Originally Posted by
Ymyyakhtakh
Two years ago when I took WAIS-IV, I was told that my score was higher than the score of 98% of persons my age, which would make my IQ between 131 and 135 when rounded to the nearest integer (if my IQ score was in the 98th percentile and not rounded up from the 97th percentile).
However raw IQ scores peak around the age I was when I took the WAIS test (28), so my IQ relative to other age groups might be higher. Finland has even likely experienced a negative Flynn effect after my generation (
https://www.ttu.ee/public/m/mart-mur...d_19972009.pdf). Based on the average PISA score in mathematics, science, and reading, Finland ranked first in the years 2000, 2003, and 2006, second in 2009, sixth in 2012, eighth in 2015, and tenth in 2018.
Also I don't know if my Greenwich IQ would be higher than my IQ by Finnish norms.
I used to think that I have a huge head, but when I tried measuring the width of my skull, it was only about 137-140 mm, and my skull is not very long either. Therefore I don't want to measure my cranial capacity, because I think it would only make me disappointed.
I only have a high school degree.
Except IQ is a myth :
Scientists debunk the IQ myth: Notion of measuring one's intelligence quotient by singular, standardized test is highly misleading
Date: December 19, 2012
Source: University of Western Ontario
Summary: After conducting the largest online intelligence study on record, scientists concluded that the notion of measuring one's intelligence quotient or IQ by a singular, standardized test is highly misleading.
After conducting the largest online intelligence study on record, a Western University-led research team has concluded that the notion of measuring one's intelligence quotient or IQ by a singular, standardized test is highly misleading.
The findings from the landmark study, which included more than 100,000 participants, were published Dec. 19 in the journal Neuron. The article, "Fractionating human intelligence," was written by Adrian M. Owen and Adam Hampshire from Western's Brain and Mind Institute (London, Canada) and Roger Highfield, Director of External Affairs, Science Museum Group (London, U.K).
Utilizing an online study open to anyone, anywhere in the world, the researchers asked respondents to complete 12 cognitive tests tapping memory, reasoning, attention and planning abilities, as well as a survey about their background and lifestyle habits.
"The uptake was astonishing," says Owen, the Canada Excellence Research Chair in Cognitive Neuroscience and Imaging and senior investigator on the project. "We expected a few hundred responses, but thousands and thousands of people took part, including people of all ages, cultures and creeds from every corner of the world."
The results showed that when a wide range of cognitive abilities are explored, the observed variations in performance can only be explained with at least three distinct components: short-term memory, reasoning and a verbal component.
No one component, or IQ, explained everything. Furthermore, the scientists used a brain scanning technique known as functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), to show that these differences in cognitive ability map onto distinct circuits in the brain.
With so many respondents, the results also provided a wealth of new information about how factors such as age, gender and the tendency to play computer games influence our brain function.
"Regular brain training didn't help people's cognitive performance at all yet aging had a profound negative effect on both memory and reasoning abilities," says Owen.
Hampshire adds, "Intriguingly, people who regularly played computer games did perform significantly better in terms of both reasoning and short-term memory. And smokers performed poorly on the short-term memory and the verbal factors, while people who frequently suffer from anxiety performed badly on the short-term memory factor in particular."
https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...1219133334.htm
Your IQ Matters Less Than You Think
In studies of children and historical figures, IQ falls short as a measure of success.
People too often forget that IQ tests haven’t been around that long. Indeed, such psychological measures are only about a century old. Early versions appeared in France with the work of Alfred Binet and Theodore Simon in 1905. However, these tests didn’t become associated with genius until the measure moved from the Sorbonne in Paris to Stanford University in Northern California. There Professor Lewis M. Terman had it translated from French into English, and then standardized on sufficient numbers of children, to create what became known as the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale. That happened in 1916. The original motive behind these tests was to get a diagnostic to select children at the lower ends of the intelligence scale who might need special education to keep up with the school curriculum. But then Terman got a brilliant idea: Why not study a large sample of children who score at the top end of the scale? Better yet, why not keep track of these children as they pass into adolescence and adulthood? Would these intellectually gifted children grow up to become genius adults?
Terman subjected hundreds of school kids to his newfangled IQ test. Obviously, he didn’t want a sample so large that it would be impractical to follow their intellectual development. Taking the top 2 percent of the population would clearly yield a group twice as large as the top 1 percent. Moreover, a less select group might be less prone to become geniuses. So why not catch the crème de la crème?
The result was a group of 1,528 extremely bright boys and girls who averaged around 11 years old. And to say they were “bright” is a very big understatement. Their average IQ was 151, with 77 claiming IQs between 177 and 200. These children were subjected to all sorts of additional tests and measures, repeatedly so, until they reached middle age. The result was the monumental Genetic Studies of Genius, five volumes appearing between 1925 and 1959, although Terman died before the last volume came out. These highly intelligent people are still being studied today, or at least the small number still alive. They have also become affectionately known as “Termites”—a clear contraction of “Termanites.”
Now comes the bad news: None of them grew up to become what many people would consider unambiguous exemplars of genius. Their extraordinary intelligence was channeled into somewhat more ordinary endeavors as professors, doctors, lawyers, scientists, engineers, and other professionals. Two Termites actually became distinguished professors at Stanford University, eventually taking over the longitudinal study that included themselves as participants. Their names are Robert R. Sears and Lee Cronbach—and nowhere are they as well-known as Ivan Pavlov, Sigmund Freud, or Jean Piaget, three obvious geniuses in the history of psychology.
Furthermore, many Termites failed to become highly successful in any intellectual capacity. These comparative failures were far less likely to graduate from college or to attain professional or graduate degrees, and far more likely to enter occupations that required no higher education whatsoever. We’re talking only of the males here, too. It would be unfair to consider the females who were born at a time in which all women were expected to become homemakers, no matter how bright. (Even among those women with IQs exceeding 180, not all pursued careers.) Strikingly, the IQs of the successful men did not substantially differ from the IQs of the unsuccessful men. Whatever their differences, intelligence was not a determining factor in those who made it and those who didn’t.
Why not pick a group of obvious adult geniuses, and then try to assess their childhood and adolescent IQs retrospectively from their biographies?
The story goes from bad to worse. Of the many rejects—the children with tested IQs not high enough to make it into the Terman sample—at least two attained higher levels of acclaim than those who had the “test smarts” to become Termites. Here are their stories:
Luis Walter (Luie) Alvarez was born in San Francisco, just up the peninsula from Stanford. He was around 10 years old when he took Terman’s test but scored too low to enter the sample. Yet that rejection did not prevent him from getting his Ph.D. at age 25 from the University of Chicago. Even as a graduate student he began to make important contributions to physics, eventually becoming “one of the most brilliant and productive experimental physicists of the 20th century.” One manifestation of this brilliance was his work on hydrogen bubble chambers for studying elementary particles, which led to his receiving the 1968 Nobel Prize in Physics. No Termite received the Nobel, in physics or otherwise. Oops!
William (Bill) Shockley is the second Termite reject who went on to attain the Nobel Prize in Physics, which he shared with two colleagues in 1956. Born just one year before Alvarez, he grew up in Palo Alto near Stanford, the university his mother had graduated from. Despite his sub-genius score on Terman’s IQ test, he managed to get his B.S. from Cal Tech and his Ph.D. from MIT, both prestigious technical institutions. He then joined Bell Labs and began to publish extensively in solid-state physics, getting his first patent at age 28. Like Luie, Bill got involved in the World War II effort, especially with respect to radar (in his case, bomb sights). After the war, he returned to Bell Labs, where the goal was to find a solid-state substitute for the old glass vacuum tubes that then dominated electronics. The upshot was the transistor.
So there we have it: Little Luie and Bill could have skipped taking the Stanford-Binet and still claim achievements that surpassed Terman’s IQ-certified “geniuses.” But they are not unique among Nobel laureates. Both James Watson, the co-discoverer of DNA’s structure, and Richard Feynman, who worked on the path integral of quantum mechanics, had scores too low to gain membership in Mensa.
....(continued below)
http://nautil.us/issue/65/in-plain-s...than-you-think
Also, IQ comes from the pseudo-science psychology/psychometry. The social sciences or human sciences are pseudo-sciences that use weak new tenuous tools of math such as statistics and probability to give a veneer of credibility to their pseudo-sciences meanwhile real sciences such as physics and biology use real tried and true math such as calculus and algebra :
There are three kinds of lies : lies, damned lies and statistics.--Mark Twain
************************************
[In the science of politics,] it is inconceivable that telling the truth can ever become more profitable than telling lies.
—Antoine-Augustin Cournot (1801–1877), quoted in Syphilis, Puritanism, and Witch Hunts: Historical Explanation in the Light of Medicine and Psychoanalysis with a Forecast about AIDS, by S. Andreski
The widespread belief that the scientist’s job is to reveal the secrets of nature is erroneous. Nature has no secrets; only persons do.
Secrecy implies agency, absent in nature. “Nature,” observed Thomas Carlyle (1795–1881), “admits no lie.”1 Nature neither lies nor tells the truth. It has no secrets: “secrets” is the name we give to our ignorance of its workings. Because nature is not an agent, many of its workings can be understood by observation, reasoning, experiment, measurement, calculation, and truth-telling, the basic methods of science. Deception and divination are powerless to advance our understanding of natural phenomena; indeed, they preempt and prevent such understanding.
The human “sciences” are not merely unlike the physical sciences; they are, in many ways, opposites. Whereas nature neither lies nor tells the truth, persons habitually do both. This is why deception is a useful tool for persons such as detectives whose job is to ferret out other people’s secrets; why deception is a useful tool also for so-called experts—such as psychiatrists, psychologists, and politicians—whose ostensible job is to explain and predict certain human behaviors, especially behaviors some people consider dangerous or undesirable; and why such experts habitually deceive others and themselves.
The integrity of the natural scientific enterprise depends on truth-seeking and truth-speaking by individuals engaged in activities we call “scientific,” and on the scientific community’s commitment to expose and reject erroneous explanations and false “facts.” In contrast, the stability of religions and the ersatz faiths of psychiatry and the so-called behavioral sciences [which includes psychology/psychometry--Jamesbond07] depends on the loyalty of its practitioners to established doctrines and institutions and the rejection of truth-telling as injurious to the welfare of the group that rests on it. Revealingly, we call revelations of the “secrets” of nature “discoveries” but call revelations of the secrets of powerful persons and institutions “exposés.”--Thomas Szasz
Your iQ vs. Your skull vs. Your education
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks