Philosophers have the highest IQ

Can anyone tell me where I can find a GOOD RELIABLE, online FREE IQ test?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Eh... no. But there's a million if you search with Google. Most of them aren't timed, so they don't mean much. They also (often) don't ask you your age, which is odd.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

This on-line IQ test claims to have only 5% difference with formal MENSA or psychologic tests. Limited to 13 min. You must keep the time otherwise accuracy is lost. The IQ result is free, elaboration on specific detailed repport cost $ 10.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Hey! We do have Higher IQ's!

 

Impossible. Find an IQ test that tests both your short term and long term memory and pattern recognition abililty then we will talk. I have never seen an IQ test that tests your memory, which is a big part of your IQ. Some people aren't very smart, but they can flat out memorize.

 

Well, if you want to know your IQ, I would suggest you do an official one

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

But let's make something clear - although philosophing may develope your brain... being a philosopher doesn't make you a genius; being a genius often leads you to questionning thing (become some sort of philosopher) instead of just accepting so-called "truths" (like religion).
However, note how I said "often"

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

you can be much smarter than anyone else and just choose to do something other than philosophy, heh. For example, my father and I score 170; yet he works in computers and I'm still in school. Now you may want to question yourself about this: how many people did you leave OUT of the estimation?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

IQ (to be judged (as high)) must be demonstrated (in some way). The resume I posted at the opening gives the highest <I>average IQ</I> to the philosophy group (most influence in/on total history of mankind). (Even though there might be some smart computer programmers they didn´t make it to the list.) Generally HIQ works best on the large scale (large systems), as I pointed above, other disciplines (eg. maths) can separate (scale down to)(partial) problems.

 

philosophers have not had the largest influence on mankind ny any means. philosophy is an elitest s game. the common man is affected most by religion and technology

 

I should think that there so many fields wherein genius might lie. As regards philosophers, as I understand it, they were initially astronomers. Taking Spinoza as an example, he was a historian, a physicist, a mathmatician and a scientist, in addition to being a philosopher. I realize his strength in history was the history of the Jews, and that he is best known for being a philosopher, but he was definitely a recognized scientist. I believe that most, or all, of the great philosophers, were also great in math, and I cannot imagine one not knowing their history.

Therefore, perhaps these are some reasons that philosophers scored so high; that is, to be a good philosopher one must know some rather time-absorbing facts and also have a good feeling for what did and did not work in the past. What say? PMT

 

A very good point. It is indeed possible that philosophy is a more advanced level of expertise acquired in some other field of science. (In a way you step out of the frame of your field into a larger domain of knowledge (Herman Hesse wrote something like: if you show me a girl's knee I will draw easily her face, her figure - all of her because in the curves of her knee all her curves and shapes are specified/imprinted.) So if you know something good (really very good) you are more able to generalise your knowledge with regard to the broader body of knowledge).

 

What a nice way to put it. Another thing that amazed me about Spinoza was all the languages of which he had practical knowledge, and, of course with some he was well adapted: Spanish, Dutch, Hebrew, Greek, Latin, right off the top of my head, which I did not mention, but is another aspect of his learning process. Of course, he was not the only one with multiple attributes, any of which he accomplished more than the average person. W. N. A. Klever wrote that when Spinoza died, his library was found to consist of very few books on philosophy, but more about science. The philosophical books he mentioned were Aristotle and Descartes. No surprise there!.

Your remarks are well taken. Thank you. ......PMT

 

I haven't read but perhaps 1/2 of the osts so this may have already been covered.

Mathematics is totally structured. Those, such as physicists that rely on mathematical models given to them by others do not use free thought processes.

While a certain degree of skill, knowledge and intelligence ios required, it is not nearly so much, as those that actually develope such concepts from intuitive or subjective thought.

Regarding IQ's I think they are highly suspect. There are to many different test yielding to many different results. Yet there does seem to be a general analog to levels of intelligence. The problem is how to actually test it fully.

