(PD) Jan van Eyck - Angels Singing
IQ Questions and Answers
Copyright©2008-2013 Updated March 31, 2013
"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to Reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to Reality." - Albert Einstein (1879 - 1955)
"I believe in God, only I spell it Nature." - Frank Lloyd Wright (1869 - 1959)
Definition of Language
One of the greatest differences that separates man from other animals is man's spoken language. All animals communicate through emotional and body language, and most animals also use languages communicated by sound, but man's spoken language is capable of communicating a larger quantity of smaller and more specific concepts that are, in part, made possible by man's greater ability to mentally focus on smaller and more specific objects.
A road runner bird, for example, uses whines and clicking sounds to communicate the bird's location and emotions. The whines and clicking sounds will vary in pitch, intensity, and speed relative to the bird's personal interpretation of its immediate environment. When two road runners are separated out of view of each other, the birds can remain in communication with the other and know what the other bird is perceiving by what each bird hears from the other bird. If a bird were to experience a danger or the discovery of delightful food, the whines and clicks will change to express that bird's emotions of the perception. A second bird, upon hearing the difference of the first bird's whines and clicks, will then generally know through remembering previous self-experiences what the other bird is experiencing. The road runner language is relatively simple although it relies on the complexities of emotions, body language, and the width of intelligence to hear a sound, to be mentally cognizant of the sound, to mentally self-create an empathy of what the sound would imply if the listening bird were to create similar sounds in a similar environment, and to then physically react to what the mental analysis has concluded. I personally studied numerous animal languages during the years that I lived in a semi-secluded rural region, and in time I was able to maintain a continuous communication between road runners and myself for an hour or more at a time. Partly in jest, my wife once commented that I spoke with the animals more than I spoke with her, and as all husbands should know, the wife is always right.
The human language is based upon a similar structuring as the road runners'. As with all other animals, the definition of all words originate in the individual who speaks the words, and the person being spoken to must then interpret the words' definitions relative to what the listener has personally experienced and can then self-create an empathy of what the speaker implied. If the listener has not personally experienced a similar experience in life, then the listener cannot know what the speaker's words imply. The word "love" means almost nothing to the individual who has never personally experienced firsthand the sensation of love, and thus the word "love" itself is meaningless. Words are symbols of real things, words are not the real things themselves, and no symbol can replace the real thing. Like it or not, language cannot define what is real: only a real experience is real, and no quantity of symbols of the experience can eliminate the need to understand a thing through firsthand experience. Before a word can have a shared definition, both the speaker and the listener must have previously shared similar experiences in life and used similar words to express the concept of the emotions and perceptions that each individual felt during the experiences. It is a common but very wrong belief that human language can convey correct information without an individual first having experienced the thing that the word implies.
To a large degree, most people today learn words before learning what the words mean. Much of public education is purposefully structured on what is referred to as a reading triangle. The three points of the triangle are visual, sound, and meaning. Most commonly a young child will learn of a word by sound first, the child will associate the sound to a previous sensorial perception, or recognize that the new word infers an object not before sensorially perceived, and then later the child will learn through sight how the word is written. The child that gains the sensorial perception of an object prior to hearing the object's symbolic word will understand what the word means to the child himself. The child who has not previously had the sensorial perception of an object cannot understand what the new word means, but the child can (if s/he has a reasonably healthy mind) analyze and compare the memories of previous sensorial perceptions of other objects so as to self-create an abstract thought of what the new word likely implies to society. The learning of words without first learning what the word-symbols imply is an education and indoctrination into the shared social systems of belief, or in other words, memorizing a word along with its vague socially accepted definition results in a mind that is limited to the average intelligence of the society in which the individual lives. The public-education style of teaching undefined words can only result in a population of progressively less intelligent citizens. Education is a good thing, but only when it is structured upon the proper sequencing of an individual's learning. Meaning/definition through firsthand experience must come first, not last and/or completely ignored.
One of the very worst things that can happen to a child's developing mind is to be taught words before the child has had the opportunity to first understand through firsthand sensorial experience what the word-symbols imply. While it may be true that the learning of non-understood words might in a fashion exercise the mind's need for abstract thought to self-create unverified definitions of unknown words, the disadvantage is that the child has learned that imaginary definitions of symbols can be deemed suitable substitutes of real things. (IQ tests strongly rely on an individual choosing answers that are based on the socially accepted definitions of symbols.) As an individual ages, s/he increasingly learns words without clarified definitions, while decreasing the individual's firsthand experiences of what the words might imply. Almost universally, the older individual learns through visual, then sound, and then a vague meaning of the word. The one and only rational method of learning any word is to first understand the meaning through firsthand sensorial experience, and only then should the person apply the knowledge to the experience's symbolic word. The reading triangle of education purposefully renders the student ignorant of his/her environment, leaving the individual in a world of imagination that has very little relevance to Reality.
To illustrate how the general public has been short-changed of its ability to mentally relate to Reality, all that is needed is to ask an individual to describe a common thing. What is a willow tree? Typically an individual might reply something to the effect that a willow tree has a brown trunk, long green leaves, the branches hang down low, and it has roots in the ground. If the individual were asked specific questions, only then might the individual be capable of giving additional descriptions such as leaf length, shades of green, and other surface features but only if the individual had personally sensorially experienced a willow tree. To others of us who prefer to learn what a thing is before we accept its symbolic word, a willow tree implies specific textures of bark relative to other trees, a specific sharpness of green scents that vary relative to climates and soil, a specific green taste relative to other green tastes of trees and fruits and vegetables and grains, and countless other descriptions that would require several days of continuous talking before the meaning of "willow tree" could be vaguely expressed. Similarly with other words, to most people "red" simply means a general color of red, but to other people the word carries with it millions of conscious firsthand sensorial perceptions of shades of red, red fruits, red vegetables, red minerals, tastes of objects colored red, scents of objects colored red, sounds of objects colored red, textures of things colored red, and on and on and on. The word "red" does not imply the same thing to all people, and it is irrational for anyone to claim that any word can have the same definition from one individual to the next, and thus, the word "intelligence" is also known from the start that it will be defined relative to the individual's own personal interpretation of what the individual has recognized within himself. Individuals who do not have superior intelligence do not and cannot ever comprehend the experience of superior thinking, and thus, the non-superior interpretation of intelligence cannot be valid for defining superior intelligence. The primary importance of the previous statement is that it is known from the beginning that it is not possible for a non-superior intelligence to create an IQ test capable of measuring superior intelligence, and thus, no IQ test designed by an average mind can be a valid test of superior intelligence.
If words were capable of being easily defined, then western philosophy would not have squandered the last three thousand years attempting to define simple words like "virtue," "knowledge," and "good." Three thousand years! It is not rational for anyone to believe that his/her personal firsthand sensorial perception has been identically replicated by all other people, and thus it is not rational to believe that any word can share an identical definition between any two individuals. The one and only means of understanding the definition of any word is for an individual to experience the thing firsthand, and yet still the definition will be colored by the individual's own acuity of sensorial perception, emotions, and intellectual capacity to comprehend the perception.
And so with the understanding that no word of any human language can be suitably defined to meet everyone's interpretation, the next step is to compare the knowledge to the topic of intelligence. Since it is already known that the word "intelligence" is not properly defined, then it is also known that a test of intelligence cannot be fully legitimate, and the final answer as to the validity of IQ tests is already decided before the investigation into IQ tests begins. (The Dialogues of Nodin and William help explain the logical necessity of discerning which sequence of reasoning must come first. It is not logical to debate a topic until after it is known what the topic is.)
"The goal of life is living in agreement with Nature." - Zeno of Citium (335 BC - 264 BC)
Definition of Intelligence
What is the definition of intelligence? What exactly is intelligence? Without first holding a valid concept of what intelligence is, there can be no accurate reasoning of whether IQ tests measure intelligence. No test can measure an unknown, and if intelligence itself is unknown, then it is illogical to assume that IQ tests are accurately measuring intelligence. A popular debate in high IQ societies and academic circles is over the definition of intelligence. As spoken of in the section above, no universally accepted definition of intelligence exists, and there may never be one. If western philosophy is an indication of man's talents with language, then it is assured that there never will be a definition of intelligence.
Nevertheless, there are several useful working definitions of intelligence that relate to various specialized fields of physics, biology, computers, and others, but a specific definition is also required for use with the topic of IQ. A useful generalized definition is that intelligence is an individual's ability to learn of his environment, to understand the environment, and to interact creatively with his environment. All animals possess similar abilities, but there is a difference between the low quantity of learning that some animals possess, and the higher quantity of learning that other animals possess. Gorillas and humans generally have a higher capacity for learning than most other animals. Koko the gorilla reportedly has a human IQ of about 70 to 90, which might be roughly as high as about 40% of all humans. At 70 IQ, Koko's score is higher than the national average of humans' in about twenty-one countries (http://www.rlynn.co.uk/pages/article_intelligence/t4.asp). At 90 IQ, Koko's score would be higher than the national average of humans' in about one-hundred and twenty-one countries. I have not had the firsthand opportunity to observe and communicate with Koko, and so I cannot honestly guess whether Koko might be capable of coping with living in the human world of holding a job and shopping at Wal-Mart, but if Koko is capable of retaining emotional stability while enduring humans, then she could likely do well.
