I don't know what you guys think about the IQ testing, if you wanna give it a try, check this page out: www.iqlogy.com
any ideas about how credible the IQs test are?

I'm not signing up with any spammers just to take a test that is this silly! If they can find me already just from answering the questions, I'm gonna come git you!

I find IQ scores to be reasonable indicators within a ten point range, within a homogenous cultural sample of the population, and as long as the person is not too far out at either end.

Marilyn Vos Savant is acknowledged to have the highest legitimately tested and recorded IQ in the world. It ranges from 182 to 230 depending on the test and the year. But that's because there are only about 300 people in the entire world in that micropercentile, and she's the only one who's been measured. On most tests you can only get two wrong answers to score that high, so it's not going to differentiate very well between 175 and 185.

I recall reading its been demonstrated that reaction time generally is a good indicator of IQ...the faster the reaction time, the higher the IQ.

So, someone should do a test on those societies who consistently score low to see if their reaction time is also slow.

Marilyn Vos Savant is acknowledged to have the highest legitimately tested and recorded IQ in the world. It ranges from 182 to 230 depending on the test and the year. But that's because there are only about 300 people in the entire world in that micropercentile, and she's the only one who's been measured. On most tests you can only get two wrong answers to score that high, so it's not going to differentiate very well between 175 and 185.

I have always thought that, in theory.. there should be 300 questions or so. You get one point for every correct question. No two questions are similar in any way. Sum the points (1 point per question) and that is your IQ.

Reliable? Yes. Valid? Yes. Realistic? Probably not. Having no two questions similar in anyway is hard to do, if not impossible for 300 questions.

I have always thought that, in theory.. there should be 300 questions or so. You get one point for every correct question. No two questions are similar in any way. Sum the points (1 point per question) and that is your IQ.
Are they all of similiar difficulty?

If they were all easy questions most people would score close to 300.

Reaction time... for, like what? Maybe that's why Asians are so damn good at videogames?

Are they all of similiar difficulty?

Well that's why I said no two questions are similar.. I mean in structure. I wanted this because you notice no two people are the exact same at anything. Two people can be chessmasters.. but do they make decisions the same? Likely not. I think there are BASIC, fundamental attributes of the brain that make it possible to solve problems. The only way we can test these is to identify them and put together different combinations of them.

Say there are 10 different attributes.. fundemental parts of the brain that we all have in common that are used to solve problems (I know 10 is way too small but it helps in calculations). Using a general formula, there are 2¹⁰ = 1024 different ways these 10 can be put together.. not counting the order inswhich one can use these.

Am I making any sense? No likely because I am just typing away in my visual mode of thought...

I recall reading its been demonstrated that reaction time generally is a good indicator of IQ...the faster the reaction time, the higher the IQ.

So, someone should do a test on those societies who consistently score low to see if their reaction time is also slow.

Actually. It depends on the reaction time test. It was shown that the more complex a reaction time test is, the better you do the higher your IQ.. the lower IQ you have, the worse you do. I think what they mean is CONSISTANCY of your answers because the more complex the test is, the longer it takes to answer.

Like if you have to hit R if the light flashes on the right and L for left, that is one example of a more complex test. Another is for lights that flash in 4 directions and you have to hit the appropriate key.

Well that's why I said no two questions are similar.. I mean in structure. I wanted this because you notice no two people are the exact same at anything. Two people can be chessmasters.. but do they make decisions the same?Well, if two people are extraordinarily good at the same thing, its likely they will have the same kind of intelligence.

You still need a scale of difficulty, regardless of structure or type of question.

Actually. It depends on the reaction time test. It was shown that the more complex a reaction time test is, the better you do the higher your IQ.. the lower IQ you have, the worse you do. I think what they mean is CONSISTANCY of your answers because the more complex the test is, the longer it takes to answer.
Don't know...the correlation was first discovered by Sir Francis Galton, who also coined the word Eugenics. I don't know what kind of tests he was doing.

This is a similar post to what what posted last week. An IQ test measures nothing more than what is on the IQ questions. Studies have shown that intelligence, creativity and knowedge are not related to IQ tests. So Your point is?

This is a similar post to what what posted last week. An IQ test measures nothing more than what is on the IQ questions. Studies have shown that intelligence, creativity and knowedge are not related to IQ tests. So Your point is?

Just out of pure curiosity, how did they test intelligence to measure it against IQ? Real life success? I've seen many smart guys lead mundane lives... or just sit around all day and basically do nothing.

Just out of pure curiosity, how did they test intelligence to measure it against IQ? Real life success? I've seen many smart guys lead mundane lives... or just sit around all day and basically do nothing.

Good point, the IQ doesn't really mean success in life, Mozart is thought to have a very high IQ, but yet he was in too much debt and he was hiding from his indebtors ...

IQ tests definitely do not measure long term things, like strategy. Creativity is often long term as well (like epiphanies... you don't just start concentrating and have them at will).

Your Results for the IQ Test!
Your IQ test score is 140

Congratulations, your score is 140, it could be even highter, because 140 is the maximum score for this test, people with this score make less than 1 percent of the population!


