IQ

[Shadowcliff]

So, let's get back on topic .

I'm too lazy right now to take an IQ test, but I'm in a "gifted education" program in my school, and I know that to be in it you take an IQ test. Minimum score is around 135, or 140. Can't remember which. I took the test in kindergarten and passed :/.

[Reach]

Well then, since everyone is getting into this discussion, I might as well make a post. I feel like this discussion is best left for another thread though.

Okay, then, where did the universe come from? Nothing?

A commonly used tactic in arguing for the existence of God, but a bad one. Obviously something doesn't arise from the complete and utter absence of everything. There has to be some irreducibly complex portion of reality that could have given rise to the universe.

I don't see any reason to believe this would be a God though, for a number of reasons. One - start defining the parameters of Gods existence. What exactly is God, what exactly can God do or not do, how exactly did God arise from this irreducibly complex system, etc. If you don't care to define any of these parameters then you're just using the God of the gaps argument (i.e. God always explains what you currently can't explain), and I could substitute anything in for the word God (E.g. The universe was created by a fluffy mojo jangle that looks like a pink flying unicorn with a magic staff on his head)

I usually get the 'God was always there' argument, but it fails the test of parsimony (Or uh, it's usually referred to as Occam's Razor). There are any number of different ways the universe could have arisen, but arguing that it came from vast complexity beyond anything we see in this universe (I.e. God) makes a lot of unnecessary assumptions. Especially considering the fact that, if we reverse time back to the big bang, we get a universe that is incredibly simple. Why would a complex entity beyond anything we can currently observe such as a God exist in an otherwise irreducibly complex universe? Logically, it seems that whatever caused the Big Bang, it must have been something incredibly simple, not complex, and from there I would argue - why call it God then?

Forcing randomness to explain everything is just too much, in my opinion.

You make the assumption that things are in fact random. What if I instead describe the entire universe as a causally forced system...a cellular automaton if you will. In that case the initial state of the universe would have subsequently determined the outcome of everything, and therefore would explain everything as well.

Things are never random. The universe abides by the laws it created. Physics defines everything. Of course the universe isn't just a gamble - it's a self manifesting system. That doesn't mean it required a higher intelligence to design it though. That's a rather large logical leap to be taking. The only thing necessary would be some mechanism capable of causing the big bang.

and I can think of a couple that don't involve a magic man.



BACK ON TOPIC

quick question.. That test is a bit off compared to the real I.Q right Reach?
I scored 134 on that test but I scored a 123 on the real one last year.

Well, 134 isn't a possible score on the first test as far as I know (130, 133, 135, 138 etc are the only possible 130 scores), so in that case you're lying Unless of course you took the TRI52.

Either way, a difference of 11 points isn't all that great. If you took ~100 IQ tests, you'd notice your scores cluster around an average, but not all the scores would be the same. There is always variance - sometimes you score a bit higher than average, sometimes a bit lower. This is not unusual.

It would be even less unusual if that test was an entirely Verbal IQ test. Often, people will be slightly better at either Spatial tasks or Verbal tasks. I know that personally there's an average difference of about 10 points or so between my performance on Verbal and Spatial tasks. This is not unusual either.

[MrRubix]

Yeah, I agree Reach. I'm a super hard determinist in the sense that I believe everything -- even human thoughts and decisions -- are the result of causal linkages. The very way the Big Bang began set forth events into motion that eventually caused you to sit there reading this, and whatever thoughts you are thinking could not have happened any other way unless the Big Bang happened differently.

Even if the Big Bang happened slightly differently, there's no guarantee you would even exist at the moment!

[ieatyourlvllol]

I suppose I'll join in as well, although since it'd take me hours to write up most of my thoughts on the topic at hand, I'll just add a bit of tinder to the campfire.

