What is your IQ?

[ApostateAbe]

INTPs only answer the poll. It is an anonymous poll, so tell the truth. I have a suspicion that INTPs tend to have a high IQ, and I would like to put it to an unscientific test. If you don't know your approximate IQ, then you can play this forum's IQ test in the Arcade here:

http://intpforum.com//arcade.php?do=play&gameid=328.

 

[Minuend]

But does these results really indicate anything?

Apart from the vagueness of mbti, there is the fact that a lot of people are mistyped. In addiion, I think this forum attracts a certain kind of INTPs. Even scientific statistis may have unknown factors that skew the results. I just find this too inaccuurate with too many margins of error.

 

[Hadoblado]

Assuming we used your link, which SD do we report?

@Minuend
It's still interesting. So long as the limitations of the poll are accepted I see no reason not to partake.

 

[intpz]

But does these results really indicate anything?

Apart from the vagueness of mbti, there is the fact that a lot of people are mistyped. In addiion, I think this forum attracts a certain kind of INTPs. Even scientific statistis may have unknown factors that skew the results. I just find this too inaccuurate with too many margins of error.

Yea, I don't think this poll should be INTP-specific. Rather forum-specific.

 

[Hadoblado]

Why? He's looking for information pertaining to people who score INTP on the MBTI. Yes that data is limited to the people who score as INTP and frequent this forum and respond, but there is no reason to throw away the goal of the study just because of an imperfect data set.

If you want to measure INTPforum user IQ, then I'm sure there is already a thread for this. If not, feel free to start your own.

 

[intpz]

Why? He's looking for information pertaining to people who score INTP on the MBTI. Yes that data is limited to the people who score as INTP and frequent this forum and respond, but there is no reason to throw away the goal of the study just because of an imperfect data set.

If you want to measure INTPforum user IQ, then I'm sure there is already a thread for this. If not, feel free to start your own.

I don't believe many non-INTP people visit this forum though?

 

[Hadoblado]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

edit: sorry, I don't mean to be condescending. There are plenty of non-INTP's who know it, but find this forum interesting. Other than that, you should be critical of the assumption that everyone who thinks they are INTP are in fact INTP. It's an easy enough mistake to make.

 

[Minuend]

Sometimes when I write from my phone, odd emoticons appear in the reply. The "cool" one was not an accurate representation of my mood at that point

Well, a lot of people have tested INTP here to later discover that they were INFPs, ISTPs, ESTPs, ENFPs, ENTPs, INTJs etc.

I believe the majority of the active members are other types than INTPs. Also, I don't think I would be bold claiming they know very little about mbti, that include myself.

Why? He's looking for information pertaining to people who score INTP on the MBTI. Yes that data is limited to the people who score as INTP and frequent this forum and respond, but there is no reason to throw away the goal of the study just because of an imperfect data set.

When the foundation something is built on is weak, the building itself will easily crumble. It's like walking into the pregnancy department in a hospital and ask all the mothers if they like children and use that to measure how much women in general like children. It's completely biased and pretty much worthless.

I can't stand for such inaccuracy D:

 

[snafupants]

I understand that this poll is anonymous, but I'd like to volunteer some personal information. My IQ was tested at seventy four when I was twelve. Is that a good score? For some reason, receiving that score seemed to relax my mother at the time. She mentioned something about just avoiding special, which still doesn't make much sense: I am special. Mom jokes and makes funny voices sometimes, so it's hard to tell when she's getting all serious. That's what I said when I was twelve but I was crying back then. Right now I work at my dad's hardware store, and in a few years I hope to receive my GED. I'm optimistic about the future and I take Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior. Ice cream tastes real good and I managed to get a date at the community center last Monday and President Obama makes me feel happy. Yippee. I help distribute some kind of flyer for Obama every few years, my mom calls this fulfilling my cervical duty; when I told mom that was over my head, she laughed. Oh, when I got home from school last week I grabbed a can from the garage, to cool off, you know? Mommy said that cans which spray shouldn't go into your mouth, which I know now. I'm sure glad to be on an internet forms that understands me.

 

[Hadoblado]

Well, a lot of people have tested INTP here to later discover that they were INFPs, ISTPs, ESTPs, ENFPs, ENTPs, INTJs etc.

