Well, we can discuss actual IQ tests and why this one was retarded.
I got a 140, but I'm pretty sure I didn't miss any questions. I'm also pretty sure that that number has little to do with my actual IQ. I like tests like that, though. They're fun. I just don't pretend that I'm gaining anything meaningful from them.
Sorry ElJeffe, the 140 that test determines your entire future. You may as well just stop trying in life now because everything from this point on has already been decided.
As long as it's decided that I'm going to be rich and famous, I can live with that.
140 is genius level according to the IQ people. 'Course this test seems to be handing that number out like Pez, inevitably because they're trying to con you into paying them to give you a report to show all your friends that you were smart enough to get conned into paying money for a number.
BRILLIANT IDEA: Pez dispensers that give out Pez with your IQ number written on them. You can just hand it out to people and they'll be "what's with the number" and you can be "OH, IT'S JUST MY IQ NUMBER! THE SMALLER NUMBER AT THE BOTTOM IS MY SAT SCORE!" We're going to be rich Senjutsu rich.
EDIT: We can put penis length on the back and yearly earnings on the side!
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.
BRILLIANT IDEA: Pez dispensers that give out Pez with your IQ number written on them. You can just hand it out to people and they'll be "what's with the number" and you can be "OH, IT'S JUST MY IQ NUMBER! THE SMALLER NUMBER AT THE BOTTOM IS MY SAT SCORE!" We're going to be rich Senjutsu rich.
EDIT: We can put penis length on the back and yearly earnings on the side!
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!"
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.
Doc on
0
Options
SmasherStarting to get dizzyRegistered Userregular
Fucked the test in OP up completely - basically I made sure I got no answer right - I got a 72
Same here, and got the same score. I loved the "limited free result" description:
Your IQ score is 72!
Your unusual talent of being equally good at both mathematical and verbal skills, paired with the way you learn through experience, makes you an Inventive Inquisitor. You understand the world by "learning through living" and are able to teach others by taking them through actual experiences.
Most people search their brains for previously stored information that might help in a given situation, but you are open to an unusual amount of change and take things as they come and see things as they are.
Well, they do ask for your age and gender- something tells me that's more likely to do with marketing and information-gathering than being integral to any test. Although getting that question wrong in a real IQ test would be... different.
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.
Funny how online IQ tests always give scores over 100, which is supposed to be the average. Half of the population should be below that.
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.
Well, they do ask for your age and gender- something tells me that's more likely to do with marketing and information-gathering than being integral to any test. Although getting that question wrong in a real IQ test would be... different.
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.
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...
Seriously, any questions about IQ tests, I'm right here. The biggest problem with the tests is that age is a deciding factor in score. It's still used, but has been normalized more carefully since the days of Piaget and the earliest people that dealt with the concept of an IQ number.
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.
Funny how online IQ tests always give scores over 100, which is supposed to be the average. Half of the population should be below that.
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.
I just mean that 100 is by definition average.
Doc on
0
Options
BlackDragon480Bluster KerfuffleMaster of Windy ImportRegistered Userregular
I talked to a guy who went to a Mensa meeting once.
He said that they were probably smart as hell, but god damn were they utterly socially inept.
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.
BlackDragon480 on
No matter where you go...there you are. ~ Buckaroo Banzai
Seriously, any questions about IQ tests, I'm right here. The biggest problem with the tests is that age is a deciding factor in score. It's still used, but has been normalized more carefully since the days of Piaget and the earliest people that dealt with the concept of an IQ number.
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.
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).
I talked to a guy who went to a Mensa meeting once.
He said that they were probably smart as hell, but god damn were they utterly socially inept.
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.
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.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Well, now we know whose opinion can be discounted whenever we disagree with one another.
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.
Well, now we know whose opinion can be discounted whenever we disagree with one another.
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.
I'm very tempted, right now, to start a thread on the sequencing of gray dots and claim ultimate superiority.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Seriously, any questions about IQ tests, I'm right here. The biggest problem with the tests is that age is a deciding factor in score. It's still used, but has been normalized more carefully since the days of Piaget and the earliest people that dealt with the concept of an IQ number.
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.
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.
Funny how online IQ tests always give scores over 100, which is supposed to be the average. Half of the population should be below that.
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.
I just mean that 100 is by definition average.
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.
Funny how online IQ tests always give scores over 100, which is supposed to be the average. Half of the population should be below that.
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.
I just mean that 100 is by definition average.
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.
Well, we can discuss actual IQ tests and why this one was retarded.
I got a 140, but I'm pretty sure I didn't miss any questions. I'm also pretty sure that that number has little to do with my actual IQ. I like tests like that, though. They're fun. I just don't pretend that I'm gaining anything meaningful from them.
Got 140 too and I was only unsure with one question.
Was it the "Bob likes 400 but doesn't like 300" one? That was the one I sorta-kinda guessed on. I went with 1200, because it seemed more like the ones he liked, but I couldn't pin down what, exactly, made it work.
I went with 1000, it seemed clear that he liked multiples of 4, but not 3.
But 3600 was a multiple of 3, and 3700 wasn't.
3600 = 60 x 60
100 = 10 x 10
400 = 20 x 20
Therefore he likes 900 (aka 30 x 30)
And yes, breaking apart the test... it's pretty bad. 136 seems to be very, very prevalent from the test, just based on a simple google search.
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.
My impression was that your score could change depending on how the average changes.
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.
Wonder_Hippie on
0
Options
Mojo_JojoWe are only now beginning to understand the full power and ramifications of sexual intercourseRegistered Userregular
edited July 2007
I've had everything between 72 and 145. IQ tests are pretty much meaningless.
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.
Mojo_Jojo on
Homogeneous distribution of your varieties of amuse-gueule
I've had everything between 72 and 145. IQ tests are pretty much meaningless.
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.
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.
I always figured people could "feel" if someone is intelligent or not. Many people won't outright admit that someone might be smarter than them but I guess we all know people we deem more intelligent than others.
Edit: Altough I have to admit one needs to know the person somewhat to tell their overall intelligence.
Ferrus on
I would like to pause for a moment, to talk about my penis.
My penis is like a toddler. A toddler—who is a perfectly normal size for his age—on a long road trip to what he thinks is Disney World. My penis is excited because he hasn’t been to Disney World in a long, long time, but remembers a time when he used to go every day. So now the penis toddler is constantly fidgeting, whining “Are we there yet? Are we there yet? How about now? Now? How about... now?”
And Disney World is nowhere in sight.
I'm everything between 110 and 154, depending on how much thinking I felt like doing for a particular test.
It's a shitty way to measure intelligence anyway.
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.
Werrick on
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be rude without having their skulls split, as a general thing."
I'm everything between 110 and 154, depending on how much thinking I felt like doing for a particular test.
It's a shitty way to measure intelligence anyway.
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.
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.
I've heard people talking about things like that, but how can they be measured?
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.
Werrick on
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be rude without having their skulls split, as a general thing."
I've heard people talking about things like that, but how can they be measured?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Werrick on
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be rude without having their skulls split, as a general thing."
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.
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!"
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.
~ Buckaroo Banzai
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.
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.
I'm very tempted, right now, to start a thread on the sequencing of gray dots and claim ultimate superiority.
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.
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