gifted? genius?

Post Reply New Topic

I've never had an official IQ test. In elementary school, I did some stuff with a gifted group, so I'd probably be in that category.

About the only test that I've ever taken that I would take as a serious representation of my intelligence was the GRE (other tests I've done had really poor methodologies and I don't really care to name them). I scored the highest possible score (800) for the Quantitative section and 650 for the Verbal section (of which I, as a non-native speaker and a known failure at interpreting questions, was very proud indeed), plus a 5 for Argumentation.

On the other hand, all tests are about practice and knowing the tricks.

I was brilliant, but I pissed all my talents away. This is why it's important to apply yourself to something. Doesn't matter what, as long as it's not something completely irrelevant or over your head. Keep that mind sharp.

When I had my IQ tested, it came back below 70. My mom says a person's IQ doesn't change. They have tests for adults, but it would just come back the same anyway.

I think my older sister is a genius (she's definitely NT). She was always in the gifted programs.
I was jealous because she got to do cool work while all we did in classes was rote recitation with no application. I don't think she's ever taken an IQ test, but, I do know that her ACT score was the highest in the state for the year she took it.

Of course, she dropped out of college and is waiting tables, while I've been working professionally for 11 years and I've got a 4.0 in my graduate coursework, so I guess I'm not quite as dumb as I had originally thought.

I haven't taken a formal IQ test, but, took 10 online tests a couple of years ago, threw out the highest and lowest and averaged the remaining scores, which left me with a 125 average, so maybe that's my range.

I scored 136 in the only officially-endorsed IQ test I've ever taken, but I've scored as low as 111 and as high as 154 on others.

I also scored 156 on the aptitude test that all British students take at the age of 11 (I'm not sure whether it's an IQ-test equivalent, but the scoring system seems similar); this was by far the best in my year, the second best having been a mere 138.

Genius is so rare - about 1 in 5 to 10 million perhaps - because it requires a combination of features, some of which intercorrelate negatively. If two things intercorrelate negatively, it will be rare to find them both expressed strongly in one and the same individual. What exactly these features are is discussed elsewhere in more detail, but in short it is on the one hand intelligence and on the other hand disposition for various psychiatric disorders, which - the disposition, not the disorders - provide associative horizon and conscientiousness.

This negative correlation is found in the high range of intelligence, where it matters with regard to genius, as genius requires high intelligence. It is not claimed that the negative correlation holds over the full range of intelligence, and that is also irrelevant as geniuses are not found over the full range. This negative correlation in the high range of intelligence makes it very unlikely and therefore rare for someone to have extreme amounts of all three of the components of genius: intelligence, associative horizon and conscientiousness. It explains the rareness of genius.
Discontinuity

Discontinuity of genius means that parents and children of geniuses are typically not geniuses. Talented yes, often, but not geniuses. Talent is inherited, genius is not. Genius "emerges", that is, may occur in relatively undistinguished families and to leave relatively undistinguished offspring. Talented yes, genius no.

This might be taken to suggest that at least some of the features required for genius are not strongly inherited, but acquired or developed during life. In other words, that some of the features have a significant environmental component. That they can be improved at will or through circumstances or events.

Probably these are located in the realm of conscientiousness, and probably it concerns only part of the traits that make up conscientiousness; most likely those that are not related to ethics. My article on conscientiousness gives a list of words describing it, and those not residing under "ethics" seem to be the best candidates for a larger environmental influence.

This does not mean that everyone can become a genius by improving his persistence, determination and so on (see the article on conscientiousness for all of the terms). One needs the other aspects too: intelligence, associative horizon, the ethical part of conscientiousness; in short, one needs talent too. But it explains why children of geniuses are mostly not geniuses; for while intelligence, associative horizon and the ethical part of conscientiousness are probably passed on genetically, the non-ethical parts of conscientiousness may have a smaller genetic component and depend more on aware decision, study, practice, circumstances and (dramatic) events in one's life, perhaps even education. They do not come for free with one's D.N.A., but one has to work hard and suffer for them, and that is where many talented persons are lacking; that is why almost all talented individuals are not geniuses.

Another reason for genius' discontinuity is its extreme rareness. If the configuration of traits needed for genius is as rare as suggested in the section "Rareness", and if some or most thereof are genetic, then in sexual reproduction such a configuration will inevitably be lost. Although a genius has greater chances of conceiving a genius child than has the average person, even a genius may have to produce several hundred, if not thousand, children to see one genius emerge among them. To reproduce genius, one needs to either clone it, retaining the precise genetic configuration, or use something like a sperm bank (including careful selection of females to be inseminated) to create vast numbers of children with multiple mates.

