Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion Not-Quite-Science Forum IQ and Intelligence

Hello all,
I recently conducted an experiment in which I researched the effect of cannabis on intelligence. I found out that it greatly diminshed the intelligence of people with an IQ of below 100, but actually increased the IQ by a number of points in those of an IQ above 130.
I am now investigating a link between science and IQ. Therefore, I am asking you: what is your IQ? I imagine it will be quite high as we are of an intelligent breed!
I am actually a member of mensa myself, with an IQ of 162, however it is said Einstein had an IQ of 200. All comments and information will be greatly appreciated.

Thanks, Sarah.

my dear doctor sarah, i do agree that the members of this particular science forum are of a high iq and intellingence i mean you just have to read the messgaes posted by rodriguez to relaise that we are indeed of a talented kind. i'm not yet a member of mensa however i do treasure my IQ of 149. thankyou very much my friend xx Orlaith

oh yes doctor sarah, u seem a truely, truely smart individual! i wonder how u would look in a spandex simba suit, so i culd watch u enact it together! oh doctor doctor i need help

Doctor I have a problem...maybe i could make an appointment with you for coffee some time

I do believe this is rather off topic. However, i am not averse to spandex at times.

aren't we all a little in awe of spandex and its great powers. it can reduce a masculine strong man like me to a nervous wreck! my iq is 150, so im probably not quite at your level oh wondrous doctor, but i too am a mensa man!

http://www.gladwell.com/2005/2005_05_16_a_brain.html

Opening:

Twenty years ago, a political philosopher named James Flynn uncovered a curious fact. Americans--at least, as measured by I.Q. tests--were getting smarter. This fact had been obscured for years, because the people who give I.Q. tests continually recalibrate the scoring system to keep the average at 100. But if you took out the recalibration, Flynn found, I.Q. scores showed a steady upward trajectory, rising by about three points per decade, which means that a person whose I.Q. placed him in the top ten per cent of the American population in 1920 would today fall in the bottom third. Some of that effect, no doubt, is a simple by-product of economic progress: in the surge of prosperity during the middle part of the last century, people in the West became better fed, better educated, and more familiar with things like I.Q. tests. But, even as that wave of change has subsided, test scores have continued to rise--not just in America but all over the developed world. What's more, the increases have not been confined to children who go to enriched day-care centers and private schools. The middle part of the curve--the people who have supposedly been suffering from a deteriorating public-school system and a steady diet of lowest-common-denominator television and mindless pop music--has increased just as much. What on earth is happening? In the wonderfully entertaining "Everything Bad Is Good for You" (Riverhead; $23.95), Steven Johnson proposes that what is making us smarter is precisely what we thought was making us dumber: popular culture...

Aloha, Charlie

IQ is very important in Science ...
EQ is very important in Business...
And if you want to do some real test of someone's intelligence then both parameters must be considered ....

Gardener developed a theory of multi component intellegence. Perhaps its best to avoid having a single number rating as a human being.

Gardener, H., (1983). Frames of the mind: The theory of multiple intellegence. New York:Basic Books.

Gardener?s Seven Styles of Learning:

A. Linguistic Learner
1)Strong memorization skills.
2)Processes information by saying, hearing and seeing words.

B. Logical/Mathematical Learner
1)Strong in math, reasoning, logic, and problem solving.
2)Processes information by categorizing, classifying, and working with abstract patterns.

C. Spatial Learner
1)Strong with imagination, sensitive to changes, mazes, puzzles, reading
2)Processes information by visualizing and using pictorial images.

D. Musical Learner
1)Strengths lie in picking up sounds, remembering melodies, sensitive to pitch and rhythms.
2)Processes information by using rhythms, melodies and music.

E. Body/Kinesthetic Learner
1)Strengths lie in tactile behaviors.
2)Processes information through body movements and tactile behaviors.

F. Interpersonal Learner
1)Strong leadership style, good empathy skills, good conflict resolution skills, and strong communication skills.
2)Processes information by accessing others, sharing ideas and comparing informational feedback from others.

G. Intrapersonal Learner
1)Strengths lie in understanding self, internalization of thoughts autonomously driven.
2)Processes information by individualizing projects, self pacing instruction and private work environment.

Aloha, Charlie

High autists' performance at a given task generally benefits from mild exclusion of external stimuli. Adding entropy to a garbage midden does not improve it.

Let's party! Two parts:

Uncle Al took the 1973 GRE early on a Saturday morning while rather stoned from a dorm double birthday party the evening before. He chugged own two cans of Coke and went at it. 750 Verbal, 750 Math. 1500/1600. Then again, consider the competition.

Psychology, Public Policy,and Law 11(2) 235-294 (2005)
"THIRTY YEARS OF RESEARCH ON RACE DIFFERENCES IN COGNITIVE ABILITY"
The 15-18 point difference in average Black (and to a lesser degree Hispanic)-White (and to a greater degree Asian) IQs is hereditary.

Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 11(2) 328-336 (2005)
"WANTED: MORE RACE REALISM, LESS MORALISTIC FALLACY"
There has been no narrowing of the 15-18 point average IQ difference between Blacks and Whites (1.1 standard deviations) over the past 100 years.

Lynn, R and Vanhanen, T IQ and the Wealth of Nations (Westport, CT: Praeger (2002).
A mean IQ of 70 was reported for the general African population.

http://www.isteve.com/IQ_Table.htm

(based on a sample of 6,246,729 from corporate, military, and higher education.)

Not a single scholarly refereed paper is to be had proposing Blacks as a group are *not* intellectually inferior by simple demonstration. All objective evaluations - elementary school performance, standardized testing, preferred university admission, life itself, even speaking English - overwhelmingly demonstrate that Blacks as a group fail at any task that depends on intelligence. Project Head Start is a $7 billion/year example of refractory intransigent innate stupidity.

CUNY, educating naught but the dregs of NY City ethnic scum, pulled 11 Nobel Prizes during the 35 years Project Head Start produced nothing.

Hello, Sarah,

162 is an impressive IQ. I doubt Einstein was even close to that number.

Those with lower IQ might be having outstanding achievements, due to the fact that their abilities profile matches the needs of the problems they are working on. In such case the weaknesses in some areas might be beneficial, channeling the performance in particular direction.

Has anyone researched the abilities profile of living Nobel laureates, and such?

ES

IQ tests only measure how well one is at doing IQ tests. There is a correleation with school performance, but this doesn't imply that someone with a low IQ isn't intelligent.


I know that I have a very low IQ, I don't know exactly how low. But when I was tested in primary school to determine to what sort of secondary school I should go, the psychologists adviced that I was unsuitable for technical/mathematical stuff. This was much to the surprise of my teachers, I was the best of my class.


Since then I've done a few times similar tests, but each time the outcome was very bad compared to how well I was doing at school. The tests didn't measure IQ but were measuring what type of education is most suitable for you. But superficially the tests are very similar to IQ tests I've seen.


The only part of the test I performed well are the number series. I suspect that what's going on is that the test assume that to do well in certain subjects means that you must be able to quickly spot certain patterns quickly. I think that it is actually the other way around. If you can spot the patterns quickly you will probably be very good at certain subjects. However, it can be the case that your brain is wired differently and that you are good at seeing patterns at a more abstract level than is tested.


In that case you may have very bad mathematics ability according to the test, but still be very good at mathematics. Note that there are some tests in which Chimpanzees score better than Humans. If you train Chimps to find a way out of a labyrinth they'll point out the solution much faster than well trained humans can. The Chimp brain is apparently much better configured for this task.


Now suppose that the labyrinth test was used by psychologists to test for mathematical ability. Arguably there is some correlation between mathematical ability and finding your way out of a labyrinth, because you need some logical reasoning for this. Then according to this test Chimps would be mathematical geniusses.

What if employment offices for different roles in an enterprise were at different ends of a labyrinth with differnt clues or treatments at the branching points?

Aloha, Charlie

My IQ hasn't been tested since early grade school. I am 66 years old so that is quite a ways back. I do remember being somewhere in the top third on that test.

I never finished second year high school, and that second year was a joke anyway. I got shafted by the Chicago school system and ended up in one of their dumping ground schools instead of Lane Tech where I went for my first year. Seems that an over the summer move by my mother put me one block outside of their area and in the area for Crane Tech. By the time I found out that I couldn't go to Lane it was too late to register for Crane and get my classes.

Anyway, I managed to work in some machine shop and high tech areas and have become proficient enough to be an engineer with a 15 million company with plants and warehouses in five states. And that after running my own industrial engineering and repair business for 25 years.

I have always been a heavy reader of technical material. I read several science and engineering magazines monthly. And I don't mean popular mechanics or discover. In fact I don't even read Scientific American much anymore since they dumbed down to appeal to the common market.

I also do things like solve the Jumble puzzles in the paper as fast as I can write them; they are not really a challenge. I do the new york times crossword puzzle in pen and you can read it when I am done.

So, I do not know what my IQ level is and I am not so sure it matters in the real world. I do know that I have solved engineering problems without a formal education that professional engineers with the sheep skin have failed to solve.

That is amazing....
So many times in the past we have seen such non-linear behaviour.
It is a fact that knowledge comes coded with the genes...

A few points. On IQ I am a member of a society limited to the top 1% of IQ in the world. Like Al I once took the GRE aptitude test. I did not score as high as he did. I scored in the top 1% of college graduates in English skills and the top 14% in math. Since I had never been to college and indeed had dropped out of high school, this is not a bad score. I consistently score in the top 2 or 3 tenths of 1% of IQ in the world.

IQ does exist. There is a G factor. However, the situation is a bit more complex than that. Focusing on one area or another will make you less immediately effective in areas outside that. It takes time and effort to retrain from one area to another. So the multiple IQ model is both true and false. G can be applied to virtually all areas of human endeavor, however, people tend to specialize and develop one or the other.

Flynn is a rather brilliant man and quite a nice fellow. I E-Sponded with him while writing my section on race and IQ http://www.overalltech.net/huff/YIQRace.htm

He has recently developed a thesis which he calls reciprocal reinforcement which is probably the best model for explaining the difference in IQs between members of different cultural groups such as Whites and Blacks.

Uncle Al said, "Not a single scholarly refereed paper is to be had proposing Blacks as a group are *not* intellectually inferior by simple demonstration."

It is apparemt that he is not familiar with Dr. Flynn's work, or he is making a rather silly statement.

"The Bell Curve" itself does not support what Uncle Al said. While TBC with no evidence does suggest that the IQ difference is genetic, it also states that the difference is insignificant in terms of daily life. The IQ overlap between blacks and whites is so large that in any given situation where you are comparing a black to a white the possibility that the black will be more intelligent than the white is so large that to ignore it is insane.

Actually, the real scientific data available today more and more supports the idea that the measured difference between black and white IQ is environmental and not genetic.

You can read my paper posted above or read Dr. Flynn's book on the subject.

Another cultural factor promoting this difference between black and white IQ is discussed in my paper on husband murder in black society.
http://www.overalltech.net/huff/YHusband.htm

Al, as usual, shows no ability to rub two facts together and come up with an idea. As in all his posts, all he does is react in an emotional knee jerk fashion to the irritating silliness of the extremist left.

The extremist left is quite stupid, silly, and irritating, but that should not lead us to abandon fact based empirical evidence and just scream and shout.

Did we scare off dr. Sarah?

By the way, what is effect on IQ of the fetus stage, vs the genetic makeup? Of the early childhood?

