What intellectual difference is there between IQ scores of 135, 157, and 162?
Imagine you are asking a difficult question. At 135, the listener starts thinking about the answer as you are finishing the question and within seconds, replies with an insightful response that is almost always correct. This person will thrive and become quite successful in a knowledge worker job, from doctor to CEO to Wall Street.At 160, the listener has figured out more or less what you are going to say by the fifth word, like on Name that Tune, and now they have a lot of extra time. He or she wonders why you decided to ask that question and infers something about your interests, and considers whether to reply factually, philosophically, humorously, with mock outrage, with sympathy, and how that might affect the rest of the conversation, and has chosen a general type of approach; and then identified several alternate ways of getting to the correct answer, and has worked out the answer using two of those ways to see if it checks or not. (If it does not check they will feel pleased, and consider what this reveals about the meaning of life or the complexity and subtlety of the topic.) At last you finish asking your question! The 160 either pounces immediately with “it all depends would you like to know why?” or pauses and asks an apparently mild follow-up question. This is actually designed to get you to restate your original question in a new form or using certain words, so he or she can now say the answer with a sentence construction that is interesting because it is like a chord - simultaneously correct along several different levels of meaning, ironic because it means two opposite things at once, or the answer simply sounds like two different answers and thus makes a pun. If you then indicate that you comprehend the duality of their response, they will become very interested in you. :)
Is someone with an IQ of 220 twice as smart as someone with an IQ of 110, or does it follow a different scale?
The problem with IQ and IQ tests is that our definition of intelligence is rather arbitrary. If someone from an aboriginal tribe is able to identify several hundred edible plants, predict the weather days in advance, craft tools and weapons from nature, and thrive in an inhospitable environment but has never been taught algebra, he will perform quite poorly on an IQ test. This individual could be quite intelligent, but due to the fact that he doesn't possess the knowledge that an intelligent person in the industrilized is expected to know means he will be assigned a low IQ by a test. Any IQ test is a de facto knowledge test. It's the best we can do because there is no objective definition of intelligence.Computers, by virtue of perfect memory, are able to perform tasks we would say require great intelligence if a human were to do them. Chess, complex arithmetic, mathematical proofs, playing jeopardy, correcting spelling and grammar mistakes, translating between languages, and so on. But things we consider very simple are actually quite complex and cannot be performed well by a computer. Holding a conversation, walking, driving a car, and figuring out what to type in one of those CAPTCHA things so that a web page thinks you are a human.My point in all this is that you could score a 110, a computer could score a 220, and an aborigine could score a 55. That would not mean that you are twice as intelligent as the aborigine any more than it would mean that the computer is twice as intellligent as you. I'm not trying to say that aborigines are brilliant or that IQ tests are worthless. I just want to point out that IQ doesn't so much measure something as assign a score based on proficiency in an assumed knowledge base.
What is the difference between people with IQ 150 and people with IQ 125?
I myself have an IQ of 147 (only tested once, but I have ADHD).I would divide people into 4 categories:The bottom 60% of people are basically the same to me. In terms of IQ scores, maybe around 0 - 105 or so.The next 39.5% of people are smarter. They’re the smart ones, getting straight A’s, the lot. They dabble in intellectual pursuits but aren’t that good at it. However, if they are really interested, they can be really good at something. I think an IQ of 125 would fall around the upper range here.The next 0.495% of people are smart. (I consider myself in this category). They skip the occasional grade and do very well in things they like. They excel in things and win competitions. They’re the “really smart and nerdy” kids. I would estimate this 140 -165.The smartest 0.005% of people are really, really, really, smart. One kid I would put in this category would be one 6th grader studying calculus in a fast-paced course and complained about it being easy. Estimate of 170 and above.The difference between the second and third really rests in how much faster you can do things. I would say that third category people are magnets to things like math olympiad, physics, coding, etc… while second category people wouldn’t naturally find it but enjoy it and do well once they make their mind up to do it.
Is it possible for someone to get an IQ of "0"?
Hypothetically, yes. Actually, no.A major reason for this (which I don't think has been mentioned) is that your score is representative of your intelligence compared to other people your age. The makers of IQ tests obtain this comparison through a normative group, which is a fancy way of saying they tested lots of people of all ages before publishing the test for use. Since realistically nobody in that normative group would score a 0, the tests do not measure that low (that is, there's nobody to which you can be compared).It is essentially the same reason you can't get a score of 200. There is nobody to which your performance can be compared (and thus no measure for what that score would look like).
Are there things an individual with an IQ of 160 can learn that an individual with an IQ of 130 can't learn?
