would be that Sleeping with one's shoes on is strongly correlated with waking up with a headache. Even though your shoes don't measure your head, if I see you sleeping with shoes on, there's good reason to assume you're more likely to wake up with a headache than when you sleep without your shoes on.


----------



## Dene (Nov 20, 2010)

Stefan said:


> Vishal said:
> 
> 
> > all the cubers that have poster are gifted
> ...


 
LMAO .

Mr. Pochmann wins thread.


----------



## Stefan (Nov 20, 2010)

Dene said:


> *Mr. Pochmann* wins thread.


 
C'mon Dene... I actually paid money to have the "Pochmann" dropped from my username, and you're still calling me that?


----------



## EnterPseudonym (Nov 20, 2010)

If you dedicate yourself to a goal, you can accomplish anything. Intelligence/talent just make the goal easier.


----------



## CubesOfTheWorld (Nov 21, 2010)

124. I take one yearly.


----------



## goatseforever (Nov 21, 2010)

I've never taken an IQ test before. What benefit does one exactly derive from knowing their IQ score?


----------



## bluedasher (Nov 21, 2010)

I have an official IQ of 124. Somehow I aced the verbal/social skills part of the test (98%). Yet, I bombed the visual/spacial skills part of the test (68%). How do I bomb the visual/spacial skills part of the test when that is Rubik's cube? Ironic in my opinion.


----------



## LewisJ (Nov 21, 2010)

Kynit said:


> Because it's not in percent?


 
Because you missed the joke?


----------



## Lorken (Nov 21, 2010)

I doubt any of the internet ones are correct, I took 2 tests like 3 years ago (this guy wanted to prove he was smarter than me) and I got above 150 (for both), that can't be right. The closest to proper one I have done was the last time we had a test the nation, I got 136


----------



## JackJ (Nov 21, 2010)

I've never taken one before, so I took a free one on iqtest.com and got a score of 118. Which is about average for my age group.


----------



## cmhardw (Nov 21, 2010)

An experience I had in college, where I used my BLD memorization techniques on a psychology experiment that tested for short term memory ability, strongly influenced my current belief that you can train yourself to take a test such as to achieve a result that shows you are stronger than your true natural abilities. I purposefully chose to attend the memory experiment such that I could try to "ace" it. Looking back on it now I consider my use of memorization techniques on that test to have been essentially a form of cheating what the test was actually trying to measure. I have to be honest too that I never told the test experimenters that I was doing this. For this reason I believe that IQ tests are a great starting point for knowing your actual intelligence, but I do not consider them to be 100% accurate. If I can cheat a short term memory test by using trained memorization techniques, then surely a parent who has taken multiple IQ test versions can train their children on how to solve similar problems quickly and efficiently such as to artificially inflate their child's IQ test result.


----------



## Stefan (Nov 21, 2010)

cmhardw said:


> then surely a parent who has taken multiple IQ test versions can train their children on how to solve similar problems quickly and efficiently such as to artificially inflate their child's IQ test result.



I don't think child's IQ test results need any inflation. Look at this one:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/a...rina-year-old-whos-smart-Stephen-Hawking.html

"_When asked, 'What do you use your eyes for?' she answered, 'You close them when you go to sleep' and then also said, 'You put your contact lenses in them'._"

If adults answer like that, they're called idiots. When a child answers like that, it's called imaginative.


----------



## Dene (Nov 21, 2010)

Stefan said:


> C'mon Dene... I actually paid money to have the "Pochmann" dropped from my username, and you're still calling me that?



Having a "Mr." before your name is privelege, not a burden  .



JackJ said:


> I've never taken one before, so I took a free one on iqtest.com and got a score of 118. Which is about average for my age group.


 
Are you sure? I could have insisted the average was somewhere around 100. Don't take my word on it though, I don't have a degree in psychology or anything.


----------



## Stefan (Nov 21, 2010)

Dene said:


> Having a "Mr." before your name is privelege, not a burden



I meant the whole thing, "Mr. Pochmann" instead of "Stefan". It sounds so cold and impersonal. How do I make you love me?



Dene said:


> I could have insisted the average was somewhere around 100.



They themselves say _"mean score is currently 108.447"_:
http://iqtest.com/faq.html
And I wouldn't be totally surprised if he were right with his 118 being about average for his age group. I have no idea where he got that information from, though. Jack?


----------



## JackJ (Nov 21, 2010)

I just estimated. One website I found said a 118 is "above average." I guess Dene is right, the average is about 100. (at least according to this site)

http://iq-test.learninginfo.org/iq04.htm


----------



## qqwref (Nov 21, 2010)

Stefan said:


> I meant the whole thing, "Mr. Pochmann" instead of "Stefan". It sounds so cold and impersonal. How do I make you love me?


Grammar robots are capable of love?


It's funny to see so many claiming an IQ from 120-150. Same thing happens all over the internet. Hey, sure, maybe the people on forums are all well above average intelligence. (Or maybe the types of "IQ tests" people are likely to take will give almost everyone a very high score.)


@Karina article: "Karina, who is almost three, is in the top 0.03 per cent of children her age, placing her on a par with a four or five-year-old." I think this *exactly* fits my point about child and adult IQ not being the same concept at all.


----------



## Shortey (Nov 21, 2010)

I don't believe in IQ tests, to be honest.


----------



## endless_akatsuki (Nov 21, 2010)

Stefan said:


> I don't think child's IQ test results need any inflation. Look at this one:
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/a...rina-year-old-whos-smart-Stephen-Hawking.html
> 
> "_When asked, 'What do you use your eyes for?' she answered, 'You close them when you go to sleep' and then also said, 'You put your contact lenses in them'._"
> ...


 
lmao

I love it.


----------



## Stefan (Nov 21, 2010)

qqwref said:


> "Karina, who is almost three, is in the top 0.03 per cent of children her age


 
Ah, yes, forgot about that. Surely if she was in the top 0.0*2*%, they would've said that instead. So clearly, at least 1 in 5000 children her age is better than her. Thus not really uncommon, given there are millions of kids her age.

Taking "her age" as her exact age +/- a week and using that there are 1.829 billion kids 0-14 years old, it's about 5 million kids her age, so at least 1000 better than her. Using the UK data, I estimate there are at least 28 UK kids her age better than her, so I have no idea how the article justifies the headline _"Britain's brainiest toddler"_ (especially since "toddler" certainly encompasses more than a range of two weeks of age).


----------



## qqwref (Nov 21, 2010)

That's a good point. They often act as if any pretty-smart person is the Smartest Person Ever, despite the facts that (a) you can't realistically check everyone, and (b) IQ scores can be pretty easily increased by directed education (for children) and memory/spatial acuity/problem solving training (for adults).


----------



## cmhardw (Nov 21, 2010)

Stefan said:


> Ah, yes, forgot about that. Surely if she was in the top 0.0*2*%, they would've said that instead. So clearly, at least 1 in 5000 children her age is better than her. Thus not really uncommon, given there are millions of kids her age.
> 
> Taking "her age" as her exact age +/- a week and using that there are 1.829 billion kids 0-14 years old, it's about 5 million kids her age, so at least 1000 better than her. Using the UK data, I estimate there are at least 28 UK kids her age better than her, so I have no idea how the article justifies the headline _"Britain's brainiest toddler"_ (especially since "toddler" certainly encompasses more than a range of two weeks of age).


 
An excellent argument. Why laud a child as "the brainiest kid in Britain," when the data they present in the very same story proves that she very likely is not? I guess we are simply supposed to be spoon fed this story and react to the way they present it accordingly.


----------



## Dene (Nov 21, 2010)

JackJ said:


> I just estimated. One website I found said a 118 is "above average." I guess Dene is right, the average is about 100. (at least according to this site)
> 
> http://iq-test.learninginfo.org/iq04.htm


 
Ok you're young and naive so I won't be mean about it. Read this and you will find out why the average IQ is not _around_ 100, but literally _is_ 100.



Stefan said:


> I meant the whole thing, "Mr. Pochmann" instead of "Stefan". It sounds so cold and impersonal. How do I make you love me?



Would you rather Mr. Stefan? I could do that if you preferred.



Stefan said:


> They themselves say _"mean score is currently 108.447"_:
> http://iqtest.com/faq.html
> And I wouldn't be totally surprised if he were right with his 118 being about average for his age group. I have no idea where he got that information from, though. Jack?


 
Lololo I guess that's what you get for using a free online IQ test website.


----------



## Brian Kremer (Nov 21, 2010)

qqwref said:


> IQ scores can be pretty easily increased by directed education (for children) and memory/spatial acuity/problem solving training (for adults).



So do you think that education and training affect intelligence?


----------



## cmhardw (Nov 21, 2010)

Stefan said:


> Yeah. And what bothers me most is that they *know* she's not the best (otherwise they wouldn't write the 0.03% thing) and still say it.


 
One likely possibility is that they just do not *realize* that this data shows a likelihood, a strong one I would say, that this girl is not *the* brightest kid in Britain. I would argue that 0.03% is a very incomprehensible number to the average person. I mean Stackmats display solve times measured out to the milliseconds, right? Some people, even on speedsolving.com, think so based on the number of posts I have read stating this "fact." (For those wondering about this statement, please read this page)

"0.03% is such a good (read: incomprehensible) score that she simply *must* be the smartest child in Britain!"

I'm not trying to say that Karina is not a bright girl, she obviously is. But I agree with Stefan that their claim is definitely disproven by the data presented in the same story.


----------



## Stefan (Nov 21, 2010)

Dene said:


> Would you rather Mr. Stefan? I could do that if you preferred.



Lol... I guess it's one step closer, but... ugh...



Dene said:


> Lololo I guess that's what you get for using a free online IQ test website.



Doesn't necessarily speak against the test, though, as it also depends on who takes it. They themselves say _"The mean score is currently 108.447 (Confounding variable: The lowest IQ holders will not be capable of using the internet to measure their own intelligence.)"_ and I could imagine it's not just that those with the lowest one don't take it at all, but that those with higher are more likely to take it (there's probably a correlation between being interested in this kind of stuff, doing this kind of stuff, and being good at this kind of stuff).


----------



## Vishal (Nov 21, 2010)

Sorry, I was trying to quote what Chris said but made a mistake. The proper term for a 1/100 of a second is a jiffy. That is where the phrase I'll be back in a Jiffy comes from which is literally impossible. Also Chris I would put some money on it that you would have a high IQ if you took the test because blindfold 4x4 3x3 and 5x5 are not easy and I would take a good amount of short term visualization skills. I'm not the best a pictures but if you gave me a speech to memorize it could do it very quickly. Helps for tests too.  Is anyone here apart of or at least heard of Mensa.


----------



## Stefan (Nov 21, 2010)

Vishal said:


> The proper term for a 1/100 of a second is a jiffy.


 
Where did you get that from? And what makes that more proper than centisecond?


----------



## izovire (Nov 21, 2010)

Last time I fooled around with an IQ test I got 83... I was never good at taking tests... so obviously I failed the test taking part of it.


----------



## qqwref (Nov 21, 2010)

Brian Kremer said:


> So do you think that education and training affect intelligence?


I think that the right kind of education/training can affect your score on an IQ test, yes. (I don't think "your score on an IQ test" and "your intelligence" are the same thing, though.)



Vishal said:


> The proper term for a 1/100 of a second is a jiffy.


Hahaha. Jiffy is not an SI unit - where'd you come up with that silly idea?

EDIT: Did a little bit of research, and in various contexts "jiffy" has many different meanings. In electronics it can be used to mean 1/50 or 1/60 of a second, whereas in computing it is the time interval of the system timer interrupt (generally somewhere from 1/60 to 1/1000 of a second). There are a bunch of other possible meanings as well.


----------



## Shortey (Nov 21, 2010)

Just took an IQ test right now, 7 in the morning. The test is based for people above 18 years of age, so it doesn't really count, but I got 118. The average IQ in Norway is 100.


----------



## Brian Kremer (Nov 21, 2010)

qqwref said:


> I think that the right kind of education/training can affect your score on an IQ test, yes. (I don't think "your score on an IQ test" and "your intelligence" are the same thing, though.)


 
But that doesn't answer my question. Do you think that _actual intelligence_ (as opposed to measured intelligence) is affected by education and training.


----------



## Dene (Nov 21, 2010)

Vishal said:


> Is anyone here apart of or at least heard of Mensa.


 
I'm sure many people have heard of it but probably no one cares. I just checked out the NZ Mensa website, did their quick online test and got 27 out of 33 and would "have a good chance of successfully completing the Mensa entry test." One of the answers I got wrong was checking the wrong box, whoops. One I simply had no idea where it was going. The other 4 I could justify my answers in person but unfortunately I am unable to argue with, and beat, a computer. This would be very easy with a narrow minded moron from Mensa.

High IQ societies are all silly bums with no future therefore they affiliate themselves to other people like themselves with no hope of doing anything with their lives but happening to have reasonable IQs. Anyone with a really good IQ knows that IQs are silly.


----------



## Rimuel (Nov 21, 2010)

Throughout these few years I have been taking some online IQ tests and I've got a pretty consistent score of 124. I probably did around 10-12. Intelligence may have some influence on how well we can cube, but I think fun, competitive spirit and determination are more important. 

