Just wondering what other people's experiences are with regards to intelligence tests, both as children and/or as adults.

Never took one....scared to find out what it would tell me....I KNOW I'm smart....and don't think actual numbers say a darn thing about intelligence quite frankly....just my opinion...
also I think a history of ADD and the struggles involved with it...since childhood really mask legitimate initelligence......I will be a registered dietitian in just four weeks....(lots of science involved in this course of study)....and it's been a long pathway to get here....a long struggle.....I'm in my fourties.... ADD has had me stopped in my track for years and that's why it has taken so long...if I had it to do over....and i was 20 again...I would have become a physician....a pediatrician perhaps........but hey dietitian is COOL!!....still will work with kids in medical field...in any event, an ingelligence test would never in a million years say I had the capacity to become a physician. That's why I avoid these intlligence tests at all costs....but I think in general, they might tell a person where he/she is at in comparison to the rest of the population.....

Yeah, the IQ tests are really based on what you've been taught, not your capacity for learning....which is really what intelligence is. I score high, but don't put much weight in it because I know that I am unable to really put it to use most of the time.

Well, if that's the case, based on what I've been taught, I'd flunk for sure! In that case, keep them far away from me....:)

Actually, the tests from MENSA and most other IQ tests don't test what you have been taught, at least as far as things like spatial relations, understanding of abstract concepts, reasoning, and comparison. That's why school children and adults can both score well on the same identical test. (Or poorly, if that's the case.)

So Eric, if that's the case if I were to take an IQ test from MENSA, what would a typical question be?? Give me an example of a question...curious as heck here!! :)

There's a good example of what some of the Mensa questions look similar to at http://www.bbc.co.uk/testthenation/takethetest/

Well, I took it....and am not telling my score..actually it was about average.......some of it was challenged by my ADD...definitely...some of the questions similar to what was on GRE....some are tough...and some are very easy...those are my comments...must have patients to stick with entire test....ADD'ers beware! before you start....go potty and have water with you!:) SOME ARE EASY SO COOL!! :)

I have to admit, that test was tough, because unlike most tests of this sort, it times you on each question... whereas most other tests have more aggregate times by section, allowing you to revisit questions you might have missed or didn't finish. Plus, I had to mentally convert the pence to cents, and the pounds to units I could envision (didn't necessarily convert to dollars, just tried using it as "units" instead). I think this skews the results. Cultural skew!!! :)

with many of the questions, i just said "skew it", and moved on....just clicked on any answer....and moved on...some ran out of time on me....:)

Never took an IQ test, but scored a 99 percentile (beat 99% of all canadians who also took it) on a mechanical apptitude test, also score high on spatial ability tests and reading comprehension.

yes, spatial ability is always super high for me....anyone else?

Extremely high here... on most standardized tests I've taken, I score near-perfect on spatial ability. Plus, I tend to take the verbal and translate it into the spatial (I "see" words in my head, in 3D, when asked to spell them).

I had one and I scored just a bit above avg. The women who gave it to me told me she felt my IQ was much higher. But because of my ADD and other learning problems, she felt it didn't reflect my true intelligence. All the test did was bring back those awful feelings I was stupid like I felt in school. :mad:

[i]. All the test did was bring back those awful feelings I was stupid like I felt in school. :mad: [/B]

Totally relate to this.....

Well the only time I took the test is when I did it on line The first time I was below average, then I found another test and was above 140. So go figure? And what does that reall say about the tests? But it did help my self esteem the second time around

There's no way to test an imagination...
:)

Originally posted by joanrdtobe
Never took one....scared to find out what it would tell me....I KNOW I'm smart....and don't think actual numbers say a darn thing about intelligence quite frankly....just my opinion...
also I think a history of ADD and the struggles involved with it...since childhood really mask legitimate initelligence......I will be a registered dietitian in just four weeks....(lots of science involved in this course of study)....and it's been a long pathway to get here....a long struggle.....I'm in my fourties.... ADD has had me stopped in my track for years and that's why it has taken so long...if I had it to do over....and i was 20 again...I would have become a physician....a pediatrician perhaps........but hey dietitian is COOL!!....still will work with kids in medical field...in any event, an ingelligence test would never in a million years say I had the capacity to become a physician. That's why I avoid these intlligence tests at all costs....but I think in general, they might tell a person where he/she is at in comparison to the rest of the population.....

Couldn't agree more.
As a child I was desperately shy and with my ADHD symptoms i.e. unable to pay attention to what was being taught and unable to read a book - information would not be absorbed I hated school, so didn't go much, cos I thought I was stupid and a waste of time.

So even though I never learnt much, it doesn't say what I am capable of acheiving under the correct circumstances i.e. once I am actually diagnosed and am receiving treatment.

Paul -- What you say resignates with me entirely.....my story precisely....and you're right....the sky is the limit....as to what you/we are capable of achieving once treated from this thing...:)

Wow, since I finally said 'bugger' to the test...I have no idea how I would have scored. Since I have a math learning disability, the math portions threw me for a loop!!

On a IQ test given to me by a person I scored rather well, but on those that are just on paper, I always look retarded:)

There is one test that UNREAL posted here that doesn't really approach math in the usual sense. You could try that one if you like:)

Did anyone notice that 8 out of 18 of us scored well above average on an intelligence test?? (44%)......not that I believe in these things of course....but it just goes to show, we are very smart:)

I've taken several online IQ tests. I seem to score very inconsistantly. Anywhere from slightly above average to a lot higher than I would expect.

I'm sure ADD has a lot to do with the inconsistancy. That and I also don't really think IQ tests are all that accurate.

Also, if you spend time practicing the types of skills that are tested for, you can actually improve your scores tremendously. So, even if the tests do have some merit, you aren't doomed to any level of performance.

Hm. Am I the only one here who's not a spatial thinker? I've always been horrible with spatial relations; I've gotten myself hopelessly lost in a number of 3D video games, and am directionally impaired in the real world as well. I tend to be more of a visual-verbal thinker, thinking of things in the form of written words or two-dimensional illustrations.

I'm also horrible at arithmetic... but can do higher math with ease given a simple four-function calculator to take care of the arithmetic problem.


Oh, and as for the poll? I can't give an honest answer since, from what results I can recall, I could fall into three of the categories...

May I recommend this site: http://www.queendom.com . All kinds of I.Q. tests - very enlightening.

I am not surprised that you came to this thread Why!! Your queendom site looks awesome:) and long. I definitely will spend some time there when I have more time....

Don't let yourself be defined by the number that the tests come up with, because that is just your observed score, not your true score. All tests have error in them, introduced for a variety of reasons (taking tests on line introduces error, because the testing situations are not standardized, also having ADD introduces error that the test doesn't not make accomodations for). A true intelligence test would construct a confidence interval around your score, that shows a range of where you true score lies. This probably doesn't make a whole lot of sense, but I guess my point is, don't feel crummy about a number on a test because it's not necessarily accurate!

When I was younger, I tested as 129. It actually is what kept me from getting a full on ADD diagnosis, as at the time it had to demonstrate major impairment in learning...not that IQ tests have anything to do with that, but that the doctor seemed to think they did. Oh well. Instead I was diagnosed "Borderline ADD" for which my parents decided not to medicate me.

you guys can't have it both ways!!
what i mean by that is this: (disregarding all the other bitter debate about iq and its worth on these forums..) if you say that iq is nothing other than an score ..but that more of us scored above average it doesn't mean that we're 'smarter' than most other ppl..we just scored better on the test.
and aside from that i think ppl are REALLY forgetting or not noticing that there are different kinds of iq tests and only a few and given only by a proffessional would pass muster for being your official score.
i know that a bunch of you said you've taken mutiple ones on the net and recieved a wide range of scores-that goes w/out saying since you've probably taken different tests, not just variations but a different test completely. plus: you have to have a certain number of questions period to make the results even remotely valid.
i would be skeptical of any score you get on the net.

just note that all of the high iq societies require you to take either their own iq test (some iq societies are actually for the triple 9's. the veryyyy top and way above mensa requirements)
or one of the standard iq tests such as the stanford binet or the wechsler adult test...also a test you took as a child would be outdated- you could of course extrapolate based on that.

with that said..i suck at spatial items. i'm above average but nothing to write home about. i scored off the scales literally on the verbal sections of almost every single test i've taken in my life (which you would never know from my writing in here! LOL, i detest caps, plus and i don't know if anyone else has experienced this but my meds have seriously affected my ability to spell with confidence. i used to be the go to person in my office for spelling-i can spell better for others than i can for myself when i'm writing on my own..its bizarre, adderall+wellbutrin is probably eating my brain away)

also -when you get an iq score it should detail the + / - factor...i'm 165 +/- 5 above and below...

its like that b/c you can perform better or worse any given day and that bespeaks of different performance levels...

thanks

What impresses me is that the standard IQ tests can only test analytical intelligence...which most of us would be lacking in, normally, as opposed to creative intelligence...I have excellent analytical reasoning skills, but only because I mentally put all information into charts, and then I can see the patterns of information...tangent.

Ok, anyways, it's interesting that we'd all do so well on a type of test that should be practically counterintuitive to us...heh

I was given an IQ test when some university came and screen for gifted kids in Grade 4-- I got a 128 on WISC-III, with a very big verbal score (Heard in some parts of verbal I got 5 or 6 standard deviations above mean.). However, the school don't have a gifted program, and the university people said my ADHD-ness is "some oddity that a gifted kids have and not something of concern."

To me all the tests were like games I would choose to do for entertainment. I enjoy the word games in Reader's Digest, word searches, and puzzle's of all sorts. Because they were fun and I wanted to do them I "hyperfocused" and did well. The blank puzzle shapes and the pattern cubes were amusing. I also had very high spatial scores. I wonder if this is fairly common amongst us?
rainraven

This always depresses me as my husband and many of my close friends have IQ's well over 140. The first time I got an IQ test was in HS, 122, which the results were mailed to my parents, and of course me and my friends all shared our results, and again, I had the lowest of my circle of friends. I've since take them as an adult, online and consistantly get about a 115 on the same test my friends are scoreing 138-160+, I try not to let this bother me as according to the results I am average/slightly above average which I am happy with (since honestly I would think I was below average just a little had I never taken one...) but it's frustrateing that compared to my peers I seem very below average, that or they are liars!

It's just a number anyway, some people are horrible at taking tests, I don't think it's a true reflection of one's intelligence.

Although Im not trying to objectize my subjectivity, Im not very pleased with the psychoanalytic way of accessing intelligence. The traditional viewpoint of intelligence, is simplicially and generally, the innate ability to solve problems, which has been agreed on by most psychologists. However, most IQ tests are culturally biased to a huge degree. Most IQ tests focus on mental faculties such as verbal-linguistic, logico-mathematical and visuo-spatial intelligence. The amalgamation of these classical and long accepted intelligences have been the most heavily tested attributes in IQ tests. As a advocate of Howard Gardner's Multiple Intelligence theory, which states that there are at least 8 distinct types of intelligences which also include musical, naturalist, interpersonal, intrapersonal, bodily-kinesthetic aka tactile intelligence, I believe that the IQ tests which are currently used should be refined in such as a way as to evaluate not just the above 3, but to also measure the other fluid and crystallized (noesis, as I love to call it) intelligences.
My intelligence has been tested ad nauseam last year and it is in the range of 170+ on the stanford-binet scale (standard deviation = 15). I generally fair very well in terms of my ability to resolve questions on abstraction as well as on visuospatial problems. Despite this, I'm nevertheless just a mere musical quadriplegic (I'm a dunce when it comes to music) and an unasinous imbecile in the vincinity of bodily-kinesthetic intelligence due to my poor neurosomatic abilities.

My understanding of how an ADD diagnosis is made (at least for the purpose of school accommodations) is that an IQ test must be administered. The results are compared to one's "ADD test" score to show how severe the ADD deficits are. Have many people been diagnosed w/o being administered an IQ test? Was this diagnosis used solely for treatment or for accommodations?
GD

Hi BunnyStar,
I would not put much stock into those online IQ tests. Even the established, standardized tests used by shrinks have some flaws. Remember, the average IQ is 100. Methinks IQ is like age or body weight: people lie about it a lot.

