Jump to content

Obtaining IQ test database


Chriss

Recommended Posts

38 minutes ago, Chriss said:

But I can't have evidence as i can't find someone to do a study !

Stop saying that. For the last time, scientists have done the study. The study has been presented. The study says there is no significant correlation between birth dates and intelligence (at more than 1 IQ point difference between the highest and lowest points). You said the ''tests weren't good''. I rest my case.

You could do a study which would inevitably prove you wrong and then you would say the study wasn't good, so what's the point. It has been concluded that people born all around the year have an average IQ, on average, not your absurd 150 estimation. 

I have given you another proof. People with an IQ of 120 and more make up less than 10% of the population (which has been confirmed in a vast array of studies), while your chart makes it out to be more like 60%. Also, again, the fact that people with high IQ parents are much more likely to have a high IQ also disproves your point, because people with high IQ parents are born all around the year with their birthdates having no connection to their IQ whatsoever. Just the fact that something other than birthdates has a significant effect on IQ completely contradicts your assertion and throws it out of the water. And what about the kids of parents who do drugs and drink alcohol? They are more likely to have a low IQ, which is, again, unrelated to any kind of birthday.

To me, there's an overwhelming amount of evidence that you're dead wrong, and if you keep ignoring that, what's the point of continuing the conversation? I'm done here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well the classic IQ test that i did measures to "144 or above"'. Other test could be improvisations(or at least I don't know them) Give me a test that measure from bottom to top. And what is the maximum intelligence level ? What is the intelligence of Paul Dirac for example which i seen in a documentary telling that he is the human equivalent of the supercomputer. And what makes you think that you have to be intelligent to do a discovery ? Richard Feynman had an IQ of 124.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Chriss said:

Well the classic IQ test that i did measures to "144 or above"'. Other test could be improvisations(or at least I don't know them) Give me a test that measure from bottom to top. And what is the maximum intelligence level ? What is the intelligence of Paul Dirac for example which i seen in a documentary telling that he is the human equivalent of the supercomputer. And what makes you think that you have to be intelligent to do a discovery ? Richard Feynman had an IQ of 124.

This is all utterly irrelevant. You can't draw any conclusions about general trends from one or two individuals. If you were as smart as you think you are, you would realise this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Chriss said:

Richard Feynman had an IQ of 124.

Ahahahh.

20 minutes ago, Chriss said:

Well the classic IQ test that i did measures to "144 or above"'. Other test could be improvisations(or at least I don't know them) Give me a test that measure from bottom to top. And what is the maximum intelligence level ? 

What's your point? Is there anything constructive you want to say? No offense, but I doubt your IQ is 144. I doubt a genius would ignore all the evidence against him and not understand why small sample sizes aren't worth shit. You still didn't reply to anything I said. There is evidence. This evidence shows you are wrong. On the other hand, you have no evidence, just hand waving and ranting on about the moon. No one will take you seriously. I don't.

Since you refuse to consider failure, here's another link for a scientific study of thousands of children (which, no doubt, you will say is flawed):

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16953958

Quote

Both adjusted and unadjusted differences in reading ability at age 9 and arithmetic ability at age 11 between those born from September to December compared with other times of the year were less than 0.1 of a standard deviation of the test scores. Ambient temperature around the time of conception, during gestation, and around the time of birth did not affect intelligence.

CONCLUSION:

Any variation in mean childhood intelligence by season of birth is weak and largely explained by age at school entry and age relative to class peers.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Lord Antares said:

Ahahahh.

What's your point? Is there anything constructive you want to say? No offense, but I doubt your IQ is 144. I doubt a genius would ignore all the evidence against him and not understand why small sample sizes aren't worth shit. You still didn't reply to anything I said. There is evidence. This evidence shows you are wrong. On the other hand, you have no evidence, just hand waving and ranting on about the moon. No one will take you seriously. I don't.

