How do people with high IQ think?

[Adrienne]

Originally Posted by supertom

In outliers, it was said that after 130IQ it doesn't really make a difference, saying that a person who has an IQ of 190 is smarter than someone with an IQ of 130IQ is just plain wrong.

The guy who create the IQ test made a list of young people with IQ of who he thought would become geniuses and really successful in their chosen field, but it actually turns out that you could have randomly guessed and you would end up with a similar success rate.

According to studies, people with a high EQ tend to do better then people with a high IQ.
IQ was actually designed not for intelligence but as a way to classify people who were mentally slow (eg into moron, idiot, and imbecile categories). It was never meant for people with IQs over 100. 100 is the average. IQ was meant to categorize people below average.

My EQ while very high in some areas is VERY low in others. For example, a couple years ago, i went to a funeral. And for the first time in my life i went with a friend who i felt had the patients to explain the social convention to me becuase i did not get it. (i didnt understand why all these people, who were all very religious and believed she was in a better place and believed they should see her again, were so upset). I had been to many funerals, but i was always more fascinated watching the reactions of people because i just could not understand their reactions.
I asked my friend, why they had the reactions they did. He gave me a long explanation of what i am sure you guys already know. But it still did not make sense to me. I told him.. "your catholic, i am an agnostic. If anything, i should be the one distressed for you believe you will see her again, where i have no such faith." It took him a couple days, but i eventually understood the point he expressing. But, where most people seem to naturally understand stuff like that, i dont.

Originally Posted by Gracestars

Where does emotional intelligence fit into this? I've never had my IQ tested but my guess is I'd score at pretty average intelligence. I'm not only bad at math but I loath it with a passion! I was always good at the more right brained subjects at school - I liked writing essays and I was good at English and Art, and my university degrees are artsy in nature. Anyways, despite guessing that my IQ would be pretty unimpressive I still consider myself intelligent, and more so than many people around me. I am highly intuitive, emotionally intelligent and I pick things up pretty quickly as long as it is more right brained in nature...

Sorry if this has already been discussed - this is a long a** thread!

I think anything that helps us deal with the world and grow as a person is important. Sometimes that is IQ, EQ, the ability to learn in general, music, etc. I think they are all very important

Originally Posted by joelr

Do you have areas of math you prefer over others?

When I was in 3rd grade, i had an affinity for Calc. Then i went to nonlinear algebra, and after that fractals i found very interesting. I went through a bout of imaginary numbers. I had trouble with imaginary numbers becuase it took me some time to understand the concept. To me numbers existed so how could they be imaginary?? But i finally understood. Now i am more into math as it applied in theories such as Choas, string, and mutiverse theories. And i enjoy reading the latest work on math problems that have not been solved like P = NP and Riemann hypothesis (my two current favorites) tho i dont actively work on the equations.

Originally Posted by Daffy Duck

Thanks! I started my higher math classes in the Spring. I wasn't a fan of Calculus at first but now that I'm much better at it (since I actually bother to practice now ) and can see practical uses, it's pretty cool. I'm an Engineering major so math is something I'll be seeing a lot of.

Exactly. My best friend is a history teacher and she tells her kids that history is like sex. you have no idea how many jokes and how much you miss until all the sudden you know what it is. I feel math is the same way. If you dont have it as a skill, then you dont see how much you miss. Simple stuff from knowing how much money you have spent before checking out at a store, to figuring out using math how long it takes cameras to auto focus on a moving object (before i quite my job, my boss and i spent a couple hours doing math problems on our whiteboards and dropping balls among other htings to figure out which cameras were actually best at taking action shots that stay in focus.)
Someone without a math degree asked us why we didnt just look at the pictures, and we thought he was joking. We wanted the objective numbers to make decisions on. The third person could not even define the problem becuase his math skills were too weak. It was an awesome experiment.
Once you really get math, is it wonderful! good luck with all the math you get to do!

Originally Posted by joelr

What incredible things? Did you get to study with someone heavy like Alain Connes?
I've been wondering how he is coming along with using non commutative geometry to solve the zeros at real 1/2 problem - the big one.