Yawn...

impressive! was that in your first try?

yes :(

I always think that if you get a low IQ, that can be due to many reasons (not only that you're not smart), but if you get a high IQ (like 140 and over) that would only mean one thing, you're Smart.

yes :(


So I'm assuming you got all of the answers right. So when It came to the dice, which one did you pick and why?

Try to flip all the dices in your brain to one position, all of them will match except one, which is "D".

Just tell me one thing.

How can someone with an IQ of, say, 105, rig up a test to accurately judge a person's IQ of 210 or 315? ( Newton's IQ has been estimated at over 300. ).

( Newton's IQ has been estimated at over 300. ).

Not really. It would really be around 160-170... the same range as Einstein.

that's all he had? me and my dad've tested at around 140, i find it hard to believe we common folk are only 20 away from einstein

It's not exactly linear... standardised IQ is assumed to follow a normal distribution with mean 100 and standard deviation 15. The further you get away from the mean, the faster the proportion of people more intelligent than that drops.

that's all he had? me and my dad've tested at around 140, i find it hard to believe we common folk are only 20 away from einstein

Well it also tends to depend on what you are good at, too.

Einstein was good at visualization. A "140" general IQ can be different from a "140" spatial IQ.

And from 120 or so on... the difference between IQs becomes greater and greater.

It's not exactly linear... standardised IQ is assumed to follow a normal distribution with mean 100 and standard deviation 15. The further you get away from the mean, the faster the proportion of people more intelligent than that drops.

Yes. If it was "linear" the bell curve could be a bit flatter.. and not as wide in the middle and very very thin towards the end.

Well it also tends to depend on what you are good at, too.

Einstein was good at visualization. A "140" general IQ can be different from a "140" spatial IQ.

And from 120 or so on... the difference between IQs becomes greater and greater.

That's right, many people have high verbal intelligence and when it comes to numeric - spatial they don't do that good. Females are known to have a higher verbal intelligence in average. While males score better in numeric intelligence. :D

This test isn't highly accurate, as it merely tests your logical thinking. IQ test should include logic, reaction, and comprehension. Taking this at a psychologist or psychiatrist is far more accurate.

Yes you're right, new IQ tests have are trying to include many other new elements that were not included in tests before.

I didden't do very good, 106. Math never did interest me though.

Not that 106 is bad, I just thought I did better. That test cant tell a persons IQ, if I took it again I would get higher and the third time I would get it all right.

Also, some people don't really understand what IQ is measuring, which is your intellectual age over your numerical age. So the standard test given to Americans takes into account a large amount of gathered data which plots where the average person would be at a certain age, and then sees how you compare to this, giving you a 'mental age'. So it is okay to get a lower score as you get older, people can start at 160 in thie childhood, and move down as they get older and their peers catch up to them, its not uncommon.

Or, I might be wrong ;) Heres a website that further explains exactly what IQ is, IQ Shizzle (http://members.shaw.ca/delajara/IQBasics.html)

I don't know what you guys think about the IQ testing, if you wanna give it a try, check this page out: www.iqlogy.com
any ideas about how credible the IQs test are?

Internet IQ tests are useless and I suspect you're a spammer. Sorry.

:m:

that's all he had? me and my dad've tested at around 140, i find it hard to believe we common folk are only 20 away from einstein

As far as geniuses go, Einstein wasn't all that impressive... just oversold.

I recall reading its been demonstrated that reaction time generally is a good indicator of IQ...the faster the reaction time, the higher the IQ.

So, someone should do a test on those societies who consistently score low to see if their reaction time is also slow.

I think it's cultural. Lets say we based an IQ test on hunting Big Game in Africa. Who do you think will score higher? The locals who've grown acustomed to living and hunting Big Game. Or an American from the Suburbs?

"Psychiatrists at the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) in Bethesda, Maryland, scanned the brains of more than 300 healthy children at different ages and gave them standard IQ tests. They found that the highest-scoring children had a delayed but prolonged growth spurt in the cerebral cortex."
Science 31 March 2006, Vol. 311, no. 5769, p. 1851

I find IQ scores to be reasonable indicators within a ten point range, within a homogenous cultural sample of the population, and as long as the person is not too far out at either end.

I've seen the same results, but one thing I've noticed: people under 130 always try to deny the validity of IQ tests. Why is this?

I think it's cultural. Lets say we based an IQ test on hunting Big Game in Africa. Who do you think will score higher? The locals who've grown acustomed to living and hunting Big Game. Or an American from the Suburbs?

But why would you base an intelligence test on a learned ability? The point of IQ tests is to abstractly test the capacity for knowledge and ability to think, not learned tasks.

:bugeye:

^Most IQ tests don't entirely remove learned abilities and things from experience. If you had some IQ test that measured say, reaction time in his hunting scenario using some physical thing, or a memory test that had involved remembering what you saw in a landscape, you'd have the people more accustomed to those things do better...

^Most IQ tests don't entirely remove learned abilities and things from experience. If you had some IQ test that measured say, reaction time in his hunting scenario using some physical thing, or a memory test that had involved remembering what you saw in a landscape, you'd have the people more accustomed to those things do better...

Yes, but it wouldn't matter on which continent they'd done them, and any intelligent test would test aspects common to normal life.