Superhero I.Q.

Originally posted by Smaxxer
IQ is a very stupid concept, I know it sounds weird but it really is. It only measures a [b]small amount of your general intelligence, and is in most cases mathematical and grammatical based.

It measures like 10 or 15 percent of your actual potential. And the more you do IQ tests, the higher your score will be, because you're beginning to understand how the system works. But that does NOT mean you are actually smarter, you just happen to understand the tricks of it.

So when you score let's say 85 points the first time, you'll score 120 points a few (different) IQ tests later, not because you have actually become smarter, but because the same type of questions are always repeated in those tests.

IQ tests are very very very relative. [/B]

all true its based on patterns and simple problem solving - speed is the key 🙂

If u score an 85 on an IQ test u lack the facilities to understand the system and eventually score a 120. There is evidence that a person's IQ score can increase slightly after repeated tests but nothing to this degree. A raw IQ test is most accurate when administered to young children so that less factors are involved.

I was just giving an example, but I am not saying you are wrong that the IQ score will increase only slightly, I am only saying that I heard and read otherwise.

But that's the problem with those scientific researches : a lot of them contradict each other.

(Oops topic mumble mumble Richards Wins.)

85 IQ is pretty low. A person with an IQ of 115 would be smart enough to figure a way to score 120 with practice. A person with an 85 IQ is significantly below normal in mental facilities.

I know that 😉

Interestingly the average IQ in the UK today is 98 sub normal 🙂 compared to the 100 hundred standard set at before the war.

You can train yourself to go up quite a bit trust me on this, its how I got in Mensa 🙂

To a certain extent, the most accurate thing you can say about an IQ score is, "This is how well you do on an IQ test." And the more times you take one (especially the same one), the more practice effect you will benefit from. However, there is some significant correlation between IQ and academic achievement.

A more important factor (or at the least, just as important) is MQ: Motivation Quotient. It is better to have a high-MQ/low-IQ than vice versa (though the best of course is to have both up there).

IQ tests in the past have also had levels of cultural bias, though the new ones are more nonverbal, having more to do with visual/pattern-based problem-solving. Also, IQ tests - by their very nature - measure "subject-object" intelligence (which males are typically better at) and not "subject-subject" intelligence (where females are usually better).

Nonetheless, give Peter Parker his due, gosh darnnit. If he didn't invent anything beyond synthetic web it's because he didn't have to (and also because Stan Lee didn't want him becoming the Marvel version of Batman).

Multiple intelligences are the modern idea mindship.

I'm not that impressed with the idea of multiple intelligences. I think the concept is good for education and other practical applications, but it is to fragmentary, IMO, as an accurate map as to how the mind "really" works.

Originally posted by Mindship
I'm not that impressed with the idea of multiple intelligences. I think the concept is good for education and other practical applications, but it is to fragmentary, IMO, as an accurate map as to how the mind "really" works.

Its far beeter than IQ which purely looks at problem solving or motivational intelligence which ignores the Savant. The mind is in its ability levels varied "fragmented" if you like, therefore multiple intelligences work well - The rounded Feynman, Da Vinci, Newton type character is rare even in greatly diluted form.

I agree. It has much more to offer than IQ, which was initially developed for army purposes. But Gardner left out what might be called the ninth mode, "Executive Intelligence": that which coordinates the other modes. I suppose he might say EI would fall under intrapersonal intelligence, but it really isn't the same thing.

Originally posted by Mindship
I agree. It has much more to offer than IQ, which was initially developed for army purposes. But Gardner left out what might be called the ninth mode, "Executive Intelligence": that which coordinates the other modes. I suppose he might say EI would fall under intrapersonal intelligence, but it really isn't the same thing.

Executive intelligence also ignores the savant -

Emotional intelligence is usually a cop out imo its very easy to fake on tests.

But as a biochemist I have always hated psychology and cognitive sciences 🙂

imo they are all subjective at present and again a cop out.

Superman would win in a general IQ test as well as processing.. it doesn't matter. He wins.... He knows every human language and culture, and history, as if he was schooled in that country.. When he was energy Superman he absorbed all the information on the internet when his head went INSIDE the computer... His tech is beyond earth measures, such as his battle armor and phantom zone projector.

The phantom zone projector is not so advance as it could be created using earth tech. The only problem is the crystal that the generator draws its power from it no where around earth.

in order
1. Reed Richards.
2. Tony Stark/Bruce Wayne
3. Proffessor Xavier
4. Superman
5. Peter Parker.
6. Jean Grey
7. Flash
8.Thing
9.Juggernaut
10. Hulk

This list which I borrowed from Superherovandal suits me just find cuz I have alway seen batman as being second to Reed Richards I don't know much about Iron's IQ but if he is here the must be a very damn good reason..

Not every hero is good at everything this is one thing that is true in the comics and couldn't be more true in the real world. What I say is the one true determining factor that makes one hero to be smarter than the next guy...?

I think we should allow those guys at star labs into to this becasue they play with a lot of alien tech...and where the heck is Dr. Doom

Originally posted by Whirlysplatt
Executive intelligence also ignores the savant -

Emotional intelligence is usually a cop out imo its very easy to fake on tests.

But as a biochemist I have always hated psychology and cognitive sciences 🙂

imo they are all subjective at present and again a cop out.

I'm not sure what you mean when you say EI "ignores the savant." But for the sake of argument (and I thank you for this stimulating one): Executive Intelligence ignores the savant (and this is probably why Gardner left it out) because it is probably the least developed type of intelligence. It requires a level of true self consciousness (as opposed to self-cognizance, which is what we usually mean when someone says they are feeling "self conscious"😉 that, in our current state of evolution, we humans generally don't have/practice/train for, especially savants. It requires a holistic stance, and Western science is mostly analytic. Such self-awareness is usually fostered by meditative practice, which in the Western/empirical/reductionistic view of the world also generally doesnt give much credence to.

Originally posted by lifeisaglich
The phantom zone projector is not so advance as it could be created using earth tech. The only problem is the crystal that the generator draws its power from it no where around earth.

well I change that I forgot that Supes knows every language on Earth and most alien ones but overall I would say that Batman is above him.

1. Reed Richards.
2. Tony Stark/Bruce Wayne
3. Superman
4.Professor Xavier
5. Peter Parker.
6. Jean Grey
7. Flash
8.Thing
9.Juggernaut
10. Hulk

and as I recall Eradicator made the of the technology in the FOS. He made it with the Fortress. but yeah I would put Supes above Xavier.

Originally posted by Mindship
I'm not sure what you mean when you say EI "ignores the savant." But for the sake of argument (and I thank you for this stimulating one): Executive Intelligence ignores the savant (and this is probably why Gardner left it out) because it is probably the least developed type of intelligence. It requires a level of true self consciousness (as opposed to self-cognizance, which is what we usually mean when someone says they are feeling "self conscious"😉 that, in our current state of evolution, we humans generally don't have/practice/train for, especially savants. It requires a holistic stance, and Western science is mostly analytic. Such self-awareness is usually fostered by meditative practice, which in the Western/empirical/reductionistic view of the world also generally doesnt give much credence to.

this is the problem I have with all cognitive sciences - I come from an empirical world and it is all a little to subjective and airy fairy for me despite having some units from my masters in the nature of intelligence.

Originally posted by Whirlysplatt
this is the problem I have with all cognitive sciences - I come from an empirical world and it is all a little to subjective and airy fairy for me despite having some units from my masters in the nature of intelligence.

From your perspective, as a biochemist, I can understand that. Guess what I do for a living? 😉