The best way to gauge someone's intellectual range if you only have 2 minutes to spend with him or her?

[Payman Saghafi]

My intent isn't to turn people into guinea pigs, but I've been thinking about this today.  (I realize that this may not be a realistic endeavor.)

If you wanted to gauge someone's approximate IQ or intellectual RANGE as accurately as possible, and you were only allowed to spend a couple of minutes with the person, what would you do?

1)  Asking a person to define a few vocabulary words is an obvious choice, but some people with high IQs may have relatively poor vocabularies for various reasons.

2)  Giving someone a working memory challenge is a horrible choice.  I have seen far too many people with high IQs who do not have good working memories and far too many people with good working memories who have modest IQs.

3) Asking someone to express an opinion on a complex topic of their choice is a possibility.  For example, the person might explain why he or she thinks it is important to explore life on other planets. You could then evaluate the person's response for complexity and depth.  Of course, the problem here is that your judgement of the person is pretty subjective, and this would only be effective in identifying moderately high IQ.

What do you think?

_______________________________________________________________________________
Payman Saghafi
http://www.gkacademy.org

125 high quality GRE practice questions:  http://www.gkacademy.org/gre-text-completions/

[Michael]

Without further suggestion, #3 is the best candidate in that it would seem to rely on both #1 and #2 and thus simultaneously be at least an indirect assessment of both. To engage individuals to explore the depth of their interest here, an inquisitive rather than investigative questioning approach should provoke such, if they're comfortable communicators, at least on the issue. People that aim for tactfulness will probably keep their answers short, this is why a bit of a nudge might be necessary so you can  alert the the person of your interest and thus, hint to them that its OK to rub out the possibility that they might be stepping on rude broken glass if they openly divulge their personalized encyclopedia for you. Also, the topic of interest might also serve as a good indicator, but obviously some bias can move into the 'possibility room' here.

[Payman Saghafi]

Good response.  My only concern with #3 is that sometimes "interviews" are very ineffective measures of job performance or IQ.  Of course, this is probably because
factors such as attractiveness, sociability, humor, and previous experience all come into play when someone is judged during a job interview.

___________________________________________________________________________
Payman Saghafi
http://www.gkacademy.org

[Brandon Woodson]

From the above choices, I'd also go with number three; but in my opinion, there is a much better indicator that is more easily employed and more inconspicuous than the above - humor!

It's something I intuitively picked up as a young child that I could approximate someone's intelligence through humor. I did not come by this intentionally but eventually learned that, while not necessarily eliciting laughter, humor often prompted some sort of response from more intelligent people (as opposed to the "deer-in-headlights" look). Also, the more sophisticated and subtle the humor was, the fewer number of people in an audience that even recognized the presence of humor at all.

An example: I was out of town, participating in a training exercise with the Navy. There were hundreds of reserve sailors involved as well. Small talk was inevitable, and I could not refuse to socialize since we were working 12-18 hour days and bunking together in barracks during liberty (Navy jargon for off-time). I would not make certain jokes or discuss certain topics because I find that high intelligence is often intimidating and off-putting to others, even sometimes to close friends and family; the point of socializing isn't to become ostracized, so I am always cautious to "tone it down". Over the course of several weeks though, it is impossible completely conceal your personality (I am not a good actor.), and when I did find humor in things that most others didn't (and it was obvious to others that I did), I noticed that two of the sailors out of the large bunch did as well. Easing into more sophisticated humor, I found that these two sailor themselves possessed an excellent sense of humor and understood most of the things that I found funny, and others didn't, which sometimes included otherwise unreceived unintentional humor on the part of others or humor regarding a particular situation. Through casual conversation, I later learned (toward the end of the exercise) that the first of these sailors home-schooled himself and graduated high school a few years early and the second was a rather intelligent master's degree student. 

