SIGMA SOCIETY

Resposta de Hindemburg Melão Jr.: Em primeiro lugar, é importante esclarecer que quase todas as pessoas são inteligentes (com exceção de acéfalos, derencéfalos e similares), inclusive quase todos os grandes primatas, cetáceos, paquidermes etc. Mas suponho que você queira se referir às pessoas com inteligência num nível muito elevado e raro. Estando claro isso, devo dizer que não sei se são "interessantes" os fatos que vou comentar, mas acho "estranhos" e talvez alguns sejam interessantes. Por exemplo: a maioria das pessoas superestima a inteligência de pessoas com boa retórica, bem-sucedidas financeiramente, com elevada graduação acadêmica, com boa memória, crianças precoces. De fato, todos esses itens, estão correlacionados positivamente com a inteligência, em diferentes níveis. A retórica, por exemplo, embora não tenha relação direta com inteligência, geralmente quem tem boa retórica também tem boa dialética, bom nível cultural e bom vocabulário, e estes 3 estão correlacionados positivamente com inteligência, de modo que indiretamente a retórica também acaba ficando correlacionada positivamente com inteligência. Entre esses itens, creio que os mais interessantes a se comentar sejam sobre precocidade e memória, por estarem mais intimamente relacionados com a inteligência. A memória é um dos componentes da inteligência e, embora não seja o principal, é necessário em muitas situações e a ausência de boa memória pode criar vários obstáculos ao bom desempenho da inteligência, pois reduz o ritmo de aprendizado, reduz o volume total de dados que podem ser processados na memória de trabalho (equivalente à memória RAM), dificulta resgatar informações conhecidas para estabelecer associações e analogias etc. Mas a memória em si consiste no mero armazenamento de dados e blocos de dados, portanto não é um dos atributos cognitivos mais "nobres". Quanto à precocidade, pode ser um indicativo muito importante ou não de elevado nível intelectual, dependendo muito de vários fatores. Se uma criança muito nova for precoce em fazer coisas que adultos típicos fazem, isso pode ser uma precocidade de pouca relevância, e ironicamente é o tipo que mais chama atenção, por ser mais fácil de diagnosticar. Uma criança de 2 anos que aprende a ler ou aprende 4 idiomas, por exemplo, não faz nada de especial, faz apenas algo que crianças mais velhas ou adultos típicos também fazem, e isso não é indicativo de que quando ela se tornar adulta será capaz de fazer descobertas importantes ou prestará alguma contribuição notável à humanidade. Embora essa característica, em si, não seja relevante, ela frequentemente vem acompanhada de outras. Geralmente a criança que precocemente consegue fazer muitas coisas típicas de adultos também é muito criativa e tem um pensamento analítico muito profundo e refinado. No estudo longitudinal de Terman, com 1528 crianças talentosas, por exemplo, os dois ganhadores de Nobel ficaram no grupo que Terman descartou por não serem suficientemente precoces na realização de tarefas de adultos, e entre o grupo que ele selecionou não houve nenhum laureado com o Nobel nem com qualquer prêmio notável. Um dos problemas é que o teste usado por Terman (Stanford-Binet) só tem utilidade para QIs no intervalo entre 70 e 130, e as questões são demasiado superficiais e elementares, muito útil para identificar as crianças precoces em atividades medianas, mas não servindo para identificar as crianças realmente mais inteligentes e capazes de realizar tarefas raras e valiosas.

Pergunta complementar de Bruno de Almeida: Bruno Almeida: “Na sua concepção, quais são todos os componentes da inteligência?” Resposta de Hindemburg Melão Jr.: Não creio que faça sentido falar em "todos" os componentes da inteligência. O fator g de Spearman é útil, do ponto de vista estatístico, para identificar o fator do qual o grupo de pessoas testadas está mais saturado entre as variáveis medidas no teste. Dependendo do teste e do grupo de pessoas examinadas, o primeiro fator pode responder por 85% da variância. Após extrair o primeiro fator, pode-se continuar extraindo quantos fatores se queira, até o limite do número de questões do teste. Geralmente o segundo fator responde por algo como 10% da variância e o terceiro fator por uns 3%, então com apenas 3 fatores já se consegue explicar cerca de 98% da variância. O teste de Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin em alguns casos pode ajudar a determinar objetivamente quantos fatores se deve extrair, mas nem sempre é um critério apropriado. Portanto se pode dizer que a inteligência tem tantos componentes quantos se queira medir, mas geralmente 1 ou 2 ou 3 já explicam quase toda a variância do grupo. Lembrando que isso depende muito do teste utilizado e do grupo que responde ao teste. Além disso, é importante que os fatores estatísticos que recebem algum nome não têm necessariamente alguma relação com aquele nome. Em testes de personalidade, como o IFP (Inventário Fatorial de Personalidade, de Luiz Pasquali, usando pelo Exército Brasileiro até 2004), por exemplo, o fator de "heterossexualidade" pode significar quase qualquer coisa que tenha pouco ou nada a ver com heterossexualidade, assim como um fator que eventualmente receba o nome de "criatividade" num teste cognitivo pode ter pouca ou nenhuma relação com criatividade. É apenas um nome que o autor do teste achou que poderia estar relacionado a determinado fator, mas que na verdade pode não ter qualquer relação, ou ter uma relação bem menos estreita do que o autor do teste imaginava. Isso torna os modelos de Guilford e Gardner bobagem esotérica.

