Poll: Do you know your IQ? What is it?
- Thread starter SomeBritishDude
- Start date
Recommended Videos
When I was hired on to my present job they gave us all a series of tests. Since its an oil refinery the mechanical aptitude made sense but I didn't recognize the name of the other. I now realize that they gave us all an IQ test and just called it a Stanford Binet. I did well and got hired, but I seriously question whether or not they should be able give us IQ tests as part of the hiring process.
Maybe, as a child, you should have read a book on grammar before you started carrying around that huge dictionary. Technically a dictionary is a book, so your teacher's admired you for carrying around a huge book? I think saying that you had a huge vocabulary would have been more appropriate. I was tested at 14 because I was bored with school and was cutting to get high so I would not be bored. I received an 148 as well. They had to classify me as special education so that I could go to night school 4 times a week were I would do all my work in about an hour. I got straight As, except for in Math which was my weakest subject. And I was either tripping out on DXM or stoned as a mother on some haze almost everyday. I was even high when I took my IQ test, so does that mean it's higher when I'm sober?Abedeus said:
Yeah, I remember taking a test for that once. I think I also got about 118, but I'll have to check. I dunno, I was one of the two highest-scorers in my school. Then again this was back in grade 4. It's actually rather annoying though cause now I have an IEP (Individual Education Plan, as they are called in Canada) which is supposed to allow me to be more challenged in school work, but I honestly hate it and wish I didn't get it. I don't even get great marks because I rarely study. Motivation is more of a problem for me than intelligence. It's just a waste of time and all the extra forms and stuff piss me off.Lyiat said:
*checks through pile of papers* I did this IQ test from FunEducation once because I was bored. I scored 131 on it. Course, it says it's not technically valid and actually has a category for 144+ scores, so I don't think it really counts.antipunt said:
Same here, in the math area of a IQ test, I would do horrible in math above 7th grade without straining my thoughts. I took a random IQ test that consisted of 30 questions and scored 128, but I doubt thats accurate. Ah well I don't care I just felt like posting a number to feel special for a few moments.Vlane said:
IQ tests only prove how good you are at doing IQ tests.
I don't remember what mine is. I only ever took one. It was around 124, I think, and I missed the first part of the test. I'd be kind of proud of myself if I didn't know the test doesn't prove anything.
I don't remember what mine is. I only ever took one. It was around 124, I think, and I missed the first part of the test. I'd be kind of proud of myself if I didn't know the test doesn't prove anything.
I took the WAIS twice not too long ago, and once 5 years ago. I'm at 137, which is above average.
Presently, 104 is the middle. Anything over 146 is considered highly gifted, and anyone who says they have a recorded IQ of 160+ on here is flat-out lying, otherwise I'd have seen their name somewhere (since that falls into the category of gifted people who are tracked due to their unusually high IQ). Having an unrecorded IQ test doesn't count for anything.
You need to take the IQ test more than once, over a period of time. Once is not an accurate measure, twice is barely suitable, and three times is usually appropriate for a more on-spot score.
Presently, 104 is the middle. Anything over 146 is considered highly gifted, and anyone who says they have a recorded IQ of 160+ on here is flat-out lying, otherwise I'd have seen their name somewhere (since that falls into the category of gifted people who are tracked due to their unusually high IQ). Having an unrecorded IQ test doesn't count for anything.
You need to take the IQ test more than once, over a period of time. Once is not an accurate measure, twice is barely suitable, and three times is usually appropriate for a more on-spot score.
Maybe. But i just had to listen to one to many whiney "I am so much better than them and they should clearly know it, so why ddon't they love me?" arguements over that last week, and it has come to the point where I have to make a concious effeort not to vomit on said persons. The mensa web sight have entire forums where these people can sit around all day and love themselves while feeling disfortunate and cheated, with terribly underappreciate gifts to humanity from god brains. it is REALLY SO SO SO unfair for poor you. I am sorry for being insensitive to the point causing you anykind of middle school tramatic flash back or anything. Note: this also applies to any woman with a terrible personality and is horrbily lazy that insists that she got fired because her boss thinks she was prettier than her. Cause really, that has to be it. Too many other examples exist, but i assume you get the jist of my frustration. Then again, if stamping me a troll works as a sort of disclaimer for you to act in said manner and feel good and whiney at the same time, then go swallow something spoiled and sharp, then puke on yourself to save me the effort.
ALSO NOTE: I was directing my previous comment toward 60% of the whiney posters (if you actually care to actually read what you comment on) not 60% of the posters. Nor was I saying 60% of the poster are whiney. Decide yourself which posters you feel are whiney, my comment is directed at 60% of them. Now please stop crying into my mail box.
ALSO NOTE: I was directing my previous comment toward 60% of the whiney posters (if you actually care to actually read what you comment on) not 60% of the posters. Nor was I saying 60% of the poster are whiney. Decide yourself which posters you feel are whiney, my comment is directed at 60% of them. Now please stop crying into my mail box.
Sorry guys, I was attempting to quote this guy who put all many of noise in my message box.
Randomologist:
Figrut:
You think any of it had to do with your elitist jackass attitude? *directed at 60% of the whiney posters, especially those with "big dictionaries"*
You're calling 60% of us jackasses? That pretty much makes you a Troll, at least 60% of one
I'm with the disbelievers here, I haven't seen any comprehensive IQ tests out there. I saw one which was logic-based, where I scored highly. Another was based upon remembering sequences and images, where I pretty much scored the same as a regular goldfish.
On Test The Nation, an IQ test broadcast by the BBC annually, I last scored 129, and the one before that 146- so clearly, there is a significant amount of leeway there.
Randomologist:
Figrut:
You think any of it had to do with your elitist jackass attitude? *directed at 60% of the whiney posters, especially those with "big dictionaries"*
You're calling 60% of us jackasses? That pretty much makes you a Troll, at least 60% of one
I'm with the disbelievers here, I haven't seen any comprehensive IQ tests out there. I saw one which was logic-based, where I scored highly. Another was based upon remembering sequences and images, where I pretty much scored the same as a regular goldfish.
On Test The Nation, an IQ test broadcast by the BBC annually, I last scored 129, and the one before that 146- so clearly, there is a significant amount of leeway there.
..... I know my IQ varies each time I take an IQ test.
So, it musn't be a very reliable figure.
So, it musn't be a very reliable figure.