Cuber's IQ

[Cubenovice]

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]

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

 

[Brian Kremer]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

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

Ooohhhh, thanks

 

[cmhardw]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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.

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?

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

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.

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.

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]

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]

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.

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?

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

and there's Guimond for you..