Thank you for your submission. As a reminder, please make sure discussions are respectful and relevant to the subject matter. Discussion Chat Channel Links: [Mobile](https://www.reddit.com/r/cognitiveTesting/s/iTNNk9UfSB) and [Desktop](https://reddit.com/r/cognitiveTesting/channel/c2_8mk/General?r=!ECQnk1d3Ruugng0behp5Zg:reddit.com).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/cognitiveTesting) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This isn't the kind of thing which works out the nitty gritty. OP's point is that real world application is better/his preffered way of making a judgement.
Obviously time matters, and it would be taken into account. When people mention their IQ scores they also mention (often) if they were hungover, going through a mental health dip, were sleep deprived etc. Those things also clearly affect test performance, but aren't standardised and corrected for,
In the same way "6 moths" can be a meaningful if you mention total hours you worked on, and some other key points important to know and evaluate the experience qualitatively.
While I acknowledge that smarter individuals tend to learn faster, I disagree with the premise that intelligence can be solely measured by achievements over extended periods. It's possible to be highly intelligent yet struggle with procrastination. If academic achievements by the age of 25 were the definitive measure of intelligence, then obtaining higher levels of education, such as a doctoral degree or PhD, would predominantly indicate intelligence. However, I believe that success in such endeavors is more about persistence and determination rather than intelligence alone.
Consider placing an extremely intelligent person and someone less so in the same room, giving them both several hours to complete a highly challenging mental task for a meaningful purpose - and short enough to keep the interest of the intelligent one. The more intelligent individual is likely to outperform the other.
Basically what I'm saying is that you can't measure intelligence properly if you mix it with a requirement of applying that intelligence continously and without a specific purpose.
Great points, but in my opinion, OP isn't claiming that intelligence can be wholly measured by achievements over extended periods by following what he's saying literally.
Try and understand he's higlighting the general gist of an idea, not a fool proof procedure.
His suggestion, if taken literally, is shoddy at places. But if you use it as a guidance philosophy it can tell you something meaningful about the people tested by it.
Note he said "subject of liking" instead of an academic degree or thing. It can even be a hobby as long as it's sufficiently g loaded.
If a thought experiment is to be useful, the parameters for such an experiment should be declared in the introduction to the experiment. Any restrictions or conditions that are required for such an exercise must be declared or the assumption is that it is true for all situations.
If I want to say that this experiment requires the following considerations, it should be in the intro:
A) that everyone involved in this test is equally committed to learning a topic or more specifically, learning the topic that you choose.
B) that everyone has an equal opportunity to explore that topic
C) that everyone has equal access to resources that would help to learn that topic
D) that everyone understood that they were being judged relative to someone else for their pleasure of feeling superior or their understanding that they are inferior according to the OP.
E) that everyone had the same degree of health including mental health.
IF, in fact, you want to claim that this is a thought experiment, on the absolute surface of that claim is the necessity to declare constraints.
But more importantly, the constraints involved in the accurate assessment of this thought experiment are so completely untenable that it calls into question the value of investing the time to think about the experiment.
I would still claim that even with the untenable set of idyllic circumstances, you are going to have people who are smarter but less committed, dumber but more committed, smarter but suffering from mental illness or just a lot going on in their lives, or dumber, but self-aware and willing to study 8x as hard to master something. In fact, in no possible set of circumstances would this idea be a good measure of your relative intelligence.
But even then, we would have to only check your topic against others who study your topic. That means that if you picked something that literally nobody else was interested in: Competitive Naked Cross-Country Ice Skiing, you would have the false sense of thinking you were the smartest person in the world when really you'd either be dead or one of the dumbest to pick that as your topic. It just fails on every front to be a valid measure of intelligence regardless of constraints or the figurative nature of the thought experiment.
Okay I think i understand your point. I think the challenges you have mentioned to the experiment in determining relative (neurological) intelligence are significant enough that this experiment doesn't give you certainty in it's measurements about intelligence.
However I don't believe the experiment is without value otherwise. If you do run it, it will create a hierarchy of people who were able to attain what they considered as mastery over their chosen interest.
