All about "IQ" (whatever that means!)

[Orobo]

Hi there,

Maybe this thread can shed some light on misunderstandings surrounding IQ. Not in the least on my side, or misunderstandings about me and my motives. Thanks Bill, for the lightning rod.
Probably prompted by a bit of an explosion of sorts at the Systemic Racism thread, where I unsuspectingly dropped som info that was a bit too raw to chew.

To be clear, I wish for all peoples and folks to be able to control and fulfil their own destiny. Flourishing and attain the height of their potential in peace and prosperity. Always have and always will. So no, I have no white supremacist agenda or try to groom anyone. Be smarter.

All information is for learning about, and understanding human nature so that destructive forces have less tools for us fools. Specially in this era where everything is racialised by intersectionally inclined manipulators. For a racialised civil war is the ugliest of all.

This strategy is very effective due to an imposed taboo by those same forces. A taboo, among other ones, I have been removing from within myself for some years now. I have therefore no problem that my race is just in the middle, not too smart, not too dumb. It just is what it is. Perfectly adapted to the natural environment my people have lived in for thousands of years.

Well, there's always the question if one should wield the tools, the manipulators are trying hard to withhold from the subjected, but use themselves. That is a hard one, with full control of the media and a propagandised people? Is it too early? Rather that, than too late.

Remember I have been here for some time on the forum and it due to the respect I have for the project and the safety I feel within these walls that I dare to talk freely. And that is how it should be.
Not that I will drop the definitive truth-bomb here, with a lot of fanfare. No, my lack of continuity takes care of that. And my fair dose of fallibility. Wait, I am just like you?

Allright,

Love, O.



I found this editorial from 1994. I took out a few bits to quickly show why they wrote it, and some relevant bits. The whole is here:

http://www1.udel.edu/educ/gottfredso...mainstream.pdf



Mainstream Science on Intelligence: An Editorial With 52 Signatories, History, and Bibliography

LINDA S. GOTTFREDSON
University of Delaware

Published in the Wallstreet Journal december 13 1994


The controversy over The Bell Curve (Herrnstein & Murray, 1994) was at its height in the fall of 1994. Many critics attacked the book for supposedly relying on outdated, pseudoscientific notions of intelligence. In criticizing the book, many critics promoted false and highly misleading views about the scientific study of intelligence. Public miseducation on the topic is hardly new (Snyderman & Rothman, 1987, 1988), but never before had it been so angry and extreme.

I therefore approached the editorial features editor, David Brooks, at the Wall Street Journal to seeif he would be interested in my writing an essay on the rising crescendo of misinformation on intelligence. He was not. He said he would, however, consider a short statementsigned by 10 to 15 experts on what knowl- edge they do, in fact, consider to be mainstream in the study of intelligence. Timeliness required that any statement be submitted within 2 weeks

Mainstream Science on Intelligence” is a collective statement that was first is- sued in order to inject some scientific rigor into an increasingly vitriolic and wrongheaded controversy concerning intelligence. That it garnered such immediate support from so many highly regarded scholars testifies to their confidence both that it represents the mainstream and that their joint testimony to that effect was needed in the public realm.

Rather, the lesson here is that what have often been caricatured in the public press as discredited, fringe ideas actually represent the solid scientific center in the serious study of intelligence. As Snyderman and Rothman’s (1988) survey of IQ experts and journalists revealed, the media, among others, have been turning the truth on its head.
Many of the conclusions outlined in “Mainstream” are ones that many scholars have reached only recently and reluctantly (Gottfredson, 1996). The mainstream shifted slowly but steadily in recent decades as accumulating research evidence changed our understanding of the nature, measurement, origins, and consequence of differences of intelligence. The press and public have yet to catch up to the new mainstream.



2. Intelligence, so defined, can be measured, and intelligence tests measure it well.
They are among the most accurate (in technical terms, reliable and valid) of all psychological tests and assessments. They do not measure creativity, character, personality, or other important differences among individu- als, nor are they intended to.

3. While there are different types of intel- ligence tests, they all measure the same intel- ligence. Some use words or numbers and require specific cultural knowledge (like vo- cabulary). Other do not, and instead use shapes or designs and require knowledge of only simple, universal concepts (many/few, open/closed, up/down).