A problem I see is that if we're operating under the assumption that something existent must necessarily have risen from something else existent, there seems to be an infinite regress which must either have a coincident (reference) beginning and end - a gestational cycle - or at some point lead to an object without a predecessor. The former seems plausible, at least until we consider that the resulting implication is that an object's source of existence is itself, which not only violates the presiding assumption, but also seems logically absurd. And yet, the latter seems to defy a system that is governed by empirically consistent physical and logical laws. Here we've reached a quandary that remains a heated point of contention amongst contemporary philosophers. It's likely to stay that way, seeing as how we evidently cannot either prove or disprove the fundamental ideologies at stake. Without knowing even whether or not logic is the ultimate parameter, we're left with basically two options (pardon the incoming generalization) - faith in logic...or logic in faith.

tl;dr it's a mystery

ohoho, Mister Rubiks Shuffle It Jr. the 3rd...don't even get me started on the whole determinism vs. libertarianism debate

P.S. - Reach, you might as well rename this thread "Metaphysics"

[Reach]

Originally Posted by ieatyourlvllol

I suppose I'll join in as well, although since it'd take me hours to write up most of my thoughts on the topic at hand, I'll just add a bit of tinder to the campfire.

A problem I see is that if we're operating under the assumption that something existent must necessarily have risen from something else existent, there seems to be an infinite regress which must either have a coincident (reference) beginning and end - a gestational cycle - or at some point lead to an object without a predecessor. The former seems plausible, at least until we consider that the resulting implication is that an object's source of existence is itself, which not only violates the presiding assumption, but also seems logically absurd. And yet, the alternative seems to defy a system that is governed by empirically consistent physical and logical laws. Here we've reached a quandary that remains a heated point of contention amongst contemporary philosophers. It's likely to stay that way, seeing as how we evidently cannot either prove or disprove the fundamental ideologies at stake. Without knowing even whether or not logic is the ultimate parameter, we're left with basically two options (pardon the incoming generalization) - faith in logic...or logic in faith.

tl;dr it's a mystery

EDIT: ohoho Mister Rubiks Shuffle It Jr. the 3rd...don't even get me started on the whole determinism vs. libertarianism debate

P.S. - Reach, you might as well rename this thread "Metaphysics"

Well, I wouldn't mind someone opening up another thread for this discussion. With that said, I'd like this to remain the 'IQ' thread thank you very much :P

Would anyone be interested in making another thread?

I'll make one quick comment:

or at some point lead to an object without a predecessor. The former seems plausible, at least until we consider that the resulting implication is that an object's source of existence is itself, which not only violates the presiding assumption, but also seems logically absurd.

Why logically absurd? Unless you want to argue something came from nothing, which I won't, there must exist some set of parameters which are irreducibly complex, i.e. if they were less complex there would be the absence of everything entirely.

So, it exists by virtue of the fact that less than that couldn't exist. I'm not sure I like your use of 'source of existence', since I wouldn't argue existence has any 'sources' per say but exists by virtue of something being there, and I don't see why this would be logically inconsistent.

don't even get me started on the whole determinism vs. libertarianism debate

Oh come on, it ended long ago with the experiments in neuroscience demonstrating the outcome of our thoughts/actions is determined prior to our will to act/think. It's determinism, baby.

[mhss1992]

Originally Posted by Reach

A commonly used tactic in arguing for the existence of God, but a bad one. Obviously something doesn't arise from the complete and utter absence of everything. There has to be some irreducibly complex portion of reality that could have given rise to the universe.

Like I said (again), those are not the only reasons why I believe in God.
Why can't this "irreducibly complex portion of reality" contain intelligence?

MrRubix says "why add another variable if what we have explains it all?"
I'm not just adding a variable, and what we have doesn't explain everything. It's not just about the complexity of everything, it's something more like: I have existed in this world for a few years. I don't know everything. The reality that I know is inside my mind, I really don't know if there's anything else beyond my mind, I don't even know if you exist. Now, this is solipsistic and probably has nothing to do with the subject, but...
If you stop for a while and try to see the world as something new, strange, ignoring every concept you have about it, it really makes you wonder how existence is possible.

Okay, that still has nothing to do with God.

There are certain things, like the qualia, which are the feelings themselves, that are not explained just by what we know about matter. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualia

And there are other reasons, too. Well, I'm not going to say everything, but I have reasons to believe that are not as shallow as just the complexity of the universe.

It would be nice to think that we have a soul, an afterlife, or even a chance at reincarnation. However soothing these thoughts may be, I can't find them to be plausible. We're still physical creatures.

How can you say that something is not plausible because it has no physical proof? You are almost asuming that only the physical things we see exist. If you don't know it, you can't say that it's not plausible. There are thousands of reports of kids who remember detailed events about dead people, and many other things.

[MrRubix]

Making a new thread guys, let's continue this there.

