IQ

[Reach]

I suppose "garbage" was too strong a word, then. that's why I defined exactly what I meant.

Fair enough.

That's a scary thought. I didn't think psychometrics to be so far removed from a psychologist's studies, given that they administer the test and help their patient (or whatever term applies) interpret the results.

It's not requisite. The reason is that not all psychologists administer IQ tests. The ones that do are trained specifically in order to be able to. As such, this is why I don't think your comparison from earlier is fair.

In order to be fair, you have to recognize the psychiatrist that diagnosed you is using entirely different tools and standards to do that, and it's a different job than administering an IQ test.

I agree that data is data, but one of the most important things is our interpretation of that data. Science is entirely about gathering data and interpreting it, trying to use a process to sift out variables and gray areas and quantify things. The problem is that there is always going to be the question of what to do with that data, so I could hardly say that opinion means nothing. In theoretical sciences, which I consider to be a valid part of science, opinion means almost everything, given the little amount of data and how much they have to extrapolate from that.

You make good points. I'm not actually going to argue with any of this. It's incredibly important we recognize that data does not interpret itself.

When I say an opinion means nothing, I mean specifically ones that are uneducated. I probably should specify; obviously, like most things, not all opinions are the same. Some are more informed than others. You just happened to pick a bad example, because it was rather uninformed.

I'm not taking the fact that it happened to me as direct evidence that it happens often. I was simply stating that I am one example.

It's fair enough. We've moved past this, but just to make it clear, I was arguing mostly that you couldn't use this to justify calling the tests garbage - you needed something more.

I was being sarcastic with the list, but alright. I have the constant desire to learn and break through my preconceptions, so I tend to look at my strongest beliefs and challenge them the most, so don't mistake me for someone who thinks they know everything. You've explained a few things candidly, which I appreciate, and I'm taking them to heart and am going to research them.

EDIT: On another note, what I wouldn't give for an accurate diagnosis from these all-knowing experts... I've had trouble for years and nothing's been resolved. Trying to get to UCLA and get a full week-long diagnosis didn't work either, since they drag their feet like all hell.

I wasn't entirely sure if you were using sarcasm to poke fun at my arguments or ...just using sarcasm.


Anyway, thanks. I appreciate the open mind. If you find something of interest (e.g. something that counteracts my arguments in legitimate research), feel free to post it or PM me it, since I would be interested in reading it. This is, after all, my field of specialty. I didn't list my education to be a pompous ass or anything along those lines >_>

PS what exactly are you trying to get diagnosed? Like a physician, psychologists rely on hard science, but ultimately, many things have to go undiagnosed because of a...long list of reasons I won't list.

Based on what you've said earlier I'm assuming depression. If I'm wrong feel free to correct me or ignore this all together, but treating depression is a pretty foggy area. We know a lot about it, but there are a myriad of problems in diagnosing it because there are many causes for it. Meds work for many people, but they also don't for many. Some people also get the wrong meds. It's a huge problem.

Anyways, I've found that the eCMA test Reach suggested is relatively consistent under normal circumstances, though it doesn't seem to discriminate well within the upper ranges (150+).

End repost

P.S. - I've also tried the TA3 on the same site, but it seems a bit partial to individuals who actively pursue the knowledge that constitutes a significant portion of the test.

oh ****, I just realized you're talking about IQ tests from high IQ society.

They're not the best. I've talked with the makers of these tests before. Specifically, there are a number of problems with both tests, and I don't recommend them. They're much better than just about every other test on the net, but in particular the TA3 is ...not accurate lol. Your comment about it relying too heavily on knowledge is entirely valid. The maker of this test did not run proper psychometric procedure on these items, and as such it's littered with bad items.

The eCMA is a better test, but it has normalizing issues.

[OrganisM]

The conjecture I was making all along is that in more than one field, there are lots of gray areas left to be cleared up, so I can hardly believe in absolutes when talking about things like applying a numeric scale to intelligence. For the record, I am absolutely terrible in pattern recognition.

As for a diagnosis, it's a long story, but I've had a long history that screams out obvious symptoms of manic depression, obsessive compulsive disorder, and attention deficit disorder. That said, I'm not the type to self-diagnose. When I started trying to investigate what might be wrong, a good four years ago, I sought many professional opinions, and those opinions are in line with the symptoms. The effects of the medications I was taking are also in line with the diagnosis.. the only problem is that I had a major problem with these medications and couldn't take them anymore, and I don't want to subject myself to that again. But the problem still remains.

[Reach]

Originally Posted by OrganisM

The conjecture I was making all along is that in more than one field, there are lots of gray areas left to be cleared up, so I can hardly believe in absolutes when talking about things like applying a numeric scale to intelligence. For the record, I am absolutely terrible in pattern recognition.

