View Full Version : Intelligence Quotient?
Congratulations, Orion1
Your IQ score is 131
This number is based on a scientific formula that compares how many questions you answered correctly on the Classic IQ Test relative to others.
Your Intellectual Type is Visionary Philosopher. This means you are highly intelligent and have a powerful mix of skills and insight that can be applied in a variety of different ways. Like Plato, your exceptional math and verbal skills make you very adept at explaining things to others and at anticipating and predicting patterns. And that's just some of what we know about you from your IQ results.
What is your IQ?
Reference:
http://web.tickle.com/tests/real/?sid=1807&test=realogt&supp=groupc2redswingline610
cookiemonster
Apr18-04, 03:06 AM
What is this, a bragging contest? ;)
cookiemonster
I experimented with this so-called test some time ago. It seems that it has a ceiling score of around 150. It stops at there. I intentionally scored low on the test, to see if they would label me as either a Visionary Philosopher or a Visionary Mathematician. Well, they did. An IQ score of 97 gave me the title Visionary Mathematician. Weird huh?
I intentionally scored low on the test, to see if they would label me as either a Visionary Philosopher or a Visionary Mathematician. Well, they did. An IQ score of 97 gave me the title Visionary Mathematician. Weird huh?Well, they were right...with a score like that, you'd have to be a visionary to imagine yourself as a mathematician. :wink:
IooqXpooI
Apr18-04, 04:26 PM
That test is stupid...It's ceiling is 168...I still don't understand why I took it...
It compared me to Einstein/Newton(or was that Da Vinci? anyways, I took it a long time ago)...
Anyway, go to iqtest.com, and take the test. That is a logic test, which ACTUALLY tests your intellingence. I got a 162.
IooqXpooI
Apr18-04, 04:26 PM
That test is stupid...It's ceiling is 168...I still don't understand why I took it...
It compared me to Einstein/Newton(or was that Da Vinci? anyways, I took it a long time ago)...
Anyway, go to iqtest.com, and take the test. That is a logic test, which ACTUALLY tests your intellingence. I got a 162.
That's the emode.com test, I'm assuming?
Humbucker
Apr18-04, 11:59 PM
I took that internet test and don't believe it represents a damn thing.My score was 9.I have to believe that my shoe size is larger than my IQ. :biggrin:
Anyway, go to iqtest.com, and take the test. That is a logic test, which ACTUALLY tests your intellingence. I got a 162.
The test iqtest.com offers is NOT challenging and the IQ that it scores is too optimistic. Personally, I would say that the emode test is better, but also optimistic. Someone once said to minus off 20 points from your IQ score for most online tests to get your true IQ. But, then again, that's too pessimistic.
IooqXpooI, why did you responde to yourself?
Oh, and I believe the ceiling for either test is dependent on your age, and possibly your gender. How old are you? It could be that some of the questions went right over my head, but I came to the conclusion that the ceiling for the emode test was around 140 at the age of 21. IQtest.com wanted my credit card, and anyone stupid enough to pay for a IQ test probably doesn't want to see their score. :biggrin:
I like these things because they are a challenge, but I am skeptical of their validity in measuring intelligence. Many of the questions would be much harder for me if I never learned tricks in school for solving such problems. Any dog can learn a trick. Conversely, there are problems that are difficult for me because I have never been exposed to thinking in such a manner.
It is a terribly inflated test, unless you're in the upper limits. If you're a fairly well educated adult with a high IQ, you should get all of them except for the one that the test's authors got wrong.
Njorl
The best free online IQ test I have taken is at Queendom.com. The classical intelligence test takes 45 minutes to an hour to complete. I see that they have a new updated version of the test. I haven't taken it yet, maybe I will tonight.
Go to http://www.queendom.com/ and select Classical IQ test from the Top 5 tests listing on the right hand side.
These tests are always fun.
Here a description of the test:
Classical Intelligence Test - 2nd Revision
60 questions, 45-60 min
Number of credits required: 3 Question type:
Textual, numerical and visual problems; multiple choice of answers.
What it measures:
This IQ test measures several factors of intelligence, namely logical reasoning, math skills and general knowledge. It also measures your ability to classify things according to various attributes, and to see analogies and relations among concepts or things. It doesn't take into consideration verbal, social, or emotional intelligence.
What you get:
Introduction to IQ
General score: your Raw IQ score, plus your score adjusted for age and for gender.
Subscores:
Pattern recognition. measures the ability to make out patterns in a series of images, numbers, words or ideas.
Classification. measures the ability to discover the commonalities among collections of words, pictures, objects, etc. and the ability to organize them accordingly.
Making analogies. measures the ability to find the relationships between elements of things (words, numbers, images, etc.) otherwise unlike.
Arithmetic. measures a branch of mathematics that generally deals with the nonnegative real numbers and with the application of the operations of addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division to them.
General Knowledge. measures awareness of things that are generally well-known.
Logic. measures the ability to make deductions that lead rationally to a certain probability or conclusion.
Application:
Popular for personal interest, HR testing, and educational purposes.
Validation study:
Sample size: 352,000 in 3rd phase of validation
Statistics performed:
Descriptive stats and reference values/norms; correlations with various factors; reliability (Spearman-Brown split-half, Guttman split-half, Cronbach alpha), criterion-related validity (concurrent validity, method of contrasted groups, correlation with other standardized tests); construct-related validity (internal consistency, inter-correlations of subtests, factor analysis, convergent and discriminant validity)
IQ is a great philosophical discussion, however this topic is more along the lines of General Discussion unless we can turn it philosophical :)
I am unable to answer several problems from the Queendom test:
Q51. Which one of the following five is least like the other four?
Horse - Zebra - Deer - Moose - Eland
Q41. Napoleon lost his final battle at
Moscow - Waterloo - Leipzig - Berlin - Paris
Q36. Julius Caesar
a) died of natural causes.
b) was killed in a riding accident.
c) was killed in a battle.
d) committed suicide.
e) was murdered.
Q29. Which one of the following five is least like the other four?
