Law School Discussion

LSAT 163 = IQ 132

Re: LSAT 163 = IQ 132
« Reply #80 on: November 11, 2004, 03:59:28 PM »
Big f-ing deal. IQ indicates one's ability to learn, not one's ability to be thrown into any random situation and outperform someone whose skills are highly adapted to that very task.

You managed to 100% miss my point, but I can't say I'm surprised.  After all, I bet my IQ is higher.

You say creativity is the best measure of intelligence. How many creative geniuses have there been who were morons in all other areas? Not many. Leonardo da Vinci would've tested as a strotospheric genius. And Shakespeare? He would've destroyed an IQ test.

More idiotic presumption.  How the hell do you know?  Please tell me?  Because I see Shakespeare's estimated IQ once in a while?  Oh, pahleeze.  Creativity and IQ don't go hand in hand.  You're just being silly.

Nobody who's studied any of the great creative geniuses of history would seriously try to claim that they weren't also exceptional in the traditional "IQ intelligence."

No this never happens, especially in the arts, for example (note the sarcasm).  First I was annoyed with you, but now I'm amused and entertained.

Re: LSAT 163 = IQ 132
« Reply #81 on: November 11, 2004, 04:36:48 PM »
Quote
You managed to 100% miss my point, but I can't say I'm surprised.

Come on, don't flatter yourself. Your point wasn't a complicated one, it was just a bad one. If intelligence is the ability to learn and assimilate new information, then pointing out that a hunter-gatherer would do better in the wild than a college professor doesn't really say much about how smart they are, now does it? There is not an "in the woods" intelligence and an "in the lab" intelligence. It's a general trait, and there's really nothing arbitrary about it.

Quote
After all, I bet my IQ is higher.

Your mediocre LSAT score would suggest otherwise.

Quote
More idiotic presumption.  How the hell do you know?  Please tell me?  Because I see Shakespeare's estimated IQ once in a while?  Oh, pahleeze.  Creativity and IQ don't go hand in hand.  You're just being silly.

Yes, they do. Intelligence does not imply creativity, but creativity certainly implies intelligence. One of the highest correlates w/ intelligence is the sheer size of one's vocabulary. If for this reason alone and no other, I'd bet a huge sum of money on Shakespeare's IQ.

Quote
No this never happens, especially in the arts, for example (note the sarcasm).

You're evidencing your lack of any deep understanding of either intelligence or the arts. Cut it out.

Quote
First I was annoyed with you, but now I'm amused and entertained.

Good. Hopefully you're learning something in addition to being entertained.

Re: LSAT 163 = IQ 132
« Reply #82 on: November 12, 2004, 06:34:17 PM »
caecilius, your not responding any more reminds me that proverb

"Never argue with an idiot, they'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience!"

Good for ya and us all!

BAFF213

Re: LSAT 163 = IQ 132
« Reply #83 on: November 12, 2004, 07:57:08 PM »
interesting argument...

Re: LSAT 163 = IQ 132
« Reply #84 on: November 12, 2004, 10:34:18 PM »
caecilius, your not responding any more reminds me that proverb

"Never argue with an idiot, they'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience!"

Good for ya and us all!

Ah, Confucius say! Pithy but weak. Wanna articulate why I'm an idiot?

Re: LSAT 163 = IQ 132
« Reply #85 on: November 17, 2004, 11:48:20 PM »
Indeed today's "high IQ" alpha males may strike posterity as more akin to idiot savants than intellectual giants. IQ tests, and all conventional scholastic examinations, neglect creative and practical intelligence. They simply ignore social cognition. Social intelligence, and its cognate notion of "emotional IQ", isn't some second-rate substitute for people who can't do IQ tests. On the contrary, according to the Machiavellian ape hypothesis(!), the evolution of human intelligence has been driven by our superior "mind-reading" skills. Higher-order intentionality [i.e. "you believe that I hope that she thinks that I want..." etc] is central to the lives of advanced social beings. The unique development of human mind is an adaptation to social problem-solving and the selective advantages it brings. Emotional literacy is certainly harder to quantify scientifically than mathematical puzzle-solving ability or performance in verbal memory-tests. But to misquote Robert McNamara, we need to stop making what is measurable important, and find ways to make the important measurable.

BAFF213

Re: LSAT 163 = IQ 132
« Reply #86 on: November 19, 2004, 08:45:07 PM »
If I understand it correctly, a 132 IQ would put you in the top 2% of the population.  I think we can safely say that qualifies as "intellectual elite".

The point is that the LSAT is learnable...(i know some will disagree...but if its not learnable then why are u practicing?)

So those with access to classes and the ability to take off from work to study are at an advantage.


The LSAT is learnable like reading is learnable.

good analogy. I really like that.


That's only a true to the extent that if two people with about the same IQ plan to take the LSAT and one studies and one doesn't, the one who studies will do better.  But someone with an IQ of 80 just won't be able to score as high as someone with an IQ of 150 no matter how much he/she studies.  There's no matterial on the LSAT, so the only thing you can "learn" is what to expect and the stradegies that work best for answering questions.

I think intelligence is like any other talent, you can develope it with practice, but everyone is born starting off at a different level.

Re: LSAT 163 = IQ 132
« Reply #87 on: November 29, 2004, 07:32:30 PM »
Well, if I get this right (and I'm sure I do l) IQ tests, LSAT and and the like are solely designed to discriminate against people, not to measure some kind of intellectual ability, as psychometricians who create these tests are, understandably, fully aware of.

It is really a shame!

Re: LSAT 163 = IQ 132
« Reply #88 on: November 30, 2004, 07:00:24 AM »
zx - I am sorry to break it to you but you are as ignorant as can be. A very simple example can demonstrate this successfully. If a child prodigy from the Phillipines had to take the LSAT what would he score? There is a large likelihood that he would have to resort to guessing the English section at random. So based on your analysis this person is an imbecile with such a low score. What you fail to understand is that 75 percent of the test is based on Eurocentric texts and methods of argumentation. The ad hominem, ad hoc, etc.. fallacies and methods of reasoning were developed in the European tradition and are considered foreign elements in some other cultures. I have an Israeli friend who is literally an engineering whiz - he would probably score less than a 150 on the LSAT because of his language skills. The same would happen if white middle class kids would take a test that is steeped in the written tradition of other cultures.
Anybody who posts "I'd bet a huge some of money on Shakespear's IQ" as if this whole topic can be reduced to gambling is not someone who can be taken seriously. Any person with a perfunctory knowledge of psychology knows that there are numerous categories of intelligence.

Re: LSAT 163 = IQ 132
« Reply #89 on: November 30, 2004, 07:41:06 AM »
The funniest thing is that zx has another post on this board asking for help on an LR question. Not only is the question relatively easy (if he can't get that one I find it VERY hard to believe he is in the 160's) but also it indicates that he has not taken the LSAT yet and is already ridiculing the scores of other posters. I think this is ample evidence that he is a hoax.