<font color=plum>This is something I've been pondering recently. IQ scores are supposed to indicate how intelligent a person is, which is also used as an implied indicator of how successful they may be or how good they would be at a given job. But I've found that isn't always the case.

There are many qualities that determine if a person will be "successful" or not, and IQ plays only one part in that equation. Motivation, social skills and personality also play a large part. I have a very good friend who is supposed to have a "genius level" IQ. That may very well be true, but he also has a significant lack of social skills and I've seen similar correlations more than once. In fact, I read an article on MSN a couple of years ago that many CEO's prefer an applicant that did NOT make straight "A's" throughout school. Most students with a perfect 4.0 GPA (grade point average) usually spent a great deal more time studying than other students. That might indicate better discipline, but it often also meant that they had a hard time adapting to situations that weren't "by the book". They studied their books exhaustively, but had a difficult time actually applying the concepts or rules learned to situations that didn't fit "textbook" examples. Conversely, students with lower GPA's were often more "flexible" in their thinking. They also usually spent more time in extra-curricular activities (such as fraternities or sororities or sports) which led to improved social skills and interaction. The article closed by saying that many CEO's preferred an applicant with a more "average" GPA, but with better inter-personal skills.

President Bush has been oft maligned for his grades at Yale (he made mostly "C's" with a few "B's" mixed in), yet he went on to become a certified jet pilot and the head of the C.I.A. Whether you believe or disbelieve the accusations of Bush going A.W.O.L. is irrelevant, the fact that he IS a certified jet pilot is one indication of his actual intelligence - because it takes a someone with good reflexes intelligence and perfect eyesight to operate a plane that sophisticated. The same is true for Al Gore. I think he is a very intelligent man, but his grades in college were only slightly better than Bush's (I haven't looked up Kerry's transcripts). As for his stint at the C.I.A., I'm sure many people beleive he got that job because of WHO he is rather than what he actually knows, but once he got the job, he still had to perform at an acceptable level to KEEP the job.

I have a fairly high IQ (according to the tests anyway ;) ). It isn't "genius level", but I did qualify for Mensa when I was still in high school (based on several sample tests I took). I once thought it would be GREAT to put that on my resume', but when I got into college I learned that listing Mensa on my resume' wouldn't be nearly as impressive to potential employers as I expected it to be - for many of the reasons I've listed above. (BTW - for those that are unfamiliar with Mensa - it is an organization for people with high IQ's).

One other example of whether IQ is an accurate indicator of intelligence and success is this year's theme for "<font color=white>Apprentice</font>". Instead of looking for folks with MBA degrees, Donald Trump and his staff decided to create a theme of "College Smarts" vs "Street Smarts" - with the underlying implication being that lessons learned in real-life situations are JUST as valuable (and sometimes moreso) than lessons learned in the academia setting. In real life, you find out right away whether a particular idea or approach works or not, because it is tested every single day.

So what do you think? Is IQ an accurate indicator of intelligence and future success, or does someone with "Street Smarts" (and a healthy dose of common sense) actually know more about what works in the real world than somebody with a 4-6 year college degree?</font>

Frankly no IMO, it indicates your aptitude for mathematics and seeing logical patterns in stupid shapes. I did one of those tests in high school and did pretty well, but clearly its something that practice and experience can have a very great impact on.

IMO iq gives you a score on how good you are at logical thinking and other things like that, most of the questions in the iq test id did were lateral thinking problems that were quite hard, however ( being a lateral thinker ) i did quite well.
(score was 133)

lol see if anyone can get this question that was in the test....i got this one wrong.

a man is comeing down a mountain, he had almost reached the bottom when he slipped and fell to the top again. how is this possible?

he did not have jet packs.
he was trying to get to the bottom.
no exterior forces were used.

i dont see how questions like these can determine how smart you are, rather how weird you think.

<font color=skyblue>I am glad you brought this up! I just had a test in my Childhood Development (Psychology) class about this. It compared and contrasted our normal perspective of intelligence with another theory.