The decent cubers I have met in school are all incidentally top 13 in class (including myself ), and we're from the 'best' class, i.e. our scores are quantitatively superior to that of other classes. But I'd like to stress that those who did very well in class are those who paid attention in class, did their homework and studied before exam. Two of my other cuber friends were like that. They studied like ****. In contrast, I have never studied (yeah you heard me), so I'm a little behind them. If they had never willed themselves to study, our positions would have been very close (one of the friends I mentioned 'lost' his position to me a few times and he was like "I study so much and yet you got a better position than me".)

So if a cuber is smart but do not pour out the effort, when compared to a "baka" cuber who works like hell, I think the result would be similar to the studying scenario.

One of the effects intelligence has on cubers (or potential cubers) is most likely how fast they learn about the cube. I learned how to solve the cube in a few hours, while my other friends took days, and many who tried simply gave up because they couldn't understand it. So I believe that for average joes, it's just a matter of time before they "get it", as long as they pour out the effort and concentration to do so.

In other words, your intelligence is of no consequence to your cubing hobby (or career ).


----------



## qqwref (Nov 21, 2010)

Brian Kremer said:


> But that doesn't answer my question. Do you think that _actual intelligence_ (as opposed to measured intelligence) is affected by education and training.


No, I don't. But why do you ask?


----------



## Ágoston Török (Nov 21, 2010)

Vishal said:


> I see what you guys mean but 140 150 is pretty good Isaac neuron was 180 and I am around 145. IQ means how fast you learn and memorize things I agree that you can teach an idiot how to cube but an someone average is like 107 will need extra time to memorize algs and will forget them easily and they would have some problems Whith learning full fridricd or how ever you spell it or full eg or polish v. And IQ does not mean your smart it just means you have the ability to be smart and you people Whith 140 try out for Mensa its an organization for people in the top 2 percent of IQ you take a test and there are benifits like good for getting into university. I'm going to try when I'm 14 in a few months


 
Your about 145? You have never made a normal iq test. Have you read enough about IQ tests? The average IQ is 100, and only 2% has better IQ than 130 (!!!), and only 1% of people has better than 134! They say that it's amost impossible to measure above 134, because the IQ tests are not delicate enough to show it. I doubt that you have a 145 IQ, but think what you want...
PS: We don't know Neuton's IQ. How do you know it was 180?
And a funfact: The deffinition of IQ: IQ is the number that IQ tests measure.


----------



## aronpm (Nov 21, 2010)

Ágoston Török said:


> PS: We don't know Neuton's IQ. How do you know it was 180?


 
I'd just like to make it clear, since both you and Vishal can't spell it; it's Sir Isaac *Newton*.


----------



## LarsN (Nov 21, 2010)

Ágoston Török said:


> And a funfact: The deffinition of IQ: IQ is the number that IQ tests measure.



When applying for a job as an airforce officer I had to take their IQ test. I scored 9 which was the highest score in the test.


----------



## Cubenovice (Nov 21, 2010)

Lol, if that kid is the smartest kid in the UK then Birgit must be the smartest kid in Europe.
I'm pretty sure she would have aced that test at that age. 
But who cares???

WHY would you want to test your kids IQ at that young age?
Some sort of self-gratification for the *parents* perhaps?
Put a burdon on the kids shoulders from early on?

Regarding IQ tests: I am pretty sure you can train for these tests to a certain degree. It will familiarise you with the type of tests so you will feel a bit more comfortable. This can gain you a few points but no more than that. 

Chris,
I do not think that using memory techniques can be considered cheating. It is a skill you required by studying / practice and now has become part of your "mental capabilities". If you would be "less smart" (or watever you want to call it) you would not have succeeded in getting this capability develloped.

Regarding testing:
I have done multiple tests and my IQ is *undefined*


----------



## CharlieCooper (Nov 21, 2010)

Stefan said:


> I do have a poster but I did not get that as a gift, I bought it myself.



That's probably the post of the year.

RE: "Why do parents have their kids tested?" - There has been a documentary series running every few years in the UK called 'Child Genius'. You have every sort of situation on this programme, parents who have been forcing their kids to study day and night for years so that they can pass qualifications aged 7 that are meant for 18 year olds, kids with incredible talent for music or art that is beyond their years, which is encouraged but not enforced and then there are parents that obviously do not care what their child's IQ is, but want to know whether they are providing appropriate schooling/activities for the child. While many parents want to scream about how good their kid's IQ is, I think a lot simply want to know if they are providing appropriate stimulation and not stunting their development. I mean, if you discovered that your kid could read a year earlier than the average, surely you would want to give them books to encourage this? I don't really think there is anything wrong with that sort of behaviour. Most parents would want their child to achieve their full potential and if discovering your kid has an above average IQ helps with this, why not? I'm not saying this is the be all and end all to a child's development and nor am I saying that to be intelligent you must score phenomenally on an IQ test, but it at least suggests some kind of ability. Going back to the documentary, there was a 5 year old child who at first seemed like he was misbehaving in class, but then they realised he was simply bored because he wasn't learning anything. After IQ testing him, they realised that perhaps the school wasn't offering him anything that beneficial and was holding him back. By sending him to a different school his parents could well have changed things for him and avoided further years of misbehaving and gaining nothing from school. To me, that seems like a positive?


----------



## MagicYio (Nov 21, 2010)

Cubenovice said:


> WHY would you want to test your kids IQ at that young age?
> Some sort of self-gratification for the *parents* perhaps?
> Put a burdon on the kids shoulders from early on?


 
Maybe because their kid is doing and/or saying things that other kids of her age couldn't do/don't know, and I mean hard stuff (for her age group, of course).
Her parents wanted to know what's going on with their child, being capable of doing such hard things, so they let her do an IQ-test. It's not that odd.


----------



## cmhardw (Nov 21, 2010)

Cubenovice said:


> Regarding testing:
> I have done multiple tests and my IQ is *undefined*


 
Your IQ is a 45 degree line to the horizontal?  :3



> Chris,
> I do not think that using memory techniques can be considered cheating. It is a skill you required by studying / practice and now has become part of your "mental capabilities". If you would be "less smart" (or watever you want to call it) you would not have succeeded in getting this capability develloped.



Yes, I have considered this position, but I still think that what I did in that experiment did not test my _short term memory_. I will give you an example. Using my auditory memory method I am focusing on what I have read called the "10 second auditory loop" that is an automatic recording in a sense that your brain does of the last 10 seconds of audio you just heard. You do not have to concentrate to do this, it is wired into your brain and completely automatic.

Now, I have trained my technique such that a 1 syllable word encodes _two_ pieces of information. So whatever I can hear myself say in 10 seconds actually _encodes_ double the information of just the words themselves. _However_, my true short term memory capability is probably just as average as anyone else's. I don't think that I have a "15 second" auditory loop, or anything longer than what they consider average. So, in my mind, I should test at about average on a standardized psychology memory experiment. _But_, since I went into the exam with _the specific intent_ to use my memorization techniques such as to _achieve a high "score"_ then I feel in hindsight that I skewed the results of their test, and purposefully.

If I were to do a memory test again, I would be conflicted about whether or not I should use my memorization techniques to be honest. The test is looking for the capability of my brain, which to me means at a sort of "rest" capability. I would not imagine that the test would be looking for how well I have trained a particular memorization technique, but rather how well my brain "functions" on it's own power so to speak.

What are others' opinions? If ever given a memory test again, should I or should I not use trained memorization techniques? I still think that the use of such skews the results of the test, as I am not actually doing what the test is asking me to do.

--edit--
One last example is when I play the game Simon. This is the game where you press the four colored lights in the order they present it to you. If I do not use any memorization techniques I can make it through perhaps 10-12 lights before I make a mistake. I once played Simon using an online applet and my journey memorization techniques. Although I don't remember my exact score, I'm pretty sure I broke 75 lights correct before I finally made a mistake.

This is a perfect example of what I am talking about. Without memorization techniques I score about average, 10-12. With memorization techniques I can break 75, which may qualify me as "Soooooper genius," when in fact my "memory" is only average.

--edit--
accuracy edit made


----------



## Kynit (Nov 21, 2010)

cmhardw said:


> Your IQ is a 45 degree line to the horizontal?  :3


 
Chris, I love you


----------



## aronpm (Nov 21, 2010)

cmhardw said:


> One last example is when I play the game Simon. This is the game where you press the four colored lights in the order they present it to you. If I do not use any memorization techniques I can make it through perhaps 10-12 lights before I make a mistake. I once played Simon using an online applet, and using my journey memorization method, and was able to get over 100 lights correct after approximately an hour, and before I made a mistake.


 
wtf 100

How do you use journey to memorize that?


----------



## cmhardw (Nov 21, 2010)

aronpm said:


> wtf 100
> 
> How do you use journey to memorize that?


 
I made an edit to my last post. I don't think it was quite 100, as I only remember playing the game for about an hour or two before I made my first mistake. Since each time through it shows you 1 light per second, and repeats the whole sequence to you every iteration, then a successful game out to \( n \) lights would have taken me minimum \( n(n+1) \) seconds to display each light sequence as well as enter it in myself afterward for every iteration. For 100 lights this would be 2.8 hours. 75 lights gives me 1.6 hours, which is closer to accurate. In fact, it was probably fewer than 75 lights if you factor in any recall delays.

Seeing as how people will probably tear me apart for presenting such an unreliable statistic I am interested to try this again. I would actually use a refinement to the method I used the first time. Aron, to answer your question, I used my journey locations but I did not place images there I placed chunks of words. I translated each light into one of four letters, U, D, L, R for Up, Down, Left, Right. I would take strings of letters and make them into words.

RLR was "Roller"
RLLR was "Roll Lar"

Stuff like that. I would chunk small phrases or groups of words into a location before I moved on. Basically whenever I felt my short term memory beginning to get "full" I would "save" it to that journey location and then move onto the next one. In hindsight now I would just use images, and come up with a special list that encodes perhaps 4 letters per image. This way I could use one journey with 26 locations, and encode 3 images per location. That would be a potential to get 312 lights correct as long as I didn't make a mistake. Doing so, though, would take a _minimum_ of about 27 hours _just to display all the lights and enter in my answers each time_ lol. If that game would let me pause for bathroom breaks and sleep breaks, then perhaps this could be possible haha.


----------



## Brian Kremer (Nov 21, 2010)

qqwref said:


> No, I don't. But why do you ask?



Because I am very interested in this topic. Would you say that a person's intelligence changes over time, or do you think that it stays the same?


----------



## uberCuber (Nov 21, 2010)

Online IQ tests are lol

I just took an online IQ test, purposely answered every single question wrong (there were 40 questions), and it still didn't give me a mentally retarded score; it said my IQ was 77

EDIT: and it was untimed


----------



## qqwref (Nov 21, 2010)

Cubenovice said:


> I do not think that using memory techniques can be considered cheating. It is a skill you required by studying / practice and now has become part of your "mental capabilities". If you would be "less smart" (or watever you want to call it) you would not have succeeded in getting this capability develloped.


Learning memory techniques does NOT require or signify very high intelligence. What it does require is patience, practice, and some interest in memory sports. IQ tests are supposed to measure *natural* intelligence, how smart you are as a person, rather than how much knowledge or problem solving ability you have learned. While I won't say memory techniques are cheating, they certainly DO go against the spirit of the test.

EDIT: While you can use memory techniques for a lot of testing situations, I think that's often because they don't expect that people will, and thus they don't design the test to prevent that. For instance they might have you memorize letters or digits because it is easier for the testers, without realizing that such things would provide a huge advantage to people who know methods for those things.

On the other hand, Simon is just a game and not a psychological test, so the only goal is "get a high score", so it is fair to use any memory techniques you know short of writing stuff down 



Brian Kremer said:


> Because I am very interested in this topic. Would you say that a person's intelligence changes over time, or do you think that it stays the same?


The way I think of it, intelligence is a type of natural talent and should be a constant over time... not counting effects such as brain changes during childhood, progressive senility in old age, or brain trauma.


----------



## Cubenovice (Nov 21, 2010)

CharlieCooper said:


> I think a lot simply want to know if they are providing appropriate stimulation and not stunting their development. I mean, if you discovered that your kid could read a year earlier than the average, surely you would want to give them books to encourage this? I don't really think there is anything wrong with that sort of behaviour.
> ....
> After IQ testing him, they realised that perhaps the school wasn't offering him anything that beneficial and was holding him back. By sending him to a different school his parents could well have changed things for him and avoided further years of misbehaving and gaining nothing from school. To me, that seems like a positive?



Yeah, I have seen similar shows but still wonder why you would need an actual IQ test to establish the kids abilities.
Any normal parent should be expected to try to encourage / stimulate their kids development as much as possible. Wether they seem to be "smart" or not.
Personally, I do not need an IQ test to tell me my 5 y/o daughter is bright, I just know by spending time with her.
Granted, it is not always easy to keep her busy (she actually quit cubing last week) but what good would it do us to be able to quantify her "intelligence"?



cmhardw said:


> Your IQ is a 45 degree line to the horizontal?  :3
> 
> Yes, I have considered this position, but I still think that what I did in that experiment did not test my _short term memory_.



Hi Chris,
you off all people should know that (not only in math) things can be undefined for various reasons 

Thanks for the extra examples, I understand your reasoning now.
I guess you could say that experiment did not test your _short term memory_ but rather your _memorisation skills_.

