How important is self-knowledge of intelligence?

[FDG]

I believe say past 20-22 people kinda stop caring about the results of those tests. If you're smart you really need to start to put it to use, and it'll eventually show anyway, no matter what the results are.

Self-awareness? I would say it can be useful when you feel certain that you've reached your own maximum potential. Otherwise, it's either self-limiting (if you're aware of being average, or even "dumb") or uselessly self-aggrandizing.

 

[Southern Kross]

And at the end of the day, how you interpret self-knowledge/self-awareness is a relative thing. I remember 2 cases of people speaking positively of testing in the 70-80th percentiles for something. Once was my comp sci teacher who said he was a goof-off in highschool but realized after taking a state diagnostic test that he was good at math because he tested somewhere in the 80th percentile tiles and that spurred him to teach math/science later.

The second was an admissions counselor at a private high school who used the example of his own son who was in constantly in trouble in school and failing out but had scored in the 70th percentiles on state diagnostic exams so was told by his guidance counselor that he was capable of much more. You tell that to a "Tiger Mom" or the great majority of Asian immigrant parents and they will be like WTF, beat you with a textbook, and tell you to do better next time. That kind of reaction usually stirs a belief in children that not only are they capable and "deserving" of getting in the 99% but they MUST.

This is interesting. I think it can have quite a positive effect to discover what you are capable of and what is within your limits; for all ranges of IQ. It can encourage you to try harder or to stop beating yourself up (or stop your parents harassing you) over failure to achieve perfect grades.

I wish they did IQ tests in NZ schools; I think I would have got a lot out of it. My impression of my own intelligence was very confused. I some ways I knew I was rather smart, but in others ways I felt stupid and incompetent. It really messed with my self-belief and my willingness to apply myself. Additionally, I have been increasingly convinced over the last few years that I have learning disabilities that were never picked up. Perhaps an IQ test would have made people ask some questions about why I wasn't performing as well as I could and why my grades were so inconsistent.

I got 106 on the first test and 130 on the second. Is such a spread between scores normal?

Honestly, I thought the first test was the hardest online IQ test I've ever taken and I've taken many of them. It was also one of my worst scores. 130 is a more typical score for me.

The first test I hoped that if I missed several hard ones in a row it would give me some easier ones. Well I think it did because the last several questions seemed a little easier but even the easiest questions were not *that* easy. It was still somewhat challenging to respond in 45 seconds and feel confident in that response.

The second test was more reasonable in difficulty and more what I've typically seen in IQ tests. The first few are extremely easy and the difficulty gradually increases throughout the test with the last several questions being fiendishly difficult.

Yeah, that first one was ridiculously hard. I also didn't have time to properly think things through so I was looking for the barest of patterns and then going on instinct as to which might fit. I can't say it is a totally useful test and wouldn't put much stock in the results (besides we are comparing apples with oranges: SD 24 vs SD 15). I didn't have quite the same level of disparity as you between the two, though: I got 124 on the first and 133 on the second.

Continuing on the self-esteem angle: I think a IQ test that tells you that it will start on really easy and get gradually harder, and then the first questions aren't easy, that's enough to break a person's spirit. You start saying to yourself, "What! This isn't easy. OMG I must be too stupid to work it out!"

 

[Mole]

The difference in emotionality is actually very interesting to me, how did they find that out?

The difference only applies to a very small number at either end of the Bell Curve. Almost all of us are not at the end of the Bell Curve.

However those at either end are plainly different and are seen to be different. And that's why they are socially excluded. And that's why those with an IQ over 160 and those with an IQ below 40 seem to gravitate together.

So it is vital for those with an abnormal or subnormal IQ find a peer group of their equals.

 

[William K]

The first test is really screwy

"You answered 14 questions correctly. However, the amount of questions answered correctly doesn't as such determine the result but it is essential how difficult questions were answered correctly. The operation of the test is more thoroughly explained in here"

14 out of 35.... means 140!?

Anyway, I think the "self-knowledge" is not necessarily a knowledge of what the score of a test is, but what that score signifies and what you are using the results for. In other words, what are you trying to measure and how are you going to use the results to improve?
Any test can be used for a variety of reasons
i) A baseline to judge my current knowledge
ii) A comparison to other people taking the same test
iii) A way of identifying strengths and weaknesses, based on which answers I got right/wrong
iv) You can even take a test to measure how good is the test
And so on... As for knowing how 'smart' you are, there isn't any single test or even definition of what is 'smart'. And being 'smart' is no requirement for success in life, so I don't see any reason for being depressed on getting a low score, or elated with a high one