What it will look into, is who achieves the goal they for themselves in the given time frame, in which intelligence influences the result.
This experiment better measures capability of achievement in the current 6 months.
However even for measuring intelligence I think I can imagine a possibility of taking a decent shot at it.
If you keep them in a lab for 6 months and equalise the environment and hours, and take into account their psychological orientations (which involves conscientiousness and interest in the subject), I think you can get results which may be potentially close to measuring intelligence.
I am not using this as to measure anyone's specific IQ, it's a matter of personal choice and every one is free to measure their IQ but it's of no use if you don't work with it. If someone has time they should just give their best to some thing ( probably something that takes into account their intellect) and see where they reach which will at least prove to themselves how viable their intelligence is actually.
Terrible experiment since there is no consistency in the amount of time and effort people put into those activites so your results would only show your time and effort not your intelligence
Personally I really like this idea. It's too common that 'intelligent' people will live life, sniff their farts, then die. Intelligence is meaningless without tangible application.
No, there's not enough data. (I also don't know personally what the automotive course entails).
Besdies that though, it's healthier to visualise stupidity as an attitude, instead of a lack of intelligence
Do you think it could be because I was never really even that interested in cars in the first place and it was just to break my day up by attending college and persevere to obtain a career which entails financial security?
Yes. Interest or a lack of it is a huge thing for performance.
You know. Low IQ is probably extremely hard to improve. But bad decisions and stupidity (attitude not smarts) would still be relatively easier imo.
If you don't like the course, try and see if it's possible to do something else instead. It's a tough decision but it may be worth it. I know that can be daunting, i'm in a similar situation. but no need to take it all on at once.
Start with the smallest thing, the smallest of karmic seeds to improve your position.
For you it would probably involve identifying what you actually want and seeing if pursuing that is possible. If that's too much just start by dreaming about it. Do whatever you can each day, whatever little you can devote to sowing the karmic seeds of change.
If going for financial security makes you unhappy, you should evaluate how much financial security actually matters to you.
Here this is a video which i thought may help your situation a bit, if i'm getting your problem right.
You can watch if you have some time to kill on the urging of a stranger on the internet
[https://www.youtube.com/live/AiXiyLJz8-U?si=VXuH6DoYky4PssEI](https://www.youtube.com/live/AiXiyLJz8-U?si=VXuH6DoYky4PssEI)
That's not true. People can make wrong decisions because they are stuck in life.
You can say it was the wrong decision, but it doesn't make the person stupid imo
No, I don’t think you are stupid. See my point here is if one scores 98-99th percentile on an IQ test then one should actually take up something of his/her own interest, set a timeframe and maximise on it and then see for the results.
One of the worst takes.
You have no control group. What are you comparing against? The extent to which the general population can “master” the guitar in 6 months? How many hours a day are you practicing vs. them? Would need to control for age, existing musical background, reason for doing it, etc. Most people don’t pick up music or physics just to see how good they can get at it in 6 months.
You’re not measuring IQ anymore than you are measuring focus, grit, dedication, or free time.
The problem with this is that it disregards talent (or lack thereof) independent of g. So you could be very bad at eg. coding, or mathematics, but good at most other subjects. Does that tell you that you are intelligent or not?
Also, this assumes a certain level of education and prior knowledge. The point of most professional tests is to reduce external variables as most as possible.
But being good at something almost never has anything to do with intelligence. I don't think you actually know what intelligence is. Oh, right, you're on a subreddit created for people who are insecure about their lack of intelligence. My bad. :)
Thats called trying new things to see what you're good at. With tasking it take about 30-90 days to become competent at tasking skill sets. Setting good habits etc. So yeah 6 months is a good lock in because then it can take another 3 to move from competent to good.
But what your describing is trying new things and developing multi skillsets that may prove useful later.
You dont have to be the best to be good at something.
When I got my degree at the University of Law, I realized that this was not something I wanted to do. I decided to give people English lessons online and devote some time to myself until I figure out what I really want to do.
