I recall that the automaker, Bentley, maker of some of the largest and most luxurious yet powerful cars, rather than specifying or boasting of engine horsepower, simply listed horsepower as “adequate.”
I think Ayn Rand’s IQ could be similarly described. Adequate, for creating a revolutionary and true philosophy and the best novels written. She had all the intelligence she required to accomplish her goals.
I’ve never taken one of those ridiculous multiple-choice IQ tests. When I was in Junior High a professional psychologist administered one of those all-day one-on-one tests for me.
It was bizarre. What I most recall was being given a bunch of pictures and asked to put them in sequential order.
Her brilliance speaks for itself. But, if genius can be quantified I would like to know what hers was. Since I am not familair with the subjectivness of IQ tests then perhaps it is irrelevent.
But, my understanding of IQ is ones CAPACITY for intelligence. And hers seemed pretty immense. A person of another time could have also had a large capacity and mis-used it for some vocation such as translating the bible. But, their intelligence remains.
I don’t think that IQ tests are valid. First of all, nobody can define what they measure. I asked my psychology teacher about it a few years back, and although I don’t remember her exact words, it was quite clear to me then that she had no idea.
Second; I had a chance of having my “IQ” tested on several occasions, and I noticed that some problems had two possible solutions, depending on how you look at the problem.
Third, my IQ test scores range from 90 to 150 
.
I agree with this definition and if you look at my posts I used words like integration and processing along with speed. I just didn’t state it as precisely as your above definition did.
Using your more precise definition I think my main idea that it is more important to use the proper philosophy to gain knowledge rather that simply having a higher IQ and the wrong philosophy is still valid.
One can build up one’s intelligence, or one’s proficiency at learning, integrating, and using new knowledge. One critical component is having a proper philosophy.
Since both of those additions affect speed, are they not included in a measure of speed? So why do you need the extra qualifications?
Proficiency is also another term for skillfulness; I don’t equate intelligence with skill, I equate it with raw processing power. My understanding from what I’ve read is that your IQ is supposed to be static; which is why they cross-reference it with your age.
Each component of of intelligence affects all the others. Speed is one way to measure them all at once, since it measures the efficiency with which each component operates alone and in tandem with the others.
Your IQ is adjusted to your age group. It’s not static. IQ is a measure of the intelligence of a person such that the mean intelligence of an age group within a population is 100 and the standard deviation 15. It’s not directly a measure of intelligence; it’s a measure of your intelligence compared with others of similar ages within a population. As such, to estimate intelligence, an IQ number is almost useless. To estimate relative intelligence, it has some use.
I remember reading Ayn Rand wonder in her journals about whether she had an excess of intelligence, or of honesty, in respect to those around her. She said she was inclined to pick honesty as the attribute that most contributed to her success.
Honesty in thought contributes to intelligence. Intelligence is not a static figure throughout a person’s life, but rather depends on what a person has done to build it up.
I recall that the automaker, Bentley, maker of some of the largest and most luxurious yet powerful cars, rather than specifying or boasting of engine horsepower, simply listed horsepower as “adequate.”
LOL That is the Art of Understatement at its best! If you think about it, it actually says that the car has enough horsepower to meet ANY customer’s standards, while implying that Bentley finds it natural to meet the highest standards.
I think Ayn Rand’s IQ could be similarly described. Adequate, for creating a revolutionary and true philosophy and the best novels written.
Indeed!
I recall that the automaker, Bentley, maker of some of the largest and most luxurious yet powerful cars, rather than specifying or boasting of engine horsepower, simply listed horsepower as “adequate.”
I think Ayn Rand’s IQ could be similarly described. Adequate, for creating a revolutionary and true philosophy and the best novels written. She had all the intelligence she required to accomplish her goals.
That is like saying that the sun is an adequare source of light and needs no further study. I contend that Ayn Rands ideas and philosophy was so unique and revolutionary that in order to accomplish what she did (and in a second launguage at that) is indicitave of genius. I was hoping her IQ had been quantified because I believe she is to philosophy what Einstein was to physics and what Leonardo was to art.
I’d say AR would score well on an IQ test. She was a genius at Philosophy as far as I can tell. She was also a highly motivated person obviously, just look at her body of work. Keep in mind also that English was a 2nd language and you couldn’t tell that in her writing. Overall she was a very impressive intellect.
Whoops, my own memory wasn’t adeqate. It wasn’t Bentley, it was Rolls Royce, who until recently, simply stated horsepower as “adequate.”
Whoops, my own memory wasn’t adeqate. It wasn’t Bentley, it was Rolls Royce, who until recently, simply stated horsepower as “adequate.”
That makes the analogy with Ayn Rand even apter! What Rolls Royce is to cars, Miss Rand was to thinkers.
One can build up one’s intelligence, or one’s proficiency at learning, integrating, and using new knowledge. One critical component is having a proper philosophy.
I’m sorry, but this is plainly ridiculous. I’ve known some AMAZINGLY intelligent people with no philosophy to speak of or an extremely bad one. The person with the highest IQ on record is not an Objectivist and has mixed premises: Marilyn vos Savant.
I think it’s funny that it’s a woman, of course. :lol:
I’m sorry, but this is plainly ridiculous. I’ve known some AMAZINGLY intelligent people with no philosophy to speak of or an extremely bad one. The person with the highest IQ on record is not an Objectivist and has mixed premises: Marilyn vos Savant.
I think it’s funny that it’s a woman, of course. :lol:
Jennifer
I think y_feldblum is getting a person’s intrinsic intelligience capacity confused with one’s ability to use it and one’s acquired knowledge. That’s where I think the disagreement lies but of course he can correct me if I’m wrong. This capacity obviously exists because one can easily see its absence, i.e, in a mentally retarded person.
