Jesus’ IQ?

[mikbone]

How intelligent do you think he was?

I’m betting at least 300 IQ.

Likely learned egyptian listening to it as a baby, Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic.  But had gift of tongues so fluent in all languages.

At age 12 he astounded the priests at the temple.  Knew that Elohim was his father.  Likely recollection of the pre-existence.

I’m fairly certain he could read minds.

[laronius]

18 minutes ago, mikbone said:

How intelligent do you think he was?

I’m betting at least 300 IQ.

Likely learned egyptian listening to it as a baby, Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic.  But had gift of tongues so fluent in all languages.

At age 12 he astounded the priests at the temple.  Knew that Elohim was his father.  Likely recollection of the pre-existence.

I’m fairly certain he could read minds.

Under the influence of the Father he had access to all knowledge, as needed. So I think it would be hard to judge what was him personally and what was external divine influence. 

[LDSGator]

58 minutes ago, mikbone said:

Likely learned egyptian listening to it as a baby, Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic.  But had gift of tongues so fluent in all language

I’ve always wondered that as well! I think there are passages about Him learning in the bible. What did He learn? What did He need to learn?

[mikbone]

10 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

I’ve always wondered that as well! I think there are passages about Him learning in the bible. What did He learn? What did He need to learn?

Not sure what he learned.

More like, “Oh yeah I recall saying that to Moses.”

[mikbone]

Luke 2:52 And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man.

My wife taught herself how to read by age 2.  She is the 3rd born child in her family and their mother read them stories @ night.  She never had a reading lesson.  Just started reading the stories over her shoulder, cereal boxes, labels, etc.

[Vort]

IQ stands for "intelligence quotient". IQ as such fails to have much (any) meaning past about 170.

What does it mean to have an IQ of 300? Technically, at least originally (things might have changed), it meant that an adult with an IQ of 300 was three times the "intellectual age" of the average adult. By definition, all "adults" are 18 years old, and again by definition, the mean performance of a large group of randomly selected adults on a test of IQ is set at 100 using the formula

IQ = (intellectual age based on test performance) / (chronological age) * 100

The 100 multiple is to give a number between about 50 and 150 instead of some fractional number between about 0.5 and 1.5. So a person who performs exactly as expected for his/her (adult) age will score an 18 (the chronological age of adulthood), and 18 / 18 * 100 = 100—the average IQ.

Now the trick becomes, How does one assign an "intellectual age" to a person based on his/her score on some test? When we have a very large group of people who (we assume) will fall along a normal distribution, we can use statistical methods to figure out what score on what test indicates what IQ. So we just take the results of many, many iterations of the tests with various test-takers, and we "normalize" the scores such that the mean is 100 and the standard deviation is 15 IQ points. That gives us a table for each test that reveals the IQ (or at least the IQ score for that test on that day) for the individual who took the test.

But up around an IQ of 150 or 160, how do you reliably distinguish between individual performances? You can't just keep making the questions harder and harder. The idea of "intelligence" has been that it is a fixed quantity with which a person is born, and it does not/cannot increase with practice (though it can decrease with disease, age, injury, and lack of performance). (You can see immediately why this whole approach to measuring a supposedly inborn and invariant quantity is doomed from the start.) Maybe you include some questions requiring an understanding of, I don't know, differential equations or particle physics or spectral analysis or Old English literature. But are you now testing that person's native capabilities, or his education? Because the two are very different quantities, though they are also very intimately related and even intertwined. By the time you get to measuring an IQ of 190 or so, the tests don't really mean anything. We do not have the ability to discriminate between someone with an IQ of 190 and someone else with an IQ of 210, much less between someone with an IQ of 190 and someone with an IQ of 192. So saying that So-and-so has an IQ of 300 doesn't actually mean anything, as far as I can tell.

There are many who say that IQ tests are stupid and meaningless. For the record, I am not one of those people; they are wrong. IQ tests are not stupid, and they most certainly are not meaningless. IQ tests are the most reliable psychometric tests ever created, the most reproducible, absolutely solid statistical indicators of people's general ability to perform across a very wide variety of tasks. They are very meaningful, robust, and reliable as real-world performance indicators.

But instead of "intelligence quotient", I think they would be better characterized as an "intellectual performance quotient" or something of the sort. Intelligence is not what psychologists of 110 years ago thought it was, nor is it what today's researchers think it is. Defining "intelligence" is probably not something that modern science can do in a useful way, except in a very narrow sense. The best definition is given by scripture: Intelligence is the light of truth. Science as such cannot touch this definition, because it's not useful to science. But it is most useful to human beings.

