IQ + SAT scores





Click here to go to the NEW College Discussion Forum

Discus: SAT/ACT Tests and Test Preparation: May 2003 Archive: IQ + SAT scores
By Sirmoreau (Sirmoreau) on Friday, May 16, 2003 - 10:27 pm: Edit

You people who are scoring above a 1400 know that you most likely have a higher IQ then 99 perc. of the world. And for you 1200+ er's like myself, have an appearent IQ that is higher than 98 perc. of the world. Therefore, people that come on these boards and post messages stating if you have below a 1200, you're dumb, that statement is so false on a worldly scale. They're easily in the 95th percentile, as far as pure "smarts" go. My IQ is the same as George Washington (125). Also for those people who think Bush is dumb, he's in the 97th percentile or so..hes a pretty smart man. But anyways, interesting how IQ can directly correlate with sat scores. Basically what i'm saying with this message is, that all kids on this board, with HIGH scores, well you're GENIUS'S....so if you've got a "1400" don't fret..you have the power to be filthy rich or do whatever your heart tells you, because you're smarter than a shitload of people. Take advantage of it, however, i've noticed about 3/4 of the people on these boards have self-esteem issues. If you're not assured with a score of 1400+ throw me a fricken bone here, you'll go to a GREAT college. Don't worry bout it.

By Jimjunior (Jimjunior) on Saturday, May 17, 2003 - 04:48 am: Edit

1200 is certainly not higher than 98% of the world, unless you are suggesting that non-english speakers are dumber cause they couldnt do the SAT verbal in english

By Microcephalic (Microcephalic) on Saturday, May 17, 2003 - 07:55 am: Edit

While your motivational words on lower S.A.T scores are certainly appreciated by some people...

Correlating someone's I.Q with a test that has a reputation for being nebulous in what it measures is not a wise choice of action. I gaurentee you that, in at lease one case-scenario, A.) Someone who isn't in the "99th Percentile" of intellect, however you measure that, scored a 1400+. B.) Someone who is in the "99th Percentile" scored below a 1400, and C.) At least one person on this board has either lied or inflated his or her own statistics.

They're just statistics. In most cases, they don't measure anything that should be taken with more than a grain of salt.

By Number9 (Number9) on Saturday, May 17, 2003 - 12:33 pm: Edit

Please, I see nothing in common with SAT scores and IQ.

I have a 143 IQ, and still didn't do well on the SAT.

By Vaj (Vaj) on Saturday, May 17, 2003 - 01:14 pm: Edit

"Please, I see nothing in common with SAT scores and IQ.

I have a 143 IQ, and still didn't do well on the SAT."

AGREED

By Webhappy2 (Webhappy2) on Saturday, May 17, 2003 - 01:15 pm: Edit

"I have a 143 IQ, and still didn't do well on the SAT. "

You wasted your IQ. You must've tested that 143 prob. 5 years ago. Congratulations.


The SAT I ideally would correspond directly but the fact is you CAN study to increase your score. Thus, it's not a perfect IQ test, but given the volume of takers and price (normal IQ test is 1-on-1 for about $80 for one hour), it's pretty good.

And yes, prob. most ppl here are rather high-scorers; that's why they care enough to go online in discussion forums!

By Number9 (Number9) on Saturday, May 17, 2003 - 02:56 pm: Edit

"You wasted your IQ. You must've tested that 143 prob. 5 years ago. Congratulations."

Nope, Ive taken IQ tests every 2 years, and they've always been in the 142-145 range, so I believe its very dependable.

I didn't waste it at all. I suggest you take a look what an intelligence quotient really is.

An IQ test doesn't measure your ability to know certain things about Algebra or Geometry.

By Peanuts (Peanuts) on Saturday, May 17, 2003 - 03:43 pm: Edit

number 9 instead of taking iq ests every day to assure yourself of you intelligence why dont u just go practice yours sats and accept the fact that colleges need some type of standard to measure ALL applicants. anyway, iq doesnt mean anything. whats so great about knowing that u have a high iq? congratulations, go walk around the street and tell people about your fantastic iq.

By J031p (J031p) on Saturday, May 17, 2003 - 04:43 pm: Edit

SAT tests how well you do on standarized tests, and tests nothing else.

By Sirmoreau (Sirmoreau) on Saturday, May 17, 2003 - 07:24 pm: Edit

hmm, number 9, I question that high IQ of yours, did you not clearly understand what webhappy was basically saying? I clear up the confusion for you, he's saying if you can't score well on the SAT, with such a high IQ, then obviously you've wasted the talent you could of produced with that "high" IQ..furthermore what was your score? 143..is basically brilliance, any "brilliant" individual should be able to score well on the SAT regardless. If you're so brilliant, with some effort in school, you should've been able to pick up on some of the algebriac/geometric functions. Another reason why you wasted your IQ, is the fact you didn't push your self hard enough, normally, when something comes easy to you, you want to excell in it (thusly you'd want to be in a higher math class) and if you didn't then you're either lying about your IQ or you just have been completely wasting it. Anyone with an IQ of over 132 should be able to get a 1400+ on the test, if you can't then you're most likely just a wrotten test taker (which would not make sense, considering you should be able to use the IQ and come up with the answers) and you're just worthless. You guys aren't giving me any facts to prove what I said, as being false, i researched that on yahoo....type it in/check it out. If you find out otherwise please do tell me. And you do realize for the majority of the test takers those percantages hold true (*Not All* b/c you can practice and improve your score immensly..although thats kind of why i gave ranges with the 1200+ and the 1400+...if you go from a 1400 to a 1600 it doesn't mean much as far as IQ goes)

Cheers -
Sir Moreau

Sidenote: This does not include foriegn students, who do not speak the english langauge well and many other variables. But for the most part it makes logical sense and the test "can" determine close to ones IQ.

By Apguy (Apguy) on Saturday, May 17, 2003 - 07:30 pm: Edit

>>And for you 1200+ er's like myself, have an appearent IQ that is higher than 98 perc. of the world. <<

Well, SAT scores are really only useful in english speaking countries, and in America an SAT score of 1200 would not put you in the 98th percentile. Far from it...

By Sirmoreau (Sirmoreau) on Saturday, May 17, 2003 - 07:36 pm: Edit

Think about how many poor people are in the world/how many less intelligent human beings there are? JimJunior you're obviously in a bubble surrounded by very intelligent people, but outside this bubble are many poorer people and many less intelligent human beings, believe it or not. So the 1200+ does make sense, think about it. The average american kid, who scores a 1000, is probably smarter than 80 percent of the world. So the 1200 may not be 98 perc. depending, but its atleast over 95 percent, which is still rather amazing considering. I scored around a 1200 and my IQ is 125, which puts me ahead of 98 perc. of the world. Basically I'm just showing you people how truly gifted you are, even if you refuse to believe.

http://members.shaw.ca/delajara/SATIQ.html

By Reelcool (Reelcool) on Saturday, May 17, 2003 - 07:40 pm: Edit

yea thats not true at all. most people I know got at least 1200 on the sat and I dont know very many people that could be considered 98th percentile of intellegence.

By Sirmoreau (Sirmoreau) on Saturday, May 17, 2003 - 07:41 pm: Edit

Yeah far from it in AMERICA, i'm talking 98 perc. world wide.

Take a look at this lovely chart, comparing SAT scores with IQ and such.

http://www.luminet.net/~ispe/iqselect.html

By Sirmoreau (Sirmoreau) on Saturday, May 17, 2003 - 07:47 pm: Edit

I forget to mention, those stats are from before the test was recentered, so there is a supposed "70" pt differential between SAT scores and IQ. Check it out though.

By Reelcool (Reelcool) on Saturday, May 17, 2003 - 07:48 pm: Edit

btw, if 1000 is the average sat score why doesnt it correlate with an iq of 100 which represents the average human iq. not only that but have you even considered the fact that the sat tests knowledge while an iq test measures innate intellegence...I think that if a typical american highschool student scores 1000 on the sat thats pretty bad considering they have had the concepts drilled into their brain over and over since who knows when and considering the material covered should have been mastered by the 8th grade or so.

By Sirmoreau (Sirmoreau) on Saturday, May 17, 2003 - 08:17 pm: Edit

why doesn't 1000 correlate with the average IQ of 100? DO you HAVE ANY LOGICAL SENSE? is it even worth my time to answer this?...well...b/c the average SAT taker in America has a higher IQ, then the "average" person on a worldly scale. Well my sister got a 1060 on the SAT, she's pretty smart (goes to UCSB), so i think you're very wrong my friend. Some people with lower IQ's have trouble mastering certain mathametical concepts/or forget the material quicker than others, you however, must have a very high IQ(thusly can learn quicker and have a better understanding of certain mathematicl concepts) but have very little common sense.

By Webhappy2 (Webhappy2) on Saturday, May 17, 2003 - 08:58 pm: Edit

Nope, Ive taken IQ tests every 2 years, and they've always been in the 142-145 range, so I believe its very dependable.


You are fricken lying or your IQ test is measuring some whacko standard. A normal IQ test CLOSELY resembles the SAT I. Like I said, ideally, without any time to prepare/study, the SAT I would closely mirror what an IQ test is. (In addition, because it's pretty much possible to study anything, only IQ scores at a young age show innate reasoning skills).
Anyways, my IQ test involved some math, some visual reasoning, and some vocabulary comprehension (similar to the SAT I!).


Also, the SAT I math does emphasize math reasoning. Ask anyone who does math problem-solving in middle school (eg. mathcounts level problems).

By Student108 (Student108) on Saturday, May 17, 2003 - 09:54 pm: Edit

My IQ is 125 but I didnt do so well on the SAT. The verbal section is difficult but i find the Math pretty easy. The verbal section is what i cant pull off. I dont know the vocabulary, thats why. But its icreasing. I dont think the SAT has anything to do with the IQ. SAT test test taking skills. The IQ does not. Also the IQ test doesn't ask u to define something one way or another.

By Sirmoreau (Sirmoreau) on Saturday, May 17, 2003 - 10:48 pm: Edit

Student is your score over 1100? If its under 1100, you should be taking direct offense to

"I think that if a typical american highschool student scores 1000 on the sat thats pretty bad considering they have had the concepts drilled into their brain over and over since who knows when and considering the material covered should have been mastered by the 8th grade or so. "

- reelcool's comment - but if its 1100 or over, the theory still works fine.

By Godis (Godis) on Saturday, May 17, 2003 - 11:24 pm: Edit

today's SAT cannot correlate to iq tests. i've had my iq tested a few times, and have gotten different scores each time. in 3rd or 4th grade, i think i had a 130 or so iq. in 9th, they said it was like a 155. on the psats, i got a 1290 (10th), but if i had a 155, i should have scored in the upper 1500s - 1600. on this past sat i got a 1500, but that came with a lot of verbal practice. because the sat can be studied for, it's not a valid iq test.

By Sirmoreau (Sirmoreau) on Saturday, May 17, 2003 - 11:34 pm: Edit

Yeah but you scored a 1500...which exactly correlates with your IQ..when you got that 1290, you probably just needed to go back and review some things and/or you were having a bad day. I guess the IQ correlates with what your potential is on the SAT's. Someone with an IQ of 90 can't get a 1600..no matter how hard he/she tried. It's not a valid IQ test, but it relates very closely to IQ. They sat the PSAT's are harder than the SAT's anyhow..so that means you may of gotten 100 pts greater on the SAT that day..which means you would've had a 1400..and as i said anyone with a 1400+ basically has an IQ of 135+

By Rockofeller (Rockofeller) on Sunday, May 18, 2003 - 12:26 am: Edit

Hello all. I thought I'd add my 2 cents. For whats its worth, my IQ is in the 160's and I scored 1500 on the SAT - 800 verbal. If IQ and SAT have correlation then I should have gotten 1600, right? I think not. For my entire life I have been highly interested in english and social sciences. That's why I got an 800 verbal, without study. For math, I was never interested in the subject, and unless you have an IQ in the stratosphere, you aren't born knowing algebra (thus my 700 math). Anyway, this all presupposes that SAT scores have a correlation with IQ. Something to think about: MENSA does not accept the SAT as proof of intelligence if taken after 1994. Perhaps this means that the SAT used to have a closer relationship with IQ but no longer does.

By Nutmag345 (Nutmag345) on Sunday, May 18, 2003 - 03:13 pm: Edit

Could you guys suggest a reliable, free online site to check my iq. Thanks.

By Mariellergram (Mariellergram) on Sunday, May 18, 2003 - 03:50 pm: Edit

I've seen the argument repeated over and over again that Americans are "more intelligent" than most people around the world. Any statistics to back that up? This argument seems rather illogical to me. True, many people around the world are uneducated, but this has nothing to do with innate intelligence. There is no reason why average innate intelligence should be higher in the United States than other countries in the world.

By Rockofeller (Rockofeller) on Sunday, May 18, 2003 - 05:12 pm: Edit

I don't remember where I saw it but there was a study done on the IQs of different ethnic/racial groups...it seems that there was no difference between the IQs of any of the groups except one: jews of european descent had a higher (proly not by a lot) IQ than the other groups. So, in an unbiased IQ test(i doubt any exists), people from all countries are equal.

By Me1 (Me1) on Sunday, May 18, 2003 - 05:24 pm: Edit

I don't think SAT's correlate to IQ. Yes, it's very likely for someone w/a 150+ IQ to do well on the SAT & it's likely that someone w/a lower IQ will do not as well on the IQ. However, since the SAT tests learned skills and the range of preparation for the SAT ranges from people in good schools who took hours of private tutoring to people in poor schools where they don't really learn & didn't do a lot of prep. & didn't learn any test-taking strategies, you can't consider it an IQ test.

By Incognito (Incognito) on Sunday, May 18, 2003 - 05:40 pm: Edit

To Sirmoreau ~

>>"They sat the PSAT's are harder than the SAT's anyhow...<<"

Do you have a source for this? I'm just curious, because I always thought they were about the same.


To others ~

You're calling it "innate" intelligence, which implies that IQ is genetic. The fact, however, is that IQ is in part genetic, but not completely. A lot of statistics say that it's roughly 75% genetic.


To Rockofeller ~
It may have been a biased study. There are lots of them. That's not science. If, however, it was not a biased study, then there will be no such thing in the future. We'll be genetically engineering humans, so this whole intelligence and ethnic thing will vanish very quickly anyway, if it does in fact exist.

By Number9 (Number9) on Sunday, May 18, 2003 - 06:27 pm: Edit

I need to take the IQ tests to stay in an enrichment program. I dont take them because I want to!

and...

Yes, I understood him just fine.

By Rockofeller (Rockofeller) on Sunday, May 18, 2003 - 06:34 pm: Edit

About IQ - it seems to me it should be completely genetic...unless I'm misunderstanding the definition of it? I have an uncle with a 180 IQ and one with a 170 IQ...seems genetic to me...

By Tuannguyen (Tuannguyen) on Sunday, May 18, 2003 - 06:42 pm: Edit

To Rockofeller,

Actually, through the IQ tests research BS that has been floating around for the last half century. There are great differences between ethnic groups. Asians supposedly have the highest average, Whites second, and Blacks lowest. But this IQ test itself is biased. Because it doesn't test how clever you are, or the capacity of your potential, but how much you know through what was taught to you by the 12 or so years of manditory education you get in N. America.

From all the tests i've seen, the Jews supposedly had the highest, but that's only because they separated the Jews from all other groups. Why weren't they clumped together with the Middle-Easterners? Why not the Europeans? Because the Asians in Vietnam, Korea, and Hong Kong were clumped with Asia. If you separated Hong Kong, who have the highest IQ level so far due to their hard school curriculum just gets clumped together with the Chinese. But they were influenced by British thinking, which separates them from 100% chinese thinking in any other chinese populations of current China. If they separated Hong Kong and called it a separate group, they would have the highest IQ by far, even compared to the Jews. And for the Jews, the Sephardic Jews actually have average IQs, while the Ashkenazics (spelling???) have one of the highest. The scientists, who are supposedly unbiased, separated the groups, and yet when they said Jew, they just said Jews had high IQs, thus creating a misconception that all Jews have high IQs, when it's only for the more wealthy Ashkenazics. Don't tell me it's unbiased, separating them for test, but clumping them together as Jew is biased like hell (they should have clumped the data of all the Jews together if they wanted to just say Jew, but they didn't).

IT WAS A BIASED STUDY. NOT an unbiased study. Incognito explains it pretty well, we would have to be machines to not be biased.

Sirmoreau,

In recent studies, IQ has a close proximity to a nation's growing economy and wealth. Just a thought.

Oh, and the average world IQ is 90, not a 100.

I'm a sceptic, give me more information and then i'll tell you what i think. But right now, i don't believe what you're saying.

American students aren't the smartest in the world when compared to nations like Japan, Korea, Britain, France, Germany, Russia, Vietnam, Canada, Switzerland and a few more... Half of these countries populations should be just as smart as the other half of America's... But if that's true, then America's top quarter (1200+), wouldn't be 98%, but would probably be less than that (probably in the 90s, but not THAT high, that's a rediculously high percentile).

By Rockofeller (Rockofeller) on Sunday, May 18, 2003 - 06:55 pm: Edit

To Tuannguyen,
That is interesting info that you post there. As I said in my post, the scores were higher for Jews of European descent. Perhaps that was an oversimplification, but as you seem to understand the differences between the two jewish groups, what I was really referring to was the Ashkenazi jews. Just clarifying. Oh, and also, the avg SAT of all U.S. Jewish students (regardless of descent) is 1140.

By Tuannguyen (Tuannguyen) on Sunday, May 18, 2003 - 07:03 pm: Edit

Rockofeller,

If you actually clumped the Sephardic and Ashkenazics together, the Jewish average would actually be lower then the Asian average (but higher then the White average). That's why it's biased. Because most of the sources given don't tell you that it's just for the Ashkenazics who own half of Hollywood, i only found one source (with exactly the same data, that says it's only for the Ashkenazics). This creates a misconception on how Jews are superior, when it's only a subsection that's overly intelligent. There are Asian subgroups who are just as brilliant, maybe more brilliant then the Ashkenazics of Europe, but aren't noticed because they're just clumped together with the farmers of China (yes they do bring down the average).

BUT i think if you actually did have an unbiased study, the average IQs should be EXTREMELY similar (if you don't separate groups unjustly while just clumping others unjustly together; thse studies should be controlled better).

By Dschnapps (Dschnapps) on Sunday, May 18, 2003 - 07:05 pm: Edit

I pretty much agree with Tuannguyen, especially with his skepticism regarding the importance of the SAT in measuring IQ, as well as the viability of measuring innate intelligence with a biased IQ test. I got a 1590 on the SAT, but I'm not a megasuper genius, as Sirmoreau's chart would imply. I go to a very good school, grew up in a middle-class household with parents who had time to work with me and strengthen my skills. However, neither a good SAT score nor an IQ test can adequately predict my potential or compare me with someone of a very different circumstance. I also agree with Tuannguyen's assessment of the "racial IQ test" as having many potential variables and inconsistencies.

By Incognito (Incognito) on Sunday, May 18, 2003 - 07:37 pm: Edit

This info on the biased research is interesting. But what you're saying (or it sounds like you're saying) is that IQ is less than 3/4 genetic or so. When I said that it was 75% genetic before, I was only basing it on a few studies that I read here and there. I'm just curious, but where did you find this stuff out? I mean, is IQ really determined by environment that much?

As for intelligence in general, it's an extremely complicated thing. Psychologists have many disagreements over what intelligence really is. It's a very complex attribute that would be very hard to define with a simple number. It's kind of like assigning a number to a work of art. Some things are just not that simple. Gardner's theory of multiple intelligences suggests (as the name implies) many different kinds of *smarts* for instance.

(BTW, just curious, but what exactly are "Ashkenazic" Jews? Are they Orthodox Jews, Reformed, et cetera? Again, just curious and ignorant, so please inform me.)

By Rockofeller (Rockofeller) on Sunday, May 18, 2003 - 08:06 pm: Edit

As I said before, generally they are jews of European descent - which does not exclude israelis of course, as many of them are of european descent. But anyway, it is historically based on family history so it is possible that a middle eastern jew is ashkenazic and a european one is sephardic. I am an ashkenazic jew and very proud of my heritage, but I am supplying unbiased info for this forum.

By Tuannguyen (Tuannguyen) on Sunday, May 18, 2003 - 08:34 pm: Edit

Rockofeller,

The thing is how Ashkenazic and Sephardic is defined in these studies. If the averages of Jews from Europe and Israel were put in the same data chart, their averages wouldn't be much better than the Whites, it would just be better than the White average by a few points, and would be less than the Asian average by a small bit. The thing i'm saying is that most studies just clump asians together, but for some reason don't clump Jews together. There is no justifiable reason to do so, and by doing so it skews the data. Like i said, there are groups of asians who surpass even the Sephardic jews, but because they are clumped together with Chinese farmers, their acheivements aren't noticeable at all through many of these incredibly biased research projects so called "elite" scientist participated in. Stupid scientists don't even know how to keep themselves from skewing their own data. When IQ is involved, research is almost impossible to be unbiased.