Liberal - Democrat - Conservative - Presbyterian - Socialist
Q26. Which one of the following five is least like the other four?
Milkshake - Juice - Gin - Whiskey - Milk
and several picture continuation problems.
I am unable to answer several problems from the Queendom test:
Q51. Which one of the following five is least like the other four?
Horse - Zebra - Deer - Moose - Eland
Q41. Napoleon lost his final battle at
Moscow - Waterloo - Leipzig - Berlin - Paris
Q36. Julius Caesar
a) died of natural causes.
b) was killed in a riding accident.
c) was killed in a battle.
d) committed suicide.
e) was murdered.
Q29. Which one of the following five is least like the other four?
Liberal - Democrat - Conservative - Presbyterian - Socialist
Q26. Which one of the following five is least like the other four?
Milkshake - Juice - Gin - Whiskey - Milk
and several picture continuation problems.
SPOILER - DO NOT READ IF YOU WANT TO TAKE THAT TEST!
Deer has four letters, the rest have 5.
Waterloo was Napolean's last battle.
Caeser was murdered.
Milkshake is a composite drink, the rest can be poured straight out of the bottle.
Q51. Which one of the following five is least like the other four?
Horse - Zebra - Deer - Moose - Eland
Horse would be the least like the others because it is the only one that is also considered domesticated, and is used for work.
Q29. Which one of the following five is least like the other four?
Liberal - Democrat - Conservative - Presbyterian - Socialist Presbyterian, it is a religion.
Horse would be the least like the others because it is the only one that is also considered domesticated, and is used for work.
Your answer would be best if they were asking about animals. They are not. They are talking about words. Of course, they didn't bother to tell you that now, did they? These tests are very tricky when it comes to things like this. I have seen variants where they will subtly alter questions. In one case, they wrote out words of various tools and asked which didn't belong. The answer was knife because it started with "k" while the others, spoon, screwdriver, saw and shovel, all started with "s". They had the same question, but with pictures of the tools instead of words, and the answer was spoon because it had no blade.
These types of questions are particularly frustrating when you are smarter than the test's author. You start thinking,"I know what I believe is the best answer, but is the guy who made up the test smart enough to know it is the best answer?" It then becomes possible that you know the answer, but pick the wrong one because you misjudged the author's intelligence.
I, personally, would consider horse to be a perfectly valid answer to that question. Since there are two valid answers and the only way to distinguish which is "better" is to psychoalalyze the test's author, I would not use such a question.
Njorl
Your answer would be best if they were asking about animals. They are not. They are talking about words. NjorlWell, the trick, as you said, is to understand what they are wanting. You may be right. The question does not ask which word is least like the others, nor does it ask which animal is least like the others. Usually you can get a feel for what they're thinking from other questions in the test. I only scored 158 last time I took this test, (down significantly from when I had a real IQ test at age 11 :frown: ), so maybe I missed that one. :frown:
They could be looking for a word difference, but that seems too obvious and simple and doesn't make you really think what could be different between such similar animals. Of course I haven't retaken the new version of the test, perhaps this question is lumped in with other word questions?
Since there are two valid answers and the only way to distinguish which is "better" is to psychoalalyze the test's author, I would not use such a question.Yep I agree.
For me, the test was rather unfair as I originate from a rather primitive Asian country (not Singapore or Hong Kong). I can say with confidence that 90%, perhaps even more, of the people here wouldn't know who Julius Caesar was, much less how he died. We don't know much about US politics (socialist, etc.) as well, because why would you bother to if you're on the other side of the world and especially when your government is not a democracy? Our history lessons are mostly to do with Asian history. Napoleon Bonaparte is NEVER mentioned in our history textbook. And alcohol is virtually banned in my country, so I wouldn't know the difference between gin, wine and martinis. Also, I've never had a milkshake. :(
What's an Eland anyway? It might go by another name in this part of the world.
hitssquad
Apr22-04, 04:21 AM
For me, the test was rather unfair as I originate from.... ...the people here wouldn't know.... We don't know much about....Every kind of mental test and every mentally demanding activity, as required in school and in most occupations, is to some degree loaded with g. If one wants to assess a person's level of g, it is more efficient, of course, to select highly g-loaded tests, provided they are otherwise appropriate for the person in terms of having familiar fundaments. Obviously, a highly g-loaded test given in the Tamil language would be wholly inappropriate for a typical American, although it may provide a valid assessment of g for a native of Madras, India. A highly g-loaded nonverbal test, one based on figural relations for example, could be equally appropriate for both the American and the Madrasi, assuming, of course, that its fundaments are familiar to both.Arthur R Jensen. The g Factor (http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=24373874). p36.
What's an Eland anyway? It might go by another name in this part of the world.Main Entry: eland
Pronunciation: 'Elðnd, -,land, -laa(ð)nd
Function: noun
Inflected Form: plural eland or elands
Etymology: Afrikaans, elk, eland, from Dutch, elk, from obsolete German elen, elend, from Lithuanian elnis; akin to Old High German elaho elk - more at ELK
: either of two large African antelopes of the genus Taurotragus bovine in form and having short spirally twisted horns in both sexes: a : the common dark fawn-colored eland (T. oryx) of southern and eastern Africa the male of which sometimes attains six feet in height and weighs 1500 pounds b : the larger dark-striped giant eland (T. derbianus) restricted to western equatorial Africa
For me, the test was rather unfair as I originate from a rather primitive Asian country (not Singapore or Hong Kong). I can say with confidence that 90%, perhaps even more, of the people here wouldn't know who Julius Caesar was, much less how he died. We don't know much about US politics (socialist, etc.) as well, because why would you bother to if you're on the other side of the world and especially when your government is not a democracy? Our history lessons are mostly to do with Asian history. Napoleon Bonaparte is NEVER mentioned in our history textbook. And alcohol is virtually banned in my country, so I wouldn't know the difference between gin, wine and martinis. Also, I've never had a milkshake. :(
What's an Eland anyway? It might go by another name in this part of the world.The test would be very difficult for you recon, if you haven't been exposed to the type of information that is on the test, there is no way you can know the answers. At least you now have been exposed to information you would not have known otherwise, so maybe this has helped broaden your view of the world.
