What is your I.Q?

Recommended Videos

Omikron009

New member
May 22, 2009
3,817
0
0
I was formally tested by the British Columbia ministry of education over the course of many, many weeks, and the final average of all of the various tests was....

151. Yeah, I'm a goddamn genius.

I like to say this, even though I know that IQ is by no means an accurate representation of how intelligent someone truly is.
 

Lullabye

New member
Oct 23, 2008
4,425
0
0
I think I'm 110-116. But last time i tested was years ago and I was actually much more intelligent then than I am now. I know more, but it's getting harder for me to think.
 

aPod

New member
Jan 14, 2010
1,102
0
0
Very... very low.

I dont even know how i can read and writes its a miracle.
 

GRoXERs

New member
Feb 4, 2009
749
0
0
I got a 134 on the OLSAT, back in 3rd grade. It's not the most accurate test, but whatever. I don't really care enough to take one of the more accurate (and expensive) ones. I'm as smart as I am and my IQ is not going to increase, so learning what it is carries no material benefit.

I don't really like any of the MENSA members I know, so I'm not very eager to join that particular organization even if I could.

ramsies said:
Reported. Dude, you claim an IQ of 135 and you repost that shit?

EDIT: Oh wait, it was kindergarten, not third grade.
Damn, I'm getting old.
 

Nomad

Dire Penguin
Aug 3, 2008
616
0
0
SimuLord said:
Point of the matter is that the IQ test's variability (even among individual subjects over multiple tests), its rather narrow and foolhardy definition of "intelligence" (where an idiot savant like myself can score astoundingly well whilst simultaneously frequently being the dumbest person in a room), and the tendency of people to ascribe some sort of gods-given caste system placement to it makes me not just skeptical of it, but of the belief that the statement "The IQ test is a valid measure of intelligence" is a Type II statistical error: failure to reject a false hypothesis.
Properly standardized IQ tests actually do not vary significantly in their estimation. Raven's Advanced Progressive Matrices, for example, correlates on a level of 0.9 with the Figure Reasoning Test if I remember correctly. The margin of error for a standardized test is in the vicinity of 4 points Wechsler... And even then, that variation is very rare.

The Savant syndrome is actually an interesting point. It is one of the few valid criticisms I have seen towards the G-factor. However, I would like to claim that the Savant syndrome doesn't really contradict the theory, but merely means there's a part of the equation that's missing. One could say that the Savant syndrome is a representation of when you have all your eggs pooled in one basket, so to speak. Your general aptitude will still be very high, but your mind is specialized in a certain area to such an extent that other abilities suffer as a result. If I have ten pieces of candy in one hand, and two in the other, I still have more total pieces of candy than if I had had five in each hand. The Savant syndrome happens to be one of my blind spots, however, so I can't go into detail as to why the resources have been pooled. I do know that this matter is something that has caused some confusion in the world of psychology, though. But remember - a strong G-factor doesn't mean you'll excell in everything you do, it only increases the statistical likelihood.

One could put it this way - IQ correlates heavily with intelligence and general aptitude, but that is not implying it is the cause of it. The causation is, however, largely irrelevant when deciding the validity of the IQ concept - because as long as the correlation is there, it remains a useful instrument. And the correlation has been proven time and again to be very high. There might very well be another factor that does impact on the causation, however, that explains the Savant syndrome.

I fully agree that the tendency to ascribe human value to IQ is laughable at best. Intelligence is one attribute among a multitude. I have never encountered anyone who believes people have less human value if they're bad at football, so I've never understood why you would have less human value if you're bad at abstraction.

Omikron009 said:
I was formally tested by the British Columbia ministry of education over the course of many, many weeks, and the final average of all of the various tests was....

