# Thread: What is your IQ?

1. Originally Posted by Sol
Your problem is that you don't take into account how IQ is calculated and that you can't understand it with the 1st time when I've said this above.
So tell me how it is calculated every single time even when tests fail to take into account such a dismal/high number and we have to invent a new test for it as it takes a very weird test that handles the tail portion of it which are symmetrical in both ends.

I think it takes a person with lots of IQ.

In fact there are people who design IQ tests for absolute geniuses (who are not one). It gets very difficult to get test subjects even if they accomplish the task and since it is so hard it due to limited number of people it also means that could give false results. One way to get grasp of this is to make a simulation. Let's say you make a computer program that "throws" few dices few billion times. Well, the result distribution won't be "perfect" although it is very very near. I have made one. It was quite fun.

2. Originally Posted by Andreas
I'm 103. I shouldn't underestimate you then.
It's important what variant of the test you used.
Also in IQ testing the difference up to 10 units is often thought as not meaningful due to inaccuracy of tests and not perfect conditions (you may be tired, etc). For example, making the same test after a year you may get this difference. Up to 120 IQ is same "normal" category. Not in general IQ, but in particular scales you may to have more significant difference - like being T type to do better math tasks than average F type.

3. Te thing IQ measures is very artificial. If you do let's say height distribution then you need to put notion that (human) length > 0. As IQ is just some sort of random convention it can capture all the real numbers.

There are other kinds of distributions like log normal distribution where left side of tail will end at 0 (and the curve is not symmetric around it's peak). Is IQ is truly normally distributed? Well, apparently, I'd say that statistical tools do not capture mechanism and are therefore just tools for approximation. Statement about IQ artificiality applies. It is just measures something where so called experts tend to agree with each other.

4. 138 give or take 5
I feel like this has already been a thread for some reason.

5. hurdur im smart hurdur

6. What's up with all the IQ threads? They are springing everywhere like mushrooms after a warm summer.

7. I volunteered on a reaserch study for my friend, so these were my results

Ravens Advanced Progressive Matricies- 33/36 (Grade 1)
WAIS-lV: 141 IQ, my fluid and crystallized reasoning were very high, while my working memory was slightly above average.

8. Originally Posted by Tallmo
I would like to see an IQ test without NT bias
I don't think that IQ test are biased at all. IQ measures your fluid reasoning, crystallized intelligence, and your working memory. I happen to think that its the other way around, NT's are more predisposed to developing these skills at younger age, while other types develop different types of skills, such as socializing. Its not only NT's though, there are plenty of ENFp, INFj, ISTj, and ISTp that have high IQ's so its not only type specific.

9. I took a bunch of professional tests when I was 16, scored between 135/140, and there were many word play questions I remember. Then internet came out and I've tried new tests and in them my IQ sucked, all qs were in english so I excused myself thinking that I didnt understand well...

10. Originally Posted by ooo
I took a bunch of professional tests when I was 16, scored between 135/140
Tests may to have different scales for different ages. Human brain develops after 16 years. So you could get other number later.

> all qs were in english so I excused myself thinking that I didnt understand well...

it's important to test on your native language or with close language level

11. Not enough people bragging.

Someone once said that I wasn't aware of how smart I was, and then someone else jumped in and said, No. He is exactly aware of how smart he is. It was a pretty sick burn.

Online Iq tests were 135-140, so I'd say probably 120 ish. I'm terrible with spacial reasoning fwiw.

12. Some people take the onlinetest and say: I bet they make it easier to make people pay for the real test. People who make bad results say: I was tired. People who make the real test are rare and people who do not take it say those who take the real test have low iq for taking it coz its a scam. Some people try to impose their ideal self as high iq. Some people downplay the phenomenon of IQ. Some people just say IQ is not important, it is all about EQ. Its just a mess this IQ thing.

13. Originally Posted by Pookie
Not enough people bragging.

Someone once said that I wasn't aware of how smart I was, and then someone else jumped in and said, No. He is exactly aware of how smart he is. It was a pretty sick burn.

Online Iq tests were 135-140, so I'd say probably 120 ish. I'm terrible with spacial reasoning fwiw.
How is your chess playing skills?

I'm not spatially good being exact. My mind works with fuzzy forms. I scored medium in some spatial tests while some sections give above average and other sections are below average.

2D stuff is usually easy while 3D stuff is much much worse (I'm stereo blind – I can't see in 3D using both eyes) but I managed to get average in 3D test.

14. Was 135 in high school then over 150 per professionally certified book tests after I enhanced my math skills.

15. I only got tested professionally once when I was a little kid, they only gave percentiles in different areas and determined I was gifted. My parents never told me about the results (as far as I recall). I found the test ten years later and found I got 99.8th percentile in spatial visualization (or something like that) and 98th percentile in reasoning, which would be 146 and 133~ converted to IQ. I scored pretty bad in everything else though. I found a few sites with (relatively reliable) IQ tests for those who think theirs is 120+ (since traditional IQ tests are really bad at measuring outside of the 80-120 range). https://iqhaven.com/ has free tests and seems decent enough, although the site got revamped and it looks like crap now. I did the Mathematricius test which is math-only (https://iqhaven.com/matematricius-test) and scored 145. I think IQ tests are pretty bad though. If I hadn't gone through my Math and Algebra classes in university I would've probably scored much less.

