Awesome IQ test

[Milo]

109

 

[Hawkeye]

Only if my argument is the exact opposite of yours, i.e. that people argue against tests that give them higher scores.

I am not claiming any correlation at all. I am only claiming that your statement is unsupported. So where is the support for your statement?

Uhm... here:

I refuse to do it, I got a 131 when a psychologist tested me (for the most part questions were indeed individually time limited, most likely for the reasons Pernocactus brought up and; moreover, because the appropriate time limit isn't the same for every item on an IQ test) and since then I dare not take another test for fear of performing worse. I would probs score 75 on this because my bottlenecks are processing speed and working memory anyway.

I conclude thusly that this test is total sucks ass

Care to retract your debunked claim? ^^

 

[Coolydudey]

Nonsense. IQ tests are nothing more than dick swinging stats.

If people take one test, get a high score and then take another and get a low score, they will say the lower score is inaccurate. As can be found everywhere on this forum.

Many people nowadays are very insecure, and I think, according to what I understand, that this was much less the case years ago (and centuries ago). Peer pressure, trends and many other phenomena seem to confirm this. While IQ tests do have something to say, many people either dismiss them or boast about their scores in them due to this insecurity. In fact, what an IQ test does have to say is a much much much much much more interesting debate than "timers on IQ tests". Unfortunately I don't know enough to take a serious position.

 

[BigApplePi]

Yer welcome. Didn't expect that. Here's another contribution:

Use what talents you possess; The woods would be very silent if no birds sang there except those that sang best.

No. Wait a minute. I thought I was being original but somebody else said that.http://intpforum.com/images/smilies/icon_wink.gif

 

[Skinart]

And about the JCTI, it's short as fuck and it uses only one type of test item. Thus it can only be correlated to the total WAIS score and not the subscores. Further blurring and further making the test results uninteresting.

I actually found the JCTI was pretty long. I was getting tired around the 48th question, and it kept going for a while after that. Don't remember how many questions I saw total, but it was significantly longer than other similar tests I've taken.

Also, it doesn't have just one type of question--unless you use the large category of non-verbal reasoning. There are several different types of questions based on different types of pattern finding: rotation, filter, XOR, etc. I would say they are different types of questions because they require different strategies.

There is an advantage to choosing non-verbal as your set to draw problems from--it allows you to get a score that is significantly less influenced by culture and not influence by language. I would expect there to still be some cultural bias as culture has an influence on what sorts of patterns are easy for you to notice. For example, cultures that live in circular huts aren't readily fooled by optical illusions involving circles as those who build dwelling out of boxes, but they are susceptible to similar illusions involving rectangles that box dwelling cultures aren't challenged by.

True, it won't tell you that you need to work on your vocabulary, spelling, or arithmetic, but wouldn't you agree those are more trained skills than pattern recognition? Note: I'm not saying that pattern recognition/reasoning isn't a trainable skill, I'm saying that you can anticipate someone to sort out a pattern they've never seen before more easily than deducing what a regatta is sans context, how to add two and two, or how to spell supercilious.

I do think it strange that it wasn't until very late in the JCTI that you couldn't readily bring your odds of getting the right answer by chance to 1/3 or better. There weren't very many that didn't have obviously wrong answers.

 

[pernoctator]

Uhm... here:



Care to retract your debunked claim? ^^

I see where you got the idea now. But no, I've nothing to retract because I was presenting a counter example to your generalization:

It seems to me that the people that are arguing against timed tests are the ones that are too afraid to have their high score tainted because in reality, they rank themselves higher in intelligence than they actually are. It's amusing to read.

Maybe you should retract that, or at least amend it to "some of the people that are arguing..."?



@Coolydudey - Come on, you really expected people on this forum to accept authority for authority's sake? If your whole argument boils down to "let's see you do better", it was a waste. One doesn't need to know how to fix a system to know that it's broken.

Yes, I am skeptical of the entire practice, but I'm not really interested in that discussion (at least not now). What I do know for a fact is that this test is bunk for me, because contrary to your ideal there was not a consistent pattern to the difficulty I experienced from the questions, which means the lack of individual timing is a real issue.

