What IQ differences really mean

[Gaze]

This is a question about the difference in intellectual acuity or ability among the various ranges, NOT about whether IQ is an accurate measure of intelligence or whether it should be used to judge intelligence or whether or not it matters.

I'm interested in understanding the real differences between the ranges. This is NOT about who is smarter than who or by how much. I'm just curious about the actual observable or actual differences as far as learning ability, conceptualisation of various ideas or concepts, and understanding.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_reference_chart

IQ Range ("Deviation IQ")	Intelligence Classification
152 and over	Genius and near genius
148 - 151	Very superior intelligence
132 - 148	Superior intelligence
116 - 132	Above average intelligence
84 - 116	Normal or average intelligence
68 - 84	Dullness
52 - 68	Borderline deficiency
Below 52	Mental Deficiency

Terman's Stanford-Binet Fourth Revision classification

[h=2][edit] Wechsler classification[/h]The Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale uses the following category labels,[SUP][2][/SUP] the scores are scaled with a standard deviation of 15.

IQ Range ("Deviation IQ")	Intelligence Classification
>= 130	Very superior
120 - 130	Superior
110 - 120	Bright normal
90 - 110	Normal
80 - 90	Dull normal
70 - 79	Borderline
50-55 to ~70	Mild Mental Retardation (MR)
35-40 to 50-55	Moderate MR
20-25 to 35-40	Severe MR
<= 20-25	Profound MR

Wechsler's classification

 

[Nixie]

Learning curve? Retention? I would think those are some key elements that would change as you go up the scale.

I don't think these test are very good at testing one's ability to apply knowledge though and utilize critical thinking. Where the answers/actions are beyond simple rote memorization or knowledge gathering skills.

 

[Gaze]

Learning curve? Retention? I would think those are some key elements that would change as you go up the scale.

I don't think these test are very good at testing one's ability to apply knowledge though and utilize critical thinking. Where the answers/actions are beyond simple rote memorization or knowledge gathering skills.

Actually, I think IQ is supposed to test what you can learn which ties in which how you apply knowledge. And if nothing else, it does test ability to think critically since it is logic based. But again, I'm not wanting to argue whether it's a good measure of intelligence, but how it measures intelligence.

 

[Gaze]

Learning curve? Retention? I would think those are some key elements that would change as you go up the scale.

Yeah, I assume the learning curve would be higher as you go up the scale, and retention is better. But retention as in ability to learn and retain what we learn is quite different from learning information by rote memory.

IQ has always been about reasoning ability or how quickly someone can process information, not about how much or what someone knows or learns.

I mean, I don't know if IQ ranges are fair representations of human intelligence but it's clear that there are variations.

What those variations truly or really mean, beyond the stereotypes or generalisations or incorrect assumptions, is what I'm trying to understand.

 

[the]

I dont even understand the question, or if a question was even presented. For instance there is no ? in the OP. I guess I fit into the dullness category.

 

[Gaze]

Back home, for example, we were never tested for our IQs. You were called "bright" if you were seen as smart. You are either good at something, bright, or brilliant. And most of the time, you didn't really know what those words really meant. Most of the time, the labels were used if you were good in a particular subject such as math, reading, science, or writing.

So, the idea of genius wasn't really in our vocab growing up. So, that's one of the reasons why I'm curious about IQ and giftedness. For the record, I prefer giftedness over IQ because anyone can be gifted in a particular area, regardless of IQ.

 

[Gaze]

I dont even understand the question, or if a question was even presented. For instance there is no ? in the OP. I guess I fit into the dullness category.

what seems to be the differences in the IQ ranges.

 

[Nixie]

Yes but it takes into account things that you learn in school was my point. It requires you to have a retentive memory for things, especially the math skills that you don't normally use in everyday life. I'm not saying the questions don't require you to apply things but that those things are predetermined upon your ability to remember data.

I just took the test online and scored 120. I haven't had math in forever and a day. I would assume a few of the questions weren't answered correctly because I particulary hated geometry and tossed all info relating to triangles and hexagons out of my head. If I brushed up on said skills, what do you think my score would be?

The scale represents on some level the ability to assimilate a wide range of data.

 

[Gaze]

Back home, for example, we were never tested for our IQs. You were called "bright" if you were seen as smart. You are either good at something, bright, or brilliant. And most of the time, you didn't really know what those words really meant. Most of the time, the labels were used if you were good in a particular subject such as math, reading, science, or writing.

So, the idea of genius wasn't really in our vocab growing up. So, that's one of the reasons why I'm curious about IQ and giftedness. For the record, I prefer giftedness over IQ because anyone can be gifted in a particular area, regardless of IQ.

If we called someone a genius, it was more often said sarcastically when someone said something that was considered silly or stupid.