Now if a non-human can be proven to be capable of surpassing many humans in a test of human intelligence, then it is necessary to reevaluate the definition of intelligence and to better clarify the many unspoken variables of intelligence that humans typically do not recognize. One variable is emotional stability, the ability to think before acting, which is a predominately missing trait among inmates in prisons. The greater majority of human thinking exhibits the lack of conscious thinking prior to action, but fortunately, the actions are usually tamed to within the social norm of acceptable aggression. It might appear that the predominate evidence of superior intelligence is the creature's ability and application of creativity, such as with the creations of man's, those of intricacies in architecture and machinery, but there should also be given attention to the creativity of applying intricacies within the individual's own life, such as logically deduced self-ethics and moral behaviors, which would then be evidence of an intelligence that is capable of superior self-reflection and self-creativity, what few non-humans appear to possess. It is obvious that humans as a specie possess an intelligence that has a greater potential for creativity than the typical intelligence of non-humans, and it is useful to draw upon examples of man's creativity to help describe the nature of this thing called "intelligence."
From my own observations, I would say that many different animals have different mental abilities superior to all other animals. Some humans' eyes are better than most other animals', some humans can smell better than most all other animals, and some humans can think better than most all other animals, but there are animals that can see better, hear better, smell better, and perform some mental functions better than humans. If the above definition of intelligence were strictly applied, that of learning and understanding and interacting with one's environment being the measure of intelligence, then humans would not score well in the animal kingdom. Destroying the planet is not a rational interaction with one's global environment.
One of the several important variables is the design of a living creature's body. A dolphin is likely of similar intelligence as many humans, but the dolphin does not have arms and fingers to manipulate intricate objects. A creature that possesses the greatest physical potential for exhibiting its intellectual capacity will in turn give the appearance of having the higher intelligence. Dolphins and sperm whales may be more intelligent than most humans, but without a body that is capable of expressing that intelligence, the dolphins and whales appear to most humans to have a low intelligence. I have watched a video of a dolphin placing its rear fins on the ocean floor while the body remained vertical, simulating the appearance of the humans that were nearby. The dolphin physically expressed its self-reflected intellectual awareness of the human nature, as well as the dolphin's desire to communicate. If a test of intelligence were to focus on an individual's self-awareness and ability for inter-specie communication, then some dolphins would score a far higher intelligence than most all humans.
The Darwinian view is that the intelligence necessary to manipulate arms and fingers existed prior to the arms and fingers having physically evolved into a design capable of being used. While there may be some truth in the Darwinian view, the view omits several factors that must be recognized as a part of the whole. Nothing in the Universe exists alone, and no thing reacts to a singular influence, and so it should be kept in mind (regardless of whether a person believes or disbelieves in Darwinian evolution) that the development of fingers did not occur from a singular cause. The mind and body are not separate entities, but rather they coexist and are dependent upon the other, just as all other things in the Universe are co-dependent. Of immediate interest is how mental functions are dependent upon emotional coloring, with emotions being a synergetic product of body and mind reacting simultaneously, and the shape of the body itself will influence the mind. Imagine that you no longer have arms, and that several years into the future your mind will have adapted to having thoughts that do not include the use of arms. Instead of thinking of reaching out to grab an object with a hand, instead the mind will think of perhaps leaning the head forward to manipulate an object with the nose. A complex body will help to create a complex mind, whereas a less complex body will lend to the effect of stunting the mind's ability for complex thoughts. A body will react relative to the emotions, and as a creature's emotions will reflect its physical and mental perceptions of the environment, it is the emotions that drive the genetic evolution of the body, which in turn determines how the body influences the mind, which continues within a continual loop of self-referencing influences that determine how the mind and body will evolve and/or develop. Nothing happens by chance, life is not a chance mutation, and neither does orderly intelligence nascent from unorganized chaos, but rather organic intelligence and all of organic life is a direct reflection of how a being is created by the influences of inward-self and external-environment, and all influences influence all other influences.
Reality is the result of a matrix of fractal influences, and nothing comes into being upon a singularity, whether a big bang or a genetic mutation. The Darwinism of a singular cause for evolution through a series of singular chance-mutations is a childish belief that is based upon a lack of intellect and perception of the nature of Nature. Man's intelligence is as dependent on the existence of trees and insects and clouds as is man's intelligence dependent on his own body, and the trees and insects and clouds are now influenced by man's intelligence. Individuals caring to carry the thought further can easily recognize the origins of all things, and none of the origins began with a singularity, nor did the development of any thing occur singularly by itself.
I frequently harp about sensorial perceptions, in part because the increase of sensorial perceptions will result in the increase of an individual's awareness of the environment, which will result in the increase of an individual's intellectual and emotional capacity relative to the environment, which will in turn initiate a loop of self-referencing that enables individuals to better exist within the environment as well as to better manipulate the environment in a manner that in turn better manipulates the self. In a manner of speaking, the human creature appears to be facing a splitting of specie, where the sensorially numb appear to be experiencing a genetic decline. Though a creature may have ten fingers, if the creature cannot sensorially feel with the fingers, then by the same process that the fingers developed into being useful, will the process in time develop the fingers into not being usable.
A better clarified description of intelligence is necessary that separates humans from other animals. "Intelligence: The capacity to accurately acquire, create, store, and apply self-referencing information creatively." (From Logics Origin of Ethics, Morals, Virtue, and Quality, 2006.) IQ tests do lightly measure an individual's ability to store information as memory, and IQ tests do measure speed as well as a degree of abstract thinking, but IQ tests do not measure accuracy, mental creation of concepts, nor self-referencing information. IQ tests only measure a small portion of the thing called "intelligence."
To better illustrate that IQ tests do not adequately measure intelligence, and as spoken of in the previous section, research has verified that few individuals can adequately describe any object. More than 99.9% of individuals receive over 99.9% of all sensorial input at the subconscious level where it does not of itself rise to the conscious level. The typical individual cannot attain consciousness of most sensorial perceptions until after the individual is informed of what sensory perception to observe. The typical human also responds to environmental inputs by reacting emotionally. Emotions are the creation of mind and body reacting simultaneously, and most commonly an individual will react emotionally without conscious thought. The emotional response is produced by the subconscious to defend or support a subconscious system of beliefs. The typical human method of subconsciously acquiring and applying information about his/her environment is little different than of other animals that also rely on a subconscious style of acquiring knowledge and interacting with the environment.
The primary items that differentiate between common and superior intelligence are quantity, quality, and accuracy. An individual might be deemed intelligent if s/he held a high quantity of knowledge, but if the knowledge is wrong, or the knowledge cannot be accurately applied to his/her environment (which in itself nullifies the ability for creativity), then the individual cannot be deemed to have a superior human intelligence. Until all three of the traits are exhibited harmoniously, then the individual's intelligence must be graded as not-superior. IQ tests only measure a small percentage of a person's capacity for quantity of knowledge, IQ tests measure almost no quality of knowledge, and IQ tests provide for no measurement of accuracy relative to the individual's real-world environment. IQ tests are designed within the limitations of socially-conformed specie-specific languages, and thus, the tests cannot measure outside the envelope of a socially-conformed intelligence. So, therefore, even though the general public tends to define intelligence as the ability to score well on an IQ test, the definition is not valid. To better clarify the previous statement, an individual who scores well on an IQ test may indeed possess a superior intelligence, but the superior intelligence itself was not measured by the IQ test.
Perhaps the best general definition for clarifying the various levels of human intelligence is accuracy. It matters nothing how much wrong knowledge a person may possess, or how quickly the individual can analyze and apply the wrong knowledge incorrectly, but rather it all boils down to one very simple little thing called accuracy. A good synonym of accuracy is "honesty," which itself is the external behavior of inward correctness of thought. Any individual, regardless of IQ rating, that is capable of interacting accurately with his environment, is much more intelligent than a high IQ individual that does not have the capacity for accuracy. Accuracy in the language of mathematics is necessary to derive a correct sum, and the same determination for accuracy must be applied to the real world environment before an individual can be deemed of superior intelligence. IQ tests do not measure real-world accuracy.
"One thing I have learned in a long life: that all our science, measured against reality, is primitive and childlike - and yet it is the most precious thing we have." - Albert Einstein, "Creator and Rebel"
IQ Questions and Answers
A dialogue on IQ and how it differs from intelligence can be viewed here on The Logics website at Intelligence Versus IQ.
Due to copyrights and the need to keep IQ test questions and answers confidential (to prevent cheating), there should not be any answers to legitimate IQ tests online. It is also commonly considered bad manners for anyone to discuss specific IQ test questions and answers with the public. Many answers, if not most all, to the questions in the Mega Test were made public on the Internet in 1999, which reportedly was the cause of the Mega Test to no longer be used for admission into the Mega Society. A fact of life is that if the opportunity exists for people to cheat, then some people will cheat. Little will as quickly render an IQ test useless than to make the questions and answers public.