Since you refuse to consider failure, here's another link for a scientific study of thousands of children (which, no doubt, you will say is flawed):

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16953958

 

You can find on google that his IQ was 125. What makes you think that you have to have a high IQ to do a discovery ? Why do you laugh ? And i've seen other people that did discoveries and were not intelligent.

My IQ is 131, but i read about that test that i did online that measures to 144 or above.

What is the relation between reading ability  and arithmetic ability, and intelligence ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Chriss said:

You can find on google that his IQ was 125.

So what? How is this relevant?

10 minutes ago, Chriss said:

What makes you think that you have to have a high IQ to do a discovery ?

Who said you do?

10 minutes ago, Chriss said:

Why do you laugh ?

Because your claims are ridiculous. (From the Latin for laughable.)

You need to do a course in critical thinking. (Which apparently doesn't correlate with intelligence.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Chriss said:

You can find on google that his IQ was 125.

That was his measured IQ when he was a kid. IQ values for kids are far less reliable than they are for adults. Kids may not have interest or care for doing the tests On the other hand, he consistenly won multiple math competitions and when you hear him talk about stuff he knows about, you can clearly identify high intelligence. There is no way his IQ was 125.

Similarly, I got ''average'' on a primary school test. Then I got 147 on an online mensa test and then, when doing the drivers license IQ test, I was told that I had answered every question correctly (no numerical value given tho). Go figure. FYI, I don't believe any of them. I don't think IQ tests are that accurate for a single individual. If you get a really high score, I think there's a high chance that it means you're intelligent, but it doesn't say much more than that. 

What I do believe, tho, is in macro IQ studies. For example, if you take a large sample of scientists and measure their IQ against a large group of ''insert *regular* job like construction worker, and you inevitably get a significant difference between the two, it clearly must mean something. It can't be a coincidence on such a large sample size of people, regardless of how accurate an IQ test for a single person may be.

And you have managed to ignore one more legitimate study (based on thousands of people) and instead focus on minor points along the way. I think it's clear any objectivity is out of the water in this discussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Lord Antares said:

That was his measured IQ when he was a kid. IQ values for kids are far less reliable than they are for adults. Kids may not have interest or care for doing the tests On the other hand, he consistenly won multiple math competitions and when you hear him talk about stuff he knows about, you can clearly identify high intelligence. There is no way his IQ was 125.

Similarly, I got ''average'' on a primary school test. Then I got 147 on an online mensa test and then, when doing the drivers license IQ test, I was told that I had answered every question correctly (no numerical value given tho). Go figure. FYI, I don't believe any of them. I don't think IQ tests are that accurate for a single individual. If you get a really high score, I think there's a high chance that it means you're intelligent, but it doesn't say much more than that. 

What I do believe, tho, is in macro IQ studies. For example, if you take a large sample of scientists and measure their IQ against a large group of ''insert *regular* job like construction worker, and you inevitably get a significant difference between the two, it clearly must mean something. It can't be a coincidence on such a large sample size of people, regardless of how accurate an IQ test for a single person may be.

And you have managed to ignore one more legitimate study (based on thousands of people) and instead focus on minor points along the way. I think it's clear any objectivity is out of the water in this discussion.

Here's what i read on wikipedia about Richard Feynman " A high-school-administered IQ test estimated his IQ at 125—high, but "merely respectable" according to biographer James Gleick.[17][18] His sister Joan did better, allowing her to claim that she was smarter. Years later he declined to join Mensa International, saying that his IQ was too low. " I've seen him on interviews but I can't figure out his intelligence because I don't understand everything in english.

You don't have to be intelligent to do a discovery, you have to have imagination. Everybody says that.

