What's Your IQ?

[Callipygous]

do online IQ tests count?

[1veedo]

I have taken online IQ tests and one at school. The school gave me 144 and I've taken tests that give me around there and others that tell me my IQ is 180! It just depends.

 

Actually, I've taken 3 online.

 

Emodes (web.tickle.com I think) and that High IQ society place are both acurate.

 

The one that gave 180-something was at some big testing site. It was like 40 questions and true or false.

[Callipygous]

i have taken many online tests. i have scored as low as 139 and as high as 172. the most common score was 160.

 

i would say it is a decent representation of intelligence, the part i would bring in to question is just how important that intelligence is. the kid who scores 160 on the iq tests is currently at risk of not graduating from high school...

 

there are many other far more important factors.

[Coral Rhedd]

When I was in high school, I tested at 128. I took one on line a few months ago and got 131. I found it interesting that from 1966 to 2004 the range was only 3 points different.

 

Sandi, Gary Gilmore, Ted Bundy, and Diane Downs all have/had an IQ of 131. Don't ask me how I know. Great minds and all that . . .

 

What I find more interesting is how I test on different portions of the test:

 

Verbal: Excellent

Spatial (manipulating those forms): Excellent

Logic: Good.

Math: In the toilet.

 

I always like to imagine who I would be if only I had math skills.

[JohnB]

Out of curiousity, if IQ is Mental Age/Physical Age*100 how the hell is this "Mental Age" defined?

 

As far as I can see you can't actually define a persons "Mental Age", it must be intrinsically variable.

[Flareon]

Out of curiousity' date=' if IQ is Mental Age/Physical Age*100 how the hell is this "Mental Age" defined?

 

As far as I can see you can't actually define a persons "Mental Age", it must be intrinsically variable.[/quote']

 

"Mental age" is actually misleading; it would be better referred to as "average mental capability." For example, after giving a set of problems to solve to a large sample of a population, let's say 20 year olds, the average of the scores would be the "mental age" of the age 20.

 

That is why it is no coincidence that the average IQ is 100 exactly.

[Guest Julia]

IQ doesn't change much with age. It's a measure of intelligence, not knowledge -- there's a difference. Online tests don't provide the necessary breakdowns to understand the results.

 

An IQ analysis done by a psycologist shows the scores for the various areas measured which are averaged resulting in the IQ score. In my opinion, "potential" rests in the critical thinking and abstract reasoning areas along with motivation. There's a reason for the terms overachievers and underachievers.

 

What use is it without common sense? I know a genius who got hit by automobiles on six separate occassions throughout his life prior high school graduation. Yale and Harvard both accepted him; however, he was incapable of crossing a street safely!

[Guest Julia]

"Mental age" is actually misleading; it would be better referred to as "average mental capability." For example' date=' after giving a set of problems to solve to a large sample of a population, let's say 20 year olds, the average of the scores would be the "mental age" of the age 20.

 

That is why it is no coincidence that the average IQ is 100 exactly.[/quote']

Mental age seems only relevant to defining levels of retardation. For instance, by the age of 30 achieving the mental age of a 12-year-old is quite an accomplishment for some because they're capable of caring for themselves on various levels.

[Coral Rhedd]

Mental age seems only relevant to defining levels of retardation. For instance, by the age of 30 achieving the mental age of a 12-year-old is quite an accomplishment for some because they're capable of caring for themselves on various levels.

 

How true! Another thing (besides common sense ) that IQ doesn't adequately measure is motivation. I have known many smart losers, sad to say. If I were to have to choose between a high IQ with mediocre health and an average IQ with excellent health, I would choose the latter. If I had to choose between being a depressive with a high IQ or a happy optimist with an average IQ, I would choose the latter.

 

I think good health and a good attitude must also correlate with success.

[psikeyhackr]

Greetings and Salutations,

 

This is my second post. I put 130-139 in the vote because all I ever tell people is over 130. I took the MENSA IQ test in the 80's and got in. But I do not consider IQ tests to be valid. Most have vocabulary questions. That is not a test of intelligence, it is a test of knowledge.

