What is your IQ score?

[entropie]

Nottin gainst Nickelback !!

[YOUTUBE="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95bX7-hWWts"]xD[/YOUTUBE]

 

[527468]

I don't see the usefulness of a high I.Q a all. From 135-140 or more, a higher I.Q don't mean anything more.

I agree, and I would say that IQ is often a weaker correlation to actual intelligence, but this intelligence is condensed to that of an IQ test, and little more. I sometimes get 160+, sometimes I get near 140. I don't consider it important to anything in my life, and ragingkatsuki's post sounds really ignorant, and so the young person is.

 

[Oaky]

^ I re-edited this post four times to try and think of a witty comeback. I couldn't. The guy's obviously just too much of a genius and certainly knows me very well too. It's guys like these that we should all take as role models. I wouldn't find it ignorant at all to assume one is ignorant by one post he has made.

 

[Litvyak]

I believe knowledge breeds intelligence. The more knowledge you have of things the more logical one can make his decisions. Or am I wrong?

1. No, I don't think so. There are many knowledgeable and stupid people out there. There is no correlation between knowledge you've gathered and the cognitive processes (quick thinking), and there's very small correlation between knowledge and...

- the ability to create a coherent and unique world view
- the ability to quickly find a solution to a problem
- ability to solve problems
- languages, skills etc.

The definition of intelligence is somewhat debatable, but I don't think that a) you're intelligent if you know the capital of Namibia and b) you'll become more intelligent if you know the capital of Namibia.

2. I think you're confusing IQ and intelligence. You can't say "I want to improve my intelligence to a point where it is equivalent to that of a person with 160 IQ", you can say "I want to become more intelligent" or that "I want to have an IQ of 160".

There are multiple concepts on the matter. Some say (I strongly disagree with this view), that "intelligence = high IQ", therefore "intelligent person = person with high IQ".
If you agree with this, developing your "intelligence" to 160 equals developing your IQ to 160, which is clearly BS (and impossible, as I've already stated).

Others say that intelligence is subjective (you can call a man "intelligent" if he behaves fine like a diplomat, if he knows how to fix a chair etc.) and IQ is an objective scale, and the connection between these two is disputable the very least (see my example above). If this is true, "transfering" a number from a scale to a subjective category doesn't seem to be logical. There may be a connection to some, and there may not be a connection to others.

Obtaining a high IQ score on an IQ test means that you have a high IQ. Nothing more, nothing less. If you score 10 points more than your friend, that means that your IQ is higher by 10, but you're not "more intelligent by 10".

tl;dr: You can develop your IQ and develop your intelligence, but the former is not possible at your age (5 points MAX), and the latter can't be measured.

 

[redacted]

You guys do know that >=145 IQ is about 1 out of 750 people...

And whoever said they were over 160 is claiming they are like 1/30000. I call bullshit.

I got 137 on a psychologist proctored 10 hour test. Which is about 1/150. For multiple people in this thread to be significantly higher than that is, well, most likely a bunch of shit.

Yes, I'm egotistical.

Also, even on well-proctored tests, the further from the mean you are, the more variance in your scores over time. The less degree of accuracy your scores have. Up past 130, the confidence interval is probably quite low.

Plus, IQ does not, at all, mean intelligence. It is one specific type of intelligence -- but there's no way it's only testing for ability. It also tests for knowledge. I remember leaving one blank on the math part because I didn't know derivitaves yet. But it's not like I didn't have the ability to understand them. Anyways, test-taking like this means very little.

 

[Oaky]

2. I think you're confusing IQ and intelligence. You can't say "I want to improve my intelligence to a point where it is equivalent to that of a person with 160 IQ", you can say "I want to become more intelligent" or that "I want to have an IQ of 160".

I see... I'm taking your word for it.
If this is the case then I would say that I just want to become more intelligent. I do believe that intelligence can be improved upon. As I said before, I am not interested in IQ but intelligence itself.

 

[redacted]

1. No, I don't think so. There are many knowledgeable and stupid people out there. There is no correlation between knowledge you've gathered and the cognitive processes (quick thinking), and there's very small correlation between knowledge and...

- the ability to create a coherent and unique world view
- the ability to quickly find a solution to a problem
- ability to solve problems
- languages, skills etc.