Books are currently available that focus on providing the reader with hundreds of sample questions that an individual can practice and learn how to improve one's IQ score. Yes, it is true that with study and practice an individual will likely score considerably better on an IQ test, but the very fact that the IQ score can be raised through practice indicates that IQ scores themselves reflect intellectual potentials as well as education, training, and at least in some respects, one's social and financial status of having sufficient income to purchase study materials. Right or wrong, it remains a thing of humor to myself to observe some children, who with the least opportunities, scoring the highest in their schools and above the students who received directed practice and study of IQ tests. Yes, I especially root for the underdog when the game rules are not fair, and in my opinion the typical IQ tests are not fair.
As an example of an IQ test question, I will invent a question that closely relates to a well known test that has already been invalidated by people cheating. The test question is to give an antonym of the word "noctilucent." The unverified proposed answer would be "dilucent" (not a real word in this example). There are only three main honest methods of arriving at the desired answer; (1) having a larger than average English vocabulary (reliance on education), (2) having a larger than average analytical memory of languages (reliance on an education that enables a person to substitute noct-, meaning night, for di-, meaning day, which is the method that I used for the test), or (3) thumbing through dictionaries and/or thesauruses for days while looking for a word that would denote daylight luminescence, which in itself would be a form of education. The test question is more as one of determination and access to resources than to intelligence. Any intelligence test that has questions answerable from a book or computer database is not a valid test of intelligence. Most IQ tests provide multiple choice answers, which allows a person to merely choose the best answer that is already given. It is likely that if IQ tests did not provide multiple-choice answers, the average IQ would greatly plummet.
Perhaps the cheapest method for an individual to gather examples of IQ test questions is to take the numerous online IQ tests while writing down the questions to later be studied. However, the correct answers, of course, will not be available in the tests.
I personally feel that any form of study specifically aimed at achieving higher IQ scores will further undermine the usefulness of IQ tests, and worse, give the person a false sense of accomplishment while cheating themselves out of earning an honest IQ score.
"When a mathematician engaged in investigating physical actions and results has arrived at his own conclusions, may they not be expressed in common language as fully, clearly, and definitely as in mathematical formulae? If so, would it not be a great boon to such as well to express them so, translating them out of their hieroglyphics that we might also work upon them by experiment?" - Michael Faraday
Definition of IQ : What is IQ?
IQ (intelligence quotient) = (Mental Age / Chronological Age) x 100.
The IQ of a child between the ages of about 5 to 16 years old is typically calculated by dividing the child's mental age by his chronological age and then multiplying the result by 100. If a 10 year old child performs mentally at a 10 year old level, the IQ is calculated as 10 divided by 10 equaling 1, and multiplying the 1 by 100 then equals an IQ of 100. If the 10 year old child mentally performs at a 20 year old level, then 20 over 10 equals 2, and multiplying 2 by 100 equals an IQ score of 200.
Numerous scoring difficulties exist in measuring children's intelligence. A common difficulty is that a child may mentally advance much faster than other children of the same age group, and though the child might be scored with a 200 IQ at the age of ten years old, the child may not advance much further. In such an example, by the age of twenty years old the child and other children would all reach a similar level of intellectual ability, and all would score about a 100 IQ. An analogy is that of racing cars that all have a top speed of 100 miles per hour. One car might cross the first quarter mile sooner than other cars, but in the end all the cars will be traveling at the same speed. Unless the child retains intellectual momentum into adulthood, the IQ scoring of a child might only indicate how quickly the child has reached his/her potential. Due to there not being a sufficient enough quantity of mental challenges in life, some children may quickly reach their personal limits of interest and stop progressing further. An IQ score can at best only measure an individual's relative intellectual potential at the time of the testing, and the IQ score itself infers nothing of the child's possible future intellect.
Another difficulty is that no known (to me) IQ tests for children (or adults) are capable of detecting intelligence superior to that of the test designers'. IQ test designers assume that a child cannot possess a mind superior to a median adult intellect, and thus the tests themselves are designed to only measure levels of inferior and median intelligence, but not beyond (which is actually what IQ tests were originally designed to measure).
Yet another difficulty is that if an IQ test for children did include the ability to measure an intelligence above the median level, then some children would score an IQ that would appear to only be possible for a specie further evolved than humanity, or as some individuals have rashly opined; impossible. The IQ numbering system of (MA/CA)x100 is not capable of retaining sensibility when applied to superior intelligence. If, for an example, a child was consciously capable of analyzing a four dimensional field in his/her mind at the age of five years old, which is a mental feat that very few thirty year old adults can accomplish, then the child might be given an IQ score of about 600. If IQ tests measured such talents, then there would be children with IQ scores of 600 and higher. If the child were born consciously capable of the same ability, and there was a method of determining the child's recognition of four dimensional fields, then the child at one day old would be scored with an IQ of about 1,100,000 relative to a thirty year old adult ((mental age of 10950 divided by the chronological age of 1 = 10950) times 100 = 1,095,000). The 1,100,000 IQ score does appear to exceed the limitations of sensibility, but some children have been known to have possessed adult-like analytical abilities at birth, and outrageously high IQ scores would exist if IQ tests measured the analytical abilities. The bottom line is that children's IQ tests should only be deemed of value for measuring small variations within the limitations of the average intellectual group.
Worthy of comment is that parents are naturally prone to want to believe that their children are brighter than other children. There is no reason to pretend that humans are not highly competitive about intelligence. Intelligence is one of the few things that almost all humans want, and a lot of it. I recently observed a man claiming that his 11-12 year old grandson was a genius because the boy could draw a rough map of the USA and some other countries. The man was from a large city that has historically been among the lower levels of average intelligence, and it is possible that the man did not draw maps in elementary school as many of us did as children. The boy's ability to draw a rough map from memory would have been graded as average in the elementary school I attended, and so I saw nothing special in the boy's talent. The boy exhibited other personality traits of being obnoxiously vulgar and crude to females, and as a whole I concluded the boy to be quite inferior of mind. The point is, a parent may observe a child performing average work that the parent never did in school, and the parent might misinterpret the child's work as indicative of being of a superior intellect. It is my opinion that a parent should interpret a child's intelligence relative to how accurately the child reacts and behaves to his/her environment, specifically that of the child possessing sufficient self-referencing empathy to create a polite behavior, that is, to care about other people and things. A child that can draw a map, but cannot recognize how his actions cause damage to the objects and people in his environment, such a child is not intelligent.
Adult IQ is calculated by supervised IQ testing. Adult IQ scores are specific to each IQ test and are not interchangeable between one IQ test and another. Some IQ tests have ceilings of under 170, while other tests have ceilings of over 200, and thus if an individual might be capable of achieving the best scores on the 200+ IQ test, and yet he only takes the <170 IQ test, his score might appear to be of a lower "intelligence" than if he had taken both tests. IQ tests are also composed of different sections that deal with verbal and non-verbal talents. An individual whose first language is not that of the IQ test's might hit the ceiling in the non-verbal section while not doing as well on the verbal section, which would result in a lower average of the two sections combined. Similarly, an individual well skilled in language might hit the ceiling in the verbal section while not doing as well in the non-verbal section. The individual skilled in language, and the individual skilled in quantitative abstract thinking, may both score the same IQ while neither individual are of similar intelligence. IQ scores by themselves are almost meaningless.
Membership qualifications to most high IQ societies require percentile ratings instead of IQ scores. A sizable number of high IQ societies accept at-home unsupervised test scores for membership. High IQ societies that are interested in accuracy, however, only accept IQ scores from supervised tests.
The IQ formula (MA/CA) x 100 = IQ was created as an indicator, and it is not based on mathematical rules. The formula could have been (MA/CA)x10 or (MA/CA)x1000. IQ scores are relative numbers, of no real measurement other than to show relative differences of measurable mental performance between different people taking similar tests.
"The artistic genius wants to give pleasure, but if his work is on a very high level, he may easily lack people to appreciate it; he offers them food, but no one wants it. That gives him a sometimes ludicrously touching pathos; for basically he has no right to force pleasure on men. His pipe sounds, but no one wants to dance. Can that be tragic?" - Friedrich Nietzsche, "Human All Too Human"
Average IQ, Gifted IQ, Genius IQ
An IQ score of 100 is average. Only one person in the world has an average intelligence. Half of everyone else has a higher intelligence, and the other half has a lower intelligence. It is a non-debatable observation that no two people have identical intelligences, and therefore it is also a non-debatable conclusion that an IQ score range of about 200 points cannot adequately differentiate the intelligences of over 6,000,000,000 people. Although perhaps 10% of humans might score at or near 100 on an IQ test, by no reasoning can the 100 IQ score imply similar intelligence. A 100 IQ is average for IQ scores, but a 100 IQ does not signify an average intelligence.
As IQ scores increase, so do opinions differ on what marks gifted and genius. IQ ratings are generally relative to the personal opinion and view of the person being asked (a 6'6" tall man may appear tall to a 5' tall man, but an 8' tall man thinks everyone to be short).