I cannot help but thinking that there MUST be some studies out there on "natural memory" vs "memorisation skills" and the benefits from the latter.


----------



## Rudinie (Nov 21, 2010)

Stefan said:


> I do have a poster but I did not get that as a gift, I bought it myself.


Hahahah, made me LOL!
I used to have posters as well but now that i'm all grown up i don't anymore, does that mean i'm less gifted?


----------



## qqwref (Nov 21, 2010)

Cubenovice said:


> you off all people should know that (not only in math) things can be undefined for various reasons


Call me curious - how exactly is your IQ undefined?


----------



## Cubenovice (Nov 21, 2010)

qqwref said:


> EDIT: While you can use memory techniques for a lot of testing situations, I think that's often because they don't expect that people will, and thus they don't design the test to prevent that. For instance they might have you memorize letters or digits because it is easier for the testers, without realizing that such things would provide a huge advantage to people who know methods for those things.
> 
> The way I think of it, intelligence is a type of natural talent and should be a constant over time... not counting effects such as brain changes during childhood, progressive senility in old age, or brain trauma.


 
The people who make these tests better wisen up then ;-)
Anyway I think a professional IQ test will cover enough subjects so the "weight" of a subject that "can be trained to a ceretain extent" will not be too big.

Fully agree on intelligence being a natural talent.


----------



## Brunito (Nov 21, 2010)

my IQ is 134 i did an official tesst like 6months ago


----------



## Brian Kremer (Nov 21, 2010)

qqwref said:


> The way I think of it, intelligence is a type of natural talent and should be a constant over time... not counting effects such as brain changes during childhood, progressive senility in old age, or brain trauma.



I would point out that brain changes continue well past childhood...normal development of the frontal cortex continues through the mid 20s or beyond. Even in later adulthood, _anytime_ you learn _anything_ you are adding to your patterns of neural activity, and therefore undergoing brain changes. If intelligence is influenced by brain changes and brain changes continue throughout your lifetime, can you clarify why you think that intelligence should be constant?


----------



## Rinfiyks (Nov 21, 2010)

Wiki: _An intelligence quotient, or IQ, is a score derived from one of several different standardized tests designed to assess intelligence._
I've always thought that intelligence is the ability to solve problems, think creatively and innovatively, analyse situations, adapt to new situations, learn knowledge and skills and retain and apply them correctly and pertinently. (Tell me if I've missed something).
IQ tests generally don't sufficiently measure all of these categories.

So in my opinion, you have two IQs.
An IQ test IQ and a "real" IQ. You may be able to pass an IQ test better than 99% of everyone else, but you're not really that intelligent compared to everyone else.

I measured my real IQ by counting how many people in my year group in school (when it was compulsory so that I used a proper average) and counting how many people were "cleverer" than me. Thanks to the high achievers talks about uni and stuff the school held every term, it was possible for me to count this relatively accurately. I calculated my IQ to be between 134 and 139. So I would guess it's about 135, taking into account the possibility of being biased toward myself. I then took an online test and scored 140.

It's possible to use this method to find Isaac Newton's IQ too. Someone posted saying his IQ was 180. That puts him at 1 in 20 million. From the population estimates then (just over half a billion), that means he was estimated to be the 30th most intelligent person alive.

And it's not surprising that you see almost everyone claim to have IQs greater than, say, 120 (1 in 11 people). Those of average or inferior intelligence will not be bothered to take a test, or if they do, will not post their result online.


----------



## qqwref (Nov 21, 2010)

Brian Kremer said:


> I would point out that brain changes continue well past childhood...normal development of the frontal cortex continues through the mid 20s or beyond.


Fair enough, although when I said "childhood" I didn't really intend to rule out typical brain changes that would occur after what would normally be considered childhood. Probably should've used a more general term there.



Brian Kremer said:


> Even in later adulthood, _anytime_ you learn _anything_ you are adding to your patterns of neural activity, and therefore undergoing brain changes.


I don't consider these to be significant changes to the structure of the brain, so it shouldn't affect natural intelligence, any more than creating or deleting files on your computer would affect its processor speed.



Brian Kremer said:


> If intelligence is influenced by brain changes and brain changes continue throughout your lifetime, can you clarify why you think that intelligence should be constant?


Keep in mind that I think of intelligence as essentially a combination of learning speed, and of how well you can think (solve problems) given your knowledge. The idea is that this is independent of how much you've learned. I don't know any clear way to improve this, and I also don't know of people who have substantially improved their intelligence in adulthood, which is why I think in general it's constant.


----------



## MagicYio (Nov 21, 2010)

qqwref said:


> Call me curious - how exactly is your IQ undefined?


 
Actually, my IQ is undefined too. Because the results of the two parts of the test were more than 10 points away from each other. There is logic, and general knowledge. I scored respectively 132 and 119, so I don't have an IQ. But the psychologist said that it should be around 128.

But I don't know if it's the same for Cubenovice.


----------



## Stefan (Nov 21, 2010)

Rinfiyks said:


> It's possible to use this method to find Isaac Newton's IQ too. Someone posted saying his IQ was 180. That puts him at 1 in 20 million.


 
That's a complicated formula... this is much easier 
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=iq+180


----------



## Rinfiyks (Nov 21, 2010)

Stefan said:


> That's a complicated formula... this is much easier
> http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=iq+180


 
Ooohhhh, thanks


----------



## cmhardw (Nov 21, 2010)

qqwref said:


> Learning memory techniques does NOT require or signify very high intelligence.



Could not agree more. The problem, though, is that these techniques can often be *used* to boost your tested intelligence on a standardized exam. I know I'm preaching to the choir here, but I wanted to reiterate the argument.



qqwref said:


> EDIT: While you can use memory techniques for a lot of testing situations, I think that's often because they don't expect that people will, and thus they don't design the test to prevent that. For instance they might have you memorize letters or digits because it is easier for the testers, without realizing that such things would provide a huge advantage to people who know methods for those things.
> 
> On the other hand, Simon is just a game and not a psychological test, so the only goal is "get a high score", so it is fair to use any memory techniques you know short of writing stuff down



If I may, I'd like to play Devil's Advocate for a moment.

What is the purpose of an IQ test? Is it not to get the highest score that you possibly can? If I am a charismatic person who is able to pull off getting a copy of an IQ test form's answers, and I use this information to achieve a perfect score in a very fast time, then is this not also a sign of intelligence? Let's assume that being caught cheating on an IQ exam will result in your losing your score and being black listed from taking the exam in the future. Basically, a very bad outcome.

If I am intelligent enough to pull off such an IQ test exam heist without getting caught, then do I not deserve my, very, high IQ score? Or is this going against the spirit of the test? I would tend to lean more toward the fact that the cheater *did* have to use their intellect in order to pull this scheme off successfully without getting caught. This would require the ability to convince a test official to give you answers (a confounding factor here is monetary wealth can do this as well), memorization of the answers, the ability to perform as if you are legitimately thinking and taking the exam while you are actually only recalling the correct answers. Another confounding factor is the possibility of bribing the person who proctors the IQ exam, but for the sake of argument let's assume that bribing the test proctor is not possible.

I would almost tend to lean toward allowing this person their high IQ score, because they "thought outside the box" well enough to achieve a high score. Should this be lauded, or condemned?

Chris


----------



## Brian Kremer (Nov 22, 2010)

qqwref said:


> I don't consider these to be significant changes to the structure of the brain, so it shouldn't affect natural intelligence, any more than creating or deleting files on your computer would affect its processor speed.



Check out the Horn-Cattell theory of cognitive abilities. Although "processing speed" and "decision/reaction time/speed" are important in your comment, I think that "fluid intelligence" is more important than you are giving credit for. (Fluid intelligence relates to "metacognition" or "executive" processes that control the strategies and tactics used in intelligent behavior." ~Quote from link, above.) Fluid intelligence is influenced by more than the physical infrastructure of the nervous system - it is also influenced by the efficiency of the patterns of neural firing within an individual brain. 

Next check out Steinberg's triarchic theory. I think that overall intelligence _can_ be improved by taking a more deliberate approach to influencing the "componential" aspect of this theory. Using your computer analogy, a machine's processor speed is essentially constant, but software efficiency is important, too. Though files don't affect processor speed, they can affect efficiency. Just as you can replace inefficient software on a computer, would you agree it's possible to increase an adult's mental efficiency through the right kind of training, thereby increasing their intelligence?

Howard Gardner's theory of multiple intelligence divides intelligence into several categories: These can be thought of as "pathways to learning" or "axes of measurement" that you might find on a more complete IQ test.

Verbal/Linguistic
Logical/Mathematical
Visual/Spatial
Musical/Rhythmic
Bodily/Kinesthetic
Interpersonal
Intrapersonal
Naturalist
Existential
This list can be further sub-divided, or even restructured for the sake of argument so that you have things like football intelligence, or even Rubik's Cube intelligence. 

As an example, figuring out how to solve the 3x3 would show a very high spatial and logical intelligence... but how many people _figured out_ how to solve a 3x3 _by themselves_? I suspect that the vast majority of people who can solve the cube learned from a book, a friend, or from youtube as I did. Regardless of how they learned, there are several people on this forum like you who can solve a 3x3 very quickly. I think this indicates high visual-spatial, logical-mathematical, and bodily-kinesthetic intelligences. Although I am still struggling toward sub-30, my skills are enough to impress non-cubers... to solve a cube in around 10 seconds must require a much higher level of dexterity, visual attention, pattern recognition, and memory. Oh, and I hope that this forum, youtube, practice and other kinds of training, will help me increase my cube intelligence.  



qqwref said:


> Keep in mind that I think of intelligence as essentially a combination of learning speed, and of how well you can think (solve problems) given your knowledge.


 
If I gave examples of how you could increase learning speed and problem solving abilities, would you agree it is possible to increase your intelligence?


----------



## qqwref (Nov 22, 2010)

Brian Kremer said:


> Fluid intelligence is influenced by more than the physical infrastructure of the nervous system - it is also influenced by the efficiency of the patterns of neural firing within an individual brain.


I'd be careful not to put too much emphasis on efficiency/speed, when talking about strategies and tactics. Thinking slower does not necessarily make someone less smart (and in the real world it isn't always a problem - look at all the people who are respected for having spent years solving a problem). In the context of problem solving, the important thing is to be able to come up with the clever solution, regardless of speed.



Brian Kremer said:


> Just as you can replace inefficient software on a computer, would you agree it's possible to increase an adult's mental efficiency through the right kind of training, thereby increasing their intelligence?


I suppose it could be possible to increase one's natural mental efficiency or problem-solving ability, but I don't know any way to. You certainly can't directly modify the brain's "software" to get rid of unnecessary loops and processes, can you?



Brian Kremer said:


> Howard Gardner's theory of multiple intelligence divides intelligence into several categories: These can be thought of as "pathways to learning" or "axes of measurement" that you might find on a more complete IQ test.
> 
> Verbal/Linguistic
> Logical/Mathematical
> ...


I've heard of this idea and I don't at all agree with it, because to me "intelligence" is a specific and overarching concept - it's not as general as "being good at some kind of cognitive ability". (I guess the first intelligence scholars must not have agreed with this either, because if you think intelligence is about being good at anything then it is blatantly obvious that there are many different and more-or-less orthogonal facets of it.) I would not say that being good at music means you are intelligent (or have a "high musical intelligence"), I would say you are musically talented, or musically skilled. Similarly someone with "interpersonal intelligence" has a talent for social situations, and someone with "kinesthetic intelligence" is naturally dexterous. I would never say these people are intelligent from these factors alone, because they are completely different factors than intelligence. You can say it's just semantics, but for me intelligence is a specific idea, not just a stand-in word for being naturally good at anything.



Brian Kremer said:


> how many people _figured out_ how to solve a 3x3 _by themselves_? I suspect that the vast majority of people who can solve the cube learned from a book, a friend, or from youtube as I did.


Yep. But I learned to solve because of lack of patience, not lack of intelligence. I wanted to get into the world of cubing (for theory reasons, at the start) and didn't want to sit down for a few hours trying to reinvent the wheel. If you did a survey of modern speedcubers you'd probably find that most never really seriously attempted to solve it themselves.



Brian Kremer said:


> If I gave examples of how you could increase learning speed and problem solving abilities, would you agree it is possible to increase your intelligence?


Sure, although any problem-solving-ability-enhancing ideas shouldn't include learning new solving techniques, for the same reason that learning more music theory cannot make you more _naturally talented_ at composition.


----------



## endless_akatsuki (Nov 22, 2010)

cmhardw said:


> I would almost tend to lean toward allowing this person their high IQ score, because they "thought outside the box" well enough to achieve a high score. Should this be lauded, or condemned?
> 
> Chris


 
I agree, but it's debatable how this should be viewed. the way I understand it, it's sort of like using a lot of money to (illegitimately) get a lot more money....

*cough*Wall Street*cough*
(if you don't agree, look at Goldman Sachs; they knew they would be fined, but made such a ludicrous amount of money that they didn't care)


----------



## Brian Kremer (Nov 22, 2010)

qqwref said:


> I'd be careful not to put too much emphasis on efficiency/speed, when talking about strategies and tactics.