5. Intelligence tests are not culturally bi- ased against American blacks or other na- tive-born, English-speaking peoples in the U.S. Rather, IQ scores predict equally accu- rately for all such Americans, regardless of race and social class. Individuals who do not understand English well can be given either a nonverbal test or one in their native language.

7. Members of all racial-ethnic groups can be found at every IQ level. The bell curves of different groups overlap considerably, but groups often differ in where their members tend to cluster along the IQ line. The bell curves for some groups (Jews and East Asians) are centered somewhat higher than for whites in general. Other groups (blacks and Hispanics) are centered somewhat lower than non-Hispanic whites.

8. The bell curve for whites is centered roughly around IQ 100; the bell curve for American blacks roughly around 85; and those for different subgroups of Hispanics roughly midway between those for whites and blacks. The evidence is less definitive for exactly where above IQ 100 the bell curves for Jews and Asians are centered.

9. IQ is strongly related, probably more so than any other single measurable human trait, to many important educational, occu- pational, economic, and social outcomes. Its relation to the welfare and performance of individuals is very strong in some arenas in life (education, military training), moderate but robust in others (social competence), and modest but consistent in others (law-abiding- ness). Whatever IQ tests measure, it is of great practical and social importance.

a low IQ is often a disadvantage, especially in disorganized environments. Of course, a high IQ no more guarantees success than a low IQ guarantees failure in life. There are many ex- ceptions, but the odds for success in our society greatly favor individuals with higher IQs.

14. Individuals differ in intelligence due to differences in both their environments and genetic heritage. Heritability estimates range from 0.4 to 0.8 (on a scale from 0 to l), most thereby indicating that genetics plays a big- ger role than does environment in creating IQ differences among individuals.
( Me: recently this has been established at 80% at 18 years of age. I will find that paper..)

17. Although the environment is important in creating IQ differences, we do not know yet how to manipulate it to raise low IQs perma- nently. Whether recent attempts show promise is still a matter of considerable scientific debate

24. Almost all Americans who identify themselves as black have white ancestors- the white admixture is about 20%, on aver- age-and many self-designated whites, His- panics, and others likewise have mixed ancestry.(me: hence the difference of IQ 70 of Africans vs IQ 85 for black Americans.)

[Constance]

Posted by Orobo (here)
9. IQ is strongly related, probably more so than any other single measurable human trait, to many important educational, occu- pational, economic, and social outcomes. Its relation to the welfare and performance of individuals is very strong in some arenas in life (education, military training), moderate but robust in others (social competence), and modest but consistent in others (law-abiding- ness). Whatever IQ tests measure, it is of great practical and social importance.

a low IQ is often a disadvantage, especially in disorganized environments. Of course, a high IQ no more guarantees success than a low IQ guarantees failure in life. There are many ex- ceptions, but the odds for success in our society greatly favor individuals with higher IQs.

This is an absolute insult to our souls, given that despite all of our collective and individual best efforts, everything has gotten worse, not better. All the 12 divisions of society have nothing to offer us, it is only through heading back to nature and forming true community that we will we grow and evolve.

I can't remember who said this during a TEDtalk (when it comes back to me, I will post it on my empowerment portal thread.)

But what they said was:

We can do better than this, we must do better than this.


Kevin Carter suicided not long after taking this photo.

[Bill Ryan]

Posted by Constance (here)

We can do better than this, we must do better than this.


Kevin Carter suicided not long after taking this photo.

Yes. After capturing the very famous image (for which he won a Pulitzer Prize), Kevin Carter sat under a tree and "talked to God". He had not helped the child.

He ended his life just over a year later.

Yes, we have to do better than this. That was the message of the terrible photo.



High IQ people are very often (but not always) "successful" only in conventional, material terms. They make great investment bankers, aerospace engineers, weapons designers, and software programmers.

But I'd rather live in a world full of kind, aware, sensitive, spiritual people with high EQ and SQ, and IQ merely normal. Everything would work a LOT better that way. (I was in Tibet for 1000 years before coming to the West. That's exactly the way it was there.)

