naturalplastic wrote:
I am also in that "smart but dumb" category. Got into Mensa. But can't figure out how to cook lasagna.
But even Mensa only puts me in the top two percent.
you're...what? In the top "point zero zero zero one" of one percent?
That MUST put you up there with historic figures like Einstein, Newton, Da Vinci, Steven Hawking,Alan Turing, and like that.
A lot of high IQ societies have a score you need to get to join. This will be through an authorised numerical,spatial,verbal or mixed test. Mine are through verbal tests . 168 is the highest score I've got.
The lowest-
that was for a non-verbal/spatial test .
Quote:
3. The 'manifold' of variation between IQ sub tests increases with increasing IQ.
In other words, while people of moderately high intelligence tend to be all-rounders, about equally good at all the IQ sub tests; people of the highest levels of intelligence are much more specialized in their abilities. Their very high abilities tend to be restricted to particular sub tests or sub-domains of the intelligence tests.
A super-adept mathematician 4 SDs above average in number and symbol tasks is usually less than super at linguistic tasks (probably above average, but maybe not much above average) - while a literary super genius may be, often is, only very moderately good at mathematics.
Quote:
I repeat: the actual concept of 'general intelligence' of general intelligence (hence IQ) begins to break-down from around two standard deviations above average - in the top couple of percent of the population.
From around and above this point, therefore, ultra-high cognitive abilities tend to be specialized and found in isolation.
*
This may well explain the reason why super-intelligent individuals such as William Shockley and Richard Feynman were seemingly not picked-out by childhood intelligence tests.
Of course there are the possibilities of random measurement errors, under-performance due to illness and other factors, and ceiling effects - but most probably some super-intelligent people are super-intelligent in only limited domains, and their modest performance in other domains drags-down their average IQ score.
Quote:
4. Problems with discriminating between ultra-high IQ people.
The manifold effect means that discriminating between ultra-highly intelligent people may become merely a matter of weighting sub-tests, deciding which IQ test to use to put individuals into rank order.
Quote:
In sum -
IQs differences above about 130 are only approximate.
Extremely high cognitive ability is usually specific rather than general;
therefore differences between those of ultra-high intelligence tend to be misleading in terms of their predictive value.
http://charltonteaching.blogspot.com/20 ... gh-iq.html As most of us,I believe, know a full scale IQ is contraindicated when there is a large gap between verbal(crystallised) and non-verbal(fluid) intelligence . The emphasis instead should be on strengths and weaknesses .