The general public's opinion is that extremely low IQ is about 70 and below, borderline is about 70 to 80, low average is about 80 to 90, average is about 90 to 115, talented is about 115 to 125, gifted is about 125 to 140, and about 140+ is commonly believed as having the potential for genius. There are several different scales of IQ levels in use, and it should be recognized that the scoring of each level is only a vague generality; the numbering system is not carved in stone. Numbering systems used in previous generations for some regional public schools were based on different IQ tests, and thus the scoring levels would not be identical to today's. At regional levels, an average IQ for the region might be graded as superior or inferior when compared to national and global averages, and so it is best to always give attention to a test score's percentile ranking, and not just the score itself. It is important to note that whatsoever environment a person lives in, it is that which the person will deem normal, and all terms about intellectual levels are only relative to the individual's own personal level. It is also important to note that an IQ score is an indicator of an individual's talent for languages, mathematics, and general median-level abstract reasoning, but an IQ score alone has no relevance to how well an individual can apply the talents to the real world. It is common for an individual of any IQ level to not be capable of adequately describing a simple real-world object such as a pencil. IQ is not synonymous to intelligence, but rather, IQ is merely an indicator of the presence of a small number of the mental traits that are necessary to create intelligence.
A known man has a 70 IQ and is currently listed by government psychiatrists as mentally disabled with schizophrenia. Under the direction of another person and myself, the 70 IQ man was given specific nutrient supplements. Within approximately two weeks the man was speaking coherently, the schizophrenia appeared to have dissipated, and within a month the man was as bright, mentally stable, and full of life as any person with an average IQ. The man is one of many that need higher quantities of nutrition that are not available in foods from grocery stores. The man's true level of intelligence should be regarded as being near average, but due to the illness of vitamin deficiencies his IQ was scored at 70. Another individual, suffering from the vertigo and dementia of pellagra (extreme niacin deficiency) and a migraine headache caused by a sugar imbalance (colas) scored 147 on a proctored IQ test (the individual purposefully aimed for the specific percentile range; no higher, no lower). An IQ score alone is not a valid indicator of an individual's true intellectual potential, but rather the IQ score can only allude to a person's performance during a specific period of time and with a specific test.
IQ score alone does not quantify the existence of genius. Genius is more accurately defined as "The intellectual ability and application to correctly perceive sensorially and mentally, correctly analyze perceptions, and correctly react creatively to one’s environment at a degree that is beyond the ability of the average human." (Taken from Myths, Facts, and Lies About Prodigies, an unfinished manuscript of mine.) The eleventh edition of the 1920 Encyclopedia Britannica states a similar view: "A degree of original greatness which is beyond ordinary powers or explanations, that is, far beyond the capacity of the normal human being in creative work." From the 1972 edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica it is stated: "The word genius is used in two closely related but somewhat different senses. In the first sense, as popularized by Lewis M. Terman, genius refers to high intellectual ability as measured by performance on a standardized intelligence test. The exact intelligence quotient designating genius varies. Terman set the intelligence quotient for "potential genius" at 140 or over, a level reached by about I in 250 of the general population. ...In the second and more popular sense, as derived from Sir Francis Galton, "genius" is used to designate creative ability of an exceptionally high order as demonstrated by actual achievement. In this sense, men of genius are identified by the eminence of their accomplishment." (From The Gifted and Talented: Their Education and Development by D. Feldman, 78th Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part I, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press: 1979), pages 335-351.)
The strong difference between my definition and that of others' is that mine is derived from an investigation of intelligence beyond the limitations of IQ scoring. My definition is a formula derived from observing how the different attributes combine to create the intellect that exceeds the abilities of all average intellects. Accuracy in reasoning is necessary to achieve an above-average intelligence, and due to the verification that some individuals of high IQ lack accurate reasoning, creativity, and real-world intelligence, then IQ score alone cannot be sufficient reason to judge an individual as a genius. Prodigies do what average people do, but prodigies do more of it and faster. Geniuses do what prodigies cannot do, and what the average intellect cannot comprehend.
"I am attacked by two very opposite sects, the scientists and the know-nothings. Both laugh at me, calling me 'the frogs' dancing master'. Yet I know I have discovered one of the greatest forces in nature". - Luigi Galvani, Italian physicist (1737-1798), accredited discoverer of electrically-induced muscle contraction: galvanism.
Traits of People with High IQ
(Jump to Traits of Prodigies)
Individuals with high IQs are humans just like everyone else, with similar personality strengths and weaknesses as everyone else. Some high IQers are nice, some are not so nice, and each individual has idiosyncrasies just as do all humans. All low and high IQers are human, and all humans make mistakes. Having a high IQ does not in itself infer that the individual is an inferior or superior human.
High levels of intelligence are sometimes accompanied with a greater potential for simultaneously exhibiting above average skills in several fields (g and multiple intelligence). As with all things in Nature, human intelligence is composed of and influenced by all possible variables. The concept of variables can likely be easiest understood by considering the variables of health, where some people may have no symptoms of an illness, while other people are terminally ill with the illness (an item that is useful for illustrating variables is Asperger Syndrome, which is included as a separate topic towards the end of this page). Similarly, variations of intelligence will include speed, quantity, quality, memory retention, accuracy, sensorial perception, and many dozens of other primary variables that determine the nature of the intellect. A man can be extraordinarily good in one topic while not doing well in another topic, while some individuals are capable of mastering any topic of their choosing, and some individuals have difficulty doing anything well. If placed into a graph, the graph would appear similar to a biorhythm chart except with many hundreds of lines. Some individuals will have all their lines at near the maximum, while some individual's lines will all be near the minimum, and everyone else's lines are somewhere in-between.
As there is a variable of speed of thought from very slow to very fast, which prohibits or enables useful thinking, there are also variables of perception of audible tones that enable or prohibit musical talents, variables of interests in various fields that enable or prohibit talents in the fields, variables of abilities to do math or speak languages that enable or prohibit the talent of mathematics and languages, and each individual possesses a different quantity and quality of all variables. A man can possess the highest variable of performing mathematics, and he might then be capable of solving complex mathematical formulas in his mind, but if he does not possess a high level of the variable of language, then the man might not be able to communicate the mathematical sum. A high IQ score alone does not in itself infer a high level of intelligence, but rather the IQ score lends an idea of the person's talents in the variables of speed, language, mathematics, and some abstract thinking capabilities. All humans possess different levels of all variables, and the individuals who score well on IQ tests exhibit high levels of talents within the specific variables that IQ tests best measure.
There are several variations of mental processing methods, with each variation producing a different level of intellectual potential. Two variations are of conscious and subconscious perception, where the median mind receives over 99.9% of its sensorial input subconsciously, and the above-average mind receives a larger percentage of sensorial input consciously. Another two variations are linear and conceptual thinking processes, where the median mind predominately thinks with a string of thoughts that are directly related to the previous thought, and the above-average mind thinks with the width of analytically comparing each thought to numerous memories retained in the consciousness. The linear thinking method has difficulty in recognizing absurdities because the thinking process does not consciously weigh a present thought to previously learned information, which is to a high degree caused by the lack of conscious sensorial perception. Extremely talented individuals do not easily recognize their own traits as being anything except common because there are no known higher levels of talent to compare the individual's talent to. The extremely talented individual may have as much difficulty comprehending the mind of average people as average people have difficulty understanding the extremely talented mind.
A shorter version of this page is still available on a high IQ society website where I originally commented on how some individuals with average IQs have achieved as much or more in life than most all high IQers. I was rudely attacked by some high IQers from other societies for having made the statement, and so I removed the wording with the aim of lessening the quantity of hate mail. Now that I feel free to speak my mind more fully, it is useful to point-out that the accuracy and creativity of genius is as capable of being accomplished by a 100 IQ as it is with a 200 IQ, and perhaps at times more easily. Creativity naturally requires harmony with the item and its environment, whereas the lack of harmony prevents all possible creativity. Harmony is attainable through the thoughtfulness and consideration of the environment by the individual. Accuracy in perception, memory, and reasoning is greatly affected by emotions, and the only emotion that does not bias and incorrectly color a perception and memory is unselfish love. Love is the only means of acquiring accurate information and attaining the necessary harmony for creativity. Love is real-world smart, far smarter than what an IQ score can measure. Anyone can love and challenge any genius' creativity. A 100 IQ person's love influences the environment creatively, but a negative 200 IQ individual negatively influences the environment with disharmony. It is not rational to believe that high or low IQ is a valid measurement of intelligence, and especially not of genius. A man without love has nothing, and his IQ means nothing as well. It is most logical to judge a man by his qualities as a man, and not judge him by the quantities of a mathematical formula.
Traits of Prodigies
Below is a brief list of traits that are commonly found among well known male academic prodigies (i.e. John Mill, Norbert Wiener, and William Sidis). The list shows trends ("trend" is defined as a thing that occurs more often than not), but the list does not infer that the trends must accompany all prodigies. Traits #1 and #2 do not, of course, directly apply to non-academic prodigies (i.e. music, arts, etc.).
(1) Beginning as an infant the prodigy was force-fed an education by his father.
(2) The early learning of book knowledge was by children who adored the beasts that committed the error of teaching a child words before the child first had time to learn what the words might mean.
(3) The public praised the prodigy’s academic success while simultaneously belittling and hating (through envy) the prodigy himself.
(4) Difficulty finding a suitable mate. The problem exists in there being few females of suitable attributes to draw the attention of a prodigy. The psychological mechanism that weighs harmonious attributes of a mate will require a female of compatible intellectual talents before the male prodigy will find an interest in the woman.
(5) Emotionally troubling times in their lives. Sensitivity of mind to achieve intellectual acuity also means sensitivity of mind to negative emotions as well as a sensitivity to the inward qualities of a potential mate. The natural rhythmic biological and experiential-intellectual phases of growth are out of phase with the intellect (adoration at 1-5, rebellion at 13-15, settling down at 17-20, life-choice of direction at 27-30, '50 year old crazies' at 50, etc.), which in part can cause great inward conflict of uncontrolled emotions. In general, a prodigy’s chronological phase of intelligence might remain fixated in the adoration phase while simultaneously entering the life-choice phase as well as the body’s rebellious phase, plus the once secluded prodigy without experiential knowledge of socializing is thrust into intense public interaction, which of course can result in an uncomfortably disturbing period for the individual. Condensed, it simply means that the intellect acquires book-knowledge faster than it can acquire bodily life-lessons, and the two incompatible types of knowledge conflict to cause emotional disturbances. It is important to emphasize that Nature rules the phases of body growth, not man. Modern methods of education are not in harmony with natural body-growth phases.
(6) The prodigy tends to speak of their own life experiences. The act of referring to one's own sequencing of life experiences is an important key in judging where an individual’s conscious attention has been directed throughout life. The general public often interprets self-talk as narcissism, but it is not vanity to simply relate how the logics sequencing of events occurred. Narcissism is defined as excessive self-love without empathy for others, which is a trait common to the majority of the general public, but the behavior often appears more pronounced in academic prodigies. The psychological structuring that allows many academic prodigies to be prodigies is based on the lessening of emotional width, which naturally results in a lack of empathy for others. Lack of empathy might be symptomatic of an insufficient development of mirror cells in the brain, which is common among individuals with dampened sensorial perception, which too is common among the general public. The common narcissism observed today is not of true intellectual prodigies, but rather of individuals who are simply good at memorizing information and are wrongly deemed prodigies by the general public. The behavior of #6 might be one of the dividing points between average and superior.
(7) The highest prodigy figures things out by himself (this trait usually precludes the prodigy from becoming or remaining an academic prodigy).
"In order that thinking might not degenerate into "metaphysics", or into empty talk, it is only necessary that enough propositions of the conceptual system be firmly enough connected with sensory experiences and that the conceptual system, in view of its task of ordering and surveying sense experience, should show as much unity and parsimony as possible." - Albert Einstein
SQ (Sensory Quotient) Scoring
The SesquIQ High IQ Society helped to develop the SQ (sensory quotient) tests.* The scoring method measures differences of conscious sensorial perception. Sensorially talented individuals are able to perceive and be conscious of details that the majority of other people do not recognize except only in part at the subconscious level. A SQ score of 100 is average for over 99.9% of all tested individuals.
The predominate advantage of SQ as it applies to intelligence is that the increased conscious sensory input results in increased information for the mind to work with. All expressed intelligence relies on an individual having sensorially experienced a thing firsthand. With increased information input, the mind is able to correlate more data and arrive at a more useful and logical conclusion than if there were little information available.
The SQ scoring method adopted a numbering system that visually appears similar to IQ scoring. Early SQ scores of 90, 180, 270, 360, and 450 are now 100, 125, 150, 175, and 200 respectively. Instead of relating 90 degrees to each octave, the formula now simply adds 25 points.** The scoring method will change in later years when the SQ test is further developed. Similar to IQ scores, actual SQ scores are unimportant; it is the percentile ranking that holds importance.
*Update August 02, 2009: The SQ sensory quotient tests used by SesquIQ are unique, they began their first development as a written test in 1999, and they are not based nor styled upon any other sensory test. Sensory tests have long been in existence for use by psychologists and others, but no other sensory test is even remotely similar to the SesquIQ SQ test. Only one individual other than myself knows how the SesquIQ SQ test is designed, evaluated, or scored. Some SesquIQ members were told various aspects of the test, but never was the design explained. If an individual outside of SesquIQ claims to give SesquIQ-style SQ tests, or the individual claims to know how the SesquIQ SQ test is designed, then the public should immediately recognize that the individual is not telling the truth.
**Update August 02, 2009: The scoring method is being changed back to the original so as to allow a more accurate modeling of results, and no further attempt will be made to contort the score into a two dimensional math scale.
***Update March 25, 2013: The book Beyond Prodigies describes many of the features and results of the SQ test.
"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." - attributed to Albert Einstein
On Belief Systems
All humans hold an unvalidated system of beliefs, and no thinking life-form can survive without a primary system of beliefs.
Of importance to how beliefs apply to the topic of intelligence, is how some individuals frequently state that it is illogical for a group of people to believe in a religion different than the person's own. Unless a person has firsthand experience of a topic, then the person has no grounds whatsoever to make a logics case for or against any belief system of any form, whether it be religious, scientific, or philosophical. It is fully acceptable for an inexperienced person to share thoughts about a topic, but declaring a thing right or wrong without first having firsthand experience with the topic, it is an act of self-creating an unfounded belief system based solely on imagination and none on experiential understanding. Without firsthand experience, all reasoning must be based upon an unfounded belief system of imagination, one that has no validity and will be strongly biased relative to the previous foundation of unfounded beliefs.
If a person wishes to be smart, then the individual personally investigates and studies the topic from top to bottom, from side to side, and with zeal delves into the study to learn all aspects possible of learning. Only after a person has invested their own life into comprehending a topic will the person then be qualified to give a meaningful opinion (the opinion could still be in error, but at least it holds the value of having been spoken by a person with experience). The same applies for religion, that a person must actually live-out the teachings of the religion before the individual will comprehend what the teachings are pointing to. Only after a person has zealously endured the teachings of poverty, self-sacrifice, humility, and devotion will the person gain the maturity of understanding that can only be had through firsthand experience. For a person to base their belief system upon having read a book of science is little different than another person basing their belief system upon having read a book of religion. In neither case have the individuals performed firsthand investigations, and in both cases the individuals know nothing whatsoever of what they are talking about.
The scientist that performs controlled scientific experiments in a lab has firsthand experience, and his opinions have weight. A person that performs controlled religious experiments in the lab of Nature has firsthand experience, and his opinions have weight. Individuals who have done no experiments have no firsthand experience, and their opinions have no weight.
To voice a useful opinion about a specific belief system, first the person must fully accept the belief system in question, follow the teachings of the belief system, master each belief system, live-out the ideals of each belief system, know firsthand how each belief system influences the person’s own life, and only then will the person be in the position to be capable of useful logic. No man can avoid error, no man can possibly experience all topics with a completeness of experienced understanding, but to carelessly express unfounded arguments based solely upon imagination and none upon experience, the result is always strife. The planet suffers from having too many thinkers and too few doers.
Experience is the builder of correct logic.
"We cram our children with lies, and punish anyone who tries to enlighten them." - George Bernard Shaw
On Brain Development
An incorrect but common belief by the general public is that human children do not attain consciousness prior to the age of about twelve months old. The belief bases its existence on a belief in the accuracy of information believed to have arrived from researchers who believed their method of research was valid. Some individuals believe that human consciousness cannot be present earlier than about six months of age. Regardless of which belief a person might hold, both are incorrect, and the general public will continue to hold onto the beliefs for many years to come. Once established, it is difficult to erase a system of beliefs even after the beliefs are verified to have been wrong.
Another common and similarly flawed belief by the general public is that increased frontal lobe activity denotes brain activity associated with consciousness and intelligence.
The beliefs in late consciousness and frontal lobe equating to consciousness are based on incorrect reports of studies that incorrectly limited their research to a narrow selection of participants. Age of consciousness theories were predominately derived from babies that were dead (dissection of brain tissue), or otherwise had severe head injuries, genetic deformities, or other problems where use of MRI equipment was acceptable. Frontal lobe theories were predominately derived from a limited quantity of participants without noted regard of each individual's intellectual capacity. Although some of us have objected to the beliefs for decades, only recently have new research measurements verified our claims as correct, that different people use different regions of their brains. New studies now admit that at least a number of individuals with known high intelligence measure a lessening of frontal lobe activity and an increase of rearward activity during thought processing.
Frontal lobe theories only have relevance for a limited percentage of the population, and the theories should not be accepted as the full answer to base a belief system upon.