I make references from the textbook which I do not own, but borrowed from another student.
<font color=lightgreen>
The typical view of what intelligence is:

1. Abstract thinking
2. Problem solving
3. The capacity to acquire knowledge</font>

Compare and Contrast with
<font color=lightpink>
Gardner’s Theory of Multiple Intelligence

1. Bodily-Kinesthetic intelligence
2. Spatial intelligence
3. Linguistic intelligence.
4. Logical-Mathematical intelligence
5. Musical intelligence
6. Intrapersonal intelligence
7. Interpersonal intelligence
8. Naturalist intelligence.
</font>

The rationale for this theory is that it takes into account different cultures all over the world. Every culture has their own rules for intelligence, and this theory better grasps that truth.</font>

[ 03-18-2005, 01:41 PM: Message edited by: Larry_OHF ]

<font face="Verdana" size="3" color="#00FF00">You know it may tell how smart you are but not how wise you are. I deal with so many morons with high IQ's every day it isn't even funny. They often are not considerate of other peoples time and act like they are the only people in the world. Other problem is they are often poor communicators, they send request with no instructions and expect you to be able to read there minds from a poorly written e-mail, as if they are the only request I ever need to deal with. I recently sent a somewhat nasty e-mail at work to one such person, it has been ongoing for some time now and he needed to be put in his place as I am not the only person who has problems with the way he conducts himself, kind of procastinates as well, stalling everybody elses work. I of course cc'd my boss as well. I would go into a detailed rant but I will just say he has very poor project management skills, and is inconsiderate of other peoples time that he deals with. He is a genius otherwise high IQ.</font>

[ 03-18-2005, 01:51 PM: Message edited by: pritchke ]

IQ measures mathemathical logical thinking from what kind of tests I did. Even the word puzzles I got in it could be solved with some logics. So depending on what you think is smart it can measure it. I think just as you do that it doesn't measure how smart you are. Maybe more if you think in a certain way. And you can't solve anything logically.

Intelligence is the ability to adapt to new situations. An IQ test(the European, Polish actually) has no linguistic problems, no history questions and no factual knowledge. The official MENSA test has over 200 questions, and they're devised to be almost impossible to memorize, meaning you can not study for an IQ rest. The American test is a different thing. Rubbish in my oppinion. Too many knowledge questions, not enough reasoning. Intelligence has no effect on one's aptitude for mathematics, chemistry, music, social skills or history.

You are saying that "Street Smarts" an common sense are not intelligence, and that getting college degrees is. It's not. Usually, people who are "street smart" are quite intelligent. Sometimes people who have several degrees and science doctorates have an IQ of under 110. You can't say one is intelligence and the other is not. I don't think culture has anything to do with intelligence. What Gardner's theory sees as intelligence, I see as simple interest into a subject.

You are saying that "Street Smarts" an common sense are not intelligence, and that getting college degrees is. It's not. Usually, people who are "street smart" are quite intelligent. Sometimes people who have several degrees and science doctorates have an IQ of under 110. You can't say one is intelligence and the other is not. I don't think culture has anything to do with intelligence. What Gardner's theory sees as intelligence, I see as simple interest into a subject. </font>[/QUOTE]<font face="Verdana" size="3" color="#00FF00">That is what I call Wisdom and usually improves with age. Intelligence to me is book smarts. There is nothing wrong with having knowledge of the world around you, know and learn as much as you can, but its good to have the common sense to use it as well.</font>

[ 03-18-2005, 02:45 PM: Message edited by: pritchke ]

<font color=skyblue>I remember something about two different kinds of intelligence from another class...Liquid intelligence and Crystalized intelligence. I never understood that to the extent that my professor wanted us to. Anyone know anything about it?</font>

If intelligence is 'booksmarts' then doesn't that stop uneducated people from being intelligent and/or having high IQ?

Yes... something along these lines:
Liquid intelligence is a kind of intelligence that can actually develop with age, and grow with experience. Before the age of 16, our intelligence is approximately 20 % liquid. After that it rapidly degenerates, turning into crystalized intelligence. It is not knowledge. At 30 I think we only have about 1-3% liquid intelligence. It is also claimed to shape, and be shaped by, our tendency to a certain type of know-how(math, music etc).
Crystalized is something that we can not change, our own starting intelligence. It changes a bit, but not much.

One thing I remember from some class or another... the definition of IQ, according to an IQ test, is "what this test measures" -- IOW, there's no good definition of it.

IQ officially is mental age / actual age. IOW, how much do you know, based on how old you actually are.

As someone with a very high IQ, as measured by tests, I can tell you that from my perspective, it doesn't matter. What matters is the ability to "get it", whatever "it" is. To understand and grasp a situation and issue and be able to know what it is and how to handle it.

I think that a number of insecure people use their IQ as a way to isolate themselves from others -- "we don't associate with people like that". I think they're afraid of being upstaged by someone who's "inferior" :D

Me, I don't mind that at all. It happens all the time because, as Styx sang some years ago, "The more that I learn, well, the less that I know".

SCUBA diver climbing down an underwater mountain. Slipped & didn't have enough weight strapped on to keep from rising?

Hmm..would pressure count as an exterior force though?

You are saying that "Street Smarts" an common sense are not intelligence, and that getting college degrees is. It's not. Usually, people who are "street smart" are quite intelligent. Sometimes people who have several degrees and science doctorates have an IQ of under 110. You can't say one is intelligence and the other is not. I don't think culture has anything to do with intelligence. What Gardner's theory sees as intelligence, I see as simple interest into a subject. </font>[/QUOTE]<font color=plum>I agree with you <font color=white>B.O.B.</font>, but our society (at least in America anyway) often equates IQ with intelligence - especially in high school and (to some degree) college.

I have a perfect example of someone who is very smart and knows a trade most people have NO knowledge of, yet he never spent a day in college. Instead, he decided to be an apprentice to the local locksmith. He began working during his junior (or senior) year in high school and eventually bought the business from his mentor when the fellow retired. I have took a double-major in college and also got a two year degree from the local community college, but if I lock myself out of my house, I am S.O.L. until my buddy can show up and pick the lock for me. :D

So, no, I don't believe IQ IS an accurate test of "intelligence" either.

One other quick story I heard a few years ago comparing book knowledge to street smarts. The author of the article told how he took a cab in NY and struck up a conversation with the driver about the day's horse races. He started talking about one of the favorites for the last race that day, but the cabby told him the horse wouldn't even finish in the top 3.
"Why not?" asked the author. "He has excellent breeding, great training and one of the best jockeys available".
"Yeah," said the cabby "but he ain't got no heart. He don't have the strength to go the full distance. He'll fade out in the last turn".
Sure enough, the cabby's "street smarts" proved correct, while the "expert knowledge" missed the mark.</font>

You are saying that "Street Smarts" an common sense are not intelligence, and that getting college degrees is. It's not. Usually, people who are "street smart" are quite intelligent. Sometimes people who have several degrees and science doctorates have an IQ of under 110. You can't say one is intelligence and the other is not. I don't think culture has anything to do with intelligence. What Gardner's theory sees as intelligence, I see as simple interest into a subject. </font>[/QUOTE]<font color=plum>I agree with you <font color=white>B.O.B.</font>, but our society (at least in America anyway) often equates IQ with intelligence - especially in high school and (to some degree) college.

I have a perfect example of someone who is very smart and knows a trade most people have NO knowledge of, yet he never spent a day in college. Instead, he decided to be an apprentice to the local locksmith. He began working during his junior (or senior) year in high school and eventually bought the business from his mentor when the fellow retired. I have took a double-major in college and also got a two year degree from the local community college, but if I lock myself out of my house, I am S.O.L. until my buddy can show up and pick the lock for me. :D

So, no, I don't believe IQ IS an accurate test of "intelligence" either.

One other quick story I heard a few years ago comparing book knowledge to street smarts. The author of the article told how he took a cab in NY and struck up a conversation with the driver about the day's horse races. He started talking about one of the favorites for the last race that day, but the cabby told him the horse wouldn't even finish in the top 3.
"Why not?" asked the author. "He has excellent breeding, great training and one of the best jockeys available".
"Yeah," said the cabby "but he ain't got no heart. He don't have the strength to go the full distance. He'll fade out in the last turn".
Sure enough, the cabby's "street smarts" proved correct, while the "expert knowledge" missed the mark.</font> </font>[/QUOTE]<font face="Verdana" size="3" color="#00FF00">The locksmith is not such a good example of common sense but intelligence. He has been trained even though he did not go to school and is no doubt an expert in the area of locks. Think of an apprentice as a different type of learning and was commonly used before trade schools, and higher learning. I am sure if I gave you the locksmiths tools you would figure out how to get in your house even if you were not very efficient due to know being familiar with the tools, and a severe lack of practice on locks, eventually. It might take you many hours compared to a few minutes or seconds but you could do it. Once I locked myself in a restaurant bathroom because the lock broke. I asked someone to get me a butter knife to slide under the door, by the time the locksmith arrived I had taken off the lock and was out. What I do wonder is how the locksmith would have gotten me out from his side if I was totally inept and could not get the lock off before he arrived. The screws were on my side and there were no holes in the knob on the other side. It was a nice solid steal door so kicking it down would not be an option. What tools would he have at is disposal. The locksmith is not going to be using a butter knife to get the door open but we sometimes have to make use of the tools we have available. A butter knife was the only thing I could think of that would slide under the door that I could work at the knob. While the locksmith did not have book smarts he does have applied knowledge and experience as an apprentice. So the question becomes how much wisdom does each locksmith have, take away his tools how well will he adapt to tackle a lock given a problem, the answer to that will vary from person to person, some locksmiths will just give up in that they don't have there tools, others will think of ways to use other items that will act as poor substitutes this involves common sense as it is not likely something you will learn as an apprentice or in text books, it requires wisdom, intelligence is what you have learned through practice or text books. I didn't say books because sometimes you might find an example in a good novel to use. The taxi cab however is a good example knowing the animals desire to win and is not an easy thing to grasp or learn, kind of reminds me of the trainer in the movie seabiscuit. I guess intelligence can be described as ability to learn, while wisdom is the ability to adapt to new situations and problems as they arise wether you have no previous knowledge or not. Those with knowledge and intelligence in a certain area definatly are capable or more prepared of adapting quicker that others with no previous knowledge in certain areas weather they do or not is another thing. </font>

