|
Enneagram Type 5 Board Archive Re: I.Q.Posted by j on October 08, 2000 at 14:11:25: In Reply to: I.Q. posted by Jason M. on October 07, 2000 at 17:07:25:
I was pretty much accepting the entirety of your post, up until the last part. Sure, I think sharon stone is a pretty mediocre actress, etc etc. But.. why would it be anything strange for her to have an IQ of 150? And why does that say anything at all in dfense of your statement? It doesnt. All it does is highlight how prejudiced you are and how narrow a concept you have about what intelligent people must be like.
: The basis behind I.Q. tests is flawed; it puts emphasis on general intellectual skills rather than specifics. One could be a mathematical prodigy. Does this mean that they will have a high verbal I.Q. as well? What good does an "intelligence quotient" do for such a person? : Even worse is the means by which they are designed: objective questioning. Objective questions are flawed in that they regard only the product of an answer, while ignoring the process. One could gain I.Q. points out of chance. Conversely, one could understand a question entirely, yet make a simple error and get no credit whatsoever. : The content is sometimes questionable as well. Since when have we all been exposed to the same information? If one has extensive knowledge of the terminology of a few esoteric subjects, yet they lack an extensive conventional vocabulary, does this mean they are not verbally intelligent? : The absolute worst aspect is the mention I.Q. occasionally gets from the media. Mensa is most often the aim of such attention, and is viewed as an intellectual hub. With all of its intellectual power, can anyone name the last great Mensan achievement? In reality, it is little more than a social club. : I've heard that Sharon Stone is a Mensan and has an I.Q. over 150... indeed.
|
|