IQ, intelligence an such

[HDINTP]

Perhaps the key word you used is "usually." If it were really totally useless in all ways would that be intelligent?[/QUOTE]
Sure. The problem could be that a lot of people can not see things from multiple angles and no it would not be intelligent if totally useless. In my opinion if you don´t want to then there is no thing which is totally useless. You can use everything somehow can´t you?

 

[BigApplePi]

there is no thing which is totally useless. You can use everything somehow can´t you?

I agree but most will argue for the uselessness. They can't see it, not that it is easy to see. Here are some candidates for uselessness:

1. Voting in a general election.
2. Thinking oneself to sleep.
3. Collecting bottle caps.
4. Yelling out the window.
5. Letting one loose in a closed elevator.
6. Posting on an INTP bulletin board.
7. Small talk.
8. Baseball.
9. Worrying about global warming.
10. Correcting bad grammar.

 

[NO_ARM_NINJA]

Alright guys, break it up.

HD he's simply making an uninformed attempt at riling you.

Blaargy, using things such as ones set location is a silly way of typing and simply makes you seem ill informed on the matter and purposefully rude.
Ironically It gives off the most un-INTP vibe possible, so which are you, the pot or the kettle?

So shut it.


If it's any comfort, the vast majority of these forums aren't INTP, but we do all share at least three functions, with most coming up as ISTP, INTJ,INFP, ENTP or most prominently INFJ.

To be honest I can only think of Editor one, Pi and Agent intellect as real INTP's, though I'm bound to be missing one or two.

I've taken the test so many times on so many different websites and have never gotten anything that wasnt INTP
so i think i qualify pretty well....

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

I have an IQ of 82. Never finished high school. College is for smart people so I guess I will never be attending. I just sit on my ass all day drinking beer and occasionally going to work when the government gets on my ass about it. They stop giving me my money. Come to think of it, my current boss is an asshole. He can't quite understand I turn up when I feel like it. I am pestering my bitch for a bj but she is being stubborn. What a bitch...

 

[snafupants]

I've taken the test so many times on so many different websites and have never gotten anything that wasnt INTP
so i think i qualify pretty well....

That could be the most undependable route at finding your type since every test was biased by your self-perception and idealized type preference. You should try listening to other folks' feedback, and noticing how the functions line up with the amount of energy you expend daily on different activities. The typing-by-appearance thing is still in its infancy but it might prove more dependable than endlessly testing yourself.

 

[NO_ARM_NINJA]

That could be the most undependable route at finding your type since every test was biased by your self-perception and idealized type preference. You should try listening to other folks' feedback, and noticing how the functions line up with the amount of energy you expend daily on different activities. The typing-by-appearance thing is still in its infancy but it might prove more dependable than endlessly testing yourself.

I have done so, and my determination for accuracy (by taking so many tests, although apparently misguided) should show my INTP preferences, and in reading so many different type descriptions, reading through function list, and listening to feedback from friends, I have determined that, without a doubt, my MBTI type is INTP

Now, as I recall, this thread pertained to IQ, now realizing my idea toward IQ testing isn't exactly accurate, I would like to question "How can IQ tests be improved to better accommodate everyone, and be a better measure of intelligence and success?"

As for bringing HDINTP's MBTI type into question, I have to say he doesn't seem like an INTP, but his input still provides conversation, so he's ok in my book.

 

[snafupants]

I have done so, and my determination for accuracy (by taking so many tests, although apparently misguided) should show my INTP preferences, and in reading so many different type descriptions, reading through function list, and listening to feedback from friends, I have determined that, without a doubt, my MBTI type is INTP

Now, as I recall, this thread pertained to IQ, now realizing my idea toward IQ testing isn't exactly accurate, I would like to question "How can IQ tests be improved to better accommodate everyone, and be a better measure of intelligence and success?"

As for bringing HDINTP's MBTI type into question, I have to say he doesn't seem like an INTP, but his input still provides conversation, so he's ok in my book.

Well that sounds like a more well-rounded way to arrive at a type. Also, not to niggle every little point, but IQ tests are not designed to chart success; if they succeed at anything it is the ability to chart ability, mental capacity, aptitude, choose your word. In no way does a high IQ score guarantee material or any other ilk of success; at a certain point IQ probably hampers success because one has to trudge through lesser minds and their creations to get wherever one wants to be - enough has already been written on analysis paralysis. This all sounds elitist, but life must be pretty fucking frustrating for someone with a IQ score of 183 or something. The ideal score for enjoying American life would probably be something like 110 or thereabouts.

