With average IQs of 91, it seems teachers are considered "dull", just shy of "mediocre".

I should note these descriptions are generally about adults.

"Who knows what these people think about the rest of humanity?"

I'm not in the over-188 group, but I can guess what these people think about the rest of humanity: "They're amazingly stupid."

IQ scales can vary quite a bit from test to test or model to model. This one uses a 16 point standard deviation (SD). SD of 16 is common, but I've seen 15 and 24, too, for example. An IQ of 180 on a 16 point SD scale would be 220 on a 24 point SD scale. So, not apples-to-apples. It tends to make a bit more sense to speak of IQ as SDs instead of points, unless you qualify our IQ number with what the SD is that was used (e.g., "180 with a standard deviation of 16"). In this case, 180 on SD-16 or 220 on SD-24 is the fifth SD. Unfortunately, most people aren't even aware of differing scales, let alone what a standard deviation is, so such precision likely won't be appreciated. If your IQ is high enough that SD becomes significant (say, above the first or second SD), just say, "I'm really smart."

We gonna start a "cats vs. dogs" war as a result of these IQ descriptions?

I found a page that has a mapping between SAT scores and IQ ratings. Note that the SAT has changed over the years, and the numbers aren't that accurate anyway (by the author's own admission), but I think it is useful information nonetheless.

If you took the SAT before 1974, look at this chart. If you took it between 1974 and 1995 (when it was "re-centered" to inflate scores), use this chart. If you took it after 1995, use this chart. However, bear in mind that the "re-centered" test is no longer considered an IQ test, as they shifted the focus from scholastic "aptitude" (i.e., the student's ability to learn) to "achievement" (what you have actually learned). These are very different things.

There needs to be a category that accurately describes "Jock."

So it sounds like maybe we all know what our IQs are. Are we willing to publish them here?

I was told in 5th grade what mine is (based on whatever test given to me here in the Gwinnett Co. public schools at the time). I was put in the "gifted" program. Figuring I was pretty smart (haha), I eventually created a bias against others that they were stupid, or at least not as smart as me. This held up well until high school where I met more brilliant minds than my own. I feel I would have competed better against them had it not been for my circumstances in my past and at home. However I did ok enough.

Now many many years later, I am having to repent for my prejudices against others that I have prejudged as stupid or less smart than myself, some of that based on skin color believe it or not.

So what of all this? Are we to look down upon those "intellectually challenged?" Why do we get so exasperated with those that are truly stupid, especially if they can't help it? If that's the way their brain works, then so be it. Does that make us better than them? I think Jesus wanted us to esteem all others as better than ourselves, not just those we consider not stupid.

This article was very interesting though. I have been wondering for years how the IQ scale was defined.

Note how many of the traits described include chosen professions or amount of schooling.

The morons cranked out by paper factories--er, universities--demonstrate that higher schooling is not necessarily an indicator of higher IQ. In fact, given the sorry state of today's higher "education", one could reasonably argue the more schooling undertaken, the lower one's IQ. After all, they were duped into paying for ever more useless degrees.

Professions do tend to have a minimum IQ required implicit in the job's duties, one could say; but this does not suggest that someone digging ditches is limited to a "dull" IQ. A "freak" can dig ditches just as well and may find just as much fulfillment doing so.

I believe, without evidence other than my own experience and unrecorded observations, that IQ is not static. I believe individuals may affect their own IQ--positively or negatively--by as much as 50 points over their lifetime, not to mention the effects of early childhood on IQ. The more I study intelligence, the more I become convinced of this.

