What does IQ numbers mean?

[nec209]

IQ Classifications in Educational Use.

 

http://www.assessmentpsychology.com/iqclassifications.htm

 

Very Superior above 130

Superior 120 to 129

High Average 110 to 119

Average 90 to 109

Low Average 80 to 89

Borderline 70 to 79

Extremely Low 69

 

Well it is obvious it will require skilled person doing the test to see what the person IQ is and a skilled person could pick up the difference.

 

How many points does it have to be before it becomes obvious to non skilled person the general public to pick it up?

 

Some one 72 with some one say 96 would NOT tell the difference? But some one 72 with some one 110 would tell the difference? And some one 72 with some one 110 would have hard time getting long or having anything in common? Most likely they would be fighting with one other?

 

 

If your IQ is at 110 and you stop some one on the street at 15 to 20 point difference will NOT tell you they have a low IQ? But 30 to 40 point difference you can tell?

 

 

Low IQ person.

 

Is this more obvious of IQ below 90 or below 80?

 

A greater belief in the unproven and/or unproveable, including conspiracy theories.

A tendency towards blinder (non-skeptical) belief in general.

A lesser degree of intellectual curiosity.

Less appreciation of fine arts.

Don't know much about the world or what is going on around them.

Hate to read books and hardly read if ever.

Fascination with reality TV than reading book or doing any thing where you have to use your brain or is intellectual.

Complaining that other people use "big words"

Have a small working memory so have difficulty with multi-step tasks, instructions, procedures and recalling events.

Hate science and math

Not into reading and learning.

Do not do well in school.

 

It is realy hard to be friends with someone in school or on job with lower IQ they are so different and we have nothing in common?

 

[ajb]

It is realy hard to be friends with someone in school or on job with lower IQ they are so different and we have nothing in common?

 

Many people do not think that IQ score is a true measure of intelligence. For sure, I would not use such a number to determine if I were friends with someone or not. Having things in common is also not really needed to be fiends with anyone. What matters more is their overall attitude to life and if that is compatible with yours.

 

Now, with work you have to be professional whatever.

[Strange]

A greater belief in the unproven and/or unproveable, including conspiracy theories.

A tendency towards blinder (non-skeptical) belief in general.

A lesser degree of intellectual curiosity.

Less appreciation of fine arts.

Don't know much about the world or what is going on around them.

Hate to read books and hardly read if ever.

Fascination with reality TV than reading book or doing any thing where you have to use your brain or is intellectual.

Complaining that other people use "big words"

Have a small working memory so have difficulty with multi-step tasks, instructions, procedures and recalling events.

Hate science and math

Not into reading and learning.

Do not do well in school.

 

I don't think there is necessarily a correlation between any of those (or even the whole lot) and intelligence.

 

Some very intelligent people believe in conspiracy theories. Some very intelligent people do not do well in school - perhaps because they find it boring and too slow.

[The Angry Intellect]

Intelligence takes on many forms, you could be academically intelligent, mathematically, logically, socially, planning, organizationally or even environmentally (spatial awareness/intelligence).

 

The IQ test really only checks for some educational factors, logic & pattern recognition.

 

A new method needs to be devised which checks for the whole range of different intelligence factors.

 

I get along fine with people who I can clearly see are at an intelligence disadvantage or even those I deem far smarter than myself, it's just a matter of "tweaking" how you talk or respond to those people that are surrounding you at the time, so that you "fit in" better with them and make them feel generally more comfortable when talking to you instead of making them feel degraded or inferior, no one likes to feel that way.

 

If I were you, I wouldn't worry too much about IQ test scores, it's better to ask people questions or hang around them for a while to get a better understanding of their different intelligence factors & educational levels.

 

FYI: Some conspiracy theories turn out to be true.

[John Cuthber]

IQ is only a measure of how well you do in IQ tests.

[ajb]

IQ is only a measure of how well you do in IQ tests.

I agree with this... you will notice that no-one in academia ever states their IQ (provided they have done such a test). Or at least I have never come across anyone making a point of their IQ.

 

I have no idea. People who boast about their I.Q. are losers.

Hawking when asked about his IQ in the New York Times, December 2004.

Edited May 1, 2016 by ajb

[John Cuthber]

Quote
Hawking when asked about his IQ in the New York Times, December 2004.

I have no idea. People who boast about their I.Q. are losers.

It's a dratted nuisance that he said that: I had to stop bragging about my IQ

[ajb]

I am not sure if IQ score impress anyone. Like a PhD, it is not that impressive as everone you want to impress is equally qualified!

 

So telling 'rocket scientists' that you have a high IQ would come across as weird and self-centered!

[The Angry Intellect]

I am not sure if IQ score impress anyone. Like a PhD, it is not that impressive as everone you want to impress is equally qualified!

 

So telling 'rocket scientists' that you have a high IQ would come across as weird and self-centered!

My thoughts exactly.

 

But the more recent IQ test I just completed states that I have an IQ of over 4,000!

 

Notes: The IQ test was setup & conducted by me.

[CharonY]

IQ is only a measure of how well you do in IQ tests.

 

It is half right, but probably a bit too restrictive as it does correlate, usually moderately, with other factors which implies that it is also a (potentially weak) measure of these factors or at least are a confounding factor that can be considered.

 

For example, a number of papers by Duckworth have stressed the importance of self-control and discipline. These factors significantly affect life success outcomes, but also scores in IQ tests (~10 points). I.e. those with high IQ scores also demonstrate strong motivation in doing well in the test. Thus certain correlation with IQ scores, such as a moderate correlation between life success measures and IQ are also explainable to a large part by general high motivation in the subject.