 

[Gaze]

Yes but it takes into accout things that you learn in school was my point. It requires you to have a retentive memory for things, especially the math skills that you don't normally use in everyday life. I'm not saying the questions don't require you to apply things but that those things are predetermined upon your ability to remember data.

I guess, yeah, the standardised IQ test does use info learned in schools but what about those spatial reasoning tests given to kids when they haven't learned anything yet. Those are supposed to describe intelligence without having previous knowledge or learning.

 

[invisible]

it means generally understanding problems or concepts more quickly in more complex ways so that analyses and solutions tend to be more integrated and functional. i think theoretically this adds up to an an ability to 'learn' more.

 

[Gaze]

it means generally understanding problems or concepts more quickly in more complex ways so that analyses and solutions tend to be more integrated and functional. i think theoretically this adds up to an an ability to 'learn' more.

Agree, but what would be the difference between someone with average intelligence and someone with above average or superior intelligence. The differences between the three seems so finite that I'm confused about there being differences at all.

 

[Norton]

I'm interested in understanding the real differences between the ranges.

The ranges are arbitrary and, therefore, meaningless. The intelligence classifications are equally meaningless. What does it mean to be a genius particularly if one is a genius who never accomplishes anything? Or, "very superior" as opposed to just "superior?" Intelligence is extremely complex and IQ's are extremely simplistic.

I score very high on IQ tests yet whatever successes I've had in life are unrelated to what IQ tests test.

Maybe my experience is limited, but I've never met a MENSA member who ever accomplished anything significant. The really smart people are too busy doing things.

 

[Majesty]

I still think IQ is bullshit and that it's impossible to measure intelligence because it's way too broad.

 

[the]

The lower you get the more retarded you act, the higher you get the more retarded you get too, except it is ok to not like them.

 

[Gaze]

The ranges are arbitrary and, therefore, meaningless. The intelligence classifications are equally meaningless. What does it mean to be a genius particularly if one is a genius who never accomplishes anything? Or, "very superior" as opposed to just "superior?" Intelligence is extremely complex and IQ's are extremely simplistic.

I score very high on IQ tests yet whatever successes I've had in life are unrelated to what IQ tests test.

Maybe my experience is limited, but I've never met a MENSA member who ever accomplished anything significant. The really smart people are too busy doing things.

Saying someone is required or obligated to accomplish great things just because they are genius is almost as limiting as saying someone is incapable of accomplishing a great deal despite their supposedly limited intelligence or ability. How we use our intelligence is a matter of choice, if we are aware of it.

If you're not aware that you have the ability to learn more in an area compared to most then you may not know you are capable of more than you think you are. So, awareness is an important aspect.

I'm not really interested in putting down IQ or arguing that it's superior to other types intelligence testing.

 

[Gaze]

Intelligence ranges as a classifications or categories are clearly human constructs used to understand differences between people. that's a given. I think everyone already knows that. But there are differences. My interest is in finding out how to understand these differences on a foundational level, not to argue someone is limited or less or more or superior to anyone else because of higher intelligence.

Everyone knows human thought and intellect is not simple. We are cognitive beings for heaven sake. Nothing is easy or can be easily apprehended just like that. But we can theorise about why there are these complex differences between us.

 

[Gaze]

The lower you get the more retarded you act, the higher you get the more retarded you get too, except it is ok to not like them.

So, you are talking about socially accepted and unaccepted differences in behavior of people in varying ranges.


Is it more socially accepted to be average than to be below the average range or higher than average. If there is, why.

 

[Norton]

Saying someone is required or obligated to accomplish great things just because they are genius is almost as limiting as saying someone is incapable of accomplishing a great deal despite their supposedly limited intelligence or ability. How we use our intelligence is a matter of choice, if we are aware of it.

Where they drew the lines between the different categories is arbitrary. Really, it wouldn't have mattered if they chose ranges that were different, using the same or different descriptions.

The use of the word "genius," just because someone has a high IQ, is meaningless. We judge true geniuses like Da Vinci, Newton, Mozart, Maxwell, Einstein, etc. by what they accomplished. As far as I know, none of them ever took an IQ test.

 

[Gaze]

Saying someone is required or obligated to accomplish great things just because they are genius is almost as limiting as saying someone is incapable of accomplishing a great deal despite their supposedly limited intelligence or ability. How we use our intelligence is a matter of choice, if we are aware of it.

The use of the word "genius," just because someone has a high IQ, is meaningless. We judge true geniuses like Da Vinci, Newton, Mozart, Maxwell, Einstein, etc. by what they accomplished. As far as I know, none of them ever took an IQ test.

But of course, genius as a range of intelligence or intellectual ability is clearly a little different context than calling someone genius because they have accomplished something great or extraordinary.

Anyone can be called a genius as a sign of recognition for something great which is accomplished to show appreciation for their work.