[Shadowcliff]

ATTEMPT 2
to get back on topic

Soo.... IQs. Discuss.

[Reach]

Indeed, the rest of the discussion has been moved to another thread. Do not continue that discussion here.


As for IQs, I kind of wish a mod or something could edit the original posters post, but here's a list of seemingly valid IQ tests you can take on the internet. I will edit this when I find other good tests.

NOTE: You should be over 16 in order to receive accurate results from these tests.

SPATIAL TESTS (Culture Fair)

1. Mensa Denmark - Based on Ravens APM: http://www.iqtest.dk/main.swf Has a ceiling of 145.
2. TRI 52: Take this test if you scored 130 or higher on the first test: http://www.cerebrals.com/tests/tri/TRI52.html Has a ceiling of 165

VERBAL TESTS (Culturally biased)

1. CCAT: Take this test if you scored well on the first Spatial test or would like to try a verbal test instead. Keep in mind it is quite difficult. http://www.cerebrals.com/tests/ccat/verbal1.html Has a ceiling of 170+. (*NOTE: This test requires English and basic math proficiency)

VERBAL + SPATIAL TESTS

1. TITAN Test: Take this test if you scored over 150 on the TRI 52 or the CCAT: http://www.eskimo.com/~miyaguch/titan.html Has a ceiling of 190 (*NOTE: This test is not free to score).

CONTESTS

Cerebrals Society International Contest: http://www.cerebrals.com/tests/cpic/...%20CONTEST.pdf


SAT

If you've taken the SAT and don't want to try an IQ test, you can use it to estimate your IQ using the following chart. One should note though, that this is at best an estimate, and the newer versions of the SAT do not necessarily correlate well with IQ.

NEW SAT

RAW IQ

2400 143+ Gifted – 99.9th percentile
2300 138
2200 133
2150 131 Mensa Smart – 98th percentile
2100 128
2000 124
1900 119
1850 116 Bright – 86th percentile
1800 114
1700 109
1600 104
1550 102 Average – The average SAT score is 1520
1500 99
1400 94
1300 89
1200 85 Dim – 16th percentile
1100 80
1000 75
900 70 Borderline – 2nd percentile
800 65
700 60
600 55 Mild Retardation – 0.1st percentile


OLDER SAT

RAW IQ

1600 143+
1560 140
1520 137
1480 134
1440 131
1400 128
1360 125
1320 123
1280 120
1240 117
1200 114
1160 111
1120 108
1080 105
1040 102
1000 99
960 96


LSAT

You can use your LSAT score to estimate your IQ. The LSAT is not an IQ test, but LSAT scores correlate with IQ.

LSAT IQ

180 150+
175 143
170 135
165 128
160 120
155 113
150 105
145 98
140 90
130 75
120 60

[ThatKidJust]

thank you and no I didn't take the other one you were talking about the only one I saw was the TRI52 so I did it.

[Ice wolf]

What about the International High IQ Society's tests? Do you not consider them very reliable?

[sp1nzoK]

Originally Posted by Ice wolf

What about the International High IQ Society's tests? Do you not consider them very reliable?

I wouldn't consider them very reliable, you may need terms from specific science branches, you may need short term memory, you may need a wide english vocabulary, sure these things show intelligence but you are put into a quiz-like environment rather than a good test which will make you use your logic over your prior knowledge.

[Ice wolf]

Originally Posted by sp1nzoK

I wouldn't consider them very reliable, you may need terms from specific science branches, you may need short term memory, you may need a wide english vocabulary, sure these things show intelligence but you are put into a quiz-like environment rather than a good test which will make you use your logic over your prior knowledge.

OK. (I have not taken them so I would not know.)

[MrRubix]

I really disliked the HighIQSociety tests because it felt like there were serious standardization errors, and I felt like the material itself was not suitable for a proper test (too many of the visual tests relied on the same logical properties, and so if you could get one you could get them all), and there are too many repeated questions. The quiz section is also a bit annoying, because trivia, I believe is not indicative of high IQ. It may have some correlation, but I'd question how strong it would actually be.

[Reach]

I didn't add HighIQSociety for some of the reasons stated by Rubix + the fact that normalization data and validity/reliability data is not made available, so there's no way to access the validity of the tests.

At face value, the test has many good items/sections, and many of them probably have high g-loadings and can measure IQ fairly adequately. However, until data is actually presented on the test I won't add it to the list.

There are probably some other tests I can add to the list - I will look into it.

I added the CCAT to the verbal section earlier, which I hadn't posted earlier. It's a test of mostly crystallized intelligence and correlates well with SAT and Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale scores. It's also incredibly hard, so it's very, very unlikely anyone here would crack the ceiling.

(My CCAT subset scores: 29, 28 and 43.)

because trivia, I believe is not indicative of high IQ

Indeed, being good at answering trivia (e.g. Jeopardy) is not indicative of high intelligence. Often it can be indicative of the opposite (due to savant like obsessions over certain types of material, which increases retention for that material).

However, overall vocabulary size and general knowledge size are correlated with IQ. Individuals with larger working memories and higher cognitive capacities accumulate a larger vocabulary and knowledge base over time.

The problem is testing their size. You have to be very careful when designing questions, and you have to rely on a large number of items, not just a few.

[Ice wolf]

Originally Posted by MrRubix

I really disliked the HighIQSociety tests because it felt like there were serious standardization errors, and I felt like the material itself was not suitable for a proper test (too many of the visual tests relied on the same logical properties, and so if you could get one you could get them all), and there are too many repeated questions. The quiz section is also a bit annoying, because trivia, I believe is not indicative of high IQ. It may have some correlation, but I'd question how strong it would actually be.

I just took the eCMA and I definitely agree with you guys. I did well on it, but it was not as good as the others I have taken. I will still try the TA3.

[Shadowcliff]

I kinda remember going to CCL (Center of Creative Learning) to take the IQ test in kindergarten. I do recall doing a Rorschach test, as well as some different logic puzzles. I answered a couple of questions about... that part escaped my memory. And I'm not sure what exactly it is, but I did something with some blocks, but that's all I remember. I guess I scored pretty high because I was immediate accepted into CCL. I still wonder what else you can do with gifted education in high school, but I guess I'll see in August.

(I started to take one of the IQ tests Reach provided, but it got repetitive and boring. :/)
EDIT - Thought I ought to mention as to not sound shallow for that last comment, it was the IQ test that you had to choose the "next sequence in the pattern". After a while, it just seemed like the same reiterated problems. The Mensa Denmark test didn't work for me, must have been the .swf format. I'll try a couple of others.

[Reach]

Originally Posted by Shadowcliff

I kinda remember going to CCL (Center of Creative Learning) to take the IQ test in kindergarten. I do recall doing a Rorschach test, as well as some different logic puzzles. I answered a couple of questions about... that part escaped my memory. And I'm not sure what exactly it is, but I did something with some blocks, but that's all I remember. I guess I scored pretty high because I was immediate accepted into CCL. I still wonder what else you can do with gifted education in high school, but I guess I'll see in August.

(I started to take one of the IQ tests Reach provided, but it got repetitive and boring. :/)

The block test was probably Kohs block design test, an excellent test of spatial ability. There was one on cerebrals.com, but it got removed. Hopefully it will be back.

As for getting bored during tests, this is obviously the downside of some IQ tests - obviously you can't measure someones capacity if they don't put in a maximum effort.

[Shadowcliff]

I completed the TRI52 test with a score of 670.

I've done all the math up to number of standard deviations above the mean, which resulted in 1.3333.. but couldn't find the data for the rest of the math.

[Reach]

Originally Posted by Shadowcliff

I completed the TRI52 test with a score of 670.

I've done all the math up to number of standard deviations above the mean, which resulted in 1.3333.. but couldn't find the data for the rest of the math.

That equates to an IQ of 120.

However, I just noticed you're only 14. These tests give you deviation IQs, which compare you to the ADULT population as a whole (I.e. at age 14 you scored higher than 91% of the adult population, which is individuals over the age of 16).

As such, 120 is much lower than your actual age referenced IQ. By my best estimates, without having more data, that should equate to approximately 137 on the test you would have taken in elementary school (which is higher than 98.5% of your same aged peers.)

Hope that helps.


As for the reiteration of problem types, some item types are repeated in style, though the number of mental operations necessary to solve the problem increases. Naturally, by increasing the cognitive complexity of the problem you require the test taker to be more intelligent in order to potentially solve the problem.