<p>A very intelligent Chinese man scores 800 in Math and 200 in Critical Reading, I suppose his IQ is 100. You’re right.
You have to listen to me because according to the genius who started this tread my IQ is 152.</p>
<p>I’m glad I’m not the only one that had a hard time swallowing this. </p>
<p>Talk about your logical fallacies-“Appeal to Anonymous Authorities”.</p>
<p>I’d like to see these “Independent Studies”, if you please.</p>
<p>IMO everybody with an IQ of above 130 can achieve a perfect score on the portion of the SAT that they are good at (math gifted vs. verbally gifted) provided that they study and are used to the test.</p>
<p>On the other hand, a person that gets a 1580 is clearly more likely to have a higher IQ than the person who scores 1300 or even 1470.</p>
<p>Let’s say that we give the test to a student every day for a whole week and offer him a cash prize and awards for doing well (so there is a reason for that student to waste his time taking the SAT 7 times). Let’s also change the difficulty level of the easy questions to the hard questions (so that they average test taker would now get about 750 on the test perhaps M+CR). If the person consistently gets a perfect score or only makes an occasional stupid mistake, then I think we can say his IQ is above 145, or in the 99.9th percentile.</p>
<p>My point is that overall, we can say that a person with a 1500+ is smarter than a person with a 1300. But unless we have repeated trials and supply a test that removes ceiling effects…we can hardly pinpoint an IQ score with too much accuracy.</p>
<p>As for me, I hardly ever miss a math question (out of 20 math sections, I would probably miss one question or so). On the CR, I miss an average of 1-2. Even though I have achieved a score of 1600 on M+CR, I know that my abilities in math are slightly better than those in CR.</p>
<p>Vocabulary size is strongly correlated with intelligence; vocabulary is the best predictor of intelligence. In fact, if I do not have time and need a quick assessment of cognitive ability, instead of giving the full WAIS I give the vocabulary and estimate the IQ.</p>
<p>Intelligence is not stable in childhood, most stable measures are obtained around ages 18 to 22. Crystallized intelligence continues to grow beyond the 20s, fluid intelligence stabilizes and starts eroding after late 30s.</p>
<p>There is no known reason for the Flynn effect. In fact what Flynn conjectures is not established as the reason. There have been many theories, from better nutrition to artefact of testing.</p>
<p>Please note that the largest part of the brain, the temporal lobe is given to language. Even math is expressed in language or symbols. Hence, voabulary is an excellent estimate of IQ. Hence, SAT critical reading scores are more valuable than math. I would venture to say that the SAT would have a high correlation with intelligence with critical reading correlating the most.</p>
<p>As to someone who gets 800 on math and 600 on reading, yes, intelligence may be around 140 but he will exhibit what we psychologists call VIQ-PIQ (performance IQ split) split. On the Wechsler, someone with a statistically VIQ-PIQ split would be diagnostic of anything from learning disabilities. to organic lesions to impoverished learning or school environment ,etc. It is for this reason that the elite colleges like to see verbal and crit reading scores that are aligned.</p>
<p>Thanks, shawbridge, for the link to the interesting newspaper interview. I’ve read many of Flynn’s writings before, and I have just requested his new book for our public library here. </p>
<p><a href=“http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0521880076/[/url]”>http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0521880076/</a></p>
<p>LOL is this a joke?? and why is IQ so important anyways?</p>
<p>“empirical rule”, “indisputable”, “standard deviation”…</p>
<p>Yeah right. Is this an “attention thread”?</p>
<ol>
<li>Richer prep course kids score high on the SAT - so I guess that means that all kids who lumber off to Saturday SAT classes are more intelligent that those who don’t have the time or money to prepare?</li>
<li>What <em>is</em> disputable: that problems in the math section of the SAT occur regularly (ex same question structure). hence one merely needs to be familiar with the problems to score high. </li>
<li>If what you said was indeed 100% correct, why isn’t the SAT the sole judge of college admissions?</li>
<li>So I guess all strong writers and readers are inferior to those who excel in math?</li>
