IQ GENERAL

I got a 147. My SAT score would indicate an IQ of 125 or so. This seems massively inflated.

Why is the SD so fucking high? I tried the test and got 138. Is the time accounted for? I'm pretty fucking sure I busted the 30 minutes mark. Some of the early pattern problems were difficult for me, and the later problems required thought so it took time for me to do it. And there's one or two problems to which I didn't know the answer. I think this test is not rightly done, I should have gotten a much lower score, like around 110 or so.

That's an "I know you are but what am I" tier retort, but the answer's yes. The test's Cronbach Alplha score of 0.91 shows it has high internal consistency and its Pearson's r scores show that it correlates strongly with the WAIS-R and the Stanford Binet. The sample size of 15,884 is very high- higher than the sample size of 4,800 used to standardize the Stanford-Binet. This suggests very high reliability.

SAT no longer correlates to IQ. Unless if you took the test pre-1994.

I thought it still correlated about 0.8 or so.

In any case, there's no way I have an IQ that high. Maybe 130 if I'm lucky. I have only met one person in my life who might be pushing 150, and he got a perfect SAT score and learned calculus at age 12.

The test is supposed to take between 30-60 minutes, so it's fine if you went over 30. Stanford-Binet is supposed to take between 50-90 minutes, so you could conceivable do either test in under an hour. I'm not sure if time is accounted for.

The SD isn't particularly high. The Cattell IQ test is SD 24. It's not the SD or average IQ score on any particular test you should be looking at so much as it is that you should be looking at which percentile you fall in.

Also, just the fact that you were even able to take issue with the SD being somewhat high suggests your IQ is above 110.

iqcomparisonsite.com/iqtable.aspx

>I have only met one person in my life who might be pushing 150

Only about one out of every 2,330 people has an IQ of 150 and about one out of every 1,157 people has an IQ of 147, so it's not as rare as you might expect.

Got 135. Close to my MENSA score of 138. Those word problems were the hardest for me.

Well, the time is said to not be accounted for, but it says during the test, that the time is 30 minutes, which is why I asked the question. There's no way I could do this test in 30 minutes ; just reading some of the questions require time. I didn't take an hour, but still. It's just that internet tests often aren't legit, and I'm not an expert in IQ tests or anything, which is why I'm doubtful, especially since I had to write down some of the information the test provided, and the mental calculations took a while for me to do (not all, but some).

On another subject, anyone knows the answer to the first two questions? I didn't get the patterns at all.

I think Peterson said in one of his videos that he was 150 IQ, but that he was like 99th percentile in verbal reasoning, but that in numerical reasoning he was around like 80th percentile, maybe lower, though I don't remember the video all that well. I think it was his third lecture on biblical stories, maybe second.

Also I got 99th percentile, which seems a bit high for me, especially since my main language isn't English, so the vocabulary section should be lower for me than others who have English as a primary language.

147fag here. The first two questions are based on letters of the alphabet. I finished in just under 30 minutes, so it's possible time is accounted for.

The percentiles Peterson mentioned were in reference to his GRE score, which fits closely with his stated IQ of 150 (about 148).

You seem pretty fluent in English to me. It being a second language to you doesn't make much (if any) of a difference if you understand the questions.

I'm not familiar with GRE, but does that mean his verbal reasoning, is really high, considering his numerical reasoning is lower?

Ah. It makes sense for the second one. But what about the first?

And fair enough about the time. I didn't carefully look myself, but it just seemed close for me since I had to write down stuff.

>It's just that internet tests often aren't legit

Agreed, which is why I'm calling this one out in particular- I've never before seen an online test that validated itself using a statistical summary.

testyourself.psychtests.com/tests/showpdf.php?name=classical_iq_lite/psychtests/classical_iq_lite.pdf

Yes, ceiling effects may be preventing an accurate estimate of his verbal reasoning. Since the average GRE taker has an IQ of about 115, a 99th-percentile score suggests an IQ of 150 or so for that category. But since there are only 40 to 50 verbal questions on the GRE, if I'm not mistaken, his verbal IQ could register as much higher under a longer test.

