Ah, the great IQ discussion.
Online IQ tests are not to be taken seriously. They are fun, but the scores are usually not normed and do not culminate into anything meaningful. Individually administered IQ tests (WISC-IV, SB-V, WAIT) are given by a psychologist and take 1-3 hours.
Being a graduate student in School Psychology, I've given my fair share of IQ tests to kids and adults. I've tested about 70 kids, and the highest IQ score obtained that I have come across was 132. My supervisor has given several hundred IQ tests, and the highest obtained score he has come across was 140. Not to say anyone is lying, but I am very skeptical when people tell me their IQ score is some outrageous number. Once you get past 145, your getting into lottery odds, ok maybe not that extreme, but you get the point.
Although the correlation is weak to moderate, IQ scores are the best single predictor that we have of later academic outcomes (Satler, 2001). So, IQ scores do have some validity for assessing learning aptitude.
Also, contrary to what have been said, IQ scores tend to stabilize the older a person gets, After 18, IQ scores are very level. IQ scores obtained by kids under 6 are very unstable (Sattler, 2001).

I took an IQ test in 3rd grade and got a 165 and was put in the gifted program. It has since taken me years of drinking and drugs the fuck that up....who's the smart guy now?

i took one of those tests a couple years back. i scored a 165! shit, i didn't even know IQ scores went that high. needless to say, i didn't really consider it a very good representation intelligence. but i recently had to take another IQ test for a class i am taking, and i scored a 156. i'm kind of starting to get a little weirded out now. is it possible for someone to be smart and not know it?

My roomate enjoys two things:
1) being a douchebag
and
2) holding his 3rd grade IQ equivalent test score over my head.

Whenever I don't know something, usually just some random trivia that I ask about, his usual reply is, *in a snobby voice* "I'm a statistical genius." Which always spawns arguments about ACT scores (I whooped his fucking ass by 8 points) and who was part of my (and his) school districts talented and gifted program for 7 years (wait wait...ME!) compared to his 3rd grade IQ equivalency test...a supposed 134. So from my person experience I think IQs are only for the conceited to hold over people who are just simply ignorant of their IQ scores (me); a way for self absorbed folks to reaffirm their divine unalterable greatness, and as a psychological limit for people who don't do so well.

He argues that IQ is the standard measure of intelligence, the end all be all your-number-is-your-niche way of living. Fuck him, who got a 3.5 his first semester of college compared to his what...2.4??? Bahahahaha! ME!!!

/rant...whew! Damn guys, that felt really good. :D

Edit: After reading the second page I decided to add that my grade school through high school Iowa standardized tests were ALWAYS 99th percentile, in middle school and even younger my reading level was always put at a sophomore college reading level. Thus my question: Why are applicable intelligence scores in the form of an ACT or other standardized test always overshadowed by IQ scores? You would think they would have some sort of direct relationship.

I'd post my I.Q. test, but no one would believe me! :thumbsup:

That low eh? :p

There is a positive correlation between IQ scores and standardized academic achievement scores, although its not as high as you would think. IQ tests and academic achievement measures (ACT, Iowa Tests of Basic Skills, SAT) assess different things. IQ is generally thought of as Aptitude, and Achievement measures are thought of direct measures of academic achievement at a single point in time. Intelligence is most definately related to the rate at which people can learn, but other factors get in the way of intelligence being perfectly related to Achievement (e.g., quality of education, opportunities to learn, expectaions and other stuff that we can account for)

They are the same in that they are extremely boring to administer and to take!

In my high school psychology class, everybody took an IQ test as an activity, and scored a 145+ on it. It didn't have a higher rank, and it basically had ranges for the number of questions you got right, so it wasn't a particulary good test, in my opinion. I have always done very well on standardized tests, though, and I was in the gifted/advanced classes before college.

My teacher at the time, who was a smart and knowledgeable guy, said that IQ tests for the standard population aren't really very accurate above 120 or so, and that you'd probably have to have a test designed for the above-average to get an accurate score.

I scored pretty high on several of mine in high school (a boarding school -- everyone was tested), but I know I never had the ambition and specific talents a friend of mine had, and she scored about 100. She makes the ten-figure income now, and I make about a tenth of that.