Cuber's IQ

[cmhardw]

An experience I had in college, where I used my BLD memorization techniques on a psychology experiment that tested for short term memory ability, strongly influenced my current belief that you can train yourself to take a test such as to achieve a result that shows you are stronger than your true natural abilities. I purposefully chose to attend the memory experiment such that I could try to "ace" it. Looking back on it now I consider my use of memorization techniques on that test to have been essentially a form of cheating what the test was actually trying to measure. I have to be honest too that I never told the test experimenters that I was doing this. For this reason I believe that IQ tests are a great starting point for knowing your actual intelligence, but I do not consider them to be 100% accurate. If I can cheat a short term memory test by using trained memorization techniques, then surely a parent who has taken multiple IQ test versions can train their children on how to solve similar problems quickly and efficiently such as to artificially inflate their child's IQ test result.

 

[Stefan]

then surely a parent who has taken multiple IQ test versions can train their children on how to solve similar problems quickly and efficiently such as to artificially inflate their child's IQ test result.

I don't think child's IQ test results need any inflation. Look at this one:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/a...rina-year-old-whos-smart-Stephen-Hawking.html

"When asked, 'What do you use your eyes for?' she answered, 'You close them when you go to sleep' and then also said, 'You put your contact lenses in them'."

If adults answer like that, they're called idiots. When a child answers like that, it's called imaginative.

 

[Dene]

C'mon Dene... I actually paid money to have the "Pochmann" dropped from my username, and you're still calling me that?

Having a "Mr." before your name is privelege, not a burden .

I've never taken one before, so I took a free one on iqtest.com and got a score of 118. Which is about average for my age group.

Are you sure? I could have insisted the average was somewhere around 100. Don't take my word on it though, I don't have a degree in psychology or anything.

 

[Stefan]

Having a "Mr." before your name is privelege, not a burden

I meant the whole thing, "Mr. Pochmann" instead of "Stefan". It sounds so cold and impersonal. How do I make you love me?

I could have insisted the average was somewhere around 100.

They themselves say "mean score is currently 108.447":
http://iqtest.com/faq.html
And I wouldn't be totally surprised if he were right with his 118 being about average for his age group. I have no idea where he got that information from, though. Jack?

 

[JackJ]

I just estimated. One website I found said a 118 is "above average." I guess Dene is right, the average is about 100. (at least according to this site)

http://iq-test.learninginfo.org/iq04.htm

 

[qqwref]

I meant the whole thing, "Mr. Pochmann" instead of "Stefan". It sounds so cold and impersonal. How do I make you love me?

Grammar robots are capable of love?


It's funny to see so many claiming an IQ from 120-150. Same thing happens all over the internet. Hey, sure, maybe the people on forums are all well above average intelligence. (Or maybe the types of "IQ tests" people are likely to take will give almost everyone a very high score.)


@Karina article: "Karina, who is almost three, is in the top 0.03 per cent of children her age, placing her on a par with a four or five-year-old." I think this *exactly* fits my point about child and adult IQ not being the same concept at all.

 

[Shortey]

I don't believe in IQ tests, to be honest.

 

[endless_akatsuki]

I don't think child's IQ test results need any inflation. Look at this one:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/a...rina-year-old-whos-smart-Stephen-Hawking.html

"When asked, 'What do you use your eyes for?' she answered, 'You close them when you go to sleep' and then also said, 'You put your contact lenses in them'."

If adults answer like that, they're called idiots. When a child answers like that, it's called imaginative.

lmao

I love it.

 

[Stefan]

"Karina, who is almost three, is in the top 0.03 per cent of children her age

Ah, yes, forgot about that. Surely if she was in the top 0.02%, they would've said that instead. So clearly, at least 1 in 5000 children her age is better than her. Thus not really uncommon, given there are millions of kids her age.

Taking "her age" as her exact age +/- a week and using that there are 1.829 billion kids 0-14 years old, it's about 5 million kids her age, so at least 1000 better than her. Using the UK data, I estimate there are at least 28 UK kids her age better than her, so I have no idea how the article justifies the headline "Britain's brainiest toddler" (especially since "toddler" certainly encompasses more than a range of two weeks of age).

 

[qqwref]

That's a good point. They often act as if any pretty-smart person is the Smartest Person Ever, despite the facts that (a) you can't realistically check everyone, and (b) IQ scores can be pretty easily increased by directed education (for children) and memory/spatial acuity/problem solving training (for adults).

 

[cmhardw]

Ah, yes, forgot about that. Surely if she was in the top 0.02%, they would've said that instead. So clearly, at least 1 in 5000 children her age is better than her. Thus not really uncommon, given there are millions of kids her age.

