[le prince perdu]

A 12 year old girl just achieved the highest possible score of 162 on the Mensa IQ test.

Here

She is also ahead of Hawking and others

Is it a proof that the IQ system is useless?

Can a 12 year old really be smarter than men who have revolutionize the world?

[All or Nothing]

(03-06-2013 03:46 PM)le prince perdu Wrote:  

A 12 year old girl just achieved the highest possible score of 162 on the Mensa IQ test.

Here

She is also ahead of Hawking and others

Is it a proof that the IQ system is useless?

Can a 12 year old really be smarter than men who have revolutionize the world?

IQ is supposed to represent raw cognitive ability.

A person's IQ remains largely the same throughout their entire life.

Since the girl has scored incredibly high on the IQ test, she has shown that has incredibly large potential to rapidly understand new concepts and ideas.

Basically, her high score on the IQ test shows that she has the potential to be an incredibly smart person, if she puts forth the effort to absorb from the pools of knowledge that exist in the world.

On the other hand, IQ tests are largely irrelevant to a person's ability to have novel ideas.

Also, a lot of people have been smarter than Einstein throughout history. It's Einsteins raw intelligence combined with his creativity, perseverance, and work ethic that allowed him to become a figure in the scientific community.

[Thomas the Rhymer]

(03-06-2013 03:46 PM)le prince perdu Wrote:  

A 12 year old girl just achieved the highest possible score of 162 on the Mensa IQ test.

Here

She is also ahead of Hawking and others

Is it a proof that the IQ system is useless?

Can a 12 year old really be smarter than men who have revolutionize the world?

I passed the Mensa test and went to a few meetings. I stopped going because despite their on-paper intelligence, they are mostly street-dumb.

You ain't gonna meet a gmanifesto at a mensa meeting. It feels a club for autistic people, for intelligent people without social skills.

As for the IQ system, it was designed to accurately detect low intelligence, it's not designed to accurately detect high intelligence. I even started working on a powerpoint presentation that would teach one how to rapidly decipher the Ravan's progressive matrix so that one could score artificially high on it and get into mensa, it's on hold at the moment but the principle remains: those IQ tests can be gamed, which puts doubt on their reliability.

Also note that ultra-high IQ has up to this point not been shown to correlate with success. Beyond a certain point it appears that a high IQ can even be debilitating.

[Parlay44]

If you spend the first 12 years of your life studying for an IQ test ...guess what? You'll do very well on the IQ test. I doubt she can apply it towards anything in the real world. Change one variable and she's screwed. I went to college with plenty of guys like that. Great book smarts. Shitty lab smarts.

[le prince perdu]

(03-06-2013 04:03 PM)All or Nothing Wrote:  

(03-06-2013 03:46 PM)le prince perdu Wrote:  

A 12 year old girl just achieved the highest possible score of 162 on the Mensa IQ test.

Here

She is also ahead of Hawking and others

Is it a proof that the IQ system is useless?

Can a 12 year old really be smarter than men who have revolutionize the world?

IQ is supposed to represent raw cognitive ability.

A person's IQ remains largely the same throughout their entire life.

Since the girl has scored incredibly high on the IQ test, she has shown that has incredibly large potential to rapidly understand new concepts and ideas.

Basically, her high score on the IQ test shows that she has the potential to be an incredibly smart person, if she puts forth the effort to absorb from the pools of knowledge that exist in the world.

On the other hand, IQ tests are largely irrelevant to a person's ability to have novel ideas.

Also, a lot of people have been smarter than Einstein throughout history. It's Einsteins raw intelligence combined with his creativity, perseverance, and work ethic that allowed him to become a figure in the scientific community.

What does having the "potential" means?

See I think that if you take the "dumbest" kid in a class at a very young age and put him around people like Degrass, hawking and other successful people he will end up one of the best.

The brain has been developing for thousands of years, I truly believe we all have capacities to be brilliant.

Newton was consider a "regular" kid at school, he didn't show any sign of brilliance; that is the man who invented calculus just so he could solve a problem.

[Emancipator]

I went to a Teen Mensa type of meeting once.

The smelliest, most awkward boring children ever, along with their helicopter parents boasting about their smart kids.

[Luvianka]

Those Hindus are natural born mathematicians. No doubt about it!

