IQ

[Spiryt]

Just intelligence quotient.

I know that those test are said to not really represent much, but still I'm curious about Playgrounds score.

I've recently got two test and those were only ones ever finished by me. That's not too much, as some people probably take dozens of them...

Anyway, according to Wechsler test (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wechsler_Adult_Intelligence_Scale) my IQ is 134.

And less profesional one, on this site (www.getiq.pl/) says 138

That seems high to me, but maybe I'm just harsh.

Warning: If anyone wants to take this online text - you've got to send to SMSes to get result.

[Siosilvar]

I've taken three: two online, one written.

The online scores were ~138 and 142, written 144.

[Sneak]

I don't know what my IQ is, and I don't want to know what my IQ is.

(Thus, we can safely assume that mine is higher than all of yours. :smalltongue:)

[Apoc Golem]

I was tested about five years ago for a result of 132. I guess that's pretty good. I don't put much stock in the IQ test anyway.

[Eldan]

Well, at our recruitment for the military we had to take one, my result was 142. Which made me happy because it contains the number 42. I then managed to get thrown out after talking to a psychologist, which made me even more happy :smalltongue:

[Raroy]

I have an IQ of 92. I don't really seem to care for IQ tests because I don't believe they are sufficient enough to measure true intelligence. We don't even completely understand the human brain yet. Also, this thread is so just for bragging rights.

[Mx.Silver]

I have an IQ of 92. I don't really seem to care for IQ tests because I don't believe they are sufficient enough to measure true intelligence.
I can't help the nagging suspicion that those two things may in some way be linked :smalltongue:


Also, this thread is so just for bragging rights.
Well yes, obviously.

I've taken a few online ones over the years and those tend to put me in the upper 130s.

[Spiryt]

Well, at our recruitment for the military we had to take one, my result was 142. Which made me happy because it contains the number 42. I then managed to get thrown out after talking to a psychologist, which made me even more happy :smalltongue:

You had intelligence test at the recruitment? Around here some guys are just measuring us and looking at our testicles. :smallyuk:

Isn't the military in Switzerland something like training every year etc, not regular "service" anyway? . I'm too lazy for Wiki at the moment.

Join the club in any case. I also avoided army after talking to psychologists, and I'm also happy.


Also, this thread is so just for bragging rights.

You may be right. This may be the way in which human brain works. :smallwink:

[Raroy]

I can't help the nagging suspicion that those two things may in some way be linked :smalltongue:



I'm really a genius! Everyone else is wrong! :smalltongue:



Well yes, obviously.

I've taken a few online ones over the years and those tend to put me in the upper 130s.

I'll gladly get out of the way of your epeen waving contest then.

[InaVegt]

My overall IQ is 135
My cognitive IQ is 147
My social IQ is 129
My emotional IQ is 83

[Wreckingrocc]

I was actually quite surprised that the average is 100... Based on this thread, we're far above that.

I was tested when I was 8, but I don't remember which test it was...

I got a 144...

Based on my personal experiences, I consider myself as a sponge when it comes to 'logical, connected' sorts of things (i.e. Mathematics, Sciences, and History (the Causes and effects, and such)).

On the other hand, my lack of need for actual studying for any of those led me to bad studying habits... Now foreign language is freaking impossible. I'm good at English classes and spelling/grammar if only because it's my native language... I'm absolutely friggin' lost with Latin. I don't see how other people do it...

[Murska]

I've only taken a partial written test sometime back when I was like 11 and I was being checked for mental illnesses. It was something around 160. O_o

I've taken a couple internet ones in english which put me around 137-142.

[Spiryt]

I was actually quite surprised that the average is 100... Based on this thread, we're far above that.


Well, Raroy is probably right, people with high score will come here to brag, people with low won't. It's not representative at all.

The statistic of this online test I took, indeed show that 100 is about average.



On the other hand, my lack of need for actual studying for any of those led me to bad studying habits... Now foreign language is freaking impossible. I'm good at English classes and spelling/grammar if only because it's my native language... I'm absolutely friggin' lost with Latin. I don't see how other people do it...

Talk to me more. I've never studied as a child, and in result I can't learn stupidest little thing now, if I don't do it out of pure interest. :smallmad:

[Eldan]

You had intelligence test at the recruitment? Around here some guys are just measuring us and looking at our testicles. :smallyuk:

Isn't the military in Switzerland something like training every year etc, not regular "service" anyway? . I'm too lazy for Wiki at the moment.


Our recruitment takes three days, actually. Including medical exams, psychological exams, sports test, intelligence test and some thing to test your leadership capabilities.
And the standard model is a few months basic training followed by repetion courses every few years until you're fifty-something. There's also the option to do the one-year option where you just do all the courses in one piece.

[Lupy]

I don't put much stock in IQ tests.

Mostly because when I took mine, I got scored extraordinarily high because I read and comprehend very quickly, and the logic problems in the kiddie IQ tests are pitiful.

On top of that, people with much lower scores than me do much better in school, which is what actually matters.

[Jimorian]

100 is "average" (actually I think it's technically the mean) by definition.

[Salt_Crow]

The last time I did IQ test was like 10 years ago- and I got 143. So probably now I'm around 120-ish range XD

[Nameless]

I asked my parents what my IQ was a while ago and they said they couldn't remember, but they do remember that it was above average.
Which doesn't help much because I want to know what it is. :smallannoyed:

But now, using teh neterwebz I may finaly know.

