Can;t post the pic, but heres a Link of an IQ bell curve. < 2% of people should show above 130. This boards a right collection of genius!!
Can;t post the pic, but heres a Link of an IQ bell curve. < 2% of people should show above 130. This boards a right collection of genius!!
Yay! 18! Iz be happy nou. W00t! Bonus 4th level spell, here I come.
This boards a right collection of genius!!
A given. Except for that madarchmage69. His grunting opinions conjured images of a slobber-slick chin pumping up and down as if chewing cud with each attempt to crank out a syllable. I'm so glad Jacobs had him banned for being to stupid to Paizo.
Look back over his offensively dull posts. His "Your search didn't match any items" thread almost made me quit this forum.
|
Can;t post the pic, but heres a Link of an IQ bell curve. < 2% of people should show above 130. This boards a right collection of genius!!Yay! 18! Iz be happy nou. W00t! Bonus 4th level spell, here I come.
Double true.
|
|
This boards a right collection of genius!!A given. Except for that madarchmage69. His grunting opinions conjured images of a slobber-slick chin pumping up and down as if chewing cud with each attempt to crank out a syllable. I'm so glad Jacobs had him banned for being to stupid to Paizo.
Look back over his offensively dull posts. His thread "Your search didn't match any items" almost made me quit this forum.
Huh?
Huh?This boards a right collection of genius!!A given. Except for that madarchmage69. His grunting opinions conjured images of a slobber-slick chin pumping up and down as if chewing cud with each attempt to crank out a syllable. I'm so glad Jacobs had him banned for being to stupid to Paizo.
Look back over his offensively dull posts. His "Your search didn't match any items" thread almost made me quit this forum.
Go ahead... search his name under the messageboard category and you'll see what I mean.
Aw, crap.
As soon as I posted his name, obviously the "Your search did not match..." clearly wasn't going to show.
Getting on the little bus now. Thanks. 'twas a fumbling and botched hoax in a thread about intelligence. lol
Did you ever notice that if you sit in the sun long enough staring at a grape, and think raisin... raaaisin to yourself you can actually make a raisin appear? Is that not genius? I think I may be psionic.
You're something alright ;)
I just did it with a plum! It's like... a giant raisin!
My powers are strengthening.
Can;t post the pic, but heres a Link of an IQ bell curve. < 2% of people should show above 130. This boards a right collection of genius!!
Hmm, that's different from what I have seen. I believe Mensa uses the bell curve with standard deviation 24 instead of 15, so limit for the highest 2% is 148.
|
|
Ok, so I haven't taken an "real" IQ test since I was addmitted into the gifted ed program in third grade. I scored a 152. 160 was supposed to be geinus level. The scale may have been reworked since then. Also, the reason we learn algebra in high school is because it trains us in problem solving skills. So someone who has taken algebra will score higher on the test because they have been practicing their critical thinking skills.
While IQ tests do not test education, there've been peer-reviewed studies that indicate that IQ <i>does</i> rise with education. My suspicion is that formal education increases your ability to process information in a wide variety of ways. Also, note that IQ tests are population-based, not objective, and that they have been regularly renormed since they were first created, which has had some odd effects: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/10/031020053951.htm
There is something of a feedback loop. Your going to do a lot better on an IQ test if you have a background that has taught you to solve the sorts of problems that an individual IQ test tries to test.
Another example of the feedback loop is the Flynn Effect. Scores on IQ tests are constantly rising. Every so often the tests are rejigged so that the average person tests at 100 but its a perplexing issue - some how we keep teaching our children to do better at IQ tests every generation. My opinion is that TV is the media being used to cause IQ scores to rise from generation to generation. The more TVs (up to a point) a society has the higher its IQ.
...some how we keep teaching our children to do better at IQ tests every generation. My opinion is that TV is the media being used to cause IQ scores to rise from generation to generation. The more TVs (up to a point) a society has the higher its IQ.
Not to mention access to the internet.