 

[Hawkeye]

I see where you got the idea now. But no, I've nothing to retract because I was presenting a counter example to your generalization:

Your counter example is nullified because it has no comparison. How can you not understand that concept?

Until you post a comparison, you have no counter, i.e., your claim is not valid.

Maybe you should retract that, or at least amend it to "some of the people that are arguing..."?

This was not the statement that was being discussed...

Your response to the statement you're quoting:

This makes no sense. If one was afraid of reality invalidating their score, one would be more motivated to argue that the test WAS valid.

was already quashed by Cherry Cola's post.

The statement in discussion is this one:

Nonsense. IQ tests are nothing more than dick swinging stats.

If people take one test, get a high score and then take another and get a low score, they will say the lower score is inaccurate. As can be found everywhere on this forum.

What you did was agreed with it and then attached a statement on the end which had nothing to do with what I was saying.

And thus began the start of the argument... Even Latte chipped in with supposed conflicting data that wasn't conflicting at all... It was irrelevant to my statement (the one above).

We have been arguing over different things.

To make you happy I shall rephrase the statement:

There are a lot of posters on here that want to show off how good their IQ scores are, when in reality nobody gives a flying fig if their IQ is 150 or 80... These people are highly insecure and for some reason they have chosen to use some trivial test to validate how amazing they are. There are too many on here that talk about how intelligent they are. They are so far up their own arse's that they fail to notice the crap they are talking. It's all egotistical nonsense. Even the polls resonate this with threads like: "Who is the most influential on the forum?", "Who is the strongest fighter?", the countless intelligence tests, etc...

There is not a single person on here that is leaps and bounds ahead of the average. Any that feel they are, are clearly deluded.

 

[pernoctator]

Your counter example is nullified because it has no comparison. How can you not understand that concept?

...No. The fact that there is no comparison is what makes it a counter example. Your opinion of my motivations depends on there being a higher score which I am favoring over this one. There isn't one.

This was not the statement that was being discussed...

Um, yes, it was. That was your original statement, and it was the one that both I and Latte quoted and were responding to. If you want to change the focus to a different statement, are you retracting the original?

Point is, this:

the people that are arguing against timed tests are the ones that are too afraid to have their high score tainted

applies weakly to this thread, because

a) I, arguing against timed tests, have not received a higher score in other tests;

b) Cooleydudey, arguing for timed tests, has received a higher score in other tests:

I got a 135. Based on various online tests, I would say that mine is between 125 and 145, more likely between 130+ and 140+.

edit: Just to be clear, I'm not saying you don't have a legitimate point to make about "a lot of posters on here" (I don't know, either way). I'm only saying it doesn't apply to the argument in this thread.

 

[Hawkeye]

a) arguing against timed tests, have not received a higher score in other tests;

Finally... A comparison! Took you long enough ffs.

This concludes that my statement is false. How hard was that really? Jesus Christ...

It wasn't about me being right and you being wrong. You just weren't supporting your claim.

 

[pernoctator]

Finally... A comparison! Took you long enough ffs.

Bullshit. I brought up the lack of a higher score quite early on:

the only score known is one that is well above average

You then moved the goalposts, claiming that I needed not only a lack of a higher score, but also a known lower score:

Unless you are saying that you have an official IQ test score that is lower than the one in this thread, you have no argument against my point.

Which I then pointed out was nonsense:

Only if my argument is the exact opposite of yours, i.e. that people argue against tests that give them higher scores. I am not claiming any correlation at all.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

If people take one test, get a high score and then take another and get a low score, they will say the lower score is inaccurate.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-40Zy4_mx6k

 

[Coolydudey]

@Coolydudey - Come on, you really expected people on this forum to accept authority for authority's sake? If your whole argument boils down to "let's see you do better", it was a waste. One doesn't need to know how to fix a system to know that it's broken.

