whats your IQ?

[Woodlouse2002]

I notice no one ever seems to have an IQ of less than 120. So either the whole IQ thing is absolute shite or some people are lying. I personally think the first one has a lot to say for it's self. I've met a lot of "geniuses" who are quite frankly idiots.

[Scorpiоn]

Your mind's strengths allow you to think ahead of the game -- to imagine or anticipate what should happen next in just about any situation. Because you're equally skilled in the numerical and verbal universes of the brain, you can draw from multiple sources of information to come up with new ideas and this makes you a Visionary Philosopher.

You also have a knack for matching and anticipating patterns in all sorts of situations, a talent that adds to your visionary philosopher mind.

133.

Frankly these things sound like horoscopes to me.  Anyone can be a philosopher.  Silly.

Also:

Cynics are people who know the price of everything and know the value of nothing.

I think Hagar would like to disagree!

[mostickity]

I got 124.  8) last time i took one i got 90 when i was like 13  :P

[Dr._Who]

wow....Belive it or not but...146 Got that exact same score at a test we did at school...

[MattNW]

And 221 is just about physically impossible, must've been a fluke.  We've all seen your picture Ashar, you have a perfectly normal sized head and brain!

I think 200 is the max possible on most IQ tests. That doesn't mean someone can't hit the ceiling on the test however. There are other tests that can map out the abilities on someone higher but they usually look at more specific areas of ability and don't measure the whole spectrum like a normalized IQ test would.

Age is a humungous factor in IQ calculations-not so sure about gender.

Yep, a real big factor considering that your IQ is the difference between your chronological age and your mental age. MA/CA * 100 = Intelligence Quotient.

For example if an 8 year old answered questions correct for a 14 year old then his IQ would be 14 (mental age) / 8 (chronological age) * 100 = 175 or an IQ of 175.

Gender is only important in how the test is compared across gender lines. Men and women have different areas of competency. Men tend to score higher in the spacial areas while women tend to score higher in the verbal subtests. This in no way however can be interpreted that one is superior to the other no matter what any of my girfriends may have told you.


All that aside however I personally don't hold a lot of stock in IQ tests as a measure of function for the simple reason nobody has yet agreed on what intelligence is.

Current tests such as the Weschler and Peabody tests for adults and children seem to measure the person's ability to succeed in a middle class school environment but some people who score low on that measure will often succeed despite the score and vice versa some who score high end up going nowhere.

A fellow named Terman did a study of hundreds of children who scored 175 and above on IQ tests. He followed them for 30 years and at the end of that time none of the now adults had achieved beyond what could be expected of a normal motivated adult. He did find that they were a little more adjusted and earned a better living than controls but none were identified as genius material.

A lot of researchers are beginning to look at other things than have previously been included in IQ tests. Things such as musical intelligence, spacial intelligence and kenesthetic intelligence and these are only some of them. One proposed theory identifies as many as 100 differing intelligences.

Thus since nobody can positively tell what intelligence actually is it's obvious that IQ tests are only aptitude tests and not a full measure of the intellectual worth of anyone. The best use hoever isn't in the actual score or quotient but in what the sub test scores tell about a person. These have been used for some time by psychologists to map out a person's brain and pinpoint specific abilities and diagnose disabilities. For that the IQ test is a very powerful instrument.

I've got a great new theory about these online "so called" IQ tests... they're there to find out how many idiots online will try them
I happen to know my real IQ according to proper tests

I've always suspected that myself. Seems great minds think alike.  ;)  

[Flt.Lt.Andrew]

Well elecuted, Matt!
I scored 126 on that one, but 165 on another a few years back..never done a real one, perhaps I should?

Indeed a strange subject!


A.

[wealthysoup]

All that aside however I personally don't hold a lot of stock in IQ tests as a measure of function for the simple reason nobody has yet agreed on what intelligence is.

you cant measure something if you dont know what it is i suppose  

[MattNW]

Well elecuted, Matt!
I scored 126 on that one, but 165 on another a few years back..never done a real one, perhaps I should?

Indeed a strange subject!


A.

Hope you are well off financially if you decide to have one done. They usually cost thousands of dollars. They need to be administered by a psychologist or psychiatrist and scoring and interpretng takes hours of the professional's time which you will be requred to pay for.

Someone did mention the MENSA test however. That's considered  pretty accurate. Don't know for sure if they charge you for it now. Used to be they didn't but that could have changed.

you cant measure something if you dont know what it is i suppose  

It's even crazier when you consider cultural bias and other factors in scoring. Some years ago it was noticed that black children consistantly scored lower on IQ tests than white children. Some people took this to mean that blacks were less intelligent (you can guess who thought that). After reexamining the test however it was found that the IQ test used had questions and sub tests that would be better recognized by white children from a middle class background. Also the tests were normalized on white middle class children. New tests designed with equal emphasis on differing races and normalized with mixed race groups don't show any difference between race.

I think someone above mentioned that many questions on the test linked here were such that someone older would be better prepared to recognize and answer correctly. That's the same situation. In that case the test can be said to be generationally biased. Older test takers would score higher than someone younger.

Funny note about bias is that Weschler tests have a subtest where you look at a picture with some element missing like a file cabnet without handles on the drawers and you have to tell what element it is that's missing. One card showed an old cradle type dial telephone with the dial missing. Since then that picture has been updated since most modern children and teens have probably never seen a dial telephone. Almost all phones now are push button.  ;D

Another humorous story told by a psych professor. An exercise for students in an advanced educational psychology course was to administer IQ tests to a group of previously identified "very gifted" children.

One 6 year old girl was asked who discovered America. Her answer was, "I don't know". The student giving the test marked the quesiton as wrong. Later the profrssor stepped in and asked the little girl to explain her anwer.

Her explainaiton was this, "Well I know it's said that Columbus discovered America but some theories and archeological evidence suggests that the Vikings came over here long before that. There's also the Asians who first migrated across the Bearing Land bridge. Shouldn't they be considered the true discoverers".

Which just goes to show what happens when the person taking the test is a step ahead of the person giving it.  ;D