IQ test, anyone know of a free online one...

[kumquatq3]

I heard Letterman joke that his IQ was 80, and ever since then find out my IQ has been stuck in my head like a bad song.

 

 

I'm happy to get "not free" or "not online" ones as well

Edited November 14, 2005 by kumquatq3

[thepixiesrock]

Well, I do know average IQ was something like 115. We had a few threads here about IQ tests, and we took it, and the average on the forums was like 130. I'm sure you could find the threads if you search for them.

[mkreku]

http://www.iqtest.dk/main.swf

[Krookie]

Apparently my IQ is 136. I'm 16, I don't think this is right...

[taks]

IQ doesn't typically go up as you age... unless you take a test with a higer standard deviation. in other words, there's nothing wrong (or right) with scoring 136 at 16... most kids tests are 24 SD, while adults tests are 15 or 16 SD, implying tests taken as a child will actually read higher than those taken as an adult.

 

the SD is a measure of how far you are from the mean. in a gaussian curve, 50% are within +/- 1 SD. so an IQ of 124 on a SD 24 test means you are within 1 SD of the mean. this is equivalent to a score of 116 on a test with a SD of 16.

 

the coolest i've seen recently is here. the "ultimate IQ test" is a prior knowledge tests, so people that have not had a college education, particularly math and science based, will not do well. the "culture fair" and "timed" tests, however, are more aligned for general populations, with the former relying solely on sequences and patterns.

 

the "test for exceptional intelligence" is ridiculously hard for most people. even those with a genius IQ (>132 SD 16) will only answer a few correct. this test is designed for those with >150 IQ, and definitely meant to be taken over a long period of time (several days or even a month).

 

taks

Edited November 14, 2005 by taks

[kumquatq3]

yea, but are any of these "legit"

 

I mean, are any of these recognized by....some body that views them as "correct"

[LoneWolf16]

If you don't mind signing up (it's free) to take it...among other tests....this might work.

[Laozi]

I just took Taks test and its pretty much like every online test. I think mensa will send you a test in the mail if you want, but they won't accept you based on it of course. When my housemate gets home I'll ask him, hes a member and into the sort of thing

[taks]

they are all about as legitimate as any high IQ society test. they norm based on sample sizes, so less people means less accuracy. if a million people took a test, and they were a good representation of the population, then only an IQ of maybe 1 in 100k or so is possible to determine (1 in 50k is about a 165 IQ SD 16)...

 

the way it works is really just statistics. the raw score is guaged against everyone. if only 1 in 50k answer 30 out of 40 questions, then that's the 1 in 50k mark... if the average person taking the test scores 10 out of 40, then that's the 100 mark. granted this is a simplified explanation, but close enough for gubmn't work. of course, if everyone that takes a test is already brighter, or dimmer, than the average population, obviously the "norming" will be skewed.

 

the test mensa sends you is only good enough to get an invite to take the real test, which is supervised. of course, all you have to do is show up on test day anyway, so i guess the mailed version is just so you don't waste your time finding out that you wouldn't be able to pass the real test anyway. they use the callet (sic?) test.

 

taks

Edited November 14, 2005 by taks

[alanschu]

IIRC, "average" IQ is 100.

[Darth_Schmarth]

Yes, I think so too. They made the scale so that 100 would be average, and I find it very implausible, what with all the stupid people on this rock, that the average would be 115.

[Surreptishus]

Well bear in mind the fact that you usually have to be literate to even attempt the test. That a whole bunch of dummies excluded from the results.

[Musopticon?]

Hah, real Mensa tests are nothing like the one taks linked to.

 

Last time I heard, from one who took them(she scored somehting like 145), the test consissted of figures of black and white dots. Intentionally aimed to confuse and dull minds.

[Darth_Schmarth]

I took a test at the Swedish Mensa site, which was more or less intended to decide whether you might stand a chance in a real test. That one was a "black dots" test, where you are expected to see patterns. I scored 17 out of 18 and thought it was really simple, but in other tests I've taken I've been between 126-131, so I think they generally seem pretty uneven.

[Musopticon?]

I have yet to take the Mensa test, out of fright. As for the interweb tests, I usually score something from 118-125.

[Rosbjerg]

http://www.iqtest.dk/main.swf

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

ahh yes .. remember back in the day Mkreku when we ruled the Iq thread .. those were the days! hehe ^_^

[Moose]

Well, I do know average IQ was something like 115.  We had a few threads here about IQ tests, and we took it, and the average on the forums was like 130.  I'm sure you could find the threads if you search for them.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Er I thought by definition the average was 100 - hence why it's a quotient (fraction, percentage).

 

0 = 0% average intelligence (you have no intelligence)

100 = 100% average intelligence

200 = 200% average intelligence (twice as smart as the average guy)

 

A little interesting quote from Wikipedia:

 

In 1910, Henry H. Goddard proposed three categories for the "feeble-minded" based on IQ scores: moron (IQ of 51-70), imbecile (IQ of 26-50), and idiot (IQ of 0-25). This taxonomy was the standard of intelligence research for decades.

Edited November 14, 2005 by Moose

[mkreku]

The constant exposure of the general population to IQ tests (or other, similar brain teasers) have resulted in better scores without actually increasing the general populations average IQ. People tend to get better results at tests like these because they are getting used to taking the tests, which is why the average IQ is no longer considered 100 (when measured with an IQ test) but around 115 instead.

[Darth_Schmarth]

That's why the tests are to be taken with a grain of salt, since a guy who takes a test 100 times and finally gets 120 with a stroke of luck will not have the actual IQ of a guy who takes three tests and scores 120 in all of them.

 

...erhm, do I get a Captain Obvious ribbon now?

Edited November 14, 2005 by Darth_Schmarth

[alanschu]

The constant exposure of the general population to IQ tests (or other, similar brain teasers) have resulted in better scores without actually increasing the general populations average IQ. People tend to get better results at tests like these because they are getting used to taking the tests, which is why the average IQ is no longer considered 100 (when measured with an IQ test) but around 115 instead.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

The average fluctates with the people. But it's always represented with a score of 100. It's all based on a statistical sample to ensure that a score of 100 puts you roughly in the 50th percentile.

 

The average may be 115 based on old standards, but they are always normalized to keep the average at 100. The data is also constantly being manipulated to ensure that a certain percentage of people are within one standard deviation. So no, the average IQ is not 115.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ

http://iq-test.learninginfo.org/iq04.htm

[taks]

Er I thought by definition the average was 100 - hence why it's a quotient (fraction, percentage).

 

0    = 0% average intelligence (you have no intelligence)

100 = 100% average intelligence

200 = 200% average intelligence (twice as smart as the average guy)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

no.

 

originally, as with stanford-binet, IQ tests were ratios of mental_age/actual_age, i.e. an IQ of 200 is scored by someone mentally twice as old as his actually age.

 

adult tests, however, are based a little differently, noting the deviations i mentioned earlier. the highest possible score on an adult test would be about 200, since statistically, there have not been enough people EVER with an IQ that high to make a valid assessment. i.e. there have been 100 billion people on the planet and, at SD 16, and IQ of 200 would only have yielded a few people EVER with that level of intelligence. this is more than "twice as smart" as someone with a 100 IQ. nearly infinitely smarter would be a better approximation, at least, nearly infinitely more capable of learning.

 

btw, what alanschu says is correct. test makers have to constantly "re-norm" the results of their tests as more and more people take them. it's not so much that we're getting "smarter" (we are, actually), but moreso that they have more data to accurately assess higher intelligences. if only 10 people with 1 in a million IQ have taken a certain test, then the test is not that valid at such levels. most tests, btw, are valid only for the single standard deviation range since, by definition, that's where most people lie...

 

taks

[LadyCrimson]

I would like to know what, exactly, these tests are supposed to measure. As far as I can tell, they usually seem to measure one's ability to make random lucky guesses.

 

I once tried a lot of IQ tests, from books, on the web, etc (nothing 'official tho) and the results varied wildly between 110 to 160 depending on the type of dominant 'format' the test was based around.

For example, I have little formal education in math, and for decades my lifestyle has not included any math more complicated than balancing a checkbook. Thus, IQ tests that are 'mathy', I do the worst in.

If I did have a great education in math, and if that resulted in my doing much better on those type of IQ tests, what, exactly, are we measuring? Education level? Ability to remember what you've learned? To recgonize patterns?

 

On about half the tests, I'd get over 140 just from taking wild guesses - I had absolutely no clue on the problem and just picked an answer that 'seemed less incorrect' than the others. What does that measure? Instinctive & intuitive brainpower?

 

Grain of salt, indeed. "

Edited November 14, 2005 by LadyCrimson

[Reveilled]

I got a 140 on the High IQ Society's test when I was 16. And I'm never going to take another IQ test ever again so that I can claim that score for the rest of my life.

[taks]

I would like to know what, exactly, these tests are supposed to measure. As far as I can tell, they usually seem to measure one's ability to make random lucky guesses.

no. a 40 question multiple choice test with 5 choices per question is supposed to yield less than 8 correct responses... a test designed for avg. IQ probably requires 20 correct answers to yield an IQ of 100...

 

I once tried a lot of IQ tests, from books, on the web, etc (nothing 'official tho) and the results varied wildly between 110 to 160 depending on the type of dominant 'format' the test was based around.

most online tests are bogus, particularly those that provide answers. you want a real one, look for those that require you send in your responses for accurate scoring.

 

For example, I have little formal education in math, and for decades my lifestyle has not included any math more complicated than balancing a checkbook. Thus, IQ tests that are 'mathy', I do the worst in.

these are called prior knowledge tests, and are culturally biased. culture-fair tests shouldn't require anything other than an ability to recognize patterns and think in abstract concepts. IQ really doesn't measure anything other than an ability to see patterns.

 

however, this concept is the basis for ALL problem solving.

 

Grain of salt, indeed.  "

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

agreed.

 

taks

[LadyCrimson]

So IQ tests, then, are essentially trying to measure one's ability at problem solving?

 

I'm not entirely sure I'd consider that true 'intelligence', especially without a defined concept of what constitutes a 'problem to be solved', but since one needs to define something in order to be able to test for it, I suppose it's as good a definition as any.

But I think they have about as much merit as 'personality' tests....