Resposta de Hindemburg Melão Jr.: A maioria dos ramos da psicologia é pseudociência (na acepção de Popper). A Psicometria é uma das raras exceções. Portanto não é pseudociência. Uma pessoa que diga que testes de QI são pseudociência é porque não sabem o significado de pseudociência, nem o que são testes de QI. Além disso, o termo “confiáveis” não está bem aplicado. Trocando “confiáveis” por “representativos da variável que tentam medir”, ou usando “confiáveis” com esse significado, pode-se dizer que depende do teste. Há muitos testes de QI diferentes, com diferentes qualidades de conteúdo e de padronização. Em 2004, só no Brasil, havia mais de 100 testes aprovados para uso pelo CFP. Na Europa e nos EUA havia mais de 800 testes. Isso só falando dos testes reconhecidos pelas entidades reguladoras nos respectivos países. Estima-se que o número de testes não aprovados para uso, circulando pela internet, seja entre 10 e 100 vezes maior. Mesmo entre os testes aprovados, a grande maioria é de qualidade precária, com erros nos gabaritos, erros na padronização, entre outros problemas. Apesar disso, mesmo os piores testes de QI são muitíssimo melhores que as avaliações subjetivas feitas pelas pessoas que criticam os testes de QI. Por piores que sejam os testes, eles passaram por estudos estatísticos razoáveis, foram seguidos diversos protocolos da Teoria Clássica dos Testes ou da Teoria de Resposta ao Item, foram aplicados a uma amostra com pelo menos algumas centenas ou milhares de pessoas etc., enquanto as pessoas que criticam os testes preferem o simples achismo, que é a opinião pessoal delas ou das pessoas que comungam as mesmas crenças que elas. Ironicamente, essas pessoas que adotam uma postura pseudocientífica acusam os testes de QI de serem pseudocientíficos, o que Freud chamaria de “projeção” (embora a teoria psicanalítica seja pseudocientífica, ela acetar muita coisa). Há muitas falhas na maioria dos testes de QI, e até os melhores testes apresentam erros relativamente graves, mas ao longo dos anos estão sendo aprimorados. É um aprimoramento muito lento, mas é o melhor que se tem disponível para avaliações objetivas. Além disso, se comparar os testes de QI com exames escolares e universitários, a qualidade dos testes de QI é muitíssimo superior, em praticamente todos os aspectos. Sugiro a leitura do livro de Anne Anastasi "Testagem psicológica" ou de Luiz Pasquali "Psicometria", sobre como se constrói um teste de QI, passo-a-passo, todos os procedimentos seguidos e os cuidados tomados para tentar assegurar que a variável medida seja aquela que se deseja medir, que a escala adota tenha as propriedades estatísticas desejadas, entre outros atributos. É um processo muitíssimo mais criterioso do que a elaboração de provas universitárias das principais universidades do Brasil, que são literalmente feitas "nas coxas". Os vestibulares já utilizam métodos melhores, com qualidade comparável à dos melhores testes de QI, embora eventualmente apresentem algumas falhas. O vestibular da Fuvest de 2004, por exemplo, teve um item (questão 1 da prova de Língua Portuguesa) que media o oposto do que se desejava, favorecendo os alunos com menos conhecimento e prejudicando os que tinham mais conhecimento, ou seja, os alunos que erravam essa questão estavam mais bem preparados para serem aprovados do que aqueles que acertavam. Isso é um erro gravíssimo e muito primário num teste, por incluir uma questão negativamente correlacionada com as demais ou que a escolha da alternativa certa tem probabilidade menor do que se a pessoa chutasse, ou seja, o parâmetro c seja menor que 1/5 numa questão com 5 alternativas, como era o caso dessa questão. O problema é discutido com mais detalhes em meu artigo “Pontos fracos da prova da Fuvest” que pode ser encontrado em https://www.sigmasociety.net/artigos

Answer in https://pt.quora.com/Pessoas-com-uma-intelig%C3%AAncia-acima-da-m%C3%A9dia- have-to-tend%C3%AAncy-to-have-the-most-inflated-ego Here are some other questions I answered on Quora about intelligence, creativity, cognitive science, and IQ: https://en.quora.com/search?q=qi%20hindemburg< /a> See answers on other scientific, philosophical, cultural, educational, variety topics: https://en.quora.com/search?q=hindemburg< /p>

People are born with potential, which can be nurtured and nurtured at different levels. The vast majority of people don't even come close to exploring 80% of their potential, while others come close to 90% or 95%. World champions in sports, for example, usually get close to 95% of the best they are capable of in their sports, and they only get to that point because they dedicate a lot of time to constant improvement. If any of the world champions had never trained exhaustively, they wouldn't even come close to the marks they are capable of reaching. A person with a great talent for high jump, for example, may be able to jump about 0.8 m to 1 m, if he never trains in life and relies only on his innate talent. If she trains moderately, without any pretensions to compete, she can reach maybe 1.5 m or a little more. If she works really hard, she can reach 2.3 m or more. Another person with much less talent could jump, say, 0.5m to 0.7m, without any training, but if he trained moderately, he could already reach about 1.2n, surpassing the person with great talent, but without training, and if she put in a lot of effort, to compete, she might reach 1.6m or more. The same goes for intellectual pursuits as well. If a person doesn't use his potential and doesn't develop it, he can't get very far. So a child can be born with great talent, but to effectively become a genius, he needs to channel that talent productively and create something relevant.

Not corrected since 2006. The person with the highest score on the Sigma Test scored 182 and got 32 out of 36 correct. The same person scored 183 on the Cooijmans STH, ranked 1st in the World IQ Challenge (http://www.worldiqchallenge.com/rankings.html), ahead of some Giga Society members, was champion and runner-up in other international contests in which some of the people with IQs above 195 participated. Some people over 196 on some Cooijmans tests scored between 145 and 165 on the Sigma Test. Overall, the ST correlated close to 0.7 with the old norm Hoeflin and Cooijmans tests (using rarity scores). Few people have taken the Sigma Test VI and there is not enough data for an accurate standard. The person with the most hits scored 3 out of 10. This person scored 175 in an International High IQ Society test and was a world record holder in a game that was online for a while, but I don't think it exists anymore. Also, two people with scores above 180 on other tests scored less than 3 hits on the Sigma Test VI, and one person with 145 on a Jouve test scored 2.5, being the second highest score on the Sigma Test VI. People with 190 to 210 (rIQ) should have more than a 30% chance of getting them all right on the Sigma Test. People with 170 to 190 should have a 1% to 5% chance of getting them all right. If 1000 people with IQs of 165 to 195 took the Sigma Test, I believe that one or the other would end up getting everything right. In the case of Sigma Test VI, there is not enough data to make a reasonable estimate. The numbers above are also estimated not very rigorously, the uncertainty in the estimates must be quite large.

