# Thread: IQ Test (Raven's Progressive Matrices)

1. ## IQ Test (Raven's Progressive Matrices)

Hi all.

Some time ago I heard some of you talking about IQ. If you're interested, I've found the original Raven's Progressive Matrices (60 questions divided in 5 sets A, B, C, D and E). Time limit is 20 minutes. The IQ is given in percentile. Your age is really important to the scoring of the test. Here is the conversion table (from percentile to IQ SD15, the most used scale). Have fun and, if you have any questions, feel free to ask me.

2. By the time I got to the last ten or so I just clicked randomly, without looking, to get it over with because my brother kept walking in asking me questions. I had like 17 minutes left on the clock. I will take it again when I have fewer distractions.

How is this an IQ test? It seems too easy. I think I can get them all next time since I know I got all the ones I actually looked at right.

Test complete!

Percentile: 75
IQ: Higher than average
Group: II

Edit: You said it is 20 minutes but I think it says 45. Either way on my last question it said 17 minutes left.

3. Some people are saying the originals ceiling is as low as 122. ... The Ravens Matrices tests all look like they have a very low ceiling.

4. Looked into Raven's test:

Some suggest figures like IQ=IQRaven±30 (that is like 2 SD) and I believe confidence level is usually 95 % (meaning that 95 % cases will fall into that range) and it is rare to be in extremes. Think of that ±30 as bell shaped curve covering 95 % of test subjects but it still happens and some will cross the border due to different reasons.

I have done that test before and I don't see myself as qualified any longer but it was higher than average. I have visual problems (eye alignment as eyes tend to do wacky things in the background mixing information but they look normal these days due to surgery but that was mainly cosmetics) from birth so... I think it might be a disadvantage.

5. Well, this test (Standard Progressive Matrices) is able to discriminate up to 95 percentile, roughly 120 SD15. There is another test, the Advanced Progressive Matrices, that has official norms up to 99 percentile (135 SD15), but a score of 35/36 qualifies you for Triple Nine Society (99.9 percentile, 146 SD15), indicating that the actual ceiling could be much higher. I have found that test too on Scribd, but right now I'm not able to send it (I have screenshots of each item). BTW, you can try searching "Raven Escala Avanzada" or things like that to find it.
@Aylen: Somewhere I've read that the time limit was 20 minutes. Anyway, if the test link says 45, this number must be the right one.

6. Test complete!

Percentile: 95
IQ: Well above average
Group: I

But it was easy imo.

Percentile: 95
IQ: Higher than average
Group: I

8. I'm posting a link to the Advanced Progressive Matrices. It's on Scribd, you should pay for it. By the way, if you start a free trial you should be able to get the file for free. At least, that's how I did. Time limit for this test is 40 minutes (@Aylen it should be correct this time ). Have fun guys.

9. This is the answer key.

10. @User Name

Suggestion:
You should warn the answer key or at least add it after the items.

You can make an spoiler at the end of the post with the items.

Because we are watching first the answers and trying to figure what is it from and then watching the questions. So guess changing the location will be helpful.

11. I look at them. Is this original. IQ has raised since those days. Now there is a need for harder ones.

https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Flynn_effect

I'm on my stupid phone, where the spoiler option isn't available. I'm going to edit the post as soon as I can. Thanks for the advice.

13. @User Name

I've 31 correct answers, what does it mean?

14. Originally Posted by Your caregiver in turn
@User Name

I've 31 correct answers, what does it mean?
This is the hardest part: the norms. Raven put the ceiling at 99th percentile, but scores like 34, 35 or 36 are well beyond that. Actually, I found some good norms for higher scores (from 33 to 36) on the website of Colloquy high IQ Society. We can project those for a score of 31.

36/36: IQ 152
35/36: IQ 146
34/36: IQ 144
33/36: IQ 141

A score of 31 would correspond to an IQ of (roughly) 136/137. Higher than 99.2/99.4 % of the population.

Just a projection, as said. If you had taken the test formally, you would have gotten an official score of "higher than 99th percentile". Hope it helps.

Take in mind what @unsuccessfull Alphamale said though. IQ is increasing, so your score could be a bit lower due to Flynn effect.

15. @User Name If those tests are reliable enough, that could explain why lack of logic in ppl piss me off often or why I hated school so much? The way of learning based on repetition and being forced to do as others say is depressing. Is all of that related?

16. Originally Posted by Your caregiver in turn
@User Name If those tests are reliable enough, that could explain why lack of logic in ppl piss me off often or why I hated school so much? The way of learning based on repetition and being forced to do as others say is depressing. Is all of that related?
Yes, partially.
Of course, not everything you wrote is IQ-related. But mostly, people with high IQ like you are conscious about their potential and, for this reason, they don't want to be forced by others to do things, or can't stand illogical people. I scored 35/36 (missed item 32) as well (back in June 2016, self-subministration) and I relate to all of your traits, so I guess it's common to find those characteristics among high IQ people, afterall.