As for a diagnosis, it's a long story, but I've had a long history that screams out obvious symptoms of manic depression, obsessive compulsive disorder, and attention deficit disorder. That said, I'm not the type to self-diagnose. When I started trying to investigate what might be wrong, a good four years ago, I sought many professional opinions, and those opinions are in line with the symptoms. The effects of the medications I was taking are also in line with the diagnosis.. the only problem is that I had a major problem with these medications and couldn't take them anymore, and I don't want to subject myself to that again. But the problem still remains.

This has been debate over semantics then, since you're right; there are no absolutes when talking about IQ.

Actually, it's quite the opposite. When you take the IQ test I posted, you get an exact score. Things are different in a professional test.

Your overall score is based on a ton of subset scores. However, you also get a score and a confidence interval. That range is usually 14-16 points on reliable tests. So let's say your raw score equates to 130 on the WAIS. You'll usually receive a 95% confidence interval with that, meaning if you took the test 100 times, 95 times out of 100 you would score between 123 and 137.


However, there is an abundance of information that can be taken from the set of scores. It can tell you a lot about an individual. The confidence interval is a reflection of the inaccuracy of any test. It's simply impossible to make a perfect test due to several factors.



When you say major problems, you're talking side effects right? =/ It's not surprising. Most commonly prescribed meds for issues like this have known side effects that are often severe.

[OrganisM]

Unfortunately it often works out that way. :P Perhaps I need to be more clear in my speech, then.

Yeah, side effects alright. Those medications clean turned me inside-out and robbed me of my humanity. And I thought things were bad when left untreated..

[Kagami_Hiiragi]

I took Reach's IQ test and got a 101.

[HighAndr0id]

took the test reach posted, scored 120 on first attempt. On subsequent lol takes, i got 79 answering all D, and 81 answering all F

[Tps222]

I got a 115 on the test Reach posted. Sounds about right to me, but I haven't been in school or done anything too academic or taxing on my brain in a few months. I'm not going to use this as a scapegoat, but I know there was some pattern recognition in there that I know I'd be able to solve 5 months ago, but I just couldn't put my finger on it this time.

I assume it's possible to sharpen or slightly lose your ability to do well on these tests from the amount and extent you process and complete complex tasks during a period of time. Is there any truth to that, or am I just spewing nonsense?

[OrganisM]

As far as I understand it, you can most definitely train yourself in these exercises and make the process more efficient, thereby changing the answers you give and therefore changing your IQ. Does that mean you are more intelligent simply because you trained yourself to take a test more efficiently? Also, many articles seem to say that one's mood has a lot to do with how well they do on the test. Do you become more or less intelligent depending on your mood?

/shrug, I'm no expert.

[Tps222]

I won't touch on the first half of your post, but as far as mood affecting results, I feel as if that is a person to person event. Even if I'm in a depressed mood, personally I can still do just as well on an exam as if I were content, because I know how to handle the relationship between my mood and my test taking abilities. On the other side of things, I know people who do very well on exams when they are in a good mood, but absolutely bomb them when they are upset. I realize this is anecdotal and doesn't draw from a huge pool of examples, but I really don't think you can draw an over-arcing conclusion based on mood.

[Tokzic]

118 on reach's

also that's on four hours of sleep

[Reach]

Originally Posted by Tps222

I got a 115 on the test Reach posted. Sounds about right to me, but I haven't been in school or done anything too academic or taxing on my brain in a few months. I'm not going to use this as a scapegoat, but I know there was some pattern recognition in there that I know I'd be able to solve 5 months ago, but I just couldn't put my finger on it this time.

I assume it's possible to sharpen or slightly lose your ability to do well on these tests from the amount and extent you process and complete complex tasks during a period of time. Is there any truth to that, or am I just spewing nonsense?

IQ stays relatively stable throughout the lifespan, but we need to consider what relatively means. As I pointed out earlier, scores have standard errors, and they're usually about 14-16 points. As such, let's say your actual 'intelligence' was 115 - from here your measured score could vary between 108-122.

It is generally accepted that IQ varies depending on variables other than intelligence, so no, you're not spewing just nonsense. For example, if you're overly tired, hungry, grumpy and distracted, you're probably going to fall closer to 108. Well rested, energetic, concentrated and in a good mood? Probably closer to 122.

However, IQ tests are generally resistant to training. Some studies have addressed training directly. Gains of 15 points have been seen in certain individuals, but if they stop training their scores fall back down to what they originally were. Staying in academia probably does help keep your IQ score at it's highest, but it's not likely to radically change it or anything along those lines.


It's best to think of it this way:

An IQ test is a snapshot of your intelligence, kind of like a photograph is a snapshot of what you look like. Yes, you can go out of your way to change the way you look (Hair products, makeup, getting fat etc), but fundamentally you don't change much and will always be the same (Genes for hair, skeletal structure, height etc).