For myself my last test was a 136. Yet the data in this thread suggest "Soldiers" all have a 136. I've known soldiers that tested 65.

136 would be placed in the upper 5%. My grandson tests 163.

I just don't put a lot of faith in the IQ testing. The true test is more of achievment than of test results.

 

So, could we say that IQ's, though they do tend to indicate a level of ability, cannot quite encompass all aspects of someone's smarts, or lack of? Having an ability to be reasonabe, a tendency to be resourceful, a willingness to be gracious, and the courage of one's convictions just about says it. pmt

 

Generally I would be inclined to say yes or that it is in the right direction.

I am remined of a story I heard growing up in northern Indiana 40 miles from Logansport.

It happens that there is a state mental facility in Logansport and the story went that a yound man driving past the facility had a flat tire and pulled over onto a fairly level but grass filled ditch.

As he was changing the tire a patient was standing next to the fence watching him. When the driver started to mount the new tire on he couldn't find the lug nuts in the grass and the mental patient said "They call me crazy but I would have put the lug nuts in the hub cap".

 

I thing I could claim that <i>everything</i> is totally structured. Chaos is the term we use when we speak about structures which we do not understand (lack of knowlede) Philosophy tries to understand this totality without the full knowledge of it. To understand something with only small fragments of the knowledge of the whole is more dificult that to understand something with the knowledge of large pieces of whole.

Therefore I think philosophy requires higher IQ then exact fields:


kinds of knowlege:

exact science = large pieces of a small whole

philosophy = small pieces of a large whole

 

Better said than by myself. Thanks.

 

interesting..... However, to say that "philosophy requires" is not really correct, because we all philosophy, with or without meeting any requirements. Right?

 

"Philosophers have the highest IQ" is a correct statement; however, it's pretty misleading.


People can't just come forth and label themselves to be a self-employed "philosopher." Society determines who is and who isn't a philosopher. Those who do happened to be labelled as such are also the ones with great intelligence.

 

Wel you must be smart to be a philosoprer, here is a joke:


A philospher (P) is stopped on the highway by a motor cop (C).

C:"You were speeding, show me your licence"
P:"I don't have a licence, never passed the exam..."
C:"That's really nice, show me then the technical papers of the car."
P:"I do not have them, I stole the car an hour ago..."
C:"Oh ...the car is stolen and you admit stealing it.."
P:"Yes, I also murdered the owner and put her in the trunk. The gun is in the gloves compartement".
Cop calls for reenforcements, they arrive in a number of cars.
They surround the philosopher: The commander (COM)
COM: "So you were driving this car without the licence.."
P: (interupts him) "Wait a minute, what are you talking about, I have the licence, here it is."
COM: (surprised) Looks at the licence, it looks genuine, "But you have stolen this car, mister"
P: "I surely haven't stolen this car, sir. I bought it. Here is the technical licence.."
COM: "Mister, there is a dead woman in your trunk!!!." P opens the the trunk: it is empty.
COM: goes to the front and opens the gloves departement: empty.
COM: (Awkwardly) "Wel sir, a motor agent reported that you were driving without the license in a stolen car
with dead body and a gun."
P: "My oh my, I'll bet he also told you I was speeding!"

 

Facial: What do you mean, "society determines." Nonsense. If someone makes cabinets, he is a cabinet maker, with or without a certificate. If one drives your car for you, he is your driver, with or without a license. Society should not tell you who you are, or what you do. As for "coming forth and labeling oneself," I know of no one who has done so; yet, I do philosophy. It is what I do, not to gain approval from society, but because I love it. I especially like the older ones. My favorite philosopher is Spinoza. Also, the way your society folks persecuted the philosophers is something that I find interesting. Actually, "society" had little regard for some of the greats, so who cares what society says? (Or something like that!) Anyhow, thank you for your feedback.

Procop: I like your joke. tee hee. pmt