This is why IQ tests given to other cultures is often unfair in judging intelligence. Even if you show symbols to someone, if they have never been exposed to the type of reasoning that we have about the differences we are taught to recognize, they may not understand what the questioner is wanting.
honestrosewater
Apr29-04, 08:34 PM
Someone on another board raised what I thought was a good question.
Q2 on tickle's classic IQ test:
Which one of these five is least like the other four?
Horse
Kangaroo
Cow
Deer
Donkey
I would answer kangaroo, because it travels mainly on two legs, while all the others travel mainly on four legs, or, two of the kangaroo's "legs" are much shorter than the other two, and are used more like "arms" than "legs". Same idea.
But this person had answered donkey, because it is sterile. Some quick research tells me that it's actually the mule (the offspring of a donkey and horse/zebra/donkey cousin) that is sterile, and female mules aren't even *always* sterile. But, more to the point, what if one of the animals listed was sterile? Would this be a "more correct" answer, and why?
The kangaroo is also the only marsupial, which, if this were the reason for choosing the kangaroo, would seem to be on the same level as the sterility of the mule- both are "reproductive" differences.
So what makes the correct answer correct, for these comparison questions?
Happy thoughts
Rachel
honestrosewater
Apr29-04, 09:01 PM
How could a "logic" test be "tricky"? Isn't that a contradiction in terms?
For it to be "logical', its questions cannot be ambiguous.
1+1=10 could be either correct or incorrect, depending on the system (ex. base b positional system) in which the calculation is made.
If a logical question has more than one answer, those answers must be equal/equivalent, yes?
Happy thoughts
Rachel
Someone on another board raised what I thought was a good question.
Q2 on tickle's classic IQ test:
Which one of these five is least like the other four?
Horse
Kangaroo
Cow
Deer
Donkey
I would answer kangaroo, because it travels mainly on two legs, while all the others travel mainly on four legs, or, two of the kangaroo's "legs" are much shorter than the other two, and are used more like "arms" than "legs". Same idea.
But this person had answered donkey, because it is sterile. Some quick research tells me that it's actually the mule (the offspring of a donkey and horse/zebra/donkey cousin) that is sterile, and female mules aren't even *always* sterile. But, more to the point, what if one of the animals listed was sterile? Would this be a "more correct" answer, and why?
The kangaroo is also the only marsupial, which, if this were the reason for choosing the kangaroo, would seem to be on the same level as the sterility of the mule- both are "reproductive" differences.
So what makes the correct answer correct, for these comparison questions?
Happy thoughts
RachelKangaroo is the only correct answer. It is marsupial, it doesn't have hooves, it travels and stands on 2 legs. It uses it front paws for eating and grooming.
honestrosewater
May2-04, 05:48 PM
So what makes the correct answer correct, for these comparison questions?
The question: Which one of these five is least like the other four?
The cow is the only one sacred to Hindus.
The kangaroo is the only one I haven't seen in person.
The donkey is the only one in Pinocchio.
etc.
Are those not "correct" reasons?
So what makes the correct answer correct, for these comparison questions?
The question: Which one of these five is least like the other four?
The cow is the only one sacred to Hindus.
The kangaroo is the only one I haven't seen in person.
The donkey is the only one in Pinocchio.
etc.
Are those not "correct" reasons?This is why I am against IQ tests. I do not believe that IQ tests are an accurate reflection of intelligence. Even the tests that are non verbal are flawed. Just because a symbol has a common meaning in the western world, in other societies, it may not be looked at the same way, have the same significance, be something recognized in the environment in which they are raised, etc...
A non-verbal IQ test that was widely given to S. African tribesmen in the 1920's included "common universally known" things such as two people playing tennis, but the net was missing. The correct answer was to draw in the missing net. Obviously the tribesmen had never heard of tennis and had no idea what to do.
Ebolamonk3y
May2-04, 07:29 PM
IQ... what is that? Waste of time?
JasonRox
May2-04, 09:54 PM
You should know personally that you are smart. When you study, or read books, you should recognize your intelligence.
Intelligence:
a. the ability to learn or understand from experience; ability to acquire and retain knowledge; mental ability.
b. the ability to respond quickly and successfully to a new situation; use of the faculty of reason in solving problems, directing conduct, etc. effectively.
c. in psychology, measured success in using these abilities to perform certain tasks.
Intelligence Quotient: (IQ)
. a number indicating level of intelligence, obtained by multiplying the mental age by 100 and dividing by the chronological age.
I_q = \frac{100 A_m}{A_c}
A_m = \frac{I_q A_c}{100}
Intelligence Test:
. a standardized series of problems progressively graded in difficulty, intended to test an individual's intelligence.
He lived rather in a fair 'intelligence' than any friendship with the favorites. - Clarendon.
hitssquad
May3-04, 06:42 AM
Intelligence Test:
. a standardized series of problems progressively graded in difficulty, intended to test an individual's intelligence.Main Entry: intelligence test
Function: noun
: any of various tests consisting of standardized questions and tasks designed to determine the mental age of the person examined or his relative capacity to absorb information and solve problems : a test designed to measure capacity to learn apart from actual achievement — compare ACHIEVEMENT TEST, APTITUDE TEST
My favorite of the "one is different" questions are the ones where one and only one choice has something in common with all the other choices. Then, by virtue of its unique similarity, it is different.
Njorl
hitssquad
May3-04, 10:53 AM
My favorite of the "one is different" questionsOdd man out (http://www.google.com/search?q=%22odd+man+out+test%22).
Foo Fighter
May16-04, 08:25 AM
Most online IQ tests, I would say 90% of them are very inaccurate so I wish people wouldn't quote online IQ scores. Many give inflated scores and even worst, many of them have nothing to do with intelligence but book knowledge instead. If you wanna know your true IQ score you should get it professional tested by a psychologist using official IQ tests such as Stanford-Binet.
