Intelligence Quotient (IQ)

[Prometheus]

What do you'll think about IQ tests? As such, are they a good guide to ascertain a person's potential?

Do you guys/gals know of any sites that provide good IQ tests? (I've taken a few, I'm just curious as to the ones you'll have taken, if any)

dinesh.

[AshRyan]

I've never seen an internet IQ test that I would call very reliable (but then, I haven't looked very hard). Ideally, they should be administered by a professional psychologist.

I do think that there is something to them, but one should be aware of exactly what they are designed to measure and not overgeneralize one's results as a set-in-stone indication of one's potential (or lack thereof).

[AwakeAndFree]

I think IQ is quite reliable, but not necessarily more than other measures of intelligence.

But these tests all measure a specific set of abilities, which do not necessarily give the whole picture of that person's mental abilities (for example - musical ability, creativity, imagination). And even if they did - they would only reflect that person's potential abilities - not his rationality, morality, or even acquired knowledge.

They are very useful, however, in finding a person's potential ability to deal with new knowledge and unfamiliar situations.

[ZiggyKD]

I took a test from Tickle a while back, apparantly I have an IQ of 132. The test itself didn't seem very in depth or challenging... or maybe I am just a genius.

[Prometheus]

Ziggy: try iqtest if you wish.

dinesh.

[Objectivist]

I took a test from Tickle a while back, apparantly I have an IQ of 132. The test itself didn't seem very in depth or challenging... or maybe I am just a genius.

I believe that a genius is over 140 or 145. So you're not a genius. I took tickle and scored a 155. Iq tests are taken wayyyyyy too seriously. I don't think they are accurate at all.

"Ziggy: try iqtest if you wish."

On that test I scored a 172. None of them are accurate at all.

[June]

What do you'll think about IQ tests? As such, are they a good guide to ascertain a person's potential?

Specific numbers don’t say very much. Ranges are a little more telling, since tests vary in modes of analysis. From personal experience only, I’ve observed that if one averages within 130 to 160 across various IQ tests, then he is likely to have the ability or potential to develop his physical and mental world in ways with which he can be comfortable in the long run. Most good business persons and very creative introverts would fall in this range. Consistent numbers higher than this range are a likely indication of a potentiality for modifying or revising major paradigms. Groundbreaking scientists, theorists and philosophers would fall above 160. Those with mental handicaps, bad attitudes toward life, or those who are culturally incompatible or complacent, are likely to fall below 130 with little exception.

[Spearmint]

IQ tests certainly measure _something_.

What that 'something' is though, is up for debate. It certainly doesn't seem to be 'intelligence' in the way most people use the word (although admittedly I think the word 'intelligence' is vague enough to be considered almost meaningless in the majority of instances).

[source]

I'm too scoring high results often on these IQ tests. Sometimes, however, I barely score over 100. That is why I don't think that these tests are too reliable. Another reason is that sometimes there are two possible solutions to a problem, and they are both equally logical.

I also took the test at Tickle and scored above 130, and that's by intentionally providing an incorrect answer to a clearly philosophical question (don't remember what it was exactly), which could be called a bromide and an incorrect one at that.

[The Cynic]

Employers sometimes rely on intelligence testing to help select from a range of candidates. On its own an IQ test would be a pretty poor method of selection but combined with an interview and a C.V. it can create a better evaluation of the candidate.

I've taken 2 online IQ tests, one gave me an IQ of 130 the other and IQ of 90! Go figure.

[4reason]

The modern IQ tests have their origins in France, when teachers found themselves overwhelmed by the range of learning abilities they were presented with after the government passed a law that made school attendance mandatory for all children. They quickly realized that the schools needed a way to objectively identify which children had special learning needs. Relying on teachers' subjective evaluations was not going to prove realiable, as struggles for certain children could merely reflect inadequate exposure to schooling, not an inability to learn or an inadequacy in terms of potential. The test then, was actually created to minimize bias. While I am not a fan of government controling any kind of educational assessments, I think it is important to note how these kinds of tests originated. They were meant to improve education by pinpointing needs, but what it has become is a way to label people with attributes and limitations, adults and children alike.