What is the mechanism of IQ-limiting? It's obvious there is a genetic component to IQ, just as it's obvious that early childhood development and other environmental factors affect IQ. But what are the physiological mechanisms of this IQ "determination"? As we understand the nature of the brain (we don't understand it too well, mind you), synapses are created, destroyed, reinforced, etc. Such activity (the rate of change thereof) can increase or decrease within certain bounds. These bounds (high-water and low-water marks of neurotransmitter activity, you could say) may be governed to some degree by genetics and/or environment, but the neural nets themselves are not (physical damage notwithstanding). Like a muscle, if certain thought patterns are reinforced, they will perform better over time. If these thought patterns are themselves "meta-nets", then an individual's brain can be trained to learn more efficiently. Such training certainly takes time and practice, and the inherent limitations may govern the rate of training, but the actual rate of learning itself (the theoretical measure of IQ) can change as these "meta-nets" mature. In other words, a man can learn how to better learn, thereby increasing the efficiency of his learning (i.e., his IQ). Similarly, lack of use will tend to atrophy neural nets and meta-nets, effectively dumbing down both knowledge and the ability to add knowledge, depressing the IQ. This understanding suggests any limitation is not the IQ itself, per se, but in the "meta-IQ". If IQ is the derivative (rate of change) of knowledge, then "meta-IQ" is the second derivative. A limited "meta-IQ" may limit the rate of change in the IQ, but not necessarily the IQ itself, given sufficient time and mental effort. In short, I'm suggesting IQ is not governed by the electro-chemical processes themselves so much as the neural nets these processes construct and utilize. The electro-chemical processes may be bounded (by genetics, brain chemistry, drugs), but the nets are practically not.

It's in everybody's sinful interest to deny this claim, of course, because they can then deny personal responsibility for, namely, self-improvement and maturation. (E.G., people with IQs below 70 are considered by the law to not know right from wrong, in a sense absolving them of legal responsibility for their actions.) We know how bogus modern science is when it comes to honesty, especially when the conclusion is going to be unpopular. I don't expect my claim to be supported anytime soon, but I believe it will be eventually.

From http://www.thestar.co.za/index...

...all people under 124 are led by those above.

But if this is so and the world is indeed led by the seriously brilliant, why is it in such a mess?

Because they're stupid, not "seriously brilliant". Put another way, they're just smart enough to lead but not smart enough to do it well. (I suspect most of those smart enough to do it well are also smart enough to avoid the fiasco that is politics.)

But according to a study by Swedish researchers, working with stupid people isn't funny.

In fact, "the stress of incompetent colleagues is as hazardous to your health as cigarettes, caffeine or greasy food".

Au contraire, stupid people can be very funny, even at work. And incompetence is not necessarily related to intelligence. Incompetence is far more often a lack of effort, not a lack of ability.

To cope, the not-so-stupid just need to learn to adjust their expectations appropriately. They may also need to resign themselves to being occasional "victims" of the stupid. I don't mean to trivialize the stress than can be induced by working with stupid people. (To be fair, it's not diminished capacity that's the real problem, but those who don't even try to live up to even a mediocre capacity.)

We need to take responsibility for ourselves. It's our choice to accept stress when the opportunity arises, and we can just as easily--yes, easily--choose to avoid being stressed if we prefer. Proper expectations go a long way, as does a proper perspective. What works best, though, is the right worldview and a full embrace thereof.

As I continue to ponder these descriptions, I think I must make adjustments. Frequently, Zietsman frames each SD in terms of academic accomplishment (finishing high school or college, postgrad. work, etc.). I suspect these may have been more accurate in his college days, but I don't see them so now. These days, any moron can get into college; not only that, but too many morons actually do get into what once were higher-standard universities.

It's well know--esp. to parents of college-age kids--the price of "higher education" has risen far faster than inflation could cause. Careers previously needing no degree too often do now. Everybody and his stupid brother are going to college today, as if it's expected of most everyone. I think schools are capitalizing on this glut of suckers and making some mean money. The effect is a significant drop in the values of these degrees.

Any moron can get into college, and too many of those with higher degrees and even multiple docs are just that, morons. (I know too many of these.) Zietsman's descriptions should probably be amended to account for this phenomenon. Given the rapid decline in education, perhaps this expression of IQ should be removed from his descriptions altogether.

• SD -6
  Functioning is absolutely minimal.
  Incapable of self-maintenance in any way.
  Can't even be toilet-trained.

