What's your IQ

Recreation Fun & Games
41

[quote=“blueface666”][quote=“Huang Guang Chen”]Well as a man that spent a portion of my youth in a psychiatric hospital, fortunately holding the keys as it were, I can say with some authority that the shit eating chronic masturbators that were in my care seemed as pleased as Punch with their dreadfully limited I.Qs. I on the other hand, possessed with a sharp mind and a mop and bucket, never seemed to attain the same level of satisfaction.

HG[/quote]

Sounds like you were amply prepared for life in Taiwan. :laughing:[/quote]

He’s done better than the rest of us, right?

42

Why get a lobotomy when you have this way of dumbing yourself down?
(Must be pretty hard to make a beer bottle small enough for a rat.)

43

OK, so I was bored the other night and took a couple of the IQ tests here

highiqsociety.org/flash/nonm … qtests.htm

138 on the verbal IQ, 134 on the 12-minute timed test. I didn’t take the Ultimate IQ test because it’s 35 hard questions that would probably take me an hour to figure them all out. The Test for Exceptional Intelligence, designed for those with IQs over 180 - yikes! Just glancing at that test confirms I’m no genius, fer shure. Actually, I’m pretty disappointed in my scores - I was for sure I was way smarter than just above average, but I’m depressingly in the mere B+/A- range.

Oh, and I took this one here, too, and I got the same score for general intelligence: 134.

44

It seems to me that the more such tests a person takes, the higher that person’s score, if they simply learn how to answer the types of questions that show up again and again. Example:

Test 1:
What’s the next number?
2, 3, 5, 8, 13, ?

Test 2:
What’s the next number?
5, 10, 15, 25, 40, 65, ?

Same principle in both tests; you add the last two numbers to get the next number. Does this really tell us much about how smart a person is if they simply get a higher score by learning the trick?

45

well, I’ve never really seen an IQ test that give two such similar sequences. You’d probably get something like,

2,3,5,8,13, ? ?

and then something like
A, 1, C C, 4, E, 9, G G, ? , ? (find the next 2 entries in the sequence)

and then they go in to the shapes and whatnot.
So , it’s not like they just use the same deal over and over again…but, I do agree that with enough practice figuring these sort of problems out, you would score better on the test…of course. But how else can you really test someones problem solving ability, and ability to recognize patterns on tests…and someone with an IQ of, say, 75, I think, will just be screwed no matter how much he takes these tests.

For the record, and to answer the topic of this post, different tests have given me an array of different results (perhaps proving the innacuracy of them), I’ve scored anywhere from 135 all the way to 160 on the tests, so I’d say my IQ is probably in the 140’s somewhere.

-Brian

46

[quote=“axiom”]well, I’ve never really seen an IQ test that give two such similar sequences. You’d probably get something like,

2,3,5,8,13, ? ?

and then something like
A, 1, C C, 4, E, 9, G G, ? , ? (find the next 2 entries in the sequence)

and then they go in to the shapes and whatnot.
So , it’s not like they just use the same deal over and over again…but, I do agree that with enough practice figuring these sort of problems out, you would score better on the test…of course. But how else can you really test someones problem solving ability, and ability to recognize patterns on tests…and someone with an IQ of, say, 75, I think, will just be screwed no matter how much he takes these tests.

For the record, and to answer the topic of this post, different tests have given me an array of different results (perhaps proving the innacuracy of them), I’ve scored anywhere from 135 all the way to 160 on the tests, so I’d say my IQ is probably in the 140’s somewhere.

-Brian[/quote]

I thought that using “Test 1” and “Test 2” in my post above was sufficient to indicate that the questions came from two different tests, rather than from the same one. That was my intention.

My point was simply to point out that exposure to the tests and patterns in them can significantly increase “scores.” From that, I would go further and state that those people, whether they are individuals or members of a particular group (for example, a particular class or ethnic group) who have less exposure to such tests and patterns, will obviously have lower scores than those individuals and groups who do have such exposure.

47

That assumes exposure works for most people. What happens when a test-taker doesn’t get the question the first time and then sees it later on a second test? How does the fact he didn’t understand the question the first time around help him to understand it the second time, assuming he even recognizes the question as similar to one he had before? Many people who didn’t get the question correctly the first time, and didn’t take the test again within a matter of days, probably wouldn’t even recognize the test questions as similar.

And how far apart in time was your exposure to the two questions from the two tests. A matter of minutes? hours? days?

I agree that if you practice taking IQ tests, you can increase your score, at least temporarily. That’s what the research shows as well (using SAT scores as a proxy for IQ tests). But the increase is not significant, requires some effort, and appears to wear off after you stop practicing.

