Forums

What's is Magnus Carlsen's IQ?

Sort:
CharlestonViennaGambit

duck sphere

Optimissed
CountMagnuscarl wrote:

The IQ of Magnus carlsen is... 160 IQ!

Guys i am true ok?

He had it measured by a reputable and reliable testing system? Doubt it.

Optimissed
V_Awful_Chess wrote:
Duckcooky wrote:

What makes you guys think being good at chesss means you have a high iq ? Kasparov was one of the best at chess and his iq was measured at 135.......thats avg ivy league student

An IQ of 135 is over two standard deviations over the mean, it's a high IQ.

The reason a chess player might be expected to have a high IQ is the similarity between chess puzzles and IQ tests.

The estimated Ivy league IQ of 135 is not based on actual IQ scores, it's based on the similarity between SAT tests and IQ tests, and the assumption that a ivy league universities base admission primarily on them.

If you can use the similarity between IQ tests and SAT scores to infer IQ, you can do the same with chess puzzles.

Ultimately I'd expect a far closer correlation of chess players with IQ than e.g. scientists; because chess lines up much better with IQ's testing methodology, and all IQ measures is how well you score on IQ tests.

That's a good argument and fairly persuasive without persuading me. That's because Chess includes some aspects of IQ scores only. For instance, calculative skills of endgame analysis, pattern recognition and complex, logical analysis of middlegame and memory for openings. They try to factor memory out of IQ but it's part of IQ, I think. Maybe a low proportion.

Agreed that IQ measures how well you score in tests but to score high, you have to be able to think accurately and extremely fast. Moreover, you have to intuitively understand the methodology for solving a large variety of tests, including numerical, "topographical" (i.e. shapes or "live geometry") and some verbal, the latter also being factored out to a large extent to proof against cultural and educational bias if possible.

So in general, IQ can probably be regarded as a measure of how fast and accurately you can use your mind. In IQ tests there's a wide variety of types and you have to be able to quickly recognise different solving methods. This means that chess is less useful for IQ testing than it might appear, simply because it's a very "learned environment", whereas in IQ testing proper, there's an attempt to present at least a proportion of surprising ideas in puzzles.

Optimissed
johnzade wrote:
RikkiTikkiTavi wrote:
ciljettu wrote:

Don't get me started on lefty liberal constructs like "social", "interpersonal" or the newly fangled "emotional intelligence".

I don't buy it either. So-called emotional intelligence is mainly about low levels of tension, vanity and so forth and higher levels of sociableness. It doesn't relate to the sort of intelligence that IQ is concerned with. That is, of course, obvious, but all this stuff about emotional intelligence is like buying a very short person a pair of high heeled shoes.

For me intelligence is raw cognitive power. Things like interpersonal intelligence involve not being an a-hole and have nothing to do with intelligence IMHO.
I think I agree with this.

That is unfortunately a very common and very arbitrary take on a protean notion of intelligence. The supposed generality of human intelligence is not a law of the universe, but a convenient postulate of the talentless plethora. Most experts in fields like science in math are not trapped within the limited rules of that field
Do I agree? No, I think most are trapped by virtue of their excellence in limited fields.

(and not by chance that almost all practical contributions in science/math, come from experts within a field - not plumbers with a sense of rationalistic, intellectual grandiosity.
You'd expect that, because it's their field of work. Excellence in fly-tying probably is less often found among mathematicians.

High expertise in one (open) system, doesn't mean that one isn't free to create elementary associations with information outside of their field. If a field of study includes facts (elements) A, B, and C, there is nothing that prevents an expert from associating element B with element D (on the grounds of some subtle pattern or anomaly), from some other field. The brain does not compartmentalize information sets, it has very broad neuronal networks that constantly associate patterns. Of course, there are always those 'intellectual dicks' who are purely interested in aimless 'fact finding' within their respective fields - these are people confuse their ability to learn with intelligence, and are extremely narrow thinkers. It's very likely not just IQ, but limitations of the neural inter-complexity and computational speed (intuition) of individuals is what allows some to actually apply information they've learned in ways to solve problems and exhibit higher learning through forming higher n order abstractions.

Possibly, yes. I wonder is that's a learned skill? I think it is, suggesting that too much specialisation is intellectually limiting, which brings us back to the point about them being trapped by their excellence.

