intelligence vs LSAT Forum

[zyrxxx]

If we are using "intelligence" as a broad, all-encompassing notion to indicate one's aptitude in a multitude of areas, then I would think that there is a relatively loose positive correlation between LSAT performance and "intelligence", and also between IQ test performance and "intelligence". I think that one's performance on either test, if taken truthfully and without much study, probably indicates one's approximate natural aptitude in a handful of areas (such as pattern detection [in IQ tests], and general logical reasoning [in the LR section of the LSAT test]). However, neither test is sufficient for indicating one's overall intelligence and/or intelligence in other areas not tested on by an IQ test or the LSAT (such as social intelligence, emotional intelligence, intelligence suggested by creativity, natural artistic and musical ability, and so on and so forth). There is much more to the broad category of "intelligence" than can be gathered from one's performance on either test. One may be excellent in logical reasoning but have low social intelligence or creativity, or vice versa, or some may even excel in each of these areas.

I find it puzzling as to why some people attempt to guess what a historical figure's IQ may have been with the notion that IQ is an indicator of overall intelligence. I have seen sources that claim that Leonardo da Vinci's IQ was probably over 200 simply based on the supposition that he was a universal genius. This seems silly. It is true that da Vinci had demonstrated ingenuity in a variety of areas, but these areas may differ from the areas tested on by an IQ test, and if he [or anyone else in history who is claimed by some to have had an extremely high IQ] were to take an actual IQ test, the test result may turn out to be significantly lower than some would expect.

[vandalvideo]

Then perhaps the LSAT is a measure the capacity of a person when they are at full readiness. When we take our 1L tests, hopefully we will be studying for them as hard as we studied for the LSAT, and our operational peak will be reached. Hopefully.

Maybe, but then again maybe not. There are far too many control variables one has to take into consideration. Not everyone is a really good test taker. Not everyone has the same type of bladder control. Not everyone has the same metabolism. Not everyone has the same state of health. A skinny person with a high metabolism due to excessive exercise may have hunger pangs over the course of the test; a condition a .... less skinny individual may lack due to a good store of fats. A person with poor bladder control may lose focus. Some people may even have conditions which cause extremities to ache over extended periods of immobility. I mean, you would have to assume all things equal if you were to start making claims about the LSAT's indication of readiness for lawschool or intelligence. Not everyone is the same type of test taker.

[Borhas]

I'm very reluctant to think of any test score as a mark of intelligence... whether its IQ or LSAT or SAT

when it comes down to it:


Do you understand the connotation and denotations of interpersonal communication?
Do you solve the problems life puts in front of you?
Can you justify your beliefs?
Does your sense of intuition illuminate basic principles?
Do you know what people feel?
Do you know why people feel the way they do?
Do you understand what you feel?
Do you know why you feel the way you do?
Do you know what direction your home is?
Can you relate size and shape and number to each other?
What do you create?

All of these to me are things that I take into account when judging someone's intelligence

[umichgrad]

Formal Logic.

Intelligence is necessary but not sufficient for a high LSAT score.

I personally know two 180s who are complete and utter dispshits.

[umichgrad]

I'm very reluctant to think of any test score as a mark of intelligence... whether its IQ or LSAT or SAT

when it comes down to it:


Do you understand the connotation and denotations of interpersonal communication?
Do you solve the problems life puts in front of you?
Can you justify your beliefs?
Does your sense of intuition illuminate basic principles?
Do you know what people feel?
Do you know why people feel the way they do?
Do you understand what you feel?
Do you know why you feel the way you do?
Do you know what direction your home is?
Can you relate size and shape and number to each other?
What do you create?

All of these to me are things that I take into account when judging someone's intelligence

Borhas = intelligent

[RVP11]

Formal Logic.

Intelligence is necessary but not sufficient for a high LSAT score.

I personally know two 180s who are complete and utter dispshits.

You didn't think this one through...

[rayiner]

Formal Logic.

Intelligence is necessary but not sufficient for a high LSAT score.

I personally know two 180s who are complete and utter dispshits.

You didn't think this one through...

Oh the irony...

[umichgrad]

Formal Logic.

Intelligence is necessary but not sufficient for a high LSAT score.

I personally know two 180s who are complete and utter dispshits.

You didn't think this one through...

Oh the irony...

Good call. For clarification, those two nice people are extremely "book smart", to the extent that they come across as nearly autistic. Their networking/social IQ/emotional IQ/ability to understand anything other than what they memorize is nonexistent.

[tome]

So are you now saying intelligence is sufficient but not necessary? Because all your evidence shows is that intelligence is not necessary to do well on the LSAT. (Which is probably false, BTW)

[Borhas]

Formal Logic.

Intelligence is necessary but not sufficient for a high LSAT score.

I personally know two 180s who are complete and utter dispshits.

You didn't think this one through...

Oh the irony...

