http://www.intelligencetest.com/ is among the best free IQ test site.
It also gives out free analysis of various aspects of the tests.
My IQ was 126 with my greatest strength at General Knowledge, while my weakest is visualization.
Tuesday, May 1, 2007
Sunday, March 25, 2007
Destructive Emotional Intelligences
Emotional intelligence is touted as an alternative to IQ, intelligence quotient because it is noted that those with high IQ need not necessarily be successful in worldly affairs.
Nowadays these emotional intelligence has led to multiple intelligences because it is noted that there are diverse skills in various areas that need to be addressed in order to be successful in these various fields, be it business, politics or military.
One high profile success story is Mr. Bush, the president of the most powerful nation on earth. He does not even have a high IQ and supporters of emotional intelligence theory state that it may be due to his high emotional intelligence quotients, EQ.
I admit that I have not studied in details what EQ is about and how it is measured, except from what I get from lectures and articles. So far I have not heard of a concrete way of measuring EQ apart from attempts at identifying qualities that make a person successful.
IQ, (Intelligence Quotients) are well established. It is equipped with various tests in order to measure the IQ of any individual, and it appeared to be consistent.
EQ is devised in order to explain the success of an individual but what is clear is that, it is not related to IQ, or should be as distant from IQ as possible.
Once we have identified what IQ is, we should have a fair view of what EQ is. It is not IQ, but IQ relates to logical thinking and problem solving, so EQ must be something other than these logical thinkings, or in other words, illogical and irrational thinking.
It is true that EQ is important for human survival. IQ alone is not sufficient. Humans survive on instincts that are devoid of any logical thinking. Superstition is one of them.
But EQ, relates to how an individual is successful. In a superstitious society, the most successful individual must be those who are also superstitious, or else he will become an outcast and has little hope of surviving in a hostile environment.
So EQ is a human talent in blending environmental factors and emotions, in making his survival or success chances much better, which are devoid of logical consideration.
My scientific intelligence theory should be able to measure intelligence resource required for both aspects, because in line with Information Theory, the information "content" is not measured. Both aspects requires intelligence energy but one is logical but the other is non-logical. Or to be more politely, EQ is the ability to make decisions although no reasons can be concretely attached to them.
This is where the danger sign is. If we see that only those with high EQ are more successful, it shows that the society does not value reason or logical argument, compared to a society where those with high IQ are more successful.
To be fair, only 3 cases in history, that I know of, a society that value IQ more than EQ. This was Imperial China at the peak of its scientific progress through its mandarin officials, British Empire through its Oxford educated foreign office officials, and Singapore government.
This is based on the assumptions that examinations test IQ more than EQ. You cannot use your EQ in order to pass examinations. You cannot hypnotise or convince your examiners to pass you, if you don't understand facts and joint them in an approved logical way. Unless you are in a highly EQ motivated society, i.e. corrupt and non-law-abiding society.
Most societies take the middle approach. They value IQ tests in form of examinations, priding themselves in graduating from elite universities, showing their colleagues that they have sufficient IQ in order to survive in this modern world, while improving their EQ in order to be even more successful.
Mr. Bush has a higher IQ than many of our political representatives, many of them, can't even read properly. It is however clear that Mr. Bush does not have the highest IQ compared to other presidents such as Mr. Carter and Clinton, but Mr. Bush is among the most revered leader in the history of US Presidency.
Mr. Bush has led US to wars and deaths while its economy is not at its best, blaming it on previous presidents, who enjoy economic boom without exposing any US lives.
This is the destructive nature of EQ. Mr. Bush may be respected but it has led US into disaster after disaster. But my theory is that, those with high EQ can only be successful if the public itself values EQ more than IQ.
Nations where high EQ are required to excel are where corruption and illegality are strife. People with high IQ will not be able to survive. They need people with high EQ as well.
Of course it will be best if individuals have both IQ and EQ but somehow these skills are not complementary. You can excel in IQ but not EQ and vice versa.
But one thing is certain. The world will be much safer if they are led by people with high IQ. At least he will be more reasonable in making his decisions.
While those nations that are led by people with high EQ such as Hitler and now Bush, point out to fundamental problems in society.
Just look at societies such as Malaysia and Indonesia that value EQ more highly than IQ. It only shows how corruption, cronyism and illegality are widespread.
