What is your IQ?

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

You really think someone with -52 IQ, as included in the poll, would be able to type posts here?

[ilikeverin]

The idea that intelligence is linear and can be represented by a single number is epic fail, as is most of psychology.

The idea that IQ is representative of most of psychology is epic fail.

I took the IQ test when I was a kid and my Mom refused to tell me what my score was.

Hey, my parents did the same thing to me!

[Yelnoc]

I agree; "IQ tests" do not measure "intelligence" (which itself is rather difficult to define) but rather a combination of mathematics and vocabulary skills.  It does not measure any inherent quality, but changes dramatically over time.  To prove the point, I looked up the SAT conversion chart.  I took the SAT in 7th grade, as part of the Duke TIP; my combined verbal and quantitative score was around a 1050.  That's a 115 according to the chart.  I took the PSAT Sophomore year, and got a 210 (which correlates to a 2100).  So, assuming my verbal + quantitative was a 1400, my IQ apparently jumped to a 143.  When I get the results back for my actual High School SAT, my "IQ" will probably have jumped another couple points!

Obviously, IQ tests are BS.  But they can be fun to chat about if no one takes it seriously.  I've always wondered if a more objective IQ test is possible; can enough testing create a sound system or is the entire idea silly?

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

IQ tests pretty clearly are not meant to measure the same thing as SAT, let alone GRE.

[opebo]

...the LSAT is much harder to learn, but it's still a learnable test. So are IQ tests, of course.

...The SAT is easily learned, though.

What do you mean by 'learned'?  Learned during the taking of it?

[ilikeverin]

It does not measure any inherent quality, but changes dramatically over time.

These statements are both fairly blatantly incorrect, given the extremely high (~80%) heritability of IQ.  Whether it's what we want to call intelligence is up for debate, I'll acknowledge, but 1) most of the variation in IQ after about age 10/15 is the result of genetic differences and 2) it tends to remain very constant after about the age of 10/15.  (I'll try to cite both, but I was distracted searching for "longitudinal IQ" by studies like this and this!)  It's measuring something very well and very reliably.

[Yelnoc]

It does not measure any inherent quality, but changes dramatically over time.

These statements are both fairly blatantly incorrect, given the extremely high (~80%) heritability of IQ.  Whether it's what we want to call intelligence is up for debate, I'll acknowledge, but 1) most of the variation in IQ after about age 10/15 is the result of genetic differences and 2) it tends to remain very constant after about the age of 10/15.  (I'll try to cite both, but I was distracted searching for "longitudinal IQ" by studies like this and this!)  It's measuring something very well and very reliably.

Granted, the SAT conversions I used in that post are not the most reliable.  I guess if I took the same IQ test I took at age 7 again at age 17 I would score higher the second time, but if I took it again at age 27, my score should not move?

[ilikeverin]

It does not measure any inherent quality, but changes dramatically over time.

These statements are both fairly blatantly incorrect, given the extremely high (~80%) heritability of IQ.  Whether it's what we want to call intelligence is up for debate, I'll acknowledge, but 1) most of the variation in IQ after about age 10/15 is the result of genetic differences and 2) it tends to remain very constant after about the age of 10/15.  (I'll try to cite both, but I was distracted searching for "longitudinal IQ" by studies like this and this!)  It's measuring something very well and very reliably.

Granted, the SAT conversions I used in that post are not the most reliable.  I guess if I took the same IQ test I took at age 7 again at age 17 I would score higher the second time, but if I took it again at age 27, my score should not move?

Nah, the good IQ tests norm you for age, so it's not necessarily that you'd improve from 7 to 17; you'd just see less of an effect of your early childhood education.

[fezzyfestoon]

Oh, scheisse...the conversion thing says 136. I find that highly unlikely to be honest. Unless this place somehow serves as a genius magnet, I think we're all just a little too concerned with proclaiming our intelligence through ranking. It's pretty obvious who's smart and who isn't based on their posts. But it is interesting. I may have gotten an unnecessary ego boost today from this haha

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

based on the SAT conversion, I have ~140 IQ (though very much slanted towards math)....which is really dumb considering I never studied in High School except for one semester of Geometry (have to learn the proofs)...so how would my IQ be based off what I learned if I never studied?