[Agape]

Posted by Sarah Rainsong (here)
Just a quick thought, not only for those posting in this thread but for those reading as well, having a low EQ (emotional intelligence) refers to how one interacts with other people and society, NOT whether or not they have emotions. People with low EQ sometimes come across as cold and heartless, but they're not, they have feelings too, it's just different

I think homeschoolers have a higher rate of non-neurotypical kids, because schools are designed for the NT. Maybe that's why this is a topic that's been discussed many times in those circles. It's always sad to hear about how difficult it is for people who fall outside the normal range in any area.

But -at the same time- most of the emotions we experience including their natural and tolerable gradient are shared, and copied directly or indirectly within social groups.

There’s a beautiful paper somewhere on “mirror neurons” from California based neuroscientist VS Ramachandran

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=l80zgw07W4Y

Todays science and 20th century psychology did not understand about “emotional brain” quite well in my opinion and their complexity and intelligence contained in emotions however irrational they seem,
are still one of the most important factors and driving force behind evolution of consciousness. Mothers know better( that does not disregard involved fathers in any manner, it’s just an example).

Emotions give our “grey core” brain processors workload to process.

The world is already overloaded with complex, some more and more complex and entangled emotional patterns we can’t exactly “sort out”.
It’s often upon the individual to free themselves from the net and snare of emotional entrapment no matter how big that entrapment may be before they can even stand on their feet and start walking again, as sovereign individual.

So many people are not in better situation than the child in the picture above, internally. They lost the energy to walk out from the energy trap that is at least partially mental trap too.

My dream and wish for humanity is and would be, may they find their freedom and sovereignty again , dignity of the spirit and fullness of experience of Existence 🙏

Could be because I remember more advanced states of existence, I even seem to remember times when people -of old tribes- and civilizations lived as strong, sovereign and free individuals.

The ratio of social vs individual experience was different back then from what it is now. There were not so many people on the planet altogether, count half billion at most ,
anyone with long life had to experience themselves fully and on their own before they “matured”.

It’s almost the opposite now:the buzz of human society does not let anyone sleep. It’s discouraged to be alone. For most people it’s intolerable to be alone and face the impact of what they’ve learned, what they’ve done, what direction was their research or work heading to vs what do they want to say really.

It’s the time ticking now to second of fast social interactions, fast food, fast papers, fast computing, performed by billions of individuals operated by the hive of the system that never stops,
individuals who lost their sovereignty and when they start to reflect on it, 60%, perhaps 80% of the modern world economical society and its dwellers suffer from mild to serious health issues such as depression, social anxiety, many other forms of anxiety, syndrome of uncontrollable behavior ending up in situations of helpless dependency.

If our hearts and minds aren’t important as a whole, what is.

I don’t want to paraphrase Bill but I’ve seen the same amount of economically super smart people living lives on the edge of their mental possibilities, only to maintain an illusion of themselves as “achievers”
and I’ve also seen how “emotions cost” and so much energy is being poured into “entertainment” of masses and tolerance towards ignorance,
it too hurts my eyes even.

Yes heart is the most important and it has intelligence of its own.


The First 3D Map of Hearts Neurons





🙏❤️🙏


Some more informative and enlightening presentations from the Prof

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=Rl2LwnaUA-k

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=7BOwqGBLFnI

Offers good feedback and has sense of humor

🦕

[Constance]

Posted by Sarah Rainsong (here)
I think homeschoolers have a higher rate of non-neurotypical kids, because schools are designed for the NT. Maybe that's why this is a topic that's been discussed many times in those circles. It's always sad to hear about how difficult it is for people who fall outside the normal range in any area.

I can't comment on where the other homeschoolers are at, but I can speak to my own direct experience. If I was to work out where someone I am close to who I homeschool is at based upon the 9 areas of intelligence (Howard Gardners work), I would rate that individual as excellent in the logical-mathematical area of intelligence, excellent in the spatial area of intelligence, fair to good in the linguistic area of intelligence, average in the bodily-kinesthetic area of intelligence (the arms and legs are still growing so that is still challenging!), brilliant in the area of naturalist intelligence, fair in the area of intrapersonal intelligence, fair to average in the area of musical intelligence, average in the area of existential intelligence and fair in the area of interpersonal intelligence. However, that individual is only 15 and there is always room for growth

[Ernie Nemeth]

Posted by RunningDeer (here)

Resources:

• Howard Gardener, The 9 Types of Intelligence
• “7 (Seven) Kinds of Smart: Identifying and Developing Your Multiple Intelligences,” by: Thomas Armstrong
• “Emotional Intelligence: Why It Can Matter More Than IQ,” by: Daniel Goleman.

