# Relationship between one's intelligence and dress?



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

What are one's views on the relationship(s) - or lack thereof - between intelligence and dress?


----------



## iammatt (Sep 17, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by JLPWCXIII_
> 
> What are one's views on the relationship(s) - or lack thereof - between intelligence and dress?


I am not sure there is even a high correlation betweeen high IQ and high degree of functional intelligence, much less style.


----------



## marc_au (Apr 22, 2004)

l don't find there's any relationship between the two. l find that the most clever people care little about how they look, they have more important things going on in there minds....things that really matter (materialism isn't really that intelligent is it, it's taking the lower road). Materialism needs to be kept in perspective and not overemphasied. l also find that the cleverest people are always the worst writers too (bad looking writing). Too many people judge too much on how things look (spelling mistakes included) and that is a big mistake. People shouldn't jump to conclusions as fast as they do [based on how something looks] because they rarely get the entire picture of what a persons really about. Making partial conclusions is o.k and to be expected [because after all, we just can't hang in limbo....we need to come to some conclusion]. The problem is that many people jump to full conclusions with only partial facts and therefore often risk their own judgements being invalid...happens all the time. There is usually more to someone than meets the eye. Things are rarely so simple that we can make full conclusions about how something looks. We can make many partial conclusions and speculate but we shouldn't neccessarily make full conclusions when full information is not available about a person.

l'm not happy with how i've explained myself above. l'll need to come back to this later and review what i've said. l'm not in the right frame of mind right now. Anyway, l just wanted to make a start for this topic. Hopefully others will follow with some interesting discussion on this topic.

*GR8MAN (The Shooman) B8MAN.*


----------



## n/a (Sep 4, 2002)

This has the potential to be a rather messy topic. For now I'll just hop in, see how the thread develops and return. 

I have no idea what my IQ is. All I know is that I manage to hold down a job (which I rather like), enjoy a nice circle of friends, and pursue my love of music and the Anglican Church.

Being employed in the City of London, I wear a full suit to the office, yet upon returning home I am notoriously informal, changing to jeans, T-shirt and denim jacket. 

Is there any correlation with intelligence here?


----------



## Vladimir Berkov (Apr 19, 2005)

Look at Bill Gates. Need I say more?


----------



## Rich (Jul 10, 2005)

I don't think how people dress is directly correlated to IQ. Dress is about self image and attention to social conventions, which are not evaluated in IQ tests. However, since top jobs in finance, the law, commerce, etc. often call for smart dress, and since such top jobs are held by people with high IQs, there may by an indirect link there. Of course top jobs in academia don't call for smart dress... Also, clever politicians don't necessarily dress well when they want to please certain groups of voters. I think a high IQ may enable you to acquire conventional dress sense more rapidly, but does not mean you're interested in or concerned about dress. Instinctive flair is another thing altogether - this is a kind of intelligence, but it is not measured by IQ tests. There are other skills at work here too: observational skills, sensory skills, social skills, etc. that are not taken into account in IQ tests. Also personal experience, social background etc., count a lot.


----------



## Liberty Ship (Jan 26, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by Rich_
> 
> I don't think how people dress is directly correlated to IQ. Dress is about self image and attention to social conventions, which are not evaluated in IQ tests. However, since top jobs in finance, the law, commerce, etc. often call for smart dress, and since such top jobs are held by people with high IQs, there may by an indirect link there. Of course top jobs in academia don't call for smart dress... Also, clever politicians don't necessarily dress well when they want to please certain groups of voters. I think a high IQ may enable you to acquire conventional dress sense more rapidly, but does not mean you're interested in or concerned about dress. Instinctive flair is another thing altogether - this is a kind of intelligence, but it is not measured by IQ tests. There are other skills at work here too: observational skills, sensory skills, social skills, etc. that are not taken into account in IQ tests. Also personal experience, social background etc., count a lot.


I associate with people known to have ultra high IQ's. Some dress well, some don't. I believe that Rich's analysis is exactly correct.

In theory, IQ exists independent of knowledge. It's what you bring to bear when you don't otherwise have a clue. Thus, someone with a high IQ might be able to dress well better than a less smart person if he were so motivated, but motivation is a key component of dressing well and, believe me, it is not shared by all smart people! Also, really smart people tend to have less respect for norms, conventions, and authority. They often, mistakenly in my opinion, allow this to manifest in "unconventional" dress.


----------



## FlatSix (Feb 23, 2005)

The rawest component of intelligence is pattern recognition. Those of us who are capable of "pegging" IQ tests are really just pattern recognition machines. As a child I was tested a couple of times and rarely missed a question, which leads to some bizarre IQ numbers after the age correction is applied; I've taken a variety of tests as an adult and usually peg 'em out. It takes a math question to "beat" me, as I never bothered to study advanced mathematics. 

Unfortunately, in its purest form pattern-recognition intelligence does not lead to suave behavior, sharp dress, or even high earning power; it leads to you muttering in a corner while the world passes you by. The most intelligent fellow with whom I have had any serious dealing - Richard Stallman of the Free Software Foundation - is barely capable of human interaction. 

The only advantage high IQ and near-perfect memory gives me as an AAAC member is that I can remember the price of everything, if perhaps the value of nothing.

----------------------


"When you wear something like spats, I think you might as well wear your favorite players jersey bc what youre saying is I want to be powerful like the bear and Im wearing its hide to tap into its power." - Film Noir Buff

"First sense of what "normal" good clothes looked like came from my dad, of course, and from Babar books." - Concordia

" I have a related problem in that I often have to chase people. Leather soles are no good for this kind of work." - Patrick06790


----------



## ChubbyTiger (Mar 10, 2005)

First: I totally agree with Rich, LibertyShip, and FlatSix.

Second, FlatSix: You know Richard Stallman? Not fair. Have you met Linus Torvalds, too?

Finally: There is _definately_ no correlation between IQ and dress in academia. Trust me.

CT

Fabricati diem, pvnc. (loose translation, To Serve and Protect) -- Sign above the door of the City Watch House, Ankh-Morpork.