 

[NO_ARM_NINJA]

" This all sounds elitist, but life must be pretty fucking frustrating for someone with a IQ score of 183 or something. The ideal score for enjoying American life would probably be something like 110 or thereabouts."

I agree with that.
On the point about success measurement, I doubt IQ is an accurate representation of success, but it should be improved so that it CAN be, by either altering it entirely, combining it with another test, or making a new test altogether. Perhaps combining it with EQ and social capability etc. is what I see as the best way of making it accurately represent success.

 

[Jelly Rev]

Wow this thread got trolled.

INTP's arguing over the importance of IQ, arguing its validity, calling INTP's in this forum not INTP's, INTP's rebuttling.

Epic lawlz. No wonder INTPs dont get a lot done.

Dear INTP's use wiki or something, and u make me sad as an INTP psychologist bc we tries hard to make test mean something.

IQ scores are relevant, if a test is reliable and correlates with something, such as job performance, income, criminal activity then something has been measured. so stop with that nonsense.


also:

I have an IQ of 82. Never finished high school. College is for smart people so I guess I will never be attending. I just sit on my ass all day drinking beer and occasionally going to work when the government gets on my ass about it. They stop giving me my money. Come to think of it, my current boss is an asshole. He can't quite understand I turn up when I feel like it. I am pestering my bitch for a bj but she is being stubborn. What a bitch...

that made me laugh out loud.

 

[NO_ARM_NINJA]

Wow this thread got trolled.

INTP's arguing over the importance of IQ, arguing its validity, calling INTP's in this forum not INTP's, INTP's rebuttling.

Epic lawlz. No wonder INTPs dont get a lot done.

Dear INTP's use wiki or something, and u make me sad as an INTP psychologist bc we tries hard to make test mean something.

IQ scores are relevant, if a test is reliable and correlates with something, such as job performance, income, criminal activity then something has been measured. so stop with that nonsense.


Hey look! A professional!
lets blatantly deny his justified, accurate opinion for the sake of debating!
LIAR! YOUR NOT AN INTP! AS FAR AS IM CONCERNED YOUR A PROGRAM WRITTEN BY THE CIA!
jk :P
about the first two....

 

[ElvenVeil]

INTP's arguing over the importance of IQ, arguing its validity, calling INTP's in this forum not INTP's, INTP's rebuttling.

Epic lawlz. No wonder INTPs dont get a lot done.

Dear INTP's use wiki or something, and u make me sad as an INTP psychologist bc we tries hard to make test mean something.

IQ scores are relevant, if a test is reliable and correlates with something, such as job performance, income, criminal activity then something has been measured. so stop with that nonsense.

We have no way of giving 'huzzars' to posts we like, except for quoting them and reply (as I do now). Finally something with much sense is being said in this thread. Thank you.
(your avatar innitially didn't place you high on my list, but this post made my day; so welcome at the top )

 

[snafupants]

" This all sounds elitist, but life must be pretty fucking frustrating for someone with a IQ score of 183 or something. The ideal score for enjoying American life would probably be something like 110 or thereabouts."

I agree with that.
On the point about success measurement, I doubt IQ is an accurate representation of success, but it should be improved so that it CAN be, by either altering it entirely, combining it with another test, or making a new test altogether. Perhaps combining it with EQ and social capability etc. is what I see as the best way of making it accurately represent success.

Even combining EQ and IQ would not yield a dependable index for success because there is no way to determine future actions based on one's performance on a test. Take IQ, that guy who scored in the 150s could be hit in the head with a piano on the way out of the psych office and be rendered a moron. And that's just with an intelligence test predicting future intelligence - it can't even do that because it's not designed to gauge future events. An IQ test only measures one's performance in the moment of taking the test. All bets are off ten years down the line. Wait, what kind of success are you even talking about man? Material? Spiritual? Athletic? Sexual? Business?

 

[NO_ARM_NINJA]

I'm suggesting we formulate a test considering all (known) aspects of the human personality, combined with general human trends, to efficiently quantify generalized future success.

 

[snafupants]

I'm suggesting we formulate a test considering all (known) aspects of the human personality, combined with general human trends, to efficiently quantify generalized future success.

Good luck.