My point is that efficiency of processing is also important to intelligence.



qqwref said:


> I suppose it could be possible to increase one's natural mental efficiency or problem-solving ability, but I don't know any way to. You certainly can't directly modify the brain's "software" to get rid of unnecessary loops and processes, can you?



I think so. When you think of the brain’s “software”, what do you think of? 



qqwref said:


> I've heard of this idea and I don't at all agree with it, because to me "intelligence" is a specific and overarching concept - it's not as general as "being good at some kind of cognitive ability". (I guess the first intelligence scholars must not have agreed with this either, because if you think intelligence is about being good at anything then it is blatantly obvious that there are many different and more-or-less orthogonal facets of it.) I would not say that being good at music means you are intelligent (or have a "high musical intelligence"), I would say you are musically talented, or musically skilled. Similarly someone with "interpersonal intelligence" has a talent for social situations, and someone with "kinesthetic intelligence" is naturally dexterous. I would never say these people are intelligent from these factors alone, because they are completely different factors than intelligence. You can say it's just semantics, but for me intelligence is a specific idea, not just a stand-in word for being naturally good at anything.



I guess we just disagree about this. Intelligence tests that I’ve seen have focused on verbal/linguistic, logical/mathematical and visual/spatial axes of Gardner’s theory. It is impossible to escape cultural bias in intelligence testing, but Gardner’s theory makes strides in addressing the issue. 



qqwref said:


> Yep. But I learned to solve because of lack of patience, not lack of intelligence. I wanted to get into the world of cubing (for theory reasons, at the start) and didn't want to sit down for a few hours trying to reinvent the wheel. If you did a survey of modern speedcubers you'd probably find that most never really seriously attempted to solve it themselves.



I didn’t try either. In hindsight, I had no clue where to even start. Do you really think you could have figured it out in a few hours? I think that would be very impressive for any person. 



qqwref said:


> Sure, although any problem-solving-ability-enhancing ideas shouldn't include learning new solving techniques, for the same reason that learning more music theory cannot make you more _naturally talented_ at composition.



I don’t see why not. I agree that learning music theory doesn’t increase natural talent, but it can certainly improve the quality of the end product. Do you research a band’s natural talent before deciding whether or not you like them? In the end we get enjoyment from music because of the extent to which it touches us.


----------



## ravenguild08 (Nov 22, 2010)

This thread has evolved (or regressed, really) to being a relative simple but not well-planned inquiry to being a full-fledged analysis on what intelligence actually means. I miss the olden days (read: yesterday) when I didn't event realize that Isaac Neuron was meant to be Sir Isaac Newton.
In any case, I also don't put much stock in IQ tests. They do help as diagnostic tools, but I never take their result, just one number, as a sufficient representation of an individual.
It's like SAT test scores (standardized tests for US college admission). I hate SAT scores.

edit: now it sounds like i just came here to rant about sat scores. not true, but oh well. haha. take it as an attempt at bad humor.


----------



## Cubenovice (Nov 22, 2010)

qqwref said:


> Call me curious - how exactly is your IQ undefined?



Sorry I missed this last night.
Yes, I did multiple *tests* but I never stated these tests were *IQ *tests ;-)


----------



## Vishal (Nov 22, 2010)

I do agree that someone who is a "C student" would not take the test.Whoever said that very few people can recive a score above 130 on a IQ test is wrong. At my old school you had to take a test to be in the gifted program. If you are gifted you have an IQ of 130 or above. I did not care about school or education or being smart then and I got a 132. There were about a 1000 kids in the school. 100 kids were gifted so about one in ten. My sister who is still in that school got a first test of 142 because she wanted an iPod for a month and she though if she did good she would get it. Next time when I cared about education I got 145 and my sister got a 144. So IQ can change.


----------



## ravenguild08 (Nov 22, 2010)

Vishal said:


> Whoever said that very few people can recive a score above 130 on a IQ test is wrong... There were about a 1000 kids in the school. 100 kids were gifted so about one in ten.
> Next time when I cared about education I got 145 and my sister got a 144. So IQ can change.



Indeed IQ can change, especially if we follow the definition given earlier that IQ is defined to be the score given by a test designed to assess intelligence.
Right now, I can't really tell if you're deliberately trying to pull our collective legs. IQ scores are, by definition, supposed to conform to a Gaussian distribution around 100, are they not? Not that many people are supposed to receive scores above 130... fewer than 1/500 or something /* edit: actually 1/48 */. The best conclusion I can draw is that your school's IQ test was inaccurate, but I might be wrong.

//edit
Also, even though grammar is not indicative of intelligence, I'm sure that your posts would command more respect if you used grammar well. Just a thought...


----------



## Dene (Nov 22, 2010)

IQ is not _meant_ to be able to change _in theory_. The problem is IQ tests do not measure what they are meant to measure.


----------



## Gaétan Guimond (Nov 23, 2010)

Why the youngest world champion at 12 years only cube (Macky Makisumi) and the youngest chess champion gamer is 22 years old (Gary Kasparov). Perhaps because it compares the smart of a speed cube timer only.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6Wt49ckCU8


----------



## uberCuber (Nov 23, 2010)

and there's Guimond for you..


----------



## Stefan (Nov 23, 2010)

ravenguild08 said:


> Not that many people are supposed to receive scores above 130... *fewer than 1/500* or something.


 
http://www2.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=iq+130


----------



## ravenguild08 (Nov 23, 2010)

Stefan said:


> http://www2.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=iq+130


 
Haha, among things that are incorrect: me. I should really bookmark Wolfram Alpha or something. Sorry.


----------



## Dene (Nov 23, 2010)

Gaétan Guimond said:


> Why the youngest world champion at 12 years only cube (Macky Makisumi) and the youngest chess champion gamer is 22 years old (Gary Kasparov). Perhaps because it compares the smart of a speed cube timer only.


 
Chess is much too complicated for the vast majority of 12 year olds to master. Cubing only takes a method and then practise the same stuff over and over. Pretty obvious.


----------



## mrCage (Nov 26, 2010)

Are IQ Tests Biased??


----------



## JTW2007 (Nov 27, 2010)

Cubenovice said:


> WHY would you want to test your kids IQ at that young age?
> Some sort of self-gratification for the *parents* perhaps?
> Put a burdon on the kids shoulders from early on?



I cannot speak for others whose parents had them IQ tested, but I was tested because the gifted program at the first elementary school I attended required its applicants to be IQ tested. That IQ test also proved to be necessary for me to apply to my second elementary school, so I know that being tested at an early age has benefitted me at multiple points in my life so far. I won't say that self-gratification cannot play a role in the reasoning of parents, but know that there are other reasons to have children tested.

Now for a completely tangential question that's been bothering me lately. I posted this in the One Answer Question Thread, but to no avail. It is not my intention to hijack the thread, but I really want an answer to this. Here's what I posted:



JTW2007 said:


> I was just reading through the IQ thread in the Off-Topic section, and I clicked on Stefan's link to Wolfram Alpha. As you can see, it displays percentile rank in the results table. Being unfamiliar with Wolfram Alpha (which is a pretty interesting tool, if I do say so myself), I started experimenting with it. I noticed that if you search for any IQ value greater than 138, it displays a percentile rank of 100. It was my understanding that a percentile rank of 100 was unachievable, because you would have to beat yourself in order to score higher than 100 percent of recorded IQs. Would someone please clarify? Do I misunderstand the concept of percentile rank? Is this statistic something else entirely?


----------



## Stefan (Nov 28, 2010)

JTW2007 said:


> Do I misunderstand the concept of percentile rank?



It's rounded. Look at the "fraction above" row instead.


----------



## AnsonL (Dec 10, 2010)

i thought 150 is like a genius..


----------



## Fire Cuber (Dec 10, 2010)

lol I missed tests. How can you do test online? can we?


----------



## Carrot (Dec 10, 2010)

Fire Cuber said:


> lol I missed tests. How can you do test online? can we?


 
Just go outside, find an apple tree.. see how many apples that will fall down and hit you head within an hour, then count the total number of seeds inside those apples that hit you... BAAM!!! That's your IQ ^^


----------



## Fire Cuber (Dec 10, 2010)

I tried and it does not say anything


----------



## Carrot (Dec 10, 2010)

Fire Cuber said:


> I tried and it does not say anything


 
you are supposed to count the seeds... The seeds are not going to say "Hi, you have an IQ of 54" xD


----------



## LearningCode (Dec 10, 2010)

tl;dr

I have an IQ of 143.
But it wasn't good enough to get me into Mensa -_____-

Damn the overly-gifted =/
How dost one judge mine worth with a piece of paper?

[EDIT]
Interestingly enough, I don't score exceptionally well for my academic studies despite an IQ of 143.
Guess natural stuff can't compensate for hard work.

I just don't have an interest in school-shizz ><


----------



## Stingray970 (May 25, 2012)

*Corrolation between IQ and Cubing*

We've all heard hoards of people assault us with compliments as to our intellect.

"OMGWTFBBQ YOU MUST BE A GENIUS!"
"Wow. You must be good at math!"
"Bro, is your IQ 7000?!"
"*Faints*"

But I got to wondering... Is this actually true?

We all know that theoretically anyone can become a cuber. But what if people who become interested just overall have a higher IQ?

I'm just asking everyone what their IQ is, and then I'll create an average from all the IQ's posted.


Current Average: 141
International Average: ~ 100


My IQ is 141.

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE! Don't use an online IQ test. Take one created and graded by professionals. This will cost money.
If you went to school in the US, they give you an IQ test in elementary school. This is on your record if you are still in High School or below. Just go to the office of your school and ask to see your IQ score from your files.

EDIT: You know, I should really start using that search function...


----------



## mchedlo213 (May 25, 2012)

personally,i ahven't taken any kind of tests neitehr in school nor in any otehr places (because tehre weren't any )
but i think i'm quite an intelectual person,i have wide range or knowledge and as far as i see,people interested in cubing,they're still a lil bit more clever,smart or whateva than otehr poeple....
of course it migth be the case of personal interest but still....
= )


----------



## pipkiksass (Nov 6, 2013)

thesolver said:


> Also some people think that you need a very high IQ and that you need to be really good in mathematics for solving a cube.



Technically, they're right. A large component of IQ is pattern recognition, including mirroring and rotation. If you ever do an IQ test, you probably see a series of shapes where two are identical, but one has a certain degree of rotation applied to it. 
If you don't possess these skills, you will struggle to understand how cubies move; mirroring algs; looking ahead, etc..

I'd go as far as to say you need a pretty high IQ, amongst other things, to be a great cuber. You can be an average cuber without, though!


----------



## rj (Nov 6, 2013)

pipkiksass said:


> Technically, they're right. A large component of IQ is pattern recognition, including mirroring and rotation. If you ever do an IQ test, you probably see a series of shapes where two are identical, but one has a certain degree of rotation applied to it.
> If you don't possess these skills, you will struggle to understand how cubies move; mirroring algs; looking ahead, etc..
> 
> I'd go as far as to say you need a pretty high IQ, amongst other things, to be a great cuber. You can be an average cuber without, though!



My dad's IQ is over 150, and he's improving freakishly fast at cubing. Agreed.


----------



## kcl (Nov 6, 2013)

Honestly if you think IQ has anything to do with it, and yours is as high as you claim, you'd be much faster by now. It's dedication. I started in January and I'm sub 14. Hours of practice per day is all it took.


----------



## pipkiksass (Nov 6, 2013)

kclejeune said:


> Honestly if you think IQ has anything to do with it, and yours is as high as you claim, you'd be much faster by now. It's dedication. I started in January and I'm sub 14. Hours of practice per day is all it took.



I don't understand the purpose of this post. IQ absolutely does have something to do with it. It's a measure of your ability to recognise patterns and rotations thereof. So how would having a good IQ not relate to cubing?! Are you saying you have a surprisingly LOW IQ, and your dedication overcame this?!

Who's claiming to have a high IQ, anyway? Rj is taking about his dad!

As per my last post, I think you need a high IQ to be a great cuber, I'd imagine there's nobody sub-9 who's got an IQ below about 140. I'd love to be proven wrong.

I also said 'amongst other things', i.e. practice & dedication. I don't think people with a high IQ can just pick up a cube and be sub 10, that's clearly nonsensical.

Unfortunately I don't have hours a day to spare, or even an hour, but I'm sure I could be an adequate cuber if I did!


----------



## sneaklyfox (Nov 6, 2013)

pipkiksass said:


> Technically, they're right. A large component of IQ is pattern recognition, including mirroring and rotation. If you ever do an IQ test, you probably see a series of shapes where two are identical, but one has a certain degree of rotation applied to it.
> If you don't possess these skills, you will struggle to understand how cubies move; mirroring algs; looking ahead, etc..
> 
> I'd go as far as to say you need a pretty high IQ, amongst other things, to be a great cuber. You can be an average cuber without, though!



I agree with what you said. I believe you need a pretty high IQ to have a chance of doing very well. But of course dedication and practice is the other part of it. The way I think of it (and other things) is that dedication and practice will take you as far as your potential. Our potential is pretty high, but if you have higher IQ your potential is also higher.


----------



## pipkiksass (Nov 6, 2013)

sneaklyfox said:


> Our potential is pretty high, but if you have higher IQ your potential is also higher.


Very nicely put!