----------



## ashie259 (Aug 25, 2005)

I'd say dressing well has more to do with all-round social skills than intelligence.


----------



## marc_au (Apr 22, 2004)

Used to know a bloke at school. Cleverest bloke l have ever known. He knew more than the teachers. He would correct them. The teachers even said he was far beyond their (teachers) abilities to write essays in the subject of English (all his essays got 100%). He was a Maths genious too....in grade 8 he knew more than the year 12's (All the school did some type of l.Q test.....the same for the whole school. Some of the smartest kids in year 8 [my level] got around 70%, the smartest kids in ytear 12 got around 80 - 90%. This kid got 99.95%...he was in year 8 yet he topped the entire school in the l.Q test). He got 100% in almost everything all the time all through-out the high school years. He got 100% in all his final year subjects except for a 99% in physics. Did his doctorate in record time. A true legend. He always had an aire about him. He looked pretty scruffy but you always felt privaledged to be part of his company because he was an extreme genious. He was pretty arrogant too. He ruled the kids. His personality dominated everyone, even the teachers. When he disputed something in class, the teachers would usually [and sensibly] assume that they (the teachers) were wrong and he was right. 99% in a subject always upset him badly.

*GR8MAN (The Shooman) B8MAN.*


----------



## Yckmwia (Mar 29, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by JLPWCXIII_
> 
> What are one's views on the relationship(s) - or lack thereof - between intelligence and dress?


The Duke of Windsor is, of course, the style icon _ne plus ultra_ for many; yet, if Gore Vidal may be believed, the Duke was "deeply stupid." In his memoir, Vidal, who knew Windsor and Mrs. Simpson fairly well, notes that the Duke "always had something of such riveting stupidity to say on any subject that I clung to his words like the most avid courtier of the ancien regime." Even discounting for Vidal's habitual spleen, it appears that the Duke was not the brightest of bulbs; yet he always looked smashing. Perhaps there is a "style intelligence" which the standard tests cannot accurately measure. Or not.


----------



## Mr. Di Liberti (Jan 24, 2006)

Intelligence, as defined in standard dictionaries, has two rather different meanings.

1. In its most familiar meaning, intelligence has to do with the individual's ability to learn and reason. It is this meaning which underlies common psychometric notions such as intelligence testing, the intelligence quotient, and the like.

2. In its less common meaning, intelligence has to do with a body of information and knowledge. This second meaning is implicated in the titles of certain government organizations, such as the Central Intelligence Agency in the United States, and its British counterparts MI-5 and MI-6. Similarly, both meanings are invoked by the concept of social intelligence. As originally coined by E.L. Thorndike (1920), the term referred the person's ability to understand and manage other people, and to engage in adaptive social interactions.

The Psychometric View

The psychometric view of social intelligence has its origins E.L. Thorndike's (1920) division of intelligence into three facets, pertaining to the ability to understand and manage ideas (abstract intelligence), concrete objects (mechanical intelligence), and people (social intelligence). In his classic formulation: "By social intelligence is meant the ability to understand and manage men and women, boys and girls -- to act wisely in human relations". Similarly, Moss and Hunt (1927) defined social intelligence as the "ability to get along with others". Vernon (1933), provided the most wide-ranging definition of social intelligence as the person's "ability to get along with people in general, social technique or ease in society, knowledge of social matters, susceptibility to stimuli from other members of a group, as well as insight into the temporary moods or underlying personality traits of strangers"

Defining social intelligence seems easy enough, especially by analogy to abstract intelligence. When it came to measuring social intelligence, however, E.L. Thorndike (1920) noted somewhat ruefully that "convenient tests of social intelligence are hard to devise.... Social intelligence shows itself abundantly in the nursery, on the playground, in barracks and factories and salesroom (sic), but it eludes the formal standardized conditions of the testing laboratory. It requires human beings to respond to, time to adapt its responses, and face, voice, gesture, and mien as tools"

The Prototype of Social Intelligence

Although social intelligence has proved difficult for psychometricians to operationalize, it does appear to play a major role in people's naive, intuitive concepts of intelligence. Following up on earlier work by Rosch (1978), Cantor (Cantor & Mischel, 1979; Cantor, Smith, French, & Mezzich, 1980), and Neisser (1979), Sternberg and his colleagues asked subjects to list the behaviors which they considered characteristic of intelligence, academic intelligence, everyday intelligence, and unintelligence; two additional groups of subjects rated each of 250 behaviors from the first list in terms of how "characteristic" each was of the ideal person possessing each of the three forms of intelligence (Sternberg, Conway, Ketron, & Bernstein, 1981). Factor analysis of ratings provided by laypeople yielded a factor of "social competence" in each context. Prototypical behaviors reflecting social competence were:

Accepts others for what they are;
Admits mistakes;
Displays interest in the world at large;
Is on time for appointments;
Has social conscience;
Thinks before speaking and doing;
Displays curiosity;
Does not make snap judgments;
Makes fair judgments;
Assesses well the relevance of information to a problem at hand;
Is sensitive to other people's needs and desires;
Is frank and honest with self and others; and
Displays interest in the immediate environment.

A similar study was performed by Kosmitzki and John (1993). Based largely on prior research by Orlik (1978), these investigators assembled a list of 18 features which make up people's implicit concept of social intelligence. When subjects were asked to rate how necessary each feature was to their own personal understanding of social intelligence, the following dimensions emerged as most central to the prototype:

Understands people's thoughts, feelings, and intentions well;
Is good at dealing with people;
Has extensive knowledge of rules and norms in human relations;
Is good at taking the perspective of other people;
Adapts well in social situations;
Is warm and caring; and
Is open to new experiences, ideas, and values.

I believe a persons manner of dress can and does reflect their intelligence. Primarily but not inclusive to the second definition in regard to what we choose to wear and when.

