<p>look up how IQ is set up… (that means Google it, not everything is going to be handed to you on a silver plater… you have the resources so USE IT)</p>
<p>if you want the average intelligence to be higher… start with yourself
don’t say silly things like " I want the average IQ of world to be 130"</p>
<p>IQ doesn’t tell you how smart you are, just how smart you are compare to the world. The average IQ will stay at 100 no matter what.</p>
<p>Ha, I don’t know why, but for some reason I thought that post would be a bit more constructive.
Maybe you should stay off of this thread if you think it’s so silly and/or shut up.</p>
<p>i still don’t think you get what IQ is, but wtv, that post was aimed to more to the thread starter and whoever mentioned raising IQ averages
and that post WAS constructive</p>
<p>the IQ average will stay at 100,(remember how was SAT was adjusted a long time ago? IQ is like that, except it is constantly being adjusted to keep the mean at 100) because that’s how IQ was defined. it’s like rolling fair 6-sided die, the average of all the numbers you roll 6 billion times will be 3.5</p>
<p>saying average IQ of the world to 130 is like saying 2800 on SAT Reasoning (SAT has a set full score, IQ has a set mean)</p>
<p>IQ is all relative, people who don’t know how IQ is shouldn’t be talking about increasing average IQ</p>
<p>when i said silly, i meant amusing/funny</p>
<p>I do understand. I realized after you posted and changed it.
Your post was just condescending (as is the one above).</p>
<p>The OP started off with intelligence and then we all ended up discussing IQ as a measurement of it.
Well, all hail rainynightstarz for knowing it all, I guess. We’re not worthy to talk about this issue.</p>
<p>how ironic… isn’t this whole thread being condescending?
basically pitying the “stupid” people in the world?
and saying that they are dragging down the fast paces advances of society?</p>
<p>I know very little, but for the things I do know, I want to stand up for them to be viewed accurately. </p>
<p>(besides, it could be fun to burst out totally random cynical comments after a long day with summer school and SAT practice too see people’s reaction)</p>
<p>Why, did you learn that at summer school?</p>
<p>Wow, everyone left. I guess this thread is over pretty much. </p>
<p>Um, I guess the thread can be taken as condescending.
I’m not really into arguing right now. I was woken up way too early this morning. :(</p>
<p>My original quote:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I NEVER said that an increase in average intelligence would increase average IQ. All I’m saying is that under the CURRENT IQ system, the benchmark IQ of 130 is often considered necessary (by many psychologists - Andreason et al.) for contributing to science (beyond that IQ, IQ doesn’t matter at all - there ARE exceptions since IQ tests are not perfect- but those are exceptions). Again, this point was under the current system. In fact, it was completely independent of my ORIGINAL argument. I was merely citing the measurement of intelligence that is usually used to gauge (by psychologists) whether a person is able to contribute to science or not. Of course people with IQs below 130 will be able to contribute - due to the inherent inaccuracies of IQ tests - but the fact is that the overwhelming majority of people with IQs below 120 under the current system will not be able to contribute science.</p>
<p>Also, 130 is a rough number, it could be 120. Some psychologists cite 120 (Andreason), some cite 130. Simonton’s somewhere on there.</p>
<p>If average intelligence was increased, then perhaps the IQ needed for scientific advancements may decrease to 110.</p>
<p>The fact is - most students barely understand high school science at all (this is demonstrated by the number of students who fail basic high school level science standardized tests - and even at the collegeboard exams - which really aren’t very difficult at all - a lot less conceptually challenging than real scientific problems). And due to this, they’ll never be able to contribute to the sciences. All I’m saying is that the pace of science could be quickened if the average intelligence of the individual can be increased to the point that most of them will be capable of doing science.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Who SAID ANYTHING about increasing average IQ to 130?</p>
<p>My original question was merely an informal question about intelligence. It was completely unrelated to IQ. And besides, a small increase in average intelligence can still mean an increase in scientists (it means an increase of people with an intelligence ABOVE the benchmark needed for scientific research). The benchmark is MEASURED using IQ by psychologists of science like Simonton and Andreason. They DON’T measure that benchmark using any other means, and I’m merely citing the benchmark statistic. Of course the benchmark could change.</p>
<p>“if the average intelligence of the individual can be increased to the point that most of them will be capable of doing science.”</p>
<p>Intelligence - 1.The capacity to acquire and apply knowledge.
Since IQ tests are readjusted every generation mostly due to the average intelligence rising due to better nutrition and nurturing, read about the Flynn Effect. The average intelligence is increased, now why does someone need to be of a certain IQ to advance in science? Your mind has to be a few years ahead of other people your age? It really doesn’t make much sense…
Most people can’t do science because most of them are taught it improperly…look at the school system…they’re still fighting over teaching evolution in some areas…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>IQ tests are defined by means of intelligence.
Intelligence is NOT defined by means of IQ.</p>
<p>IQ is only a vague way to measure intelligence. </p>
<p>I know about the Flynn effect. It does NOT say that intelligence is increasing. It just means that people are getting better at taking IQ tests as the years go by. And actually, the Flynn effect is weakest in the most industrialized countries (such as Britain). Source: Jensen, the g factor</p>
<p>Again, I never even said that I support the IQ construct. All I said was that IQ > 130 was commonly used by psychologists to MEASURE POTENTIAL TO DO SCIENCE. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Then why do some people under poor school systems still do well whereas other students do poorly? One factor is parents. But some of those students also don’t have parents who enforce good study skills. It’s most likely a combination of all of those factors - and indeed, environmental factors may be very significant at this stage due to poor teaching. However, intelligent students at poor schools are good at TEACHING THEMSELVES and are more able than the non-intelligent to TEACH THEMSELVES out of a poor curriculum.</p>
<p>I think many students barely understand high school science is in large part due to the dull and lack of personal help from the teachers. Many students aren’t as stupid as they seem, but with boring classes it’s hard for them to even bother trying to get it. And since many students will not have the opportunity to get personal help from teachers and people learn differently its often hard for a student to “click” with the concepts.
After help several students with math and science, they can all grasp the concepts well after explaining it they way they would understand and answering their uncertainties.
And science is only a small portion of the “world” and knowledge in general, just because someone isn’t great at math or science doesn’t mean the person is stupid. The 2400 scorer from my school is taking one of the lowest math curriculum in my school, but she can beat almost anyone in U.S. history and write great essays.
The pace of science right now is actually fair sufficient, however many aren’t really directly to help the human kind. nuclear bomb, bio weapons…race of arms
while there are many scientists out there that are contributing to the best of human kind, many don’t. There are also private research companies who’s goal would be obviously profit.
furthermore, even if most of people are capable of doing science doesn’t mean
<p>i can tell you, out of the smartest people in my school ( which is pretty smart, we are often #1 in the US for random math competitions and have ISEF people every year) half of them would prefer things like business to science.</p>
<p>besides , smarter people don’t always mean the pace of science would be quicken. Science takes time, whether is research or experiments or just thinking of new ideas, it takes time. There is only so much that time can be shortened.</p>
<p>i am just bored … ignore me if you think my points are illegitimate</p>
<p>and to sunshinyday: i don’t learn that in summer school, i learned it from my ancient AP stats teacher who literally knows EVERYTHING( including people’s names that were neevr introduced to him… its actually kinda scary) . In the morning i have U.S. history class and in the afternoon i volunteered to teach middle schoolers robotics (electronics, mechanics, programming, hands-on projects. etc). it’s great to see little kids having fun while learning how things work, and how to make things work.</p>
<p>and in poor school systems the few that does succeed is base on student’s self motivation and interest and other aspects
but however if you have the same group of people in with better education system, they would all benefit greatly and have higher standardized test scores… i mean thats how they see how good a school is doing.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>On the other hand - truly intelligent students don’t even need good teachers (they would do better under good teachers - but they are sufficiently good at studying by themselves without good teachers). All they need is an element of motivation (by means of deadlines). It is true that dull classes and poor teachers are part of the problem. But you cannot rule out aptitude differences among individuals either. It’s most likely a combination of the two, and we can change what we can try to change (which is the teaching). </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You have a good point there - actually the truth is that most PhDs don’t even go into academia due to the lack of academic positions. Research is constrained due to issues with funding. Does this necessarily mean that more intelligent individuals means more individuals who are effectively performing below capacity? On the other hand - more intelligent/educated individuals are more likely to appreciate the benefits of science and are more likely to push for increased funding in science as they can recognize the benefits that come out of scientific research (now, this is a logical leap - I have no statistics to show that more intelligent/educated individuals are more likely to push for increased scientific funding). But there is clearly not enough funding for science right now (of course a free-market approach could potentially work better - in this case, then more intelligent individuals would mean more scientific advancement - since competition spurs advancement). Private research can result in net increases in output (patents do expire after a period of time). The Humane Genome could have been sequenced faster by Celera than by the nationally-funded Human Genome Project - it took negotiation for them to both finish at the same date. And biomedical research and other forms of research already don’t have enough funding - this is precisely why stem cell research is such a hot topic issue. It’s not prohibited, but people want funding for it, and it’s the funding issues that are holding it back. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The book “Keeping Track: How Schools Structure Inequality” basically explains how the teaching is worse at the lower tracks of the school system. Teachers aren’t as enthusiastic in their teaching, teachers devote more time to discipline rather than to instruction, and copious quantities of time are lost to nothingness. Your example of a 2400 scorer in one of the lowest track math classes is an example of someone who managed to score high on the SAT in spite of her courses. It’s just that she managed to pick up concepts other people did not - and it’s likely that intelligence is to play in that. </p>