<li>Psychology has nothing to do with this – people specialize in different areas; simply because one is better at language than at math doesn’t imply their stupidity in life or define success.</li>
</ol>
<p>IQ is very important because intelligence affects virtually every part of an individual’s life.</p>
<p>supery00n, you have no clue what you are talking about. One of my friends is absolutely brilliant (162 IQ, professionally tested when he was 13, 2390 SAT without studying) and he is one of laziest kids I know. He smokes weed like 4 days a week, hangs out with bad kids and is generally the antithesis of a genius. </p>
<p>IQ is not important, Feynman was only tested at 125 and he accomplished infinitely more than Mr. 190 IQ Langan has.</p>
<p>supery00n, both IQ and SATs capture some dimensions of intelligence. They are different. But what it means to be more intelligent or smarter is a little harder to pin down as what most people probably mean by the term has more dimensions than those captured by the SATs. With respect to the kinds of reasoning tested by the SATs, a kid with a 1580 is “smarter” than a kid with a 1300 but that statement likely need not hold up with respect to other dimensions of intelligence. </p>
<p>nmehta4, people with very high IQs likely have the capability to perform extraordinarily well in certain areas like abstract mathematics, science, chess. For example, studies suggest that Ashkenazi Jews (those from Eastern Europe) have a verbal IQ that is 15 points higher (or more) on average than the rest of the population. You are just shifting the mean of the distribution over by 15 points on a test with a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15. This won’t mean that much near the middle but if you look at the upper tails (say 4 or 5 or more standard deviations out), there will be a really disproportionate representation of this group. This is consistent with a disproportionate representation among Nobel prize winning scientists, Fields medal winners, chess champions, etc. [I found the data below on the web and can’t vouch for its accuracy but: Ashkenazi Jews account for2 percent of the US population but have earned 27% of the Nobel Prizes awarded to Americans, 25% of ACM Turing Awards, and 26% of the Fields Medals. They make up more than half the world chess champions, 30% of elite-college faculty, 30% of Supreme Court law clerks, and 27% of Ivy Leaguers.]. So, if this logic is correct, IQ may matter a lot for some things.</p>
<p>But, nmehta4, IQ does not capture all important forms of intelligence. My father was a brilliant theoretical physicist – a dean at Harvard was telling me the other day how extraordinarily smart my father was. I’m sure his IQ was scarily high – he taught himself to read and was reading the NY Times to his sister when he was 3 and when he was inducted into the National Academy of Science, an NAS member said that he was considered a virtuoso mathematician among theoretical physicists. But he was incapable of putting together something from a kit. You for sure would not want him repairing your car or building your house. In contrast, I know people who don’t have to read the instructions to a kit. The just see the parts and know how they go together. They can see and visualize it. That’s probably not captured in Verbal IQ but it is clearly a dimension of intelligence that is very valuable. It’s a dimension of intelligence that I respect (especially because I don’t have it). </p>
<p>So, nmehta4, IQ may help explain some things but IQ certainly isn’t everything. Then again, neither are the SATs.</p>
<p>Overall, there is a correlation between IQ and success. This is a simple fact, and it can’t be denied. You have provided an exception to the rule. Again, you provided another exception regarding Richard Feynman. </p>
<p>Also, intelligence isn’t just defined by an IQ score. Think of IQ as a measuring tool that is sometimes very inaccurate, but is still the best tool that we can find. For example, when microscopes had not been developed, one could only estimate the size of cells. IQ is that primitive measuring device. However, intelligence is a very real. If you accept the argument that some people are smarter than others, then it is a logical conclusion that every person can be measured according to a standard. It might not be very accurate (like IQ).</p>
<p>Feynman’s IQ score is 125. However, his true intelligence is probably much higher. You can’t be a Putnam Fellow with even a 150 IQ. Some things can be attributable to effort. Some things simply cannot. Nobel Prize in Physics? It’s almost 90% certain that his IQ was mismeasured.</p>
<p>Actually, it all depends on what your idea of “intelligence” is, supery.
