is it possible for IQ scores to change??

[Demosthenes]

i was thinking that as the brain continues to develop iq scores could change drasically you could get smarter or dumber. if so, is there a way to predict the change???

 

and also how would an IQ test actually test you intelligence? it doesn't actually have any questions about anything useful like biology or physics or math of english or anything???

[Kyrisch]

I think you should do some research on what IQ actually attempts to quantify, and how it does that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ is a good place to start.

 

Also, your IQ score might change because IQ tests are imperfect, however, the quantity that IQ intends to measure is not really supposed to change. Intelligence is not "anything useful like biology or physics or math", it's problem-solving, pattern-recognising abilities and such.

[Phi for All]

and also how would an IQ test actually test you intelligence? it doesn't actually have any questions about anything useful like biology or physics or math of english or anything???

There is a difference between intelligence and knowledge.

[Demosthenes]

i knew this also but its the fact people relate knowledge to problem solving and vice-versa, even so this means people with mental problems like speech impairments could be some of the smartest among us, and probably are...

[gcol]

Indeed. Does not intelligence as measured by standard methods change with age? You might also consider the special abilities of SAVANTS and AUTISTICS.

[YT2095]

Does not intelligence as measured by standard methods change with age?

 

I`v heard the same thing too, in fact scores are biased to take this into account.

[gonelli]

I`v heard the same thing too, in fact scores are biased to take this into account.

 

Entering a really old age when doing an online IQ test does make hitting the high end of the IQ scall a lot easier. Not that I would ever do that though:-p

[Sisyphus]

Online IQ tests are all pretty meaningless. If they were accurate, the whole world would be geniuses!

 

And yes, it's certainly possible for IQ scores to change, although once you're an adult, it's usually not by much, and in fairly predictable ways. Also keep in mind that no IQ test is very precise. You can't really have an IQ of "127," for example (although it's amusing how many people are proud of their very specific "IQ"), but you can in that general range. Also, the farther you go from the mean (100), the less precise it gets.

 

I'm actually unsure about the whole validity of the concept of IQ, frankly. It is clear, at least, that some people are definitely smarter than other people, and that the degree to which they are smarter is largely fixed. And IQ does more or less seem to correspond to this, so it is measuring something. But I very much doubt that it's a single, linear substance, and that minds only differ in one way, as IQ-obsessives seem to believe. I tend to think the "multiple intelligences" model is probably more accurate, although I'm far from convinced that even that is terribly rigorous. Ultimately, the mind is just insanely complicated, and any top-down analysis will always remain an abstraction and an approximation..

[Comandante]

If you ask me IQ tests are pretty useless in terms of indicating anything else except the ability to process information. In science, creativity I think is much more important than IQ. Though they are fun test to try out, I recommend http://www.highiqsociety.org. I scored 143 the other day.

[DrP]

Problem is with doing them regularly is that you get higher results than you should - basically, if you practice them them you get better at them - your not neccessarily getting more intellegent. It's best to not do them at all for a few years and them take one (to get a truer result). I kinda disagree with the science thing. Creativity is needed, but logical problem solving is a more important I think - and this is what is tested on some sections of the IQ test.

[Moontanman]

Mine has, when I was young it was 160 now it's 145 by the time I'm 100 years old I'll be a complete moron so I had better get my thinking in now before it's too late

[Flashman]

Phew 146, not met that format before, and thought I'd bomb

 

Anyway, in tests with a general knowledge component you can improve scores for sure. I did those old Eyesenck tests in a Pelican paperback a few years back and got 148, but they were US centric I didn't know what states were neighbours etc, so could have scored better. That one I just did I couldn't remember whether Muhammed Ali had parkinsons or something else, which was a general knowledge question, so just a few random facts here and there make a lot of difference.

[Sisyphus]

Nobody on the internet seems to have an IQ below 140...

[npts2020]

Nobody on the internet seems to have an IQ below 140...

 

.....or at least admits to it.

[Glider]

Oh, I do. I just spent the entire weekend marking first year course work. I'm now as dumb as a stump. I could actually feel myself getting stupider.

 

I'd go home now, if I could remember where that was.

[Flashman]

.....or at least admits to it.

 

 

It probably just looks that way. Since the forums where the topic tends to crop up are probably frequented by the upper 30% anyway. Then only a relative fraction of those people might respond with a high score. I'd figure that if there was a compulsory IQ test to register here, the forum average would be around 110. However the internet in general probably doesn't appeal to the lower half much, since it demands reading comprehension skills to get much out of. This might be a historical thing, 15 years ago, most people who used the internet were in higher education and had an account through their institution.

Edited December 1, 2008 by Flashman
multiple post merged

[D H]

I'm actually unsure about the whole validity of the concept of IQ, frankly. It is clear, at least, that some people are definitely smarter than other people, and that the degree to which they are smarter is largely fixed. And IQ does more or less seem to correspond to this, so it is measuring something.

IQ tests are good at measuring the lack of intelligence (i.e., those in need of remedial help), which is not surprising as (a) that is what they were originally designed to do, and (b) defining what constitutes lack of intelligence is a much easier task than defining what constitutes an abundance of intelligence.

 

Scores above 130 are more-or-less meaningless (indistinguishable) on most standard intelligence tests. I would argue that the degree above which IQ scores have relevance is even lower: Say about 120 or so.

 

Evidence:

Nobel laureate Richard Feynman's IQ = 124

 

 

 

IQ = 125

[Comandante]

I kinda disagree with the science thing.

 

That's ok, you're allowed to

 

IQ tests are good at measuring the lack of intelligence (i.e., those in need of remedial help), which is not surprising as (a) that is what they were originally designed to do, and (b) defining what constitutes lack of intelligence is a much easier task than defining what constitutes an abundance of intelligence.

 

Scores above 130 are more-or-less meaningless (indistinguishable) on most standard intelligence tests. I would argue that the degree above which IQ scores have relevance is even lower: Say about 120 or so.

 

 

Great post, much better than I could have said it. I concur with all, thanks for posting.

[vampares]

[Abdul-Aziz]

There is no scientific basis for intelligence testing. Even the g-factor around which the determination of IQ is supposedly correlated is based on mathematical blunders and outright miscalculations, a fact that was first pointed out by French psychologist Alfred Binet, the so-called founder of IQ testing. After a period of 30 years in which IQ testing was generally ignored, the practice was revived again by racist academic Arthur Jensen in 1969, presumably as a means of lashing out against the US Civil Rights Movement.

 

The time has finally come to sweep quaint notions such as IQ and g-factor intelligence into the dustbin of history, where they ultimately belong. Racist, sexist, and classist dogmas such as IQ and Spearman's g have no place within the field of civilized, intelligent discourse since they are instruments by which the weak and the defenceless are marginalized to the very fringes of society.

[thedarkshade]

Online IQ tests are all pretty meaningless.

I think so too.

IMO, a real IQ test should not just take into consideration what your answer for a problem is, but also the way you aproach problems (which I think is even more important).

[Abdul-Aziz]

I think so too.

IMO, a real IQ test should not just take into consideration what your answer for a problem is, but also the way you aproach problems (which I think is even more important).

 

Actually, all IQ tests are pretty meaningless. Whether one is taking an online IQ test to qualify for Mensa or doing one of Weschler's Adult Intelligence Scales, the only thing measured on such a test is the ability to regurgitate culture-specific bits of trivial information.

[thedarkshade]

Actually, all IQ tests are pretty meaningless. Whether one is taking an online IQ test to qualify for Mensa or doing one of Weschler's Adult Intelligence Scales, the only thing measured on such a test is the ability to regurgitate culture-specific bits of trivial information.

But isn't that (more or less) what they're trying to do, and that the test is about?

[Abdul-Aziz]

But isn't that (more or less) what they're trying to do, and that the test is about?

 

Yes, that is what the tests are designed to do, as originally intended by their inventor Alfred Binet. However, numerous modern psychometricians have decided to stray far away from the original good intentions of M. Binet. Some racist academics (Rushton, Lynn, Brand, Gottfredson etc.) still perpetuate the quaint notion that IQ scores are an accurate reflection of g-factor intelligence.

[feign_ignorence]

If you ask me IQ tests are pretty useless in terms of indicating anything else except the ability to process information. In science, creativity I think is much more important than IQ. Though they are fun test to try out, I recommend http://www.highiqsociety.org. I scored 143 the other day.

 

 

I got a 97! (i just hit random answers for those choose the next correct picture things though since they're boring and make no sense to me)

 

My opinion of IQ tests is that they're insufficent/too vague as being able to communicate ideas is just as important as being able to regurgitate facts.