Sense of humor isn't something that can be faked or feigned. And of course, I'm not talking humor using obscure words or references that average person won't understand, but humor presented in such a way that almost anyone CAN understand. Humor is systematic; and though most people (including myself) haven't actually studied humor as a science (unless they are into performing arts or comedy), humor is something nearly everyone, to various degrees, "gets" intuitively. In fact, Chris Langan published a rather (purposefully) enigmatic joke in some online locale that hardly anyone understood to prove the point that people can't understand beyond their own intellectual capabilities regardless of education (in defense of those criticizing his CTMU theory). And while I wouldn't go nearly so far as make a test of jokes, so to speak, I do find it pretty reliable in real world applications.

-Brandon

[Payman Saghafi]

Brandon, do you happen to have a link to Christopher Langan's joke?   I'd like to check it out.

Regards,

Payman

___________________________________________________________________________________________________
Payman Saghafi
www.gkacademy.org

[whoisbambam]

vocabulary.

sure, it isn't perfect.

but it WILL find many WITH a high iq...and the ones with low vocab
ability will not be identified.

not difficult to implement and less subjective than a complex choice
opinion--and i think this method has its own flaws anyway (complex
opinion)....possibly more than the vocab test and more difficult to
implement and score a rough IQ value with

[Brandon Woodson]

Sorry - it has been years since I read it, and for the life of me, I can't remember where the joke was posted! If I recall correctly, I encountered the joke while reading through some of his work; but as many of the posters here might know, there are articles regarding Chris Langan (and his pseudonymous partner, "Eric Hart"), and their(?) work abroad in various Internet sites and forums (including one blog where a heated discussion between Langan and critics of the CTMU takes place; http://scientopia.org/blogs/goodmath/2011/02/11/another-crank-comes-to-visit-the-cognitive-theoretic-model-of-the-universe/ ), so I couldn't tell you where to begin searching. 

-Brandon

[☉]

It may seem rather draconian to some, but I'd have to agree that
vocabulary is the fastest and surest way to know that one is
*definitely* dealing with an individual with effective intelligence,
which isn't the same as having identified someone who *isn't
intelligent* in some other sense, as in fluid ability.

While some persons with low fluid ability can nevertheless have a
strong verbal ability, I've often found that they betray even this
lack of fluid reasoning ability within the span of 2 to 10 minutes of
their conversing on something. The words they tend to pick elicit
their level of comprehension in this regard, even if the specific
vocabulary they use indicates high intelligence w.r.t. vocabulary.
Most notably, their reasoning is sparse, and they often seem to be
relating a wealth of seemingly disjoint and unrelated details and
trivia.

In other words, vocabulary qua communicative ability is the easiest
means to do this in the shortest span of time.

It isn't perfect for all possible scenarios, e.g., certain aspergoid
types or those who think in deviant patterns (they may have a high-
level vocabulary notwithstanding) will not be favored in this
situation, but perfection shouldn't be an object since it is
impossible to achieve.

Writing, I think, would be the best (since speech brings with it
certain barriers even highly intelligent persons may have difficulty
overcoming to varying degrees), but since you've posed the problem in
terms of rapid assessment, conversation would be the optimal
scenario involved.

argumzio

[Michael]

So #3 argumzio.

;)

"You know, I'd like to buy milk today."

"That's $4 thanks."

"But I'm buying coffee not milk!"

"No, your buying both."

[☉]

Not exactly. More 1 than 3. It is what it is and it ain't but it do.

The problem with 3 is that it is unnatural to ask a question out of
the blue for a 2min evaluation w.r.t. one's intellectual aptitude on a
"complex topic" which might indeed be more complex than 2 minutes
would allow to be stated in its full complexity, so to speak.
Then again, I've often condensed complex ideas into a few words - the
result of this is I wouldn't be understood, however. Overall,
vocabulary is the best choice, especially when one considers actual
research conducted on this.

On that note, one could consider several sets of 5 vocab words of
specific difficulties to gauge the intelligence of someone within 2
minutes on various occasions. If one takes into account the background
of the person in question, it would also be easier to see that their
intelligence may indeed be greater than might be expected, i.e., a
person might know some specific technical terms in an industry in
which they do not have a particular background.

