Entry 89 — IQ, EQ and CQ
I’m taking a break from Of Manywhere-at-Once to reveal my latest coinages, PQ and CQ, or psycheffectiveness quotient and creativity quotient. I’ve long held that IQ is a ridiculously pseudo pseudo synonym for intelligence. “Pychefficiency” is an old term of mine for “genuine intelligence.” A slightly new thought of mine is that PQ equals IQ times CQ divided by 100. So an average person’s PQ would be 100 times 100 divided by 100, or 100. The most common Mensa member’s PQ would be 150 times 50 divided by 100, or 75.
Okay, mean-spirited hyperbole. But there definitely are a lot of stupid high IQ persons, and it is the stupid high IQ persons that gravitate toward Mensa membership. (Right, I’m not in Mensa–but I could be, assuming my IQ hasn’t shrunk much more over the years than my height, which is down a little over half an inch.)
My formula wouldn’t come too close to determining a person’s true PQ because IQ is so badly figured, but it would come at least twice as close to doing so as IQ by itself. A main change necessary to make the formula a reasonable measure of mental effectiveness would be to divide it into short-term IQ and long-term IQ. The former is what IQ currently (poorly) is–i.e., something that can be measured in a day or less. The latter would be IQ it would take a year (or, really, a lifetime, to measure). Quickness at accurately solving easy problems versus ability to solve hard problems.
Really to get IQ right one would have to measure the many kinds of intelligence there are such as social intelligence, aesthetic intelligence, athletic intelligence, self intelligence and so forth, then add them together, find the mean score thus obtained for human beings. Divide that by a hundred and use the answer to divide a given intelligence sum to find true IQ.
Maybe not “true IQ,” but “roundedness quotient.” For me, true IQ would be all the intelligences multiplied together divided by the product of one less than the number of intelligences and 100. That, on second thought, wouldn’t do it, I don’t think. What I want is a reflection of the strength of all one’s cerebral aptitudes without penalty for absent talents since it doesn’t seem to be that they’d be too much of a handicap. I’m in an area now I need to think more about. So here will I close.
Tags: theoretical psychology
Roundedness is wonderful, and fitting in is fabulous. However, genius doesn’t require either to create or postulate.
As I said, roundedness is something I need to think about more. I, of course, am not implying that genius requires it but suggesting that
the higher one’s roundedness quotient is, the more effective one will
likely be at creating or postulating–although one’s creativity quotient
would outweigh it, as would a true intelligence quotient, which would
measure much more than short-term numeracy and literacy and the mental manipulation of geometric shapes and whatever else most IQ tests measure.
This response is late, by the way, because I didn’t know I got your comment till today (due to my ignorance about how this site handles comments).
Later Note, 4 August 2011: is there anyone more stupid than the person who enters a discussion only to make an assertion (anonymously, of course), then disappears?
–Bob