IQ tests are not predictive of anything useful to either the test taker or society. MENSA is merely a club for high aptitude underachievers. Big whup. — 180 Proof

IQ is a measure of a quality. Other qualities exist, which may enhance or diminish what success one with a high IQ may achieve. On the other hand, even the concept of "success" is at stake, or rather, a matter of individual preference, which is subjective, and is therefore not a good benchmark.

Some say success is the individual's ability at reproducing his or her own DNA in the largest number of replication. In this case, people with the highest success, and therefore the most intelligent, are Mick Jagger, Madonna (the singer / songwriter), several boxers and several basketball players. While the bottom of the totem pole of success are those with no DNA derivatives of their own; such are Hitler, Jesus Christ, most Catholic clergymen, and people who are born dead or are
eaten soon after they get born.

Sure, whatever floats your boat. Call it a stupidity test as you did, whatever that means.

I've told you already what that means. Use some of my that "160" and read what I wrote charitably like you want to understand as a few others have already. You may disagree but at least you might then stop asking irrelevant or deflective questions (this exchange doesn't have to be an impromptu "SQ" test / quiz for you).

Sure, have at this part:

IMO, (certain tests) (are) far more useful to society as a criterion for disqualifying idiots from being allowed to squat in high places — 180 Proof

I filled in the parts in parenthesis. Are these tests actual IQ tests?

I'm actually very dumb — Wheatley

Silence is golden! :chin:

:flower:

IMO, (certain tests) (are) far more useful to society as a criterion for disqualifying idiots from being allowed to squat in high places — 180 Proof

Admission tests to law school and graduate school. Pure IQ tests, to decide who gets in and who does not.

Apparently, your IQ is too high to read an entire paragraph and thereby contextualize the sentences you choose to quote.

Proves my point.

The g factor is a thing. That is about all we know. The IQ test was originally made to distinguish children with mental issues so they could be better taught in a more specialised environment. They were never intended to measure the high end of the scale only find the lower end so they could be helped out.

IQ tests that score higher and higher are less and less accurate. IQ tests now also come in many different forms aimed at different groups.

We know higher IQ (g factor) generally relates to higher all round achievement but it isn’t necessary for high achievement (whatever that maybe) nor does having a higher IQ mean you’ll ‘achieve’ anything.

There is a lot of misconceptions surrounding IQ tests. The bottomline is they do measure something generally referred to in the field as the g factor (but it is not an amazingly accurate measure of g and we don’t even know exactly what g is other than to say the higher it is in some individuals the more it seems they’re able to solve novel problems others cannot or do so quicker than others can.

Really though comparing people in this manner is kind of pointless as it is like comparing the art of a musician to the art of a sculptor. We can roughly agree on what music is passable and what sculptures are okay, but cross comparisons only hold so much weight. A bad singer can be successful and a great singer can receive no success. Mostly it seems to be down to planning and hard work when it comes to success, yet for extraordinary success a latent ability and/or luck are key ingredients.

Note: By ‘success’ I mean creations and/or solving problems not ‘living a good life’.

Hey that may actually be predictive, .
I suppose ethical concerns might be raised (in particular) if it would all be on public record.
I'm guessing surgeon Ben Carson would get a good score.

Yes, the world-class neurosurgeon-turned-trump-stooge is a perfect example of a (n apparently) high IQ with a (definitely) high SQ.

:up:

It's hilariously banal to apply this old word to someone who merely aces an abstract pattern recognition test. — hanaH

Yes, both banal and arbitrary I'd say.

I don't know man. It's Jack fucking Nicholson, so who gives two shits? — Shawn

Shit, I always thought he was a fuckin' genius; and now I'm confused. :yikes:

The IQ test is a testament to the low intelligence of the inventor and the faculties that implemented

I wouldn't know no how. Ain't never took one of them there things. I did get unlimited call-backs in the Marine Corps (was them IQ tests?), but they might just been trying to figure how's I could walk; what with being so stupid an all.