D
Deleted member 19792
Guest
Official : 157 98% in memory 
IQ normally determines how fast you can process or memorize something.
IQ normally determines how fast you can process or memorize something.
Cuber's IQ
- Thread starter Vishal
- Start date
TDM
Legend
But how fast you can process or memorise something doesn't determine IQ.
kcl
Legend
IT'S A CONSPIRACY
Dene
Premium Member
This sentence is so wrong in so many ways. "IQ" isn't even a real thing, so how can it possibly determine anything?
kcl
Legend
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
Regular
Never took an official IQ test. Just ACT tests...
Dene
Premium Member
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
Legend
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
Premium Member
IQ cannot affect or effect anything; it isn't a real thing! How hard is that for people to understand?
kcl
Legend
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
Premium Member
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
Legend
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
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
Platinum Member
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
Premium Member
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
Legend
A measurement of intelligence compared to the global population.
windhero
Veteran
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.
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.
Last edited:
Dene
Premium Member
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
Legend
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
Regular
Off topic from the debate...
Sometimes it's alright to let non cubers think you have a high IQ..
Sometimes it's alright to let non cubers think you have a high IQ..
Last edited:
Dene
Premium Member
Ignoring the fact that definition is so obscenely vague, and therefore impossible to quantify meaningfully, don't forget I already said this:
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
Similar threads
- Poll
