Guest
Guest
;D
IQ Tests: Useful or Useless?
- Thread starter Alexander Morou
- Start date
Guest
Guest
;D
Mega Flare
Awesome Bro
I think Hybrida only got a high score cause he went on some internet site and cheated :D
Hybrida":3gcqmqhk said:Not only AVG detected it. Only when I enter the IRC of this site my firewall blocks a incoming keylogger. This one got through because the firewall was off. Wow people must hate me alot to do such a lame attack. That's HBgames for ya'.
Ok, I really don't know whats going on between you and other people here, nor do I really care. But I need to clear up this ignorance. First off, it's impossible that we can spread malware via mirc just by you joining a channel. And I know for a fact the mibbit is NOT infected. It sounds like you have pre-existing malware on your machine, and judging by the screenshot it looks like its everywhere. Either find someone that actually knows how to clean it out, or reinstall windows and start having a little common sense.
Alexander Morou
Sponsor
Hybrida":3mw3b2yf said:
Attack your intelligence?
They don't have to, "it is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt." Don't try to attack that because we're dealing in text, I'm sure you're intelligent enough to at least adjust the old adage to fit the active context.
Trying to imply that a public IRC server is distributing a Key-logging software, and that your system was vulnerable because your firewall was down is nonsense. First, how did you know you were hit by a key-logger, if your firewall, that blocks viral infections, was down, and secondly: how did you know it was from irc.slacked.org? If you're going to say that you had other software in place that watched for that kind of thing, why didn't it stop the attack?
It's convenient that you just happened to take a screen shot with your start menu opened up so you could display your user name. The other information that you've shown in that screen shot implies that you had more than just a key logger, you had a few backdoor trojans that allowed a third party to hijack the functionality of your system.
Further, stating that IQ tests' existence posits proof of validity is logical nonsense. If you're going to attempt to make others believe you, use something to back your words up other than implying they're too stupid to understand any proof you might provide. I'm not a Nuclear physicist, but I knew what a Geiger Counter was.
you do know that knowledge of facts and IQ are completely separate things, right?
besides, "geiger counter" is a pretty well-known term. it's right up there with "large hadron collider" as far as prevalence in media goes.
but my IQ is 167, higher than yours. by your own logic, I'm more likely to be right than you are.
so, uh, thanks for the compliment by extrapolation. :box:
there are tests to determine what flavour of muffin you'd be and who your valentine is. important academic subjects.
Guest
Guest
;D
~Ignoring Hybrida-related mess~
It is good to be tested, and to know things about your intelligence, and how you learn. But to be scored and judged on a one-time logic quiz is silly. A true assessment of your intelligence--or, rather, a more accurate one--would be comprised of a long period of intellectual development batteries. Taking you through an unlearned subject and assessing your adaptation to the knowledge and use of said knowledge. Presenting problems in both tangible and intangible methods alike. And then assessing what areas of your brain are most active, and teaching you how to strengthen the areas which are neglected.
Well, in a perfect society anyway. I guess a 1-hour logic jam session that determines the rest of your school coursing is great too >:-/
It is good to be tested, and to know things about your intelligence, and how you learn. But to be scored and judged on a one-time logic quiz is silly. A true assessment of your intelligence--or, rather, a more accurate one--would be comprised of a long period of intellectual development batteries. Taking you through an unlearned subject and assessing your adaptation to the knowledge and use of said knowledge. Presenting problems in both tangible and intangible methods alike. And then assessing what areas of your brain are most active, and teaching you how to strengthen the areas which are neglected.
Well, in a perfect society anyway. I guess a 1-hour logic jam session that determines the rest of your school coursing is great too >:-/
Kuahewa huki 'ino
Member
I WENT TO COLLEGE FOR ENGLISH LIT AND CHANGED MAJORS BECAUSE I WAS AN INDECISIVE TWAT and now collect royalties for a scarce living with an IQ in the mid-120 range (i am below the INTERNET AVERAGE ohhhhhhh noooooooo), but I'm pretty sure that success has nothing to do with IQ or learning background :shades:Hybrida":2i0iq13q said:
IQ tests are... I dunno. They're fun, I guess? But aside from a numerical assessment of your general perception and observable intelligences, they're about as useful and telling as those "WHICH FINAL FANTASY CHARACTER ARE YOU" internet quizzes. Though I guess the one thing I will say in favor of the proper test is that it's constantly evolving--the members here with 140, 150+ IQs will test at a ~120 range in a few decades simply because the types of questions on the tests will have changed to suit changing times (and would probably test me out as "blue-collar worker intelligence"), or so I've been told.
Alexander Morou
Sponsor
The funny thing about human brain is it's malleable. Depending on what kind of work you do, or what you subject yourself to mentally, can change your actual base and future score. IQ tests use a logical pattern, and because it's a finite pattern that is clearly defined, someone could actually train themselves to score high on an IQ test by simply creating situations which favor IQ testing. Certain fields that deal heavily in math and science might yield peoples that appear more intelligent when they're really just more educated in their respective field.
People say I'm cryptic in general, but I get more blank stares when I start talking about what truly interests me, the area I've trained myself for: computer science and computer language theory. The logic involved in it is pattern-based and deals heavily in understanding complex set relationships depending on the method employed. Because of this, areas of tests which utilize similar thought processes, I would, presumably, score higher on.
IQ tests roughly measure your current cognitive structure and make an assessment based upon how well you handle the logic introduced in the test. People with jobs that are 'unskilled' because they only rely on rote memory and repetitive job actions are more likely to appear on a gradual descent if they don't do something beyond the job to maintain a sharp mind. This is due to how memory works: the less used areas of memory are weakened, the more frequented areas are strengthened. Someone with 20 years at a given job will appear very skilled at it, not necessarily because they're a natural, but because they've finely honed their mental processes in dealing with the day to day operations of the job.
There's no real test that can determine how well one can adapt to new scenarios. One of the key things to being able to, in my personal opinion, is keeping an open mind. As people get older they (typically) become solidified in their ways, this typically leads to a less flexible thought process and those people are more apt to be very bull headed.
People say I'm cryptic in general, but I get more blank stares when I start talking about what truly interests me, the area I've trained myself for: computer science and computer language theory. The logic involved in it is pattern-based and deals heavily in understanding complex set relationships depending on the method employed. Because of this, areas of tests which utilize similar thought processes, I would, presumably, score higher on.
IQ tests roughly measure your current cognitive structure and make an assessment based upon how well you handle the logic introduced in the test. People with jobs that are 'unskilled' because they only rely on rote memory and repetitive job actions are more likely to appear on a gradual descent if they don't do something beyond the job to maintain a sharp mind. This is due to how memory works: the less used areas of memory are weakened, the more frequented areas are strengthened. Someone with 20 years at a given job will appear very skilled at it, not necessarily because they're a natural, but because they've finely honed their mental processes in dealing with the day to day operations of the job.
There's no real test that can determine how well one can adapt to new scenarios. One of the key things to being able to, in my personal opinion, is keeping an open mind. As people get older they (typically) become solidified in their ways, this typically leads to a less flexible thought process and those people are more apt to be very bull headed.
Most internet IQ scores are just for fun. It's doubtful you'll ever find a real IQ test on the internet. It looks like the test Alexander Morou took was a multiple intelligences test.
An IQ test as designed by its inventor (whose name escapes me) is a really long, timed test that is made up of problems that can be solved with different levels of problem-solving. They are scored based on the correlation between the subject's age and score, so if someone takes the test once every year, they will theoretically get the same score, allowing for some standard deviation.
Of course, this has been displaced by the (in my opinion) inferior Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale.
In my opinion, representing intellect as a single number is stupid and doesn't account for all of the idiot-savants whose score should be higher, the lazy kids whose score should be lower, etc. in the world. It's been speculated that had people such as Albert Einstein, Isaac Newton, Ludvig van Beethoven, Bela Bartok, Lewis Carroll, and Hans Christian Anderson ever taken IQ tests, they would have scored extremely poorly, as they may have been autistic (or in some cases had Asperger syndrome).
An IQ test as designed by its inventor (whose name escapes me) is a really long, timed test that is made up of problems that can be solved with different levels of problem-solving. They are scored based on the correlation between the subject's age and score, so if someone takes the test once every year, they will theoretically get the same score, allowing for some standard deviation.
