Thanks for the responses so far everyone.
Originally Posted by dajo
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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 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.
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?
|
|
Bookmarks