=( I'm really sad...

[Kou Kinkaide]

I have 107 IQ..

http://www.highiqsociety.org/iq_tests/

I TOOK A REAL IQ TEST.

[solarflere]

Like my Scocialogy Professor said, there are no IQ tests that can measure a person's real intelligence accurately. They will always be bios and be partial to one person more than the other. Therefore, there are no real IQ tests.

[Clayface]

Like my Scocialogy Professor said, there are no IQ tests that can measure a person's real intelligence accurately. They will always be bios and be partial to one person more than the other. Therefore, there are no real IQ tests.

Heh - spoken like someone that didn't do well on an IQ test sometime in his life..... ;)

[solarflere]

Heh - spoken like someone that didn't do well on an IQ test sometime in his life..... ;)Actualy I never took them. And what I said before is true, not some way to excuse a poor performance or something.

[Clayface]

Actualy I never took them.

I was referring to your professor, not you.

[solarflere]

I was referring to your professor, not you.lol, you could have made that a bit more clear, but I still stand by what she said to be true. She is a social scientist, Ph.D so I don't think her intelligence is low by any standards.

[Clayface]

lol, you could have made that a bit more clear,

It's a she? Heh. Oops - no wonder there was such confusion. Sorry about that. Should have worded it differently.

but I still stand by what she said to be true. She is a social scientist, Ph.D so I don't think her intelligence is low by any standards.

Well, book smarts and IQ aren't synonomous. An Intelligence Quotient doesn't test the amount of knowledge one has, but rather indicates a person's mental abilities relative to others of approximately the same age. One can have plenty of knowledge in his/her head and still not have very good reasoning/mental abilities, and vice versa.

[sun]

What is is???Not what one scores on intelligence test..
...They are often biased for reading skilles. Some aren't.
....but if one can't read that well, he/she may not do that well..
...Is that a view of intelligence? Nope..only for acedemic types who want to pidgenhole people into groups...Sometimes that is ok, sometime it is very bad.
...I know two people who would score very poorly on such tests.
...But their ability to adap, survive and grow, and exist within their limited reading abilities, are exceptional..way above average, If a non reading test were given..My guess is they would both be 140 or above..
...but that is not the tests they took..
...One fellow is 26, can read on the 4th grade at best...Yet he is a master mechanic..cannot even read the parts, but knows the numbers of the parts..
..So he can fix anything, and recently got body shop training..now he can fix repair car body damage too...Forget the reading and writing..He is the manager and trainer of at a high end body shop...$75,000 a year..
..The other started to learn to read at 60...increased his score to 7-8th grade in three years..before that, he was at second grade..
....Had 30 years on a job as an assistant engineer....Learned the ropes for laying sewer piplines without reading skills, just drafting skills..raised a family, two kids, and both graduated from college with honors...REading has nothing to do with intelligence..Some so called smart people have "PHds" are really stupid..forget the number..It matters not. Be the best you can be...that is what matters.......................................Stuart

[Clayface]

What is is???Not what one scores on intelligence test..
...They are often biased for reading skilles. Some aren't.
....but if one can't read that well, he/she may not do that well..
...Is that a view of intelligence? Nope..only for acedemic types who want to pidgenhole people into groups...Sometimes that is ok, sometime it is very bad.
...I know two people who would score very poorly on such tests.
...But their ability to adap, survive and grow, and exist within their limited reading abilities, are exceptional..way above average, If a non reading test were given..My guess is they would both be 140 or above..
...but that is not the tests they took..
...One fellow is 26, can read on the 4th grade at best...Yet he is a master mechanic..cannot even read the parts, but knows the numbers of the parts..
..So he can fix anything, and recently got body shop training..now he can fix repair car body damage too...Forget the reading and writing..He is the manager and trainer of at a high end body shop...$75,000 a year..
..The other started to learn to read at 60...increased his score to 7-8th grade in three years..before that, he was at second grade..
....Had 30 years on a job as an assistant engineer....Learned the ropes for laying sewer piplines without reading skills, just drafting skills..raised a family, two kids, and both graduated from college with honors...REading has nothing to do with intelligence..Some so called smart people have "PHds" are really stupid..forget the number..It matters not. Be the best you can be...that is what matters.......................................Stuart


I don't actually have strong feelings one way or another about IQ tests, but I'm going to continue to play devil's advocate here a bit. I've got a few things to say in response to this line of argument.