Damn, a few points shy of 160. This was insultingly easy, but in line with my life history of near-flawless academic and career achievement.

I finished in under 30 minutes but I got a score of 134. Some of those questions seemed really ambiguous, so I ended up putting "I don't know" if I wasn't sure that I was being tested on "possibilities v. impossibilities" versus "what is true given the information", so I often said I don't know when I could have given a concrete answer.

Clean your room, bucko.

None of the syllogistic reasoning questions were ambiguous though. You should click false if you can think of any possible exception to the line of argument.

>I often said I don't know

The test has 57 questions. How many would you estimate you answered this way?

Does 134 seem wrong to you?

I got 148 which is lower than the last time I was tested, but that was before I took drugs and drank my way through college.

Man shit this test racist as a motherfucker. It say I got 85 and shit, but I click me all the answers. Ain't I get a few points for good luck? The fuck does God have a problem with me for?

I don't think I answered any syllogistic questions like that, and they were pretty straightforward. Just some of the word questions like "it is possible that 4 people came back with 3 bags". I guess?

I ended up putting "I don't know" because you'd think an IQ test would be more deductive and less ambiguous than that. Maybe one person took more than their fair share. But why would they consume a doggie bag before they get home? What the fuck is a doggie bag? Is it full of candy or dogfood? Are any of the people retarded enough to eat dog food in the latter case? I usually wouldn't consider most of those scenarios possible. I ended up saying "I don't know".

Like about 4 maybe. 2 questions because I thought the wording was vague and I would have asked "I need more information about the person because I'm not getting into "possibilities". Another 2 I didn't answer because I didn't know the vocab words.134 sounds about accurate.

I don't know if the test is representative until I know relatively how much to adjust it by. It told me that I got a 50 on the matrices section, so I don't know how well that translates into spatial intelligence (and thus the overall intelligence score). I don't really think of myself as more than a half-decent spatial intelligence person, I usually consider myself to have good verbal intelligence, and I guess my logic reasoning is fine. The last time I was tested was in kindergarten, and I had a 130 IQ.

130. Seems about right. I would guess the average on Veeky Forums is about 115. I seriously doubt many people below 100 come here.

How long did it take you do complete it?

114 masterrace

Also it turns out you're expected to do some of the problems with a calculator. Well, shit. That would have made things a lot easier than trying to do mental math on that NYC problem lol.

I mean, how many low or even average IQ people are going to be posting on a Science & Math image board on a Saturday night?

I know you're trolling about the doggie bag, but I seriously pity anyone who couldn't answer the vocab questions correctly. Anyone who doesn't know the antonym of vertiginous or the meaning of officious is sickeningly undereducated.

I got 127 on this test and 129 on an official one a couple years ago. I am dumb as a rock, so I can't even imagine how people 3 SDs below me learn to drive cars, make money, etc. It boggles the mind.

Well I understand Heidegger's Being and Time and I go to Princeton for undergrad so... well fuck I'm constantly reminded of the shame that I'll never have the classical liberal arts education that Princeton undergrads had a century ago.

Also I do remember I answered "I don't know" for whether somebody will go to the wedding or do their homework because of "will" and maybe they mean she can only do two activities at once.

I retook the test the way i was supposed to and got 141.

You know what would be interesting? Doing that critical thinking test released by Macat in partnership with the University of Cambridge.

If you took your IQ test online, it's not valid. The importance of an IQ test is in its ability gauge your executive functions, and that can only be done when a licensed psychologist is doing the test.

Anyway, this article is pretty interesting and deals with the topic at hand.

lesswrong.com/lw/lpf/the_truth_about_mathematical_ability/

The smart but lazy meme is the worst fucking meme in the world, if you are smart but lazy then you are trash because you have no excuses to be an ignorant mother fucker.

