Sark said:
Nobody will claim to get an IQ of less than 110. This is the internet. Internet IQ tests are meaningless, so are claims without any real proof.
BTW my IQ was tested at 189. That makes me pretty smart bro.
I will ... My IQ according to a state examination of a section of School students using a Stanford Binet standardised IQ test was < 50
That being said I have taken two such tests since then and gotten 132, and 121 ... and given the discrepancy between the two (taken not more than 5 years apart) I have to call bullshit on IQ exams in general.
A friend got 140, the same friend when asked by his teacher in class 'To pull up a chair' got one and then asked the teacher 'where to put it?'. Besides, standardised IQ tests under an fMRI machine show only to excite 3% of the human brain ... so it certainly doesn't test the whole range of human intelligences (yes I subscribe to the Triarchic theory of Intelligence).
I've seen 'geniuses' who can't even kick a soccer ball properly, whilst 'lesser intelligent' people can do so with impeccable speed, grace, and strength that they can 'sniper' those bastards at beer bottles on posts 40 yards away.
Why people don't think intelligence is multifaceted is beyond me. Surely the ability to co-ordinate speed, strength and muscular activity into a seamless display of physical prowess is nothing if not a sign of 'intelligence'? Surely if someone was a true 'genius' in all regards they should beable to co-ordinate muscular contractions and tailor their perceptions and theories so that they can achieve such a physical feat EASIER than someone of 'lesser intelligence' right?