About 9th grade i lost alot of passion for math and moved on to other things. I still enjoy reading papers and such about it, but i stopped working out as many equations. I still love it tho.
As to some of the incredible things i have done.. I wrote my first book when i was 9. More of a novella then a full length novel. It was about 55K words. Now i have written more novels and other work, but i still have that book and just actually reread it recently. I found it on a floppy disk as i had forgotten about it. I wrote my first program when i was 6 in DOS. Started college at 16 (tho i tested high enough at 13 to go). I have saved over 100 peoples lives doing EMT work (which is part of my polymath personality is i love to learn about alot of different things) and now am looking into doing more search and rescue becuase i think it would be a whole new challenge. I saved my previous company (before i quit) over a million dollars in fines for solving what the company had considered an insolvable problem for over a decade. The problem had been being worked on engineers and others for years who no fixes, and my boss gave it to me on a hunch and i solved it in under a month.
As you can probably tell, around age 20, i changed my focus from math and science to trying to help solve root issues of larger problems - something i figured out becuase of programming. Now i am in a learning stage. Cant fix the problems if I cant really understand the root cause of them.
And that is just some of the stuff. I am working on incredible experiences becuase sometimes i spend far too much of my life in front of a white board, computer, or book.

I never got the privilege to work with people such as Connes or John Schwarz. I know many people strive to work with people like that, but i dont. I would have loved it years ago, but it no longer fits with where i want my life to go.

[Brutha]

Where does emotional intelligence fit into this? I've never had my IQ tested but my guess is I'd score at pretty average intelligence. I'm not only bad at math but I loath it with a passion!

For most people hating math hasn't much to do with low IQ but with unability to deal with failure and afterwards picking up limiting beliefs.
High EQ helps with dealing with feeling failure.

I was always good at the more right brained subjects at school - I liked writing essays

Language gets mostly processed in the left part of the brain.

Is emotional intelligence much different to social intelligence?

Emotional intelligence has to do with emotions. Dealing with motivation, self esteem, confidence, fear are all issues that are important when it comes to emotional intelligence.
Stuff that we discuss in the Emotional Mastery forum.
While empathy is also part of emotional intelligence social intelligence deals with a lot that isn't directly about emotions.

[atoz]

Originally Posted by joelr

The article I mentioned was a cover story in the Newspaper. Parade magazine.
I remember Freud, Jordan, Bobby Fischer, Bach and Mother T. used as some examples.

The "intelligences" you are referring to are Keirsey's Temperament Types. The book in which they appear is called Please Understand Me; it has a newer edition, Please Understand Me II (That's the last one I read..maybe he's published additional editions since.)

Though he calls them temperaments, you can definitely see them as types of intelligence..it's pretty interesting, and more importantly in today's society, when you figure out your type, there's no danger of feeling "less than" some other type.

I stumbled upon this post by accident, but since I went through the trouble of registering, I might as well add my 2 cents.

The poster is asking people with IQ above 130:
- I've always tested pretty far above it. A few times, being tested was a result of being a weird kid at school who argues with teachers about the correctness/logic of something.
- I agree with others who have said that 1) there's no uniform way of thinking among high-IQ people and 2) high-IQ people don't necessarily become what is considered by society "successful"
- The only thing that I think might be a common thread is the feeling that the more you learn, the less you really know..fueling a constant need for more.
- The most important aspect of having this quality (or burden) in my life is that very often, I've felt alone.

[joelr]

Originally Posted by Adrienne

I went through a bout of imaginary numbers. I had trouble with imaginary numbers becuase it took me some time to understand the concept. To me numbers existed so how could they be imaginary?? But i finally understood. Now i am more into math as it applied in theories such as Choas, string, and mutiverse theories. And i enjoy reading the latest work on math problems that have not been solved like P = NP and Riemann hypothesis (my two current favorites) tho i dont actively work on the equations.

I love the Riemann hypothesis. That's what I was pointing to when I said "non commutative geometry to solve the zeros at real 1/2 problem - the big one."

I'm familiar with Chaos theory and strings (it's now M-theory) but what math are you applying to multiverse theories? Do you mean the steady state theory?

[joelr]

Originally Posted by atoz

The "intelligences" you are referring to are Keirsey's Temperament Types. The book in which they appear is called Please Understand Me; it has a newer edition, Please Understand Me II (That's the last one I read..maybe he's published additional editions since.)

Though he calls them temperaments, you can definitely see them as types of intelligence..it's pretty interesting, and more importantly in today's society, when you figure out your type, there's no danger of feeling "less than" some other type.

Right thanks.

