Whats your IQ?
 

I'd bet alot of people here have taken a formal IQ test at some point in their lives. If you don't know, don't vote!

Median is about 105

tested 129 and 134!

But as you all have seen, iq doesnt mean a thing since
im still pathetic and basicly: i'd fuck up a cup of cofee.

What, no 70-80 option?

Tested 152, 156 and 163. But, IQ tests are bullshit. They're (sub-)culturally biased, and the mere fact that one can train for them says it all.
For instance, people that have experience with IQ tests tend to do better on them than people that have never done one. Would that mean that making an IQ test makes you more intelligent?
Likewise, doing lots of wordpuzzles and math-related games (or work related to those subjects) will severely enhance your score in IQ tests, while spending time on things such as literature, society studies, humanities etc will not. Does that mean that liking literature more than crossword puzzles makes you less intelligent? I think not.
It basically is a very limited view of intelligence which is shown through these tests, and very important forms of intelligence are severely neglected. One could think of things like social intelligence, aesthetic intelligence, etc.

i took a few on the net, but i don't really consider those to be a formal iq test.

The cultural bias "theory" is used for no other reason than to explain the lower mean scores of some races in a politically correct manner. The theory is falsified by the fact that people from some cultures (Asia) foreign to the west do better on western designed IQ tests than westerners themselves. If the bias theory were true, people from ALL races/cultures foreign to the west should have inferior mean scores.

As to the training, what really matters is not that you can train for them, its the extent to which you can train for them. Can someone who tests out at 110 raise his score to 150 if he practices spatial visualisation & doing math problems in his head? Nope. Maybe 5 points, maybe 10, but I don't think you can make huge gains in the capacities you need to do well on IQ tests just by practice.

Not that these tests are any great predictor of worldly success. The great theoretical physicist Richard Feynman had an iq in the mid 120's. Well above average, but nowhere near the extrordinary levels you'd expect.

einstein: < 160

The IQ has no correlation whatsoever with metrics relating to success in life, measured by western world values, such as

- wealth/cash
- career
- building a familiy

Some say IQ tests just reflect how good you are at taking an IQ test.

This is also MENSA's view and they run the damn thing. The take-at-home tests are MUCH easier than the actual thing (I took a formal test a couple of months ago) and they state before the test that you are only allowed a re-take every 3 years as doing so much sooner would mean you had 'practice' which would give you an advantage.

218026

Thats a bit silly, because as soon as you know which testing format they use you can look it up in any university psych. library and practice your heart out. MENSA will also accept certified scores from a number of other publicly avalible standardized IQ tests as sufficient proof for admission, another opportunity for practice.

You'd think that anyone intelligent enough to be considering their test in the first place would have no problem figuring that out, or maybe thats part of the test.. hehe :winkwink:

First of all, the mere fact that people from certain cultures do better on tests that the people from the culture the test was designed in ofcourse means absolutely nothing.
One culture laying emphasis on certain capabilities in determination of intelligence does absolutely not imply that other cultures do not give equal or more attention to those capabilities during education and upbringing.
Also, the fact that you stated that asians tend to do better on iq tests than westerners corroborates my thesis that culture indeed influences ones ability to make iq tests.
For the bias theory to be true, non-western cultures need not produce lower iq test results, just different ones. Something which you quite nicely illustrated.

Secondly, please do not take "training" too literally. Ofcourse, training specifically for iq tests for a short period of time, for instance by doing them, creates only minor differences.
But what about prolonged training? For example, what if someone works in a job where he encounters the type of problems in question many times a day?
Since it has been proven that a very small amount of training gives minor results (I believe having done an iq test before results in a score of about 5 points higher), it seems likely that extensive amounts of training would produce far greater results.

Finally, with your comment about iq tests not being a good predictor of wordly success, you have raised a rather interesting point.
You see, iq tests are bound by very strict time limits, thereby focusing on "speed thought", as opposed to "deep thought". What I mean by that is that while iq tests may give an indication of one's ability to solve rather small problems in a short amount of time, they pay no attention to one's ability to solve complex problems in large amounts of time.
Processing speed, however, may not be the best indication of intelligence, since there is most certainly much to say for calling the likes of Einstein or Feynman more intelligent than someone who just solves crossword puzzles really fast.

That was the part which confused me - they give someone <i>3 years</i> to practice for their next test???

i got 145 when i was 5.. i supposedly had the intelligence of an average 14 year old..


but i dont believe in such tests either

Ad hoc hypothesizing.

There is no rational or empirical reason to suppose that a test designed by western psychologists should be biased against westerners, biased in favor of Asians and biased against Africans, all at the same time, other than your wanting it to be so. Your bias hypothesis is the exact opposite of a decent scientific theory. It's broad enough to explain ANY data point (but only after the fact..), and it has absolutely no predictive value.

If you could bring forth some reason to think that these tests are not the objective measures of spatial reasoning, mathematical & verbal abilities they appear to be (other than just interpreting scores the way you feel like after the fact..), it wouldn't be so ad hoc. But you can't, and neither can any of the bias theory proponents.

Suggesting that different cultures turning in different scores proves your theory that a test invented by western psychologists is biased SOLEY favor of ASIANS and soley against Africans (something you didn't come up with until after I pointed out that Asians score higher than westerners..) takes a bit of an imaginative stretch.

I have no doubt that you know the most probable, parsimonious explanation for the data as well as I do, you just don't want it to be true.

:winkwink:

our family had our tests done when I was around 7 years old,

when I found I was in the top %5 of australia, I truly believed in them :thumbsup

that is until I found my younger sister was ranked in the top %1 of australia, then i KNEW it meant nothing LOL:glugglug

:1orglaugh GFY beats MENSA according to this poll..

I didnt know they allowed humans to participate..

Actually, your argument against the bias theory is "a fine example of ad hoc, pseudoscientific hypothesizing".
You see, the bias theory is NOT broad enough to explain any data points after the fact. All it needs to be refuted is evidence that different cultures in fact do not influence test results.
However, like you showed, that is simply not the case.

It is not about <b>supposing</b> that they are biased. It is about <b>seeing</b> that results differ per culture, and trying to find an explanation for that.
If you can give another satisfactory explanation, and provide compelling evidence for it, I will gladly believe you.
However, right now we simply have the problem that these tests give different results for different cultures, and if the reason for that lies in the relation between the tests themselves and the different cultures, they are culturally biased. So far, I have not seen any other good explanation for this.

The mere fact that there are differences in results among different cultures implies that these tests are not objective. It is also a very good reason to think that they may in fact not be objective. As are the other anomalies in the theory I pointed out.

Besides that, are there any reasons to think that iq tests <b>are</b> objective measures of spatial reasoning ability?
It seems rather odd to believe something without any reason at all, most certainly not the most scientific thing to do.

Even GFY knows when I lie. Mine must be below the lowest number on the poll. :glugglug

Mine is 147850026 feel free to hit me up anytime :Graucho

This is whats causing the problem. That statment, the foundation of your theory, rests upon the implicit assumption that all other things being equal, people of different races/cultures should have precisely the same intellectual abilities, and if a test shows a difference, its the test thats at fault, not the people.

Problem: there is very little reaon to suppose that implicit assumption is true, and alot of reason to suppose it isn't. People from different races have differing average heights, muscular compositions, tolerances to alcohol, aerobic capacities, body fat levels, and so forth. It is logical, authough very politically incorrect right now, to assume these differences extend to intellectual capacities, because they also appear to be somewhat genetically determined.

Also, as I said before, that implicit assumption makes the whole bias enterprise an ad hoc hypothesis. If you merely assume a priori that any difference in result must be the fault of the test, you have a theory which can explain any data point after the fact, and which cannot be falsified. So its both ad hoc and universal

you didn't list mine. where's the 55-60 range? lol

Not so high! I kept passing by this post wondering "what the fuck, a pole on ICQ" duuuh :1orglaugh

Ray

"unrewarded genius is almost a proverb"

this thread is guaranteed to contain more lies than
'post a picture of your car'

Gutterboy and punkworld

Good posts from both of you. The bottom line is that IQ tests (most "IQ" tests people take are of the magazine variety and are not recognized by the Acadamic world) are at best a general determinant of ones ability to learn, regardless of the race taking the test/tests. I think that both of you will agree with my
:2 cents: ?

I see a lot of other people lied, too... :1orglaugh

Do you mean american or european scale?
Few years ago I wrote european Mensa test at 139 points. My friend wrote that test at 133 points and about year ago he wrote american version of IQ test at 154 points.

While I do not think there are no differences between races, those differences can't be very large, merely because of the fact that the human races of today were formed only a few tens of thousands of years ago.
Now, an average 5 point difference would be easily explained by this, however, the large differences that exist make this theory rather doubtful.

Besides that, there is also the very simple matter of children from urban areas performing significantly better than children from rural areas. This is commonly accepted even by those that support iq tests, but is hard, if not impossible, to explain without cultural bias showing in the tests.

I sale short digit IQ unis.

:Graucho

29 based on the european scale
212 based on the american scale

i cant find the radio box for '4' ?

:)

this is fuckin FUNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNY

:1orglaugh Either that or GFY is the greatest repository of genius in the world!

Yep. And as punkworld pointed out, there are alot of very important skills or forms of intelligence that IQ tests don't measure. Emotional intelligence, aesthetic intelligence, social intelligence, kinesthetic intelligence etc..

How much?

guys - you are fucked up if you think you have 130+ :1orglaugh

Avarage is 100, and 95% have just around that (+-5%)
If you REALLY think you have 130+ then ... :1orglaugh

as stated above by Unleash_Hell......

"this thread is guaranteed to contain more lies than
'post a picture of your car'"

:)

156 the first and only time I wrote it :321GFY

They did a national iq test here in Australia on the tv.
They stated the average was 110.
I just scraped in at 112.
A friend of mine got 142......smartass!

whats IQ? :1orglaugh

my ICQ is the same as my ICQ

you "wrote" it?

and my IQ is the same as my IQ

well how else do you take an iq test?

to "write" is to produce a text.
I IQ test is a test, you "take" a test - dont you ?

It was only a question

Figure of speech smart ass, or didn't you get that?

no - might be because I havent convinced myself that my REAL IQ is "156"

What's an IQ test ?