IQ?
 

OK, what is considered an 'average' IQ, an 'extraordinary' one?

just been wondering at what point do you go from being average, to being einstien.

I took an online IQ test this morning (first I have ever taken) and it said my IQ was 129. Is that considered high?

standard adult IQs range from 110-140. The beginning of "very smart" is 150, genius is the latter part of the 100s. Rare Genius stands at about 200+.
I recall when I went through three days of offical IQ testing, I scored at 132, and I was 16.
I've most likely become dumber in the course of six years.

There are several different tests out there, and each score differently, iirc. Having taking both paper and an online one, I'm not sure at all that the online ones are valid-completely different structure, and there are many areas covered in the paper tests I've taken that were not covered on the ol version. Of course, I'm sure there are a million different ones to take ol, and I just took a freebie for fun one day.

the online tests don't give very valid results. You need a trained psychologist to validate the test, and to select which test is the msot suitable for you, so as the cancel out the influence of your background, language skills.. etc..

It it pretty much considered (and set) that 100-110 is average (on any IQ test), so anything above that is classed as good. I have taken IQ tests and did well, but I'm not really convinced by them as being an indication of intelligence (had I scored lower, I would have been even less convinced :p).

One thing I always find curious is these really high scores, that is 160+. I took 2 Mensa IQ tests (Mensa is an organisation whose members have IQ's in the top 2% which corresponds to 149 on the Cattell B) and the maximum was 161, so I find it strange to hear of people (Marilyn Vos Savant (sp?) for example) with these phenomenally high scores, I wonder how accurate these scores are when they are so high.:hmm:

Average IQ is set to be 100 exactly, with standard deviation of 15 I think. So 85-115 covers about 70% of the population (assuming my memory of stats still serves!)

Most IQ tests are only valid over a small range, however. If your IQ is 160 and you take a 'standard' test you'll probably only score about 140 (as the 'standard' tests can only discriminate in the middle zone). There are, I believe, special tests for the extremes of the range - both low and high.

Just found:
http://members.shaw.ca/delajara/IQBasics.html

And, in answer to your original question Gebbinn, IQ 129 should put you somewhere in the top 3% of the population if you're using my figures. In Terman's words: "Superior" to "Very Superior"

I should clarify that the maximum ANYONE could get on the test was 161, that wasn't my IQ. I know of societies that accept people in the top 99.999 (insert as many 9's as you like)th percentile, but it's all relative, it might still be less than 161 on the Cattell B. What I'm getting at is that you can score 153 on one test which is equivalent to 137 on another (149 on the Cattell B is equivalent to 135 - I think - on a culture free test, for instance). It seems strange that someone can have several scores when it would be more accurate to talk in terms of the percentile. I guess I don't know enough about the intricacies of IQ tests to comment further, I'm not a psychologist. I just find it strange...

Average is 100. Standard deviation (in my classes, at least) was 25.

Dear God - let's see - a score in the upper 120's would be about 1 SD away from the mean, which would put you in the upp 30-32% range? Anyone? Anyone?

What's with all the classification anyways? Who cares, damn it! Is proving that you're a genius going to make you feel better? Or that you're not a genius? I really don't see what the purpose is of an IQ test anyway. We already have enough crap like SAT and other standarized tests.

Most IQ test are horribly bad a detecting upper and lower range IQs. They all go for the midrange and at that level they are pretty accurate. But onve you go above 140 or below 70, they don't say much of anything.

/me is proud of his 152 IQ

Amen. It boggles my mind that they have a second test for IQs unmeasurable by that standard test. From what I remember, the test only scaled up to about 160, and then you had to take another test if you scored above that. Fuck that noise. Why do you need a number, aside from a required level to enter a gifted or remedial curriculum in elementary school? Maybe we should get cards to carry around with our IQs, penis dimensions, how much we can bench and how fast we can run a mile. Get a sense of self-worth already.

Yeah, 100 is by definition the average IQ. I think you are in the top 2% of the population if you have over 130. I got 136 on the BBC National IQ test...pretty sweet :D

i have an IQ of 151-152 i think, took a Mensa test OL, and then a paper one a few months back (some teacher had a few of those one day at school when we didnt have anything to do). Dont know much about the results :/ might be BS, as i dont really feel all that smart compared to the other people in my class.

frend of mine has a mensa card and his was 165 what scale were they using on him?

I took part in a group that all had IQ tests done (can't remember what type - too long ago ('91)). Was fun to do.

After we'd all completed the first test a group of four were asked to sit another.
The second test was completely different (in it's content) and was siginicantly harder than the first.

So maybe this is indicative of what cliche mentioned.

At the end of the day does it really matter, you're not going to put on your pants any more differently than you do today?
You're still going to close your eyes when you go to sleep.

Some people (and it's a very small %) tend to place a lot of emphasis on IQ results - sad really.