[Adrienne]

Originally Posted by joelr

I love the Riemann hypothesis. That's what I was pointing to when I said "non commutative geometry to solve the zeros at real 1/2 problem - the big one."

Yes i got that i actually was not a fan of geometry until i learned about the Reimann hypotheis.

I'm familiar with Chaos theory and strings (it's now M-theory) but what math are you applying to multiverse theories? Do you mean the steady state theory?

Steady state theory is one way to look at it, but i am not a steady state theory follower, an interesting theory but the evidence is not substantial enough. I think M-theory is by far more interesting. I sure hope we finally can watch the gravity string leave to be able to prove gravity strings are not tied to our universe.

[joelr]

Originally Posted by Adrienne

Yes i got that i actually was not a fan of geometry until i learned about the Reimann hypotheis.



Steady state theory is one way to look at it, but i am not a steady state theory follower, an interesting theory but the evidence is not substantial enough. I think M-theory is by far more interesting. I sure hope we finally can watch the gravity string leave to be able to prove gravity strings are not tied to our universe.

The last I heard there was a chance that instead of gravity becoming unified with the other 2 (electroweak, strong) forces at the Plank length it could happen at the subatomic scale (10^-16). Reason being that the extra dimension where gravity puts most of it's force into may appear at that scale.
I don't know if he new collider will provide any insight?

There is a holographic model within M-theory where only 1 extra dimension exists - a 5th dimension and our 3-D reality is a sort of "shadow" from this higher dimension. The Holographic model is interesting because a recent search for gravity waves turned up a type of static that would be consistent with a holographic model.

I'm not a big fan of strings as it lacks the elegance of most other physics discoveries. It's messy, somewhat like the hadron explosion in the 60's. Quarks fixed that up nicely.
Maybe the next level just isn't as easily digested as relativities, quantum mechanics -chromodynamics and electrodynamics?

[Adrienne]

Originally Posted by joelr

The last I heard there was a chance that instead of gravity becoming unified with the other 2 (electroweak, strong) forces at the Plank length it could happen at the subatomic scale (10^-16). Reason being that the extra dimension where gravity puts most of it's force into may appear at that scale.
I don't know if he new collider will provide any insight?

There is a holographic model within M-theory where only 1 extra dimension exists - a 5th dimension and our 3-D reality is a sort of "shadow" from this higher dimension. The Holographic model is interesting because a recent search for gravity waves turned up a type of static that would be consistent with a holographic model.

I'm not a big fan of strings as it lacks the elegance of most other physics discoveries. It's messy, somewhat like the hadron explosion in the 60's. Quarks fixed that up nicely.
Maybe the next level just isn't as easily digested as relativities, quantum mechanics -chromodynamics and electrodynamics?

I am very much enjoying having someone to talk to who seems as interested in this stuff as i am

I find the holographic model interesting as well. Yeah, i remember reading about the gravity static. However, i am more interested in reading about what they come up with to work it in to current 11 dimension theory. If they have figured out a way, i have not come across it yet in my readings. The idea of a a shadow 5th dimension doesn't seem right to me. From the evidence, it appears there is more to the universe then just a shadow dimension.

For what is is worth, i think you are on to something. It is something i have wondered myself. Is there more to it then just these 4 ideas these theories are based on? It is an interesting question.

[joelr]

Originally Posted by Adrienne

I am very much enjoying having someone to talk to who seems as interested in this stuff as i am

I find the holographic model interesting as well. Yeah, i remember reading about the gravity static. However, i am more interested in reading about what they come up with to work it in to current 11 dimension theory. If they have figured out a way, i have not come across it yet in my readings. The idea of a a shadow 5th dimension doesn't seem right to me. From the evidence, it appears there is more to the universe then just a shadow dimension.

For what is is worth, i think you are on to something. It is something i have wondered myself. Is there more to it then just these 4 ideas these theories are based on? It is an interesting question.

Well they theorize the other dimensions are "rolled up" into loops. It's really messy. Especially if you compare it to the rest of physics and how neat and easily the other theories are understandable. Newtons gravity, Einsteins gravity, special relativity, planks constant, 4 forces, quantum electro dynamics (which explains all the fundamental forces as an exchange of virtual particles (except gravity)).
Then we get to strings which have a completely different vibe, if you will.

