What is your IQ?

Well, Andrew, personally I think IQ is immeasurable.  Sure, there are brighter people than others but everyone has an aspect of their brain that works better than others.

It's how you apply yourself.  You can get a highly intellectual person with a high IQ but they might be lousy at communication.

You may get some who has memory issues but is great at pattern matching and spatial awareness.

IQ tests (proper ones, like official MENSA tests) do give people a clearer indication of how intelligent people are but if you register a low score, it does not mean you're thick.  They're more important when you're young, I would say and would be a reasonable indicator for teachers, so they know where pupils require some improvements.

Worst of all, are those tests that you take when you apply for jobs.  They're not especially difficult to do but it's the way they're measured.  You have to be fast and accurate.

It's been noted that those people who do well in such tests, are not necessarily the best people for the job.  These tests have been phased out in many organisations now, luckily.

So IQ tests are just a guide really and you'll find that your IQ will change every time you take a test.

I don't have an exact IQ figure, although I did do a standardized test when I was 14.
For maths, sciences, literacy/verbal, I was pretty much 2 years ahead of my chronological age,plus I had a pretty good short term memory, easily above average, but my visual/spatial was close to that of a mental retard so that would have dragged down my overall score a fair bit. I'd say at most, my IQ at the time might have been about 110-115, nothing special, but I was well aware that I was more advanced in some areas than kids my age.
Due to severe depression last year, I used to drink on a nightly basis for a while to make me not feel as bad, and would get trashed at parties too and I've noticed my short term memory ain't quite what it used to be. And I currently suffer from pretty bad anxiety and having Gilbert's Syndrome also means I have higher levels of fatigue than people without it,  which can obviously impact on my concentration levels.

121

We had an IQ test back in high school they herded us all into the cafeteria and didn`t even tell us that it was an stupid IQ test. We knew better and myself and a couple of my buddies failed purposely with flying colours each scoring 0. They tried to get us to rewrite the stupid thing but we refused. Quite frankly IQ doesn`t matter to me completely irrelavent but I must have some smarts as I passed through the entrance tests for pilot training in the forces and served 7 years. Also  I`ve come across some Rhodes Shcolars in university and these guys couldn`t even dress themselves properly or remember what the date was or even the  day. So go figure. I`ve also heard that many members of MENSA cheat to get in. Elvis had only an average IQ and look what he achieved. IQ  is just a feel good thing as far as I`m concerned.

Well, first, as one who reads many a "heated" thread, I would claim that "objectivity" is not always present among PA members. That would explain the high percentage in the highest percentile.
As with the T, I also ranked high in an IQ test administered at school when I was in grade 8. I came in the top 5%. All it did was confirm for my teachers all the potential that I was not achieving .
I took the test at Mensa this past summer only to have the same thing happen. I mentioned it to my brother in law , who thought that meant I was intelligent. In a not so rare of humbility, I told him some of the tests were a bit skewed as some really just rated your vocabulary or familiarity with big words.
I then explained to him, that despite my great intelligence, it's my younger brother who was able to complete University, as a Business major, and now works as the comptroller for a federal government office (dept of Superannuation, better known as the civil servants pension & pay); while I flunked out of University, then went to compete a two year business college course.
The point - brains is one thing, actual smarts, which includes the drive & stick to it attitude needed to accomplish things, are two different things.

P.S. 151 ... I told you these tests were biased ... towards the super intelligent life forms.
P.P.S. Now back to Napalm Death's Smear Campaign. I'm trying to make out the lyrics without  a lyric sheet. Then when I've done that , I'm gonna find the melody After that, Krautrock exploration.


Edited by debrewguy - July 17 2008 at 22:03

Some idiot chose poll choice 49 and below.

This test in the 1sr page is not accurate, I just took it (I'm with insomnia) and gave me 154 (Despite I had a couple problems with the language), but last year I took a real one (very long,  elaborate and in my native Spanish) and gave me a more realistic 142.

Luke. J wrote: 158 with concentration, 119 while having an argument about lunch.

Close, but no 160

A few points to be made.  The test is clearly inaccurate.  Approximately 1 in 5 have reported a score above 150, whereas in the general population it should be less than 1 in 1000.  Overall the distribution is skewed, whereas it should be Gaussian (i.e., approximate the so-called bell curve).  It's doubtful that this forum, or any forum, would exhibit such statistically significant differences.  Furthermore, the more you know (and, I assume, the faster you work), the higher your score--perhaps someone could experiment a bit.  If you've taken a course on Graph Theory, then you wouldn't have to think about the "mutual acquaintance" problem, for example.

We should ask "cui bono?"  How does the test benefit the site owners?  Would reporting unflattering scores induce people to buy whatever is being sold or attract more traffic?

Beyond this particular test, we should also inquire whether IQ or the test of which has any significant meaning.  According to the most sophisticated scholarship, the answer is definitively "no".  First, it is naive to expect that something inherently inductive, like human intelligence, can be quantized with a comparatively simplistic testing apparatus (and even the most developed of these exams are ultimately simplistic in approach--indeed the subject which the test intends to probe requires this simplicity!).  Secondly, there's not a strong positivee correlation to IQ and UGPA, or any other similar indicators of professional or academic "success."  Many well-anomalies exist: an almost randomly chosen example is Richard Feynman's tested (by the NYC school district) IQ of 115--laughable when one considers that Feynman revolutionized (and this is hardly hyperbole) physics, in terms of both research and pedagogy.

If IQ tests test anything accurately, then it tests one's ability to take an IQ test.

WinterLight wrote: A few points to be made.  The test is clearly inaccurate.  Approximately 1 in 5 have reported a score above 150, whereas in the general population it should be less than 1 in 1000.  Overall the distribution is skewed, whereas it should be Gaussian (i.e., approximate the so-called bell curve).  It's doubtful that this forum, or any forum, would exhibit such statistically significant differences.  Furthermore, the more you know (and, I assume, the faster you work), the higher your score--perhaps someone could experiment a bit.  If you've taken a course on Graph Theory, then you wouldn't have to think about the "mutual acquaintance" problem, for example. We should ask "cui bono?"  How does the test benefit the site owners?  Would reporting unflattering scores induce people to buy whatever is being sold or attract more traffic? Beyond this particular test, we should also inquire whether IQ or the test of which has any significant meaning.  According to the most sophisticated scholarship, the answer is definitively "no".  First, it is naive to expect that something inherently inductive, like human intelligence, can be quantized with a comparatively simplistic testing apparatus (and even the most developed of these exams are ultimately simplistic in approach--indeed the subject which the test intends to probe requires this simplicity!).  Secondly, there's not a strong positivee correlation to IQ and UGPA, or any other similar indicators of professional or academic "success."  Many well-anomalies exist: an almost randomly chosen example is Richard Feynman's tested (by the NYC school district) IQ of 115--laughable when one considers that Feynman revolutionized (and this is hardly hyperbole) physics, in terms of both research and pedagogy. If IQ tests test anything accurately, then it tests one's ability to take an IQ test.