... I've scored upwards of 70 on a few tests online.
Here are some reasons why online tests can't measure IQ accurately. Remember that IQ only measures relative intelligence within a control group taking the test. There isn't a number a person owns that can stay with them, the scores are all fluid and relative, changing with each peer group and test.
1. There are no controls on the test taker who can easily have a second browser open to help answer questions, along with a few friends. This lack of control should make everyone's scores lower than the controlled versions in school because more people will be getting correct answers... and yet.
2. People regularly report scores at 150 and higher, often noting they don't know what it means. An actual IQ of 130 places you in the top 2% of society and will get you in Mensa if you can demonstrate it credibly. Only on the internet IQ miscalibration extravaganza is 130 a modest or even low score.
3. The group taking the test is also not defined. Is it 6th graders? Senior citizens? Anybody? The peer group is unknown and uncontrolled.
4. The tests are often rather short and with questions that make it possible to actually get them all correct. Even standardized IQ tests become less effective the further they are measuring out from the norm of 100.
5. Some of these online tests have an offer at the end to purchase a book or something for which getting a high score is a motivation to make the purchase.
I've thought about how it is occurring that so many people have unrealistic notions about their IQ. There is a natural self-inflation where people tend to think they are smarter, or better drivers, etc. than is actually the case, but in this instance the exaggeration is a bit more stunning. There is probably just a lot of misinformation along with tests reporting high scores. Some people might simply lie about it perpetuating an inflated norm. I also think that there is a natural desire to contribute and demonstrate a significant skill within a group. Back in the days of the small village or tribe a person could be the smartest, the fastest, the best at something and feel personal significance. In the global village a person would actually need an IQ of 150 in order to stand out to that same degree. Average feels like insignificance and anonymity which people are overwhelmed by and so search for a sense of meaningful personal contribution and end up with a distorted sense of self.
I feel so inferior on here, because people keep talking about getting A grades all the time with no effort in school and such. I am not so lucky. I get maybe 1 or 2 As and the rest are Bs and Cs. Even if it's just the (less reliable I know) online tests, what IQs have you scored? I usually get around 130.
Oh good, finally we have an intelligent person expressnig skepticism about the reliability of IQ tests. However, I have not yet seen anyone here question whether there is such a thing as 'intelligence' as defined by IQ test and that thing can be measured by a single number. Intelligence, if broadly construed is a person's ability to solve abstract puzzles accurately. However, a wide range of such conundrums exists and in turn the different problems we encounter require different reasoning skills. It is manifest to me that a historian or a political scientist engages in different problem solving activities than a mathematician or a physicist. The former may rely more on inductive reasoning whle the latter more on deductive and even within a single discipline some problems require a greater reliance on memory than imagination or vice versa, whilst others require brainstroming activities more than attention to sense-perception and vice versa of course. To say that IQ exists as a single phenomenon would mean to imply that all problem solving is essentially the same kind of an activity, which is false.
The advocates of the IQ concept can claim that the number a person receives as his score is only an average of all of his abilities, however, in that case what reason do we have to believe that all intellectual activities should be weighed equally? Why should we think that being able to brainstorm ideas is just as important as being able to memorize the nature of entities that one has been exposed to or that deductive reasoning is just as important as exercising one's imagination effectively. Obviously which skill set is the most important depends on the nature of the intellectual activity a person is dealing with and the concept of general intelligence arbitrarily assumes that all intellectual activities are of equal importance.
The fact that the present debate is about a partisan issue is duly noted and I am not trying to indoctrinate anyone to believe in any particular position, I wish to merely raise awareness of the conceptual difficulties surrounding the concept of IQ. In turn, I hope that fewer readers will be inclined to uncritically accept the claim that 'intelligence' is a monolithic, very clearly defined and a simple entity.
bolded- are you sure that is true? does a 130 really get you into top 2%/mensa? i would have thought it was much higher.
Online IQ tests are retarded. I usually get a score 20-30 points lower than the REAL IQ test I took.
im scord 180 ur all inferur.
I took an actual IQ test administered by a psychologist and all that jazz, and earned a result of 145. My brother did the same and tested at 160, and is an idiot who leeches off of other people and wouldn't know a (academic or otherwise) work ethic if it kicked him in the nuts.
Results of that test do not take into account what one will choose to do with their inherent abilities.
Here are my IQ results:
06': 103
07': 112
08': (null)
09': 131
... Which would indicate I'm getting smarter over the years.
What are your IQs?
This reminds me of Blackmail!'s claim about how stastistically impossible many the IQ scores are on many forums.
That's commonly called the Flynn effect.
Well, fuck the hell, we're all geniuses on the Internet!!!!!!!! And if we're not, then we're genii!!!!!!! YEAHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!! WE ROCK MAN!!!!!!!!!!! RAWRRRRRRRRRRR!
I thought that was a generational improvement, I didn't think it applied to individuals in a longitudinal kind of way.
LOL You're silly!