Both of these reasons may play a role in making genius discontinuous, although the latter may have more weight than the first.
---
Genius is the high end of the dimension of creativity.

Creativity in turn is the expression (effect, result, projection) of awareness. Awareness is what the individual experiences inside one's mind (the experience of experience itself; the being aware of the fact that one or anything exists), while creativity is what others perceive when observing that individual. Awareness and creativity are the inner and outer aspects of the same thing. One's creativity is a measure of one's awareness. A non-creative person is not aware; a genius is the most aware of all.

Awareness is related to creativity not just as in making a painting or writing a novel, but also as in my philosophical hypothesis "Only what can be verified by aware beings exists". Awareness thus creates existence itself. Without aware beings, nothing would exist.

The components of creativity (and therefore of awareness and of genius) are intelligence, conscientiousness and associative horizon.

Conscientiousness is the only aspect of creativity that can be improved significantly, permanently, safely and purposely in an adult. This is probably so because conscientiousness is not a unitary trait, but comprises various traits, some of which are independent, and not per se correlated with each of the other traits that make up conscientiousness. Conscientiousness is a kaleidoscope of good features, and it is possible to possess different combinations thereof, and to gain or lose some of them without affecting the rest.

Associative horizon can probably not be safely improved much; hallucinogenic drugs widen it, but at the great risk of psychosis, which causes permanent damage to the mind and brain. Perhaps studying the work of geniuses or doing exercises in "lateral thinking" may improve one's associative horizon a bit, but one must ask if the result is worth the effort, and realize that much more creativity can be gained by improving conscientiousness. Associative horizon is the "spark", it is Edison's "2% inspiration", as opposed to the "98% transpiration". There is a tendency among people fascinated by genius to focus on the 2% and neglect the 98%, the hard work that comes after the "spark". A tendency to confuse creativity with associative horizon. This is the phenomenon of "wanting a champagne taste on a beer budget"; the attraction of being creative in a flash of insight, without needing to do the hard work.

There is a critical tension between the three components of creativity; each, when exceeding a certain threshold, can bring down the whole, destroying creativity.

Associative horizon, when exceeding a threshold, leads to psychosis and thus destroys creativity. This has been pointed out by Hans Eysenck and others. For genius, one needs to be close to that threshold.

Conscientiousness, when exceeding a threshold, leads to obsessions and compulsions (which in turn cause anxiety and depression) and thus destroys creativity (through neurosis rather than psychosis), be it less drastically. This is part of regular psychiatric knowledge. For genius, one needs to be close to that threshold.

Intelligence, when reaching the very highest altitudes, somehow reduces the frequency of genius; it has been pointed out that geniuses tend to have high, but not the highest intelligence; that those with the very highest I.Q.s are typically not geniuses. I do not know the precise mechanism yet, but relevant is my own finding that, in the high range, there is a significant negative correlation between I.Q. and 1) psychiatric disorders in oneself; 2) psychiatric disorders in one's parents and siblings (which reflect genetic disposition); 3) disposition for psychiatric disorders as measured by personality tests.

Perhaps the very highest I.Q.s tend to go with just a bit less than the needed extreme conscientiousness and associative horizon (both of which are forms of disposition for psychiatric disorders)? Perhaps those with the very highest I.Q.s are too neurologically "normal"?

This possible limiting effect of the very highest I.Q. levels is something I am less certain of yet than of the other two thresholds.

My current view on creativity (and therefore genius) could be summarized as:

Conscientiousness contributes to creativity but disposes for neurosis;
Associative horizon contributes to creativity but disposes for psychosis;
Intelligence contributes to creativity but disposes for normality.

I have tried to express in a mathematical model how the three aspects work together to produce creativity, but to date have no satisfactory version of such. What I do suspect now is that the amounts of conscientiousness and associative horizon required vary with intelligence; that higher intelligence levels need, and can tolerate, higher amounts of the other two aspects to result in creativity.