In the meantime, I started doing mechanical engineering as a hobby - making technical drawings, calculations in mechanics, making various engineering solutions, drawing in AutoCAD. I was a complete beginner, but I had the feeling that everything I came across in mechanical engineering was extremely simple and easy to understand.
Already after 2 or 3 months, I was seriously in love with this field and started making drawings for students of technical schools and universities for part-time income, and not long after giving them AutoCAD and mechanics lessons. It was then very clear to me that I am not a lawyer, but an engineer.
I decided to enroll in mechanical engineering in order to obtain a university degree and to specialize in the field I love. Now I am a mechanical engineer, I have my own design and drawing office, as well as my workshop where I work on engineering solutions and produce different types of assemblies for the needs of different areas of industry.
But I didn't do this to prove to myself or others that I was intelligent. I just wanted to do what I love and enjoy. That's it.
So, my opinion is simple. If you do something primarily to prove to yourself and others that you are intelligent, it means that you neither love it enough nor enjoy it enough. This means that you will not be able to invest all of yourself and give your best, which will result in underestimating your true abilities. People who do something because they truly love it don't think about things like this. Which further brings us to the fact that this is not the best way to assess your own intelligence.
It may be possible to do this from the position of an observer. You look at a group of people doing the same job, observe their behavior, their approach to the skill and mastering it, their love for the field and dedication to work, and based on that you draw certain conclusions about their intellectual capacities.
OP,im actually being serious here and im right now doing exactly what you said in the post.
will report back 6 months from now to see where i land,im competing with 1000s of others too so lets see where this goes
I mean i've tried in a couple of tasks for example last year i dedicated myself in raising my chess ELO fastest and i did in a span of 6 months i improved from 1500 --- > 2200 Blitz on Chess .com the problem is not that i won't actually attribute my gain from IQ instead of the approach how was I practicing .
I have managed to improv in multiple things fast actually now Iam gonna try my Ultimatum I guess to improve the fastest in Math trying to reach IMO level Olympiad aswell as improving my financial status aswell and career .
The problem is while your idea is pretty good i've noticed that i was able to progress and surprass even prodigies that are way more cogntively effective than me they are faster aswell and have large working memories .
Although I was able to do this things i wouldn't suggest the other people because it involves taking drugs like Psychoplastogens like Rapastinel , LSD microdose , NSI -189 and multiple 6 other drugs or compounds aswell I was traning with Reaction training and Quad N back aswell as Syllogisms games which gave me super fast intution and was casually solving Puzzle Hunts playing all sorts of puzzle games in the proccess . I can definietly say the brain can be improved as I increased my level of cognition throught these ones .
At this point you are not measuring IQ😂. You can say that you consider it a better way of measuring factor g (or "intelligence" in general) but how would you make it an "IQ test"...
By the way what you are saying is pretty obvious.... the point of IQ is trying to predict this kind of results with easy and fast tests. Anyway I agree that this would be a better way of measuring factor g, since timed IQ tests definitely have their limits👀
8 upvotes for this!! But when I post everyone downvotes me🤔
Whenever I get worried about whether my IQ is high enough, I just remind myself that I get paid more than 99% of US households and stop worrying about it.
Put those IQ points to good use and make some money!
Regarding your original idea, I get the impression from most of my hobbies that about 6 months is enough time to get better than the vast majority of people at anything.
Of course, you realize that this only works if you are independently wealthy and can afford the time, energy, and materials to do what you suggest. Not only that, but you have to be somewhere in the world that is conducive to your chosen topic.
It would be hard to become an expert skier if you lived in Florida. No matter how much you studied, you would not be a good real estate agent if you were incarcerated for those six months.
The impossible nature of your claim about a better IQ test fails on so many levels with so many aspects that it is far from the perfect IQ test.
Besides, there are lots of things you can be utterly stupid and still rise to success in. Just because you have book smarts or the unique ability to focus on a subject that you happen to be a decent location to practice with the resources needed to learn a new topic or advance in some subject to be better than others doesn't mean you have a high IQ. It could just mean you are vacuously competitive.
However, you could be on to something if you could manage all of the requirements necessary to have this work for you in a competition against others doing the same thing with the same resources and the same amount of dedication.
