Socially smart and an academic moron.
Printable View
Socially smart and an academic moron.
Intelligence is entirely subjective and a concept by humans.An excuse to obscure the fact that I'm not particularly smarter than anybody else?
I'd say I'm above average intelligence, but then the people who I consider myself "above" will have skills in some areas, that I really wish I had. I'm not thinking social though, more like being able to plan and think ahead. I've been wasting a year of my life just now, because I didn't plan properly.
About average. I guess.
I think your all stupid. I want to eat your knowledge mwahahahahaha
In surveys up to 90% of the people asked are considering themselves above average. um..
People are more likely to respond if they're above average, and the below average ones are too stupid to realize they're stupid, and "up to".Quote:
Originally Posted by dajo
"Up to", because I don't actually have the source, yet remember this outcome.
It wasn't based on this thread.
The point remains that only very few people would actually categorize themselves between 90 and 110. Generally people think higher of themselves, but that would just shift the "average score". Someone has to be average and also below. Furthermore you are actually more likely to think of yourself as smarter if, in reality, you're not. And if you are actually intelligent, you are more likely to underestimate your abilities. But I'm not talking to anyone in specific here. If you are successful in a top university - chances are that you're no idiot.
Thanks for the responses so far everyone.
Yeup, it's linked in my original post, and I'd say I've seen elements of it here with people underestimating themselves, but obviously that's just my opinion.Quote:
Originally Posted by dajo
I wasn't sure exactly what to expect, but the answers so far have been more conservative than I would have initially imagined. One factor I didn't take into account beforehand was that this is a public poll. We might all be hidden behind nicknames and have disguised the links to our real identities, but it's still different from anonymously taking a survey, or having test data anonymised and published, because claims made can impact how others perceive us here.
I'm not surprised that almost everyone here considers themselves above average. When you consider the kinds of topics discussed in this forum, it's not exactly representative of the general population. Then there's self-selection bias in answering. Let's also not forget that it's perfectly possible for everyone here to be above average because the sample size is orders of magnitude lower than the general population.
I also wonder if there's an element of self-deprecation here amongst some; "So and so is far smarter than me, so if he rates himself at an IQ of 120 I must be average" or "Reading X's posts, I feel stupid by comparison". Or it could simply be people overestimating differences with no emotional attachment.
Ah, the joys of the UK education system, where understanding is not required for good grades. This is where I'm at risk of flying off on a massive tangent.Quote:
Bear in mind that most people are full of shit.
There were some guys in my sixth form who always made sure to copy down exactly what was on the board word for word and line for line, listen to the teacher attentively, etcetera, and always tried to project academic confidence. But whenever I talked to these people about whatever we were learning about, they literally had no clue. They could refer to words in their notes and recite the sentences, but really they had no conceptual grasp of what the teacher was talking about, or really any thorough understanding of anything in the subject.
An excellent case in point is a woman I know who applied for Oxford. On paper she appeared to be excellent; perfect grades and all that. In actuality, she wasn't that intelligent - she wasn't stupid either, I should add - but worked extremely hard at learning the material. Clearly they saw through that in the interview.
I was quite lucky. For Chemistry and Biology I had excellent teachers who could explain stuff better than the textbooks, and being in an intelligent class we could often discuss far more advanced concepts than the syllabus required. For instance, we had a lesson at the start of my A-level year in Chemistry where we discussed Molecular Orbital Theory.Quote:
I never took notes because we had textbooks that covered exactly what we covered in lessons, so it was utterly pointless. I just sat and listened and tried to understand, and whenever something came up where it conflicted with something else or anything, I'd ask about it. The annoying thing was my teachers would get pissy at me for not taking notes (so I ended up just doodling on some paper to look busy; I never worked out why they spent so much money buying the textbooks in the first place), and my school reports would usually say something about my being lackluster or whatever, basically for not asking dumbass, obvious questions every five minutes so as to appear knowledgeable. Irritatingly no matter how many exams I aced, especially in biology, I'd still be the lackluster guy, whilst the loudmouth projectors were still the future dazzling doctors who'd just had a bad day on that test (and every other).