17. Test complete!

Percentile: 75
IQ: Higher than average
Group: II

I am not a fan of online IQ tests as most of them are bunk and inflate your IQ score to make you feel better about yourself. This one seems decent though, but it seems to specialize on logical and spatial intelligence, while neglecting verbal intelligence. So it will only paint a partial picture of your IQ.

18. i guess i failed the "make this in english" iq portion

Respuestas correctas: 56/60
Percentil: 95
Cociente intelectual: Muy superior al término medio
Grupo: I

4 or so near the end i couldn't see the pattern for after a minute or two of searching for it, i assume those were my wrong answers.

Percentile: 95
IQ: Higher than average
Group: I

20. Originally Posted by Andreas

Almost -_-
That was my score as well.

Your IQ is 146 SD15 (99.9 percentile, 1 in 1000).

21. So far, scores on this forum are all above the 75th percentile (most of them even above the 95th percentile). This could mean that people with an IQ greater than 115/120 are more likely to be interested in Socionics. As expected.

22. Originally Posted by User Name
So far, scores on this forum are all above the 75th percentile (most of them even above the 95th percentile). This could mean that people with an IQ greater than 115/120 are more likely to be interested in Socionics. As expected.
Why would you expect high IQ people to be interested in socionics?

I mean, my own interest in socionics stems from my ineptitude at classification (Ti) in general, and at not knowing how important certain people or things are to me (low Fi).

23. Originally Posted by Adam Strange
Why would you expect high IQ people to be interested in socionics?
Because Socionics is actually more complex than it seems. It actually requires an above average IQ.

24. Originally Posted by User Name
Because Socionics is actually more complex than it seems. It actually requires an above average IQ.
It doesn't require a high IQ to remember that there are sixteen types of people, and to read an inter-type relationship chart.

Anything more is just icing on the cake, speculation, or anecdotal socializing. (I'm projecting, if you can't tell.)

I happen to think that Socionics is "right", and that the information exchange processes reflect underlying structures in the brain, but that is also not hard to understand, and is really not essential to the practical uses of Socionics.

25. Originally Posted by Adam Strange
It doesn't require a high IQ to remember that there are sixteen types of people, and to read an inter-type relationship chart.

Anything more is just icing on the cake, speculation, or anecdotal socializing. (I'm projecting, if you can't tell.)

I happen to think that Socionics is "right", and that the information exchange processes reflect underlying structures in the brain, but that is also not hard to understand, and is really not essential to the practical uses of Socionics.
Ok, points of view.

26. Originally Posted by User Name
Ok, points of view.
Ti vs Te.

Thank goodness there are guys like you around to put this stuff on a solid foundation.

Before I encountered Socionics, I thought that smart guys like me were responsible for scientific advances. When I came to understand the difference between Te and Ti and thought about the characters of the LII's and the LSI's that I know (vs the LIE's and the LSE's that I know), I realized that Ti users are the ones who have built most of science. The Te users just apply what they need to get something done, and don't really care if they are using astrology if it gives them good results.

27. Eh. I got them all right but I doubt I'm higher than 125-130

28. Originally Posted by Adam Strange
Ti vs Te.

Thank goodness there are guys like you around to put this stuff on a solid foundation.

Before I encountered Socionics, I thought that smart guys like me were responsible for scientific advances. When I came to understand the difference between Te and Ti and thought about the characters of the LII's and the LSI's that I know (vs the LIE's and the LSE's that I know), I realized that Ti users are the ones who have built most of science. The Te users just apply what they need to get something done, and don't really care if they are using astrology if it gives them good results.
Thanks a lot for your words. Yes, Ti vs Te. You've perfectly defined it. We build the theory and you apply it in the most effective way.

29. Originally Posted by User Name
I'm posting a link to the Advanced Progressive Matrices. It's on Scribd, you should pay for it. By the way, if you start a free trial you should be able to get the file for free. At least, that's how I did. Time limit for this test is 40 minutes (@Aylen it should be correct this time ). Have fun guys.
I will take it when no one is here. It''s labor day and apparently barbecuing is on today's agenda. Not that I am going to do it.

Because of this thread I did the 15 minute version of Wechsler Intelligence Scale, out of curiosity, twice. I should have just done the 30 minutes but I knew how much time I had before the next distraction so I took them some hours apart.

The online test is for fun more than anything. I did it to get an idea where I am at these days. I do forget how to work some things out sometimes but I pick it back up pretty quick. When I took it, it was like everything I had ever learned just came back to me instantly. I hardly had to think about the questions which was pretty cool. I had plenty of time left on the clock after both. I wonder if I subconsciously memorized the questions from taking various tests. I think anyone can improve their score by 10 + pts with a little effort by refreshing your memory before a test. I didn't seem to have to, this time.

I was considered a "gifted" student, with some behavior issues, (I refused to go to school) so I was a bit of a lab rat as a kid because they thought something was wrong with me. I was given the official test in a clinical setting. It was in 120s but tbh it didn't mean much to me then. I did not tell my friends. I don't think I took it serious and I went through a whole lot of psychological testing in the same time period. Anyway, part of a battery of tests I had to do because others wanted to know what made me tick.

