Poll: How smart do you think you are compared to other people?

[DANGERECTION]

Last time I did any standardized testing I ended up a little outside the bellcurve on the better end.

 

[Iron Mal]

I have proof, I passed an IQ test that proved I'm a genuise, but I kinda think IQ tests ae flawed so I'm hypociritcal.

Which IQ-test? Was it on the internet? Then no, you don't have proof. If it wasn't, then please specify via what organisation or psychologist you took the test, and what specific test version and scale was used.

IQ tests tend to be inaccurate and biased due to most of the questions (and answers) being focused towards a white, middle class background (at least this is theorised to be the case in the UK anyway) so I'd hardly call it proof (although you did realise this so credit to you for pointing it out).

That's true for most of the "IQ tests". It is not, however, true for IQ tests without the quotation marks. Because for an IQ test to be considered serious, it has to be "culture-fair". Examples of serious, culture-fair IQ tests include Raven's Progressive Matrices (RPM), Cattell Culture Fair (CFIT) and Figure Reasoning Test (FRT). These tests include no verbal or numerical components, and are instead completely based on deducing the next figure/shape in a progressive series. This has been proven to have absolutely no connection with cultural differences, as all that is required is an ability to understand logic and complexity - commonly known as the G-factor [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_intelligence_factor]. Culture-fair IQ tests do not feature "questions" as such, only series of figures, where your task is to identify the next logical addition to it.

IQ tests are especially misleading and are inadequate measures of ones cognitive potential and ability.

How so? Please motivate. The G-factor [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_intelligence_factor] is a scientifically accepted attribute, and IQ has been shown to correlate with G at 0.9, if I remember correctly.

The G-factor theory is debateable in terms of how much of a valid representation it is to someone's intelligence.

A big issue with many IQ tests is that the focus on one variety of intelligence (that usually being academic intelligence, particularly in areas of maths and science) and I'm going to assume that the tests used by the G factor approach are no different, how can a logic test deduce that a person posesses musical/artistic/linguistic talent?

Also, as it says in the Wikipedia page you provided, people with Savant Syndrome act as a large critism to the idea of a G factor since they often have IQ test results that average around being mentally retarded yet their actual observed intelligence is astounding, clearly there is something that has been overlooked or the measurement that the G factor is based upon does not bear any significant relevence on an individual's intelligence or brain power.

 

[TheBarefootBandit]

Book smart? Not very. Street smart? Not very either.

 

[Nomad]

A big issue with many IQ tests is that the focus on one variety of intelligence (that usually being academic intelligence, particularly in areas of maths and science) and I'm going to assume that the tests used by the G factor approach are no different, how can a logic test deduce that a person posesses musical/artistic/linguistic talent?

The tests I mentioned (RAPM, CFIT and FRT) contain no mathematical components whatsoever.
The tests are not based on logic per se, but rather the ability to reason and understand complexity. These talents correlate highly with musical, artistic and linguistic talent (around 0.7, 0.8 if memory serves), since all of those require an understanding of the connection between your body and the instrument, the ability to understand the complexity and geometry of shapes and patterns and the ability to discover patterns and connections in vocabulary and grammar.

That said, you're touching on a subject that is a major pet peeve of mine, which is the theory of multiple intelligences. And what Howard Gardner did there was nothing less than sloppy use of terms. He used "intelligence" as a synonym for "talent", which is simply not correct from a linguistic point of view. Intelligence is a subgroup of talent, not the other way around.

Saying you're "musically intelligent" is like saying you're "physically linguistic". It just doesn't match up.

Being intelligent does not in any way mean you have to be good at everything. Being intelligent means you have a well-developed ability to reason and understand complexity. There is no connection as such between intelligence and artistic prowess, aside from them both having a high correlation with the G-factor.

Also, as it says in the Wikipedia page you provided, people with Savant Syndrome act as a large critism to the idea of a G factor since they often have IQ test results that average around being mentally retarded yet their actual observed intelligence is astounding, clearly there is something that has been overlooked or the measurement that the G factor is based upon does not bear any significant relevence on an individual's intelligence or brain power.

Absolutely, there's criticism towards the G-factor, just like there's criticism towards the theory of evolution or the big bang. There are always variables that are unaccounted for, and other theories that would take a different path towards the same conclusion. But just like evolution is a scientifically and generally accepted theory, so is the G-factor.

That said, one thing that's important to note is that G measures "general intelligence". A person with the Savant-syndrome is exceptionally skilled in one area, but severely lacking in all other departments, thus making for a low general average. Having a high IQ-score means you're likely to excell in a large number of areas, but it does not mean you're a guaranteed nuclear physicist. Savants have one particular skill they're great at, but their general ability to reason and understand complexity is lacking. The challenge to the system is not saying that G is not a valid factor, the challenge lies in the notion that there are other factors to be considered along with G - such as whatever factor is the cause of the Savant syndrome.