Edited March 28, 2024 by Vort

[LDSGator]

24 minutes ago, Vort said:

But instead of "intelligence quotient", I think they would be better characterized as an "intellectual performance quotient" or something of the sort. Intelligence is not what psychologists of 110 years ago thought it was, nor is it what today's researchers think it is. Defining "intelligence" is probably not something that modern science can do in a useful way, except in a very narrow sense

Well said  

[JohnsonJones]

Hmmm, well, when I was younger I was tested with an IQ normally around 155 (IQ can vary in tests given dependent on day, time, personal feelings that day, etc).  Normally it was right about that range and with most tests I took in earlier years I was normally in the 99% so I suppose that would match.

One of my daughters is much smarter than me, usually having an IQ around the 160 range.  On the otherhand, I had a son who always felt somewhat left behind her, even though he constantly wanted to prove himself in smarts.  He had an IQ of around 110.  What I noticed though was that he turned out to be a MUCH HARDER WORKER than she was.  He was much more dedicated to what he did, and in that way turned out much more successful.  I also had a daughter who had a much lower IQ, but was extremely charismatic.  She dazzled everyone and had boys falling out of the woodwork to try to ask her out when she was younger. 

In that light, I'm not sure IQ is much more of a way of measuring how fast we catch onto things and how good we are at taking tests.  Perhaps there are other forms of ability (IQ of other sorts such as work ethic, people skills, etc) that are just as important but that we don't regularly test for or design tests for.  In that way, each of us may be geniuses in different areas.  While I may have the "IQ" smarts on paper, I may be the equal of a low IQ individual in the area of computers or mechanics.  Fixing cars is definitely not my forte, but there are those who it comes as easy as eating a piece of pie. 

it is possible that the Lord was talented in ALL of those areas, not just how we measure "IQ" but in personal skills he was a genius, relating to others he was a genius, and many other areas that are just as important, if not more important, in his ministry. 

How do you rate those?  Normally we don't and so I'm not sure how important it really is to give out a number.  I may have stated a number above regarding how I have tested in the past, but in real life it has no real bearing to how successful I am or how much of a good person I am (and how good you are is really what TRULY matters at the end of the day/life).  In the important areas of life that number is meaningless.  It doesn't actually represent anything meaningful, or that has true impact.

In that way, I'm not sure if we could measure all the ways the Lord was a genius, but I'm not sure it matters either.  What really matters would be that he KNOWS each and everyone one of us, knows what and how we think and WHY we think that way, loves us, and through him and his atonement we can be cleansed of our sins, raised from death and resurrected in perfect form through faith in him and doing the things he has asked us to do to show that faith. 

[mikbone]

49 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

In that way, I'm not sure if we could measure all the ways the Lord was a genius, but I'm not sure it matters either.  What really matters would be that he KNOWS each and everyone one of us, knows what and how we think and WHY we think that way, loves us, and through him and his atonement we can be cleansed of our sins, raised from death and resurrected in perfect form through faith in him and doing the things he has asked us to do to show that faith. 

Thanks for the response.  

This point of view is kinda why I made this post.  

The new evangelical Christ marketing catch phrase, “He gets us.”  Absolutely drives me nuts.

Yup, He gets us.  But so does Satan.

Do we get him?  When we take the Sacrament we commit to witness him.  How can you witness him if you don’t know him.  Isn’t it imperative to know who He is?  

Joseph Smith - “It is the first principle of the Gospel to know (with) a certainty the character of God, and to know that we (can) converse with Him as one man converses with another."

Edited March 28, 2024 by mikbone

[tomasgreenro]

On 3/28/2024 at 10:24 PM, Vort said:

IQ stands for "intelligence quotient". IQ as such fails to have much (any) meaning past about 170.

What does it mean to have an IQ of 300? Technically, at least originally (things might have changed), it meant that an adult with an IQ of 300 was three times the "intellectual age" of the average adult. By definition, all "adults" are 18 years old, and again by definition, the mean performance of a large group of randomly selected adults on a test of IQ is set at 100 using the formula

IQ = (intellectual age based on test performance) / (chronological age) * 100

The 100 multiple is to give a number between about 50 and 150 instead of some fractional number between about 0.5 and 1.5. So a person who performs exactly as expected for his/her (adult) age will score an 18 (the chronological age of adulthood), and 18 / 18 * 100 = 100—the average IQ.

Now the trick becomes, How does one assign an "intellectual age" to a person based on his/her score on some test? When we have a very large group of people who (we assume) will fall along a normal distribution, we can use statistical methods to figure out what score on what test indicates what IQ. So we just take the results of many, many iterations of the tests with various test-takers, and we "normalize" the scores such that the mean is 100 and the standard deviation is 15 IQ points. That gives us a table for each test that reveals the IQ (or at least the IQ score for that test on that day) for the individual who took the test.

