IQ and its role

[harrow123]

Is it true to say higly successful people may have higher IQ than normal people

Is it universally accepted if IQ is high then that person can acheive better than others

Why don't schools use IQ scores for selection criteria. Hopefully I am not wrong to say IQ tests contain VR/NVR/Word problems, so selective schools do test IQ of a child during the selection process but I guess passing tests in slough/tiffin/reading tests only may decide a dc to have Average intelligence. Am I wrong.

Do you know of any school which tests IQ of a child and takes only Genius, Very superior and Superior children (IQ score over 140 - genius, 120-139 - very superior, 110-119 superior, 90-109 averalge or normal). Why dont the top academic schools consider Mensa IQ score (or any IQ society score) as a selection factor if IQ can decide everything about that child.

Obviously there are other factors like positive attitude/opportunities etc which will dictate the person's success but let us try to concentrate on only IQ and how it decides/plays role in a person's life

Has anyone tried improving IQ ur self or for ur dc and any tips that you can share

[Amber]

If selection of any kind at 11 is controversial, selection by IQ, or an attempt at it, would rightly cause rioting in the streets, figuratively speaking. Big can of fat wriggly worms that way. How to measure it? When? Lots of class and race issues tied in with it - bias in tests not at all a dead issue. And the role of other factors - a very quick search in google scholar reveals what a poor predictor it is, eg Self-Discipline Outdoes IQ in Predicting Academic Performance of Adolescents Angela L. Duckworth and Martin E.P. Seligman. Many more like it. Don't go there, that would be my advice! As useful as selecting by eye colour or height.

Best of all - don't select at all.

[mystery]

Yes don't select at all - but tell the parents, the children, and the teachers that you have done and that it's only the superior ones upwards who have got in. Expectations is everything it would seem from some very old psychology experiments.

[harrow123]

But private schools may have right to select based on IQ if they wish but still they dont seem to be using IQ scores for selection criteria

[sherry_d]

Putting the IQ debate aside, proponents suggest beyond 120 having additional IQ doesn't translate to any measurable advantage. Intelligence has a threshold like basketball. You only have to be tall enough. Beyond this level of IQ becomes relatively unimportant.

Lewis Terman's case study is probably the most comprehensive yet on IQ, you can read more here http://alumni.stanford.edu/get/page/mag ... e_id=40678" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Nicely summarised

As for what IQ scores can predict about a person's future, Hastorf offers a middle-of-the road position: the tests are pretty good at identifying "school-bright" children, those likely to perform well in ordinary school settings, but "on the issue of what makes you school-bright, it's obviously a combination of variables -- your genetic constitution, your biological health, the motivation that your parents put into you, chance."

Though the Terman kids were handpicked for high IQ, the longitudinal results tell us little about the meaning of IQ, except for one study conducted by Terman's associate, Melita Oden. In 1968, she compared the 100 most successful and 100 least successful men in the group, defining success as holding jobs that required their intellectual gifts. The successes, predictably, included professors, scientists, doctors and lawyers. The non-successes included electronics technicians, police, carpenters and pool cleaners, plus a smattering of failed lawyers, doctors and academics. But here's the catch: the successes and non-successes barely differed in average IQ. The big differences turned out to be in confidence, persistence and early parental encouragement.

In other words, intelligence alone doesn't guarantee achievement. But then, you don't have to be a genius to figure that out.

I am intrigued, Einstein was rubbish at most subjects. He hated them, I suspect he would have failed most entrance exams as he wasn't "well rounded" as he cared about physics and maths only.

[mystery]

Yes, but I bet if you had given him a good test of ability at maths and physics he would have done well in it.

Apparently, a lot of the stuff about him being unsuccessful at school is not entirely true either.

I'm sure that the 120 or above for intelligence thing is probably largely true. But I'm sure that for someone to do really well in, say, postgrad level maths probably requires someone who is in the very high centiles for maths related abilities.

A super-high IQ in one particular area must confer advantage in something directly connected with that (given the motivation etc).

School selection is hazardous whatever measure you choose. However, schools that are getting the results that they and the parents want must be getting both the selection and the teaching right. It's horses for courses.

I'm sure some selection tests are closer to IQ tests than others.

[sherry_d]

I am also wondering why IQ is mainly attributed to numeric or scientific achievements? Hardly do you hear Shakespear's IQ compared in the same light as Einstein'

Is it true to say higly successful people may have higher IQ than normal people

What do mean by highly successful, is it being a Professor, Nobel prize winner or Alan Sugar or even Adele?

[daveg]

But private schools may have right to select based on IQ if they wish but still they dont seem to be using IQ scores for selection criteria

Because IQ testing is mostly pseudo-scientific nonsense, taken seriously only by racists who haven't read a scientific paper in thirty years?

Most work in IQ since the 1960s has been conducted by straightforward racist idiots, who observe that people from ethnic minorities, as a group, and people from economically disadvantaged backgrounds, as a group, score lower on IQ tests than affluent whites, and from this argue that the disadvantaged experienced by ethnic minorities and the poor is the fault of poor genes. There may be some legitimate IQ work being done by non-racists (and, indeed, non-idiots), but it's drowned out by the drumbeat of the eugenicists. The general shocking state of the "research" in the field is summarised in [1].

[1] http://www.jewcy.com/post/no_blacks_are ... ber_whites" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[harrow123]

I dont know much about poet/play writers and if they need higher IQ but if they need then may be shakespear may have higher IQ. But for sure sceintific/numeric achievements need high IQ. Einsteen may be not good at his school but he was good at maths/physics hence he excelled in those subjects.

Highly successful means highest in your field, you dont need to be popular and rich but being one of the best in chosen field

[Amber]

Eugenics is the word that came to mind for me too, daveg.

OP - try reading some of the stuff on Critical Race Theory to get an idea of some of the objections to IQ testing in any kind of 'real world' context, rather than as a pastime for people who want to belong to organisations which 'prove' how much cleverer they are than the rest of us. That is harmless; any attempt to use IQ 'in the field' is not.