In regards to that Savant lady I’ve a lot of her columns in Parade magazine and she doesn’t seem to me to be of exceeding intelligience, but I would be willing to bet if she adopted a proper philosophy she could “shine”.
edited by Rational_One to correct spelling
In regards to that Savant lady I’ve a lot of her columns in Parade magazine and she doesn’t seem to me to be of exceeding intelligience, but I would be willing to bet if she adopted a proper philosophy she could “shine”.
She doesn’t often publish the impossible math questions people send her, but she wrote the proof of Fermat’s Last Theorum in book form. You can buy a copy if you’re interested.
There are innate differences between people. Often in mentally retarted people certain parts of the brain are non-functioning or functioning less than to their capacity or are impaired in some way, eg if they suffer from a genetic disorder.
Some people also have increased innate capacity in certain parts of the brain. But that does not determine intelligence. It merely determines how easy or difficult it is to become more intelligent.
I don’t mean that a person cannot be intelligent without having discovered Objectivism for herself. I mean that an implicit grounding in reality, an unstated drive to excel, etc., serve to help a person improve her intelligence.
Of course there are many intelligent people who are not Objectivists. But implicitly knowing - or acting on, or having as sense-of-life - some component of a proper philosophy, even without having consciously integrated Objectivism better than Ayn Rand ever did, is critical to developing one’s intelligence that much more.
There is no theoretical limit to a person’s intelligence. It’s like economics. Efforts at a certain level of “productivity” to improve one’s intelligence show diminishing returns, but society-wide progress in thought becomes a giant on whom to stand and increases the “productivity” of each person improving his intelligence.
Yup, y_feldblum is definitely confusing intelligence with acquisition and application of knowledge. Intelligence is a capacity. Psychological studies point to the fact that each individual is born with a certain level of genetic functionality. By assisting a child’s development you can nudge them towards peak functionality for their genetic allowance, but you can’t turn someone of barely average intelligence into a 250 IQ super-genius. Period. You would have to do a “Flowers for Algernon”-style chemical/genetic manipulation.
It was my mother’s contention that, given enough time (and assuming a functioning brain, at least) anyone could learn to do anything. Personally, I’m not sure. Perhaps they could go through the motions, but they’d hardly be capable of generating creative work.
I don’t believe I am confusing anything. Perhaps we have differing views as to the nature of human consciousness.
Jennifer Snow:
"Dictionary.com defines intelligence as “the capacity to acquire and apply knowledge”
“The person with the highest IQ on record is not an Objectivist and has mixed premises: Marilyn vos Savant.”
y_feldblum
"One can build up one’s intelligence, or one’s proficiency at learning, integrating, and using new knowledge. One critical component is having a proper philosophy.
Intelligence isn’t a reflection of morality and morality isn’t necessarily a reflection of intelligence. I think of Ellsworth Toohey - very intelligent/completely immoral.
In fact a high level of intelligence is often required to evade on the level so many government officials or postmodern ‘philosophers’ do.
Like repression/supression, intellectulization is one extremely efficient tool of evasion.
In regards to the dictionary definition supplied by Jennifer; consider the variety of forms of knowledge - there is sensual knowledge, abstract knowledge and even innate knowledge. Ill give an example - imagine a red car passing by on a road. The knowledge that the car is 1) red 2) moving 3) in a direction relative to the road 4) is a mercedes 5) is a mercedes you recognize as your uncles etc are all interpreted in different parts of the brain. Consider the effects of damage to the color perceiving area of the brain, or the motion sensing area of the brain or indeed the pathway connecting the two. (eg: There are medical cases where individuals have lost the ability to perceive motion and see the world in frame clicks). That you can interpret any of these features from variations of light wavelength/intensity at all is the result of assumptions about the world, physically (i.e. genetically) built into your hardware (brain/eyes). An example of the latter is the assumption that light illuminating an area generally comes from one or few sources.
My point is that intelligence isn’t in data aquisition, or even in recognition of data - its in the processing and integration of the facts you do have (rather than the extent to which you can acquire facts). Of course that accounts for logic too as we can deduce further facts and predict future events through consideration of those we have. In relation to IQ tests I think the subjects must be aware of the facts involved in the questions - i.e. you cannot tell anything about a persons intelligence from the fruit question listed earlier unless you know what each type of fruit is.
Im open to ideas.
Edited to add idea: On this basis I’d consider freewill in terms of the extent to which one allows their ideas/processing to willfully reflect reality. Through choice we have the power to create our own contextual/subjective reality that suits our circumstances - eg. the failure of a religious boy to challenge the rationally unacceptable doctrines of the community he lives in for the sake of fitting in.
I don’t believe I am confusing anything. Perhaps we have differing views as to the nature of human consciousness.
Consciousness being the faculty of perceiving reality. What does that have to do with the efficacy of one’s hardware?
Has anyone ever seriously tried to determine Ayn Rands IQ? If so what was it?
7 billion.
I think the statistic I saw was 7 billion and 2 :lol:
I remember reading Ayn Rand wonder in her journals about whether she had an excess of intelligence, or of honesty, in respect to those around her. She said she was inclined to pick honesty as the attribute that most contributed to her success.
I like that. :lol:
In my own opinion, it’s not the size of a person’s intelligence that matters but how he or she uses it. There are a lot of people who are blessed with a tremendous amount of natural intelligence, but they squander it. From what I understand the Unabomber Theodore Kaczynski had a genius-level I.Q.