Yes, I am skeptical of the entire practice, but I'm not really interested in that discussion (at least not now). What I do know for a fact is that this test is bunk for me, because contrary to your ideal there was not a consistent pattern to the difficulty I experienced from the questions, which means the lack of individual timing is a real issue.

IQ arised from the observation that people performed very similarly on many different types of tasks (like, a 0.8-0.9 correlation between spatial rotation and numerical pattern recognition, wtf?!?), and therefore have some "general intelligence" g that can be measured in a test. So why is IQ as a system broken, at least according to you? I think the answer is that it's not, and that it's matured very well, basically to the point where it can't get much further. Unless, as I said, you have some different concept of what IQ is. Then put it out there, enlighten us. Otherwise this is pointless. And if you don't think it's broken, then my argument holds.

As for this test, there are no studies available for it, and it is clearly not scientifically developed. I can not even try to back it up. That doesn't detract from my feeling that it's quite the good test.

 

[Hawkeye]

Bullshit. I brought up the lack of a higher score quite early on:

You then moved the goalposts, claiming that I needed not only a lack of a higher score, but also a known lower score:

Which I then pointed out was nonsense:

If this score was the only score known, you'd have no claim to say that the test was inaccurate...

You clearly have no idea what my point is about. My argument against you was not about the lack of a higher score... It was about the lack of a comparative score. I even clarified this further after you posted this ridiculous counter-claim by saying that my statement is either supported (people with higher scores in other tests are debunking this test), or unsupported (people with lower scores in other tests are for this test).

Without your comparative statement, you were claiming an unknown variable is equal to a known variable, i.e., it wasn't possible to comment on the accuracy of my statement using you as a case study...

Well done.

 

[Coolydudey]

No. Wait a minute. I thought I was being original but somebody else said that.

Are you commenting on the fact that I do not mention the origin of the quote?

 

[pernoctator]

If this score was the only score known, you'd have no claim to say that the test was inaccurate...

lol, what? I'm starting to think you didn't even read any of the posts other than Cherry Cola's. My point against this test had nothing at all to do with a comparison to other tests, its flaw was inherent.

Look, if I give you a scale that reports your weight based on your hair color, would you believe it until you were given a real scale? No, you don't need a second result to compare to in order to know that one test is flawed.

My argument against you was not about the lack of a higher score... It was about the lack of a comparative score.

Which is nonsense, because your statement was the only one that was dependent on the presence of at least two different results. Failing that, it was baseless.

my statement is either supported (people with higher scores in other tests are debunking this test), or unsupported (people with lower scores in other tests are for this test).

Okay, there's two problems here:

First, your confusing truth and support. Your statement is either true or false, but that doesn't mean it needs to be proven false in order to be unsupported.

Second, this is a false dilemma. You're not including the scenario where people have other scores that are equal, or where they have no other scores at all. If either of those are true, you're mistaken.

You do realize that this statement (which you accept as evidence)...

I have not received a higher score in other tests

...does not mean that I received a lower score, right?

it wasn't possible to comment on the accuracy of my statement using you as a case study...

Yes it was. I represented the third scenario above.

 

[Hawkeye]

Your analogy uses two completely different medium where as IQ tests measure IQ (supposedly). On what grounds are you debunking this IQ test? If it is anything related to IQ tests your analogy is invalid.

Also, I feel the need to present you with the definition of comparative, for you do not seem to understand what it means.

comparative: measured or judged by estimating the similarity or dissimilarity between one thing and another.

This means that scores between tests can be equal. If the scores are equal, the test must be (to some degree) accurate. No?

You cannot however compare with a non-existent score. Therefore, this rules out a scenario with no score.


That being said, I have already stated my second statement is incorrect and I have rephrased my initial statement.

 

[pernoctator]

On what grounds are you debunking this IQ test?

Read the thread.

This means that scores between tests can be equal.

You're mixing up two different points now.

1. When I said equal scores were another possibility, I was referring to the false dilemma you presented here:

my statement is either supported (people with higher scores in other tests are debunking this test), or unsupported (people with lower scores in other tests are for this test).