But up around an IQ of 150 or 160, how do you reliably distinguish between individual performances? You can't just keep making the questions harder and harder. The idea of "intelligence" has been that it is a fixed quantity with which a person is born, and it does not/cannot increase with practice (though it can decrease with disease, age, injury, and lack of performance). (You can see immediately why this whole approach to measuring a supposedly inborn and invariant quantity is doomed from the start.) Maybe you include some questions requiring an understanding of, I don't know, differential equations or particle physics or spectral analysis or Old English literature. But are you now testing that person's native capabilities, or his education? Because the two are very different quantities, though they are also very intimately related and even intertwined. By the time you get to measuring an IQ of 190 or so, the tests don't really mean anything. We do not have the ability to discriminate between someone with an IQ of 190 and someone else with an IQ of 210, much less between someone with an IQ of 190 and someone with an IQ of 192. So saying that So-and-so has an IQ of 300 doesn't actually mean anything, as far as I can tell.

I think intelligence can be expressed in many ways, not just through IQ. Speaking of intelligence and self-development, I recently read an essay on Beowulf, an epic poem from the early Middle Ages, which you can find this and develop by reading these wonderful essays. The hero Beowulf also demonstrated considerable skill and knowledge. He was a true leader and warrior. Reading such works is truly a pleasure.

There are many who say that IQ tests are stupid and meaningless. For the record, I am not one of those people; they are wrong. IQ tests are not stupid, and they most certainly are not meaningless. IQ tests are the most reliable psychometric tests ever created, the most reproducible, absolutely solid statistical indicators of people's general ability to perform across a very wide variety of tasks. They are very meaningful, robust, and reliable as real-world performance indicators.

But instead of "intelligence quotient", I think they would be better characterized as an "intellectual performance quotient" or something of the sort. Intelligence is not what psychologists of 110 years ago thought it was, nor is it what today's researchers think it is. Defining "intelligence" is probably not something that modern science can do in a useful way, except in a very narrow sense. The best definition is given by scripture: Intelligence is the light of truth. Science as such cannot touch this definition, because it's not useful to science. But it is most useful to human beings.

IQ tests measure potential for intellectual performance, but above a certain point, they lose meaningful distinction between high scores. Do you believe there are better ways to measure intelligence than IQ tests? Thanks for the reply right away!

Edited July 26, 2024 by tomasgreenro

[Jamie123]

Albert Einstein and Stephen Hawking are each supposed to have had an IQ around 160, which places them at the bottom of the "genius" category. Richard Feynmann is reported to be at 124, which according to the charts makes him merely "bright". Marilyn vos Savant (supposedly the most intelligent person ever) has an IQ of 214. But did she discover the theory of relativity or quantum electrodynamics? No, I don't think she did. (Though the Monty Hall episode is well worth reading up on!)

I refuse to have my IQ tested. If I am stupid then I'd rather not know about it. I don't want my confidence (what there is of it) destroyed any further. I'd rather just try to be as clever as I can and leave it at that!

Edited July 24, 2024 by Jamie123

[mikbone]

According to ChatGPT to be able to know 4 languages, memorize the Old Testament and be able to confound philosophers @ age 12 would require an IQ of 140+

However, it is important to note that IQ tests measure specific types of cognitive abilities and may not fully encompass a person's linguistic talent or philosophical insight. Moreover, environmental factors, education, and personal interests also play significant roles in developing these skills.

[mikbone]

I just found out that Meta’s open source AI Llama 3.1 just tested better than ChatGPT on multiple benchmarks

It's important to note that IQ scores are a modern concept developed by Alfred Binet in the early 20th century. Biblical accounts don't provide information about Jesus' Christ's IQ score. However, we can explore his cognitive abilities and wisdom based on scriptural descriptions.

Exceptional Abilities and Wisdom

Jesus Christ is often depicted as:

• Wisdom incarnate: The Bible describes Jesus as the embodiment of wisdom (1 Corinthians 1:30, Colossians 2:3).
• Skilled debater: Jesus engaged in complex debates with religious leaders, demonstrating exceptional critical thinking and argumentation skills (Matthew 22:15-46, Mark 12:13-37).
• Master teacher: He used parables, metaphors, and storytelling to convey profound spiritual truths, showcasing his ability to adapt and communicate complex ideas (Matthew 13:1-52, Luke 15:1-32).
• Profound insights: Jesus displayed remarkable understanding of human nature, psychology, and the workings of the heart (Matthew 9:4, Mark 2:8, John 2:25).

