Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it,
follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given
their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!
Posts
EDIT: We can put penis length on the back and yearly earnings on the side!
There are so many potential jokes there...
I took the iqtest.com test several years back and got like, a 182. Now, I like to think I'm pretty smart, but that was just ridiculous. Haven't put much stock in internet iq tests since. though I did get a much more reasonable score on the one on the MENSA website.
They gave my sister an IQ test when she was kind, as a part of some kind of study, but I never got one. I always felt weird when people would tell me their IQ.
EDIT: I believe, at the time anyway, the iqtest.com one actually had you put the time it took to fill out each page, which was only accurate to the minute. IQ test on the honor system? Trust me, I got them all right.
:lol:
Well, I'd buy one!
And when I'm all grown up, I'll get myself a car sticker that says "My kids have a Pez dispenser that gives out Pez covered in their academic details! They're that much better than your kids!"
If faith is just a silent tribute, mine is just a desperate act.
Uh, that's well over a standard deviation above average.
Not that it means anything. Talking to someone for five minutes will give you a much better picture of how smart they are than a number that they got off the internet.
Same here, and got the same score. I loved the "limited free result" description:
(formatting unchanged)
Age and gender are integral to proper IQ tests. It's called normative information, as the number that you're given is only useful when compared against the numbers of other like individuals.
He said that they were probably smart as hell, but god damn were they utterly socially inept.
After givin the damned things for a while, normal seems really, really smart. Most of the kids I see don't exceed 100, and I've never seen an adult do better than 95 on any individual subtest.
My samples limited to people that have either requested or been forced into doing testing, but they're out there in great numbers.
Yes, but we're talking about a blatantly subpar IQ test which I personally thought was more likely to be around to get your details than to give you an accurate result. I didn't say they weren't integral, I said their presence had more to do with information-gathering than being true to a real IQ test.
Smasher: I didn't pay attention to that part. Wonder if it's randomised...
Let me ask you this then, since you seem to be the SME. Do you put any stock into Howard Gardner's theory of multiple intelligences? Of all the methods i've studied, his seems to make the most sense to me.
I just mean that 100 is by definition average.
Being a member for 5 years, and after atteneding several regional gatherings, one annual gathering, and numerous other small get togethers with them, I can say that the majority of Mensans have social skills on par with the rest of society.
However, there is also a disproportionally (when compared with society as a whole) large number of stuck up assholes who think they're the greatest thing since sliced bread. I'm talking dickweeds that rattle off their IQ score as part of their introduction to someone, and they fully expect said new person to be greatly impressed and even awed by their raw quotient size.
That's a good question actually. I've always assumed there was a grain of truth to the idea- since there's so much variety in people- but maybe it becomes a lot more clear cut on a statistical level?
What you said about there being little obvious deviation between the students you dealt with was intriguing (that is, outside of the tests, they seemed really damn smart despite "only" hitting 100).
Man, if someone did that to me I'd headbutt them, then say "what is it now?"
Well, now we know whose opinion can be discounted whenever we disagree with one another.
Maddie: "I am not!"
Riley: "You're a marsupial!"
Maddie: "I am a placental mammal!"
It's true.
I acknowledge you as superior on questions of the sequencing of grey dots filled in on a series of 4x4 grids. I think that must have been the one you got but I didn't.
If faith is just a silent tribute, mine is just a desperate act.
I'm very tempted, right now, to start a thread on the sequencing of gray dots and claim ultimate superiority.
Maddie: "I am not!"
Riley: "You're a marsupial!"
Maddie: "I am a placental mammal!"
I may be socially inept but I can damn well sequence some damn gray dots. You don't stand a chance in hell versus my gray dot sequencing.
As an educational theory, it's brilliant and incredibly useful. Unfortunately, from the lit. I've read, it doesn't hold up to research. However, the big flaw in studying IQ is that we're using the previously founded methods. This is problematic because when somebody throws something new out at the system, which happens often enough to cause a lot of hubbub, those methods of studying intelligence don't apply at all. That's the problem faced when using old tests, or new versions of old tests, to test these new theories.
His categories and criteria are great. The way he's divided up not only the types of intelligence, but the importance and potential roots for the types of intelligence, is pretty nice. More research needs to be done as always, but the foundations of the theory are there. Somebody would just have to write a test based around his different classifications (body-kinesthetic, inter- and intrapersonal, and musical would be the most important ones to add here), but you also run into a whole slew of methodological problems with that, too.
Sometimes I hate psychology's intent on absolutely being a qualified, rigorous, "hard" science, but it's just so useful.
Not anymore. The average is, by definition, the average of the bell curve. When the concept of an IQ was created, they artificially put 100 at the middle of the bell curve. They kept the same scale, but it's gone down on several of the subscales since then.
My impression was that your score could change depending on how the average changes.
I didn't even get to the "divisible by 3" part. I just glanced at it, thought he likes multiples of 4, and clicked on the first one I saw, which was 1,000. As I was scrolling down I noticed they were ALL multiples of 4, but I didn't feel like scrolling back up.
I got a 136.
It can. If the new middle point is 95 for a given subtest, you can technically get your scores updated to reflect the different. The percentiles don't change, but the actual IQ given can.
The 72 came from the BBC test the nation, so that one hopefully has some kind of standardisation, but I doubt it. No way I'm that stupid.
Was the test given individually, or to big groups all at once? Individual tests are more accurate than group tests for most of them. Some can be administered to groups with good results, but full IQ tests can't.
Personally, I'm just socially inept.
Edit: Altough I have to admit one needs to know the person somewhat to tell their overall intelligence.
And Disney World is nowhere in sight.
Agreed. They also don't measure the entire scope that intelligence can entail. For instance, it doesn't measure one's capacity for music, or for visual art, among other subjects.
-Robert E. Howard
Tower of the Elephant
I've heard people talking about things like that, but how can they be measured? Would you hand someone a bunch of intruments or paint and a canvas and tell them to re-create something or just go nuts? An IQ test is supposed to measure how well you're supposed to do in school. I remember from back in my history of psych class that in France they used the test so the right kids went to the classes that best suited the skills and achievements they already possesed.
If faith is just a silent tribute, mine is just a desperate act.
I have no idea... but what I do know is that the current test doesn't do it and those faculties are every bit a measure of overall intelligence as any other. As such relying on something like an IQ test isn't very telling.
-Robert E. Howard
Tower of the Elephant
Yes, they do. My office uses the Beery VMI like I mentioned before, but there are a slew of others. Artistic "skill" is frequently correlated with VMI results, even with abstract artists. People who practice in visual art generally score higher, so the test is there.
Musical skill is learned in the case of music theory, and innate in the case of perfect pitch and other such odd, seemingly genetic traits. That'd be more difficult to effectively measure. However, unless you're talking about savants, which are isolated, abnormal cases that are impossible to generalize, intelligence tends to scale up on all measures simultaneously. The higher a person is on one scale, the more likely they are to be higher on another scale, so measuring these highly independent variables of intelligence, which is an aspect of the multiple intelligence theory, becomes rather redundant.
IOS Game Center ID: Isotope-X
No, I'm not...
Although, that's interesting, I've never heard of that comprehensive a test. It must take a long time to do, as opposed to the ten minutes that the average person spends on an online test.
I'm an exceptionally intelligent person, and I've scored as low as 110 on IQ tests (informal ones, that is). My musical ability is remarkably high, but my visual interpretive ability is quite low and I can't draw to save my fucking life. My verbal and literary skills both in expression and comprehension are high, but my math skills are poor enough to qualify as being mildly disabled. In fact, I'm even numerically dyslexic to a degree, screwing up the order of numbers in sequence.
The older I get and the more I see these tests and think about them the more I think that there's no way a standardized test could be adequately comprehensive to guage every individual person 100% accurately. That's not to say that some of them, your company's included, doesn't do a good job, but the inconsistency seems to remain nonetheless.
-Robert E. Howard
Tower of the Elephant