48

Let me expand on what I mean by exposure. I don’t mean just taking the tests, but also being exposed to an environment which provides the type of education and incentives that are key to passing such tests. I have taken civil service tests that have similar questions to those on IQ tests. There were practice tests that applicants could take beforehand, and there are web sites and tutors that help people prepare for these tests? Why? Because preparing generally increases your score. Does that mean you are a smarter person after a week of studying? Slightly, perhaps, but the keys here are that you have had some insights into the kinds of questions that appear on the tests and an incentive to do well. I think that it matters, when measuring IQ, whether the subjects give a damn about or come from an environment that properly teaches them the way to figure out what number comes in the sequence 2, 4, 8, 16… I’m not sure about the effects wearing off. I think it depends on the starting point of the people taking the test. If these people are crossing a threshold, that is, from not being able to recognize how a sequence of numbers is arranged to being able to recognize it, I would think that the effects would last much longer.

49

You seem to be saying two different things. On the one hand, you stress the importance of the general educational environment (type of education, incentives for passing tests, etc.) on raising IQ scores. On the other hand, you point out that similarities in certain questions on different tests increases the likelihood that a test-taker’s familiarity with them (including practice exams) will increase his or her score on a test.

There’s no disputing that both of your points are correct. However, while both general education and training for certain tests have an effect on IQ scores, the results generally have been found to be not significant. Experiments have been performed that showed an increase of 1 to 6 points in the IQ of schoolchildren who were given an extra forty-five hours of education over one year. SATs* – which are the American college entrance examinations – can be boosted with coaching courses, but the effect, again, is not impressive. The average of spending 30 hours in a coaching session is about 16 points higher on the verbal section or 25 points higher on the math section. (This is on a test where the scale if from 200 to 800 for each section.) However, there are diminishing returns to this training. At a certain point, reached after 100 hours or so, the effects to increased training, never that impressive to begin with, levels off.

When I spoke of wearing off, there is research that indicates IQ gains in pre-school children (as much as 11 points) are lost over the next three years of their lives when compared to peers who didn’t participate in pre-school.

*SATs are not IQ tests, but they are often used as proxies for IQ tests by scientists because this is a large overlap in the kinds of questions the two tests use.

50

This is not addressed specifically to HakkaSonic, but to others here who may have this misconception.

You don’t need a super-high IQ in order to become a success. Do you want to be a doctor or a lawyer – two of the most prestigious careers in the modern world? Well, the average IQ of doctors and lawyers in the U.S. is about 125. That means there are probably countless doctors and lawyers whose IQs are only about 110 to 115. That is still an above average IQ score, but it’s certainly not anything to write home about.

If the scores reported on this forum are to be believed, we have numerous posters here who are overqualified to be either a doctor or lawyer, at least when looking at their IQs.

51

[quote=“Cold Front”]There’s no disputing that both of your points are correct. However, while both general education and training for certain tests have an effect on IQ scores, the results generally have been found to be not significant. Experiments have been performed that showed an increase of 1 to 6 points in the IQ of schoolchildren who were given an extra forty-five hours of education over one year.

SATs* – which are the American college entrance examinations – can be boosted with coaching courses, but the effect, again, is not impressive. The average of spending 30 hours in a coaching session is about 16 points higher on the verbal section or 25 points higher on the math section. (This is on a test where the scale if from 200 to 800 for each section.) However, there are diminishing returns to this training. At a certain point, reached after 100 hours or so, the effects to increased training, never that impressive to begin with, levels off.

When I spoke of wearing off, there is research that indicates IQ gains in pre-school children (as much as 11 points) are lost over the next three years of their lives when compared to peers who didn’t participate in pre-school.[/quote]

The examples of schoolchildren and of SAT scores are interesting, but I am talking about adults taking IQ tests or taking civil service tests that have questions similar to those found on IQ tests. Do you know of any studies that look at how well adults who prepare for such IQ tests / civil service tests do as compared to those who did not prepare or studies that compare how adults do on two IQ tests, the first test being where test-takers receive no training or practice questions beforehand and the second test being where they do receive training and practice questions?

52

[quote=“HakkaSonic”][quote=“Cold Front”]There’s no disputing that both of your points are correct. However, while both general education and training for certain tests have an effect on IQ scores, the results generally have been found to be not significant. Experiments have been performed that showed an increase of 1 to 6 points in the IQ of schoolchildren who were given an extra forty-five hours of education over one year.

SATs* – which are the American college entrance examinations – can be boosted with coaching courses, but the effect, again, is not impressive. The average of spending 30 hours in a coaching session is about 16 points higher on the verbal section or 25 points higher on the math section. (This is on a test where the scale if from 200 to 800 for each section.) However, there are diminishing returns to this training. At a certain point, reached after 100 hours or so, the effects to increased training, never that impressive to begin with, levels off.

When I spoke of wearing off, there is research that indicates IQ gains in pre-school children (as much as 11 points) are lost over the next three years of their lives when compared to peers who didn’t participate in pre-school.[/quote]

The examples of schoolchildren and of SAT scores are interesting, but I am talking about adults taking IQ tests or taking civil service tests that have questions similar to those found on IQ tests. Do you know of any studies that look at how well adults who prepare for such IQ tests / civil service tests do as compared to those who did not prepare or studies that compare how adults do on two IQ tests, the first test being where test-takers receive no training or practice questions beforehand and the second test being where they do receive training and practice questions?[/quote]

No, not off the top of my head.