The data wasn't "unbiased" at all. Like Incognito said, it is impossible to be unbiased unless we are machines.

Rockofeller, i'm not trying to demean your pride at all, i'm just saying the data you gave came from a source that was most definitely biased. Since it is impossible to determine the intelligence of a group without factoring in stuff like socio-economic situation as well, which i bet your studies did not show. Relatively recent studies show that IQ has close proximity with economics, Jews have the highest average income in the WORLD; so i'm not doubting Jewish accomplishments at all.

Incognito,

Ashkenazic= Jews from Europe
Sephardic= Middle-Eastern, mostly Israel

By Tuannguyen (Tuannguyen) on Sunday, May 18, 2003 - 08:43 pm: Edit

Incognito,

Another thing now is how a person would define "intelligence" or more specifically "intelligence quotient". IQ tests, from what i've seen, are mostly tests which determine the quality of your education. If you see enough questions which require applicational/analytical thought, you will learn how to answer these questions. That's what school is for, and what good teachers are for. If these skills can not be learned, then the world would just throw away a person's education before testing their ACTUAL potential. Actual intellectual potential is hard to show by one number, even if there were 10 numbers, i still don't think that's enough.

By Sirmoreau (Sirmoreau) on Sunday, May 18, 2003 - 08:57 pm: Edit

The main purpose of my prior posts, were to state that the SAT is pretty sufficient in testing ones IQ, and also the purpose of the percentiles I gave you (although they may not be 100% true) is just to show you people how abnormally ingenius you are. On a comparative scale with the rest of the world, you 1200+ er's on the SAT are basically the cream of the crop (maybe not all of you..cheaters/lucky people etc. etc.)..but as for the majority good job. I honestly believe ones IQ can improve greatly within a life time, if all you do is read books and work different mathematical equations with no social life, then perhaps you could be an Einstien, it would just take this person with a lower IQ, a much greater time to achieve certain concepts than Einstien(sp?) could. However, as for creating new aged concepts in the arena of science/math good luck...only someone born with Einstiens IQ could possibly perform this task. Also I wonder why some ethnic groups have higher IQ's than others??

To Mariellegram -
"True, many people around the world are uneducated, but this has nothing to do with innate intelligence. There is no reason why average innate intelligence should be higher in the United States than other countries in the world. "

Not sure..why this is..it may seem illogical, yet its the truth.

By Dschnapps (Dschnapps) on Sunday, May 18, 2003 - 09:40 pm: Edit

Sirmoreau, I'm confused.

First you say IQ can improve over one's lifetime. Perhaps I'm mistaken ( I really could be) but doesn't IQ measure INNATE intelligence, something that shouldn't change.

Then you seem to agree with my definition of IQ by substituting the phrase "innate intelligence" later in your post. Or were you referring to something else? Or is my definition of innate wrong here? Please let me know.

By Sirmoreau (Sirmoreau) on Sunday, May 18, 2003 - 09:47 pm: Edit

I don't think they have any sufficient ways of testing the innateness of ones intelligence. No matter how the test is set up, therefore, the SAT is/or in the ball park of ones IQ. It won't give you "exact" readings, but it'll still be close. Sorry, I confused IQ with intelligence. You can become a much more intelligent person with time, and when you become more intelligent and take one of those IQ tests, essentially ones score should improve, in turn, giving them a "higher" IQ? Do you agree?

By Erika (Erika) on Sunday, May 18, 2003 - 09:52 pm: Edit

Almost every single reply on this thread was completely pretentious and overly self-important. First of all, I agree that your SAT score does not stop you from succeeding. I'm sure there are many successful people out there who didn't even take the SAT. The initial message sounds horrible in the sheer fact that it is implying that people with a score below 1200 should feel skeptical about their abilities.

I like how people are "casually" throwing in their IQ and SAT scores...what do you honestly have to gain by telling them to people? Do you feel better about yourself? I don't feel better for you. I think it makes you look stupid.

Your IQ should have no correlation whatsoever with your SAT score, as stated previously above by someone else. (And then, someone argued that they "wasted their IQ" because someone with an above average IQ did not score well on the SAT. What a load of crap. How moronic are you?)

Just give me a break and get over yourselves. You are not that special; your SAT score does not make you better than anyone else here, and they don't need to see you trying to subtly tell the world.

By Dschnapps (Dschnapps) on Sunday, May 18, 2003 - 10:02 pm: Edit

To tell you the truth, I don't know how IQ tests work, having never taken one, but I should think that it measures innate intelligence, or at least that has always been my (mis?)conception.

Several web sources gave, in essence, this definition of intelligence:

"Intelligence" is defined as the process or force which creates the information needed to solve a problem where the required information was neither pre-existing nor available from the environment.

Thus, indeed intelligence is innate, and an IQ test, to meet its definition (Intelligence Quotient,) must measure innate intelligence. You weren't mixing up intelligence with IQ, but instead I think you had the definition of intelligence wrong.

My conclusion is that there is some other word for working knowledge accumulated and used to solve problems, other than "intelligence."
The word "intelligence" must be reserved for the innate capacity to handle situations without adequate knowledge. In some cases these two categories overlap, but I don't think that they are equal.

Wow, this is interesting but the semantics of it are annoying and the nature of intelligence boggles my mind. (lol)

By Sirmoreau (Sirmoreau) on Sunday, May 18, 2003 - 10:16 pm: Edit

Hey Erika -
"Therefore, people that come on these boards and post messages stating if you have below a 1200, you're dumb, that statement is so false on a worldly scale. They're easily in the 95th percentile, as far as pure "smarts" go"

I believe i'm the moron, you're speaking of, that excerpt was taken from my first post. SAT scores don't make the person Hunny, I agree with you completely. I was just showing how even the "so-called" stupid person who scores below a 1200, is really smart.

Scoring well on the SAT, is quite a feat for some. It's a score you'll always remember. It has some utter significance in our insignificant lives. I say anything you exceed in, you ought to exploit it in someway or another, so you're not just an average Joe in the eyes of another person, you're more than that. Life is generally worthless. You live, and you die, those are the only known constants of the world. Learn to laugh people, learn to have fun, and learn to take life not very seriously.

Peace Out from California -
Sir Moreau

By Sirmoreau (Sirmoreau) on Sunday, May 18, 2003 - 10:19 pm: Edit

Yeah, intelligence is much too conceptual for my IQ..haha...oh man that was a lame. Perhaps, I should get off the computer and enjoy the weather.

By Jwood (Jwood) on Sunday, May 18, 2003 - 10:35 pm: Edit

I think everyone is missing the point. An SAT does not measure the same thing as an IQ test, but there is a positive correlation between the scores - regardless of what each of them measures.

In general, a person who receives a high SAT score will have a high IQ and vice versa.

By Tuannguyen (Tuannguyen) on Monday, May 19, 2003 - 02:35 am: Edit

"First you say IQ can improve over one's lifetime. Perhaps I'm mistaken ( I really could be) but doesn't IQ measure INNATE intelligence, something that shouldn't change."

In theory it shouldn't but in the practical world, it actually should. That's if you, like i, believe intelligence has to do with your brain. You see, everyone in this great big world of ours develop differently. Our brains grow at different rates when compared with other people, similar to how our bodies grow. I think our brain stops growing at around the age of 30. People can grow incredibly smarter within this period of time. I bet everyone here had a friend who was dumber then them, but for some reason, over the years got smarter. This is a reason why. But, i believe, your intelligence should stay the same after your brain stops growing (if you don't get mental workouts that is).

BUT, also, intelligence can change with EXPERIENCE, if you get enough practice with questions that require analytical skills, you will learn how to complete these questions quicker and better. For example, crossword puzzles, or mixing the letter of words, questions like these are very common in IQ tests. But everyone here knows that, with practice, your eyes can be easily trained to pick things up as you practice. Everyone here played with "where's waldo" and all that BS. It does help you. Studies have shown that a child's intelligence does increase as they play with puzzles and crosswords more. The more practice you get, the faster you can solve problems, as your brain is conditioned to "play" in that way.

No one here can deny that these questions are on IQ test, nor can any of you deny that playing with waldo helps you out on questions like these. For math questions, it's similar; the more you practice, the more your teacher makes you PROVE your equations and tell the class why, the more you will know why, and will beable to connect the mathematical concept with eachother, and use them in the PRACTICAL world. You will become more, well, efficient with numbers.

And for the historical stuff, just listen in class. All you do is study.

By Tuannguyen (Tuannguyen) on Monday, May 19, 2003 - 02:53 am: Edit

Oh, and vocabulary is another thing that is regularly tested in most IQ tests. Don't tell me your "intelligence" increases like crazy after you've memorized barron's 3500 words, or something of the like.

For reasons like this, it is almost impossible to measure your "innate" intelligence. Since the system we use to measure it is flawed. IT seems to measure other things instead of your "innate intelligence".

Even if you tried to measure someone's intelligence when they were first born and without any knowledge of any kind. You have to consider the fact that everyone grows at a different rate; you may have a smaller then usual brain for a human at age 2, but suddenly grow like crazy and have a larger then usual brain for a 20 year old. Plus the mental stimulus that has a huge contribution to your IQ.

By Xiggi (Xiggi) on Monday, May 19, 2003 - 03:02 am: Edit

This thread is pretty funny.

It reads like a Marylin Vos Savant Fan club website.

By Dschnapps (Dschnapps) on Monday, May 19, 2003 - 03:49 am: Edit

I suppose you're right, that in addition to accumulating knowledge one can accumulate problem-solving TOOLS through practice, and these define intelligence. Regardless, I still think that the SAT DOES NOT MEASURE INTELLIGENCE, however you define it. The SAT largely shows how many word lists you have studied, your previous knowledge of various subjects, and your specific test-taking skills, none of which are measures of any real INTELLIGENCE.

But besides the SAT, which I firmly feel is quite separate from intelligence, the definition of intelligence is an interesting dilemma. I only partly agree with Tuannquyen's assessment. I think that some skills can be enhanced through practice but to some extent these newfound skills will be localized and not universally applicable.

Thus, some intelligence can be gained, but intelligence is also innate, meaning that, at birth, some people have an advantage over others. An ideal IQ test would measure this innate capacity, as well as determine change over time.

By Tuannguyen (Tuannguyen) on Monday, May 19, 2003 - 02:20 pm: Edit

I wasn't trying to say IQ was 100% environment! OMG, is that what you thought i said?