[bojangles]

India has been full of unbelievable smart people and a lot of dumb people for many a millennia, I'm not surprised by this in the slightest. History has always been skewed towards the west when it comes to genius and inventions etc but a lot of modern day civilisation relies on techniques and inventions from East of the Levant.

[scorpion]

Some people have genes that make them tall.

Some people have genes that make them good looking.

Some people have genes that give them a supercharged brain.

Is every tall person in the NBA? Is every good looking person in Hollywood?

No. And not every person with an extremely high IQ will be the next Einstein.

IQ is basically just a measure of how much raw horsepower your brain can generate. It's up to the individual and his or her environmental influences to make the most of those gifts, or squander them.

[Emancipator]

(03-06-2013 05:26 PM)scorpion Wrote:  

Some people have genes that make them tall.

Some people have genes that make them good looking.

Some people have genes that give them a supercharged brain.

Is every tall person in the NBA? Is every good looking person in Hollywood?

No. And not every person with an extremely high IQ will be the next Einstein.

IQ is basically just a measure of how much raw horsepower your brain can generate. It's up to the individual and his or her environmental influences to make the most of those gifts, or squander them.

Case example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Langan

Malcolm Gladwell brings this up in one of his books Outliers

Quote:

Gladwell's profile of Langan mainly portrayed him as an example of an individual who failed to realize his potential in part because of poor social skills resulting from, in Gladwell's speculation, being raised in poverty.

[RichieP]

(03-06-2013 05:26 PM)scorpion Wrote:  

IQ is basically just a measure of how much raw horsepower your brain can generate. It's up to the individual and his or her environmental influences to make the most of those gifts, or squander them.

Yup exactly.

[Hannibal]

Great. Now let's see her come up with the unifying field theory.

[Divorco]

(03-06-2013 04:08 PM)Thomas the Rhymer Wrote:  

I even started working on a powerpoint presentation that would teach one how to rapidly decipher the Ravan's progressive matrix

I am curious about this. I can do the easy ones. But I would be interested in the reasoning behind the difficult ones. At a certain point it seems pretty arbitrary. So I would like to know what sort of advanced rules are permissible in the tests.

http://www.raventest.net/

[Lemmo]

(03-06-2013 04:24 PM)Parlay44 Wrote:  

If you spend the first 12 years of your life studying for an IQ test ...guess what? You'll do very well on the IQ test. I doubt she can apply it towards anything in the real world. Change one variable and she's screwed. I went to college with plenty of guys like that. Great book smarts. Shitty lab smarts.

IQ tests are supposed to measure raw cognitive horsepower - you can't study for them (or at least you aren't supposed to be able to).

I'd say IQ tests are good at providing a rough indicator of raw intelligence but that is all. They seem to be fairly crude so I wouldn't put too much weight on +/- 10 points. And these tests seems to measure raw computing ability rather than less tangible qualities like problem solving, logical reasoning and innovation.

But she's obviously a very smart kid. The comparisons to great thinkers seem pointless since none of them actually took IQ tests but I guess it gives the story a better headline.

[Tuthmosis]

(03-06-2013 04:08 PM)Thomas the Rhymer Wrote:  

You ain't gonna meet a gmanifesto at a mensa meeting.

Line of the week.

[MattW]

(03-06-2013 04:42 PM)le prince perdu Wrote:  

What does having the "potential" means?

See I think that if you take the "dumbest" kid in a class at a very young age and put him around people like Degrass, hawking and other successful people he will end up one of the best.

The brain has been developing for thousands of years, I truly believe we all have capacities to be brilliant.

Newton was consider a "regular" kid at school, he didn't show any sign of brilliance; that is the man who invented calculus just so he could solve a problem.

My understanding is that having a high IQ doesn't mean she already knows calculus. It means if she went into a calculus class she would learn it more easily than you or me, less time and effort.

[Hades]

I don't put any stock into girls slaying IQ tests. This is just tabloid fodder to "prove" that girls are as smart or smarter than men, men who in the public perception are basically the smartest of all time. None of these journalists take into account that plenty of guys have gotten hilariously good scores on the IQ tests, but it's for the purpose of media spin. Imagine instead if they wrote "UK GRRRL LOSES IQ TITLE CHAMPIONSHIP to RUSSIAN CHESS GRANDMASTER BY 20 POINTS; DIFFERENCES in IQ at that LEVEL UNFATHOMABLE".

I would even go so far to say that at the 162 IQ level men outnumber women 2 to 1, because at the 17X and above level there's only one or two women tops. In the highest 10 IQ scores ever amassed (or guessed at for historical geniuses), it's all dudes.