It was later when I was involved with more intellectual types that I felt competitive with it and wanted to do well. Now I am back to not caring but it is nice too know the money I spent on nootropics has not been in vain. I am much faster than I have ever been. I used to hate being timed as it added pressure.

I got 44, 99th percentile on first one and 40, 99th percentile on second. Both said IQ was 135 or greater but I think realistically it is still in the 120s range. I can usually bump it up if I refresh my memory a day or two before I take these tests.

I lucked out as neither had any hard math questions. That would have lowered the score because I don't usually want to put the effort into figuring out a math problem. My brain is more philosophical than mathematical.

The questions were totally different on each but seem way easier than they have been in the past. Not sure if these links work or not. They work for me.

http://wechslertest.com/quiz_result/NDQ%3D/OTk%3D

http://wechslertest.com/quiz_result/NDA%3D/OTk%3D

Edit: Due to having a real baseline to compare these online tests results I never believe when it gives me anything 130 or higher.

30. Originally Posted by User Name
Because Socionics is actually more complex than it seems. It actually requires an above average IQ.

I dont think so. Just having weird motives and interests can get you a long way past go.

31. Originally Posted by User Name
Because Socionics is actually more complex than it seems. It actually requires an above average IQ.
IMO, I think it depends on what you're studying about Socionics. To understand the basics of Socionics for instance, I think an average IQ is more than sufficient, but to understand the more complex aspects of Socionics then an above average IQ is probably required.

As for the average IQ of the forum, it is probably around one standard deviation above the norm like around 115 and the majority of posters hovering around 110 to 119. This is above average intelligence, but not anywhere near genius level intelligence.

As for approaching genius level IQ, which is 130+ and two standard deviations above the norm. The ones in the forum that appear to be in that range I can likely count on one hand. Those are the kind of people you talk to and you can tell they are at another cognitive level compared to you, which is intimidating and rare to encounter in life and in this forum.

Also, everyone should take this post with a grain of salt btw as it is mostly speculation.

32. Originally Posted by squark
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog...dunning-kruger <-- Summary: Everyone believes they are slightly above average regardless of whether they are above or below average when they perceive the task as easy. And there is some reversal of this effect when they think the task is difficult.

What that means when applied to socionics is that those who are completely incompetent will believe that they are pretty decent (especially when they are focused on just the easier aspects of socionics) while those who are very competent will think they're pretty decent at the easy parts, but think they are much worse at more complex understanding than they actually are.
Why is everyone talking about Dunning-Kruger these days? Seems like the only argument anyone has for anything. It's just a flat foot theory of saying that people are dumb as shit.

33. https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog...dunning-kruger <-- Summary: Everyone believes they are slightly above average regardless of whether they are above or below average when they perceive the task as easy. And there is some reversal of this effect when they think the task is difficult.

What that means when applied to socionics is that those who are completely incompetent will believe that they are pretty decent (especially when they are focused on just the easier aspects of socionics) while those who are very competent will think they're pretty decent at the easy parts, but think they are much worse at more complex understanding than they actually are.

(In other words, if someone says socionics is very easy, they're probably overestimating themselves. And those who say it is very complex, may be underestimating themselves.)

34. Originally Posted by Remiel
Why is everyone talking about Dunning-Kruger these days? Seems like the only argument anyone has for anything these days. It's just a flat foot theory of saying that people are dumb as shit.
That's not really what it says, and I tried to link to an article with a more rounded view that goes beyond just dunning-kruger and was still a very quick and easy read.

35. Originally Posted by squark
That's not really what it says, and I tried to link to an article with a more rounded view that was still a very quick and easy read.
I am very well versed with it. Summa summarum, you will either be dumb as fuck and feel smart. This will provide you with a false sense of your own intellects limitations.

OR be smart as fuck while thinking that you're dumb. Making you actually dumb for thinking you're dumb.

Dunning Kruger proclaimes everyone as dumb either intellectually or just as in understanding of ones self.

36. I really dislike how that theory is used. It's always in some form of power play. Pure manipulation, shutting people up to your own ends. And it does, doesn't it? Very effectively.

37. Originally Posted by Remiel
I am very well versed with it. Summa summarum, you will either be dumb as fuck and feel smart. This will provide you with a false sense of your own intellects limitations.

OR be smart as fuck while thinking that you're dumb. Making you actually dumb for thinking you're dumb.

Dunning Kruger proclaimes everyone as dumb either intellectually or just as in understanding of ones self.
You didn't get my whole quote. You missed this part
Originally Posted by squark
with a more rounded view that goes beyond just dunning-kruger
So, whether or not you're well-versed in it makes little difference when that was not the whole of what was being said.

38. Originally Posted by squark
You didn't get my whole quote. You missed this part So, whether or not you're well-versed in it makes little difference when that was not the whole of what was being said.

39. Originally Posted by squark
It can be used badly sure. I don't pay much attention to whether something is "everywhere" or not and how other people are using it. I actually focused on something else brought up in that article if you read my post and the linked article, which was a study done by Burson, Larrick, & Klayman (2006) . . .

Yeah I got that, you're talking about percieved difficulty. I actively chose not to adress it. Because I am not interested in that phenomenon.

Page 1 of 3 123 Last

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•