Anthony

Courtesy is as much a mark of a gentleman as courage ~ Theodore Roosevelt


----------



## iammatt (Sep 17, 2005)

Both my mother and my wife perform IQ tests in their everyday work. My mother, in her profession, looks at them from a psychological and cognitive point of view, and my wife from a coginitive and educational point of view. While the concept of IQ testing is fun and interesting, there are very few tests than give a reliable result or that are widely respected. The nec plus ultra of IQ tests (for adults) is the WAIS. Also rather reputable, but not politically correct, is the Stanford-Benet. The Woodcock-Johnson is a very reliable tester of the same sort of intelligence as the above two, but it does not have the same rigorous controls over who can give it. It also gives a measure that is IQ comparable, but is not called IQ (I think they call it full scale cognitive and full scale achievement). All other IQ tests are really not much more than parlor games and toilet tricks.

I am only familiar with the WAIS (and the related WISC and Wechsler Memory Scale), so they are the only ones that I can describe. The WAIS tests much more than just pattern recognition. It also tests verbal short term (working) memory, visual memory, processing speed, pattern recognition, knowledge, math skills and gives insight into psychological development via the test takers behavior during the testing sessions. It is not a paper test, but an interactive one. In other words, it does not approximate in any way teh IQ test books that you get at your local Barnes and Noble, or online IQ garbage.

Another thing to understand is that claims of super high IQs in teh 150s and above are not to be taken seriously. My mother, a psychologist, has been giving these test to children, teens and adults for more than forty years in what may be the area of the United States with the highest average IQ. The highest thest she has seen in all of these years is 149, and she has seen that once. There is very little correlation between economic success, academic success and personal success and IQ given that the IQ is in the above average or better range. As for IQ and style, I would submit that not only was the Duke both unintelligent and stylish, but that the current Prince of Wales is unintelligent, overeducated and quite stylish. Those are just my guesses on their brainpower.


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

> quote:if Gore Vidal may be believed, the Duke [of Windsor] was "deeply stupid."


 His Royal Highness' autobiography, to say the least, is strong evidence against this ridiculous opinion.


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

> quote:Another thing to understand is that claims of super high IQs in teh 150s and above are not to be taken seriously. My mother, a psychologist, has been giving these test to children, teens and adults for more than forty years in what may be the area of the United States with the highest average IQ. The highest thest she has seen in all of these years is 149, and she has seen that once.


 So if your mother had been a banker for forty years, and had never (knowingly) encountered a multi-millionaire, it is therefore reasonable to assume that claims of multi-millionaires existing are 'not to be taken seriously'?



> quote:As for IQ and style, I would submit that not only was the Duke both unintelligent and stylish, but that the current Prince of Wales is unintelligent, overeducated and quite stylish. Those are just my guesses on their brainpower.


 Obviously you are unacquainted with the writings of either.


----------



## iammatt (Sep 17, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by JLPWCXIII_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Look, I am simply telling you what I know. You can choose to believe it or not. As I understand it, reputable IQ tests (at least the WAIS) are scaled only up to 160. There is no possibility of testing out any higher than that. In many cases, it is possible to achieve a perfect score for a certain subtest, and only end up with a 140. Sure, it is possible that people have higher than 150 IQs, if it were not, the tests would not be normed for those scores. They are literally one in a million scores.

Maybe you would like to enlighten us with your knowledge of psycho-educational testing, rather than simply posting in puffed up English to establish your credentials of both class and intelligence.


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

> quote:Another thing to understand is that claims of super high IQs in teh 150s and above are not to be taken seriously.





> quote:Sure, it is possible that people have higher than 150 IQs


 So have you decided which one is true?



> quote:Maybe you would like to enlighten us with your knowledge of psycho-educational testing, rather than simply posting in puffed up English to establish your credentials of both class and intelligence.


 Thank-you for this model of grace, elegance, and wit.


----------



## iammatt (Sep 17, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by JLPWCXIII_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You are correct on the first point, I meant to post 160s instead of 150s. That being said, I would imagine the ratio of real IQ scores in the 150s to claimed IQ scores in the 150s would be about 500:1. Due to this, I am likely to disbelieve most, if not all, of these claims.

As to your second point, I was trying to be neither graceful, elegant nor witty. I was simply giving my opinion and asking if there was anything you had to offer other than naysaying. The question stands.


----------



## Yckmwia (Mar 29, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by JLPWCXIII_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


True, but didn't HRH have considerable help with _A King's Story_?

"I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just." Thomas Jefferson


----------



## Liberty Ship (Jan 26, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by iammatt_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I'm not an expert but I think you are right. It's my understanding that no tests really let you score over 150 on an IQ test. Any IQ over 150 is only estimated. The reason for this is that there are simply not enough people in the 3-sigma+ area (0.1% of the population) for statistically significant tests to be developed. So all you can say for sure is that you are over 150 because you have basically maxed out the test.

Variations and range in an individual's IQ test are greater when you are younger and tend to normalize as you get older. So sometimes you hear about kids with real high IQ's who grow up to be average.

I'm just banging this out off the top of my head; I could find source documents. But real high IQ, like 2 or 3 sigma, is just a tool in your tool box and one that you don't often need at that. It can even work against you. It's not all there is to being a person, there is also character, honor, and a lot of other things. So if you have a high IQ, great. If you don't, no bid deal unless you're _real_ dumb!

On that note, I am new to this list. Normally I hang out on high IQ lists and gun lists. WHAT AM I DOING SPENDING TIME ON A FASHION LIST????? Well, this list has been a delightful discovery. I found it when my tailor suggested I put cuffs on my trousers and I wanted to double check his judgement. However, fashion issues aside, posters here have a greater depth of understanding, draw from a greater range of cultural context, and a display greater civility and manners in discourse than any list I visit. I think a lot of folks here are pretty darn smart, but this list sure demonstrates that IQ isn't everything.


----------



## iammatt (Sep 17, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Liberty Ship_
> 
> I'm not an expert but I think you are right. It's my understanding that no tests really let you score over 150 on an IQ test. Any IQ over 150 is only estimated. The reason for this is that there are simply not enough people in the 3-sigma+ area (0.1% of the population) for statistically significant tests to be developed. So all you can say for sure is that you are over 150 because you have basically maxed out the test.
> 
> ...


