What is your iq?

[greenhorn]

7 minutes ago, Cora_Lie said:

It's a pretty common misconception spread through the public that you have a "single metric". Read my original post I've linked above.

Thanks for the link, I didn't know about the more sophisticated form of IQ tests you mentioned because all I ever saw other people mentioning were single scores. Those single scores don't make any sense if they are averages of other scores, because then you would need some kind of weighting that would be very hard to justify (unless all individual scores where to be exactly the same, then the weighting would become irrelevant).
What you said in your other post regarding the fact that you see IQ tests as a good way to find out one's own strengths and weaknesses is something I can accept.

Using qualitative rather than quantitative measures would make more sense imho, because quantitative measures (as in assigning a score in form of a number or a range of numbers) might suggest the "measurement" has a certain degree of precision and objectivity which seems dubious to me.

[mr moose]

34 minutes ago, comander said:

At times I was pretty moronic as a teenager and even a bit during undergrad. "How can someone so smart be so stupid" <- I got this a few times.

As someone who has invested a lot of time working with young boys as they develop through early education and teenage years, I can assure you that only some come out the other side of maturation and physiological development actually more mature.     Wisdom plays a large role in being able to utilize any intelligence one has.  This is why we have smart people who still question vaccinations and the scientific method.  Because with out wisdom, we are all just slaves to our fears/desires. 

 

34 minutes ago, comander said:

A good chunk of people on here are in those age ranges. Some mix of overconfidence and inexperience can result in stupid actions by smart people. IQ measures connections, analytical reasoning more than wisdom and much of our thoughts are subconscious (parasympathetic nervous system does a lot)

 

There are definitely a few times where I'm shaking my head though. 

I see an awful lot of the dunning Kruger effect and 3rd person effect (both in the traditional hypothesis and it's extensions) on these forums.  Both of which I believe a higher intelligence doesn't naturally play a role in.

[mr moose]

5 minutes ago, comander said:

It's a single metric for a family of cognitive abilities. It's generally accurate though not perfect. 

 

No one is using IQ to find the next Michael Jordan, Britney Spears or Picasso. 

 

They are using it to predict who is likely to win a nobel prize or who might need extra help with not starving to death of left to their own devices. 

 

I have just starting reading an article titled "Autism As a disorder of high intelligence", particularly fascinating because it seems to exemplify the rather exaggerated view most people have of intelligence in general.  That is, people claiming it is too large and varying to be able to drill it down to a singular metric or even a scale of metrics. It looks at the evidence of higher intelligence and within the disorder that largely presents (IRL face to face) as a lower intelligence altogether.  The hypopthesis (as I read it so far) is that the highly imbalanced components of intelligence is what cause most of the Autistic symptoms.  Mind you this sort of thing also leads me to my earlier conclusions  that IQ is not a thing for the average Joe,  it can't be effectively used by laymen to explain or predict anything. 

[Guest]

15 minutes ago, mr moose said:

 

I have just starting reading an article titled "Autism As a disorder of high intelligence", particularly fascinating because it seems to exemplify the rather exaggerated view most people have of intelligence in general.  That is, people claiming it is too large and varying to be able to drill it down to a singular metric or even a scale of metrics. It looks at the evidence of higher intelligence and within the disorder that largely presents (IRL face to face) as a lower intelligence altogether.  The hypopthesis (as I read it so far) is that the highly imbalanced components of intelligence is what cause most of the Autistic symptoms.  Mind you this sort of thing also leads me to my earlier conclusions  that IQ is not a thing for the average Joe,  it can't be effectively used by laymen to explain or predict anything. 

Holy smolly!!!

Even more when you know that some of the latest discoveries/research seem to correlate high oestrogen levels in the amniotic fluid with autism.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41380-019-0454-9

 

 

Edited August 6, 2019 by Guest
typos

[Guest]

12 minutes ago, comander said:

People aren't equal. We aren't ants. We are far more diverse and the other side of the diversity coin is non-identicality/inequality. 

Could you develop what you mean? Please? ^o^

[mr moose]

3 minutes ago, Cora_Lie said:

Holy smolly!!!

Even more when you know that some latest discoveries tend to correlate high oestrogen levels in the amniotic fluid with autism.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41380-019-0454-9

 

 

That falls in line with earlier reading I have done that presented a link between heightened levels of testosterone in utero and autism. 