[Verily]

...the LSAT is much harder to learn, but it's still a learnable test. So are IQ tests, of course.

...The SAT is easily learned, though.

What do you mean by 'learned'?  Learned during the taking of it?

Learned through practice before the taking of it. In the case of the SAT and GRE, by learning vocabulary words and math formulae. In the case of the LSAT, by taking enough practice tests that one becomes accustomed to the sort of thinking required--not as easy, and there isn't as much room to improve (some people are just better at formal logic than others), but still possible.

[TJ in Oregon]

I can see my SAT/GRE score conversion idea has taken a bit of fire, and deservedly so. Of course there are serious problems with it, including:
1. Those tests' inability to accurately measure values more than a standard deviation away from the mean
2. The total joke the math sections tend to be. I don't know how these are supposed to tell anything about one's intelligence. I spent four years in chemical engineering school and on the GRE, they're testing me in what? The Pythagorean Theorem?
3. The reality that people actually study for those. Am I smarter if I go home tonight and start memorizing the dictionary?

I also think it's very hard to tell how smart someone is based on a political forum like this one becuase we:
1. Don't interact with each other in person. It's much easier to write intelligent things when you have the whole internet in front of you and no time limit that it is to say them on the fly.
2. Have absolutely no clue how good anyone here is at math. The ability to think logically in a quantitative sense is missing from this kind of verbal communication, especially since we're discussing politics. Some of the smartest people I know, who are conducting great research, would sound like total morons here.

And one last thought: "genius" is supposedly defined as an IQ over 140, which will occur in one of every 263 people. If we have about that number of total posters and it is a random sample (which I think we skew better than random), we should have one genius.

[angus]

based on the SAT conversion, I have ~140 IQ (though very much slanted towards math)....

Just out of curiosity I did the same thing at http://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/SATIQ.aspx and got about the same result.  (Mine is also skewed for a very high math and a just a little above average for verbal, for a total around 1430.)  I'm not sure whether that's really a very good method for determining IQ.  I don't recall ever taking a proper IQ test. 

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

based on the SAT conversion, I have ~140 IQ (though very much slanted towards math)....which is really dumb considering I never studied in High School except for one semester of Geometry (have to learn the proofs)...so how would my IQ be based off what I learned if I never studied?

I'm just gonna give myself the benefit of the doubt and conclude that the IQ of my brain at idle (not studying) is 140... 

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Six thousand

[angus]

By the way, I voted for the negative fifty-two option.

[bullmoose88]

By the way, I voted for the negative fifty-two option.

Same.

[Username MechaRFK]

Retook  the IQ test and I got 138 on the test score.

[Alcon]

guys. guys! GUYS!

I'll have you know that I just took the free-iq-test-online.com IQ test and my FreeIQTestOnline.com TripleDeluxeIQ™ Sponsored by Nabisco® is a cool 163.  AND I have the certificate to prove it.  It came with a free Honorary GRE Certification, all for the low, low price of $29.99.  That's only a few dollars more expensive than a Mensa sticker!  And only like 1/50 the price I got for selling J. J.'s sedan for scrap metal!

You may now crown me Dave Leip II.

[Хahar 🤔]

The SAT conversion thing gives a result of between 150 and 154, which is ridiculous on its face because I know way too many people with that sort of SAT score for it to be the 99.964th percentile.

[Rochambeau jk I'm Hamilton]

132, apparently.

[ZuWo]

Could probably be higher.

[All Along The Watchtower]

Took a few online (ie completely unreliable) tests, got 129 on one of them (only score I can remember).

Supposedly, I'm in the 98th percentile of the IQ distribution.

Of course, IQ isn't that relevant to a lot of practical matters in life.

[Fuzzybigfoot]

Took an IQ test involving patterns, and came up with 140.    yay

[Oakvale]

I did an IQ test in school as a kid and got 130 or something, which is total bullsh**t. The average IQ's, obviously,  100. That's thirty points lower. I do something moronic and/or feel like an idiot every single day, if I was thirty points lower I wouldn't be able to tie my own shoes.