I'm not qualified to say with authority but I suspect strings are more of a mathematical structure gone wrong. In other words, it all started out with a function - the gamma function - which a physicist noticed seemed to be describing the graviton particle. Later it became clear that the particle was not like others, it existed near the plank scale and was more string-like than particle. Like many mathematics the gamma function could also be describing something "like" a graviton but not have an actual analog in physical reality.
I don't know?

I am a fan of Feynmans' quantum electrodynamics (and all of Feynmans work) so if that is the actual correct model then it would probably mean gravity must be explained in a similar manner - as an exchange of virtual particles. Virtual gravitons? The math won't work out though? Unlike normal renormalization (with known particles) that cancel out infinities the gravitons have too many infinities to cancel. It's because the gravity acts on other particles and itself and creates infinite loops.

Interestingly there is actually a relationship found between the zeta function regularization and particle renormalization!
I am in awe at the zeta function, when s = i there is a relation to prime numbers, s = 1 gives the harmonic series, s = 2 gives pi^2 (over something), s = 4 gives pi^4/number, these show a direct relationship between pi and the natural numbers represented by - 1/2, 1/3, 1/4 ... amazing considering pi is just a random transcendental number. It shows there are deep unexpected connections with these numbers like pi, e, phi.

Another value for s gives something related to an actual object in quantum physics (a Bose-Einstein condensate).

[Piercetheveil]

You might enjoy: Amazon.com: The Poincare Conjecture: In Search of the Shape of the Universe (9780802716545): Donal O'Shea: Books

Well written and was a good jumping point for me into a world I was more ignorant of than I thought.

[joelr]

Originally Posted by Piercetheveil

You might enjoy: Amazon.com: The Poincare Conjecture: In Search of the Shape of the Universe (9780802716545): Donal O'Shea: Books

Well written and was a good jumping point for me into a world I was more ignorant of than I thought.

Thanks. That is an amazing discovery. I can't believe Perelman won't take the million dollars!

[Piercetheveil]

Fields medal be damned! lol.

I never thought math could equal romance. His story does.

[Adrienne]

Originally Posted by Piercetheveil

You might enjoy: Amazon.com: The Poincare Conjecture: In Search of the Shape of the Universe (9780802716545): Donal O'Shea: Books

Well written and was a good jumping point for me into a world I was more ignorant of than I thought.

I have not read that book. It looks interesting tho. I will check it out.

Originally Posted by joelr

Well they theorize the other dimensions are "rolled up" into loops. It's really messy. Especially if you compare it to the rest of physics and how neat and easily the other theories are understandable. Newtons gravity, Einsteins gravity, special relativity, planks constant, 4 forces, quantum electro dynamics (which explains all the fundamental forces as an exchange of virtual particles (except gravity)).
Then we get to strings which have a completely different vibe, if you will.

I'm not qualified to say with authority but I suspect strings are more of a mathematical structure gone wrong. In other words, it all started out with a function - the gamma function - which a physicist noticed seemed to be describing the graviton particle. Later it became clear that the particle was not like others, it existed near the plank scale and was more string-like than particle. Like many mathematics the gamma function could also be describing something "like" a graviton but not have an actual analog in physical reality.
I don't know?

I am a fan of Feynmans' quantum electrodynamics (and all of Feynmans work) so if that is the actual correct model then it would probably mean gravity must be explained in a similar manner - as an exchange of virtual particles. Virtual gravitons? The math won't work out though? Unlike normal renormalization (with known particles) that cancel out infinities the gravitons have too many infinities to cancel. It's because the gravity acts on other particles and itself and creates infinite loops.

Interestingly there is actually a relationship found between the zeta function regularization and particle renormalization!
I am in awe at the zeta function, when s = i there is a relation to prime numbers, s = 1 gives the harmonic series, s = 2 gives pi^2 (over something), s = 4 gives pi^4/number, these show a direct relationship between pi and the natural numbers represented by - 1/2, 1/3, 1/4 ... amazing considering pi is just a random transcendental number. It shows there are deep unexpected connections with these numbers like pi, e, phi.

Another value for s gives something related to an actual object in quantum physics (a Bose-Einstein condensate).

Exactly. Everything else works so perfect, it would seem odd this does not? However many the other stuff really is chaotic and we just dont know it yet or we are making it to chaotic and it shouldn't be.