That is my understanding as well. One of the misperceptions about an IQ score is that it is similar to a score on a non-normed test. An IQ is really a score that relates your performance to the rest of the world.


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Liberty Ship_
> On that note, I am new to this list. Normally I hang out on high IQ lists and gun lists. WHAT AM I DOING SPENDING TIME ON A FASHION LIST????? Well, this list has been a delightful discovery. I found it when my tailor suggested I put cuffs on my trousers and I wanted to double check his judgement. However, fashion issues aside, posters here have a greater depth of understanding, draw from a greater range of cultural context, and a display greater civility and manners in discourse than any list I visit. I think a lot of folks here are pretty darn smart, but this list sure demonstrates that IQ isn't everything.


Welcome! Thank you for contributing.

I've changed the title of this thread to hopefully prevent futher derailings into 'IQ' - since the real question relates to intelligence and dress, not psychometrics.


----------



## iammatt (Sep 17, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by JLPWCXIII_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Do you have anything to add to our knowledge of psycho-educational testing, or are you content to simply make snide comments when others put in their two cents?

To answer your revised question, I do think that any sort of excellence requires a specific sort of intelligence.


----------



## 16128 (Feb 8, 2005)

That was very interesting, Anthony. It would seem that without social intelligence, it would be much more difficult to be successful at work, unless a person happened to be extraordinarily talented in some way.

I don't think one can correlate IQ and dress very conveniently, though it depends on what you consider "dressing well". Anyone who is interested in clothing can learn what flatters him, what good tailoring looks like, spend money on bespoke clothing, etc, but that presupposes that he is interested in those things. A person can also learn loads of sports statistics without being a genius. 

It takes talent to use those stats to entertain people by being an announcer, however. A certain artistic eye also sets some dressers apart from others. Elan is even more impossible to measure than IQ.


----------



## FlatSix (Feb 23, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by iammatt_I am only familiar with the WAIS (and the related WISC and Wechsler Memory Scale), so they are the only ones that I can describe. The WAIS tests much more than just pattern recognition. It also tests verbal short term (working) memory, visual memory, processing speed, pattern recognition, knowledge, math skills and gives insight into psychological development via the test takers behavior during the testing sessions. It is not a paper test, but an interactive one. In other words, it does not approximate in any way teh IQ test books that you get at your local Barnes and Noble, or online IQ garbage.


Unfortunately, any time you go beyond the "one of these things is not like the other" testing, you leave cultural neutrality. Testing for knowledge? A hyper-intelligent Bantu tribesman would miss 'em all. Math skills? Talk about parlor tricks.



> quote:Another thing to understand is that claims of super high IQs in teh 150s and above are not to be taken seriously. My mother, a psychologist, has been giving these test to children, teens and adults for more than forty years in what may be the area of the United States with the highest average IQ. The highest thest she has seen in all of these years is 149, and she has seen that once.


I wish your mother had tested me as a child; perhaps she could have scored me low and spared me the misery of a New York school system which wanted me to start high school at the age of eight. Luckily my father intervened and "held me back" so I could be a freshman at the ripe old age of eleven! 

It's also worth noting that to some degree you can "train" for all aspects of a modern IQ test except PR. I recently read a book which promised to help me do relatively complex math at high speed. Upon finishing it, I could in fact do their test problems very quickly, but I was no smarter for having done so, only better-trained. With a little bit of practice, I can put myself in a frame of mind to repeat twenty three-digit numbers in order backwards or forwards, but I'm no stupider when I cannot do so.

I'm surprised the subject of eidetic memory hasn't come up. I don't believe it truly exists; I do believe some of us have tremendous ability to reduce to pattern. I can tell you what's on the shelves at the local A-E store and in what order, but if you were to cut an extra eyelet in one shoe without telling me, I couldn't "see" it after the fact.

----------------------

"When you wear something like spats, I think you might as well wear your favorite players jersey bc what youre saying is I want to be powerful like the bear and Im wearing its hide to tap into its power." - Film Noir Buff

"First sense of what "normal" good clothes looked like came from my dad, of course, and from Babar books." - Concordia

" I have a related problem in that I often have to chase people. Leather soles are no good for this kind of work." - Patrick06790


----------



## Liberty Ship (Jan 26, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by JLPWCXIII_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Since you have put us back on point, I have reconsidered my original premise that IQ and dress are unrelated. I think that was too simplistic. As I said, I believe that many people with very High IQ's lapse into a rebellious non-conformity that arises out of the fact that they know they are smarter than most anyone who tries to exert authority over them. By dressing like slobs or affecting some eccentric standard, they are putting people on notice right off the bat that that there are going to be "issues."

But what of those who have very high IQ's and dress very well. I gagther some on this thread fit in to that catgegory. I reread one of the best pieces I know on the problems encountered by very high IQ people, "The Outsiders," by Grady Towers. I will link to it below. I have found it extremely helpful in reconciling the many conflicts that arise from being in that category. Many who read it experience a sort of epithany. It could be that people of high intelligence who go to the other extreme, dressing well rather than like slobs, are not only attempting to "fit in," but as a result of having been "an outsider" through their childhood and much of their lives, have decided to "fit in with a vengence!" Cool. Whatever it takes! Smart people who dress like slobs are sabotaging themselves; when smart people dress well, it's a power multiplier. So which group is really smarter?


----------



## ChubbyTiger (Mar 10, 2005)

Oh, I don't know if it's non-conformity. I almost think it's that many of the extremely smart have problems with being a little obsessive about whatever they do. Very smart, very obsessive, not the most social. They focus so hard on their field that they just don't care about anything else. Interesting link about scientists and their ilk and autism: https://www.news-medical.net/?id=15691

Of course, I really only see the academic type of high IQ person and academia is bit self selecting for that sort of personality.