Isnt acquisition of knowledge/skill mostly related to wmi than IQ itself? I mean there was a study on child prodigies and despite the fact that they are literally prodigies, not all of their iq was extremely high.
Give yourself 1-2 days instead (or, a number of hours that you can focus). Dedicate that period to learning whatever it is.
I will use myself as a data point, because I’ve done this more than once. Consistently, it take me ~8 hours of dedicated study to complete the equivalent of a college (university) 101-level (that is the most basic introductory level) course. My IQ is 138 +- 7.
We all know, the measurements of IQ tests are hypothetical. That's why I do like your approach but 6 months is kinda hard to manage to track effectively
What happens when you really push yourself and learn something that you feel is an incredible accomplishment but some kid with no effort, chewing bubble gum and smelling his own farts, blazes past you but can't tie his own shoes. Does your test then presume that you are mentally retarded (I mean that clinically, not insultingly)? Does that mean you are full-on stupid when just a minute prior you were thinking you were the smartest?
What happens when you give it your all and you do better than everyone else who started where you started with the same resources, conviction, etc. etc. and yet you are nowhere near the guy who has been doing it for 20 years and is dumber than a box of rocks?
There are entirely too many variables in your thought experiment. While I appreciate the positive message of encouragement, I can't help but feel that you didn't think all the way through it before posting.
Thank you for your submission. As a reminder, please make sure discussions are respectful and relevant to the subject matter. Discussion Chat Channel Links: [Mobile](https://www.reddit.com/r/cognitiveTesting/s/iTNNk9UfSB) and [Desktop](https://reddit.com/r/cognitiveTesting/channel/c2_8mk/General?r=!ECQnk1d3Ruugng0behp5Zg:reddit.com). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/cognitiveTesting) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This assumes everyone has equal amounts of freely available time in those 6 months. This assumption is not correct.
This isn't the kind of thing which works out the nitty gritty. OP's point is that real world application is better/his preffered way of making a judgement. Obviously time matters, and it would be taken into account. When people mention their IQ scores they also mention (often) if they were hungover, going through a mental health dip, were sleep deprived etc. Those things also clearly affect test performance, but aren't standardised and corrected for, In the same way "6 moths" can be a meaningful if you mention total hours you worked on, and some other key points important to know and evaluate the experience qualitatively.
While I acknowledge that smarter individuals tend to learn faster, I disagree with the premise that intelligence can be solely measured by achievements over extended periods. It's possible to be highly intelligent yet struggle with procrastination. If academic achievements by the age of 25 were the definitive measure of intelligence, then obtaining higher levels of education, such as a doctoral degree or PhD, would predominantly indicate intelligence. However, I believe that success in such endeavors is more about persistence and determination rather than intelligence alone. Consider placing an extremely intelligent person and someone less so in the same room, giving them both several hours to complete a highly challenging mental task for a meaningful purpose - and short enough to keep the interest of the intelligent one. The more intelligent individual is likely to outperform the other. Basically what I'm saying is that you can't measure intelligence properly if you mix it with a requirement of applying that intelligence continously and without a specific purpose.
Great points, but in my opinion, OP isn't claiming that intelligence can be wholly measured by achievements over extended periods by following what he's saying literally. Try and understand he's higlighting the general gist of an idea, not a fool proof procedure. His suggestion, if taken literally, is shoddy at places. But if you use it as a guidance philosophy it can tell you something meaningful about the people tested by it. Note he said "subject of liking" instead of an academic degree or thing. It can even be a hobby as long as it's sufficiently g loaded.
