Stasisesque said:
brandon237 said:
Generic Gamer said:
brandon237 said:
I will also double check that 150-170 figure, so don't take my word on it yet
Also, the problem with an IQ test is that it's only a snapshot of your intelligence. A lot of children (myself included) develop extremely fast and end up with truly
phenomenal IQ scores when young, but their development then slows and their peers catch up.
You're unlikely to be above normal intelligence now I'm afraid, you'd need to be retested rather than use an old score but seventy percent of the population are within fifteen points of the 100 average.
OT: I know a few people who are far more intelligent than me but they don't strike me as 'genius' material.
That's true, but I REALLY don't want to be of the same IQ as most of my peers
I know for maths I am in the top 10% or so for my country, And I do damn well in non-language and creative pursuits of many variants (IT, Science, chess et cetera).
Stasisesque said:
Oh please, you didn't even know what "sanguine" meant.
Not even my fault. The person who taught us that even gave us notes that I checked. And he was an actuary and head of learning at one of the local universities that taught us that.
If I am a genius (according to the 180 cut-off, no frikking way), then I fully admit that it is NOT in language.
Don't take my word for it, being a lowly person of average intelligence an' all, but I am fairly sure any "genius" would have checked the meaning of a word before claiming to be an authority of it regardless of who gave them the tidbit of knowledge.
And you obviously didn't check because you were very wrong.
Sorry, I realise this comes across as incredibly confrontational.
Problem actually came in when I DID check

And The standard baseline seems to be >=140, but that holds the top 1 in 200 or so people, but there were also many sources saying that >=180 was true genius, All things in consideration, It means very little to have a specific number[footnote]Once you are considered to be very intelligent, effort, a good problem, interest et cetera will do far more for your success, most of the >180 IQ people listed no-one has ever heard of, but many in the 120-160 bracket are very well known for their good work[/footnote]. I agree with you though that I do not think my self genius material, because that makes so much more sense for the 180 bracket. But by the "standard" definition, I fit the category, but the much bigger category, that is actually represented by a full half a percent of the population[footnote]meaning that in a large school of people, in an area that is more educated (not rural, somewhere that needs skill and clever people), you will have a small class of said people with no problem[/footnote]. As for the Really insanely intelligent people, what most people think of as genius, are kind of rare, around 1 in 10 000 (the ones with >180 IQ). I am NOT one of those, by quite a long shot.
On what was I very wrong?
Yes, many places do not have the classifications going 140 or 180, but rather 145, 175, 185 or something like that. To measure such a thing so exactly is pointless due to reasons footnoted.
And the edit changed it to 150-170 to 150-160... so I don't see where that comes into play...
Oh wait, the sanguine issue[footnote]Now I do feel very stupid
[/footnote], he was giving notes for an exam and memory course, and many such notes, and from that I am not going to question every single definition, many of which were, to me, especially at the time, quite obscure words. To go through them all would be crazy... And not the kind of crazy that I normally am.
Blue is where I realised what you meant, my bad.
It's cool, Today has been a day for me with many arguments (damn exam-paper bureaucracy), so I fully admit I haven't helped. And I have at least learnt something from all this... even if it is only to never use *that* word if I am writing in a hurry and not thinking...