I was saying that because of these environmental factors, it's IMPOSSIBLE to determine the type of intelligence you and half of these posters want.

Scientists have determined that both genetics and environment have a great influence on a person's eventual intelligence. It's just that, through recent studies, the average human being's intelligence SEEMS to be more influenced by his environment. Thus the reason why adopted children get similar IQs as their "parents" as they grow older. BUT, another thing is that around adolescense, the adopted children' IQs closely resemble their genetic parents. So both genetics and environment have a say, but it seems that environment has more of a say in your eventual intelligence.

It's REALLY impossible to say how much this or that influences your intelligence, because we have no means of CORRECLY measuring, and i seriously don't want to have someone make up some statistics (65%-70% of all statistics are made up on the spot). IQ tests, the ones we have today, are inaccurate in measuring anything but the level, or the quality, of the type of education we had over the years. With the technology we have today, i think it's impossible to have a test that measures how a person will "change over time"!

Considering all this, considering how IQ is measured today, and how inaccurate it is, why do we even use teh word IQ? It is clear that intelligence, and the results of an IQ tests are separate. Your IQ seems to be measuring something else rather then your innate intelligence, as they were originally designed to measure.

By Tuannguyen (Tuannguyen) on Monday, May 19, 2003 - 05:03 pm: Edit

"I think that some skills can be enhanced through practice but to some extent these newfound skills will be localized and not universally applicable."

Actually, in a way or two, the stuff i said you can train, does make these skills "universally applicable". The more vocab you know, the better you can understand a passage, the more mathematics you know, the better the calculations you can make (and create inventions i guess), the more physics you know the better you'll understand the world. The more crosswords you know, the more conditioned your brain is to learn how to connect one concept with another. Puzzles teach you to think more, and teaches you that there are more than one way to start and more than one way to end. This is applicable to the real world.

In a way, you can condition yourself to think in a more efficient way by experience. This efficiently may spread it's way to a more "universal" field i guess.

You're right when you said "to some extent", but it's not restricted enough to even mention. The skills can be practiced in more than one field.

By Dschnapps (Dschnapps) on Monday, May 19, 2003 - 07:52 pm: Edit

I was reading some of the earlier posts on this page, from a day or two ago, and I just wanted to respond to sirmoreau regarding some of the things he said about intelligence, SAT scores, and worldwide comparisons.

"b/c the average SAT taker in America has a higher IQ, then the "average" person on a worldly scale"

"The average american kid, who scores a 1000, is probably smarter than 80 percent of the world."

"but outside this bubble are many poorer people and many less intelligent human beings, believe it or not."


Sorry, sir, but where on earth did you get these superpatriot chauvinistic ideas. Do you actually believe that the average American has more intelligence than the rest of the world! If so, why?

I do grant you that the average American is more likely to have more education, and thus more able to succeed on such a test, but you seem to link being poor with having lesser intelligence.

By Dschnapps (Dschnapps) on Monday, May 19, 2003 - 07:56 pm: Edit

By the way, tuannquyen, congratulations regarding your succinct and agreeable conclusion (in your second to most recent post,) that neither IQ tests nor SATs measure intelligence. This conclusion does not preclude SAT tests and IQ tests lining up with each other.

I have felt this way all along.

I'm done discussing the varying definitions of intelligence, but I also agree with you that acquired tools are more universally applicable than I admitted and I duly retract my previous statement (lol)

By Sirmoreau (Sirmoreau) on Monday, May 19, 2003 - 08:14 pm: Edit

I am superpatriot, need I say more (j/k). Poor people tend to have lower IQ's, I'm sorry you view that comment as being chauvinistic, but I merely am speaking the truth. "richer" parts of America, "richer" parts of Europe and "richer" asian countries are all places where people have high IQ's, have you noticed somewhat of a trend here Napper? Also I believe Jewish people tend to have the highest IQ's, they're also the richest race (or atleast have been historically speaking). I'm assuming the reason richer people have higher IQ's is due to the fact, they can obtain these riches using their intellectual superiority over others. Others use their high IQ's to preach non-logical garbage, using their amazing vocabulary skills and great english skills, but thats just how it goes. However, I do respect the opinion of Tuan Nguyen, he makes perfect logical sense.

By Ziplocky (Ziplocky) on Monday, May 19, 2003 - 08:28 pm: Edit

Alright. The SAT in no way reflects your IQ. You know why? Because if it did, the SAT wouldn't exist. Colleges would accept your IQ scores. Then the IQ tests would be standardized. I can't believe for such ahem, "Genius" kids, you can't see that.

The SAT is really a money making scam. It's not written by geniuses, it's written by stuffy old men in business suits in Trenton, New Jersey... so how can it possibly measure your intelligence?

And the fact is, really, that most people, although they claim that they do not prepare for the SAT and score 1400+, do study, in some way, shape, or form. Especially rich kids with parents who live vicariously through them and have pushed them towards Harvard since the age of 2.

If you actually have taken an IQ test, you would know that the questions do not, in any way, resemble the SAT, with the exception of logic problems.

By Incognito (Incognito) on Monday, May 19, 2003 - 08:28 pm: Edit

To Sirmoreau ~

I think I may have misunderstood something here, but...Wasn't Tuannguyen saying that he/she basically believes that IQ is largely environmental? He/she said that it's more environmental than genetic, but it sounds like you're saying that it's more genetic (hence the ethnic thing). But you said that (s)he "makes perfect logical sense." What am I missing here?

By Greenmoo04 (Greenmoo04) on Monday, May 19, 2003 - 08:39 pm: Edit

The IQ test measures, basically, your intelligence. The SAT test measures your achievement, and your ability to take tests. That's why it's called achievement, not aptitude.

By Xiggi (Xiggi) on Monday, May 19, 2003 - 08:49 pm: Edit

Hey SirMoreau, I thought the Super Patriots were in New England and on the other coast. Aren't you in 49ers paradise?

On a more serious note, I think that you over-generalize quite a bit when it gets to the ethnic distribution of intelligence or to the distribution of the various subjective measurements of intelligence.

Regarding the correlation between SAT and IQ, the scope of the tested subjects on the SAT is too narrow to be comparable. It only tests your ability to understand instructions and perform under time pressure. The element of time pressure does not typically enter in bona-fide IQ testing. If you like to read about this rather unscientific "science", you can find some interesting tidbits at this site:

http://www.eskimo.com/~miyaguch/hoeflin.html

Please remember that most of the true geniuses are never recognized and that geniuses come in all shapes and forms.

Now, back to studying :(

By Tuannguyen (Tuannguyen) on Monday, May 19, 2003 - 08:58 pm: Edit

Hmmm, Dschnapps, which statement do you "retract"? You just saying that so i won't post, aren't you? lol ;P

Sirmoreau,

"I'm assuming the reason richer people have higher IQ's is due to the fact, they can obtain these riches using their intellectual superiority over others."

The reason why i believe "richer" people would have higher IQs is because they have more opportunities to study. Throughout history, who were the poorest of the lot? The farmers/peasants. This group of people, traditionally, CAN'T afford to teach their children. They need everyone to tend the farms, they need everyone to help the family survive, they can't afford to feed the family AND educate them; only the rich had the luxury of education. We take our education for granted these days, so we don't remember the days when an education wasn't universal in N. America. If you examine the background of half of the most brilliant people in history, you would see that they got GREAT educations. And as society improves, people get more opportunities to grow, and thus, you will notice that half of our scientists come from pretty moderate begginings rather than super rich billionaire families as it seemed to always happen in the past. What you're saying is possible, but is it possible if you reverse it as well? Can money be bringing the IQ up?

If you examine history, you would notice events such as the French Revolution. The nobles were, well, pretty untalented. Through what you're saying, they should be super-geniuses compared to their poorer counterparts. It was the bourgouisie (spelling?) who stood up, and later the peasants who became the intellictuals of the next century. Opportunities came to them, and they took it. The French had the revolution quite a while ago, but in places like, say Vietnam, where the poor continue to be oppressed, opportunities aren't there. And it seems that the rich are still on top. My cousin for instance was the BEST in his High School in Vietnam, but wasn't accepted to any University in VN because his ancestors didn't fight for the communist movement. Dumber kids, who's fathers/grandfathers were soldiers for the communist automatically got in, no matter how bad their marks were. It worked this way for the nobility in Europe as well. Considering this, was it their brains that were keeping them up there? Or just their continual oppression of other brains/brilliant individuals?

By Dschnapps (Dschnapps) on Monday, May 19, 2003 - 09:17 pm: Edit

Following up on Incognito's point, I can understand how IQ could be superior in richer countries if it is determined largely by environmental influence, but if Incognito is right and you believe intelligence is innate, then (I believe) there are no grounds for your argument.

But if you start saying that INTELLIGENCE can be improved through wealth and education, then the word intelligence starts to sound a lot like knowledge.

Please let me know if you are arguing that richer countries/races have INNATELY superior intelligence over other poorer countries/races, that being the prerequisite for them becoming rich (Social Darwinism)

I don't believe anyone is arguing that poorer people would be as successful on an SAT or even an "IQ test" that someone else has had time to condition for.

Most importantly, sirmoreau, what do you think IQ is? Is it the results of an "IQ test," an SAT test (lol,) innate intelligence, or something different? Based on your forthcoming definition, what gives you any reason to believe (other than your random personal conviction) that richer people on average have higher IQs? We either have a miscommunication of definition or a serious point of contention.

By the way, greenmoo, SAT means neither aptitude nor achievement, because College Board/ETS ran into the same problem as we did and, to avoid controversy, "SAT" is now just a brand name and not an acronym.

By Tuannguyen (Tuannguyen) on Monday, May 19, 2003 - 09:29 pm: Edit

Dschnapps,

NICE question you gave there for sirmoreau.

I guess you already know i personally believe IQ tests don't really detect a person's ACTUAL intelligence, but actually measures a person's level of education (your knowledge basically, and how well you've been trained to use it and connect concepts with eachother). Actual intelligence is very hard to measure, i'd bet, in the future, if a true measure of intelligence would ever be devised, the study would have to be carried out over a span of a person's life to accurately measure how this person responds to stimulus.

By Dschnapps (Dschnapps) on Monday, May 19, 2003 - 09:30 pm: Edit

Tuannyugen (i spelled it right this time, with a g,) the statement that I retracted was:

"I think that some skills can be enhanced through practice but to some extent these newfound skills will be localized and not universally applicable."

After consideration, I believe that many of these skills can be broadly applied. However, this still does not settle the issue of the definition of intelligence, but I don't want to open that up any more (at least not too much.)