Pure speculation, of course.

argumzio

[Paul H]

A related method is to start a pun-battle with someone. If he's not a donkey, it will really demonstrate his brayin'.

-Brandon

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Dual N-Back, Brain Training & Intelligence" group.
To post to this group, send email to brain-t...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to brain-trainin...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/brain-training?hl=en.
 
 

[Michael]

My first post was addressing the general, you didn't mention 'interview' or otherwise, 'formal assessment'.

Brandon, I agrew with you, let's grow together! Agree is to grow, oh the sheep!

To add:

"For example, the person might explain why he or she thinks it is important to explore life on other planets."

I think following this rail of thought is the *most* right train to catch, however I would further this intention to the evermore ridiculous.

For instance,

"Imagine aliens from outer-space (not illegal one's) have decided to visit Earth. Why and what do they plan to do here?"

Further down the "black hole" of novel experiences (does not rely on past knowledge, e,g,, concerning blockbuster movies that amusingly tackle the above question),

"Imagine that _x_ persons house could talk and it had a personality. What would it say? What kind personality does it have?"

And so on with the redicul(oh, I would never!)ous.

Sure, one could argue that this also tests other abilities, i.e. the wizardry of divergent thinking, nevertheless it tests the questioned and one might argue that waving your wand around and doing a sHeZAM comes in use now and then, especially when your trying to escape from a rhetorical glass box with only a smug look and a turn (don't patronize me!), wouldn't you say?

2 minutes, indeed puts the above in shackles of "just don't think we'll shovel away this wizard blood today, poor guy didn't stand a chance against the time master". Shezam! So if you're to stick with this time machine setting (let's go back in time to Brandon's post), I think the comprehension of (new) jokes is the least fallible of what we've discussed to this clock hand -->.

Michael

[☉]

No, humo(u)r is so culture specific it hardly merits serious
consideration.

Besides, who preferred *wit* to *humor* as the spark of true
intelligence? And what are the specific criteria of humor, anyway?
It's in a research class of its own, let alone would it permit a clear
connection to a rapid 2minute analysis of someone's capabilities.

On that note, I've often seen some very self-assumed funny persons
being not terribly funny and some un-assumed funny persons being
infinitely hilarious. What is the irony in this?

After all, the evaluator could have the worst "sense of humor" sensu
sense.

Monsieur argumzio

[Michael]

I'm humoro-us(let 'us' be friends?). But, I do agrew with you, it seems that all my enthusiasm provided was irony.

[Brandon Woodson]

I don't know... Jim Diamond and Paul Cooijman seem to think so (i.e., humo[u]r is a very telling sign of intelligence); so if it good enough for them, it's good enough for me!

http://www.megagenius.com/characteristics-of-intelligence

http://www.paulcooijmans.com/interviews/int_jonah.html

"No, humo(u)r is so culture specific it hardly merits serious 
consideration."

But not vocabulary, huh? Excuse me, Mr. Pot - as requested, I'll go summon Kettle.

"On that note, I've often seen some very self-assumed funny persons 
being not terribly funny and some un-assumed funny persons being 
infinitely hilarious. What is the irony in this?

After all, the evaluator could have the worst "sense of humor" sensu 
sense."

Oh, I see the irony now: The second paragraph refers to the first and vice versa, i.e., as a set, they are self-referential. xD

On a more "serious" note, being able to *recognize* humor is a trait of the intelligent. If, for example, you can't recognize the absurd contradiction in a joke that is funny by merit of an absurd contradiction, you miss the joke.

There is a reason for the popular Mensa slogan: "We get your jokes."

-Brandon

P.S. Michael, I agrew with you, too. Amirite?

[polar]

I think its an excellent question Payman, but assesing intelligence (factors) is hard enough with complex tests and lot of time, and any attempts to asses it one or two minutes are doomed to have very low rate of success. You could probably determine basic level of education (means iq range with like 15 points resolution), but not too much more. Its like trying to build a version of RAPM speeded to 5% of original time.