 

• SD -5: Profound retardation.
  Once known as "idiots", this group are without understanding or ordinary mental capacity.
  Need constant care and supervision.
  An IQ of 20 is the beginning of a semblance of humanity (consciousness).
  Cats are at this level.

 

• SD -4: Severely retarded.
  Once called "imbeciles".
  Congenitally weak-minded, they cannot profit from academic training at all.
  Cannot be employed in sheltered workshops.
  Must be supervised domestically.
  Demonstrate little or no social and communication skills but they can be trained in basic health habits.
  Smart dogs are estimated to have IQs at this level.

 

• SD -3: Moderately retarded.
  Limited support is essential and with extended special education a maximum of fourth grade could be attained by age 18.
  Their thinking does not involve much in the way of logic.
  Their ethical thinking has to involve conditioning.
  There is the beginning of a quid pro quo sort of morality.
  Their social and communication skills are fair but there is little self-awareness.
  They can function vocationally in a sheltered workshop (and perhaps lawn-mowing, if you don't mind them losing fingers).
  Cannot live independently.
  Average adult chimpanzee has a general intelligence level corresponding to this category.

 

• SD -2: Mildly retarded.
  Mental age 12 for normal adults.
  Once called "morons" or "feeble-minded".
  With special education, a maximum of sixth grade is possible by age 18.
  Are inevitably functionally illiterate even if they have been taught to read for at least four years.
  Real (if superficial and concrete) logic appears in this category.
  Conventional morality also begins to appear - this group perceive as good whatever pleases significant others and the bad as anything that displeases them.
  At least some intermittent outside assistance is necessary.
  Their communication and social skills are reasonable. (By social/communication this does not refer to negotiation skills or wit, but basics such as washing hands, dressing, brushing teeth, using toilet paper, looking at the person addressing them and finding the local doctor.)
  They are socially and vocationally adequate (at menial labor) given special training and supervision.
  Many are able to lead a relatively independent life.
  At an IQ of 70 or below, the law regards them as being too stupid to know the difference between right and wrong.

 

• SD -1: Dull.
  Life is tough at this level.
  Learning is slow, simple and needs to be supervised closely to be effective.
  Those with IQs below 80 will probably never be functionally literate and the rest will not understand anything more complex than a popular magazine.
  Their reasoning is very superficial.
  Morality is of a primitive conventional sort - good and bad depends on how significant others view good and bad.
  The vast majority of serious social problems are associated with people in this category because there are so many of them and they are just smart enough to be let loose.
  People in this category commit about 75 percent of all petty and violent crimes.
  Anything other than unskilled labor is a trial, though simple semi-skilled work is possible.
  These tend to overestimate themselves by at least an additional standard deviation, believing they're at least average.

 

• Mean (SD 0): Mediocre
  The average person.
  Learning varies from explicit coaching with hands-on experience to study guides and textbook work with some practical experience.
  Their reading level is, at best, news stories (not editorials), popular magazines and novels.
  Morality is conventional - a matter of serving the social order and tradition or doing your duty as defined by some authority - church, teacher, parent, or state.
  Able to function at the level of skilled blue-collar, clerical, sales, police work, and teaching.
  This large group are the glue of society, but, given the wrong authority, they will do horrible things in the name of morality.
  These tend to overestimate themselves by at least an additional standard deviation.

 

• SD +1: Bright.
  They can learn via the typical university format of lectures and textbooks.
  Their typical reading level is editorials, magazines such as Time and The Economist, and classical novels.
  Abstract, "what-if" hypothetical thinking begins in this group but is still superficial.
  Principled morality also begins in this group, that is, they can see there are non-arbitrary principles or laws that should govern ethical behavior and thought.
  Their best work level is that of most professors, low- to middle-level management and military officers, sub-standard to fair professionals and some elected politicians.
  This group makes up the moral, intellectual, and practical leadership assistants of society.
  These tend to overestimate themselves by at least an additional standard deviation.

 

• SD +2: Superior.
  This category and all those above them don't require assistance to learn.
  They can find the information and master the methods themselves.
  Reading philosophy and legal tracts with comprehension is possible.
  Morality is decidedly a matter of principles for this group but nevertheless they tend to accept established systems.
  This group forms the bulk of the better doctors, lawyers, engineers, accountants and other professionals, United States presidents, CEOs of large companies, and some of the better professors.
  Tend to be the keepers, and transmitters of knowledge and the higher points of any culture, but can't create it themselves.
  These tend to overestimate themselves by at least an additional standard deviation.

 

• SD +3: Brilliant.
  Highly regarded original academic work rarely occurs with lower IQs.
  Some in this group exceed the average university student in academic competence while still in primary school.
  They garner most academic honors such as Rhodes scholarships and maths Olympiads.
  They can read anything and probably read philosophy for pleasure.
  Most professional mathematicians, physicists, philosophers and some judges or very senior counsel can be found in this group.
  Many Nobel laureates and some historical geniuses are also to be found here.
  People in this category make up society's intellectual leaders.
  Most original ideas start with these people.
  However their contribution tends to be in bits and pieces rather than a whole new system or new way of seeing things.
  Particularly true of those choosing not to reside within academia, they tend to marvel at how poorly most people (with lower IQ) cope with life's common trials, properly recognizing such challenges as par for the course.
  One in 1,000 people.
  Beginning to be truly rare, these can underestimate themselves by almost a standard deviation in an unbelieving attempt to reduce disparity.

 

• SD +4: Genius.
  Most exceed the average postgraduate in academic competence - even professors - while still in primary school and probably knew more than their teachers from about fourth grade.
  They can and do read philosophy for pleasure well before puberty and can read at the university level before the average person can comprehend a primary reader (that is, "I see a cat").
  The smarter Nobel Prize winners and most historical geniuses (people such as Einstein, Hawkins, Byron, Milton, Kant, Newton, Bertrand Russell, Ayn Rand) are to be found in this category.
  They are the source of virtually all of humanity's advances.
  A common experience with people in this category or higher is that they are not wanted - the masses (including the professional classes) find them an affront of some sort.
  Fortunately, they are plentiful in absolute numbers, so many of them do rise above the envy and hostility.
  Pride in their accomplishments notwithstanding, these can underestimate themselves by a standard deviation as well as overestimate others by as much.

 

• SD +5: Freakish.
  While still of primary school age, only around one in 1,000 professors can look them in the eye intellectually, social pigeonholing notwithstanding.
  Only one in a million people are this intelligent.
  They are seldom understood or appreciated.
  Often perceived as arrogant (may be intentional or unintentional); besides being broadly adept, they may never encounter anyone with a higher IQ.
  Most feel profoundly isolated from society - even when they are appreciated.
  A large proportion of this group opt out of society and never make revolutionary contributions in the standard academic fields or professions.
  It seems to be very difficult to motivate them to play the academic/scholarly/professional game because they regard even the most venerable of traditions and institutions as absurd or silly.
  Consider that even the mind of the average professor appears to them like the mind of the average bricklayer would appear to the professor.
  Even complex human behavior, individually and en masse, may be depressingly predictable to these.
  Being significantly rare, these tend to underestimate themselves by up to two standard deviations and often overestimate others, in an unbelieving attempt to reduce marked disparity.

 

• SD +6
  In all of history only about a dozen people have been this smart.
  Zietsman says: "I know of only one case for sure. William James Sidis lectured Harvard mathematicians on four-dimensional mathematics at age 11 and was a professor of mathematics at Rice University at age 14. He easily mastered many more languages than the then 'world record' of around 40. He would do the entire New York Times crossword in his head. Because of his eccentricities, academics and the press mercilessly hounded him. At the age of 22 he published a book discussing black holes a full 15 years before Nobel laureate astrophysicist Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar thought of them. He eventually refused to do anything academic or have anything to do with academic society. Who knows what these people think about the rest of humanity?"