CT

Fabricati diem, pvnc. (loose translation, To Serve and Protect) -- Sign above the door of the City Watch House, Ankh-Morpork.


----------



## xcubbies (Jul 31, 2005)

The British speak about "dressing smart." I wonder what they mean.


----------



## iammatt (Sep 17, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by FlatSix_
> Unfortunately, any time you go beyond the "one of these things is not like the other" testing, you leave cultural neutrality. Testing for knowledge? A hyper-intelligent Bantu tribesman would miss 'em all. Math skills? Talk about parlor tricks.


Well, you seem to disregard that tests are developed and normed for different groups of people. It would be totally irresponsible for a professional to give a Wechsler to a Bantu tribesman, no matter how intelligent that tribesman might be. There are aspects of intelligence other than pattern matching. Knowledge is certainly a reasonable test, as it seems the only way to test long term memory. Anyway, I don't like to be in the position of defending IA tests, which I don't have any love for. I was simply trying to dispel some myths about them.



> quote:
> I wish your mother had tested me as a child; perhaps she could have scored me low and spared me the misery of a New York school system which wanted me to start high school at the age of eight. Luckily my father intervened and "held me back" so I could be a freshman at the ripe old age of eleven!


I don't know what to tell you. It is not the tester that is responsible for the score. I have no idea what test you took, or if it was reputable at all. Generally, the only reputable ones are the ones that I mentioned above, and most of them need to be given by a level III. In San Francisco, where I live, schools are neither allowed to give nor look at IQ tests. It sounds to me like you were a very smart child, and that NY, as always, had a budget crisis and would rather not have had to educate the local children.



> quote:It's also worth noting that to some degree you can "train" for all aspects of a modern IQ test except PR. I recently read a book which promised to help me do relatively complex math at high speed. Upon finishing it, I could in fact do their test problems very quickly, but I was no smarter for having done so, only better-trained. With a little bit of practice, I can put myself in a frame of mind to repeat twenty three-digit numbers in order backwards or forwards, but I'm no stupider when I cannot do so.


First of all, I do not know why you would want to train for an IQ test. You are no better or smarter because your score is higher. On the other hand, just as people complain about schools teaching to tests (generally the complainers are bad teacher that have taught nothing for years and now have something to teach to), it is far better to learn something than to learn nothing. If you improve your memory, you are improving your ability to function at the highest level.



> quote:I'm surprised the subject of eidetic memory hasn't come up. I don't believe it truly exists; I do believe some of us have tremendous ability to reduce to pattern. I can tell you what's on the shelves at the local A-E store and in what order, but if you were to cut an extra eyelet in one shoe without telling me, I couldn't "see" it after the fact.


The "photographic" memory is more pop culture than academia. I agree with you about that. Memory is the number one component of intelligence, but I have never met a noteworthy scholar who truly believes in the phenomenon of a photographich memory.

It sounds like you see yourself as very intelligent. You are probably right, and that is very nice for you. Howver, I think you have a particularly narrow view of intelligence testing. It is not a perfect science. Personally, I would rank it in the realm of pseudo-science. Reputable intelligence tests are designed to take into account much more than raw intelligence, which is rather impossible to measure. They also take into account anxiety and how it affects the test taker, knowledge and other psycho-educational dynamics. That is why it takes a level III to be able to administer the tests. It is much more the lay person who ascribes deep meaning to the IQ score than the professional. For a professional it is a tool to see where children and adults have disconnects between visual memory and processing speed etc. Any reputable testing comes with a thirty or so page report about the test taking behaviors, differences etc. About one paragrapn is about the full scale IQ.


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by iammatt_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


about the topic of the thread - hard to say, the only super intellegent people I know don't care about dress at all. the least intellegent people I know don't dress very well. I think that the people who are pretty intellegent are better at dealing with details, and if they care abotu dress, they should dress pretty well. if it is something that they dont care about then they will put their intellegence to work elsewhere.

about intellegence and intellegence testing - up until a certain point, their is good correlation between IQ and basic success in life. not great correlation, but good correlation. I know a couple of pretty unintellegent people who work very hard and have basic business sense who have done well for themselves, and I know a dozen academics who don't do well for themselves at all even thoough they are prety bright.

IQ, as has been said before, is not the same as intellegence, but is a pretty good indicator for somebody living in our culture, as to his ability to apply intelegence.

at the upper end, though, you have people who are just so freakishly smart that they have trouble socializing and with dealing with social skills, and often end up totally screwed up.

on tests - I test pretty consistanly, and pretty well, so I am a fan of IQ tests. I have a friend who is a nurologist, who basically does IQ tests and similar tests every day. a few months ago, he guessed my (4 year old) son's IQ, and when I laughed, he guessed mine, and got mine correct to within 2 points.


----------



## Mr. Di Liberti (Jan 24, 2006)

Liberty Ship,

Great link!

Things that are not touched on which I question, the correlation between alcoholism and drug addiction amoung those of very high intelligence (160+), and the incidence of OCD and other disorder's amoung the same group.

Anthony

Courtesy is as much a mark of a gentleman as courage ~ Theodore Roosevelt


----------



## FlatSix (Feb 23, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by iammatt_
> Howver, I think you have a particularly narrow view of intelligence testing. It is not a perfect science. Personally, I would rank it in the realm of pseudo-science. Reputable intelligence tests are designed to take into account much more than raw intelligence, which is rather impossible to measure. They also take into account anxiety and how it affects the test taker, knowledge and other psycho-educational dynamics. That is why it takes a level III to be able to administer the tests. It is much more the lay person who ascribes deep meaning to the IQ score than the professional. For a professional it is a tool to see where children and adults have disconnects between visual memory and processing speed etc. Any reputable testing comes with a thirty or so page report about the test taking behaviors, differences etc. About one paragrapn is about the full scale IQ.


I have a narrow view of *intelligence*. In the same way that the entire class of NP-Complete problems can be resolved to the Traveling Salesman, I believe that pretty much all intelligence returns to the ability to recognize patterns - perhaps even consciousness. The definition of "idiot" in the programming field is *a guy who does the same thing and expects different results*.