Originally Posted by vesstheastralsilky
Was 135 in high school then over 150 per professionally certified book tests after I enhanced my math skills.
Hmmm, this is pretty interesting. I also think training your math/verbal skills can get you (significantly) better scores in IQ tests, which is another reason why they're not so meaningful. There's also a big statistical discrepancy in small score differences: Consider someone of IQ 125, and someone of IQ 130, given a normal distribution with median 100 and SD 15. For every 10 people with 130 IQ you have 25 with 125 IQ, and yet the difference between one score and the other is usually just a few different questions answered correctly.

IQ stands for Intelligence Quotient (though largely a misnomer now), and it's supposed to measure something that is relatively unchanged over the course of one's life. Then why is it possible for people to get (greatly) varying scores? That means that the method of measuring isn't good enough, or that it's measuring something other than intelligence, or that intelligence actually does change with time.

In my opinion, IQ only gives you a rough measure of people's intelligence (as the ability to recognize patterns, solve novel problems, etc.) and a decent measure of mathematical ability, verbal ability, spatial ability, etc. Since these things are correlated with intelligence, someone who scores high in these factors (compared to other people) will likely be more intelligent than the median, but you can't "stack them up" with others in a normal distribution and say with certainty that they're smarter than XX.X% of the population, which is exactly what IQ tests do.

16. Originally Posted by silke
What's up with all the IQ threads? They are springing everywhere like mushrooms after a warm summer.
.. why you keep getting mistyped as SLI

17. Originally Posted by sbbds
.. why you keep getting mistyped as SLI
that's an external sensory perception - not an internal one, though I get what you're saying

in other news that's just a manifestation of the sp instinct - http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...on-SP-instinct

18. :3

19. parts of super ego manifests strong in this one.

20. Originally Posted by Little Timmy
I only got tested professionally once when I was a little kid, they only gave percentiles in different areas and determined I was gifted. My parents never told me about the results (as far as I recall). I found the test ten years later and found I got 99.8th percentile in spatial visualization (or something like that) and 98th percentile in reasoning, which would be 146 and 133~ converted to IQ. I scored pretty bad in everything else though. I found a few sites with (relatively reliable) IQ tests for those who think theirs is 120+ (since traditional IQ tests are really bad at measuring outside of the 80-120 range). https://iqhaven.com/ has free tests and seems decent enough, although the site got revamped and it looks like crap now. I did the Mathematricius test which is math-only (https://iqhaven.com/matematricius-test) and scored 145. I think IQ tests are pretty bad though. If I hadn't gone through my Math and Algebra classes in university I would've probably scored much less.

Hmmm, this is pretty interesting. I also think training your math/verbal skills can get you (significantly) better scores in IQ tests, which is another reason why they're not so meaningful. There's also a big statistical discrepancy in small score differences: Consider someone of IQ 125, and someone of IQ 130, given a normal distribution with median 100 and SD 15. For every 10 people with 130 IQ you have 25 with 125 IQ, and yet the difference between one score and the other is usually just a few different questions answered correctly.

IQ stands for Intelligence Quotient (though largely a misnomer now), and it's supposed to measure something that is relatively unchanged over the course of one's life. Then why is it possible for people to get (greatly) varying scores? That means that the method of measuring isn't good enough, or that it's measuring something other than intelligence, or that intelligence actually does change with time.

In my opinion, IQ only gives you a rough measure of people's intelligence (as the ability to recognize patterns, solve novel problems, etc.) and a decent measure of mathematical ability, verbal ability, spatial ability, etc. Since these things are correlated with intelligence, someone who scores high in these factors (compared to other people) will likely be more intelligent than the median, but you can't "stack them up" with others in a normal distribution and say with certainty that they're smarter than XX.X% of the population, which is exactly what IQ tests do.
Tests traditionally written by a psychometrician are a legitimate leveraging gauge at measuring one's intellectual capacities because they benchmark the mean average score for the majority at 100 and then normalize the distribution curve. It measures ability to think accurately and solve problems more than a Te/Si only style of reciting back memorized information. I hadn't realized how many free poser tests had become prevalent and written by non-psychometricians had flooded the internet and begun discrediting the profession accordingly until coming to this forum and seeing a few pejorative views (without merit).

One can research and find the average IQ score by country. If I recall correctly Singapore was the highest at 107 as the average and the USA average has dropped from 100 to 98. President George Bush Jr.'s was only 100 when he tested. I remember that news hitting the radio when he was elected to office. Trump's is very high (and this statement doesn't mean I endorse him 100% because of his strong Ti).

21. Originally Posted by vesstheastralsilky
President George Bush Jr.'s was only 100 when he tested.
According to wikipedia there is no trusted or official data about his IQ.