[ 03-18-2005, 04:58 PM: Message edited by: pritchke ]

Commingling your shubbery?

Er, TL beat me to that one, and phrased it much more cleverly than I would have lol.

Other than that, a few thoughts here. This thread in January dealt with the worst of IQ tests, the online ones. Particularly, I argued that intelligence itself is arbitrarily defined by those making IQ tests, and that they inevitably fail across cultural lines (where that definition changes).

http://www.ironworksforum.com/ubb/cg...=022090#000000

Are 'street smarts' and 'book smarts' mutually exclusive? Is the character of information different? Could instances of street smarts not be put into a book? Do people with lots of common sense just shy away from reading entirely? LoL I realize I'm being silly here, but I think this distinction is silly.

We observe people with a wide variety of abilities and knowledge in different areas, and I think the social status gap in the college educated and the rest of the population manifests itself into the street smarts/book smarts dichotomy. [Quantitatively, by the way, the difference between those with college degrees and those with high school diplomas (in the US), is on average $1M over a lifetime.]

Instead substitute two kinds of reasoning that I think warrant an actual distinction. Idiographic reasoning is a tendency to use your own observations about the world to make judgements about a broader reality. I think this is a fair replacement of so-called 'common sense'. We all do it, but we should acknowledge that it leads to bias and limits the scope of our analyses.

Nomothetic reasoning is a conscious and willful effort to avoid idiographic reasoning. Anyone who has ever read or heard something that caused them to re-evaluate their previous personal assessment has engaged in nomothetic reasoning. Nomothetic reasoning will lead to more broadly informed and rationally tested foundation of ideas about a subject. I don't know about anyone else, but the more I learn the more I realize that my less informed observations don't count for crap lol. Everyone must engage in both of these to some degree, but all education presents opportunities for a nomothetic understanding of some subject (or requires it). College allows for even more, at a faster rate and 'higher' level, but it's not always applicable to the world outside of academia, which is on its surface a good reason to separate book smarts from everything else. However, the idea is that one learns how to learn more effectively, and applies that to his/her life from then on. In my opinion, the pursuit of aforementioned 'book smarts' actually improves the quality of your thinking, even if the actual knowledge is irrelevent (or forgotten). Note that higher education doesn't ensure this, nor does the lack of it prevent someone from developing a similar capacity.

Cerek, you misunderstood me.
IQ is mostly intelligence, if you view intelligence as a starting point. Intelligence is not gathered knowledge, experience or skills learned. It is the ability to understand, learn and adapt. If you're a dummy and you read "Internet for Dummies", you don't stop being a dummy.
And about that lock picking thing... I took a screw driver, a stapler and I unlocked my apartment doors in 15 minutes. 5 minutes the second time. 4-5 times later, I'm down to 1 minute. Not really hard.
The horse racer shows experience, not intelligence. The Taxi driver had access to information unavailable to the passenger, me keeps track fo the track(no pun intended [img]tongue.gif[/img] ), and knows that the horse doesn't have spirit. IMHO an IQ test that uses external knowledge, verbal skills or attention exploits is not worth the paper it's written on.