I believe the majority of the active members are other types than INTPs. Also, I don't think I would be bold claiming they know very little about mbti, that include myself.

When the foundation something is built on is weak, the building itself will easily crumble. It's like walking into the pregnancy department in a hospital and ask all the mothers if they like children and use that to measure how much women in general like children. It's completely biased and pretty much worthless.

I can't stand for such inaccuracy D:

If you're measuring the attitude of new mothers towards children, then this is a perfectly suitable sample. The OP did not claim a scientific approach; he had a hunch and went to lengths to begin preliminary testing.

Wouldn't a mean IQ of 100 be interesting to find?

Even if the data is not inferred beyond this forum, isn't it still interesting? I would love to know approximately how far from average the intelligence of the people I converse with is. You seem to assume results will be misinterpreted, which is not necessarily true.

 

[ApostateAbe]

I understand that this poll is anonymous, but I'd like to volunteer some personal information. My IQ was tested at seventy four when I was twelve. Is that a good score? For some reason, receiving that score seemed to relax my mother at the time. She mentioned something about just avoiding special, which still doesn't make much sense: I am special. Mom jokes and makes funny voices sometimes, so it's hard to tell when she's getting all serious. That's what I said when I was twelve but I was crying back then. Right now I work at my dad's hardware store, and in a few years I hope to receive my GED. I'm optimistic about the future and I take Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior. Ice cream tastes real good and I managed to get a date at the community center last Monday and President Obama makes me feel happy. Yippee. I help distribute some kind of flyer for Obama every few years, my mom calls this fulfilling my cervical duty; when I told mom that was over my head, she laughed. Oh, when I got home from school last week I grabbed a can from the garage, to cool off, you know? Mommy said that cans which spray shouldn't go into your mouth, which I know now. I'm sure glad to be on an internet forms that understands me.

That is a genius awesome troll piece. A gem.

 

[Minuend]

If you're measuring the attitude of new mothers towards children, then this is a perfectly suitable sample. The OP did not claim a scientific approach; he had a hunch and went to lengths to begin preliminary testing.

Like I said, it wasn't, it was to discover something about all women.

Same with trying to figure out how frequent a species of bird is in the entire country by measuring a small area. Obviously gulls wont be as frequent in forests, so if we measure there...

What we are seeing here are people who
1. think they are INTP
2. have taken a IQ test, some might even post their IQ from a random unreliable test on the internet or generally how high they think it is. Regardless, I would think those who see themselves clever are more prone to actually volunteer for a RL test to get their self worth "objectively proven".
3. Happened to stick around here after registering --> be interested in foruming, or even just like it here, which all INTPs wont.

Wouldn't a mean IQ of 100 be interesting to find?

Even if the data is not inferred beyond this forum, isn't it still interesting? I would love to know approximately how far from average the intelligence of the people I converse with is. You seem to assume results will be misinterpreted, which is not necessarily true.

It doesn't matter what we find because the foundation is too weak to have any significance.

I don't know what you mean by "misinterpreting the results". But I don't even think that "far", because the beginning of the experiment starts off wrong.

As a side note, why is it interesting to know what the intelligence of the people you converse with is?

 

[Hadoblado]

I know what you meant the example to be for, I was using your example as a prototype for my own. Your example relies on the researcher using a biased sample to generalise to a greater population, mine was a researcher using the same population to answer a question more appropriate to the sample. What we would be sampling here is people who:
- believe themselves to be INTP
- use the INTP forum
- respond to the poll question
These all present potential confounding biases, but if we understand these limitations and adjust our interpretations to them, I really don't see how this is a problem. The hypothesis is falsifiable; the OP could walk away with results indicating no such pattern of IQ exists. I guess what I'm trying to understand is, why be critical of results before we have them? The OP implied they would be conservative in their interpretation of results by admitting from the get-go that the approach was unscientific.

I do think a gigantic confound exists in we still don't have a 'standard' standard deviation to go by. As you say, people might just report random IQ tests of the net, or even different SDs from the one provided.

By 'misinterpreting the results' I was speaking of over-estimating the generalisability of the results of this poll to the INTP population at large. That would premature at best.

