Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

My IQ

blog.tanyakhovanova.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 294 posts

Re: My IQ

#271

Post by emmett »

DeepDuh wrote: post #249
emmett wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The ability to answer those kinds of ambiguous questions is extremely culturally linked. The whole idea about IQ tests is that they're supposed to be universal and culturally independent. The Cow/hen/pig/sheep question is clearly not culturally independent - what's important about those animals is a cultural question.

I don't think this question is a good example of being culturally linked. Rather it asks for knowledge about the world you live in. What characteristic of an animal do you think is most important? - that it's koscher? (very cultural) - the number of characters in its name? - whether it is born out of an egg or womb (e.g. mammal or not)? If you seriously can't figure this out I have to doubt your intelligence - howeve…

Do you really believe that which characteristic is important about an animal is not a cultural question? If it seems "obvious" that's because your culture is invisible from the inside.

http://www.zompist.com/amercult.html

Re: My IQ

#272

Post by hackinthebochs »

btilly wrote: post #270
hackinthebochs wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps Feynman was a poor example. I was going by his claim that his own IQ was 125 (or something to that effect). I suspect that there is more to that number and that we shouldn't take it at face value. I see no reason why he wouldn't score much higher.

You are so wedded to your theory that you are unable to accept facts at face value. Presented with evidence that Feynman's IQ was not exceptional, you conclude that he was not a genius. Presented with evidence that he was a genius, you conclude that there must be an external reason that he did not do better on the IQ test, and the test result can be thrown out. The conclusion that you seem to think impossible is that…

The fact is that there is overwhelming evidence that IQ tests highly correlate with other measures of intelligence (SATs, GREs, job advancement, etc). I'm sorry but one outlier does not invalidate the whole body of research regarding IQ tests. The reasonable conclusion regarding Feynman is to suspect other factors at play. I'm simply changing my opinion in the face of new evidence.

>A second possibility is that Feynman's gifts were overwhelmingly mathematical, not verbal.

And of course this would be the "other factors at play". There are plenty of people who are savant-like in specific areas but aren't a "genius" in the generic sense. In a mathematical/scientific setting, Feynman would appear as a genius. In other settings, he would not. There's nothing surprising about any of this that would warrant a redefinition of genius.

Re: My IQ

#273

Post by astrobe_ »

stan_rogers wrote: post #164
biscarch wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually the question should be rephrased to "Which of these can form precarious driving conditions in cold weather?" because that's what they actually want to know. The problem as I see it is that the test-makers are trying to be overly clever and not ask the question they want the answer to. If I have to "extend" the language to say something it doesn't, the test maker has failed because the test question is the on…

That rephrasing doesn't really work either. All roads can be precarious in cold weather; the point of the question is to determine whether or not you realise that some areas can become dangerous more quickly than others even though the rest of the road system has seemed "safe enough so far". (And the "hidden question" is "did you know that shaded areas can freeze as quickly as a bridge or an overpass?" Most people wh…

I think the "meta-context" must be taken into account: it's a driving license test, if I got it correctly. The examiner wants to make sure you'll be a careful driver. From this perspective, the mysterious D answer totally makes sense and is obviously what they expect.

Re: My IQ

#274

Post by btilly »

hackinthebochs wrote: post #272
btilly wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are so wedded to your theory that you are unable to accept facts at face value. Presented with evidence that Feynman's IQ was not exceptional, you conclude that he was not a genius. Presented with evidence that he was a genius, you conclude that there must be an external reason that he did not do better on the IQ test, and the test result can be thrown out. The conclusion that you seem to think impossible is that…

The fact is that there is overwhelming evidence that IQ tests highly correlate with other measures of intelligence (SATs, GREs, job advancement, etc). I'm sorry but one outlier does not invalidate the whole body of research regarding IQ tests. The reasonable conclusion regarding Feynman is to suspect other factors at play. I'm simply changing my opinion in the face of new evidence. >A second possibility is that Feynm…

Where to begin? I'll just make random points in no particular order.

- When a man widely recognized as one of the top geniuses of his generation is determined by a test to not be a genius, it is not Feynman's status as a genius that should be questioned.

- "Correlated with" is very different from "the same as." See the second half of http://bentilly.blogspot.com/2010/02/what-is-intelligence.ht... for some sample calculations on exactly how meaningful the correlations measured between an IQ test and other measures of intelligence likely are. (Short summary. If there is a 0.7 correlation between IQ and "true intelligence", then people with an outstanding IQ should be expected, on average, to merely be of somewhat above average intelligence. And vice versa.) Thus the measured correlations are actually evidence that IQ tests are at best moderately effective at identifying true genius.

- The body of data that we have on IQ and intelligence is COMPLETELY CONSISTENT with the prediction that we should expect a top mathematical genius to have only a somewhat above average IQ. Feynman's relatively modest IQ is therefore not a surprise. The fact that it is not a surprise is again evidence that IQ tests are a flawed method of identifying genius.

- We actually have no real evidence that IQ, g, or other related measures are measuring anything directly meaningful at all. The arguments about this are complex, please see http://masi.cscs.lsa.umich.edu/~crshalizi/weblog/523.html for an explanation. As a side note, to the extent that by "genius" we mean something other than the weighted average of random abilities actually measured by IQ tests, we should expect that IQ tests are not that good at identifying geniuses.