I am wondering if you were diagnosed w/ ADD w/o an IQ test? Did you ever receive accommodations in high school? I am asking bc I thought the IQ test was a necessary component to a diagnosis, or at least to receive accommodations. (I just posted another question about this.)
Hugs, GD
This always depresses me as my husband and many of my close friends have IQ's well over 140. The first time I got an IQ test was in HS, 122, which the results were mailed to my parents, and of course me and my friends all shared our results, and again, I had the lowest of my circle of friends. I've since take them as an adult, online and consistantly get about a 115 on the same test my friends are scoreing 138-160+, I try not to let this bother me as according to the results I am average/slightly above average which I am happy with (since honestly I would think I was below average just a little had I never taken one...) but it's frustrateing that compared to my peers I seem very below average, that or they are liars!

It's just a number anyway, some people are horrible at taking tests, I don't think it's a true reflection of one's intelligence.

Although Im not trying to objectize my subjectivity, Im not very pleased with the psychoanalytic way of accessing intelligence. The traditional viewpoint of intelligence, is simplicially and generally, the innate ability to solve problems, which has been agreed on by most psychologists. However, most IQ tests are culturally biased to a huge degree. Most IQ tests focus on mental faculties such as verbal-linguistic, logico-mathematical and visuo-spatial intelligence. The amalgamation of these classical and long accepted intelligences have been the most heavily tested attributes in IQ tests. As a advocate of Howard Gardner's Multiple Intelligence theory, which states that there are at least 8 distinct types of intelligences which also include musical, naturalist, interpersonal, intrapersonal, bodily-kinesthetic aka tactile intelligence, I believe that the IQ tests which are currently used should be refined in such as a way as to evaluate not just the above 3, but to also measure the other fluid and crystallized (noesis, as I love to call it) intelligences.
My intelligence has been tested ad nauseam last year and it is in the range of 170+ on the stanford-binet scale (standard deviation = 15). I generally fair very well in terms of my ability to resolve questions on abstraction as well as on visuospatial problems. Despite this, I'm nevertheless just a mere musical quadriplegic (I'm a dunce when it comes to music) and an unasinous imbecile in the vincinity of bodily-kinesthetic intelligence due to my poor neurosomatic abilities.
I agree with your assessment of Howard Gardner's Mult. Intelligence Theory..it makes for better coverage of all aspects of our intelligence. I will say that i don't even think its worth trying to argue if you can quantify intelligence or not. you can't even find a worthy definition. and anyway. definitions are makeshift apparitions..
i'm 165 +-5 on david wechsler adult scales ..top 2%. yeah. its helped me a lot on life. as a matter of fact it gave me a complex b/c i always feel like a FAKE.
anyway.
your vocabulary: excessive. verbal is my forte. and despite appearances i'm off the scales verbally. your paragraphs are like a wading through peanut butter my friend. ;)
but what i really wanted to say here is that this topic itself has been discussed ad nauseum here. there are ppl who feel defensive. there are ppl who want to strut. there are those that want to rise above the occasion and discuss the flaws of conventional ideas about intelligence and pick it apart.
WHO CARES.
this is a quote from girldriver:
I would not put much stock into those online IQ tests. Even the established, standardized tests used by shrinks have some flaws. Remember, the average IQ is 100. Methinks IQ is like age or body weight: people lie about it a lot.
i absolutely agree with you gd. ppl do indeed lie a lot about it.
yup
there are flaws to all tests. iq and others.
they are the closest approximation psychometricians can use for a standard way of looking at abilities.
i'm not saying its a good way or a bad way. it just is.

i just think there are so many other things to life to be concerned about.
i promise. (not that i think you guys are just obsessed or something)

ok i'll admit it.
i'm burned out by this topic.
i know. i shouldn't even read it then. i almost feel like susan powter "stop the madness!!"
this is a serious adhd characteristic of mine. i just have to speak out.

can't we all just not care about this?
LOL
someone. slap my hand.

"your paragraphs are like a wading through peanut butter my friend."?
:) Can I take it that you are Arachibutyophobic? LoL :D ... joking ...

Alright then, I will reduce the usage of difficult words since you say so :) I personally feel that a test of fluid intelligence should not be used in modern society. However, psychometric tests and general aptitude tests aka tests of crystallised intelligence are perfectly alright, at least in my own opinion. Tests of the fluidity of intelligence (innate intelligence) can be demoralizing at times, especially if the test result has been revealed to the test taker. Innate intelligence is mostly genetically hardwired into the human body. The setback is not so great for those who take the latter, as the test taker should be well aware of the fact that crystallised intelligence can be improved dramatically through certain kinds of training (english courses, visual aids, arithmetic training und so weiter...). Anyway, psychometric tests with a low, but still rather significant g-loading, only display a 0.4 covariance with work performance. Psychometric tests are just another way of accessing one's ability to do well on jobs. It is not the only way.