EDIT: Aaannd it's in another language. :smallannoyed: :smalltongue:

[Helanna]

Talk to me more. I've never studied as a child, and in result I can't learn stupidest little thing now, if I don't do out of pure interest.

Ugh. I'm another one who never had to expend effort when I was younger, in elementary and middle school. Then high school hit and my GPA dropped like a rock. The classes aren't hard, really, but I'm just far too lazy to do homework, because it never took me long before, and I have very poor study habits now.

Whenever I take IQ tests online, I can never access my scores . . . Hmm. *off to try test*

Edit: Meh, I don't really want to send in for the results, so oh well. My score must remain a mystery . . .

[Anselm]

I have an IQ of 92. I don't really seem to care for IQ tests because I don't believe they are sufficient enough to measure true intelligence. We don't even completely understand the human brain yet. Also, this thread is so just for bragging rights.
I can't help the nagging suspicion that those two things may in some way be linked :smalltongue:
For what it's worth, I feel exactly the same way and I am, generalizing a bit, the sort of person that generally does well on IQ tests -- I enjoy classical logic, math (which I am studying), logic puzzles, and board games based on complex pattern recognition. (The only similar test I have taken is my nation's military mental aptitude test, which was mandatory at the time and on which I scored full marks; if I recall correctly, 9/9, which is obviously good, but as far as I know not particularly exceptional.)

When people ask about someone's IQ, it's generally because they want a simple, numerical answer to the question of "how smart" that person is -- that's why they think this number is more interesting than, say, shoe size, Minesweeper high score or FIDE rating. By asking, they're assuming that such a simple answer exists. I do not know or wish to know my IQ because I don't want to encourage this assumption by answering that question. If someone wants to know "how smart" I am, they should engage me in conversation or examine something I've done or written.

IQ 100 is average per the definition of IQ. When you ask a group of people for their IQs, though, in my experience, you will generally find that the reported average is between 130 and 140. You can observe much the same effect by asking a group of males for the size of their reproductive organs.

Taken together, these two misconceptions about IQ have created a popular impression that anyone with an IQ below 100 is a slobbering idiot. This is utterly false, and is part of why I think the assumption that IQ is meaningful as a representation of general intelligence is harmful. An IQ of approximately 90 merely means that you're slightly worse at logical pattern recognition than the population average, which is hardly the end of the world.

[Spiryt]

EDIT: Aaannd it's in another language. :smallannoyed: :smalltongue:

You change language in up right corner. And the test itself has nothing to do with any language anyway.

[RS14]

I have a nagging suspicion that many IQ tests are designed selected to produce above-average scores. The average person won't care to talk about their low score, but will more readily talk about their above average score. Thus they are more likely to refer others to a test if it skews their score upward, resulting in an abundance of tests which provide "above average" scores. :smallannoyed:

I don't know, though. Maybe I just hang out with smart people.

[InaVegt]

As for my results, they were from proffesional tests held by medical experts as part of getting a diagnosis, taken when I was 6, but these are supposed to be immutable.

[Spiryt]

I have a nagging suspicion that many IQ tests are designed selected to produce above-average scores.

Hmm, maybe, but that's a bit conspiracy theory.

At least by definition they're
standardized test so arranged that exactly half of the people taking it score 100

[RS14]

Hmm, maybe, but that's a bit conspiracy theory.

At least by definition they're "standardized test so arranged that exactly half of the people taking it score 100."

I should be clear that I'm mostly concerned about commercially advertised tests that have little incentive to be accurate.

[SDF]

I think the average IQ for most professional tests has gone up 5 to 10 points in the last several decades. Unless it has some kind of accreditation an online IQ test is less than worthless as an indicator of almost anything. I took the Stanford-Binet my first semester at uni and it was 154, and I think a bonafide genius is something like 162. Of course I could be wrong, and I might be a genius. :smalltongue: I think Pascal had an Stanford-Binet of ~200. At any rate it is enough to get into MENSA if I want, but I don't. It's over $100 a year to join, and from what I hear it is pretty dull at the meetings.

It doesn't really mean a lot to me, though. I've always done well on standardized tests, and when you are 8 years old testing post high school in every subject you question their legitimacy and wonder why the hell you keep having to take them every year... and don't I sound pompous. :smallsigh:

Anyway, my point is they don't indicate something that is practical to most people. I think if anything, and this is purely based on anecdotal evidence, people with high IQ's tend to be more lazy and do less. I'm not exempt from this, though I try. An interesting note is that by using MRI and CT scans scientists can get a [I]very accurate IQ analysis just by the areas that light up, and how fast they light up when stimulated. Of course that gets into some crazy Gattaca gray area where people can be discriminated against due to their DNA. Also, a cool and completely off topic aside is that MRI scans can also be used as a 100% accurate lie detector. You may be able to fake stress, but there is no faking which areas of the brain you use to access information.

[averagejoe]

I always score exactly 100 on IQ tests. :smalltongue:

[Lupy]

I always score exactly 100 on IQ tests. :smalltongue:

You really are [an average Joe] aren't you? :smalltongue:

If any emergency itp ever happens, I bet you'll save us all.

[thubby]

You really are [an average Joe] aren't you? :smalltongue:

If any emergency itp ever happens, I bet you'll save us all.

i believe "average" is between 90 and 110.

I had to take a lot of them as a kid for some reason. the final verdict was 127 back when i was in 6th grade.

but really the tests are quite absurd.

[Wraithy]

I was tested by an educational psychologist last summer, got 122, but it was dragged down by a genuinely awful score on the memory section. Verbal comprehension was 138 though (the top 1% for people my age).