The idea of the gravity string being broken is an interesting idea. Since all other strings are thought to be closed whereas gravity is not and therefore can escape. If gravity was supposed to be closed and is not, i wonder what the universe would have looked like?

Feynman's works has some very interesting ramifications if his theories hold true. But the idea of infinite loops while very interesting, the ramifications of that being true are staggering.
I like Feynman sum-over-paths theory. The idea of subatomic partials taking all possible paths to move from one point to another is not proven yet (at least not that i have read) but i can only wonder about the ramification it would have in M theory since quantum mechanics is a (obviously) major part in strings. I wonder too then if that would explain quantum leaps, that is is not the partial leaping from dimension to dimension but that the partial really exist in two places having taken both paths. I know the two arent really arent alike (since quantum leaps have to do with electrons within an atom), but i wonder if somehow this property carries over.

Zeta... very interesting. The whole world is math. I have long stared at pi and tried to see if i could find a pattern. Logic tells me there has got to be on there somewhere. I have not read alot on Zeta, i am going to look it up now tho.

[jimbo40]

Originally Posted by John Wesley

I'm not sure if I go in for all this high IQ stuff. It just seems like a way for academic types to feel good about themselves. There are all different types of intelligence and different ways to measure it.

.

I have never been an "academic type" I left school at 15yrs old with no qualifications. I found education boring and tedious.

Yet I have a proven IQ of 155, and I don't particularly feel good about it. Other people find my intelligence intimidating and are reluctant to talk about their ideas and plans when I am around, I often have to keep quiet, when I have good advice to help them achieve their goals, to avoid making them feel inadequate. This is difficult as I am a very friendly, helpful and sociable person. But I have learned to adapt within different social groups so as to be accepted and avoid making others uncomfortable.

In case you still think people with high IQ's conform to some kind of academic social stereotype, I am a 195lbs of well muscled, heavily tattooed, scruffy biker!

[SatvikBeri]

Originally Posted by Piercetheveil

Fields medal be damned! lol.

I never thought math could equal romance. His story does.

Évariste Galois - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Ninja]

My IQ is 135, and I seem to grasp things much easier than my peers. I never spend days studying: I read something once and I get it. I'm also very 'logical', always making lists of pros and cons when I need to take a big decision. Okay, I usually ignore that list and go with my gut, but I *do* make it.

[originalities]

Hello everyone.
My IQ has been measured around 150.
With regards to how I think, I am not sure exactly whether thought is more directly related to cognitive function (as in IQ) or personality type (for instance, I am an INTP). I personally am of the belief that our personality type dictates the method with which one views the world while intelligence dictates how we interpret the world.

For my thoughts, all my thoughts are based on observation and extrapolation of similar phenomena. I see, hear, or observe something and millions of possibilities enter my mind. I only consciously think about either what happens to be the correct answer or in my thought provoking problems what could either be a generalized answer or a small group of answers. This process occurs in all facets of my life (i.e social, intellectual and so on). I find this to be a source of issues in the social universe as occasionally I will sub-consciously omit a possibility that I see as irrational that another will follow due to a less stringent observation of 'my logic'.

My point is intelligence limits us (myself and possibly other highly intelligent individuals) to our own knowledge that we believe (and have been taught) is correct. When individuals such as myself are exposed to possibilities which are incompatible with the way we think, it is mysterious and possibly scary.

Luckily, I have been fortunate enough to observe this and am no longer 'frightened' by it. This observation is my belief as to why many 'geniuses' choose to study the hard sciences and maths; it is simply because the inherent logic in it is compatible with a logical mind.

As for other bits of how I think, I mostly notice things. In fact, I enjoy noticing things. I suppose perhaps keen observation leading to conclusions can also stimulate intelligence.

[Iff]

I usually find myself understanding ideas and subjects maybe not always faster, but definitely in larger chunks... if you might imagine what I mean. Also, analytically, when presented with a problem my mind usually processes it way above the necessary parameters. I can come up with scenarios and solutions other people did not think of or consider unneeded.

I am not going to throw any numbers at you, but I can assure you that any extra intelligence I may have been gifted with has not single-handedly made my life better. There are still many other factors that need to be met. Among other things, your mind, as any other skill set, needs practice and training to keep operating on the levels you have grown used to in the past.

These two sentences summarised the subject better than I was about to.

Originally Posted by openeyes

IQ isn’t everything, but nothing is With everything else being equal, I’d prefer a high IQ over a low one.