Ultradan
Coincidentally (maybe?), by my math (which could be wrong)
Your math is off. There are 216 possible combimations (6*6*6) instead of 256.
Of these, 20 combinations are 15+:
666, 665, 656, 566, 664, 646, 466, 663, 636, 366, 655, 565, 556, 654, 645, 564, 546, 465, 456, 555.
So chance of rolling 15+ is 20/216= 9,2%, which, if we are using standard deviation of 15 is well below IQ 130.
If we are using standard deviation of 24, INT 15 would be quite close to 130 (~16% of population would have IQ 124+ in this case).
Those who tell us their IQs, could you also tell what curve is the IQ on? As both of those standard deviations seem to be in use and thus they give different results...
Ahhhrrr!
Tuh meny numbrs. Phil smash shiny box!
Heh, when I was studying for my statistics exam I did some D&D-related probabability calculations for practice...and crunching bell curves, deviations, error estimations etc. is everyday work :)
Those who tell us their IQs, could you also tell what curve is the IQ on? As both of those standard deviations seem to be in use and thus they give different results...
Mine was on a 15 point standard deviation. It was a 159, professionally administered (i.e. not an Internet blog meme).
Looking at a bell curve, for a 15 point scale an IQ of about 140 equals an 18.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/8/8c/Standard_deviation_diag ram.svg/350px-Standard_deviation_diagram.svg.png
I reserve the right to be wrong on the math since I haven't done anything more mathematical than balance my checkbook in ten years, unless you start talking geometry-- which is not of particular use here. :)
If you want something with language, though, I'm your man. :)
Another example of the feedback loop is the Flynn Effect. Scores on IQ tests are constantly rising. Every so often the tests are rejigged so that the average person tests at 100 but its a perplexing issue - some how we keep teaching our children to do better at IQ tests every generation. My opinion is that TV is the media being used to cause IQ scores to rise from generation to generation. The more TVs (up to a point) a society has the higher its IQ.
I see this as possibly from a different perspective. If there are the same number of highly intelligent individuals but the average intelligent person is scoring lower then the high scores will invariably increase. One may be as intelligent as his father but score higher.
IQ score withheld because last testing was 20 years ago.
Those who tell us their IQs, could you also tell what curve is the IQ on? As both of those standard deviations seem to be in use and thus they give different results...
This is an fascinating thread, I have always wanted to study those who have a compulsion to confess their IQs but lack the medical training to cut off the top of their skulls and go fishing in their goo. (Come here Shiny, Fate, look at this nice puzzle that uncle Kruel brought for you)
Now, thanks to you Magdalena, I shall now have a much less humorous but more intimidating reply for them.
Ok, I'll still have to brush up on my stats... I took calculus in High School, but I must confess that I studied on the great altar of Calculus Test for rather shallow reasons, and when Calculus Test rewarded me for my grovelling I quickly changed my allegiance to the next god who happened my way, quickly forgetting the dogma of the great Calculus.
What I remember more about that class were the other students. I went to an International Baccalaureate High School, and a few of my classmates had staggering IQs... and I suppose they probably made a big mess of any attempt at quantifying their intellects--because they nailed every question on every math test they wrote while I knew them. (I hear that IQ tests also suffer the problem of being less accurate for exceedingly intelligent or stupid individuals.)
Yet... (finally getting to the point here) I couldn't help observing that these mega-geniuses were, quite frequently, morons when it came to making actual decisions.
Low wisdom?
This is the method I have used in the past:
Start with an IQ of 100 being equal to an ability score of 10. Then for each point higher than 10, add 5, then 6, then 7, etc. For each point lower, subtract 5, then 6, then 7, etc.
This seems to give more realistic numbers, creates a bell curve, and accounts for much higher and much lower IQs.
Ability Score: IQ Score
0: <=5
1: 6-19
2: 20-32
etc....
I'm glad I can make these conversions now, it adds so much to my game.
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
I'm glad I can make these conversions now, it adds so much to my game.
It may or it may not. I really just wanted some clarity as how to play a character according to their actual intelligence.