The "standard" IQ test is an adaptation of the one utilized in France over a century ago; it is called the Stanford-Binet test. The "Intelligence Quotient" as I am sure you know, is simply a person's mental age divided by their chronological age ten multiplied by 100 to eliminate the decimal. The test, then, established "mental age" and the score came from plugging it into this formula (the formula originated out of Germany). What is interesting to note --an here's where I question the validity of any test you can take online-- is that most professionally administered IQ tests no longer compute an "IQ," not even the working version of the Stanford-Binet. The original quotient formula worked well with children. A smart child who could answer questions the way a typical child that was several years older than him would score higher. But did an adult who scores as well as an adult younger than them deserve to have a "low IQ," especially once you got into the older ages of adulthood, because that's what happened if you started plugging numbers into the formula. A sixty year old, then, would be numerically punished for scoring the same as a fifty year old, which seemed troublesome.

Psychology's answer was to then evaluate the test-takers' performance relative only to the average of others the same age, and they do this when testing both adults and children. Current tests, I believe, still define the average score as 100. What results, then, is "a mental ability score." (they no longer like to use the word "quotient). Most people, using this age-restrictive evaluation, score between 85 and 115. I don't know where you would start defining genius... as I still believe genius lies largely in action that the test cannot quantify. Sure, it may prove one is good at manipulating forms in space and doing math, but no score can really predict with 100% accuracy what any individual will do or accomplish. I think it should be used as an indicator, at best, and still does have value for pinpointing educational needs in children. Many of the assessments that I use in a primary level Montessori environment are very similar to components of the IQ test. But the number one method of evaluation I use is observation, for it is tthe children's ability to move through a process that reveals where their struggles and their talents are. This is why I believe that IQ tests administered by someone who watches you move through the process can be more helpful as opposed to taking one online, especially if you're really looking for insight about you r thinking abilities or have a desire to know how you compare to others. How you approach a problem can be just as insightful, if not more so, than the result you arrive at. One could argue that puts you at the mercy of the administrator's subjective judgment of your process, but it really doesn't. I recently took a "cognitive evaluation" (ie, an IQ test), and found that the explanations I was provided were not judgments so much as they were explanations of how my processing compared to those of others. The administrator never said, "you did it this way, so that makes you smart." He explained it more along the lines of "you did it this way, whereas most people did it this way." That was useful information to me. That is what I walked away remembering and thinking about. I was given a score, but it didn't make me feel smart (even though it should have, considering what the average score is). What made me feel intelligent was understanding what my learning style was - visual - and how I used that to work through all sorts of different problems. There were no subjective evaluative statements involved. Just concrete and mathematical comparisons. The interpretation is really up to the individual, not the administrator, especially for someone taking the test just out of personal curiosity.

If you are taking tests online, I would at least try and see if the sites explain the formula they are using. As an adult, you want to make sure they are comparing your results only to people your own age; otherwise it might produce a misleadingly low or high score. Different tests are probably using different formulas, that could be one reason why one's "score" could vary so widely from test to test.

Edited December 1, 2007 by 4reason

[Robert J. Kolker]

What do you'll think about IQ tests? As such, are they a good guide to ascertain a person's potential?

Do you guys/gals know of any sites that provide good IQ tests? (I've taken a few, I'm just curious as to the ones you'll have taken, if any)

dinesh.

Potential for what?

Bob Kolker

[Blinky]

Psychology's answer was to then evaluate the test-takers' performance relative only to the average of others the same age, and they do this when testing both adults and children. Current tests, I believe, still define the average score as 100. What results, then, is "a mental ability score." (they no longer like to use the word "quotient). Most people, using this age-restrictive evaluation, score between 85 and 115.

Indeed, average score is defined as 100. And 15 is standard deviation. Thus between 85 and 115 falls 68% of people.

Intelligence tests should be standardized on population in which you belong Then you can compare yourself with other people from the population of same age. So it is important whether internet tests are properly standardized. In many cases, I doubt it. It is rather expensive to do that and I don´t think that many of those who provide intelligence testing on internet pay money to do it.

[Quin]

I was told that my IQ is about a 95 which essentially means that I am in the lower average range. It sickens me that I am actually barred this way and that no matter how hard I work I won't be able to understand as quickly or comprehend things on the same way as many of my peers. Is there anything I can do to change it?

[aequalsa]

I was told that my IQ is about a 95 which essentially means that I am in the lower average range. It sickens me that I am actually barred this way and that no matter how hard I work I won't be able to understand as quickly or comprehend things on the same way as many of my peers. Is there anything I can do to change it?

Henry Ford is generally thought to have had a low IQ and is known to have been poorly educated. Achievement and IQ are not inextricably tied. Persistence and hard work are at least as important as speed of processing.

[KevinD]

I was told that my IQ is about a 95 which essentially means that I am in the lower average range. It sickens me that I am actually barred this way and that no matter how hard I work I won't be able to understand as quickly or comprehend things on the same way as many of my peers. Is there anything I can do to change it?