I especially despised homework, which was particularly bad in Maths at beating you over the head with a concept until your skull caved in. What could be a bigger waste of time than answering 25 questions when you grasped the concepts after completing the first two?
It seems like this is a product of living in a society built for extroverts. The louder you shout, the more sense you make. I find it sad being quiet and reserved is always frowned upon in school and the workplace. For some reason, if you don't share every thought that pops into your head, there's something wrong with you. And in order to get anywhere in the world, you're required to climb the social ladder as well as work hard.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
Introversion is often mistaken for shyness. When I was younger, I was very shy. I would only talk to close friends, never ask questions in class and would shake like mad whenever I had to speak publicly. Now that I'm older, my shyness has faded away. I don't have a problem talking to people and I don't think a public speech would bother me much. But I still prefer to spend my time alone rather than with other people. I hate parties and large crowds, and try to avoid them if I can. This isn't because I'm shy, it's because I like solitude. I enjoy the time alone with my thoughts. But other people seem to think I have a problem because I don't go out partying or socializing. Oh well. :P
Well that makes sense, what use in the workplace is somebody that doesn't share ideas and give feedback. Most good jobs require teamwork and leadership skills as well. Introverts will never climb to managerial positions or positions of authority.Quote:
Originally Posted by Heavy Sleeper
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartiate
Say what needs to be said, nothing more, and you're fully capable of climbing to those managerial positions or positions of authority you mentioned.Quote:
Originally Posted by Heavy Sleeper
-----
@ Photolysis: That's exactly how it was with me in high school. My test scores were great, usually among the highest marks in the class, but my grades took a big hit because I didn't want to spend hours on something soremedialtrivial. I hated the big projects the most, they made us spend days focusing on one thing, then regurgitating everything you learned via pretty powerpoint presentations. We may as well just hand in our notes or just have more quizzes/tests. I understand that may be the best way to teach some students, but it certainly isn't the best way to teach everyone.
I'm sure an introvert would share their ideas with their colleagues, just like anyone else. Probably just not in the team brainstorming kinda way. What's the point in working on something if you don't hand the work over in the end? It's not the sharing of ideas part I have a problem with. It's obvious why that's an important thing in the workplace. It's that you're often expected to be talkative with all of your fellow employees and suck up to your boss if you want to be respected.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartiate
I went toe to toe with a 15 watt lightbulb for almost 3 min one time. I was impressed.
This is my exact situation - almost. I do still have some social anxiety around people, but it's nothing compared to what it was when younger and that isn't the main reason that keeps me away. People will label me shy and some, especially my parents, will think there's something wrong with me. I have no desire at all to make friends and regularly hang out with them, but my parents, even though I've told them this, often try to urge me to go to events, join clubs, etc. They obviously view me as pathetic and lonely.Quote:
Originally Posted by Heavy Sleeper
I agree with some other things said, but don't want to look back for the posts to quote. When people started telling me that to be successful I'd have to learn to work well with people and learn to make friends with everyone, I was upset by it and thought I was inferior in some way for not being naturally inclined to do that. Now being successful doesn't matter much to me, or it isn't high on my list of priorities, so it doesn't matter much to me.
And about working in groups. I'm terrible at 'group brainstorming'. I understand why it might be beneficial for some people. If everyone is able to keep a clear head, and no one is very good at thinking on their own, it might work. But when I've been forced to do it, two things have gotten in the way of any real progress. First, I can't think as clearly while around other people, so my ideas aren't as good as they would be on my own. Second, in groups people are less likely to delve very far into any particular insight. While on my own, I might come up with a good idea and continue to think about it, my thoughts branching off if I think it's important enough. But in groups, if I happen to think of an idea that I think is good, and I mention it, people will usually nod along, maybe give 1 or 2 more pieces of input, then someone will go onto something else. The conversation tends to go in the direction that the most social, loud people in the group decide it should go.
According to online IQ tests, I range from 130-140. But I read an article once and this guy took most of the even semi-ok looking online IQ tests and his results varied wildly.