That said, I think there is an interesting phenomenon - intelligent people can recognize each other after few minutes of talking. Or to put it in another words, intelligence knows itself, and everybody usually has a notion of how someone compares to him. You cant put it into computer, its complex, partly subconscious assesment of fluency, vocabulary, information, ways of forming opinions on topics, reaction time, focus and many other things. 

Nevertheless (and taking the resolution of 1 SD :), vocabulary could be usable, but in that time limit, I would go for general understanding of world / society, things like "what arguments do you think are relevant in GMO debate", "elaborate on censorship - freedom of speech continuum" or more precise things like "why do you think we pay taxes" and so on. 

Dne středa, 14. listopadu 2012 2:26:06 UTC+1 Payman Saghafi napsal(a):

[Payman Saghafi]

Argumzio, your post makes some sense.

It is hard to feign having a truly solid vocabulary.  As an aside, a person with Williams syndrome may appear to have a decent vocabulary, but this is not the same as a person having a deep, functional, and expressive vocabulary.

______________________________________________
Payman Saghafi
www.gkacademy.org

[Mercel]

Just as a foreign language is meaningless to a person not being able
to speak, so is humor. But what about humor within the circle of the
esoteric, the ability to generate humorous content within a social
group who share the same cultural values? I think you need some mental
flexibility and agility to be witty, but to say it's the epitome of
intelligence is something I find difficult to agree with.

[Mercel]

Isn't 3) merely a slightly different way of expressing what is
understood by domain expertise by the way?

[Payman Saghafi]

Mercel wrote:

Isn't 3) merely a slightly different way of expressing what is
understood by domain expertise by the way?

Yes, Mercel, that is certainly a potential problem with this method.  There are, of course, some things that can be done to minimize this problem such as limiting the scope of topics.  For instance, you could ask the individual to pick between a couple of topics that require reasoning:

1)  In what ways has technology helped society and in what ways has it hurt society?
2)  Do you think people are rational and why or why not?

Obviously, upon asking questions such as these, you would need to push the person to discuss the topics in detail since some people are naturally more garrulous than others.

Granted, there are many flaws with this method.  For instance, a very creative person who has moderately high intelligence (120-130 iq range) might answer the question as well as someone who has extraordinarily high intelligence (160 +) and poor creativity.  This is because the creative person will be willing to come up with unusual answers that make some sense while the extraordinarily intelligent person will scan his or her memory for facts that he or she believes to be solid evidence. 

__________________________________________________________________________________
Payman Saghafi
The GK Academy
www.gkacademy.org

[Michael]

Mentioned something to this effect in my previous post. Like I hinted though, in the grand scheme of things you probably want someone creative, to whatever effect that might be (mostly), but I understand that if someone's intentions are more specific then such a confound might be potentially undesirable. But this undesirability is negligible, because nevertheless, one could argue that similar questions to the 'out of the box' one's I listed above are still most likely going to test capacitites pertaining to fluid reasoning up to a high level (which is already an implication of what you've implicitly stated). Under stricter notions of what is deemed to be intelligent, intelligent persons will ideally always present his/her ideas more soundly, regardless of how "creative" the response happens to be. With this in mind, the testing criteria only needs to consider the 'soundness' of the response based on a *novel* question (as per my suggestions). Your worry seems to be a non-issue with this consideration. We still have that time factor thingy though, that's a doozy.

[☉]

On Wednesday, November 14, 2012 2:35:24 AM UTC-6, Brandon Woodson wrote:

I don't know... Jim Diamond and Paul Cooijman seem to think so (i.e., humo[u]r is a very telling sign of intelligence); so if it good enough for them, it's good enough for me!

So you'll take it on their misplaced authority? Just because they "think" it is characteristic of intelligence doesn't mean it actually is. Did you think even they might be joking? :)
 

http://www.megagenius.com/characteristics-of-intelligence

http://www.paulcooijmans.com/interviews/int_jonah.html

"No, humo(u)r is so culture specific it hardly merits serious 
consideration."

But not vocabulary, huh? Excuse me, Mr. Pot - as requested, I'll go summon Kettle.

Humor is dependent upon vocabulary as well as other factors. And yes, that post was intentionally ironic to emphasize certain points that should have led to further reflection on this - despite cultural specificity, vocabulary has been shown to correlate very strongly with g, that is have strong predictive validity across batteries of tests. If one wants a quick and efficient evaluation, vocabulary would therefore be the best choice.
 

"On that note, I've often seen some very self-assumed funny persons 
being not terribly funny and some un-assumed funny persons being 
infinitely hilarious. What is the irony in this?

After all, the evaluator could have the worst "sense of humor" sensu 
sense."

Oh, I see the irony now: The second paragraph refers to the first and vice versa, i.e., as a set, they are self-referential. xD

On a more "serious" note, being able to *recognize* humor is a trait of the intelligent. If, for example, you can't recognize the absurd contradiction in a joke that is funny by merit of an absurd contradiction, you miss the joke.

Humor is more likely the evolutionary result of humanity not being able to survive in the face of absurdity without being able to laugh at it than it is a sign of intelligence per se. Just because the two co-evolved doesn't necessarily imply that they are strongly correlated. It is similar with the case of anxiety disorders, which served a useful purpose in our evolutionary history.

Ever dealt with highly intelligent people who didn't have a strong sense of humor? Try engineers.

argumzio

[☉]

An opinion without 3.1415926535897932 is only an onion.

argumzio

[Payman Saghafi]

My issue with "humor" is that personality variables are deeply connected with its manifestation. 

Still, I do agree that deep humor will probably not be exhibited by someone who lacks a certain level of intelligence!  It is very difficult to be a brilliant comedian without a requisite level of intellectual ability.

____________________________________________________________________________
Payman Saghafi
The GK Academy
www.gkacademy.org

Taking you to the limit of your intellectual potential

On Wednesday, November 14, 2012 2:35:24 AM UTC-6, Brandon Woodson wrote:

[Payman Saghafi]

Ha!  I like that.  Can't believe I've never seen this one before.

______________________________________________________________
Payman Saghafi
The GK Academy
www.gkacademy.org
Taking you to the limit of your intellectual potential

[Michael]

Definitely no Spock!

And, definitely going to bed, its now past 5am (maybe I'm developing insomnia?).

Michael

[Michael]

Oh and Payman,

There's obviously a difference between humor production and humor comprehension, the latter being more influenced by the construct (personality) in question. Also, I believe it is possible to create culture-fair Spock tests of humor, and, I think culture if not properly controlled for, could pose problems. 

Michael

[Michael]

Addendum:

Latter, no, I mean former. Sleeeep...

[Michael]

Screw it, I'm staying up. The birds, actual one's, are going to keep me up anyway (very sensitive to sounds and lights). Maybe I could use utilize this as an experimental opportunity?

[Payman Saghafi]

"Talk" to me about creativity, brother.

Pay

[Michael]

" Maybe I could use utilize this as an experimental opportunity?"

I think this is evidence in itself. Wow. My beautiful display of literacy skills continues to baffle the mind; unfavorably, might I add.

-"Talk" to me about creativity, brother.-

After I go chat to those lovely birds (no sexual innuendo) outside for a bit (need to walk it off).

Michael

[Brandon Woodson]

Humor is more likely the evolutionary result of humanity not being able to survive in the face of absurdity without being able to laugh at it than it is a sign of intelligence per se. Just because the two co-evolved doesn't necessarily imply that they are strongly correlated. It is similar with the case of anxiety disorders, which served a useful purpose in our evolutionary history.

That is not my point. Humor is systematic, otherwise there would be no comedians and everyone would be randomly (and equally) funny. The ability to *recognize*, in contrast to create, humor means that not only does the person have a firm intuitive grasp of the somewhat trans-cultural rules which govern humor (logical absurdity or physical or psychological pain, for instance), but that they can apply these rules without encouragement, unexpectedly, to novel situations; In other words, you get the joke, so you get how a set of abstract rules (the rules, or system, of humor) applies to a situation. To create humor in addition to merely recognizing it is just a bonus (for divergent thinking).