 

[NO_ARM_NINJA]

Well, I dont intend to do it.....but my hope is that some day, someone will, im just the idea guy

 

[Jelly Rev]

Even combining EQ and IQ would not yield a dependable index for success because there is no way to determine future actions based on one's performance on a test. Take IQ, that guy who scored in the 150s could be hit in the head with a piano on the way out of the psych office and be rendered a moron. And that's just with an intelligence test predicting future intelligence - it can't even do that because it's not designed to gauge future events. An IQ test only measures one's performance in the moment of taking the test. All bets are off ten years down the line. Wait, what kind of success are you even talking about man? Material? Spiritual? Athletic? Sexual? Business?

Really? cmon really?

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

Jump to social outcomes.

Steps towards predictive validity
1. make people take test
2. record scores
3. ask people in future about income, happiness, etc.
4. record answers
5. Run t-test, anova, correlations
6. find statistically significant effect!
7. PROFIT!!!

Why is this concept so hard to get. Saying that IQ doesn't mean anything is slapping the scientific method in the face.

 

[BigApplePi]

Even combining EQ and IQ would not yield a dependable index for success because there is no way to determine future actions based on one's performance on a test. Take IQ, that guy who scored in the 150s could be hit in the head with a piano on the way out of the psych office and be rendered a moron.

Wrong wrong wrong. You just add this question to the test, "Do you wear a helmet?" That should take care of that.

 

[snafupants]

Really? cmon really?

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

Jump to social outcomes.

Steps towards predictive validity
1. make people take test
2. record scores
3. ask people in future about income, happiness, etc.
4. record answers
5. Run t-test, anova, correlations
6. find statistically significant effect!
7. PROFIT!!!

Why is this concept so hard to get. Saying that IQ doesn't mean anything is slapping the scientific method in the face.

Really, I completely stand by what I originally wrote. A score on an IQ test is merely a snapshot of one's intellectual ability at the moment of the test. Consider - are you considering? - an older person who gets dementia a few years after recording a score or a football player who repeatedly gets whacked in the head after strolling out of the psychologist's office. Now, those scores are going to diminish because of the organic or external damage due to accidents, neuronal degeneration, and, ultimately, statistical flukes. You're scenario would shroud that because when you deal with large numbers of people individual things like accidents basically get cancelled out. That is, when you have five thousand people, noteworthy experiences of a few blokes become negligible in a pool of numbers. Okay, I haven't even gotten to your operational definitions of happiness and success yet...this should become interesting. Edit: Those outcomes you list depend on the avoidance of a dire event like a piano falling on one's head. Mountains of data erase those experiences. Dude I feel pretty confident about my position. Future predictions are based on the obviation of crazy events by large portions of your sample. If some facets of your experiment were not stable then predictions would be rather slippery items. Second Edit: My overarching point is that nothing can be predicted with complete accuracy when dealing with a factor as complex and dynamic as intelligence, especially when one is concerned with thousands of people and other factors. That's all I have to say on it.

 

[Jelly Rev]

Edit: My overarching point is that nothing can be predicted with complete accuracy when dealing with a factor as complex and dynamic as intelligence, especially when one is concerned with thousands of people and other factors. That's all I have to say on it.

I agree with that part.

Nearly nothing can be predicted absolutely. Hence statistically significant effect and correlations

I would never argue absolutely that is silly but the underlying principle of the start of your argument would essentially destroy the predictive value of anything that attempts to predict anything. Of course freak events happen that why things like this are measured by correlations and statistical significance.

 

[Otherside]

There are almost no INTPs here.

I just got here, but after five minutes of reading posts I have to agree.

 

[BigApplePi]

You sound very intelligent.

I have an IQ of 82. Never finished high school. College is for smart people so I guess I will never be attending. I just sit on my ass all day drinking beer and occasionally going to work when the government gets on my ass about it. They stop giving me my money. Come to think of it, my current boss is an asshole. He can't quite understand I turn up when I feel like it. I am pestering my bitch for a bj but she is being stubborn. What a bitch...

You know the score.
How old were you when you started?
You are too smart for college.
No money ... why should you work?
Your boss? You're skilled at judging character.
You understand; they don't.
You know women.
You can sex dogs.

 

[Sali]

My IQ is 42.

 

[BigApplePi]

My IQ is 42.

There are many whose IQ's are lower and many whose are higher. Examples of lower are 27, 33, and 16. You should be able to outsmart those most of the time. Every once in a while they can getcha though.

 

[EnigmaticSoutherner]

This is all rather new to me.. having just (at age 49) discovered (I think) that I am (probably) an INTP .... but I once heard a reasonably bright person opine.... The architect who designed the prison for which he promised no one could escape is probably not as "smart" as the prisoner who escapes from said prison. Of course, that prisoner might well have spent most of his waking hours for 20 years figuring out how to escape. I think intelligence can be more accurately stated as, How well a person can figure shit out ?

