IQ Test Results..

[Shashakiro]

Re: IQ Test Results..

i love how almost everyone in this thread is 'in the top 1% of people' for IQ hehe

[Phynx]

Re: IQ Test Results..

i love how almost everyone in this thread is 'in the top 1% of people' for IQ hehe

So where does that leave you? You joining the bandwagon of brainiacs and/or liars? Haha, I'll be honest, IQ tests are for those only seeking something solid to rate their intelligence, regardless of how open the source is to the public's collective thinking processes, which individually are COMPLETELY different, rendering such said IQ test incapable of accurately telling a person their real IQ. A laughable trick to fool society.

EDIT - BTW, only playin' wiff ya' booday Snash.

I'm 14

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH......................... now I understand. BTW, this is TOTALLY unrelated to this thread. Just a personal inquiry that I was wondering the answer to.

[omgitznpv]

Re: IQ Test Results..

i love how almost everyone in this thread is 'in the top 1% of people' for IQ hehe

im 1 point from top 2.3% :<

[Plan_Bsk81127]

Re: IQ Test Results..

I got 120 just skimming through the questions, I bet I could get way higher if I concentrate on the question i am answering. XD

[x After Dawn x]

Re: IQ Test Results..

I once got 146 on an IQ test, I think it might've been this one, it's obvious BS.

[ieatyourlvllol]

Re: IQ Test Results..

Uhh...intelligence isn't just one thing (e.g. how fast it takes to learn)...

Intelligence, in the sense of the word as society has come to know it, is confined to the subjective perception of the effective synergetic application of mental processes to circumstantial demands. The relevant faculties include (but are not limited to) logic, reasoning, memory, judgment, creativity, emotion, intuition, and willpower. In any case, the nature of the mind's function is so vastly intricate that it is utterly unreliable to use objective metrics as a basis for absolute judgment. Consequently, IQ pertains to only the abilities covered by the assessment material, and it bears, at best, only a correlation to whatever other things a person may choose to connect it to (e.g. potential for success).

[CypherToorima]

Re: IQ Test Results..

got a 200 ******s get wrecked rofl.

[meno_rocks123]

Re: IQ Test Results..

Turned 16 2 days ago...
IQ test (the crap one) :: 143
highiqsociety :: 112
cbc :: 123
Language 10/12
memory 5/6
logic 12/12
visual memory 2/6
math 10/12
perception 11/12

I did all of these at 3am so I'll retry them tomorrow and see what I can get when I'm not tired and don't feel like my bladder is about to explode.

[-zeroSKILL-]

Re: IQ Test Results..

I got a 121 on the Test The Nation test.

I don't have my speakers hooked up so I had to guess on some of the vid questions XD

Language-------10/12
Memory---------6/6
Logic-----------11/12
Visual Memory---3/6 (vid questions XD)
Math-----------11/12
Perception------10/12

Got bored and took it real fast since I can't play FFR. Lags so often I can't get over a 100 combo on Sonic 1 Final Zone (autofail set to AAA). Already tried over 125 times =/

[Reach]

Re: IQ Test Results..

Uhh...intelligence isn't just one thing (e.g. how fast it takes to learn)...

Intelligence, in the sense of the word as society has come to know it, is confined to the subjective perception of the effective synergetic application of mental processes to circumstantial demands. The relevant faculties include (but are not limited to) logic, reasoning, memory, judgment, creativity, emotion, intuition, and willpower. In any case, the nature of the mind's function is so vastly intricate that it is utterly unreliable to use objective metrics as a basis for absolute judgment. Consequently, IQ pertains to only the abilities covered by the assessment material, and it bears, at best, only a correlation to whatever other things a person may choose to connect it to (e.g. potential for success).

This is partially true, but it is a bit dependent on how you define intelligence.

Many psychologists would argue, and there has been much undeniable evidence as of late supporting to the point of leaving little doubt, the existence of g, the general intelligence factor that governs ability in all areas.

IQ tests attempt to measure g indirectly, since g cannot (yet) be directly measured. The idea of g is fairly logical, since it makes more sense in evolutionary terms than multiple intelligences. However, it really arose from the observation that all subtests of an IQ test are highly correlated with one another (e.g, your vocabulary predicts fairly accurately your score on spatial arrangement or sequences etc). Factor analysis can allow us to extract the portion of the subtest that can be attributed to a general factor influencing all subtest scores.

See:

Where you can think of the blue circles as subtests of an IQ test (vocabulary, memory, spatial arrangement, etc) in an attempt to get as close as possible to measuring the general intelligence factor.



As such, IQ tests don't necessarily pertain to only the things tested on the IQ test at all. Many meta analysis studies have shown that g applies to all mental tasks and effects them accordingly. For example, I'll quote one study from wikipedia:

"In 2005, Wendy Johnson and Thomas Bouchard investigated the structure of mental ability by administering 42 diverse tests of mental ability to 436 adults. The tests included "different uses" (generation of novel uses for specified objects), "object assembly" (reassembly of cut-up figures), "verbal—proverbs" (interpretation of proverbs) and "mechanical ability" (identification of mechanical principles and tools); factor analysis found a clear single higher order factor, g. In their report, published in the journal Intelligence, the study authors conclude:

In combination with our earlier findings regarding the consistency of general intelligence factors across test batteries, our results point unequivocally to the existence of a general intelligence factor contributing substantively to all aspects of intelligence."

[Mentch]

Re: IQ Test Results..

112

[ieatyourlvllol]

Re: IQ Test Results..

You prove a good point, Reach. In retrospect, I was a bit ambiguous when saying that "IQ pertains to only the abilities covered by the assessment material..." My intended meaning was that the relationships drawn from the results produced are direct in only the sense of the exact sectors and magnitudes of mental capacities touched upon by the test. The problem is that it's nearly impossible to determine that question 'q' covers 'x' amount of process 'a', 'y' amount of process 'b', and so on. Even if such a feat were accomplished, it would be yet more difficult to establish a system by which a universal value (such as 'g') could be obtained. Like you said, the objective measurement of the various functions of intelligence is composed by a network of correlations. My qualm is that until the network of correlations can be replaced by a [theoretically plausible] conjunction of causal interdependences, the concept, not of IQ itself, but of using it as a supposedly inarguable indicator of extrinsic elements (such as success), is complete nonsense. Perhaps in a decade or so the tests will have progressed such that the correlations are strong enough to arrive at reliable conclusions, but until then, my opinion is that IQ tests should be used primarily for fun and comparison.

[csoup1414]

Re: IQ Test Results..

I got 131...
I took it with another email address before and that time I had 114 I think...
Yay for knowledge!

[Zageron]

Re: IQ Test Results..

I r sterwpid D:

109

[PlayTrumpet]

Re: IQ Test Results..



dunno, dun care