I won't touch on the first half of your post, but as far as mood affecting results, I feel as if that is a person to person event. Even if I'm in a depressed mood, personally I can still do just as well on an exam as if I were content, because I know how to handle the relationship between my mood and my test taking abilities. On the other side of things, I know people who do very well on exams when they are in a good mood, but absolutely bomb them when they are upset. I realize this is anecdotal and doesn't draw from a huge pool of examples, but I really don't think you can draw an over-arcing conclusion based on mood.

Your ability is constant regardless of how you feel, how much you've slept etc. However, it can change your score in certain individuals because it interferes with their ability to concentrate on the material and do their best. Intelligence is, after all, your cognitive capacity for complexity. If you're not trying, we have a problem.

Not that people can just use not trying as an excuse. Many people use it as an excuse for the fact they lack ability to solve the problems in the first place. As such, their scores are indicative of a trend that is intrinsic to their life, their inability to get good jobs, do well in school, not commit crime, not go on welfare...etc.

This is where administration from a psychologist can help - it's easy to differentiate between someone with issues unrelated to intelligence and...just plain lack of intelligence.

[jchinzilla]

i just got pissed off half way through http://www.iqtest.dk/main.swf and hit "send"
those puzzle pattern problem things are pretty uncool.

oh yeah and it says i have an iq of 100 lol (50% of my answers were blank)

[robertsona]

Originally Posted by jchinzilla

i just got pissed off half way through http://www.iqtest.dk/main.swf and hit "send"
those puzzle pattern problem things are pretty uncool.

oh yeah and it says i have an iq of 100 lol (50% of my answers were blank)

exactly this

[BARMK_RULEZ]

137

15 years old

:P

[Reach]

Originally Posted by jchinzilla

i just got pissed off half way through http://www.iqtest.dk/main.swf and hit "send"
those puzzle pattern problem things are pretty uncool.

oh yeah and it says i have an iq of 100 lol (50% of my answers were blank)

Well, if you don't finish, you won't get an accurate score. They might be 'uncool', but they're highly g-loaded (that is, if you're good at them, you're most definitely good at just about every mental task).

I hope you don't have the same mentality when it comes to, say, doing your homework, or showing up at work on time. Those things are uncool too, but with the same attitude you'll probably end up average everywhere, despite how smart you might be >_>


I recommend trying again when you actually feel up to finishing it. Or not, if you just don't care.

[OrganisM]

Wait, I'd read that lack of sleep directly affects your ability to function.. your cognitive abilities included. Sleep deprivation can do a lot of things to a person, unless I'm mistaken.

And I'd explain why I don't have the patience to finish it, but it'd just sound like an excuse, so, no good.

[robertsona]

Originally Posted by BARMK_RULEZ

137

15 years old

:P

doesn't age not have an effect on IQ?

so yeah

[Reach]

Originally Posted by OrganisM

Wait, I'd read that lack of sleep directly affects your ability to function.. your cognitive abilities included. Sleep deprivation can do a lot of things to a person, unless I'm mistaken.

The research here gets iffy. There's actually a lot of evidence to suggest it has no effect on cognitive function, while other evidence suggests it does.

To avoid an incredibly complicated answer to why this is, I'll just say that it depends.

As such, you shouldn't take an IQ test if you're tired. That goes for any test. It could lower your performance.

doesn't age not have an effect on IQ?

so yeah

It doesn't on this test unless you're under the age of 16 or ...old. People under 16 can't take this test, and this test will underestimate old peoples IQ.


However, 137 isn't a possible score on this test, as far as I know, so it's not like it matters because he lied. Haha.

And I'd explain why I don't have the patience to finish it, but it'd just sound like an excuse, so, no good.

Just don't take it seriously then. It's not like I care what your score is.

The score is for your knowledge only. If you don't want to finish it, then don't. If this was a professionally administered test, things would be different, but it's not so >_> It's a free test that is reasonably accurate if you choose to finish it.


I know the first time I took it I didn't finish it. Wasn't in the mood. Decided to finish it at another time when I was.

[cry4eternity]

I actually saw a professional for IQ testing back in elementary school after they moved me up a grade. My parents tell me I was "off the charts," topping out the test that went up to 150. I've taken numerous online IQ tests since then resulting in scores ranging from 130's to 150's, including 144 on Facebook's "IQ Test" application.

Shortly after this professional test, my parents pulled me out and started homeschooling me. I was homeschooled for all of 4th, 5th, and 6th grade. By 7th grade, they were so sick of me that they reinstated me in public school. Since then I strongly feel I have lost mental ability, and I don't even mean that as a joke.

It is my belief that IQ scores can be a good general indicator of mental ability, but are too inconsistent to be conclusive beyond a 15-point margin or so.

[OrganisM]

As a kid my academic performance was at odds with my testing results; I lacked the discipline to do much of anything, so even though I kept getting away with things, I didn't get to reap any of the benefits of my testing.

Then a few years ago I found out that I'm not a good-for-nothing lazy piece of ****, and perhaps instead of imagining I'm imagining things, perhaps a few disorders could actually account for many of my difficulties.