 

[AureliaSeverina]

..... but somehow only got 47% on processing speed. That was approx. 2.5 standard deviations below all the other categories; one standard dev. below apparently qualifies you for a learning disability in that area, according to the guy who gave the test. I don't have the actual scores on hand to list the breakdown, though, this is just from memory.

......

Slow processing speed is typical for gifted and talented people, which you seem to be going by your IQ scores. It's because they take in so much information at the same time that their brain trips itself over.



I'm taking a Mensa test next month, just for the fun of it. I seem to have all the social spazzerisms and processing problems of a gifted person, so I'd like to know whether I have an IQ to match them. I'm only doing it for fun really, so I can understand myself better and know what my intellectual, social, physical etc needs are.
Having said that, a lot depends on what kind of test you take and as others have said, superior intelligence doesn't really help you that much in life.
(INTJ, by the way).

 

[BigApplePi]

There are different kinds of intelligences. I assume the I.Q. test shoots for an overall estimate ... as if there were such a thing.

This is all rather new to me.. having just (at age 49) discovered (I think) that I am (probably) an INTP .... but I once heard a reasonably bright person opine.... The architect who designed the prison for which he promised no one could escape is probably not as "smart" as the prisoner who escapes from said prison.

Perhaps the architect was pushed into saying that. His intelligence was put into building a solid prison. How many can do that?

Of course, that prisoner might well have spent most of his waking hours for 20 years figuring out how to escape. I think intelligence can be more accurately stated as, How well a person can figure shit out ?

The prisoner had to find a flaw in what was already built. He had to (heh heh) "think outside the box."

 

[Melllvar]

IQ scores are relevant, if a test is reliable and correlates with something, such as job performance, income, criminal activity then something has been measured. so stop with that nonsense.

Actually that's not true, and even if it was there's no saying it's "intelligence," necessarily. We can't even really define what that is. Based on that correlation it would be more accurate to say that it's a test of future income, job performance and criminal activity. Also the correlation doesn't imply measurement; height correlates with future income too, it doesn't mean height is a measurement of future income.

Aside from that, they claim this isn't true, but you can clearly study for them:

Ericsson laid the foundation for what’s known as Skilled Memory Theory, which explains how and why our memories can be improved, within limits. In 1978, he and a fellow psychologist named Bill Chase conducted what became a classic experiment on a Carnegie Mellon undergraduate student, who was immortalized as S.F. in the literature. Chase and Ericsson paid S.F. to spend several hours a week in their lab taking a simple memory test again and again. S.F. sat in a chair and tried to remember as many numbers as possible as they were read off at the rate of one per second. At the outset, he could hold only about seven digits at a time in his head. When the experiment wrapped up — two years and 250 mind-numbing hours later — S.F. had increased his ability to remember numbers by a factor of 10.

[Taken from: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/02/20/magazine/mind-secrets.html]

That's a digit span test, one of the standard parts of lots of IQ tests. 5 to 9, averaging 7, is the norm, and 12 is considered jaw-dropping. Just for 250 hours of practice he was able to get up to around 70? Six times as high as what is considered "the top"?

How is this a measure of innate intelligence if I can just practice for the test and tear everyone who was doing other stuff with their lives apart on it? Did I actually get smarter by practicing all those stupid games they'll give me on the test, and it'll carry over to everything else? Does my score being ridiculously high (not my actual score, but the hypothetical one after I practiced for it like the SAT) make me smarter than people who were studying <anything else> while I was working on mastering the test? Nah, those tests are just fun mind games, like sudoku or chess or Braid.

(@Jelly Rev)

 

[UseHerName]

Intellect is completely subjective, you can't really say for sure that we're smarter than everyone else because we only think of intellect based on how we understand it (some people think that intellect is the ability to solve day to day problems). Amount of knowledge varies on subject, so does so does ability to apply knowledge (think of the amount of knowledge of art that would be useless in mathematics).

 

[Meer]

I'm sorry for misleading you.

 

[BigApplePi]

Intellect is completely subjective, you can't really say for sure that we're smarter than everyone else because we only think of intellect based on how we understand it (some people think that intellect is the ability to solve day to day problems). Amount of knowledge varies on subject, so does so does ability to apply knowledge (think of the amount of knowledge of art that would be useless in mathematics).