53

Increasing your aptitude to succeed on certain questions only works if you have been shown how to solve the question you missed the first time around (you don’t get better at questions you already understand). Otherwise, you continue to bark up the wrong tree with the similar, but different question.
There! How smart I am! :wink:

54

From my experience with IQ tests I agree that you get used to them and will do better and better with mroe practice.

What this gets down to is that IQ tests fdo not test intelligence, but your ability to do that kind of test. As Hakkasonic says, certain cultures and classes have more practice with this sort of thing than others. That doesn’t mean they’re more intelligent.

Brian

55

You would think. Yet you have presumably been writing English sentences for years and you still misspell simple words. If practice was the sine qua non of intelligence, one would have to assume you either did not write simple English words when you were a tot in school or that practice is less important to performance than you imagine.

Asserting that certain classes and groups have more practice with that kind of test is not the same thing as it being true. Do you have some data to back this vain hope up?

56

No, not off the top of my head.[/quote]

I asked about studies of adults simply because I am considering this matter from my experiences as an adult taking IQ-type tests and because of what I know about the experiences of acquaintances who, as adults, have taken such tests. I know many people who have taken a test, done poorly, studied practice tests, and then done much better the second time around. How much better? Let’s say that on a 30-question test, the person scored four answers higher the second time around and that since the first score was 24, the second score was 28. That translates into an improvement of around 15%. I would say this is a substantial increase and it’s all because, between taking tests, the person learned in one afternoon that you need to add the last two numbers together to get the next number in the sequence 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, __ (that’s one point), that you have to figure out the square root for the missing number (2 squared, 3 squared, etc.) in the sequence 4, 9, 16, __, 36 (that’s another point - and this question is on almost every test I’ve ever taken), and a couple of other tricks.

57

No, not off the top of my head.[/quote]

I asked about studies of adults simply because I am considering this matter from my experiences as an adult taking IQ-type tests and because of what I know about the experiences of acquaintances who, as adults, have taken such tests. I know many people who have taken a test, done poorly, studied practice tests, and then done much better the second time around. How much better? Let’s say that on a 30-question test, the person scored four answers higher the second time around and that since the first score was 24, the second score was 28. That translates into an improvement of around 15%. I would say this is a substantial increase and it’s all because, between taking tests, the person learned in one afternoon that you need to add the last two numbers together to get the next number in the sequence 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, __ (that’s one point), that you have to figure out the square root for the missing number (2 squared, 3 squared, etc.) in the sequence 4, 9, 16, __, 36 (that’s another point - and this question is on almost every test I’ve ever taken), and a couple of other tricks.[/quote]

That’s a fine hypothesis. Some things that would need to be controlled for are 1) the time between tests, 2) the time spent studying or practicing for the tests 3) the age of the adults and 4) control groups that take a second I.Q. test that has little or no similarity to the first I.Q. test they took and 5) a third I.Q. test scheduled for much later (perhaps three years after the second test?) to see if the improvement, assuming there is one, is maintained.

I’m curious as to why you need adults (however you define them) instead of just using the results of the sixteen- to eighteen-year olds who take the SATs? Why do you think the results would be any different?

58

That’s a fine hypothesis. Some things that would need to be controlled for are 1) the time between tests, 2) the time spent studying or practicing for the tests 3) the age of the adults and 4) control groups that take a second I.Q. test that has little or no similarity to the first I.Q. test they took and 5) a third I.Q. test scheduled for much later (perhaps three years after the second test?) to see if the improvement, assuming there is one, is maintained. [/quote]

I find it surprising that no such studies have been done (or at least that you are unaware of such studies being done, as you have read The Bell Curve and ensuing books supporting and/or criticizing The Bell Curve).

I use the example of adults because, as mentioned, I am looking at this from my experience as an adult and at the experiences of some adult acquaintances. Also, there may be motivational differences between a student seeking to enter college and a person seeking employment, as in the case of taking a civil service exam. (There may be no difference, but I’m not sure, and I don’t want to muddy the waters.) And some of those whom I am considering when making my points (those who have done better on a second IQ test than on a first) have not taken SATs. The common denominator in my example is that they have taken an IQ or IQ-type test (specifically the civil service test).

59

[quote=“Bu Lai En”]From my experience with IQ tests I agree that you get used to them and will do better and better with mroe practice.

What this gets down to is that IQ tests fdo not test intelligence, but your ability to do that kind of test. As Hakkasonic says, certain cultures and classes have more practice with this sort of thing than others. That doesn’t mean they’re more intelligent.

Brian[/quote]

Bu, have you joined the “reactionary” camp (I seem to recall you put me in there a few weeks ago)? I guess you wouldn’t do so well at remembering all those tricks for IQ tests, he he. And I didn’t say that IQ tests do not measure intelligence, rather, that it’s unclear to what degree they do so.

60

There you go. As I always thought: Posting on Forumosa is an intelligence test. :wink: