RE: Hello, STEEMIT: Let's Talk About IQ
Stefan has interviewed many other people on this subject. This is one of the better interviews. As far as being genetic in origin, there is a genetic component, but there is also the 'regression to the mean'. A person who is a super genius is very likely to have children who are not as intelligent as they are, the same with super idiots, they will have children who are not as idiotic.
Also involved are diet, of several previous generations, environmental factors, such as chemical toxic exposure, biological exposure, and physical and mental stress.
With our current surveillance levels, I do not take IQ tests online, though many are available for download. I have found several by torrent search.
After interacting with you and reading your posts, I would say that the test you took was not accurate and I would encourage you to retest if you want a better idea of your capabilities. There is usually a range to be had over several tests, unless you can find one that is expertly administered. I don't like the idea of the control freaks knowing the extent of my capabilities, so I cannot recommend taking public tests.
Between the Dunning-Kruger effect and people's wishful thinking, there have been many attempts at trying to say everyone can get an equal IQ prize if they just try hard. This, sadly, is not the case. It is true that some people are much better at drooling on themselves than others, and that there are some people who can get humans to the moon with a slide rule and a few pieces of paper. If everyone has equal intelligence then how are we to simultaneously explain Leonardo DaVinci, and the current state of the population of any public transit you care to name? Stephen Hsu does a great job of elucidating this.
I've always had a question about the "regression to the mean" thing, because, in part at least, it seems to go against the rules of evolution.
Heritable mutations which are advantageous are supposed to propagate. And ethnic groups formed somehow. So if everything is regressing to the mean then other things don't make a lot of sense. Perhaps I'm applying this regression to too large a grouping, but I've never heard anyone address this in a satisfying way.
Also, there is such a thing as familial traits. Certain families are known for certain abilities. Mozart, for example, didn't just come out of nowhere: he was a genius from a family of skilled craftsmen, artists, and composers. There are many examples of this. It's where the whole idea of nobility comes from.
Hsu actually talks about that in this interview when he describes "strata" within populations. Very interesting and something which I'd like to learn more.
Yes, I would say I'm closer to 100 than 110 lol. I'm thinking that the Mensa test might be the one for me.
My wife had to ask me what I was laughing about when I read that!! HAhaah!
The positive heritable mutations create proliferation of types, while the regression is an inhibitory function. Both are happening at once. Outliers do not always do well. The exceptionally stupid do stupid things and don't survive. The exceptionally brilliant have been, often, driven out of social populations, or burned as witches.
Without trying to blow smoke, I would start guessing at 110 and go up. Go hang out with some Mensa members and you'll see. I think Mensa entry is set at 132 for the Stanford–Binet , and 148 for the Cattell test. some of the lower end are not that apparently bright. If I were forced to bet, I'd say the Dunning-Kruger effect has fooled you into doubting yourself. You may want to test more to find out.