An IQ of 100

[AVG-JOE]

Back in the late 80s I bought an IQ test at the mall book store. I did well, but I question the validity of such a test because it was for sale. A test which is bias to high scores may sell better than one that is bias to low scores. If I had scored "less than average" I would be less likely to give the test word of mouth advertisement than if I score well on the test. In other words, there is a bragging factor in marketing the test.

People's IQs increase when their level of education increases. That's one reason I have little faith in IQ tests.

Especially an education in critical thinking.

 

[AVG-JOE]

I find NeoCons with high IQ's an oxymoron or just smart sociopaths.

Thank you for showing your bias. There are plenty of highly intelligent people on both the left and right that are not sociopaths.

And plenty of us who are

 

[AVG-JOE]

Does anyone remember the episode of 'House' where the off-the-charts genius patient wanted to refuse treatment because the disease made him stupid enough to like his wife?

Okay, Sweetie. You spend too much time watching TV and too much time in coffee houses near Seattle. What does your wife think of all this?

She doesn't mind.

What can I say... we met in a coffee shop near Seattle while watching t.v.

A classic and common manifestation example of the current Evolutionary pinnacle of mammalian love on a Lucky planet with a seriously lush biosphere, where technology affects evolution just like everything else in the environment.

Lucky Monkeys! ​

tell me you two don't have 10 monkey friends?

Plenty of friends... but they're 'Monkeys', not 'monkeys'.

With a capital 'M' for Sentience ​

 

[Iceweasel]

My signature?
The Gary Sinise Foundation? WTF are you talking about?

Gary Sinese is the real deal. Does so much for our servicemen, probably more than all of Hollywood put together.

 

[Flopper]

I used to watch Jeopardy a lot. Alex Trebek (who has philosophy degrees from the University of Ottawa and the University of Toronto, and who was a noted philosophical debater in Canada before slumming into show business) never seemed to tire of announcing that MENSA members were miserable Jeopardy players, most getting bounced early on. I don't know what the connection is, I'm just passing on what Trebek observed over many years.

Jeopardy requires rapid recall of "trivial" information. Pattern recognition and problem solving are more often tested with IQ tests.

I disagree. In order to glean that "trivial" information, one had to be very well read in an eclectic mix of human interests. If the category was Shakespeare, and a single contestant answered eight question in a row of Shakespeare esoterica, well then that person must have read, understood, and retained the great bard's entire corpus. In short, Jeopardy winners weren't necessarily high IQ people, but they were well-rounded and very well-read people. They were in touch with the world.

Probably the greatest theoretical physicist in American history was Nobel Prize winner, Richard Feynman. The Cal Tech professor was also one of the greatest lecturers in American academia. His lectures were never dry cyphering drones. Rather Feynman interjected a plethora of reasons as to why subjects like theoretical calculus are important to humanity. His lectures were as much about the why as they were about the how. His IQ was 125.

Aye, people often believe that the higher a person's IQ the better they are at doing whatever it is they do.
Not necessarily. Take Richard Rosner, an astounding verified IQ of 192. Yet he can barely get through daily life plagued by obsessive compulsions and meaningless writings and theories without useful application. He earned(s) a modest living writing for TV shows.
At the same time, there are many-many highly successful people in all fields with great achievements whose IQs less than 140.

IQ is a good indication of what a person can do, not what they will do. Many years ago, my best friend scored the 2nd highest score on the Annapolis Naval Academy entrance exam. However he decided not to attend and instead went to a local junior college to be with his girl friend. He graduated with a 4.0 and went to work as a butcher in a grocery store manged by his dad. After working in the store for about 15 years, he became an assistant manager. As far as I know he's still working there. Just having a high IQ doesn't guarantee success at anything.

Genius is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent perspiration.
Thomas Edison

 

[Judicial review]

I used to watch Jeopardy a lot. Alex Trebek (who has philosophy degrees from the University of Ottawa and the University of Toronto, and who was a noted philosophical debater in Canada before slumming into show business) never seemed to tire of announcing that MENSA members were miserable Jeopardy players, most getting bounced early on. I don't know what the connection is, I'm just passing on what Trebek observed over many years.