 

I have a psych book from 1969 that says intelligence is what intelligence tests measure. Yeah, RIGHT! Trust the psych experts to tell us that they know what they are doing. I do suspect that anyone that can't score over 111 probably has brain damage. Most likely from our great educational system.

[Callipygous]

you have some very interesting opinions. ones that make me wish forums had an /ignore feature. (or that ignore was a viable option... kind of wierd trying to read a thread with half the comments missing and people seemingly replying to themselves...)

 

i would reply to some of the things in that post but i dont believe im capable of doing so without throwing out at least one insult per sentence, so im just going to keep my mouth shut.

[AzurePhoenix]

He should realize that the majority of the planet falls between 95 and 110.

 

Yay!! My first semi-successful thread has picked up some hostility. It's the American dream!!

[psikeyhackr]

My psych book says 50% is in the 90 to 110 range but the IQ tests are a statistical delusion anyway.

 

The technology we are using now presents a socio/economic problem already. This society operates on the maldistribution of information now. Whether this technology improves or worsens that distribution it will create social stresses. I was just looking at a website yeaterday talking about how out of date the schools are.

 

I thought this site has debating in its heading. Are you saying you are reluctant to live up to the title. How can I properly respond if I don't even know what you are complaining about?

 

psikeyhackr

[Callipygous]

He should realize that the majority of the planet falls between 95 and 110.

 

Yay!! My first semi-successful thread has picked up some hostility. It's the American dream!!

 

 

yeah, weird how that works... what with 100 being the AVERAGE.

grr.

 

"I thought this site has debating in its heading. Are you saying you are reluctant to live up to the title. How can I properly respond if I don't even know what you are complaining about? "

 

fine... your reply is being written. ill try to keep it civil.

[Callipygous]

Greetings and Salutations' date='

 

This is my second post. I put 130-139 in the vote because all I ever tell people is over 130. I took the MENSA IQ test in the 80's and got in. But I do not consider IQ tests to be valid.[/quote']

 

ok, so you tell people your IQ is over 130. you havent bothered to tell us what your IQ is, just that you got into mensa. you also tell us that you dont consider IQ tests to be valid, what are you telling people your IQ for then?

 

Most have vocabulary questions. That is not a test of intelligence, it is a test of knowledge.

 

if it contains aquired knowledge i wouldnt consider it an IQ test. none of the ones i have taken have had anything that would require you to possess anything other than reasoning skills.

 

I have a psych book from 1969 that says intelligence is what intelligence tests measure. Yeah, RIGHT! Trust the psych experts to tell us that they know what they are doing.

 

blanket statement about psych experts not knowing what they are doing, zero facts, lots worth reading there...

 

I do suspect that anyone that can't score over 111 probably has brain damage. Most likely from our great educational system.

 

followed by the most idiotic thing that has ever been written...

 

100 is the average... it should be expected that most people would be somewhere around that. those who dont get over 111 are NORMAL. they are not braindamaged. suggesting that they are shows arrogance, ignorance, and general lack of empathy with the rest of humanity.

[RedAlert]

Funny, I always seem to get about 115 maybe on an IQ test.........

 

But I do extremely well in Science(98% - 100%), and in Math I score around 94%.....

[RedAlert]

I don't believe in IQ tests at all.........and not because I don't score well on them, it is because I think they are not a correct measure of human intelligence. Why you may ask? Well answer this question first:

 

What is the meaning of intelligence? Tell me that.

[Callipygous]

Funny, I always seem to get about 115 maybe on an IQ test.........

 

which means your above average...

 

 

I don't believe in IQ tests at all.........and not because I don't score well on them' date=' it is because I think they are not a correct measure of human intelligence. Why you may ask? Well answer this question first:

 

What is the meaning of intelligence? Tell me that.[/quote']

 

 

you mean the kind of intelligence an IQ test is looking for? i would define it as a persons baseline potential for logical reasoning ability.

 

care to tell us why now?

[psikeyhackr]

"what are you telling people your IQ for then?"

 

I did not say I advertised my IQ, only if someone else brings it up. Like here.

 

"none of the ones i have taken have had anything that would require you to possess anything other than reasoning skills."

 

Guess you haven't taken enough then. I had one that asked questions about Cleopatra.

 

<I have a psych book from 1969 that says intelligence is what intelligence tests measure.>

"blanket statement about psych experts not knowing what they are doing, zero facts, lots worth reading there..."

 

Oh, that statement about what was in the psych book wasn't a fact. Just something I made up. I recall in English class I was taught not to use a word to define itself. The stupidity of that circular logic was obvious. Apparently the psych experts can't figure that out. They don't have to define intelligence they just have to claim they can measure it.

 

"followed by the most idiotic thing that has ever been written..."

 

You obviously haven't read much either. It is easy to find people complaining about American schools. Even the psych guys have found that understimulation is bad for mental development.

 

"100 is the average... it should be expected that most people would be somewhere around that. those who dont get over 111 are NORMAL. they are not braindamaged. suggesting that they are shows arrogance, ignorance, and general lack of empathy with the rest of humanity."

 

Normal blood preasure is GOOD. Normal intelligence is MEDIOCRE. Find some psych experts and ask them whether they would rather have an IQ of 100 or 130. What answer do you think you will get? The technology you are using will only get more complex. It does not care about empathy. I didn't say people with low IQ scores were inferior, I said the tests were garbage and the schools were garbage. You can reaad, RIGHT?

 

Maybe I'm just mad because I didn't get into MIT. I applied and got an interview but didn't get in. Now that interviewer knew what arrogance was. Talking about entrants having parents who were lawyers and doctors, etc. Yeah there is classism in the tests and the schools too.

 

psikeyhackr

[Callipygous]

intelligence tests DO measure intelligence. if you want a more exact definition ask a more exact question. its not circular, its accurate.

 

Normal blood preasure is GOOD. Normal intelligence is MEDIOCRE. Find some psych experts and ask them whether they would rather have an IQ of 100 or 130. What answer do you think you will get?

 

one being better doesnt mean the other is bad.

 

The technology you are using will only get more complex. It does not care about empathy. I didn't say people with low IQ scores were inferior, I said the tests were garbage and the schools were garbage. You can reaad, RIGHT?

 

yes. i absolutely can read. like the part where you say... wait, lets quote this one so theres no confusion..." I do suspect that anyone that can't score over 111 probably has brain damage."

 

but no, your not saying thats bad or anything, your not saying they are inferior, just brain damaged.

 

jackass...

[psikeyhackr]

IQ test are TIMED TESTS. How many answers does the subject get correct within the time limit. The SATs given in the US are timed. Let us suppose you give two men tests with a time limit and one man can read faster and has better comprehension then the other and this man scores higher. You then give the two men another IQ test but you break the rules. No time limit. The man that reads faster finishes sooner but gives up on stuff he can't figure out. The man that reads more slowly takes a lot longer but solves more problems and gets a higher score. Who is more intelligent?

 

My sister who is 5 years older than me reads a lot faster than I do. I didn't discover this until I was in my twenties. We went to the same grammar school. She told me that the nuns had speed reading machines when she was being taught. I had never heard of any such machines.

 

In the 80+ years of IQ testing shouldn't the psych guys have thought that reading speed and comprehension could affect the tests? Have you ever heard any mention of this in IQ testing. Would upper classes tend to encourage reading more than lower classes hence affecting TEST SCORES without affecting INTELLIGENCE.

 

Isn't a child who isn't given sufficient intellectual stimulation to develop his/her abilities brain damaged?

 

Psikeyhackr

[Callipygous]

IQ test are TIMED TESTS. How many answers does the subject get correct within the time limit.