Tuannguyen, you have really good points, so I'm going to elaborate on your last one in response to Sirmoreau.

Sirmoreau implies that richer nations/races attained their position through some inherent virtue that they possessed. However, there are many other potential environmental factors that give one group advantage over another, such as climate, land, or available resources. Once one group starts exploiting another group, all bets are off, and intelligence no longer is necessary for supremacy.

As Tuan also pointed out, the extra time that is afforded the leisure class allows them to pursue optional activities (such as this) that enhances their chances.

By Tuannguyen (Tuannguyen) on Monday, May 19, 2003 - 09:32 pm: Edit

Everyone here should consider this...

Maybe sirmoreau is just stirring up the pot here. He/she might just be playing with us.

*i do it all the time, just as an expirament to see how people react... (i was bored ok)

By Dschnapps (Dschnapps) on Monday, May 19, 2003 - 09:33 pm: Edit

crap, i didn't spell it right, i'm stupid

By Dschnapps (Dschnapps) on Monday, May 19, 2003 - 09:35 pm: Edit

nothing wrong with stirring up the pot as long as you engage in real, interesting discussion, and you're not a jerk about it.

man, tuan, we're trading off every few minutes, practically like a chat room

By Incognito (Incognito) on Monday, May 19, 2003 - 09:43 pm: Edit

Tuannguyen, where do you find your stuff out (the info, stats, et cetera)?

*(BTW, in case anyone really cares, like I wrote before, if ethnic differences in intelligence do in fact exist, then they wont in the future when we begin to interfere w/nature and genetically engineer humans either at birth or through somatic gene therapy. Just a thought).

By Sirmoreau (Sirmoreau) on Monday, May 19, 2003 - 09:57 pm: Edit

Hahaha, it's "Nguyen"(you should learn to spell it right, its one of the most common viatnamese names) This kid is very very very very very smart and has a great deal of common sense, i commend that entirely. Basically Schnapps, I'm just getting the feeling you're one of those extreme liberal people, who finds offense in moderate racism, that isn't even directly racism until you make it racism. I basically just wanted to see what everyones reaction to this would be.

Let me list what i've discovered, something you can't find online, only in the opinion of the general public.

1. IQ is very difficult to measure with our standard testing procedures.
2. Intelligence is derived from Knowledge (and vice versa)
3. Some people have very little common sense, and can't back up anything they say..

- "The IQ test measures, basically, your intelligence. The SAT test measures your achievement, and your ability to take tests. That's why it's called achievement, not aptitude."

4. Xiggi had the coolest comment of everyone here.
It's scary how many seemingly "cult" IQ groups there are..from the Sigma Society to the Mega society.

5. You know who is truly genius but probably doesn't have a 'great' IQ, Francis Ford Coppola.

6. Also DSCHNAPPS and Mariellergram would make a great couple, just so you guys know :). You guys could use it too i'm sure. Mariella called me a moron..and stated all countries should have equal IQ's.

7. Finally, I never want to hear the word INNATE again, the only constant things I know are sex, money and well reality T.V. shows.

By Tuannguyen (Tuannguyen) on Monday, May 19, 2003 - 09:59 pm: Edit

Incognito,

In grade 9, my teacher gave my class a research project on "anything you want". I marvelled at the brilliance of Einstein, Thomas Edison and Alexander G. Bell, so i decided to do my research on IQ; the thing that measured their brilliance. I found books, websites, seminars etc based on the ideas of IQ.

It was a while ago, but not that long ago. Grade 9 for me was only about 2 or so years ago, so the stuff i found shouldn't be too hard to find. Try the net, and find some scientists if you want.

So yeah... What i did ---> library, just go do some research at a library.

By Sirmoreau (Sirmoreau) on Monday, May 19, 2003 - 10:02 pm: Edit

You know what we didn't cover? Some alien races, i'm sure there is some form of life out there with an average IQ of 1000 and an average SAT score of 1600 (scholastic alien test, of course). Although, they may even be poor, therefore proving schnapps theory or whatever you want to call it, that the majority of poorer people have higher IQ's. By the way this threat will go down in collegeconfidential history as being, perhaps, the most entertaining for me. Sorry if I was a jerk, i truly do apolgize.

By Tuannguyen (Tuannguyen) on Monday, May 19, 2003 - 10:09 pm: Edit

And another thing,

If you want to do research, it shouldn't take you too long to figure out how biased IQ tests really are. It was the FIRST day of research when i first realized that. The second day was when i analyzed the data and found out how uncontrolled the fricken data was. The third was when i formulated my points, the fourth was when i handed it in.

*I procastinated ok, but it was a pretty interesting, and one of the few research papers i had to do during that year, so i remember a lot from that one paper (since my paper was mostly on how inaccurate IQ tests were, which is totally opposite to what the sources i saw said, i'm a rebel, i see things in more than one way and confront ideas in a zigzag--crosswords :P).

By Tuannguyen (Tuannguyen) on Monday, May 19, 2003 - 10:15 pm: Edit

So was i right when i said you were playing with us? It was semi-obvious (i wasn't too sure, there are some idiots, and some people out there who pretend to be idiots, you never know).

LOL hahaha

The thread was good though.

By Incognito (Incognito) on Monday, May 19, 2003 - 10:17 pm: Edit

To Tuannguyen ~

Thanx for the info and your input on the thread so far.


To Sirmoreau ~

1)>>"IQ is very difficult to measure with our standard testing procedures.">"Intelligence is derived from Knowledge (and vice versa).">"Some people have very little common sense, and can't back up anything they say..">"You know who is truly genius but probably doesn't have a 'great' IQ, Francis Ford Coppola.">"Also DSCHNAPPS and Mariellergram would make a great couple, just so you guys know . You guys could use it too i'm sure. Mariella called me a moron..and stated all countries should have equal IQ's."<<
Why are you so pissed w/dschnapps?

By Sirmoreau (Sirmoreau) on Monday, May 19, 2003 - 10:17 pm: Edit

http://www.highiqsociety.org/cart2/asp/merchandise_page.asp

Check it out, people selling IQ merchandise, how cool is that? I'm thinking I should make a paid commercial that guarantees a higher IQ.

-Sure you may be asking how i'll test the IQ -

i'll use the most worthless and flaw-filled test known to man, the SAT. People can easily improve with coaching, thusly I can't lose! Also Xiggi, remember my post about how the collegeboard is just a corporate scheme? Well i'm gonna make a standardized "IQ" test. I'll become the new Collegeboard, my website will be www.innateIntel.com. I hope you people know, I was just messing around this entire time, i've never taken an IQ test in my life, I used to be in A.G.A.T.E though, in my elementary days and I remember some test with crazy patterns and stuff (maybe it was an IQ test? not sure). However, in conclusion, i'm glad to see a great deal of participation ... it was cool. Keep it up.

By Incognito (Incognito) on Monday, May 19, 2003 - 10:18 pm: Edit

To Sirmoreau ~


"Intelligence is derived from Knowledge (and vice versa)."
Um...I think that you and I were defining the word "intelligence" differently then.

"Some people have very little common sense, and can't back up anything they say.."
May I ask who you're alluding to?

"You know who is truly genius but probably doesn't have a 'great' IQ, Francis Ford Coppola."
Um...who?

"Also DSCHNAPPS and Mariellergram would make a great couple, just so you guys know . You guys could use it too i'm sure. Mariella called me a moron..and stated all countries should have equal IQ's."
Why are you so upset w/dschnapps?

By Sirmoreau (Sirmoreau) on Monday, May 19, 2003 - 10:29 pm: Edit

1. Knowledge is power.

2. I was alluding to a comment by some random guy, i'm not sure who, but dschnapps was in the same boat.

3. The greatest director on the face of this earth, he directed the "god father" "chinatown" and many other greats, not too mention he has a great winery in Napa.

Incognito to answer a question you had prior, certain ethnicites throughout time, have stuck together, and by sticking together, they've created an enviroment, which is somewhat genetic but IQ is more so based on the enviroment, it makes logical sense everything that Nguyen has said.

4. I'm upset because he seems to be smart..based on how great his english skills are, but is lacking in a great deal of common sense. Okay honestly, he called me names and hurt my feelings.

By Sirmoreau (Sirmoreau) on Monday, May 19, 2003 - 10:32 pm: Edit

"Incognito to answer a question you had prior, certain ethnicites throughout time, have stuck together, and by sticking together, they've created an enviroment, which is somewhat genetic but IQ is more so based on the enviroment, it makes logical sense everything that Nguyen has said. "

I just re-read that, it makes no sense. Ahh sorry. Just download Audio Slave and listen to "like a stone".

By Dschnapps (Dschnapps) on Monday, May 19, 2003 - 10:35 pm: Edit

I agree with incognito, that I didn't write anything extreme or insulting, just posed questions. Although it may seem that I come from a ultra-liberal point of view, you'll notice I did open my conclusion to comments and actually asked sirmoreau a question about his theory regarding race, wealth, and intelligence.

It wasn't an angry or accusing question, but instead something that i'm very interested in. By the way, I consider my self a moderate, only slightly left (but don't we all consider ourselves moderates)

I'd like to thank sirmoreau for introducing the thread and getting increasingly more cogent in his responses as we went along. Also incognito for his good interjections.

Most kudos to tuannguyen who had good points which he could sustain despite my pathetic attempts to counter them. Even though sirmoreau was kind of messing with us, I don't blame him. I in fact think it's good to bring up interesting and pertinent topics.

BTW, sir, i'd never seen Marieller's post but it was good and maybe we should hook up (lol)

By Incognito (Incognito) on Monday, May 19, 2003 - 10:38 pm: Edit

To Sirmoreau ~
I thought that Roman Pollanski (wrong spelling, perhaps?) directed Chinatown, but whatever. I don't care that much. I don's see what's wrong w/your statement. It makes sense to me. You're saying that IQ is largely determined by a person's environment. Period. Please correct me if I'm wrong...

By Incognito (Incognito) on Monday, May 19, 2003 - 10:40 pm: Edit

Thank you for your input as well, Dschnapps.

By Dschnapps (Dschnapps) on Monday, May 19, 2003 - 10:42 pm: Edit

sirmoreau, i just read your latest post, and if you are serious about me calling you names, i don't understand. Perhaps it's another joke.

The only thing close to a name-call was when i said:
"nothing wrong with stirring up the pot as long as you engage in real, interesting discussion, and you're not a jerk about it."

