4 ms·
And 140 vs 130 is a bit unfair That wasn't the point. I would say the same for 100 and 110. Some MENSA members in this thread seem very attached to their scor
by codesushi42 7y ago
And 140 vs 130 is a bit unfair
That wasn't the point. I would say the same for 100 and 110.
Some MENSA members in this thread seem very attached to their scores.
- bena 7y ago100 and 110 you might see more differences in the aggregate. That's the other thing, you do have to look at the whole. Because there is likely overlap. But the trend of note is that IQ tracks through it. If you sort people by earning potential, you'll find that as average income goes up, so does average IQ. When you sort by health outcomes. As average healthiness goes up, so does average IQ. Even the outcomes that are colloquially contrasted with intelligence actually correlate well. In other words, if you sorted people by EQ, you'll find that better average EQ means better average IQ. IQ is the aspartame of psychology. So maligned that it's been probably studied more than other things. And just like aspartame is perfectly fine, IQ does what it says on the tin.
- codesushi42 7y agoIt is an indicator. Not a rule. 100 vs 140 will be a very strong indicator. 100 vs 110 will not; I would not trust 110 to yield a better outcome 80-90% of the time, as GP claimed. Which is why the comparison of IQ scores at that coarseness is plain silly.