 

Interesting reading that one, thanks for the link.

[greenhorn]

2 minutes ago, comander said:

Qualitative measures are imprecise, horribly susceptible to bias, context sensitive and...

So expensive that they're infeasible. You also lose useful features like comparability. 

 

2 minutes ago, comander said:

Most of the time I do see people calling for qualitative measures, it's because their  either dealing with small n(narrowing down several options) or they are upset with the truth and want to shade it.

I have seen statistical methods being abused too many times I guess. I have not really looked at how researchers have normed those tests, but these tests are a weak point of the whole concept. Especially comparability is something that is not easy to ensure but is needed to be able to output quantitative scores imho.

[Guest]

19 minutes ago, greenhorn said:

 

I have seen statistical methods being abused too many times I guess. I have not really looked at how researchers have normed those tests, but these tests are a weak point of the whole concept. Especially comparability is something that is not easy to ensure but is needed to be able to output quantitative scores imho.

Whether IQ tests, statistics, or other way of categorization, they are all just tools...

As such some can be better than others (refined over time, more precize, etc.)

 

But as tools, ALL can be misused depending what your objective is.

 

Most of the time it is to "discriminate" (as in distinguish, differentiate).

 

Edited August 6, 2019 by Guest

[Automobili3XF]

I never took the test, so i have no ideia.

Are there any good tests online? Kinda curious to try one out.

[Guest]

13 minutes ago, 1984_C10 said:

I never took the test, so i have no ideia.

Are there any good tests online? Kinda curious to try one out.

Did you read what I wrote? 

[Automobili3XF]

3 minutes ago, Cora_Lie said:

Did you read what I wrote? 

I did now, i didn't see it before, thanks!

[BuckGup]

IQ tests are pretty bullshit and unless you had one proctored by an official source it's most likely wrong. They also rarely do them as they are unethical due to labeling theory  

[steelo]

Took it awhile back while I was in the military and scored a 118, so apparently I'm not a genius. My dogs think I am though, so that's all that matters! 

[Sauron]

13 hours ago, FalconGamer03 said:

I know it's an old thread but what the heck, it's an interesting topic, i have around 150-180 IQ when i got tested quiet recently, the only problem is that i'm very unmotivated, but im getting better.

 

Although i have this friend who scored like 80 on an IQ test once

180 IQ and you still managed to necro a 5 year old thread, which is explicitly against the rules iirc

[jones177]

I am too stupid to take an iq test.

 

I took some kind of test when I was very young and was told that I was special and would no longer be required to pass classes. I thought that was great and settled in on being special. That was in Canada.

 

It took a long time for me to figure out what special was and came to the conclusion that I must have been really special for it to take so long. 

Fortunately I like to look at pictures and one of my favorite pictures was on the cover of a paperback science fiction book. Wanting to know more about the picture I decided at a ripe old age of 14 that I would teach myself to read. I had some idea how to go about this since before I was special people actually tried to teach me. 

 

My parents immigrated to the US when I was 12 so I could be just plain stupid again since the US at the time had no system in place to identify my special status.  So I went about doing the things that stupid people do like being bad and dropping out of school when I was 16. 

 

No one objected when I dropping out of school. It seems that they had given up on me long ago and this was just an inevitable step. 

 

Much later on, circumstance forced me to take classes so I decided to teach myself the subjects so I did not make a complete fool of myself. This gave me the appearance of being smart. I wasn't, I was just prepared.  

 

Being prepared worked for me so I applied it to everything I did and it worked.

 

Since I am just smoke and mirrors I avoid anything that would reveal the truth, so no iq tests for me.     

 

        

[Guest]

It's got a 6 in it, but it's not 6000!

 

What is it?

 

6!

 

Six? Do me a lemon. That's a poor I.Q. for a glass of water

[driftz240]

13 minutes ago, Sauron said:

180 IQ and you still managed to necro a 5 year old thread, which is explicitly against the rules iirc

So which is better, reviving a thread thats dated af, or creating a new one with the same damn question.

[Sauron]

7 minutes ago, driftz240 said:

So which is better, reviving a thread thats dated af, or creating a new one with the same damn question.

If you think the question is still relevant then yes, it's better to make a new one.

[driftz240]

Just now, Sauron said:

If you think the question is still relevant then yes, it's better to make a new one.

ok i guess thats where we disagree but whatever, doesnt really change much. 