When i said that, i meant that i thought that sirmoreau was NOT being a jerk about it. Maybe i should have been more explicit.

anyway thanks to all, and i hope sirmoreau can help me improve my common sense. (honestly, constructive criticism is more than welcome.)


Incognito: you don't know who Francis Ford Coppola is? Shame, shame.

By Xiggi (Xiggi) on Monday, May 19, 2003 - 10:50 pm: Edit

Francis Ford Coppola is Nicholas Cage uncle and makes great wine.

How' bout that for a contribution to the world. :)

By Sirmoreau (Sirmoreau) on Monday, May 19, 2003 - 10:52 pm: Edit

Incognito! You're so very correct! It was pollanski. Sorry most of the information i've been throwing out on these boards is B.S., like all those percantages at the beginning of my post lol. If I have a serious comment, i'll sign it sirmoreau at the bottom now, so you guys will take me serious. But anyways, Coppola also directed Apocolypse Now, which is one of my all time favorites, and i'm sure Schnapps liked that one too. But then again i'm sure he enjoyed the novel "Heart of Darkness" much more. I hated Conrads writing style in it, although english is like his 5th language. As you can see by my grammar, i haven't read very many books, i mostly just watch movies. I'm more of a talker than a writer, if that makes sense.

By Dschnapps (Dschnapps) on Monday, May 19, 2003 - 10:56 pm: Edit

THAT MAKES SENSE

By Dschnapps (Dschnapps) on Monday, May 19, 2003 - 10:57 pm: Edit

j/k

Dschnapps (lol)

By Tuannguyen (Tuannguyen) on Monday, May 19, 2003 - 10:58 pm: Edit

"just re-read that, it makes no sense. Ahh sorry. Just download Audio Slave and listen to "like a stone"."

OMG, and here i was, thinking you did it on purpose. I thought you left it as a clue to others who didn't know you were kidding around! Hahaha, there i go again. It was a good thread though, the reason why i didn't reveal it to the others earlier.

*tip, it's not a good idea to play with people in the REAL world... I tried it once, not pretty... It was due to a bet i lost; i had to court the best looking girl i saw that day... I don't consider myself the best looking guy, so i thought she would have slapped me early on, but it didn't happen. So i had to tell her i was playing with her and it was all a bet, and yeah (her eyes got all watery, i thought she would have taken it lightly, c'mon, she's REALLY hot, she must've had a lot of guys come up to her; maybe she had a crush on me or something in grade 2 and was disappointed... who knows)... Her brothers beat the crap out of me the next day... Just a general tip...

By Sirmoreau (Sirmoreau) on Monday, May 19, 2003 - 10:59 pm: Edit

Also, I want to be a broker/or investment banker when i'm older, that invovles more communication and •••••••• skills than anything. So I pretty much just use this board to work on B.S. Also i've been investing since I was about 10 years old. Up until about 2 years ago, when the market started coming crashing down, I got out, because most companies were way over priced at the time and it had to flucuate at somepoint. But for a few years now the market has been ••••••. What is your outlook 5-6 years from now? Do you people believe our economy/market will rebound? The NASDAQ looks to be improving (although this may be a postwar factor)..if you people were smart you'd invest in Cisco Systems right now, they've been on the rise and they're easily the most valuable tech company.

SIRMOREAU

By Sirmoreau (Sirmoreau) on Monday, May 19, 2003 - 11:04 pm: Edit

That reminds me of this one time in drama class, everyone paid me 5 bucks to make out with this girl (she's amazingly hot) in the middle of class. I did it and i pocketed 100 some odd dollars, but the girl now doesn't talk to me and just gives me an evil look everytime i see her. Plus she slapped me on top of that :(.

P.S.
Tuan, how'd you know I was kidding, is there something I said specifically that made it obvious? I thought my B.S. was going pretty good, up until someone with some 'street smarts' came around.

By Tuannguyen (Tuannguyen) on Monday, May 19, 2003 - 11:07 pm: Edit

Sirmoreau, you should try talking to a lawyer... I bet it's the profession with the best BSers around. My school is a debating school, and i know everyone who's on the debating team (our best debator two years ago was Canadian champion, and top 30 internationally), so that's a reason why i knew you were BSing. You have great BSing skills compared to anyone else i know that's not from my school (excluding politicians, lawyers, and Calgary).

Anyways, i'm out... Gotta finish off some stuff.

By Sirmoreau (Sirmoreau) on Monday, May 19, 2003 - 11:07 pm: Edit

FLUCUATE

By Xiggi (Xiggi) on Monday, May 19, 2003 - 11:13 pm: Edit

Despite the fact that I swore to stay away from the boards for while, this thread makes me come back. To stay with the movie theme, I feel like Al Pacino in the Godfather.

As I posted a few weeks, I know a bit about IQ testing because my dad used to administer them in his native country. I have a ton of books and tests from those "old" days. The long of the short is this:

1. You cannot manipulate your innate intelligence.
2. The measurement of said intelligence is what is EASILY manipulated. The more you practice and understand the testing procedures, the better you will do, up to a certain maximum.

This should be extremely clear to all of us. Let's look at the SAT. When someone with a very high IQ takes the test and has taken a sufficient number of American based HS classes, he will do EXTREMELY well. Why? Because he posseses the underlying knowledge and his intelligence will help with the mechanics.

Now, compare it with the situation of an AVERAGE person. Without precise prep, he will probably do OK on the SAT and score about 1000. We know that he will get all the easy questions, most of the medium ones and probably very few of the hard ones. The same person with 2-3 months of preparation might very well score 1200 to 1400 -or even higher.

The INTELLIGENCE of both student would not have changed, only the ability to take the tests.

When it gets to IQ tests, similar situations occur. The more tests one person takes, the better he will become in recognizing the various questions, be it in math, verbal or spatial awareness.

This being said there are limits to the process. In other words, one could improve his IQ scores and reach his potential limit. However, people will reach a definitive "plateau" and not being able to raise it further.

Finally, I am sure that we could easily find information showing that INTELLIGENCE is pretty well universally distributed among all countries and races. The differences in "reported" numbers of high IQ people among teh various groups relate more to the fact that some societies are mored driven by ego than others.

By Dschnapps (Dschnapps) on Monday, May 19, 2003 - 11:19 pm: Edit

you are just like al pacino

thank you
thank you
thank you

for bringing someone who isn't just talking out of their ass, of course myself the main perpetrator.

i didn't quite get your last point about higher test results in countries with higher egos. Please explain.

By Incognito (Incognito) on Monday, May 19, 2003 - 11:25 pm: Edit

yeah, and also, what counry is your father from (differen nations have different systems). Is he from the former Soviet Union, out of curiosity? Also, you're basically saying that intelligence is (almost) purely genetic. Am I wrong about this? Did is misinterpret something?...

By Dschnapps (Dschnapps) on Monday, May 19, 2003 - 11:25 pm: Edit

by the way, sirmoreau, and tuannguyen for that matter, i don't understand the whole issue of BSing and messing with people

Are you saying that all of these things you have said aren't the way you really feel? Some of them? Excuse my naivete, but wouldn't it be more fun and productive to exchange actual views?

I probably am totally misunderstanding this, but I guess I like being straight with people a little too much for my own good. For instance, i never BS over the internet.

I do see the point in provoking conversation with an inflammatory or provacative remark that may or may not be how you feel, but beyond that, what is the point?

Again, a serious question, so feel free to answer it seriously or with BS, however you choose.

dave

By Sirmoreau (Sirmoreau) on Monday, May 19, 2003 - 11:25 pm: Edit

Yeah man, the relationship between IQ and various groups is totally related to the ideals of darwin (survival of the fittest IQ's..lol)/Freud (ego)and Marx (economic drive). I think you summarized everything very well. Major props.

My favorite comment of the entire thread is "Please remember that most of the true geniuses are never recognized and that geniuses come in all shapes and forms."

P.S. Know where I can find the structure for the molecules of acetic acid?

By Incognito (Incognito) on Monday, May 19, 2003 - 11:31 pm: Edit

Sirmoreau, I have to agree w/Dschnapps (should I call you Dave or by your username?). This whole BSing thing has gotten out of control. I can no longer keep track of what you're serious about. I have been taking this entire discussion extremely seriously, as the subject of (innate?) intelligence is something that I'm interested in and take seriously as well. Is this some kind of joke or what? You're playing a joke on us by confusing us on a thread about our IQs. Oh, what irony! So was that the purpose of all this? And what's up w/that 11:25 post above?...

incognito

By Dschnapps (Dschnapps) on Monday, May 19, 2003 - 11:36 pm: Edit

sup, incognito

either one's fine

if you can guess, my name really IS dave

probably like yourself, i'm not personally offended by BSing nor do i feel that I've "been had," but instead i think that this is an interesting subject that i've never really had anyone smart or knowledgable to discuss with and i think that openness is conducive to more fun and more information.

By Xiggi (Xiggi) on Monday, May 19, 2003 - 11:38 pm: Edit

Incognito~

LOL, I have been labeled as Chinese by Moreau. Now, I am from Minsk or Odessa :) My dad is from Western Europe and from a little country where they speak French,Dutch and German as official languages. They make the best chocolates in the world and invented the "French Fries". My mom comes from Taco Land :)

Regarding the "genetic" part. I am not too sure how to answer that. I believe that all of us have certain limitations and certain qualities that are "innate". Not everyone ends up maximimizing our qualities and reaching the limit. My point was that you can develop your innate talents but only to a certain level.

Regarding the comment about "egos". In certain countries/cultures, you will find a higher percentage of people who are more obsessed with scholastic or other achievements. You can look around your HS and see the patterns and draw your own conclusions.

By Sirmoreau (Sirmoreau) on Monday, May 19, 2003 - 11:40 pm: Edit

Incognito -
11:30 East Coast time, as this website is ivy league biased. That comment above was pretty much for Xiggi.

Honestly -
1. I started this thread to provoke people, because I do find IQ/intelligence fascinating.

2. Then I noticed people were interesting with it. I thought it was a very interesting topic, so I created a tab bit of bunk, in order to get people to respond like crazy, because I was reading everything they were saying and finding it very VERY interesting.

3. Very shortly, due to my B.S., the argument wasn't about the SAT and IQ anymore it was about Race and IQ, so I ran with that. I don't think we could've gotten this much information had I been frank the entire time, you know? People tend to spit out the most information when they're aggrivated and want to prove a point. I know my B.S. did get a little bit out of hand, but i'm being honest *NOW*, i assure you. I was a little bit bored and I apologize.

By Xiggi (Xiggi) on Monday, May 19, 2003 - 11:46 pm: Edit

AFAIK, it is cool, SirMoreau.

