How can the human benchmark tesy be purely visual if each number has letters that function as translations for sound assigned to them? Each number not only has a unit assigned to it, but also a word. I think the humanbenchmark visual memory test is purely visual while number memory is a mix of visual memory and phonological loop. You have a large discrepancy in between tests, but on average, as claimed by multiple studies, 7 is the magic number. I disagree with this since I have a large difference between tests. Whats odd is getting low on the wais, and extremely high on the superhuman benchmark test. My scores match up pretty well with my wais score. I think what is odd are the huge differences in scores. Just that a persons mind on average can hold up to 7 digits, so one would assume that verbal scores and visual should not differetiante that much. The study that says that a person on average can remember only 7+-2 numbers never states verbally or visually. Visual memory should not be that different from your verball one. You can also check my other scores on some iq tests. likewise Backwards memory is a better predictor of fluid intelligence than forwards sequence, and in backwards i can get 9-10. I get to 11 numbers without any techniques. Maybe people use mnemonic systems or something. And why is it really that hard to believe? Why does everyone place so much value in the number memory human benchmark specifically? Average is 7, clearly anything above that is above average. Its a matter of patience, I think anyone can do that considering you have unlimited time. But yeah i can get that high quite easily. For example, the difference between an IQ of 40 and an IQ of 70 is the difference between a person who isn’t capable of doing most jobs, but can still have some degree of independence (IQ of 70), versus a person who cannot even survive without constant medical/professional supervision (IQ of 40). If we go even further to the left of the distribution, the effect becomes even more pronounced. A Nobel prize winning scientist with an IQ of 145 is not borderline mentally retarded in comparison to someone who scores 175 on a test. I think it is pretty clear that 30 points at the upper end of the distribution is no where near as potent as 30 points at the lower end of the distribution. In contrast, if we compare an IQ of 145 to an IQ of 175, we are comparing a highly gifted (or “genius”) individual to someone who is also highly gifted, but has scored higher on an IQ test. The difference of the 30 points is in this case profound. For instance, if we compare an IQ of 70 to an IQ of 100, we are comparing an individual who is classed as “borderline mentally retarded” to the average person. Apply this to the lower end of the distribution and compare it to the higher end of the distribution. Simply think about the difference of, let’s say, two standard deviations. Rather, the correlation with general intelligence is weaker. = 160: Highly gifted (capable of being among the top performing in any profession).> 145: Highly gifted (capable of being among the top performing in any profession).> 130: Gifted (capable of any profession).In other words, I agree that IQ tests should be capped at 160, and would even consider anyone within the last SD (145 -160) to possess almost the same ability level, with possibility only a slight increase in processing speed for those closer to 160. Claims of scores above 160 are likely more suggestive of narcissistic personality disorder than anything else. By the time you reach the extreme right of the distribution, and you are comparing an IQ of 145 against an IQ of 160, the implications of this seem to be almost meaningless outside of the test. For instance, an IQ of 85 vs an IQ of 100 is substantially more predictive of behaviour and life success than an IQ of 130 vs 145. This makes sense as IQ tests were not originally developed to test for high intelligence, but rather for cognitive impairment. I think it is very likely that the correlation IQ has with real intelligence decreases the further to the right of the distribution you move.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |