IQ

[devonin]

Random clicking on the second test scored me an IQ of 109. Sweet.

[Izzy]

Got a 97 by clicking all C's on reaches first link.

[Reach]

While you bring up some valid things Devonin, some things need to be cleared up.

Random clicking on the second test scored me an IQ of 109. Sweet.

The second test is not designed to measure average IQ, let alone low IQ. It's a high range test.

Take the first test. Even the first test is not designed to measure low IQ. It's a fair test for FFR members, given anyone that's going to take it is probably reasonably intelligent. However, the test is still not designed to measure IQ below about 85.

The Mensa.dk test is based on Ravens APM, or advanced progressive matrices. This means it's a harder version of the original, designed to have higher accuracy in the higher IQ range. The Progressive Matrices test is much better at measuring low IQ.

I also question just what useful conclusion you're supposed to draw from your ability to analyze and manipulate patterns, when that ability is the only thing being measured.

I've been through this before, so I won't get into detail, but to summarize:

1. you are using a variety of intellectual abilities in order to solve these problems. Even verbal skills, in many cases.

2. Matrices are known to be highly g-loaded. This means performance on them correlates very highly with performance on all other mental tasks. If you are good at them, you're probably also good at general knowledge questions, vocabulary, analogies, processing speed, sequences, memory and working memory, etc.

This is because the g-loading is tapping into your general intelligence factor, which influences performance on any task.


That's not to say there aren't downsides to a test like this. There are a few. Tests like the WAIS (probably the most commonly administered in america) test multiple things, and can give a better picture of your intelligence. Your WAIS score and score on this test won't differ much though. Also, the reason tests like this are used is because they're culturally unbiased and can be given to just about anyone that is aware of what you're supposed to do.

Scoring full points for a lucky guess means that the results have a much larger potential deviation based around something you can't possibly measure or predict for: The degree to which individuals taking the test happen to be lucky or not.

The only way to account for that is to somehow try and deduce roughly how many answers people will guess at, and then your results are +/- MORE points, so you fall into a range bigger than you ought to if the test forced a greater degree of precision.

I've seen tests (thinking particularly of highschool math contest tests) where you got full points for a correct answer, no points for an incorrect answer, and a fixed smaller number of points for the first X questions you left blank.

So you got full points for knowing the answer, and rather than reward you for potential lucky guessing, gave the same degree of wriggle room for "I don't know the answer to this" to everybody. Since there was a fixed number of potential points you -could- get by admitting ignorance, it was easier to measure for and correct than trying to account for who might be how lucky just guessing.

Sure, scoring a test like this increases the error of measurement.

It's just that, proper tests actually account for this through what is known as the standard error. You normally will receive your score as a range, e.g. 120-136, rather than an exact score. This accounts for things such as luck.

This particular test doesn't list the standard error, which is a downside of the test. It's probably about 16 points though.

[BARMK_RULEZ]

Originally Posted by robertsona

doesn't age not have an effect on IQ?

so yeah

So you saying that my IQ will stay the same forever? I was born with an 137 IQ? I will die with a 137 IQ????

[robertsona]

Correct.

[BARMK_RULEZ]

I didn't lie

>

I took this one

http://www.free-iqtest.net/

*e-mail results*

Dear ****** ********,

Thank you for your interest in the test at IQTest.com.

Your general IQ score is: 137

You may login at http://www.iqtest.com/.. at any time to view your score, purchase your Complete Personal Intelligence Profile or The Consciousness Exercises, or edit your account settings:

Login email: barmk1@yahoo.com
Password: *******


Regards,
The Team at IQTest.com



Please do not reply to this email.
You can email us at support@iqtest.com.

[Reach]

Originally Posted by BARMK_RULEZ

I didn't lie

>

I took this one

http://www.free-iqtest.net/

*e-mail results*

Dear ****** ********,

Thank you for your interest in the test at IQTest.com.

Your general IQ score is: 137

You may login at http://www.iqtest.com/.. at any time to view your score, purchase your Complete Personal Intelligence Profile or The Consciousness Exercises, or edit your account settings:

Login email: barmk1@yahoo.com
Password: *******


Regards,
The Team at IQTest.com



Please do not reply to this email.
You can email us at support@iqtest.com.

This test is garbage and part of an Internet IQ phenomenon that puts up bogus tests that generally just inflate your score. Not to mention the fact they're constructed so poorly it's almost laughable.

Take the test I posted on the first page. It's not perfect either, but much better.

[devonin]

1. you are using a variety of intellectual abilities in order to solve these problems. Even verbal skills, in many cases.

2. Matrices are known to be highly g-loaded. This means performance on them correlates very highly with performance on all other mental tasks. If you are good at them, you're probably also good at general knowledge questions, vocabulary, analogies, processing speed, sequences, memory and working memory, etc.

I find that I'm better at pretty much all of the things you've listed here than I am at the "What's the missing thing given pattern X" tests.

