Approximate Intelligence Quotient Gauge

[DifferentialGalois]

The following thread regards how I am to receive an accurate gauge of my IQ. Heretofore, I undertook several IQ tests, namely the Serebriakoff Advanced Culture Fair Test, Numerus Basic, Mensa Norway, Mensa Denmark, Tero 41 and Logica Stella. Additionally, I took the Mensa Luxembourg Online Test, which gave a result of 28/33. My raw score for the SACFT was 32/36, corresponding to an IQ of 152. Howbeit, at the end of the answers and scoring section, it states that the scores are inflated by approximately 10 points in comparison to Ravens Progressive Matrices. As such, my IQ would float somewhere around 142. Of course, we have to take the Flynn effect into account via the fact that IQ increases 3 points every decade or so. By taking all of this into account, my IQ would be some place around 130. My age is 12 years and 2 months, meaning that as per the SACFT age adjustment regime, I would divide 180 by 146 (the number of months I have lived) and multiply that quotient by the score received had I been an adult. The grand score checks out to be 160.29, which I am thoroughly dubious about.

As for the other IQ tests I took, there did not appear to be any age adjustment. Mensa Norway did however inquire for your age prior to the commencement of the test, and I selected it accordingly as 16-17 (there were no options denoting any age younger).
Below are the results for my other tests:
Mensa Norway - 132
Mensa Denmark - 130
Numerus Basic - 133
Tero 41 - 127
Logica Stella - 124

Does anyone have any sagacious advice on how to accurately calculate my approximate IQ, and give me a brief insight as to how age adjusted IQ tests work?

 

[Borek]

Best advice I can think of: don't worry too much about IQ tests, they are always flawed this or other way, and they never give really consistent results. At best they work as a proxy for measuring "something" (but it is not even clear what this "something" really is).

 

[HAYAO]

Like Borek mentioned, I wouldn't worry too much about it. I would say, "my IQ is somewhere around 120 to 140".

I am going to write this to make sure that people don't disrespect psychologists that have invested decades into making IQ tests, because as flawed as they may be, they are still one of the best, if not, the best measure of cognitive ability to date. IQ tests are deemed "highly correlated" with intelligence, more so than any other tests out there. I kind of cringe when people say "IQ is only a test to see your pattern recognition skills" or something like that because there is a good reason why pattern recognition is important assessment to your intelligence. I also cringe when people say "but IQ test failed to assess the intelligence of Richard Feynman". Sure, that could happen. Of course it can. But that doesn't completely invalidate its effectiveness, at least compared to other tests.

There are different kinds of IQ tests out there, as you already know, but no matter what you try they are all statistical assessment. Any test on individuals using statistics inherently has the problem of confidence (you might be tired the day of test, you might be unmotivated to answer the question, etc.), as well as using generalized values that muddles your specific ability (for example, you are good in one thing but bad in other but a single value for assessing these ends up explaining neither effectively), therefore deviating from your "actual" IQ. Also, problems cannot be made infinitely difficult, so IQ test cannot measure correctly those of extremely high IQ (IQ error for those above 130 is a lot bigger than the error for those around 100). Depending on the culture you live in, you may have culturally conditioned intelligence (such as when asked to put various things into two different groups, while you are "supposed to" separate objects by its common traits, some people in certain culture may separate objects by their practicality in daily life).

I think your IQ values are well within the range of error. Don't worry too much about the value accuracy.

 

[Borek]

I am going to write this to make sure that people don't disrespect psychologists that have invested decades into making IQ tests, because as flawed as they may be, they are still one of the best, if not, the best measure of cognitive ability to date.

Yes, I see how my post could be misinterpreted as derogatory, that wasn't the intent.

It is just that people tend to interpret the IQ as if it was some kind of Holly Grail - which it isn't.

 

[Vanadium 50]

IBTL

1. Online IQ tests are not real IQ tests.
2. There is a good deal of academic discussion about just what even real IQ tests measure.
3. Most people are substantially more impressed with actual accomplishments than a high test score
4. You've already posted multiple threads on just how doggone smart you are. Not everybody is as excited by this topic as you are.
5. You are who you are. Be who you are and don't worry about what an online test says.

 

[DifferentialGalois]

Like Borek mentioned, I wouldn't worry too much about it. I would say, "my IQ is somewhere around 120 to 140".

I am going to write this to make sure that people don't disrespect psychologists that have invested decades into making IQ tests, because as flawed as they may be, they are still one of the best, if not, the best measure of cognitive ability to date. IQ tests are deemed "highly correlated" with intelligence, more so than any other tests out there. I kind of cringe when people say "IQ is only a test to see your pattern recognition skills" or something like that because there is a good reason why pattern recognition is important assessment to your intelligence. I also cringe when people say "but IQ test failed to assess the intelligence of Richard Feynman". Sure, that could happen. Of course it can. But that doesn't completely invalidate its effectiveness, at least compared to other tests.