ES

Intelligence, per se, is extremely difficult to define.
I am sure it has different aspirations, and different meanings in different societys.
Prehaps the ultimate definition of intelligence, is genetically 'locked up' in the genes of every different species, whether insect, animal or human.
That of procreating, producing, and keeping oneself alive,
whatever ones circumstances, inspite of drought
disease, or enemies within, or without, ad infinitum, is a desirable achievement.
Modern western society looks with favour upon the man who builds up a Company. The more Company's he builds, the more persons he employs, the more his intelligence is respected.
I would have difficulty in living upon a barren desert island, were I transported to one. Yet a few of us, just might be able to survive with care dilligence, and intelligence.
The average Negro is not a hard worker in a modern western society. The average Chinese is a very hard worker. The average Negro has aspirations to marry a white female, and often milks the system. The average Chinese, rairly ever milks the system, and never marrys anyone darker skinned than themselves, for they are determined to integrate, to fit in. And yet the average black has an almost idyllic, 'laze-along' (from his point of view) life within our society, respected for his musical talents and often physical prowess. Gold bling, and a large car, announce to his mates, that he has made it. We require the golf club, membership cards, and the mansion, as our announcement.
Does it take a different kind of intelligence, to be one of the above, without becoming a 'drop-out'?
Many clever people 'drop out' in our society upon reaching middle age. For reasons best known to themselves?
Having a high IQ and a respected member of Mensa has little meaning in other parts of the world. Unless the IQ test was tailored to fit that particular society in general.
A child of ten, brought up reading books of Mensa tests and puzzles, will score an enormously high IQ when tested at this young age.
Some people of a different genetic disposition, 'drop out' when placed in our society, and only recover when placed back to live in their 'home' society. Why is that?
Prehaps hundreds of years of adapting to life, in their natural enviroment, and living it in the manner best suited to themselves, has an influence upon innate intelligence?
Prehaps its those people who have learn't to live their lives without attracting attention, who always keep a low profile, who are the real super intelligencia of a future society?

I never took the GRE for real. I was intending to take it and took one real test to practice for it. I gave myself the correct time allotment (but finished early) and other restrictions (no calculator or book), but I took it in a coffeeshop. I got 780 verbal and 790 math. The math was not surprising, as I got 750 on the SAT math and I've never scored less than the 99+ percentile on any standardized math test (at least not since the fourth grade). The verbal was a little curious. I think I got a 580 on the SAT verbal. As I didn't practice for the GRE (that test WAS the practice), I can only think of two things that I've done:

1) in my youth, I primarily read only science and sf, but since I graduated HS, about 30% of my reading is now classics. MANY of those GRE like words are to be found in classics.
2) I started posting regularly on the net about 1980 and have had an extraordinary practice at writing since that time.

I know that some IQ orgs accept (or at least used to accept) surrogate tests in place of IQ tests. OTOH, many of the people I know in these kinds of organizations irritate me. My opinion has softened over the years. It used to be that every single person I knew who belonged to a hi iq organization was a complete idiot. But I've met a large number since then who were really very smart - so I don't suspect, as I once did, that there is an inverse relation between IQ and intelligence.

I've never had an IQ test that I can recall. I don't have any real interest in taking one. I took the mega for fun, though I did not finish it. I solved all of the verbals, all but one of the pattern matching, most of the algebra stuff. I think that based just on the ones I solved, I could estimate about 160. (I never had the test graded, but these are the kinds of things that you just know when you're right.) I suspect that's high, though I'd guess I would measure somewhere between 130 and 164 and most probably between 140 and 150. Just a guess.

I don't know what IQ means and I'm not convinced that others know what it means. Richard Feynman scored 125 on his IQ test in HS (James Gleick mentions it in his book "Genius," which I do not recommend, btw). The fanatics about IQ postulate that he was so contemptuous of the test that he probably just picked a score and tried to get that score on the test. They postulate this based on no evidence other than the fact that they really believe in the correctness of IQ tests and can't accept the idea that someone truly brilliant would not do well on them. "He's got to be one of US!"

I'd be less skeptical of the idea of IQ ~ Intelligence, if it weren't for the fact that the subject is the realm of psychologists and political fanatics.

I just remembered: I did have an IQ test given at my last job at a small engineering (robotics) firm. They never told me the score, but did say that I had scored very much higher than anyone who had ever worked there previously.

I am disappointed that Al has not responded. He stated that he knew of no scholarly work on IQ which did not recognize the difference between average black and white IQs.

I purposely misinterpreted his remarks to include an endorsement of the idea that this difference was due to genetic factos.

The left and right both make this misinterpretation routinely. The left proced to then attack the idea of the existence of IQ. The right generalize that IQ is almost entirely genetic and the difference must be racial, I.E. genetic.

Strictly speaking Al did not say anything about the genetic origins of the difference. Ergo, strictly speaking I did not really address what he said. I was trying to force him to make his position clearer with regards to either a genetic or environmental origin of the difference or the idea that no one at this point could say due to insufficient data.

Obviously, from the various posts in this forum, the question of the existence and nature of IQ is so politically charged that it is never discussed independent of race issues. Al's post was the first in this thread to raise that issue as I recall.

Jensen is the most famous advocate of the idea that the difference is genetic in origin. His argument runs.

Proposition: The difference in IQ between whites and blacks is quite significant.

Proposition: Such a significant or major difference could only be caused by significant or major environmental factors.

Observation: No such radical environmental features are present.

Conclusion: The difference must be genetic.

This is a very good argument. However, in order for it to be valid, the various points must be true. A difference of 15 points in average IQ must be so radical that only a radical difference in environment could account for it.
This requires a valid scientific knowledge of what is a radical environmental difference and what is a radical difference in IQ.

Neither of these exist. Jensen, and the authors of TBC base their conclusion on what might be called an intuitive belief about what these are. Now given the science of a few decades ago, and that when Jensen was young, this a very reasonable argument, and one which does not in any way suggest that Jensen is now or ever was a racist.

Now, if you look at feral children, you can see how radically the phenotype can be changed by truly radical differences in environment. Compared to these changes, a 15 point difference in IQ is almost microscopic. Relatively minor and can plausibly be induced by relatively minor differences in culture.

Second, IQ studies in Europe have shown an average difference between Polish and French of about 12 or 13 points. About the same as the difference between blacks and whites in the US.
Poles have the highest average IQ in Europe the French have the lowest, at least at the time the book I am referring to was written.