 

[Iampringles]

It's only the smartest people in the world who realise how stupid they really are.

Whilst I consider myself a great deal more intelligent than most people of my age, this statement has alot of truth behind it.

When you actually think about the nature of humanity, you do start to realise just how stupid people are.

 

[Booze Zombie]

I don't measure my intelligence, but I get this feeling people think I'm not very bright just because they talk like twits and I can't understand a word they're saying.

Fuckers...

 

[ben---neb]

I haven't seen any results yet, but I am going to make an educated guess. A much larger proportion of people voted above average than average or below average. This shows how egotistic and self indulging you are. Maybe its true, maybe it just happened that an intelligent amount of people saw and viewed this. Maybe the viewers of this website are above average intelligence. This is very unlikely, as most of you would fail a retard internet test. So what do YOU O Intelligent One, think of this? Because you matter so much I would adore your input.

Yes, that is often not so. I am intelligent enough to know and prove that 1 + 1 = 3.

 

[ae86gamer]

I'm above average, I think. I took a lot of AP classes in school. So.. yeah..

 

[Yudas]

I was the best in my class in school and amongst the better in high school in several subjects. I consider myself pretty average. Theres some things im good at and some things I suck hard at. Just like everybody else.

 

[Hurr Durr Derp]

Eh, I believe intelligence, like most things, is very relative. Sure I've got me a better (as in "longer and more expensive") edumacation than most people, but when my car breaks down and the mechanic tries to tell me what went wrong I feel like a total retard for not understanding a word of what he's saying (seriously, all I understand is "It's going to take this long to fix and it's going to cost that much"). I might score higher on an IQ test than the guy, but there he is proving that there's at least one area where his intelligence and knowledge are vastly superior to mine.

It's all rather meaningless on a big scale if you ask me. If you've got two people with the same education doing the same job, it's often easy to say who's doing better. But if you're comparing yourself to everyone else it's supremely arrogant to say you're more intelligent than them, and a worrying lack of self-confidence to say that you're less intelligent.

 

[Galletea]

I don't tend to think of myself compared to the rest of the general public. I have a reasonable amount of intelligence and a decent amount of common sense. I don't think I'm a genius, but I have my talents. Average? I don't know where the average is.

Smarter than you perhaps, considering the tone and nature of your post, it seems somewhat pretentious and immature.

 

[Skooterz]

Well, using the people I work and go to class with as a measuring stick of sorts tells me that I am at least fairly above average. Perhaps a bit arrogant of me, but it is what it is.

 

[nick_knack]

People call me very smart. My IQ has been rated in the 145-150 range. (by psychologist, not an internet test.) I find myself to pick up on new concepts far faster than my peers. That is why I judge myself to be far above average.

Of course, this is the internet, nobody will, nor should anyone believe me.

Utterly fascinating poll results though.

EDIT: I realize how rough a grading IQ is, it was merely a summary of the multitude test results on my report.

Of course, I severely doubt the prospect that I have an ounce of the wit to comprehend the level of linguistic mastery that you display on several occasions daily.

Or not.

Hmm. Yes looking back on it, not adding an edit tag to the last sentence does make my post seem fragmented. It is now fixed.

However it truly is an affront to my character to question my English, justified complaint or not. I rather pride myself on topping that class weekly. But I suppose I shouldn't have expected any different, bragging never gets me anywhere.

 

[Daeggreth]

I personally have no idea where I sit in relation to the general population. That being said I was professionally tested quite a few years ago and found to be among the top five percentile. Due to the time passage since then (and the mass quantities of alcohol consumed ) I suppose I'd be slightly above average?

 

[Jon Etheridge]

I'm about dumb as hell. But I did figure out how to make interweb cartoons. Now I am draw for a living. Yay.

 

[teisjm]

I love how the vast majority of the escapist end up on the better side of average in intelegence/IQ polls... but hey, theres less shit here than most other open forums, so there might be something about it.
Or maybe the less smart people avoid these kidns of topic.

Maybe gaming just attracts smart people, while some games are pretty simple, some do require a certain level of intellegence.

Ever tried to understand how all those damn numbers work in an RPG in order to make a good build that wasn't ripped off from someone else?
Ever tried to micro stuff more than just "build one thing at a time and them attack with everything you've got" in an RTS?
Ever had to memorize hundreds on combos in a fighter? (yes you DO get yoru ass kicked by skilled players if you just plays it as a button masher and expect to win about 50% of the time)


These are just the best examples i could think of quickly

 

[benoitowns]

so that means you can remember useless history facts, but you cant get anything useful done....