Characteristics Of Different IQ Types

[hiphopo...@yahoo.com]

I wonder what the difference is between different IQ types. For
example, what IQ or fluid intelligence IQ do blind folded chess
players typically have? What is the difference in terms of ability
between a 100 IQ and a 110 IQ? Is there more of a difference between
110 and 120 than between 100 and 110? Does anyone have an opinion on
this? I'd love to see someone describe the types starting from 80 or
100 to at least 160 in ten point increments- 100 can follow most
directions easily, applies logic to immediate problems. 160
photographic memory, highly advanced visualization

[Jelani Sims]

you're putting far to much value into an iq score. There are no points at which you suddenly gain magical abilities. Greatness is far more than "IQ".

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

[jotaro]

maybe you suffer from alot of biases.

i dont know since there is so little people of higher iq, the higher it is the less one will be able to describe it to you

what should person of iq of 100 or 130 know about a person of 160?

if he knows that much maybe he should have 160 iq  as well.

anyway thats alot of nice questions, but did you ever consider iq might be false? 

[RH W]

I don't think the single number really means anything specific, not even if you know exactly what sub-tests were run, and whether the number was obtained from something like the RAPM, which essentially is a different kind of test.

In some cases, questions on IQ tests are there simply because when the test was normed, a particular answer resulted in a higher correlation with academic success (as I understand it), and is therefore regarded as the 'correct' answer (whether it is 'strictly' correct, or not). This has nothing to do with the reality of mental processes.

Your understanding of the meaning of the IQ number seems rather like what I understood it to be in 1970, when I worshiped at the altar of IQ, wished I could have been at Akademgorodok, where the most IQish children in the USSR had gone to study. 

I have found that the ability to solve a large number of relatively simple questions in a short time (which many IQ tests more or less test for) bears little relationship to the ability to handle a large, complex, deep problem over a period of months or years. Of course, this _can't_ be tested for in a short session, and so simply isn't. The IQ number is meant to be a proxy measure for the ability to do this, and it clearly fails - viz. Mensa and the preoccupation with tricky trivialities.

In any case, these days it's not so simple... maybe you can squint a bit and say that a bigger number sort of predicts academic success. It definitely isn't an indicator of specific abilities that have cut-off points.

I'd meant to stop here, however I should point to Nobel Prize winner Richard Feynman, who, perhaps through lack of interest or preparation for the content some subtests, scored 124. His abilities were apparently not measured by the test, and he was clearly a genius in the sense that his results in Physics were undeniably super-human. 

He was a dominantly visual thinker who formulated the complex symbolism of mathematical physics in terms of visual representations, and was able to derive results in Quantum Field Theory (using his invention 'Feynman Diagrams') without resorting to normal mathematical script. In truth, it seems that he only needed the normal way of writing mathematics in order to communicate to others. There is a video on YouTube in which he floundered as he tried to explain in words how his visual thinking process worked.