Steam installieren
Anmelden
|
Sprache
简体中文 (Vereinfachtes Chinesisch)
繁體中文 (Traditionelles Chinesisch)
日本語 (Japanisch)
한국어 (Koreanisch)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarisch)
Čeština (Tschechisch)
Dansk (Dänisch)
English (Englisch)
Español – España (Spanisch – Spanien)
Español – Latinoamérica (Lateinamerikanisches Spanisch)
Ελληνικά (Griechisch)
Français (Französisch)
Italiano (Italienisch)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesisch)
Magyar (Ungarisch)
Nederlands (Niederländisch)
Norsk (Norwegisch)
Polski (Polnisch)
Português – Portugal (Portugiesisch – Portugal)
Português – Brasil (Portugiesisch – Brasilien)
Română (Rumänisch)
Русский (Russisch)
Suomi (Finnisch)
Svenska (Schwedisch)
Türkçe (Türkisch)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamesisch)
Українська (Ukrainisch)
Ein Übersetzungsproblem melden
Diskussionsregeln
Diesen Beitrag melden
And on a side note, if you brag about passing a test given to victims of head trauma to determine if they've suffered any brain damage, you're a loser.
IQ is just an indication it does not go into it the study required to really achieve. A high IQ can mean in some areas there is a 'natural' talent but if you cannot convey those ideas then they are pretty pointless.
Mike Tyson in an interview long ago said something like 'talent is a myth, it is a falsehope. Talent will only get you so far it does not compensate for the hard work and training put in' .
Example from myself : in security long ago, I'd do a quick basic check without equipment for bugs and objects that shouldn't be their (counter surveillance type of stuff) people would assume I was a genius at it, no I was just used to checking quickly for spiders growing up and know how many strange places they like to sit in. Experience and study and my natural 'i don't really like spiders crawling all over the place' over any instant high IQ ability.
I took a serious set of tests that lasted hours they measured a lot to put it simply.
Turned out some things I am very 'advanced in' and others 'average to below average'.
One of my friends had the understanding of a very simple ten year old (not saying all ten year olds are simple just that she would have been a very simple for a ten year old) and she was 18.
You could talk to her and after little while you'd get she wasn't very savvy but she didnt come across as thick either just some things in logic would be beyond her reasoning.
Yet she could identify spacial awareness almost immediately.
for me I see a large container and visualise how to put everything in it and this takes a short bit of time.
She would just instantly see then click she'd 'get' it .
It is all relative.
I roll my eyes internally when people boast about their IQ and I always think yeah and just how much basic stuff are you missing and don't even realise it.
As Bruce Lee would say 'If I said I was good then you would think I was boasting, if I said I was no good...then you'd know I was lying.'
I am hijacking the thread a bit here so will stop responding to people unless they quote me.
Imagine (not the actual way it is but just imagine for sake of easiness) we all had a score that totaled to 1000 this includes scores for movement, coordination, thinking, reactions, how we store and retrieve information.
Everything that makes us a human.
Some people will have more points in one thing and less points in another.
But the total points all of us had are around 1000 give or take a few.
This is what the strength of the human being is, the variety and ability to build and achieve when working together.
I'll add one of my friends in Mensa said he's got the certificate but its not much use if he doesnt put what he has to use.
or my way of putting it A commander with ten knights and turning up to a fight is better than a commander with a thousand knights and doesn't show up.
Most people can´t even tell you what IQ is.
If they are the regular (I got tested) they often can´t even tell you what scales have been used and they don´t think about the limitations most of them have.
There are so many different ways to meassure, so many different theories, that without debating those first, its pointless to even start a debate about the terminology IQ.
This is a valid point. Marilyn vos Savant is an advice columnist who markets herself as "the smartest woman in the world" with "an IQ of 228". While that sounds cool, most testing scales currently accepted as "reliable" since the mid-20th century only go up to 200.
So why is this lady wasting her time writing advice on mundane things? Because she's basing her marketing schtick on the results of Ronald K. Hoeflin's "MEGA IQ Test", which goes up to 300 and is only offered to children who score above 145 on the Standford-Binet or WISC. Hoeflin himself isn't exactly a reputable person, either.
https://fampeople.com/cat-marilyn-vos-savant_4
Hoeflin created the MEGA Society in 1982, partly as a competitor to MENSA and partly to finance his psychometry research projects. He claimed to have scored a 145 in the Stanford-Binet, which may have contributed to the minimum IQ required for his tests.
Psychometry is not psychology, it's parapsychology. Moving stuff with your mind, reading thoughts, setting things on fire without any matches, the usual voodoo hoodo nonsense, and that's the guy who got vos Savant into the Guiness World Book of Records.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/psychometry
TL;DR: Agreed, IQ is BS.
It's like when news title you read "world famous ...." and it means the exact opposite. Yet to see line with "Albert Enstein, the world-famous German scientist" ;-).
On mistakes: you will be a clear loser if you repeat them.
This is true.
It's just a number, like your age. It doesn't mean you are guaranteed anything. It doesn't make you better than anyone else.
A man should be measured by his actions, not a number on a spreadsheet.
Plus he's responsible for the nuclear research that ended up vaporizing a bunch of Japanese citizens in 1945. Sure, the guy in charge of Germany was bad, but holy hell talk about repeating the cycle of violence!