Nowadays these emotional intelligence has led to multiple intelligences because it is noted that there are diverse skills in various areas that need to be addressed in order to be successful in these various fields, be it business, politics or military.
One high profile success story is Mr. Bush, the president of the most powerful nation on earth. He does not even have a high IQ and supporters of emotional intelligence theory state that it may be due to his high emotional intelligence quotients, EQ.
I admit that I have not studied in details what EQ is about and how it is measured, except from what I get from lectures and articles. So far I have not heard of a concrete way of measuring EQ apart from attempts at identifying qualities that make a person successful.
IQ, (Intelligence Quotients) are well established. It is equipped with various tests in order to measure the IQ of any individual, and it appeared to be consistent.
EQ is devised in order to explain the success of an individual but what is clear is that, it is not related to IQ, or should be as distant from IQ as possible.
Once we have identified what IQ is, we should have a fair view of what EQ is. It is not IQ, but IQ relates to logical thinking and problem solving, so EQ must be something other than these logical thinkings, or in other words, illogical and irrational thinking.
It is true that EQ is important for human survival. IQ alone is not sufficient. Humans survive on instincts that are devoid of any logical thinking. Superstition is one of them.
But EQ, relates to how an individual is successful. In a superstitious society, the most successful individual must be those who are also superstitious, or else he will become an outcast and has little hope of surviving in a hostile environment.
So EQ is a human talent in blending environmental factors and emotions, in making his survival or success chances much better, which are devoid of logical consideration.
My scientific intelligence theory should be able to measure intelligence resource required for both aspects, because in line with Information Theory, the information "content" is not measured. Both aspects requires intelligence energy but one is logical but the other is non-logical. Or to be more politely, EQ is the ability to make decisions although no reasons can be concretely attached to them.
This is where the danger sign is. If we see that only those with high EQ are more successful, it shows that the society does not value reason or logical argument, compared to a society where those with high IQ are more successful.
To be fair, only 3 cases in history, that I know of, a society that value IQ more than EQ. This was Imperial China at the peak of its scientific progress through its mandarin officials, British Empire through its Oxford educated foreign office officials, and Singapore government.
This is based on the assumptions that examinations test IQ more than EQ. You cannot use your EQ in order to pass examinations. You cannot hypnotise or convince your examiners to pass you, if you don't understand facts and joint them in an approved logical way. Unless you are in a highly EQ motivated society, i.e. corrupt and non-law-abiding society.
Most societies take the middle approach. They value IQ tests in form of examinations, priding themselves in graduating from elite universities, showing their colleagues that they have sufficient IQ in order to survive in this modern world, while improving their EQ in order to be even more successful.
Mr. Bush has a higher IQ than many of our political representatives, many of them, can't even read properly. It is however clear that Mr. Bush does not have the highest IQ compared to other presidents such as Mr. Carter and Clinton, but Mr. Bush is among the most revered leader in the history of US Presidency.
Mr. Bush has led US to wars and deaths while its economy is not at its best, blaming it on previous presidents, who enjoy economic boom without exposing any US lives.
This is the destructive nature of EQ. Mr. Bush may be respected but it has led US into disaster after disaster. But my theory is that, those with high EQ can only be successful if the public itself values EQ more than IQ.
Nations where high EQ are required to excel are where corruption and illegality are strife. People with high IQ will not be able to survive. They need people with high EQ as well.
Of course it will be best if individuals have both IQ and EQ but somehow these skills are not complementary. You can excel in IQ but not EQ and vice versa.
But one thing is certain. The world will be much safer if they are led by people with high IQ. At least he will be more reasonable in making his decisions.
While those nations that are led by people with high EQ such as Hitler and now Bush, point out to fundamental problems in society.
Just look at societies such as Malaysia and Indonesia that value EQ more highly than IQ. It only shows how corruption, cronyism and illegality are widespread.
Thursday, March 8, 2007
Friday, February 16, 2007
Attacking Multiple Intelligences
I had tolerated all the theories of Multiple Intelligences because I thought that the academic enviroment will ensure debate on this subject. However I notice that it became even stronger and stronger and above all other theories on intelligence.