Ebolamonk3y
May16-04, 08:47 PM
IQ tests are rigged.
Laser Eyes
May17-04, 03:14 AM
Can someone tell me please, if your IQ is in the top 1% what score would that be about?
hitssquad
May17-04, 04:50 AM
Can someone tell me please, if your IQ is in the top 1% what score would that be about?That would be an IQ at or above the 99th percentile. On a normal curve, the 99th percentile is 2.35 (http://www.eskimo.com/~miyaguch/meganorm.html) standard deviations from the mean. If we use the Stanford-Binet's 16-point standard-deviation, then a score at the 99th percentile would equal 138 IQ points ((16 x 2.35) + 100). If we use the WAIS's 15-point standard-deviation, then a score at the 99th percentile would equal 135 IQ points ((15 x 2.35) + 100).
Ebolamonk3y
May17-04, 07:05 PM
Tests are rigged in themselves to those who test well.
selfAdjoint
May17-04, 08:12 PM
Tests are rigged in themselves to those who test well.
Excuse me, what does this mean?
I think he means the people who seem to have better test-taking skills, at least compared to the people who panic during a test or generally freeze.
Humbucker
May19-04, 03:32 AM
I'm in the 130 range on every IQ test that I've ever taken.They're all wrong.It's a biased and frankly stupid test for people who think they're smart.
Bull****.
My grandfather left school when he was 9 years old,raised 7 kids and made his own way in this world.That man was almost illiterate and taught me way more about life than any test ever did.It's all subjective man.
If I hear some pompous,holier-than-thou mouth talking about their IQ like it means something,they may get smacked in the face with my fist.
BlackVision
May19-04, 04:42 AM
I'm in the 130 range on every IQ test that I've ever taken.They're all wrong.It's a biased and frankly stupid test for people who think they're smart.
Bull****.
My grandfather left school when he was 9 years old,raised 7 kids and made his own way in this world.That man was almost illiterate and taught me way more about life than any test ever did.It's all subjective man.
If I hear some pompous,holier-than-thou mouth talking about their IQ like it means something,they may get smacked in the face with my fist.
First you might try explaining how an IQ test is bias. Have you ever taken a Progressive Matrices IQ test? I don't know how in the world you can call that test bias. Whether racial, gender, educational, it is not bias.
A person's IQ is not everything. However it is still a lot. It shows your ability to handle complex situations. Your potential to do well in school, your potential to get a good job, your ability to use logic is also highly linked to your IQ.
Humbucker
May19-04, 05:08 AM
Ok,you asked BlackVision.Here are some answers.School huh?Did well then.
Don't owe one single penny for my education.Academic scholarships and making fat money.I'll get to that in a minute.
Complex situations?How about flying a Pave Low helicopter for 5 years.Special Forces aircraft pilot.Real world deployments with bad things happening.Complex enough?
A job?I'm holding a check in my hand for $126,000.That's for one transaction.Going to make at least 9 more this year for about the same amount.You asked and got answered.I don't see how a test made any difference in my life.Not one little bit.Means nothing!
BlackVision
May19-04, 07:58 AM
Ok,you asked BlackVision.Here are some answers.School huh?Did well then.
Don't owe one single penny for my education.Academic scholarships and making fat money.I'll get to that in a minute.
Complex situations?How about flying a Pave Low helicopter for 5 years.Special Forces aircraft pilot.Real world deployments with bad things happening.Complex enough?
A job?I'm holding a check in my hand for $126,000.That's for one transaction.Going to make at least 9 more this year for about the same amount.You asked and got answered.I don't see how a test made any difference in my life.Not one little bit.Means nothing!
Are you responding to somebody else's post? 'Cause you're certainly not responding to mine. So I'm curious. Who exactly are you responding to here? Or did you simply get confused and thought I asked you what you did for a living?
First you might try explaining how an IQ test is bias.
All IQ tests are biased, the question is to what degree. Some are very biased, testing only learning, and correlating with other tests. Others are only slightly biased.
However, I have never seen an IQ test that eliminates the bias about giving a damn. If you don't care, you'll underperform.
Njorl
jammieg
May19-04, 11:31 PM
Every time I see IQ I think of "input output" like a computer. I have a freind who is extremely creative and only scored average on the test, but he got nervous, I tried to explain to him that if he hadn't been nervous he would have done much better, basically if you wait until the big game to practice for the first time at swinging a bat you will be nervous, but my other friend said that nervousness was a valid factor and this was his score. I wonder if a person might be too creative, have too much imagination and it actually have a negative impact on their IQ.
hitssquad
May20-04, 10:38 AM
All IQ tests are biased, the question is to what degree. Some are very biased, testing only learning, and correlating with other tests.This would be accurate if the word biased was replaced by the phrase "culturally loaded." As Arthur Jensen pointed out in his 1980 book Bias in Mental Testing (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0029164303), cultural loading does not equate with bias. If a measuring instrument is biased, it should be possible to say along what axis, in which direction along that axis, and to what degree the bias obtains.
idontthinkright
Jun24-04, 09:04 PM
well technically both answers are correct,if you look at it in different angles.By the way taking online tests are utter rubbish.take one from a psychologist,that would give you the most genuine result.
Tasthius
Jun30-04, 08:20 AM
www.highiqsociety.com has some of the best online IQ tests normalized against a huge population. Only about 7% of the test takers receive a score in the superior range, as opposed to other inflated internet tests.
mitch@crowfamily.us
Jul12-04, 06:49 AM
AS for IQ testing as an instrument for measuring 'smart' - it is all old thinking. Read up on 'Everyday Genius' which combines a variety of factors to explain who is intelligent and how. IQ is so limiting. I could recommend a book called 'Liberating Everyday Genius' by Mary-Elaine Jacobsen' as a starter.
Come on most of u still believe in IQ tests. I tried a few online IQ tests recently and one scored me 69 near the dunces and the other scored me 136 that is better than ordinary.
That test is stupid...It's ceiling is 168...I still don't understand why I took it...
It compared me to Einstein/Newton(or was that Da Vinci? anyways, I took it a long time ago)...
Anyway, go to iqtest.com, and take the test. That is a logic test, which ACTUALLY tests your intellingence. I got a 162.
that's ridiculous... i got 157 in less than 20 min., with english not being my mother language... i've taken the mensa test and gotten 136... either they rate the iq differently without saying it or it's complete bull****...
any test that isn't timed btw, is basically useless...
Dooga Blackrazor
Aug10-04, 10:50 AM
I disagree with non-timed tests being useless. Some people evaluate more options, or things differently. There are people who can do many things fast but cannot do harder things at all. Some people do everything slower but can analyze and solve most things.
IQ tests online aren't very reliable, I've gotten mixed results from various sites. I think 98 - 145 is my IQ range from all the tests I've taken. I'm 16 though, and while most consider it adult IQ, mental capabilities usually aren't fully developed until later, and some continue into the late twenties.
www.highiqsociety.com isn't a timed IQ test, or is it? I heard on a show about intelligence that the site originally was given to people and they had a week or something to solve all the problems. The show also said they could use whatever resources they had at their disposal. That could explain why the results are generally lower. People don't want to sit down with a paper and pen crossing off options they've already tried until they achieve an answer. I certainly never want to when I do IQ tests.
They also have an English test which is awkwardly based on Vocabulary. Strange...
I took that internet test and don't believe it represents a damn thing.My score was 9.I have to believe that my shoe size is larger than my IQ. :biggrin:
The humblest person is the most dangerous one. anyway it made me laugh. :uhh:
Tigers2B1
Aug10-04, 09:35 PM
Mensa doesn't give you the numerical result after you test. In fact there is no true "Mensa Test." There ARE two tests given by Mensa however -- both are standardized and widely used cognitive ability tests. The two tests are given over a three-hour period. The cognitive ability tests used by Mensa are the Wonderlic and the California Test of Mental Maturity. NOW -- being a sports fan, I happen to know that the Wonderlic is not only used by Mensa, not only used by business when deciding appropriate employee training- it's also used to test incoming NFL rookies. Dang! I'll link the related article and Wonderlic NFL results, by position and maybe player, if anyone is interested. No - QBs ain't the "smartest." Anyway - in regards to Mensa - a "Mensa testee" either scores in the top 2% on those standardized tests or he/she doesn't. No 135 - no 105 ---
Mensa doesn't give you the numerical result after you test. In fact there is no true "Mensa Test." There ARE two tests given by Mensa however -- both are standardized and widely used cognitive ability tests. The two tests are given over a three-hour period. The cognitive ability tests used by Mensa are the Wonderlic and the California Test of Mental Maturity. NOW -- being a sports fan, I happen to know that the Wonderlic is not only used by Mensa, not only used by business when deciding appropriate employee training- it's also used to test incoming NFL rookies. Dang! I'll link the related article and Wonderlic NFL results, by position and maybe player, if anyone is interested. No - QBs ain't the "smartest." Anyway - in regards to Mensa - a "Mensa testee" either scores in the top 2% on those standardized tests or he/she doesn't. No 135 - no 105 ---
on what planet?? :confused:
sorry... :wink: must be different in america... in denmark you get your numerical score. maybe you forgot to ask for it?
hitssquad
Aug11-04, 07:28 AM
I'll link the related article and Wonderlic NFL results, by position and maybe player, if anyone is interested. No - QBs ain't the "smartest."VDare published some articles (http://www.google.com/search?q=vdare+wonderlic) mentioning the the Wonderlic NFL results.
The average NFL player has an IQ of 98....
Offensive tackles: 112
Centers: 110
Quarterbacks: 108
Guards: 106
Tight Ends: 104
Safeties: 98
Middle linebackers: 98
Cornerbacks: 96
Wide receivers: 94
Fullbacks: 94
Halfbacks: 92
Tigers2B1
Aug11-04, 07:30 AM
on what planet?? :confused:
sorry... :wink: must be different in america... in denmark you get your numerical score. maybe you forgot to ask for it?
Sorry and thanks for the corrrection - I should have said that's how it's done by American Mensa (United States). I have no idea how Mensa works in other countries --
hitssquad
Aug11-04, 07:33 AM
Steve Sailer writes (http://www.isteve.com/Web_Exclusives_Archive-Apr2004.htm) in his blog:
NFL IQs -- It's always fun to look at the IQ scores of pro football draft prospects on the NFL's mandatory Wonderlic test. Here's the latest, converted from the 50 question Wonderlic scoring system where 20 right answers = 100 IQ and each additional right answer is worth 2 points (adapted from AOL -- not on the Web):
Kickers 118 Average -- 5 Prospects
Centers 115 Average -- 21 Prospects
Quarterbacks 111 Average -- 21 Prospects
Offensive Guards 109 Average -- 21 Prospects
Offensive Tackles 108 Average -- 20 Prospects
Inside Linebackers 107 Average -- 9 Prospects
Tight Ends 104 Average -- 19 Prospects
Fullbacks 104 Average -- 7 Prospects
Punters 103 Average -- 6 Prospects
Running Backs 102 Average -- 23 Prospects
Outside Linebackers 100 Average -- 29 Prospects
Defensive Ends 99 Average -- 30 Prospects
Defensive Tackles 99 Average -- 31 Prospects
Wide Receivers 99 Average -- 50 Prospects
Safeties 96 Average -- 25 Prospects
Cornerbacks 95 Average -- 30 Prospects
Alkatran
Sep20-04, 07:26 AM
Q51. Which one of the following five is least like the other four?
Horse - Zebra - Deer - Moose - Eland
Zebra is the only stripped one, and the only one with a letter in the top half of the alphabet.
Horse is the only one that is domesticated A LOT.
Deer has four letters and Deer are more commonly hunted than the others.