I went out to a rare play yesterday. It was called, "The Agony and Ecstasy of Steve Jobs." The actor, Mike Daisey, did a one man show of great acting. He spoke (acted) for 1 1/2 straight hours and did a magnificant job.
http://mikedaisey.blogspot.com/p/bio.html

It was evident this guy was brilliant. But was he intelligent? As to the play he certainly was. Yet the guy must have weighed 300+ pounds ... waaaay overweight. Now how intelligent is that?

What is needed is a structural model for intelligence. Intelligence is like an organism. It can be very large, yet break at any time or any place.

 

[MsAnthropy_Indefatigably]

IQ is like Dress Size....
I have size 12 dresses in my closet that I fit into rather well. I also have some 14's and 16's that I wear without a problem. It just depends on the maker of that dress and where I am in my monthly cycle that determines what size will suit me best that day...
I've taken an online IQ test before. It said 136. But I'm sure depending on who wrote the test and whether I have had my coffee or maybe proper nutrition that day if I will score 120 or 140.

I also like that IQ scores are like dress sizes in that, usually, those with undesirable numbers tend to speak about "How Unimportant" the numbers are... lol

 

[BigApplePi]

Possibly this idea was mentioned already, but have any of you been bothered by this? I recently clicked on a link inviting me to what may have been an I.Q. test. It had a picture of five fruits, an orange, a tomato, a lemon I think, an apple and I forget the last one. Maybe I would have gotten it wrong but I thought everyone of those choices could have been interpreted as not belonging in some sense. Now if I was right and they were wrong, why would I want to take their lousy test?

 

[Pizzabeak]

People always think of me as intelligent, but I don't think I am. No idea who started the rumor of me being "intelligent" either..

 

[snafupants]

The basic problem I have with Gardner's theory of multiple intelligences is that a lot of the categories miss the memo that intelligence should apply to intellectual activity pretty much exclusively.

So linguistic and spatial intelligences are not entirely off base, and correlate to crystallized intelligence and visual processing respectively in CHC-Theory, but naturalistic and body-kinesthenic, what's that about?

Well, actually, linguistic intelligence might correlate more closely with scales of achievement versus aptitude, but there is a sharp overlap between those two when it comes to crystallized intelligence.

I'm not putting down Ron Artest or Bear Grylls per se, but Gardner's theory seems paradoxically hobbled from its inclusiveness.

The whole shebang seems like a nod towards the hip multiculturalism of the 80s and a lame way to include underperforming minorities. Eysenck was right to criticize this theory as hokum.

 

[Otherside]

151 and I haven't made a single penny because of it.

 

[BigApplePi]

151 and I haven't made a single penny because of it.

Somebody quick ... email this poster a check for $1.51.

 

[snafupants]

Somebody quick ... email this poster a check for $1.51.

If Otherside can authenticate that number within the hour, I will send payment via Paypal.

 

[Otherside]

If Otherside can authenticate that number within the hour, I will send payment via Paypal.

I only accept Green Dot MoneyPak. The number came from school records that came up in court when my Dad didn't want to help with my college education.

 

[snafupants]

I only accept Green Dot MoneyPak. The number came from school records that came up in court when my Dad didn't want to help with my college education.

I don't know what the fuck a green gem money pouch is but do you have any tangible proof? If yes, post it to the forum, and I'll send that scratch right over.

 

[Otherside]

I don't know what the fuck a green gem money pouch is but do you have any tangible proof? If yes, post it to the forum, and I'll send that scratch right over.

It really seems to bother you.

 

[snafupants]

It really seems to bother you.

I am profoundly transfixed on the veracity of your claim...proof?

 

[Otherside]

I am profoundly transfixed on the veracity of your claim...proof?

Sorry but I can't offer any. I doubt the attorney has the records from 1984, if he's even alive. I could solve a differential equation or something if that would help. Just don't give me the integral of [(exp)^(x)^2].

 

[snafupants]

Sorry but I can't offer any. I doubt the attorney has the records from 1984, if he's even alive. I could solve a differential equation or something if that would help. Just don't give me the integral of [(exp)^(x)^2].

Right, because that would, without threat of mismeasurement, precisely validate the score you listed above. There would also be no way for you to forge that information. Honestly, I'm beginning not to care...okay, congratulations, you have the same IQ as the Seinfeld character Elaine Benes. You're a bona fide badass, a real Einstein among mental pygmies.

 

[BigApplePi]

Sorry but I can't offer any. I doubt the attorney has the records from 1984, if he's even alive. I could solve a differential equation or something if that would help. Just don't give me the integral of [(exp)^(x)^2].

