Cuber's IQ

[Tim Major]

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]

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

 

[pipkiksass]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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

Yes, it is.

En.wikipedia.org/wiki/mental_age

 

[kcl]

Yes, it is.

En.wikipedia.org/wiki/mental_age

Bro. It's Wikipedia..

 

[pipkiksass]

Bro. It's Wikipedia..

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

 

[Stefan]

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]

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]

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.

How are scores now calculated?

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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

 

[Trexrush1]

140+

 

[Dene]

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]

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

 

[Dene]

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.