----------------------

"When you wear something like spats, I think you might as well wear your favorite players jersey bc what youre saying is I want to be powerful like the bear and Im wearing its hide to tap into its power." - Film Noir Buff

"First sense of what "normal" good clothes looked like came from my dad, of course, and from Babar books." - Concordia

" I have a related problem in that I often have to chase people. Leather soles are no good for this kind of work." - Patrick06790


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

I define intelligence as the degree to which one is conscious - the more conscious (aware, sensitive, perceptive, thoughtful), the more intelligent.


----------



## iammatt (Sep 17, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by FlatSix_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I think that you have what Teddy Kennedy would term an overly cramped view of intelligence. I think that if you polled experts in the field, memory (both auditory and visual) and auditory processing would be at the top of their list. Your definiton excludes the verbal contingent of most IQ tests and overweights the performance contingent. Most scholars in the field would overweight verbal versus performance.


----------



## Mr. Di Liberti (Jan 24, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by JLPWCXIII_
> 
> I define intelligence as the degree to which one is conscious - the more conscious (aware, sensitive, perceptive, thoughtful), the more intelligent.


By that standard, my cat has a higher intellect then most.

Anthony

Courtesy is as much a mark of a gentleman as courage ~ Theodore Roosevelt


----------



## FlatSix (Feb 23, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by iammatt_
> [I think that you have what Teddy Kennedy would term an overly cramped view of intelligence. I think that if you polled experts in the field, memory (both auditory and visual) and auditory processing would be at the top of their list. Your definiton excludes the verbal contingent of most IQ tests and overweights the performance contingent. Most scholars in the field would overweight verbal versus performance.


Verbal facility is a learned skill, wouldn't you agree? If I took a French IQ test, I would fare poorly as my French is poor, but I'm the same person who would do well on an English-language test.

----------------------

"When you wear something like spats, I think you might as well wear your favorite players jersey bc what youre saying is I want to be powerful like the bear and Im wearing its hide to tap into its power." - Film Noir Buff

"First sense of what "normal" good clothes looked like came from my dad, of course, and from Babar books." - Concordia

" I have a related problem in that I often have to chase people. Leather soles are no good for this kind of work." - Patrick06790


----------



## iammatt (Sep 17, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by FlatSix_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yes, I do agree with you. I am not sure that your French example is apt, as no qualified tester will give the test in a language that is not the test takers own. These are the subtests of the WAIS:



> quote: * Verbal WAIS scales
> 
> 1. Information: 29 questions - a measure of general knowledge.
> 
> ...


Now obviously any intelligence that we have is partially learned. It is our innate intelligence that allows us to learn. That is the rationale for the skills based tests. The main problem with IQ tests is that prople mistake that they are actual tests of intelligence. They are tests of "IQ" which has to bee seen as somewhat distinct from intelligence itself. That is why the original question in this thread (which has since been changed) was, for lack of a better word, lame. You should not that my original response in the thread spoke to that.

What these tests are good for (and I consider myself an expert in this as I lived through my wife getting a Ph.D in the field) is to help find out what kinds of problems people have in their learning styles. They lay plain any discrepencies between cognition and speed, visual and verbal etc. This can be very important information for schools, students and adults. The problem is when schools or people see IQ as a total measure of anything. I would guess that you would agree with this based on your experience. It is a fascinating topic, but one that is frought with danger. We all like to have number scores (be it net worth, GPA, SAT, 40-yd dash time or IQ) that define our station in life. IQ is not one of these numbers that works in this way.


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Mr. Di Liberti_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Have you met most cats?


----------



## Mr. Di Liberti (Jan 24, 2006)

My father and his father before and going back 10 generations where feral cat wranglers, can't say I've met most cats but i'm a pretty good judge. 

Anthony

Courtesy is as much a mark of a gentleman as courage ~ Theodore Roosevelt


----------



## dah328 (Sep 27, 2003)

> quote:_Originally posted by FlatSix_
> 
> The most intelligent fellow with whom I have had any serious dealing - Richard Stallman of the Free Software Foundation - is barely capable of human interaction.


Arg, that reminds me of the time I had occasion to stop by the MIT Lab for Computer Science. I was meeting with a researcher who, unbeknownst to me, was located just down the hall from Stallman's office. I believe the meeting was scheduled for 9:30am or some other reasonable time. I walked past Stallman's open office door and saw him sitting there in plain view in a state of considerable undress. A scarring experience, to say the least.

dan


----------



## mokita (Feb 9, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by FlatSix_
> 
> The rawest component of intelligence is pattern recognition.


The proper way to measure intelligence is to test each area of cognitive skill. There is no mystery as to the identities of these components as they are clearly identified as group factors from a factor analysis. Group factors are seen at the second order. At the third order, there is only one factor: "psychometric g."

Jensen contends that there are 7 or 8 group factors that have been reliably established. The number of first-order factors can not be reliably stated, but the practical number is claimed to be 50-60.

Group factors have identities, based on the paths that support them, and are named accordingly. The naming may vary from one source to another, but typical examples are verbal, numerical, spatial visualization, memory, and mechanical.



> quote:Unfortunately, in its purest form pattern-recognition intelligence does not lead to suave behavior, sharp dress, or even high earning power;


I agree that intelligence does not dictate dress. Intelligence is best represented by psychometric g. For those who are interested, the physiological causes of intelligence are rooted in such factors as nerve conduction velocity, brain section volume (see Haier), and myelination. These base factors are seen as a variance in working memory capacity (something that does filter pattern recognition, but also a lot of other processes, such as image rotation, and the formation of long and intermediate term memories).

Dress varies according to social class, geography, age, and employment. My son works in a Hi-Q job and was instructed to not wear suits or similarly dressy clothing to work. Much of my career was in management and in sales/marketing. Dress was taken very seriously by most of my sales colleagues.