Yeah, they honestly aren't that great (especially when you consider that its quite easy to train for them).

[Copacetic]

I've discovered that people with a low IQ get more accomplished merely because few things come easy to them, therefore they are familiar with the face of challenge. People with high IQ's, or high intelligence, generally do less and just glide. I know I'm guilty of this. I almost never do homework, and when this grade rolled around, my Math grade took an intresting plunge down to the F level.


Well, that's interesting. Acording to an online test, I have an IQ of 106. Barely above average.

[InaVegt]

i believe "average" is between 90 and 110.

I had to take a lot of them as a kid for some reason. the final verdict was 127 back when i was in 6th grade.

but really the tests are quite absurd.

Standard deviation of IQ is 15, which means about 68% of all people have an IQ of 85-115; and 95% of people have an IQ of 70-130.

[Toastkart]

For the Wechsler, the average IQ is between 85 and 115, which means approximately 68% of adults that take the test should score somewhere between those two numbers.

However, the score from an intelligence test is not only a poor indicator of, well, anything, but also the validity of the test itself is pathetic. Pattern recognition and mathematical ability is a very constricted view of what constitutes intelligence, to say the least.

Also, don't forget that most of these intelligence tests were first designed to detect children who were doing poorly in school due to learning disabilities or mental retardation. Their usefulness to average adults is minimal at best.

[thubby]

For the Wechsler, the average IQ is between 85 and 115, which means approximately 68% of adults that take the test should score somewhere between those two numbers.

However, the score from an intelligence test is not only a poor indicator of, well, anything, but also the validity of the test itself is pathetic. Pattern recognition and mathematical ability is a very constricted view of what constitutes intelligence, to say the least.

Also, don't forget that most of these intelligence tests were first designed to detect children who were doing poorly in school due to learning disabilities or mental retardation. Their usefulness to average adults is minimal at best.

it's important to have enough, but lots of it won't buy you much.

[Eldariel]

I've never been officially tested. Online tests generally clock me at 130-150, but they are hardly reliable. I'd wager the real number is around 120-130 (this is a pure guestimate - as I said, I haven't been officially tested at any point in my life); I don't feel like my intellect were vastly superior to others, but in military & high school I noticed that I'm not exactly average either.

[Dogmantra]

I did a written test that was supposedly accurate to 10 points.
I got 148.

Of course, all IQ really is, is ability to reason, spot patterns and suchlike. I think a better name would be RQ (the R standing for Reasoning)

[Wreckingrocc]

The last time I did IQ test was like 10 years ago- and I got 143. So probably now I'm around 120-ish range XD...You know that IQ doesn't drop over time, right? It can fluctuate, but it's based on your age group... Unless you had some mentally damaging accident or disease found, I doubt it would plunge... It's just as likely it would increase.

I think all standardized tests are pretty messed up, though. In Kindergarten, I took a standardized test for my levels in language, mathematics, and the like... I scored at an 8th grade level in my district for math. As a 7 year old.

It was pretty sad.

That said, I also believe the 'average' is just a made-up sort of figurehead for people to feel better than. It's a trick that improves self-esteem, and will probably make the world a slightly happier place. For example, the "Average American" has 100 IQ, and gets a 2.0 GPA... Just like our last president...

Personally, I don't go by the tests. The fact that I can memorize things so easily and recall them long-term is enough for me... Though my short-term memory sucks.

[Don Julio Anejo]

I took WAIS (Wechsler) in grade 8 or 9 and got 142, although I doubt it means very much... See, I tried very hard to be as geeky as possible at that time and a friend of mine made me do anagrams and pattern recognition problems for weeks before I did the actual test. Plus I was in the manic stage of my bipolar and hyped up on coffee...

130 is a more realistic number for me IMO.

...You know that IQ doesn't drop over time, right? It can fluctuate, but it's based on your age group... Unless you had some mentally damaging accident or disease found, I doubt it would plunge... It's just as likely it would increase.
You know of course that that's not true? It does drop as a function of age. However, that's more likely correlated to the decreased amount of schooling and mental effort that people do. As some guy said in class, it's because "young people are in university while old people sit on their porch and do nothing all day."

PS: SDF, sometimes I feel like you have your own MRI machine. I'm jealous.

[GoC]

I have a nagging suspicion that many IQ tests are designed selected to produce above-average scores. The average person won't care to talk about their low score, but will more readily talk about their above average score. Thus they are more likely to refer others to a test if it skews their score upward, resulting in an abundance of tests which provide "above average" scores. :smallannoyed:

That would explain how I got 200+ at age 11 in some online test...
I suspect my current IQ to be around 150.


People with high IQ's, or high intelligence, generally do less and just glide.
So true.:smallfrown:
I've got exams coming up and what am I doing?:smallannoyed:

btw: Second test is ridiculously easy (haven't checked the first), don't believe it's results. €8 for that?:smalleek:

[ghost_warlock]

I've only taken online tests, 3 supposedly 'PhD certified' ones and about a dozen just-for-fun ones. Scores range from 128 to 145; variance probably due mostly to how much emphasis a particular test placed on mathematics (the 145 was one that emphasized social intelligence, language, and spatial relations while the 128 relied mostly on recognizing patterns in numerical sequences and solving equations). I don't put much stock in them since a) every intelligence test is skewed towards certain types of intelligence and b) interweb tests aren't exactly renown for their validity.