The definition of intelligence is somewhat debatable, but I don't think that a) you're intelligent if you know the capital of Namibia and b) you'll become more intelligent if you know the capital of Namibia.

Whoa whoa...I think you're way off base here. Gaining knowledge and practicing induction, etc. makes a person way more intelligent.

I mean, think about language. If we didn't learn the raw data of language, we'd all be much less intelligent. There's certainly a knowledge aspect to ability to process information.

The more you learn, the easier it is to learn new things, because you develop strategies for abstracting from data, and you can draw all sorts of analogies. Human learning is largely metaphorical, and without knowledge, metaphors are impossible.

2. I think you're confusing IQ and intelligence. You can't say "I want to improve my intelligence to a point where it is equivalent to that of a person with 160 IQ", you can say "I want to become more intelligent" or that "I want to have an IQ of 160".

There are multiple concepts on the matter. Some say (I strongly disagree with this view), that "intelligence = high IQ", therefore "intelligent person = person with high IQ".
If you agree with this, developing your "intelligence" to 160 equals developing your IQ to 160, which is clearly BS (and impossible, as I've already stated).

Others say that intelligence is subjective (you can call a man "intelligent" if he behaves fine like a diplomat, if he knows how to fix a chair etc.) and IQ is an objective scale, and the connection between these two is disputable the very least (see my example above). If this is true, "transfering" a number from a scale to a subjective category doesn't seem to be logical. There may be a connection to some, and there may not be a connection to others.

Obtaining a high IQ score on an IQ test means that you have a high IQ. Nothing more, nothing less. If you score 10 points more than your friend, that means that your IQ is higher by 10, but you're not "more intelligent by 10".

tl;dr: You can develop your IQ and develop your intelligence, but the former is not possible at your age (5 points MAX), and the latter can't be measured.

I do think it's possible to raise your IQ by practicing certain kinds of tasks. And I do think this would correlate to some extent to a greater capacity to process information.

The problem with any test is that it can't test for ability, only for application of knowledge. They can teach you new things on the test and see how you react, but they can't control for whether or not you've learned similar things in the past.

Like I said in my last post, when I was taking the math section of my IQ test, there was a derivative problem (the only one I didn't get right) and I couldn't solve it because I hadn't learned about derivatives. If I had more knowledge, I would've scored even higher, not because of a difference of ability or anything...

 

[King sns]

Nottin gainst Nickelback !!

[YOUTUBE="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95bX7-hWWts"]xD[/YOUTUBE]

oh man. Turn it off!! Quick!!!

 

[Litvyak]

I got 137 on a psychologist proctored 10 hour test. Which is about 1/150. For multiple people in this thread to be significantly higher than that is, well, most likely a bunch of shit.

1/200.
That's not egoistical, simply stupid - without backup data. Perhaps everybody except you has an IQ of 160 in this thread. Statistically, it's possible.

I do think it's possible to raise your IQ by practicing certain kinds of tasks.

Yes it is - with a maximum of 5 points (after the age of 20 or so). This is not a rule set in stone, perhaps it's 3, perhaps it's 7. But 20 did sound kinda weird.

 

[redacted]

1/200.
That's not egoistical, simply stupid - without backup data. Perhaps everybody except you has an IQ of 160 in this thread. Statistically, it's possible.

It is technically possible, but it seem to me much more likely that most people took internet tests that are designed to give subjects higher scores than they actually should have so that they'll pay money to read the "full report" or whatever.

I would believe the average IQ on this forum is significantly higher than the average population, but not 3 SDs higher...that's just ludicrous.

Yes it is - with a maximum of 5 points (after the age of 20 or so). This is not a rule set in stone, perhaps it's 3, perhaps it's 7. But 20 did sound kinda weird.

Maybe...I think 20 is possible if the conditions of the two tests are drastically different. But if the first test was at all accurate, I agree with you -- it'd be quite hard to change by 20 points. More likely than everyone having 160 IQs on this thread though


P.S. Isn't 137 almost exactly 1/147? I was assuming mean 100 and SD 15.

 

[onemoretime]

It is technically possible, but it seem to me much more likely that most people took internet tests that are designed to give subjects higher scores than they actually should have so that they'll pay money to read the "full report" or whatever.

I would believe the average IQ on this forum is significantly higher than the average population, but not 3 SDs higher...that's just ludicrous.