----------



## mokita (Feb 9, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by iammatt_
> 
> The Woodcock-Johnson is a very reliable tester of the same sort of intelligence as the above two, but it does not have the same rigorous controls over who can give it.


I have discussed this test (specifically the WJ-III) with both Richard Woodcock and Kevin McGrew (the test authors). They contend that the WJ-III gives a better measure of g than virtually all other tests, largely because of the wide range of cognitive abilities that are tested. Unlike other IQ tests (virtually all), the WJ-III is g-weighted. This means that a test category that has a .40 g-loading is weighted proportionately less than a different test item that has a .70 g-loading. This feature of the test requires that the test be scored with a computer and makes the test particularly useful for various areas of psychometric research. For example, the WJ-III was used as the tool for examining Spearman's Law of Diminishing Returns (see the latest issue of Intelligence).



> quote:All other IQ tests are really not much more than parlor games and toilet tricks.


I disagree. The Raven's set (three tests) is used for more psychometric research than any other. The Wechsler is second. After that, the tests that are most favored vary by nation. To the best of my knowledge, the most g-loaded test is the pedigree test (two cases with 40 test items for each).



> quote: There is very little correlation between economic success, academic success and personal success and IQ given that the IQ is in the above average or better range.


Economic success and job status:
Income statistically varies in a near linear path over the entire range of intelligence. When viewed separately for blacks and whites, the income regression lines cross at the 40th percentile. Above that point, blacks earn more than whites for any given IQ. Below that point, the reverse holds. Likewise, job status varies linearly over the full range of intelligence. When viewed separately for blacks and whites, blacks hold higher status jobs (in the US) than whites for all values of IQ. [Occupation and income related to psychometric g, H. Nyborg and A. Jensen, Intelligence 29 (2001) 45-55.]

Above average or better range:
I assume you have read The Bell Curve, which explains that the benefits of intelligence (statistically) apply throughout the full range of intelligence. I have heard papers presented in 2005 and 2004 that demonstrate how intelligence continues to differentiate job success within the top 1%. The data set used is the SMPY longitudinal study (several sets of cohorts). The lowest quartile of this group has significantly underperformed the top quartile. As expected, both quartiles were tremendously successful. [see Journal of Educational Psychology, 2005, Vol. 97, No. 3, 484â€"492, Creativity and Occupational Accomplishments Among Intellectually Precocious Youths: An Age 13 to Age 33 Longitudinal Study, Jonathan Wai, David Lubinski, and Camilla P. Benbow] Even among the very intelligent, the most intelligent individuals statistically earn more, have more patents, and reach tenure sooner than those who are only between the 99.0 and 99.25 percentile.


----------



## mokita (Feb 9, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by iammatt_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## mokita (Feb 9, 2006)

Originally posted by iammatt


> quote:Now obviously any intelligence that we have is partially learned. It is our innate intelligence that allows us to learn. That is the rationale for the skills based tests. The main problem with IQ tests is that prople mistake that they are actual tests of intelligence.


As Jensen pointed out in The _g_ Factor, the word "intelligence" is not scientifically defined and can be confusing or misleading. Today, we have politically correct people (Howard Gardner, for example) who invent new forms of intelligence that are so broad as to include any ability. The solution is to focus on g and to forget vague concepts. Psychometric g is understood by psychometricians and is the best representation of quantified intelligence that has been found. IQ tests derive almost all of their external validity (over 90%) from their g-loadings. IQ tests do measure what most people understand as intelligence and they do measure g.



> quote: They are tests of "IQ" which has to bee seen as somewhat distinct from intelligence itself.


Intelligence is properly depicted as g. It is not education or learned skills. People go to school to learn, but they do not gain or lose intelligence as a result of the experience. Look at the loading of any test item:
1 = g^2 + s^2 + e^2
g = the general factor, usually extracted as the third order factor
s = specificity
e = random error

When a person learns something, a test of that learned ability will necessarily show an increase in s and a decrease in g. That is what happens when someone studies for an IQ test. The score may be artificially inflated as a consequence of increased s-loading.



> quote:What these tests are good for (and I consider myself an expert in this as I lived through my wife getting a Ph.D in the field) is to help find out what kinds of problems people have in their learning styles.


Psychometric research has other objectives. The aim is to understand the mechanisms of intelligence from the basic physiology through each level of interaction with other biological processes. Such research has identified the differences seen between various population groups in specific abilities (for example verbal or math) and in mean values. The roles of hormones, heritability, and environmental factors are being studied as are the differences in brain structures from one group to another. It is as important to understand how the brain works as it is to understand the aging process, childhood development, genetic diseases, and how organs and systems work.

Intelligence is related to life outcomes at all percentiles of g. At low levels, g is arguably more important because each increment of intellectual decline rules out performance options that relate to everyday life. [see the collected works of Linda Gottfredson] Intelligence correlates positively with life span, income, career success, health, years of education, and job status; it correlates negatively with illegitimate births, incarceration, welfare and dependency.



> quote: They lay plain any discrepencies between cognition and speed, visual and verbal etc. This can be very important information for schools, students and adults. The problem is when schools or people see IQ as a total measure of anything.


There is always a problem when people are ill informed and try to extrapolate or interpret things beyond their reach.



> quote: It is a fascinating topic, but one that is frought with danger. We all like to have number scores (be it net worth, GPA, SAT, 40-yd dash time or IQ) that define our station in life. IQ is not one of these numbers that works in this way.


IQ is not deterministic, nor is it the only factor that matters in many situations, but it is tremendously important. IQ measured at age 2-1/2 shows group differences at the same magnitude that is found when measured in adults. [THIRTY YEARS OF RESEARCH ON RACE DIFFERENCES IN COGNITIVE ABILITY, J. Philippe Rushton & Arthur R. Jensen, Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 2005, Vol. 11, No. 2, 235â€"294] Tests (SAT-M)given at age 12.5 are as predictive of adult career success as is the GRE (see the Lubinski paper I previously referenced).