I CAN HAZ INTEL-Y-GINCE?

[Lolzords]

Every test I take always says something different, but the most offical IQ test I took said mine was 137, which is ok, I guess.

[Castaras]

132, I think I got. Maybe 138. Can't remember exactly.

IQ tests I don't put any faith in... any intelligence tests really. They're just showing either how much Knowledge you have, which isn't the same as intellect, or how good you are at doing IQ tests. :smalltongue:

[T-O-E]

Yeah, I'm of the opinion that you can't measure intellect.

[UnChosenOne]

From a writen test maded four years ago: litel over 140, I here is result form a Internet test maded at last year: 135 points. Thise results interesting because I'm not one of those top-students that most of "high IQ" guys/girls are (Read: I'm just too damn lazy to read/prepare enuff to tests).

[Cheesegear]

Funny story;
While the 'average' intelligence quotient is 100, that is to say; To function well at most things, you should have an IQ of >100.
The average person has an IQ of around 80-85.

...Well, I think it's funny. And sad. At the same time.

I think there are a few reasons why the scores mentioned are so high
a) 'Online' Tests are not accurate, and tend to skew upwards.
b) This - essentially - is a forum for D&D and D&D-related things. Naturally, most people who appear on this site will identify as a 'nerd' (even if they don't admit it), and thus, be a tad smarter than most people. Even by taking an IQ test voluntarily, you're already 'in the park', so to speak.
c) People with low(er) IQ scores probably wont tell this thread what they are. Naturally, people with high(er) scores, will.

My IQ score, as tested by two separate psychologists on two separate occaisions (so, not the internet :smallwink:), is...Rather good.


Yeah, I'm of the opinion that you can't measure intellect.

Well, that's why IQ tests (as long as they're 'proper tests' and not s*) have many different areas. It tests you on multiple things and which parts of the brain gets used.

While the IQ test isn't 100% accurate, it's a very well educated guess.

[Krytha]

My parents won't tell me my IQ. I'm not particularly interested in finding out either. That being said, I know smart people when I see them.

[Illiterate Scribe]

Stephen Jay Gould screeches through this thread on his motorbike, laughing manically and derisively.

[Dancing_Zephyr]

While the IQ test isn't 100% accurate, it's a very well educated guess.

According to my first year psych prof, the IQ test is a fairly poor psychological test. Results from the test can vary day by day, and the only reason we accept its validity is because the guy who invented it marketed it to the US Government as THE perfect test for intelligence and the Government believed him.

[InaVegt]

Funny story;
While the 'average' intelligence quotient is 100, that is to say; To function well at most things, you should have an IQ of >100.
The average person has an IQ of around 80-85.

...Well, I think it's funny. And sad. At the same time.

It's also blatantly untrue.

IQ tests are explicitly designed so that when a representative group of humans take them the mean average is 100 and the standard deviation is 15.

---

Anyway, I've been doing some statistics related things to make DnD int scores (3d6) and IQ roughly coincide, the result is as follows.

IQ to int:

Subtract 47.5
Divide by 5

int to IQ:

Multiply by 5
add 47.5

--

It's not perfect, but it comes as close as you can get without going into advanced math (assuimg int and IQ directly correlate)

[Quincunx]

[CITATION NEEDED]
(for the entire thread)
(although I respect the statistical work Gezina has already done)

[Felixaar]

I've generally scored anywhere between 120-160 on internet tests, which really only proves how inaccurate they are that someone like me gets high scores.

No, I'm not being self-degrading and begging for compliments :smalltongue: I just don't think I'm particularly knowledgeable... and as for intelligent, well that's just a whole 'nother bag of cats.

[banjo1985]

In the tests I did at college my IQ fluctuated between 135 & 145. It's a pretty poor identifier of intelligence level anyway, it only really tests certain areas while neglecting rather important ones. IQ doesn't measure common sense for example, a lack of which is a big hindrance, as I know from personal experience...:smalleek:

[Trog]

[CITATION NEEDED]
(for the entire thread)
(although I respect the statistical work Gezina has already done)
I lol and agree.

EDIT: @v GET OUTTA MAH CORNER! >.<

[Mordokai]

Took me a couple of these thingies, somewhere in the vicinity of six, I think. Every one gave me different result, but I don't think any of them got over 120. So... *shrugs* looks like I'm one of the dumbest people around here.

*goes to the corner, with "Dunce" cap on his head*

[Rutskarn]

It just shuddered, spat out a vile fluid, and called me, "The Damned One".

I don't think that's a very good score.

[Illiterate Scribe]

No, Rutskarn, that's the average human result.

[Cubey]

[CITATION NEEDED]
(for the entire thread)
(although I respect the statistical work Gezina has already done)

And what exactly is this supposed to mean? Nobody stated here that IQ is Teh Ultimate Way To Measure Intelligence, the OP is asking for people's IQs. You're being disruptive on purpose.

I very dislike the anti-intellectual tendencies that show sometimes on this board. Math/science is hard so it's okay not to understand it even on a basic level, IQ is useless (or alternatively chopped up into categories, like "kinetical intelligence" or "social intelligence" so that everyone can find a category they score high in), intelligent people have no right to show that because it's an "epeen contest", and generally being less smart is portrayed as a GOOD thing. That just boggles me.

My rant aside, I took an official test over 10 years ago, and scored ~125. Internet ones tell me my IQ's around 130-140.

[Rutskarn]

And what exactly is this supposed to mean? Nobody stated here that IQ is Teh Ultimate Way To Measure Intelligence, the OP is asking for people's IQs. You're being disruptive on purpose.