Individual performance can and should only be evaluated at any specific given moment and time and are the product of developmental factors. One can only abstract from a given system like 41, 25, 49, n , if they are given that system to analyze - effectively nullifying any supposed quality of 'intelligence'. You can't give someone half of an idea, and then give them credit for the whole. In the real world, we don't know what elements are in are set, or what, when or exactly where we have to think hard. And ideally, 'smart' people should be defined as those who come up with new ideas from their own experimental models (sets)....yeah we don't live an ideal world.

Is this last paragraph an example of the sort of "intellectual dickery" we're told to avoid?

happy.png

GeorgiePiggy123
1^100
GeorgiePiggy123
Is is iq
johnzade
Optimissed wrote:
johnzade wrote:
RikkiTikkiTavi wrote:
ciljettu wrote:

Don't get me started on lefty liberal constructs like "social", "interpersonal" or the newly fangled "emotional intelligence".

I don't buy it either. So-called emotional intelligence is mainly about low levels of tension, vanity and so forth and higher levels of sociableness. It doesn't relate to the sort of intelligence that IQ is concerned with. That is, of course, obvious, but all this stuff about emotional intelligence is like buying a very short person a pair of high heeled shoes.

For me intelligence is raw cognitive power. Things like interpersonal intelligence involve not being an a-hole and have nothing to do with intelligence IMHO.
I think I agree with this.

That is unfortunately a very common and very arbitrary take on a protean notion of intelligence. The supposed generality of human intelligence is not a law of the universe, but a convenient postulate of the talentless plethora. Most experts in fields like science in math are not trapped within the limited rules of that field
Do I agree? No, I think most are trapped by virtue of their excellence in limited fields.

(and not by chance that almost all practical contributions in science/math, come from experts within a field - not plumbers with a sense of rationalistic, intellectual grandiosity.
You'd expect that, because it's their field of work. Excellence in fly-tying probably is less often found among mathematicians.

High expertise in one (open) system, doesn't mean that one isn't free to create elementary associations with information outside of their field. If a field of study includes facts (elements) A, B, and C, there is nothing that prevents an expert from associating element B with element D (on the grounds of some subtle pattern or anomaly), from some other field. The brain does not compartmentalize information sets, it has very broad neuronal networks that constantly associate patterns. Of course, there are always those 'intellectual dicks' who are purely interested in aimless 'fact finding' within their respective fields - these are people confuse their ability to learn with intelligence, and are extremely narrow thinkers. It's very likely not just IQ, but limitations of the neural inter-complexity and computational speed (intuition) of individuals is what allows some to actually apply information they've learned in ways to solve problems and exhibit higher learning through forming higher n order abstractions.

Possibly, yes. I wonder is that's a learned skill? I think it is, suggesting that too much specialisation is intellectually limiting, which brings us back to the point about them being trapped by their excellence.

Individual performance can and should only be evaluated at any specific given moment and time and are the product of developmental factors. One can only abstract from a given system like 41, 25, 49, n , if they are given that system to analyze - effectively nullifying any supposed quality of 'intelligence'. You can't give someone half of an idea, and then give them credit for the whole. In the real world, we don't know what elements are in are set, or what, when or exactly where we have to think hard. And ideally, 'smart' people should be defined as those who come up with new ideas from their own experimental models (sets)....yeah we don't live an ideal world.

Is this last paragraph an example of the sort of "intellectual dickery" we're told to avoid?

Just a subtle note that there are no plumbers who have contributed to mathematics, but there have certainly been mathematicians (or, at least, those heavily trained in math) who have contributed to plumbing.

An expert can always stop, and be burdened by the same mundane issues as the laymen, but many of them have the good taste not to care so much about such things. A person of intellect (not simply an 'expert') has developed more bridges (unbeknownst to them) from theory to practice, and from practice to theory - so it's not so much they think 'harder' (cognitive load), as that they will inevitably ponder about the world in ways that common men are oblivious to. Put simply, a person of intellect has 'perspective'.

Finally, promoting the archaic concept of IQ, with little understanding of Western philosophy of mind, makes for a foolish enterprise. And unlike the fudged statistics suggest, and collusive g-men have urged, it is in fact, that IQ has failed to adequately predict job performance, educational quality, and income for over 100 years. Unfortunately, just because they found it impossible to make IQ correlate with the system, doesn't mean it's impossible to engineer the system to correlate with IQ.