The reason that IQ (as a proxy for g) is so useful is that all cognitive activity calls upon g to some degree. For that reason, every cognitive task is correlated with every other one, even when the tasks seem unrelated. For example, passive pitch discrimination correlates with g at 0.40, even when the testee is reading a book. Psychometric g is indeed a single measure that defines cognitive ability better than anything else that has been discovered.


----------



## petro (Apr 5, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by mokita_
> 
> IQ is defined (David Wechsler's definition, now the standard) as the score of an individual with respect to his age peers. As you know, IQ is a relative scale and cannot be represented as a true ratio scale. As a practical matter, IQ ends up as being defined for a large population, but not "the rest of the world." The best present estimate of the mean IQ of all humans is 85. When the US is used as the reference we get the numbers that most of us have seen, with a mean of 100. Richard Lynn used England as his reference, when he wrote IQ AND THE WEALTH OF NATIONS. By that mean, the US scores at 98.


This is my "Rocks" theory of Stupidity.

Half the people out there are dumber than rocks.

IQ is a relative measurement of intelligence. You give a test to a group of people and norm the test based on their age. The result is their relative intelligence, and half of them will have below normal intelligence (even if just a tiny bit below normal).

You give a test to a bunch of rocks, they are all going to score the same, therefore every rock has a normal intelligence.

See, half the people are dumber than rocks!

The French are a smallish, monkey-looking bunch and not dressed any better, on average, than the citizens of Baltimore. True, you can sit outside in Paris and drink little cups of coffee, but why this is more stylish than sitting inside and drinking large glasses of whiskey I don't know.
P.J. O'Rourke


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by mokita_
> As Jensen pointed out in The _g_ Factor


Mokita,

Thank-you for introducing me to that book. Your well-written post has inspired me to get my own copy.


----------



## mokita (Feb 9, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by JLPWCXIII_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Jensen is far and away the greatest living psychometrician (age 83). He has written an unbelievably large number of books and papers during his career. The full reference to the book:
Jensen, A. R. (1998). The g factor: The science of mental ability. Westport, CT: Praeger.

At the present, this book is the most cited psychometric text ever written. It is written at about the level of a graduate level course and addresses most of the state of knowledge up to the publication date.

Jensen's latest book is "Clocking the Mind : Mental Chronometry and Individual Differences." When I saw him about two months ago, he said that it should be available by March or April. This one has been in the works for years and will deal with the area of research that was central to Jensen's career--the study of brain speed as it relates to g. The most promising way to develop a true ratio scale of intelligence is to use a battery of reaction time measurements. Today, it is possible to measure g as well with a battery of reaction time tests (these are called Elementary Cognitive Tests, or ECTs) as with a standard IQ test. It is also possible to measure g (perhaps even better) using electroencephalography amplitude ratios. The technique was developed by Edward Shafer.


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by mokita_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


How did you chance to meet him?


----------



## mokita (Feb 9, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by JLPWCXIII_
> How did you chance to meet him?


We both belong to a professional society dedicated to intelligence research. I see him and chat with him at the society conferences. The conferences have enabled me to meet and discuss psychometrics issues with most of the central figures (worldwide) in the field.


----------



## J. Homely (Feb 7, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by mokita_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


What are the dress standards for these conferences?


----------



## Yckmwia (Mar 29, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by J. Homely_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


"Smart."

Mokita: What is the mokita?

"Patriotism is not for those who represent wealth and power. It is good enough for the people" Emma Goldman


----------



## J. Homely (Feb 7, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by Yckmwia_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## mokita (Feb 9, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by J. Homely_
> What are the dress standards for these conferences?


Most of the members are professors and their doctoral students, so they dress like professors. There are a few medical types, a few test designers, and a few interested parties.

My appraisal of the dress is "grubby," "uncoordinated," and "casual." That is not to say that everyone dresses poorly. Some wear nice suits for special events. As for me, I wear a navy blazer, Oxford shirt, and silk tie. Some of the Europeans show up in all black. They look like Caucasian Ninjas.


----------



## mokita (Feb 9, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by Yckmwia_
> Mokita: What is the mokita?


The word was used by Earon Hunt (one of the society members and well respected psychometrician) in a paper many years ago. It is particularly appropriate to what is known about intelligence.

*Mokita* -- A Papua New Guinea language has a term for this, Mokita. It means "truth that we all know but agree not to talk about."


----------



## Clovis (Jan 11, 2005)

The quality of my dress has improved over the years but my IQ and functional intelligence seem to have taken a bit of a strategic realignment

Clovis is what Clovis does.


----------



## J. Homely (Feb 7, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by mokita_
> 
> My appraisal of the dress is "grubby," "uncoordinated," and "casual." That is not to say that everyone dresses poorly. Some wear nice suits for special events. As for me, I wear a navy blazer, Oxford shirt, and silk tie. Some of the Europeans show up in all black. They look like Caucasian Ninjas.


You should try some slacks with that outfit.


----------



## 15152 (Oct 17, 2004)

Beware people talking about IQ scores, and expressing them as numbers. There are many differnt IQ tests, and the scoring systems are different, meaaning that 133 on one test is superior to 148 on another.

Any serious discussion about IQ will use a percentile as a marker, not some meaningless number.

I do not believe there is a simple direct correlation between IQ and dress.


----------



## mokita (Feb 9, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by DD_
> 
> Beware people talking about IQ scores, and expressing them as numbers. There are many differnt IQ tests, and the scoring systems are different, meaaning that 133 on one test is superior to 148 on another.
> 
> Any serious discussion about IQ will use a percentile as a marker, not some meaningless number.


Peer reviewed papers and graduate level textbooks make frequent use of IQ scores. They do so with the understanding that the test in question is known (thereby identifying the standard deviation); or after stating the standard deviation; or by making the usual assumption that the IQ score is stated after conversion to the usual value of 15. Most standard IQ tests are normed to a standard deviation of either 15 or 16.


----------



## 16128 (Feb 8, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by mokita_
> Some of the Europeans show up in all black. They look like Caucasian Ninjas.


It's a pity I already have a user name.


----------