Edited by Chriss
Link to comment
Share on other sites

""When we looked at the data, the bottom line is the whole concept of IQ -- or of you having a higher IQ than me -- is a myth," Dr. Adrian Owen, the study's senior investigator and the Canada Excellence Research Chair in Cognitive Neuroscience and Imaging at the university's Brain and Mind Institute. "There is no such thing as a single measure of IQ or a measure of general intelligence." More than 100,000 participants joined the study and completed 12 online cognitive tests that examined memory, reasoning, attention and planning abilities. They were also asked about their background and lifestyle. They found that there was not one single test or component that could accurately judge how well a person could perform mental and cognitive tasks."

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/iq-scores-not-accurate-marker-of-intelligence-study-shows/

 

Cognitive ability is not linear and based on environment different attributes may of may not be more desirable. Hand eye coordination, dexterity, and reflexes are cognitive and totally ignored by standard IQ tests yet are abilities which have been naturally selected throughout history. Quick reactions and precise neuromuscular control saved hunter gathers from bear attacks, Vikings from in combat, and drivers from fatal accidents today amongst numerous other things. How high one can count or number of words one knows vs others is a poor measure of what a person's brain is capable of. Additionally brain function changes all the time. What a person is able to learn, recall, and understand when I am tired, hungry, cold, hot, happy, sad, etc is different than when they are in ideal conditions. People attempt quantify intelligence in absolute terms but it cannot be measured that way because intelligence is relative. What is valued changes with time and discovery. We can measure a person's height or weight vs anothers in absolute terms. Ability is another story. Even attempts to measure strength and speed yeild varied results as the same person tested again and again performs differently time after time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stop it. This is irrelevant. Why do you keep going on about it. No one with any intelligence would do that. 

2 minutes ago, Chriss said:

Here's what i read on wikipedia about Richard Feynman " A high-school-administered IQ test estimated his IQ at 125—high, but "merely respectable" according to biographer James Gleick.[17][18] His sister Joan did better, allowing her to claim that she was smarter. Years later he declined to join Mensa International, saying that his IQ was too low. "

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just for the record and not because a single data point makes any real difference; Richard Feynman- noted polymath, genius and bright bloke was born 11 May 1918 under a new moon.

He is, in fact, a counter example to the OP's assertion. (So are my brother, my mum and my dad- though I was born fairly near the full moon).

Based on this laughable sample size of 5 it seems that most bright people are not born at the full moon.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

Just for the record and not because a single data point makes any real difference; Richard Feynman- noted polymath, genius and bright bloke was born 11 May 1918 under a new moon.

He is, in fact, a counter example to the OP's assertion. (So are my brother, my mum and my dad- though I was born fairly near the full moon).

Based on this laughable sample size of 5 it seems that most bright people are not born at the full moon.

 

Why do you mix the cycle of intelligence with the cycle of memory ? They are two different things !

For example Alessandro Volta was born at 3 days from the peak of the cycle of intelligence and at two days before new moon, so he got a lower memory level. Newton was born close to the full moon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Chriss said:

Why do you mix the cycle of intelligence with the cycle of memory ? They are two different things !

 

Memory and intelligence (for any given definition) are strongly correlated; you can't figure stuff out if you can't remember it.

All those people I cited also had good memories so the point is moot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Chriss said:

For example Alessandro Volta was born at 3 days from the peak of the cycle of intelligence and at two days before new moon, so he got a lower memory level. Newton was born close to the full moon.

How do you know what either Volta's or Newton's memory was like?

But also: Stop this idiotic line of discussion. You cannot deduce anything from a few cherry picked examples. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Strange said:

How do you know what either Volta's or Newton's memory was like?

I watched how the moon was when they were born. Also Darwin had a weak memory. He was at two days before new moon. The cycle of memory and physical energy. It's both. You won't find a person with good memory and weak physical energy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Chriss said:

I watched how the moon was when they were born.

So you know how good their memory was from when they were born. And this confirms your "theory" that memory is related to birthdate.

Do you not realise how monumentally stupid that is?

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/53/Begging-the-Question

Quote

Also Darwin had a weak memory. He was at two days before new moon. 

Even if true (*) this proves nothing. 