I imagine that for each intelligence level there is a certain minimum and and a certain maximum amount of conscientiousness, and a certain minimum and and a certain maximum amount of associative horizon, above and below which there is no creativity. Both of the aspects have to be within these limits, and there may be a single optimum between those limits that is required for genius. The limits and optimum as it were shift upward with intelligence, are relative to intelligence. Mathematically it might best be something like:

G = g - √( (c - cg)2 + (ah - ahg)2 )

wherein G is creativity, g is intelligence (in the sense of the general factor in mental ability), and cg and ahg are the optimum levels of conscientiousness and associative horizon at the given g level (that is, the levels beyond which debilitating levels of neurosis and psychosis occur). G is thus expressed on the same scale as g, and c and ah use the units of that scale.

---

In my considerations about genius, I have over the years realized one of the pillars of brilliance is conscientiousness (the other are intelligence and associative horizon). To explain what I mean by this, here is a first list of adjectives describing it. A few of them may belong to a trait called ego-strength. A few other lie in the field of ethics. I consider both ego-strength and ethics subdivisons of conscientiousness.
Subdivision ability-fostering traits

Accurate;
Careful;
Coherent;
Consistent;
Dependable;
Diligent;
Hardworking - that is, all day, every day, as long as health permits, without free time, holiday, vacation or retirement;
Perfectionist;
Persistent;
Punctual;
Respecting detail;
Self-disciplined;
Tolerant to repetitive work (not easily bored).

Subdivision ego-strength

Determined;
Driven by inner motivation;
Holding on to insights one knows are correct even when the rest of the world says one is wrong, for decades if needed;
Insensitive to habituation - as in drugs, spices, bad habits; habituation means to need an ever higher dose for the same effect; the conscientious strong-egoed person does not take that higher dose;
Impulse-controlling; able to delay gratification;
Strong-willed;
Uncompromising.

Subdivision ethics

Ethical;
Fair;
Loyal - to who deserve it;
Respectful - to who deserve it;
Responsible - taking responsibility for one's deeds and utterances (but not for those pinned on to one by others);
Sincere;
Truthful - regardless of consequences, otherwise it means nothing;
Trustworthy.

---

Elements of associative horizon

In my considerations about genius, I have over the years realized one of the pillars of brilliance is associative horizon (the other are intelligence and conscientiousness). To explain what I mean by this, here is a somewhat structured list of its suspected features:
Divergent and lateral abilities

Fluency in association: To see many associations to any given concept;
To see connections or similarities between remote concepts (this follows from fluency in association);
Flexibility (ability to see things in different functions, to switch from motif to background).

Resistances to narrowing mammalian phenomena

Resistance to conformism;
Resistance to suggestion;
Resistance to conditioning;
Resistance to automating tasks; preferring and inclined to "keep thinking" even when performing repetitive tasks;
Resistance to nonverbal communication ("body language" and the nonverbal components of speech); that is, not intuitively and unawarely interpreting or broadcasting such;
Resistance to socialization;
Resistance to empathy; that is, not intuitively and unawarely sensing what goes on inside the mind of the other person one is communicating with; not forming "theory of mind" when communicating;
Resistance to "emotion"; able to use ratio rather than emotion as the basis for behaviour.
---
- Paul Cooijmans

I don't remember the exact number, but it was between 120 and 140. Everyone always told me how smart I was, how gifted, how far I'd go. Several years of alcohol abuse later, and I find that I'm about at the level of a 7th grader when it comes to anything except reading. I have to take classes with the illiterate jerks who caused me to start drinking to begin with.

I haven't officially been tested but I would assume I'm slightly above average (100-110 range, possibly 120 at most). Not enough to get into MENSA but better than normal, if that counts for anything.

Last time I got tested (which was at least 5 years ago), it was 139. So I put gifted, but not quite genius. I'm not in MENSA, but this is enough to get into it.

Err.. I don't know what my IQ is, and frankly don't care.

I had to get retested every five years as part of my IEP. One time, I got so pissed off at the examiner (because she was testing me during lunch and not feeding me), that I told her, "f**k YOU. I WANT MY LUNCH." Well, somehow on that test, while I was complaining, my comprehension scores were still in the 160 range.

A more recent test put me at 140, but when I was five, or six, and just thought we were playing puzzle games, I scored about 160. My processing speeds always tested lower than my comprehension, but what I've learned about myself is that I am a perfectionist, and I MAY get something the first time I see/hear it, and be able to do it, but I want to be a hundred-percent accurate before I act on it.

This f***s me over every time I take a chemistry test.

which IQ are you talking about anyway? I had two IQ's averaged together. one was over 120 and the other below 100.