I very dislike the anti-intellectual tendencies that show sometimes on this board. Math/science is hard so it's okay not to understand it even on a basic level, IQ is useless (or alternatively chopped up into categories, like "kinetical intelligence" or "social intelligence" so that everyone can find a category they score high in), intelligent people have no right to show that because it's an "epeen contest", and generally being less smart is portrayed as a GOOD thing. That just boggles me.

My rant aside, I took an official test over 10 years ago, and scored ~125. Internet ones tell me my IQ's around 130-140.

Well, be fair. Tests like these, often unintentionally, give people the impression that they're being judged. Of course they're going to be defensive if they don't like the results.

I, myself, have never taken an IQ test. If I did, the results probably wouldn't be terribly high. The reason I don't feel the need to take one is that it wouldn't tell me anything I don't already know: I'm not stellar at math, I occasionally have trouble visualizing geometry, and I have trouble doing arithmetic under pressure.

As far as the different parts of intelligence go: well, come on, that's Psychology 101. IQ tests are badly labeled--they do only measure one kind of intelligence, and anyone or anything that tells you differently is critically misinformed.

I know where I'm intelligent, and I know where I'm an idiot. I don't, myself, need a test for it. Now, if other people want to take it, and compare results, and be proud of them--more power to them.

[GoC]

[CITATION NEEDED]

Why bother? IQ tests are completely and utterly meaningless.

[Copacetic]

Why bother? IQ tests are completely and utterly meaningless.

This. And they have no relevance on life succes either. I could have an IQ of 86, and be a famous artist.

[Illiterate Scribe]

I very dislike the anti-intellectual tendencies that show sometimes on this board.


We're not at a 'burn the learned' level yet. 'Anti-intellectual tendencies' would seem to imply a broad, calcified feeling that there was something bad about being clever, which, well, you'd need to demonstrate. Not just one or two posts by one or two people.


Math/science is hard so it's okay not to understand it even on a basic level,

The same is largely true of the humanities. If anything, the bias is more against them (although I hastily add that that's just an impression I get, without specific evidence and should be taken as such).


IQ is useless

C'mon, you're not arguing that IQ is an accurate measure of intelligence, surely? What, would you say, intelligence actually was?


(or alternatively chopped up into categories, like "kinetical intelligence" or "social intelligence" so that everyone can find a category they score high in),

As Rutskarn says, it is made up of parts. Bearing on this, I'd be interested to hear your reaction to the above question.


intelligent people have no right to show that because it's an "epeen contest",

Consider one's motives for posting in a thread as to one's IQ. Why would one do such a thing? What benefit could one get from it - on an internet-based, largely pseudonymous forum? A majority of reported IQs have been 130+, as opposed to the ~3% that it would be in an average population. While that might be ascribable to this being a DnD forum, which, I suspect, might have a higher average IQ than the general population, it still arguably represents a bias towards the higher IQs. So, given that the number of high IQ people posting in this thread is disproportionately large, and no practical, real-world benefit can be gained by posting here, why are they doing so?


and generally being less smart is portrayed as a GOOD thing.

Where? I can't see any evidence of that being a 'general' attitude.

[Don Julio Anejo]

More psychology 101. Let me put it this way. Suppose this is a statistically average forum. First 10 or so people post an IQ of ~100. There may be a 110 or an 86 but nothing significantly different.

Then a few people come in and post, say, 135. Now it suddenly seems that the average IQ has gone way up and is now in the 135 range. If your IQ was around ~135, you'd probably post it. If it was around 100, well, you wouldn't post it. Simply because we're biased to only give out information that makes us appear in a favourable light.

Looking stupider than others does NOT make you appear favourable. So chances are you wouldn't post it.

[chiasaur11]

Well, be fair. Tests like these, often unintentionally, give people the impression that they're being judged. Of course they're going to be defensive if they don't like the results.

I, myself, have never taken an IQ test. If I did, the results probably wouldn't be terribly high. The reason I don't feel the need to take one is that it wouldn't tell me anything I don't already know: I'm not stellar at math, I occasionally have trouble visualizing geometry, and I have trouble doing arithmetic under pressure.

As far as the different parts of intelligence go: well, come on, that's Psychology 101. IQ tests are badly labeled--they do only measure one kind of intelligence, and anyone or anything that tells you differently is critically misinformed.

I know where I'm intelligent, and I know where I'm an idiot. I don't, myself, need a test for it. Now, if other people want to take it, and compare results, and be proud of them--more power to them.

See, it's this kind of writing that will get you a solid position as court writing monkey when we geniuses rule the world and you low IQ types are forced to slave away for our amusement.

Or, alternately, if when I take an IQ test my score is low, this sort of thing is exactly why IQ is meaningless and we should ignore those stuck up lunatics with delusions of grandeur. Either way.)

[snoopy13a]

Why bother? IQ tests are completely and utterly meaningless.

IQ tests are meaningless.

However, standardized tests like the SAT, ACT, LSAT, MCAT, GRE, GMAT, ASVAB, etc are meaningful.

My IQ is less than my shoe size :smallsmile:

[Illiterate Scribe]

More psychology 101. Let me put it this way. Suppose this is a statistically average forum. First 10 or so people post an IQ of ~100. There may be a 110 or an 86 but nothing significantly different.