1. Naturalist Intelligence (“Nature Smart”)
 
Designates the human ability to discriminate among living things (plants, animals) as well as sensitivity to other features of the natural world (clouds, rock configurations).  This ability was clearly of value in our evolutionary past as hunters, gatherers, and farmers; it continues to be central in such roles as botanist or chef.  It is also speculated that much of our consumer society exploits the naturalist intelligences, which can be mobilized in the discrimination among cars, sneakers, kinds of makeup, and the like. 
 
2. Musical Intelligence (“Musical Smart”)
 
Musical intelligence is the capacity to discern pitch, rhythm, timbre, and tone.  This intelligence enables us to recognize, create, reproduce, and reflect on music, as demonstrated by composers, conductors, musicians, vocalist, and sensitive listeners.  Interestingly, there is often an affective connection between music and the emotions; and mathematical and musical intelligences may share common thinking processes.  Young adults with this kind of intelligence are usually singing or drumming to themselves.  They are usually quite aware of sounds others may miss.

3. Logical-Mathematical Intelligence (“Number/Reasoning Smart”)
 
Logical-mathematical intelligence is the ability to calculate, quantify, consider propositions and hypotheses, and carry out complete mathematical operations.  It enables us to perceive relationships and connections and to use abstract, symbolic thought; sequential reasoning skills; and inductive and deductive thinking patterns.  Logical intelligence is usually well developed in mathematicians, scientists, and detectives.  Young adults with lots of logical intelligence are interested in patterns, categories, and relationships.  They are drawn to arithmetic problems, strategy games and experiments.
 
4. Existential Intelligence
 
Sensitivity and capacity to tackle deep questions about human existence, such as the meaning of life, why do we die, and how did we get here.
 
5. Interpersonal Intelligence (“People Smart”)
 
Interpersonal intelligence is the ability to understand and interact effectively with others.  It involves effective verbal and nonverbal communication, the ability to note distinctions among others, sensitivity to the moods and temperaments of others, and the ability to entertain multiple perspectives.  Teachers, social workers, actors, and politicians all exhibit interpersonal intelligence.  Young adults with this kind of intelligence are leaders among their peers, are good at communicating, and seem to understand others’ feelings and motives.
 
6. Bodily-Kinesthetic Intelligence (“Body Smart”)
 
Bodily kinesthetic intelligence is the capacity to manipulate objects and use a variety of physical skills.  This intelligence also involves a sense of timing and the perfection of skills through mind–body union.  Athletes, dancers, surgeons, and craftspeople exhibit well-developed bodily kinesthetic intelligence.
 
7. Linguistic Intelligence (“Word Smart”)
 
Linguistic intelligence is the ability to think in words and to use language to express and appreciate complex meanings.  Linguistic intelligence allows us to understand the order and meaning of words and to apply meta-linguistic skills to reflect on our use of language.  Linguistic intelligence is the most widely shared human competence and is evident in poets, novelists, journalists, and effective public speakers.  Young adults with this kind of intelligence enjoy writing, reading, telling stories or doing crossword puzzles.
 
8. Intra-personal Intelligence (“Self Smart”)
 
Intra-personal intelligence is the capacity to understand oneself and one’s thoughts and feelings, and to use such knowledge in planning and directioning one’s life.  Intra-personal intelligence involves not only an appreciation of the self, but also of the human condition.  It is evident in psychologist, spiritual leaders, and philosophers.  These young adults may be shy.  They are very aware of their own feelings and are self-motivated.
 
9. Spatial Intelligence (“Picture Smart”)
 
Spatial intelligence is the ability to think in three dimensions.  Core capacities include mental imagery, spatial reasoning, image manipulation, graphic and artistic skills, and an active imagination.  Sailors, pilots, sculptors, painters, and architects all exhibit spatial intelligence.  Young adults with this kind of intelligence may be fascinated with mazes or jigsaw puzzles, or spend free time drawing or daydreaming.
 
