how smart are you?

[stickck]

i was required to take an IQ test recently and decide to see how accurate it was so i went online to take a second test. i scored a 145 at work and scored a 142 on this web site. they have a few different languages on thier site too. I took the eCMA test. its 36 questions and it takes about 10 minutes.

See how you score...

http://www.highiqsociety.org/

chris

[Intrigued]

You were required to take an I.Q. test?

I thought those sort of "forcings" went along the roadside long ago.

[stickck]

i was trying to change jobs in the Air Force and the job i wanted, required it. i guess the wanted to make sure i wasnt trying to bluff my way in. i decided to not change jobs after all

besides, i was curious about my score anyways. i've seen the tests online several times but never took one. some of the questions were pretty tough.


chris

[Intrigued]

I took a municipal test last year and only got an 86. But, I noticed others around me really stressing over each question, like their life (well, I suppose financially it did) depended on such. My test took three hours and I completed in something like one hour. The wording was plain goofy and just about any three questions were right to the question put forth. They requested often you pick the "closest" match. Those sort of tests might be needed for someone working a high-stress, rapid action, and in the field sort of position. But, I was going for a computer job... so what gives.

Now, the Minnesota Multiphasic
Personality Inventory-2 test I once took was the goofiest I have taken to date. I won't tell you (if you have taken, which you probable have) what sort of (adult, tilted to the darkside of the moon) questions they put you to task in answering!

At least I got to see what they were all about.

At times I do like working in a stressful situation... BUT... I must be working with other professionals. (that goes back to my gaming days (FPS))

[Corey]

The test itself isn't important. It's all in the testing process. To get an accurate number for your IQ you absolutely must go in and get tested in person. I suggest at a university by a professional psychologist or senior student. It's very important that the test be delivered in a *very* specific manner for it to work at all. If you test yourself online or from a book you will not get an accurate number, guaranteed. It may be close by fluke, but it will be off one way or the other. You can get tested at any major university in the psych dept. by a 3rd year tudent for about $50, or privately by a practicing psychologist for about $300. For the student stuff you have to phone ahead because they only do that during certain times of the year. You are helping them when you do this because the students need practice doing the tests, and they are supervised by a professor, so they'll do a good job. Perhaps even better than some senior psychologists.

As for switching jobs, when I grow up I'm going to be a fire engine. Reewr-reewr!

[Corey]

I took a municipal test last year and only got an 86

I would be very surprised if this were accurate. IQ scores are expressed as a number normalized so that the average IQ in any age group is 100. 85 is the lowest edge for 70% of the population. Everything I've seen of you suggests a much higher IQ than this. You can build your own .dlls from scratch and implement them right? Given that single fact alone I reject the notion that approx. 85% of the population has more capacity than you, that's clearly nonsense. If you did indeed score an 86 on an IQ test it was either a flaw in the testing or because you are one of those "hard to test" cases with a very high level of untestable practical intelligence, not because you have a low IQ. And you can take that to the bank.

[eric_darling]

I may be off on this, but I think I-man was referring to a percentage, not an IQ. I highly doubt he'd be anywhere near borderline deficient like that, even on a grossly erroneous exam.

[Corey]

There is no percentage score for an IQ test. 70% of the population is between 85 and 115 so it's not impossible, just unrepresentative.

I highly doubt he'd be anywhere near borderline deficient like that

I agree on that one. Hard to say what happened here. Could just be the exam itself. Or, from what I-man said, he may possibly have taken it too casually or possibly the tester was a boob, etc. Anyway you slice it, clearly it's not at all representative of Intrigued's actual intelligence. Kooky stuff cap'n, kooky stuff.

[eric_darling]

I'm aware of that... I guess what I was saying was that I didn't think the test he referred to was an IQ test. He called it "a municipal test." That doesn't sound like an IQ test to me. But, like I said, I very well could be wrong about that...

[Corey]

Typically that would be a standardized IQ test applied by the municipality to civil servants. I believe it's illegal for them to use any test other than the standard gov't IQ test, in particularly so called specialized "aptitude" tests, to prevent cultural/gender bias. I may be wrong.

[Intrigued]

Ah, sorry for the confusion, Eric is on-the-money right. I was referring to a percentage with regards to the test I took for the computer position, 86 percent of 100 percent, 125 questions.

I bombed it, but I went in with a somewhat passive mind, not negative, just a little more laid back than I should have. But, folks have told me to keep taking them. I don't have time now.

I.Q. tests serve a purpose as far as I am concerned. I, like Corey, would not put everything on such a test that allows someone into another's group, society, nation, school, car, or on his/her friend's bike.

A few years ago I took one of these 30 question or so ones in a college classroom and it came back, well, let me say it was between 115 and 165.



But, being smarter than another person shows on more than one level (ie. an I.Q. test), that is for sure! As in some folks can manipulate others to get what they want done. So, in a way that person manipulating is smarter than the manipulated. I could sight more points but that should get it across.

[Corey]

Ah OK I see, that's not an IQ test. That was a computer knowledge test which, of course, is no gauge of "how smart are you?" Personally I wouldn't define manipulation as a form of intelligence although it may be a byproduct of a particular type of intelligence.

[Intrigued]

Ah OK I see, that's not an IQ test. That was a computer knowledge test which, of course, is no gauge of "how smart are you?" Personally I wouldn't define manipulation as a form of intelligence although it may be a byproduct of a particular type of intelligence.

I would say to have the ability to manipulate would lend to the argument that one would be more intelligent than another. I believe you are limiting the scope of intelligent Corey. (I feel a 27 post thread about to take place, back and forth, LMAO).

[Intrigued]

Ah OK I see, that's not an IQ test. That was a computer knowledge test which, of course, is no gauge of "how smart are you?" Personally I wouldn't define manipulation as a form of intelligence although it may be a byproduct of a particular type of intelligence.

Again I repeat my previous response to this response by you. Sure a computer test is to gauge intelligence, right? How smart one is with concerns to computer use.

My buck-two-ninety-eight worth anyway.

Or is intelligence innate from day-one of our life and can never be increased?

[eric_darling]

My college days are proof that one can certainly decrease their level of intelligence by various methods.

I think what IQ intends to measure is something along the lines of innate intelligence. Intelligence is probably a relatively constant feature through most peoples' lives. Knowledge, on the other hand, or applied intelligence is a completely different matter.