Then a few people come in and post, say, 135. Now it suddenly seems that the average IQ has gone way up and is now in the 135 range. If your IQ was around ~135, you'd probably post it. If it was around 100, well, you wouldn't post it. Simply because we're biased to only give out information that makes us appear in a favourable light.

Looking stupider than others does NOT make you appear favourable. So chances are you wouldn't post it.

Exactly. While I'd contest this being a statistically representative forum, people might put their IQ out because it makes them look good, especially relative to others.

[chiasaur11]

Exactly. While I'd contest this being a statistically representative forum, people might put their IQ out because it makes them look good, especially relative to others.

Well of course you'd say that.

You aren't lucky enough to have an IQ over 500.

[InaVegt]

Well of course you'd say that.

You aren't lucky enough to have an IQ over 500.

My IQ is 9001.

[T-O-E]

Bad meme. Very bad.

[Johnny Blade]

Bad meme. Very bad.
No, no...
Good meme. Very good.

You see, it has just been proven that IQ tests are, indeed, meaningless. After all, if a high IQ means you're highly talented as well, then how come some of the resident geniuses still produce such tired and boring jokes instead of coming up with something original and witty, maybe even actually funny? :smallamused:

[Illiterate Scribe]

Well of course you'd say that.

You aren't lucky enough to have an IQ over 500.

You unmask me sir!

[Llama231]

I took an excessively long one and got 156.:smallamused:

Propbly was not too great of a test, though.

For most of the shorter internet tests that are just questions, I just answer them all right.


I believe that the impossible quiz should be a measure of I.Q.
(Not really.)


Out of curiosity, what is commonly considered the best I.Q. test online?

[Rutskarn]

IQ tests are meaningless.

However, standardized tests like the SAT, ACT, LSAT, MCAT, GRE, GMAT, ASVAB, etc are meaningful.

Meaningful in the sense of can affect your life?

Or meaningful in the sense of this test speaks volumes about your knowledge and who you are as a person?

Because that first one is too right and that second one is too wrong.


My IQ is less than my shoe size :smallsmile:

Well, same here, but I have massive feet. Like, I have a hangar for them. A team of architects spent three weeks and 200,000$ constructing a pair of shoes for them.

[Tengu_temp]

Out of curiosity, what is commonly considered the best I.Q. test online?

That's like asking who's the best tennis player among people with no arms - you will get your answer if you look hard enough, yeah, but it will still be pretty horrible at doing what you're looking for.

[Stormthorn]

IQ 100 is average per the definition of IQ. When you ask a group of people for their IQs, though, in my experience, you will generally find that the reported average is between 130 and 140. You can observe much the same effect by asking a group of males for the size of their reproductive organs.

Indeed.

According to our playground members the average playgorunder is (going by the guide in wikipedia's referance chart page) moderatly to highly gifted. In other words, 90% of you are genius'. I say YOU rather than US because i scored a "mere" 120-something when last i took the test.

My reproductive organ is of average size, btw.

[thubby]

Where? I can't see any evidence of that being a 'general' attitude.

just look at the heroes of the world. with exception they're brutes (superman), fighting an intellectual (lex luthor). where the power of (insert emotion) triumphs over some villains cold, calculated plan.

but maybe I'm looking too far into it.

[Trizap]

eh, I wish I could find my true IQ but given this thread's pointing out that they are inaccurate and all that, I can't really take them as the tests won't measure it accurately, therefore I can't really take it because the result won't truly measure my intelligence, and I want something accurate, but nothing is so maybe I should just be happy I have above average intellect like everyone here.......and go think up of some crazy yet plausible mad science idea that is based on real physics yet is somehow outrageous......

[ghost_warlock]

@Stormthorn: Mine is rather small. :smallfrown: To compensate, I'm harvesting other peoples' and building a gigantic one with them in my basement. :smallamused:

@Trizap: You may as well be looking for the true meaning of life. The search will be long, exhaustive, and once you have your answer, you'll probably end having to go find out what the question was.

[SilverSheriff]

if anything you should get verbally abused by the very Online IQ test you just took for caring so much as to take an IQ test written up by a bunch of idiots who don't truly understand what intelligence Quotient really is, but not caring enough to go get it done by professionals...:smallsigh:

[Alleine]

I don't really understand IQ for most of the reasons already pointed out in this thread. It also doesn't seem to matter too much, since no one ever asks you what your IQ is, and I have yet to find a situation where anyone even brings up IQ outside of threads like these.
That and the fact that these tests always want me to give them something I really don't think is necessary. You wanna find out your IQ? Well, just give us some money, or your number, or your address. Spamming people is fun, whee!

[Cubey]

Late response, but here I go.


We're not at a 'burn the learned' level yet. 'Anti-intellectual tendencies' would seem to imply a broad, calcified feeling that there was something bad about being clever, which, well, you'd need to demonstrate. Not just one or two posts by one or two people.
Each time there is a thread dedicated to something intellectual (Science Day, some calculations, help with homework), there will be at least several people posting in veins of either "This is hard, my brain is melting! :smallsmile:" or "this is useless in real life anyway, you don't have to be smart to accomplsh something :smallamused:". Yes, with smilies. That way it looks less anti-intellectual at the first glance, it seems.



The same is largely true of the humanities. If anything, the bias is more against them (although I hastily add that that's just an impression I get, without specific evidence and should be taken as such).

And what I just described never happened for threads related to humanities and subjects related to them. Or at least I've never seen a response like that.



C'mon, you're not arguing that IQ is an accurate measure of intelligence, surely? What, would you say, intelligence actually was?