<p>Anyways, the question was merely a light-hearted unrealistic question that merely served to capture what people valued better: if they valued (a) their own achievements more or (b) if they valued being in a smarter society more.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes they would do better. Nonetheless, when there are few barriers to the pursuit of education, success then becomes more of a factor of aptitude. David Perkins explains this phenomenon in his “Learnable Intelligence” book - that removing such barriers effectively decreases variance due to environment. If variance due to environment is decreased, then the net variance will also decrease, but then more of the remaining variance will be genetic.</p>
<p>I wish that George Bush was more intelligent.</p>
<p>I don’t think this would help at all. My IQ is 135, I don’t work hard, or study hard or do anything great. </p>
<p>IQ is not an asset it’s more of a curse, people expect more out of you, but when you can’t give it to them it causes frustration.</p>
<p>In fact, I had a terrible GPA in High School (2.4). But that was because I didn’t care… Which brings be to my next point, which is some “smart” people don’t like to work hard. </p>
<p>IQ will not help you work harder or become a better person. The real people who are making the advances are the ones who work hard every day at jobs they HATE.</p>
<p>IQ is next to useless compared to drive.</p>
<p>I hate it when people confuse intelligence with IQ.</p>
<p>I wish that I didn’t mention IQ in that post above.</p>
<p>Intelligence + Drive are both important. Intelligence alone gets you nowhere. Drive alone gets you nowhere. You need both.</p>
<p>this “debate” thing is fun >.<</p>
<p>truth, “smart” people don’t need great teachers to learn, but they’ll need SOMETHING to learn it from, whether or not it’s a book or the internet or another person. How the concept was explained to them, matters a lot on how well they’ll grasp it. But of course there are going to people that get it a bit slower. But if the teaching is really at its highest, more people will be able to succeed and be more knowledgeable ( my Chem AP teacher this year… well she doesn’t have any degree in chem, so we basically had to figure everything out ourselves since she kept telling us the wrong answer, which means i probably failed the AP test or something since i skipped chem honors, and really didn’t have any real chem teacher haha i’ll find out July 1st bascially the only ones that got the A in the class were the smart ones and the hardworking ones)</p>
<p>I am sure more science funding can do great things but there are so many other things that needs the money. I mean, I really love science and math( i am soo Asian) but there are other things that needs the money more. For one if we want the average human to be smarter to be able to not only appreciate but also be consumer of new technology(while would promote more economy and money flow to tech), we must increase the literacy rate! soo many place in the world don’t have school systems and i bet there are many smart people from there what just never had the opportunity to fully use their intelligence. Even less people will be able to study in college and etc.</p>
<p>woot!! genetics ( got dad’s for math and physics and mom’s for last minute cramming! no language skill for me… T_T booohoo, guess who is failing SAT 1)… natural selection will take its toll over the years =P
so the world will and is getting smarter. However, i would say its really hard to separate ones environment from ones intelligence for its often our experiences and encounters that makes us learn and understand and see things a specific way. One must use his intelligence to benefit the society, but i see that many people are just too lazy to use their brain. </p>
<p>but being selfish, i like the world the way it is now (except Bush) unless i get smarter more than other people so maybe i can actually make USAMO once instead of just making AIME like 5 times… grr or maybe i should get off my butt and do some math problems</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The thing is - even the best teachers cannot expect AP success rates at 100%. Most of the time, AP success rates are lower than that - and the teachers cannot necessarily be blamed for this. The highest AP success rates are found in schools where students are already pre-selected for ability (on Stanford EPGY’s initial online AP Calculus course, for example, all got 5’s).
Source: <a href=“http://epgy.stanford.edu/overview/history.html?proto[/url]”>http://epgy.stanford.edu/overview/history.html?proto</a></p>
<p>Of course the problem is that it’s not just intelligence and teaching - but it’s also the students amount of resources (this is also why the achievement gap tends to widen with age - because students who are better off continue to get resources from their head start in school). It’s a sort of positive feedback</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes that’s true - more people in the world literate = more people who could potentially contribute to science (from other countries), with their own independent funding agencies and research goals. But more money does not necessarily equate with better educational outcomes. The U.S. has a very high per capita educational spending rate relative to other countries (<a href=“http://www.pbs.org/newshour/backgrounders/school_funding.html[/url]”>The global fight against deadly brain-eating amoeba is gaining ground | PBS NewsHour) but its educational outcomes are still not particularly good compared to other countries. Why is that? One reason could be its hetereogeneous population. But more money does not necessarily equate with better outcomes - the methods that are used to teach are already quite inefficient.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>lol, I’m pretty fine the way it is now as well. But I’m scared of death and want to see the potential of biomedical research in prolonging my lifespan.</p>