an IQ score represents your ability to score on an IQ test.
Thats it.
Only ignorant or desperate people go out of their way to assign value to it.
And a credit scores only represents your ability to get a high credit score... or getting a 4.0 GPA at an Ivy league school only represents your ability to get a high score in school, or passing a behind the wheel driving test only represents your ability to pass a behind the wheel driving test.
Here's my result. Do I win a cookie?
pattern recognition is not intelligence.
also, IQ tests suck. also, IQ tests are deigned to be run yearly at young ages.
also, i average 135~145. and i'm dumb.
If you take the test again, you probably could score significantly higher.
Yea you aren't suppose to sit around and take an IQ test over and over if you are being honest about it. There isn't much purpose in having the test timed if you can just take it again. If you REALLY had the urge to see how many ways you can fit triangles together to prove once and for all you care the most about triangles then go ahead. And I'm sure just about everyone who gets butthurt over this kind of thing googles for the answers.
I shouldn't have to tell you this if you are so smart.
You are so butt hurt. It's well documented that people who practice taking IQ tests improve their IQ scores on other unrelated tests because it teaches them to recognize certain patterns quicker, etc. School teaches students to recognize patterns and it's this reason why there is the flynn effect in the first place. It's also documented that people in the higher percentiles like 95%+ can bounce around as much as a standard deviation throughout their lifetimes. Like I said before, even knowing the answers to all of the questions, there were certain questions that no matter, I was never going to be able to answer correctly because I could not possibly understand how or where they came up with their answer.
What in the fuck are you talking about? Motor skills? The test was basically a pattern recognition test which is a culturally unbiased way of measuring intelligence.Nope I figured the score + a weak explanation would reel in someone like you . You guys are the garbage of the internet.
That type of IQ test only measures one part of the brain. Mostly developed through motor skills. Its like... you probably work with your hands and are clinging to the one IQ test you are actually good at.
You sound like an advertisement for luminosity or something. Those places have been debunked AFAIK. Last time I took a real IQ test I was a kid and that is probably true for everyone here. I'm not the one who thinks the test is important I've been bashing it all thread. You think anyone who would bash an IQ test must have a low IQ. Thats simpleton logic. I actually think you are the dumbest one here honestly. Its an internet IQ test, lol.
I didn't really feel like looking it up because because you are kind of incompetent but you are forcing me to because the wrong is strong.What in the fuck are you talking about? Motor skills? The test was basically a pattern recognition test which is a culturally unbiased way of measuring intelligence.
You sound super butthurt over your IQ score of 102. That you received an IQ of 120 at one point in school and now, because you received a score of 102, you feel the need to lash out or something.
I believe this test I first posted is a good test because the IQ tests I received in school had similar results as well. You don't see me advocating an IQ test where I got a score of 160+ though I did post it for others to look at. I think it's actually quite impressive that an IQ test is able to determine with relatively good accuracy someone's IQ just based upon pattern recognition which is so very different from other IQ tests I've taken in the past both online and in school.
"The Triple Nine Society, a high IQ society, accepts the Advanced Progressive Matrices form for one of their admission tests. They require a score of at least 32 out of 36 on or before December 31, 1999 on the RAPM." -per the relevant wiki
Sue Ramsden at University College London and her colleagues took a batch of 33 healthy adolescents (aged 12-16), with a wide mix of abilities. She tested their IQ in 2004 and then again 3-4 years later. During each test session, each child had their brains scanned using fMRI. Neither the participants nor their parents had a clue that they would be tested again. Consistent with earlier research, scores changed quite a bit from one testing session to the next. Thirty-three percent of the participants showed a clear change in their total IQ score. To highlight the range: One participant showed an increase in IQ score by 21 points, whereas another showed a decrease of 18 points. These are dramatic changes!
The researchers weren't just interested in test score changes, but were also interested in whether the changes were meaningfully reflected in brain structure. If they could link their changes to brain structure, then it would suggest these IQ fluctuations aren't merely the result of "measurement error." Indeed, they found that changes in the verbal portions of the IQ test (e.g., vocabulary, verbal comprehension) were related to changes in grey matter density and volume in the left motor cortex; a region that is known to be activated by the articulation of speech. Changes in the non-verbal portions of the IQ test (putting blocks and pictures together in their proper arrangement, completing pictures appropriately) were related to to grey matter density in the anterior cerebellum; a region that is known to be activated by motor movements of the hand. Interestingly, the grey matter changes that were associated with verbal and non-verbal IQ changes were not associated with regions normally found to be associated with IQ (frontal and parietal regions) Their results suggest that particular forms of intelligence (but not overall IQ scores) are reliant, at least in part, on sensorimotor skills and that such fluctuations aren't purely the result of 'measurement error'.
Note that many IQ tests on the internet are not standardized or valid. Their scores are not meaningful, and they do not accurately measure your intelligence. A lot of scientific work goes into developing an accurate, valid IQ test that is standardized.
Note that this IQ scale is meaningless unless you obtain a score from a valid, standardized IQ test. Most of these tests are professionally administered – for a fee!
I didn't really feel like looking it up because because you are kind of incompetent but you are forcing me to because the wrong is strong.
Its a Raven's Progressive Matrices test. You would have needed a 32 out of 36 on a real one before 1999 to be special.
According to here: http://www.creativitypost.com/psychology/why_iq_fluctuates_over_your_lifespan (mostly the bolded, the rest is for context)
So this type of test does not really pick up on intelligence derived from frontal/parietal regions.
Picky picky but excellent insight nonetheless. It almost sounds like you're explaining away your mediocre score due to poor motorskills or something. But yes I know this is a derivative/is Raven's Progressive matrices test.
This is something that you should probably read:
http://www.highiqpro.com/what-is-an-iq-test-how-to-test-iq
Especially the red boxes. You are good at boxes.
Of course its trying to sell IQ test stuffs to people like you I guess who really care about this kind of thing.
Its a whole internet industry apparently. I'm always content with my scores in an actual standardized environment. You're the kind of guy who thrives outside standardized environments because you can google for the answers and take it multiples times until you are happy. All talk and no game. Yadda yadda.
You would be wrong. I don't know where this "statistics" shit is coming from but this test has very specific questions and answers. The questions and answers don't move around or anything like that and the scores are consistent depending on the # of questions you get correct. There is nothing "fishy" about this test at all.Dunno...took it dry and just reported the first score I got. Left like 25 minutes er... 33 minutes on the table, around there. Ain't nobody got time for that.
I can usually half-ass better than average tho. Which is why even for half-assing it, the test seemed kind of suspect. I'm assuming its actually running standardized statistics and whoever published the answers has messed up the validity of the test since they clearly didn't want the answers published.
The answers are not published anywhere.Thats what I gleaned from the test via knowing myself. I didn't actually know the answers were posted, but I assumed they were after taking it. I never searched for them, since I don't care because who needs the answers to an internet picture test. But enough of you posted here about them so I figured they were easy to find. And a couple people were using them to take screenshots. All in good fun :awe:.
Yes and it's only going to increase by so much. The test never tells the person which answers they got correct so it's not like retaking the test is all that much "cheating". There are variations of this IQ test and others that are "professionally administered" that are not timed at all which to me makes sense. A person who is not familiar with IQ tests is going to score lower the first time compared with someone who has done lots of IQ tests. A person who has never attended school past 5th grade due to home life is going to score worse on tests than someone who has graduated highschool. This is well documented information in regards to IQ testing and while that may seem to call into question the validity of IQ testing, I don't think it does.Intelligence quotient is based on statistics...what do you think the SD=15 means. If lots of people have taken the test already and it has a large number of samples its not going to change much, but it is still skewed from people trying to beat a test that never changes.
And re-taking a test that never changes is of course going to increase your score.
Yeah, perhaps as it would make sense if they've never taken an IQ test like this before as the ones in school are more culturally biased but even so...when I took this test the first time, like many people on this board, I received a score of 115. This isn't terribly surprising because I know I'm smarter than these particular kids even when I was their age. My IQ scores I took online when I was 12 and when I take them now haven't changed much at all as they've all been in the 115-130 range. A bit of a disappointment compared with my parents who both have IQs above 140.And oddly enough I think I helped answer your original question in the OP about why the kids seem smart but are average at this test.
Soooo taking the full 40 minutes I get a 118.
Though recognizing some of the problems where I was obviously in the wrong before helped on a test meant to measure off the cuff problem solving .
You could have probably brute forced the test in under 40 minutes though.
I feel like a sucker for actually trying.