----------



## kcl (Nov 6, 2013)

sneaklyfox said:


> I agree with what you said. I believe you need a pretty high IQ to have a chance of doing very well. But of course dedication and practice is the other part of it. The way I think of it (and other things) is that dedication and practice will take you as far as your potential. Our potential is pretty high, but if you have higher IQ your potential is also higher.



This is basically what I intended to say. A higher IQ may increase POTENTIAL, but potential is useless of the dedication isn't there, which is why I claim IQ is not a major factor.


----------



## rj (Nov 6, 2013)

kclejeune said:


> This is basically what I intended to say. A higher IQ may increase POTENTIAL, but potential is useless of the dedication isn't there, which is why I claim IQ is not a major factor.



We should take a poll.


----------



## Bh13 (Nov 7, 2013)

Agreed. I would vote for IQ being a major factor.


----------



## thesolver (Nov 10, 2013)

pipkiksass said:


> Technically, they're right. A large component of IQ is pattern recognition, including mirroring and rotation. If you ever do an IQ test, you probably see a series of shapes where two are identical, but one has a certain degree of rotation applied to it.
> If you don't possess these skills, you will struggle to understand how cubies move; mirroring algs; looking ahead, etc..
> 
> I'd go as far as to say you need a pretty high IQ, amongst other things, to be a great cuber. You can be an average cuber without, though!



Agreed because solving any puzzle does rely on intuition. But I have seen people solving the cube even if they have a low IQ.


----------



## sneaklyfox (Nov 10, 2013)

thesolver said:


> Agreed because solving any puzzle does rely on intuition. But I have seen people solving the cube even if they have a low IQ.



You'd have to have very low IQ to not be able to solve the cube. But usually people with higher IQ have faster brain waves. That's why I think you can be faster if you have higher IQ.


----------



## TDM (Nov 10, 2013)

sneaklyfox said:


> people with higher IQ have faster brain waves. That's why I think you can be faster if you have higher IQ.


I have an above average IQ, but my recog/lookahead sucks 

Off-topic question, but then this is the off-topic forum: Are there any cubers with an IQ of over 150 (except rj's dad)?


----------



## sneaklyfox (Nov 10, 2013)

TDM said:


> I have an above average IQ, but my recog/lookahead sucks



That's where practice comes in.


----------



## kcl (Nov 10, 2013)

TDM said:


> I have an above average IQ, but my recog/lookahead sucks
> 
> Off-topic question, but then this is the off-topic forum: Are there any cubers with an IQ of over 150 (except rj's dad)?



I haven't been tested recently but I tend to be anywhere from 145-160. IQ tests are all scored slightly differently.


----------



## KongShou (Nov 10, 2013)

TDM said:


> I have an above average IQ, but my recog/lookahead sucks
> 
> Off-topic question, but then this is the off-topic forum: Are there any cubers with an IQ of over 150 (except rj's dad)?



Im pretty sure im in the 160 ish range, if not more. Last IQ test was in year 7 and that gave 168. currently in year 11.

edit: i have just been told it wasnt as high as 168, so maybe just over 160. but then again, it varies a lot between tests.


----------



## TDM (Nov 10, 2013)

kclejeune said:


> I haven't been tested recently but I tend to be anywhere from 145-160. IQ tests are all scored slightly differently.





KongShou said:


> Im pretty sure im in the 160 ish range, if not more. Last IQ test was in year 7 and that gave 168. currently in year 11.


I was doing some IQ tests today (got bored, idk how I got onto doing random IQ tests on the internet), and they were giving me similar results to my last IQ test (last was 139, I was getting between 141-144). But one thing I never knew was that there are different tests. I read that there was one that is usually used in USA and one for Europe (idk how reliable the website was though, but I read in other places that there are different tests which give different scores). I got 144 on one and 170 for the other. Can't remember which was which though.


----------



## rj (Nov 10, 2013)

kclejeune said:


> I haven't been tested recently but I tend to be anywhere from 145-160. IQ tests are all scored slightly differently.



Lol. That's around my IQ too.


----------



## windhero (Nov 11, 2013)

Pretty much all the online IQ-tests are ******** and way too easy. They are made just to make you feel good about yourself. Hell, I've scored 180-200 at some of them and as you should probably know that is pretty much impossible, as it is very hard to even make a test that could qualify you to such a high IQ. If you want to boast with being above the top 2% in the world aka a member of mensa, you should do the official mensa IQ test (requires a score of 131 currently). If you actually stop and think what it means to have +160IQ (which is the max with the regular standford binet scale) at the regular 15 std dev you are probably either widely delusional of your own intelligence or just a very rare coincidence. That would rank you in the triple 9 society which has a tad over 1000 members worldwide as of now. 

So yeah, enough of this IQ bs with no real evidence to support it. A picture of the results of a mensa test would suffice, but the e-tests do not.


----------



## Cubenovice (Nov 11, 2013)

windhero said:


> So yeah, enough of this IQ bs with no real evidence to support it.


Finally a voice of reason


----------



## Ronxu (Nov 12, 2013)

windhero said:


> Pretty much all the online IQ-tests are ******** and way too easy. They are made just to make you feel good about yourself. Hell, I've scored 180-200 at some of them and as you should probably know that is pretty much impossible, as it is very hard to even make a test that could qualify you to such a high IQ. If you want to boast with being above the top 2% in the world aka a member of mensa, you should do the official mensa IQ test (requires a score of 131 currently). If you actually stop and think what it means to have +160IQ (which is the max with the regular standford binet scale) at the regular 15 std dev you are probably either widely delusional of your own intelligence or just a very rare coincidence. That would rank you in the triple 9 society which has a tad over 1000 members worldwide as of now.
> 
> So yeah, enough of this IQ bs with no real evidence to support it. A picture of the results of a mensa test would suffice, but the e-tests do not.



THANK YOU for posting this! I'm sick of people bragging about their IQ based on some 10 question online quiz.


----------



## thesolver (Nov 12, 2013)

windhero said:


> Pretty much all the online IQ-tests are ******** and way too easy. They are made just to make you feel good about yourself. Hell, I've scored 180-200 at some of them and as you should probably know that is pretty much impossible, as it is very hard to even make a test that could qualify you to such a high IQ. If you want to boast with being above the top 2% in the world aka a member of mensa, you should do the official mensa IQ test (requires a score of 131 currently). If you actually stop and think what it means to have +160IQ (which is the max with the regular standford binet scale) at the regular 15 std dev you are probably either widely delusional of your own intelligence or just a very rare coincidence. That would rank you in the triple 9 society which has a tad over 1000 members worldwide as of now.
> 
> So yeah, enough of this IQ bs with no real evidence to support it. A picture of the results of a mensa test would suffice, but the e-tests do not.



Thats right.
Some IQ tests are just scams.
IQ tests do not exactly tell how your brain works


----------



## pipkiksass (Nov 12, 2013)

thesolver said:


> Thats right.
> Some IQ tests are just scams.
> IQ tests do not exactly tell how your brain works



IQ is just mental age divided by physical age x 100. How accurately you can measure mental age, and therefore how useful the score is, is debatable.

That said, standardised tests are useful in establishing a comparable measure of intelligence. It says nothing at all about HOW your brain works, it's simply a number which allows you to be compared with someone else.

Online IQ tests are utter rubbish. Not only are the tests not standardised, but the results are insane. IQ is normally distributed, so roughly 2/3 of people (c.68%) should fall within one standard deviation of the mean. The mean is, by definition, 100. One standard deviation on the IQ curve is 15 points, so 68(ish)% should fall between scores of 85 and 115.

Unless you've done a standardised Mensa test, you don't know your IQ. If you've done a standardised test and your IQ is 160 or more, then you're 4 standard deviations above the mean, or above the 99.997th percentile. Congrats, you're in the top 0.003% of the world's population!


----------



## windhero (Nov 12, 2013)

pipkiksass said:


> IQ is just mental age divided by physical age x 100. How accurately you can measure mental age, and therefore how useful the score is, is debatable.
> 
> That said, standardised tests are useful in establishing a comparable measure of intelligence. It says nothing at all about HOW your brain works, it's simply a number which allows you to be compared with someone else.
> 
> ...


This + the fact that a high IQ does not mean that you are actually smart in terms of how we life our everyday lives. To categorize and scale intelligence you'd need much more than just random logical sequence tests. Not to talk about the lonely genius syndrome and all that.


----------



## TDM (Nov 12, 2013)

Ronxu said:


> THANK YOU for posting this! I'm sick of people bragging about their IQ based on some 10 question online quiz.


Yea, I agree with this and what windhero said. Most of them aren't good.
I don't think I've done a Mensa IQ test, but I've done an official IQ test (could've been Mensa; it was a while ago so I can't remember) and I got 139. It is lower than the online tests (as expected), but not by much.


----------



## kcl (Nov 12, 2013)

*Non-Cubers say the darndest things!*



windhero said:


> Pretty much all the online IQ-tests are ******** and way too easy. They are made just to make you feel good about yourself. Hell, I've scored 180-200 at some of them and as you should probably know that is pretty much impossible, as it is very hard to even make a test that could qualify you to such a high IQ. If you want to boast with being above the top 2% in the world aka a member of mensa, you should do the official mensa IQ test (requires a score of 131 currently). If you actually stop and think what it means to have +160IQ (which is the max with the regular standford binet scale) at the regular 15 std dev you are probably either widely delusional of your own intelligence or just a very rare coincidence. That would rank you in the triple 9 society which has a tad over 1000 members worldwide as of now.
> 
> So yeah, enough of this IQ bs with no real evidence to support it. A picture of the results of a mensa test would suffice, but the e-tests do not.



How does the Wechsler Intelligence test (WAIS-IV) sound to you? I have been tested, by a certified psychologist, and I scored well above what is required to get into MENSA. That being said, I'm not 160s. I got a score in the high 140s on the Wechsler, so that's the most reliable answer IMO, despite the fact that I took it a couple years ago. Please don't call me a liar. I'm saying on many stupid online ones, I score above what my "official" IQ is, just like you said. Just clarifying here. Thanks. I'd also like to clarify that I'm not here to brag. I only mentioned it because someone asked.


----------



## sneaklyfox (Nov 12, 2013)

Actually, it would be very interesting to see what other cubers average for IQ. 100 is supposed to be average. Over 125 is gifted.

Edit: 100 as mean ninja'd by pipkiksass


----------



## rj (Nov 13, 2013)

TDM said:


> Yea, I agree with this and what windhero said. Most of them aren't good.
> I don't think I've done a Mensa IQ test, but I've done an official IQ test (could've been Mensa; it was a while ago so I can't remember) and I got 139. It is lower than the online tests (as expected), but not by much.



I did a Mensa test and aced it. I didn't bother to get my IQ, but I did well enough to get into Mensa.


----------



## kcl (Nov 13, 2013)

rj said:


> I did a Mensa test and aced it. I didn't bother to get my IQ, but I did well enough to get into Mensa.



Which test?


----------



## rj (Nov 13, 2013)

kclejeune said:


> Which test?



The book one.


----------



## windhero (Nov 13, 2013)

rj said:


> The book one.



The book one counts for nothing in my opinion ( if you mean something like the likes of this one: http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51TZ9Q1BKQL.jpg ) compared to a real mensa test in a real situation.

Kclejeune; it was not directed at you personally. I just find it hilarious how many people on these forums figure that they do have an IQ of say over 140. I just have a feeling that most geniuses on the internet are both self-claimed and self-diagnosed.


----------



## brian724080 (Nov 13, 2013)

windhero said:


> Kclejeune; it was not directed at you personally. I just find it hilarious how many people on these forums figure that they do have an IQ of say over 140. I just have a feeling that most geniuses on the internet are both self-claimed and self-diagnosed.



You are right, and apparently I have an IQ of over 150


----------



## kcl (Nov 13, 2013)

windhero said:


> The book one counts for nothing in my opinion ( if you mean something like the likes of this one: http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51TZ9Q1BKQL.jpg ) compared to a real mensa test in a real situation.
> 
> Kclejeune; it was not directed at you personally. I just find it hilarious how many people on these forums figure that they do have an IQ of say over 140. I just have a feeling that most geniuses on the internet are both self-claimed and self-diagnosed.



Oh I see. By no means am I a genius, that's for sure XD


----------



## rj (Nov 13, 2013)

kclejeune said:


> Oh I see. By no means am I a genius, that's for sure XD



That's not the book. Nothing like it. 2 inches thick.


----------



## TDM (Nov 13, 2013)

rj said:


> That's not the book. Nothing like it. 2 inches thick.


I also have a Mensa book, and I think it could be the same one. I haven't seen it for a year or two though, but I can remember that those tests, just like most other books and ones on the internet, aren't similar to a real one, and aren't accurate. Get a real IQ test. They're way more accurate (depending on which one it is, obviously).

Also, just noticed:


windhero said:


> requires a score of 131 currently


yay that means I could get into Mensa. But do you know how recent the tests have to be?


----------



## rj (Nov 13, 2013)

TDM said:


> I also have a Mensa book, and I think it could be the same one. I haven't seen it for a year or two though, but I can remember that those tests, just like most other books and ones on the internet, aren't similar to a real one, and aren't accurate. Get a real IQ test. They're way more accurate (depending on which one it is, obviously).
> 
> Also, just noticed:
> 
> yay that means I could get into Mensa. But do you know how recent the tests have to be?



