By how much is IQ cummulative?

[ZMacZ]

Let's take a 100 IQ person, called A.
Let's say there's a problem that needs solving that requires an IQ of 150, called B.

Now how many of A would be required to solve B.
(and would it actually be possible ?)

I'm pretty certain that 10 A's do not a 1000 IQ make..

 

[Dane P]

Don't mean to come off as deflecting the question but there's no answer to this... I.Q. is just a system to get a rough estimate on the ability of someone to learn new concepts. Someone with a 150 I.Q. may go their whole life without any Einstein level science breakthroughs and someone with an I.Q. of 70 may change an entire industry with an original idea and the right life experiences. I think looking at I.Q. as a potential for success is misleading unless we're specifically talking about success in academia where it's probably a better indicator.

 

[Stephen Tashi]

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/18/opinion/sunday/why-some-teams-are-smarter-than-others.html

We gave each volunteer an individual I.Q. test, but teams with higher average I.Q.s didn’t score much higher on our collective intelligence tasks than did teams with lower average I.Q.s.

 

[Dane P]

I would also say I.Q. doesn't scale evenly on the individual level from my personal experiences. If it takes 100 minutes for someone with an IQ of 100 to complete a test and someone with an IQ of 110 80 minutes to complete a test I feel like someone with an IQ of 135 wouldn't be done in 60 minutes, probably closer to 70 which would actually indicate diminishing returns towards the higher end of the IQ scores. Obviously I don't know all my classmates I.Q. scores but I would say if I had to estimate what they were, my experience in tests indicated a smaller difference in the higher numbers than the lower ones. It's possible the tests weren't challenging enough to the person with a 135 I.Q. to make that call, but from what I've seen there's a more noticeable difference from 100-120 than 120-140

 

[ZMacZ]

Ok then, I know that sometimes when people work together the result they have can be greater than if they both worked at the same
problem, but completely seperated. But up to what level would that go..
Without the required insight one can not come up with any solution to a problem of any kind..
And how much higher could that go ?
Someone who never grasped something as mathematics (for instance), can never solve a mathematics problem.
Now if two of those (for intent and purpose, copies) would have that same mathematics problem, could they then solve it together ?
(so basically, could their 'stacked' capability come up with an answer that is correct, since they both never grasped mathmatics..)

I know in real life there's a degree to which people can grasp something and that their capabilities aren't actually
quantified very well by using such a thing as an IQ standard, but to me that's not the issue..
It's me asking whether or not people can topple a problem which each person seperately can't topple..
And then if yes, by how far that can go..

I'm going to close on this, because I think it's not actually possible to work out.
I think in some cases people can get a better result by trying to topple together, but not always..

Anyway thanx..

 

[ZMacZ]

We gave each volunteer an individual I.Q. test, but teams with higher average I.Q.s didn’t score much higher on our collective intelligence tasks than did teams with lower average I.Q.s.

Did you try that with problems that each of the lower IQ's could not solve on their own ? But the seemingly higher IQ'ed ones could ?
That would basically mean that each of the higher IQ'ed ones could solve that task alone,
while the ones with the lower IQ's could not even do it together.
And I think this to be true..

The minimal requirement to solve a task is the ability to grasp each and every component of it,
and then solve those, and that's where group mind can overcome, where each person seperate
would fail to grasp every component of said task.

 

[jim mcnamara]

We are speculating too much here. IQ was originally used as an arbitrary means of cubbyholing people, mostly students. Uninformed people often assign meanings that are not and never have been warranted. It is simply a very rough estimator of success in school for students raised in a Western culture.
Some of the posts above are, IMO, unwarranted speculation.

This thread is closed.