The Moose is the biggest of the bunch. It's also the only one that made it onto "top ten most disgusting animals" for some bizare reason.
The Eland is the only one I've never heard of. All the other ones are more 'common' to Canada.
So... what's the answer?
stefan80302
Sep22-04, 02:37 PM
wow, does iq testing really matter.
how can it be accurate when it was written by humans to test other humans.
is it not bias since creation.
Alkatran
Sep22-04, 02:40 PM
wow, does iq testing really matter.
how can it be accurate when it was written by humans to test other humans.
is it not bias since creation.
So... a dog should write it?
stefan80302
Sep22-04, 02:41 PM
i dont thinkg they should be written at all.
All they are usefull for are arguments.
stefan80302
Sep22-04, 02:42 PM
or is it
all they are usefull for is arguments
someone correct me
So much emphasis on intelligence capability. Most prosperous people have low IQ's anyway. Why take tests that will only urge immodesty and an arrogant personality? If you’re going to take an IQ test, hopefully you keep it to yourself. :) But that is just my subjective statement.
(no pessimistic behavior was meant)
selfAdjoint
Sep22-04, 05:12 PM
Most prosperous people have low IQ's anyway
For everyone from poor up to almost rich, there is a strong correlation between IQ and income. In fact IQ predicts income better than papa's income or social class; that research was reported in The Bell Curve.
For the really rich, the correlation fails; they get their money in other ways than by being smarter than the next guy.
stefan80302
Sep22-04, 06:49 PM
For everyone from poor up to almost rich, there is a strong correlation between IQ and income. In fact IQ predicts income better than papa's income or social class; that research was reported in The Bell Curve.
For the really rich, the correlation fails; they get their money in other ways than by being smarter than the next guy.
Not to be rude but you would not say that unless you are rich and are trying to keep your, i'm just born better, dream alive. Today intelligence plays no role in success, JFK had an IQ of 119, John Gotti had an IQ of 110, and don't even make me say Bush's IQ. I think today more than any other time there is plenty of evidence of how unimportant IQ is, what is important for success ,however, are motivation, connections, and sometimes luck.
Not to be rude but you would not say that unless you are rich and are trying to keep your, i'm just born better, dream alive. Today intelligence plays no role in success, JFK had an IQ of 119, John Gotti had an IQ of 110, and don't even make me say Bush's IQ. I think today more than any other time there is plenty of evidence of how unimportant IQ is, what is important for success ,however, are motivation, connections, and sometimes luck.
Do people really see Bush as successful? Why did you have to give examples of a Mafia Boss and Presidents as successful people? Anyway, their job does not require a high IQ but, rather, other factors are involved, i.e. as you said, connections, luck, etc. With political careers, IQ doesn't seem to play much of a role. And it really shouldn't, otherwise the politician wouldn't act in the interest of most of the people with average intelligence. One would not elect a president of profound intelligence (IQ 180) because (s)he would not be able to relate to the general population. I think what you meant by 'success' in your post is fame, in which case, luck has a pivotal role.
I actually prefer to look at certain business people and scientists when it comes to looking at successful people. While IQ testing definitely isn't accurate, it gives reasonable predictions for a person's ability for most of the population. Bill Gates wouldn't be where he is today with an IQ of 110; I think he would need at least an IQ of 140 and a whole lot of ingenuity (which is not the same as IQ).
Can you give a few examples where a person of an IQ of less than 100 has been successful in business and science?
Recon: since you seem more knowledgable in this field, what would you say is the average IQ among the successful american or world population? Again, not just average of the general population; i mean the general among the successful. Any predictions?
Also, what would an average IQ be for a 17 year old male?
I also do not understand why some say IQs of 119 (like JFK) are not very high. That is considerably above average. I find http://www.highiqsociety.com/ to be the best IQ Test, because it is not generous like others. If you have taken another test and have received a score higher than 150, i suggest you take this test.
It goes like something resembling this system:
below 100 = below average (of all ages)
100 = average
100 - 115 (above average, yet normal)
115 - 125 (above average; intelligent)
125 - 140 (very intelligent)
140 and up = extreme genius
I believe Aristotle had an IQ of more than 190. And Einstein about 160.
Everybody thinks that Albert Einstein's IQ was very high, but this is deffinitly not the case, his adult IQ was just above 160. He was deffinitly a genius, but this was not primarily due to his IQ, but his amazing level on transcendental thinking. Transcendental (= raised, sublime) thinking means that he can raise his thinking (i.e. the paths it takes) above the ordinary level. Basically it means that he was extremely creative and imaginative. An IQ score is a combination of brainspeed and brainpower. You have a certain amount of time to take an IQ test, but if you don't mind the time and just make the test and take more time than allowed, you can score up to 30 points higher. So Albert Einstein's IQ was just above 160 (which is also very high) but he takes his time and he raises his thinking to an amazing level and then you can compare him to somebody with an IQ of 200. So Einstein had a lot of brainpower but his brainspeed compared to brainpower was low.
---
I hear (not sure if it was on this forum) that the maximum points which you can increase during your lifetime is 20 (if an effort is put in) and about 5 for a regular life style. is this factual?
According to the definition of IQ, the average IQ would be 100 for the world's population. As Orion1 wrote in his previous post,
Intelligence Quotient: (IQ)
. a number indicating level of intelligence, obtained by multiplying the mental age by 100 and dividing by the chronological age.
I_q = \frac{100 A_m}{A_c}
A_m = \frac{I_q A_c}{100}
This would take into consideration everyone below, at, or above the poverty line. It would also take into consideration different cultures, each with different emphasis on education.
As you can see, quite inevitably, studies have shown that people below the poverty line have lower IQs on average, not because the reason they are poor is because they were stupid in the first place, but because they never really have the opportunity to develop their intelligence to the fullest potential.
I don't quite understand what you mean by 'successful', but I am assuming you are talking about people who are above the poverty line. I don't have any figures (even if there were figures, you should not really believe them) but people who are affluent definely fare better than poor people.