I'm jealous. I scored a standard deviation higher than you but I think you're smarter if you're in Princeton and understand Heidegger. It seems like you may have a slightly underdeveloped Theory of Mind, however, based on your difficulty grasping the implied constraints of certain questions. ToM is what lets you grasp what the test maker was most likely thinking when designing the test. I don't know if you have autism, but a high IQ and low ToM are more prevalent among such people.

>Well I understand Heidegger's Being and Time and I go to Princeton for undergrad

>The importance of an IQ test is in its ability gauge your executive functions

100% false.

sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0887617707001679

>Planning problem solving, and insight certainly correspond to psychological and even lay concepts of “intelligent behavior”. However, evidence for a relationship of intelligence tests to executive function measures is not strong. It is well known that frank frontal lesions do not impair IQ (Damasio & Anderson, 1993; Milner, 1982). The few studies that have examined psychometric intelligence and executive functions have been inconsistent. In several studies with adults, executive function measures were not substantially related to IQ (Donders & Kirsch, 1991; Johnstone, Holland & Larimore, 2000).

Well I'm pretty sure I have Aspergers, but I've never been diagnosed.

I was dumb enough to buy the report. I had some weird results, since I consider myself strong verbally and not so strong mathematically. Highest scores were always in history and philosophy, while I was always scared (but still somewhat competent) in mathematics. I was also surprised to see fluid above crystallized because my memory is probably my strongest asset.

The matrices section seemed obvious except for that second problem, don't know how I did poorly there but really well in the 2D/3D image manipulation, nor do I know what it entails. The analogies section was held back by the fact that I didn't know what most of (what I presume are tools) were. If the test took time into consideration, I think I would have scored higher considering I finished it in about 20-25 minutes or so.

This test is pretty heartening. I'm sure if I just keep using my brain, I'll be well equipped to tackle future challenges.

I feel the same as you concerning the visual puzzles and mathematical stuff. I can't represent anything in my head, so I had to write it down to even start thinking about the problem.

>But why would they consume a doggie bag before they get home? What the fuck is a doggie bag? Is it full of candy or dogfood? Are any of the people retarded enough to eat dog food in the latter case?

Seems way too high, or at least I self-percept as a brainlet

>tfw too smart to accurately gauge my own intelligence

This is almost surely incorrect. Anyway, if you're fap tempo corresponded this highly with IQ, then all you would need to do is measure that. Either it's a valid test or not. Being online doesn't mean it is or isn't.

>>tfw too smart to accurately gauge my own intelligence
I was expecting at most like a 120, when I saw the 141 I thought it was one of those generic 'sample' graphs

dasein or no dasein, that is the question.
ikr?

Dunning-Kruger effect. You assume that which is easy for you is easy for everybody else, and thus underestimate your own intelligence.

Regardless, your anecdote doesn't matter. The test was standardized with a sample size of 15,884 people and has a strong statistical correlation (0.72) with Stanford-Binet. "Real" IQ tests are just about as long as this one, have the same types of subtests, and ask the same sort of questions.

pretty sure it's a scam

Yes... yes... buy the report that will tell you how intelligent and special you are... You'll have a license to act like Dr. House around people!

>"it is possible that 4 people came back with 3 bags." I guess?
It's a retarded trick question.
It's possible that there are only 3 people if you have a man, his son, and his son's son
i.e. a grandfather, father, and son trio has 2 fathers and 2 sons.
it's dumb and in no way a test of IQ imo

>Dunning-Kruger effect. You assume that which is easy for you is easy for everybody else, and thus underestimate your own intelligence.
doesn't DK go the other way around?

Oh that makes sense. I never thought of it that way. Poorly designed question too because if it were attempting to be a riddle, 1) one might not have gotten that hint; and 2) one might have gotten it correct easily for the "wrong" reasons.

Ya, actually you're right. What I described is the corollary to DK effect.

What 'hint'?