IMHO

In response to Zekezero, I *was* a member of Mensa and had a card, so I know it doesn't have your IQ on it (though I left Mensa last year), but AFAIK the maximum on a Mensa test is 161. Perhaps they have separate tests for people who do exceptionally well on the standard tests, I don't know.

I must heartily agree with Tandem, I left Mensa as I didn't see the point, as I said in an earlier post, I don't think it an accurate indication of your intelligence. I only joined because I was insecure about my intelligence and wanted to see if I could. I now realise it is pretty meaningless and doesn't really have any "real world" benefits.

It's like knowing how high you can jump and how far it is to the moon, a personal fun fact is what it is. Going around boasting your IQ I find to be really annoying. It gets to be a pissing contest between intelectual folk. I have a high IQ, do I care? Not much, all it did was help me get through a couple grades faster than your average bear.

IQ is stupid, and is one of the things that most pisses off "proper" psychologists like me.

The other is people telling you that you only use 10% of your brain.

Taliesin - what pisses you off about IQ? Is it the way it tends to be misunderstood? Seems to be quite an interesting construct to me; in the way it correlates so well with what should be quite unrelated factors.

However, the 10% of the brain one definitely gets me going too. I'd love to get someone saying that with a big black permanent marker, ask them which 90% they wouldn't mind missing before pulling out the bone saw...

Well, the actual use for IQ scores is to judge learning disorders. It was originally for children, but they changed the scoring so it could be used for adults too.

I had to get some rather extensive testing done in college to judge why I was having so much trouble in my classes. They gave me the WAIS (Wechler Adult Intelligence Test) to test my ability, as well as some academic achievement testing. They actually give you a different score for specific areas of mental ability and learning, and pay more attention to the differences in scoring between the ability and achievement, as well as the different types of ability.

The tests were quite useful for me, because I got to see exactly where I was in different types of thinking and learning, and what caused difficulty with me. I turned out to be a strong case for ADD. My scores in verbal areas and other tests unrelated to attention and focus issues were in the 180s, while tests that depended on memorizing information or concentration scored down in the 150s, which is twice the difference for judging learning disability. In one timed test that relied entirely on remembering and associating numbers and symbols, I got something like 110, which is a huge disparity. I did apparently get the highest score the tester had seen in a timed test requiring you to duplicate a shape seen on a paper using patterned blocks, though, so if I can ever find a job where playing with blocks is a main requirement, I'd be totally set. Perhaps a preschool teacher, or even a Lego Maniac(tm).

I was tested in elementry school at a 140-something. That qualified for the 'gifted program.' There are many that will support the fact that I'm no genius though :)

I remember in an Empirical Analysis/Statistics class I took in college we did a unit on IQ testing. The funny thing about most of the people (that were discussed in our text, that is) who tested more than 1 SD from the mean was that very few of them could actually function in "real world" terms. Totally smart in academic terms, yeah, but had problems with social operations like communicating with others or even simple stuff like dressing themselves or whatnot.

Which would explain the fashion sense of most physicists, I guess...

Anyway, it was the same deal with Einstein et al.

Of course, those with sub-85 IQs had even bigger problems, but that goes without saying.

All this talk really cracks me up.


News flash .... you can study / learn how to do better at IQ tests.


The VAST majority of IQ tests are both irrelevant and inconslusive anyways - just another failed theory of psychology. Don't believe me? Look at contemporary cognitive psychology.

PS: Still don't believe me? Go sit in a room with 3 other people and ponder psychology in an intraspective manner. LOL :p

That reminds me. My mom told me about a friend of hers that took an IQ test and didn't like his results, so he went to the library, read a couple of books on the IQ, then tried again and got a 200. Basically, most of the tests show how well you test.

Actually, now that I think about it, the guy my mom was talking about was Bob Weir from the Grateful Dead. Weird.

As for relevance, I mentioned earlier that their only real use was for diagnosing learning disabilities anyway, and variations of the tests are still quite useful today for that purpose. At least we're not bringing up that horrible Emotional IQ idea that was big for a while.

Exactly. IQ tests test your ability to perform well on IQ tests. There is no single useful measure of intelligence. We no longer think dyslexics are unintelligent, although they would perform badly on verbal sections of the tests. Nor are the blind stupid just because they can't see the paper.

IQ tests have their roots in US immigration policies of the 19th century, and were used to "prove" the pre-conceived idea that there was a hierarchy of races, with European whites at the top (oddly enough) and African blacks at the bottom. I urge anyone who still thinks that IQ is a worthwhile measure to read The Mismeasure of Man by Steven Jay Gould.

It depends on who you ask. My cousin is dyslexic and had a terrible time in elementary school because he couldn't keep up with the reading. The teachers would get angry at him for it, or put him on the spot all the time. They -knew- he was dyslexic, and still treated him like he was stupid.

His mother fought with the school board for years, and finally just took him out of school. She later put him into a special private school, having to pay out of her own pocket.