So I tend to not trust it too much.
I probably am just of average intelligence, but I have an addiction to knowledge. Which makes people I talk to (rare nowadays lol) think I'm smarter than I am.
I also tend to just think about things more than most people do, which probably helps a bit. But I'm fairly lazy so my knowledge hasn't been put to good use yet really, I'm working on it though.
I agree with what some people were saying about school. I honestly think that the schools I went to fucked me up big time. I could have been a lot smarter by now if I had have gone to better schools.
We went over shit about 90 fucking times when it was so god damned simple. Then suddenly the teachers decide to speed through 90% of the curriculum in a month or two towards the end.
Because they realised they were running out of time.
All I learned in primary school was the alphabet, colours and numbers and a tiny bit of maths, and Italian numbers and colours. I picked up spelling and reading etc. by myself pretty much, I could spell pretty much perfectly by grade 1, just had a knack for it, it made sense. Then for the next 6-7 years we did the same shit over and over again. Literally.
People wonder why Chinese people are so smart on average, it's because their schools are actually teaching them, and teaching them to learn. It's not a mystery. Our schools teach us to pass tests, that is all.
That's why you have all these people who can do complicated maths etc. but have no idea why they use a certain formula etc. There's usually 1 or 2 people who understand it in a class, sometimes none.
So that is also why they repeat shit over and over again. Instead of getting you to understand what you're doing, they just get you to memorise it. Which is fucking useless because you forget it within a few months.
Rant over. Maybe...
Painfully average/Not intelligent enough.
Well, I'd love to say I'm some kind of genius compared to everyone else, but I'll admit that I'm probably not. People want to believe they're "special" and "different" somehow, but more often than not they're the same as everyone else. Sure, you might be better at one thing than most people, or maybe even be stronger or faster, but you can't be everything all at once. I'll give myself a little pat on the back for being in general a good student and a relatively good writer, but I wouldn't say that qualifies me to call myself "above average". No, I've never shown any incredible academic achievement, innovation or other distinction from my peers. I'm going to an average college, I have average thoughts on the world, often make myself look like an idiot in conversation... yea, that's average.
I'll admit it. We can't all be geniuses, most of us have to be the mindless masses. ;[
Well, that was actually refreshing. thank you.
Yes, very well put.
By reading this thread I have discovered that most people's intelligence is above average, according to them.
This means that the average intelligence level is above average.
See how smrt I am?
I think average is pretty stupid
I think average has more friends.
I was in the top 2% of people taking the SATs (one of the two primary aptitude tests for US college admissions) 15 years ago, and tested somewhere above 140 IQ 20+ years ago, but can't seem to do my taxes properly and am terrible at video games, so I don't know what to think.
It is actually possible for most people to have an above average IQ. For example, if you have 5 people who take an IQ test and they get 80,80,120,120,160. What is the average IQ of the group? The average would be 112, meaning that most people are above average. Or what if we had 8 people with 70,80,90,110,110,110,110,120. The average is 100, yet 5 out of 8 people are above average.
IQ tests are supposed to be a perfect bell curve, with an equal number of really smart people to really stupid people. However if this isn't actually true, you can get results where the average person is above average IQ. Basically people on the bottom, score further below average than the people on top, score above the average. So they drag the average score down below what the average population would score. Also when you factor in that people with really low IQ probably don't use computers, that helps explain part of the reason why many people on here think they are more educated or more intelligent.
Right. Any distribution which is not perfectly symmetrical will have an unequal proportion of data above and below the mean. (Hint: it's the median, not the mean, which by definition perfectly splits the data from the distribution in half.) But this trivial statistical fact doesn't apply to IQ scores because they are deliberately calculated so as to have a perfectly normal distribution. This standardization is easily accomplished no matter what the actual underlying distribution of true "intelligence" scores looks like. That information gets washed out. You simply calculate the quantile for the original score, match that with the corresponding theoretical quantile from the standard normal distribution, multiply by 15, and then add 100.
Uhh.... so you're in the top 1% right, DuB? :lol: