Early Retirement Extreme Forums

You guys might have gotten the Lake Wobegon version?

Here's a good g-factor test.
https://mensa.dk/sites/default/files/index.swf

Since this thread likely came about from the recent repost, maybe I should elaborate a bit on my "position" regarding intelligence testing.

I used to be really into this stuff. I've taken every test available on the internet as of about 10 years ago. Yet now I don't think there's more insight [for me] to be found from such tests ...

From that I draw the conclusion that there are different kinds of intelligence, e.g. vocabulary, numerical, factoid, pattern, short-memory, geometric, ... depending on your strengths, you'll score higher in some tests than others just because you're better at what the test is asking for. For example, my undergraduate math/phys team took at rather elaborate test that was mostly numeric and scored between 135 and 163 ... In retrospect these freshman scores actually turned out to be rather predictive (low-end became HS teachers, high end became researchers). Now these are already 3-4 sigma scores but that is to be expected when you're asking people who made it in the hardest of the hard sciences. I.e. 1 in 1000 for that particular skill.

Second, some of this stuff is trainable even though it's not supposed to be (the g-factor argument). If you're in the habit of dealing with IQ-test like questions, you'll naturally do better on IQ-tests. In that sense, the brain is like a muscle. You have natural talents but you can also train to max out your potential.

Ultimately, I've come to the conclusion that intelligence is less about solving silly puzzles and more about making smart decisions. In that regard, having already thought things over constitutes a significant advantage over making s*** up on the fly---which essentially is what the IQ test is testing. IOW, anyone who is in the habit of pondering things and investigating a lot will have a significant advantage over someone who is merely a fast thinker. It's very hard to beat a head-start with speed. A slow thinker who has spent 4 hours pondering something will beat a fast thinker who has spent 10 minutes anytime. A slow thinker who has read 3000 books will beat a fast thinker who has read 500 books anytime.

This also suggests that as long as one is of reasonable intelligence (e.g. 120+), it's possibly to crush higher intelligence(s) in terms of making intelligent choices by simply having the right decision making system. Seems to me that most don't bother to develop such a system. Also called lattice-work. So there's your advantage ... get to work!

What g-factor measures is the ability to put together complex patterns and hold this pattern in the mind long enough to crystallize it. This is likely neurochemical! However, picking up an already crystallized thought from someone else is much easier. As long as you actually make the effort. However, even high IQ people don't tend to do that.---Which is why Mensa discussion threads tend to be rather ... unremarkable.

PS: FWIW, I scored 134 on the Mensa test above. I bet several of you can do better than that, especially JasonR .

Ok ... I got to question 39, feeling like I probably got 27 right by intelligence and perhaps another 5 right by good guesses. The darn thing then kicked me back to the first question. My interpretation: I'm a genius, no question, because I decided my time was worth more than the $0 / no joy Mensa was apparently going to compensate me for obsessing over my IQ score.

I think the element missing in your assessment of IQ is an emotional component. One can have all the Good Decision Making Systems in the world, whether they're created from genius and experience or the ability to assimilate other people's crystallized thoughts. If one can't actually implement these ideas because of emotional blocks or damage, all the intelligence in the world doesn't matter. In an odd way, a touch of autism enhances the ability to make what may be the pragmatically best decisions. Sooo ... is this an indication that mild social impairment may bring the most highly evolved decisions? Given an IQ of 156 + a life that went significantly off course, I'd have to say it's a possibility.

Apparently there's a meta-analysis of nobel prize winners that found two things:

That there's a correlation between having an IQ of at least 130 and gaining a nobel prize. And that there's no correlation between IQs higher than 130 and gaining a nobel prize.

In other words, scientific researchers don't need much more than an IQ of 130, like Jacob said earlier, "reasonable intelligence", and after that it just comes down to time & effort.

124 IQ. Meh.

134. If 100 is average I'm surprised that there aren't more scores at that level or lower.

Is the scoring biased on the upside or do smarter frustrated people feel an affinity towards FI and ERE.

132 and I expected to be on the lower/medium end. I did a fairly long test 10 years ago when being drafted to the army but I can't remember the name, and I got a medium score after cheating on some of the questions. Hence I've always believed my IQ isn't much to brag about, but like others have pointed out low IQ doesn't mean you are not capable.

In my opinion, IQ-tests doesn't measure much more than your ability to solve IQ-test-like questions. My wife typically scores lower than me on IQ tests but we consider each other equally wise, capable and successful.

@jacob: What about a fast thinker who has read over 20,000 books, like Taleb? Last winter when I was stuck in a camper, I experimented with Taleb's practice towards erudition, which is something like attempt to read reasonably difficult stuff for 30 hours/week, dropping one book and picking up another if you get stuck or bored. Worked remarkably well.

