What are your Ability Scores?

[Cantousent]

My score was 120, which gives me the opportunity to make a few points.

 

I don't know how to take and include a screen shot in a post. That means that I could conceivably score higher than some folks who would readily know how to carry out such an action.

 

I am too lazy to figure out how to take a screen shot and post it. I could conceivably score higher than some folks who would go out of their way to take this test and post the score.

 

I put my intelligence as slightly above the average (12) and this test, if it is reliable, confirms my suspicions.

 

The question is: does this test accurately depict our intelligence? In my case, I suspect it does. ...But I suspect many folks are frightened by the prospect of taking this test because it will shatter their image of themselves. To them I say, don't fret. It's just a test. The true tests of your wit, intelligence, and resourcefulness don't come from online surveys. The true test of your intelligence comes from your reaction to real life situations, something damned difficult to predict in advance.

 

Luckily for me, I didn't make much claim to intelligence. I can say these things. You don't have to be a genius to know how to live a good life or be a productive member of society. You also have nothing to prove. If you're super intelligent, then you should know it and be happy. If you're a bit above average, like me, well... there's something liberating in accepting my limitations.

 

The least intelligent person in this discussion is undoubtedly quite smart. That person may very well be me, in which case, I

[mkreku]

The way I see it is that 18 is as high as is humanly possible. The highest recorded result is like 210 IQ. I believe that might be the human max (at least so far), thus would equal 18 in the D&D scale. To make it easy for myself, I let the scale go from 1-18 (not 3-18), which would mean 1 point D&D equals ~11.667 IQ in real life. As a normal human being has 10 in D&D it would mean ~116.67, which is a result well within what is considered normal. I gave myself a 12, which would represent an IQ of 140 in the real world. Strangely enough I ended up very close to that on the test.

 

But then we have these guys claiming to have 15, 16, 17..

 

15*11.667 = 175 IQ

16*11.667 = ~187 IQ

17*11.667 = ~198 IQ

 

If you've ever spent time with a real genius, you quickly realize you're not one.

[213374U]

Those are all good points as to why the d20 scale isn't well suited to measure the real world. You would think that is just common sense, but apparently, it's not so. I mean, this thread was started just for fun, and here are you guys making statistical analyses.

 

At any rate, I think I read somewhere that the average IQ wasn't 100, but more like 85-90, which kinda conflicts with the test threshold.

 

Oh yeah mkreku, it looks like you went to considerable lengths to associate d20 stats with IQ results, but you forgot to take into consideration attribute modifiers gained at level up. Which means that, at the end of their career, a gifted child could be at 22 INT. Which is yet another absurd, since intelligence decreases with age.

[Sarjahurmaaja.]

"The way I see it is that 18 is as high as is humanly possible."

 

The dice say that's one out of every 216 persons.

 

But yeah, Number Man's points about this thread are spot on.

[mkreku]

The average IQ is around 110 nowadays, if measured with a standard IQ-test. Most people have seen lots and lots of these tests before and therefore know what's expected of them and score slightly better than someone who has no clue what to expect.

I didn't exactly forget about attribute modifiers, I just didn't know they existed. I don't remember them from my 2E D&D days. There's nothing statistical about my "analysis", I am merely trying to put the scores into perspective. The thread was originally about trying to translate your real life attributes to a d20, no? Also, I hardly consider division and multiplication as going to "considerable lengths"..

[metadigital]

But you are making assumptions:

- IQ of 210 = INT of 18

- that a D&D attribute point is equivalent to a uniform fraction of a standard deviation, for the entire range of IQ scores.

 

Also, I would bet that my IQ, despite my extra experience and learning, has dropped by a considerable amount over the years (age is the divisor in the Intelligence Quotient) since I last took a test.

[213374U]

At any rate... what's to prevent me from taking the test over and over again until I finally get a perfect score?

[metadigital]

The point where the effort to doctor the image is simultanous with the gradient of the repeat-until-perfect curve?

[213374U]

Yeah, that's what I thought, too.

[Cantousent]

I'm sorry, friends, but I'll have to weigh in on this at great length. Don't say I didn't warn you. Before I write my ponderous post, however, let me observe that, when last I heard, proper IQ tests are administered by psychologists, not the internet. At least all mine were. Ahhh, that statement is a great opportunity to go write my post!

[Cantousent]

I had what a lot of folks would consider an

[Roger]

I am not going to do the IQ test...

At any rate... what's to prevent me from taking the test over and over again until I finally get a perfect score?

The point of this test is to a) take the test, and b) to realize that it is neither a high-score list, nor is it related to those other tests that score up to 210. I bet some attitude would be so much different if it didn't have 'IQ' written on it.

 

Nartwak. You're definitely more insightful and intelligent than I am, man.

 

 

It

[Weiser_Cain]

Whenever I feel bad about not being the greatest hyper genius in the world I remind myself that I can beat that person up however smart they may be and that dispite their genius bill gate still has more money than mr. or miss smartypants.

[213374U]

Whenever I feel bad about not being the greatest hyper genius in the world I remind myself that I can beat that person up however smart they may be

Most likely, you can't. Probably that person has (or can hire) bodyguards to turn your bones into jelly, in the rare event they couldn't deal with you themselves. Which means you can't "beat up" anyone.

 

And that statement certifies your stupidity much better than any silly test would. Thanks for making official something that everyone already knew.