Of course, this has been displaced by the (in my opinion) inferior Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale.
In my opinion, representing intellect as a single number is stupid and doesn't account for all of the idiot-savants whose score should be higher, the lazy kids whose score should be lower, etc. in the world. It's been speculated that had people such as Albert Einstein, Isaac Newton, Ludvig van Beethoven, Bela Bartok, Lewis Carroll, and Hans Christian Anderson ever taken IQ tests, they would have scored extremely poorly, as they may have been autistic (or in some cases had Asperger syndrome).
Glitchfinder
Staff
Metatron":2xahwcqu said:
Actually, depending on the severity of autism, it may or may not have had any effect on an IQ score. As for people with Asperger's syndrome... I have yet to meet someone who has it who wasn't extremely intelligent in some way, usually with respect to an area of study they find interesting.
I suspect that, at least for Einstein, it was Asperger's syndrome. Mostly because, while he was in school as a child, his professors and teachers thought he was mentally deficient, but, when he found an area of study that interested him (first science, through reading, then into physics), he rocketed forward through the studies that, for most people, were tedious and difficult.
united washcloth express
Sponsor
I don't think Einstein had any syndrome at all. The guy just found something he liked and worked at it. Anyone can do the same, really. It all just depends how devoted you are to something. People just sell themselves short when most of the time, it is just laziness combined with a lack of interest.
Do you know how hard it is to retain information when you are not interested and have absolutely no reason to do so? I never would have tried in school if it wasn't for my mom's constant threatening. The principle is a simple one; someone finds a topic that they like and they work hard to accomplish what they want with it. The term 'Genius' is something society invented to label people it considers extraordinary. Many 'geniuses' are just people willing to go that extra mile to excel at what they enjoy.
In terms of Einstein and his reputation of being 'socially inept' is a load of bullshit. He was an average guy socially. If you look at him, he fit the stereotypical father, minus all of his adultery and sexual deviancy. He didn't like people prying in to his business all of the time, and who would? He didn't like to talk to people all of the time. This isn't new. The only reason people draw attention to it is once again, because society deemed him a genius. If they didn't, he'd just be another guy people saw as being somewhat antisocial.
Do you know how hard it is to retain information when you are not interested and have absolutely no reason to do so? I never would have tried in school if it wasn't for my mom's constant threatening. The principle is a simple one; someone finds a topic that they like and they work hard to accomplish what they want with it. The term 'Genius' is something society invented to label people it considers extraordinary. Many 'geniuses' are just people willing to go that extra mile to excel at what they enjoy.
In terms of Einstein and his reputation of being 'socially inept' is a load of bullshit. He was an average guy socially. If you look at him, he fit the stereotypical father, minus all of his adultery and sexual deviancy. He didn't like people prying in to his business all of the time, and who would? He didn't like to talk to people all of the time. This isn't new. The only reason people draw attention to it is once again, because society deemed him a genius. If they didn't, he'd just be another guy people saw as being somewhat antisocial.
Glitchfinder
Staff
Nobody said Einstein was "socially inept". Put honestly, his teachers, when he was a child, thought he was stupid. He did very poorly in school, and even had some trouble reading the given materials. It wasn't until a friend (or was it a relative?) gave him some books on science, that he started to excel in anything that involved much thought beyond common sense.united washcloth express":17fvtvfp said:
To be honest it annoys me that people get amazed by the fact people like Einstein might not be as "smart" as they thought or expected them to be. Science isn't something which only the top 1% can understand; anybody can read Science books you just need to know where to start and you need to find interest in it.
united washcloth express
Sponsor
You said you thought he had Asperger's syndrome, but ok.
Glitchfinder
Staff
Venetia":1k50rhcv said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asperger's_syndrome
It isn't frivolous, or made up. Chances are, it's a bunch of different things rolled up into one package name, because of their relative similarities. And, just because someone has Asperger's, it doesn't automatically follow that they are a social retard. Plenty of people who have been diagnosed with the syndrome get along fine in the real world, without other people having more than a stray thought or two about the person being a bit odd.