Apparently the cultural differences between Poland and France are sufficient to produce the level of IQ variation that exists between blacks and whites in the US.

The Flynn effect shows an incraese in raw scores on IQ tests over time a little more than 3 points every ten years. Apparently the cultural differences between one generation and the next are sufficient to produce a difference equal to that between whites and blacks in the US every 40 years or so.

It follows that based on available data of other equivalent differences in IQ between various groups, the difference in IQ between whites and blacks in terms of phenotypical variation is relatively small and can be easily explained as the result of relatively small differences between white and black culture.

Thus, Jensen's argument does not stand up when compared to data relating to other IQ differences between groups.

No one with serious credentials in Psychometry denies either the existence of the difference, or the existence of IQ. The arguments denying these two scientific facts originate entirely in political and dogmatic areas. There is real debate on whether the origin is genetic or environmental. Jensen is the acknowledged authority on the genetic side, Flynn is the acknowledge leader on the environmental side.

Flynn proposes a phenomenon he refers to as recipricol reinforcement. http://www.nathannewman.org/log/archives/000805.shtml

The URL above discusses the idea.

Could you explain "Psychometry". By the way you have used the term I think that my definition of the term differs from your own.

http://www.cherylsmeed.com/psychometry.html

http://www.cherylsmeed.com/main.html

Psychometry

Have you ever touched someone or something and gotten some kind of message ? such as ideas, pictures, or words? While shopping in an antique store, do you pick up impressions about certain pieces? You are experiencing psychometry.

Psychometry is the art of interpreting the psychic vibrations contained in objects. Sometimes referred to as "psychic touch," it is the ability to read an object's history or the history of those who may have handled it. While it deals most often with the past, it may often reflect present states as well. It is often used in cases of missing persons. The reader can touch an object the person has worn or touched, usually an article of clothing, to get impressions of the person?s whereabouts.

Some common items used in psychometry are rings, bracelets, necklaces, earrings, and watches. Any of these items will hold information about the wearer, such as thoughts, their emotional state, and sufficient events affecting the person?s life. Through psychometry, a story unfolds that describes not only the events of a person's life, but also how the person is feeling, thinking and reacting to these events. In order to receive clear information, the object should belong to and have been worn only by the person getting the reading.

The following exercises are very basic, but they will help you learn to develop your psychometric abilities, individually and in groups. Everyone has this ability to some degree, but most of us don't focus on it consciously. With practice, you may become proficient in a very helpful tool. And as I always say, only use your gifts for your highest good. Any attempt to intrude on someone?s life without their permission is an invasion of privacy and is very inappropriate.

Which Hand To Use

The hand you use to get impressions from objects of very important. Your dominant hand gives or relays information, while your non-dominant or receptive hand receives information. Your receptive hand is the correct hand to use.

The following a simple test to find out which hand is most receptive. It is very important that you do this, as you will always use this hand to receive impressions, at least until you have become so accurate that you can use either hand.

For most right-handed people, the left hand is the receptive hand. For left-handed people, the right hand is likely to be the receptive hand. If you are in doubt, or were changed from a left-hander to a right-hander as a child, the following test can be used to discover which is which.

1. Hold both hands at chest level with fingertips pointing up and palms facing each other.
2. Rub hands together very lightly to stimulate the energy flow.
3. Move your hands closer together, then apart, feeling the flow of energy.
4. Whichever hand feels stronger, or that it is emitting stronger energy, that is your dominant hand. The other is your non-dominant or receptive hand. Always use your receptive hand in psychometry.

When you are beginning your work in psychometry, always pick up or touch an object with your receptive hand. If you pick up the object with your dominant hand, you may inadvertently transmit an impression as you do.

Form a habit of using your receptive hand to take things from others, and to pick up something you may intend to use. This will be a challenge, as you are probably used to picking things up and holding things with your dominant hand, but this practice will help you to remember to use your receptive hand for psychometric work.

How To Practice Psychometry

As we have already learned, all objects carry an energy frequency connected to the person they are most in contact with. You can learn to interpret these energies with the exercises that follow.

The first exercise is for the individual, but it is best performed with a friend from whom you can receive feedback.

1. Sit relaxed with your eyes closed and your hands in your lap, palms up.
2. Instruct a person to place an object that they have had in their possession for a long time in your receptive hand.
3. Relate everything that you see in your mind, think of, hear in your head and any feelings that you have while holding the object.

You may pick up some thoughts, feelings, and symbols that seem meaningless to you but keep talking as much as possible about what is in your mind and you may be amazed at how much is relevant to the owner of the object. This technique develops your gift of feeling. It gives you the experience of learning to tune into another person's vibrations to discern what you are feeling.

Sometimes, while practicing psychometry, the feelings associated with the object are vague and don't seem to bear much relevance to anything recognizable to the owner of the object. On other occasions, the opposite is the case and intricate details can be discerned. Some people are more relaxed and trusting and so they get many messages immediately. Some people are afraid they will say or do it incorrectly so they get nothing. Don?t worry. You can?t do it wrong!

The following exercise is for a group of people. Group practice is best because you can all put an object into a bowl without knowing which object belongs to whom. In a new group setting such as this, try not to say anything that might make someone uncomfortable. Be tactful and diplomatic, but as descriptive of your thoughts, feelings, or symbols as possible for feedback from the owner of the object.

1. As discreetly as possible, everyone puts an object of theirs in a bowl.

2. Each person then reaches in and takes out an object that it is not their own.

3. Hold the objects in your receptive hands until you receive an impression.
Sometimes I ask specific questions such as, "Will this person change their job or career?" "Will he or she find love?" "If so when?" "Who?" What lesson does this person have to face at this time? ... etc.

4. Each person then takes a turn describing his or her impressions. Relate everything that you see in your mind, think of, hear in your head and any feelings that you have while holding the object.