I feel I have to write something about my own views on inteligence, judging people and stuff...
Why do I use IQ? Because people like it. Because having a high score gives you advantages. I don't do it because I feel superior to anyone else, or that I need to prove myself, or that I need confidence. As long as other people give me good paying jobs based on my IQ score(156), I am not gonna complain.

So let me see if I understand what your saying..


If you've got a high, or above average IQ and get good grades you must therfor have poor social skills..


I find that offensive, the sort of trash that people spew after they've finished an IQ test and got less than the guy next door...

There are far more examples of less than steller intelligences being rather rude and obnoxious.. I used to rate between 114-150 IQ points, dunno how I'd rate nowadays..

One of my mates IQ is around the 90 mark, and he's a rude thoughtless SOB..

You get nasty smart people, you get nasty dumb people, learn it, live with it.

SCUBA diver climbing down an underwater mountain. Slipped & didn't have enough weight strapped on to keep from rising? </font>[/QUOTE]Wow you got it. I spent ages thinking about it and still got it wrong. By exterior force they mean stuff like, he landed on a bird anf lfew to the top, he was abducted by aliens who put him on the top and stuff like that.

<font color=plum>No, <font color=yellow>Q'alooaith</font>, you apparantly do not understand what I'm saying. I did NOT say that those with above average IQ must have poor social skills. I said I have a personal friend with a genius-level IQ that has a significant lack of social skills and that I had seen this correlation more than once. His lack of social skills has nothing to do with being rude or nasty towards people. He isn't. He simply does not have good interactive social skills. He does tend to seem a bit arrogant to others at times because he is knowledgeable in many different areas (he used to read old college textbooks when he was still in elementary school) and he often believes HIS knowledge is superior to anybody else's, but he is not deliberately arrogant. It's just the way he presents himself and some of the statements he makes. <font color=lime>Pritchke</font> gave a similar example based on personal experience, though the fellow in his example does sound like the arrogance may be deliberate.

This reinforces what I read in the MSN article I mentioned. People with high IQ's sometimes have a harder time "thinking outside the box" for two reasons (from my own observations).
1) According to the article, they don't always know how to apply rules or theories to problems that aren't "textbook" examples.
2) They have a tendency to believe their solution IS the best (and only really correct) solution to the problem or dilemma. So they aren't always willing to consider alternative solutions.

I have not said this is true for ALL people with exceptionally high IQ's. I didn't even say it happens in most cases. All I said was that I've seen this correlation more than once.</font>

Wow you got it. I spent ages thinking about it and still got it wrong. By exterior force they mean stuff like, he landed on a bird anf lfew to the top, he was abducted by aliens who put him on the top and stuff like that.</font>[/QUOTE]<font color=plum>Good Job, <font color=dodgerblue>VulcanRider</font>. [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img] </font>

SCUBA diver climbing down an underwater mountain. Slipped & didn't have enough weight strapped on to keep from rising? </font>[/QUOTE]Wow you got it. I spent ages thinking about it and still got it wrong. By exterior force they mean stuff like, he landed on a bird anf lfew to the top, he was abducted by aliens who put him on the top and stuff like that. </font>[/QUOTE]Thanks. I tried to imagine how he could start at the top & work downward against a natural tendency to be pushed back up. It was either that or explaining how the mountain itself could be turned upside down. This was easier...

Well, I apparantly have an IQ of 125 or so... isn't that kinda smart for a person not even out of high school and can't even get honors? [img]tongue.gif[/img]

Whether you're out of high school is irrelevant. Theoretically, your IQ shouldn't change as you get older (although depending on the test, it might; in a good test, it shouldn't if your actual objective IQ doesn't change). Your IQ is calculated by comparing the score you get with scores typical of your age and whether it is higher or lower than that. It is not a quotient, i.e. mental age / actual age, anymore, as I think Bungleau posted earlier; the term Intelligence Quotient is a hangover from when IQ tests were first created in France to place the children who were of varying ages and education in the proper classes, but quotient is now a misnomer. Tests are normed on all age groups (mostly; some are not appropriate for adults over 75, although administering a full IQ test with an older adult isn't really appropriate anyway) and then individuals' scores are compared to the norms for their age. I'm not sure what 'honors refers to, but having a high IQ doesn't necessarily mean you're going to do well in school. While it is a good predictor of school success, there is not a perfect correlation, and other factors, like motivation, school environment, home environment, teaching style, and so on, will affect your school achievement.