I also took a normal IQ test and got 147.


----------



## pipkiksass (Nov 13, 2013)

rj said:


> I also took a normal IQ test and got 147.


Define 'normal'?

Also, I've seen no studies on how the thickness of books correlates with the accuracy of IQ tests.

I'd assume direct proportionality, which sucks if you bought the Kindle version!


----------



## rj (Nov 13, 2013)

pipkiksass said:


> Define 'normal'?
> 
> Also, I've seen no studies on how the thickness of books correlates with the accuracy of IQ tests.
> 
> I'd assume direct proportionality, which sucks if you bought the Kindle version!



You know, shape translations, weird logic puzzles, etc...


----------



## KongShou (Nov 13, 2013)

Well I have just booked a Mensa test cos I'm curious what IQ I actually have. It's on the 12th of January. yay kinda excited


----------



## kcl (Nov 13, 2013)

KongShou said:


> Well I have just booked a Mensa test cos I'm curious what IQ I actually have. It's on the 12th of January. yay kinda excited



Nice job bro! I know for a fact I can get into Mensa with my current IQ, but I feel I can do better than the last one I had. I might schedule one also


----------



## TDM (Nov 13, 2013)

I almost thought about getting another IQ test as well, then I saw that you can apply with prior evidence to having a high enough IQ. I may do that.
EDIT: Just seen there's one in 10 days very near me... idk, should I?


----------



## rj (Nov 13, 2013)

TDM said:


> I almost thought about getting another IQ test as well, then I saw that you can apply with prior evidence to having a high enough IQ. I may do that.
> EDIT: Just seen there's one in 10 days very near me... idk, should I?



Go ahead. You should be in the most democratic elitist society ever.


----------



## sneaklyfox (Nov 13, 2013)

If 131/132 for IQ is all that's needed to get into Mensa... that's easy.

What benefits are there to getting into Mensa? I highly doubt it's going to help me raise my kids any better.  In the end, who really cares how high of an IQ you have as long as you do something useful with your brains? So I hope everyone here who thinks they are very smart will do something useful and good for society and world.

Can a mod move these posts to a new topic like, "Cuber's IQ"?


----------



## TDM (Nov 13, 2013)

sneaklyfox said:


> In the end, who really cares how high of an IQ you have as long as you do something useful with your brains? So I hope everyone here who thinks they are very smart will do something useful and good for society and world.


I wouldn't say I'm very smart, but my IQ is enough to get into Mensa.
And it's difficult doing something useful when cubing is distracting you


----------



## KongShou (Nov 13, 2013)

sneaklyfox said:


> If 131/132 for IQ is all that's needed to get into Mensa... that's easy.
> 
> What benefits are there to getting into Mensa? I highly doubt it's going to help me raise my kids any better.  In the end, who really cares how high of an IQ you have as long as you do something useful with your brains? So I hope everyone here who thinks they are very smart will do something useful and good for society and world.
> 
> Can a mod move these posts to a new topic like, "Cuber's IQ"?



well i hope to be a mathematician. god knows if im actually clever enough, but im definitely hoping to contribute to society. I'm actually not that bothered about my IQ, so even if i get like 80 i will still try as hard as i can to do something useful. the only reason im doing mensa is because im actually curious.


----------



## kcl (Nov 14, 2013)

KongShou said:


> well i hope to be a mathematician. god knows if im actually clever enough, but im definitely hoping to contribute to society. I'm actually not that bothered about my IQ, so even if i get like 80 i will still try as hard as i can to do something useful. the only reason im doing mensa is because im actually curious.



Considering you do math even I can't, I'm pretty sure you won't get below 140. If you get 80, I will assume you got into a car accident and got brain damage. Seriously bro. You have brains, like big time.


----------



## mark49152 (Nov 14, 2013)

pipkiksass said:


> IQ is just mental age divided by physical age x 100.


Damn, that would put mine somewhere around 50 then


----------



## Tim Major (Nov 14, 2013)

There are different "proper" IQ tests. Both different types and tests with different standard deviations (the lower the standard deviation, the more impressive a higher score is)

I took an IQ test going into high school and I'm in the accelerated class. I dislike IQ scores used as a measure for things such as cubing/schoolwork. A guy in my methods class (a maths class) didn't make the accelerated class in year 7 yet beats me on most methods tests. He works very hard, especially outside class. I got 148 when I took the test (can't remember what the standard deviation of the test was so it's less relevant than a more recent test.)

I got 141 on a test a few weeks ago we took in psych (measuring extroverts vs introverts). Results were kept confidential but my friends in the class got 128, 12x and 105. They're doing just as well as me in psych.

IQ tests were originally used to test for mental retardation iirc. I find the fact that so much attention is paid to them nowadays is strange, as they're more a measure of potential to learn than skill/knowledge/work ethic. As for relation to cubing skill. 3x3 can be solved quickly by just memorising algs and practising. IQ may affect the speed at which you improve or understand new methods, but in the long run I don't think it has a huge affect on the outcome.


----------



## kcl (Nov 14, 2013)

^^^ Well said. That's why I don't think IQ has a MAJOR impact on your potential.


----------



## pipkiksass (Nov 14, 2013)

Tim Major said:


> There are different "proper" IQ tests. Both different types and tests with different standard deviations (the lower the standard deviation, the more impressive a higher score is)



Previous posts re: standard deviation are talking about standard deviation of the normal distribution of IQ globally, rather than the results on a single sample group. The standard deviation of the global distribution of IQs doesn't change. There are two main tests; however they largely agree (I believe 1 standard deviation is 15 on one and 16 on the other).

I've posted previously in this thread about the fact that IQ is just an arbitrary number [(mental age/physical age)*100]. As a result, I'd be surprised if it had a discernable impact on your comparative ability with your peers in a single class.



Tim Major said:


> they're more a measure of potential to learn than skill/knowledge/work ethic... As for relation to cubing skill. 3x3 can be solved quickly by just memorising algs and practising. IQ may affect the speed at which you improve or understand new methods, but in the long run I don't think it has a huge affect on the outcome.



I completely agree that IQ is not a measure of general intelligence; however it IS an indicator of an individual's ability in a number of the core skills required to be a good cuber.

As I've mentioned previously, a large component of IQ tests is spatial contextual awareness, pattern recognition, and recognising mirroring and rotation.

Cubing as a skill in large parts requires spatial contextual awareness, pattern recognition, and recognising mirroring and rotation.

As with all skills, enough hard work and practice can compensate for lack of natural ability. To an extent. However, the naturally gifted individiual will always have the advantage of inherently understanding what they are doing, rather than repeating by rote.


----------



## Dene (Nov 14, 2013)

Urgh IQ... I'm scared to go back in this thread and look at previous posts of mine.

Ever since studying psychology I have been 100% against these horribly "standardised" "intelligence" tests. It's all bull crap, and couldn't give you information any more useful than a test you could sit at school. Most people should have a good idea of whether they are generally intelligent or not (as judged by results in school).


----------



## Stefan (Nov 14, 2013)

pipkiksass said:


> I've posted previously in this thread about the fact that IQ is just an arbitrary number [(mental age/physical age)*100].



Yeah, please stop saying that. It's not true.


----------



## pipkiksass (Nov 14, 2013)

Stefan said:


> Yeah, please stop saying that. It's not true.



Yes, it is.

En.wikipedia.org/wiki/mental_age


----------



## kcl (Nov 14, 2013)

pipkiksass said:


> Yes, it is.
> 
> En.wikipedia.org/wiki/mental_age



Bro. It's Wikipedia..


----------



## pipkiksass (Nov 14, 2013)

kclejeune said:


> Bro. It's Wikipedia..



Yeah, but it's also true, I was just looking for a source to corroborate.


----------



## Stefan (Nov 14, 2013)

pipkiksass said:


> Yes, it is.
> 
> En.wikipedia.org/wiki/mental_age



No, it isn't.

I wonder how high your IQ can be if you can't distinguish past and present (in this case, past apparently meaning before 1960).


----------



## pipkiksass (Nov 14, 2013)

Stefan said:


> No, it isn't.
> 
> I wonder how high your IQ can be if you can't distinguish past and present (in this case, past apparently meaning before 1960).



My apologies - no need for sarcasm, I wasn't aware that the method of calculating the scores had changed. How are scores now calculated?

The past is stuff that's already happened, right?

Surely knowledge of historic changes to the means of scoring IQ isn't a factor in establishing IQ? In which case I'm safe from being labelled as mentally subnormal!


----------



## Stefan (Nov 14, 2013)

pipkiksass said:


> My apologies - no need for sarcasm, I wasn't aware that the method of calculating the scores had changed.



But I like sarcasm! And clear hints were there, right on the Wikipedia page you yourself showed: _"*Originally*, the differences between mental age and chronological age *were* used to compute the intelligence quotient, or IQ. This *was* computed using the ratio method"_. And if you follow the given reference, you can even find the clear statement _"the old "ratio method" of computing I.Q. is no longer used"_. It also tells more about the history of IQ tests, though I don't know how current/complete/accurate it is. It introduces the ratio method in its Stanford-Binet section, and if you follow that to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_Binet you can then find the 1960 change I mentioned.

Also, you made it sound like this is how IQ is done in general, while in reality it was only for children. That's what made me skeptic initially, because the "mental age" probably doesn't improve much once you're an adult, but your physical age does, so your IQ would consistently drop a lot throughout your life then. And indeed Wikipedia's mental age article does say that it's for children.



pipkiksass said:


> How are scores now calculated?



Don't know, and not interested enough to research it fully, sorry.



pipkiksass said:


> Surely knowledge of historic changes to the means of scoring IQ isn't a factor in establishing IQ? In which case I'm safe from being labelled as mentally subnormal!



No, but reading skills, including recognizing words indicating the past, probably play a role


----------



## pipkiksass (Nov 14, 2013)

Meh, I'm going to be posting that at work. My inability to have comprehended the tense of written words will not have been questioned. In the past, I will have endeavoured to better comprehending Wikipedia articles.


----------



## SenileGenXer (Nov 14, 2013)

I was scored at 140+ a very long time ago as a very young child. My mother is very thankful I scored that high because if I had not I might have well been educated as retarded. There is a check for getting a big IQ ego - if you didn't have the IQ score people would have thought you were retarded. 

Instead of segregated in the public school and labeled retarded I was labeled as LD with language difficulty/dyslexia. I don't deny having and enormous difficulty with language but even then I felt dyslexia was clinically inaccurate for myself. Nobody cares what an 8 year old finds clinically accurate. I was put in private schools that spent an inordinate amount of time endlessly rehashing language lessons I had difficulty with and very little time on the things I was drawn to: math, science, art, and technology.

While I acknowledge people cared and were working very hard to educate me for a world I was ill prepared for it's was still traumatizing. 

Now that I have children of my own I get to find school traumatizing all over again - especially with mandatory testing, the absurd amount of homework, and a manipulative soft authoritarianism in the schools. For my children's and my own mental health I wonder is homeschooling or even unschooling might be far better.


----------



## KongShou (Nov 14, 2013)

kclejeune said:


> Considering you do math even I can't, I'm pretty sure you won't get below 140. If you get 80, I will assume you got into a car accident and got brain damage. Seriously bro. You have brains, like big time.



Thanks! That's definitely encouraging! 

Also where did u find out that I do maths? I seem to only have mentioned it once?


----------



## kcl (Nov 14, 2013)

KongShou said:


> Thanks! That's definitely encouraging!
> 
> Also where did u find out that I do maths? I seem to only have mentioned it once?



I've seen you in the math thread. It's impressive!


----------



## KongShou (Nov 14, 2013)

kclejeune said:


> I've seen you in the math thread. It's impressive!



Really? well im flattered. I only ever posted once tho i fink.


----------



## Trexrush1 (Nov 15, 2013)

140+


----------



## Dene (Nov 16, 2013)

pipkiksass said:


> How are scores now calculated?



Seeing as I can provide a semi-informative, semi-complete answer, it basically works like this:

Someone creates a test. A whole bunch of people sit that test and their results are collaborated and normalised in a normal curve. Retrospectively, the very middle of the curve is nominated the number "100", and one standard deviation from 100 is 15.

Following this initial formulation, any person can then sit the test. Using a Z score conversion, you work out whereabouts a certain score on that test sits on the normal curve. 


Of course every now and then another large group of people need to sit the test again to "re-standardise" it, as "IQ" scores technically inflate over time.


----------



## 1LastSolve (Nov 16, 2013)

Maybe BLD Solving can help with IQ. It seems like it can make a major difference.


----------



## Dene (Nov 16, 2013)

1LastSolve said:


> Maybe BLD Solving can help with IQ. It seems like it can make a major difference.



In theory, "IQ" has nothing to do with memory.


----------



## Deleted member 19792 (Nov 20, 2013)

Official : 157 98% in memory  

IQ normally determines how fast you can process or memorize something.


----------



## TDM (Nov 20, 2013)

strakerak said:


> IQ normally determines how fast you can process or memorize something.


But how fast you can process or memorise something doesn't determine IQ.


----------



## kcl (Nov 21, 2013)

TDM said:


> But how fast you can process or memorise something doesn't determine IQ.



IT'S A CONSPIRACY


----------



## Dene (Nov 22, 2013)

strakerak said:


> IQ normally determines how fast you can process or memorize something.