It is interesting to know the IQ of people I talk to because intelligence is interesting. I would like to know the size of the discrepancy between how intelligent I perceive someone to be, and their IQ score. I generally surround myself with people I deem intelligent, not as a selection criteria but as a perceived pattern of my behaviour. I am currently in furious debate with several people about the value of IQ, intelligence, personality, and the MBTI in particular. This sort of thread doesn't only give questionable poll results either, it is a source of discussion on a general topic I find fascinating.

 

[snafupants]

That is a genius awesome troll piece. A gem.

That was some rather inspired, stream of consciousness scribbling. I cast my troll trawls wide. There's some information, however, which I carelessly omitted - I will be asteroids champion soon!

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

my iq is over 90

 

[intpz]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

edit: sorry, I don't mean to be condescending. There are plenty of non-INTP's who know it, but find this forum interesting. Other than that, you should be critical of the assumption that everyone who thinks they are INTP are in fact INTP. It's an easy enough mistake to make.

And yet, if one thinks that he's an INTP, he will vote in a poll which says "vote if you are an INTP."

 

[Hadoblado]

Should we ask for proof?

 

[MissQuote]

@snafupants you butthead, I was halfway through that before I realsied what you were doing. I'm not sure what this says about my iq, if anything. It might just say that I have been up since five in the morning.

Until further evidence presents itself, which I have given up searching for at the moment, I have resigned myself to the idea that I am an INTP. I do not, however, know my IQ. If I were to give an uneducated guess, I would say something along the same lines as Peggy Hill, 170ish- by my own estimations.

Is there any poll asking the members here their type? Should we make one of those? To get a general idea of the member distribution.

 

[snafupants]

@snafupants you butthead, I was halfway through that before I realsied what you were doing. I'm not sure what this says about my iq, if anything. It might just say that I have been up since five in the morning.

Until further evidence presents itself, which I have given up searching for at the moment, I have resigned myself to the idea that I am an INTP. I do not, however, know my IQ. If I were to give an uneducated guess, I would say something along the same lines as Peggy Hill, 170ish- by my own estimations.

Is there any poll asking the members here their type? Should we make one of those? To get a general idea of the member distribution.

Too funny. Anyway, I will set up an anonymous poll right now to get a census on type.

 

[Agent Intellect]

I've only ever taken internet IQ tests and the results are all over the place. The lowest I think was 118 and the highest I think was 157 (most of them with a standard deviation around 15). Personally, I'd probably rate myself lower (maybe 100-110ish).

I think differentiating types of intelligence is more interesting and more valid than generalized intelligence. Getting a general intelligence score is like using the average temperature of the earth to measure climate change: it doesn't tell you anything about what's going on in specific areas.

For instance, my spacial intelligence is great (helped me a lot in Organic Chemistry) but I'm terrible at things like word jumbles (which show up on some internet IQ tests).

 

[noksve]

The test said I was smart! That makes me happy! Woooo!

 

[ApostateAbe]

I've only ever taken internet IQ tests and the results are all over the place. The lowest I think was 118 and the highest I think was 157 (most of them with a standard deviation around 15). Personally, I'd probably rate myself lower (maybe 100-110ish).

I think differentiating types of intelligence is more interesting and more valid than generalized intelligence. Getting a general intelligence score is like using the average temperature of the earth to measure climate change: it doesn't tell you anything about what's going on in specific areas.

For instance, my spacial intelligence is great (helped me a lot in Organic Chemistry) but I'm terrible at things like word jumbles (which show up on some internet IQ tests).

Don't sell yourself short. Assign yourself the highest score you get and stick with it. You have 157 IQ. Even if you don't, say you do. I have taken about three online tests, and they each give me roughly the same score. Get in touch with a local Mensa group and take the test, or maybe just the online Mensa practice test ($18). If you pass, you know you have an IQ of at least 130.

 

[MissQuote]

^If we are going by that standard my IQ is 154.

But I have scored under 120 and a bunch of scores in between too.

 

[MissQuote]

I've skewed the results now even worse by casting my vote based on that advice, though it is likely 20 points lower.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

Damn, now I'm stuck with this arcade title.

 

[Hadoblado]

I've only ever taken internet IQ tests and the results are all over the place. The lowest I think was 118 and the highest I think was 157 (most of them with a standard deviation around 15). Personally, I'd probably rate myself lower (maybe 100-110ish).

WTF? Why would you take multiple tests only to dismiss all of the results and go with something that not one of them indicated. You have just as much reason to think you're 100-110ish than to think you're 167-177ish.

