How do you "know" if you have above average intelligence?
- Thread starter Vault101
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Me specifically? That "you're in the 99th percentile of everyone who's ever taken this test" thing I always get. What difference does it make? Innate "intelligence" doesn't matter. What you do with it does.
Well, there is the Dunning-Kruger effect. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect] (Also this more general article [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusory_superiority].)
At a first approximation, if you're really dumb, you know it. If you're just average, you think you're smarter than you are. If you're actually smart, you think you're dumber than you are. (There's also a magic little point where the lines for estimated IQ and actual IQ cross, so if you're at that point, then you have perfectly estimated your intelligence.)
Modern psychological theories of intelligence are incomplete at best (and completely wrong at worst), but commonly accepted measures are things like "can you solve problems and learn quickly?" (fluid intelligence) and "do you know a lot of crap?" (crystallized intelligence). See the CHC [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CHC_theory] theory of intelligence for more details. To all those people saying that "you can't measure intelligence" or crap like that, yes you can, and with pretty meaningful results. That's not saying you don't have strengths and weaknesses or that you can't be talented in a specific area without being generally smart, but there are general intelligence factors which mean that if you're good at one thing, you have a higher chance of being good at others, too. (Funnily enough, this doesn't really apply if you're below about 80 IQ.) Also, if you came across Gardner's theory of multiple intelligences, it's pretty much BS as there's no actual evidence to support it (except maybe kinesthetic intelligence vs. other intelligences).
As to how you can tell if you're smart, a high fluid IQ means that you're a good problem solver and that you learn quickly. A high crystallized IQ probably means that you do well at trivia and tests. These two are also positively correlated, so if you're good at one, you tend to be good at the other. Due to the Dunning-Kruger effect, I'd advise you to base your opinions off of other people in some part. If you think you're smart and everyone else does, too, you're probably smart.
At a first approximation, if you're really dumb, you know it. If you're just average, you think you're smarter than you are. If you're actually smart, you think you're dumber than you are. (There's also a magic little point where the lines for estimated IQ and actual IQ cross, so if you're at that point, then you have perfectly estimated your intelligence.)
Modern psychological theories of intelligence are incomplete at best (and completely wrong at worst), but commonly accepted measures are things like "can you solve problems and learn quickly?" (fluid intelligence) and "do you know a lot of crap?" (crystallized intelligence). See the CHC [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CHC_theory] theory of intelligence for more details. To all those people saying that "you can't measure intelligence" or crap like that, yes you can, and with pretty meaningful results. That's not saying you don't have strengths and weaknesses or that you can't be talented in a specific area without being generally smart, but there are general intelligence factors which mean that if you're good at one thing, you have a higher chance of being good at others, too. (Funnily enough, this doesn't really apply if you're below about 80 IQ.) Also, if you came across Gardner's theory of multiple intelligences, it's pretty much BS as there's no actual evidence to support it (except maybe kinesthetic intelligence vs. other intelligences).
As to how you can tell if you're smart, a high fluid IQ means that you're a good problem solver and that you learn quickly. A high crystallized IQ probably means that you do well at trivia and tests. These two are also positively correlated, so if you're good at one, you tend to be good at the other. Due to the Dunning-Kruger effect, I'd advise you to base your opinions off of other people in some part. If you think you're smart and everyone else does, too, you're probably smart.
thats somthing we all pretty much know or at least learn at some point....as in its "who you know" and all thatLoner Jo Jo said:
speaking of volbabuary...I was hardly a brilliant kid
BUT what always pissed me off, you in shows, usually kids shows (but somtimes otherwise) you would have a "smart" charachter
and to show their "smartness" they would rattle off a bunch of "big" words
but it pissed me off because I understood PERFECTLY what the hell they were saying each time, and then the charachters would just be like "duh?"
I dont think it had anything to do with being overly smart, just knowing words...I also read a bit which may have helped
You say that with almost a hint of scorn.Novs said:
Intelligence is potential. It doesn't matter how high your IQ is if you don't use it. Doing well in school isn't just about intelligence, but how you actually apply your knowledge and use your time. People born highly intelligent end up no better than your average person unless they actually make use of their mental abilities. And the less intelligent can also become high achievers.
I was born with intelligence, but work hard to achieve excellent results. I'm not so arrogant that I believe I can throw an assignment together at the last minute and expect to receive good grades. And people who do that are in for a shock later in life...
... ?? Surely it's 'by'...? /jerkMr.Numbers said:
Could've listed more... though I'm waiting for someone to come on and say 'so what you're saying is that you're a dickhead?'aba1 said:
I do not work hard. I'm overly prone to procrastination and during free periods I tend not to study, but instead to attempt to draw ponies (terribly, terribly badly). My friend and I spend a good amount of time during lessons talking, and we still end up with more work done than everyone else in the class.Novs said:
Well, I've got top scores in australia's standard test (The National Literacy and Numeracy Test) and a psychologist rated me within the top 2 percentile for nearly everything except for concentration, giving me an IQ of approx 140. That's how I know.