Good call. For clarification, those two nice people are extremely "book smart", to the extent that they come across as nearly autistic. Their networking/social IQ/emotional IQ/ability to understand anything other than what they memorize is nonexistent.

your argument ought to be:

A specific sort of problem solving skills are necessary to do well on the LSAT, but that specific sort of problem solving skill is not sufficient to save one from being a complete dip shit.

overall intelligence is neither necessary nor sufficient to do amazing on the LSAT, which shouldn't surprise anyone since after all the LSAT doesn't test overall intelligence, nor does it claim to

[capitalacq]

If we are using "intelligence" as a broad, all-encompassing notion to indicate one's aptitude in a multitude of areas, then I would think that there is a relatively loose positive correlation between LSAT performance and "intelligence", and also between IQ test performance and "intelligence". I think that one's performance on either test, if taken truthfully and without much study, probably indicates one's approximate natural aptitude in a handful of areas (such as pattern detection [in IQ tests], and general logical reasoning [in the LR section of the LSAT test]). However, neither test is sufficient for indicating one's overall intelligence and/or intelligence in other areas not tested on by an IQ test or the LSAT (such as social intelligence, emotional intelligence, intelligence suggested by creativity, natural artistic and musical ability, and so on and so forth). There is much more to the broad category of "intelligence" than can be gathered from one's performance on either test. One may be excellent in logical reasoning but have low social intelligence or creativity, or vice versa, or some may even excel in each of these areas.

I find it puzzling as to why some people attempt to guess what a historical figure's IQ may have been with the notion that IQ is an indicator of overall intelligence. I have seen sources that claim that Leonardo da Vinci's IQ was probably over 200 simply based on the supposition that he was a universal genius. This seems silly. It is true that da Vinci had demonstrated ingenuity in a variety of areas, but these areas may differ from the areas tested on by an IQ test, and if he [or anyone else in history who is claimed by some to have had an extremely high IQ] were to take an actual IQ test, the test result may turn out to be significantly lower than some would expect.

way to bump a thread from 2008 as your first post...

[westbayguy]

I'm too lazy to read all the responses, but I did confirm that 95th percentile on LSAT gets you into MENSA. So we're deep into the 160s. So much for elitist allegations of uber intelligence required to get into Law school or even do well.

[SandyC877]

This has been discussed before, iirc. There is a very loose correlation between LSAT score and IQ, however there are so many different factors that play in that neither is even a vaguely reliable tool in predicting performance of the other.

This is the only intelligent remark in this thread.

[PDaddy]

she received a honorary degree in 03 from university of missisipi (law)

your original post does not make much sense. high intelligence correlates with everything including LSAT.

finishing school early does not mean you're smart, it means you study a lot.

Well, yes and no. I think strong LSAT performance (or on other standardized tests) is a sufficient condition for high intelligence, not a necessary one.

Remember, correlation ≠ causation!

1) Strong LSAT → High Intelligence
2) Low Intelligence → Weak LSAT
3) ~(High Intelligence → Strong LSAT)
4) ~(Weak LSAT → Low Intelligence)

Note: I explain the flawed reasoning by an above poster in my post right below

[PDaddy]

Formal Logic.

Intelligence is necessary but not sufficient for a high LSAT score.

I personally know two 180s who are complete and utter dispshits.

Your first statement is absolutely correct! For that reason, you are actually contradicting yourself with the statements you make afterwards.

In light of the fact that high intelligence is a necessary condition for a high LSAT score, but a high LSAT score is only a sufficient condition for high intelligence, i.e., there are other things that indicate high intelligence, your argument would make sense only if you said the following

A) You knew very bright people who scored 153. This is a safe bet. We will all meet sub-160 students who will blow our sox off in law school.

or

B) You said all low IQ scorers do poorly on the LSAT. This is also a safe bet. What "clinically certified imbecile" can do well on the LSAT?

So, based on our agreement that intelligence is a necessary condition for high LSAT's, or that High LSAT's are a sufficient condition for high intelligence, both A & B are true. This is what I am arguing right above.

Your "180" remark above, however, says ~(High LSAT → High Intelligence), meaning that "it is not the case that high LSAT scorers have high intelligence", which is not inferrable from the correct logic that we have established.

Do you see the difference?

We know for sure that high LSAT scorers must be intelligent, and we also know that low LSAT scorers are not necessarily unintelligent. And these are the only things we can deduce from the logic.

[Borhas]

Borhas = intelligent

I love intelligence, but I am definitely not intelligent.

For that matter neither are the vast majority of other people... including the 180's. I generally think anyone who thinks themselves as intelligent to be a fool.

But I'm willing to concede that there are intelligent people... I think Einstein, Gandhi, and Socrates were probably intelligent.

[umichgrad]

sigh. i'm not particularly intelligent either, as evidenced by my glaring and initially un-clarified logical flaw.

however, i am great fun at a party

[jrs12]

sigh. i'm not particularly intelligent either, as evidenced by my glaring and initially un-clarified logical flaw.

however, i am great fun at a party

Not an attribute to underestimate. Grades get you your first job; networking gets you every job after that. Party animals are also the ones to often get 1L firm jobs (IF their grades don't suck), because the firms want the popular people to go back and tell everyone how great the firm was.

[umichgrad]

sigh. i'm not particularly intelligent either, as evidenced by my glaring and initially un-clarified logical flaw.

however, i am great fun at a party

Not an attribute to underestimate. Grades get you your first job; networking gets you every job after that. Party animals are also the ones to often get 1L firm jobs (IF their grades don't suck), because the firms want the popular people to go back and tell everyone how great the firm was.

right on jrs...those of us with sub-mensa IQs just have to be networking ninjas

[Oban]

I always thought using the LSAT as 1L preditors was funny, because with the forced curve, half of class will not succeed. In the t14, kids with 170+ will still have bad grades. I wonder how good it would predict if there was no forced curve?