what's your IQ score?

[CrystalShadow]

I'd say no one in this thread has done a valid IQ test... It costs hundreds of dollars (talking from an Australian perspective here, make of it what you will) to get a valid IQ test such as the WAIS administered professionally.

Very presumtious of you.

I had one 3 years ago or so as part of a work capability assessment done by the government.

I've been tested in school at the age of 7, and again at the age of 10 in relation to getting into a specialist gifted education class (in Darwin).

I don't know the results of any of the tests I did as a child, because the stock answer was it wasn't worth telling a child and it'll just make them arrogant.

Anecdotal evidence suggests those childhood test results were giving very high scores indeed, but I'll never know.

The test 3 years ago (done by a psychiatrist, though I don't know which test it is anymore - it's the most common test used in the UK though.), were as I've already mentioned before.

Hahahaha. So 145 is to pretend IQ ratings as saying 8 and a 1/2 inches is to pretend penis sizes... good to know.

I've performed a real IQ test, administered by Australian Psychological Society & i fell into the 120-130 range (with a margin of error of 5). That puts me into the bright to gifted section of the scale. The 140 marker which people keep on trying to put themselves into is highly gifted & only approx 1 in 1,000 people fall into this category. Also just for the record, genius does not appear on the IQ test, so anyone telling you they're a genius because they got 140+ is as full of shit as the score they made up.

IQ scoring is a better guage of of self-importance & the ability to act pompous then it is of intelligence, or potential.

-M

Yeah, I with that last statement. XD.

Altough my childhood and recent test results (within the last 3 years) suggest I'm very close to that border of 140 on official tests. (Test result was 136-142 with 95% confidence) (And in some more limited subject areas quite a bit above it. (A result of 155 or higher)

But it's still pointless shit considering anything actually meaningful to do with my life. >_<

(incedentally, the test I took, is, based on the evidence, probably the "1986 Stanford-Binet Test" - This test defines 130+ as "Genius" level intelligence.)

- This site makes some interesting points about IQ tests:
http://www.learningandteaching.info/learning/intelligence.htm

Apparently, the correlation between IQ scores and success is demonstrable, but goes down significantly with each age group.

 

[lepinkainen]

According to Mensas official test, 163. Am I smart... wouldn't say so.

 

[puff ball]

IQ test's have a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15 that means that 95% of the population should be between 70 and 130 with most being between 85 and 115. only 2.5% of the population has an IQ above 130.

straight from my statistics textbook

 

[Lawnmooer]

From what I hear, getting a job isn't just about how well you do in school, though that does help. It's more about how connected you are with the people in the company in which you're seeking employment. I highly doubt anyone with a marginally higher IQ but low social skills or interest in social interactions is going to be hired over someone with an average IQ that has done their research on the company, and is able to form some sort of working relationship with the person who's hiring.

From what all of my college tutors tell me what employers look for is predominantly past experience, if you have had a job(s) before you have a better chance at getting employed, even more so if 1 or more of the jobs you previously have done are in the same field (For example I want to go into the police service but as they are not employing for 2 years due to cutbacks to have a chance (Or even to find out whether they are employing) I will have to volenteer as a special constable (Similar powers to a regular but no pay))

If you do not have any past experience they look at what degrees/A-levels/A-level equivilents you have to the point where all my tutors agree that if you have the lowest grade of A-level you won't get a second look regardless of what kind of person you are.

Social people do not get prioritised over people with better grades (Since they look at qualifications before meeting you) but it will help with any interviews you might have.

 

[hypovolemia]

From the rhetoric I've heard spouted, your IQ shouldn't change over time. So yeah, pattern recognition and whatnot, but books shouldn't really affect that.

It changes quite a bit actually. Your "fluid" abilities like spatial performance or mental calculations peak in your mid-to-late twenties and get worse afterwards, while abilities like vocabulary tend to improve with age. And that's not even counting that taking the same test twice (or two different tests) will give you two different results.


The only practical use (I can think of) IQ tests have is to detect certain cognitive deficits in childhood or after neurological damage. And that's actually pretty useful.

 

[SirDoom]

When I was a kid, I took a somewhat official one (it was given at school) and got around 135-140. I haven't taken one since then, although I suspect it would be lower than that if the test was any good.

 

[Plurralbles]

I've managed a 124 before but years later it went to 110 and now I don't bother to take them cujz' the window where someone would actually give a shit and set me up for life has passed.

 

[Catalyst6]

Too high to put any stock in IQ tests. They're subjective to the point of being virtually useless, unless you're talking about extrema (either utter genius or completely mentally retarded).

 

[6037084]

115-145 depending on the test the one's that seemed the most legit put me around the 125-135 mark so 130 is a nice round number, lets go with that

 

[Tizzmarelda]

I got 131 on the Navy Exam I took, but when I did a flash test on my own, I got 121 =/

 

[CrystalShadow]

IQ score is your "mental age" (which is figured out by taking your raw IQ test score and then referencing the IQ test table), divided by your actual age, multiplied by 100. So it shouldn't change over time, because as you're getting older to score more correct, the total number is also being divided by a higher number anyway. Because of this, an IQ score can only really be compared to others of the same age.

68% of the population is within 30 points of 100, 85-115, which is one standard deviation. 95% of the population is within 30 points (two standard deviations) of 100, 70-130.
Anyone who claims to have scored over 130 is likely lying, especially if they're posting on escapistmagazine's forums.
Only 4% of the world's population has a score that's three standard deviations out, that's 130-145, or on the other end, 55-70, and then four standard deviations from the norm (0-55, 145+) is the territory of only 1% of the population. A quick google search tells me that the highest IQ on record is 210, and it belongs to physicist Kim Ung-Yong.

tl;dr because of the way IQ tests and standard deviation statistics work, it's a fair to doubt people who claim to be above 115, and that almost everyone who claims to be above 130 is lying. Also you can only compare IQ tests to people your age.