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Cherry_picking

(*) You provide no support or references for this and so, based on the reliability of things you say, I assume it is not true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Strange said:

So you know how good their memory was from when they were born. And this confirms your "theory" that memory is related to birthdate.

Do you not realise how monumentally stupid that is?

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/53/Begging-the-Question

Even if true (*) this proves nothing. 

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Cherry_picking

(*) You provide no support or references for this and so, based on the reliability of things you say, I assume it is not true.

I can't prove it unless I find someone to do a study. I thought you are interested in ideas and myabe can help.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Chriss said:

I can't prove it unless I find someone to do a study. I thought you are interested in ideas and myabe can help.

THEN STOP CLAIMING IT IS TRUE. When there is ZERO reason to think it is.

You don't need to do a study. You can find lots of studies that have already been done. But you are so convinced that your ridiculous idea is correct, you just reject them

If the effect on IQ were as large as you claim, it would be really obvious. Really, really obvious. There would have been newspaper headlines. People would be planning when their children were born.

And, if you were willing to learn, the feedback you have received here could help you. As it is, you are too stubborn to learn anything that you disagree with. 

Edited by Strange
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Lord Antares said:

Since you refuse to consider failure, here's another link for a scientific study of thousands of children (which, no doubt, you will say is flawed):

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16953958

 

 

9 minutes ago, Lord Antares said:

Reply to the last study I linked, or get ignored. It is only fair that we ignore you if you ignore the studies and you're the one complaining that there are no studies on this.

 

Maybe they didn't think to arrange people in the order of birth. Should I contact them ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Chriss said:

Maybe they didn't think to arrange people in the order of birth. Should I contact them ?

What is wrong with you? It is a study of the relationship between birth date (season) and IQ. Can you show anything about their methodology or analysis that is flawed? Come on, you claim to have a high IQ, show us where they have gone wrong.

Or are you rejecting it, without even reading it, because of your blind faith in your wild guess?

Edited by Strange
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Strange said:

What is wrong with you? It is a study of the relationship between birth date (season) and IQ. Can you show anything about their methodology or analysis that is flawed? Come on, you claim to have a high IQ, show us where they have gone wrong.

Or are you rejecting it, without even reading it, because of your blind faith in your wild guess?

To be fair, the cycle in his chart repeats every 3 months, so it would be expected that the average IQ of the 4 seasons would be the same, even if his chart was correct (which it isn't). Fair enough. I've got another proof that he is wrong.

OP, do some math now, the thing you were supposed to be doing from the start. Take your chart. Write down the IQ of every single date in your 3 month period. Write down the average IQ. This will prove that you are incorrect.

Meanwhile, I'm off to find some data on specific dates of birth and intelligence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Lord Antares said:

To be fair, the cycle in his chart repeats every 3 months, so it would be expected that the average IQ of the 4 seasons would be the same, even if his chart was correct (which it isn't). Fair enough. I've got another proof that he is wrong.

OP, do some math now, the thing you were supposed to be doing from the start. Take your chart. Write down the IQ of every single date in your 3 month period. Write down the average IQ. This will prove that you are incorrect.

Meanwhile, I'm off to find some data on specific dates of birth and intelligence.

The cycle doesn't repeat itself at 3 months, there are fragments on it where intelligence increases from a lower point to peak in a few days, for example from 24 august 1986 which is not at the bottom but lower and in 1 or 2 september is the peak. In my chart I don't know if 20 january 1985 is the lowest point, it could be 15 january but is hard for me to observe this low. It is very easy to observe people more intelligent than me.

20 minutes ago, Strange said:

What is wrong with you? It is a study of the relationship between birth date (season) and IQ. Can you show anything about their methodology or analysis that is flawed? Come on, you claim to have a high IQ, show us where they have gone wrong.

Or are you rejecting it, without even reading it, because of your blind faith in your wild guess?

I've read it. I don't know why they didn't found the cycle ! I don't know !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.