Crowing wrote: AffordablePrep wrote: Crowing wrote:
Aequitas_ wrote:Jeez, I should've expected to get trolled.
I don't really know what kind of response you were expecting with an OP like that. I doubt there is very much correlation between IQ and LSAT scores, and the same general concept of studying applies to everybody. FWIW my diagnostic was in the 170s but I still had to prep and take more PTs like everybody else when I wanted to improve my score.
Kind of a ridiculous statement.
The same people who do well on the LSAT tend to do well on the GMAT, GRE, etc. This is why OP's post is kind of ridiculous. If he was as much of a genius as he claims the LSAT would be a joke.
Well, I don't really know about that. Obviously I think some sort of general concept of intelligence would correlate with scores on the LSAT, but automatically assuming high IQ = high LSAT seems rather sweeping. Anyway, the OP hasn't really established that he's a genius; 132 is certainly an above average IQ but not 99% and not genius territory.
Actually, an IQ of 132 is pretty close to the top 1%. It is at least in the top 2%. That is a very high score, but may not be what most people would call "genius." It would, however, in technical terms, put you in the "very superior" range of intellectual functioning as it is measured on IQ tests. Technically, from a psychological standpoint at least, genius is generally considered limited to a specific area of intelligence. So it is probably more useful to say someone is a genius in X. The three areas in which "genius" is generally recognized are chess, math, and music. These are areas in which you get prodigies who may show immense aptitude at two years old. Standard IQ tests, at least the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS-IV) (by far the industry standard), follow a normal statistical distribution where 100 is average, 15 is one standard deviation from the mean in either direction (i.e., 85 to 115), and a 130+ puts you in the top 2% ("very superior"). IQ also tends to be relatively stable throughout life. Since IQ norms are based on other people your age, your IQ when you're ten years old will probably be pretty close to what it is when you're 30. Standard IQ tests are not a good way of distinguishing people with extremely high IQs from one another; they are geared toward the vast majority of the population. Scoring in the top 2% is meaningful, but the difference between the top 2% and the top 1% doesn't mean much on a regular IQ test. The extent to which IQ is a meaningful and useful measure of intelligence is, justifiably, a highly debated and controversial subject, but it is worth getting your facts straight about how it is actually measured and conceptualized.
Also, to the extent that there are significant variations in scores on different IQ sections and subtests -- which there usually are and which are generally far more valuable and informative than the full-scale IQ number that people like to throw out there -- the people who score very high do not tend to have a profile where their nonverbal, visual/spatial/motor skills scores are higher than their verbal IQ scores -- it tends to be the opposite. A high verbal IQ with a much lower nonverbal IQ (I am simplifying these concepts to illustrate the general point) is a recipe for academic underachievement. As was and to some extent still is the case with me, these people may have difficulty expressing and organizing their abilities in a way that translates to as much success in producing tangible products of intellectual work as would be expected on the basis of their aptitude. This is a finding that is well established in neuropsychology and is not something I'm saying just to justify my own strengths and weaknesses. Verbal IQ is more similar to what we think of when we say someone is super smart, and correlates more with traditional academic intelligence. People who are really smart in difficult intellectual pursuits but lack common sense (e.g., many of the lawyers I work with) are likely to have much higher verbal IQs than nonverbal IQs.
Conversely, people with the opposite profile might tend to be seen as more "street smart" and skilled in navigating the practical, day-to-day aspects of life. These people are often in some ways far more intelligent than people recognize, because people focus more on academic/educated professional smarts. For instance, I had a psychology professor who tested a professional baseball player (I don't remember why), and his processing speed score was extremely high -- over 130. Processing speed is basically measured using hand-eye coordination tasks that draw almost entirely on automatic processing and speed, and next to nothing on complex psychological processes or deliberative thinking. This makes sense if you think about what skills are entailed in hitting a baseball traveling 95 mph. Otherwise, if I remember correctly, his IQ was about average. Personally, I have terrible processing speed but strong verbal skills. I am a moron when it comes to a lot of tasks involving good visual sense and motor skills. For instance, I'm not good at fixing things and can't put together a folded cardboard box for shit -- when I have to do this at work, I usually have an intern do it for me. She does it in a minute or two, while I can wrestle with the thing for probably 15-30 minutes.
For what it's worth, I find the LSAT extremely difficult despite having very high verbal IQ scores -- my nonverbal IQ scores are MUCH lower, which is somewhat of an issue when it comes to sketching/diagramming logic games. I have gone through extensive neuropsychological batteries and am basing these claims on hard data. Also, I was in a clinical psychology doctoral program for several semesters. This by no means makes me an expert on psychometrics, but I think I know a lot more about it than the typical intelligent layperson.
I have been self-studying the LSAT rigorously for about two months (I still have four months of self-study and a class to go), and, as I said, I find the LSAT very challenging. Actually, I have definitely seen improvement in the percentage of questions I get right, it's just that time is a MAJOR issue for me, which is consistent with my neuropsychological data and my academic experiences over the course of my lifetime. For instance, I'm sure this is not terribly uncommon, but I can get almost 100% of logic games right when time is not a factor or when I use a lot more time than I would have on the LSAT. Add in time, though, and it's a different story. I can still get a pretty high percentage right, but I'm lucky to get through two logic games in 35 minutes.