<p>IQ is such a profoundly useless tool of measurement. My IQ, as officially tested, is also pretty high (>145, aka "highly gifted"), but I'd never put myself next to Socrates. And there have been brilliant people whose IQs were quite low.</p>
<p>I'd still go with the IQ, though, simply because an Ivy League education is not a bellwether of success. Success takes intelligence, motivation, and luck - a great school just gives you a leg up on the last one.</p>
<p>You can only accurately measure your IQ with a certified psychologist who admisters the wesch bates. Online tests don't count. If they did, then my IQ would be 197 (seriously)..which I think is somewhere around the 99.99999999504th percentile.</p>
<p>IQ's measure NATURAL intelligence. Innate reasoning ability. Not what you've been taught in school.</p>
<p>People like Da Vinci, Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, Einstein... all had it.</p>
<p>Nevermind "ivy". I mean any college that's cutthroat to get into...the one u want to go to</p>
<p>SO:</p>
<p>great mind, unemployed philosopher, unassuming, genius who is content with life. has minimal material posessions - he doesn't want them. thinks a lot. is content. think: socrates, w/o fame or recognition.</p>
<p>OR</p>
<p>below-average reasoning/critical thinking intelligence (but he functions in society), succesful professional, gaurenteed admissions to IVY, prestigious grad school, has lots of material goods.</p>
<p>why dont you just ask would you want brains or money/everyday-perks</p>
<p>its an image</p>
<p>IQ is not all that people think it is. There are a lot of high IQ people who have Aspergers and are Bipolar. There are only a few true high IQ's with out these deficits.</p>
<p>I have been administered the Weschler and the Stanford Binet, with a full psych. write up.</p>
<p>IQ = 185 + range. Not bragging.</p>
<p>What an interesting road.</p>
<p>Blairt </p>
<p>Your examples are poor. All the people you just listed are recognized because they were not satisfied with the life as it were, and went out of their way to change the world for the better. Socrates was put on trial for treason because he questioned the philosophy of the Greeks, who were probably more advanced in thought than most modern westerners. Both Da Vinci and Galileo sacrificed their lives to debunk Christianity for the travesty that it was. Einstein was not unemployed and was not content, to say the least. </p>
<p>But if I had to answer your question, I would probably pick the ivy rich guy, because the former contributes nothing to society.</p>
<p>I'd go for the 152 IQ, no question. I couldn't imagine living with a IQ of 92... Even as a success.</p>
<p>geez.</p>
<p>leave it to CCers to to tear a good thread apart arguing the minutiae.</p>
<p>as for me, i would never give up the advanced mind of a 154 IQ to be a prestige whore.</p>
<p>as for me, i would never give up an advanced mind to be a prestige whore.</p>
<p>I personally think that IQ is more important that ivy-league its personally what you make of it yea ivy-leagues r great but they arent everything because safely 80% of the people there couldnt figure out how to give a board presentation or function in society. Yes IQ(170+) can hinder both those aspects of ones life too but it can also enlighten you beyond any college. Its not about memorizing facts that makes people smart, it is the people that create ideas and understand theorys that are smart. My IQ is some where easily over 180(as those physiciatric tests say) and i can function because i no what is truly important and thats not ivy -leagues </p>
<p>So to summarize what i just rambled about ..... I would take the IQ and the ideas over the Ivy-League and the Facts</p>
<p>I have also have an IQ higher than 154. I would definitely take the 4.0/2400 SAT and go to any ivy over having a high IQ.</p>
<p>Humm... funny, is there a standardized IQ test?
I took one that was **out of 150 **and I got >140... so you guys with 150+ just rode off the chart with your brilliance? No wonder I'm not going to get into the colleges of my choice... lol... What is the full score anyway?</p>
<p>there is no full score.</p>
<p>any test that has a ceiling is not done by a professional.</p>
<p>did you do it on the internet or something? that's not your iq.</p>
<p>that is tough, but I'd have to say the ivy grad. So many doors are open to u as a college grad, especially top 20 grad.</p>
<p>The only IQ test I ever took had a ceiling of 150...I think it was one of those made for kids or somethings.</p>
<p>I'd take the genius, assuming that it's a real genius not just IQ genius, which I think is what the OP meant.</p>
<p>I can do a lot of stuff as a genius, but all I can do as an Ivy grad is be someone's ***** and make money for it.</p>
<p>Which brings me to my next question :) what aspects of intelligence is an iq test designed to measure? It seem to focus mainly on logic, memory and spatial skills... what about the other aspects... tonal, for example. Why does that not factor in as "intelligence"? It seems rather arbitrary to just choose these out of all others... is anyone familiar with the system?</p>
<p>154 because i would never go to an ivy in my sane mind.</p>
<p>ivy any day...successful did you say?</p>
<p>Theres a triarchic system of intelligence - analytical (measured by IQ tests), creative, and succesful intelligence. Succesful intelligence refers to an innate ability to determind what will work and what won't; it's about devising complex plans in business, politics, etc. and being able to manage your life with a great natural ease. In colloquial terms, it would be "the person who is good at life". Stuff just happens for them, it seems; they don't search and struggle for a lionized image of success. They just get it (not luck, but not trying half as much as others, in a way.. just a natural apt that can't be imitated). Creative is the most rare, and is self-explanatory. They engineer new inventions, paint masterpieces, and come up with unprecedented, quirky ideas.</p>
<p>I really only see the analytical intelligence on CC (and not even natural analytical skills; taught and hammered in "analytical" skills), and rarely so. The debates lack critical thinking (for the most part), and the ambitions lack succesful intelligence, awareness, and experience. (In my opinion.) I can name one poster who I know has great creative skills - but he's a great anamoly. That's why I posted "Any artists on CC?", to try to figure out if there were any (there are a few).</p>