Oh by the way, the poll question is too ambiguous. Please state the intelligence scale used. Afterall, 190 on the Cattell intelligence scale corresponds to only 165 on the Weschler intelligence scale and 160 on the Stanford-Binet scale. At least state the standard deviation used (childhood IQs are an exception since they are the ratios of the mental age to the chronological age and are hence independent of other deviation scales used). I assume, on this poll, that you are using the Weschler Intelligence Scale. My stereotypical view of the WIS is that it is the most commonly used distribution in measuring intelligence.

my answer was erroneous - my iq falls in the 121 - 140 range and i picked the choice above it. (Just took the test......) http://www.testcafe.com/iqtest (http://www.testcafe.com/iqtest/iqfree.cgi)

I don't really trust online IQ tests ...

The IQ test I took in HS was before I was diagnoised with ADD. It wasn't until I was in the 11th grade that I was diagnoised, although I was "tested" they never disclosed to me if it was an IQ test or what the results were. The IQ test I took in school was administered to everyone, and the results were mailed to the parents. I don't know what the school did this?? One the test that the school administered, on that paticular on anything above 140 was exceptional, and 100 was average. I scored a 122 then on that paticular one. Since then I've only taken the online one (4/5 times in the course of a week) and scored 115 pretty consistantly. I won't do that again though, only because it took insanely long to take it, and I found it difficult and frustrateing. (I am one of those that avoids activities that are mentally difficult because I find the effort and concentration to do so is incrediably difficult and there for, no fun!)

I agree, people lie about those things.


Hi BunnyStar,
I would not put much stock into those online IQ tests. Even the established, standardized tests used by shrinks have some flaws. Remember, the average IQ is 100. Methinks IQ is like age or body weight: people lie about it a lot.

I am wondering if you were diagnosed w/ ADD w/o an IQ test? Did you ever receive accommodations in high school? I am asking bc I thought the IQ test was a necessary component to a diagnosis, or at least to receive accommodations. (I just posted another question about this.)
Hugs, GD

The aphorism "Stephen Hawking was an idiot" is an extremely egotistical and blasphemous remark to use by the way. The sine qua non of idiotism is the lack of, or indifference towards knowledge. I think it's rather vitriolic to use such a remark against someone who has already been internationally recognized as a genius.
Can a moderator or administrator please erm ... remove such an irreverent remark please.

avistar,
'stephen hawking was an idiot' is meant to be humorous, its just a joke. i'm sure that most ppl here understand what 'idotism' means-
and irreverence is something that americans tend to enjoy and participate in often..its seen more as an attitude that reconsiders 'establishment' i work for a very respected national company here in the united states involved with education and one of our guiding principles according to company mottoes includes : irreverence. .
before anyone decides to launch into some epithet about how not everyone here is an american or a canadian, it does seem obvious that most of us actually ARE and therefore i think when comments like avistar's need to be addressed in terms of explanation.
thanks!

The aphorism "Stephen Hawking was an idiot" is an extremely egotistical and blasphemous remark to use by the way.
It took you how many weeks to figure that out? And you don't have ADD? :P Like f_wcomboadhd said, you have misinterpreted an American love for irreverance as disrespect. I happen to respect Dr. Hawking for the fact that he can even do research with his condition. With my LD's and ADD, if I were as physically handicapped as he, I don't think it would be possible for me to do mathematical research.

i think that hawking ( i remember watching a documentary about him) was always capable of committing his mind to problems that most of us can only dream of solving in a lifetime..prior to his physical degradation. he always beat all of his classmates and they were stunned by his ability. when he became more physically limited he, i imagine, only had his interior world for stimulus and what more than eternity in your head for space to solve problems?
its like the blind that develop extraordinary hearing (didnt i read somewhere that there is the stereotype of the blind piano tuner? was that in this forum?)