For some reason, IQ scores seem somewhat more....identifiable....than a two (or one) digit Intelligence stat.
The only problem then, and my biggest complaint of IQ tests in general, is when you assign a number that number effectively becomes an artificial "ceiling." As in, now I know that I can do up to "X", but not beyond that. IQ tests by their very nature are limiting and fail to take into account many other collateral factors inherent to a person's personality and their ability to interact with, and adapt to, their environment.
Again, this is all just a very rough guide as to how to actually play a character true to their type. For some, this is all totally unnecessary.
Yet... (finally getting to the point here) I couldn't help observing that these mega-geniuses were, quite frequently, morons when it came to making actual decisions.Low wisdom?
Low wis, also lack of "real world" experience (this was a pre-collegiate academic environemnt, yes?), and lack of maturity, bio-physiologically speaking. Also, I've moticed a tendency to not want to make thw wrong decision, and be seen as wrong (ego), so much so it precludes making any decision.
Me, I grew up po', had to use my imagination cuz we was too broke to afford toys, was outside playing "guns" with sticks and surplus army gear. Had legos and all the construction paper and tape and scissors my mom could afford. I'm not as smart as some, but I'm comfortably above average, and I have killer problem solving skills, due to constantly trying to build stuff as a kid. I know some of my decisions will be bad ones, but I've learned from the ones I made and have learned to make the best of any situation. there's "gee whiz" academic intelligence, and applied intelligence. One is often strictly genetic, the other has to be learned.
IQ tests by their very nature are limiting and fail to take into account many other collateral factors...
.... Again, this is all just a very rough guide as to how to actually play a character true to their type. For some, this is all totally unnecessary.
Exactly. Have fun.
;)
And when I wrote "Low Wisdom?"... rhetorical question, Ender.
Wisdom at its most basic is the ability to use the knowledge we have--you know, good sense, is that not so? Life experience and applying it to your current decisions.
As for my geek friends, yes, IB is pre-college.
Replying to my rhetorical question, you did make a really good point. Guys who ace math in high school lack experience for obvious reasons. Growing up poor teaches important lessons, as you know, and they didn't... (forgive what is likely a cliche for you). Also, when you observed that there is a right collection of genius in here. Probably are more than the ordinary, but....
I find IQ tests misleading. I find my own to be dubious and am tempted to tell my IQ test stories... nah. I found out why they are misleading after I studied assessment: they don't do much other than pidgeon-hole people, give them a sense of confidence (sometimes false), or erode what confidence they have. Oh, how people love them.... Oh, how woefully inaccurate and misused they are.
And Ender, where you get the name (Ender's Game), very cool book. Awesome name. I love wargames and strategy. Now that is my kind of IQ test.
Wait, there's a book with my name?!?!?!?
j/k ;) However that book and others in the Enderverse have been a huge inspiration for me, but mostly because of Peter Wiggin and Bean. Not so much for tactics, but instead for grand startegy andpolitcs, the how and why's of going to war, not the actual waging of it. Much more instructive.
I love rhetorical questions that spawn whole new discussions :)
I suggest looking at your old second edition books (particularly the Monster Manual). They pretty much included a massive scale of intelligence, with 17-18 being considered a certifiable, Einstein/Steven Hawking level genius.
...Had legos and all the construction paper and tape and scissors my mom could afford. I'm not as smart as some, but I'm comfortably above average, and I have killer problem solving skills, due to constantly trying to build stuff as a kid.
I can identify with that... Also comming from a poor family, I use to make my own toys when I was a kid. Cutting out carboard boxes, scraps of wood, good ol' Elmer glue, peices of wire, popcicle sticks, legos, tinker toys, construction paper, tons of crayons and pencils... and a little imagination. If you can name it, I've probably made something with it.
Ultradan
I suggest looking at your old second edition books (particularly the Monster Manual). They pretty much included a massive scale of intelligence, with 17-18 being considered a certifiable, Einstein/Steven Hawking level genius.
That's what I'd always imagined as well. If it's a racial maximum, then we'd use our most brilliant humans as the standard. If a 140 IQ could even possibly be construed as 18 INT, then what are the greatest minds the world has ever known? Over the racial maximum based on a touched by the gods element?
I don't see the distance beteen a 14 and a 15 INT as having the same IQ score value as say, 17 and 18. I'd guess that the distance between INT scores (expressed as a number of IQ points) would likely decrease as it moves away, toward dumber and smarter, from the racial average INT; although perhaps not in equal measure. It must be easier to find fence-chewing muttonheads than Hawkingses, Einsteins, and da Vincis.
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
What is this "racial maximum" of which you speak? In D&D, without magic of any sort, a human can get to an INT of 26 before reaching epic levels. Is that the maximum you mean?
I think he means the 'highest a stat can be at 1st level using conventional character creation guidelines.'
What is this "racial maximum" of which you speak? In D&D, without magic of any sort, a human can get to an INT of 26 before reaching epic levels. Is that the maximum you mean?
Good catch, Doug. Yes, thank you Fate, I meant at first level. Clearly these men got wiser as they aged (and gained levels, I suppose), but they were always +6 sharp. I'd say they clearly started with an 18 INT and gained 19 upon reaching fourth level.
Another example of the feedback loop is the Flynn Effect. Scores on IQ tests are constantly rising. Every so often the tests are rejigged so that the average person tests at 100 but its a perplexing issue - some how we keep teaching our children to do better at IQ tests every generation. My opinion is that TV is the media being used to cause IQ scores to rise from generation to generation. The more TVs (up to a point) a society has the higher its IQ.I see this as possibly from a different perspective. If there are the same number of highly intelligent individuals but the average intelligent person is scoring lower then the high scores will invariably increase. One may be as intelligent as his father but score higher.
IQ score withheld because last testing was 20 years ago.
That would not cause the average on the scores to rise. If most people where scoring more poorly but the really good scorers stayed the same the average would drop not rise.
Now one could see how the average could rise if most people scored the same but there happened to be a significant increase in the number of really smart people. Alternatively one could see how the mean could go up if really smart people suddenly started scoring significantly better but everyone else stayed the same. However these sorts of effects would be obvious - you would not have a bell curve any more for example. In any case that is not what happens.
IIRC, the rise in IQ scores was a correlation to the the rise in general literacy and education, and is applicable only in developed countries like the US and western Europe. Better medical care and nutrition also have had an effect. Which is why the test is re-normed every few years so that the Avg score ~ 100 or so.
I find IQ tests misleading. I find my own to be dubious and am tempted to tell my IQ test stories... nah. I found out why they are misleading after I studied assessment: they don't do much other than pidgeon-hole people, give them a sense of confidence (sometimes false), or erode what confidence they have. Oh, how people love them.... Oh, how woefully inaccurate and misused they are.
Likewise, I don't have much faith in IQ tests...you can easily have difference of ten points by boosting up on caffeine etc...and those cultural bias I mentioned above are also to be considered and effect of education.
In one psychology book there was an IQ test, verbal portion, written in Ebonic...I think I got one question out of ten from that :)I haven't done any official IQ test, I have pretty good idea what I would score in one and I am satisfied with that. And indeed I too know some people who manage to be really intelligent and really stupid at the same time (Asperger or something might be cause on some of them).
The more TVs (up to a point) a society has the higher its IQ.
Yep, and the fewer pirates, the higher the global mean surface temperature. The church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster taught me that!
Likewise, I don't have much faith in IQ tests...you can easily have difference of ten points by boosting up on caffeine etc...
Or, in my case, 30 points (before/after morning coffee).
I gain 65 points as soon as the morning wood abates. I lose it again at senseless intervals throughout the day.
I've been a test subject in more than a few education and IQ researches which may be because I have a parent who was a University professor.
The last official IQ test I ever took was ended early by the researcher/proctor because I was conscientiously trying to get all of the questions wrong. Being unable to get them all right, I decided (quite correctly) that having a crack at the opposite would inspire me. What a pity I never got to finish.