* From: Overview of the Multiple Intelligences Theory.  Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development and Thomas Armstrong.com

This a very good summary of the different types of intelligence, and needed a bump in case some missed it the first time around. I observe in myself that I am weakest in Natural Intelligence, since I have always had an aversion to learning too much about biology for reasons I can't understand. Still I have a functioning knowledge of biology on par with the average and probably more so, as usual. But I am pretty much even in all other types, with maybe Linguistic having a slight edge over the rest. I do have a very large vocabulary and do write poetry which requires a healthy command of the language. For these reasons I would rate myself a high level comprehensivist, well versed in all aspects of reality, spirituality, and science. It cannot be otherwise or else there would be no need for me to be here, as I would have nothing to contribute. I am not an expert, but I am a holistic thinker and able to manipulate data rather free of bias and prejudice - but I am only human.

How do you rate? And is it important?

[RunningDeer]

Posted by Ernie Nemeth (here)
How do you rate? And is it important?

• Intra-personal Intelligence (“Self Smart”)
• Bodily-Kinesthetic Intelligence (“Body Smart”)
• Naturalist Intelligence (“Nature Smart”)
• Interpersonal Intelligence (“People Smart”)

These are the strongest areas. My life journey has been a versatile one and I am richer for it.

[Constance]

Posted by Ernie Nemeth (here)


This a very good summary of the different types of intelligence, and needed a bump in case some missed it the first time around. I observe in myself that I am weakest in Natural Intelligence, since I have always had an aversion to learning too much about biology for reasons I can't understand. Still I have a functioning knowledge of biology on par with the average and probably more so, as usual. But I am pretty much even in all other types, with maybe Linguistic having a slight edge over the rest. I do have a very large vocabulary and do write poetry which requires a healthy command of the language. For these reasons I would rate myself a high level comprehensivist, well versed in all aspects of reality, spirituality, and science. It cannot be otherwise or else there would be no need for me to be here, as I would have nothing to contribute. I am not an expert, but I am a holistic thinker and able to manipulate data rather free of bias and prejudice - but I am only human.

How do you rate? And is it important?

Naturalist intelligence dearest Ernie also incompasses ones ability to connect with nature. In other words. At one with Nature. When an individual is doing what they love to do, whatever it is that they are passionate about, when they never leave the playground so to speak, and they do it in nature, they are putting back what is missing from their lives and coming back to a state of wholeness.

From where I stand, the nine areas of intelligence are very much an essential part of knowing and understanding where we are at in terms of our own growth and evolution. It can also provide us with an understanding of where others are at too. There is more compassion and greater love and understanding when we are consciously aware for example, where a person is at in relation to intrapersonal intelligence.

When we are able to pinpoint exactly where we are at in relation to our growth and evolution it gives us insight into what areas we can nurture, nourish and develop to fulfill our highest potential. It also provides us with the opportunity to see how much we have grown. Brian Gerard Schaefer has refined Howard Gardners work and written about this and more in his book, The Nature of Life - how to have peace in a modern world.

[Bill Ryan]

This is an utterly fascinating article, too long (and with too many interesting images) to copy. But do take a look!

• https://businessinsider.com/the-40-s...ll-time-2015-2

The 40 smartest people of all time

Some comments:

• Several modern-day notables are missing (most arguably, John von Neumann, and also child prodigy Gregory Smith).
• Tesla advocates may be pleased that his IQ is rated maybe as high as 310.
• Leonardo is surely underrated here. He has to be well over 220.
• Einstein may well be a little overrated. Recent research suggests that many of his ideas about relativity came from his wife.
  He was asked whether he stood on the shoulders of Newton. He answered, "I stand on the shoulders of Maxwell." (Quite right, too.)
  And when asked what it was like to be the smartest man in the world, he said — to his immense credit! — "I don't know, you'd have to ask Tesla."
• William Sidis is famous for his extraordinary intellect, but in his rather haunted life he did almost nothing with it. That has to be important.
• William Shakespeare (of course! ) never wrote "his" plays and sonnets. He was a smart businessman, but was actually illiterate and could barely sign his name. For a great Avalon thread discussing all this, do see: Mark Twain's "Is Shakespeare Dead?" (Shakespeare did NOT write Shakespeare)
• I was delighted to see Hypatia in the list. (But other ancient great minds, like Archimedes, Aristotle, Plato, Euclid, Socrates, and many others, are most definitely missing.)
• Some historical (and also contemporary) figures many readers may never have heard of. That alone makes the article a great read.