KingOtey

dead forum moment

James_KCC1
lol
TheRedstoneTorch_YT
johnzade wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
johnzade wrote:
RikkiTikkiTavi wrote:
ciljettu wrote:

Don't get me started on lefty liberal constructs like "social", "interpersonal" or the newly fangled "emotional intelligence".

I don't buy it either. So-called emotional intelligence is mainly about low levels of tension, vanity and so forth and higher levels of sociableness. It doesn't relate to the sort of intelligence that IQ is concerned with. That is, of course, obvious, but all this stuff about emotional intelligence is like buying a very short person a pair of high heeled shoes.

For me intelligence is raw cognitive power. Things like interpersonal intelligence involve not being an a-hole and have nothing to do with intelligence IMHO.
I think I agree with this.

That is unfortunately a very common and very arbitrary take on a protean notion of intelligence. The supposed generality of human intelligence is not a law of the universe, but a convenient postulate of the talentless plethora. Most experts in fields like science in math are not trapped within the limited rules of that field
Do I agree? No, I think most are trapped by virtue of their excellence in limited fields.

(and not by chance that almost all practical contributions in science/math, come from experts within a field - not plumbers with a sense of rationalistic, intellectual grandiosity.
You'd expect that, because it's their field of work. Excellence in fly-tying probably is less often found among mathematicians.

High expertise in one (open) system, doesn't mean that one isn't free to create elementary associations with information outside of their field. If a field of study includes facts (elements) A, B, and C, there is nothing that prevents an expert from associating element B with element D (on the grounds of some subtle pattern or anomaly), from some other field. The brain does not compartmentalize information sets, it has very broad neuronal networks that constantly associate patterns. Of course, there are always those 'intellectual dicks' who are purely interested in aimless 'fact finding' within their respective fields - these are people confuse their ability to learn with intelligence, and are extremely narrow thinkers. It's very likely not just IQ, but limitations of the neural inter-complexity and computational speed (intuition) of individuals is what allows some to actually apply information they've learned in ways to solve problems and exhibit higher learning through forming higher n order abstractions.

Possibly, yes. I wonder is that's a learned skill? I think it is, suggesting that too much specialisation is intellectually limiting, which brings us back to the point about them being trapped by their excellence.

Individual performance can and should only be evaluated at any specific given moment and time and are the product of developmental factors. One can only abstract from a given system like 41, 25, 49, n , if they are given that system to analyze - effectively nullifying any supposed quality of 'intelligence'. You can't give someone half of an idea, and then give them credit for the whole. In the real world, we don't know what elements are in are set, or what, when or exactly where we have to think hard. And ideally, 'smart' people should be defined as those who come up with new ideas from their own experimental models (sets)....yeah we don't live an ideal world.

Is this last paragraph an example of the sort of "intellectual dickery" we're told to avoid?

Just a subtle note that there are no plumbers who have contributed to mathematics, but there have certainly been mathematicians (or, at least, those heavily trained in math) who have contributed to plumbing.

An expert can always stop, and be burdened by the same mundane issues as the laymen, but many of them have the good taste not to care so much about such things. A person of intellect (not simply an 'expert') has developed more bridges (unbeknownst to them) from theory to practice, and from practice to theory - so it's not so much they think 'harder' (cognitive load), as that they will inevitably ponder about the world in ways that common men are oblivious to. Put simply, a person of intellect has 'perspective'.

Finally, promoting the archaic concept of IQ, with little understanding of Western philosophy of mind, makes for a foolish enterprise. And unlike the fudged statistics suggest, and collusive g-men have urged, it is in fact, that IQ has failed to adequately predict job performance, educational quality, and income for over 100 years. Unfortunately, just because they found it impossible to make IQ correlate with the system, doesn't mean it's impossible to engineer the system to correlate with IQ.

I might sleep while reading this post.

TheRedstoneTorch_YT
Optimissed wrote:
CountMagnuscarl wrote:

The IQ of Magnus carlsen is... 160 IQ!

Guys i am true ok?

He had it measured by a reputable and reliable testing system? Doubt it.

i found its is now 190 iq For Magnus.

Optimissed

Next week, 210.

Optimissed
CountMagnuscarl wrote:
johnzade wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
johnzade wrote:
RikkiTikkiTavi wrote:
ciljettu wrote:

Don't get me started on lefty liberal constructs like "social", "interpersonal" or the newly fangled "emotional intelligence".