Similarly with job performance, Cerek is right when he says that other factors rather than IQ are relevant to predicting job performance than IQ. And IQ is differentially important for different jobs. Managerial job success is more highly correlated with IQ than assembly line job success, for instance. However, given what we can measure and what variables are influential in all jobs, rather than skills specific to individual jobs, IQ is the best predictor of job performance, which has been demonstrated by a huge number of studies. Again, it is not a perfect correlation, so of course you will get people with high IQs that perform worse than people with lower IQs in particular situations. In fact, I think the correlation is something like .5 or .6, which means there is still 60-70% of the variance in job performance to be explained by other things. And other variables are also important, like Cerek mentioned motivation, extroversion, reaction to authority, initiative, etc., but have lower correlations. Conscientiousness is also highly correlated, and helpfully, IQ and conscientiousness are not correlated so if you can estimate IQ and conscientiousness in potential employees you've got quite a good chance of selecting a good performer.

You're assuming that someone with 'street smarts' is going to do poorly on an IQ test - this is not at all the case. Good IQ tests like the WAIS don't require more than an elementary school education. For example, there is an arithmetic section, but the actual type of problem you get involves no more than adding or multiplying, and it's how fast and accurately you can do it - your cognitive processing ability and speed, which is not related to education - that matters, not whether you learned university level calculus. Similarly, someone with a college degree might not have a terribly high IQ. If employers are hiring on the logic of IQ is positively related to job performance, this person has a degree, having a degree = high IQ, then they are not actually hiring based on intelligence at all, but level of education.

<font face="Verdana" size="3" color="#00FF00">See, there is still a problem with the test right there. The problem is you can actually condition yourself for this test much like you can condition your body for a race except with much better results. I have done so myself using random numbers, adding, subtracting multiplying, dividing. While dividing can be tricky they are normally multiple choice so you only need to figure out the last digit or 2 not the entire number, so figure out what you need than pick the correct number. If you use numbers quite a bit you are probably already somewhat conditioned, I can add and multiply quite decent in my head as my wife is always asking me how much is this and in picking up groceries I do a rough estimate of the final cost in my head so I am not off by no more than a dollar or two. Hey, things like bananas throw me off since you are paying by lb or kg and I don't weigh anything. I could get better if I wished to practice more using random numbers and creating my own test. To condition your self just create a test of say ten problems or so were you add subtract multiply random numbers use say only up to 3 or 4 digits to start (2 if you are really bad with numbers) if you get really good than add digits. You will find that the first few times you may be terrible, after a time you will get better and better and will be ready for the test. It is actually conditioning your mind, you will find that if you stop performing these exercises after a time you may have difficulty adding two digit numbers again. You can condition and prepare yourself for such a test so it isn't as if you can't study, it is just different form of study, the more you practice the faster you get much like Bozos of Bones lock example.

Isn't there a language or word test as well, this type I have not discovered the secret for preparing for it, though the more words you know the better you can do so I suspect people who do alot of crossword puzzles can nail that one.

You can even prepare yourself for the logic answers, in what comes next in the sequence, or what is missing from the sequence. If you can get your hands on some good examples and answers of different sequences. Work then out, see if you were right, if not figure out what the sequence was. Do enough of them you will know all or most of the the tricks in solving the sequences to do well. While it is mostly logic in figuring out the sequence, conditioning yourself to find what the sequence is looking for can be helpful as many of the sequences are not always what they first appear especialy with a string of numbers.</font>

[ 03-21-2005, 03:32 PM: Message edited by: pritchke ]

If there is one tihngsd that pisses me off about IQ's its those damn "national IQ test" that they put on TV every year, its Bull**** becasue afterwards you get people that know how to tun a picture upside down and pick from a multiple choice answer and suddenely they think they have an IQ of 120!

I took an IQ test when I was younger and I dont rememeber much of it now, but I do remember that they do not base it on mathematical skills, maths is something you learn, not something you automatically know.

Also, another thing is that there are literally hundreds of IQ tests and I nor anyone else can say which one is the right test (well I just did, but you get the point [img]tongue.gif[/img] )

I suppose the uneducated people would have a "Locked IQ" as in, they may have a high IQ its just that they dont use it in the same way that we do....Or something like that [img]tongue.gif[/img]

EDIT:Sorry if I repeated a few things others have said, I just didnt have time to read all the posts ;)

[ 03-21-2005, 03:10 PM: Message edited by: Hivetyrant ]