Taking "her age" as her exact age +/- a week and using that there are 1.829 billion kids 0-14 years old, it's about 5 million kids her age, so at least 1000 better than her. Using the UK data, I estimate there are at least 28 UK kids her age better than her, so I have no idea how the article justifies the headline "Britain's brainiest toddler" (especially since "toddler" certainly encompasses more than a range of two weeks of age).

An excellent argument. Why laud a child as "the brainiest kid in Britain," when the data they present in the very same story proves that she very likely is not? I guess we are simply supposed to be spoon fed this story and react to the way they present it accordingly.

 

[Dene]

I just estimated. One website I found said a 118 is "above average." I guess Dene is right, the average is about 100. (at least according to this site)

http://iq-test.learninginfo.org/iq04.htm

Ok you're young and naive so I won't be mean about it. Read this and you will find out why the average IQ is not around 100, but literally is 100.

I meant the whole thing, "Mr. Pochmann" instead of "Stefan". It sounds so cold and impersonal. How do I make you love me?

Would you rather Mr. Stefan? I could do that if you preferred.

They themselves say "mean score is currently 108.447":
http://iqtest.com/faq.html
And I wouldn't be totally surprised if he were right with his 118 being about average for his age group. I have no idea where he got that information from, though. Jack?

Lololo I guess that's what you get for using a free online IQ test website.

 

[Brian Kremer]

IQ scores can be pretty easily increased by directed education (for children) and memory/spatial acuity/problem solving training (for adults).

So do you think that education and training affect intelligence?

 

[cmhardw]

Yeah. And what bothers me most is that they *know* she's not the best (otherwise they wouldn't write the 0.03% thing) and still say it.

One likely possibility is that they just do not realize that this data shows a likelihood, a strong one I would say, that this girl is not the brightest kid in Britain. I would argue that 0.03% is a very incomprehensible number to the average person. I mean Stackmats display solve times measured out to the milliseconds, right? Some people, even on speedsolving.com, think so based on the number of posts I have read stating this "fact." (For those wondering about this statement, please read this page)

"0.03% is such a good (read: incomprehensible) score that she simply must be the smartest child in Britain!"

I'm not trying to say that Karina is not a bright girl, she obviously is. But I agree with Stefan that their claim is definitely disproven by the data presented in the same story.

 

[Stefan]

Would you rather Mr. Stefan? I could do that if you preferred.

Lol... I guess it's one step closer, but... ugh...

Lololo I guess that's what you get for using a free online IQ test website.

Doesn't necessarily speak against the test, though, as it also depends on who takes it. They themselves say "The mean score is currently 108.447 (Confounding variable: The lowest IQ holders will not be capable of using the internet to measure their own intelligence.)" and I could imagine it's not just that those with the lowest one don't take it at all, but that those with higher are more likely to take it (there's probably a correlation between being interested in this kind of stuff, doing this kind of stuff, and being good at this kind of stuff).

 

[Vishal]

Sorry, I was trying to quote what Chris said but made a mistake. The proper term for a 1/100 of a second is a jiffy. That is where the phrase I'll be back in a Jiffy comes from which is literally impossible. Also Chris I would put some money on it that you would have a high IQ if you took the test because blindfold 4x4 3x3 and 5x5 are not easy and I would take a good amount of short term visualization skills. I'm not the best a pictures but if you gave me a speech to memorize it could do it very quickly. Helps for tests too. Is anyone here apart of or at least heard of Mensa.

 

[Stefan]

The proper term for a 1/100 of a second is a jiffy.

Where did you get that from? And what makes that more proper than centisecond?

 

[izovire]

Last time I fooled around with an IQ test I got 83... I was never good at taking tests... so obviously I failed the test taking part of it.

 

[qqwref]

So do you think that education and training affect intelligence?

I think that the right kind of education/training can affect your score on an IQ test, yes. (I don't think "your score on an IQ test" and "your intelligence" are the same thing, though.)

The proper term for a 1/100 of a second is a jiffy.

Hahaha. Jiffy is not an SI unit - where'd you come up with that silly idea?

EDIT: Did a little bit of research, and in various contexts "jiffy" has many different meanings. In electronics it can be used to mean 1/50 or 1/60 of a second, whereas in computing it is the time interval of the system timer interrupt (generally somewhere from 1/60 to 1/1000 of a second). There are a bunch of other possible meanings as well.

 

[Shortey]

Just took an IQ test right now, 7 in the morning. The test is based for people above 18 years of age, so it doesn't really count, but I got 118. The average IQ in Norway is 100.