I don't buy it either. So-called emotional intelligence is mainly about low levels of tension, vanity and so forth and higher levels of sociableness. It doesn't relate to the sort of intelligence that IQ is concerned with. That is, of course, obvious, but all this stuff about emotional intelligence is like buying a very short person a pair of high heeled shoes.

For me intelligence is raw cognitive power. Things like interpersonal intelligence involve not being an a-hole and have nothing to do with intelligence IMHO.
I think I agree with this.

That is unfortunately a very common and very arbitrary take on a protean notion of intelligence. The supposed generality of human intelligence is not a law of the universe, but a convenient postulate of the talentless plethora. Most experts in fields like science in math are not trapped within the limited rules of that field
Do I agree? No, I think most are trapped by virtue of their excellence in limited fields.

(and not by chance that almost all practical contributions in science/math, come from experts within a field - not plumbers with a sense of rationalistic, intellectual grandiosity.
You'd expect that, because it's their field of work. Excellence in fly-tying probably is less often found among mathematicians.

High expertise in one (open) system, doesn't mean that one isn't free to create elementary associations with information outside of their field. If a field of study includes facts (elements) A, B, and C, there is nothing that prevents an expert from associating element B with element D (on the grounds of some subtle pattern or anomaly), from some other field. The brain does not compartmentalize information sets, it has very broad neuronal networks that constantly associate patterns. Of course, there are always those 'intellectual dicks' who are purely interested in aimless 'fact finding' within their respective fields - these are people confuse their ability to learn with intelligence, and are extremely narrow thinkers. It's very likely not just IQ, but limitations of the neural inter-complexity and computational speed (intuition) of individuals is what allows some to actually apply information they've learned in ways to solve problems and exhibit higher learning through forming higher n order abstractions.

Possibly, yes. I wonder is that's a learned skill? I think it is, suggesting that too much specialisation is intellectually limiting, which brings us back to the point about them being trapped by their excellence.

Individual performance can and should only be evaluated at any specific given moment and time and are the product of developmental factors. One can only abstract from a given system like 41, 25, 49, n , if they are given that system to analyze - effectively nullifying any supposed quality of 'intelligence'. You can't give someone half of an idea, and then give them credit for the whole. In the real world, we don't know what elements are in are set, or what, when or exactly where we have to think hard. And ideally, 'smart' people should be defined as those who come up with new ideas from their own experimental models (sets)....yeah we don't live an ideal world.

Is this last paragraph an example of the sort of "intellectual dickery" we're told to avoid?

Just a subtle note that there are no plumbers who have contributed to mathematics, but there have certainly been mathematicians (or, at least, those heavily trained in math) who have contributed to plumbing.

An expert can always stop, and be burdened by the same mundane issues as the laymen, but many of them have the good taste not to care so much about such things. A person of intellect (not simply an 'expert') has developed more bridges (unbeknownst to them) from theory to practice, and from practice to theory - so it's not so much they think 'harder' (cognitive load), as that they will inevitably ponder about the world in ways that common men are oblivious to. Put simply, a person of intellect has 'perspective'.

Finally, promoting the archaic concept of IQ, with little understanding of Western philosophy of mind, makes for a foolish enterprise. And unlike the fudged statistics suggest, and collusive g-men have urged, it is in fact, that IQ has failed to adequately predict job performance, educational quality, and income for over 100 years. Unfortunately, just because they found it impossible to make IQ correlate with the system, doesn't mean it's impossible to engineer the system to correlate with IQ.

I might sleep while reading this post.

Just to point out that nothing written there is anything I wrote. I agree.

SKYTHESZ
150 sum
Kadori44

130+

Kakashicopyninja43

Chess play isn't a reliable way to measure IQ. Probably just a average IQ.

Kakashicopyninja43
Optimissed wrote:
CountMagnuscarl wrote:
johnzade wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
johnzade wrote:
RikkiTikkiTavi wrote:
ciljettu wrote:

Don't get me started on lefty liberal constructs like "social", "interpersonal" or the newly fangled "emotional intelligence".

I don't buy it either. So-called emotional intelligence is mainly about low levels of tension, vanity and so forth and higher levels of sociableness. It doesn't relate to the sort of intelligence that IQ is concerned with. That is, of course, obvious, but all this stuff about emotional intelligence is like buying a very short person a pair of high heeled shoes.

