IQ to INT equivalent

[mmu1]

A real IQ test is certainly not meaningless, because it doesn't claim to measure some nebulous concept called "intelligence", but a set of very specific factors, which it clearly identifies.

If our society wasn't so supportive of just about any kind of bone-headed lifestyle (for which I have personally been very grateful on occasion) and our educational system wasn't based on creating new and worthless fields of study to allow the stupid and shiftless to apply their "different intelligence" and provide them with self esteem, we wouldn't have the luxury of claiming intelligence is just a matter of semantics...

 

[Snapdragyn]

Getting back to the conversion, & the 2 formulas posted thus far...

... with 1 I have a D&D equivalent of a bit over 18. With the other I have a D&D equivalent of a bit over 14. Personally, I think neither formula is all that great.

 

[Mercule]

As far as I know, IQ tests are only really useful to see if a child has some mental deficiency. In any case, the scores become less and less meaningful as they go up; basically, a high score means that you are a bright boy, but that's about it.

There are several different tests out there. Some are geared toward the low end, others toward the high end. For example:

On of my friend's sisters is studying to be a psychologist (or something like that) and she tested my IQ around Christmas. I scored a 146. Because the test she used was more geared to low-end diagnostics, however, I scored perfect on a few of the sections. That really doesn't give you a good idea of my upper capability.

After doing a bit of research, I find that the test I took is really not at all accurate above about 130 IQ. Compared against a different test (sorry, not remembering any of the names) that is geared toward higher end accuracy, it would be expected that my IQ would come out in the 160+ range.

Okay, so I'm a freaking genius (let's face it, given current company, that isn't really "one-upping" in most cases). So what? I make the same amount of money as any other computer programmer, etc. All it really means is that people still hand me algebra problems to solve.

FWIW, that test took upwards of 4 hours. If someone takes an Internet IQ test in 5 minutes, the score isn't worth much -- I scored an 82 on one Internet IQ test. The test I took had some cultural bits, but not too many. Depending on what you're looking for, IQ tests can have value, but a high IQ doesn't mean much more in life than a high strength.

 

[tarchon]

Getting back to the conversion, & the 2 formulas posted thus far...

... with 1 I have a D&D equivalent of a bit over 18. With the other I have a D&D equivalent of a bit over 14. Personally, I think neither formula is all that great.

Int=(IQ-100)/5+0.5 or the equivalent has to be close to being correct. IQ is defined to have a normal distribution with mean 100 and standard deviation 15. 3d6 has a mean of 10.5 and a standard deviation of around (but not exactly) 3. Since in the dozen times I've seen this topic over the years, I've discovered that the average IQ reported by gamers in these threads is in the mid 160s, I guess y'all have probably already worked out the algebra.

(IQ=(Int-0.5)*5+50, for all the slowpokes who only barely break the genius level.)

 

[Xeriar]

In 2e, 1e and OD&D, an 18 was genius.

Genius is 140 IQ on a standard deviation of 15, or 160 on a standard deviation of 22.5 (inferior tests). Anyway, a little less than 1 in 200 have such an IQ.

Take notice that 1 in 216 people, rolling 3d6, would get an 18. This isn't a coincidence

Some people put genius at 2 standard deviations, which puts D&D genius at just under 17.

Regardless of whether or not you think IQ = Intelligence, the standard deviation of 3d6 is 2.95 with a mean of 10.5.

This also means that there are six people on Earth with an int of 28. No, I don't think Marylin Vos Savant is one of them.

IQ tests can be studied for just like any other. Some claim you can't but I managed to add 15 points to my typical score once

 

[Xeriar]

... Because every time we post one of those silly "What Are Your Stats?" polls, every gamer on the board humbly states that he's a bloody genius and that his DNA naturally rolled three 6s.

DNA does not roll dice. More than just IQ tests have determined that it is likely upbringing, not genetic make up, that roll those dice.

DNA can chop some of those dice out from under you, it can give you a bonus, but it does not roll them.

Not to mention which, we're on a forum that requires both computer literacy and a gaming focus, both of which weed out the lower parts of the spectrum. Some of us have had some very interesting things drive our development, no doubt.

Seriously, humans are not defined on a 3d6 scale, either.

Claiming to have an 18 is merely saying one theinks they are the smartest in a random group of 216 people. That does not mean, however, that you tie for intelligence in a group of 10 million. In fact, someone there is going to dwarf you just as you would dwarf an average person.

 

[NoOneofConsequence]

Not being in the leastwise mathematically minded (I can do it, it just bores me silly), I have to ask a tangential question:

Why is genius still being connected to IQ. I thought Psyche as a discipline had moved beyond this narrow concept. After all, you don't have to have a huge IQ to be Mozart, Pablo Picasso or Franz Kafka.