While that might be true in some cases, I don't think that that's the case (most of the time anyway) with me. I just tend to jump steps in reasoning. Most people go A>B>C etc, whereas I sometimes go A>F>Q etc, and people tend to have a hard time keeping up with such jumps, although I honestly attribute that more to the education system and not the intelligence of the person I'm talking to because our education system seems to want to spoonfeed everyone with each and every step.Generic Gamer said:
I wonder how much of today's seeming idiocy isn't actually idiocy, but a laziness that has been conditioned into us in order not to break the mold as it were. People nowadays don't seem to want to think much, and it's hurting society more than it's helping.
Another thing that I've noticed is that people that tend to be smarter are able to site sources. This doesn't mean that you're a genius simply by doing so of course, but I have a friend who's reasonably intelligent (his mom claims he has an IQ of 130 or so) but dropped out of highschool and had to take the GED three times before he finally passed the thing. Of course, this is the point where we get into the arguments of intelligence and being easily bored or uninterested as he seems to be, but if he was truly intelligent, he would have realized the importance of such a thing, or even might not have dropped out to begin with (which I strongly recommended). He never sites sources. Ever. He has no basis for ny argument he forms other than that he believes it's right. Sometimes, I'm pretty sure he about as smart as your average sack of potatoes. Sometimes, he surprises me with his insights. But he's flat out admitted to me that he doesn't like thinking about things because it mkes his head hurt. The really sad part about this is that he's actually fairly intelligent, but you'd never guess based off of how he speaks, writes, or otherwise acts.
In short, I've often wondered if people just act stupid. I truly hope that the average person isn't as unreasonable and, quite bluntly, dumb as I have seen most people act. I understand that we're emotional and not logical creatures, we're not going to act on reason alone for the vast majority of our decisions.
I guess the thing is this; I know how to use logic and reason, and do, for the most part. The "average" person I've seen...not so much. I know how to apply what I know in situations where the need arises. The "average" person, again, not so much. Does this mean I'm a genius? I'd like to think so, but I'm smart enough to know what I do and don't know. I'm also smart enough to realize that there are people out there who are smart enough that when I speak to them, sometimes I get lost. I'm not ashamed of it. I simply study more and eventually, I can speak about it on a level close enough to them that I'm able to have a conversation without being left in the dust.
I believe it was Confucious that said something along the lines of, "A normal man is smart enough to know what he knows. A smart man knows what he does not." I probably butchered that quote, but it's been a long time since I've seen it, and I used to have it written down, along with a bunch of other quote by him, but I seem to have lost it. XD
I think a good indication is when you can be sitting in a classroom, get asked a maths question and answer it correctly, then when the teacher asks "and how did you work that out?" you can honestly say "I don't know how. I have not memorised the answer in any way. I just know."
I used to do that all the time, and my teachers could never understand how.
I used to do that all the time, and my teachers could never understand how.
I am said friend and can verify that Redingold is one of the laziest, most procrastinating people on the planet. And also terrible at drawing ponies.Redingold said:
The only objective measures I'm aware of are math skills, language skills (not necessarily foreign languages, but that can certainly be part of it), and logic skills.
If you can read fast, retain the information easily, and communicate both verbally and in writing; if you can perform manual mathematical calculations, remember equations, and apply things like Algebra and geometry; if you can easily see the connections between interrelated topics, understand how science works, and follow the process of cause and effect, you probably have above-average (what you might call) "academic intelligence", and you'll be reasonably successful in any academic field.
I know there are all kinds of intelligences, but I think those three are the only ones we can currently measure.
If you can read fast, retain the information easily, and communicate both verbally and in writing; if you can perform manual mathematical calculations, remember equations, and apply things like Algebra and geometry; if you can easily see the connections between interrelated topics, understand how science works, and follow the process of cause and effect, you probably have above-average (what you might call) "academic intelligence", and you'll be reasonably successful in any academic field.
I know there are all kinds of intelligences, but I think those three are the only ones we can currently measure.
On a totally, well, I guess not TOTALLY unrelated note, I like your avatar. XDJe Suis Ubermonkey said:
I know what you mean, my fellow brony. There are some subjects that require me to pay at least a little bit of attention to, but if I read it, or write it down once, I tend to remember it, and do better than the majority of my class.Redingold said:
Although I don't draw ponies while I'm in class, I just tend to work on one of the books I'm writing. XD
There is no test that accounts for EVERY possible thing in existence. Another way that you can judge people, but that's not exactly an intelligent way of measuring it.
Yeah, other than saying "I'm intelligent because I said so." I'm stumped.
Yeah, other than saying "I'm intelligent because I said so." I'm stumped.
I remember doing a whole bunch of tests around year 8 or 9 (literacy numeracy, that kind of thing)XxSummonerxX said:
anyway they were government tests, so when you got the results back it gave you an indicator as to where you sat in relation to the rest of the state (I think)
I got above average for I think most of them except math (sucked at math) however the standard wasnt high at all, so thats got nothing to so wiith being a genious
I would be interested to see them again if they are still around, dig them out from my old box
anyway rest of highschool I tanked acedemically, so I stoped thinking I was in any way smart (and got very very depressed over the whole thing)
and now honestly I have no Idea how "smart" I may/may not be...but its not a big deal and doesnt really matter in the grand scheme of things, just hope I can do well at somthing (because I havnt really done that for a long time)