For me intelligence is raw cognitive power. Things like interpersonal intelligence involve not being an a-hole and have nothing to do with intelligence IMHO.
I think I agree with this.

That is unfortunately a very common and very arbitrary take on a protean notion of intelligence. The supposed generality of human intelligence is not a law of the universe, but a convenient postulate of the talentless plethora. Most experts in fields like science in math are not trapped within the limited rules of that field
Do I agree? No, I think most are trapped by virtue of their excellence in limited fields.

(and not by chance that almost all practical contributions in science/math, come from experts within a field - not plumbers with a sense of rationalistic, intellectual grandiosity.
You'd expect that, because it's their field of work. Excellence in fly-tying probably is less often found among mathematicians.

High expertise in one (open) system, doesn't mean that one isn't free to create elementary associations with information outside of their field. If a field of study includes facts (elements) A, B, and C, there is nothing that prevents an expert from associating element B with element D (on the grounds of some subtle pattern or anomaly), from some other field. The brain does not compartmentalize information sets, it has very broad neuronal networks that constantly associate patterns. Of course, there are always those 'intellectual dicks' who are purely interested in aimless 'fact finding' within their respective fields - these are people confuse their ability to learn with intelligence, and are extremely narrow thinkers. It's very likely not just IQ, but limitations of the neural inter-complexity and computational speed (intuition) of individuals is what allows some to actually apply information they've learned in ways to solve problems and exhibit higher learning through forming higher n order abstractions.

Possibly, yes. I wonder is that's a learned skill? I think it is, suggesting that too much specialisation is intellectually limiting, which brings us back to the point about them being trapped by their excellence.

Individual performance can and should only be evaluated at any specific given moment and time and are the product of developmental factors. One can only abstract from a given system like 41, 25, 49, n , if they are given that system to analyze - effectively nullifying any supposed quality of 'intelligence'. You can't give someone half of an idea, and then give them credit for the whole. In the real world, we don't know what elements are in are set, or what, when or exactly where we have to think hard. And ideally, 'smart' people should be defined as those who come up with new ideas from their own experimental models (sets)....yeah we don't live an ideal world.

Is this last paragraph an example of the sort of "intellectual dickery" we're told to avoid?

Just a subtle note that there are no plumbers who have contributed to mathematics, but there have certainly been mathematicians (or, at least, those heavily trained in math) who have contributed to plumbing.

An expert can always stop, and be burdened by the same mundane issues as the laymen, but many of them have the good taste not to care so much about such things. A person of intellect (not simply an 'expert') has developed more bridges (unbeknownst to them) from theory to practice, and from practice to theory - so it's not so much they think 'harder' (cognitive load), as that they will inevitably ponder about the world in ways that common men are oblivious to. Put simply, a person of intellect has 'perspective'.

Finally, promoting the archaic concept of IQ, with little understanding of Western philosophy of mind, makes for a foolish enterprise. And unlike the fudged statistics suggest, and collusive g-men have urged, it is in fact, that IQ has failed to adequately predict job performance, educational quality, and income for over 100 years. Unfortunately, just because they found it impossible to make IQ correlate with the system, doesn't mean it's impossible to engineer the system to correlate with IQ.

I might sleep while reading this post.

Just to point out that nothing written there is anything I wrote. I agree.

I would add that a person's environment and lack of resources can in of its self produce a genius or completely destroy the possibility.

Kakashicopyninja43

For reference Albert Einsteins iq was 160 and he played chess, but was never a GM...

V_Awful_Chess
Kakashicopyninja43 wrote:

For reference Albert Einsteins iq was 160 and he played chess, but was never a GM...

No it wasn't. The closest thing Einstein did to an IQ test is the Edison test, and he failed that so he couldn't have scored that highly. People’s estimate of Einstein's IQ is wholly made-up.

Kakashicopyninja43
V_Awful_Chess wrote:
Kakashicopyninja43 wrote:

For reference Albert Einsteins iq was 160 and he played chess, but was never a GM...

No it wasn't. The closest thing Einstein did to an IQ test is the Edison test, and he failed that so he couldn't have scored that highly. People’s estimate of Einstein's IQ is wholly made-up.

You are correct, but many experts agree he had a IQ very close to 160. Let's agree he was a

very smart man, perhaps in the top 100 ever to exist.