I'd imagine the substantial majority of people here would fall into the 120+ category on a professionally administered IQ test.

steveo73 wrote:134. If 100 is average I'm surprised that there aren't more scores at that level or lower.

Is the scoring biased on the upside or do smarter frustrated people feel an affinity towards FI and ERE.

Like somebody else pointed out, the only numbers posted here were posted by members of this forum. I doubt many people on the other side of the bell curve are on the forum. I don't know what they are doing on the internet, probably Facebook. Or making comments to on-line news articles. Yeah, that's the ticket!

The big thing for me that I.Q. tests don't measure is creativity. I feel I lack that.

To me, there's no doubt it's a poor test. You have either a 50-50 chance of getting the correct answer, a 33.3% chance, or a 25% chance of getting the correct answer just based on multiple choice. I just took the test as fast as I can and always picking the first answer... scored 110. Taking it a second time and always picking the last answer... scored 110.

However, the silly thing was a pleasing diversion!

steveo73 wrote:134. If 100 is average I'm surprised that there aren't more scores at that level or lower.

Is the scoring biased on the upside or do smarter frustrated people feel an affinity towards FI and ERE.

I belong to several forums about ERE, simple living, FI and similar concepts. Overall I'd say people in these forums are linguistically gifted compared to the general population, many of them are also mathematically gifted, most of them are trying their hardest to think logically and from the look of it, pretty good at that. All of which translate to a higher IQ score. I think it takes a certain (exceptional) degree of intelligence to be aware of the annoying limits mainstream ideals place on life, and the concept that there could be a better way, and then the creativity and intelligence and confidence in one's abilities to start looking for that change.

In contrast, think of a mainstream topic and go find comments. I had surgery and wandered into a website looking for information about stitches, which bled over into cosmetic dermatology. If stupidity makes you think your eyeballs might melt right out of your head, steer clear!

enigmaT120 wrote:The big thing for me that I.Q. tests don't measure is creativity.

+1 We had a long discussion this weekend about modern-day geniuses and whether Stan Lee and George Carlin should be on the list.


I wish there was an Applied IQ test to measure how effectively people use their intelligence. Some of the smartest people I know are some of the dumbest people I know.

@jp - First question, use their intelligence for what? Okay, now that you've given me an answer for that in terms of a list of categories, I'd suggest looking at percentiles of "real world" performance. This could be happiness, net worth, job performance, educational achievement. If you want to attach a single number to it, do a principal component analysis and look at the magnitude of the first principal component. The first principal vector would be the "average human performance standard".

An almost equally good measure would just be to add up the percentiles from all the listed categories. If you include enough categories, the total distribution will fall on a bell curve (by CLT). This can then be converted into an IQ equivalent by a high school senior.
Hint: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irwin%E2% ... stribution

jacob wrote:@jp - First question, use their intelligence for what?

For not being stupid.

I'm not thinking of anything as lofty as you listed. This list is a good place to start, but even that is asking too much of some people. I guess I mean clueless more than stupid, whether through arrogance or ignorance. The people I'm thinking of are the institutionalized intelligencia who go from GATE testing to ivory towers without ever learning anything outside of a book.

Ahh ... that list .. I'm still weirded out from that because the only things I haven't done on that list yet is to "dress a chicken, change a diaper, and know the local drug scene". Pretty sure that Big Data (as well as GandK, a famous "what not to buy at WMT at the same time"-strategist) would draw overly weird conclusions here

I'm not describing anything lofty ABOVE though ... just a "naive" method for turning questionnaires (of which any IQ test is just another instance) into numbers.

Maybe we (by which I mean you, thanks for volunteering ) should devise such a questionnaire?

BTW, for a long time, I wanted to create the ERE version of this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geek_Code
Unfortunately they seem to have patented/copyrighted the @$#$@ out of this idea?! (Right, anyone?, Dragline?)

I did fiddle around once with a questionnaire intended to measure a person's aptitude for ERE. Sort of an ERE scouting combine. I suppose it could be modified to score a person's ERE IQ. I guess what you're trying to measure is the person's ability to effectively apply their intelligence to achieve free agency.

Yes!

... if I can do that without violating anyone's IP

Well, the MBTI can be used as to produce naive aptitude measurement for ERE right?

I'll know the test works if this guy fails it LOL. Amazingly, the piece is called "7 Ways to Be Debt-Free for the Rest of Your Life." I understand the message to focus on earning more, but this guy seems to equate it with spending more. How does that improve a person's situation?

"When you purchase items from the luxury market, no matter how small it is, you will automatically feel richer. For instance, every week, I went to Pier 1 to buy gold forks. As I began to accumulate more superior products, my self-esteem increased, which affected my bank account."