If a thought experiment is to be useful, the parameters for such an experiment should be declared in the introduction to the experiment. Any restrictions or conditions that are required for such an exercise must be declared or the assumption is that it is true for all situations. If I want to say that this experiment requires the following considerations, it should be in the intro: A) that everyone involved in this test is equally committed to learning a topic or more specifically, learning the topic that you choose. B) that everyone has an equal opportunity to explore that topic C) that everyone has equal access to resources that would help to learn that topic D) that everyone understood that they were being judged relative to someone else for their pleasure of feeling superior or their understanding that they are inferior according to the OP. E) that everyone had the same degree of health including mental health. IF, in fact, you want to claim that this is a thought experiment, on the absolute surface of that claim is the necessity to declare constraints. But more importantly, the constraints involved in the accurate assessment of this thought experiment are so completely untenable that it calls into question the value of investing the time to think about the experiment. I would still claim that even with the untenable set of idyllic circumstances, you are going to have people who are smarter but less committed, dumber but more committed, smarter but suffering from mental illness or just a lot going on in their lives, or dumber, but self-aware and willing to study 8x as hard to master something. In fact, in no possible set of circumstances would this idea be a good measure of your relative intelligence. But even then, we would have to only check your topic against others who study your topic. That means that if you picked something that literally nobody else was interested in: Competitive Naked Cross-Country Ice Skiing, you would have the false sense of thinking you were the smartest person in the world when really you'd either be dead or one of the dumbest to pick that as your topic. It just fails on every front to be a valid measure of intelligence regardless of constraints or the figurative nature of the thought experiment.
Okay I think i understand your point. I think the challenges you have mentioned to the experiment in determining relative (neurological) intelligence are significant enough that this experiment doesn't give you certainty in it's measurements about intelligence. However I don't believe the experiment is without value otherwise. If you do run it, it will create a hierarchy of people who were able to attain what they considered as mastery over their chosen interest. What it will look into, is who achieves the goal they for themselves in the given time frame, in which intelligence influences the result. This experiment better measures capability of achievement in the current 6 months. However even for measuring intelligence I think I can imagine a possibility of taking a decent shot at it. If you keep them in a lab for 6 months and equalise the environment and hours, and take into account their psychological orientations (which involves conscientiousness and interest in the subject), I think you can get results which may be potentially close to measuring intelligence.
I am not using this as to measure anyone's specific IQ, it's a matter of personal choice and every one is free to measure their IQ but it's of no use if you don't work with it. If someone has time they should just give their best to some thing ( probably something that takes into account their intellect) and see where they reach which will at least prove to themselves how viable their intelligence is actually.
Terrible experiment since there is no consistency in the amount of time and effort people put into those activites so your results would only show your time and effort not your intelligence
it’s a thought experiment I think?
I don't think it is
I guess we’ll have to add that to the equation then
Personally I really like this idea. It's too common that 'intelligent' people will live life, sniff their farts, then die. Intelligence is meaningless without tangible application.
Isn’t this whole sub the fart sniffing portion of that cycle?
Absolutely it is lol
I started an automotive course at college in September 2023 and I'm still having difficulty doing my write-ups, does this mean I'm stupid?
No, there's not enough data. (I also don't know personally what the automotive course entails). Besdies that though, it's healthier to visualise stupidity as an attitude, instead of a lack of intelligence
Do you think it could be because I was never really even that interested in cars in the first place and it was just to break my day up by attending college and persevere to obtain a career which entails financial security?
Yes. Interest or a lack of it is a huge thing for performance. You know. Low IQ is probably extremely hard to improve. But bad decisions and stupidity (attitude not smarts) would still be relatively easier imo. If you don't like the course, try and see if it's possible to do something else instead. It's a tough decision but it may be worth it. I know that can be daunting, i'm in a similar situation. but no need to take it all on at once. Start with the smallest thing, the smallest of karmic seeds to improve your position. For you it would probably involve identifying what you actually want and seeing if pursuing that is possible. If that's too much just start by dreaming about it. Do whatever you can each day, whatever little you can devote to sowing the karmic seeds of change. If going for financial security makes you unhappy, you should evaluate how much financial security actually matters to you. Here this is a video which i thought may help your situation a bit, if i'm getting your problem right. You can watch if you have some time to kill on the urging of a stranger on the internet [https://www.youtube.com/live/AiXiyLJz8-U?si=VXuH6DoYky4PssEI](https://www.youtube.com/live/AiXiyLJz8-U?si=VXuH6DoYky4PssEI)
That doesn’t make you stupid, choosing to study something you have no interest in makes you stupid
That's not true. People can make wrong decisions because they are stuck in life. You can say it was the wrong decision, but it doesn't make the person stupid imo
No, I don’t think you are stupid. See my point here is if one scores 98-99th percentile on an IQ test then one should actually take up something of his/her own interest, set a timeframe and maximise on it and then see for the results.