After that my urge to subvert research was limited to signing up for undergrad psych projects in my free time.
The more TVs (up to a point) a society has the higher its IQ.Yep, and the fewer pirates, the higher the global mean surface temperature. The church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster taught me that!
I'm of the opinion there is more then simply a casual positive corrolation. Specifically TV is one of the prime ways a culture transmits its values to its members. IQ and the things that IQ tests test are of great importance to the culture as a whole. Hence exposure to TV transmits to the population the kind of information that will help them do better on IQ tests later in life. Programs like Sesame Street essentially act as an introductory course to solving the kinds of problems that an IQ test will test later in life.
|
|
I remember when I was in the fifth grade, the state (NC) wanted to place me in the gifted program (I was a very, very good reader), so they administered the requisite IQ test--and, no, I have no idea what test. The funny thing, I totally failed the first test. No, I mean totally failed, like borderline mentally disabled-failed...so they gave me another test, but I didn't score high enough to enter the AG program...so they gave me another test, which I passed with flying colors. I think that means I did well on a particular type of test...but I'm probably not all that intelligent... nonetheless, I never noticed any significant difference between me and anyone else in the program, and the only difference between the participants and the rest of the student body? We enjoyed school, and hated PE.
I remember when I was in the fifth grade, the state (NC) wanted to place me in the gifted program (I was a very, very good reader), so they administered the requisite IQ test--and, no, I have no idea what test. The funny thing, I totally failed the first test. No, I mean totally failed, like borderline mentally disabled-failed...so they gave me another test, but I didn't score high enough to enter the AG program...so they gave me another test, which I passed with flying colors. I think that means I did well on a particular type of test...but I'm probably not all that intelligent... nonetheless, I never noticed any significant difference between me and anyone else in the program, and the only difference between the participants and the rest of the student body? We enjoyed school, and hated PE.
I had something sort of similar. I dropped out of school in grade 9 and went about my life for a decade or so. I then choose to go to University as a mature student and took an IQ test just as I had entered. Did awfully but the bridging program I was with did not actually kick anyone out on the basis of the results they just gave council based on them. In the end the teacher (who was deliberately never made aware of our IQ test scores) would decide who got in based on our performance in the bridging course and I choose to ignore the IQ test and the council (in part because I already had an assignment back and had done very well on that).
In any case I passed the bridging course and soon switched my major to psychology. Well four years later and I'm taking an Education Psychology course which was, essentially, all about IQ tests, how their made, their history, uses and abuses etc. As part of this class every one took a whole battery of IQ tests just so we would understand the different ones and one could check out how they did on the each one and I did quite well on them.
What I found most interesting in this regards was, of course, why I was suddenly doing well on IQ tests when I had done so poorly on one just after entering university. My feeling was that university itself trained me to be a good IQ test taker. To survive with good marks, especially in psychology, I needed to test well and by the end of my first real year of university I had worked out tactics that worked for me in testing situations. Such requirements are simply not normally present outside of school. In particular my life outside of school had worked against me in the first test taking circumstance - what I had been doing had trained me to be slow and methodical because my life could be in danger if I was not right the first time (needless to say your willing to spend half an hour on a two minute task if being wrong can be fatal).
Your right about there being a lot of different kinds of tests some of which one might do a lot better at then others. A lot of them have heavy verbal components which may be a very strong suite for some one. On the other hand one gets something like the Ravens which are a series of tests that involve a pattern with a missing bit and some choices (A. B. C. or D.) of which pattern should be slotted in. Sounds easy and the first few are. However they start to get very, very, obscure and by the end of the test even counter intuitive. So its easy to see how one could easily be very good verbally, lots of word comprehension etc. and lousy at doing patterns and vice versa. Though this fact seems to work at cross purposes with the idea of IQ tests as general measures of some kind of underlying intelligence. In theory one should always do exactly the same on all tests. In practice, at least for some individuals, that is not always the case.