[msknight]

I did sit the Mensa tests (official exam-condition with other people) and there were different scores for the "culture" and "culture-free" tests. So actual raw score means very little, because it varies depending on the test you take. Ironically, my mensa membership number is one of the few that I can remember off the cuff, even though it doesn't mean anything to me any more.

 

What did it give me? A bit of personal validation at the time… that I was worth something. As the years went on, I got other experiences which validated my life… like when my programming skills helped save people's jobs at a time when privatisation could have seen them out of work. That was worth more than the numbers on the paper.

 

I also met other people… but I could have done that through joining any other group of people, through other clubs or organisations... (including this forum!)

 

I didn't get much from my membership and gave it up. I did meet some interesting people and had access to research on the mind and IQ that was going on at the time. If anything, the strongest impression I came away with, was that there are some very talented young people in the world today, whose talents are being squandered by society. Sir Ken Robbinson's video, "Do Schools Kill Creativity" was an interesting talk which, I believe, sums up my view on the subject. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iG9CE55wbtY

 

At the end of it, I realised that IQ means very little in the world today. There are a host of aspects of humanity that mean much more, but can't be measured. How do you measure generosity? Compassion? Empathy? There are considerably more traits that have a worthwhile effect in the modern world, than high “IQ.”

 

Part of that journey had some validation from Einstein .... "1921 May 18, New York Times, Einstein Sees Boston; Fails on Edison Test: Asked to Tell Speed of Sound He Refers Questioner to Text Books (Special to The New York Times), Quote Page 15, New York. (ProQuest) " - https://quoteinvestigator.com/2012/04/02/know-where-to-find/#note-3604-2 – in other words, you don't need to have to regurgitate every fact off the top of your head … which took some of the pressure off.

 

It has resulted in me being a target for people who think that high IQ puts people on a pedestal that they should be knocked down from... but there isn't actually a pedestal there in the first place (although I did encounter a few people who thought that their high IQ made them special... the majority of people were well grounded, honest folk.)

 

So, raw IQ is just a number that is meaningless without knowing more details about the particular tests sat… and there are so many other things that are more worthwhile to have, as a person, than a high IQ score, that can’t be measured. The only benefit it brought, was a little validation at a time in my life when I thought I was worthless.

[Andreas Lilja]

Isn't the average like 100.

 

Each time I see an IQ thread everyone is like 130.

[Guest]

Yes, the average is 100 +-15

Here's a graph to visualize it

 

Now... Why so many 130+ here?

Many reasons:

• Fake internet tests
• Dunning-Kruger effect
• Some who are joking
• A member proposed in a previous post the Third-person effect, but I'm not so sure about that (absolutely possible that I am wrong).
• a few other reasons ^o^

 

 

 

[Exaco]

On 3/27/2014 at 4:30 PM, Osmium said:

IQ is a broken system of measuring intelligence. MIne is in the 120-30s but I don't think you can measure intelligence. People think differently so you can't measure everyone by one standard.

You can as long as it doesn't include: Math, Knowledge, Words ( grammar stuff etc ) basically anything that you can "learn" cannot be in IQ test. But ofcourse u need the basics to be able to solve it

Proper IQ test is just all about how fast person solves an logic problem ( or if he/she can even solve it ) which translates how intelligent the person is and how fast he would learn, adapt and process information.

So lets say if person doesn't know who's the current president, doesn't know his country's capital, does sometimes stupid shit like being flat earther and making its theory videos etc doesn't mean he's dumb even tho majority would consider he's stupid, he still can have superior IQ and probs would learn and master e.g. computer game, programming or some mentally challenging task alot faster than the majority even tho the person isn't wise, just smart.

But then there's still different interests, physical and sensory abilities also growing in different environments has also huge impact which makes every person unique just like you said "everyone think differently".

[SenKa]

Again, no idea, and I don't have any desire to know. IQ is a number with very little meaning to 99% of the population. I know I'm a quick learner and critical thinker, which lend themselves to high IQ, so I guess there is your answer?

[msknight]

7 hours ago, Andreas Lilja said:

Isn't the average like 100.

 

Each time I see an IQ thread everyone is like 130.

Yes, the average is shifted according to the invigilated tests that are sat.

 

The long story short is that it is the average of the population, so as the population as a whole gets smarter, the figures are adjusted to always form the bell curve.