MTG Salvation

Quote from TheEndIsNear

Any concrete proof of that or are you just basing this off of self evaluation.

There doesn't need to be proof; this whole thread of a great example of "self fulfilling prophecy" in real life.
Who here actually has proof they are in the top 2% of the population for intelligence?

Intelligence is all relative in regards to your field of work.
Does an Artist need to know Linear Algebra functions to read the stock market?
Does a Bio-mechanical Engineer need to know Game Theory?
Does an Economist need to know the calculate the orbital velocity of Jupiter's moon Europa?

Quote from BaconoftheArk

There doesn't need to be proof; this whole thread of a great example of "self fulfilling prophecy" in real life.
Who here actually has proof they are in the top 2% of the population for intelligence?

Intelligence is all relative in regards to your field of work.
Does an Artist need to know Linear Algebra functions to read the stock market?
Does a Bio-mechanical Engineer need to know Game Theory?
Does an Economist need to know the calculate the orbital velocity of Jupiter's moon Europa?

The problem with this is in anything relating to intelligence people take the better definition to argue their points. Kinda like you just did. Now i cant see the op from here, but if i didnt specify a way we'd use intelligence for this thread then any way the user wants fit.

But, in my experience, most people tend to go, i had a really high grade in my grDe 11 biology exam. I must be in the top 2%. There is no concrete evidence. But if some says i got a high grade in a test once, or im the smartest in my family or stuff like that, id bet most of them would not be that high at all. But when someone says i took an iq test and got in the top 0.5%, then i am more likely to believe them.

We live in an interesting society where "average" doesn't actually mean "average", it means "bad". Being average means being unsuccessful, mediocre, and it's something to be ashamed of. Luckily, we're all above average.

At least I am

Quote from BaconoftheArk

There doesn't need to be proof; this whole thread of a great example of "self fulfilling prophecy" in real life.
Who here actually has proof they are in the top 2% of the population for intelligence?

Intelligence is all relative in regards to your field of work.

I agree with all of your post, but "Does a Bio-mechanical Engineer need to know Game Theory?". While not ever biomech engineer needs to know or knows game theory, it is a useful design approach or tool.

Though, in earnestness, I don't wholly agree with you. I believe that individuals should have at least some rudimentary understanding of things other than their specialty or their chosen walk in life; people should be well-rounded and -read.

Quote from Sene

We live in an interesting society where "average" doesn't actually mean "average", it means "bad". Being average means being unsuccessful, mediocre, and it's something to be ashamed of. Luckily, we're all above average.

At least I am

Yeah, absolutely.

I can honestly say that I have issues when it comes to comparisons with (some) other people and the ideal(s) that I have created for myself; at least for the latter, I can never really measure up. TBH, I have plenty of personal doubts and defects to care about how unintelligent I am compared to geniuses, prodigies, and other brilliant people or to delude myself, which can be nothing but bad.

Quote from Kaitscralt

Their's nothing more to say.

No, there certainly isn't.

Quote from 9909

I can honestly say that I have issues when it comes to comparisons with (some) other people and the ideal(s) that I have created for myself; at least for the latter, I can never really measure up. TBH, I have plenty of personal doubts and defects to care about how unintelligent I am compared to geniuses, prodigies, and other brilliant people or to delude myself, which can be nothing but bad.

I agree with your whole post, but this specially is true.

I have a ishfriend who got a score of 160(whoch was max) on the test where i got 156. And whenever around him, i feel hoplessly... Dumb. I know i surpass him in certain things. Of course, but other things he seems to pick up so easily without me even being able to keep up. Neither of us studied for calc in university. Neither of us even payed attention in class. But he ended up with a A+s and I got a very average grades to high. None of those straight As he got.

In later news, Dunning-Kruger.Thread? The poll results fit the hypothesis almost to a T: almost no "average" results, but a large number of "Top Tier" responses, and also a cluster of "Bottom Tier" responses. Each most likely comes from a group grossly overestimating or underestimating their intelligence, respectively.

As for me personally...I have had a formal IQ test at one point in my life that place me in the top 2%. However, I must account for the fact that IQ can vary with age; just because I was in the 150+ range 10 years ago does not mean I'm THAT far off the curve now. Add in the fact that the group I am comparing with may have slightly higher intelligence on average, I have thus adjusted my response downward to the 3rd tier (5%-10%).

