What is your I.Q?

[Nomad]

I of course will be flamed for this due to the fact that people won't believe me.

My IQ's 167.

I wonder if anyone will actually believe that...

I will believe you if you specify a scale, a test and the context in which you took the test. 167 is unfeasibly high, as most tests will not measure that high up. Assuming you're using the Cattell scale - it would make you about one in 400, though, so it's not way out there in space like the claims most people are making. If you're talking about 167 Wechsler or Stanford, then I'm afraid I will remain very suspicious. You know what I think you should do? Photograph your test certificate and upload it to imageshack, then post the link here.

Do that, and I will believe you. That goes for everyone.

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.

What do you mean by "Rushed to Mensa"? Are you a member? If so, could you photograph your membership card for me? Another one of my jobs as a Mensa functionary is to protect the Mensa trademark, you see... And in this context, statistics say people are more likely to be pulling tall tales out of their backsides than telling the truth, sadly.

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!!!

What scale? 138 strikes me as an odd number to land at unless you're using the Cattell or Stanford scales. Remember - when citing a numerical value, always specify the scale.

Last time i did it, it was a sort of official one that they used on students. Got 138, i think.

I don't know where you're from, but I know of no nation where they routinely test the IQ of their students. Where are you from? And what scale were they using? 138 Cattell translates to 124 Wechsler, which would put you in the 94'th percentile, while 138 Wechsler would put you at 99.5% - it makes quite a big difference.

133 last time I checked, 2 years ago.

Again, IQ does not change with age. It remains constant through all your life.

your life experiences and ability to learn freely often effect how smart you are.
(at least in my opinion)


online IQ tests are even more unrealistic than the ones you can take in real life.

Experience could arguably be said to be the cause of wisdom, but not intelligence. Simply put, your ability to learn is what IQ measures. I'm glad you realize online tests are unreliable, though.

I checked with Mensa a year or two ago, got 132, missed out on joining by 2
Theres nothing worse than getting the silver medal...

You took the test with SD 16, then, which is the Stanford-Binet scale. 132 Stanford translates to 130 Wechsler... I advise you to take the test again, just to be sure. There is a margin of error of ~4 points, so you may get in the next time. Naturally, you won't be allowed to take the same test, but the national Mensa branches usually have two versions of their test in order to compensate for the margin of error.

That said, 130 Wechsler is still very, very good. You're so close to the 98'th percentile that you could sneeze at the people on the other side. Some national branches accept 130 Wechsler, if I remember correctly, so it's a shame you live in a country where they put the cutoff at 131. After all, 130 Wechsler is closer to 98.0 than it is to 97.0.

my IQ test administered by an educational psychologist was invalid. Even by the lofty standards of IQ tests.

Really? What test was it?

It was a good 10 years ago so I doubt it is the same now:

154 on math and logic and 143 overall.

Again, IQ remains constant and does not change. That said, you supplied two different values - IQ doesn't work that way. You have one value, and that's the overall one. Period. Because IQ measures G, which is a general attribute. You took an online test, and those are not accurate or reliable.

172, but ironically enough, it just means I'm intelligent enough to know that the measure of raw intelligence is worthless without juxtaposition. I'd still be a moron without common sense or wisdom.

Please supply the name of the test you took and the scale it used. Your number is outlandish if Wechsler or Stanford, and highly suspicious if Cattell.

I think the test grading systems vary from test to test, too, because on the test i took, 140 was around the max and it meant "genius", and i see people here with 170+.

Very perceptive! As I mentioned at the top of page 5, there are multiple scales to measure IQ. Without specifying a scale, your numeric value says next to nothing. For example - 130 Wechsler is superior to 140 Cattell. However, people that claim a score of 170+ are lying. Simple as that. They either made the number up or they took a badly normed and unreliable online test. There is no universal definition of "genius" in terms of IQ, but the most commonly held positions are the top 2% or the top 1%. This would translate to 131 and 135 Wechsler respectively. What test did you take?

the bbc did a national thingy a while back, i got 120 on that, did a random internet one and got 103 and i actually did the mensa one and got 155.

Without knowing more about the "BBC national thingy", I can't comment on that. 120 is, however, feasible. Random internet tests have no validity whatsoever. The Mensa test peaked my interest, however. What was the test called and what scale did it use? Where do you live? Do they still use the same test? If you're talking about SD 15 or SD 16, Wechsler or Stanford-Binet, then I can safely say you're... remembering incorrectly. If you're talking about SD 24, Cattell, you have 134 - placing you in the 98'th percentile, approaching the 99'th. If you're talking about a Cattell score, I ask you to either start specifying the scale, say 134 or simply mention the percentile rather than the numeric value. This is because Cattell is falling into widespread disuse, and Wechsler is becoming the new universal standard. Cattell disproportionally bloats the values to an extent that really only harms the discipline in the eyes of the public.

