Intelligence Quotient
- Thread starter Kushin
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Ok then, your sadistic - I'll try and sum it up.lostclause said:
Effectively IQ tests were originally designed to test if you were mentally ill, thats it. They test your puzzle solving skills to a degree, your maths solving skills to a degree - that's really about it.
IQ tests cannot be used to accurately predict a persons intelligence because they are flawed by design anyway. They simply test how good you are at IQ tests - if I took 5 IQ tests and got an "average" score of say 100. Then I came back the next day and took another set of 5 and scored 120 - would I have gotten smart overnight? No.
I would have got better at answering the questions themselves - its possible for anyone to have a high IQ if they practise with tests because there are only a certain type of questions asked.
IQ tests also only test certain skills, therefore they cannot accurately foretell a person intelligence to any degree, not to mention the large number of different mental and physical factors that come into account like in all exams. Those with extremely high IQ's may well be intelligent because they have a vastly superior puzzle solving ability. But we are talking 170+ anything below that means nothing and anyone on this site that claims to have anything about 130 is obviously (hopefully) joking...
[/rant]
I'm going to have put a pin in your balloon by saying that D_987 used the Edit button.Gorbek said:
Thanks for the discussion guys. I honestly dont care to an extreme degree about my IQ, I'm just curious as to how far I go in terms of IQ. I'm pretty whacked out most of the time but my teachers say that If I push myself, I'm among Genii.
To be honest, living up to parental expectations thanks to said teachers is becoming hard. Not epic sob story hard, just enough to piss you off. I want to find out once and for all just how much of the crap teachers have been spouting has been truthful
On most of the internet IQ tests (those oh so reliable friends), I've been scoring 140-150. This is just me wanting to look and see. The curiosity has got the better of me.
I took one around two years ago (I was 13) and I think I got 128, 124 or 135 or something. One of those numbers I think.
I've never had it tested, but many people, including multiple doctors, teachers, and other brilliant people have estimated my IQ somewhere between 170 and 190. And to whomever says "You must be lying", you know you're all just jealous.
There's no such thing as an accurate IQ test. All available IQ tests fail to account for upbringing, culture, aptitude, etc.
maybe because your aunts and uncles make the tests, they probably know the answers too.Joshimodo said:
The average is 100, actually. And that's a constant average. Regardless of how super-intelligent the human race gets, the average IQ will always be 100 [http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fil:IQ_curve.png].crudus said:
Not really [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cattell_Culture_Fair_III]. Serious tests are adapted to be culture-fair to avoid such differences (for example by the use of shapes and patterns rather than numbers).canadamus_prime said:
As for the numbers, saying your IQ is X means nothing if you don't specify which scale it's measured in. There are a large number of available scales, and a 131 on the Wechsler-scale is equal to a 148 on the Cattell-scale. The main difference between the scales in terms of numbers is the standard deviation. Wechsler uses 15 (as in average = 100, plus/minus 15) and Cattell uses 24 (average = 100 plus/minus 24). A better way of saying it, in order to avoid confusion, is to state in what percentage you end up.
I will use this poster as a representative of internet-testers... Because I assume you took a test on the internet, since you said you were 13 when you did it. And it costs a lot of money (around $200-300 on average, depending on your country) to take a standardized, real test when you're under 18 years of age. This is because there are usually special regulations that say minors require a form of therapy along with the actual test, to make sure no harmful consequences come from the testing.crazyhaircut94 said:
I'll also say that anyone that ever says their IQ is above 160 is an absolute, straight-out liar. Because on no scale currently in existance is it at all possible to accurately measure IQ on that level. This is because the "test-group" needs to be larger and larger for every IQ-point the test measures, since the IQ measures a global average. An IQ of 131 on the Wechsler scale is only reached by 2% of the world's population. So to accurately measure an IQ of 131, you need to have at least 2000-3000 test subjects to base the result on. If you want to measure an IQ of 140, you'd need at least around 10 000 test subjects to get a somewhat accurate result. And the number increases exponentially for every IQ point, since the amount of people that reach the number gets smaller and smaller.
Now, to finish this little essay off, I'll answer the actual question posed by the OP.
Mensa [http://www.mensa.org/]'s national departments usually have a "mini-test" up on their website. They aren't completely reliable, as they aren't monitored or as well-tested as the supervised, live tests, but they're a lot better than the random feel-good tests you can find littering the internet.Kushin said:
Personally, I am a member of Mensa Sweden and have an IQ of 131 Wechsler/133 Stanford/149 Cattell, which means I'm part of the top 2%... Which also makes me one of the dumbest people in Mensa, since I only barely made the cut-off. Since I know this statement will be met by doubt, I present to you a picture of my membership card. If that's not enough, I guess I could take a picture of the test result as well.