[Vestibule]

Can I ask what the question how do high iq people think actually mean? what is it you want to know as a general discussion by high iq'ers could go on forever.(which in itself should give you some answers) a question like that presents infinite possible answers and I just wouldn't know where to start.

[deunan]

Im not a genius, and I dont care about IQ, but I do have a beautiful mind.
When my energy is healthy and balanced, I often experience synesthesia with my mental material ( its probably a common thing for smart people~I don't know all the exact lingo for this.) I sense a physical dynamic that simultaneously parallels the thought/feeling/idea /whatever. Its very faint, fleeting or sporadic if I ignore it, and Im (as yet) too impatient to give much practice to it. But it does give a lot of extra "grip" to my mental efficiency.
I should also add that I have a very non linear info processor, which I think works great- as long as you have the discipline to know how to pump out logical communication as necessary.

[wstein]

My IQ is comfortably over 130 . For a long time I was unsure that I was really different from 'average'. My early school grades were entirely average. I later found out this was due to developmental delays. For 20 years I tried to find situations to illuminate if there was a real difference.

One of my favorite 'experiments' was to find a situation that I had figured out but someone else had not. I would then quiz them about every step. To my surprise, most people could do every step with no assistance. Eventually I figured out that it was not an issue of doing the steps, the difference is in determining what steps need to be done.

My particular talent is in seeing patterns.

FYI IQ is only about academic learning. Most of the 'geniuses' I know are very dysfunctional in daily life.

[bloodworksinc]

I'm 10,256 days today.
Rough childhood, average schools.
Routine educational methods bore me.
Join a gang and went 2 prison twice.
Now living a life many would envy.

People are physical and psychological puzzles. Everything from their verbal tones to the subtle body movements tell me volumes about the truth behind their words. I have a habit of always trying to view the world from a "satelitte in space with awesome zoom-able lens". I love doing math with license plates as long as one is in view.

[Solipsist]

... I think they use their brains to think. Just like the rest of us.

[AlexSM]

I have an IQ around 130 (highest measure 135, lowest 126) and really don't know if there's a difference in the way of thinking.

Except that sometimes I realize that other people tend to need refined explanations to get some concepts (instead of a raw and maybe confusing one) I have never felt this is a big deal.

Sure it helped me to pass the high school with good ratings without nearly any effort, but then at University it became a handicap. I wasn't used to study and in 4º grade of the degree (out of 5) I'm still not used. I found the act of studying annoying.

Not the act of learning, I love to learn and I "loss" (If you can call learning a loss) lots of the time I should spend studying by reading things related with what I'm studying but which are really useless for the exams.

The way I think? I tend to visualize everything. I don't know if that is rare or usual, but that's the way my brain acts. I read a lot, and I always "see what I'm reading". Even sometimes I visualize the same place where I am in a sort of 3rd person view (I suppose is some kind of influence from movies or video games). In maths I tend to be better at geometry than algebra, for example.

Added to the visualization thing, I think a lot in sounds. Lot's of the time there's music playing in my head (wow, that reminds me of Homer Simpson), along with the rest of the things.

Also I have an awful memory, usually I reconstruct thoughts on the fly. Just remember the concept and a estimation if there are concrete data, and always improvise the rest at the moment.

During high school I was amazing at explaining philosophy (teachers opinion, not mine, I just usually improvise over some vague general concepts), and mediocre at history (good explanations, lots of mistakes at concrete data).

Another point (which again I don't know if it's rare or common, I think I have never talked about that) is that I tend to have lots of thinking lines working at the same time. Sometimes I found hard hard to concentrate in just one, there are always ideas flying in my mind.

And one weird (I think) point is that lately I'm starting to have some kind of bilingual verbal thinking. I'm Spanish, and English is mostly self taught; I was used to think in Spanish and translate, but now I "hear" myself thinking in English.

Usually everything is quite chaotic.

Out of the rational part, I know I lack lots of social skills, mostly due to some social anxiety. It's not a big deal, but it's weird, I'm even better driver when I'm alone than in company. Is something quite stupid, and the point is that is just social. The (few) times I have been in real danger I acted surprisingly calmed and all instinctively; no panic or anxiety, or doubts. I found it hard to understand.