>I tested high on an IQ test that wants me to pay money to see a detailed report of my results, it's gotta be a scam
>nvm that "real" IQ tests are paid for as well
>nvm that this test has a detailed statistical summary validating itself as legit that anyone can critique

for one thing, this test is voluntary, so there is no way to quantify non-response bias (which btw cannot be eliminated no matter your sample size). In layman terms, your data is shit and not publishable

The test was designed according to the American Psychological Association standards for educational and psychological testing. Test administration is tightly controlled for. Read about test administration and responses in the PDF below.

corporate.psychtests.com/tests/science_validity

corporate.psychtests.com/pdf/APA_Standards_Plumeus.pdf

My score on this was fairly close to what I received a few years back. I won't say what my actual IQ is, because I doubt anyone will believe me. But this does seem accurate.

You're on an anonymous image board. Who cares what other people think.

What'd you get?

155

>McGill University

Literally what?

Noice.

What did you receive on the test you took a few years back?

Canadian Harvard

>Standard Deviation = 18.67
What kind of wonky IQ test is this? A 140 is below 2SD.

The mean is also 109.59.

>Acceptance rate: 46.3%

I guess Canada doesn't have a lot of top geniuses

Can anyone who bought their results post what they got? I got 144 and it looks like everyone else here got around the same.

Cattell is SD 24. IQ scores and percentiles vary from test to test, what matters is the percentile you fall in.

iqcomparisonsite.com/iqtable.aspx

Average SAT and ACT scores among the average incoming student is very high though (2100 and 31, respectively).

From Wikipedia:

McGill counts among its alumni 12 Nobel laureates and 142 Rhodes Scholars, both the most in the country, as well as five astronauts, three Canadian prime ministers, 13 justices of the Canadian Supreme Court, four foreign leaders, 28 foreign ambassadors, nine Academy Award (Oscars) winners, 11 Grammy Award winners, three Pulitzer Prize winners, and 28 Olympic medalists, all of varying nationalities. Throughout its long history, McGill alumni were instrumental in inventing or initially organizing football, basketball, and ice hockey. McGill University or its alumni also founded several major universities and colleges, including the Universities of British Columbia, Victoria, and Alberta, the Schulich School of Medicine & Dentistry, the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, and Dawson College.

>Average SAT and ACT scores among the average incoming student is very high though (2100 and 31, respectively).
More like the Canadian version of Northwestern University, kek. There is no Canadian Harvard.

Haha fair enough. It's a very good school though.

I'm just shitposting. Don't give a fuck. They're all good universities and Ivy Leagues are overrated.

150, with SD15. I hit the score ceiling on a few of the subtests. My strength is definitely verbal tasks.

>IQ scores and percentiles vary from test to test

I meant average IQ scores and SDs vary from test to test.

Anyone have a graph showing the percentiles with the respective IQs?

Why the fuck would you even do a cronbachs alpha on more than 10 items, and that standard deviation is very large

>tfw brainlet

That histogram really, REALLY doesn't fit a normal distribution.

Neither do normal IQ tests, no matter how carefully normed. Social stratification combined with easy matching and migration via modern technology leads to lumpy assortative mating patterns.

The huge SD gives it away.

It's only a few points above the usual SD of 15. Internet users who would take an IQ test are not part of the general population.

So why the fuck do they assume that it is normal then? Central limit theorems? That's not how they work. Fucking mathematically illiterate imbeciles, the lot of them.

Ask me how I know you're a shill working at that site.

How do you know he's a shill working at that site?

Intelligence doesn't follow a normal distribution. Few things in nature do. It just so happens that intelligence is close enough to a normal distribution that it can be factor analyzed and rank ordered with predictive validity.

nothing you do in your pseudoscience will have predictive validity, don't be silly

The last page of the PDF shows a percentile breakdown. The 99th percentile is 144. So assuming a normal distribution with a mean of 109 and an SD of 15, 144 is exactly the IQ you would expect at that level. It seems the upper tail of this test matches the Stanford-Binet norms much more so than the 70-130 range, which is where you get the weird clumping and inflated SD.

Nice baiting.

The SD of an IQ test result is artificial. It is fixed by design to a certain threshold after the test has been calibrated to some sample population. Where test takers then fall on it is another matter entirely.

Stop trying to sell your scam. Fucking shills.