By the age of 17, IQ should have developed to its full potential and doesn't get any better. As far as I know, IQ does not differ from gender to gender. However, since some developing countries place a greater emphasis for males to have an education, some tests may show males to have greater intelligence.
If you look at the definition for IQ, the average IQ, taking into account all 17-year-old males, SHOULD be 100. This figure is inherent to any age group not withstanding racial, cultural and socioeconomic factors.
selfAdjoint
Sep22-04, 08:47 PM
Not to be rude but you would not say that unless you are rich and are trying to keep your, i'm just born better, dream alive. Today intelligence plays no role in success, JFK had an IQ of 119, John Gotti had an IQ of 110, and don't even make me say Bush's IQ. I think today more than any other time there is plenty of evidence of how unimportant IQ is, what is important for success ,however, are motivation, connections, and sometimes luck.
Anecdotes don't mean a thing compared to studies with large sample sizes. I am not rich, although I made good enough money before I retired, and I don't use IQ for putting others down. But facts are facts, and it's sad to see how many find mental tricks to keep themselves from looking at facts.
stefan80302
Sep22-04, 08:52 PM
[QUOTE=recon]Do people really see Bush as successful? Why did you have to give examples of a Mafia Boss and Presidents as successful people? Anyway, their job does not require a high IQ but, rather, other factors are involved, i.e. as you said, connections, luck, etc. With political careers, IQ doesn't seem to play much of a role. And it really shouldn't, otherwise the politician wouldn't act in the interest of most of the people with average intelligence. One would not elect a president of profound intelligence (IQ 180) because (s)he would not be able to relate to the general population. I think what you meant by 'success' in your post is fame, in which case, luck has a pivotal role.
I actually prefer to look at certain business people and scientists when it comes to looking at successful people. While IQ testing definitely isn't accurate, it gives reasonable predictions for a person's ability for most of the population. Bill Gates wouldn't be where he is today with an IQ of 110; I think he would need at least an IQ of 140 and a whole lot of ingenuity (which is not the same as IQ).
I would have to disagree with you recon. In my personal experience mathematics, business, and science have been easy to comprehend and use since they all relly on clearly stated strategies. On the other hand understanding people and more especially convincing people(hint) has been one of the hardest things i have had to do in life. Politicians and mafiosos are good examples of individuals who have understood people and have learned how to manipulate them. Hence, the fact that these people (JFK and Gotti) have had about average IQs tells me that there are other factors at play besides their intelligence. Further on, from personal experience i agree with you that some business people are very intelligent; however, just like in any other line of work there always are plenty of non intelligent people who run companies and do very well. Maybe its luck, or a sixth sense, but i personally dont think iq has to very much to do with it. Notice i dont rule out the fact that you need smarts to be in business but i dont think that smarts are just math or logic which iq measures.
But please dont take anything i say personally one thing i know for sure in life is that i know very little, i'm just trying to learn.
I also do not understand why some say IQs of 119 (like JFK) are not very high.
The reason why JFK is said not to have a high IQ is because this kind of IQ is not uncommon. The chances of having an IQ of 119 is around 1 in 9. Compare this to having an IQ of 160, which has a rarity of 1 in 11,000.
I hear (not sure if it was on this forum) that the maximum points which you can increase during your lifetime is 20 (if an effort is put in) and about 5 for a regular life style. is this factual?
The main reason why you can 'increase' your IQ score is because it is possible for someone to learn to do well at IQ tests. This can drastically boost your score, even up to the extent of increasing your score at an IQ test by 20 points. Your intelligence does not really increase in this case.
On the other hand, a child who has received little nutrition will score better at an IQ test after receiving adequate nutrition. If you are already eating good and are not being oppressed in any way, the chances are that you are not going to be able to increase your intelligence.
Hence, the fact that these people (JFK and Gotti) have had about average IQs tells me that there are other factors at play besides their intelligence.
I don't think I said anything in my previous post about IQ playing an important role in being a politician. :biggrin:
With political careers, IQ doesn't seem to play much of a role.
stefan80302
Sep22-04, 09:08 PM
I don't think I said anything in my previous post about IQ playing an important role in being a politician. :biggrin:
yes what i'm saying is that it is hard to understand people, politicians understand and manipulate people, politicians dont have high IQs, hence iq doenst play much role in success and comprehension,
hypnagogue
Sep22-04, 10:25 PM
yes what i'm saying is that it is hard to understand people, politicians understand and manipulate people, politicians dont have high IQs, hence iq doenst play much role in success and comprehension,
The stat that selfAdjoint posted was that IQ is correlated with income. Politicians don't make all that much, and mob bosses don't have their income on the books in the first place. Nothing you've said so far is inconsistent with this statistic.
If you wanted to dispute this point, what you'd want to do is find a flaw in the sampling method, or find a faulty assumption made by the author in his statistical analysis, etc. What you wouldn't want to do is hand-wave about specific cases. That kind of argument is extremely weak precisely where statistical arguments are extremely strong (rigorous mathematical methods, large sample sizes).
What about scientists? They have high IQ's, yet people in technical sales with average IQ's make on average $100,000 to $250,000 per year and more. Perhaps people with very low IQ's won't make much money without hitting the lottery, but unfortunately most professions which require high IQ's do not pay well.
selfAdjoint
Sep23-04, 08:58 AM
Evo, these are still just impressions, and they don't stack up against the statistics. Of course the correlation isn't 100%, but it's higher than the correlation for any other well-known sociological quantity with income. Actually the technical statement is stronger: IQ is significant even when you control for those other varaibles. You can only make that kind of statement if you have a large sample, and those researchers did.
Hi All,
IQ is not an adequate measure of intelligence. It does not measure the ability to learn over time and it does not measure the ability to self-correct over time.
juju
Hi All,
IQ is not an adequate measure of intelligence. It does not measure the ability to learn over time and it does not measure the ability to self-correct over time.
juju
Do you have a personal vendetta against IQ or something? :rolleyes: In case you have not noticed, there isn't a lot of us who have posted on this thread who believe in the validity of IQ tests. :smile: You could have provided us with links to studies made by scientists regarding this, however.
Hey Recon,
My point of view is not predicated on anyone's statistical studies. It comes from my own experience.
There are those who do not have a real high IQ, but would run circles around those that do, in any real world situation. This is often called street-smarts.
IQ measures only intellectual capacity. Again, from my own experience this is subject to large changes over time.
Questions (and types of questions) that can't be answered one day, can be answered on another.
juju
selfAdjoint
Sep24-04, 05:15 PM
Hey Recon,
My point of view is not predicated on anyone's statistical studies. It comes from my own experience.
There are those who do not have a real high IQ, but would run circles around those that do, in any real world situation. This is often called street-smarts.
IQ measures only intellectual capacity. Again, from my own experience this is subject to large changes over time.
Questions (and types of questions) that can't be answered one day, can be answered on another.
juju
You seem to confuse IQ with education or accumulated experience, as indicated by your statement that mental capacity shows large variation over time. One of the definitions of IQ is the ability to solve new problems and learn new ways of doing things. The IQ tests are based on this idea.
Hi selfAdjoint,
The idea I was getting to is that if you take the SAME IQ test, say five years apart, you will do much better the second time around than if you took a different version of the test.
This seems to be related to the number and strength of neuronal connections in the brain.
If this is true, then IQ must be related to something else. It seems that this something else must be genetic and this is a very dangerous conceptual area.
juju
selfAdjoint
Sep26-04, 09:34 PM
Are you sure of this effect? IQ is regarded by sociologists as one of the most stable of measured variables, measured IQs of adults not varying more than an average 5 points over a considerable span of time. Of course they don't usually give exactly the same questions the second time; that could confuse IQ with good memory!
Hi,
My ideas about this effect come from self-observation.
I have taken short pseudo IQ tests (similar questions to normal IQ tests but no time limits and many fewer questions).
Months later I have seen similar questions that I had no idea of how to go about solving or answering the first time around, but the method seemed obvious the second time.
From this I conclude that there must be some level of subconscious learning associated with IQ test results.
An alternative explanation is that the total state of the body brain matrix is involved in access to certain brain structures used to solve problems, and how you "feel" affects results.
If IQ is related to a basic unchanging thing, this must relate to brain structure in general, which is set by genetics plus early programming that can't be changed.
The implication is that the average IQ of a population can be increased with the right early age programming.
juju
Eternelle
Sep23-07, 05:50 AM
Online IQ tests, self-administered tests from books, most school tests and the majority of workplace/selection tests are fun and a good talking point but they are not a reliable measure of IQ. Not to mention that a properly administered IQ test is limited anyway because it only provides a snapshot of that moment in time – it’s not a label for life.
Having said that, IQ is the most accurate predictor of academic and job success.
For an IQ score to be accurate and meaningful certain conditions apply. The IQ test must be reliable and valid (e.g., Weschler Adult Intelligence Scale-III, Stanford-Binet-IV etc).
Test administrators have specific training to administer that particular test. Trained administrators are usually registered psychologists. Both the WAIS-III and SB-IV are administered to only one person at a time, and take approx 45-90 minutes to complete.
Raw scores are not provided to the test taker or the organization (school, company etc) that required the testing, as raw scores can be extremely misleading. Instead the raw scores are interpreted by a psychologist who will provide a meaningful IQ score and interpretation to the organization.
The WAIS scores include an overall IQ score, a verbal IQ, performance IQ and 11 scaled subtest scores. An IQ score is essentially meaningless alone – many things can affect an individual’s score, it becomes more meaningful when accompanied by a repeat IQ score and other measures of ability and potential.
WAIS-III and SB-IV scores are not comparable, nor can an IQ test taken a few years ago be compared with an IQ test taken today.
All psychological tests (IQ, MMPI, EQ, Rorschach, Aptitude etc) are highly vulnerable to abuse. This happens when tests are administered and scored by people who are not trained test admin/analysts. For example, a psychologist will be alerted by incongruent scores (i.e., >15 pt between verbal and math score) and explore why this has occurred. The untrained administrator does not have the knowledge to understand how their own behaviour can affect the tester nor the statistical knowledge to recognize scoring errors.
Eternelle
Chi Meson
Sep23-07, 11:29 AM
This is soooo close to being an exactly 3 year old necropost. Is this a record?
Will we see Eternelle again? IF so, Welcome Eternelle!
What were you googeling so as to bring you to Physics forums?
Eternelle
Sep24-07, 06:10 PM
LOLOLOL
Oh my gosh - that is so funny - "necropost" is a wonderful neologism!!! I hope 3 years is a record - I strive to avoid the mundane.
I was actually responding in another discussion forum about IQ - one which was as equally riddled with misconceptions as this thread. I had googled the WAIS - R because I could not recall the exact subscales of that particular IQ test. I found this thread and ended up forgetting about the other and responding to this one, not noticing the date of the last posting....
It appears I know vast amounts about standardized testing (I'm a psyc grad student) - but clearly need to work on the timing of my posting..
Have a good one
Eternelle - Undertaker of Necroposts
Chi Meson
Sep24-07, 07:09 PM
I was actually responding in another discussion forum about IQ - one which was as equally riddled with misconceptions as this thread.
This particular forum, "General Discussion," is where we come to yak about things we don't know about. Check out the tensor sub-forum if you want to be impressed.
animalcroc
Sep28-07, 12:31 PM
When I was in elementary school I was consistently selected by my teachers to take an IQ test to join the GATE (gifted and talented education) program. Each year, for three years, I took the test and did not make the cut. There were people who made the cut and were in my class. I knew them and always thought my "intellectual capacity" was much higher than theirs. It turns out I have been the only one to progress through calculus (they couldn't handle it) and on to higher math, and academic excellence in general. In fact, I have a natural talent for derivations and proofs, even something most of my peers at UCSD don't.
I don't know how much weight to give IQ tests nor do I understand what they measure.
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2012, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.