My IQ Test scores Ranked by State.

[Black Rose]

I used to think that I had a high score on the SAT.
But the test I took may have only been a local State thing.

I think that my scores on the New Mexico tests,
only work within New Mexico.
My New Mexico score of 1471 would
place me above 99.782 percent of students in New Mexico.
Which is an IQ of 142.
But since New Mexico is Ranked 48th in the country that means New Mexican Students are in the 6th percentile (IQ 77).
77 is the average adjusted SAT-IQ score of NM by that measure.
The diviation then becomes 11.55
So 42/15 = 2.8 and 11.55(2.8) + 77 = 109.34
109 = 72 percentil in IQ.
SAT-IQ of 109 would be Rank 14th by state, which is Rhode Island.
My 1471 New Mexico test scores would be adjusted to 1010 on the SAT.

 

[QuickTwist]

Something feels off about this. Someone is feeding you bullshit AK.

A person with an IQ of 90 can barely follow written directions. An IQ of 70 is retarded.

 

[Shadowlands97]

For the score you just add the reading, math and writing right? Do you add the multiple choice and the essay too? My score's either 1570 or 1627 with the MC and essay. But this was back in 2011.

 

[Black Rose]

Something feels off about this. Someone is feeding you bullshit AK.

A person with an IQ of 90 can barely follow written directions. An IQ of 70 is retarded.

570 on the SAT is an IQ of 77

Look at the chart

https://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/SATIQ.aspx

 

[Black Rose]

For the score you just add the reading, math and writing right? Do you add the multiple choice and the essay too? My score's either 1570 or 1627 with the MC and essay. But this was back in 2011.

I think for the IQ estimate you just use the reading and math.
You could not have gotten 1627 because the max score is 1600.
The test I took was probably just local New Mexico with similar scaling to the SAT.

 

[Black Rose]

I was told that my math was wrong and that what I took was probably a scholastics test not limited to NM. I have no idea what test I took because I cannot find anything on the internet on tests with the same scale as the SAT (which is 1600). I was told the test I took would not have been as predictive of IQ as the SAT would be. Does anyone know of a scholastics test with a scale of 1600?

 

[TheManBeyond]

can i ask why are you so obssesed about your IQ?
how does it changes anything?

 

[Black Rose]

can i ask why are you so obssesed about your IQ?
how does it changes anything?

From what I have researched. The discrepancies in my index's means I have a learning disability. My whole life I could not figure out if I was smart or if I was stupid. This made me sad and have low self-esteem. I am just trying to figure things out.

 

[TheManBeyond]

well i'm not sure what are your interests but don't feel bad if you cannot code an A.I. that's fucking hard, not everyone is meant for those kind of things.

 

[QuickTwist]

I think I am finally going to get the results of the neuropsychological test I did when I was in the hospital in 2007 when I was under heavy psychosis.

I talked to my therapist about it and he said I could fill out a release of information to get the results sent to him.

My score is prolly going to suck like really badly because I was so psychotic, but at least I will know.

My therapist said that if I wanted to take the WAIS I would have to go through my psychiatrist because he can't order it because he is not a PhD, but he encouraged me to bring it up to her. If all goes well, I will prolly be taking the WAIS, but IDK what my psychiatrist is going to think.

 

[computerhxr]

From what I have researched. The discrepancies in my index's means I have a learning disability. My whole life I could not figure out if I was smart or if I was stupid. This made me sad and have low self-esteem. I am just trying to figure things out.

I struggle with the same issue. Having a learning disability is to challenge you to figure things out from a different perspective. It's a good thing, so don't worry about it.

You're smart, just in a way that most other people aren't going to understand. They can't give you any feedback because they don't understand what you're talking about.

Besides, EVERYONE has learning disabilities. If not, we'd all be awesome at everything and there would be no deviation to differentiate and IQ wouldn't be a thing.

Think of it this way... If you were blind, then your hearing and other senses would compensate for the disability. IQ tests are like measuring your ability to see when you're blind. It doesn't make a lot of sense but close your eyes and hold something in your hands and tell me that touch isn't a simply an alternate form of vision?

Self-esteem is meta-reflective. Use your programming abilities to adjust your own AI. Release yourself from negative thoughts that cause you friction. Why waste your processing power on counterproductive procedures?

 

[QuickTwist]

I struggle with the same issue. Having a learning disability is to challenge you to figure things out from a different perspective. It's a good thing, so don't worry about it.

You're smart, just in a way that most other people aren't going to understand. They can't give you any feedback because they don't understand what you're talking about.

Besides, EVERYONE has learning disabilities. If not, we'd all be awesome at everything and there would be no deviation to differentiate and IQ wouldn't be a thing.

