I’ve tested in the “genius” range on many of the IQ tests, but don’t really consider myself to be that above average in intellignce. It can be a fun diversion to take the tests, but the things that it doesn’t test (ability to communicate, self-confidence) are what make the real difference in real-world results.
Since the second grade I have tested the in 99th percentile on every standardized test I have ever taken.
What does that mean? That they are dull useless tools except for identifying glaring weak spots in someone’s reasoning capabilities. If they have relatively weak verbal, spatial, math skills you can coach them on those topics. I have done this for my girl for her college placement exams as my Gifted/Talented teachers did for me throughout school.
wlk
126 on untimed
142 on timed
guess my fluid intelligence is better than crystallized
I love threads that discuss IQ. No matter which forum they’re on, it would appear that the vast majority of forumites are near or in the “genius” range.
[quote]Grey Area wrote:
I love threads that discuss IQ. No matter which forum they’re on, it would appear that the vast majority of forumites are near or in the “genius” range. [/quote]
You’re right, I’ll step forward. On the timed test I merely fell into the “gifted” range.
Can someone answer me this: Why the hell would you have questions asking the opposite of fancy words? (I can understand using regular words.) Doesn’t that have more to do with ignorance than anything else?
As others have mentioned, an IQ of 100 is considered average intelligence. The average IQ for college students is 120, according to the last stats I saw, and 120 is also considered the minimum IQ for exhibiting creativity (artistic and otherwise… interestingly, creativity is not correlated with intelligence after the “minimum” has been met).
I believe anything over 130 is considered “gifted.” Keep in mind that there are multiple scales, and the ceiling of the test you took may artificially lower your score. Typically, the higher you score on a low-ceiling test, the less accurate your results are.
I believe on one set of criteria, 140 and above is considered “genius” (Einstein was in the 140 range, but as he pointed out, the common estimation of his powers was much greater than they actually were), and on another set, 150 is considered the minimum for genius.
Bottom line, of course, is that it doesn’t matter unless you’re trying to get into some sort of special program. You can have an IQ of 2,000,000, but if you don’t use it for anything productive, then you’re a waste. You can see some of my earlier posts on genius if you want more explication, but I subscribe to the theory that while genius may be useful as a category for describing the raw processing potential of a brain, it is more accurately used when referring to actual value added to human understanding. The true “geniuses” range from Moses to Freud to Einstein to Machiavelli to Hawking to Shakespeare; all people who have brought us new ways to see our world or to reorganize existing knowledge, and put it into a new, novel form.
Just having finished my statistics class today - I can tell you, by the empirical rule, 68% of all cases in any sample fall within 1 standard deviation from the mean, 95% within 2, and 99.7 within 3.
For the Stanford-Bryers test, where 100 is the normal mean and 16 is the standard deviation, 116 puts you in the top 16 percent, 132 puts you at around the top 2 percent, and 148 means you are smarter than 99.87% of the population.
BTW - I got an A in that class.
My friend and I took an IQ test(online) when we were in High School (2000). He got a 142 and I got a 149. He got a 1400 on his SATS and was the kind of guy who would take apart toasters and make robots out of them. He was one of those dudes from UCSB who make robot mice that run around in those mazes. Like on the Discovery Channel and junk. But, he never wore clothes with buttons or zippers.
And then theres me… It took me two extra years to finish HS and I’ve never passed an algebra class in my life. I’m beginning to think that the higher you get over 130, the weirder you can be… Yeah it might be true that some people with so called high IQ’s can be gifted, but they might be lacking in other areas. Like, not as rounded. Yes, maybe I can restore a 1975 Suzuki trail bike without a manual and fashion replacement parts out of crap laying out around my house, but I sure as hell can’t multiply 8x7. And maybe I can pick up a paintbrush and paint a freakin masterpiece, but I have terrible problems with a speech disorder.
Don’t WISH for a higher IQ… just be happy for who you are.
SirenChick: I hear a lot of people, especially with regards to IQ, who say you shouldn’t wish for more than you have. To me, you can’t be too smart, too good-looking, too healthy, or too rich… and if nature or science will further endow me with any of those gifts, I would not turn my nose up at it.
But then, we live in a culture where people seem to need to believe that natural gifts are a zero-sum game; if you’re too smart, you must lack common sense. If you’re too pretty, you must not be smart. Etc., etc. I think you can look to people like Richard Feynman to see that it is indeed possible to be a well-rounded genius who even has (gasp!) people skills.