re: When does the PoliBoard start posting their IQ scores?

quote:

---

My job as a combination of mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, and computer science (I am an engineer and work with industrial control systems) So for me this is pretty close

---

You're lying. Obviously the combination is like bleach and ammonia: powerful in isolation, awful in combination.

quote:

---

The results are:
130.0 Physics
129.0 Mathematics
128.5 Computer Science
128.0 Economics
127.5 Chemical engineering
127.0 Material science
126.0 Electrical engineering
125.5 Mechanical engineering
125.0 Philosophy
124.0 Chemistry
123.0 Earth sciences
122.0 Industrial engineering
122.0 Civil engineering
121.5 Biology
120.1 English/literature
120.0 Religion/theology
119.8 Political science
119.7 History
118.0 Art history
117.7 Anthropology/archeology
116.5 Architecture
116.0 Business
115.0 Sociology
114.0 Psychology
114.0 Medicine
112.0 Communication
109.0 Education
106.0 Public administration

Probably more accurate.

---

or not . . .


LINK

quote:

---

or not . . .

---

I had honestly never heard of the Henmon-Nelson. It's from a time when IQ tests were primarily based on conjecture, which was not completely off, but very flawed. It doesn't appear to have been updated in many decades. In addition, even from a historical standpoint, it's barely a footnote.

Yet, who lists this test on their website, along with a number of obscure, highly flawed tests? Mensa

They even list a test (DAS), that was updated 10 years ago, but don't include the updated test for whatever reason. And some of their qualifying scores don't make sense since they appear to be using the incorrect distribution for some of the tests.

So if this thread has done anything, it's made me despise Mensa a little bit, because clearly a lot of the common knowledge in the general public about intelligence and IQ testing comes from them.

What frustrates me is that they have so much influence, yet there have been so many advancements in IQ testing and intelligence research with the research and test development of psychologists and psychometricians. And some of the most important implications of this research is that while G is undoubtedly important, there is now an empirically-validated theory that has driven the development of current tests, but has also shown that there are broad abilities that explain things that G couldn't alone. We have different broad cognitive abilities, and they not only contribute to how we learn, but those implications can extend to career paths that may best fit our strengths.

I mean an engineer and lawyer may have the same IQ score, but the skills and abilities necessary for each likely mean that certain broad abilities are more important (e.g., Gf-Fluid Reasoning for engineering; Gc-crystallized intelligence for law). So a person with a higher IQ, but with a weakness in an ability that is more necessary in a career, is likely to have more trouble than a person who has a lower IQ but is much higher in that broad ability.

And there is so much more beyond that, when you consider the impact of culture and language on certain broad and narrow abilities, and how to address that to really get a more complete picture of an individual.

So I think MENSA is doing a disservice by ignoring these advancements, and continuing to value and focus solely on the more limited, less valuable conceptualization. Instead it maintains this undue influence, and given their focus, it's becoming more clear that it is merely an organization to self-promote via intellectual superiority. But what good is intellectual superiority when it's based on an outdated and simplified view of intellectual ability? That is an intellectually inferior perspective, in my opinion.

I don't understand all that stuff you posted. But the 8 question test I just took said I am close to genius. Suck it!

quote:

---

I don't understand all that stuff you posted. But the 8 question test I just took said I am close to genius. Suck it!

---

And somehow those 8 questions yielded a more believable score than what some posters reported. Then again, maybe the ability to know that it's not a legit score, actually tells us something about one's intelligence.

Look at the wonderlic practice test threads whenever the pop up. People get these amazingly high scores yet they don't seem to think that maybe the practice test is junk.

quote:

---

Enjoying your posts on IQ. Do you have a background in psychometrics or maybe education?

---

PhD in psychology and MS in statistics. So it fits right with both.

quote:

---

may make the organization essentially an interest group invested in holding on to an outdated and incomplete notion of intelligence.

---

I think that is probably the case. It became so influential on a certain view of intelligence, so it probably feels necessary to maintain that view to maintain its influence.

But I'm curious what the members themselves think of it all. One would think someone who joins an organization for some advanced trait, that they would be interested in learning more about it, especially since that advanced trait only matters because it implies that they have a superior ability to learn.

Or do they ignore that and just focus on stroking their egos? But then it becomes paradoxical.

quote:

---

PhD in psychology and MS in statistics. So it fits right with both.

---

Holy shite. I have a JD LLM MBA MS. I have to ask the same question I always get...why??? I don't have an answer yet...

high 90's

quote:

---

But I'm curious what the members themselves think of it all. One would think someone who joins an organization for some advanced trait, that they would be interested in learning more about it, especially since that advanced trait only matters because it implies that they have a superior ability to learn. Or do they ignore that and just focus on stroking their egos? But then it becomes paradoxical.

---

I agree this is interesting. I'll put my money on narcissitic self-deception. If it's a regular dues-paying organization my hunch would be that there would be probably a survivorship bias that would load the organization to retain people with heavy narcissistic investment in the status value of a Mensa membership and who'd be threatened by concept changes that threaten their elite status (whereas people with less investment in their elite intelligence status would might join for novelty and once that's gone lapse).

No idea if I'd qualify but if I did my Groucho Marx syndrome (unwillingness to join any club that would have me as a member) would surely kick in and keep me out.

quote:

---

I agree this is interesting. I'll put my money on narcissitic self-deception. If it's a regular dues-paying organization my hunch would be that there would be probably a survivorship bias that would load the organization to retain people with heavy narcissistic investment in the status value of a Mensa membership and who'd be threatened by concept changes that threaten their elite status (whereas people with less investment in their elite intelligence status would might join for novelty and once that's gone lapse).

---

I think that's probably part of it. From a member standpoint, I think people should be somewhat proud of a positive trait. But I wonder if people join to meet others who may share intellectual interests, and/or some networking benefits as well. Those would make perfect sense, and not rely on the ego stroking.

quote:

---

No idea if I'd qualify but if I did my Groucho Marx syndrome (unwillingness to join any club that would have me as a member) would surely kick in and keep me out.

---

I wouldn't qualify, at least if it's a test that his heavily loaded on Gc (Crystallized Intelligence, Comprehension-Knowledge), and specifically Lexical Knowledge (vocabulary). But I'll be honest, if I did qualify, I would join because I'm pretty self-centered.