5. Everyone should give some kind of feedback. Feedback is what helps us to develop your skills.

Dermo-Optic Perception

Another area of psychometry is dermo-optic perception, or "sight through touch." It refers to ?seeing? by touching the skin?s surface. Some people have developed this sensitivity quite naturally, especially those who are sight impaired and must rely on touch.

Everyone emits electromagnetic energy. When we tap into this energy, we can see as well as if we were using our eyes. But regardless of continuing proof that such a thing as dermo-optic ability is present in many people, arguments still abound that relate dermo-optics to telepathy and clairvoyance. Therefore, it should be mentioned that in many cases where dermo-optic perception ability was found evident in a certain person, that person was separately tested for telepathic and clairvoyant abilities, and in most of the cases, no such ability was present!

Some people can distinguish colors and patterns through dermo-optic perception. Various colors have different feeling. Some have described black as "sticky" or "clinging" to the touch, while yellow was "slippery" and blue was found to be "still more slippery, but cool to the touch, like delicate ice." Red causes great, bold radiation, and according to some, is so hot that the subject immediately draws his hand away, as though from searing heat.

It seems that small children are sensitive to colors, and can easily distinguish them merely by feel. One young mother reports the case of her six-year-old daughter?s ability to distinguish colors by touch. She shared that on day while she was wrapping Christmas presents, she asked her six-year-old daughter to give her the bolt of red ribbon. Her daughter immediately pulled the right color ribbon out of the bag, and repeated this with green, gold, white, and blue ribbon. She never pulled the wrong color out of the bag.

With practice, we can all master the ability to read by touch. Here is an exercise to help you develop your sense of touch.

1. Prepare a bowl of lukewarm water.

2. Close your eyes and gently dip your fingers into the water.

3. Repeat this exercise for about five minutes at a time.

At first, you may have some difficulty knowing exactly when your fingers make contact with the water, but after a short amount of practice, you will feel the tips of your fingers becoming more sensitized.

Feeling textures is also a helpful means of developing dermo-optic perception. Place various specimens such as salt, sugar, sand, or other granular substances into small separate envelopes and touch each substance through the envelopes. Don?t reach in and touch the substance directly. First, try to distinguish it through the paper of the envelope. At first, it may seem impossible to detect exactly what your fingertips are touching through the paper, since all of the substances are similar in texture. Here is the point of the test where you must not doubt! Trust your instincts. With patient practice, you will be able to detect through your fingertips the substances in the envelopes.

Various objects have different feelings, not just in texture, but because everything radiates its own specific energies, and trained fingertips can sense these differences. Awareness of this speeds the process of your own development in dermo-optical attempts.

Feel the difference between wood and paper, plastic and metal, wool and silk, china and glass, or hair and fur. This method will help to enhance your sensitivity to feel the varying objects and textures.

Such practice raises your vibration so that eventually you will be able to "read" someone just by touching him or her, as you learned psychometrically.

Mm, that's what I thought.

I have taken several "IQ" tests. Each with different results. Given that fact alone how much creedence can be placed in any one IQ test? Your score will merely reflect what you can discern from that material on that given one test at that one time. Genius, superior, average, does it matter how well one can rotate on object in one's head if they are unhappy or have mental illness? I think what we do with our intelligence is the real test.

I agree.
Dr Sarah with her 160 IQ doing "research" on the weed. How much more stupid one can get?

e s

Dear Doctor Sarah,
interesting findings, the relation between using dope and IQ. Is there any URL or other link from where these findings can be viewed in more detail?

It is my experience that one can train oneself to improve on IQ tests, furthermore, now even you can pump it up by smoking weed, wow!

All the more reason for me to find that showing off with one?s IQ is just as bad mannered as boasting about the size of your private parts or the height of your income.

On the other hand, more attention should be paid to the really smart children, for they are often bored to death on regular schools, being interpreted as stupidity, resulting in even more waist of talents, anyway, that is the situation in Western Europe, in the US maybe there is more pro-active anticipation towards the education of smarter people.

But to comply with your request, mine is about 135.

Hoping to hear from you soon,

My IQ is 160 but I am as dumb as a rock with no ability to foresee the future, learn from mistake, or any ability to comprehend reality.

Uncle Al:


But blacks are not dumb enough not to fight for their rights and freedoms, are they? So I guess that places you in a bit of a dilemna:

Apartheid at Wikipedia

The principal apartheid laws were as follows:

* The Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act (1949)
* Amendment to The Immorality Act (1950)
o This law made it a criminal offence for a white person to have any sexual relations with a person of a different race.
* The Population Registration Act (1950)
o This law required all citizens to register as black, white or coloured.
* The Suppression of Communism Act (1950)
o This law banned any opposition party the government chose to label as "communist".
* The Group Areas Act (27 April 1950)
o This law barred people of particular races from various urban areas.
* The Reservation of Separate Amenities Act (1953)
o This law prohibited people of different races from using the same public amenities, such as drinking fountains, restrooms, and so on.
* The Bantu Education Act (1953)
o This law brought in various measures expressly designed to reduce the level of education attainable by black people.
* The Mines and Work Act (1956)
o This law formalised racial discrimination in employment.
* The Promotion of Black Self-Government Act (1958)
o This law set up nominally independent "homelands" for black people. In practice, the South African government had a strong influence over these bantustans.
* Black Homeland Citizenship Act (1971)
o This law changed the status of the inhabitants of the 'homelands' so that they were no longer citizens of South Africa, and therefore had none of the rights that came with citizenship.
* The Afrikaans Medium Decree (1974) required the use of Afrikaans in schools

[edit]

The apartheid system
[edit]

Apartheid in South Africa from day to day


Apartheid was implemented by the law. The following restrictions were not only social but were strictly enforced by law:

* Non-whites were excluded from national government and were unable to vote except in elections for segregated bodies.
* Non-whites were not allowed to run businesses or professional practices in any areas designated as being for whites only. Although this was theoretically a prohibition applied symmetrically to blacks and whites, every significant metropolis and practically every significant shopping and business district was in a white area.
* Black and white transport and civil facilities were segregated.
* Blacks (except for a few who had "Section 10" rights), who comprised over 60% of the population, were excluded from living or working in white areas, unless they had a pass. Whites required passes in black areas.
o A pass was only issued to someone who had approved work; spouses and children had to be left behind in the non-white area.
o A pass was issued for one magisterial district confining the holder to that area only.
o Being without a valid pass made a person subject to immediate arrest and summary trial, often followed by "deportation" to the person's "homeland". Police vans containing sjambok-wielding officers roamed the "white area" to round up the "illegal" blacks.