This is AMAZING:

http://www.alternativescience.com/no_brainer.htm

How can someone who doesn't have a "brain" survive and possess above average intelligence?

For those that are interested, I think a good discussion on IQ and AD/HD is (slowly:) ) emerging in this thread:http://www.addforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=12161

And for those that are discouraged about their IQ scores, DON'T BE. IQ scores, for the most part, mean shiat(pardon my language).

Richard Feynman had an IQ of 127. 127!! The father of quantum electrodynamics scored above average, but nowhere near the levels of a "genius."

Here's a nice quote about the guy:

"There are two kinds of geniuses: the 'ordinary' and the 'magicians'. An ordinary genius is a fellow whom you and I would be just as good as, if we were only many times better. There is no mystery as to how his mind works. Once we understand what they've done, we feel certain that we, too, could have done it. It is different with the magicians. Even after we understand what they have done it is completely dark. Richard Feynman is a magician of the highest calibre." - Mark Kac

Conversely, I scored off the proverbial charts as a child and I certainly ain't performing rocket surgery now ;).

For those who don't know: barring any extraneous variables, a child that scored a 120 on a given IQ test will grow up to score a 120 on that same test(although modified for age) as an adult.

"a child that scored a 120 on a given IQ test will grow up to score a 120 on that same test(although modified for age) as an adult."

For a childhood IQ test, an IQ score is obtained from the ratio of one's mental age to his/her chronological age times 100. The average score of 100 is obtained from the averages of the scores of many people taking the test.
For an adult IQ test, an IQ score is obtained from comparing one's score against the abilities of an entire test population. Instead of using ratio, adult IQ tests make use of standard deviations, which can show a person's deviation from the mean also in terms of percentile.
Depending on the scale used for adult IQ tests, it is highly improbably that the same person who scored a certain score as a child will score the same as an adult.

"a child that scored a 120 on a given IQ test will grow up to score a 120 on that same test(although modified for age) as an adult."

For a childhood IQ test, an IQ score is obtained from the ratio of one's mental age to his/her chronological age times 100. The average score of 100 is obtained from the averages of the scores of many people taking the test.
For an adult IQ test, an IQ score is obtained from comparing one's score against the abilities of an entire test population. Instead of using ratio, adult IQ tests make use of standard deviations, which can show a person's deviation from the mean also in terms of percentile.
Depending on the scale used for adult IQ tests, it is highly improbably that the same person who scored a certain score as a child will score the same as an adult.
You're confusing the calculations of a few different tests.

"The Wechsler Intelligence Scales are standardized tests, meaning that as part of the test design, they were administered to a large representative sample of the target population, and norms were determined from the results. The scales have a mean, or average, standard score of 100 and a standard deviation of 15. The standard deviation indicates how far above or below the norm the subject's score is. For example, a ten-year-old is assessed with the WISC-III scale and achieves a full-scale IQ score of 85. The mean score of 100 is the average level at which all 10-year-olds in the representative sample performed. This child's score would be one standard deviation below that norm."

http://www.chclibrary.org/micromed/00070770.html

And...

"After World War II, Lewis Terman of Stanford University translated the Binet-Simon test into English, adapted it to the American culture and school curriculum, and called it the Stanford-Binet. This test is still in use today, although it has undergone periodic revision over the years, the last one a significant revision based on a new model of intelligence. Initially the scores were reported in terms of Mental Age, just as in the original. Later, mental age and chronological age were used to compute a new metric called the Intelligence Quotient, or I.Q. This was computed using what is now called the ratio method, which involves plugging the numbers into the following formula:
(Mental Age/Chronological Age) * 100 = I.Q.No matter what the child's chronological age, if the mental age matches the chronological age, then the I.Q. will equal 100. An I.Q. of 100 thus indicates a child of average intellectual development. If the mental age is above the chronological age (a more gifted than average child), then the I.Q. is above 100; if the mental age is below the chronological age (a developmentally retarded child), then the I.Q. is below 100. "

Using this method, an adult is unlikely to receive the same score as he did as a child, but a gifted child is going to grow up to be a gifted adult. The degree that the said person stays in relation to those of his same age is likely to stay approximately the same.

However, this ratio method isn't something we have to worry about much anymore, anyway.