It also means that IQ tests could be used as an proxy or composite of the motivational contribution and whatever abilities the IQ tests are testing (see e.g. Duckworth et al PNAS 2011).

 

Likewise, IQ tests are also a decent indicator of academic (undergrad and below) performance, probably as the test setup follows similar principles as exams. After that phase differences diminish markedly.

 

The important bit is that the IQ score does not indicate some static biological measure, nor is it alone predictive (potentially) intelligence-correlated outcomes. It does not mean that it is totally worthless for certain types of research, though.

[nec209]

 

I don't think there is necessarily a correlation between any of those (or even the whole lot) and intelligence.

 

Some very intelligent people believe in conspiracy theories. Some very intelligent people do not do well in school - perhaps because they find it boring and too slow.

 

That asking if IQ play part of say personality traits.

 

This may be more of mistmach with people with average IQ but may be people with higher IQ do opposite.

 

For the most part people here at scienceforums seem to have higher IQ and into reading books, novels, really interested in science , math and intellectual learning.

 

Well than there some people where their IQ is just so high that they lock them self up in their room and have no friends and get cought up in their work. So called centric people. The interest become obsessive and over working that one problem or task they doing and have no clue out side of that task or problem what happing around them.

 

 

A greater belief in the unproven and/or unproveable, including conspiracy theories.

A tendency towards blinder (non-skeptical) belief in general.

A lesser degree of intellectual curiosity.

Less appreciation of fine arts.

Don't know much about the world or what is going on around them.

Hate to read books and hardly read if ever.

Fascination with reality TV than reading book or doing any thing where you have to use your brain or is intellectual.

Complaining that other people use "big words"

Have a small working memory so have difficulty with multi-step tasks, instructions, procedures and recalling events.

Hate science and math

Not into reading and learning.

Do not do well in school.

 

 

It normilay easer to have friends and get long in life if your IQ is average or above average. But really high IQ above 120 and really much so above 130 you look at the world different and people different and most things you hate that other people really like.

[ajb]

I imagine that social friends tends to have a similar IQ, but this is just a conjecture.

 

 

I.e. those with high IQ scores also demonstrate strong motivation in doing well in the test.

This is interesting... I have always thought that, for most people, sucsess comes through hard work rather than some 'supernatural' tallent. It is the motivation and sticking to goals that is important.

 

 

Likewise, IQ tests are also a decent indicator of academic (undergrad and below) performance, probably as the test setup follows similar principles as exams. After that phase differences diminish markedly.

 

This is also interesting. Past undergrad imagination, motivation and hard work trump a high IQ, I suppose.

[John Cuthber]

 

This is interesting... I have always thought that, for most people, sucsess comes through hard work rather than some 'supernatural' tallent. It is the motivation and sticking to goals that is important.

 

In many, if not most regard, I'm successful. But I'm not generally good at motivation or sticking power.

At the risk of sounding like I'm bragging, I got through school and university then into a job and through promotion with very little effort and a lot of innate ability to learn stuff easily.

I'm the outlier.

[ajb]

I got through school and university then into a job and through promotion with very little effort and a lot of innate ability to learn stuff easily.

I'm the outlier.

Your experiences are not what I would say are the norm. It may well depend on your age and your career choices.

 

In academia supporters on the inside help a lot. IQ I think is less important overall.

[CharonY]

Your experiences are not what I would say are the norm. It may well depend on your age and your career choices.

 

In academia supporters on the inside help a lot. IQ I think is less important overall.

 

I would agree with that assessment.

[John Cuthber]

I never claimed to be normal.

However it only takes one counterexample to rule out the idea that IQ is subordinate to dedication as a predictor of success.

[Strange]

In many, if not most regard, I'm successful. But I'm not generally good at motivation or sticking power.

At the risk of sounding like I'm bragging, I got through school and university then into a job and through promotion with very little effort and a lot of innate ability to learn stuff easily.

I'm the outlier.

 

Sounds a lot like me (although I have managed not to acquire any formal qualifications despite completing several courses and doing very well in them).

[Delta1212]

I never claimed to be normal.

However it only takes one counterexample to rule out the idea that IQ is subordinate to dedication as a predictor of success.

 

No it doesn't. As you said, there can be outliers, and certainly other factors than just those two involved. When it comes to predictive success on a statistical level, one counter-example doesn't disprove the rule any more than a single rich person with poor parents disproves the predictive power of the socio-economic status of one's parents on one's own likely socio-economic status later in life.

[John Cuthber]

 

No it doesn't. As you said, there can be outliers, and certainly other factors than just those two involved. When it comes to predictive success on a statistical level, one counter-example doesn't disprove the rule any more than a single rich person with poor parents disproves the predictive power of the socio-economic status of one's parents on one's own likely socio-economic status later in life.

It depends on whether you consider it to be an absolute predictor or just one of many.

A single counterexample is enough to rule it out as an absolute predictor.

To be blunt; hard work is not required.

[Delta1212]

It depends on whether you consider it to be an absolute predictor or just one of many.

A single counterexample is enough to rule it out as an absolute predictor.

To be blunt; hard work is not required.

 

I don't think anyone suggested that it was.

[CharonY]

I never claimed to be normal.

However it only takes one counterexample to rule out the idea that IQ is subordinate to dedication as a predictor of success.

 

Not if on a population, which is generally the case. A predictor based on an individual is usually not terribly helpful. It does not even matter if there are additional variables, the quality of a predictor is based on how strongly it is associated with an outcome. This comparison really only makes sense within populations.