Jeopardy requires rapid recall of "trivial" information. Pattern recognition and problem solving are more often tested with IQ tests.

I disagree. In order to glean that "trivial" information, one had to be very well read in an eclectic mix of human interests. If the category was Shakespeare, and a single contestant answered eight question in a row of Shakespeare esoterica, well then that person must have read, understood, and retained the great bard's entire corpus. In short, Jeopardy winners weren't necessarily high IQ people, but they were well-rounded and very well-read people. They were in touch with the world.

Probably the greatest theoretical physicist in American history was Nobel Prize winner, Richard Feynman. The Cal Tech professor was also one of the greatest lecturers in American academia. His lectures were never dry cyphering drones. Rather Feynman interjected a plethora of reasons as to why subjects like theoretical calculus are important to humanity. His lectures were as much about the why as they were about the how. His IQ was 125.

Aye, people often believe that the higher a person's IQ the better they are at doing whatever it is they do.
Not necessarily. Take Richard Rosner, an astounding verified IQ of 192. Yet he can barely get through daily life plagued by obsessive compulsions and meaningless writings and theories without useful application. He earned(s) a modest living writing for TV shows.
At the same time, there are many-many highly successful people in all fields with great achievements whose IQs less than 140.

IQ is a good indication of what a person can do, not what they will do. Many years ago, my best friend scored the 2nd highest score on the Annapolis Naval Academy entrance exam. However he decided not to attend and instead went to a local junior college to be with his girl friend. He graduated with a 4.0 and went to work as a butcher in a grocery store manged by his dad. After working in the store for about 15 years, he became an assistant manager. As far as I know he's still working there. Just having a high IQ doesn't guarantee success at anything.

Genius is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent perspiration.
Thomas Edison

It sure did for me.

 

[Iceweasel]

IQ is a good indication of what a person can do, not what they will do. Many years ago, my best friend scored the 2nd highest score on the Annapolis Naval Academy entrance exam. However he decided not to attend and instead went to a local junior college to be with his girl friend. He graduated with a 4.0 and went to work as a butcher in a grocery store manged by his dad. After working in the store for about 15 years, he became an assistant manager. As far as I know he's still working there. Just having a high IQ doesn't guarantee success at anything.

How is that unsuccessful to you? Maybe he's damn good at his job and provides a valuable service to the community. Lots of people like food.

 

[Flopper]

I used to watch Jeopardy a lot. Alex Trebek (who has philosophy degrees from the University of Ottawa and the University of Toronto, and who was a noted philosophical debater in Canada before slumming into show business) never seemed to tire of announcing that MENSA members were miserable Jeopardy players, most getting bounced early on. I don't know what the connection is, I'm just passing on what Trebek observed over many years.

Jeopardy requires rapid recall of "trivial" information. Pattern recognition and problem solving are more often tested with IQ tests.

I disagree. In order to glean that "trivial" information, one had to be very well read in an eclectic mix of human interests. If the category was Shakespeare, and a single contestant answered eight question in a row of Shakespeare esoterica, well then that person must have read, understood, and retained the great bard's entire corpus. In short, Jeopardy winners weren't necessarily high IQ people, but they were well-rounded and very well-read people. They were in touch with the world.

Probably the greatest theoretical physicist in American history was Nobel Prize winner, Richard Feynman. The Cal Tech professor was also one of the greatest lecturers in American academia. His lectures were never dry cyphering drones. Rather Feynman interjected a plethora of reasons as to why subjects like theoretical calculus are important to humanity. His lectures were as much about the why as they were about the how. His IQ was 125.

Aye, people often believe that the higher a person's IQ the better they are at doing whatever it is they do.
Not necessarily. Take Richard Rosner, an astounding verified IQ of 192. Yet he can barely get through daily life plagued by obsessive compulsions and meaningless writings and theories without useful application. He earned(s) a modest living writing for TV shows.
At the same time, there are many-many highly successful people in all fields with great achievements whose IQs less than 140.