But everything that depends on other people... that's not for me. Even in my last year, when I had to make a scientific paper about a binary black hole system (I chose the topic) I was horrified at the moment of presenting it. I was sure it was great (and so thought the teacher) but still wasn't enough, I spent days totally out of my nerves. And at the end it was the best job (yet) I've done in my degree (the only one didn't depend 100% on studying for an exam. US and other European universities are different, didn't they? Or is just 100% of the mark in the final exam as we do in most subjects?).

Well, last paragraph is quite off topic, but still I think it may be useful.

It's enough, I have to go to study... :____(

[Liz Caitlin]

Originally Posted by zpivat

I'm very interested in anything related to intelligence, and to those of you who know you have a high (i.e: 130 or higher) IQ (or at least have been regularly labelled so by your peers), I wonder how you think? How do you analyze information or situations? Are you almost always able to think quickly, solve problems quickly, understand things quickly? Do you think in a visual or abstract way?
Feel free to share anything you can think of

The last IQ test I took said I was 166, though I've heard there's different IQ scales - I was in the gifted program when I was little, though, and you had to get a certain IQ score to enter that program, so I'm guessing I qualify for your question, lol.

Anyway, I have a tendency to OVERthink pretty much everything. Our teacher actually explained it to us in third grade - a person of "normal" intelligence will look at a crack in the ceiling & just think, oh, there's a crack. A person of "high" intelligence will look at a crack in the ceiling & wonder how it got there, whether it has the potential to spread so far that it destroys the building, etc. It's never just a crack. That pretty much lines up with how I think, so that's probably a decent explanation.

I've read it's less IQ & more how you think that makes you a genius, however. There have geniuses who did not have genius-level IQs.

As for your other questions, I tend to be more abstract, and my history teachers in high school always said I'm very good at putting little pieces of information together to see the big picture - I guess some people don't have this skill or it doesn't come as easily to them? And yes, I generally solve problems - puzzles, riddles, etc. - fairly quickly. Though I swear now that I've hit 22 I'm slowing down.

[brendannz]

Originally Posted by Gracestars

Where does emotional intelligence fit into this? I've never had my IQ tested but my guess is I'd score at pretty average intelligence. I'm not only bad at math but I loath it with a passion! I was always good at the more right brained subjects at school - I liked writing essays and I was good at English and Art, and my university degrees are artsy in nature. Anyways, despite guessing that my IQ would be pretty unimpressive I still consider myself intelligent, and more so than many people around me. I am highly intuitive, emotionally intelligent and I pick things up pretty quickly as long as it is more right brained in nature...

Sorry if this has already been discussed - this is a long a** thread!

I dunno if Emotional Intelligence measures artistic ability or artsy subjects? does it?

[brendannz]

Originally Posted by Adrienne

IQ was actually designed not for intelligence but as a way to classify people who were mentally slow (eg into moron, idiot, and imbecile categories). It was never meant for people with IQs over 100. 100 is the average. IQ was meant to categorize people below average.

I hadn't heard that one, but it kind of makes sense actually.

[Elrond]

It seems that everytime I see or hear someone talk about their IQ, it is always above 100. I think also above 120. It's probably partly because people that have gotten a score that is above average is more likely to talk about it, but the percieved absense of people of less than average, or even average, IQ makes me very suspicious of IQ tests (or at least the ones that they have taken). Does anyone else have the same impression?

[brendannz]

Originally Posted by Elrond

It seems that everytime I see or hear someone talk about their IQ, it is always above 100. I think also above 120. It's probably partly because people that have gotten a score that is above average is more likely to talk about it, but the percieved absense of people of less than average, or even average, IQ makes me very suspicious of IQ tests (or at least the ones that they have taken). Does anyone else have the same impression?

Actually this has already been discussed by MRip on page 6. He made some good points, although he obviously just stopped by to tell us how un-smart we are..

[SatvikBeri]

Originally Posted by Elrond

It seems that everytime I see or hear someone talk about their IQ, it is always above 100. I think also above 120. It's probably partly because people that have gotten a score that is above average is more likely to talk about it, but the percieved absense of people of less than average, or even average, IQ makes me very suspicious of IQ tests (or at least the ones that they have taken). Does anyone else have the same impression?

Your social circle is probably biased. Consider that about 30% of people in the USA are obese, and 75% are overweight. Not to mention, people on the internet generally have a higher IQ than people who don't, because internet access is strongly correlated to money, which is strongly correlated to IQ.