Estimating IQ Scores

While it's impossible to assign an accurate IQ score to Jesus Christ, some researchers have attempted to estimate the IQ scores of historical figures based on their achievements and writings. These estimates are highly speculative and should be taken with caution.

• Dr. Catherine Cox (1926): Estimated the IQ scores of historical figures, including Jesus Christ, based on their achievements. She placed Jesus' IQ at 182, ranking him among the most intelligent individuals in history.
• Dr. Victor Goertzel (1962): Developed a system to estimate IQ scores based on achievements. He estimated Jesus' IQ at 156.

Conclusion

Jesus Christ's exceptional wisdom, critical thinking, and communication skills are evident in biblical accounts. While we can't assign an accurate IQ score, these estimates suggest that Jesus' cognitive abilities were likely extraordinary. However, it's essential to remember that IQ scores are only one measure of intelligence and don't capture the full range of human cognitive abilities.

 

Its a better answer in my opinion.

[Carborendum]

2 hours ago, mikbone said:

However, it is important to note that IQ tests measure specific types of cognitive abilities and may not fully encompass ...

There is a more important principle known as "mastery."  To exemplify this principle, I'll point to Colonel Cesar Rodriguez.

Summary: when we spend all our heart, might, mind, & strength towards an endeavor, it unlocks hidden potential within us.  While it may not make up for extremes (a 4' tall man will never be competitive in the NBA no matter what) it will provide an extra boost that we may not have thought possible otherwise.  It will take your typical "bright student" and turn him into the internationally renowned guru of his chosen field.

Rodriguez was already an "average" pilot candidate striving to be more.  He knew he was nowhere near as good as "the golden boys" until he put in extra effort and time.  He really exemplified the idea of "living, breathing, eating, & sleeping" pilot training.  Week after week he spent more time in the simulators and put all his energy into learning and BECOMING the best pilot.  Eventually, he surpassed them all and became known as "The Last American Ace."

(An honorific title since he only had three enemy kills, so didn't actually qualify.  But he was the only person since Vietnam to have come so close.)

The Savior spent all his heart, might, mind, & strength in loving and obeying our Heavenly Father.  He wanted to know His mysteries.  Obviously, He had already been the Chosen One from the beginning.  But the fact is that he mastered the social, spiritual, intellectual, and physical of His being, He went where we could not go.

 Once we reach the level of "mastery" the IQ aspect kinda goes out the window.  You're in an entirely different game.

Albert Einstein has been reported to have an IQ of 150 to 210 (depending on who you talk to).  Today, we have people who measure upto 250 (again depends on who you talk to).  But the fact is that these people couldn't have come up with the theory of relativity because they didn't "live, breath, sleep, and eat" time & space.

Mastery opens the mind to insights that are never simple intellectual exercises.  There is something about the brain firing something, seemingly at random, that will connect dots that our conscious selves simply don't understand until much later.

When the flight analysts and isntructors reviewed Rodriquez's flight, they not only couldn't find anything wrong (which was shocking) but they saw him do a maneuver that shocked everyone (in an impressive way).  When asked what he was thinking when he did that, he said that he didn't think.  He just did it.

Jesus mastered everything about righteousness and our relationship with The Father.

Edited July 24, 2024 by Carborendum

[Traveler]

Abraham 3:19

Quote

19 And the Lord said unto me: These two facts do exist, that there are two spirits, one being more intelligent than the other; there shall be another more intelligent than they; I am the Lord thy God, I am more intelligent than they all.

 

By whatever means that one is able to measure intelligence there is (among the children of men as well as all creatures of heaven) none more intelligent than Jehovah - G-d.

We are also told what intelligence is - Doctrine and Covenants 93:29

Quote

29 Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be.

 

It would appear that our intelligence is something that exist and was not created.  It is my personal thought that as mortal humans we do not have much of a handle on what intelligence is.  I am also of the mind that what we can glean from revelation and scripture there is more to intelligence than what we mortals are told.  I speculate that we are not stuck with a particular level of intelligence.   That it can be added upon as well as diminished. 

Having dealt with industrial artificial intelligence – applications in manufacturing automation and robotics – I have come to appreciate the concepts of distributed intelligence over a super intelligence that governs and instructs intelligence throughout a system.  This includes the concept that all data relevant to complete a task resides at the level that task is done.   The full extension of this concept is what is called the “hive mind”.  It is somewhat similar to a beehive but different in that all pertinent information is communicated and available throughout the system.  This seems to me to be the desired purpose of the Plan of Salvation – to me.

 

The Traveler