Yes, I know that I just gave you a lot of complex stuff to digest. But please give me the courtesy of assuming that I have at least a passing familiarity with the subject of IQ tests, have put some thought into it, and my opinions should not be immediately disregarded without investigation.

At the very least I hope I gave you enough to cause you to reconsider whether "top 2% in IQ" effectively captures what the word "genius" means in common usage.

Re: My IQ

#275

Post by xiaoma »

paisawalla wrote: post #2

Great insight. Regarding Mensa itself, or any claims to intellectual superiority: one of the big lessons of my life has been that being intelligent has no intrinsic value. If you are unable to manifest your intelligence in a way that can substantially (disproportionate to your effort) improve your life or the lives of others, then your mind doesn't matter. It has no impact in the world, and I am not the first person…

A lack of high earnings by no means implies a lack of genius or a lack of success.

Mozart drank himself to death by age 30 and was hounded by creditors. Socrates, Nicola Tesla, Oscar Wilde and many other great minds died penniless.

Re: My IQ

#276

Post by robbiep »

mattdeboard wrote: post #232
robbiep wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

so she's only 1 in 1000?

Yes, that is what 0.1% means. Here is a good explanation of decimal fraction notation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decimal#Decimal_fractions

Apologies, apparently Internet irony once again flew by undetected, my post was to highlight that to be in the top 0.1% is hardly that rare or unusual As Tim minchin says, even if you're 1 in a million, there's still 7,000 of you

Re: My IQ

#277

Post by NDizzle »

lifeformed wrote: post #255
FaceKicker wrote: post #141

> But the biggest problem was that the idea of crossing the odd object out seems very strange to me in general. What is the odd object out in this list? > Cow, hen, pig, sheep. > The standard answer is supposed to be hen, as it is the only bird. But that is not the only possible correct answer. For example, pig is the only one whose meat is not kosher. And, look, sheep has five letters while the rest have three. Thes…

My first thought to that question was: "All but the hen have 4 legs, the hen only has 2". I'd have gotten the right answer, but only serendipitously.

That was my first thought as well. They're also the only ones without hooves. What does that make us?

Re: My IQ

#278

Post by nacker »

tokenadult wrote: post #96
nacker wrote: post #29

IQ tests share this property of undervaluing creativity and overvaluing conformity with academic work in general. Witness my favorite renegade intellectual, Robert Pirsig, from his Wikipedia page: 'While doing laboratory work in biochemistry, Pirsig became greatly troubled by the existence of more than one workable hypothesis to explain a given phenomenon, and, indeed, that the number of hypotheses appeared unlimited…

Witness my favorite renegade intellectual, Robert Pirsig I went to high school with a classmate who used to have the Pirsig family over for dinner fairly regularly. Robert Pirsig's father Maynard Pirsig was a law professor at the University of Minnesota, where the classmate's father (and, years later, I) studied for a law degree. I think, having read only Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance among Robert Pirsig'…

Interesting. I first read ZAMM first when I was 15, and really enjoyed it, but I would strongly encourage everyone who has not read "Lila" to please read it, as Pirsig basically retracts most of what he said in ZAMM. In his own words, "Lila" is his "smart child", and the book he wants to be remembered by. It is a much better book than ZAMM.

If anyone is interested, I just discovered William James Sidis's "The Animate And The Inanimate" here:

http://www.sidis.net/ANIMContents.htm

Re: My IQ

#279

Post by nacker »

gnosis wrote: post #160
nacker wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe that the idea that someone who works a "menial" job "isn't getting much value out of being highly intelligent" is the fundamental misconception here. If you are a genius, your time is not necessarily well spent on ANY job, whether it is considered menial or not by the intellectually unwashed masses, unless it is for exercise, relaxation, sustenance, or pleasure. I refer you to the classic essay The Outsider…

You might be interested in Colin Wilson's book "The Outsider"[1], which was written more than 30 years before the essay you quote. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Outsider_(Colin_Wilson)

I have read it. It's excellent. "Outsider" is the term chosen by Grady Towers high IQ society correspondents.

Re: My IQ

#280

Post by koide »

Shenglong wrote: post #26
DanBC wrote: post #11

I'm keen to know what the research is about cleverness and overthinking and multiple choice questions. One of the most intelligent people I know IRL has trouble with the UK driving licence theory questions because she very rapidly provides 6 correct answers, and then has to try to detangle her correct answers from the choices. I suspect that she'd do better if she tried when she was drunk (not the practical!!) becaus…

It might not be that she's overthinking--it could just be that the test-writers don't have as much education/intelligence. I use ad-hominems sparingly, so let me offer a specific example for the beginner's license test in Halifax, NS, Canada: In cold conditions, which of the following freeze before the others? 1. Bridges 2. Overpasses 3. Shaded Areas 4. All of the above I wasn't entirely sure what a "shaded area" was…

I really have a hard time understanding this lack of "meta-intelligence" (or should we say "street smarts", that'd explain the success of at least some of your non university educated friends)

While it's evident that D is nonsensical, it's just as obvious that it is indeed the intended answer.

I expect if you are smart enough to detect it is nonsensical, you are also smart enough to deduce what you are expected to answer. I fail to understand why people nitpick themselves to death by a million cuts.

Maybe I'm not smart enough!

Post reply on HN