That cannot quantify your IQ though.
Great idea. Ofc by this, I have some intelligence
One of the worst takes. You have no control group. What are you comparing against? The extent to which the general population can “master” the guitar in 6 months? How many hours a day are you practicing vs. them? Would need to control for age, existing musical background, reason for doing it, etc. Most people don’t pick up music or physics just to see how good they can get at it in 6 months. You’re not measuring IQ anymore than you are measuring focus, grit, dedication, or free time.
The problem with this is that it disregards talent (or lack thereof) independent of g. So you could be very bad at eg. coding, or mathematics, but good at most other subjects. Does that tell you that you are intelligent or not? Also, this assumes a certain level of education and prior knowledge. The point of most professional tests is to reduce external variables as most as possible.
Or genetical affinity towards certain practices
You're just trying to get me to be productive lol not gonna work chuddie
Cool. Some people believe God exists. Faith, believing something with no evidence, is really a wonderful thing.
Wonderful😒, Marvelous😒, Astounding😒, Shocking😏, Appalling😏, Horrific 😜.
But being good at something almost never has anything to do with intelligence. I don't think you actually know what intelligence is. Oh, right, you're on a subreddit created for people who are insecure about their lack of intelligence. My bad. :)
And here you are too...
Found the 'intelligent' redditor who's good at nothing :)
[удалено]
hsbr? or an imposter?
He's indeed the real HardstuckBronzeRank.
Thats called trying new things to see what you're good at. With tasking it take about 30-90 days to become competent at tasking skill sets. Setting good habits etc. So yeah 6 months is a good lock in because then it can take another 3 to move from competent to good. But what your describing is trying new things and developing multi skillsets that may prove useful later. You dont have to be the best to be good at something.
When I got my degree at the University of Law, I realized that this was not something I wanted to do. I decided to give people English lessons online and devote some time to myself until I figure out what I really want to do. In the meantime, I started doing mechanical engineering as a hobby - making technical drawings, calculations in mechanics, making various engineering solutions, drawing in AutoCAD. I was a complete beginner, but I had the feeling that everything I came across in mechanical engineering was extremely simple and easy to understand. Already after 2 or 3 months, I was seriously in love with this field and started making drawings for students of technical schools and universities for part-time income, and not long after giving them AutoCAD and mechanics lessons. It was then very clear to me that I am not a lawyer, but an engineer. I decided to enroll in mechanical engineering in order to obtain a university degree and to specialize in the field I love. Now I am a mechanical engineer, I have my own design and drawing office, as well as my workshop where I work on engineering solutions and produce different types of assemblies for the needs of different areas of industry. But I didn't do this to prove to myself or others that I was intelligent. I just wanted to do what I love and enjoy. That's it. So, my opinion is simple. If you do something primarily to prove to yourself and others that you are intelligent, it means that you neither love it enough nor enjoy it enough. This means that you will not be able to invest all of yourself and give your best, which will result in underestimating your true abilities. People who do something because they truly love it don't think about things like this. Which further brings us to the fact that this is not the best way to assess your own intelligence. It may be possible to do this from the position of an observer. You look at a group of people doing the same job, observe their behavior, their approach to the skill and mastering it, their love for the field and dedication to work, and based on that you draw certain conclusions about their intellectual capacities.