So you'll take it on their misplaced authority? Just because they "think" it is characteristic of intelligence doesn't mean it actually is. Did you think even they might be joking? :)

Yes! - heck, I meant THAT statement jokingly. It is silly to believe that something is necessarily true because someone with an ultra high I.Q. says so. Absurdity at its finest! The sarcasm in this statement could have only been more obvious if it had a sign pointing to it, explicitly stating that this statement contains sarcasm. ;)

Humor is dependent upon vocabulary as well as other factors. And yes, that post was intentionally ironic to emphasize certain points that should have led to further reflection on this - despite cultural specificity, vocabulary has been shown to correlate very strongly with g, that is have strong predictive validity across batteries of tests. If one wants a quick and efficient evaluation, vocabulary would therefore be the best choice.

I believe the greater irony is that: if cultural specificity was a major problem, wouldn't it pose a similar problem for language (testing), which is equally prone to subjectivity, cultural bias, personality variables, etc.? 

Though, I will admit, initially my intention in that statement was light-hearted mockery, in that if you subjectively assessed the "funniness" of these persons, then perhaps it is you, the evaluator, whom lacks the sense of humor; thus invalidating the first (of the two I referenced in my last post) paragraphs in which you claim that it is others who are deficient in humorous sense, and the resulting point being that it instead serves a reflection of the evaluator, instead of the evaluated (in terms of intelligence, with a lack of humo(u)rous sense implying lower intelligence). Of course, the further implication of the paragraphs acting recursively on each other is equally amusing. (Sincerely, I only meant this jokingly, by the way, as it goes without saying that you obviously highly intelligent.)

Yes, yes - you are preaching to the choir on this one! I don't doubt the research showing the efficiency of linguistic (particularly verbal) ability as a strong and accurate predictor of g. My chief criticism is that one of doubt that linguistic (particularly verbal) ability is a strong and accurate predictor of g, under the given constraints - namely, time. It is reasonable to assume that the testee and tester aren't well enough acquainted to overcome the reservation held by many bright people with regards appearing too intellectual in non-academic, or non-intellectual, or contentious and formal (An example being politics.) settings; many smart people "dumb it down" so as not to become socially outcasted, perceived as a "know-it-all", offend, annoy, etc., etc.

Look at a few Mega member interviews - Langan, Vos Savant, Raniere, Sununu, Rosner - available online and tell me that they use foreign, obscure words that betrays their intelligence while discussing the relatively intellectual topics presented. By these (verbal) standards, only Langan would appear intelligent - albeit considerably less so, comparing the eloquence of conversational verbal fluency to his writing - and they are all undoubtedly smart persons!

An opinion without 3.1415926535897932 is only an onion.

xD Duly noted. It could be as well said that an opinion without an onion is only 3.1415926535897932(...), which, while arguably more appetizing than an onion, is largely considered irrational. :)

-Brandon

[Payman Saghafi]

Brandon Woodson Wrote:

xD Duly noted. It could be as well said that an opinion without an onion is only 3.1415926535897932(...), which, while arguably more appetizing than an onion, is largely considered irrational. :)

You guys are too much.

Pay

[Brandon Woodson]

To be fair, I would like to retract, or rather modify, an earlier statement. Upon taking my own advice and watching a few interviews, I realize that Vos Savant's conversational fluency and verbal ability might indicate that she has above-average intelligence also; but like Langan, it hardly does her true intelligence any justice. I stand by the statement with regard to the other members.

-Brandon

[hippocampus]

On Wednesday, November 14, 2012 7:36:23 AM UTC+1, Michael wrote:

So #3 argumzio.

;)

"You know, I'd like to buy milk today."

"That's $4 thanks."

"But I'm buying coffee not milk!"

"No, your buying both."

Well, I don't get the joke, although I'm very intelligent and besides that it's "you're", not "your".

[Michael]

Are "your" correcting me because "your" don't get it? That's pretty sad. Let it go man, especially considering the message doesn't concern "your" at all.