First, reading skills are technically a mental ability, and testing mental abilities is what IQ tests are all about. So not being able to read or read well should indeed be included as a factor in determining an "IQ".

Second, recall the definition: "an Intelligence Quotient indicates a person's mental abilities relative to others of approximately the same age." If the person can't read as well as someone of his or her own age, then, by the definition of "intelligence quotient", they would indeed receive a lower rating.

Whether or not that rating is meaningful is the real debate. And that depends on what exactly you're trying to measure with an "IQ" - reasoning ability, typical mental tasks, book smarts, a combination of all of the above?

[sun]

Reading skills are not a function of Intelligence..
...They are a function of phonix.
...If someone is sick for parts of the 2nd or 3rd grade, they may never learn to read..
..I have toutored literacy (reading ) both to non English speaking, and those who do speak English and were born here.. Furthere, I taught in schools for a "long time" where all the reading was much below average..I saw native intelligence in many who could not read, or read very poorly.
....Through my extensive experience, and training..we have learned that reading is not related to intelligence..
..Furthere..many have undiscovered dsylexia..Their brains interpert the letters backwards...For them, reading is extremely difficult...If they do not get special training to overcome this disfunction, which again, has nothing to do with intelligence..they too may never learn to read...That is what I believe...

[The Falcon]

132... not bad. though the test is biased against americans. lol. kilometers? psh... whatever ;)

[Clayface]

Reading skills are not a function of Intelligence..

The definition of intelligence from the dictionary:

Main Entry: in·tel·li·gence
Pronunciation: in-'tel-&-j&n(t)s
Function: noun
1 a : the ability to learn or understand or to deal with new or trying situations

Reading skills (or the lack of) most certainly are part of the "ability to learn or understand..new situations". They are not the only ability, but they are one of the abilities necessary. Believe what you want, but going by the straight up definitions, reading skills are part of intelligence. No one is saying anyone that can't read is a complete moron - simply that reading is one mental ability one individual may not have that others of their age do, and that effects the overal IQ score.

[solarflere]

The definition of intelligence from the dictionary:



Reading skills (or the lack of) most certainly are part of the "ability to learn or understand..new situations". They are not the only ability, but they are one of the abilities necessary. Believe what you want, but going by the straight up definitions, reading skills are part of intelligence. No one is saying anyone that can't read is a complete moron - simply that that is one mental ability they don't have that otehrs of their age do, and that effects the overal IQ score.I have to agree with oldtoonguy that reading is not intelligence, but phonics. Some people have hard time reading, while they are very smart in their own right. Reading is totaly different. Someone can hear a problem and solve it fast, but if that same person has hard time reading, he might not be able to solve a problem if its printed.

This might explain it more: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phonics

[Clayface]

I have to agree with oldtoonguy that reading is not intelligence, but phonics. Some people have hard time reading, while they are very smart in their own right. Reading is totaly different. Someone can hear a problem and solve it fast, but if that same person has hard time reading, he might not be able to solve a problem if its printed.

I agree with everything you said here except the first sentence (what does that even mean? "reading is phonics"? And is phonics not a mental ability?). As I just stated, reading is one mental ability of many. But it is a mental ability, and thus one of the things IQ tests are meant to measure.

EDIT: So you just edited your post while I was responding. And I ask again: is phonics not a mental ability? I would say it absolutely is. Thus, if reading is phonics, and phonics is a mental ability, everything I've said still applies - you've only changed the name of what we're talking about (phonics vs. reading).

[solarflere]

I agree with everything you said here except the first sentence (what does that even mean? "reading is phonics"? And is phonics not a mental ability?). As I just stated, reading is one mental ability of many. But it is a mental ability, and thus one of the things IQ tests are meant to measure. People with Dyslexia aren't unintelligent, they just can't read due to their illness. But some of them are in fact very intelligent.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyslexia

And IQ tests an bias against people with Dyslexia.

[Clayface]

People with Dyslexia aren't unintelligent, they just can't read due to their illness. But some of them are in fact very intelligent.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyslexia

And IQ tests an bias against people with Dyslexia.

Where did I ever say anything about people with dyslexia being unintelligent? I didn't (I'm midly dyslexic myself).

There are IQ tests designed for people with dyslexia, so your last statement there is an incorrect generalization.

[solarflere]

Where did I ever say anything about people with dyslexia being unintelligent? I didn't (I'm midly dyslexic myself).

There are IQ tests designed for people with dyslexia, so your last statement there is an incorrect generalization.
You said that people who can't read good are less intelligent, because reading is intelligence.
There are special IQ tests, yes, but the fact that there are no UNIFORM IQ Tests, they will always be bias to somebody. Therefore, my professor was right when she said that all IQ tests are unfair judgement of intelligence because they will always be bias to somebody who does not fit the general mold.

[Clayface]

You said that people who can't read good are less intelligent, because reading is intelligence.

Show me a quote. I believe you are incorrectly interpreting what I said. I never said not being able to read makes you less intelligent - simply that a lack of reading ability is indeed a lack of one mental ability that others of the same age may have, and that that can and will effect an IQ score.

There are special IQ tests, yes, but the fact that there are no UNIFORM IQ Tests, they will always be bias to somebody. Therefore, my professor was right when she said that all IQ tests are unfair judgement of intelligence because they will always be bias to somebody who does not fit the general mold.

It's simply a matter of applying the correct test for each individual. As long as they are all normalized, they can be, and are, a fair judgement.

[solarflere]

It's simply a matter of applying the correct test for each individual. As long as they are all normalized, they can be, and are, a fair judgement. are you "listening" to yourself? Different tests will never be "normalized'. They will have different standards. There is no standardized IQ test, and there never will be. Taking SAT and ACT tests will give you 2 different results, when they are suppose to measure the same exact thing.

[Clayface]

are you "listening" to yourself? Different tests will never be "normalized'. They will have different standards. There is no standardized IQ test, and there never will be. Taking SAT and ACT tests will give you 2 different results, when they are suppose to measure the same exact thing.

I'm confused by your example here - are you using the SAT and ACT as examples of IQ tests or as an anology for normailization of tests in general?

If it's the former, then just for the record, the ACT is not an IQ test (and technically, neither is the SAT). From the ACT website (http://www.act.org/news/aapfacts.html):

The ACT is curriculum-based. The ACT is not an aptitude or an IQ test.

If it's the latter, I have a response to that as well. Tests can indeed be normalized. Here's a chart (http://www.powerprep.com/actvssat.htm) that demonstrates what ACT scores are equivalent to SAT scores. That is, for all intents and purposes, a normalization. Yes, it's two different tests, measuring the same thing, and the two tests give different scores. But the numbers can be compared to each other. One could simply assign a normalized percentage to the numbers: ACT36=SAT2400=normalized100, and so on down the chart. Then everyone could go around, regardless of which test they took, and say "My normalized number is ___". Same for different IQ tests.

[solarflere]

I'm confused by your example here - are you using the SAT and ACT as examples of IQ tests or as an anology for normailization of tests in general?

If it's the former, then just for the record, the ACT is not an IQ test (and technically, neither is the SAT). From the ACT website (http://www.act.org/news/aapfacts.html):



If it's the latter, I have a response to that as well.I gave SAT and ACT as an example of a standardized tests.

[sun]

Phonics is a learned skill..Whithout that learned skill, it is exceptionally difficult to read.
..Let's say for the sake of arguement, you or someone is sick, when they teach phonics in the 2nd grade...Or you are abused as a child, and cannot pay close attention to the lesson. or you are forced to move during that period..(like those 2nd graders who missed school due to Katrina)....
You just miss this part, and a second illness happens later on..Things happen you know...
..So the school doesn't make an effort to help you catch up..You get behind. (Schools don't often have the funds to do this kind of thing. Yes they should) .
.Stay behind..take these tests..feel stupid, keep these feelings..Your IQ may be much lower than the tests show for reasons that have nothing to do with anything, especially "intelligence"
...IQ tests..?? on the internet?? Sure..
...Are they valid??? (that is do they test what they are designed to test, and are those results true???,,not likely, as far as I am concerned)