IQ is a good indication of what a person can do, not what they will do. Many years ago, my best friend scored the 2nd highest score on the Annapolis Naval Academy entrance exam. However he decided not to attend and instead went to a local junior college to be with his girl friend. He graduated with a 4.0 and went to work as a butcher in a grocery store manged by his dad. After working in the store for about 15 years, he became an assistant manager. As far as I know he's still working there. Just having a high IQ doesn't guarantee success at anything.

Genius is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent perspiration.
Thomas Edison

It sure did for me.

I don't know any employer that will pay you because you have a high IQ score.

 

[Judicial review]

Jeopardy requires rapid recall of "trivial" information. Pattern recognition and problem solving are more often tested with IQ tests.

I disagree. In order to glean that "trivial" information, one had to be very well read in an eclectic mix of human interests. If the category was Shakespeare, and a single contestant answered eight question in a row of Shakespeare esoterica, well then that person must have read, understood, and retained the great bard's entire corpus. In short, Jeopardy winners weren't necessarily high IQ people, but they were well-rounded and very well-read people. They were in touch with the world.

Probably the greatest theoretical physicist in American history was Nobel Prize winner, Richard Feynman. The Cal Tech professor was also one of the greatest lecturers in American academia. His lectures were never dry cyphering drones. Rather Feynman interjected a plethora of reasons as to why subjects like theoretical calculus are important to humanity. His lectures were as much about the why as they were about the how. His IQ was 125.

Aye, people often believe that the higher a person's IQ the better they are at doing whatever it is they do.
Not necessarily. Take Richard Rosner, an astounding verified IQ of 192. Yet he can barely get through daily life plagued by obsessive compulsions and meaningless writings and theories without useful application. He earned(s) a modest living writing for TV shows.
At the same time, there are many-many highly successful people in all fields with great achievements whose IQs less than 140.

IQ is a good indication of what a person can do, not what they will do. Many years ago, my best friend scored the 2nd highest score on the Annapolis Naval Academy entrance exam. However he decided not to attend and instead went to a local junior college to be with his girl friend. He graduated with a 4.0 and went to work as a butcher in a grocery store manged by his dad. After working in the store for about 15 years, he became an assistant manager. As far as I know he's still working there. Just having a high IQ doesn't guarantee success at anything.

Genius is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent perspiration.
Thomas Edison

It sure did for me.

I don't know any employer that will pay you because you have a high IQ score.

What makes you think I work for an employer? Everything I have accomplished has been because of me and my knowledge. Knowledge is power, money, and control.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I disagree. In order to glean that "trivial" information, one had to be very well read in an eclectic mix of human interests. If the category was Shakespeare, and a single contestant answered eight question in a row of Shakespeare esoterica, well then that person must have read, understood, and retained the great bard's entire corpus. In short, Jeopardy winners weren't necessarily high IQ people, but they were well-rounded and very well-read people. They were in touch with the world.

Probably the greatest theoretical physicist in American history was Nobel Prize winner, Richard Feynman. The Cal Tech professor was also one of the greatest lecturers in American academia. His lectures were never dry cyphering drones. Rather Feynman interjected a plethora of reasons as to why subjects like theoretical calculus are important to humanity. His lectures were as much about the why as they were about the how. His IQ was 125.

Aye, people often believe that the higher a person's IQ the better they are at doing whatever it is they do.
Not necessarily. Take Richard Rosner, an astounding verified IQ of 192. Yet he can barely get through daily life plagued by obsessive compulsions and meaningless writings and theories without useful application. He earned(s) a modest living writing for TV shows.
At the same time, there are many-many highly successful people in all fields with great achievements whose IQs less than 140.

