Whats your IQ? (NOT a 'OMG, I'm smarter than you thread!')

Post Reply New Topic

I test somewhere around 160-165.

But, i think that it is a mistake to think that, for Aspies, intelligence test measure anything other than the fact that we are good at these tests. The test designers are assuming an NT and so, I think that the test is not valid for me in any meaningful way. If I look at intelligence as a life skill/tool, I see that my fiscal/social/happiness levels are at about the same level as an NT with an IQ around 115-125. (taken from a statistically meaningless sample of friends and family). My "extra" intelligence (if you will) seems to be used processing social clues, learning non-applicable facts, and wasting time with perfectionism.

how old are you?

I am 41.

I've had 3 done and the scores vary a great deal. 2 I attempted to do while in sensory overload so not particularly accurate, which were my 2 lowest scores. Lowest was 80, middle was 128 and highest was 147.

I think I got 137 last time I did a test, but I was 12 at the time...I might have improved...or gotten worse!! ! *gasp* I can't sleep so I think I'll take an online thingy right now!

152.

Oh yeah.

holy! there are some insanely intelligent people on this forum!

I score at about 125 - 130

149

I have been measured recently at 172 and 165. Both times there were major variations between test subsections. I found the part where you have to put the pictures in order to form a story difficult, and didn't do particularly well. However, on the part where you remember a string of digits and recite them backwards and forwards, I easily made it up to 25, where the test administrator stopped. Individual subsections ranged from around 100 to a bit over 200.

I am sure I would fare quite poorly on a standardised measure of emotional intelligence, and probably mediocre at best on overall functioning.

On a rather informal test I scored a 145, although that's probably inaccurate.

Welcome to WP, Ecriminist!

I got 126 when I took it.

Somebody recently pointed out to me that if you take the top 2% of students in China, that number of people is equivalent to the whole student population of the UK. Similarly, the top 7-8% of people in India equate to that same number of students.

It has to do with the whole populations - I wish I had noted down the chapter and verse for it and would be interested if anybody knows where the info came from.

Food for thought indeed!

without consideration to the structure of questions in IQ tests, i wonder how "average mental age" scores are defined.

IQ is (mental age / chronological age) x 100.

if you are ten and you have the mental age of a 20 year old, then you have an IQ of 200 apparently.
if you have an IQ of 300, then you have the mental age of a 30 year old?

a 30 year old person can not solve problems (of a spontaneously presented nature) any better than a 20 year old, so how is the baseline "average ability" for an x year old (above 20) assessed?. surely not in a continously incremental improvement in actual intelligence with age.

if a 10 year old has an "iq" of 950, then they have the mental age of a 95 year old which would not be anything to be too happy about.

i think the present medical notion of "IQ" is a limited way of assessing young childrens capacities and is not really applicable to extreme intelligence or to people who are over 10 years old.

When the term "intelligence quotient" first came into use, it was defined as you describe - a quotient of effective to actual age - and was only applicable to children, since, as you point out, the concept of "mental age" is devoid of meaning past the developmental years.

Today, the term "IQ" refers to any of a number of standardised tests with several important statistical properties. Most significant is that when administered to a large random sample reflecting the entire population, and assuming normally distributed results, the results are calibrated so that mean is 100 and the standard deviation is 15 (16 on some older tests). Thus, an IQ of 115 no longer means performing at a level of someone 15% older; instead, it means performing at a level higher than about 84% of the overall population. Similarly, an IQ of 160, +4 standard deviations, means a level occurring in about 1 in every 30,000 people. An IQ of 175 occurs in 1 in almost 3.5 million people. As the assumption of normality likely breaks down at these extremes, it is difficult to accurately measure IQ when very high or very low, even if the instruments were infallible, which they are anything but.

Because IQ is essentially a way of expressing a percentile, if human intelligence on average tended to increase over time, through natural selection, improving health and nutrition, or whatever reason, an individual could expect to see her IQ steadily go down over time, even though her actual intelligence has not changed, since IQ is measured relative to the current population average.

Conceivably, any type of performance test carefully calibrated to 100/15 could be presented as an "IQ", if one does not mind stretching the term a little bit.

95. However the evualator doesnt think the test shows my true intelligence. She said the test she gives doesnt work well with kids on the spectrum

my AFQT was 96th percentile, ASVAB GT 154, GM 155, EL 145, CL 120