My other problem with this is that at the IQ level of 160 or so, the rarity is about one in ten thousand. There's six hundred people this high or higher than her in my home state.

[Lemmo]

(03-06-2013 07:27 PM)Hades Wrote:  

I don't put any stock into girls slaying IQ tests. This is just tabloid fodder to "prove" that girls are as smart or smarter than men, men who in the public perception are basically the smartest of all time. None of these journalists take into account that plenty of guys have gotten hilariously good scores on the IQ tests, but it's for the purpose of media spin. Imagine instead if they wrote "UK GRRRL LOSES IQ TITLE CHAMPIONSHIP to RUSSIAN CHESS GRANDMASTER BY 20 POINTS; DIFFERENCES in IQ at that LEVEL UNFATHOMABLE".

I would even go so far to say that at the 162 IQ level men outnumber women 2 to 1, because at the 17X and above level there's only one or two women tops. In the highest 10 IQ scores ever amassed (or guessed at for historical geniuses), it's all dudes.

My other problem with this is that at the IQ level of 160 or so, the rarity is about one in ten thousand. There's six hundred people this high or higher than her in my home state.

And the article is filled with the names of men who are considered geniuses because they actually produced, innovated, created, etc. None of these men were proclaimed geniuses on the basis of test results. Why isn't she being compared to all the great female geniuses in history?

[Aliblahba]

Females get 40 points now for being female. She got another 20 for being disabled, and another 20 for being foreign. She'll still probably be the smartest sewer diver in India though.

[Quintus Flaminius]

I believe that Einstein had an IQ of 132?, I can assure you that there have a lot more people, and a lot more people with IQs above 140.

Intelligence, like strength id divided into disciplines, you need other qualities that turn that brain power into useful work, for instance, a weightlifter can lift a larger load than an MMA fighter, but the MMA fighter would easily kick the wigthlifter's ass in a ring.
The guy with the largest IQ works as a bouncer for a strip club.
Besides,you also get a lot of creative destruction with high IQs, and besides, they tend to be more arrogant than the average.

[le prince perdu]

(03-06-2013 05:26 PM)scorpion Wrote:  

Some people have genes that make them tall.

Some people have genes that make them good looking.

Some people have genes that give them a supercharged brain.

Is every tall person in the NBA? Is every good looking person in Hollywood?

No. And not every person with an extremely high IQ will be the next Einstein.

IQ is basically just a measure of how much raw horsepower your brain can generate. It's up to the individual and his or her environmental influences to make the most of those gifts, or squander them.

Exactly, the IQ test measure only raw power of the brain and in order for that raw power to not be wasted a person needs to have access to knowledge.

If this young girl never come accross a book, how much stuff can she figure out by just observing nature?

If Enstein, Newton and all the greats did not have the opportunity to have access to books, I don't think they would have invented anything.

I mean it's true that Newton was ridiculously brilliant, his brain is probably the best in history but he still had to learn from books.

I am trying to figure out how to reproduce people like that, how to create a true genius and so far it looks like this:

Great raw power + the right knowledge = Genius
Great raw power + nothing = regular human being
Average brain + the right knowledge = richest men on earth ( carnegie, ford)

[Parlay44]

A woman only needs to be smart enough to make me a sandwich

[Tuthmosis]

Video of this girl riding the commuter train has been released:

[Wadsworth]

"Ramu, 12, achieved the highest possible score of 162 on the Mensa IQ test, the Telegraph reports. To put it in perspective, that's a higher IQ than Einstein."

"Einstein never took the IQ test, as modern intelligence tests did not exist at the time."

[Thomas the Rhymer]

(03-06-2013 06:45 PM)Lemmo Wrote:  

IQ tests are supposed to measure raw cognitive horsepower - you can't study for them (or at least you aren't supposed to be able to).

If you can't study for them, why is the Ravan test rule book kept such a closely guarded secret?

IQ tests aren't sucked out of thin air - a couple of rules are thought out and then the tests derived from the rules. The tests are made increasingly difficulty by adding more and more rules.The IQ tests then give you the final product and it's up to you to derive the rules from the final product, backwards. But if you have an idea of what the rules where in the first place, it's much easier to work it backwards. It's like having a compass.

I think I'm going to finish the powerpoint, I'll make it my next Roosh forum project.