I respect others beliefs.
..Nevertheless, right now, today in this country- U.S.A. there are at least l0 million adults who are funtionally illiterate,(people born and raised in the U.S.A, and went to U.S.A public and private schools) due to some of the causes I've stated, and many others..They surivive, and many thrive, on jobs, through a mastery of tricks to get by without reading..
..I know you don't believe it..Ok,,,that is your right..It is at least l0 million native born, and possibly much more..No one knows.
These people do not easily admit they cannot read past the 4th grade..Would you....To say they are "unintelligent" due to some test given in a school that they are likely to feel very uncomfortable in, and base "intelligence on that test" or test number, or some "dictionary definintion", ..is to me incorrect..But that is my opinion..
..As I said, everyone is entitled to their opinion..Thank you for reading this..I appreciate the time you took to do so, ...................Stuart

[Clayface]

Phonics is a learned skill..Whithout that learned skill, it is exceptionally difficult to read.
..Let's say for the sake of arguement, you or someone is sick, when they teach phonics in the 2nd grade...Or you are abused as a child, and cannot pay close attention to the lesson. or you are forced to move during that period..(like those 2nd graders who missed school due to Katrina)....
You just miss this part, and a second illness happens later on..Things happen you know...
..So the school doesn't make an effort to help you catch up..You get behind. (Schools don't often have the funds to do this kind of thing. Yes they should) .
.Stay behind..take these tests..feel stupid, keep these feelings..Your IQ may be much lower than the tests show for reasons that have nothing to do with anything, especially "intelligence"

I think the problem here is, we still don't know how you're defining intelligence. And that's really the problem with IQ tests in general and why I'm not a big fan of them. If you clearly define what you're trying to measure (in other words, clearly define the term "intelligence"), then a fair test to measure that "intelligence" can indeed be designed. As far as I can tell, there's still no real standard definition.

[Temple Fugate]

Like Clayface said, tests can be changed based on an individual's needs and abilities while still being accurate for most people. As long as the writers of these tests don't drastically change the inherent composition and basic foundation of the questions, a Spanish IQ test, English IQ test, and dyslexic IQ test should all be very close in terms of accuracy.

But normalized testing isn't the point here. The point is IQ tests measure one thing, while tests like the SAT measure another. There is a difference between testing for intelligence, book smarts, and common sense. I consider myself a fairly intelligent person, but I struggle with everyday occurences where my common sense skills fail. Everyone is good at different things, and a low score on one test doesn't necessarily mean the testee is bad at everything.

Furthermore, tests aren't always accurate anyway. I think people would benefit by not looking at numbers, but in our society numbers are more convenient than closer examination of one's actual abilities and achievements.

I've never taken an IQ test, but wonder where I would fall in the score? Perhaps someday.

[SilentBat18]

darn it! 112! slightly above average... ARRRGH!! 3 more points and i would have been of above intelligence or 12 more and i would have been a genius.... :p as if... besides testing intelligence, thats something i believe isnt too easy. intelligence isnt only genetic you know. it also depends on society, behaviors, knowledge, learning bla bla bla... basically cogntive psychology. so i say the only way you can be judged as intelligent isnt by a written test but, and this may sound harsh, by society. ofcourse everyone thinks their intelligent in one form or another, but in the end its society that judges in what way you're smart. YOu could be a dimwit with history (as am i :D) but a genius in biology or simply the art of conversing.

in the end we're all smart and dumb. :D yay!

[Axion-Pup]

Well, it could be worse. You could've taken the IQ test and given up halfway through it because it was too hard. XD I'm guilty of that. But hey, shows I'm smart enough to know what's worth my time. :D

[Captain Zechs]

Reading isn't intelligence? HA! It takes intelligence, to be able to read, and to interpret. You say Phonics is a learned skill? Well I learned how to Add, Subtract, Divide and Multiply, did I not? It's the same principle to reading.

And also, a lot of scientist (and people) do not believe in dyslexia, or any other illness like it, so to some, these tests are not biased.

(Oh and I got 139 on the Test, some of the questions were tough, some were easy).

[Leaping Larry Jojo]

I used to fret about my intelligence a lot. I've never taken an IQ test, but I suspect that I would not do extremely well.

I've later realized it's not what you have; it's what you do with it. Accomplishments make a person, not potential. This is what separates great athletes from merely good ones, great inventors from merely great complainers. I've known people who did very well on IQ tests but I don't respect them as a person. And vice versa.

Apologies for bringing up an old thread, but it interested me again.