quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: In the past, several Hatrackers have discussed IQ tests in a way that strongly suggested that the majority of those of our regulars who know their IQ scores last tested well above 150.
Damn! 144 was my best result, and it was in a test meant for Israelis - which means I'm probably around 130.
Posts: 2978 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Of course the IQ test is flawed. No intelligence test could be otherwise. It's too difficult to define with absolute certainty, and without bias, what intelligence even is, let alone develop a reliable scale for measuring it and assigning people a certain rating. It's all relative.
Which makes it even harder to prove there are no "geniuses" here. What is a genius? Is it someone who does well on standardized tests? Or is it something more complex than that?
Posts: 1814 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:In the past, several Hatrackers have discussed IQ tests in a way that strongly suggested that the majority of those of our regulars who know their IQ scores last tested well above 150.
quote:The table here which estimates your IQ based on your GRE says I should have around a 141 IQ
I don't know if I have discussed IQ here, but these two quotes fit an example that I use sometimes when I hear people throw around "IQ" as if it means something.
I was told by one of my elementary school teachers that my IQ was 162. Later I actually took an IQ test, and tested out at 127. The original score could not have come from an IQ test, because I hadn't taken one up to that point. Very few people ever do unless they are learning disabled or under psychiatric treatment.
But my professor on special ed/inclusion explained where the number had come from. I had taken a standardized test, and come out with a "percentile" like 99.7% or a "grade equivalent", like I was reading at the 11.7 grade level in the 4th grade,or something like that. The teacher (or someone else) had compared the standardized grade to a chart and derived the 162 score. You can't do that.
Both tests are normative, meaning that the scores are compared to the scores of the general population and represent how much smarter you are than the rest of the population. But standardized tests don't test for intelligence, they test for skills.
Intelligence tests can't agree on what constitutes intelligence, and the reliability of Stanford-Binet, vs. the various WISC tests are actually very highly questionable. There are a lot of people who claim that any intelligence test administered to an adult is meaningless, and factors such as stress or test anxiety can skew the results, even in the most controlled environment.
This gets to the root of the testing controversy in the US. Even testing experts can't agree on whether a test measures what it's supposed to measure (validity), or whether test results really show what the student is capable of (reliability).
I have no doubt that there are some highly intelligent people here at hatrack, but using a score to validate that is meaningless at best.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
All the IQ scores tell you is your proficiency at remembering long numbers, which shape doesn't fit, and how you solve various logic problems (at least that's how I remember it, I was only in 5th grade).
Those may be skills that correspond to your real life work, and they may not.
A lot of the skills I have as an engineer wouldn't do, say, a chemist a lot of good. Or a writer, for that matter.
And I know a lot of guys who think quickly, and well, but don't test well. They also have other attributes that IQ tests don't measure but that will help determine their success, like work ethic.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think that chart was supposed to be accurate 100% of the time. More like a "best estimate" based off statistical correlation. I would say results that don't match up are actually quite common.
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have an IQ listed on my elementary school transcript that was derived from a standardized test I took in kindergarten, like Glenn is talking about. To the best of my knowledge, I've never taken an IQ test.
The SAT chart that Xavier linked gave the same number, but that only makes sense. . . if the IQ was derived from my percentile on a standardized test, it should be roughly the same on another standardized test, even though it was taken 11 years later.
I know, however, that I test well. Standardized test days at school were always among my favorites. I know I'm reasonably smart, but I also know the fact that I do well in test situations has a lot to do with my scores.
Of course, I also know that both of my siblings are smarter than I am, in the traditional measures of intelligence, so that probably has something to do with me not putting too much weight on those numbers as well. Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
A friend of mine got two results for his IQ tests. One was 103, the other was 178. He got many others, but those were highest and lowest. I suspect that is 100 is average and 160 is genius - he's roughly 155-160.
Posts: 2978 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Does anyone else remember taking an IQ test around first grade or so? I remember being told that we'd be having a special two days or so at school, and that we were supposed to bring in our favorite stuffed animal to sit on our desks while we were testing. And I remember being taught how to fill in the circles the right way. It all seemed very surreal. I had no idea what it all was until many years later.
I think I took another one in 3rd grade, but that was short and easy. Stuff like "Which of these four things doesn't hold milk? A glass, a gallon jug, a refrigerator, or a stove?" I remember thinking it was very silly. But they gave me a peanut butter cup for taking it, so I was happy. Posts: 1681 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
Also, I test poorly -- at least on engineering exams. In fourth year when exams were deemphasized in favour of actual meaningful work (that is to say, projects), my grades skyrocketed. I tested well on provincial standardized tests in high school, but that's meaningless because the tests were a politically-motivated joke.
