These online tests aren't exactly reliable. I've got anywhere between 80 and 170 on them. I've taken IQ tests in person and generally get between 125 and 135.
Wow, I got super bored really quick. Plus it is kind of UK influenced. It was asking the correct layout of the islands, how am I supposed to know that?
[QUOTE="Tykain"]Last time i tried one of these online IQ test I got something ridiculous like 160...(I'm not that smart, not even close; it's just online IQ tests that are garbage) Back in high school I had a real IQ test and i scored 124 if i remember correctly.Frame_Dragger
124 is quite good actually, whereas 160 is three points below Einstein, so yeah, as you say garbage. Albert Einstein never took an IQ test.
Like a lot of OT-goers, I'm reasonably sure I have a genius level IQ, or at least close to it. I never did take a 'real' test, but I can feel the intelligence coursing through every cell in my body.
[QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"][QUOTE="Tykain"]Last time i tried one of these online IQ test I got something ridiculous like 160...(I'm not that smart, not even close; it's just online IQ tests that are garbage) Back in high school I had a real IQ test and i scored 124 if i remember correctly.scorch-62
124 is quite good actually, whereas 160 is three points below Einstein, so yeah, as you say garbage. Albert Einstein never took an IQ test. Neither did Gailileo, but as with Einstein it's a matter of estimation based on work-product.
[QUOTE="scorch-62"][QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"] 124 is quite good actually, whereas 160 is three points below Einstein, so yeah, as you say garbage.Frame_Dragger
Albert Einstein never took an IQ test. Neither did Gailileo, but as with Einstein it's a matter of estimation based on work-product. Work-product would never accurately depict an IQ score.
[QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"][QUOTE="scorch-62"] Albert Einstein never took an IQ test.scorch-62
Neither did Gailileo, but as with Einstein it's a matter of estimation based on work-product. Work-product would never accurately depict an IQ score. Do a bit of research into estimations of historical figures' IQs, it's a fairly interesting field. Keep in mind that the WAIS is hardly a scientific endevour, the notion of finding a totally accurate IQ isn't the goal... which is probably why the word, "estimate" is in there.
When I was 15 (16 years ago) I did an IQ test to see if I could switch classes to an Atheneum level class. I scored 126 in that test. I don't know what it would be right now, my boyfriend however had to do an IQ test for his work last year. He bought an IQ-test question book and we figured out you can pretty much train yourself for an IQ test. just like playing sudoku, if you're doing it long enough you get better at it. So an IQ test doesn't mean that much to me. Besides I have a friend who is gifted, he has a really high IQ, but his social skills are lacking so he isn't quite succesful. High IQ alone doesn't do much for you in life.
I'll try this one out, but I have taken paid online tests and got into the International High IQ society with a 130. I've looked it up and it's the 2nd or 3rd most legit IQ society in the world. Only MENSA is unanimously #1.
I feel like a dumba**. First I get a 98 on the other IQ test with just pattern recognition and now a 94 on the longest, boring IQ test ever. Then I realize that one is biased to measure only one thing and this one isn't valid at all with many of the questions requiring you to know things about England. Now I feel better and can go back to my measured IQ that was scored on paid tests. Good job attempting to emulate some actual tests.
My goodness. This is the most annoying test I've ever taken. The questions are easy to answer, but the delay between questions is ridiculously long, and answering the question doesn't cut down on the time EVEN though you can't change the answer once given. You just have to sit there for the countdowns to initiate and complete.
I've been taking it for 20 minutes and I'm only on question 60. This could have been streamlined a good bit.
My goodness. This is the most annoying test I've ever taken. The questions are easy to answer, but the delay between questions is ridiculously long, and answering the question doesn't cut down on the time EVEN though you can't change the answer once given. You just have to sit there for the countdowns to initiate and complete.
I've been taking it for 20 minutes and I'm only on question 60. This could have been streamlined a good bit.
m0zart
thats basically why I couldn't be bothered with it. at any rate , IQ isn't a total measure of how smart someone is, Ive found there are people who get high scores in their IQ tests and yet are not very clever.
My goodness. This is the most annoying test I've ever taken. The questions are easy to answer, but the delay between questions is ridiculously long, and answering the question doesn't cut down on the time EVEN though you can't change the answer once given. You just have to sit there for the countdowns to initiate and complete.
I've been taking it for 20 minutes and I'm only on question 60. This could have been streamlined a good bit.
thats basically why I couldn't be bothered with it. at any rate , IQ isn't a total measure of how smart someone is, Ive found there are people who get high scores in their IQ tests and yet are not very clever. Well, at it's BEST, administered by a professional to someone who is suited to the test, you're measuring one particular version of total problem solving ability. You could have plenty of potential, not learn how to think, learn, or reason, fail to apply yourself and be completely useless. Meanwhile, someone with a much lower IQ who works their butt off could have a lower cieling on what they could do in a given time, but works hard, hones their abilities, and applies themselves. No shock which is going to be the one that succeeds and brings raw intelligence together with mental training and knowledge. That, and it really is (not just this online one, but the WAIS) a pretty verkakte test. If you get 100 neurologists, psychologists, and philosophers in a room and ask them to come to a single definiton of intelligence, what you'd get is a brawl, not a test. It is natural then, to wonder how a concept that remains somewhat elusive in practice can be tested for with any kind of accuracy.
My goodness. This is the most annoying test I've ever taken. The questions are easy to answer, but the delay between questions is ridiculously long, and answering the question doesn't cut down on the time EVEN though you can't change the answer once given. You just have to sit there for the countdowns to initiate and complete.
I've been taking it for 20 minutes and I'm only on question 60. This could have been streamlined a good bit.
thats basically why I couldn't be bothered with it. at any rate , IQ isn't a total measure of how smart someone is, Ive found there are people who get high scores in their IQ tests and yet are not very clever. Well, at it's BEST, administered by a professional to someone who is suited to the test, you're measuring one particular version of total problem solving ability. You could have plenty of potential, not learn how to think, learn, or reason, fail to apply yourself and be completely useless. Meanwhile, someone with a much lower IQ who works their butt off could have a lower cieling on what they could do in a given time, but works hard, hones their abilities, and applies themselves. No shock which is going to be the one that succeeds and brings raw intelligence together with mental training and knowledge. That, and it really is (not just this online one, but the WAIS) a pretty verkakte test. If you get 100 neurologists, psychologists, and philosophers in a room and ask them to come to a single definiton of intelligence, what you'd get is a brawl, not a test. It is natural then, to wonder how a concept that remains somewhat elusive in practice can be tested for with any kind of accuracy. its exactly why there are some people who do well in school/college/university, and yet outside of their studies they lack any sort of intelligence. the last IQ test I did was when I was when I was around 15 , and my score was 109, but then its not reliable , especially not when youre 15, and again , I know several people who have a higher IQ but less intelligence than me (not wanting to boast though)
[QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"][QUOTE="Darkman2007"] thats basically why I couldn't be bothered with it. at any rate , IQ isn't a total measure of how smart someone is, Ive found there are people who get high scores in their IQ tests and yet are not very clever.Darkman2007
Well, at it's BEST, administered by a professional to someone who is suited to the test, you're measuring one particular version of total problem solving ability. You could have plenty of potential, not learn how to think, learn, or reason, fail to apply yourself and be completely useless. Meanwhile, someone with a much lower IQ who works their butt off could have a lower cieling on what they could do in a given time, but works hard, hones their abilities, and applies themselves. No shock which is going to be the one that succeeds and brings raw intelligence together with mental training and knowledge. That, and it really is (not just this online one, but the WAIS) a pretty verkakte test. If you get 100 neurologists, psychologists, and philosophers in a room and ask them to come to a single definiton of intelligence, what you'd get is a brawl, not a test. It is natural then, to wonder how a concept that remains somewhat elusive in practice can be tested for with any kind of accuracy. its exactly why there are some people who do well in school/college/university, and yet outside of their studies they lack any sort of intelligence. the last IQ test I did was when I was when I was around 15 , and my score was 109, but then its not reliable , especially not when youre 15, and again , I know several people who have a higher IQ but less intelligence than me (not wanting to boast though) Of course; knowledge that you gain and are able to compare to other pieces of knowledge, being thoughtful, considering all of the angles... these are not covered in the WAIS (IQ) test. Still, while 109 may not sound like a big score, it's above the average. Add to that a drive to succeed and learn, and then compare that with someone who just slides by and you have no contest; you'll be on top every time.
[QUOTE="Darkman2007"][QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"] Well, at it's BEST, administered by a professional to someone who is suited to the test, you're measuring one particular version of total problem solving ability. You could have plenty of potential, not learn how to think, learn, or reason, fail to apply yourself and be completely useless. Meanwhile, someone with a much lower IQ who works their butt off could have a lower cieling on what they could do in a given time, but works hard, hones their abilities, and applies themselves. No shock which is going to be the one that succeeds and brings raw intelligence together with mental training and knowledge. That, and it really is (not just this online one, but the WAIS) a pretty verkakte test. If you get 100 neurologists, psychologists, and philosophers in a room and ask them to come to a single definiton of intelligence, what you'd get is a brawl, not a test. It is natural then, to wonder how a concept that remains somewhat elusive in practice can be tested for with any kind of accuracy.Frame_Dragger
its exactly why there are some people who do well in school/college/university, and yet outside of their studies they lack any sort of intelligence. the last IQ test I did was when I was when I was around 15 , and my score was 109, but then its not reliable , especially not when youre 15, and again , I know several people who have a higher IQ but less intelligence than me (not wanting to boast though) Of course; knowledge that you gain and are able to compare to other pieces of knowledge, being thoughtful, considering all of the angles... these are not covered in the WAIS (IQ) test. Still, while 109 may not sound like a big score, it's above the average. Add to that a drive to succeed and learn, and then compare that with someone who just slides by and you have no contest; you'll be on top every time. its also aspect based, some of the questions in that test were based on short term memory , which admittedly is not a strong point of mine. the flipside is that my long term memory is better than most, and if questions were asked based on that, the result would be diffferent. and yes, you could probably find out more about how clever a person is just by speaking to them as opposed to looking at what IQ they have.
I am honored to be posting in a thread that has so many people with genius level IQ's. I am in awe that I now know where the 2.2% of the world congregate online and accept me into their midst.
Please, I beg you hyper-intelligent beings, when the world is yours please have mercy on this average IQ. Perhaps my meager mind can be of some service.
I am honored to be posting in a thread that has so many people with genius level IQ's. I am in awe that I now know where the 2.2% of the world congregate online and accept me into their midst.
Please, I beg you hyper-intelligent beings, when the world is yours please have mercy on this average IQ. Perhaps my meager mind can be of some service.
Yeah... who'd guess that people would lie about things on the internet.
When tested in 3rd grade for AIG placement I had a 135. I have not taken a proper IQ test since then so I have no idea what it is now... I hate those little web tests... can't believe people actually take them seriously.
Log in to comment