Also, define “success”. Can an artist not be considered successful?</p>
<p>Intelligence has already been defined. The same goes for success. You don’t need to have that explained to you. Yes, an artist can be considered successful.</p>
<p>uh whoever said the ACT is more of a indicator of IQ…it’s not. Given a extra 10 minutes on each section, a 36 would be as easy to get as acing those silly standardized tests you are forced to take for like no child left behind. How does how fast you can work indicate your IQ?
But i also dont think the SAT is a indicator. The reading and writing, possibly. The math? hell no</p>
<p>No, you have neither defined intelligence nor success.</p>
<p>To you, intelligence is something measured by the science or maths, that is set by some scoring, that every person is bound to by “a standard”.
To you, success is based on whether or not we receive recognition, whether by effort or such.</p>
<p>And I don’t agree.</p>
<p>If indeed “every person could be measured by a standard”, then most non-academic would be at the very bottom, since apparently they don’t fit within the model, and generally few are successful in obtaining a living. So what you’re saying is that since they’re unsuccessful, they must have a low IQ (by your supposed “correlation”). </p>
<p>Intelligence needs to be defined. </p>
<p>And it cannot be defined.</p>
<p>Are you saying that our ancestors, those prehistorics, were “unintelligent”? They would have scored well below any modern human, even on the most “inaccurate” of scales (quoted from your post), IQ. But they were not stupid by any means. If you measure intelligence differently, they are undoubtedly more intelligent than any person today, including you and I. How? Their intelligence is measured by survival, not sciences or success or life or maths.</p>
<p>Isn’t it considered today that there are 7 kinds of intelligence?</p>
<p>If indeed “every person could be measured by a standard”, then most non-academic would be at the very bottom, since apparently they don’t fit within the model, and generally few are successful in obtaining a living. So what you’re saying is that since they’re unsuccessful, they must have a low IQ (by your supposed “correlation”).</p>
<p>This is absolutely false. You cannot construct a logical argument or even infer what my point is. Do you really think that I am naive enough to believe that “intelligence is something measured by the science or maths” or that I think “success is based on whether or not we receive recognition”? It’s not worth getting in a debate with you because you can’t even understand my point.</p>
<p>I’ll try to rephrase my argument: </p>
<p>Why can’t intelligence be defined? Height can be defined. Weight can be defined. You say intelligence cannot be defined. Are you saying it can’t be defined by the methods we know and use today, or that it’s really impossible to define? If you think thats it’s impossible to define for good, then well, you’re making an argument from ignorance (just because we don’t have the tools or technology now to find what we want, we’ll never be able to have those tools). If you think it’s impossible to define intelligence right now, then I still disagree with you. It’s possible to get close to a definition–a reliable and valid IQ test that is culture-fair (not prone to cultural biases) and requires no prior nontrivial knowledge is a very good estimate. If you’re going to argue that an IQ test is not accurate, please say that. Don’t say that intelligence cannot be defined–that is a leap of faith that is uncalled for.</p>
<p>And if you say: “Weight can change, so intelligence can change.” Bad analogy. Weight is a variable that is controlled by the amount of adipose tissue which is much more prone to changes than neurons, which have a very limited capacity to divide after a certain age (although there remains some possibility).</p>
<p>Let’s see if you respond to MY POST, instead of saying that I am arguing something I am not.
- Respond to this post and refute what I HAVE SAID.
- Do it in a logical way.</p>
<p>To the 7 intelligence post, this is a hypothesis, not a theory. These 7 intelligences must be demonstrated to not correlate with each other, and so far it is shown that this is not the case. (IN GENERAL, we see that most people who are high in one of the seven intelligences are also high in the other). In other words, it’s possible and likely that some or all of these 7 intelligences are connected.</p>
<p>I don’t really think that it is. I’ve been tested a few times (in elem. school), and my IQ doesn’t match the formula you stated.</p>
<p>Yeah, let’s get the facts straight. IQ and SAT are correlated, and therefore, you can make a conversion, but that conversion is very unreliable because the SAT today and IQ are not correlated to a great extent. Even a strict logic based IQ test wouldn’t capture the full spectrum of intelligence. But intelligence itself exists.</p>