It depends on how much you think the result will be and how you usually react to positive and negative information. Some people, when they discover that they have a much higher IQ, become lazy and arrogant, because they don't have to strive to achieve the goals typically demanded in studies and work, in addition to thinking they are better than others. Other people, upon discovering that they have a very high IQ, become much more dedicated and humble, because they think they received this gift as a gift and the gift comes with a great responsibility, to do something great, not to waste the talent received. In the opposite result, upon discovering that they have a below average IQ, some people become withdrawn (or more withdrawn than they already were), depressed, feel inferior. Others, upon discovering that they have below-average IQs, begin to try very hard to try to change it, and are often able to accomplish more than people with much higher IQs than they do, but with less effort. In the film GATTACA you can see a very interesting dramatization of such a situation. And in real life there are some cases too, among which perhaps the most famous are Einstein and Edison. Einstein took a long time to start speaking (some sources cite that he would have started at age 4), and he performed poorly at school, even being considered retarded by a Latin teacher. Another interesting case is that of Feynman, who scored 123 on an IQ test, which is not low, but is MUCH lower than the average Nobel Prize winner, and could have discouraged him from dreaming of a prize of that level, and in fact, according to him, he never had that pretension, but simply carried out his research and ended up being awarded a Nobel, in addition to being recognized as one of the most brilliant people of the 20th century. So knowing or not IQ can be positive or negative or indifferent, depending on how you handle it. Just like knowing or not knowing other information depends on how you usually react to it. In general, in my case, I always consider it positive to obtain as much information as possible about everything, especially when it comes to self-knowledge, rather than preferring to ignore it so as not to frustrate me. If a girlfriend was cheating on me, if I had a serious illness, etc., I would rather know to take the necessary measures according to the facts, rather than prefer to ignore it so as not to suffer immediately, but with the risk of much worse consequences in the future.< /p>

In general, the higher the IQ, the more difficult and complex the topics a person is interested in, and the greater the effort required. A weightlifting champion, for example, although he is much stronger than the average person, so that he could perform the typical activities of the average person with much less effort, he is likely to adopt a routine in which he works much harder than the average person. an average person, because he proposes activities that demand much more from him. While the average person probably avoids great effort and rarely needs to use more than 50% of their total strength, the weightlifter often uses more than 90% of their total strength, so in addition to their strength being greater, they often come closer to their strength. limit.

Yes. There is a positive correlation, although it is weak. Memory plays a more important role than intelligence for calculating variants, especially working memory (equivalent to RAM memory), and the best chess players usually have a specialized memory, which allows them to memorize large numbers of matches and positions. , without necessarily presenting the same facility to memorize the same amount of information involving texts, numbers, objects etc. Although most IQ tests do not include memory tests, IQ is positively correlated with memory, so in addition to the cognitive factors that relate IQ to the calculation of variants, there are also mnemonic factors, q because they are related to the IQ, make IQ also indirectly related to the ability to calculate long and densely branched variants. Regarding the quality of the bids, it depends much more on knowledge, as Suzanne has already commented. If the person has already studied many tactical and strategic topics, it is much easier for them to predict sequences based on patterns they already know than having to improvise and discover the best moves. And when they are predominantly strategic positions, knowledge is even more important, because it is extremely difficult to deduce strategic concepts on the fly. When they are combinations (tactics), it is comparatively easier, even if the person has never seen the theme in his life, he can find out on the spot, because the results are more immediate and clear, if the person loses a piece in a variant, without any compensation, he deduces that it is bad, there is no mystery about it, but if the person is left with a bad-Bishop, without knowing the concept of a bad-Bishop, it is much more difficult for him to deduce offhand that this represents an important disadvantage in the long run . Either the person knows the concept, or he will not understand the consequence of it, and since in most positions there are no important tactical topics that involve complex calculations, strategic knowledge ends up being more important. Kasparov got 123 IQ on Raven and 135 on Eysenck, Short got 130 (the test used was not specified), Nakamura says he got 102, also without mentioning the test used. I find it very difficult for Kasparov, Short and Nakamura's IQs to be less than 150, but their chess playing strength, if converting the rating into IQ, was comparable to around 190+. So it is possible to reach very high levels in Chess, even with not so high IQ, just as it is possible to have very high IQ without reaching such high levels in Chess.

There are several studies on the variation of the intellectual level as a function of age. The combined scores on the WAIS, WISC, WPPSI, for example, make it possible to get a sense of how IQ evolves from about 2 years of age to about 70 years of age. For a more accurate, more complete and more rigorous approach, it would be necessary to have more information about the Flynn effect in the locality where the tests were applied, since the scores are not of the same people throughout life, but different people and different people. age groups, therefore born at different times. A similar effect is also observed in the Chess rating, with some differences due to the greater cultural load associated with the performances, but in general they are very similar curves. IQ increases rapidly from age 2 to 16 (probably from age 0 to 16), then continues to rise more slowly from age 16 to 20-25, remains approximately stable until age 40-45, and then begins to decline slowly. The effect is not the same for everyone. Some people continue with their IQ rising to 40, and/or it may take longer to start dropping, in others it may start dropping earlier. In terms of increasing IQ, there is an important difference between increasing test scores and actually increasing intelligence. To increase test scores, simply train specifically for typical IQ test questions. In the case of Pierluigi Piazzi, for example, he claimed to have increased from 132 to 184. As there are several cases of people who obtained scores around 130 on one test and 180 on another, it is much more likely that this is a difference related to the poor standardization of the tests used or greater/lesser adequacy of the examinee's skills to the test items than an actual performance variation of this magnitude. It would be as if a person 1.80m tall did some training and became 2.30m tall. If it were a change in weight, it would be easier to accept, but at the height it would be very unlikely. Astronauts in the absence of gravity can gain about 4 cm in height, and after a day carrying sacks of potatoes, a person gets to be 2 cm to 3 cm shorter. Therefore, it is possible to vary the height of adults without surgery and without hormonal treatment a little, but the range of variation is relatively narrow. In the case of intelligence, there is also no way to vary much. It may be helpful to study strategies for solving typical problems, such as Pólya's "The Art of Problem Solving" or the Lakatos methods used in training participants in Mathematical Olympiads. But such strategies do not make a person more creative or more analytical. They only help a person to think more organized and also provide larger chunks of information, which help a person to think faster about certain specific problems. Playing chess and some strategy games (the old Lemmings, for example), Gô, Shogui and the like can help a person to train the thinking so that it is more organized, as well as regular exercise of the brain makes the parts used more efficient than the less used ones. Depending on the situation, the use of vasodilators can also help, but they are prohibited in many situations, such as chess tournaments. In addition, they only produce a small temporary increment and then it returns to what it was, with the risk of leaving long-term sequelae. There is a song by Mozart called "The Magic Flute", which some studies have been carried out on to investigate whether it could contribute to increasing IQ. Some sources cite an increase of around 3 points, on average, lasting a few minutes, and then returning to normal. I do not believe that the results are conclusive, it is more likely that there are methodological errors or errors in the measurements. For example: they tested 10 songs, some people showed an increase of 1 to 3 points, others showed a decrease of 1 to 3 points, not because some songs actually produce such an effect, but because there was a random fluctuation in the results. So it could be a simple misinterpretation of the researchers.