 

As for Eldar's post:

 

"God gives talent; work transforms talent into genius." - Anna Pavlova

[Nartwak]

Nartwak. You're definitely more insightful and intelligent than I am, man.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thank you. I'll take insightful to stoke my hubris; but for intelligent, now, that's just not so. You've quite clearly got two more intelligence units than I. :D

[Roger]

:D

[mkreku]

At any rate... what's to prevent me from taking the test over and over again until I finally get a perfect score?

Nothing is preventing you. But the questions in that test vary from test to test, so you're not probable to get the same test twice. It would take some time to learn them all..

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

The last test I took was the pokemon aptitude test. Which is not as easy as it sounds :D It's more of a memory and reasoning thing.

[metadigital]

The general criticsm of IQ tests is that they measure social contextual material, more than outright smarts. For example, the test must use some sort of framework to present the questions, and

[Walsingham]

a) I am not convinced there is any such thing as intelligence. There is merely expertise, and self-confidence.

That's probably the one of the most ludicrous comments I've ever read in these boards.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

And yet, curiously, it is one of the few comments that can be backed by clinical trials!

 

I can't be bothered to go rooting around for the references just now, since you probably can't be bothered to read them.

 

Just for starters try to write down what intelligence actually is. A clear testable definition.

[Reveilled]

Okay. "The capacity to acquire and apply knowledge".

[213374U]

Exactly. The difference in intelligence is evident in children, the more, the younger they are. At those levels, expertise is non-existant and self-confidence is irrelevant.

 

I agree that you can train for most IQ tests, and at that point those two factors are decisive, but that just proves that IQ tests aren't really a measure of a person's intelligence.

[Walsingham]

The capacity to acquire knowledge does indeed differ between individuals, but several studies have shown that this varies much more to do with the way the individual treats failure than some basic quality.

 

Basically, a 'stupid' kid who fails to perform a task, says "I failed because I am stupid. Being stupid is a permanent characteristic and therefore there is no point trying again." The 'intelligent' kid says "I have failed because I am missing either a physical or mental tool. I will search for the missing tool be it physical or informational, and try again when I have it."

 

Most importantly, in intervention studies, psychologists have taken kids, explained and trained them to use the 'smart' way of thinking and lo and behold they become 'intelligent'.

 

And simply because everyone talks about intelligence doesn't make it real. In the Eighteenth and Nineteenth centuries they talked about a person having 'breeding' with the same conviction. If someone was the tenth cousin of the Queen then obviously they came from such good stock that they would just be better at everything. All the evidence of such people getting things wrong did not deter the general opinion that breeding was real.

 

The notion of intelligence, like the notion of breeding, is convenient from the viewpoint of social control. I'm not saying it was originally a conspiracy, but its convenience makes it difficult to budge. It says 'You are at your position in life for an unchangeable reason. Nothing can be done to make you any smarter and hence any more successful'. Whereas the thought that we could all be bright 'intelligent' people given the right support is worrying, since it leaves no-one to clean the toilets and move boxes around.

 

NOte: I guess I am a conspiracy nut after all! :">

 

 

EDIT: If you are an employer or team leader try out the above on one of your 'dumb' subordinates the next time they are screwing something up. It does take time and determination to show people the light, but I've never had it fail.

[213374U]

The capacity to acquire knowledge does indeed differ between individuals, but several studies have shown that this varies much more to do with the way the individual treats failure than some basic quality.

 

Basically, a 'stupid' kid who fails to perform a task, says "I failed because I am stupid. Being stupid is a permanent characteristic and therefore there is no point trying again." The 'intelligent' kid says "I have failed because I am missing either a physical or mental tool. I will search for the missing tool be it physical or informational, and try again when I have it."

I'm not talking about kids. I'm talking about young infants, that for instance, learn to read or do basic mathematic operations on their own. For those kids, the rationalizations you propose don't apply. There is also the ability to grasp concepts quickly, that regardless of training and mental gymnastics, is different from person to person.

 

 

Most importantly, in intervention studies, psychologists have taken kids, explained and trained them to use the 'smart' way of thinking and lo and behold they become 'intelligent'.

Sure, as I said, training can do wonders, and probably the apparent difference will decrease. That's why hard-working students with average intelligence do better than "real smart" students that don't dedicate enough time to their studies.

 

Also, creativity when approaching new problems and situations can't be trained. And it's undeniable that some people are better than others at that. Adaptability can't be taught. For that matter, neither can abstract thought capacity, musical talent, etc.

 

 

And simply because everyone talks about intelligence doesn't make it real. In the Eighteenth and Nineteenth centuries they talked about a person having 'breeding' with the same conviction. If someone was the tenth cousin of the Queen then obviously they came from such good stock that they would just be better at everything. All the evidence of such people getting things wrong did not deter the general opinion that breeding was real.

Okay. But the opposite is true, as well. Not every old concept is necessarily wrong just because it's old.

 

 

The notion of intelligence, like the notion of breeding, is convenient from the viewpoint of social control. I'm not saying it was originally a conspiracy, but its convenience makes it difficult to budge. It says 'You are at your position in life for an unchangeable reason. Nothing can be done to make you any smarter and hence any more successful'. Whereas the thought that we could all be bright  'intelligent' people given the right support is worrying, since it leaves no-one to clean the toilets and move boxes around.

It is convenient because it's true. There is no such thing as equality. It's all a fallacy invented by people who were tired of other people using feeble, random arguments to support their whimsy power. It served a purpose back then, and I guess that, to some degree, it does today. But it's still a fallacy nonetheless. Nature isn't fair, as "fairness" is a human notion, and a rather random one at that.

[Cantousent]

I think it's fair to say that there is some innate ability involved with each person's intellect while their decisions and environment have an increasing effect as the person grows older.