I feel sooo stupid when compared to all the posters above me... Pffft.

Don't. Most of them have taken inaccurate online tests and therefore don't know their real scores, and others are not so outlandish. Remember - 100 is the average. Having a score above 100 still makes you smarter than the majority of mankind.

136 yay! I even got some stupid certificate from the high I.Q. society or something like that. Makes for good tender, so I would recommend it. Otherwise, no one cares about I.Q. anymore since they realized that it has nothing to do with actual intelligence or with what you know. Most people don't even realize that the I.Q. test is supposed to measure your ability to learn, not how smart you are.

I think the test grading systems vary from test to test, too, because on the test i took, 140 was around the max and it meant "genius", and i see people here with 170+.

You have to understand that they all took it as children. Kids always score really high because their brains are working and growing as hard as they ever will. If they took the test now, they would most likely end up with an average score. I.Q. tests need to be taken regularly for the results to be applicable.

First of all, regarding the validity of the IQ concept... Please read my post at the top of page 5. Furthermore, ability to learn is equal to ability to reason, which is equal to intelligence. Noone has "realized" IQ has nothing to do with intelligence, because that is simply not true. IQ and the G-factor are almost universally accepted as scientific fact in psychology, the only real challenge is Gardner's theory, and it has comparatively few advocates. There is a general scientific consensus that the G-factor exists, and that IQ measures it successfully.

As for your point about children... I can see why you would think so, but no. First of all, as I have stated before, IQ remains constant throughout all your life. Second, a child cannot take the same IQ test as an adult and expect it to be even moderately accurate, there are special tests made for people below 18 years old. A child attempting to take an IQ test meant for an adult would likely crash and burn, because their brains are not fully developed yet. For the purposes of IQ, however, this is irrelevant - because IQ is a weighted score depending on the general populace. A 7-year old with a high IQ doesn't have a more functional brain than an adult with a low IQ, but compared to other 7-year olds he does. And his brain will continue to develop accordingly, so he will always be brighter in comparison with the rest of his group. You only ever need to take an IQ test once. IQ is constant. Taking IQ tests regularly is not only expensive and impossible in the long run (you will run out of tests to take), it is also more likely to distort the values than to help them.

The only thing an IQ shows is how good you are at IQ tests.

True that! In school, the IQ tests existed out of like 60% math questions and I suck at math.

That's because what you took in school wasn't an IQ test. IQ tests are culture-fair.

I took a test and under the "remember a line of numbers" test my brother interrupted me twice. The result was:
116... Pretty good I guess :?
I was too lazy too try again so its somewhere around that.

While IQ correlates with memory, you can't really create an IQ test that tests your memory... So I'm guessing you took that one online, which would make it invalid.

The only way to know your IQ for certain is to take a standardized, supervised IQ test in real life, preferrably administered by a psychologist or comparable professional.

 

[paasi]

Bashing at IQ tests only reveals that you don't understand that it is utterly impossible to objectively and accurately measure a persons capacity for reasoning, logic and other higher brain functions. They are not meant to be 100% or even 80% accurate at assessing your 6 pound melons capacity for content, they are an estimation, a rough guideline to give you a comparable concept with which to size up that lump on your shoulders.

 

[SextusMaximus]

urgh... mine is only around 96. Going up though as i've been brain training AND IT ACTUALLY WORKS!

It tells you you've gone up after so many weeks. I don't think it works, but rather it's lying. For instance I went up around 50 after a day, either one of the tests screwed up or it's just been lying to me.

OT: Don't know, never taken one.

 

[Gitsnik]

your life experiences and ability to learn freely often effect how smart you are.
(at least in my opinion)

I call it the twilight zone - when you have a high intelligence quotient and can still learn freely, interact socially, and possibly succeed at basic survival skills, you're in the zone. If you're above it you are no use to me* and when you're below it (like, say, my father), it doesn't mean shit because (especially in this case) the individual can be more intelligent than I am.

*I work in I.T. If you have a really high IQ and are outside of the twilight zone, you're fething useless because you either try shit that shouldn't be done, can't follow instructions, can't be instructed manually, can not solve problems quickly and efficiently. Can not be convinced you're wrong, etc. the list goes on. I like to say these people can tell me the exact voltage required to run a CPU at 37 billion ticks in a nano second, but couldn't tell me how to turn the computer on for the life of them.

 

[Nomad]

Bashing at IQ tests only reveals that you don't understand that it is utterly impossible to objectively and accurately measure a persons capacity for reasoning, logic and other higher brain functions. They are not meant to be 100% or even 80% accurate at assessing your 6 pound melons capacity for content, they are an estimation, a rough guideline to give you a comparable concept with which to size up that lump on your shoulders.

I will agree with half of what you said. I still maintain that standardized and supervised IQ tests do objectively and accurately measure the ability to reason.

But you make a very good point in saying they're not meant to serve as an absolute truth about your cognitive abilities. We again come back to the difference between correlation and causation. IQ correlates heavily with cognitive abilities, but it is not the cause of them. Therefore it is entirely plausible to have a low IQ and achieve academic stardom, and equally possible to have a high IQ and not do so. It is a comparison and an estimation, no more. But that doesn't mean it's useless.

 

[Gitsnik]

By the way Nomad, whilst I appreciate the mass amount of points/counterpoints you have created, and the possible defense of the name and such, and I also appreciate that I myself have done some pretty incredible things in my life which are hard to believe:

If so, could you photograph your membership card for me? Another one of my jobs as a Mensa functionary is to protect the Mensa trademark, you see...

At the age of 19? Really? Hows about we get a scan of your membership cards and such.

By the way, 137 Weschler, and I refused to give the rest of my details to an organization who can't even secure cookie SID input in their website, so no, no membership card. It's a cock-wank number anyway - my old man rates in at low 90's according to the same test, and like I said, is about "over 9000" times more intelligent than I - in reasoning, problem solving and creation. Go figure.

 

[AlphaOmega]

Snip -of-all-snipness

I took a test that was (supposedly) a government approved method, in real life that took about 2hours; I can still pinpoint the classroom and they gave me 2 numbers. the lower one and the higher one for math/insight related stuff.
I have to give it to you that it might not have been all that good, but that was due to my school at the time being very against me taking it because I was so far ahead of my classmates that they would have to give me non-standardized material.
I do not disagree with you saying my test is invalid, because I always doubted that the school put in the effort they should have (and I always brush it off if people ask me due to it being 10y ago); but It was not online

 

[Nomad]

By the way Nomad, whilst I appreciate the mass amount of points/counterpoints you have created, and the possible defense of the name and such, and I also appreciate that I myself have done some pretty incredible things in my life which are hard to believe:

I'm sure you have. What's your point?

At the age of 19? Really? Hows about we get a scan of your membership cards and such.

Uh, okay. It's on the top of page 5, first post. I already posted it as a pre-emptive measure, you see... Not to be an ass or anything, but if you're going to participate in a debate, it helps if you've read all the previous arguments. If you're in doubt about my functionary position, I suppose I could also photograph the announcement in the membership magazine? It's in Swedish, though, so I don't know how much you'd be able to make out from it.

By the way, 137 Weschler, and I refused to give the rest of my details to an organization who can't even secure cookie SID input in their website, so no, no membership card. It's a cock-wank number anyway - my old man rates in at low 90's according to the same test, and like I said, is about "over 9000" times more intelligent than I - in reasoning, problem solving and creation. Go figure.

I believe I've already countered that point. A high IQ does not guarantee intellectual achievement, nor does a low IQ prevent it. It's a matter of statistical likelihood. Have I offended you, by the way? You seem a little aggressive.

I took a test that was (supposedly) a government approved method, in real life that took about 2hours; I can still pinpoint the classroom and they gave me 2 numbers. the lower one and the higher one for math/insight related stuff.
I have to give it to you that it might not have been all that good, but that was due to my school at the time being very against me taking it because I was so far ahead of my classmates that they would have to give me non-standardized material.
I do not disagree with you saying my test is invalid, because I always doubted that the school put in the effort they should have (and I always brush it off if people ask me due to it being 10y ago); but It was not online

Judging from your description of how the test was administered, I could've sworn you were american and was already formulating my response. I see, however, that you're not. I honestly don't know what goes on in the Netherlands, so I'll take your word for it. Without further details, such as scale and the name of the test, I can't really comment further on the subject.

So... I guess I stand corrected. I'm still suspicious towards the whole thing, however, because the nature of the IQ concept prevents it from being divided into subscores. Sorry for jumping to conclusions, it's just that when people toss out inflated numbers or give information inconsistent with the general concept, they tend to have seen a random advert on a website and mistaken it for an actual test.

 

[Uszi]

IQ threads...
What's next?

Thread: How long is your penis?

Thread: I drive a Mercedes, do you?

 

[Flames66]

120 something. I can't remember and I'm not doing another just for this.

 

[Wuvlycuddles]

Without knowing more about the "BBC national thingy", I can't comment on that. 120 is, however, feasible. Random internet tests have no validity whatsoever. The Mensa test peaked my interest, however. What was the test called and what scale did it use? Where do you live? Do they still use the same test? If you're talking about SD 15 or SD 16, Wechsler or Stanford-Binet, then I can safely say you're... remembering incorrectly. If you're talking about SD 24, Cattell, you have 134 - placing you in the 98'th percentile, approaching the 99'th. If you're talking about a Cattell score, I ask you to either start specifying the scale, say 134 or simply mention the percentile rather than the numeric value. This is because Cattell is falling into widespread disuse, and Wechsler is becoming the new universal standard. Cattell disproportionally bloats the values to an extent that really only harms the discipline in the eyes of the public.

Hmm, i believe i did make a mistake about the mensa one, it was 135 on the Ravens Advanced Matrices test, the 155 was an iq test i did in school years ago and i have no idea what the test was called. As for the BBC one, it was the BBC test the nation thing they did a while back.

 

[Captain Blackout]

Higher than all of yours, apparently.... This means something, I'm not sure what.....

BACK TO THE LAB!!

 

[MGlBlaze]

According to a test I did a while ago, I think mine was somewhere around 130 if I remember correctly...

It was just a random Internet test, though, so it more than likely doesn't mean jack shit. Plus, I have problems with mental arithmetic and some mild mental disabilities (ADHD, Aspergers) too, so chances are the test wouldn't have taken that into account in any case and the result would have been inaccurate anyway.

 

[Gitsnik]

If you're in doubt about my functionary position, I suppose I could also photograph the announcement in the membership magazine? It's in Swedish, though, so I don't know how much you'd be able to make out from it.

I meant the functionary stuff. I saw the member of mensa card, but none of the proof that - at 19 - you were performing those actions.

And I'm always a grumpy bastard, it comes from dealing with morons all day every day.

By the way, mensa candidates are right up there with teachers, and are very rarely able to be corrected (another reason I didn't pay up), so they get special treatment from me.

 

[RickWilde]

Thanks Nomad, I may just have to take your advice
Much appreciated

 

[Nomad]

If you're in doubt about my functionary position, I suppose I could also photograph the announcement in the membership magazine? It's in Swedish, though, so I don't know how much you'd be able to make out from it.

I meant the functionary stuff. I saw the member of mensa card, but none of the proof that - at 19 - you were performing those actions.

And I'm always a grumpy bastard, it comes from dealing with morons all day every day.

By the way, mensa candidates are right up there with teachers, and are very rarely able to be corrected (another reason I didn't pay up), so they get special treatment from me.

... Why is that such a stretch, really? Mensa is a non-profit association just like the rest, the only 'special' part of it is the membership cutoff. My particular position is, as I stated, local membership coordinator. This means I supervise an area that contains (at the moment) 45 members, including me. My 'job' is to act as a local representative for the organisation, which includes answering questions about it. Protecting the Mensa trademark is something all members are responsible for, really. It's just that this goes doubly for functionaries, as we are representatives.

As I said, I can dig up the announcement if you want, and then you can babelfish it or something. But I honestly don't see what makes it so unbelievable. There is no age cutoff for Mensa, the only requirement is a valid IQ test result in the top 2% of the population...

Tell you what, I just had an idea. Rather than me digging out a document that you won't be able to read anyway, how about I send you an email from my functionary adress? I can't really think of a better way for me to prove it.

And finally... I'm not sure, but I think you insulted me in the last paragraph there. Don't judge a book by its cover.

 

[brodie21]

seven pages? shows how many of you actually care about the test even though you said you didnt

 

[AvsJoe]

[snip]

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.

What do you mean by "Rushed to Mensa"? Are you a member? If so, could you photograph your membership card for me? Another one of my jobs as a Mensa functionary is to protect the Mensa trademark, you see... And in this context, statistics say people are more likely to be pulling tall tales out of their backsides than telling the truth, sadly.

[snip]

I didn't say I got in! I took the test and was congratulated but I didn't score high enough at my age level. "Rushed to Mensa" means I got recommended by teachers and I answered their questions a couple of weeks after my IQ test.

 

[Red Albatross]

Snip.

I understand your incredulity. It's much more statistically likely that the test was administered or scored incorrectly. I myself doubt the results very much, but seeing as I put very little stock in the number, I have no interest in being tested again.

I was tested at the age of 14, with a Stanford-Binet test, fourth edition, so the scale would be Terman's (standard deviation is 16). "Profoundly gifted" was the term used by my psychologist.

I say none of this to brag, as I've already pointed out that I put very little stock in the IQ number. I test well because I lean very heavily towards being skilled in logic and reasoning. I think it's possible to have an astronomical IQ and still be unable to function properly in society. I feel nothing but pity for the children who are thrust into university at a young age; a vast majority of them simply can't emotionally adjust to their situation. If you're among this group, and you are well-adjusted, I apologize for generalizing, but statistically, you're an outlier.

I hope that clears things up.

 

[RanD00M]

I have never taken a I.Q test.But I suspect that it's over 100.