as someone who likes the puzzles of iq tests:
IQ tests are all bullshit.
I was tested as a child, as part of a battery of other tests.
According to that, I'm a genius.
Its obvious its bullshit.
The only difference in high score vs low score on an IQ test Imo is the ability to recognize that one is truly foolish and knows nothing. As I say that I realize that accepting you don't know everything is actually a great way to encourage yourself to learn more hence improving effective intelligence... Maybe its not all Bullshit?
The real part of the test that determines whether or not you’re an idiot
I got 135 once as a kid, and then as an older kid, younger adult, studied up on and learned many of the flaws with IQ testing, one of many being that... you can study for them, and perform better.
That's not supposed to be possible if it is measuring some kind of fundamental, inherent quality about you that cannot meaningfully change.
I think most intelligence tests are flawed to that degree. Memorizing facts is far from true intelligence. For one, they never consider emotional intelligence in the equation. Which to me should be one of the highest standards. Empathy, for example, should be considered in intelligence tests.
My view would be that the abilility to memorize and retain a number of facts is a kind of intelligence, to me the most obvious example would be in say, reading comprehension: If you read a chapter of a fiction novel, but then cannot recall new characters, important actions, etc, thats a problem...
But at the same time, yes, EQ, empathy, emotional intelligence does seem to be another important, multidimensional component to human cognitive abilities... but it is unclear to me how one could really make some kind of metric to truly measure the say, relative capacity for empathy.
Further, if your definition is closer to 'emotional intelligence'... well again, speaking as an autist, this is something that gets wildly misunderstood and mis-assessed by neurotypicals just all the time, in my experience.
I have a great deal of capacity for empathy, I have consistently demonstrated this via action and words throughout my life... but most of the time, neurotypicals will conclude the exact opposite about me, because of a single instance where my tone or expressions or verbiage were slightly 'off' from what they evidently wanted, and then they'll say I was disingenuous, cruel, callous, etc... despite the two of us having had a years long history of me being emotionally available for them, supoortive of them.
If you know of an existing, or have a proposal for some kind of EQ metric/test, I'd be interested in seeing it, ... and again, I agree that in concept, EQ is an important aspect of human cognition... but I am skeptical that any kind of useful metric or test for it could exist, beyond doing like a full psych eval of someone over the course of months.
The whole concept of a metric like this is that it would be objective, intercomparable... and presumably, indicate something that is to at least a significant degree, relatively fixed throughout time.
The nature of emotion seems to me to be diametrically opposed to both of these... people can often be quite emotionally stable as a baseline, but then act erratic after or during a period of significant stress or trauma... or joy and pampering... and many people and cultures have different baselines for what they even view as something like 'emotionally welcoming/understanding.'
I am deficient in IQ and EQ lol. Sucks.
It is actually worse.
it is known that areas which got access to a formal education (schools), would get quickly much better average IQ score than before.
If just visiting school increases your IQ (some measurements suggest 14 points), then it is clearly not a fundamentale quality.
So even without specifically learning for the test, you can learn for the test.
Yeah, haha, the most useful predictive metric for how a person will generally turn out in life, socioeconomically, that I am aware of... is still the zipcode you grew up in.
For any non USAsians, thats the post code, the fairly granular level 'what town/city/neighborhood did you grow up in'.
Whole lotta Nurture against the innate Nature of your genes or whatever.
I did an online one in the early days of the Internet, and scored a 137. I have zero faith it has any accuracy. My buddy also did it and got a 145, I believe his is above mine but still, no faith that the numbers are correct.
IQ tests are deeply and inherently flawed, usually based on the fact that you can both quickly read, understand the intent of the question, and respond with whatever the writer of the test feels is correct in a timely fashion.
And if you don't realize how much of what I just wrote is subjective based on lived experience, and specific parameters about you that have nothing to do with how intelligent you are, then congratulations, you're probably above average.
Yeah a lot of online ones were and still are BS, my parents put me through an actual, go to a place, sit and do a test for multiple hours kind of thing.
I am not sure that they actually needed to, but the explanation they gave me was that it was needed to get into the 'gifted' program in Elementary School...
Always stood out as weird to me, most of the other kids in it never did a whole ass IQ test, they just had really good grades and their parents asked the school nicely... ... ???
EDIT: Also uh, IQs are supposed to be noralized at 100... so... by standard deviations...
If I really am 135, then I'm in roughly the top 2% of the population.
If your friend is really above 145... they'd be in roughly the top tenth of a percent of all humans.
???
I've taken several thoughout my life and as a kid I always got >130. At 14 I did one and got 127 so I did exactly what you described and trained for the parts I hadn't succeeded at. Next test was >130 again. I'm not sure if I got smarter through studying or just better at taking the test though. Especially since the difference between the results is pretty small honestly.
Studying to ace an IQ test shows you’re not debilitatingly mentally challenged, though. I think that’s all the test is really good for.
Good point. Ultimately this leads me to question the existence of some fixed quality of intelligence. People are growing, adapting, and learning through their lives, so a fixed number defining general intelligence is likely a moot concept.
On top of the prior point lies another major issue with any sort of "general intelligence" test: defining "general intelligence". Intelligence comes in many forms: linguistic, logical-mathematical, musical, visual-spatial, bodily-kinesthetic, interpersonal, intrapersonal, naturalistic, existential intelligence, and more. The IQ test does not test all forms of intelligence.
This being said, It is likely impossible to test all forms of intelligence in one test; and even if we could create this test, how would this test handle differently abled people. For example, a completely blind person would fail the visual intelligence portion every time (for obvious reasons).
On top of the prior point lies another major issue with any sort of "general intelligence" test: defining "general intelligence". Intelligence comes in many forms: linguistic, logical-mathematical, musical, visual-spatial, bodily-kinesthetic, interpersonal, intrapersonal, naturalistic, existential intelligence, and more. The IQ test does not test all forms of intelligence.
This, a million times this.
Intelligence is not simply a thing like an INT stat in an rpg game that just generally makes you more cognitively capable and/or knowledgeable with just consistently broad applicability.
Theres a ton of research that's gone into how to actually teach children and people things that suggests... sure, there is to some extent a broad cognitive ability, but there is also a huge multidimensional component, more domain specific element to different levels of aptitude with different kinds of thinking.
...
Like, me, I'm autistic.... innately good at clear cut and logical things, innately terrible at anything approaching fuzzy logic, like socializing.
I had to put a massive amount of effort into learning that... people often don't literally mean what they literally say, how intonation works, how context works in social situations...
... whereas I excelled at learning how to read and write and do math, how to do logic and critical thinking, apply frameworks of thinking across different fields of knowledge, memorize knowledge sets from books or what not.
Kinesis intelligence? Eh, I'd say I'm decent at it naturally, but that's been greatly augmented by 10+ years of Karate, a bit of shooting range practice, learning the basics of a few instruments... but I'm no where near as 'body' or 'dexterity' intelligent as many others I've met.
...
Anyway, yeah, theres a lot of interesting empirical research nowadays that shows different areas of the brain being more or less engaged in certain kinds of activities, and then trying to basically reverse engineer how all that works, but its enormously complicated.
Also: Epigenetics is a thing.
Nature gives you your DNA... but Nurture changes which parts of it are more used, more activated.
Its all enormously more complex than reducing a person down to a single number.
Oh right and the other big one: implicit cultural bias in the IQ tests themselves. I think this is (somewhat?) less of a problem in actual legit IQ tests these days, but for a very, very long time, it was a huge problem that just resulted in basically scientific racism.
...
tl:dr;
anyone who is boasting about their IQ without a gazillion caveats is doing the dunning-krueger thing, overestimating their actual cognitive abilities.
By posting this to boast, it demonstrates that his IQ is much lower as he is unable to read the room.
By taking a paid IQ test he failed the test.
The room is LinkedIn, though, they love this shit
That's QE though right?
As a kid, I got a high score. As an adult, I don't remember what it was. I'm an idiot now
username checks out. I also don't know lol.
Hah, Superior! I'm on Huron level, babie!
Ya, well I'm Huron/Michigan/Georgian Bay!
Well done! I'm still Eerie :/
Hilarious
Name is different. Invalidated.
Could be that Ahmed is just his father's name as Arabs tend to give their kids the middle names of the fathers before them. It can sometimes create very, very, very, VERY long names if the chain isn't broken. Have heard of cases where the man had like 50 middle names. It is kind of crazy.
Of course, that doesn't explain why he would decide to not have his last name on the certificate if it really is his, but this could be an explanation for the name.