This thread can have a bit of everything. It is OK to have some of the lighter discussion intertwined in the serious comments.

Perfect thread to get our minds of the "real life" filled with finals, term papers and SAT Prep.

I know that I try to stay -way too much- on the serious side. But having some fun is ... well fun!

By Sirmoreau (Sirmoreau) on Monday, May 19, 2003 - 11:47 pm: Edit

Incognito, I remember the first time coming on this board, I was checking some of my SAT answers, and you just about knew all the answers. You were like the SAT god to me, just so you know. Infact, I don't believe you even took the test you were just telling people the answers, regardless it was still amazing. Xiggi, dude you're hilarious, "taco land" haha. Sorry I made that asian (not chinese) assumption that one time. I just thought you sounded too smart to be white, also your name was Xiggi, coming from a dumb anglo it seems pretty asian.

By Xiggi (Xiggi) on Monday, May 19, 2003 - 11:54 pm: Edit

No problem at all and no offense whatsoever.

People from all over the world come to this board and that is exactly what makes it such a great resource.

And, finally, we all know better that you you are not a "dumb" anglo.

TTYL

By Tuannguyen (Tuannguyen) on Tuesday, May 20, 2003 - 12:00 am: Edit

Uh, i don't BS on this site... Too many smart people...

I rarely BS on the internet... Unless i'm really bored on a summer day when all my friends went back to their homeland, and i'm stranded all alone at home. I wouldn't BS in the real world unless i lost a bet. So everything i said is what i TRULY believe, i only noticed sirmoreaus BSing, i myself wasn't BSing.

By Dschnapps (Dschnapps) on Tuesday, May 20, 2003 - 12:04 am: Edit

no harm intended to either of you

to tuan, i just mentioned you because you seemed to be an accomplice, or at least a sympathizer, and I was only trying to understand why.

I think i get it and it was the most successful thread i've seen (in fact my first thread)

By Tuannguyen (Tuannguyen) on Tuesday, May 20, 2003 - 12:26 am: Edit

So... You thought i was an accomplice? If i was part of this, i would be the leader! Muahaha

But anyways, i wasn't apart of the scheme. I don't even know the guy! I only noticed his BSing, but i put it aside and didn't mention it because, like i said before, i thought the thread had good intentions and i wasn't really arguing for or against his points when i first posted, i was debating with you and a few others; so whatever he was doing didn't matter to me at all. At first i thought most of you already caught on to his joke, but then you started asking him a whole bunch of questions, which made me realize i was probably the only one who realized he was joking, so i just told you guys that i had suspicions that he might be playing us (just to see how he would respond to it, and to confirm and see if it's semi-obvious to anyone else as well).

If you go back and reread what i said, the first thing i posted was about how that guy gave this thread biased data, but he keeps on saying it's not, so i keep on saying it is. It didn't involve Sirmoreau, and that's the main reason why i didn't reveal him earlier, i didn't think it mattered, cause i seriously thought it was obvious. My argument was with other people, and what he was doing didn't matter to me at all. After that i was debating with you most of the time, until he got involved, and that is when i felt obliged to reveal the truth.

The only reason why i can sympathize with the guy is because i USED to BS on the internet (during spring break when my friends did go back to their homelands, and i was stranded at home all alone). And i BSed a few times in real life, but that's only because i lost bets! When i BS on the internet, it's not about stuff like this, it's about less significant stuff (like if i'm playing a hockey guessing who'll win thing, i'll give false information so i'll have a better chance of winning just for the hell of creating a fuss because i have nothing else to do).

I came to this thread to spread what i thought was the truth, that your intelligence has a lot to do with both your environment AND your genetics, it's not determined by only one factor. And i did what i came to do, and that's what i did.

By Erika (Erika) on Tuesday, May 20, 2003 - 12:37 am: Edit

To whomever said this is like the Marilyn Vos Savant Fan Club....HAHAH.

1.) I am ashamed for knowing what you are talking about.
2.) Does anyone know what her IQ is anyway? Or is that just something she touts in her second-rate column in a newspaper insert?
3.) Her tone sounds a lot like people on this list. "I do in fact believe there is a correlation between IQ and SAT! After all, I have a high SAT score and the highest IQ of any person alive...so I apply my high IQ to answering stupid questions! [insert dull attempt at wit]"

By the way...if you think SAT and IQ are directly related...you ar stupid. I'm sure there are several examples that refute the idea that they should be similar. Someone mentioned that if they were similar, then the SATs would not exist. As lucrative as the College Board is, that's probably true.

By Sirmoreau (Sirmoreau) on Tuesday, May 20, 2003 - 12:52 am: Edit

White male.

SAT: Currently in the 1200's
GPA: 3.4-3.5
E.C.
Sopohmore class president
2 years student senate (class government)
Varsity Tennis
Varsity Soccer (at a competitive public school)
Club soccer
Cross Country (1 year)
Basketball 2 years (freshmen and JV)
Enviromental Club
NO AP classes/Honors

Alright so if I apply EARLY DECISION to cal poly SLO, do you think my chances will be GOOD?

Thanks, where else could i go?

any of you people, i know my stats aren't nearly as good as you people, but cal poly shouldn't be that difficult to get into should it?

By Dschnapps (Dschnapps) on Tuesday, May 20, 2003 - 12:54 am: Edit

all cool, tuan

just wondering, where are you from (not the name, where do you live)

By Tuannguyen (Tuannguyen) on Tuesday, May 20, 2003 - 01:03 am: Edit

Right NOW i live in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. Probably the best educational center in Canada (Since Alberta beats the pants off of Ontario for every subject except for Social Studies)! Damn proud of it... Probably will end up in Europe, Asia or America in the future for work though (and if i follow my passion, i'll probably end up in S. America, Asia or Africa to help out the locals). I might come back for retirement, just so Canada won't get lonely, either that or go back to Vietnam and re-create my family's fishing/farming/political/military/scholarly prestige (my family members did a lot).

By Dschnapps (Dschnapps) on Tuesday, May 20, 2003 - 01:23 am: Edit

Cool

Even though nobody cares, im going to say what I think about BSing on the Internet and in this case.

First, I think that it's fine to propose a point of view that you don't necessarily support for the purpose of starting an interesting dialogue.

HOWEVER, there are two big buts (one t):

First, you shouldn't present numerical information as fact if it blatantly isn't, seeing as how this will corrupt and distort the dialogue.

Second, only support a position that is tenable, and that indeed YOU can back up pretty well.

I thought sirmoreau skirted the line a few times but overall a nice discussion ensued and we bounced ideas off each other, so it's all good

Love to sir, tuan, incognito, and others

By Sirmoreau (Sirmoreau) on Tuesday, May 20, 2003 - 01:47 am: Edit

speaking of big butts (two t's), how about J. Lo? My god? Erika for your information that was all Xiggi. The "Marilyn Vos Savant Fan Club" comment, I had no idea who that was just so you know.

Come on guys, do ya think I have a shot at Cal Poly SLO. It's in california, i'll be applying under business administration.

Haha what about Berkeley, my dad graduated from UCB..i'm a legacy, although, true i am a weak legacy. My sister goes to UCSB, does that mean i'll have better chances if my sister attends? any opinions would be helpful thanks guys.

By Mariellergram (Mariellergram) on Tuesday, May 20, 2003 - 01:07 pm: Edit

Hey. Just to clear up some misconceptions, if you read my post above, I never called anybody a moron. I also did not state that all countries should have equal IQ's. I merely posed a question and asked Sirmoreau to show some statistics. So stop yelling at me Sirmoreau! lol

By Xiggi (Xiggi) on Tuesday, May 20, 2003 - 01:35 pm: Edit

Just to add some information/opinion to the debate:

QUOTED:

>>> Scientists in the field of intelligence theory have argued for decades over whether people's intelligence is determined mostly by their genes or their upbringing. Over the past 15 years, however, the puzzle has taken on a new wrinkle: If people's intelligence is due mostly to heredity, as many experts believe, why is it that IQ scores have been rising? <<<

You can read the whole discussion at this site:

http://www.edweek.org/ew/newstory.cfm?slug=19iq.h21

You can also read about the Flynn Effect and the discussion about what intelligence tests really test? To what extent do they measure learning vs. raw intelligence vs. some other factor that is correlated with intelligence? The answers to these questions are still being researched by scholars around the world. Flynn originally offered three categories of potential explanations: Artifacts (e.g., of sampling, improvement in early childhood education), Test Sophistication, and Actual Intelligence Increases.

http://www.indiana.edu/~intell/flynneffect.html

Maybe, we should write a study about the SAT and IQ correlation and call it the Erika SirMoreau Theory :)

By Sirmoreau (Sirmoreau) on Tuesday, May 20, 2003 - 05:49 pm: Edit

Yeah, we def. should Xiggi, thats a grand idea, old sport.

By Sirmoreau (Sirmoreau) on Tuesday, May 20, 2003 - 05:56 pm: Edit

My mistake Mariellergram. Please forgive me. Say, now that we're both satisfied with each other, how about one of these nights just you and me. Forget about Dschnapps.

Xiggi, I think we ought to draft some type of theory, considering the myriad of posts we had.

By Mariellergram (Mariellergram) on Tuesday, May 20, 2003 - 07:01 pm: Edit

Sounds good to me. lol j/k

By Xiggi (Xiggi) on Tuesday, May 20, 2003 - 07:08 pm: Edit

Here is the first SirMoreau SAT/IQ Test

Instructions:
A. This test is better taken with a Heineken in your left hand.
B. Do not skip any questions.
C. Please no kissing while taking the test.

1. How long did The Hundred Years' War last?
2. Which country makes Panama hats?
3. From what animal do we get catgut?
4. In what month do Russians celebrate the October Revolution?
5. What is Camel's hairbrush made from?
6. The Canary Islands in the Atlantic are named after what animal?
7. What was King George VI's first name?
8. What color is a Purple Finch?
9. Where are Chinese Gooseberries from?
10. How long did the Thirty Years' War last?

So, how well did you do?

By Xiggi (Xiggi) on Tuesday, May 20, 2003 - 07:14 pm: Edit

Here are the answers, just in case:

1. How long did The Hundred Years' War last?
2. Which country makes Panama hats?
3. From what animal do we get catgut?
4. In what month do Russians celebrate the October Revolution?
5. What is Camel's hairbrush made from?
6. The Canary Islands in the Atlantic are named after what animal?
7. What was King George VI's first name?
8. What color is a Purple Finch?
9. Where are Chinese Gooseberries from?
10. How long did the Thirty Years' War last?

You think you're so smart, don't you?