The thing that really angered me about all of it is that the kid is practically a genius as long as symbolic interpretation is not involved. The speed at which he can understand things told to him is surprising.

Those of you who are pontificating about IQ tests and how they don't mean anything might just want to go to a Mensa gathering some time.

As was stated above, Mensa is a group for people who score at the 98th percentile on an intelligence test (IQ132 on WAIS or WISC).

If IQ meant nothing, then Mensans would be no more intelligent than anyone else. Well, the truth is that they *are* a lot more intelligent than most people. You can hear it in the programs, see it in the games room and experience it in casual conversation over a cup of coffee.

Yes, people, IQ (as measured by the mainstream intelligence tests) does mean something.

people would be more willing to accept that iq does mean somethign if they were able to raise theirs easily :/

Mensa is a self-selecting group, so doesn't really count. Firstly I believe that IQ is a flawed measure, so the criterion for inclusion is meaningless. Secondly the problem is that you perceive these people to be intelligent, therefore that is the criterion you will judge others by. I'm not saying it's wrong, just meaningless because others may have a different definition. It's too subjective.

Now I'm not stat expert but as pretty much everyone on this board has an IQ in the super genius (well ok about the normal genius phase) the TFproject is either a gathering place for people with High IQ's or people are using loaded tests. The online ones i did were timed ones so that you had ot manually say how long it took (which therefore adds a loverly was to soop up your IQ). ANyway as people have said it's a general test, I'd rather have a lower IQ and be practical than a high IQ'd abstarct thinker.

You see how I've not added my IQ to this, I'd love to report it, i really would, but I'm not sure what it is. The online tests I've taken seem a little too easy to label people genius's to get them to pay subscription. Can anyone recommend a decent free one to do online? I'd love to be mentally strong and say I'm not bothered but I'm weak and would like to ake a proper one.

Asia Carrera has an IQ of 154-156 depending on the test and belongs to MENSA.

And I agree with Taliesin about perception of MENSA. My worst boyfriend ever had a membership, but he was still dumber than a doorknob when it came to social settings.

Hey Tailspin whilst checking your profile (i'm wondering how many posts till i lose this damned rookie status) i noticed that
A your birthday is damn similar to mine
B, you're doing a Phd. What subject? Sorry to go off topic somewhat, although it is sort of related to the high IQ thing

I get called that a lot.

A. Yeah, I saw your profile too. We should have a beer.

B. I'm doing a PhD in Psychology (hence being in this thread), studying movement control in patients with tremor due to Parkinson's disease. My cash runs out in six weeks, so I'm trying to get it finished. Are you a student? I assume all UK internet people are, because it's the only way we can afford access :mad:

Flawed, yes but not meaningless.

Quote:

Secondly the problem is that you perceive these people to be intelligent, therefore that is the criterion you will judge others by. I'm not saying it's wrong, just meaningless because others may have a different definition. It's too subjective.

Of course it isn't a perfect measure and of course people will define intelligence differently around the margins. However, there is a core set of characteristics that most people would agree are part of what we call intelligence.

What's your point?

Quote:

And I agree with Taliesin about perception of MENSA. My worst boyfriend ever had a membership, but he was still dumber than a doorknob when it came to social settings.

Some of the people who join Mensa do so in order to be accepted despite a lack of social skills. However, that is generally true of people who join social clubs.

Out of all of the people who are eligible to join any club, the ones who actually do join are often people who are more shy than the general population.

Oh bugger sorry i seriously thought it said tailspin (i've a habit of reading a little too quickly) apologies (of the profuse variety). (in the psy thing perhaps the fact that as i read your name i see the cartoon with the bear in it and the planes, how worrying).

B, I'm writing mine up at the moment, (PhD that is) and should be finished by september. I'm a chemistry type person (flitting onto Biochem as I'd like a job when i finish).

C, perhaps this should have gone as a PM but hell let the board read it. In fact i was wondering how many people on the boards do PhD as i know of one other person (although he doesn't post anymore). Right anyway i need to get something else written down so that i can go out and play this weekend

The way I see it there are two types of intelligence. Intellectual and social. Intellectuals w/ high IQs are nuclear physicists and rocket scientists. Socialites w/ high IQs are??? I'm not sure what they are, but the have an understanding of what it takes to get through day to day life without alienating everyone they meet. Here's a good example. When my sister was in college she had a roommate who was a genius. He was the ultimate intellectual. When moving day came the looked at the Cable TV line coming out of the back of his set and rather than use his fingers to turn the nut and release the cable he used a scissors to cut the thing off. This guy could match brain power with the best in Mensa and couldn't handle basic day to day tasks. Now you tell me, who's better off, someone with high intellectual intelligence or high social inteligence.

I don't think I had a point... I just really like Asia Carrera. Any woman who does differential equations in her spare time as a leisure activity is hawt in my book.

I took Mensa's IQ test and got a 'score' of 147. I'm quite proud.