[Guest]

Who is smarter?

A 27 year old with the mental age of a 37 year old

-or-

A 37 year old with the mental age of a 27 year old

[Guest]

Who is smarter?

A 27 year old with the mental age of a 37 year old

-or-

A 37 year old with the mental age of a 27 year old

The 27 year old with the mental age of a 37 year old I guess... You can't really tell which one is smarter with the given info.

[Guest]

The 27 year old with the mental age of a 37 year old I guess... You can't really tell which one is smarter with the given info.

I think I have supplied enough sufficient information.

[Guest]

It depends how you're defining "smarter". If it's by I.Q. level, then Person already gave the correct answer. How is this a riddle?

[Guest]

I think I have supplied enough sufficient information.

What's the difference in the mental age of a 27 year old and the mental age of a 37 year old?

[Guest]

Ok maybe if I change the ages a bit.

A 20 year old with the mental age of a 40 year old

-or-

A 40 year old with the mental age of a 20 year old

I just used my own age for the question. It serves a better purpose asking this way. And not that it's a riddle, more so a question about what we perceive in society to be smart.

[Guest]

And not that it's a riddle, more so a question about what we perceive in society to be smart.

"New Puzzles" is for riddles of the "brain teaser" type. Off to "Others".

[Guest]

Well, if you're thinking in terms of IQ (although this might only be for childhood IQ measures), IQ measures mental age divided by actual age, so the younger person would be considered smarter.

I would also make the case for this in terms of maturity and knowledge, that someone who thinks older is usually considered smarter.

If met a 20-year old that could think like a 40-year old, I would be impressed. If I met a 40-year old that still thought like a typical 20-year old, then I'd tell the binge drinking, pot smoking, idiot to do something with their life.

Then again, "young" people are supposed to still have more creativity and room for growth in their mental abilities, so this could be an issue of interpretation of the word "smarter".

[Guest]

Well, if you're thinking in terms of IQ (although this might only be for childhood IQ measures), IQ measures mental age divided by actual age, so the younger person would be considered smarter.

I would also make the case for this in terms of maturity and knowledge, that someone who thinks older is usually considered smarter.

If met a 20-year old that could think like a 40-year old, I would be impressed. If I met a 40-year old that still thought like a typical 20-year old, then I'd tell the binge drinking, pot smoking, idiot to do something with their life.

Then again, "young" people are supposed to still have more creativity and room for growth in their mental abilities, so this could be an issue of interpretation of the word "smarter".

Well done, and very eloquently put. I think exactly the same way. I want to get everyone's view on this subject.

[Guest]

Well done, and very eloquently put. I think exactly the same way. I want to get everyone's view on this subject.

Personally, as an educator as a profession, I believe that intelligence and "smarts" cannot be measured by one or even a small number of metrics. I know many people that couldn't solve even the easiest brain teasers on this page, but who could figure out how to install an electrical appliance they've never seen before, or who could figure out the exact right thing to say when someone is having a bad day, or other things that I'm not able to do well and don't think I ever will.

I think that intelligence, at least as measured by IQ, is no more of an important measure of how smart you are then how fast you can run a mile measures how good an athlete you are. It's something that indicates a strength in one, perhaps even important, area, but isn't by itself good for anything without more measurements in other areas.

We're a society that puts so much emphasis on quantitative measures of, well, anything, that we forget that some things cannot be accurately measured, and more things that can be measured but can't have a number attached to them.

[itachi-san]

Personally, as an educator as a profession, I believe that intelligence and "smarts" cannot be measured by one or even a small number of metrics. I know many people that couldn't solve even the easiest brain teasers on this page, but who could figure out how to install an electrical appliance they've never seen before, or who could figure out the exact right thing to say when someone is having a bad day, or other things that I'm not able to do well and don't think I ever will.

I think that intelligence, at least as measured by IQ, is no more of an important measure of how smart you are then how fast you can run a mile measures how good an athlete you are. It's something that indicates a strength in one, perhaps even important, area, but isn't by itself good for anything without more measurements in other areas.

We're a society that puts so much emphasis on quantitative measures of, well, anything, that we forget that some things cannot be accurately measured, and more things that can be measured but can't have a number attached to them.

I agree that one's IQ or mile time does not solely reflect their intelligence or athleticism respectively. But, I believe they are certainly worthy measurements and are very big contributors to the whole picture. If someone tests with an IQ of 70 and runs a mile in 9 minutes, those are very indicative of that person's lack of intelligence and athletic ability. To dismiss these quantitative measures would be leaping in the direction (where I think you are going) in that everyone is the same (just in different ways). This is just not true in my opinion. People are more intelligent than other people and people are more athletic than other people. Also, these tests are not permanent measures. One can work at their intelligence or running and achieve better results the next time they compete, therefore these tests can also measure how much one has bettered themselves in whichever field they are working. They can be used as a self-measurement to gauge one's progress.