2. When I said a comparison was not required, I was referring to there being no other score.

You've apparently gotten confused, thinking that I said that equal scores are not a comparison. That never happened.

You cannot however compare with a non-existent score. Therefore, this rules out a scenario with no score.

Nope, having no other score to compare to is a valid scenario, and one that disproves your conjecture.

I know you already realize this, and you're only being a smartass by claiming that I never brought it up and that I therefore never properly disproved anything. Only trouble is, I did bring it up -- you just weren't paying attention.

 

[Coolydudey]

Guys, just stop being babies.

 

[Hawkeye]

I'm sorry pernoctator

 

[BigApplePi]

Are you commenting on the fact that I do not mention the origin of the quote?

Not really. I would like to think it was you, but even if it wasn't I was making a joke.

 

[Brontosaurie]

that was intense and straining

of course this result is easy to lie about. however, it said that if test taking population represented full population i would have 124, but according to an estimation of their relative sample mean, i am at 134 +-6. this is the first time i don't suck at things in a pretty long while. or maybe the first time there's a number rather than a knot of paranoid delusions. anyway hooray.

i really dislike the vocabulary section. some items there were pretty much random guesses for me.

 

[NormannTheDoorman]

Only a 100...

 

[Cherry Cola]

If the JTC wasnt short then I was wrong about it, what I did was look through it too see what types of questions it asked, must've screwed something up though because it was more like 20 items when I looked at it. Must've missed something.
Other than that I don't see any debunked claim I should retract.

@Skinart: It doesn't matter what people think belongs on an IQ test and not, the official IQ tests involve different sections thus those are by definition valid ways to measure IQ whereas the tests that use only one type of questions (typically visual/spatial) are misleading, even though they may be regarded as more "pure" intelligence tests. What should be critiqued then is IQ in itself, not the type of tests.

Also GZ Bronto!

 

[Brontosaurie]

It doesn't matter what people think belongs on an IQ test and not, the official IQ tests involve different sections thus those are by definition valid ways to measure IQ whereas the tests that use only one type of questions (typically visual/spatial) are misleading, even though they may be regarded as more "pure" intelligence tests.

not sure what you're arguing (cba go back check) but the test in OP encompasses verbal, numeric, and visuo-spatial intelligence. what's missing is perhaps specific items for working memory.

 

[Cherry Cola]

added @skinart to that part of the post :P

 

[BigApplePi]

@Cherry Cola

What should be critiqued then is IQ in itself, not the type of tests.

Cooley seems to be saying defining intelligence is off limits:

Btw, I am choosing to ignore all comments about IQ vs intelligence. Nobody can decide what intelligence means, so it's a debate that uses much time for little result.

 

[Coolydudey]

@Cherry Cola

Cooley seems to be saying defining intelligence is off limits:

Ha! Well, for the purposes of taking the discussion up a notch, why not try?

Def:
Any trait that describes somebody's natural ability to carry out certain tasks.

Notice how I have defined it as a set of traits; This is to account for notions such as different types of intelligence (spatial/verbal/...), as well as other varying factors.

There is at least one caveat to this: many people accept the notion of crystallized intelligence (stuff we've learned). I personally don't think this really is a type of intelligence though.
Note: BAP, you earlier were talking about the distinction crystallized/fluid intelligence.

 

[BigApplePi]

Def:
Any trait that describes somebody's natural ability to carry out certain tasks.

In the past I've defined it as, "The ability to do stuff." That is close to what you've said except we've not named what tasks. I would put those tasks as anything living creatures are capable of. The difficulty is in trying to group them. Such an effort would probably not be worth it as a word like "intelligence" or any word must best be used as a symbol for some coherent concept.

Notice how I have defined it as a set of traits; This is to account for notions such as different types of intelligence (spatial/verbal/...), as well as other varying factors.

Sure. Let's include a kinesthetic sense or the ability to carry out sensual activities as with sports.

There is at least one caveat to this: many people accept the notion of crystallized intelligence (stuff we've learned). I personally don't think this really is a type of intelligence though.
Note: BAP, you earlier were talking about the distinction crystallized/fluid intelligence.