All this adds even more to the notion that while super-bright people can clearly be identified, how to compare them against each other is in many cases almost impossible. (And barely worth it!) So I've re-ordered the list here to be in simple alphabetical order. However, it really is historically clear that some of these remarkable people are [even] brighter stars than others.

• Adragon De Mello
• Ainan Cawley
• Albert Einstein
• Carl Friedrich Gauss
• Christopher Hirata
• Christopher Langan
• Dylan Jones
• Edith Stern
• Emanuel Swedenborg
• Ettore Majorana
• Francis Galton
• Galileo Galilei
• Gottfried Leibniz
• Hugo Grotius
• Hypatia
• Isaac Newton
• James Clerk Maxwell
• Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
• John Stuart Mill
• Kim Ung-Yong
• Leonardo da Vinci
• Leonhard Euler
• Marie Curie
• Marilyn vos Savant
• Marnen Laibow-Koser
• Michael Grost
• Michael Kearney
• Nadia Camukova
• Nathan Leopold
• Nicolaus Copernicus
• Nikola Tesla
• Richard "Rick" Rosner
• Rudolf Clausius
• Sho Yano
• Terence Tao
• Thomas Wolsey
• Thomas Young
• Voltaire (François-Marie Arouet)
• William Shakespeare
• William Sidis

[Ratszinger]

I think most people think the people with extremely high IQ's are going to be famous and well known but the truth is most are smart enough to avoid that and do so. I think the smartest people in the world are people we don't even know about because they keep it all private and hide their true smarts very well.

[Ernie Nemeth]

I am going to try something a little different. And it is difficult to get that into a post. Let's see.

I have been trying to express an idea that is not new but is very much ignored these days.

It somehow ties into our financial system as well.

It has to do with the type of jobs and their proportions, and the value of those jobs, and whether it creates wealth or fiat-based profit.

These days the most prevalent jobs seem to be clerical in nature, where there is no wealth created at all. Non-wealth creating jobs have different sets of qualities required, and intelligence is not one of them. These mid-level mangers, corporate workers, government employees and others need to be able to implement policy as handed to them from authority, without complaint, and unwavering in their focus to force compliance. These need not be intelligent but they do need to connive, mislead, formulate plans and directives, deceive, compile lists of procedures, manipulate statistics and other data, and otherwise implement devious tactics and hard line imposition of policy, etc. They must be cold, calculating and callous. They may go home and be loving family members but at work they are ruthless and unrelenting.

Along with this prevalent (or irreverent) mind set is the fact that such jobs and such lives contribute nothing to the wealth of the world. As such, these people must be supported by those that do create wealth. Yet these bureaucrats must get paid, and that money, often more than or equal to the pay of the wealth builders creates an inequity. The inequity must be addressed by shifting the burden to those that cannot protect themselves financially. That means entire countries and regions must pay the price of this largess.

All of this smoke and mirrors is accomplished on the backs of the third world, and the poorest 20% of citizens in the advanced countries.

While there have been billions of unfortunates that have paid the price over the years, and upward mobility has allowed those exploited to move themselves out of their plight to some degree, especially with the wild implementation of free trade deals, the trend is slowing and the upwardly mobile are fewer, much fewer.

Such a state of events could not have happened without a push to educate, or more accurately train, the masses into accepting a mind set that first ravages their sensibilities, their sense of awe and wonder, and deprive them of the thing that makes them human. In its place is inculcated the preferred mode of being the good student who recognizes their inadequacies and the naturally superior position of authority. This is what drives modern IQ tests. It is an assumption based on bias that is below the threshold of awareness because it was designed to drive that awareness into the subconscious where it can be used to control thought and behavior.

The lower the IQ the better bureaucrat a person will make. I don't know about EQ but I would bet there is a system that attempts to modify that as well.

I am not happy with this post.

I would love to have some clarification.

[ralfy]

IQ might be dependent on situation. One writer, for example, pointed out that a jungle dweller would be bewildered in NYC, while a street-smart New Yorker wouldn't last very long in the jungle.