This sentence is so wrong in so many ways. "IQ" isn't even a real thing, so how can it possibly determine anything?


----------



## kcl (Nov 22, 2013)

Dene said:


> This sentence is so wrong in so many ways. "IQ" isn't even a real thing, so how can it possibly determine anything?



i just said it's a conspiracy ofc

Lol see this is my point. IQ may effect your potential but I doubt Faz or Mats or any of the top cubers are some incredible genius people. It's just practice, and a little bit of natural skill.


----------



## zmikecuber (Nov 22, 2013)

Never took an official IQ test. Just ACT tests...


----------



## Dene (Nov 23, 2013)

kclejeune said:


> IQ may effect your potential but I doubt Faz or Mats or any of the top cubers are some incredible genius people. It's just practice, and a little bit of natural skill.



First of all, this thread isn't about cubing (and by extension, how IQ and cubing abilities might be related). Second of all, how in the hell would IQ "effect your potential"?


----------



## kcl (Nov 23, 2013)

Dene said:


> First of all, this thread isn't about cubing (and by extension, how IQ and cubing abilities might be related). Second of all, how in the hell would IQ "effect your potential"?



See argument on the three or so pages before this. IQ could effect your potential in a couple ways, though in my opinion very minimally.


----------



## Dene (Nov 23, 2013)

kclejeune said:


> See argument on the three or so pages before this. IQ could effect your potential in a couple ways, though in my opinion very minimally.



IQ cannot _affect_ or _effect_ anything; it isn't a real thing! How hard is that for people to understand?


----------



## kcl (Nov 23, 2013)

Dene said:


> IQ cannot _affect_ or _effect_ anything; it isn't a real thing! How hard is that for people to understand?



IQ is a very real thing. Er rather, a measure of a real thing. If it were false, let's be honest, they wouldn't use it to test for mental retardation. If it were a fragment of the imagination, would Mensa exist?


----------



## Dene (Nov 23, 2013)

kclejeune said:


> IQ is a very real thing. Er rather, a measure of a real thing. If it were false, let's be honest, they wouldn't use it to test for mental retardation. If it were a fragment of the imagination, would Mensa exist?



I'm going to assume you're young and naive, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. But I can assure you, while there are measures for this thing we call "IQ", it is still hotly disputed what "IQ" is, if it exists, and if it does, how to measure it. All we really know is that the results of IQ tests tend to correlate with the results of other tests of knowledge (like tests at school).

I could employ your same argument to say something like, "if Creationism is false, it wouldn't be taught at schools". I could come up with a lot of examples if I wasn't trying to watch the footy at the same time  . You get what I'm saying though, yes?


----------



## kcl (Nov 23, 2013)

Dene said:


> I'm going to assume you're young and naive, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. But I can assure you, while there are measures for this thing we call "IQ", it is still hotly disputed what "IQ" is, if it exists, and if it does, how to measure it. All we really know is that the results of IQ tests tend to correlate with the results of other tests of knowledge (like tests at school).
> 
> I could employ your same argument to say something like, "if Creationism is false, it wouldn't be taught at schools". I could come up with a lot of examples if I wasn't trying to watch the footy at the same time  . You get what I'm saying though, yes?



I am young but by no means naive. You mentioned that IQ scores correlate with other tests, such as those taken in school. Things such as the SAT or ACT, in the United States, anyway. Would that not indicate that it is a reasonably reliable measurement? Also your analogy doesn't exactly work. Unless in a specific religious school, creationism is not generally taught. Although I don't exactly agree with what you're trying to say, I do see your point.


----------



## Tim Major (Nov 23, 2013)

strakerak said:


> Official : 157 98% in memory
> 
> IQ normally determines how fast you can process or memorize something.



The average person can keep 7 +-2 pieces of information in their short term memory. Yet memory sports people often memorise several hundred digits using this system: http://WWW.academictips.org/memory/majorsys.html

Does that mean they're complete geniuses? No, they're just been taught how to memorise.


----------



## Dene (Nov 23, 2013)

kclejeune said:


> Would that not indicate that it is a reasonably reliable measurement?



A reliable measurement of _what_? What is "IQ"? 

This is the problem; because there isn't such a thing as IQ. I mean, obviously some people are "smarter" than others, but this doesn't mean there exists any such _thing_ within people that can separate us with any sort of definition.


----------



## kcl (Nov 23, 2013)

Dene said:


> A reliable measurement of _what_? What is "IQ"?
> 
> This is the problem; because there isn't such a thing as IQ. I mean, obviously some people are "smarter" than others, but this doesn't mean there exists any such _thing_ within people that can separate us with any sort of definition.



A measurement of intelligence compared to the global population.


----------



## windhero (Nov 23, 2013)

I suspect what Dene is going for is that intelligence is a very hard, if not impossible, thing to define. Thus it cannot be scaled nor can there be an intelligence quota. Taking an arbitrary test does not in no way measure your intelligence as a whole. Standardising it to the global population still does not make it a good and wholesome test; It's about as useful as measuring fitness with the body mass index.

How I think it is that every area of intelligence counts as a cup. Lets assume that most people get 10 beans and that's the standard. Some people get one more, others one less etc. The beans are distributed in all the cups until there are none left. You could put 8 beans in logical intelligence and be left with mostly empty cups in creativity, social skills, linguistic skills and so on. This is why someone who scores 150 at a mensa test does not exactly classify as smart. The most successful people in the world (if you count economical success as an achievement) are not geniuses but usually just between 1-2 std. deviations on the right side from the norm. The true geniuses are those with way more than 10 beans to use, but there is no accurate test to measure that yet.


----------



## Dene (Nov 23, 2013)

kclejeune said:


> A measurement of intelligence compared to the global population.



You just replaced empty words with more empty words (well, you replaced "Intelligence quotient" with "intelligence", which is the same thing and equally useless).

The response of Mr. windhero might be more enlightening to what I'm getting at (although don't take this as me endorsing his views entirely).

Essentially, you're trying to measure "intelligence", but we don't even know what "intelligence" is. Without knowing what it is, it is impossible to define, and certainly impossible to measure. 

Actually what I say isn't entirely true, we do kind of have an idea of what intelligence is, but experts dispute definitions and disagree on all sorts of aspects.

I might sound like I'm just arguing, but really the more people that learn the better, and I want you to learn. As such, it's time for you to do some reading before you come back here with more silly statements. This wikipedia article on general intelligence is a good place to start. If you don't want to read the entire thing, I consider it mandatory for you to read the final section on "Challenges to _g_" before you respond here again. Hopefully you get something out of it.


----------



## kcl (Nov 24, 2013)

Dene said:


> You just replaced empty words with more empty words (well, you replaced "Intelligence quotient" with "intelligence", which is the same thing and equally useless).
> 
> The response of Mr. windhero might be more enlightening to what I'm getting at (although don't take this as me endorsing his views entirely).
> 
> ...



Intelligence (n) 
The ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills. 

Let ME make a brief example. We have two people, person A and person B. They are tested over time to see how quickly they can pick up various skills, let us say school subjects. Things like math, languages, technology related things, etc. If person B is consistently slower, is it wrong to say they are less intelligent than person A? I'm not trying to say intelligence is something we can exactly pin a number on, but we can certainly differentiate between certain levels of it.


----------



## TheNewbCuber (Nov 24, 2013)

Off topic from the debate...
Sometimes it's alright to let non cubers think you have a high IQ..


----------



## Dene (Nov 24, 2013)

kclejeune said:


> Intelligence (n)
> The ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills.
> 
> Let ME make a brief example. We have two people, person A and person B. They are tested over time to see how quickly they can pick up various skills, let us say school subjects. Things like math, languages, technology related things, etc. If person B is consistently slower, is it wrong to say they are less intelligent than person A? I'm not trying to say intelligence is something we can exactly pin a number on, but we can certainly differentiate between certain levels of it.



Ignoring the fact that definition is so obscenely vague, and therefore impossible to quantify meaningfully, don't forget I already said this: 



Dene said:


> I mean, obviously some people are "smarter" than others, but this doesn't mean there exists any such _thing_ within people that can separate us with any sort of definition.



I should have used "distinction" there instead of definition, as it wasn't exactly clear what I meant by that.

But earlier you were saying IQ can "effect your potential". I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you mean "affect". But really, this is still an empty statement. What you really mean is "being smart can affect your potential for being fast at cubing". While I disagree with this statement, at least it makes sense and can be understood


----------



## kcl (Nov 24, 2013)

Dene said:


> Ignoring the fact that definition is so obscenely vague, and therefore impossible to quantify meaningfully, don't forget I already said this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Wow. I'm always on people about effect/affect and I messed it up myself. That being said, being smart CAN in theory, help you with Cubing. If you are gifted in ways such as pattern recognition, or memorization, you could theoretically have a higher potential than others. That being said, the point I was arguing pages before this was that "IQ" has little to no determination as to how good of a speedcuber you become. The point I was originally arguing was that determination and practice are what get you there, not being smart. People didn't get that.


----------



## TheNewbCuber (Nov 24, 2013)

You still ought to be a little on the brighter side to get F2L and block building. I doubt a kid with a lower IQ even has the attention span to learn block building..


----------



## Dene (Nov 24, 2013)

The people that show up on this forum constantly surprise me with how stupid you can be and yet still be good at solving cubes 

Personally I think any connection between smartness and cubing is more like: The hobby of cubing generally attracts people that are smarter (or any hobby involving puzzle solving, such as sudoku/crosswords, or games like Chip's Challenge etc.)


Anyway, I hope anybody that bothered to read through my rants came to learn a little something about the world of psychology and how little experts of the psychology world actually know  (in particular, regarding "IQ").


----------



## TheNewbCuber (Nov 24, 2013)

Dene said:


> The people that show up on this forum constantly surprise me with how stupid you can be and yet still be good at solving cubes
> 
> Personally I think any connection between smartness and cubing is more like: The hobby of cubing generally attracts people that are smarter (or any hobby involving puzzle solving, such as sudoku/crosswords, or games like Chip's Challenge etc.)
> 
> ...


Exactly what I meant. Were you referring to me as stupid?


----------



## Dene (Nov 24, 2013)

TheNewbCuber said:


> Exactly what I meant. Were you referring to me as stupid?



Nope, I don't know you so I can't judge


----------



## thesolver (Dec 3, 2013)

IQ tests are not fully accurate.
Its just based on how we calculate things not what we calculate.


----------



## pipkiksass (Dec 3, 2013)

thesolver said:


> IQ tests are not fully accurate.



I wouldn't say they're inaccurate, rather that they're fully accurate at measuring something which is entirely useless!

I've said this before, but I'll say it again: a large component of IQ testing is the recognition of shapes in rotation, mirroring, and symmetry. These are invaluable skills in cubing. As a result, however arbitrary IQ is as a measurement of _intelligence_, there should be a pretty good correlation between innate cubing _potential_ and IQ.

That said, as with all things in life, hard work can go a long way towards compensating for lack of innate potential. I'd still expect a pretty good proportionality if IQ were graphed against 3x3 PB. Perhaps PB isn't fair, maybe Ao12 PB after 12 months cubing, or somesuch. Anyway - arbitrary measure A graphed against arbitrary measure B should correlate. Draw whatever assumptions from that you wish!!!


----------



## windhero (Dec 3, 2013)

pipkiksass said:


> I wouldn't say they're inaccurate, rather that they're fully accurate at measuring something which is entirely useless!
> 
> I've said this before, but I'll say it again: a large component of IQ testing is the recognition of shapes in rotation, mirroring, and symmetry. These are invaluable skills in cubing. As a result, however arbitrary IQ is as a measurement of _intelligence_, there should be a pretty good correlation between innate cubing _potential_ and IQ.
> 
> That said, as with all things in life, hard work can go a long way towards compensating for lack of innate potential. I'd still expect a pretty good proportionality if IQ were graphed against 3x3 PB. Perhaps PB isn't fair, maybe Ao12 PB after 12 months cubing, or somesuch. Anyway - arbitrary measure A graphed against arbitrary measure B should correlate. Draw whatever assumptions from that you wish!!!


Speed solving has absolutely nothing to do with intelligence. It's about recognizing patterns, reflexes, dexterity and muscle memory. The only part that would require some deductory skills is probably planning the cross and possible x/xx/xxxcrosses, but you dont see even Feliks doing those at all solves. Only when he recognizes the pattern. F2L in sub 4 seconds does not leave much time to think, again recognizing patterns. OLL/PLL, dont even need to argue here.


----------



## pipkiksass (Dec 3, 2013)

windhero said:


> Speed solving has absolutely nothing to do with intelligence. It's about recognizing patterns, reflexes, dexterity and muscle memory. The only part that would require some deductory skills is probably planning the cross and possible x/xx/xxxcrosses, but you dont see even Feliks doing those at all solves. Only when he recognizes the pattern. F2L in sub 4 seconds does not leave much time to think, again recognizing patterns. OLL/PLL, dont even need to argue here.



Er... mmkay. Where do I ever say that IQ = intelligence? In fact, I'm quite clearly stating that the opposite is true. And where am I implying that "deductory skills" are either a) required for cubing, or b) represented by IQ?

I agree with what you're saying - but I don't understand why you're quoting my post when you aren't arguing against anything I said.