[argo15]

I should have paced myself I had 15 minutes remaining ^.^'

[OrganisM]

Originally Posted by devonin

I find that I'm better at pretty much all of the things you've listed here than I am at the "What's the missing thing given pattern X" tests.

Same here.

In the interest of satisfying my curiosity, I might go and take a few tests sometime soon.

[Reach]

Originally Posted by devonin

I find that I'm better at pretty much all of the things you've listed here than I am at the "What's the missing thing given pattern X" tests.

Just because you feel worse at it doesn't mean you are with respect to everyone else. Remember, scores are scaled arbitrarily based on how other people do. You might feel your 'sequencing' abilities are worse than say, your vocabulary, but if you took the scaled score of each they are likely similar. Also, to be fair, you could easily be overestimating your other abilities (No offense. You're a smart guy. It's just something most people have a tendency to do).

However, everyone is better at some things than others.The point is that your scores from various tasks will cluster together. I suppose it's possible that matrices could be your weakest ability, and say, vocabulary your strongest, but you would still expect your scores to cluster together.

It's very unusual that they wouldn't cluster, but I should point out that it does happen. Sometimes people score radically different in different tests. It's usually indicative of some underlying issue with either the tested (e.g. language based learning disability) or how the test was administered (e.g. The subject was way too nervous and anxious but the test proceeded anyway).

[DarkManticoreX2]

Scored a 126 on the analytical test Resch posted on the first page. I probably could have scored higher, but i was limited by time constriants outside of the test. I randomly guessed on the last 4 questions, I kinda feel like it's a good representation of my analytical process.

It's probably why I'm aweome at games like psychopath and other puzzle games.

[devonin]

You might feel your 'sequencing' abilities are worse than say, your vocabulary, but if you took the scaled score of each they are likely similar. Also, to be fair, you could easily be overestimating your other abilities (No offense. You're a smart guy. It's just something most people have a tendency to do).

Much beyond the first few obvious and easy problems, the vast majority, especially on the second test, I could make neither heads nor tails of, and could at best make a pseudo-educated guess.

Potential overestimation of my abilities or not, I've done more than enough work on things testing the other elements you've listed and scored well above the average of those around me on the majority. I've also tested via formal legitimate tests through my school, into a much higher percentile than either of those tests wanted to place me, and to the best of my fairly keen memory, very little if any of the content of those tests were matrices.

[clarinet89]

I got 112. Meh, I never said I was the brightest tool in the crayon box.

[Reach]

Originally Posted by devonin

Much beyond the first few obvious and easy problems, the vast majority, especially on the second test, I could make neither heads nor tails of, and could at best make a pseudo-educated guess.

Potential overestimation of my abilities or not, I've done more than enough work on things testing the other elements you've listed and scored well above the average of those around me on the majority. I've also tested via formal legitimate tests through my school, into a much higher percentile than either of those tests wanted to place me, and to the best of my fairly keen memory, very little if any of the content of those tests were matrices.

Well, the second test is much harder and there's no point in taking it unless you scored over 130 on the first one. The average person is only going to understand the first few problems.

Anyway, it's possible you just have poor spatial abilities. Most people have fairly equal verbal and spatial skills, but there are always outliers, and you could be Verbal >>> Spatial.

In practical terms this doesn't have much consequence. You are a philosophy major, no? Unless you plan to jump into mathematics/physics/engineering, your Verbal abilities will get you through life. It's usually people with verbal deficits that run into problems.

What formal tests have you taken? Matrix reasoning is found on most professional IQ tests.

The old GRE doesn't use them, and it measured IQ pretty well, but tended to do it using verbal analogies. I would expect you could place fairly high on that test.

[Chrissi]

I got 108 on reach's first test. But I guess I didn't try THAT hard. I should have used all the time but I had 20 minutes left and was kinda getting tired at the end so I didn't want to go back over the ones I guessed on.

Meh.

I, like (possibly) devonin, have terrible spatial abilities. I can't use a map for my life. I cannot turn objects in my head in space. In fact I can barely visualize anything in my head which is three-dimensional. I think this impairs me for art, since I can't turn something three-dimensional into something two-dimensional in a proper manner.

And of course, it means I'm worth **** when it comes to directions. I have no mental map. Whatsoever.

[qqwref]

I took the TRI52. I have no idea what the score-IQ conversion is but my final result was 890, which is +3.26 sigma if I read the results sheet right.

[foilman8805]

+3.26 sigma on ANY statistical chart is way, way on the outer edges of the distribution curve. Like 99th percentile.

You're pretty much an outlier at that point.

[NFD]

I always get somewhere between 135 and 150 on IQ tests.

[qqwref]

Originally Posted by foilman8805

+3.26 sigma on ANY statistical chart is way, way on the outer edges of the distribution curve. Like 99th percentile.

You're pretty much an outlier at that point.

Yeah, but I thought that test was supposed to test outliers :P

My calculator says +3.26 is at 99.944% but that sounds a bit high.