IQ

[foilman8805]

Re: IQ

Well, then you're an outlier of the outliers.

Haha.

[Kekeb]

Re: IQ

No clue why, but to view http://www.cerebrals.org/tests/tri/TRI52.html, I had to go under a proxy. It's giving me a 403 error everytime I go to view it, and the only thing I can conclude is that it has to do with my location/IP.

[ieatyourlvllol]

Re: IQ

The test's being designed for outliers means that those in the upper ranges (to some extent) will have more accurate results. The scores themselves still correspond to a normal distribution.

+3.26 sigma is approximately 150, depending on the value for standard deviation (probably 15 or 16).

Iirc, my initial run took 90 minutes or so. I should be able to break 900 (assuming the extra time is enough to solve the few problems I semi-guessed on), though I'll have to wait quite some time before retaking the test.

Anyways, I would probably favor eCMA were it not for the repetition in spatial visualization (it moves right, it moves right, ... ) and questionable assessment of acquired knowledge, which (imo) has less statistical/correlational reliability.

[Reach]

Re: IQ

The test's being designed for outliers means that those in the upper ranges (to some extent) will have more accurate results. The scores themselves still correspond to a normal distribution.

+3.26 sigma is approximately 150, depending on the value for standard deviation (probably 15 or 16).

Iirc, my initial run took 90 minutes or so. I should be able to break 900 (assuming the extra time is enough to solve the few problems I semi-guessed on), though I'll have to wait quite some time before retaking the test.

Anyways, I would probably favor eCMA were it not for the repetition in spatial visualization (it moves right, it moves right, ... ) and questionable assessment of acquired knowledge, which (imo) has less statistical/correlational reliability.

The eCMA is a fairly well designed test in theory. It does just about everything a good test should.

It has issues with standardization though. It has particularly weak reliability in both the high end and the low end. I think they could do a better job.

Also, due to randomization you occasionally get questions that are essentially repeats. Often several times >_>

[Mr. Bob]

Re: IQ

138 at a school test about 7 months ago

[serghi]

Re: IQ

My first post in FFR

I agree most online tests are a load of feces. I've seen tests where they score you based on political and religious views :S
Before joining the army I had an official one taken. It measured up to 150 and I aced it. I've also taken a Mensa-test placing me in the 160's (I'd be a member if it didn't cost money). Now don't you all go mistaking IQ for intelligence. IQ just your ability to solve logical problems (even though it can be discussed if intelligence is just that). When they measure your IQ they don't measure your social awareness, self awareness, mental stability etc. Deciding a persons IQ is also far from accurate, the results will vary depending on whether the person is sleepy, hungry, angry, anything that might serve as even a slight diversion.
In my opinion IQ shouldn't be used as a tool for measuring people, only as bragging rights

[sp1nzoK]

Re: IQ

Did TA3 out of curiousity.

It being in english made it harder than not for me, but I lacked the knowledge on many of the questions anyhow, bit slow on some of the puzzles to get a definite logic behind the answers and memorization-wise I'm bit on the slow side I'd say. So all the shortcomings combined I'm just shocked it was this high number somehow.



Also, IQ-test like TA3 seems highly trainable, by learning sufficient terminology, getting knowledgeful in history/math, training memorization etc. It seemed like a real test but also something you can actually get better at instead of something you can just ride through as a prodigy.

Also it stands _International_ but if you don't speak english as your main language (like me), you need really good education in it to have a shot at some of the questions introduced here.

EDIT:

P.S. - I've also tried the TA3 on the same site, but it seems a bit partial to individuals who actively pursue the knowledge that constitutes a significant portion of the test.

What I was getting at in a nice quote.

EDIT2:

So I did eCMA too, basically same test as TA3, maybe slightly watered down on few areas, still shockingly similar I'd say.

[Reach]

Re: IQ

Did TA3 out of curiousity.

It being in english made it harder than not for me, but I lacked the knowledge on many of the questions anyhow, bit slow on some of the puzzles to get a definite logic behind the answers and memorization-wise I'm bit on the slow side I'd say. So all the shortcomings combined I'm just shocked it was this high number somehow.

