Slim Limpy
New member
**********
Last edited:
IQ and its relation to progression
- Thread starter obclassicut
- Start date
I find IQ tests are way too misleading in most cases. Many of the tests involve knowledge, not how smart an individual is.
In the early 1900's many uneducated people given IQ tests did miserably and ended up in mental institutions because the doctors of the time didn't think they had the mental capacity to take care of themselves. A study showed that taking the same uneducated people and giving them even rudimentary education in sciences, arts.. etc. pushed their IQ's up by a significant amount. So... many of the tests did not actually test how well you could learn or function but just your knowledge.
The saying that IQ tests were developed by smart (read knowledgeable) people to prove how smart they are is not far from the truth.
Would a higher IQ person learn to play pool faster? I really don't think that's the determining factor. All other things being equal (which is highly unlikely), they might have the capacity to learn faster but that potential may not be realized.
In the early 1900's many uneducated people given IQ tests did miserably and ended up in mental institutions because the doctors of the time didn't think they had the mental capacity to take care of themselves. A study showed that taking the same uneducated people and giving them even rudimentary education in sciences, arts.. etc. pushed their IQ's up by a significant amount. So... many of the tests did not actually test how well you could learn or function but just your knowledge.
The saying that IQ tests were developed by smart (read knowledgeable) people to prove how smart they are is not far from the truth.
Would a higher IQ person learn to play pool faster? I really don't think that's the determining factor. All other things being equal (which is highly unlikely), they might have the capacity to learn faster but that potential may not be realized.
Last edited:
Excuse me?
Do you actually know anything about such testing?
I am quite frankly amazed at your statement.
.
There might be some relevance to your assumption if one of the individuals was at, or near, the mentally challenged threshold.
If, however, the person who had the lesser intelligence quotient was as like minded as say, you and me (or maybe not me), then the win percentage could go either way.
I can't tell you how many times I've seen a smart-ass get his clock cleaned by a dumb-ass. :smile:
If, however, the person who had the lesser intelligence quotient was as like minded as say, you and me (or maybe not me), then the win percentage could go either way.
I can't tell you how many times I've seen a smart-ass get his clock cleaned by a dumb-ass. :smile:
Interesting Question
Many years ago when I began learning the game, I took lessons from a fairly well know instructor in my area. I asked him what it took to become a champion pool player, and he responded: "beyond the obvious physical skills - eyes, stroke, coordination, etc..., you better be a genius". I asked him to elaborate and he responded with "Efren's got a 150 IQ...if you're IQ ain't above 140 - genius level, you got no chance". At the time, I basically laughed this comment off as nonsense. I thought the notion was just so ridiculous (both the 140 requirement and Efren's 150 IQ) that it failed to merit any further discussion.
Now fast forward a couple decades; the more I play this game and the more pool players I meet, I am always surprised at the relationship between "smarts" and pool playing ability. Whenever I meet a really good player - whether they are a world champion or just a strong local player - I am always impressed with their above average intelligence.
Now of course they're not walking around quoting Homer and speaking the King's english. In fact, many great players are incredibly ignorant of all things outside of pool, gambling, sports, etc... and their grammar is astoundingly poor. However, reciting Homer or being able to speak on macroeconomics affairs isn't necessarily correlated with intelligence, unless you spent alot of time studying Homer and macroeconomics.
On the other hand, IMO, all of the following are highly indicative of intelligence - IQ.
- being able to assess gambling odds on the fly,
- learning new games/situations and figuring out the best strategy for winning
- understanding and quickly "seeing through" seemingly unbeatable prop bets.
And most top pool players I have met have these traits in spades, far more than the champions in other sports requiring hand-eye coordination. Now of course this correlation wouldn't necessariliy imply causation, but I am still pretty impressed with the overall intelligence of top pool players, and believe there is some deeper link.
Many years ago when I began learning the game, I took lessons from a fairly well know instructor in my area. I asked him what it took to become a champion pool player, and he responded: "beyond the obvious physical skills - eyes, stroke, coordination, etc..., you better be a genius". I asked him to elaborate and he responded with "Efren's got a 150 IQ...if you're IQ ain't above 140 - genius level, you got no chance". At the time, I basically laughed this comment off as nonsense. I thought the notion was just so ridiculous (both the 140 requirement and Efren's 150 IQ) that it failed to merit any further discussion.
Now fast forward a couple decades; the more I play this game and the more pool players I meet, I am always surprised at the relationship between "smarts" and pool playing ability. Whenever I meet a really good player - whether they are a world champion or just a strong local player - I am always impressed with their above average intelligence.
Now of course they're not walking around quoting Homer and speaking the King's english. In fact, many great players are incredibly ignorant of all things outside of pool, gambling, sports, etc... and their grammar is astoundingly poor. However, reciting Homer or being able to speak on macroeconomics affairs isn't necessarily correlated with intelligence, unless you spent alot of time studying Homer and macroeconomics.
On the other hand, IMO, all of the following are highly indicative of intelligence - IQ.
- being able to assess gambling odds on the fly,
- learning new games/situations and figuring out the best strategy for winning
- understanding and quickly "seeing through" seemingly unbeatable prop bets.
And most top pool players I have met have these traits in spades, far more than the champions in other sports requiring hand-eye coordination. Now of course this correlation wouldn't necessariliy imply causation, but I am still pretty impressed with the overall intelligence of top pool players, and believe there is some deeper link.
Yes, actually I do... was a member of mensa for a few years when I was younger.
Most things can be learned, even the ability to trouble shoot problems with a very methodical approach. Basically, you need to learn how to learn if that makes any sense. Knowledge is not just about facts, most things you learn in school is knowledge, even if it's how to apply your knowledge and learned skills to a problem. People that have what's called "photographic memory" come across as very smart and most would do very well on an IQ test. The ability to truly take what everyone considers as a "given" and go beyond that and visualize what's possible, not just what's accepted is very rare and those are the only people I'd consider geniuses. You can be a genius in many different fields: arts, science, politics... literally anything and many of those things have no bearing on an accepted IQ test.
Just my opinion and as I don't really want to get into any sort of online argument, also my last post in this thread...
Last edited:
Great! So was I.
What about the Prometheus Society? :wink:So you have taken the tests, but isn't what I asked now is it? As you know the various societies do use things like the GRE, SAT, MCAT and other such tests as well. Those tests are not IQ tests though. It's actually difficult to test those at the higher end of the curve as I am sure you know.
Interesting that we seem to have a very different perspective on the matter of modern testing. This certainly isn't the early 20th century.
Certainly IQ tests have their flaws and bias but I think your characterizations are a bit off in that regard.
Are you perhaps a bit jaded in this matter?
.
Slim Limpy
New member
**********
Last edited:
IQ tests were initially built to identify children who could not keep up with the school class and thus required special attention.
Later, during World Wars I and II they were further developed to identify service personnel who could not make it through basic training.
Only much later did we begin to identify sub components of intellectual functioning that various agencies found useful aside from the inherent interest in this area.
then why did they choose pool as a career!?!?!
I had that exact thought. Why would an intelligent person take the game of pool seriously? For money? For ego?
An intelligent person would appreciate the game of pool for what it is (a game). And not for what it's not (something important).
[rant]
I've seen some pretty stupid, desolate characters play a mean game of pool (what the f*** else are they gonna do?), and they go through life with a misguided, twisted sense of self worth. Broke, mooching off people, some badly needing a bath...but heck, they're so very happy and they shoot so good!
I've seen some intelligent, misguided, woolly thinking, frustred people try to get better (and most likely never will). They have six figure incomes, homes and luxury cars, but they go home hating the game because while they can forecast market trends, they can't string together a 14 f****** ball run. But the bank doesn't laugh them out into the street when they ask for a loan.
[/rant]
One post mentions physical capabilities. One post mentions memory. Has anyone mentioned analytical thinking (yet) or ability to concentrate and focus?
Poolmouse
Last edited:
To count what?
I q
Knowledge is worthless without wisdom.
MMike
Knowledge is worthless without wisdom.
MMike
Makes me think of my little sister:
Ivy league undergrad.
Stanford law.
A top US scholar.
When she was about 4 years old we were having dinner and she spoke up: "I am young, healthy, and principled."
Gives me hope for the future. OK....except that she studied law...still can't figure that one out! LOL!
My little brother, similar credentials, is a year into med school. That I understand. :grin-square:
.
Here is one to turn over a few times.
Emanuel Swedenborg thought that intellect was in service to emotional development.
For those who don’t know, Swedenborg was the Einstein of his day.
And so I could ask, Are emotionally stable pool players better pool players?
Maybe there is a good reason your sister studied the law.
Emanuel Swedenborg thought that intellect was in service to emotional development.
For those who don’t know, Swedenborg was the Einstein of his day.
And so I could ask, Are emotionally stable pool players better pool players?
Maybe there is a good reason your sister studied the law.
This could change my life.:thumbup: serious though
Indeed he may also have spiraled into madness.
I first learned of him when studying death and dying in my medical studies.
I believe he was a contemporary of Newton, who was certainly no less great in magnitude of intellect. He was also, of course, a flagellator.
Both, If I remember correctly, were bachelors.
It is said that in the time of Newton it was still possible for one man to posses the full wealth of human knowledge. In our time that is no longer true, or so it is said.
Yes indeed, I am sure there are good reasons why my sister studied law. In a family of numerous doctors we certainly could use a lawyer.
.