The interior of a black man's pass book.
Enlarge
The interior of a black man's pass book.

Black areas rarely had plumbing or electricity. Hospitals were segregated: the white hospitals being the match of any in the western world while black hospitals were seriously understaffed, underfunded and far too few in number to match the white hospitals. Ambulances were segregated, forcing the race of the person to be correctly identified when the ambulance was called. A "white" ambulance would not take a black to a hospital. Black ambulances typically contained little or no medical equipment.

In the 1970s each black child's education cost the state only a tenth of each white child's. Higher education was practically impossible for most blacks.

Trains and buses were segregated, with third-class carriages reserved for black travellers. Black buses stopped at black bus stops and white buses at white ones.

Public beaches were racially segregated, with the majority (including all of the best ones) reserved for whites. Public swimming pools and libraries were racially segregated but there were practically no black pools or black libraries.

Sex and marriage between the races was prohibited.

Cinemas in white areas were not allowed to admit blacks. Restaurants and hotels were not allowed to admit blacks, except as staff.

Although trade unions for black and "Coloured" (mixed race) workers had existed since the early 20th century, it was not until the piecemeal reforms of the early 1980s that trade unions for black workers were recognised by the government, and strikes remained banned. The minimum yearly taxable income for blacks was 360 rand (30 rand a month), while the white threshold was much higher, at 750 rand (62.5 rand per month).

Apartheid pervaded South African culture, as well as the law. The perception of non-white South Africans as second-class citizens was reinforced in many media, and the lack of opportunities for the races to mix in a social setting entrenched white attitudes of superiority - often demonstrated in hostile, rude or patronising behaviour.


Anyway Uncle Al, aren't you a bit of an anachronism? Shouldn't you be bemoaning the lack of segregation by IQ rather than griping over the differences in average IQ of countries/races? Wouldn't that be more scientific?

IQ testing is somewhere between a cop-out to legitimize failure and a way of making yourself feel big because of pretty numbers... Depending on your pretty numbers, of course.

138 last tested (1998). Although I did hear someone say once that IQ could go down so who knows, maybe I'm teetering on remedial by now, eh?

It doesn't matter, really. If you do your best (without settling for it) I guarantee you'll be a success... Whether you give mensa $40.09 per year or not.

Yogi, very impressive tale chief.

I.Q. was meant to be Mental age divided by physical age and so was meant to be a measure of the speed at which we learned. Obviously that also requires opportunity, and a lack of opportunity will throw off the results.

Genius on the other hand is the ability to see the connections when others don't. Of couse that is similar to the definition of insanity, which is what many of us plead.

As I posted elsewhere we have been breeding for book learning and math intelligence for a relatively short time. China has been doing it for about 2000 years, Europe for about 500, and African only in the last 100 years. On the other hand, China stopped breeding for physical ability 2000 years ago, Europe 500 years ago, and Africa is still celebrating the runner/hunter. Come to the States and see our hybrids.

The mechanism of breeding is simple. Women who want to be mothers consider the ability of the suitors to be able to provide for their families. Those at the low end of society will pick men with potential upward mobility.

In the Middle Ages in Europe, a peasant would choose a large strong man who might succeed in battle and be made a knight. In China, a fast learning young man might be invited to go to school to become a scribe. They would both be considered very eligible by all the pretty girls.

That the native African is not smart, I don't believe. He has been trained for a different kind of learning. That the NBA is 80% black has nothing to do with racism, it has everything to do with 2000 + years of breeding.

I have tested my IQ 2 times online and both times it was less than 100. Last time it was 91. According to information found on the internet, I could not even graduate a high school. But I somehow managed to graduate a university in applied mathematics, though I haven't received top scores. Maybe those tests are a bit synthetic and depend on education system, so people graduated different education system have different thinking mechanism? In my country we never solved logical tasks like those in the IQ tests (a few similar pictures and alike) maybe I simply don't know how to solve them? In our country it's known that american high school level is much lower than in eastern european countries, but universities are much stronger in this point of view.
(I'm sorry for my broken English)

DoctorStrange, how you indulge!

I think Sparky has a great response to your issue but there is going to be controversy. From my stand point it only takes a 25 IQ to know that I would look like holy hell in spandex.

I will give some information you probably do not want or need. I grew up under happy circumstances that were not conditioned to better education. What I had was very good but I was a drop out in the 10th grade of high school and never had an IQ test that I can recall until I went into the Army. I am aware your POST was likely motivated by your pride of having a 169 IQ and then letting us know Albert Einstien had an IQ of 200, close I suppose to yours?

Over the years I have taken a number of IQ tests and I have always wondered how society can lump all catagories of people into such yests. Pasty has hit the point on the ability to leanr as a criteria but that is less than the tip of the iceberg. Learning itself improves the ability to learn, education provides the basis to grasp the meaniong of words, the feeling knowledge has for words depictions- like what is Sheakspere saying with his mumble jumble, in short extremely concise depictions of emotions and actions.

Being a high school drop out I feel keenly about this. Every IQ test I have had, starting from 120 entering the Army has gone up ever since. The end result is not germain - the point is that, in my opinion, the ability to learn is a factor but the excercise of learning makes a powerful addition.

Congratulations on your 169.

I meant SPARKY not Pasty, lower my IQ.
Jim Wood

Hi YOGI:

We have something in common, we were both dropouts. Mine was by choice yours possibly not.

