Harder IQ test

[Timber Loftis]

Actually, since there is a "quotient" in IQ, and since IQ is calculated as (Mental Age / Chronological Age) X 100, then an IQ above 200 can, and does, happen upon rare occassion. I just think DK is a very bright 10-year-old. [img]tongue.gif[/img] [img]tongue.gif[/img]

[Vaskez]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Actually, since there is a "quotient" in IQ, and since IQ is calculated as (Mental Age / Chronological Age) X 100, then an IQ above 200 can, and does, happen upon rare occassion. I just think DK is a very bright 10-year-old. [img]tongue.gif[/img] [img]tongue.gif[/img]

Is that how it;s worked out? So how do they work out mental age? How do they know how intelligent someone should be? Onviously the mental age factor is the "mysterious" one...maybe for kids it makes sense to say that they have the mental age of someone twice their age but it doesn't really make sense for adults...

[Timber Loftis]

Vaskez, as with all things, and as you've noted, it's SUBJECTIVE!!!!! It also means that using the same test your IQ drops steadily as you grow older. You can only be so old mentally, and your rate of knowledge/"mental age" increase can't possible keep up with a denominator governed by time, that old gypsy man.

[shadowhound]

Scored 126, hmm not bad...

[SomeGuy]

117 here. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

[Aelia Jusa]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Vaskez, as with all things, and as you've noted, it's SUBJECTIVE!!!!! It also means that using the same test your IQ drops steadily as you grow older. You can only be so old mentally, and your rate of knowledge/"mental age" increase can't possible keep up with a denominator governed by time, that old gypsy man.

Actually AFAIK the quotient part isn't actually relevant anymore. When the idea of IQ was first thought of that's what they were doing - a mental age/chronological age quotient - primarily for children. However, as you've pointed out, that is not appropriate for adults since it doesn't make sense that your intelligence would automatically decrease with age (though of course your reaction time, memory etc do degenerate, but certainly a 30 year old would not be any better on average than when they are 40). So it's not actually calculated that way anymore. I think they just give you 'a score' (which is not very meaningful) and compare it to the norms for whatever age bracket you are in (which are also just mean scores for the huge sample of people who have done the test in controlled conditions). Then the average for whatever your age range is 'average intellienge', then above average is one standard deviation above, and really smart is two, and genius is three standard deviations above the mean (or something like that).

[Spelca]

I got 131. Though on some of those word puzzles I had no clue since I've never heard of those sayings before. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

[whacky]

Somewhere around 140, easy test, i too cant figure what i got wrong, the only thing i dont get right are the picture puzzles i think [img]tongue.gif[/img]
Scored pretty well on the high iq tests considering i took 'em when i was 12 or 13 and had to figure out how to do the probability questions on the basis of my own theories [img]tongue.gif[/img] [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Vaskez]

Well such a lot of smart people here! [img]tongue.gif[/img] The Test The Nation test revealed that the average IQ out of the 200,000 people or so who took the test in England online, is around 105 IIRC. So either everyone here is a genius or these tests are shite I wonder which one it is ? [img]tongue.gif[/img]

[Azred]

Originally posted by Aelia Jusa: Actually AFAIK the quotient part isn't actually relevant anymore. When the idea of IQ was first thought of that's what they were doing - a mental age/chronological age quotient - primarily for children. However, as you've pointed out, that is not appropriate for adults since it doesn't make sense that your intelligence would automatically decrease with age (though of course your reaction time, memory etc do degenerate, but certainly a 30 year old would not be any better on average than when they are 40). So it's not actually calculated that way anymore. I think they just give you 'a score' (which is not very meaningful) and compare it to the norms for whatever age bracket you are in (which are also just mean scores for the huge sample of people who have done the test in controlled conditions). Then the average for whatever your age range is 'average intellienge', then above average is one standard deviation above, and really smart is two, and genius is three standard deviations above the mean (or something like that).

That is much more true than most people might know. Any reasonably well-read adult of "average" intelligence is going to outscore a "genius-level" teenager because the adult has read more; even most "genius" teenagers cannot quote Victorian poets at will. Besides, the adult will have a deeper cultural knowledge and would be more likely to answer analogies such as "Hoffa : O'Hare :: Teamsters : _____".

One aspect of intelligence that only very few people realize is interest. Case in point: TJ might not be the world's best second-grader as far as looking up words in the dictionary, but I guarantee he knows his cartoon schedule flawlessly and has what little Yu-Gi-Oh ( ) cards he owns memorized completely.