It is not an accurate way of measuring intelligence, but it helps measure some cognititive abilities. So it is not completely meaningless.



As Rutskarn says, it is made up of parts. Bearing on this, I'd be interested to hear your reaction to the above question.

Yes, but I mean examples where intelligence is chopped up into so many little parts, many of which shouldn't be called intelligence or even a mental ability at all, in order to reassure people that they are smart in something. "My kinetical intelligence is high!" - no, you're just good at sports/movement.



Consider one's motives for posting in a thread as to one's IQ. Why would one do such a thing? What benefit could one get from it - on an internet-based, largely pseudonymous forum? A majority of reported IQs have been 130+, as opposed to the ~3% that it would be in an average population. While that might be ascribable to this being a DnD forum, which, I suspect, might have a higher average IQ than the general population, it still arguably represents a bias towards the higher IQs. So, given that the number of high IQ people posting in this thread is disproportionately large, and no practical, real-world benefit can be gained by posting here, why are they doing so?

For social interaction. It's a topic to talk about. And this interaction gets disrupted by posts that state "this is thread is useless! IQ sucks, dumb is good, good is dumb!"



Where? I can't see any evidence of that being a 'general' attitude.
Many cases in real life, but we're talking about the forum. What I've written at the start of this post already makes a good point, but an even better one would be people coming to this thread and showing that they are proud of their low IQ scores. IQ is not an accurate way of measuring intelligence, yes we agree on that. But that doesn't mean one should be proud of their shortcomings. Not ashamed, yes, but also willing to work on them and not go all "it's a part of me so I'll leave it be lol".

[Surfing HalfOrc]

Meh, I don't know about how valid an IQ test can be, without a valid definition of what intellegence is, and how to test it with a culture neutral test.

That being said, I took one of those online tests 6-8 years ago, and scored a 148. I also took the Military ASVAB test about 25 years ago, and scored a 72. That was a good score back then, but they've changed the test a bit over the years.

I went to college, earned a BA in History and Political Science, and a Master's in Education (Secondary Education), but was not able to get a teaching job since I didn't have a year of unpaid student teaching. I also didn't want to pack my family up and move us to a more Troops to Teachers friendly state, and ended up quitting teaching to work with ammunition. None of the fun, twice the money... :smallannoyed:

[averagejoe]

LYes, but I mean examples where intelligence is chopped up into so many little parts, many of which shouldn't be called intelligence or even a mental ability at all, in order to reassure people that they are smart in something. "My kinetical intelligence is high!" - no, you're just good at sports/movement.

I don't care yet to comment on the rest of your post-you actually bring up some points that I haven't thought about, and I'm not sure yet what I think about it-in this case I think you're underestimating the amount of mental ability that goes into sports. Coordination, reflexes, and the discipline to will yourself through pain and fatigue are all mental processes without which one would be very poor at physical activities, and that's only mentioning the inherent mental requirements and not mental techniques that make one better at sports and such. There is a physical component as well, but in general body/mind is a false schism.

[Quincunx]

Cubey, please correlate my request for references with your claim of my disdain for intellectual rigor. I don't believe you'll be able to do so. (Now this statement, formulated as a 'put up or shut up' challenge to a specific person i.e. you instead of a gentle, undifferentiated nudge to all respondents to support their claims--that is disruptive!)

The standardized tests given to the entire population are less meaningful in and of themselves than a number with meanings inferred. IQ/SAT/ACT and the like, the strength of which comes from the large and diverse population taking them, ought to be used more for generally sorting folk from that diverse population than drawing conclusions about the individual test-takers. As the people on this board have a majority of <25 years and schooling leading towards university, SAT / ACT participant pool might overlap enough with ours to be used to sort us; better yet, practice tests for those are available from a single traceable source, and we won't have to worry about variant tests and fluctuations in the difficulty as we do with created-on-a-whim internet IQ tests. Its weaknesses would be familiarity (Americans are familiar with it and others are not), the emphasis on step-by-step logic (whereas many of the IQ tests I've seen rely on your ability to make connections, or logical leaps, or lateral thinking, call it what you will), and the sheer time required to take even a trimmed-down practice version of the tests.

Ideally, I'd like to see us all marched through an rigorous aptitude test from a broad population with which we are almost all unfamiliar--say, an entrance exam to military service--then compare and sort ourselves according to those results. There may be as much prejudice against that in our 'intellectual' circles as there is against the IQ test in non-intellectual ones, and if so, then the prejudices can cancel one another out and jolly for them.

In conclusion: while intelligence may have been what I used to analyze the rigor of the data collection in this thread and the usefulness of various tests in sorting folk, wisdom was was Randall Munroe used to summarize it all in two words (http://www.xkcd.org/285/).

[Don Julio Anejo]

Nitpick: IQ tests don't measure your intelligence. They measure your IQ. What's IQ? The result you get on an IQ test. Closed loop, I know...

Yes, there is a correlation between, say, IQ and school performance but it doesn't imply causation (as in having high IQ makes you better in school, it could just as easily be the other way around) and the correlation itself is only 25% (r=0.25).

@ Quincunx: step-by-step logic is easily trainable. Hell, you can almost train a monkey to do it. Given enough time anyone will be able to solve this type of problem, making it pretty much useless as a measure of intelligence. The only way to get a meaningful result using it would be to measure the amount of time it takes people to do step-by-step logic problems and use THAT as a measure of intelligence.