I have reviewed your test, Quin, and it seems there has been an error. Your actual IQ score is 145. We apologize for the mix-up; please carry on with your life as usual.

[DavidOdden]

Is there anything I can do to change it?

Take the test many times over a couple of years, and average the scores.

[Quin]

I have reviewed your test, Quin, and it seems there has been an error. Your actual IQ score is 145. We apologize for the mix-up; please carry on with your life as usual.

I know it's not something I can do anything about, but none the less it does bother me. I guess I should worry more about the insecurity than the perceived problem though.

[Blinky]

I was told that my IQ is about a 95 which essentially means that I am in the lower average range. It sickens me that I am actually barred this way and that no matter how hard I work I won't be able to understand as quickly or comprehend things on the same way as many of my peers. Is there anything I can do to change it?

Poor IQ results may have other reasons than having below average IQ. First of all, the test may be biased (culturally etc.). Secondly it may be a bad test (for instance some firm which provide some kind of education may let people do IQ test on internet and lessen results to lure people to buy they products or services). Thirdly, test may be badly administered (less time to do than it should be, badly counted results and so on). Finally, you may have not had your day (not enough sleep, daydreaming, not enough motivation, bad mood and on and on).

If you really care you should try to do some test again. If you took some bad test then try to do some better one next time.

Furthermore, IQ can be improved (I don´t mean IQ as a result of tests but intelligence as well). And as far as I know (I have to say I am not sure about this) IQ does not correlate with happiness and it does not correlate highly with creativity. I have seen in your profile that you play bass guitar, so for instance there you may use creativity rather than intelligence.

[Tenderlysharp]

The IQ tests I have seen generally seem to be filled with trick questions that are answered better by slowing down and really paying attention, rather than making assumptions about what you first think its saying. Many of the mathematical equations don't t really need to be added up... to see if the answer is odd or even (if there are an odd number of odd numbers the answer will be odd).

A person can get very good at answering IQ test questions without actually becoming smarter by using short cuts. An insatiable curiosity and dedicated attention will improve a persons intelligence a great deal more than knowing what their score is.

I am not as interested in how I rate compared to other people as I am in understanding the many ways people think and organize their attention. I like looking at the concept of IQ as a way to look at my own cognitive style and improve how I go about my thought process.

I think that IQ tests should have a lot more questions (1,000 at least) in order to get a better perspective on the mind. An IQ test of the caliber that is in my imagination would actually make you smarter just by taking it. In order to see such a thing come to fruition I would have to study every IQ test I could find, study human psychology, learning, epistemology, extending attention span... among other things... directing them to the idea of the ultimate IQ test.

But... I have dozens of other ideas I want to pursue that are more important to me at the moment.

Its strange to think that a psychologist is necessary to help analyze intelligence, it seems that what ever information a psychologist could impart would be just as accessible from books.

[LovesLife]

My experience with this has been that most IQ tests are very poor at testing the high end of the range. Working on the tail of the bell curve is tricky. I suspect one reason for the problems might be that the designers of the test have lower IQs than the people they're trying to test, so they don't see patterns or solutions that others might, or they don't see ambiguity where others might.

I think that having well above-average intelligence can easily lead to an unhappy or unfulfilling life. When you see connections and patterns that others don't, and when others can't even understand your explanations, it can lead to a lonely existence. I wouldn't be surprised if the world's happiest people are those with average intelligence. There are actually some physiological interactions between emotions and your ability to think rationally. When emotions are raging, the rational part of the brain is unable to function as well -- which implies some interesting social ramifications....

FWIW, I agree that IQ is a poor measure of intelligence. It looks at a narrow range of skills and attempts to extrapolate to general intelligence. The reality is that some people have a very superior intelligence in one or more areas that don't happen to overlap with the tests -- which, again, makes we wonder about the intelligence of the people who design the tests.

[Toolboxnj]

I believe it can be an accurate measure of potential, but it doesn't make a person. I had one done by a psychiatrist can I think it accurately measured my potential and where I believe I stand in life (which is above average, but not genius). My IQ test had verbal and mechanical. I did extremely well on the verbal and just average on the mechanical, but it looks like I scored way too far apart to be accurate (145-97). But then on the GMAT I scored in the 90 percentile on the verbal and a 50 percentile on the math. So, perhaps there is a connection there. I had problems with the logic tests on the LSAT, but did well on the reading comprehension and logical reasoning. In life, I'm a much better reader and writer than puzzle solver.