Cyril Burt published studies on this in the 1970s, but they were fake, the people in the study did not exist, nor did the assistants. He thought that the child's IQ would have a peak probability of being the arithmetic mean between the average of the parents' IQs and the average of the general population. In the example you cited, most likely the child would be around 117 or 118. Besides fraud, the hypothesis is also bad, because there is no reason for genes to "know" what the average IQ of the population is. The genes are likely to produce a normal distribution with a mean between the parents' IQs, not necessarily at the midpoint. The parent with the lowest IQ is likely to pull the children's average IQ closer to his or her IQ, to a degree that may depend on the difference between the parents' IQs and how far (upward) the parents' IQs are from the average. It is important to emphasize that this does not depend on the genes "knowing" what the average population IQ is. The fact is that the higher the IQ, the better "organized" the neuronal structure is and the more sensitive to the reduction in performance with small increases in entropy. IQ must be determined by a large set of genes as well as combinations of certain genes. In my 2001 article "A New Model of Mental Structure" there is a detailed exposition of how likely this process seems to me to be. But it would be necessary to investigate empirically to test whether this model is consistent with the data.

The genetic components that determine the potential for intellectual development are transmissible, but it does not mean that they will be transmitted. Part of the genetic load that would be inherited could be determined by mutation, for example, and could be either for better or for worse (more likely). A family full of people with low IQs doesn't just have a poor genetic background. It also generally has a precarious cultural environment. In my case, I was "lucky" that although my family was poor, my father was exceptionally intelligent, my aunt was creative, and my father and mother both had exceptional memories. In the example you cited, a child born in a culturally deficient environment and with an unpromising genetic background would largely depend on the mutation to produce a genius, so the probability would be very low, depending on what exactly the IQ of each parent and how deficient the environment would be. A few months ago, I saw an advertisement for a boy who graduated in Medicine and was the son of a Down syndrome patient. I say "propaganda" because it was an obvious political propaganda, exploiting the boy and his father to "sell" a certain ideology. Generally, people with Down syndrome have an IQ close to 70 and doctors have, on average, an IQ close to 125. I would still be far from being a genius, and the mother I don't think she had Down syndrome, but she probably had an IQ below average, otherwise it would be less likely to have married a person with Down syndrome, as couples generally have similar IQs, within the limits that Statistics and Geography allow. Therefore, a child with about 50 IQ points above the average of the parents would already be very rare. In the case of a genius, in the old sense of Terman (IQ>180), it would give more than 100 points of difference in relation to parents with IQ significantly below average. So the probability would be extremely low. It would be like a 1.35 m dwarf couple (1.38 m male, 1.29 m female) having a child who is 2.15 m tall, or something similar, already trying to adjust for disparities in the real distribution of heights, which is not very adherent to a normal curve. Nothing prevents it from happening, a child could be born with 7 arms, or with wings, there are no physical or logical impediments to this, but I don't know of recorded cases of something like this, and the data suggest that it is extremely unlikely.

This is not a deterministic difference, but a statistical one. For more details, read the articles on this page: https://www.sigmasociety.net/artigos especially these : https://www.sigmasociety.net/escalasqi and https://www.sigmasociety.net/historic-resumo Given 100 complex intellectual tasks that a person with an IQ of 160 could single-handedly solve 50 of them in 1 month, it would take about 220 people with an IQ of 100 to solve 50 of these tasks in 1 month. The 50 tasks solved by the person with IQ 160 would not necessarily be the same as the 50 tasks solved by the 220 people with IQ 100, but the overall difficulty and complexity of these two groups of 50 tasks would be roughly equivalent. So there is nothing specific that a person with an IQ of 160 can do that someone with an IQ of 100 cannot, there may even be some tasks that a person with an IQ of 100 would solve, while a person with an IQ of 160 would not (although the opposite is much more likely), but given a sufficiently diverse sample of complex intellectual tasks, the person with IQ 160 would be much more likely to solve more of these tasks than the person with IQ 100. And in the specific case of the comparison you suggested, it would take about 220 people with IQ 100 to solve the same number of tasks that a person with IQ 160 would solve alone.

No. But above a certain point yes. It is not an inherent characteristic of people, but the compatibility (or not) of these people with the population in which they are inserted. If the average population IQ were 180, people at 180 would socialize with each other better than people at 150 would socialize with each other or better than people at 100 would socialize with each other. The higher the IQ, the better the ability to socialize, as long as the other people you interact with are also more socializable. As the average IQ is 100, then people with an IQ closer to 100 will have a better chance of socializing with most of the population. To better measure this effect, it would be necessary to carry out experiments on it. The correlation between sociability and IQ shouldn't be strong. To know exactly this correlation, it would be necessary to devise a metric to measure sociability and apply tests in large groups.

They are rare among all species, but less rare in the human species. About 1 in 3,500,000 people, by the old Terman rating (IQ>180 or some talent at the equivalent rarity level), normalizing scores. On more inclusive criteria, about 1 in 1,000 (IQ>150 or some talent at the equivalent rarity level). See more details at: https://www.sigmasociety.net/artigos

The IQs of the 21 Nazi officers tried at Nurenberg ranged from 106 to 143, with an average of 128. I don't think "extremely intelligent" is a very appropriate term. Hitler's IQ, which was not on the list, was 141. The highest IQ in this group was that of banker Hjalmar Schacht, who was one of those acquitted. The group's average IQ is similar to that of any other officers of equivalent rank, except for Ashkenazi Jews, whose IQ is substantially higher (10 to 15 IQ points higher, on average).

The same way you estimate a country's literacy rate based on a picture of a lake. In other words, that's not how you estimate it. The best you can estimate intelligence, based on a simple question, is whether a person's IQ is above or below a specific level, yet the uncertainty is high. For example, in my book IMCH, there's a problem that helps me estimate whether a person's IQ is above or below 160. In that case, if the person gets it wrong, you can't tell if their IQ is 0 or 50 or 100 , but you can know with reasonable confidence (say, 70%) that it is less than 150 and with good confidence that it is less than 200 (say, 95%). For the estimate to be reasonably good, a sufficiently large sample and diversified in levels of difficulty and range of cognitive faculties is needed. If you use only 1 question, the uncertainty in the measurement will inevitably be very large. In the example above, if the person gets it right, the IQ will likely be an skewed distribution with a mean of 170 and a standard error around 30 down and 10 up. If the person gets it wrong, the IQ will likely be an skewed distribution with a mean of 120 and a standard error around 12 up and 25 down. This is in a Bayesian attempt to consider the right or wrong question in conjunction with the distribution of IQ in the fraction of the population interested in the topics covered in the book. Alternatively, one needs to know details about the person's accomplishments in areas that require intelligence, so that one can place the level of rarity, difficulty, originality and complexity of those accomplishments.