[Guest]

I agree that one's IQ or mile time does not solely reflect their intelligence or athleticism respectively. But, I believe they are certainly worthy measurements and are very big contributors to the whole picture. If someone tests with an IQ of 70 and runs a mile in 9 minutes, those are very indicative of that person's lack of intelligence and athletic ability. To dismiss these quantitative measures would be leaping in the direction (where I think you are going) in that everyone is the same (just in different ways). This is just not true in my opinion. People are more intelligent than other people and people are more athletic than other people. Also, these tests are not permanent measures. One can work at their intelligence or running and achieve better results the next time they compete, therefore these tests can also measure how much one has bettered themselves in whichever field they are working. They can be used as a self-measurement to gauge one's progress.

True, I guess. I'm not trying to dismiss quantitative measures, or say that everyone is the same, but rather that we (as a society) tend to use single metrics to describe things that are far more complicated. Intelligence is just one aspect of this.

From a general standpoint, one unit of measurement cannot give an entire picture, whether its sports (just because someone has a higher goals per game average doesn't make them a better scorer in soccer), politics (just because Clinton is ahead of Obama in Pennsylvania, and even might finish ahead, doesn't mean that she will "win" the state in political terms in the upcoming primary) or anything else. And yet, media and what I would consider mainstream thinking continuously uses one number to "prove" that something is true.

From an intelligence standpoint, IQ tests really test a few things that are correlated with what I would call "smarts", such as problem solving, pattern recognition, and some other things. All I was trying to say is that while I would likely use the word "smart" solely because someone was excellent at these things (no one could easily claim someone who could score well over 150 on the IQ test wasn't smart), but rather that I would be happy to use the word "smart" for people who were average or even below average on an IQ test if they could demonstrate intelligence in different areas.

Equating problem solving (a skill) and pattern recognition (a skill with some basis in innateness) with smarts (a word with a connotation of innateness only) I feel is limiting what smart means.

I was trying to make an anology that just because someone who can run a 6-minute mile isn't necessarily more athletic than someone who can run a 9-minute mile, someone with a 150 IQ isn't necessarily smarter than someone with a 110 IQ. I'd certainly take the person with the faster mile time and higher IQ score for their respective "betterness" if I had no other information to base a judgment on, but I'd also have enough sense to know that there's more to it than a single metric. If that 9-minute mile person can throw a baseball 100 MPH, hit a golf ball 350 yards, or something like that, and that 6-minute mile person is a gangly 14-year old who trips over his own two feet walking down the hallway in a high school, then a single metric judgment is a silly way to go. And, there ARE high-end baseball players and golfers who couldn't break a 9-minute mile (C.C. Sabithia and John Daly come to mind, 2 tremendous athletes).

But, I certainly don't believe that "everyone is the same, just in different ways". I have a sister-in-law who I think is stupid in almost every way to measure, not just one of them.

This whole discussion got started with the phrase "...mental age of a..." which is either a single metric like IQ, or a more complicated metric that should be defined beyond what an IQ test measures, and include (at least) qualititative variables.

[Guest]

It depends how you're defining "smarter". If it's by I.Q. level, then Person already gave the correct answer. How is this a riddle?

Did this start as a riddle - it's in others.

A few cents worth (yes a few - I just feel generous)

Smart - open to interpretation, I am not smart some say I am, so I may be wise, or a smart alec. Either way it's a point of view about someone by someone else. You percieve them as smart based on pevious actions, in a new enviroment they appear dumb.

Seen many graduates appear bumb and seen many 'uneducated' people go on to be a success (success = performed well above their predicted achievements)

[Guest]

Did this start as a riddle - it's in others.

A few cents worth (yes a few - I just feel generous)

Smart - open to interpretation, I am not smart some say I am, so I may be wise, or a smart alec. Either way it's a point of view about someone by someone else. You percieve them as smart based on pevious actions, in a new enviroment they appear dumb.

Seen many graduates appear bumb and seen many 'uneducated' people go on to be a success (success = performed well above their predicted achievements)

It didn't start as a riddle. It came up in a psychology class I took years ago in college. We were discussing people's perception of intelligence.

Everyone knows how to derive IQ: (mental age/physical age) x 100

So in my example, the 20 y.o. has an IQ of 200 [(40/20) x 100];

The 40 y.o. has an IQ of 50 [(20/40) x 100]

Now I'm sure we all agree that you are pretty sharp at age 20, but the idea of IQ gets muddied at older ages. Even furthermore, if a 10 y.o. had the mental age of a 20 y.o., we'd say he was a genius (and why not? His IQ is 200, right?) It's not fair.

The question I posed expanded on that.

[Guest]

It didn't start as a riddle. It came up in a psychology class I took years ago in college. We were discussing people's perception of intelligence.

Everyone knows how to derive IQ: (mental age/physical age) x 100

So in my example, the 20 y.o. has an IQ of 200 [(40/20) x 100];

The 40 y.o. has an IQ of 50 [(20/40) x 100]

Now I'm sure we all agree that you are pretty sharp at age 20, but the idea of IQ gets muddied at older ages. Even furthermore, if a 10 y.o. had the mental age of a 20 y.o., we'd say he was a genius (and why not? His IQ is 200, right?) It's not fair.

