IQ is an extremely anti-empirical, tautological conception of “intelligence”, favored by those who “think they can understand the universe by sitting on the couch and sipping on whisky”, as physicst Sean Carroll says. By anti-empirical, I just mean IQ tests under-rate the role of experience and intuition. I scored around 98 consistently on various measures, yet I could maintain a 4.0, by my Junior year in college (including scoring 105% in Calculus) - although my SAT predicted bottom 20th percentile. Since then, I have tutored a few students in the several college math courses. I developed and sold two computer programs (CRM systems), one of them to Dodge dealership, which effectively saved the company 23k a year in secretarial work. Ironically, with some abstract insight, which I supposedly lack, I also discovered a corporate theif, who had been stealing money for 10 years, under admin’s noses. I have been a top sales performer at 2 of my jobs, and my income has been in the top 80 percentile. I came up with a unique solution to the THREE DIE PROBLEM, which I’ve never seen proposed before: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WIJ4LeACUm4 . I can score around 150, on the SIGMA test, which is considered to be a good test of creativity and mathematical insight, clearly exceeding the number correct by the average individivual, college student, a Phd, and even higher than what’s expected from a MENSA member. All that being said, if IQ can’t predict adult level achivements and accolades, such as I’ve described—accolades that most 100 IQ people don’t have, then why do so many indulge in the delusion that IQ is a sole indicator of “intelligence”? It seems, the notion that IQ tests measure “intelligence”, is more of a convenience, which those who are privledged, can utilize against empirically gifted minds. It’s no wonder why a die hard empiricist like Richard Feynman didn’t score well—because he is wired the other way around. While the rationilists wonders what comes next in the series, 41, 56, 260, x, the empiricist is busy inventing the set.
IQ is an extremely anti-empirical, tautological conception of “intelligence”, favored by those who “think they can understand the universe by sitting on the couch and sipping on whisky”, as physicst Sean Carroll says. By anti-empirical, I just mean IQ tests under-rate the role of experience and intuition. I scored around 98 consistently on various measures, yet I could maintain a 4.0, by my Junior year in college (including scoring 105% in Calculus) - although my SAT predicted bottom 20th percentile. Since then, I have tutored a few students in the several college math courses. I developed and sold two computer programs (CRM systems), one of them to Dodge dealership, which effectively saved the company 23k a year in secretarial work. Ironically, with some abstract insight, which I supposedly lack, I also discovered a corporate theif, who had been stealing money for 10 years, under admin’s noses. I have been a top sales performer at 2 of my jobs, and my income has been in the top 80 percentile. I came up with a unique solution to the THREE DIE PROBLEM, which I’ve never seen proposed before: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WIJ4LeACUm4 . I can score around 150, on the SIGMA test, which is considered to be a good test of creativity and mathematical insight, clearly exceeding the number correct by the average individivual, college student, a Phd, and even higher than what’s expected from a MENSA member. All that being said, if IQ can’t predict adult level achivements and accolades, such as I’ve described—accolades that most 100 IQ people don’t have, then why do so many indulge in the delusion that IQ is a sole indicator of “intelligence”? It seems, the notion that IQ tests measure “intelligence”, is more of a convenience, which those who are privledged, can utilize against empirically gifted minds. It’s no wonder why a die hard empiricist like Richard Feynman didn’t score well—because he is wired the other way around. While the rationilists wonders what comes next in the series, 41, 56, 260, x, the empiricist is busy inventing the set.