http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg2042...oure-smart.html

:pal:

mine was about 135 last time I checked :dunce:

:good:
you intellectual pygmy

Meh. Psychologists reckon they have now identified 'multiple intelligences'. The traditional IQ test only measures one of them, so can't be used as a definitive statement of exactly how intelligent a person is.

:coffee:

Well, people who can do long multiplication, remember shapes and figure the trickiest of riddles, might not be street savvy.

I mean, common sense and knowing how to play the game, and imagination could be considered better indications of intellegence than knowing the trickiest of Jack and Jill conundrums.

My IQ is in the top 10%, but it doesn't mean I'm more clever. It just tells you my brain works more efficiently in certain areas.

If the IQ test started covering artistic qualities, imagination and people skills, some of those mensa fucktards might just feel pretty stoopid.

Right. That's what's meant by multiple intelligences.

I thought you meant aliens.

Them as well.

The problem with IQ tests is that you can learn how to do them. So by definition, they cant be an objective test of intelligence.

I'd agree that common sense, good organisational skills and anlytical capability are underrated when it comes to determining intelligence.

Mmm, good point, but could anyone with an IQ of less than 125 really be arsed to?

Spelling skills too :good:

And grammer, including how to use apostrophe's, which should of been taught in school's but aparently isnt.

...a joke, right? ;)

Of course it was... as were the apostrophes...

...aparently

Your all just :geek: snob's. and not a sub-Saharan African amongst you, racist bastards

Your gay

Simples. Having a high IQ is a sign of one form of intelligence. But there are many forms of intelligence, so not having a high IQ does not mean you are unintelligent, just not high in that particular area.

It's like school. We all know fellow pupils who might have been shit at academic work but were by no means stupid.

IQ tests are a useful measure for certain things, but not a measure of everything.

Possibly not.

Also, essentially, IQ tests are good for finding out who is good at taking IQ tests.

The ability to learn how to do IQ tests is a sign of intelligence. :good:

Yeh i know. Much like the ability to learn how to do anything is.

But those things, quite rightly, aren't used as objective tests of intelligence.

Which goes back to my original point.

Since everyone has the chance to do that, it is still objective. If people aren't smart enough to do some practice tests, then they are not intelligent enough and will score less. Those smart enough will do better - the more intelligent ones within that group of smarter people will score more, so the test is objective in measuring whatever it is IQ tests measure. :good:

The truly intelligent would learn how to do them all then use that ability for gain.

The chance to do something doesnt automatically equate to the desire.

So no. :good:

last time i rolled a 90, therefore these tests are shite :fingers:

Oi, geezers, only thick people believe what's written in the New Scientist...


I have a subscription to it...

this is true, i work with some of the most intelligent people there are, academically and most of them cant find there arsehole with a map

Is that becuase their arsehole didnt conform to the stringent topography requisites?

Oi, mush, is it because you are their boss and you've insisted on hot desking?...

They can probably write 'their' though.

:run:

I'll have you know it's credibility rating for published journal articles is higher than a tabloid :sulk: but only just