No. The term "IQ" originally meant the ratio of the ratio between mental and chronological age, later it came to be multiplied by 100, then it came to mean the number of standard deviations away from the mean on a scale with mean 100 and standard deviation 16, 15 or 24. It's like asking if a person can be short and very tall. Note that there is an important difference between IQ and the score on an IQ test, as well as between height and the measured value for height. Both the height value and the IQ value have errors associated with the measuring instrument, with the difference that the instrument used for height is much more accurate and more precise. But you probably meant to refer to the score measured on a typical IQ test, which is very different from the IQ itself, because it depends on the quality of the test. There are many cases of very intelligent people with relatively low scores on some IQ tests, because they are bad tests that do not correctly measure the variable they purport to measure. Kasparov, Feynman, Petri Widsten, Peter Bentley are some cases of very intelligent people who scored very far from correctly representing their intellectual abilities. But none of them scored "low" compared to the average. They were low compared to their real capacity. Scoring significantly below average, but having above average intelligence is vastly more unlikely than in the examples above, because even poor IQ tests follow some reasonable protocols for q to be approved for use, and this pretty much prevents scores in the range between -2 sd and +2 sd are very different from reality, because the CFP — or the equivalent entity in the country where the test was evaluated — would not approve it. What could happen is that the person takes the test drunk, or very sleepy, or drugged, or with some problem that seriously affects their performance, or does not strive to obtain good results, then there would be an error in the application of the test in those circumstances, as if measuring the height of a person in a fetal or sitting position, which would obviously not give the correct height because there was an obvious error in the measurement process. So, in the case of the score it is possible, obviously, but the probability is very low, or it would be associated with some gross measurement error.

All measurements can only be relative. The concept of measurement involves a relationship. This does not prevent them from being also absolute, depending on the meaning in which the term "absolute" is used. A more detailed and in-depth discussion of this, and with abundant examples, can be found in Chapters 4 and 5 of my book "Chess, the 2022 Greatest Players in History and Two New Rating Systems", as well as some brief comments on the relationship between rating and IQ, which will be analyzed in more detail in volume II. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9dXkSmfldo&t=1s< /a>

The average IQ of the population would probably be lower if the same test was used on people today and 300 BC, for example. It would even be difficult to determine the average IQ because most of the population was not literate, and even if tests based on series of figures were used, they would need to understand the analogies and associations of the statements. If a test were designed based on the typical culture of that time, in which Hindu-Arabic numerals were not used, for example, and arithmetic calculations were performed in a very different way, perhaps the current average IQ would still be higher. One of the reasons is the food issue, as cited by Timm. Another factor is that people had to solve problems using smaller blocks of information and less efficient strategies than they currently have. Doing a division using Roman numerals is much more difficult, takes more time, etc. On the other hand, maybe they were more used to dealing with some practical problems in everyday life, knew how to orient themselves better by the position of the stars, knew hunting strategies better than the average of a modern person. If the test were based on the ability to survive in the wild, leaving the person naked and without any resources, maybe modern people would still have the advantage. However, considering the greatest exponents of Greek culture compared to the greatest exponents of current civilization, perhaps the comparison would be quite balanced. I find it hard to believe that any person alive is smarter than Archimedes, for example, even though the world population at that time was 1/20th of what it is now, so the most talented person in a much larger population should have a few fractions of a standard deviation more than in a much larger population. smaller population. Therefore, although the average IQ was lower, in virtually all respects, whichever method was used to measure it (of course, with some methods the disadvantage would be greater than with others), when comparing the IQ of the highest geniuses of that time with the greatest geniuses of today, perhaps there is no statistically significant difference. This, of course, also depends on how the measurement will be made. Assuming that there was a physiological method of measuring brain efficiency directly, rather than a questionnaire that will be fatally influenced by cultural factors, then I think there is less than a 50% chance that there is someone alive who is smarter than Archimedes. I am quoting Archimedes because perhaps he was the greatest genius of antiquity, but Euclid and Aristotle could also reasonably serve in this comparison.

If 3 students are silent, which of the 3 is the smartest in the class? I find it interesting how poetic and emotional responses, regardless of whether they have some basis or are good representations of reality, end up receiving an avalanche of likes. For example: I thought this answer by Júlio Cesar was really cool, but unfortunately it wouldn't work well. It would be very likely to fail, but because it is such an impactful answer, people like it, without worrying too much about whether it would actually work. The described behavior (of the cheetah) has much more to do with personality traits than intelligence. In general, the description is correct, and it would work for about 20% of the cases in a class of 40 students. A method with 80% errors is very inefficient and worrying. Bearing in mind that there is a very high probability that none of the students meets the criterion, or more than one may meet, and in this case it was not described how to decide which one would be the smartest. It can also happen that some days some students meet the criterion, on other days they do not. Would that indicate that they are no longer the smartest? A clearly more efficient method would be with a conventional procedure, applying a properly standardized cognitive test. But this is not very practical, because it would require a psychometrician. To solve using exclusively the resources available in the classroom, the second best way would be considering performance in subjects with the strongest correlation with IQ, which are Mathematics, Physics and Writing. It may happen that some very intelligent children perform poorly in almost all subjects, but they rarely have low grades in Mathematics and Physics, because they are very simple subjects and do not require memorizing almost anything. Just think to solve, using little knowledge and generalizing to a wide variety of cases. If several students score equally high in these subjects, then the least hardworking and least dedicated is probably the smartest, as they achieve the same result using a smaller fraction of their potential.