The question I posed expanded on that.

math, looks a bit off, IQ and genius are not quite the same, some people can do well in many many types of test and fail a simple question as simple as what day was it yesterday? Rainman or similar, matters not because the IQ test can only compare results of relative inteligence factors. there are many people who appear normalish other than social skills, that see numbers, letters and other simbols/ciphers as colours and shapes as patterns with math being a tool too they appear very smart even genius but can't use the results of the equation, puzzle, code etc. No lateral thinking/reasoning. There have been many who can perform extremely complex calcualtions very fast ( one boy/man calculated the value ($) for layin a pennies edge to edge around the equator at 1 1/8" diameter. Took some hours but was done mentally)

Bottom line for me.. do your best - you are what you are and labels can be wrong and may fall off!

Don't know my IQ but I have to buy small hats and short trousers

[Guest]

math, looks a bit off, IQ and genius are not quite the same, some people can do well in many many types of test and fail a simple question as simple as what day was it yesterday? Rainman or similar, matters not because the IQ test can only compare results of relative inteligence factors. there are many people who appear normalish other than social skills, that see numbers, letters and other simbols/ciphers as colours and shapes as patterns with math being a tool too they appear very smart even genius but can't use the results of the equation, puzzle, code etc. No lateral thinking/reasoning. There have been many who can perform extremely complex calcualtions very fast ( one boy/man calculated the value ($) for layin a pennies edge to edge around the equator at 1 1/8" diameter. Took some hours but was done mentally)

Bottom line for me.. do your best - you are what you are and labels can be wrong and may fall off!

Don't know my IQ but I have to buy small hats and short trousers

Though there are slight variances, most consider IQ of 136 and above to be genius. My point was that older people have no chance of being considered a genius based on the way it is calculated. And that's unfair.

[Guest]

Though there are slight variances, most consider IQ of 136 and above to be genius. My point was that older people have no chance of being considered a genius based on the way it is calculated. And that's unfair.

Well I should ask my brother the psychologist to be sure about this, but to the best of my knowledge, the whole "Mental Age/Acutal Age x 100" rule applies to the Stanford-Binet IQ test which is solely given out to children and teenagers.

The adult IQ test, the Weschler test (spelling might be off), is supposed to be on a similar scale in terms of a normal distribution, but does not measure mental and actual age the same way. The Stanford-Binet test has roughly a mean of 100 and standard deviation of 25, while the Weschler test has roughly a mean of 110 and standard deviation of 25.

Meaning, if you are a kid who has an IQ of 150 and is 1.5 times smarter than your age, that would equate relatively to an adult IQ of 160 (also 2 s.d. above the mean), but the adult IQ of 160 does NOT indicate 1.6 times smarter than your age.

Hope this makes some sense, and sorry if I'm wrong about the Mental/Actual only applying to kids, but I think that's right. I know the equating of the Stanford-Binet to the Weschler is roughly right.

[Guest]

Though there are slight variances, most consider IQ of 136 and above to be genius. My point was that older people have no chance of being considered a genius based on the way it is calculated. And that's unfair.

I get the mssg . . . to old to be in the forum, Sob, sob, sob!!!

[Guest]

I get the mssg . . . to old to be in the forum, Sob, sob, sob!!!

awwww. poor LiS

[Guest]

Lis, there is nothing to be ashamed of

And please check rhap, I may be wrong

It may put a whole mew spin on this.

[Guest]

But an IQ is just a measure of what you already know. For example; Joe reads encyclopedias, thats what he does day in and day out, one day he is given an IQ test in Japanese. he would fail that test becasue he doesn't know japanese. He reads encyclopedias every day but he failed and IQ test, people usually forget that an IQ is just a rough estimate of the potential of that person.

[Guest]

But an IQ is just a measure of what you already know. For example; Joe reads encyclopedias, thats what he does day in and day out, one day he is given an IQ test in Japanese. he would fail that test becasue he doesn't know japanese. He reads encyclopedias every day but he failed and IQ test, people usually forget that an IQ is just a rough estimate of the potential of that person.

Rebold.

An IQ measure is not a recall test only I believe.

Language skills are different, that is why infants become bilingual, does not give them a better chance in life or worse - though they often get off to a slower starting some schools depending on teaching methods.

[Guest]

Rebold.

An IQ measure is not a recall test only I believe.

Language skills are different, that is why infants become bilingual, does not give them a better chance in life or worse - though they often get off to a slower starting some schools depending on teaching methods.

Still, an IQ is just a measured potential of the person, but who can measure potential in numbers?

[akaslickster]

Still, an IQ is just a measured potential of the person, but who can measure potential in numbers?

I agree alot. Look at Einstein. I know some people that others will call slow, but they are very gifted in ways beyond what we can see. Then of course some lawyers who really are stupid but thats another forum. Ciao.

[akaslickster]

Furthermore, age does not determine smartness as was put. Age is helpful to obtain wisdom and knowledge of things to stay away from, such as:scams, and just by avoiding stuff that you would otherwise waste time and or money on. Now I can spot things much faster perceptively. The best thing is learn from mistakes. Whether being your own or others.