Lateral logic, on the other hand, is more or less inborn and not trainable since it depends on your speed of processing. This makes it easier to use to calculate someone's, well, IQ. A person will either make a connection or they won't. Easy binary answer. In general most people will get easy questions and only some people will get hard questions. If it's a good test, those who get hard questions will also get high overall scores.

EDIT: sorry, realized you did put down the emphasis on step-by-step logic as a weakness, but don't want to change what I wrote since it's still relevant to the discussion at hand.

PS: the IQ is an attempt to quantify a person's INBORN, BIOLOGICAL intelligence so anything that can be trainable is potentially a bad measure of IQ because then it measures the quality of training instead of inborn intelligence.

[Khanderas]

I get online IQ scored os 130+ (with the offer to sell me a diploma, hilariously enough).
I scored in the University test (a way to get into university regarless of grades) in the top 5% (of who takes that test, one has to assume the worst idiots dont even try).

I am still an idiot.

[Quincunx]

Thanks for preserving the post, Don Julio Anejo. I hadn't examined my logic from the opposite direction nor had I realized that the lateral logic was something the IQ tests had in common.

Personal results: If it matters, my brain is one of those that, given a lateral logic problem which implies that the answer lies sideways in a second dimension of thought, tends to invent a third direction in which to solve it. This has been classified as "very annoying" by the test givers, which I take to mean I can't even stay on the implied railroad tracks. "Very annoying" answers can't be properly scored, either. :smallyuk:

[GoC]

Out of curiosity, what is commonly considered the best I.Q. test online?

The self-referential aptitude test.

[The Rose Dragon]

I will echo the statements of those who probably say IQ is meaningless.

I've had several IQ tests over time, most of them online. The lowest score I had was 156, the highest I had (the only real life IQ test administered) was 180+.

I have the intellect of a cucumber.

You do the math.

[Johnny Blade]

Obviously, this means cucumbers are secretly plotting against humanity, undetected by us because of their superior intellect.

Another reason for vegetarianism.

[chiasaur11]

Obviously, this means cucumbers are secretly plotting against humanity, undetected by us because of their superior intellect.

Another reason for vegetarianism.

No, that's part of their plan.

Just shoot them.

[Don Julio Anejo]

Yes but see, the more vegetarians there are, the more cucumbers we have to grow.

Kids, don't let evil nazi cucumbers take over the world! Don't eat your vegetables.

[Trizap]

Personal results: If it matters, my brain is one of those that, given a lateral logic problem which implies that the answer lies sideways in a second dimension of thought, tends to invent a third direction in which to solve it. This has been classified as "very annoying" by the test givers, which I take to mean I can't even stay on the implied railroad tracks. "Very annoying" answers can't be properly scored, either. :smallyuk:

my brain does that too. only mine invents fourth and fifth directions to solve it instead of a third.

[Trizap]

Yes but see, the more vegetarians there are, the more cucumbers we have to grow.

Kids, don't let evil nazi cucumbers take over the world! Don't eat your vegetables.

instead, have an american cheeseburger! the food of the free man!

[chiasaur11]

Thanks for preserving the post, Don Julio Anejo. I hadn't examined my logic from the opposite direction nor had I realized that the lateral logic was something the IQ tests had in common.

Personal results: If it matters, my brain is one of those that, given a lateral logic problem which implies that the answer lies sideways in a second dimension of thought, tends to invent a third direction in which to solve it. This has been classified as "very annoying" by the test givers, which I take to mean I can't even stay on the implied railroad tracks. "Very annoying" answers can't be properly scored, either. :smallyuk:

Reminds me of the Cryptonomicon bit with Waterhouse and the military IQ test.

He took hours on the first question to explore every possible implication. He flunked all the way into band, but his answer did get published in a major academic journal.

[Groundhog]

I took an online IQ test a few years ago...It said that my IQ was 159, which was in the "genius" bracket. Now, while I would like to believe that I am that smart, I've got a feeling that my score was inflated by the fact that I'm a very visual person, and online IQ tests favor visual people. (most of the questions are visual ones, since auditory and kinesthetic ones aren't exactly an option)

[Knaight]

I usually score in the 150-170 range. That said, I view IQ tests as a sort of low quality interactive entertainment, and tend to find ways to get a lot of the available answers on stuff like letter patterns, then just go for the one that is simplest. Its a skill IB(the international baccalaureate program, which I won't comment more on due to forum rules about profanity) taught me. We have no good way to quantify intelligence, they are supposed to measure how far below average you are, and fall apart at above average, but then they don't catch savants either, and in general don't work. I consider them the second least accurate way of measuring intelligence, right after grades, which aren't even intended to measure intelligence, but are viewed that way. They are supposed to measure a combination of effort and intelligence, and in practice measure a combination of effort, ability to ignore propaganda, how much crap one takes for who they are (people bullied in school for homosexuality typically lose .4 GPA, due to the bullying, and avoidance of school), and of course money.

To put things in perspective. We can't actually pin down the strength of a particular muscle well, as lifts and such designed to test them always involve others as well. We understand how muscles work to a much greater extent than the mind. If we can't accurately measure strength of a particular muscle, or even overall, then why should one believe that our ways of measuring mental capability are any better, particularly given that they aren't even highly consistent. With our current knowledge as a species, measuring intelligence of a human with any degree of accuracy is impossible. A written test isn't going to do it. Of course, this is coming from somebody who is extremely bothered by how complex, living, people, are being reduced to nothing more than a collection of various numbers in the eyes of governments, education systems, etc. So I have an agenda to push, and might do so subconsciously.