There are many factors. This effect can be analyzed in a more objective and didactic way in Chess, including the possibility of comparing engines with different game levels, on which details of the algorithm and hardware can be known. One of the determining factors in the game power of a chess engine is the speed of the processor. Before proceeding, in order to get a better quantitative idea of the situation, one can convert IQ into Chess rating and vice versa, using approximately the Bill McGaugh equation, among other methods, where the IQ 100 corresponds to about of 1282 rating, and for each additional IQ point, 17.3 rating points are added. The correlation between IQ and rating is not very strong, so it can happen that a person with an IQ close to 200, like Einstein, is rated close to 1500, while a person with an IQ of 2500 has an IQ of 140, for example. Also, for engines specialized in chess, the conversion makes no sense, but only to get a rough idea of what the differences in engine strengths represent. There are engines rated from around 300, like LaMusca, to around 3700, like Stockfish 12 NNUE. An engine that played random bids would have around -3400 to -4000 (negative 3700), so there are several other possible levels, and the minimum is not 0. The same applies to IQ, the minimum is not 0, because the scale is not is proportion. A 2500 rated engine (like Fritz 5) running on 2x faster hardware will have about 2550, if it is 4x faster it will be 2600, if it is 8x faster 2650 etc. This ratio of increasing about 50 points in rating with each doubling in speed is not the same for everyone. Some can earn more than 70 points for each fold, while others can earn less than 30. But on average it's about 48 points. Also the variation may not remain constant. For example: for 1x to 8x you can earn about 50 points for each fold, but for 16x to 256x you can earn 45 points for each fold. It also depends on the pace of the game. The important thing that needs to be clear about this is that the role of the hardware is not the main one. Shannon and Turing's old programs from the 1950s, with minor fixes to make them work, would have been rated around 1400 on a Core i7 3770k, while StockFish 12, even if placed on an old PC XT 12 MHz or a 286, would still would have over 2500 rating. This shows that the heuristics used, the criteria for delving into the branches of the search tree or not, the criteria for deciding which positions are preferable and everything related to the decision-making process ends up having much greater weight than the processing speed and ram memory. Of course, it is necessary that the ram memory is enough to load the necessary data, but the efficiency of the used heuristics ends up being much more important. By analogy with humans, if the person knows a lot about a certain subject, and especially if he knows methods of solving problems (Polya, Lakatos), it helps a lot, even if the brain is not such powerful hardware. Of course, the ideal is to combine the two. In several studies comparing 2600-rated chess grandmasters with 2100-rated strong players, who described everything they thought during their analysis of certain positions, it became clear that GMs did not calculate more or faster. Their advantage was mainly in not wasting time on bad alternatives, they almost intuitively discarded bad moves and concentrated on calculating the best variants, without having to analyze the bad ones to see that they were bad. This is due to an in-depth knowledge of several key positions, so that when you look at it, you can already separate the wheat from the chaff with a high probability of avoiding false positives and false negatives, that is, omitting the analysis of good moves and losing time in analyzing bad bids. The same applies to other fields such as Mathematics, Physics, Economics, Engineering and life in general. With the difference that in life there is often no move that is more certain than the others, and almost all choices can be good, depending on how the details are in the conduct of these choices. It is not wrong for a person to choose to study Medicine or be a Formula I driver, although obviously a choice more compatible with the skills is preferable, but even if the person does not make the best choice, if he dedicates himself a lot, there is the possibility of achieving high level of success even in an area that is not the one for which it has the greatest vocation. In addition, the choice may depend more on whether the person likes a certain activity than having a vocation for it, because if he has a vocation, but doesn't like it, it can be much more difficult to dedicate long hours to study and improvement, making it more difficult to achieve a level of excellence. So what limits a person with an IQ 140 to thinking like a person with an IQ 180 may involve physiological and epistemological factors at different levels.

It's not impossible. But it's also not easy and there are limits to how far you can increase. Various intellectual activities, such as Chess, strategic games in general, crosswords, Sodoku, Rubik's cube, even composing songs and poems, writing, reading, studying and solving Geometry problems, demonstrating mathematical and logical theorems, are habits that can contribute. Some habits are more efficient than others. In general, the more effort the habit requires, the greater the gain produced. It's more or less like physical bodybuilding exercises. No pain, no gain.

As Leonardo commented, one of the fundamental points is to verify to what extent these results can be trusted. In the USA and in several European and Asian countries, there is a culture of testing that makes it possible to establish standards based on millions of people. In Brazil the samples are very small and the risks of presenting distortions are greater. In addition, it is common for standards to be poorly made. The BPR-5, for example, in the application manual recommends that monitors do not accept blank answer sheets, but a statistical analysis of the scores shows that dozens of people gave blank answers and a very large number of people guessed all the alternatives. . This is easily detected when the distribution of scores presents a behavior like the one in the following graph (these data are not from the BPR-5, it is an example with synthetic data generated to exemplify the problem, but they are quite similar to the real problem present in the BPR -5 and several other tests): In which there are visibly two mixed distributions: a normal with a mean of 100 and standard deviation of 16 containing about 90% of the subjects in the sample and another with a mean of 30 and standard deviation of 11 with the remaining 10%. Usually the second distribution is a binomial (or a mixture of a normal and a binomial), generated by random guesses in a multiple-choice test by people who didn't try to solve any of the questions, or tried very few and guessed most. In this example the whole group mean was 93 and the standard deviation was 25, but that doesn't mean you could do a decent modeling using mean 93 and standard deviation 25, as in that case the highest concentration of data would be close to 93, which is visibly different from the facts (the data is concentrated around 100). A better procedure would be to use Tukey's biweight to determine the central tendency, rather than using the arithmetic mean. Thus, the mean would be at 99.2, much closer to the correct one, but Tukey's standard deviation would still be very impaired, close to 21. A better procedure would be to investigate the actual distribution of the data, rather than assuming that it is a normal distribution, and then calculate the parameters of the two or more distributions that, combined, describe the data. This could reasonably accurately calculate the rarity of each IQ level, but would still be limited by the ceiling of difficulty of the tests used and other sample and test properties, which would generally skew occurrence rates of IQs above 130 or 135. In this example, as the distortion affects almost exclusively the left tail, I could use mean 100 and standard deviation 16 as a good approximation for scores above 100. In the case of Brazil, I do not know the raw data that produced the mean of 87, but I suspect that the probability of presenting this type of bias, among other biases, is quite high. I find it difficult for these distortions to fully explain a 13-point difference. It would be necessary to have access to the data to try to interpret what might have generated this result. So even if you did a good modeling, the best you could do, with sufficiently numerous samples, would be to determine the frequency percentages of people with performances of 140, 150, 160, etc. in the tests used, but not to ensure that these scores (above 135) would represent the "true" IQs of these people. There are some more comments and developments on this issue that can be found here: https://pt.quora.com/Li-certa-vez-que-o-QI-m%C3%A9dio-brasileiro-%C3%A9-cerca -of-87-In-this-case-h%C3%A1-a-need-to-estimate-the-rarity-of-certain-IQs-as-130-140-150-etc-among-Brazilians