Think of it this way... If you were blind, then your hearing and other senses would compensate for the disability. IQ tests are like measuring your ability to see when you're blind. It doesn't make a lot of sense but close your eyes and hold something in your hands and tell me that touch isn't a simply an alternate form of vision?

Self-esteem is meta-reflective. Use your programming abilities to adjust your own AI. Release yourself from negative thoughts that cause you friction. Why waste your processing power on counterproductive procedures?

Wow.. Haven't seen you around in a while. How's it going?

 

[gps]

A person with an IQ of 90 can barely follow written directions.
An IQ of 70 is retarded.

90 on a normalized-vis-a-vis-100-mean ... regardless of statistical sample?

It seems you may have overlooked that the whole scam is sample-relative.
If 100 kids who aced the SAT were used as a statistical sample the statistical mean would be calculated to become a datum, a reference point.
Some of those having aced the SAT would find themselves assigned the 90.
score of 90 as per a reticle-based line on a normal distribution overlay.
What one ends up noticing is the reticle one's overlay grid imposed.

If 100 village idiots were used as a statistical sample a mean could be calculated and used as the base line of 100 ... with the same mental masturbation to follow.

An IQ score of 90 totally depends on the sample of testees AND statistics to generate the statistical artifacts which IQ's True Believers (mis)use to hoodwink themselves and others.

The `90' score may be or SEEM standardized -- and it is as an overlay -- and it may even map onto one sigma limit below mean the way 110 maps onto one sigma limit above ... BUT it reveals NOTHING about an individual unto him- or herself.
The would-be `meaning' arises as statistical artifact from an n-way comparison of n individuals in a sample population.

 

[computerhxr]

Wow.. Haven't seen you around in a while. How's it going?

Things are going well I guess. I don't have anything going on right now and it's driving me nuts... The past few years have been brutal but I learned a lot and I'm grateful for the experience.

Now I'm just going back and following my interests again. Plus, I'm working on building some technology and I need to steal some ideas from AnimeKitty to create.

 

[Black Rose]

90 on a normalized-vis-a-vis-100-mean ... regardless of statistical sample?

It seems you may have overlooked that the whole scam is sample-relative.
If 100 kids who aced the SAT were used as a statistical sample the statistical mean would be calculated to become a datum, a reference point.
Some of those having aced the SAT would find themselves assigned the 90.
score of 90 as per a reticle-based line on a normal distribution overlay.
What one ends up noticing is the reticle one's overlay grid imposed.

If 100 village idiots were used as a statistical sample a mean could be calculated and used as the base line of 100 ... with the same mental masturbation to follow.

An IQ score of 90 totally depends on the sample of testees AND statistics to generate the statistical artifacts which IQ's True Believers (mis)use to hoodwink themselves and others.

The `90' score may be or SEEM standardized -- and it is as an overlay -- and it may even map onto one sigma limit below mean the way 110 maps onto one sigma limit above ... BUT it reveals NOTHING about an individual unto him- or herself.
The would-be `meaning' arises as statistical artifact from an n-way comparison of n individuals in a sample population.

The WAIS 4 was normed on an adult sample size of 2,000 people in the state of Iowa.

IQ tests measure convergent thinking. They do not measure divergent thinking. To find the answer you must look for patterns leading to a definite conclusion. Divergent thinking is creating your own patterns. In effect, IQ tests do not measure creativity.

In the sample of people norming the subtest, they look for how many people can answer a given question. Because IQ is convergent and the distribution is a bell curve. Then statistical an IQ of 130 means that 45 of the 2,000 could answer more questions than the 2,000 people. IQ 130 means 1 in 44 got the most questions right. IQ 115 got more questions right than 85 percent of the 2,000 people as in 1 in 6. Half of the people got scores above 100. Bellow 100 less and less participants got lower scores. 1 in 44 people got an IQ of 70. and 1 in 6 got a score below 85. Rarity is symmetrical on both sides of the curve. The curve represents the number of convergent answers a person got right.

The reason there is a limit for the WAIS 4 is that a person at 145 has answered all convergent questions correctly. Only 2 out of 2,000 people can get all the questions correct. IQ is based on the number of answers you get correct. The items were scaled for difficulty by the number of people that could answer them. They gave sample tests and they deemed the easy questions as the ones that most could solve. And they categorized the difficult questions by the smaller and smaller number of people that could solve them. The people who answered the more difficult question correctly answered more questions in total and got higher scores.

(The SAT is not considered an Equivalent to IQ, The SAT correlates 0.4 with the Ravens progressive matrices)