My parents declined to have me tested in kindergarden the way Glenn and ElJay were (such tests were offered to me by the kindergarden teachers) because such testing was wholly incompatible with their educaitonal philosophy (both had PhDs in elementary education, so it was important to them). I'm thankful for it. It isn't often that I'm asked my IQ, but I'm always delighted to say that I have no idea.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I did one in second grade, in order to get into the Gifted Programme. I heard that one must pass 140 to get in. I also heard that you need 130 to get in. I also heard it doesn't really matter what your IQ is, and they chck different stuff.
But we never got our results back... I'm just happy I got in.
Posts: 2978 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, the origin of IQ tests was exactly 'mental age / physical age', hence quotient. Which is not to say that modern IQ tests do anything of the sort. I tested at 178, which indicates to me that it's a pretty meaningless number.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
lol...I suppose that was meant not as a name, but as a noun...does a 32 ACT as a 9th grader classify me as a genius?
Posts: 206 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
My IQ was tested a few times in school, but they always told the results to my parents, not me. I've picked up implications that it's fairly high, but I don't know what it is, hence my "might be a genius, doesn't know" comment. I'm not all that curious, honestly, because I agree with what others have said about standardized testing and definitions of intelligence, and I know I test well. That is, standardized tests show I'm smarter than I think I actually am, because I'm good at figuring out the test itself.
I have a bit of a problem with the SAT to IQ chart, because IQ supposedly doesn't have an upper limit, and the SAT definitely does. I know. I hit it. Did you know you can get a 1600 on the SAT (before they added the 3rd section, of course) without actually getting all the questions right? That's not what I did. I answered them all and had no wrong answers. I also had forgot that you're allowed to bring a calculator, so hadn't brought one and just did everything in my head. </brag> The fact that I got lost on the way to the testing location should tell you something about my practical intelligence at the time, though.
quote: Of course, I also know that both of my siblings are smarter than I am, in the traditional measures of intelligence, so that probably has something to do with me not putting too much weight on those numbers as well.
ElJay's the only one of us who actually finished her degree in four years, on the other hand.
posted
I have no degree. Except about 38C in my forhead because I'm writing many posts tonight and am not going to sleep even though it's 3:49 AM.
Posts: 2978 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
While IQ might not have a theoretical upper limit, the test kind of peters out around 200 (the exact number varies slightly with the test) because that's where the total geniuses begin scoring 100%, so you can't tell the difference between them. Kind of like Bean on the Battle School tests.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Another problem I have with IQ is that the test works better on the young. Because of the whole 'mental age divided by physical age' thing, if you have a smaller number on bottom you get a bigger number as your quotient.
In other words, it's easy to have a high IQ as a child than as an adult. I don't like the idea of an ever changing IQ. I like when you measure something, then that's what it is. You shouldn't be able to measure it again 2 years later and get a different result.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I have a bit of a problem with the SAT to IQ chart, because IQ supposedly doesn't have an upper limit, and the SAT definitely does. I know. I hit it. Did you know you can get a 1600 on the SAT (before they added the 3rd section, of course) without actually getting all the questions right?
That only became true in 1995. Before that, getting one or two wrong brought your score down significantly.
I took the SATs in 1991. Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"I tested at 178, which indicates to me that it's a pretty meaningless number."
Considering that's over 5 standard deviations above the mean, the signal to noise ratio is ridiculously low. So it's very meaningless. Anywhere above 130 should be reported as a range depending on the Standard Error of Measurement, not as an individual number.
By the way, the norming value for I.Q. tests is a mean of 100 with a standard deviation of 15. Two standard deviations above the mean (130) is called "gifted."
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:the origin of IQ tests was exactly 'mental age / physical age', hence quotient.
That only works up to a certain age. I'm 40, but no one would call me a genius if I claimed to be functioning at the level of an 80 year old. Posts: 10397 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Indeed you speak truth, Tante, which is why the IQ test was only applied to children while that was the definition.
Glenn, I don't see what you mean about signal to noise in this instance. With the number of questions in the test I took, I don't see how one or two guessed answers can make much of a difference to the final score. And even five standard deviations cannot be so unusual when you consider the number of IQ tests given every year - remember that a lot of armed forces give one to every recruit. So there should be enough high scores to form a fairly reliable baseline, you don't have to extrapolate a fit to the middle range.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The real problem here, people, is that we have far too many people in this country who are below average. We need to invest more in education and early intervention until we leave no child behind and have reached our goal of having everyone above average.
(Oh, calm down. It's a joke, get it? Because of statistics, and standard deviations, and the definition of mean, mode and median. Gosh, the joke gets less and less amusing the more I explain it. I'll stop now)
Posts: 10397 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, if the average was taken worldwide, a single country might have all its people above average. In fact, this has happened in most of Europe, Asia, and Africa, due to all those Americans who can't add e and π without a calculator, or indeed count past eleven without taking their boots off, and tend to drag the average down.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
KoM, it's crap like that that makes you REALLY hard to defend. I'm sure there are just as many idiotic Europeans as there are idiotic Americans. I mean, heck, based on you, I'd guess that all Europeans were jerks.