Okay so that's only if you give any weight to the test... but if you didn't why would you even express your intelligence in terms of IQ?

 

[EyeSeeCold]

WTF? Why would you take multiple tests only to dismiss all of the results and go with something that not one of them indicated. You have just as much reason to think you're 100-110ish than to think you're 167-177ish.

Yea I take issue with this also, and with tests in general for similar reasons. Theoretical ability and maximum potential / capacity are useless concepts when in reality you have so many factors affecting test performance.

 

[snafupants]

I've only ever taken internet IQ tests and the results are all over the place. The lowest I think was 118 and the highest I think was 157 (most of them with a standard deviation around 15). Personally, I'd probably rate myself lower (maybe 100-110ish).

I think differentiating types of intelligence is more interesting and more valid than generalized intelligence. Getting a general intelligence score is like using the average temperature of the earth to measure climate change: it doesn't tell you anything about what's going on in specific areas.

For instance, my spacial intelligence is great (helped me a lot in Organic Chemistry) but I'm terrible at things like word jumbles (which show up on some internet IQ tests).

Most psychological reports feature an overarching composite score, index scores, subtest scores, discrepancy analysis, and confidence intervals.

 

[Minuend]

That is a genius awesome troll piece. A gem.

Actually, I have a difficult time understanding what he is trying to say. I tried finding out how that was offensive, my first thought would be that he indirectly calls all the forum member retards, but that doesn't make sense according to his strong beliefs in IQ and IQ tests. Since he believes those are more or less absolutes, then a forum of people scoring 130+ can't be retards ¯\(ツ)/¯

 

[Agent Intellect]

WTF? Why would you take multiple tests only to dismiss all of the results and go with something that not one of them indicated. You have just as much reason to think you're 100-110ish than to think you're 167-177ish.

Okay so that's only if you give any weight to the test... but if you didn't why would you even express your intelligence in terms of IQ?

I was trying to say that I think my intelligence is pretty much average or maybe just a touch above average. Then I appear to go on and disregard the way that intelligence is quantified as well as the use of generalized intelligence, negating my first statement, only further proving my point that I'm not all that intelligent.

 

[Hadoblado]

@AI
ewww...

I derped pretty hard in that post with a gargantuan base-rate fallacy. You had to go quote it didn't you??

Stop me if I'm wrong but...
I think you might be struggling with the same issue I have, in that you see nothing particularly intelligent about your thoughts so you infer that you're not particularly intelligent. I think perhaps I am not objectively intelligent (there is no such thing), but when compared to the general population I am substantially above average. This subjective intelligence may be a product of everyone else being stupid in general, but intelligence is not a term that can exist in a vacuum.
When I compare myself to people on this forum I do not consider myself at all intelligent, when trawling through life however, I can walk into any random room of thirty or so people and probability dictates I'll have the highest IQ there.
In a better world I'd be average or even low intelligence, instead I'm stuck with (relatively) high.

 

[Oblivious]

I am dismayed at the lack of an OVER NINE THOUSAAAAAAAAAAND!! option

 

[snafupants]

I am dismayed at the lack of an OVER NINE THOUSAAAAAAAAAAND!! option

Thanks for looking out for ol' snafu, but I can handle myself.

 

[ApostateAbe]

Who are those two people who voted 69 or below? Darn anonymity.

 

[Pizzabeak]

But does these results really indicate anything?

In addiion, I think this forum attracts a certain kind of INTPs. Even scientific statistis may have unknown factors that skew the results. I just find this too inaccuurate with too many margins of error.

 

[snafupants]

Who are those two people who voted 69 or below? Darn anonymity.

What would you do if that anonymity were removed?

 

[ApostateAbe]

What would you do if that anonymity were removed?

I would discover who is corrupting the poll results with lies, and I would call them names!

 

[Hadoblado]

If it's not an option you will accept then you should not have put it on the poll.

 

[snafupants]

If it's not an option you will accept then you should not have put it on the poll.

That's a canny point, but then again, let's pretend that everyone audaciously selected that option.

 

[ApostateAbe]

If it's not an option you will accept then you should not have put it on the poll.

No, I can make it an option even if I won't accept it, and in fact it is better this way. The results show a beautiful bell curve except for two absurdly-low values. I know with high confidence that those two voters are liars. Had it not been an option, I would have no idea who lied. It is roughly the same principle used by the census administrators in Australia years ago when they surveyed people on their religion and they listed "Jedi" as an option. Nobody was actually a Jedi adherent at the time, but they could isolate those people who don't take the poll seriously.

 

[Hadoblado]

hurhur I just realised someone answered "I am not an INTP and should not be answering this poll" on the poll. Now that Snafu, is audacity.

 

[Hadoblado]

Only if a normal distribution is assumed. There may be some explanation why only people who are above average, and morons (I'm sorry but you are) answer the poll. The problem is that your 'jedi' option is actually a possibility (tho I'm not sure exactly how said morons found their way onto the site in the first place). While I'm pretty certain that dismissing them will give you more accurate data, how do you defend yourself against claims that you are acting in accordance with a confirmation bias?

 

[ApostateAbe]

Only if a normal distribution is assumed. There may be some explanation why only people who are above average, and morons (I'm sorry but you are) answer the poll. The problem is that your 'jedi' option is actually a possibility (tho I'm not sure exactly how said morons found their way onto the site in the first place). While I'm pretty certain that dismissing them will give you more accurate data, how do you defend yourself against claims that you are acting in accordance with a confirmation bias?

It is a statistically-acceptable technique of data modelling. You toss out the extreme outliers as inaccurate measurements (blunders).

 

[snafupants]

Only if a normal distribution is assumed. There may be some explanation why only people who are above average, and morons (I'm sorry but you are) answer the poll. The problem is that your 'jedi' option is actually a possibility (tho I'm not sure exactly how said morons found their way onto the site in the first place). While I'm pretty certain that dismissing them will give you more accurate data, how do you defend yourself against claims that you are acting in accordance with a confirmation bias?

The Gaussian curve for the forum's distribution is perhaps skewed twenty points rightward. The notion of normal distribution is moot, anyway, beyond three standard deviations from the norm. There are more people than predicted from the traditional bell curve's psychometrics at both poles, high and low.

 

[snafupants]

It is a statistically-acceptable technique of data modelling. You toss out the extreme outliers as inaccurate measurements (blunders).

That is indeed common practice, but such a procedure would need to be stipulated in the journal article, psychological report, data analysis, or whatever. You wouldn't need to state both means and standard deviations, but you would need to state that you threw X number out, and perhaps give some kind of rationale. Forwarding both ranges wouldn't be entirely inappropriate.

 

[ApostateAbe]

That is indeed common practice, but such a procedure would need to be stipulated in the journal article, psychological report, data analysis, or whatever. You wouldn't need to state both means and standard deviations, but you would need to state that you threw X number out, and perhaps give some kind of rationale. Forwarding both ranges wouldn't be entirely inappropriate.

OK, I will more-fully develop the justification for this decision in my upcoming article for Psychometrika.

 

[snafupants]

OK, I will more-fully develop the justification for this decision in my upcoming article for Psychometrika.

That was perhaps too much information.

 

[ApostateAbe]

That was perhaps too much information.

There is nothing to be nervous about. A lot of psychologists will take a magnifying glass to everything you posted in this thread, that's all.

 

[nexion]

Usually I score 135-145 on online tests, but the one in this forum gave me 129, so I put down 130-139.

Personally I don't care anything for IQ or normal distribution or whatever, I'm just giving ApostateAbe information which he requested.

 

[Antediluvian]

I was estimated by someone with a deep knowledge of psychology (and the gifted in particular) to be in the highly gifted range, which to my understanding is 145-159, although supposedly that could be as low as mid-130s. However, I scored in the normal range, and this same person claimed that severe mental illness makes testing intelligence accurately near-impossible. Even if I were in the range that was previously suggested, I feel the genetic imprint of mental illness makes it extremely difficult to harness whatever intelligence I do have. I feel like I've improved the last several months, from a mental health perspective, but I know there are lingering deficits.

Regardless of all that, I feel I pale in comparison to my sister, who seems to have a gleaming coat of intelligence, without a spec of dust or flaw. I've read that from an evolutionary perspective the same suite of genes responsible for intelligence may make one susceptible to psychosis, that is to say that one may be lucky and develop intelligence instead of madness, while a relative may be the unfortunate one. I don't know, many days I seem to be the latter.