Creativity and IQ are somewhat linked but I thought that it had already been shown that they are not causally linked.

Anyhow - I realise that this is off topic and don't really expect an in depth answer, it's just a request for information.

 

[tarchon]

Not being in the leastwise mathematically minded (I can do it, it just bores me silly), I have to ask a tangential question:

Why is genius still being connected to IQ. I thought Psyche as a discipline had moved beyond this narrow concept. After all, you don't have to have a huge IQ to be Mozart, Pablo Picasso or Franz Kafka.

It's just a matter of convention. Psychometrists often use the 140 IQ number, but obviously in general usage the sense of the term isn't quite the same. It's kind of like in the old Marvel game system "Amazing" indicated a specific power level, but that doesn't have much bearing on how the term is generally used.

As to the significance of IQ, well, it's pretty well established that there is a strong tendency for people with high IQ scores to score high on a variety of mental skills tests, which is statistically attributed to something called the "G" factor. Exactly what G relates to physically is still strongly debated, but the correlation undoubtedly exists, and it seems to be a good predictor for success in a wide range of endeavors. On the other hand, it's not a perfect predictor - high IQ doesn't guarantee success at anything and low IQ doesn't necessarily imply failure - it just tells you which way the odds fall. The whole concept of IQ is fundamentally statistical and highly abstract though, and it's real implications are concomitantly convoluted.

 

[Xeriar]

It's called the g factor.

Whatever tests for any sort of intellegence you come up with, people who do well in one will tend to do well in another.

Supposedly with word association being the king of this heap. Proponents claim it has the highest correllation but I suspect this has to do with more well-read people tending to appear more intelligent in general.

Basically, there is a single general ability for intelligence underlying it all, and this is what IQ tests attempt to get at.

There are another group of correlations between tests, called s-factors.

---

There are problems with this, of course.

Savant syndrome or idiot savant syndrome, which you probably already know of. Basically, one specific area of intelligence becomes overdeveloped, seemingly at the expense of others.

Autism also throws this a bit out of whack, especially as some are considering that autism may not actually be a defective condition.

Finally, certain areas of the brain control certain intelligences. If they are damaged, ability in a certain area can seriously suffer.

---

Both the g-factor and multiple intelligences have a lot of support behind them.

Even if IQ tests had a serious white-male cultural bias, this is less the case now than it used to be. The g factor isn't just a stupid white male concept - many people who are brilliant in one area tend to be brilliant in many areas.

However, there are at least nine areas of 'intelligence' which can not only be localized to specific parts of the brain, but have autistic/idiot savant members who excel in one of these areas.

So far, these are:
1: Linguistic Intelligence. The ability to use language. Poets tend to have the most focus here, but any sort of writing works.

This does not govern how many languages a person knows, of course.

2: Logical-Mathematical Intelligence. Pretty self explanatory. Speaking from personal experience, the creative side of this is invention itself. Being able to see a problem and come up with a new way to solve it, I mean.

3: Spatial Intelligence. How well you can see with your mind, so to speak. Painters and sculptors tend to focus here.

4: Body-Kinesthetic Intelligence. How well you use your body. Hand-eye coordination included. On the creative side, dancers and actors specialize here.

5: Musical Intelligence. The ability to see and hear patterns. The creative side of this needs no explanation.

6: Interpersonal Intelligence. Empathy - how you deal with other people.

7: Intrapersonal Intelligence. 'Know thyself' - knowing your own abilities and limitations.

8: Naturalist Intelligence. The ability to differentiate between living things and other things in nature (rocks, clouds). On the creative side, it's also an aesthetic sense.

9: Moral 'Intelligence'. Distinguishing between right and wrong. It's kind of a half, but there are instances where people get a specific area of the brain destroyed and seem to lose all moral sense.

---

I tend to think both are right. There is an overall general base, and, depending on how people's minds are forged, some will come out ahead of others.

 

[Chun-tzu]

Why is genius still being connected to IQ. I thought Psyche as a discipline had moved beyond this narrow concept. After all, you don't have to have a huge IQ to be Mozart, Pablo Picasso or Franz Kafka.

Creativity and IQ are somewhat linked but I thought that it had already been shown that they are not causally linked.

Creativity is recognized as part of the definition of "genius." But how on earth do you test creativity, with any degree of validity and reliability? We can test analytical skills, pattern recognition, symbolic logic, verbal and math skills, and so these are the kinds of things that are part of the Intelligence Quotient. As someone implied earlier, IQ is a measure of intelligence, not the definition of it.