They should devise a test for common sense. It has seemed to me over the years that some people that were otherwise intellegent had no common sense in every day matters.
JW

Well, this is really a country of dropouts. We are doing all that heavy lifting, that stupid smart people pay to learn how to.

With educational system in shambles, it may be smart to drop out.

e s

I do not know my IQ and I am not interested.

I find it no surprise that many of you know your IQ. Presumably this enables some of you to make up for your woefully inadequate lives. - 'Ah, I may be socially inept and a complete freak who has a fixation with gathering knowledge to help feel superior, but screw you - my IQ is 4000 you chimp.'

It is also very similar to the whole celebrity & media industry. You're special if you are beautiful and have the right things and wear the right clothes. Substitute IQ for image.

IQ is, for some, yet another form of snobery.

***I imagine it will be quite high as we are of an intelligent breed!*** -Point proven?

Taking an IQ test to rate yourself is a peculiar form of intellectual masterbation. I have always stayed away from that kind of prideful activity.

Regards,

Blacknad.

Woah!! Did I really write that? Must have got out of the wrong side of bed yesterday. I apologise for insulting people I don't even know.

Please disregard my comments.....

.....although I have seen enough people who do use IQ as a form of one upmanship.

Apologies,

Blacknad.

Sorry - it's one-upmanship.

Will I get into trouble for triple posts?

Blacknad.

Well - I'll soon find out I presume.

Blacknad.

Blacknad, do you have schizophrenia?

IQ tests only test your abilities with logical problems.
Is there a test that examines the right side of the brain?
(By ?right? I meant the opposite to left, and I?m not implying that logical reasoning is unimportant.)

Rob asks:
"Blacknad, do you have schizophrenia?"

Blacknad ... this is the second person here, in the short time we have known you, that has thought this out loud.

You really should seek competent psychiatric intervention.

I don't say this as an insult but because you are, even in this controlled environment, causing people to question your mental health and successful treatment is quite common.

If what you've said of your past is true, and I've no reason to doubt you, your self assessment of your situation should not be trusted. Least of all by you.

Dan - Well, it wasn't the best foot to get off on but after reading as many posts as I have and seeing how people are sometimes talked down to with barely concealed contempt, (and I am not talking about people talking down to me), I am even more convinced that knowledge, (whilst positive and essential), can have a detrimental effect upon some people?s ability to relate with others, if they do not approach it with humility.

As for needing psychiatric help - I live a very stable life, am a married Father with a beautiful, well balanced daughter (who has a secure and confident personality). I hold down a challenging job and have a good social life. So quite balanced and stable in that area.

I can be impulsive at times and I get passionate about stuff (no bad thing) and this is the first proper forum I have bothered to post in, so forgive me for taking a little time to learn the etiquette.

I was upset at first when I came here. I had this idea of science types that was probably a little too romantic, and when I saw people trading insults in a way that I have not come into contact with in adult life, I felt angry - and responded negatively (of course my feelings were further impacted by the sheer amount of religion bashing that was going on - I am not used to that - if you actually knew me you would know that I am actually quite moderate and do not go around pushing my views down people's throat, in fact far from it - so I don't encounter anything like the stuff here that I thought was almost tantamount to hatred).

I suppose the anonymity of forums contributed somewhat, and it didn't really feel like I was insulting anyone. I would never say anything like it in my natural social interactions.

When I came back to it in a more chilled out mood the next day I was embarrassed at what I had written, so I apologised.

I am not too small to admit to having the ability to behave like a child on occasion - most men do - and there is certainly a fair amount of it here.

I hope that explains why I do not need psychiatric help and I am certainly not schizophrenic, although I used to be a counsellor, counselling schizophrenic teenagers - the closest I have come to schizophrenia.

Also I have apologised on more than one occasion for my comments ? I have not seen another apology in this forum so far, although one or two are definitely due.

And I think I trust my stability, by other's assessment surrounding me, as well as my own.

Dan, you misunderstand me.

Regards,

Blacknad.

Do not take seriously what is being said out here. Besides, those who have something to say, will not waste typing time on insults.

Best,

es

Thanks ES,

It's something my wife's always telling me - 'Don't take things so seriously'.

Blacknad

Thanks ES,

It's something my wife's always telling me - 'Don't take things so seriously'.

Blacknad

dude, you just wrote nine paragraphs explaining yourself and convincing us all that you're normal. Now you've posted the exact same message twice!! What are we to think?!

Don't rag the man, Rob. It's no big deal. Nothing serious, no harm done. Don't be so quick to be harsh on someone. You're gonna give the guy a complex. Anybody can have a bad day and make a double post. Nobody's perfect. He can delete one of them if he wants to edit the message himself.

Funny enough, you know the guy who invented the TV, had an IQ of 90. Is the measurement of an IQ actually accurate? I mean if one does the same test every year surely there will be an increase in points at least. Incidently, when only 12 years old, my official government monitored IQ was 160 (not that funny test you find on the internet, no the real IQ test, the ones with symbols and stuff.

How old are you now? What career did you choose? Were you successful in it? Have you been disappointed, and had to change the direction? Sorry asking questions, but I am very interested, and it is impossible to get those answers without asking - unless you are a person of that high IQ.

e s

When Richard Feynman was in high school his IQ was measured at 125.

How old are you now? What career did you choose? Were you successful in it? Have you been disappointed, and had to change the direction? Sorry asking questions, but I am very interested, and it is impossible to get those answers without asking - unless you are a person of that high IQ.

e s

To answer your many questions. I am 48 years old. I chose accountancy and was very successful. Yes I have had to change direction due to circumstances in my home country of Zimbabwe. However, does success measure one's IQ? I don't think so, if you go to countries like India and Pakistan (Where incidentally the first computer virus was actually invented) there are geniuses walking naked in the streets, some of these guys have IQs so high that they even seem stupid. Even their eyes are squint and their feet pigeon toed! Yet they can perform marvels with their minds. Unfortunately, due to circumstances I grew up in an orphanage. The nuns who ran the school which was private refused to allow the government to remove me from the school and put me in a special institution for 'intelligent' children. I never used to study at all and would come first or second (If I chose to). Some years ago the UN was running a competition where they wanted the result of a formula which was left half done. This was circulated to all the schools throughout the world. My daughter came and showed me the formula, I took one look at it and told her the answer is equivalent to Pythagoras's theorem. She laughed at me. I then proved it to her by calculation. She still didn't believe me. Well nine months later we read in the newspaper, that some guy in the States after years of research and with a fat book full of calculations had arrived at the same answer. My daughter was bashful. There you have it, what took an mathematics Graduate two years to calculate, took me two hours to work out. Can you spot the difference?