"As I mentioned above, the old "ratio method" of computing I.Q. is no longer used. The currently used method is called the deviation method, and is based on the fact that I.Q. scores tend to closely follow a mathematical distribution known as the normal distribution, otherwise known as the "bell curve." "

Those last two quotes were taken from here: http://users.ipfw.edu/abbott/120/IntelligenceTests.html

This source may help you to validate certain points:

http://sweb.uky.edu/~jcscov0/ratioiq.htm

Just realized it's actually quite possible to obtain a negative IQ score ...

This source may help you to validate certain points:

http://sweb.uky.edu/~jcscov0/ratioiq.htm
I'm confused by your suggestion. Do you mean to say that it will aid me in validating my points, or did you mean it will aid you in validating your points? Your wording seems to suggest the former, but I don't think that's what you meant...especially considering you refereced the ratio method.

Here you go again:

"As I mentioned above, the old "ratio method" of computing I.Q. is no longer used. The currently used method is called the deviation method, and is based on the fact that I.Q. scores tend to closely follow a mathematical distribution known as the normal distribution, otherwise known as the "bell curve." "

Good points. "Ratio" IQ's aren't at all comparable to "deviation" IQ's. Also, while the theoretical possibility of a negative IQ does exist on the "deviation" scale, assuming that the distribution of actual scores were exactly normal, with a mean of 100 and SD of 15, a score of "only" 0 would be 6.67 SD's from the mean. I wasn't even able to find any standard normal tables that go past 6.0, and I'm too lazy to do the numerical integration, but I suspect it's WAY less than 1 in 10^9. In any case, someone who truly has an IQ of zero (rather than someone who was purposely trying to blow the test) would probably not even be able to survive.

No I meant to help us validate our points. Doing otherwise will result in the objectivity of our subjectivity.

No I meant to help us validate our points. Doing otherwise will result in the objectivity of our subjectivity.
How will a source based on an unused method be useful to any of us?

Unused method? Please read the article again please :)

Unused method? Please read the article again please :)I apologize. I saw this: "The formula (MA/CA)*100 yields the IQ score." and skipped right over this: "Score distributions seemed to fit the normal curve, so it was assumed that the distribution was normal." :D

Guess my AD/HD got the better of me, eh? :p

The distribution used in most standardized adult IQ tests follows that of a normal distribution curve, while the one used in childhood IQ tests do not utilize such a curve. It is wrong to assume that the distribution of childhood IQ test scores follow the same normal distribution with the same standard deviation.

my answer was erroneous - my iq falls in the 121 - 140 range and i picked the choice above it. (Just took the test......) http://www.testcafe.com/iqtest (http://www.testcafe.com/iqtest/iqfree.cgi)
Hm, ok, I tried that one...

Congratulations!
Your general IQ score is 159.

A person whose IQ score falls in the range of 144-160 is considered to be "gifted".
An IQ is a composite of your scores across 12 distinct aspects of intelligence. Each person has a unique intellectual make-up, with strengths and weaknesses that affect their methods of understanding, recognition, communication and association. Using a carefully cross-reference scoring scheme, TestCafe is able to accumulate a profound quantity of information about your natural intellectual abilities.

For example, your Pattern Recognition score is 88.

Hm. On the International High IQ page, I got 138 on the verbal, but 117 on the full test. I dunno, it's all subjective. I've taken so many damn tests in my life.

Oh, on the BBC one, I nearly gave up waiting for it to load, but I scored 119.

Trust me, I don't think I'm smart. I'm just good at seeing things and just knowing how they fit. Ask me to explain and I'm hopeless.
I think I could have done better if I wasn't watching CSI.

My IQ seems to be medication dependant, which highlights the inherent difference between competance and performance, a profound extraneous variable in any mode of cognitive examination in the context of your standard acedemic test.

Most tests seem to agree it falls somewhere between 139 (unmedicated) and 168 (dexidrine)

Still quite a big margin though :/

And yes, it's theoretically impossible to accuratly structure a subjecive phenomina around a definative scale without inhereant inaccuracies in the transformation (damn you heisenberg...)

And it still doesn't explain why i'm so dumb in real life.