Good thing I'm not narrow-minded.
Posts: 4077 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I hate to admit it, but the fact that Americans have still not been able to convert to metric with the rest of the world does not speak well for us.
Posts: 10397 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, of course it's difficult for Americans to be narrow-minded, what with the obesity problem and all. Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tante, I don't think KoM was referring to the lack of conversion to metric. I think he was just being a jerk.
Posts: 4077 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not converting to metric isn't a sign that Americans are dumb. It's a sign that we're arrogant and stuck in our ways. Completely different. Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
So in other words, you can't actually think of a response. Don't worry, I'm sure you'll come up with something really devastatingly cutting in a couple of hours.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know, I debated about responding to this, since I said I wasn't going to. Let me just say that no, I won't come up with something really cutting, either in a few hours or ever. The reason for it is this: I find it to be extraordinarily rude to be as much of a jerk as you have been in this thread. I would never, never show as poor manners as you have, both in this thread and in the past on Hatrack. I think you're representing your country fairly poorly; I meant what I said earlier when I said that based on you, I would assume all Europeans to be jerks
Fortunately, I know plenty of nice Europeans, and I am not the snotty jerk you are. I do not make blanket statements insulting people on a forum that I spend large amounts of time on. Put simply, I do not defecate where I live.
To me, it is evidence of the tolerance of this board that you're still around. I can't imagine why you are, since you apparently think the vast majority of the population of this board not worth talking to. Do us all a favor: take your snotty, arrogant, undeserved attitude, and go away.
Posts: 4077 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Well, of course it's difficult for Americans to be narrow-minded, what with the obesity problem and all.
Now that is just mean. You ought to apologise.
quote:Not converting to metric isn't a sign that Americans are dumb. It's a sign that we're arrogant and stuck in our ways.
Got to admit it, when you're right, you're right.
quote:And, we've reached the point where I don't consider you worthy of response.
Sadly, I'm starting to agree. I do not want to keep dipping from a well that yields such bitter waters.
Posts: 10397 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sigh. It seems I need to add 'unable to take gentle teasing' to my list of flaws in the American people. Really, why not point out that this constant harping on European superiority can only mask an inferiority complex the size of the Grand Canyon? That would put me in my place right and proper. Do I have to do all the thinking around here?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
So. I'm trying to think of a reason not to delete this thread. Some mean things have been said. But I don't really like the idea of deleting for that very reason. By deleting the thread it sort of makes it seem like I'm pretending they weren't said... typed, I mean - that's not a good thing, is it?
Anyway, getting back to those Yankees...
Actually, no. I'll make a real attempt to salvage something.
I was talking to my dad the other day (you may have noticed I talk about my dad a lot. Well, the last two months I've spent 6 hours a day, every day with him, so I have a lot to talk about) and he was telling me that standardized testing is the only way to go.
We were discussing why Canda doesn't use the SAT/ACT but the US does. He was suggesting that Canada needs those tests. I told him that, with provincial exams (being, atleast three years ago, worth 50% of your marks in grade 12) Canada needed no such tests.
I don't really like standardized, multi-choice tests. I'd much rather gamble with a subjective test that allows me to actually express my ideas and my knowledge.
Edit: I was considering not typing about differences between the US and other countries, because of previous comments made in this thread. But I'm trusting that we're all mature enough not to turn this into "my country's better than your country."
Posts: 367 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why not test math and physics, where there's a correct answer that doesn't require multiple-choice to grade objectively?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:due to all those Americans who can't add e and π without a calculator, or indeed count past eleven without taking their boots off, and tend to drag the average down.
quote:Well, of course it's difficult for Americans to be narrow-minded, what with the obesity problem and all.
quote:So in other words, you can't actually think of a response. Don't worry, I'm sure you'll come up with something really devastatingly cutting in a couple of hours.
Sorry, those don't count as "gentle teasing." But, you know, after the first post, when I said, "Hey, you're being a jerk," you could've said, "Oh, hey, sorry, I was just playing, didn't realize it could be taken that way. I apologize."
Hey, presto! Problem solved!
You still haven't issued an apology. As far as I'm concerned, this:
quote:Do I have to do all the thinking around here?
means you're still a jerk.
As for your supposed inferiority complex, I choose to be polite until I'm pushed to the point where anger makes that impossible. Once that happens, I point out to the source of my anger the behavior that's causing that feeling. Then, I end it.
And this is me, ending it. Goodnight.
Posts: 4077 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Why not test math and physics, where there's a correct answer that doesn't require multiple-choice to grade objectively?
Well, that's true. I happen to dislike both math and physics, so I don't like to think about them too much.
I guess the SAT now has a essay section. I think that's probably a good idea - I know that a lot of people don't like it, though.
Posts: 367 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