There are different kinds of IQ tests out there, as you already know, but no matter what you try they are all statistical assessment. Any test on individuals using statistics inherently has the problem of confidence (you might be tired the day of test, you might be unmotivated to answer the question, etc.), as well as using generalized values that muddles your specific ability (for example, you are good in one thing but bad in other but a single value for assessing these ends up explaining neither effectively), therefore deviating from your "actual" IQ. Also, problems cannot be made infinitely difficult, so IQ test cannot measure correctly those of extremely high IQ (IQ error for those above 130 is a lot bigger than the error for those around 100). Depending on the culture you live in, you may have culturally conditioned intelligence (such as when asked to put various things into two different groups, while you are "supposed to" separate objects by its common traits, some people in certain culture may separate objects by their practicality in daily life).

I think your IQ values are well within the range of error. Don't worry too much about the value accuracy.

What is your view on age adjustments when it comes to IQ tests?

 

[DifferentialGalois]

IBTL

1. Online IQ tests are not real IQ tests.
2. There is a good deal of academic discussion about just what even real IQ tests measure.
3. Most people are substantially more impressed with actual accomplishments than a high test score
4. You've already posted multiple threads on just how doggone smart you are. Not everybody is as excited by this topic as you are.
5. You are who you are. Be who you are and don't worry about what an online test says.

Thank you for your input.

 

[gmax137]

... IBTL ...

I had to google that one. Maybe my pattern recognition / crossword IQ is going down instead of up as I get older.

 

[HAYAO]

Yes, I see how my post could be misinterpreted as derogatory, that wasn't the intent.

It is just that people tend to interpret the IQ as if it was some kind of Holly Grail - which it isn't.

Oh no, I didn't see your post as derogatory. Sorry if my post can be seen as a direct response to yours. You are absolutely right that IQ shouldn't be regarded as some absolute measure of intelligence (simply because it's not), especially when it is done on individuals. Particularly, life isn't only about intelligence but personality. If you aren't interested in things but rather people, then you wouldn't be very motivated to major in engineering even if you are very intelligent. People treating IQ as the only measure in career success is just as bad as those treating IQ as illegitimate numbers.

I remember that IQ have somewhere around 0.24 to 0.4 correlation with current socioeconomic status, which you may think is pretty low, but is actually one of the biggest (or second biggest in some sources) factors (others are the Big Five personality traits namely, conscientiousness, openness, neuroticism, agreeableness, and extrovertness). At least for men in the USA, IQ is the biggest factor in determining future socioeconomic status (for women it is actually extrovertness). Also in the USA, if you have high IQ, the chances are, it doesn't matter if you are from a poor background; you'll attain fairly high socioeconomic status anyway as much as if you are born from a wealthy background. Conscientiousness comes in second but does not completely compensate the disadvantage of family background if they have one. So IQ would still be a fairly good measure for various uses and it would be ignorant to say IQ serves no purpose. But at the same time, IQ is not the only deciding factor (far from it) so worshiping IQ makes no sense neither.

My explanation regarding the validity of IQ test was merely out of my precaution against potential IQ bashers that could've followed on this thread. I've seen it happen in some occasions elsewhere in real life.

What is your view on age adjustments when it comes to IQ tests?

Age adjustments are necessary. Cognitive ability of children does indeed change over time. But do not over-trust its effectiveness. Age adjustments add more parameters to the IQ problem so it actually adds more error to the original errors of the value I explained above.

When I took a class on developmental psychology, particularly on cognitive development, the lecturer was a psychiatrist that happened to actually video tape his own daughter's cognitive development. He showed his daughter two identically shaped cups with the same amount of water. He then poured one into a narrow tall cup and the other into a wide short cup. When his two-years-old daughter was asked which cup had more water, she chose the narrow tall cup because she recognized that height of the water surface was higher. However, when his daughter turned six years old and was asked the same thing, she correctly identified that both had the equal amount of water.

Similar things happen with small children regarding money. When a parent uses paper cash and gets several coins as a change, children may recognize that his/her parent got more money than they initially did.

This test happens to be one of the famous cognitive experiment testing the concept of conservation in children. This is important because infants have preoperational cognitive ability where they base everything on experience rather than logic. Logical thinking starts to develop over time. Some children have it faster, some slower, with different accelerations. Age adjustments is a generalization of this development speed based on the median, so this would be the source of extra error.

 

[Mark44]

IBTL

I had to google that one. Maybe my pattern recognition / crossword IQ is going down instead of up as I get older.

"In before the lock"...
It's much less common than such internet acronyms as IMO, IMHO, and so on.

 

[DifferentialGalois]

"In before the lock"...
It's much less common than such internet acronyms as IMO, IMHO, and so on.

International Math Olympiad medalists may get somewhat perturbed.

 

[symbolipoint]

THIS, from Vanadium 50:

3. Most people are substantially more impressed with actual accomplishments than a high test score

5. You are who you are. Be who you are and don't worry about what an online test says.