Here are the answers:
1. 116 years, from 1337 to 1453.
2. Ecuador.
3. From sheep and horses.
4. November. The Russian calendar was 13 days behind ours.
5. Squirrel fur.
6. The Latin name was Insularia Canaria - Island of the Dogs.
7. Albert. In 1937 on the abdication of his brother King Edward VII, he respected the wish of Queen Victoria that no future king should ever be called Albert, the name of her husband.
8. Distinctively crimson.
9. New Zealand.
10. 30 years of course. 1618 to 1648.

By Sirmoreau (Sirmoreau) on Tuesday, May 20, 2003 - 10:02 pm: Edit

Xiggi, I need help finding something on the internet, I need to get the english translation of "el deleante blanco."

By Sirmoreau (Sirmoreau) on Tuesday, May 20, 2003 - 10:03 pm: Edit

El Delantal Blanco***

By Incognito (Incognito) on Tuesday, May 20, 2003 - 10:07 pm: Edit

the white apron

By Sirmoreau (Sirmoreau) on Tuesday, May 20, 2003 - 10:19 pm: Edit

LOL, no, its a story...i need the story translated. I can't find it anywhere on the internet, and i know a few of you people are wizzes, when it comes to finding information.

By Incognito (Incognito) on Tuesday, May 20, 2003 - 10:33 pm: Edit

http://www.translate.ru/

By Godis (Godis) on Tuesday, May 20, 2003 - 11:31 pm: Edit

xiggi, that exact test is posted on funnymail.com

i am sorry to tell you that your sat - iq theory won't be credited to you.

it was a fun quiz though!

By Xiggi (Xiggi) on Wednesday, May 21, 2003 - 12:08 am: Edit

Godis:

I know it has been on various websites. I did not want to post the link and look at what I called it:

Here is the first SirMoreau SAT/IQ Test

:) :)

By Sirmoreau (Sirmoreau) on Wednesday, May 21, 2003 - 12:20 am: Edit

Incognito!! Um could I use your user name and password, cause i need this by tonight, and it says it'll take a week for them to send me a password, but that translation is AWESOME. You can IM me at dbadidas8 if you'd like.

By Sirmoreau (Sirmoreau) on Wednesday, May 21, 2003 - 12:31 am: Edit

http://bls.org/languages/ap_Languages/apdownloads/vodanovic.htm

By Sirmoreau (Sirmoreau) on Wednesday, May 21, 2003 - 12:32 am: Edit

If you could just translate it for me, that would be awesome too. Thats the story in spanish.

By Xiggi (Xiggi) on Wednesday, May 21, 2003 - 12:45 am: Edit

Just to let you know that I did not find the english version of the play.

I only got to the same versions in Spanish.

Seems logical as the play probably wont translate too well in English.

By Sirmoreau (Sirmoreau) on Wednesday, May 21, 2003 - 01:33 am: Edit

Yeah that's true.

I guess it just does not exsist. Thanks for the help anyways though, I do appreciate it.

How's the weather in texas?

By Sirmoreau (Sirmoreau) on Wednesday, May 21, 2003 - 02:17 am: Edit

I'd prefer to take my IQ test with a corona. Preferably with a lime. And during the "rest" time, i'd want there to be an open bar, where I could easily access some tropical drinks..like a singapore sling, my personal favorite.

By Stanfordmsvv (Stanfordmsvv) on Wednesday, May 21, 2003 - 10:44 am: Edit

A guy from my city (New Delhi, India) who's going to Stanford with me this fall is a total genius and scored only a 1330 on the SAT. He was also admitted to MIT and Caltech. He is the author of two best selling books on system security and, in a book-review written by a Stanford professor, was commended for his "original thinking". He has guest lectured at various prestigious universities all over the world, and advises governmental organizations on computer security. The US govt. enlisted his expertise in cracking an encoded Al-Quida message -- the FBI presumably had the greatest computer minds in the world working on cracking the message and this kid random kid from India was the first one to crack it. You can find out more about this fellow here: http://ankitfadia.com/
With a 1330, the SAT indicates that heís not too special. Of course, that isnít true !

By Xiggi (Xiggi) on Wednesday, May 21, 2003 - 01:58 pm: Edit

The score in itself does not say much.

He could very well have aced all the math sections and scored an average 530 in English. It is very doubtful that the "genius" would have scored anything less than 800 on the Quant section.

Anyhow, congrats on going to Stanford and pursue your education. It will be nice for Ankit to spend his time with hundreds of equally or more gifted students. Good luck!

By Stanfordmsvv (Stanfordmsvv) on Wednesday, May 21, 2003 - 02:37 pm: Edit

Nope. He did not get a perfect 800 on the math section and is, in fact, only above average in conventional subjects. A genius does not necessarily have to have a high IQ, or be good Math. Though a high IQ helps, it is not an essential component of genius [I think I'm quoting Discovery Channel]. His genius manifests itself only in the field of system security where he is able to, as someone once commented, approach a problem with a completely unique perspective -- which is why he is a true genius, an "original thinker," and not some kid who can pass exams before time.

By Stanfordmsvv (Stanfordmsvv) on Wednesday, May 21, 2003 - 02:43 pm: Edit

We've all heard that Einstein was an above average but by no means brilliant student in highschool, haven't we? Do you think Einstein would have been able to make a perfect 800 Math?

By Sirmoreau (Sirmoreau) on Wednesday, May 21, 2003 - 06:23 pm: Edit

yes. Dude, had Einstien been born earlier, he most likely would've developed most the mathematical concepts we see on the test, ITs EiNsTiEN. Sounds to me like this Ankita has spent his life on the computer, HACKING presumably...hes most likely just an ingenius hacker who has decided to use his abilities for good instead of evil. You noted the FBI contacted him for his "expertise", in what? hacking?. Did he by chance get in trouble by the law when he was younger? Most the FBI guys, i'm assuming haven't spent their lives in a linux mainframe. This "original thinker" who is most likely the worlds best hacker. Remember that "I love you" virus that spread all over the internet, where are those kids now? NOW THAT WAS GENIUS, I wonder what they scored on the SAT (lol). This reminds me of the movie Hackers.

By Xiggi (Xiggi) on Wednesday, May 21, 2003 - 06:51 pm: Edit

Stanford~

We can only speculate on how well Einstein woulod have done on the SAT. I would put my money that he would have done pretty well. After all, why would dear old Albert not ace a 10th grade math test?

As far as your Indoan kid, I think that it is remarkable that someone of our age had gained such reputation. I believe that his expertise to be in Security issues and it was a stroke of genius to decide to write a book in layman terms on a very arcane subject. His books were well received but neither best-sellers (less than 20,000 copies) nor applauded by security specialists. I believe the books were described a scripts for kiddos written by a kiddo.

But again, it is obvious that Ankit is a very smart guy and it is not surprising that he might smarter than the goverment officials. But after all, isn't most everybody smarter than people who work for the govt!!!

By Stanfordmsvv (Stanfordmsvv) on Thursday, May 22, 2003 - 04:03 am: Edit

I did my research. Einstein's IQ as tested by the Stanford-benit scale correlates with an SAT score of 1520. Einstein's IQ as tested by the Wechsler scale correlates with an SAT score of 1560. I know many, many people who have higher than a 1520/1560 and aren't nearly as smart as our dear friend Al!! lol.

Ankit's first book Ethical Hacking was indeed a kiddy book, but his second book 'Network Security: A Hacker's Perspective' was a serious publication and did indeed represent original thinking. This book is now used as a textbook at six universities across India, and as a training manual at many multi-national companies. Ankit also lectures at IIT (Indian Institute of Technology) -- far, far, far more difficult to get into than MIT -- and therefore does have "new" and "original" thing to tell the world. If one interprets genius as did John Hersey, that "true genius rearranges old material in a way never seen...before", Ankit does indeed qualify as a genius.

His book sales, till date, have been 140,000 copies.

By Xiggi (Xiggi) on Thursday, May 22, 2003 - 03:21 pm: Edit

Wow - if he sold 140,000 books, that is indeed a best-seller. I must have picked up old information...my bad :(

Also, I did not want to sound like I was denigrating his achievements. It is more than 99% of us would ever dream to accomplish.

The way I see it, he probaby would have aced the SAT, if he wanted to devote the energy.

Again, good luck at Stanford. I wish I would go with the 2 of you :)

By Sirmoreau (Sirmoreau) on Thursday, May 22, 2003 - 09:19 pm: Edit

I just took an auctual SAT test, and my IQ was 131. So I am yet to reach my SAT potential people!

http://www.nationalreview.com/derbyshire/derbyshire071702.asp

For your future career plans!

By Sirmoreau (Sirmoreau) on Thursday, May 22, 2003 - 09:20 pm: Edit

Auctual IQ test****, gee talk about not maximizing that IQ of mine with these mistakes.

By Boo (Boo) on Friday, May 23, 2003 - 03:54 pm: Edit

IQ "societies" used to accept SAT scores as a basis for admissions, but do not any longer - this suggests that the correlation is not there anymore.

By Ali_Liu (Ali_Liu) on Wednesday, October 15, 2003 - 08:14 pm: Edit

My IQ is 183 and my sat is ....horrible! go figure!=)

By Moneycrade (Moneycrade) on Monday, March 22, 2004 - 02:19 pm: Edit

Very Interesting Conversation, Read The Whole Thing. Wish I was here earlier to post some of my 99 cents!

Moneycrad at AIM

I WISH I WAS ALBERT EINSTEIN!!!

By Brian216 (Brian216) on Friday, April 30, 2004 - 11:08 pm: Edit

As long as were talking about geniuses, i dont know what u guys know about math history but there was this guy about a hundred years ago in india named Srinivasa Ramanujan. He was in my opinion the greatest genius to ever live. He did not have considerable education, but managed nevertheless to almost completely reinvent all known mathematics for himself plus many knew accomplishments. He was later discovered by a Cambridge number theorist by the name of G.H. Hardy who sent for him. Together they did some great math but Ramanujan died tragically at the age of 32. I am absolutely certain that if he lived a full life, it would be his name rather than Einsteins that the everyday person would know. It was said that in just the last year of his life he did the amount of original math work of a lifetimes work for a very great mathematician.

Anyway, if u wanna know more about Ramanujan look him up. Im sure that Stanford will have heard of him being from India cuz hes on a stamp there.

On the subject or SAT measuring IQ i can say with certainty that there is no connection whatsoever.


Report an offensive message on this page    E-mail this page to a friend
Posting is currently disabled in this topic. Contact your discussion moderator for more information.

Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only
Administer Page