"We readily inquire Does he know Greek or Latin, Can he write poetry and prose? But what matters most is what we put last: Has he become better and wiser? We ought to find out not who understands most but who understands best. We work merely to fill the memory, leaving the understanding and the sense of right and wrong empty. Just as birds sometimes go in search of grain, carrying it in their beaks without tasting it to stuff it down the beaks of their young, so too do our schoolmasters go foraging for learning in their books and merely lodge it on the tip of their lips, only to spew it out and scatter it on the wind." - de Montaigne
On Early Memories
An incorrect but common public belief is that no human is capable of forming memories prior to the age of about two years old. The belief partially bases its existence on a belief in the accuracy of information believed to have arrived from researchers who believed their method of research was valid. The belief also bases its existence on the illogical assumption that since one person does not consciously recognize his own memories, then the person believes that all other humans must have similarly limited memory capacity.
No known form of intelligence can exist without there being a method for retaining information. No human mind can function with intelligence without it having the capacity to create memories. No form of intelligence can evolve nor increase without there first being memories in existence. It is not possible for a human mind to learn or even think without there first being a capacity for memory. All useful intelligent thought is the analogous association of memories to a perception, and without the capacity to retain one thought to the next through short- and long-term memory, no extended thought is possible. It is an absurdity to claim that a child will attain consciousness at about six to twelve months of age, and yet the child will not attain the capacity for memories until about twenty-four months of age. Some children learned to spell and read before twelve months of age, and it ought to be obvious to every healthy mind that the capacity for spelling and reading relies on the necessity of there existing the capacity for consciousness and memories.
Memories do not magically pop out of thin air and begin occurring after a specific chronological age, but rather memories are intimately tied to the process that enables a human to learn and think. The capacity for memory creation and use exists from the first moments of fetal life. It is another absurdity to claim that the brain alone is capable of retaining all the information received from a lifetime of experiences, and thus if the brain is not the sole source of memories, then other forms of memory retention can exist prior to the development of the brain. Nothing in Nature exists singularly by itself, and neither does the nature of the mind and memories.
It is possible that some minds may be slow to develop useful quantities of memories sufficient enough to spawn extended conscious thought, but not all minds are created identical. Some people do have memories from prior to the age of two years old, some people have memories from prior to birth, and it is an unfounded public belief that all human intelligence is identical.
"Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocrities. The latter cannot understand it when a man does not thoughtlessly submit to hereditary prejudices but honestly and courageously uses his intelligence." - Albert Einstein
On Early Intelligence
"Mathematical" analysis is not dependent on the learned symbolism of numbers. An individual does not think with numbers to know how hard to push on the brake or gas pedal when driving. An individual also does not have a need for pencil and paper to mentally analyze how far to turn the steering wheel when driving an arc. The mind, through weighed logics, must calculate lengths, pressures, speed, and duration of time without use of numeric symbolism while driving. Long prior to learning symbolism, a healthy mind is performing mathematical calculations through the use of logically weighed analogies and memories of prior experiences. Languages, numbers, and all other forms of symbolism are learned analogies: the thinking process itself is not based upon words and numbers. Symbolism is an external reference, not an internal act. Some individuals have become overly fixated with symbolism and no longer remember nor perceive the original functioning of the mind, but it is illogical to believe that the mind performs primary inward mental functions with learned external words and symbols.
No two individuals possess the same capacity for perception, and likewise not all people apply the same quality of attention to perceptions. Some individuals are acutely aware of their perceptions and thinking process, and though some individuals may not care to be aware of their thinking process, one person's unawareness does not imply universal unawareness. Symbolic mathematics is slow, sequential, innately inaccurate, and only useful for participating in human-designed activities that require symbolic mathematics. Natural analogous weighing is analog, rapid, spherically fluid, multi-directional, as exact as the person's innate mental and sensorial potential, and must exist inwardly before an external symbolism can be applied.
Man created mathematics, and nothing created can measure that which created it.
It would appear that surely it is common knowledge that all healthy children perform mathematical analysis prior to learning symbolic numbers, but there have been individuals who insist in a belief that no human can think nor calculate quantities prior to receiving formal instruction.
A nine month old child was observed to consciously and with focused attention apply a combination of eye-hand coordination to physically aim and push a wheeled toy of specific size through a distant opening barely wide enough for the toy to pass. The child did of course perform similar calculations much earlier, it was only at the age of nine months that the significance relative to this topic was observed and recorded. The mind must be capable of calculating distances, widths, relative widths, speeds, deceleration of speeds due to resistance, resistance relative to the nature of the surface causing resistance, kinetics, angles of approach, and much more, all simultaneously, and each calculation must be held within the mind as a memory that can be associated to and calculated with all other calculations. If the general public applied logic to simple observations like watching children at play, then the myths about mathematics would never have been accepted.
I personally had long held the belief that for a child to crawl on the floor, there must exist the conscious mental control of physical body movement to enable the child to use a specific quantity of physical energy to pull the torso in a specific direction that is consciously analyzed and concluded. Today, however, it appears that there does exist a possibility that many children learn to crawl unconsciously, that is, without conscious control. My belief was based upon my observing family members and myself, but it was not until recently did the evidence arise that some individuals are in fact unconscious of their learning phases.
Perhaps most commonly a child first learns mobility through use of one arm, and later learns to use both arms and legs. For individuals without memory of crawling, to verify whether conscious analysis is required or not, all that is needed is for the person to lie down on the floor and pull themselves with only one arm. Anyone with a healthy mind can verify their own level of consciousness or unconsciousness simply by repeating similar physical movements as are done by children.
The early weeks of an infant's life include a gradual learning of how to control the body's muscles. Learning requires memory, memory requires consciousness (or unconscious consciousness), and conscious memory logically applied to repetitious acts is conceptualized mathematics. While a person is on their back on the floor, it requires conscious will and purpose to learn how to roll over. Healthy children learn to roll over within a couple weeks, and healthy children learn to crawl within about 3 months (if the opportunity exists for the child to have sufficient room and is not being held too often). Throughout the processes of learning to roll over, crawl, and walk, there is a conscious (or unconscious) analyzing of the self and one's environment. Consciousness, memory, and logic (non-symbolic mathematics) exist prior to birth, not six to twelve months later as is popularly believed.
The belief that all children are not conscious until a specific age is grossly wrong. All healthy minds are in full mathematical and geometric awareness long before symbolic words and numbers are learned. Symbolic languages and numbers are of the very least importance to intelligence.
"He plants trees to benefit another generation." - Caecilius Statius (220 BC - 168 BC)
On Social and Business Ethics
The ethics page at SesquIQ gives brief definitions for ethics and morals at the individual level. Before a thought or discussion arises about social ethics, it is necessary to first understand how and why an ethic is created, as well as what it is.
A common public desire is to persuade and/or force governments and/or businesses to conform to religious or philosophical standards of 'ethics.' Though the desire is often committed with good intentions, the 'ethics' sought to be imposed by some individuals upon other individuals are not ethics at all, but rather are moral behaviors, and not necessarily good morals at that. An ethic is personal, inward, and self-chosen, and it is not created nor influenced by external opinions. Changing a behavior does not change the ethic, the ethic changes the behavior, and all useful behavior must first begin within the individual. I invested quite a bit of time and effort into clarifying the differences of ethics and morals in the book Logics Origin of Ethics, Morals, Virtue, and Quality. Attempting to force an ethic or moral behavior upon a government or business will always result in worsening the problem further.
"There are few circumstances among those which make up the present condition of human knowledge, more unlike what might have been expected, or more significant of the backward state in which speculation on the most important subjects still lingers, than the little progress which has been made in the decision of the controversy respecting the criterion of right and wrong. From the dawn of philosophy, the question concerning the summum bonum, or, what is the same thing, concerning the foundation of morality, has been accounted the main problem in speculative thought, has occupied the most gifted intellects, and divided them into sects and schools, carrying on a vigorous warfare against one another. And after more than two thousand years the same discussions continue, philosophers are still ranged under the same contending banners, and neither thinkers nor mankind at large seem nearer to being unanimous on the subject, than when the youth Socrates listened to the old Protagoras, and asserted (if Plato’s dialogue be grounded on a real conversation) the theory of utilitarianism against the popular morality of the so-called sophist." (From the first paragraph of Utilitarianism (1879) by prodigy John Stuart Mill (1806-1873), who promoted the idea that the definition and measure of morality is happiness.) ..."If there is any anterior principle implied, it can be no other than this, that the truths of arithmetic are applicable to the valuation of happiness, as of all other measurable quantities."
"A universe definable in two sentences is something for which the professorial intellect has no use. No faith in anything of that cheap kind!" (From Pragmatism: A New Name for Some Old Ways of Thinking, "To the Memory of John Stuart Mill from whom I first learned the pragmatic openness of mind and whom my fancy likes to picture as our leader were he alive to-day." by William James (1907), godfather of prodigy William James Sidis.)
John Stuart Mill is popularly believed to have possibly been the world's greatest academic prodigy, while William James was a major influence on William James Sidis who today is incorrectly believed by many to have been the smartest man on earth. Observe what was written in Utilitarianism. Ponder the words. Think it through. Happiness, of course, cannot be the answer for ethics and morals, for one man's happiness can be another man's agony. One man's happiness of riches always arrives at the cost of another man's sorrow in life. Happiness is not an acceptable definition for ethics and morals. Summum bonum, which implies highest good, is still today found in the dictionaries that claim that ethics are morals and that morals are ethics, and it is logically unacceptable for anyone at any time to ever make the claim that an unknown thing can be defined through it being deemed synonymous with another unknown thing. Mill was correct, however, that philosophy had not discerned the nature of ethics and morals.
