Jump to content

Recommended Posts

How scientific was that poll? There are NO other walks of life where nearly 70% of the sample is in the profoundly gifted (>130) range. This includes Nobel laureates, bestselling authors, ivy league professors, pulitzer winners.There's no way there are over 100 people with >150 IQs on there. It's just not possible.
It wasn't a professionally done scientific poll. Just a poll on a poker forum. The forum is set up to be able to take blind polls where anyone wishing to respond cannot see the results until after they submit and each member can only submit once, unless they wish to create a new login which would probably require a new email address. In one sense it is fairly scientific in that it is a double blind poll since individual submitions cannot be seen by the pollster and the members cannot see the results until after their submission. As for the numbers for <90 and >170 not fitting the normal distribution curve, the pollster included those numbers in order to suck in the jokers that would wish to distort the numbers which explain the high numbers at the ends of the curve.These are not based on a standardized IQ test, just each members belief of where their own IQ is. Presumably you could expect a shift to the high side assuming on average egos will shift self assessment higher more than lack of confidence would send it lower. These are poker players afterall, so take it for what it's worth. The interesting thing is that the results do follow a normal distribution curve.One other thing to consider is that this forum is for pretty high stakes where a very small percentage of pokers players play. As I stated before $500 NL and up. A great many of the posters on that forum consider themselves profesionalpoker players, whatever that may mean. There are other forums for lower stakes poker at the same site which keep this forum a fairly elite group considering it is open to anyone in the public. Most lower limit players don't even bother with this forum since the advice given there simply doesn't apply to their games. So a better comparison to any other group of people, for example, would be to take the top x percent of nobel laureates and check their IQs, assuming better players play at higher stakes and worse players play at lower stakes.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 82
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

You'd probably be suprised how little your IQ actually means. People give too much creedence to this "trait" simply because they took an IQ test on emode.com and it made them feel good about themselves.  There is nothing wrong with that, it just needs to be identified as such.There are however professional IQ tests that are mostly used for determining levels of mental retardation. It is rare that they decide to give the Myers-Briggs test to someone to test the "vastness" of their intellect.  That having been said, some people are brighter than others. This should be obvious. The degree to which this is discernable (empirically that is, anyone can have their opinions) is in a large part not known and generally impractical.
Myers-Briggs is a personality test, not an intelligence test.
 IQ does not rise and fall if tested properly.
Yes, it does, but not much, and by varying amounts.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Enough of this debate on variance in IQ scores. You made me get all nerdy now. I'll even put this in good APA format. Dickens, W., & Flynn, J. (2001). Heritability estimates versus large environmental effects: the IQ paradox resolved. Psychological Review, 108, 346-369.

Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the problems with most IQ tests is the Multiple Choice format. Because of the format, there is always going to be variance with respect to the answers that are guessed.If a perfect score nets a 99 percentile result then, depending on the number of questions, 1 or 2 incorrect answers would be 98 percentile result.So if you were able to correctly answer enough questions to place in the 98 percentile range you would be guessing on the 1 or 2 questions you don’t know the answer to.Factor in the probability of being able to eliminate some obviously incorrect answers and the chance of scoring quite a bit higher than you should becomes pretty good.This effect should have the greatest (and most potentially reoccurring) positive impact on high scoring tests since the number of guessed answers is relatively low, and the more intelligent test takers will also be the most successful at narrowing down the answer possibilities. Of course, I suppose the latter point could be attributed to their greater intelligence and argue in favor of the higher score being deserved. ;-)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Factor in the probability of being able to eliminate some obviously incorrect answers and the chance of scoring quite a bit higher than you should becomes pretty good.
Uhh, isn't deductive reasoning the whole f.ucking IDEA? This has got to be the least profound statement I've ever heard. This is like saying "Factor in a pitchers ability to throw a 104 mph slider which can be pinpointed wherever they want, and sure, they're going to do much better at pitching than they should."LOL.ROTFLMAO. Is this what this thread has come to??? lol. I think it's time to burry this thread.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Uhh, isn't deductive reasoning the whole f.ucking IDEA?
Yes. That's what the last line of my post alludes to. Regardless, even if you're able to reduce the number of possible answers, the fact that you have to guess means you don't know the correct answer. Therefore variance comes into play.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Uhh, isn't deductive reasoning the whole f.ucking IDEA?
Yes. That's what the last line of my post alludes to. Regardless, even if you're able to reduce the number of possible answers, the fact that you have to guess means you don't know the correct answer. Therefore variance comes into play.
I disagree. The only reason you "don't know" the answer is because 99% of the questions on the test are questions that you've never seen. Therefore, you are predisposed to an "answer". It's one thing if the test was full of questions like "What year did WWII begin?" and stuff like that. But it's not. It's all about deducing the correct answer. That is the difference between IQ and knowledge right there.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Variance comes into play on tests of all types.However, when people guess, they generally take a LOT longer to make a decision than if they choose a correct answer. This counts against them (speed is a component of the score). While that doesn't completely eliminate variance, is does eliminate some.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...