I wouldn't think so. The internet population as a whole skews higher than the general population. Now, the subset of the internet population that gives a damn about theoretical constructs of human personality? I'm guessing it's a pretty small ratio.


Considering that there are about 1 billion people on this planet who have regular internet access, that means that there are around 1.3 million who given a normal distribution, would have IQs of over 145. Now, that 30 people on a board would have that high of an IQ doesn't seem that far out of reach, does it?

 

[redacted]

I wouldn't think so. The internet population as a whole skews higher than the general population. Now, the subset of the internet population that gives a damn about theoretical constructs of human personality? I'm guessing it's a pretty small ratio.


Considering that there are about 1 billion people on this planet who have regular internet access, that means that there are around 1.3 million who given a normal distribution, would have IQs of over 145. Now, that 30 people on a board would have that high of an IQ doesn't seem that far out of reach, does it?

lol, I don't even know how to respond to that.

 

[onemoretime]

lol, I don't even know how to respond to that.

Sorry, read the numbers wrong. That ten people on a board would have that high of IQs doesn't seem particularly unreasonable.

We're talking extremely high levels of self-selection on a board like this.

 

[redacted]

Sorry, read the numbers wrong. That ten people on a board would have that high of IQs doesn't seem particularly unreasonable.

We're talking extremely high levels of self-selection on a board like this.

You are right that there are very high levels of self-selection. And probably the people posting on this thread are self-selected within the forum. But I still don't think most of the scores are accurate. Internet tests ruin everything - they're trying to flatter people into buying their reports.

Hell, even official IQ tests aren't that accurate.

 

[Quinlan]

Did you really take a ten hour IQ test?

 

[nanook]

hm.. so does the scale of possible IQ results reflect intelligence in a somehow vaguely linear fashion? (or is a person with 195 twice as intelligent as a person with 190? just to illustrate what i mean my non linear reflection of intelligence)

 

[Totenkindly]

hm.. so does the scale of possible IQ results reflect intelligence in a somehow vaguely linear fashion? (or is a person with 195 twice as intelligent as a person with 190? just to illustrate what i mean my non linear reflection of intelligence)

I'm too lazy to Google it for you tonight, but yes, it's non-linear (i.e., like your latter example).

 

[nanook]

ah... okay. cause i was wondering why normal people aren't worried, about pushing gifted people of the legal scale by associating the cool numbers (140+) with themselves. (if the scale was linear (if they think so), it would indicate a somehow flat imagination of what the most intelligent people are all about)

 

[BlueScreen]

I have absolutely no idea. I've never taken a test seriously. I used to get some of the word questions wrong because of obscure words, but the online tests are American mainly, so are more suited to American knowledge and vocabulary. Apart from that, the rest comes pretty easily. So maybe one of the top 2 brackets on the poll. Not sure though because the questions don't change much, so it is hard to get a correct measure on any attempt but the first. I'll vote 145-159. I'm not exactly Einstein or Hawking smart.

 

[cascadeco]

Plus, IQ does not, at all, mean intelligence. It is one specific type of intelligence -- but there's no way it's only testing for ability. It also tests for knowledge. I remember leaving one blank on the math part because I didn't know derivitaves yet. But it's not like I didn't have the ability to understand them. Anyways, test-taking like this means very little.

People can take this however they want to take it, but I will say that I tend to relate/connect best with those who have high IQ/test-taking scores. This is how it was in junior high, high school, etc etc, and my closest friends are in the top 5% at least, usually top 2% when it comes to these types of scores. I'm not saying this to brag, or to set myself separately from others, or whatever, it's just something I've noticed. I think the tests can measure a certain *type* of thinking/cognition/ability, and that similarity between myself and others in this way just enables easier communication and relation due to potential similar thinking styles, and I think it is that certain type of cognition/aptitude (even if it is pure test-taking skill and nothing else) that causes me to relate moreso to those with scores similar to mine. Personality can fall to the back burner in some ways, when it comes to 'connecting', as those I'm closest to do share this characteristic in common. The score signifies *something*; whether or not you want to call it 'intelligence' is your call.

As for the self-reported scores on here, while I'm sure some people aren't being truthful, I'm inclined to believe the more skewed results, with more people being in the higher brackets, as I would expect this sort of forum/environment to be kinda disproportionate in terms of overall population stats/norms.