I would like to think the average content of my posts tends to support this evaluation - very rarely have I attracted directed personal attacks on my intelligence level. This is in spite of the fact that said behavior is rampant on the internet, and even more so at my gender (which I kind of advertise in my name and avatar). I've actually been occasionally complimented for presenting well-written arguments here. As such I believe placing myself significantly above the average is correct; exactly how far is an entirely different matter.

But this is somewhat besides the point. Many other people in this thread have asserted that intelligence is the least important "skill" to have. I would disagree with that on 2 fronts. Firstly, intelligence isn't really a learned skill; it would be better defined as an aptitude for learning. Secondly, there are definitely more useless talents to have. For example, being only a couple deviations above the mean in physical strength really isn't going to do much for you, since only the top 5-10% in any given sport will get signed on to a sports team, and even then, there are many more traits that will come into that equation.

But I will definitely agree that expecting to skate by on intelligence alone is just a bit naive. Talents must be cultivated into meaningful skills through careful study, practice, and so on. Furthermore, those that noted "leadership/social skills will get you farther" aren't exactly wrong. You need to have a diverse skill set to succeed in today's society. You need social skills to convince others to give you opportunities, but intellectual skills can and will rise to higher prominence once you've gotten said chance.

Talent and aptitude can influence how fast you can develop skills relative to the time you put in, and how high up you "cap out" relative to other people. But such things alone can't carry you through life. And even if you did...do you really want to work some mid-wage job that only lets you utilize a fraction of your potential? Maybe, and some very smart/charismatic people do just that. But these people are by far the exception, not the rule.

I have a feeling most people dont know how IQ is mesured. It does not vary with age. Your age is taken into consideration when calculating your score to make sure of that. You can do worse than me on an IQ test and still have the same score due to a difference in age.

It does not vary with age.

Oh yes it does. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ#IQ_and_age Granted, most IQ variances are over the course of childhood; this is still relevant since I received the test when I was pretty young.

That being said, you are correct that the scores have a degree of normalization - you are compared with others your age. Hence, a 100 IQ at age 5 should translate as you being average amongst 5 year olds. The link above also provides a formula for converting between IQs for different ages. People also grossly misinterpret what any given 2 score differences mean. If I say, had a score of 105 and you had a score of 100, well, we're both so close to the mean that the difference is nigh meaningless. This changes as the scores hit both high and low end extremes, where the test's accuracy starts to taper off.

Quote from LadyLuck

Oh yes it does. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ#IQ_and_age Granted, most IQ variances are over the course of childhood; this is still relevant since I received the test when I was pretty young.

That being said, you are correct that the scores have a degree of normalization - you are compared with others your age. Hence, a 100 IQ at age 5 should translate as you being average amongst 5 year olds. The link above also provides a formula for converting between IQs for different ages. People also grossly misinterpret what any given 2 score differences mean. If I say, had a score of 105 and you had a score of 100, well, we're both so close to the mean that the difference is nigh meaningless. This changes as the scores hit both high and low end extremes, where the test's accuracy starts to taper off.

It's interesting to note that the correlation between IQ and GPA is about the same as the correlation between height and gender (both having around R = 0.4). IQ correlates similarly with a variety of other performance measures (like the SAT, GRE, MCAT).

As has just been said, IQ can vary through age. You can also increase your IQ in a few ways, so it's certainly not some kind fixed value. Crystallized intelligence is found to decrease with age (after peaking at around 20), but the decrease has been found to be much less noticeable for individuals who are very cognitively active during their lives (so, for example, engineers and scientists tend to see fewer declines with age).

There was big longitudinal study that was started back in the 20s (Terman, 1925) that examined children with high IQs (I think the mean was about 150). It was found that later in life they maintained their high IQs and also enjoyed better than average health, emotional stability, occupational attainment and social satisfaction.

So, IQ isn't a useless measure, but it also doesn't explain everything. It's only explaining about 16% of the variance in GPA, but that's still a significant amount.

I'm not sure thinking you're smarter than 98% of MTGSalvation is really anything to be proud of. Without proof or IQ tests I actually find that holding yourself in such high regard to be narcissistic.

I debate with people every day about whatever on this board and many if not most of the users on this site are all above average compared to the every-day-guy I run into in the real world. A hobby like this is just going to bring people together who are going to be more intelligent. I'm sure there's some kind of study to prove my point somewhere but /lazy

I actually studied quantum field theory and understood that ****, so I'm going to reward myself by picking the 2% percentile, thank you very much.