I'm not much of a person for jargon nowadays. I'd prefer learned and inherent or something like that.

Here is another def I found: What's your IQ?

To me intelligence requires both capacity and the ability to carry it out. That's two dimensions, not one. A computer or a person with photographic or auditory perfect memory or a rapid-math-calculator ability need not be what we would call intelligent in their static state. They have to be able to carry out their native ability. Said another way, capacity requires filling* that capacity just as a large but empty cup doesn't satisfy thirst unless it has contents.

*If the ability to carry out tasks requires some inherent (fluid) capacity, then speed can matter as some tasks require speed as I believe your IQ test required. Other tasks do not. For example, a sportsman requires speed but an inventor or artist can take lots of time. Would you agree each requires a special intelligence for these tasks?

There is more that can be said about the complexities of this, as what kind of intelligence would be required to create the theory of relativity or to compose a good opera?

 

[QuickTwist]

@CoolyDudey, so what did you end up with?

I got: The effect size is d = 0.66, which equals 9.9 IQ points.

That makes the estimate for your IQ 99 +/- 6. I am really bad at speed math, I only answered like 5-6 speed math questions. Every time I try to do simple math quickly in my head all the numbers end up getting mixed up and I can't think straight. Weird.

 

[Zero989]

That makes the estimate for your IQ 115 +/- 6.

Hard with ADD. I don't see how it's possible to answer all the rushed arithmetic without practicing math a lot. I haven't heard of more than half of those words on the very first part because I rarely read.

Anyway this goes in the pile of lowest IQs scores ever received.

 

[ethicalhacker]

IQ 99 +/- 6

 

[nearfantastica]

I entirely skipped the math sections (it's late at night, I'm lazy and hate math) and got 111 +/- 6. Better than I expected, to be honest.

Edit: Curiosity got the best of me, and after having round 2 and actually doing the math parts, I got a score of 126 +/- 6.

 

[Coolydudey]

@CoolyDudey, so what did you end up with?

I got: The effect size is d = 0.66, which equals 9.9 IQ points.

That makes the estimate for your IQ 99 +/- 6. I am really bad at speed math, I only answered like 5-6 speed math questions. Every time I try to do simple math quickly in my head all the numbers end up getting mixed up and I can't think straight. Weird.

135+-whatever (can't remember, probably 6 like you guys).

I must agree that in hindsight the rushed arithmetic section has quite a bit too much weight. Still, I think it's a very good ballpark test for most.

 

[QuickTwist]

They changed something.

The effect size is d = 0.66, which equals 9.9 IQ points.

That makes the estimate for your IQ 117 +/- 6.

P.S. Deduction was way too easy, right?

 

[Coolydudey]

Been a while, can't remember, though I don't remember finding anything challenging (apart from some vocab I didn't know).

 

[QuickTwist]

I'm talking about this:

The effect size is d = 0.66, which equals 9.9 IQ points.

That makes the estimate for your IQ 99 +/- 6.

The effect size is d = 0.66, which equals 9.9 IQ points.

That makes the estimate for your IQ 117 +/- 6.

Everything is the same except the IQ rating. That is what I find peculiar.

 

[Base groove]

130 +/- 6

 

[Coolydudey]

I'm talking about this:





Everything is the same except the IQ rating. That is what I find peculiar.

Oh, that refers to the amount it thinks people on the internet are better than your average joe on the street in real life by comparing the vocabulary scores.

 

[QuickTwist]

Don't try to simpleton me. I asked a legitimate question and your answer was very lacking. Interpret it how you want, I communicated my idea well. It seems like you are taking an isolated incident and using that to determine an outcome that is not valid to my question. Then again maybe you know something about the IQ test that was not mentioned anywhere on the site.

 

[Base groove]

Don't try to simpleton me. I asked a legitimate question and your answer was very lacking. Interpret it how you want, I communicated my idea well. It seems like you are taking an isolated incident and using that to determine an outcome that is not valid to my question. Then again maybe you know something about the IQ test that was not mentioned anywhere on the site.