My theory, that claims to be treating intelligence in general and boldly called Intelligence Theory had never been quoted and mentioned, let alone criticised.
I may not be a well known researcher, but my theory is already been used in similar manners by previous Engineering Researchers, especially G.N. Saridis. At least these people are highly scientific in their approaches, unlike these theories on Multiple Intelligences.
In the engineering world, most research on Intelligence centres around making devices, treating definitions lightly. This had left a vacuum to psychologists to define intelligences in their peculiar ways that are in most cases completely unscientific and therefore unfounded.
The greatest weakness in all these Multiple Intelligences is that they assume that they know the desirable outcome perfectly. They interpret high intelligence as having success in solving problems.
So they assume that successful people have high level of intelligences. However this failed to withstand the logical test. It used to be emotional intelligence. So they assume that powerful people are the most successful. It ignores peole such as Einstein and Bill Gates.
Eisten is among the best scientific mind there is. While Bill Gates is the richest man on Earth, Bill Clinton, is the most powerful leader of the World by being the President of the USA, at least for the duration of 8 years. Similarly for Bush.
By their assumptions, Bush may be the most intelligent human being on earth.
It is pointless to find out the characteristics of successful people but this is vital which made them popular for fund raising work.
Useful work can still be done even without defining the degree of sucess of any behaviour. This is well proven by Shannon in his Information Theory.
Information is just defined by its physical characteristics, not its usefulness to humans or groups of humans.
It is theoretically possilbe for us to find out this usefulness characterictics but they are not fixed and are very complex and varible because it depends on so many factors, which make data finding almost impossible to get right.
My theory, that claims to be treating intelligence in general and boldly called Intelligence Theory had never been quoted and mentioned, let alone criticised.
I may not be a well known researcher, but my theory is already been used in similar manners by previous Engineering Researchers, especially G.N. Saridis. At least these people are highly scientific in their approaches, unlike these theories on Multiple Intelligences.
In the engineering world, most research on Intelligence centres around making devices, treating definitions lightly. This had left a vacuum to psychologists to define intelligences in their peculiar ways that are in most cases completely unscientific and therefore unfounded.
The greatest weakness in all these Multiple Intelligences is that they assume that they know the desirable outcome perfectly. They interpret high intelligence as having success in solving problems.
So they assume that successful people have high level of intelligences. However this failed to withstand the logical test. It used to be emotional intelligence. So they assume that powerful people are the most successful. It ignores peole such as Einstein and Bill Gates.
Eisten is among the best scientific mind there is. While Bill Gates is the richest man on Earth, Bill Clinton, is the most powerful leader of the World by being the President of the USA, at least for the duration of 8 years. Similarly for Bush.
By their assumptions, Bush may be the most intelligent human being on earth.
It is pointless to find out the characteristics of successful people but this is vital which made them popular for fund raising work.
Useful work can still be done even without defining the degree of sucess of any behaviour. This is well proven by Shannon in his Information Theory.
Information is just defined by its physical characteristics, not its usefulness to humans or groups of humans.
It is theoretically possilbe for us to find out this usefulness characterictics but they are not fixed and are very complex and varible because it depends on so many factors, which make data finding almost impossible to get right.
Mastering Intelligence Scientifically
That is the proposed title for my proposed book which is still under development.
I'd just like to welcome criticisms and discussions on a scientific definition of Intelligence.
For more information you may refer to my previous publications in my homepage othmana.tripod.com
In creating this blogspot, I notice that there are two other blogspots, intellignece and intelligencetheory.
I'd like to visit all blogspots that want to discuss alternative definitions of intelligence. I am well aware of the "emotional intelligence" theories but I consider them as useless because they are not scientific.
I'm disappointed that many academicians are abandoning scientific principles in their research and analysis.
Any criticism is most welcomed.
I'd just like to welcome criticisms and discussions on a scientific definition of Intelligence.
For more information you may refer to my previous publications in my homepage othmana.tripod.com
In creating this blogspot, I notice that there are two other blogspots, intellignece and intelligencetheory.
I'd like to visit all blogspots that want to discuss alternative definitions of intelligence. I am well aware of the "emotional intelligence" theories but I consider them as useless because they are not scientific.
I'm disappointed that many academicians are abandoning scientific principles in their research and analysis.
Any criticism is most welcomed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)