I actually studied quantum field theory and understood that ****, so I'm going to reward myself by picking the 2% percentile, thank you very much.

Ehhh...so did I, and I wouldn't be so presumptuous. Ability to understand a particular topic alone is not a good indicator of intelligence. Now if you are in fact of high intelligence, we could expect that it would be easier to understand for you - that is, you didn't have to put in much time doing extra studying after it was initially explained, you completed the relevant homework assignments quickly and correctly, etc. However, there are still possible confounding variables here. What if your teacher explained the material unusually well? What if you were unusually well prepared for the topic, and thus didn't have to spend as much time reviewing prior material? What if the homework assigned was 'too easy'?

There are LOTS of ways a person of only average intelligence could end up understanding quantum field theory. Granted most average people don't have the inclination to go through the hassle it would take to learn said theory, ergo I'm still inclined to believe you...just saying, that one piece of evidence isn't that strong of an indicator.

Isn't the correct answer to this poll "Smart enough not to answer this poll"?

Isn't the correct answer to this poll "Smart enough not to answer this poll"?

Pretty much, which is part of why I obviously am not in the top 2%.

Quote from bLatch

Isn't the correct answer to this poll "Smart enough not to answer this poll"?

Like I said: I'm smart. I am, however, not that smart.

Quote from Infallible

I'm not sure thinking you're smarter than 98% of MTGSalvation is really anything to be proud of. Without proof or IQ tests I actually find that holding yourself in such high regard to be narcissistic.

Narcissism and arrogance are pretty par for the course at MTGS, from what I can tell.

Clearly I am dumb enough to have necroed this thread, and I really doubt I am much more than average so I went 50-60%. I can read a book by Stephen J. Gould or Brian Greene, understand what I am reading, and then use that knowledge to explain the concepts correctly to others. I can also read Kurt Vonnegut and Shakespeare and carry on a conversation about the subtle themes and language use. Finally, I can take all the authors I mentioned and use what I learned from them creatively to create a unique work.

I, however, am an example of a person that is very hard to categorize using a standardized test. I am pretty ADD so concentrating on a test can be very difficult, while concentrating on a task requiring the creative application of my knowledge can come as second nature to me. I have avoided as many standardized tests as I could in my life (had to take the NCLEX) because I know that they do not do a good job of representing me. Instead I find a way to prove myself practically whenever possible.

80/295 voted that they're in the top 2%.

i no thet i m thu smartist evr cuz i win magik gamz. i tok 2 othrr peepl hoo play magik 2 so i must b smartr than evry1 hoo dusnt play.

In all seriousness, how likely is it that anyone will be totally objective about their IQ and rate it accurately? I think asking people how smart they are isn't a good way of really knowing how smart they are.

I've taken tests, and I have genius level IQ, but I'm kind of a ditzy professor kind of guy. I put myself at between top 2 and 5, simply because I have no idea how smart everyone else is, and know there are a lot of stupid people lurking around in the dusty corners of this forum

Quote from sirpsychosexy

I think asking people how smart they are isn't a good way of really knowing how smart they are.

But you see, I don't care how smart people are.

I care how smart they think they are.

Quote from TheEndIsNear

But you see, I don't care how smart people are.

I care how smart they think they are.

Ah touché. I think it can be hard to really know how smart you are. For example, I've always thought of myself as above average but not crazy super smart by any means. That could be because there are quite a few legitimate geniuses in my family and I often compare myself to them. Sometime they'll talk about stuff that I follow with no problem at all but I don't have anything to contribute to the conversation. But on the other hand I've always gotten good grades without ever really trying (usually a 3.7 or higher) and when I'm around certain people I feel like Einstein around a bunch of monkeys. I'm definitely much smarter than the 8 other people in my department at work.

I think if you're around truly stupid people most of the time it can be easy to think of yourself as very intelligent and I think the opposite is also true. It's all subjective I guess.

Quote from sirpsychosexy

I think if you're around truly stupid people most of the time it can be easy to think of yourself as very intelligent and I think the opposite is also true. It's all subjective I guess.

It depends on how well read you are and how good you are at conversations.

A solid combination of those two will make anyone look like a genius. A lack of either will make even the greatest genius of all time look like a fool.