 

not all of them

 

The SATs given in the US are timed. Let us suppose you give two men tests with a time limit and one man can read faster and has better comprehension then the other and this man scores higher. You then give the two men another IQ test but you break the rules. No time limit. The man that reads faster finishes sooner but gives up on stuff he can't figure out. The man that reads more slowly takes a lot longer but solves more problems and gets a higher score. Who is more intelligent?

 

the one who gets a higher score. you seem to be suggesting that the faster reader gives up on things more quickly. i dont see why one would assume that.

 

the better iq tests i have taken are timed but dont have a time LIMIT. so the person who can figure out the problem more quickly gets more points for faster comprehension. the slower person who gets more right might still get the same score but because their mind required more time to figure it out, they still get the same score as the person who answered fewer of them correctly but required less time.

 

 

In the 80+ years of IQ testing shouldn't the psych guys have thought that reading speed and comprehension could affect the tests?

 

im curious what makes you think they havent. something you dont seem to be catching on to here: NOT ALL THE TESTS ARE THE SAME. there are several different styles and rulesets. some are not timed at all some are timed, but testers can take as long as they want, other require to finish in a set period. people who are slow readers should aim for an untimed test to get results that dont reflect their slow reading.

 

Would upper classes tend to encourage reading more than lower classes hence affecting TEST SCORES without affecting INTELLIGENCE.

 

someone who reads more will become more intelligent. not just more educated or informed. their brains will develope the kind of abilities necessary for performing such tasks.

 

Isn't a child who isn't given sufficient intellectual stimulation to develop his/her abilities brain damaged?

 

Psikeyhackr

 

no.

 

even if you consider such a person to be braindamaged your still suggesting that scoring under 111 means you werent stimulated enough in your childhood. that is simply not true. everyone has a different level of ability. some people are smarter than others, no matter how much reading they do. the thing you dont seem to be getting is that the set average is 100. if everyone on the planet magically became twice as smart the average would still be 100. people scoring 100 does not mean they are stupid, in fact it means they are smarter than half the rest of the population. your comment about 75% scoring under 111 means NOTHING. that will always be a fact based purely on how the test is set up. our entire society could advance to be as smart as einstein and hawking and 75% would still score below 111. are you getting this yet?

[Flareon]

IQ test are TIMED TESTS. How many answers does the subject get correct within the time limit. The SATs given in the US are timed. Let us suppose you give two men tests with a time limit and one man can read faster and has better comprehension then the other and this man scores higher. You then give the two men another IQ test but you break the rules. No time limit. The man that reads faster finishes sooner but gives up on stuff he can't figure out. The man that reads more slowly takes a lot longer but solves more problems and gets a higher score. Who is more intelligent?

 

My sister who is 5 years older than me reads a lot faster than I do. I didn't discover this until I was in my twenties. We went to the same grammar school. She told me that the nuns had speed reading machines when she was being taught. I had never heard of any such machines.

 

In the 80+ years of IQ testing shouldn't the psych guys have thought that reading speed and comprehension could affect the tests? Have you ever heard any mention of this in IQ testing. Would upper classes tend to encourage reading more than lower classes hence affecting TEST SCORES without affecting INTELLIGENCE.

 

Isn't a child who isn't given sufficient intellectual stimulation to develop his/her abilities brain damaged?

 

Psikeyhackr

 

Sorry to jump into the conversation, but Psikey, have you heard of non-culturally biased (AKA culture-fair) IQ tests? There is no reading involved at all, mostly abstract figures and logical matchings and such. I took such a test (it was timed as well) and I got a 137, which correlates highly with the 133-137 range I've mentioned as my IQ in a previous post. If you were going to use 'reading speed' as one of your arguments, I thought you should know about the existence of the reading-free IQ tests. Just a thought.

[ctc7752]

The only way to measure intelligence is by how you react to the third dimension.

[aj47]

huh, expand