As a child of 5, I was informed that my IQ lies in the range of 210 by my parents. Though they did not tell me the precise score, I have no doubt that my IQ lies within this range owing to my precocity as a child. For instance, I learnt my arithmetic, and learnt to write in less than 2 years of age. Even right now, being 12 years of age, my intellectual and creative capacities are far above that of average teenages of the same age. One notable area of my abilities lie in my early comprehension of languages and mathematics. I learnt algebra at 5, and mastered differentiation (a part of calculus), at 10.

I never took an IQ test, but I did take a different type of test. It was a test to determine what type of work I would be best at. The results of the test told me nothing as I scored very high in every area. It basically said I could do whatever I wanted.

i took an IQ test way back when, and i think i got in the 130s? 140s? im really not, sure but they said it was significantly above average. as i have gotten older i seem to do worse on those kinds of tests. can a person slowly lose their intelligence!? :rolleyes:
i dont pay attention to the questions, and i run out of time. i want to take an IQ test now that im on medication, so that i have confidence in my full potential....im getting to a point where i just feel like an incompetent moron.

i took an iq test in grade school when i am 8. got quite low - IQ 76 ... that explain why i am always at bottom of the class. i never learnt how to count and add when till i am 12.

:( i just found out that im the dumbest person here with such a low iq. guess thats why my brain cannot learn the easiest things. guess i will never become successful in life with such a low iq (my frontal lobes had 25% less mass then other brains when i volunteered for a study to test my iq and scan my brain)

Well high IQ or not, it still doesn't help me figure out how to detangle my three necklaces I wear daily :)
I could never join Mensa due to them not believing in a 'talking stick' to prevent my conversational interruptions. <wink>
Nova

I took the test in elementary school and scored a 134. I am not sure which one I took. It was so very long ago.

It corresponds with other tests that I have taken. I scored slightly over 1400 on the SAT, 710 on the GMAT, and sixty something on the MAT test.

Usually score just above average, but I always feel like I could score higher if I would actually have the patience (though patience wouldn't be the right word, I can't find a better one right now though) to think my way through the hard to crack ones, like shape-puzzles and 3D things and such. The word part usually comes easiest to me and I don't have to think much at all.

Yes my IQ is high but it is meaningless. I have trouble accomplishing anything. People with much lower IQs are accomplishing great things. A class mate of mine with an IQ in the mid 120s graduated from Amherst with all A's, won a Fulbright (I am not sure if I can even spell it) scholarship, graduated from Harvard med. school and is now a Professor at a med. school. No matter how hard I tried I could never match his achievements. I am always amazed that people even bother paying attention to IQ. I have still not seen any statistics that show IQ tests being correlated to success.

Looks like we have some really gifted members here according to the I.Q. poll. Now I really feel ignorant. :( I have never tested well because I have severe problems with short-term memory. I also have another problem doing I.Q. tests that relate to figuring out something about sequencing visual comparisons, I do not know how to explain this really, but there are four boxes with so many parts of the boxes blacked out then you are supposed to chose the next picture box in the sequence. I hope someone knows what this is. Secondary to ADHD, I also have "dyscalculia" that is a type of mathematical disability. And it's no wonder - I have had problems with anything relating to mathematical abilities beyond the usual four calculations since early childhood. Since learning fractions I couldn't go any further. Geometry was the last math class I took in highschool. I barely passed.

Many people with ADD/ADHD are extremely gifted and have above-average I.Q.'s. I did not know this because I've always had so much trouble learning. However, my daughter is very gifted and much brighter than I was at learning. At my age I don't know what I could do to change it. I have always wanted to be smarter.

137 on the typical IQ. I made idiotic mistakes (4+3 is not 12) despite my ability in theorems. My spatial is high and more than made up for it he said.

Everyone wants to be smarter. For me I know I'm intelligent yet not a genius. I'll prove just "how intelligent" through actions more than words as they almost always speaks louder. :)

IQ tests are B.S. I just took one( although I didn't know I was taking it) while I was being tested for add. I scored in the superior range, but I think it mostly had to do with my education. I don't see how any of the questions relate to your true ability. I don't think that intelligence can be quantified. Also there are many different IQ tests, so ya all might be comparing apples and oranges, because the scales are different.

For those of you stuck up on this IQ business remember the wisdom of Stuart Smally "I'm good enough, I'm smart enough and gall darnit people like me"