> Trump's is very high (and this statement doesn't mean I endorse him 100% because of his strong Ti)

he's EIE. the same clown which rules more by TV picture than really

22. Originally Posted by Sol
According to wikipedia there is no trusted or official data about his IQ.

> Trump's is very high (and this statement doesn't mean I endorse him 100% because of his strong Ti)

he's EIE. the same clown which rules more by TV picture than really
No SLE.

As for Wikipedia, how convenient for one in power. I'm sure the radio report I heard was quickly trashed. After all, billions of dollars were about to be spent and lives lost under this man's authority and personal judgment.

23. I remember a 120 somewhere, don't know what test or the age I took it. It was at school though.

24. idk 130+ though probably

I like Gardner's theory of multiple intelligences

25. I was tested by a child psychologist and told that I am gifted.

1516214088889.png

26. 115

27. Haven't been administered a full battery, but based on the tests I have taken I would assume somewhere in the top 1%.

28. Spatial abstraction/logic/problem solving is hard for me to do, so i'd assume not very high.

29. Originally Posted by para
Spatial abstraction/logic/problem solving is hard for me to do, so i'd assume not very high.
me2. i suck at logic and i dont score highly on IQ tests even the bullshit ones (but especially not pattern recognition tests). i think around ~100 or whatevers average, maybe below. tho ive not been tested professionally.

30. I only know what my parents told me about the IQ test I took as a really little kid, which is a high number but both of them are highly prone to exaggeration and I'm certain my IQ is lower than it was when I was a kid. My estimation of my own intelligence is probably slightly above average. I saw my brothers official result of 140 and he's a little quicker than I am but we communicate easily.

31. 132

32. 60

33. When I was 11 years old, my school principal called in the Stanford-Binet people to give me an IQ test. They asked me a bunch of questions, like, what if you need to move stuff across a river in a boat? It took all afternoon, and they said my IQ was "high 140's", which I take to be about 147. This didn't get me any better treatment from my mother, as far as I could tell, so it was pretty irrelevant to me.

Since IQ and age are inversely related, I'd estimate my present IQ at about 17, which is still larger than my shoe size.

34. After following a link, posted to a server today, I ended up on this article.

If the IQ test forced upon you was under 130, like mine, or you only have a rough estimate from the average of your online tests you can now take heart in these findings. You may be smarter than you, or others, think.

You use recreational drugs

Psychology Today

According to Psychology Today, people who use more drugs are more intelligent. "Intelligent people don't always do the right thing," they write, "only the evolutionarily novel thing."

According to a study conducted by National Child Development, "more intelligent children in the United Kingdom are more likely to grow up to consume psychoactive drugs than less intelligent children." These drugs include marijuana, cocaine, heroin, alcohol and tobacco.

The chart on the left shows the findings of the study. It depicts the latent factor for the consumption of 13 different kinds of psychoactive drugs, (cannabis, ecstasy, amphetamines, LSD, amyl nitrate, magic mushrooms, cocaine, temazepan, semeron, ketamine, crack, heroin, and methadone). There is a clear association between childhood general intelligence and adult drug consumption.

"Very bright individuals (with IQs above 125) are roughly three-tenths of a standard deviation more likely to consume psychoactive drugs than very dull individuals," says Psychology Today. They ran the same study in the U.S. and found similar results.
20 Scientifically-Proven Signs You're Smarter Than Average

14/20 Not too bad. I don't want my brain volume measured just yet. I will look to dna and my MRI scan for a rough estimate.

Please remember that although some have high IQ they may still be LQ in other areas. Yep I totally stole than from a former forum member.

35. I think I am in the 120-130 range, but I'm probably overestimating.

36. 2

37. Never took an IQ test, but I did get a nearly perfect score on the SAT.

Also, I once did a memory span test for a psychology experiment where they say longer and longer sequences of numbers, and you have to repeat them backwards. The examiner said I was the first person to get a perfect score.

Anyways, IQ is overrated.

38. IQ points are just cocoanuts for the monkeys!

39. Originally Posted by thehotelambush
Anyways, IQ is overrated.
Completely agreed. The last IQ test I took I got a perfect score on (indicating ~150+), and I had taken a similar test years before having got one question wrong. You can actually get better at those kinds of tests without necessarily becoming appreciably more "intelligent" in reality.

Nassim Taleb posted an (IMO) insightful criticism of IQ not long ago, showing it to be flawed from a mathematical and complex systems perspective:

https://medium.com/incerto/iq-is-lar...e-f131c101ba39

Background : “IQ” is a stale test meant to measure mental capacity but in fact mostly measures extreme unintelligence (learning difficulties), as well as, to a lesser extent, a form of intelligence, stripped of 2nd order effects. It is via negativa not via positiva. Designed for learning disabilities, and given that it is not too needed there (see argument further down), it ends up selecting for exam-takers, paper shufflers, obedient IYIs (intellectuals yet idiots), ill adapted for “real life”. The concept is poorly thought out mathematically (a severe flaw in correlation under fat tails, fails to properly deal with dimensionality, treats the mind as an instrument not a complex system)...

I think Socionics could go a ways towards advancing a more precise, flexible and useful concept of mental capacity.

Page 2 of 3 First 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
•