To begin with "why" should be separated, "they" doesn't agree with "people" and "have" should have a caret. Actually, it's not people with high IQs who lack social skills. They usually have above average skills, but in order to interact in a healthy and stimulating way, they need other people in the environment to be equally intelligent, cultured, educated and with common interests, but as the vast majority of the population does not attend to these (which is a problem for most people, not people with high IQs), this incompatibility makes socializing difficult. It is a serious mistake to think that high IQ people don't socialize with low IQ people, when in fact it is low IQ people who can't socialize with high IQ people, as they are usually only interested in trivial matters. . Generally, intelligent people are interested in practical problems that they can effectively contribute to solving, and thus improve the world for everyone, including those with low IQs. While people with lower IQs like to fanatically defend their religious beliefs, their football team, their favorite beer brand, and their favorite politicians criticize other people's looks, other people's clothes, other people's sex lives, boast of wealth. (sometimes even without having it) and other frivolities, they don't accept when they are wrong, they don't understand the arguments that are presented to them, etc. It is not possible to socialize in a healthy way with people like that, so they socialize with each other in a deleterious and unproductive way, while the smartest people prefer not to interact with toxic people of this type, being much more healthy to isolate themselves than to be intoxicated by vulgarity. intellectual and moral majority. In this context, the Internet ended up playing a very interesting role, because as the smartest people are rarer, there is usually only 1 person with an IQ above 135 in a classroom, only one person above 155 in an entire school, only one above 170 in a medium-sized city, so the probability of two people with a high IQ getting to know each other because they live close by or study together is low, but with the Internet, groups are created that unite people with common interests and this ends up mitigating this problem , allowing people who are geographically far apart to interact and eventually socialize.

I don't know if there is such a relationship. But generally smarter people make better estimates of the relationship between risk and reward, which can sometimes seem like courage, when in fact it is just a more correct assessment of the situation, while the vast majority have the illusion that it is good to avoid risks as much as possible.

In Item Response Theory, the difficulty of a question is measured by the probability that it will be answered by people with different intellectual levels, and intellectual levels are measured by the ability to answer questions with different levels of difficulty. No question has a probability 0 of being answered correctly by people with infinitely negative IQs, since even a chimpanzee typing at random on a typewriter would have a probability greater than 0 of writing the entire work of Dostoevsky or Shakespeare. But the greater the positive difference between the difficulty of the question (measured by the average IQ of hitters) and the IQ of the person trying to answer, the less likely that person is to give an adequate answer.

Most branches of psychology are pseudoscience (in Popper's sense). Psychometry is one of the rare exceptions. So it's not pseudoscience. As for being "reliable", it depends. There are many different IQ tests with different qualities of content and standardization. In 2004, in Brazil alone, there were more than 100 tests approved for use by the CFP. In Europe and the US there were over 800 tests. This is just talking about the tests recognized by the regulatory authorities in the respective countries. It is estimated that the number of tests not approved for use, circulating on the internet, is between 10 and 100 times greater. Even among the approved tests, the vast majority are of poor quality, with errors in the templates, errors in standardization, among other problems. Despite this, even the worst IQ tests are vastly better than the subjective assessments made by people who criticize IQ tests. As bad as the tests are, they have undergone reasonable statistical studies, various protocols from Classical Test Theory or Item Response Theory were followed, they were applied to a sample of at least a few hundred or thousands of people, etc. people who criticize the tests prefer the simple guess, which is their personal opinion or people who share the same beliefs as them. Ironically, those people who adopt a completely pseudoscientific stance accuse IQ tests of being pseudoscientific. There are many flaws in most IQ tests, and even the best tests have relatively serious errors, and over the years they are being improved. It is a very slow improvement, but it is what is available for objective evaluations. Also, if you compare IQ tests with school and college exams, the quality of the IQ tests is vastly superior in virtually every way. I suggest reading Anne Anastasi's book "Psychological Testing" or Luiz Pasquali's "Psychometry", on how to build an IQ test, step-by-step, all the procedures followed and the precautions taken to try to ensure that the measured variable be the one you want to measure, that the scale adopts has the desired statistical properties, among other attributes. It is a much more careful process than the preparation of university exams from the main universities in Brazil, which are literally "in the thighs". The entrance exams already use better methods, with quality comparable to the best IQ tests, although they occasionally have some flaws. The 2004 Fuvest entrance exam, for example, had an item (question 1 of the Portuguese language test) that measured the opposite of what was desired, favoring students with less knowledge and harming those who had more knowledge: https://www.sigmasociety.net/artigos

I don't think your IQ is 90. Probably if you take a more standardized test, you should get a much higher and more realistic score. I think that generally speaking, it would be advisable to read books on topics that appeal to you. In my case, I like Astronomy, Cosmology, Astrophysics, History of Science, Statistics, Chess, Psychometry, Cognitive Science, Particle Physics, Philosophy, Psychology etc. I think that on Astronomy there is "Problemas y ejercicios practicos de Astronomia", by Vorontsov and Veliaminov, and there is a PDF by Gastão Bierrenbach Lima Neto called "Astronomy of Position", which are quite interesting. There are also 2 courses with more than 30 classes each, from João Steiner, which you can find on YouTube. There is the series Cosmos, by Sagan, and the book with the same name, there is the remake of Cosmos from 2014 to the second season in 2020. There is the book "Os Planetas" by André Cayeux and Serge Brunier, There are some by Asimov (Saturn, Alpha Centauri). On Cosmology there's "The First Three Minutes" by Weinberg, there's "A Brief History of Time" and "Universe in a Nutshell" by Hawking, there's "The Collapse of the Universe" by Asimov. On the History of Science, there are "Geniuses of humanity", by Asimov, there are books by Roberto de Andrade Martins, on history Theory of Relativity, on Copernicus (Commentariolus), on Aristotle, and his lectures on YouTube. On Statistics there is "A lady drinks tea", "The walk of the drunk", "Fast and slow, two ways of thinking", "Freakonomics". On Psychometry there is the "Psychological Testing" by Anne Anastasi, "Psychometry" by Luiz Pasquali, the book TRI by Frank Baker. On Cognitive Science there is "How the Mind Works" by Steven Pinker. On Particle Physics there is the aforementioned "The first three minutes", "Superforce", "White holes", "Cosmic onion", which can also be classified as Cosmology/Astrophysics. Chess has "Basic Chess", "Idel Becker's Chess Handbook", Capablanca's "Elementary Chess Lessons", Grade's "General Treatise of Chess", Seirawan's "Victorious Strategies", has the book with 5334 Laszlo Polgar's tactics exercises.

The IQs of all people, genius or not, usually begin to decline around age 45. In some people this process starts earlier, in others later. This can be seen in the WAIS IQ curve by age group, although it is not the same thing, as it does not consider the same people over time, but rather random samples of people from different age groups, so I would need to discount the Flynn effect and make some other adjustments. Remembering that this curve is based on the average of people by age group. If considered individually, some can continue to increase their IQ for most of their lives, or at least maintain their performance without falling. Although there are no studies on this by continuously monitoring the same people, and giving tests periodically, even if the tests were the same, some people would remember the answers, and if the tests were different it would be difficult to ensure that the measures were equivalent. Despite this, the measurement can be done using Chess rating, q although it does not have a very strong correlation with IQ when comparing different people, the correlation is much stronger when considering the variations in intelligence within the same person. Therefore, the evolution of the rating over time can be used as a good reference for the evolution of intelligence as a function of age, remembering that in the first years, as there is a great variation in knowledge, the rating ends up being also very influenced by this variable, but after the age of 20–25, knowledge plays a secondary role and the determining factor is intelligence. The graphs below show the evolution of Tarrasch, Capablanca and Steinitz ratings: You can notice that they peaked at different points, between 30 and 40, and the rate of fall is also different, but they are very similar curves, and they represent the majority of people. But there are exceptions such as Philidor, Kortchnoj, Lasker, Mieses, Alekhine etc. The following graphs show the Alekhine and Lasker cases: In Lasker's case, it peaked after 45 and remained at a very high level until close to 60, with strength similar to what it had at 25. Alekhine continued to develop rapidly even after 35.

Ignore James and Maria's answers. Maria means well, but she doesn't know how to help and is distorting the facts, and denying reality only makes things worse. It is necessary to understand the facts in order to properly deal with them. Tiago doesn't know what he's saying and on top of that he made several comments that, in addition to being harmful, are not in line with reality. Firstly, it would be necessary to do some more tests to verify if this result is really accurate. I have an uncle who at age 11 was examined and obtained a mental age of 8, which would give an IQ of 72, but I suspect there were errors in the measurement, or he might not have been willing, among other possibilities. If I had to estimate his IQ, I'd say it's close to 120, but he's never taken other tests to verify that, which also makes no difference, because he ended up having a reasonably satisfying life, according to his priorities and interests. Remembering that the average IQ in Brazil is around 87, so it's not too far from the average in Brazil. The most important point is if you are satisfied with this or if you want, as far as possible, to do your best. If you are satisfied, you can stop reading here. If you want to be the best you can be, you can start by checking that this score is reasonably accurate. Assuming that the result is confirmed in different tests, or similar results, it means that you may have to try harder than other people to achieve the same results as them and even more to surpass them. In almost all the most common activities, dedication and personal effort turn out to be more important factors in determining the level of excellence than talent. My girlfriend was once overweight, slightly obese, but currently she is 54 cm in waist, because she works so hard for it, and has a better body than most misses universe. I met a model named Stephanie Zanelli, who was very overweight, and went to apply for a Miss contest in a small town in MG called Ubá. The organizers of the event did not accept her application and even laughed at her wanting to run. The following year she went to train intensely, lost 27 kg, so they accepted the candidacy, she won the Ubá contest, won the state contest, and only didn't win miss Brazil because she didn't accept certain "agreements" with the organizers. One of the greatest scientists of the 20th century was Richard Feynman. When he took his first IQ tests, he scored much lower than the Princeton students and far lower than the average Nobel laureate. Despite this, he was one of the most brilliant scientists at that institution and was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1965. There are other similar examples where a person manages to get close to their limits by putting in a lot of effort and surprising people who didn't expect so much from them. Thomas Edison said that success is made with 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration. There are 35 comments in addition to this answer. Anyone interested can find it at https: //en.quora.com/I have-low-IQ-about-81-what-does-it-mean

Resposta de Hindemburg Melão Jr.: Depende de quanto você acha que será o resultado e de como você costuma reagir a informações positivas e negativas. Algumas pessoas, ao descobrir que possuem QI muito acima da média, tornam-se preguiçosas e arrogantes, porque não precisam se esforçar para atingir as metas tipicamente cobradas nos estudos e no trabalho, além de se acharem melhores que as outras. Outras pessoas, ao descobrir que possuem QI muito alto, tornam-se muito mais dedicadas e humildes, porque acham que receberam como presente esse dom e o presente vem acompanhado de uma grande responsabilidade, de fazer algo grandioso, para não desperdiçar o talento recebido. No resultado oposto, ao descobrir que possuem QI abaixo da média, algumas pessoas se tornam retraídas (ou mais retraídas do que já eram), deprimidas, sentem-se inferiorizadas. Outras, ao descobrirem que têm QI abaixo da média, começam a se esforçar ao extremo para tentar mudar isso, e conseguem muitas vezes realizar mais do que pessoas com QI bem mais alto do que o delas, porém menos esforçadas. No filme GATTACA se pode ver uma dramatização bastante interessante de uma situação assim. E na vida real há alguns casos também, entre os quais talvez os mais famosos seja de Einstein e Edison. Einstein demorou para começar a falar (algumas fontes citam que teria começado aos 4 anos), e apresentava baixo desempenho na escola, chegando a ser considerado retardado por um professor de latim. Outro caso interessante é o de Feynman, que obteve escore 123 num teste de QI, que não é baixo, mas é MUITO mais baixo que a média dos ganhadores de prêmio Nobel, e poderia tê-lo desmotivado de sonhar com algum prêmio desse nível, e de fato, segundo ele, nunca teve essa pretensão, mas simplesmente foi conduzindo suas pesquisas e acabou sendo laureado com um Nobel, além de ser reconhecido como uma das pessoas mais brilhantes do século XX. Então saber ou não o QI pode ser positivo ou negativo ou indiferente, dependendo de como você vai lidar com isso. Assim como saber ou não outras informações depende de como você costuma reagir a elas. Em geral, no meu caso, considero sempre positivo obter o máximo de informações possíveis sobre tudo, especialmente quando se trata de autoconhecimento, em vez de preferir ignorar para não me frustrar. Se uma namorada estivesse me traindo, se eu tivesse uma doença grave etc., eu preferia saber para tomar as devidas providências conforme os fatos, em vez de preferir ignorar para não sofrer de imediato, mas com risco de consequências bem piores no futuro.