Also, IQ-test like TA3 seems highly trainable, by learning sufficient terminology, getting knowledgeful in history/math, training memorization etc. It seemed like a real test but also something you can actually get better at instead of something you can just ride through as a prodigy.

Also it stands _International_ but if you don't speak english as your main language (like me), you need really good education in it to have a shot at some of the questions introduced here.

EDIT:

What I was getting at in a nice quote.

EDIT2:

So I did eCMA too, basically same test as TA3, maybe slightly watered down on few areas, still shockingly similar I'd say.

Yeah, these questions are designed for people who learned English as their main language. You should try the culture fair test on the main page I posted, since that is fair for anyone. Not that your scores are bad at all; they're very good!


The material on the eCMA isn't as trainable as you would think though. At least not if the test is designed properly. However, portions of the TA3 aren't terribly well designed (The portions that ask you obscure information, in particular).

Good questions of general knowledge tend to sample from ...very general information. The key is not to ask specifics, but something that just about everyone has been exposed to before.

For example, a good word to ask someone the definition of would be, say, TRAVESTY. Just about everyone has heard and read it before. Numerous times, because it's a fairly common word. However, not many people can actually define it. By asking item types like this, you're tapping into people's memory and, more specifically, working memory. People with larger working memories are more likely to know the meaning of this word and be able to bring it forth. These same people are likely to be superior at various mental tasks as well.

A bad word might be say, ZYMURGY. Terrible word. It's far too specific; it's a rather obscure branch of chemistry just about nobody has heard of or seen before. Asking things like this is more trivia than IQ testing.


It's also important to note than on tasks like general information recall, performance on any one item is meaningless. Only from the trend, or pattern of responses from an individual does g (general intelligence) begin to appear, and these types of general information tests are...very reliable measures of IQ if created and administered properly.

You might think that by learning large vocabulary lists you could memorize the answers, but it doesn't really work that way. There are too many words to memorize if the words are sampled properly. Not to mention how much of what you've put to memory that you can actually recall and manipulate at test time is going to depend on your working memory ability anyway (i.e. really smart people that memorize vocabulary lists can boost their scores dramatically. This could contribute to our inability to measure anything useful at the 160+ range of IQ).


Sadly, the high IQ society tests are not the best, but by internet standards pretty good. Also, sadly, memorizing vocabulary lists is hugely advantageous for some tests like the GRE, which have a tendency to ask the same rehashed list of pedantic high class vocabulary items that nobody ever uses.

[sp1nzoK]

Re: IQ

Nice reply Reach.

The high IQ society tests indeed didn't feel like the best possible.

I tried TRI52, it felt easy at first but got progressively harder, scored 780 (felt pretty average, since I was getting so lost towards the end).

[Reach]

Re: IQ

Nice reply Reach.

The high IQ society tests indeed didn't feel like the best possible.

I tried TRI52, it felt easy at first but got progressively harder, scored 780 (felt pretty average, since I was getting so lost towards the end).

Well yeah, it is designed to get progressively harder. In theory what the test is supposed to do is introduce the logical rules to you, and then increase the complexity of those rules slowly in order to see where your breaking point is.

Either way, 780 is about 135-138 in terms of IQ, which is far from average. You have to realize that the average person begins to get lost after the first few items.

[Patashu]

Re: IQ

Oh man, I couldn't give a definition of travesty without looking it up <.<;

Good call, Reach

[Lr5]

Re: IQ

...

If you want to take a pretty good IQ test, try this:

http://www.iqtest.dk/main.swf

It is a great mimic of the IQ test Ravens Advanced Progressive Matrices, a commonly administered test.

...

118 on that one.

[Hakulyte]

Re: IQ

Hai, i got a IQ of 68. Have a nice day.

[OrganisM]

Re: IQ

I will be #1.

[Kage06]

Re: IQ

Heh, I seem to average around 100-117-120 depending on the test. The ones listed, like the International High IQ, I'm getting 100.

I took the http://www.iqtest.dk/main.swf one today, and I felt I somehow understood stuff better, and got 107... weird.

Going to take the International High IQ again now

EDIT:

Got 100 again. Exactly the same result, but I don't get some of the questions, based on knowledge...

Plus this one?

2x + 8 = 18? (whats x) How can there be an answer to that, that'd make 18?