----------



## windhero (Dec 4, 2013)

pipkiksass said:


> Er... mmkay. Where do I ever say that IQ = intelligence? In fact, I'm quite clearly stating that the opposite is true. And where am I implying that "deductory skills" are either a) required for cubing, or b) represented by IQ?
> 
> I agree with what you're saying - but I don't understand why you're quoting my post when you aren't arguing against anything I said.



That single word is what you picked from my argument? You talked about understanding rotation, mirroring and symmetry being invaluable for cubing, which just isnt true in terms of speedsolving.

The IQ test has nothing to do with those things either. The properties tested in the regular Mensa test are more about understanding patterns, not recognizing them. One could argue that FMC could be easier for a cuber that has scored a high IQ but it has nothing to do with speed. A good FMCer is by no means certainly a good speed solver.


----------



## pipkiksass (Dec 4, 2013)

windhero said:


> That single word is what you picked from my argument?



At least I picked a word you actually used!!!



windhero said:


> You talked about understanding rotation, mirroring and symmetry being invaluable for cubing, which just isnt true in terms of speedsolving.



Did I?



pipkiksass said:


> a large component of IQ testing is the *recognition *of shapes in rotation, mirroring, and symmetry.



Nope, I didn't!



windhero said:


> The IQ test has nothing to do with those things either.



Nope, but it has a lot to do with RECOGNISING these things, which is what I said in my post. 



windhero said:


> The properties tested in the regular Mensa test are more about understanding patterns, not recognizing them.



We're talking patterns (i.e. images) here, not mathematical sequences. Yes, you need to understand a mathematical sequence in a Mensa test in order to find missing values in the sequence. You DON'T need to understand a shape in order to recognise which of three other shapes are the same thing with a degree of rotation applied. So I disagree entirely.


----------



## KongShou (Jan 11, 2014)

Ok, so I got the IQ test in 3 hours


----------



## TDM (Jan 11, 2014)

KongShou said:


> Ok, so I got the IQ test in 3 hours


Good luck! When I tried to apply for mensa, they didn't respond until after the only one nearby for a year (I think), and then said I'd done the wrong type of IQ test and didn't accept it :fp


----------



## KongShou (Jan 17, 2014)

Got my result back.  

149 on the Cattell B scale (top 2%)
142 on the culture fair scale (top 1%)
Got in on both tests

Woo


----------



## pipkiksass (Jan 17, 2014)

KongShou said:


> Got my result back.
> 
> 149 on the Cattell B scale (top 2%)
> 142 on the culture fair scale (top 1%)
> ...



Wahoo, go Kong!

Do you get a card to carry, so you can prove it to strangers?

Just shows the difference between online tests and Mensa ones - did you say you got over 160 in an unofficial test previously?


----------



## KongShou (Jan 17, 2014)

pipkiksass said:


> Wahoo, go Kong!
> 
> Do you get a card to carry, so you can prove it to strangers?
> 
> Just shows the difference between online tests and Mensa ones - did you say you got over 160 in an unofficial test previously?



Im not sure if it was for iq but it was for the entry to my school. Its not an online one.


----------



## pipkiksass (Jan 17, 2014)

KongShou said:


> Im not sure if it was for iq but it was for the entry to my school. Its not an online one.



Ohright. There's my point completely invalidated then!

Congrats on becoming a Mensan.

In other news, glad I noticed the autocorrect error there, almost congratulated you on becoming a merman!


----------



## TDM (Jan 17, 2014)

KongShou said:


> Got my result back.
> 
> 149 on the Cattell B scale (top 2%)
> 142 on the culture fair scale (top 1%)
> ...


Nice! I just registered to do a test, as they wouldn't accept a previous one. They said they can't use my real name because they can't use the letter ç...
I can't even remember the date, but I think I have two months. Hopefully I won't fail. I fail at a lot of things.


----------



## KongShou (Jan 17, 2014)

TDM said:


> Nice! I just registered to do a test, as they wouldn't accept a previous one. They said they can't use my real name because they can't use the letter ç...
> I can't even remember the date, but I think I have two months. Hopefully I won't fail. I fail at a lot of things.



Don't worry the questions are surprisingly straight forward.  gl!


----------



## TDM (Jan 17, 2014)

KongShou said:


> Don't worry the questions are surprisingly straight forward.  gl!


Maybe for someone with your IQ  Thanks! Is it questions on a paper, or do people ask you them? Whenever I've had an IQ test, I've been tested for other things (I have dyspraxia and dysgraphia), and it was a while ago, so I don't know which part of that was the IQ test and which bit wasn't.


----------



## KongShou (Jan 17, 2014)

TDM said:


> Maybe for someone with your IQ  Thanks! Is it questions on a paper, or do people ask you them? Whenever I've had an IQ test, I've been tested for other things (I have dyspraxia and dysgraphia), and it was a while ago, so I don't know which part of that was the IQ test and which bit wasn't.



It was just multiple choice questions. Notice I didnt say easy, just straight forward


----------



## kcl (Jan 17, 2014)

TDM said:


> Maybe for someone with your IQ  Thanks! Is it questions on a paper, or do people ask you them? Whenever I've had an IQ test, I've been tested for other things (I have dyspraxia and dysgraphia), and it was a while ago, so I don't know which part of that was the IQ test and which bit wasn't.



Basically you sit and they make you try and find patterns and similarities with objects. During mine, I had to assemble blocks in different ways.


----------



## TDM (Jan 17, 2014)

KongShou said:


> It was just multiple choice questions. Notice I didnt say easy, just straight forward


Haha, true. Were they very hard? I know my IQ is lower than yours, but not by much, so we'd probably find most of them about the same.


kclejeune said:


> Basically you sit and they make you try and find patterns and similarities with objects. During mine, I had to assemble blocks in different ways.


I remember the blocks! That was stupidly easy back then. I'll probably fail this time...


----------



## kcl (Jan 17, 2014)

TDM said:


> Haha, true. Were they very hard? I know my IQ is lower than yours, but not by much, so we'd probably find most of them about the same.
> 
> I remember the blocks! That was stupidly easy back then. I'll probably fail this time...



A lot of the questions are ridiculously easy, but some seem just downright impossible.


----------



## patrickcuber (Jan 17, 2014)

My IQ Is 97.


----------



## TDM (Jan 17, 2014)

kclejeune said:


> A lot of the questions are ridiculously easy, but some seem just downright impossible.


Yeah, I remember doing something where I was read a list of numbers and had to say them forwards, which was simple up until about 9 numbers. Then on the next list of numbers, again getting longer each time, I had to say them backwards. Now THAT was impossible. I didn't get past the first few ones, even though they were very short.


----------



## kcl (Jan 17, 2014)

TDM said:


> Yeah, I remember doing something where I was read a list of numbers and had to say them forwards, which was simple up until about 9 numbers. Then on the next list of numbers, again getting longer each time, I had to say them backwards. Now THAT was impossible. I didn't get past the first few ones, even though they were very short.



Yeah haha. I apparently did really well with those, I think I got it from memorizing Pi. I was able to make it to like 14 digits forwards and backwards before I cracked..


----------



## TDM (Jan 17, 2014)

kclejeune said:


> Yeah haha. I apparently did really well with those, I think I got it from memorizing Pi. I was able to make it to like 14 digits forwards and backwards before I cracked..


I can't remember how many digits of pi I knew back then... I stayed at 26 for a while. I learned them slowly, when I had the time (which I don't have any more). I can do 50 now, but as I don't regularly learn them, my memory for numbers (and a lot of things) is still not that good. How many digits can you do?


----------



## kcl (Jan 17, 2014)

TDM said:


> I can't remember how many digits of pi I knew back then... I stayed at 26 for a while. I learned them slowly, when I had the time (which I don't have any more). I can do 50 now, but as I don't regularly learn them, my memory for numbers (and a lot of things) is still not that good. How many digits can you do?



I know maybe the first 200 haha. I don't know how, but I can just memorize numbers. Long strings of them. I find rhythms in them somehow.


----------



## TDM (Jan 17, 2014)

kclejeune said:


> I know maybe the first 200 haha. I don't know how, but I can just memorize numbers. Long strings of them. I find rhythms in them somehow.


I definitely know what you mean with the rhythms... like 6*5*3*5* 8*9*7*9* *3*2*3* etc.


----------



## kcl (Jan 17, 2014)

TDM said:


> I definitely know what you mean with the rhythms... like 6*5*3*5* 8*9*7*9* *3*2*3* etc.



Exactly . That's how I memorize stuff


----------



## joele19681 (Jan 21, 2014)

which is best IQ site you can suggest ??


----------



## pipkiksass (Jan 21, 2014)

joele19681 said:


> which is best IQ site you can suggest ??



None. There's no such thing as a good online IQ test.

If you want to take a test, book one with Mensa


----------



## ThomasJE (Jan 21, 2014)

TDM said:


> I definitely know what you mean with the rhythms... like 6*5*3*5* 8*9*7*9* *3*2*3* etc.



I use this song for the first 20 or so digits and just sing it in my head:
http://www.stevetoner.com/ph/TonerS/mathpi.html
The rest I use this method:

3.14159265358979323846264338327
From the song

950
Decreases by 4, then 5 (I know; a bit weird)

2884
All binary digits

1971
The year

69
I'll let you guess 

3993
Mirrored. Also follows on from the 9 (93993)


----------



## Slippery Sid (Mar 25, 2014)

I Don't think having a high IQ is a good thing. Not sure what mine is, but nearly all gifted kids at school have an attitude, and are always smart aleck smartasses who feel all smug because "OH YEAH I GO OUTSIDE WITHOUT A COAT ON, BECAUSE MY MOM IS WRONG, YOU CAN'T CATCH A COLD FROM THE COLD" (actually you can, it weakens your immune system) and "PEOPLE WHO BELIEVE IN GOD ARE SO STUPID, I'M AN ATHEIST" and they seem really pessimistic complainers too.



ThomasJE said:


> 69
> I'll let you guess


I'll guess! Is it the sex position?


----------



## kcl (Mar 25, 2014)

Slippery Sid said:


> I Don't think having a high IQ is a good thing. Not sure what mine is, but nearly all gifted kids at school have an attitude, and are always smart aleck smartasses who feel all smug because "OH YEAH I GO OUTSIDE WITHOUT A COAT ON, BECAUSE MY MOM IS WRONG, YOU CAN'T CATCH A COLD FROM THE COLD" (actually you can, it weakens your immune system) and "PEOPLE WHO BELIEVE IN GOD ARE SO STUPID, I'M AN ATHEIST" and they seem really pessimistic complainers too.
> 
> 
> I'll guess! Is it the sex position?



It may be so at your school, but depending on your age, they tend to be a very arrogant smart. Being smart is not bad. Being an ******* about it is.


----------



## Slippery Sid (Mar 25, 2014)

kclejeune said:


> It may be so at your school, but depending on your age, they tend to be a very arrogant smart. Being smart is not bad. Being an ******* about it is.



They seem to really like defying authority too; adults say "GO TO BED EARLY FOR SCHOOL" so they do the opposite and only sleep for 3 hours a day, then wonder why they keep getting sick (HINT: sleep deprivation suppresses your immune system)


----------



## uberCuber (Mar 25, 2014)

Slippery Sid said:


> I Don't think having a high IQ is a good thing. Not sure what mine is, but nearly all gifted kids at school have an attitude, and are always smart aleck smartasses who feel all smug because "OH YEAH I GO OUTSIDE WITHOUT A COAT ON, BECAUSE MY MOM IS WRONG, YOU CAN'T CATCH A COLD FROM THE COLD" (actually you can, it weakens your immune system) and "PEOPLE WHO BELIEVE IN GOD ARE SO STUPID, I'M AN ATHEIST" and they seem really pessimistic complainers too.



Yeah, I hate it when smarter people are rude. Wait, wasn't it you who just wrote this condescending comment about people who have more difficulty than you understanding the cube?



Slippery Sid said:


> But I do have extreme difficulty teaching how to solve a regular rubik's cube because they can't see the cube as pieces instead of stickers. Instead of solving layers, they want to solve sides. *It's like teaching a gorilla*


----------



## Cubeologist (Mar 25, 2014)

I think mine is very average. Like a 110 or something. But I have very good spatial recognition skills. 
And nun chuck skills of course.


----------



## WhatIsRubiks (Mar 25, 2014)

I was tested in grade 7 from my school. It was 125. Not that great I guess. I also found out about my learning disabilities.


----------



## Slippery Sid (Mar 25, 2014)

IQ doesn't matter, because harvard wouldn't care if you told them your IQ. It seems that it's only purpose is for bragging rights, and I refuse to find mine


----------



## CubeBag (Feb 28, 2016)

IQs don't measure your ability to solve a rubik's cube.


----------



## JustinTimeCuber (Feb 28, 2016)

CubeBag said:


> IQs don't measure your ability to solve a rubik's cube.



No, they don't, but I wonder if IQs measure your ability to not bump 2 year old threads?

lol


----------



## EpiCuber7 (Feb 28, 2016)

I feel like some of the people saying they're 150 just did online tests that aren't accurate.
Also back in 2013 my eye queue was 137 general and 160 for math.


----------



## EpiCuber7 (Feb 28, 2016)

me iq be 182


----------