It is useful to give attention to Mill's comment about arithmetic. Mill was not the first — nor will he be the last — to believe that the Universe is structured upon mathematical laws. Although it is a simple thing to recognize that mathematics is man's invention as a means of measuring the external shapes of objects, never will it be logical that a created thing (mathematics) created by another created thing (man) could possibly be the origin of that which created the things. The only known method of observing the nature of an object is to place the object near another object, and to then observe the reaction. No man can know the heart and mind of another man, and no quantity of mathematics will ever discover nor measure the inward nature of ethics or the Universe.
Each person must individually learn what ethics and morals are. It is already known that up to the beginning of the twentieth century that western philosophy had failed to provide answers for ethics and morals, and so it is not rational for anyone to believe that doing the same thing over and over of reading western philosophy's interpretations of ethics and morals will produce a different result. If a thing is wrong, then it is wrong, and western philosophy is wrong about ethics and morals. It is not logical for anyone to continue believing that ethics and morals will be found within western philosophy. The responsibility stands on each person's shoulders, that of exerting the effort to learn of the natures of ethics and morals, or to continue with the blind faith in believing that the non-definition by western philosophy is sufficient to produce a clarity of definition. It is also not rational for people to claim that they have ethics and morals when the people cannot so much as give a non-contradicting definition of what an ethic and moral might be.
Remember that human intelligence exhibits its uniqueness within the animal kingdom by being capable of discerning intricacies of details. Utilitarianism's definition of happiness for ethics could have as easily been written by Koko. If an individual should choose to desire to ensure that their intelligence is superior to that of common animals, then the individual will exert the effort to giving attention to intricacies of details, including those that define ethics and morals.
Any act of morality in government or business will be at the individual level, the government employee or the business employee, not in the system itself. Government and business are concepts, they do not exist, they are systems of game rules that players must abide by or be punished. Changing the rules will not change an employee's ethics, only the employee can change his/her ethics.
First know what an ethic is, how an ethic is created, and why the ethic is chosen, and only then will it be possible to choose behavior that does not unnecessarily muddy the pond further.
"Those who practice the Art of Peace must protect the domain of Mother Nature, the divine reflection of creation, and keep it lovely and fresh. Those who are enlightened never stop forging themselves. The realizations of such masters cannot be expressed well in words or by theories. The most perfect actions echo the patterns found in Nature." - Morihei Ueshiba, founder of Aikido, excerpts from "The Art of Peace"
On Critical Thinking
As ugly as a runaway rogue religion is that may destroy peaceful relations amongst humanity, so can runaway skepticism. It is a good thing to place sufficient trust in other people so that an individual can gain useful information, but the individual should immediately begin searching for methods to verify the information as correct or incorrect. If the individual trusts too much, and does not verify the accuracy of the information, then in time the individual's whole of logic will be based on beliefs, and none on fact. Correct logic cannot exist without correct information.
Similarly, distrust is necessary to not believe everything is as it appears. It is useful to distrust that all photographs of glowing objects in the sky are alien space crafts, but it is not useful to distrust that the photographs may be of an object not yet known. If the individual distrusts too much, and is not open to new possibilities, then in time the individual's whole of logic will be based on beliefs, and none on fact. Again, correct logic cannot exist without correct information, and the possession of less information derived through the denial of all new information does not create good logic. If a thing is unknown, then it is unknown, and no conclusion should be formed beyond the "I don't know."
It is good to question all things with the aim of finding answers. It is not good to believe or disbelieve all things just for the sake of believing or disbelieving, because no answers will be forthcoming, and the behavior can only cause strife. Similar to bad evangelism boo-hooing about the world not believing the same as the religion, bad skepticism boo-hoos about the world not believing its unfounded beliefs. Bad skepticism is the mirror image of bad evangelism; both rely on fantasy.
Most individuals who have their world-view threatened will react by more firmly grasping onto and defending their beliefs. An unfounded religious belief will be hardened when it is attacked by the unfounded beliefs of skepticism, and the unfounded beliefs of skepticism are hardened when attacked by religious beliefs. The polarized views generally perpetuate the other, intensifying the opposing views, creating their own torment.
A question must be questioned, and only then can answers be found. To know anything about Reality, to grasp an understanding about the Universe, to have correct information to base logic upon, a person must empirically experience Nature firsthand. Any conclusion not based on firsthand empirical experience is imaginary, and an unworthy companion to any thinking individual.
Critical thinking is not the negatively criticizing of other people's thoughts, but rather critical thinking is the act of sharply critiquing one's own thoughts to ensure accuracy. If a person cannot critique and clarify accuracy within his own thoughts, then he cannot accurately critique anyone's thoughts. To negatively criticize another man's thoughts without first criticizing one's own, it is an act of aggression, a form of psychological terrorism, and an immoral behavior.
"If you hear a voice within you say "you cannot paint," then by all means paint, and that voice will be silenced." - Vincent Van Gogh
Faith-Based Science: The Death of Humanities
Open an encyclopedia and pick any topic. Except for a precious few topics, little or no information will be given that relates the topic to human life. Long discussions about automobiles, for example, will be found that supply names, dates, places, types, brands, sizes, mechanics, designs, number of cars sold, where cars are made, where cars are sold, profits, costs, stock markets, what age bracket buys what type of car, and on and on, but little or no information about how automobiles relate to humans.
Hundreds of millions of documents supply information about automobiles, but where can a document be found that supplies information about how a human perceives automobiles? Why have humans been taken out of the picture?
The same mysterious absence of human involvement is found in other topics including clothing, housing, computers, the Universe, and even food. Why is there so much 'science' but no humanity? Do humans no longer count in the scheme of things? Is there now so little value placed on human life that we have been pushed out, abandoned, and replaced with numbers, financial data, and even claims that ethics and happiness are based upon arithmetic?
Encyclopedia and government agency records about corn provide more information about cultivation, insects, DNA, origins, and other scientific data than anyone except a corn specialist would likely desire to know. Within the vast quantity of information, where is the information of how corn is perceived by humans? Except for infinitesimally small references to a few colors, there is no measurable reference whatsoever to how a human experiences corn's sights, aromas, textures, sounds, and tastes.
Where is the science of human life? Where is the science of sensory perception, the very thing that humans do more than anything else and need more than everything else to be capable of rational thought? The absence of humanity in science is not a mistake; it is purposeful and with a design.
An art teacher once commented that my sketches were "too good" and that I somehow must have cheated. After being disciplined twice I never allowed any human to see my artwork again. I was the top A-string violinist for over two years in school, but upon changing schools the new music teacher was not interested in orchestra, only marching band music, so I quit violin and still regret it today. In math classes I was accused of cheating because my test scores were too high, and it only took one visit to the principal's office for me to stop allowing anyone to see my work. In science classes I was ridiculed for speaking of physics that had not yet become known, and from that moment forward I continue to hide all serious research from all people. Even upon joining some high IQ societies I was belittled for speaking of knowledge not yet written in text books.
The world has too much skepticism and envy of individuals with talents, and the artist as well as the audience suffers from the lowbrow minds. The skeptic is Nature's worst enemy, the prophet of a humanless science, the black heart that destroys all things decent and beautiful in life.
If you are good with a violin, a brush, a pen, or anything of the arts, never stop bringing your talents to life. Never allow the talent to fade away simply because a school no longer allows arts, never stop just because of a bad arts teacher, and never stop just because there is no longer a place to perform. Enter your closet and toss out the clothes if necessary to make room for your art to remain alive. A talent lost weighs heavy on the heart in later years, and the world is less colorful, for both the artist as well as the audience, and even if you have no talent in the arts, there is as much beauty in the life of he who with open senses perceives the creation of the artists.
You will find something more in woods than in books. Trees and stones will teach you that which you can never learn from teachers. - Saint Bernard (1090 - 1153)
Brain Disorder Myths : Einstein's Asperger Syndrome
In part, false beliefs about prodigious children are often the result of people having poor memories of their own childhood. If the general public could remember their own manner of thinking when young, the individuals might be capable of comparing their own thoughts to the thoughts of other people, and then realize that specific types of mental structuring might be forms of mental practice. Was the report of Einstein repeating sentences as a child a form of mental practice, or for another reason?
There is a usefulness in practicing with a musical instrument by playing the same song over and over, and there can be a usefulness in repeating a sentence while observing one's own mental activity. Within each thought and spoken word there exists a rhythm that describes the mental patterning of the individual’s intellect. Some individuals with a talent for rhythmic mathematics may discover an interest in observing how slight variances in a pattern will influence the rhythm itself. The general public does not have a talent for rhythmic mathematics, and thus the general public does not know that the possibility exists that Einstein’s repetitions of sentences may have in fact been indicative of mathematical superiority, and not a brain defect.
While it may be true that some individuals appear to repeat sentences for no worthy reason, the trend cannot apply to all people who repeat sentences. It is not rational for anyone to claim that they know the heart and mind of anyone other than themselves, and even less rational is it to make the claim about individuals like Einstein who have been dead for over fifty years. If Einstein might have had a symptom of Asperger, there is no method to now verify it true or false.
The following six symptoms of Asperger are taken from Asperger Syndrome Fact Sheet, NIH Publication No. 05-5624, January, 2005.
"Asperger syndrome (AS) is a developmental disorder that is characterized by:
(1) Limited interests or an unusual preoccupation with a particular subject to the exclusion of other activities.
(2) Repetitive routines or rituals.
(3) Peculiarities in speech and language, such as speaking in an overly formal manner or in a monotone, or taking figures of speech literally.
(4) Socially and emotionally inappropriate behavior and the inability to interact successfully with peers.
(5) Problems with non-verbal communication, including the restricted use of gestures, limited or inappropriate facial expressions, or a peculiar, stiff gaze.
(6) Clumsy and uncoordinated motor movements."
All six symptoms should be interpreted at their extreme levels before claiming that the symptoms imply the Asperger disorder. Relatively speaking, the whole of the general public has Asperger when compared to the few individuals who have no symptoms.
There is a bell curve of IQ scores, and likewise there are bell curves for many other abilities. The trouble with bell curves, however, is that they place average at the top instead of in the middle where it belongs. I prefer the 'lazy-s' shape for it being a more accurate rendering of the scale of variables (who has the most or least of what variable/symptom). On Asperger syndrome, the 'disease' is marked for those at the top of the lazy-s, and it is those individuals in the average segment that invent the interpretation of who is diseased and who is not. Compared to the individuals on the far right side of the angle who exhibit the least number of symptoms, if the far left side is deemed to have a brain disease, then the individuals on the far right side may relatively interpret that roughly ninety-nine percent of the population also has the disease. On SQ sensory perception there is very little curving. The scale begins at almost zero, and only when approaching very close to the one hundred percentile does the line quickly rise.
It is unfair to evaluate Einstein or anyone else with uncommon traits as being brain-defective without there first being a direct in-person observation of the individual. Yes it is true that some individuals have a physiological or emotional difficulty that are listed under the Asperger symptoms, but symptoms alone do not infer a disease. Everyone is different, and that is a good thing. It is even better to accept reality by accepting the differences and to stop trying to apply negative traits to people who are deceased and cannot possibly be evaluated in person. If there is a chance to err, it is always best to err on the positive side.
The next section on types A and B intelligence serves as a useful reminder that before a person accuses another individual of having a brain defect, the person should stop and remember that all humans are not quite perfect.
"In all things of Nature there is something of the marvelous." - Aristotle (384 BC - 322 BC)
Type A and B Intelligence
A common misconception about intelligence is the belief that there can only exist one type and patterning of human logic. It is incorrectly believed that all humans must follow similar sequencings of thought to arrive at a similar conclusion, e.g. the knowledge of quarks can only be acquired through scientific experimentation or the memorizing of the knowledge in school. I will only lightly touch on two types of expressed intelligence, while saving a fullness of explanation to be written on a different page.
The foundation of the type ‘A’ logic, and thus intellect, is structured upon the incorrect belief at birth that the eyes see objects and that the sense of touch is perceiving physical matter. Since the type A intellect is almost universal, so then also is language, culture, science, and education structured to support and perpetuate the type A intellect. Even after an individual learns in school that the eyes can only perceive light waves, and that the Universe is structured upon waves of energy, still the type A intellect will continue interpreting its senses as the seeing of objects and the feeling of physical matter. The type A intellect has no choice but to incorrectly rationalize that the nature of Nature can only be found by scientifically dissecting the elements of Nature, where it is expected that an object’s nature will be discovered in its composing elements. Once an incorrect foundation of logic is formed, it can never be easily repaired.
The type ‘B’ intellect is born with the rationalized conclusion that this Reality is based on energy waves, plus the thought “so this is how the eyes interpret waves.” Never does the type B intellect believe that physical matter exists, and the type B logic is founded upon a more correct interpretation of what is real. Since the type B intellect has its logic based upon the perception of a wave-based Reality and ‘sees light,’ then the type B intellect naturally rationalizes that the nature of Nature can only be found by combining the elements of Nature.
To further clarify the above, type A science incorrectly believes that the nature of an element can be found by destroying the element itself and then measuring the pieces that composed the element, but the type B science rationalizes that each element’s nature can only be manifested in how it reacts to another element. The type A intellect must study and apply great effort to recognize what the type B intellect deems to be overly simplistic and obvious.
As a brief comparison, the type B intellect’s logic is capable of quickly discerning the basic laws of Creation and analytically concluding the three-fold rule that nothing can come into existence without it being composed of no fewer than three elements. By logically comparing the knowledge of the Universe being wave-based, with the recognition of the three-fold rule, the individual’s logic will naturally arrive at the conclusion of all elements being wave-based structures composed of no fewer than three waves themselves. It is to be expected that the infant with a type B intellect will possess a concept of atoms, electrons, nuclei, quarks, and holograms long before the infant first hears the words.
Similar to the 'sees objects' and 'feels physical matter,' the type A intellect usually 'smells objects.' Since the typical olfactory level of humans is limited to near distances, the type A intellect easily believes that the sense of smell can only be the perception of air-borne molecules. A type C intellect, one structured on the sensorial acuity of detecting distinct aromas from a mile away upwind, such an intellect cannot believe that the sense of smell is only based on the perception of molecules.
Chronologically sequenced, the type A, B, and C intellects are different due to, in part, how the individuals' logic was first structured. Once a foundation is in place, never can the thing being built upon the foundation become different than the rules established within the foundation. A house foundation cannot support a skyscraper, and neither can a type A foundation support a type B intellect, nor a B an A.
The type B intellect’s logic is verified as valid by physics, psychology, philosophy, biology, mathematics, and every other field, while the same fields verify that the type A logic is incorrect. But it is the incorrect type A logic that claims intellectual talents can only exist if the talents support the type A logic. IQ tests, IQ scores, and interpretations of what marks an intellectual prodigy, are all graded upon the type A logic.
"Not the tree, not the vine, not the branches, but the fruit of the spirit — love, patience, long-suffering, brotherly love, kindness — that brings into the consciousness of each soul that material things are after all but the shadows rather than the reality..." Edgar Cayce (1877–1945)
Scientism states that sensory perceptions are subjective and thus invalid. Only a thing that be identically replicated objectively by another person can be deemed scientifically correct.
Does a ten note chord remain the same if one of the notes is changed? Why not? Is it because the person hears the difference? Sensory perception is inadmissible in science, and so therefore all claims of hearing a difference of chords are inadmissible. Only after the chord is mathematically measured for frequencies, harmonics, and intensities through use of a machine is it then possible to state that the differences are scientifically valid. If science were interested in sensory perceptions then there would be countless books replete with descriptions of sights, sounds, tastes, feelings, and aromas. If an individual believes that science is interested in human life, then the person is free to go in search of a science book that speaks of how humans sensorially perceive their world: it will be a search for a thing that does not exist.
If you played your favorite piano composition, and if you changed the final note to that of one note higher or one note lower, have the other notes of the song changed? If the answer is no, then the intellect is sequential, but if the answer is yes, then the last note changed all other notes, and intellectual conceptualization has bloomed.
Though a man may use the same piano keys or words, and though a man may arrange the sequencing of keys and words the same as another man, the message is not the same if one sequence is intended to be sequential and the other is intended to be conceptual. If a man can hear the difference in a chord with one different note, then why has the man not thought different thoughts in a sentence that has one different word?
Science and academia insist that a sentence's words can be changed, and yet the meaning remains identically equal. It is the sequential mind that cannot cross-light what is heard to what is thought. All of science is based on the normal sequential non-conceptualizing type A intelligence.
Physicist Richard Feynman spoke of the law of conservation of energy as a mathematical principle that "does not change when something happens. It is not a description of a mechanism, or anything concrete; it is just a strange fact that we can calculate some number, and when we finish watching nature go through her tricks and calculate the number again, it is the same." The law of conservation is presented in a manner that pretends to assume that if a Bach piano concerto has the same number of notes as that of a Vivaldi violin concerto, then, therefore, the two songs must be identical. Each individual has the choice, to either believe in the scientism of counting numbers, or to believe what one can sense one's self. If science counts, and yet science does not know nor hear what it is that science counts, can the counting be valid?
The Beyond Prodigies book describes the differences between the normal and ratio/causa minds, but the normal mind is satisfied with itself and will not believe that any form of intelligence can possibly exist beyond what the most common of men already possess. Is it not pathological that the common man will cry for a want of prodigies and a wish for himself to be intelligent, and yet the common man will continue to insist that the prodigies must count numbers in the same manner as the common man?
"It takes no great intelligence to recognize that Earth is humanity's only home,
Except where noted, all contents, graphics, and photographs are Copyright©2007-2013 by Larry Neal Gowdy. All Rights Reserved.