Can you, for example, calculate 9673x9673 without computer and paper?

es

Don't make me laugh, ofcourse I can, using logical ways of calculating such trivial amounts are easy to calculate. By the way, I worked with a guy from India, would could add millions in his head, and his IQ was onlt 128. When I go shopping for groceries with my wife, I always tell her exactly what the total of her groceries is, ofcourse because I am not under obligation sometimes I am a couple of pence out. Tee hee!

Have you ever studied probability theory, or any higher Math at all?
Here is a little probability problem:
There is small bench that can accomodate two, overseeing a pond - in the park . Three ladies decided to come and sit there for 10 minutes, between 1pm and 2pm. They come there independently. What are the chances, that one of them will have to wait because bench is occupied by other two?

e s

One in 6^3

Are there any other opinions?

p = 1/216

it is the same as 1 in 6^3

Ok, this is very low estimate.

The answer I come with is 16/216.

If one assumes that the ladies want to leave before 2pm, it is even higher, 13/125

So, did you study probability theory?

es

What about if one lady arrived at 1:00pm and the second at 1:01 and the third at 1:12, none would have to wait. Yes I did study probability theory, however I know that it is actually wrong!

Sure, what other theories are actually wrong?

e s

I would like to see Dr Sarah to try this probability problem
e s

Because if you try to apply the theory to actual events you find it is way out. Do you agree that in a lottery where there are six balls out of forty-nine drawn according to the probability theory all have a one in 49 chance of coming. However after the first ball is drawn, it cannot come again, therefore the next probabilty becomes one in forty-eight, after the next one in forty-seven and so proceed ad infinitum. You even admitted when you worked on the three grannies that the probability changed if the grannies wanted to leave before 2 pm. That is the problem there are two many ifs and buts!

How many theories have been challenged and proven wrong. One day you'll see many of these proved wrong. We humans tend to think that just because some High IQ individual works out something its has to be true. If we look a little deeper we might find that actually it is a load of crap.

You are a good example, that IQ brings individual only so far. Then one have to think and to learn and so forth.

e s

To extrasense 'You don't say whether or not you agree with me in my viewpoint on probability.'

You have no say in the matter, since you are unable to solve the small problem I have suggested. It was a test, and you have failed.

e s

I consider that you have failed!

What about p = 6/216 is that better!

or 1/36

or P= 1

OK, I guess now you have cooled down a bit.

Let's say that there is only two ladies, and a bench just for one

What are the chances that one of the ladies will have to wait?

e s

I guess my IQ is not as high as it used to be! Are the other factors still the same?

Yes, they are.

"Some years ago the UN was running a competition where they wanted the result of a formula which was left half done. This was circulated to all the schools throughout the world. My daughter came and showed me the formula, I took one look at it and told her the answer is equivalent to Pythagoras's theorem. She laughed at me. I then proved it to her by calculation. She still didn't believe me. Well nine months later we read in the newspaper, that some guy in the States after years of research and with a fat book full of calculations had arrived at the same answer. My daughter was bashful. There you have it, what took an mathematics Graduate two years to calculate, took me two hours to work out." - "Philege"

Prove this claim.

Interesting problem, but it has a lot more to do with specialized training than intelligence.

Not at all. It needs just definitions, which are known to anybody who attended the first lecture on probability theory.
So, what is your answer?

e s

Absolutely it has more to do with specialized training than intelligence. Knowing definitions IS specialized training, but even this is only part of the problem.

As you have already posted the correct answer I can only believe that you found this problem in a book which provided the result for you. It seems unlikely in the extreme that you could have figured it out yourself.

You are not only fiend, you are deranged fiend.

e s

I am still working on this one, I have already used five fullscaps!

By the way, are you using a book?

No, this is a problem our prof has brought up in the first lecture on probability.

He has shown us a solution for 2 ladies, and suggested we found solution for 3 ladies problem.

If you want, I can give you a solution for 2 ladies, and you would try to solve the 3 ladies case.

e s

Okay, fire away.

.....I.........................5/6
.....+-----------------------+
.....|........................./:::::|
.....|....................../:::::::|.5/6
.....|.................../:::::::/...|
.....|................/:::::::/......|
.....|............/:::::::/..........|
.....|.......,/:::::::/..............|
.....|..../:::::::/..................|
1/6.|./:::::::/.......................|
.....|::::::/........................|
.....|::::/...........................|
.....+----------------------+II
.........1/6

So, the square represents all the possible combinations of arrival time for the ladies.

Only the figure in the middle marked with ":" symbols has one of the ladies waiting.

Its area is 1x1 -(5/6)x(5/6), which is 11/36.

es

This does not quite compute, these cannot be ALL the possible combinations, surely even you can see that! How do you come up with the dimensions of the square and the possible combinations which are so obviously wrong. Can anyone else see this? Also what about if the other woman arrive 10 minutes and one second later in each of the possible ten minutes this would represent at least 5.4 possibilies in addition to any other combinations. So I don't quite agree with your answer. Please explain in more depth. Either that or I must be really thick!

Lets say the first lady came at 1:11 and the second one at 1:25

It would be represented by the point ( 11/60 , 25/60 ) inside the 1x1 square.

Let us ask the public, if anyone agree with me?

e s

Well? We're waiting?

Where are ALL the fat IQs out there?

Doctor Sarah, Help!?

2/27