Gentlemen. Gentlemen. There is no need to argue. Let me take care of the problem snafu. I will vouch for Otherside. There comes a time when one must trust. I will vouch for him on the condition you vouch for me. If you are going to use paypal, Otherside will have to trust you.

 

[Otherside]

Right, because that would, without threat of mismeasurement, precisely validate the score you listed above. There would also be no way for you to forge that information. Honestly, I'm beginning not to care...okay, congratulations, you have the same IQ as the Seinfeld character Elaine Benes. You're a bona fide badass, a real Einstein among mental pygmies.

I never liked Seinfeld much, and I think Einstein's was more than that.

I'd like to see a link to a thread where I ever implied being superior to anyone. My post here was implying that it is indeed a worthless number.

 

[snafupants]

Gentlemen. Gentlemen. There is no need to argue. Let me take care of the problem snafu. I will vouch for Otherside. There comes a time when one must trust. I will vouch for him on the condition you vouch for me. If you are going to use paypal, Otherside will have to trust you.

Sure I'll vouch for you, sloppy voluptuous delicious gorgeous apple pie.

What would be the risk for the sendee with a Paypal transaction?

Apparently the chance of a score that high is one in approximately three thousand...I feel I have grounds for skepticism.

My chief aim is to arrive at the truth; my life will neither be diminished nor aggrandized by verification of someone else's (or my own) score.

IQ has somehow become like modern art in that it's pretentious to talk about directly or allude to too strongly. Where's my scarf?

 

[BigApplePi]

Sure I'll vouch for you, sloppy voluptuous delicious gorgeous apple pie.

Insults and flattery will get you nowhere ... unless it gets to me.

What would be the risk for the sendee with a Paypal transaction?

Give me a few days to collect the data. Then I will have to perform a calculation ... or maybe I will outsource that.

Apparently the chance of a score that high is one in approximately three thousand...I feel I have grounds for skepticism.

Not a problem. I scored exactly that once. So it's doable.

My chief aim is to arrive at the truth; my life will neither be diminished nor aggrandized by verification of someone else's (or my own) score.

The truth is you must forget the truth. You may never know. I can send you clues though.

 

[Melllvar]

Apparently the chance of a score that high is one in approximately three thousand...I feel I have grounds for skepticism.

Actually he could have taken the Cattell test, which uses a standard dev. of 24, so the 151 would correspond to an IQ of about 130 on most other tests (which have a standard dev. of 15). That'd be about 98th or 99th percentile, 1 out of every 50 or 100.

 

[Otherside]

Actually he could have taken the Cattell test, which uses a standard dev. of 24, so the 151 would correspond to an IQ of about 130 on most other tests (which have a standard dev. of 15). That'd be about 98th or 99th percentile, 1 out of every 50 or 100.

Could have been, I have no idea. it was on a computerized printout that the attorney handed me, asked me to verify what it said for the record, then he did the same with my ACT results.

It was one of the most uncomfortable moments in my life because I had a decent relationship with my dad, and I'll never forget the look on his face when I walked in with my mom. She won, but a child shouldn't have to go through that at any age.

 

[snafupants]

Could have been, I have no idea. it was on a computerized printout that the attorney handed me, asked me to verify what it said for the record, then he did the same with my ACT results.

It was one of the most uncomfortable moments in my life because I had a decent relationship with my dad, and I'll never forget the look on his face when I walked in with my mom. She won, but a child shouldn't have to go through that at any age.

That sucks; I did not intend to resurface that episode. Sorry man. Oh, with Einstein, I would (completely unscientifically) put him in the 180s. No sturdy grounds for that so feel free to dispute it however much you like. I think of Einstein as essentially the twentieth century Newton; I used his name flippantly before, for the most part.

And to Mellvar, although you are correct and s/he could have taken the Cattell, a group administered battery or some other obscure test, I find it unlikely. But by assuming I make an ass out of you and me and all that. The rub: you, of course, could be correct, but I find it an erratic and groundless supposition.

The most used if not the gold standard of aptitude tests in schools, hospitals and clinical practice, is and has been (at least since the 60s) the Wechsler line, with the Stanford-Binet running a close second. That's a simplification but it works quite well as a maxim. Both of the foregoing tests have historically relied on a fifteen or sixteen point standard deviation. There would be no reason to assume that this instance breaks the maxim, but I would probably be best not assuming...

This is a cool if dated chart that includes and compares many of the aptitude and achievement tests we have been discussing...enjoy!

http://www.assessmentpsychology.com/iq.htm