IQ is a good indication of what a person can do, not what they will do. Many years ago, my best friend scored the 2nd highest score on the Annapolis Naval Academy entrance exam. However he decided not to attend and instead went to a local junior college to be with his girl friend. He graduated with a 4.0 and went to work as a butcher in a grocery store manged by his dad. After working in the store for about 15 years, he became an assistant manager. As far as I know he's still working there. Just having a high IQ doesn't guarantee success at anything.

Genius is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent perspiration.
Thomas Edison

It sure did for me.

I don't know any employer that will pay you because you have a high IQ score.

What makes you think I work for an employer? Everything I have accomplished has been because of me and my knowledge. Knowledge is power, money, and control.

Liar says what?

 

[Judicial review]

Aye, people often believe that the higher a person's IQ the better they are at doing whatever it is they do.
Not necessarily. Take Richard Rosner, an astounding verified IQ of 192. Yet he can barely get through daily life plagued by obsessive compulsions and meaningless writings and theories without useful application. He earned(s) a modest living writing for TV shows.
At the same time, there are many-many highly successful people in all fields with great achievements whose IQs less than 140.

IQ is a good indication of what a person can do, not what they will do. Many years ago, my best friend scored the 2nd highest score on the Annapolis Naval Academy entrance exam. However he decided not to attend and instead went to a local junior college to be with his girl friend. He graduated with a 4.0 and went to work as a butcher in a grocery store manged by his dad. After working in the store for about 15 years, he became an assistant manager. As far as I know he's still working there. Just having a high IQ doesn't guarantee success at anything.

Genius is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent perspiration.
Thomas Edison

It sure did for me.

I don't know any employer that will pay you because you have a high IQ score.

What makes you think I work for an employer? Everything I have accomplished has been because of me and my knowledge. Knowledge is power, money, and control.

Liar says what?

You heard me.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

At the same time, there are many-many highly successful people in all fields with great achievements whose IQs less than 140.

take your signature image for instance... zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

My signature?
The Gary Sinise Foundation? WTF are you talking about?

It sucks. It's large. In your face. Why do you hate the foundation, or are you clueless?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I used to watch Jeopardy a lot. Alex Trebek (who has philosophy degrees from the University of Ottawa and the University of Toronto, and who was a noted philosophical debater in Canada before slumming into show business) never seemed to tire of announcing that MENSA members were miserable Jeopardy players, most getting bounced early on. I don't know what the connection is, I'm just passing on what Trebek observed over many years.

Jeopardy requires rapid recall of "trivial" information. Pattern recognition and problem solving are more often tested with IQ tests.

I disagree. In order to glean that "trivial" information, one had to be very well read in an eclectic mix of human interests. If the category was Shakespeare, and a single contestant answered eight question in a row of Shakespeare esoterica, well then that person must have read, understood, and retained the great bard's entire corpus. In short, Jeopardy winners weren't necessarily high IQ people, but they were well-rounded and very well-read people. They were in touch with the world.

Probably the greatest theoretical physicist in American history was Nobel Prize winner, Richard Feynman. The Cal Tech professor was also one of the greatest lecturers in American academia. His lectures were never dry cyphering drones. Rather Feynman interjected a plethora of reasons as to why subjects like theoretical calculus are important to humanity. His lectures were as much about the why as they were about the how. His IQ was 125.

Aye, people often believe that the higher a person's IQ the better they are at doing whatever it is they do.
Not necessarily. Take Richard Rosner, an astounding verified IQ of 192. Yet he can barely get through daily life plagued by obsessive compulsions and meaningless writings and theories without useful application. He earned(s) a modest living writing for TV shows.
At the same time, there are many-many highly successful people in all fields with great achievements whose IQs less than 140.

IQ tests have never been predictors of achievement in any field, or predictors of anything other than IQs

What a silly statement. Glib. Powerfully ignorant. I worked as a supervisor for a company that used mostly handicapped people to manufacture certain operations in aircraft parts production. I got a good education in assessing and training people with limited IQ and some with non threatening mental disease...and some with

Someone such as yourself could possibly learn a lot about the real world applications of testing and understanding people with IQ deficiencies.

IQ although not the only testing that matters certainly is a useful tool in gauging success. That statement is from real world experience and application.

Motivation and desire to work = success. IQ does not

next

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

My signature?
The Gary Sinise Foundation? WTF are you talking about?

Gary Sinese is the real deal. Does so much for our servicemen, probably more than all of Hollywood put together.

Oh please, who gives a flying f()ck?

Let him do his good altruistic deeds, and stop suggesting he does more than all of Hollywood. geeze, you people are demented

 

[Flopper]

IQ is a good indication of what a person can do, not what they will do. Many years ago, my best friend scored the 2nd highest score on the Annapolis Naval Academy entrance exam. However he decided not to attend and instead went to a local junior college to be with his girl friend. He graduated with a 4.0 and went to work as a butcher in a grocery store manged by his dad. After working in the store for about 15 years, he became an assistant manager. As far as I know he's still working there. Just having a high IQ doesn't guarantee success at anything.

How is that unsuccessful to you? Maybe he's damn good at his job and provides a valuable service to the community. Lots of people like food.

By success, I was thinking in terms of what he could have accomplished had he pursued a higher education. This guy was brilliant but I don't think he had much drive. He never had to work in school and his parents gave him just about anything he wanted. I had to work my ass off to make high grades and he breezed through.

Maybe he was a good butcher but it just seemed a waste of his intelligence.
.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

IQ is a good indication of what a person can do, not what they will do. Many years ago, my best friend scored the 2nd highest score on the Annapolis Naval Academy entrance exam. However he decided not to attend and instead went to a local junior college to be with his girl friend. He graduated with a 4.0 and went to work as a butcher in a grocery store manged by his dad. After working in the store for about 15 years, he became an assistant manager. As far as I know he's still working there. Just having a high IQ doesn't guarantee success at anything.

Genius is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent perspiration.
Thomas Edison

It sure did for me.

I don't know any employer that will pay you because you have a high IQ score.

What makes you think I work for an employer? Everything I have accomplished has been because of me and my knowledge. Knowledge is power, money, and control.

Liar says what?

You heard me.

I heard you lying. So?

 

[Vigilante]

I have an IQ of 147, this the latest test I took.

So I have a question.
What makes the "Average IQ" so attractive to other people ?
The average IQ is 100.

Just a reminder, 100 is very first number with three digits !
Compared to how I function, how most people I have ever dealt with on a daily basis as equals function... 100 is fucking slow as molasses.

An IQ of 90 is considered dull.... 100 is just 10 points higher than DULL, scientifically, and 85 is getting near retarded, if it isn't retarded.

The average person that I know has an IQ ranging from about 118, up to about 160.

So what is with all these complaints in marriages, when the spouse has an "above average iq".. especially regarding people with Asperger ?

So what the fuck is the attraction to people with just an "Average IQ" ?

A 160 IQ is MENSA territory, there are not many that fall there, and most of the subversive left here fall far below 100, just read their posts.... Comedy Central is nothing compared to these parrots!

A 160 IQ is MENSA territory

Mensa is more like 130.

It had been 150 several decades ago, apparently their standards have dropped, or perhaps the general IQ of the public has collectively dropped, which seems more than likely!

It had been 150 several decades ago

No. Top 2% has always been in the area of 130, depending on the test.

Sorry, back in '68 I just missed it as it was to be 150 with the test I took at Adelphi...

Mensa's requirement for membership is a score at or above the 98th percentile on certain standardised IQ or other approved intelligence tests, such as the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales. The minimum accepted score on the Stanford-Binet is 132, while for the Cattell it is 148.[11]

 

[Flopper]

Jeopardy requires rapid recall of "trivial" information. Pattern recognition and problem solving are more often tested with IQ tests.

I disagree. In order to glean that "trivial" information, one had to be very well read in an eclectic mix of human interests. If the category was Shakespeare, and a single contestant answered eight question in a row of Shakespeare esoterica, well then that person must have read, understood, and retained the great bard's entire corpus. In short, Jeopardy winners weren't necessarily high IQ people, but they were well-rounded and very well-read people. They were in touch with the world.

Probably the greatest theoretical physicist in American history was Nobel Prize winner, Richard Feynman. The Cal Tech professor was also one of the greatest lecturers in American academia. His lectures were never dry cyphering drones. Rather Feynman interjected a plethora of reasons as to why subjects like theoretical calculus are important to humanity. His lectures were as much about the why as they were about the how. His IQ was 125.

Aye, people often believe that the higher a person's IQ the better they are at doing whatever it is they do.
Not necessarily. Take Richard Rosner, an astounding verified IQ of 192. Yet he can barely get through daily life plagued by obsessive compulsions and meaningless writings and theories without useful application. He earned(s) a modest living writing for TV shows.
At the same time, there are many-many highly successful people in all fields with great achievements whose IQs less than 140.

IQ tests have never been predictors of achievement in any field, or predictors of anything other than IQs

What a silly statement. Glib. Powerfully ignorant. I worked as a supervisor for a company that used mostly handicapped people to manufacture certain operations in aircraft parts production. I got a good education in assessing and training people with limited IQ and some with non threatening mental disease...and some with

Someone such as yourself could possibly learn a lot about the real world applications of testing and understanding people with IQ deficiencies.

IQ although not the only testing that matters certainly is a useful tool in gauging success. That statement is from real world experience and application.

Motivation and desire to work = success. IQ does not

next

I agree. I have never hired a person because they were intelligent. I hired them because I thought they would do a good job.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I disagree. In order to glean that "trivial" information, one had to be very well read in an eclectic mix of human interests. If the category was Shakespeare, and a single contestant answered eight question in a row of Shakespeare esoterica, well then that person must have read, understood, and retained the great bard's entire corpus. In short, Jeopardy winners weren't necessarily high IQ people, but they were well-rounded and very well-read people. They were in touch with the world.

Probably the greatest theoretical physicist in American history was Nobel Prize winner, Richard Feynman. The Cal Tech professor was also one of the greatest lecturers in American academia. His lectures were never dry cyphering drones. Rather Feynman interjected a plethora of reasons as to why subjects like theoretical calculus are important to humanity. His lectures were as much about the why as they were about the how. His IQ was 125.

Aye, people often believe that the higher a person's IQ the better they are at doing whatever it is they do.
Not necessarily. Take Richard Rosner, an astounding verified IQ of 192. Yet he can barely get through daily life plagued by obsessive compulsions and meaningless writings and theories without useful application. He earned(s) a modest living writing for TV shows.
At the same time, there are many-many highly successful people in all fields with great achievements whose IQs less than 140.

IQ tests have never been predictors of achievement in any field, or predictors of anything other than IQs

What a silly statement. Glib. Powerfully ignorant. I worked as a supervisor for a company that used mostly handicapped people to manufacture certain operations in aircraft parts production. I got a good education in assessing and training people with limited IQ and some with non threatening mental disease...and some with

Someone such as yourself could possibly learn a lot about the real world applications of testing and understanding people with IQ deficiencies.

IQ although not the only testing that matters certainly is a useful tool in gauging success. That statement is from real world experience and application.

Motivation and desire to work = success. IQ does not

next

I agree. I have never hired a person because they were intelligent. I hired them because I thought they would do a good job.

Teaching Hospitals are/used to be filled with intelligent people -- and that's just counting the patients

 

[ChrisL]

Hey, she started it.

it takes at least two to play

Point being?

stop hijacking threads with personal battles.

why not respect the community and take it to the Flame Zone?

I didn't. I was addressing the topic of the thread. A&D came in and called me shallow, among other things. It was self defense. Lol.

and all you have to do is take it...

like I will if I address this again

And . . . who the fuck are you again? Oh, that's right, some psychotic internet twit who has absolutely NO authority over anything. Lol.