No, but people with IQ of 160 will get those things faster.Genius, is in creativity, not intelligence, so dude or girl with 130 can be more of an genius then dude or girl with 160.But, remember time, practice is important.Well, I already answered the question but, I will try to explain what did I mean by time and practice.Look:-Rambo, he’s an poet, writer, director, spend most of his life on those 3 things, he’s very good in it, very very good in it, almost genial.Rambo focus more on the story and morals of the film, but aesthetics of the films he made, are average, sometimes even below average.-Boram, he’s an painter, designer, director, spend most of his life on those 3 things, he’s very very good in it, almost genial.Boram focus more on the beauty, on the aesthetics of the film, but the story, is average, or even boring.Both of them have high IQlet’s say, 140.They both 30 years old.Understand?Rambo knows how to write a story with powerfull emotions inside the story, and Boram, knows how to make a film so aesthetic that you will cry anyway.Why they can’t make their weak sides better ?So, they both are working directors, that need to make films, they need to work, and make films that are in their styles.They are 30 years old, they spend let’s say something about… now 20 years on 2 first interests, and both started making films at 25.They would need to practice their weak sides, and focus less on their good sides, but they just can’t, cuz they have fans, and work, and money to make, and talent to spend..All they can do with it, is working together :)Same with all other types of people with high IQ.
Where can I get good help with some homework?
With every day pass, our country is getting into more and more trouble. The inflation, unemployment and falling value of dollar are the main concern for our Government but authorities are just sleeping, they don’t want to face the fact. Media is also involve in it, they are force to stop showing the real economic situation to the people. I start getting more concern about my future as well as my family after watching the response of our Government for the people that affected by hurricane Katrina. According to recent studies made by World Bank, the coming crisis will be far worse than initially predicted. So if you're already preparing for the crisis (or haven't started yet) make sure you watch this video at http://www.familysurvival.tv and discover the 4 BIG issues you'll have to deal with when the crisis hits, and how to solve them fast (before the disaster strikes your town!) without spending $1,000s on overrated items and useless survival books.
How have we evolved over the last 100 or so years?
100 years is an incredibly small period of time for evolution to work so any trends we may think we see may not turn out to become fixed in the population. But here are a few that might:- + poor eyesight - having less than perfect vision no longer means that you are at a disadvantage because it can be corrected. So more people will survive with defective vision and pass on this to the next generation + low birth weight / premature birth - as children who are born at low birth weight or prematurely now more often survive due to incubators and other medical interventions, any genetic tendency towards low birth weight or premature birth may become fixed in the population + obesity - being obese no longer means being unable to escape a predator or defeat a rival in battle. Any tendency towards obesity is likely to become fixed in the population The appendix is a largely vestigial organ - it has minimal functionality (it may have some small function in combating infection). The reason we still have an appendix is that being born either with or without one makes no difference to our survival rate - therefore there is no evolutionary pressure to either retain it or discard it. I hadn't heard that redheads were becomming rarer but if there is sufficient interbreeding between recessive and dominant characteristics the likelihood is that the recessives will reduce in number. Often in this form of dimorphism there are other factors which act to restore the recessive characteristics to former levels in the population over long periods but human breeding no longer conform to the "normal" tribal or regional patterns that would have taken place more than several hundred years ago so it may be that things will change.
Should abiogenesis be taught as a religion rather than a practical science?
There have been experiments that replicated earth's early conditions. These experiments lasted days and were found to create macromolecules and even membrane bound sacs capable of maintaining an internal environment that differed greatly from the surrounding solution. These sacs contained large numbers of macromolecules and closely resembled the structure of some simple bacteria. These events took place over a course of a few days. Imagine if we could maintain those conditions for a few hundred million years. This by no means proves that life was formed by abiogenesis, but it does prove that macromolecules and self regulating environments will easily form under earth's early conditions. This is enough proof to warrant further experimentation and keep the hypothesis of abiogenesis a valid scientific study. That's much more than any idea of creation can offer. Edit: Wow! You can really stretch a statement. The only thing the scientists did was replicate the conditons of early earth. These conditons don't exist on earth anymore (if they did you would die). I know you'll try to stretch that last statement using your pathetically feeble mind. What you said still has me laughing. We had god in place of scientists? Do you mean that god maintained early earth as a scientific experiment to see if life would form? Or are you just tacking more stupidity onto an already incredibly stupid rant? Your comments and overall stupidity are indicitive of the horrid state of America's public schools. But who could blame us? We descend from a group of puritans that were so fundamental that even the inquisition was too soft for them, so they left Europe. Please, do us all a favor and return to the fry station. Don't forget the stridex after work. Edit: I remember you now. Your the idiot who wouldn't just take the shiny red ball and stop spewing nonsense. Well, I guess you want a different color. Here ya go, a shiny yellow ball. Run along now, it's grown up time.