In order to qualify for Mensa, dubbed the high IQ society, you must be in the special 2%, which means, you score above 150, and yet, how are we to compare the pursuit or beauty with the pursuit of intelligence?
“When you have an IQ of 150 it means that your brain works in a different way than someone with an average IQ and therefore you may need specialist teaching.” Obama is said to be the most intelligent President, whilst Sharon Stone has had her IQ score given as 155. Meanwhile, Einstein and Hawking’s have been given 159 scores, but, what do these numbers mean, if anything?
Maybe you will benefit from reviewing these perspectives, or perhaps not…
“I had an IQ of 160-odd when I was 5. I haven’t been tested since, but I doubt its still that high. Your brain is not set in stone, it changes (IQ included) immensely over your lifetime according to how it is used. This is especially true in the years it grows most – early childhood and puberty.
Psychology is a vague subject. Terms like ‘intelligence’ don’t have a definition, they end up being defined by the test. IQ is just a set of tests whose scores have SOME correlation with things like school grades, job earnings, etc. But its all just averages, and for quite a specific sort of ability.
Also, its no achievement being the youngest member of Mensa! The scores are age-adjusted. The tests are also wildly inaccurate on such young children, since they can hardly do normal reasoning tasks, and there is not a big enough database of two-year-olds’ IQ scores to calculate an accurate average.
Joining Mensa is really just boasting about a test score, I don’t think it should be applauded.”
“British Mensa says its purpose is three-fold: to provide a stimulating intellectual and social environment for its members; to identify and foster human intelligence for the benefit of humanity; and to encourage research into the nature, characteristics and uses of intelligence.”
“is society really alienating and wasting a large stock of human capital because its educational system and social customs make them into misfits?”
Note: we we’re recently reading up on Chess rankings and realise that there are no Bakala people in the top ten. We then followed a link to high IQ’s (a list which ranked the wheelchair scientist at the bottom) and wondered, where the Bakala people were? They were not there, and so, we wondered, why? In the end, we did not say that the tests are “culturally biased” or that they needed to be “sensitive.” We said that our list needs to begin elsewhere and look at our conditions. Our list exists but consists of ranking people to the extent they challenge and effectively theorised the existing regime of domination. There is then a need to rank and scale, “intellectually”, in relation to the degree to which we we overhaul or threaten the Situation. This being so, rather than a Kasparov of Carlsen, we would have a Wilson or Ani. Again, we cannot compete on the same field because we exist in a different universe. We compile these lists and categorise in relation to our situation, and that means, seeing who challenges the regime.