I guess at this point I have to claim that I took an IQ test and my score is 153, but then make a modesty claim that they probably don't mean anything anyway, yeah?

edit: typos, oops. Even people with "IQ's" of 153 slip up occasionally

That's only the valid method for children.

And it's also completely wrong, and the reality of IQ scores and their meanings very with the test it's related to.

Adult scores are based on actual statistical studies of people that have taken the test being used.
So... Officially, 2/3 of the population will have test scores within one standard deviation of 100 (but what constitutes a standard deviation depends on the test.)

Add to this that in some cases the statistical data used to determine this hasn't been updated in decades, and it's more than possible for a statistically unlikely number of people to have IQ scores that are higher than the 'average'. (Because the average was defined too long ago.)


I've done plenty of official tests, and quite a few unnoficial ones. - And really, what makes you think a site like the Escapist couldn't have 'geniuses' on it? Do you know anything at all about the people on an internet forum?

Last official test I took, the psychologist pointed out that for that test, anyone that's been to university typically has an IQ of at least 120...

Considering the number of people that go to university, that throws your figures way off.


It's also worth noting that it has been proven at times that you can 'practice' IQ tests, and improve your results, which pretty much ruins the idea that the scores are 'fixed' through a person's life.

 

[tigermilk]

I think, 108 or something?
I don't know enough about IQ to argue for or against it, but it must be sort of important as aren't you legally classed as retarded if you get an IQ score below a certain point? 170 or something?

Wow we appear to be pretty much the only two people here who aren't a) geniuses with the world at our feet but can't be bothered to take advantage of the wonderful gift of an IQ so high one can earn large amounts of money utilising said gift.

What a suprise there is such a strong correlation between a very high IQ and laziness, it is almost as if people are deeply insecure liars. Still I suppose that is what the internet is for (that and looking at naked women being degraded.

p.s. Kudos for the honesty about your IQ score.

 

[Tharwen]

I once took a 'real' test and got 156.

That was about 12 years ago though, and it doesn't really matter. There is no standardised IQ score.

 

[CrystalShadow]

I think, 108 or something?
I don't know enough about IQ to argue for or against it, but it must be sort of important as aren't you legally classed as retarded if you get an IQ score below a certain point? 170 or something?

Wow we appear to be pretty much the only two people here who aren't a) geniuses with the world at our feet but can't be bothered to take advantage of the wonderful gift of an IQ so high one can earn large amounts of money utilising said gift.

What a suprise there is such a strong correlation between a very high IQ and laziness, it is almost as if people are deeply insecure liars. Still I suppose that is what the internet is for (that and looking at naked women being degraded.

p.s. Kudos for the honesty about your IQ score.

Seriously... IQ scores don't earn you anything.

Determination is 1000 times more important than IQ results.

And whoever gave you the notion that you have 'the world at your feet' if you've got a high IQ is, to be blunt, completely delusional.

Edit: Actually, correlation between lazyness and high IQ... Lol.

Not as far-fetched as it sounds.

Think about it:

Someone who is 'dumb' had to work really hard to get decent results in school, and thus learned that to get anywhere you have to work hard.

Someone who is really smart, officially, can often get good grades putting in a bare minimum of effort. (Or, if teachers are being particularly stupid, get 'good' but not 'great' results, no matter how hard they try...)
Now, if you learn that putting in a huge effort doesn't really seem to get any real benefit over putting in a rather minimal effort, what, do you think the long-term result will be?

 

[Fraeir]

"I don't know my IQ. People who boast about their IQ are idiots."
- Stephen Hawking

I concur. 8D

 

[tigermilk]

I think, 108 or something?
I don't know enough about IQ to argue for or against it, but it must be sort of important as aren't you legally classed as retarded if you get an IQ score below a certain point? 170 or something?

Wow we appear to be pretty much the only two people here who aren't a) geniuses with the world at our feet but can't be bothered to take advantage of the wonderful gift of an IQ so high one can earn large amounts of money utilising said gift.

Seriously... IQ scores don't earn you anything.

Determination is 1000 times more important than IQ results.

And whoever gave you the notion that you have 'the world at your feet' if you've got a high IQ is, to be blunt, completely delusional.

With people banding about numbers around the 170 mark at that point there are grants available and if someone has that level of aptitude for numbers and logic there is a lot of research money available (well certainly a lot more than there is for the arts/social sciences.)

EDIT: There is a link somewhere on the thread for a child with an IQ of 170 who is teaching at university, possibly partially a publicity stunt but a testament none the less to what is available to the genuinely gifted.

 

[baboon 101]

Just to point something out, Stephen Hawking has an IQ of approximately 160. I'm just going to go out on a limb here and say that none of you are close to that.


Also, this:
[link]http://xkcd.com/715/[/link]

 

[JokerCrowe]

I've gotten between 130 and 120, so I guess it's somewhere in between. But I don't think IQ tests account for much. all they really test is how good you are at IQ tests. But still I guess it proves that I'm a little above average. Oh wait, maybe it doesn't...
Whatever, I think IQ is something that only people who get Really High scores cares about.

 

[Palademon]

Took one at a learning assessment centre as a child. You know, the kind of place that assumes since you have ADHD they can "help" you, and are "experts". THERE'S NOTHING WRONG WITH ME!!!
So not a crappy online one like most people do >_>

Mine's 132
On my scale 100 was average and 140 was genius.

 

[Mr.Squishy]

The "normal" IQ test is flawed because people are intelligent in different areas (linguistic, interpersonal, intrapersonal, logical-mathematical - this one and more).
But on average, around 117