151. Yeah, I'm a goddamn genius.

I like to say this, even though I know that IQ is by no means an accurate representation of how intelligent someone truly is.
"All the various tests"? There really aren't that many standardized tests out there, because as I mentioned previously, it's a financial and organisational hell to assemble a sufficient test population and properly evaluate the questions. I also know of no standardized test that takes several weeks. The most time-consuming test I know of is RAPM, which takes a couple of hours at most. Extending the test over a longer period of time would simply make no sense, as the nature of IQ tests is that you're supposed to "instantly" know the answers upon seeing the question. As a general rule of thumb, if you don't know the answer after 15 seconds, you never will. Each question is a form of "stepping stone". Either it's above your ability, or beneath it.

GRoXERs said:
I don't really like any of the MENSA members I know, so I'm not very eager to join that particular organization even if I could.
Sadly, this seems to be a rather common sentiment. I wonder if we're just terribly arrogant, or if it's an expression of the tall poppy syndrome. That said, I was very pleasantly surprised upon joining Mensa. The other members understand my way of thinking in a way I never really thought possible - I honestly didn't know what I was missing before experiencing it. It's like there's been this mental barrier between me and the rest of the world for all my life, and suddenly that barrier isn't there anymore. One of the things IQ correlates with is social interaction - people with similar IQs have a significantly easier time socializing with eachother than people with differing IQs. Although you may have completely different opinions and morals, and come to different conclusions, you share a common pattern in the way you think. You can understand their reasoning, and they can understand yours. If you are among the top 2%, I advise you to give it a try. I can almost guarantee you it will be a very rewarding experience. And for anyone that's not part of the 2%, but belong in another range, I can recommend taking a standardized test and seeking out an organisation that caters to your specific range. There are many, many other organizations than Mensa that focus on this attribute. We just happen to be the most "mainstream" one.

I feel it's important for me to point out that the cutoff isn't an expression of elitism, but rather a necessity. The organization would lose its purpose if the cutoff didn't exist. One of Mensa Sweden's former chairmen once said that Mensa was a "refuge for mental deviants". I think that quote does a rather good job describing how I feel about it.
 

Omikron009

New member
May 22, 2009
3,817
0
0
Nomad said:
SimuLord said:
Point of the matter is that the IQ test's variability (even among individual subjects over multiple tests), its rather narrow and foolhardy definition of "intelligence" (where an idiot savant like myself can score astoundingly well whilst simultaneously frequently being the dumbest person in a room), and the tendency of people to ascribe some sort of gods-given caste system placement to it makes me not just skeptical of it, but of the belief that the statement "The IQ test is a valid measure of intelligence" is a Type II statistical error: failure to reject a false hypothesis.
Properly standardized IQ tests actually do not vary significantly in their estimation. Raven's Advanced Progressive Matrices, for example, correlates on a level of 0.9 with the Figure Reasoning Test if I remember correctly. The margin of error for a standardized test is in the vicinity of 4 points Wechsler... And even then, that variation is very rare.

The Savant syndrome is actually an interesting point. It is one of the few valid criticisms I have seen towards the G-factor. However, I would like to claim that the Savant syndrome doesn't really contradict the theory, but merely means there's a part of the equation that's missing. One could say that the Savant syndrome is a representation of when you have all your eggs pooled in one basket, so to speak. Your general aptitude will still be very high, but your mind is specialized in a certain area to such an extent that other abilities suffer as a result. If I have ten pieces of candy in one hand, and two in the other, I still have more total pieces of candy than if I had had five in each hand. The Savant syndrome happens to be one of my blind spots, however, so I can't go into detail as to why the resources have been pooled. I do know that this matter is something that has caused some confusion in the world of psychology, though. But remember - a strong G-factor doesn't mean you'll excell in everything you do, it only increases the statistical likelihood.

One could put it this way - IQ correlates heavily with intelligence and general aptitude, but that is not implying it is the cause of it. The causation is, however, largely irrelevant when deciding the validity of the IQ concept - because as long as the correlation is there, it remains a useful instrument. And the correlation has been proven time and again to be very high. There might very well be another factor that does impact on the causation, however, that explains the Savant syndrome.

I fully agree that the tendency to ascribe human value to IQ is laughable at best. Intelligence is one attribute among a multitude. I have never encountered anyone who believes people have less human value if they're bad at football, so I've never understood why you would have less human value if you're bad at abstraction.

Omikron009 said:
I was formally tested by the British Columbia ministry of education over the course of many, many weeks, and the final average of all of the various tests was....

151. Yeah, I'm a goddamn genius.

I like to say this, even though I know that IQ is by no means an accurate representation of how intelligent someone truly is.
"All the various tests"? There really aren't that many standardized tests out there, because as I mentioned previously, it's a financial and organisational hell to assemble a sufficient test population and properly evaluate the questions. I also know of no standardized test that takes several weeks. The most time-consuming test I know of is RAPM, which takes a couple of hours at most. Extending the test over a longer period of time would simply make no sense, as the nature of IQ tests is that you're supposed to "instantly" know the answers upon seeing the question. As a general rule of thumb, if you don't know the answer after 15 seconds, you never will. Each question is a form of "stepping stone". Either it's above your ability, or beneath it.
By "all the various tests" I mean the many different tests they gave that weren't just IQ tests, but other tests to gauge cognitive function in specific areas under specific conditions. Although I have taken one variant of the IQ test many times before.
 

Nomad

Dire Penguin
Aug 3, 2008
616
0
0
Omikron009 said:
By "all the various tests" I mean the many different tests they gave that weren't just IQ tests, but other tests to gauge cognitive function in specific areas under specific conditions. Although I have taken one variant of the IQ test many times before.
If you can remember, could you name those tests for me? Particularly the IQ test. Because generally, you can't take the same IQ test multiple times. It's sort of the same principle that says you can't take the same exam twice - the questions need to be exchanged, or the test loses its accuracy.
 

Omikron009

New member
May 22, 2009
3,817
0
0
Nomad said:
Omikron009 said:
By "all the various tests" I mean the many different tests they gave that weren't just IQ tests, but other tests to gauge cognitive function in specific areas under specific conditions. Although I have taken one variant of the IQ test many times before.
If you can remember, could you name those tests for me? Particularly the IQ test. Because generally, you can't take the same IQ test multiple times. It's sort of the same principle that says you can't take the same exam twice - the questions need to be exchanged, or the test loses its accuracy.
I can't remember the names, sorry.

The IQ test wasn't the same test each time, it was just presented in the same format with 4 groups of questions, each group requiring a specific thought process to answer....or something. The types of questions were the same every time. The two groups I can remember were analogies and pattern recognition, I think.
 

Nomad

Dire Penguin
Aug 3, 2008
616
0
0
I don't suppose you know what scale the numeric value was in? Or what percentile it was supposed to represent? Standard deviation...?
 

AvsJoe

Elite Member
May 28, 2009
9,055
0
41
I got checked when I was much younger and was immediately rushed to Mensa. I was never told what the number was but I assume it was high. However, I took one of those b.s. Internet IQ tests and scored 140 so that's what I tell people until (if?) I decide to get tested again.
 

Spinozaad

New member
Jun 16, 2008
1,107
0
0
Never took one, but I can reasonably breeze my way through university. I can safely claim I'm smarter than Your Average Tom, Joe and Harry.
 

Sark

New member
Jun 21, 2009
767
0
0
I could claim like so many others here that I have a tested IQ in the genius level. That would be lying though, I have never had an IQ test and I am struggling to accept the possibility of everyone here falling within the top 2% intelligence of the world's population.

I am above average intelligence surely, but I am by no means to be considered a genius, my ego isn't that big.
 

FallenJellyDoughnut

New member
Jun 28, 2009
2,753
0
0
I took one in second grade and it came up with 138, which is apparently really good. The funny thing was, the test was just to see if I had ADD! Those pricks can suck it! I WIN! NO ADD!! MWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!