Personal research on IQ tests (proper and otherwise)? (1 Viewer)

[BlackJack]

I'm interested in a bit of research into this topic. I've read that the standardising for the IQ test is out-of-date, and since it's calculated based on your age as well it's not reliable especially for kids.

I did an unofficial one at iqtest.com when I was 12, and didn't believe it. The site is probably defunct now, but they claimed it was to within 5 points of your real IQ. This year I did another unofficial one at spark.

If you're posting as well as polling, please include the age which you did it. It's very important in my research.

And spice girl, I'm very interested in knowing your results...

FYI my results: (not official)
178, age 12 @ iqtest.com
161, age 17 @ thespark.com

 

[great_gregory]

hey there, I think I did that one at thespark as well, and i got around 152 I think, but that was a few years ago. That means I would have been around 15 or so. The latest one I did was that nationwide one on TV, and I scored 127 in that.

Hope this helps you in your studies.

 

[macca202]

if i knew it i would tell u. but if i were to guess id say >130...i wont poll

 

[McLake]

Unknown ...

 

[Weisy]

hmmm...

I've done two, one gave me 168, the other 158. Personally, I think they're a load of crap, and inaccurate.

 

[BlackJack]

Yeah, I thought so too... 100 is supposed to be average, but they always like to pump things up a bit...

If there's any of you with actual professionally done IQ tests, then I could get a better grasp of how much difernce there is...

 

[Jellymonsta]

IQ tests are inaccurate because theyre by and large designed by psychologists. which explains why psychologists invariably do well on them
even if someone does get 150, it doesnt mean they are smarter than some one with a 100. it is dependent on how hard people can (or do) apply themselves.

i thought they had stopped doing professional IQ tests years ago because it was an unreliable indication of intelligence

 

[BlackJack]

Nup. One of my friends took a professional one last year. Turned out to be 144...
It's still going strong... as far as I know parts of the american military likes to know its soldiers' intelligence.

Of course, media still capitalises on IQ tests... (note channel 9) The Weekend Australian magazine featured an american kid, 12 years old, having like 280 IQ... Doing his fourth degree in uni I tihnk and lots and lots of other stuff

 

[Lazarus]

IQ tests are commonly used by employers as an indicator for potential success in a specific career.

You can't really rely on any test that isn't officially conducted by a registered psychologist, or the Mensa organisation etc (Stanford-Binet, Weschler, and I think Reisch III or something like that are popular ones). Internet IQ tests are also not a good idea.

There's a lot of myth floating around about IQ tests as well... for example, anything above 150 doesn't really mean anything, as it simply becomes impossible to measure. You often hear about 'genius' people getting IQs of 180 or 230 or whatever in an IQ test, but there's no significant difference between them and the people at 150.

There was something else I wanted to write... but I've had a mental blank, and I'm at uni so I can't look up my psych textbook. will try to later if I remember.

 

[luigi]

ok the spark is shit man. the one there is only a joke one
ha i got 170 there.
i havent done any others i got bored - and theres no point in them really, well for me at the moment, unless you just want to boast of doing well or be shamed of doing badly.

 

[McLake]

Originally posted by Jellymonsta
IQ tests are inaccurate because theyre by and large designed by psychologists. which explains why psychologists invariably do well on them
even if someone does get 150, it doesnt mean they are smarter than some one with a 100. it is dependent on how hard people can (or do) apply themselves.

i thought they had stopped doing professional IQ tests years ago because it was an unreliable indication of intelligence

Lets remember what an IQ test mesures, IQ.

It dosn't look at creativity or intution or other mesures of "intellegence". Just my two cents worth ...

 

[Lazarus]

Mmm McLake has a point as well. Apparently the inventor of the first IQ test defined 'intelligence' to be what IQ tests measure. And what do IQ tests measure? Intelligence.

One of the more recent theories of intelligence involves the idea of 'crystallised' and 'fluid' intelligence. Crystallised intelligence is culture-specific and relates to things you learn at high school and so on, general knowledge, grammar, comprehension, etc. The HSC tests crystallised intelligence. Fluid intelligence minimises acculturation and tests problem solving skills, logic, reasoning, etc, things like Raven's matrices and so on. There are other less significant factors (auditory intelligence, etc) but 'real' IQ tests usually just attempt to measure both crystallised and fluid intelligence.

There's no single objective measure of intelligence... an IQ score can't tell you how smart you are. However, it can be used within a specific context to predict future success. Trial HSC marks don't tell you how smart you are, but they're meant to be an indicator of how you're going to perform in the HSC. Too many people attempt to decontextualise IQs.





I'm not sure if that's really a word. But it works.

 

[silent bob]

when i was 12 i did a cd-rom iq test thing, and it had an option, to select your age group, and it then scaled your mark. i got 131. i thought that was pretty kool but then when i did it on tv when they had it, i got shit, tho i think it was cos eddie's voice is one of the most irritating things to listen to when reading the questons....so basically to answer your question...somewhere between 100 and 131....

ps does sex count? I'm a girl.....just thought i'd add that

 

[BlackJack]

ah... I take both genders equally, so it doesn't matter.
Your avatar and name do well to conceal it tho...
Eddie's voice is irritating, I agree... I don't liike the tv test... it's not convincing either

Decontextualise is a word, I know it. Use in more interpretive areas... eg. in new interpretations of King Lear ignoring the original context...
Like, I already know IQ has been separated into multiple categories... which makes the standard one all the more useless as a gauge of general intelligence...
What the idea behind the second word 'questor'? Never heard it used elsewhere...?

 

[Lazarus]

'Questor'???

122 in Yr 10 from a school councillor's IQ test
133 this year from Ch 9 IQ test
147 this year from http://www.highiqsociety.org/common/iqtests/ultimate.htm

The latter two don't really say much, I was told the first one bode well for my SC and HSC. Shrug.

 

[BlackJack]

Yeah, IQ stands for 'intelligence questor' or something like that... I don't get how they get the second word.

 

[-=«MÄLÅÇhïtÊ»=-]

dun count on iqtest.com
my fwend got like 200 in that
its a joke, even the dumber ppl at my skool get ~140

EDIT: IQ = intelligence quotient

 

[BlackJack]

My point exactly... the value of this test in quite inflated.
'quotient'? Hmm... interesting... now the nomenclature is explainable...

 

[UPKA]

I've done some stupid IQ test online a while ago, got stupid 75.... and even that I'm still doing 4U Maths and hoping for 91UAI.... So Am I dumb??

 

[BlackJack]

Absolutely not, it seems. IQ tests measures stuff that's quite different to what you're learning at school. Also online IQ tests suffer an extra problem (besides the normal problems) because time counts. Poeple with connection problems become 'dumb' because it takes time to transfer te Q's and A's.

Some tests require knowledge of american curency... obviously not good enough for Australians.

I wouldn't worry about it. Your achievements in the HSC count for much more.

edit: Laz's posts would be quite informative...