Simpleton... hahaha.

OK, so you never actually asked a question from what I can see in this thread. ... so, don't act like a baby.

Also, his explanation for the effect you noticed was indeed posted on the site and was exactly as he described.

 

[QuickTwist]

Why do they only measure the vocab taken into consideration for those numbers again? Doesn't this debunk the rest of the measurements? I don't understand how it works. I did not find that they were only calculating those numbers for vocab only. I was under the impression that the test took all testing into consideration to get those numbers. Where does it say otherwise? Link?

I do not mean to be difficult but it seems some people have a tendency to have a bully/superiority complex which is why I persist in questioning the validity of some statements.

 

[Coolydudey]

calm down ppl, we're discussing a short little online IQ test.

The effect size is d, which equals z (=15d) IQ points.

That makes the estimate for your IQ x +/- y.

Here's what goes where: to estimate x, your IQ score, it uses your results from the whole test. To estimate y, they have some error metric (don't know more about this) so they expect that to within 95% probability your IQ lies in the range x +/- y. Now, people on the internet have slightly higher IQs than people in real life, so if there was no comparison, the internet IQ scores would be low (on average, internetizens would answer more questions than your average joe on the street, so if you compare your score only to the internetizens it seems comparatively lower). To estimate this effect, for the sake of practicality, it looks at performance on the vocabulary only, questions from which are administered in real life tests. This allows it to estimate the "effect size" d, how much better people are on teh interwebz, and then add z=15d to your IQ score. i.e. x=IQ score compared to other internetizens+z.

To estimate y,d,z, large populations of testees are needed (everyone), so that's why they don't change from test to test. We may see that in a few months time they'll change a little though.

 

[QuickTwist]

So in essence it is an imperfect system in an imperfect system. Why vocab? Is there something special about what someone has been exposed to that makes the effective IQ more reliable?

 

[TheScornedReflex]

Dumb dumb duuuuuuumb.

 

[Methodician]

I'm a pretty smart guy, I think. I've scored around 170 on some respectable online IQ tests. I scored 14 on this one . I have an IQ of 14?!? I got 38 answers correct which, looking at the bell curve, is probably above average. Did this thing glitch out on me? FOURTEEN? Yeah, the test sucks ass.

 

[Upekkha]

I'm a pretty smart guy, I think. I've scored around 170 on some respectable online IQ tests. I scored 14 on this one . I have an IQ of 14?!? I got 38 answers correct which, looking at the bell curve, is probably above average. Did this thing glitch out on me? FOURTEEN? Yeah, the test sucks ass.

I scored 42 questions correct and got a 14 as well. Makes no sense to me at all.

 

[QuickTwist]

They did change a lot about the test.

32---->14+/-6

Ten points difference is a pretty big range. I know I'm no genius but come on. Half the questions right and I'm above average. The interesting thing about this is that they keep changing shit so nobody knows what the #@$& is going on. What the hell is their prerogative?

I am having difficulty understanding this statement "Using self reported ACT scores, it seems that people who take this test have an average IQ of 114." What does this mean? And they need to put something measuring reasoning in the test like they did before and make it more difficult. One thing I learned from this is that I am really bad at spacial intelligence and crystallized intelligence but I already knew the later. No doubt I don't have the most cerebral mind but I do have certain strengths such as reasoning. For example, I scored very poorly on anything that has to do with reading/English on the ACT, below average in fact, but I did manage to do very well on trig, above the 90 percentile and average on everything else so I ended up with an 18 on the ACT. People who are weighted very gifted in one area are often miscalculated for their overall intelligence. Just saying.

 

[Hawkeye]

Why does it matter what your IQ is? Will knowing that you're smarter than the average bear give you more reason to do stuff?

 

[Coolydudey]

hmmm they have changed it a lot... obviously they've made a little coding error somewhere (anyone see where the 14 comes from? kinda neat) and it's glitching out

 

[QuickTwist]

You think its a glitch? I suppose that could explain things.