Int = IQ?
- Thread starter WD40
- Start date
Aloïsius said:
Plenty of people with measured IQ below 60 speak just fine. If you have a low IQ it might be because you're organically retarded, ie you have a mental disabilty which might also inhibit your speaking ability, but you might be a perfectly normal functional person. Khoi San (bushmen) measure around 57 median IQ, and of course they can speak just fine and are not mentally retarded!
The estimates I've seen put median chimpanzee IQ at around 25-30, which fits D&D's INT 2-4 listing, and median monkey IQ around 12. If dogs have a measurable IQ, which I doubt, it's probably below 12, at least for most breeds.
Psionicist
Explorer
IQ follows a gaussian distribution with an average of 100. Using the common tests and ignoring the defintion, the global average is probably closer to 85-90, with some countries having an average IQ in the high 50's / low 60's. See for example "IQ and the wealth of nations". It's controversial, but for our gaming purposes it's good enough.
So. I would say Int 8 - 12 corresponds to an IQ of 60 - 110. Yes, it's very asymmetrical and not as nice as the range IQ 60 - 140, but according to available data the highest avarage IQ is 107 where the lowest is 59. Again, this is as measured by the tests, not by the theoretical definition where 1 deviation above 100 is as likely as 1 devition below 100. In D&D however, the distribution IS symmetrical, so the 60-110 range should correspond to the stat range 10-n to 10+n, such as 8 to 12 or 7 to 13.
So. I would say Int 8 - 12 corresponds to an IQ of 60 - 110. Yes, it's very asymmetrical and not as nice as the range IQ 60 - 140, but according to available data the highest avarage IQ is 107 where the lowest is 59. Again, this is as measured by the tests, not by the theoretical definition where 1 deviation above 100 is as likely as 1 devition below 100. In D&D however, the distribution IS symmetrical, so the 60-110 range should correspond to the stat range 10-n to 10+n, such as 8 to 12 or 7 to 13.
I've never worried a whole lot about a D&D Intelligence score translating to an IQ score, for a few different reasons.
It's unfortunate, but the relative success of a character is really dependant on the intelligence of the player, not the character. Sure, a smart player can 'play dumb,' but having a high Intelligence score is no more a guarantee of success than having a high Strength or Constitution score. A character's relative Intelligence won't help him if the player decides that it's a good idea to try the mysterious sparkly liquid in the chalice on the evil altar. Besides, in real life, "smart" people do "stupid" things all the time. Things like losing their keys, forgetting to check the oil in their car, or not checking their bank account before writing a check at the end of the month.
The other big reason I don't really worry about defining D&D Intelligence in real-world terms is because there's still no consensus on exactly what intelligence is. Statistical comparisons of D&D Intelligence scores to IQ tests aside, we still haven't reached a verifiable method of determing what intelligence is- much less how to measure it.
I think it's perfectly fine to treat the Intelligence score as it's designed to be: an abstraction. Although we have the hardness and hit points for a one-inch thick piece of iron or wood in D&D, nobody wants to go out and bang at one to figure out how much applied force a "real hit point" is. The same logic applies to me.
It's unfortunate, but the relative success of a character is really dependant on the intelligence of the player, not the character. Sure, a smart player can 'play dumb,' but having a high Intelligence score is no more a guarantee of success than having a high Strength or Constitution score. A character's relative Intelligence won't help him if the player decides that it's a good idea to try the mysterious sparkly liquid in the chalice on the evil altar. Besides, in real life, "smart" people do "stupid" things all the time. Things like losing their keys, forgetting to check the oil in their car, or not checking their bank account before writing a check at the end of the month.
The other big reason I don't really worry about defining D&D Intelligence in real-world terms is because there's still no consensus on exactly what intelligence is. Statistical comparisons of D&D Intelligence scores to IQ tests aside, we still haven't reached a verifiable method of determing what intelligence is- much less how to measure it.
I think it's perfectly fine to treat the Intelligence score as it's designed to be: an abstraction. Although we have the hardness and hit points for a one-inch thick piece of iron or wood in D&D, nobody wants to go out and bang at one to figure out how much applied force a "real hit point" is. The same logic applies to me.
Thunderfoot
Hero
Simm said:
Before the 'bumpable stat boost' I would have said this list was hogwash - now, its probably closer. Under the 2E rules, yeah INT x 10 was dead on, because stat boosts were next to impossible. When you hit 4th level and the possibility of a 21 INT is FEASIBLE; yeah, it no longer fits the curve it used to fit.
Tonguez
A suffusion of yellow
Aloïsius said:
A dog can't have an IQ at all since anIQ test doesn't in anyway test the problem solving skills a dog might have.
The last time I did an IQ test (when I was 20) I got a score of 172, which makes me a supergenius, but really. The test was primarily focussed on Linguistic and Numerical Logic, skills at which I was really good at the time. It did not test for a whole plethora of other potential skills (spatial logic (which I suck at), memorisation (which I'm good at), aural or kinetic) so IMHO the test wasn't valid (albeit that linguisitic and numeric skills are important)
Also I'm sure my IQ has dropped significantly since then (damn you College life!)
Edena_of_Neith
First Post
How high do you have to go before your odds of rolling that number on 3d6 are 1 in 100 or less?
15? 16? 17? 18?
I'm told that only 1 in 100 folk have an IQ of 130 or higher. Of course, even if that is true, in the game it could be far different.
15? 16? 17? 18?
I'm told that only 1 in 100 folk have an IQ of 130 or higher. Of course, even if that is true, in the game it could be far different.
Dykstrav said:
While there are some political attempts to claim there's no such thing as intelligence, general intelligence or 'g' seems to be mostly about brain processing power, much as strength is a factor of muscle power. The simplest measure of your g is how fast you respond to a stimulus, eg in a "light goes off, press buzzer" test, how fast you begin to move hand towards the buzzer after a light goes off correlates closely with IQ as measured by other tests.
IQ tests are structured to measure a combination of 'verbal' and 'non verbal' intelligence, which correlate but can differ a fair bit by individual. IQ tests have been criticised for arguably over-emphasising the verbal component, which may boost female and white/European scores vs male and north-east-Asian scores - north-east-Asians (Chinese, Japanese, Koreans) score significantly higher than Europeans on non-verbal IQ, but same or lower on verbal.
Psionicist said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_the_Wealth_of_Nations
The data there is a bit out of date now (eg with more data they've revised their estimate of median Chinese IQ up to 105), but it gives an idea how measured IQ varies across the world. If the tests were normed so the global median was 105 instead of 90 you could add 15 then divide by 10 to get something approximating to D&D INT scores with a median of 10.5; but I think earlier D&D editions assumed PCS rolled on 3d6 were already above average, eg 1 MM 'average' INT is 8-10, so for a similar distribution just dividing these by 10 would work.
Edit: I see the new 2006 data has now been added to that page. As you can tell by the way some national IQs go up or down several points, many of the listed IQs are only rough estimates.
Last edited:
Similar Threads
