Looking for a valid IQ test.

[nevermindtime]

Anyone know where on the net I can find a valid and free IQ test?

 

[Melkor]

Sorry....wait....what?


You want an IQ test.....that...is...valid?


Uhm...

Well..

When you have enough intellect to fill a tea-spoon (as you do sweetheart), then there pretty much is no such thing as a 'valid' test for 'IQ'...

It's like testing mars for life...

or trying to find hay in a needlestack...

 

[nickgray]

When you have enough intellect to fill a tea-spoon (as you do sweetheart), then there pretty much is no such thing as a 'valid' test for 'IQ'...

Indeed. Another point is that there is no "definitive" IQ test. There are many different ones with different scoring system and you can get 100 on one and 150 on other. Besides, there is little proof that any kind of an IQ test actually means something - the numbers 120 or 160 do not signify anything besides the score you've achieved.

Imo, the IQ only shows something when you look at a very large amount of people, but when you look individually - no, it hardly tells you anything.

 

[Melkor]

An IQ test shows you how good you are at IQ tests, and I am very good at IQ tests.

 

[dopigsfly123]

An IQ test shows you how good you are at IQ tests, and I am very good at IQ tests.

I think that's actually a ligitimate psychological principle, though I can't remember what its called. IQ is essentially whatever phenomenon it is that IQ tests measure.

Still, I think it's somewhat shortsighted to dismiss IQ tests categorically. Yes, they don't necessarily mean something in all cases, but I generally subscribe to the belief that there is some type of correlation between IQ test results and whatever "intelligence" really is.

Look at the SAT. Kids are repeatedly told by test prep instructors that the SAT is merely a test of how good you are at the SAT. And yet, for the most part, there is a correlation between SAT scores and academic success at the university level. Like IQ tests, it's not the best of all possible standards; but a correlation is there.

Although I don't believe it gives you an "IQ" style result, I would advise visiting the MENSA website. They have an interesting (I.E. Challenging) practice test that might help provide you with whatever sort of assessment you're looking for. Just don't let your results limit what you believe you can do.

 

[Arcticz_Hawk]

Online tests are not as reliable as the take homes. You could find a book at Barnes and Noble and such.

IQ test show how will you do on the test compared to your peers, not a indicator of your entire intelligence.

I'm not sure how much I test the test though. I took a "legitimate" test for my school. I got 100 on the language section, and 160 on the logic / math: I'm guessing thats purty inaccurate.

 

[Decaf]

Gotta go with Melkor on this one. A valid IQ test assumes that the concept of an IQ is valid.

The comparison to the SATs is important though, because like many things in applied science, validity is sometimes outweighed by usefulness. Schools need the SAT because there isn't any other way of distinguishing what schools are producing the most college ready students.

As it happens, those who enjoy academia are also often those who are good at tests. To the extent of perpetuating the academic system, that's a useful set up, but it does not in any way reflect on the actual abilities of the test takers. Although there may be an exception. Students who may not be brilliant, but have excellent study habits also tend to do well on the SAT, and at college for the same reason.

IQ tests were designed to separate the good test takers from the good studiers, giving the higher score to the former. It legitimizes academic preferences, but it does not indicate real intelligence.

The fundamental argument between those two groups is that one thinks the other is basically memorizing material rather than understanding it. What they often don't recognize is that they're doing the same thing, except they're memorizing systems instead of information. You see three squares with a changing pattern and an empty fourth square. Your job is to figure out what goes in the fourth square. The first and most reliable thing you do is compare it to previous systems you've seen before. That gives us a tremendous boost over the studiers because they think in terms of information first. Then you take a test that requires you to know the date of the Boston Tea Party and complain that it requires a useless degree of information management.

Welcome to the Intuitive vs. Sensor debate.

 

[Arcticz_Hawk]

Wat Decaf said. ^^^

 

[snafupants]

Come on, IQ tests have some utility. There is a pretty steep correlation between IQ - granted the IQ score is less than 125 - and annual income. Over that number, it bez a crapshoot.

And these conspiracy theorists are full of crap. It was designed by Binet to target slow children for special classes.

 

[JoeJoe]

An IQ test shows you how good you are at IQ tests, and I am very good at IQ tests.

 

[Anthile]

An IQ test shows you how good you are at IQ tests, and I am very good at IQ tests.

That's the most important sentence in this thread.

The problem is, intelligence is an abstract concept and thus can only be vaguely defined.
Imagine I want to measure agility. Now we all have a vague mental image of what agility is and we all can say that some people are more agile than others. The problem appears when you try to quantify an abstract concept and you try to physicalize it. One agile is is better than two agiles? How much better is two agiles than only one agile? And what about ten or onehundred agiles?
Then there is the testing method. Every test can only measure in the context of its conditions. Every test can only measure what you put in. Every test can only measure how good you are at doing that specific test.
To come back to my agility. Now I need a test for my agiles and we I'll do it like someone would measure intelligence. If I would ask someone if solving logic puzzles is a sign of intelligence, they'd probably say yes. If I would ask if evading a car is a sign of agility, they'd probably say yes. So let's just do that. I'll try to ram people with a car - under academic conditions of course. I'll measure reaction time, how far they jumped, etc. Now athlethes would all be better than average people but you see it's quite obvious that a tennis player posesses a different kind of agility than, say, a circus acrobat or a boxer, no? What would be the difference? I wouldn't know.
In the end, the only thing I'd know is how good people are at evading cars.

 

[Jah]

Mensa ?

 

[snafupants]

At some point the SAT was mentioned in the context of juxtaposing hard studiers (wonks) from people with plain high IQs. In my opinion, both groups have an equal chance of succeeding at an IVY league school. The former because he is going to bust his tail and the latter because he does not have to work hard to achieve As. Does the university really care which category one comprises? Not really, because you represent the school well either way. A prime motivation for the admissions committee is not looking like idiots.

 

[Johnny78901]

try this one full free and professional www.iquotient.net