What is your IQ?
- Thread starter Zap Rowsdower
- Start date
I've never known my IQ. (And that one OP posted wants all your private details so screw that)
I do remember last time I played Kurushi/Itelligent Cube my IQ was in the 100s, but I reckon that's gone down now. Actually I'll make sure.
(Bangs head on desk)
102
(Bangs head on desk)
97
(Bangs head on coffee cup)
89
(Bangs head on dog)
70
Thare he goo. Thet's aboot avareuuge.
I do remember last time I played Kurushi/Itelligent Cube my IQ was in the 100s, but I reckon that's gone down now. Actually I'll make sure.
(Bangs head on desk)
102
(Bangs head on desk)
97
(Bangs head on coffee cup)
89
(Bangs head on dog)
70
Thare he goo. Thet's aboot avareuuge.
Ah ,I see, my test didn't place an average on IQ, just gave me a number. My personal highest percentile was 98th in passage comprehension.Monkeyman8 said:
My second highest, curiously enough, was 92nd... in processing speed...
Although my lowest was 4th, in math, but I hate math anyways so I don't really care.
I had an IQ test taken when I was being diagnosed with aspergers syndrom.
Apparently my IQ was rated at 152 which is supposed to be above average intelligence, so I'm pretty happy with that.
Apparently my IQ was rated at 152 which is supposed to be above average intelligence, so I'm pretty happy with that.
You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of what intelligence is. Knowledge does not equal intelligence, never has done and never will. Intelligence is how fast the neurons in your brain transmit signals to each other, or more simply, the speed at which you process information, and that *is* something that you can transfer to real life, help you cope with the pressure of those external factors.drdamo said:
Sounds like you're bitter about not getting in to the smart boy's club. Trust me, it's nothing special.
Took a test at Danish Mensa and scored 134 sd9, which I think is 152 at sd16, I don't remember, and I don't really know how they add the scores. They told me I was a 3%'er and that's 1% shy of a membership. I still think that pretty good for a dyscalculic(math disability) although the test was mostly about pattern recognition.
For the people in the 160+ I'm assuming that's at sd15 or sd16 (they give the highest scores), right? That or some flimsy on-line test. If not stop wasting your time on internet forums and invent either warp-drive or infinite improbability-drive. I want to get of this rock.
For the people in the 160+ I'm assuming that's at sd15 or sd16 (they give the highest scores), right? That or some flimsy on-line test. If not stop wasting your time on internet forums and invent either warp-drive or infinite improbability-drive. I want to get of this rock.
134 here, and in response to why we're all over the 100 average.
There's youtube's comments section balancing things out for us
There's youtube's comments section balancing things out for us
On an officially regulated test proctored by a professional psychologist and educational specialist, I get a range starting at 110 and ending at 138. On a stupid online test, about 180 or higher. Both are stupid.
The problem with IQ tests is there are too many different types to:
a) have it quantifiably mean ANYTHING aprt from how well you performed on a given test
b) have your score mean anything in comparison to others who took a different test.
Look, I generally score quite high on any IQ test I ever do. I've been given different types of tests over the years and always perform well. But there's no point. It doesn't measure anything useful. On top of that if I say I scored 180 on a test, I'll be told "well that's not possible, you'd be 25% smarter than Stephen Hawking" which i'm not, but then again on that same test Hawking might get a 250 or something.
If I took a test that handed out points at the lower end of the scale and earn myself a perfectly decent 120, people will sneer at my average intelligence becase of their scores of 160 - on a different test.
The point is until intelligence researchers actually settle on one test type, one scoring system and one IQ measuremant scale, the test results mean nothing.
Even then, all it means is that you were the one with the most correct answers on that test. Which could just as easily be the result of dumb luck.
/rant
a) have it quantifiably mean ANYTHING aprt from how well you performed on a given test
b) have your score mean anything in comparison to others who took a different test.
Look, I generally score quite high on any IQ test I ever do. I've been given different types of tests over the years and always perform well. But there's no point. It doesn't measure anything useful. On top of that if I say I scored 180 on a test, I'll be told "well that's not possible, you'd be 25% smarter than Stephen Hawking" which i'm not, but then again on that same test Hawking might get a 250 or something.
If I took a test that handed out points at the lower end of the scale and earn myself a perfectly decent 120, people will sneer at my average intelligence becase of their scores of 160 - on a different test.
The point is until intelligence researchers actually settle on one test type, one scoring system and one IQ measuremant scale, the test results mean nothing.
Even then, all it means is that you were the one with the most correct answers on that test. Which could just as easily be the result of dumb luck.
/rant
You're missing the most important part of scoring well on IQ tests - it gives you a number higher than most other people's. IN YOUR FACE, LOWER NUMBERED PEOPLE!Kermi said:
I took a real test when I was 10-ish, and I was apparently 143. Not sure how that's carried out to today though. Really, it doesn't matter to me. As long as I can continue to have intelligent debates and understand 99% of what's thrown at me without explanation, I could have an IQ of 2 for all I care.