My IQ tested many times at just 82. Online which is all fake anyways I got much higher at 125. I believe the official IQ test compared to the online one. Besides online I am a good guesser. Also, I have been in special ed for most of my life. I took the small bus to school. I can't figure out simple puzzles or just figure out things in general. My vocabulary is extremely limited. I know people think my vocabulary is good when talking to them but when I am talking about my obsessions (such as abnormal psychology) it is much higher compared to my general talking and writing skills. Somehow I did well in school. I got almost straight A's and some B's. Even in college I graduated with honors. For some reason most of the classes the tests are multiple choice. I am very good in multiple choice questions. I don't think I had a class that had essay questions. Also some classes didn't have much homework unless it was in math or English. In college, I was in the easiest classes. In fact, I didn't take college level classes right away because the entrance exam I scored very low. It determined what classes I had to be placed in. I scored very low on every subject. So, because of that I had to take longer to get my Associate's degree. My brother has an IQ of approximately 130. He is into computer programming. He also has a Master's degree. I wouldn't have been able to graduate with good grades in an actual University. The only class in college that made me feel truly good is the weather class. I actually did the best out of the entire class and was the only one that passed the first test. Most people got 50% of the first weather test. I got 86%. The reason why is because I had a flying class and studied weather before even entering the class. Also it was multiple choice. Many people failed the test because the teacher didn't cover the topics covered in the test. I guessed on a lot of the questions. That has saved my life more than once. The classes that truly required brainpower I struggled in. One such class was German and the other was Oceanography. I was the stupidest student in German by far. The other students were getting the hang of the language and I was still stuck at the basic level. In fact, I did serious mistakes in the German test. That test wasn't multiple choice, it was mainly fill in the blank. In Oceanography I also struggled because I couldn't understand anything the teacher was talking about. The only reason I passed was because there were labs that I was in a team. I hardly did any work because I couldn't contribute to the team. The other classes I was just lucky. Same with high school. In Junior high school I did horrible but was being constantly bullied and had episodes of depression, psychosis, and the worst panic attacks that you can imagine. The panic attacks were so bad that I kept having to go the hospital thinking I was having a heart attack. I didn't know anything about psychology back then so I didn't understand about panic attacks.

My IQ is like 110 or so. My nonverbal learning disorder really screws with things, though. My verbal IQ if I remember correctly was like, 130 or higher, but my nonverbal, including visual spatial, like math and all that, like 80 or below. So yeah, "half" a genius. Woohoo. That was a couple years ago, silly online IQ tests said my verbal IQ was 130, but then on a general IQ test I scored 95. So yeah...

There are fundamental problems with all IQ tests, as they mostly test for cognitive & reasoning skills. But there are so many other types of skills people can have. For example, take people who are good with their hands.: painters, sculptors, furniture makers, etc. Someone like a Picasso might be able to create art that moves many people, but not score very highly on an IQ test requiring them to figure out various math and word problems. Does that mean they are "dumb"? No, it just means that their brain is better in different areas than standardized testing looks at.

The thing for Aspies of all IQs is to ignore the IQ - don't get hung up on it. Instead, look to your special interests & gifts. Try to find a way to use them in a job. I think it's possible for many of us to leverage our interests & gifts into meaningful work. A good example of this is John Elder Robison and the years he worked for the band, KISS. He took his talent & interest in machinery and made it into a successful career.

Even though I score very high on standard IQ tests, I've always been held back by my lack of social skills. What good is being smart, or having talent if you can't network or present yourself to others? That's the main barrier for most of us Aspies. We have a lot to give, but don't know how to get it out there. The most important thing someone ever told me was that I needed to find allies. By this, they meant to find people who could help me do the things that I am not good at, like networking and promoting. And it has worked for me. As a writer, I've found a few editors who liked my writing and helped to encourage and promote it. Otherwise I'd just be sitting at home wishing I was a writer.

The last time I took an IQ test was in 2009, when I scored a 114.

I know that this means above average by the standards of the test but what does that really tell me? This test does not (and probably never will) cover all capabilities that people have, such as artistic ability or or puzzle solving skills. On top of that, they are standardized, which means that their layout may be excellent for some people but not easy for others to use.

I would like to believe that my score was an accurate display of my intelligence. I know that I am not about to come up with the next great mathematical theorem but also like to think that I am not an air head. As for how smart I might be in comparison to everyone else, I have no idea and I don't think I will ever be sure of an answer.