StarGateWars Forums

most online iq tests are auto 100 + for anyone that can think lol.. and
remember not to compare scores unless its from the same iq tests, because iq tests are different in difficulty.. so depends on which on you take

do this test everyone! im curious too lol
im gonna do it rite nwo

If Radiance is anything like me, she's too stubborn to heed your advice...

AssAsinX wrote:most online iq tests are auto 100 + for anyone that can think lol.. and
remember not to compare scores unless its from the same iq tests, because iq tests are different in difficulty.. so depends on which on you take

do this test everyone! im curious too lol
im gonna do it rite nwo

@Avenger: I'm drawing connections.

Agapooka wrote:If Radiance is anything like me, she's too stubborn to heed your advice...

*grin*

Agapooka wrote:

AssAsinX wrote:most online iq tests are auto 100 + for anyone that can think lol.. and
remember not to compare scores unless its from the same iq tests, because iq tests are different in difficulty.. so depends on which on you take

do this test everyone! im curious too lol
im gonna do it rite nwo

@Avenger: I'm drawing connections.

I'll draw a map.
It goes from here to Hell, and it's about something these online tests don't have. I'll let you fill in the blank areas.

(Good find, btw. Think we could conjure ourselves a decent theory? There's food for a new topic.. name any event from the news and create a theory tieing it into an evil masterplan, using 'sources' and all. New thread if you're interested, Pookems. )

Agapooka wrote:

AssAsinX wrote:im gonna do it rite nwo

@Avenger: I'm drawing connections.

i had to do a double take and then stop and think if it was done on purpose lol



and KF is right, this is nothing more than a light hearted thread to see who is top dog here...




JK

its just a little typo lol im confused what you guys are going on about..

btw kma i got lazy and ended up not doing the test lol.. sry..
ill do it some time nad post up my stats here

no problem, looked like the boards needed a quick injection of humour and, i was only curious

I got 72 on one and 138 on another. Ho ho ho.

a real test of intelligence
(works with young children the most, but can work with adults)

try moving/taking/putting something in said person's room
if they notice quickly, then this is a GENERAL indication of a high intelligence

note that this is very much (obviously) rather inaccurate
but it is a good indication

considering im 16 and go to a school for smart kids, not too shabby

[spoiler]Thank you for your interest in the test at IQTest.com.

Your general IQ score is: 133[/spoiler]

I just took an online test, which probably is a load of bs , and got 153. But i have a mensa tes that i haven't sent off which im pretty tempted to now see what i actually get lulz

I had a dyslexia test about three years ago now. Took three of the test's, one of them is one used by Mensa. I got an average of 160~. I don't believe in IQ test's... but I understand the weight that such a number can have with some people and the fun showing it off can bring.

IQ tests are constructed in a way so that their results are normal distributed with a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 16. Because the normal distribution is symmetric, this mean that 50% of the population is expected to have an IQ score under 100 and the other half over 100. The standard deviation of 16 means, that anyone having an IQ score over 132 is in the top 2%, an IQ score of 137 would put you in the top 1%. and an IQ score of 150 in the 0.1%.

By these numbers you can judge for yourself how accurate or serious the IQ tests you took are.

It is claimed that Leonardo DaVinci or Leibniz would score an IQ of over 190 of they were ever to took the test. Kant and Decartes are estimated at 180.

Intelligence measured by the standard IQ tests is not the only intelligence that is there. IQ tests measure primarily the sense of logics, stereomentrical sense, basic language skills and association skills. There is the emotional intelligence (empathy) as well which is no less important. Or the musical intelligence. Or ...



On a different note for the statisticians: standard IQ tests assume that intelligence is normally distributed. This is an assumption that cannot be "verified" empirically as intelligence per se cannot be obsesrved in the statistical sense, but only through proxies (latent variable). If intelligence is not symmetrical or has heavy tails, the IQ tests results are highly questionable considering the lacking robustness of the normal distribution.

deni wrote:IQ tests are constructed in a way so that their results are normal distributed with a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 16. Because the normal distribution is symmetric, this mean that 50% of the population is expected to have an IQ score under 100 and the other half over 100. The standard deviation of 16 means, that anyone having an IQ score over 132 is in the top 2%, an IQ score of 137 would put you in the top 1%. and an IQ score of 150 in the 0.1%.

By these numbers you can judge for yourself how accurate or serious the IQ tests you took are.

It is claimed that Leonardo DaVinci or Leibniz would score an IQ of over 190 of they were ever to took the test. Kant and Decartes are estimated at 180.

Intelligence measured by the standard IQ tests is not the only intelligence that is there. IQ tests measure primarily the sense of logics, stereomentrical sense, basic language skills and association skills. There is the emotional intelligence (empathy) as well which is no less important. Or the musical intelligence. Or ...



On a different note for the statisticians: standard IQ tests assume that intelligence is normally distributed. This is an assumption that cannot be "verified" empirically as intelligence per se cannot be obsesrved in the statistical sense, but only through proxies (latent variable). If intelligence is not symmetrical or has heavy tails, the IQ tests results are highly questionable considering the lacking robustness of the normal distribution.

Considerig i got 190 on a verified IQ Cambridge test with a proffesor next to me i would say its not dependable. Either i'm some sort of genius or IQ testing is as true as Tom Cruise's Scientology...

I do not know what kind of test you took and if it was standardized (mean 100 with a std. dev. of 16) like the Mensa or similar tests, and I surely do not want to doubt your intelligence, but anyone cliaming a higher score than 140 makes me chuckle.

It can well be that the test you took did not have the usual (100,16) normal distribution but a higher mean or higher standard deviation.

deni wrote:I do not know what kind of test you took and if it was standardized (mean 100 with a std. dev. of 16) like the Mensa or similar tests, and I surely do not want to doubt your intelligence, but anyone cliaming a higher score than 140 makes me chuckle.

It can well be that the test you took did not have the usual (100,16) normal distribution but a higher mean or higher standard deviation.

It is standardized...and when i saw the results i laughed and gave the guy the bad eye but he said a machine tell no lie. I don't know what to believe but 80% of me says IQ tests are flawed...