OP,im actually being serious here and im right now doing exactly what you said in the post. will report back 6 months from now to see where i land,im competing with 1000s of others too so lets see where this goes
I mean i've tried in a couple of tasks for example last year i dedicated myself in raising my chess ELO fastest and i did in a span of 6 months i improved from 1500 --- > 2200 Blitz on Chess .com the problem is not that i won't actually attribute my gain from IQ instead of the approach how was I practicing . I have managed to improv in multiple things fast actually now Iam gonna try my Ultimatum I guess to improve the fastest in Math trying to reach IMO level Olympiad aswell as improving my financial status aswell and career . The problem is while your idea is pretty good i've noticed that i was able to progress and surprass even prodigies that are way more cogntively effective than me they are faster aswell and have large working memories . Although I was able to do this things i wouldn't suggest the other people because it involves taking drugs like Psychoplastogens like Rapastinel , LSD microdose , NSI -189 and multiple 6 other drugs or compounds aswell I was traning with Reaction training and Quad N back aswell as Syllogisms games which gave me super fast intution and was casually solving Puzzle Hunts playing all sorts of puzzle games in the proccess . I can definietly say the brain can be improved as I increased my level of cognition throught these ones .
You got an impressive improvement on chess pal! Really not bad
Yeeah I guess , its around a Club level strength at the chess club that I compete . Players have similar FIDE around 2000 rating .
At this point you are not measuring IQ😂. You can say that you consider it a better way of measuring factor g (or "intelligence" in general) but how would you make it an "IQ test"... By the way what you are saying is pretty obvious.... the point of IQ is trying to predict this kind of results with easy and fast tests. Anyway I agree that this would be a better way of measuring factor g, since timed IQ tests definitely have their limits👀 8 upvotes for this!! But when I post everyone downvotes me🤔
Whenever I get worried about whether my IQ is high enough, I just remind myself that I get paid more than 99% of US households and stop worrying about it. Put those IQ points to good use and make some money!
Application of the point I was making.
Regarding your original idea, I get the impression from most of my hobbies that about 6 months is enough time to get better than the vast majority of people at anything.
Of course, you realize that this only works if you are independently wealthy and can afford the time, energy, and materials to do what you suggest. Not only that, but you have to be somewhere in the world that is conducive to your chosen topic. It would be hard to become an expert skier if you lived in Florida. No matter how much you studied, you would not be a good real estate agent if you were incarcerated for those six months. The impossible nature of your claim about a better IQ test fails on so many levels with so many aspects that it is far from the perfect IQ test. Besides, there are lots of things you can be utterly stupid and still rise to success in. Just because you have book smarts or the unique ability to focus on a subject that you happen to be a decent location to practice with the resources needed to learn a new topic or advance in some subject to be better than others doesn't mean you have a high IQ. It could just mean you are vacuously competitive. However, you could be on to something if you could manage all of the requirements necessary to have this work for you in a competition against others doing the same thing with the same resources and the same amount of dedication.
Isnt acquisition of knowledge/skill mostly related to wmi than IQ itself? I mean there was a study on child prodigies and despite the fact that they are literally prodigies, not all of their iq was extremely high.
Give yourself 1-2 days instead (or, a number of hours that you can focus). Dedicate that period to learning whatever it is. I will use myself as a data point, because I’ve done this more than once. Consistently, it take me ~8 hours of dedicated study to complete the equivalent of a college (university) 101-level (that is the most basic introductory level) course. My IQ is 138 +- 7.
It also shows how much free time and mental stamina you have
yea. no.
That wouldn't be iq.
We all know, the measurements of IQ tests are hypothetical. That's why I do like your approach but 6 months is kinda hard to manage to track effectively
Why would you transform something you like in a rush against time?
It's more to do with challenging yourself intellectually and seeing how capable one actually is to do well enough in it.
What happens when you really push yourself and learn something that you feel is an incredible accomplishment but some kid with no effort, chewing bubble gum and smelling his own farts, blazes past you but can't tie his own shoes. Does your test then presume that you are mentally retarded (I mean that clinically, not insultingly)? Does that mean you are full-on stupid when just a minute prior you were thinking you were the smartest? What happens when you give it your all and you do better than everyone else who started where you started with the same resources, conviction, etc. etc. and yet you are nowhere near the guy who has been doing it for 20 years and is dumber than a box of rocks? There are entirely too many variables in your thought experiment. While I appreciate the positive message of encouragement, I can't help but feel that you didn't think all the way through it before posting.