IQ and actual intelligence correlation...

Post Reply New Topic

Hello everyone,

For approximately 6 months ago I was tested by a licensed psychologist in order to determine my intelligence. I scored a 87 which is surprisingly low (Sorry if this offended you).

My primary question regarding this is: How can I study & understand complex theoretical paragraphs if my intelligence is not that high? I'm advancing into expanding my knowledge capacity but how is it exactly working? How can I understand it if my intelligence is low? Even quantum physics is easy for me if we were to exclude the mathematical principles involved into the equations.

Is IQ just a determining factor on how well you perform during problem solving situations? I'm exceptionally good at solving these kind of problems, BUT when it comes to maths my brain simply enough stops functioning (on a non neurological level).

So is IQ = Problem solving and,
Is IQ =/= Actual intelligence?

Based on what I've written, how would you evaluate my intelligence with approximity? What's your thought on this?

Also I've posted this a few months ago (5-6 if I'm recalling correctly) so I'm sorry if it bothers you anyhow.

//Quantum

Education is a lot about how much time and persistence you put into it. Also we have no idea what 'test' you took, did you take a scientifically valid test?

There are times when IQ doesn't mean a darn thing.

Why would anybody be "offended" by an 87 IQ?

intelligence is complicated and includes many things. an IQ test measures only certain kinds of intelligence. you are fine at expressing yourself in writing, at least average, which would correlate with an IQ of at least 100. you say you have a math learning disability. i believe this is dragging down your score. psychoeducational testing could show where most of your strengths and weaknesses lie.

The man who created IQ test had good intentions,and also good theoretical arguments.Anyway, I rarely seen a good use of IQ test, I believe nobody knows what to do with the score informed at the test. But, for any strange reason, people believe faithfully on the number scored at it. Many people will avaliate you by the score you wrote above, no matters what you will post further. I think there is not something as an inteligence measurable by a unidimensional number, but we use to be crazy and believe in such informaton.

Yes I did, I cannot remember what it was called but it's a valid test (not on the internet).

IQ tests, at least the kind I had taken, had different category sections that have a sub score.The categories are added up and put thru some calculations that give you something like a final average.

Some of parts of IQ test were about was what you lave learned and remembered. This is one of the more questionable sections because it rates you by what you have learned in the past. If you haven't been exposed to certain things (like information of certain level classes or subjects), you won't get to answer those points in the test (unless you somehow can guess them right), but it does not mean you are not intelligent. It just means you haven't learned those things yet and then remembered it. It has to be learned + remembered. If you haven't learned how to do algebra and they give you algebra problems, then you just can't answer it, it does not mean you are unintelligent. If you eventually got to take an algebra course, you might be able to learn it just fine.

I think some of what improved my score is that I had learned and still remembered some important historic figure names, and events, geographic locations, and a lot of science facts (because I Love science and geography facts) and stuff and I still remember some of what I learned over 20 years ago in high school and a few years later in community college.

I was bad with the working memory part. I have low working memory, good or superior processing speed, and okay general long term memory.

My low working memory score brought my IQ score down some.

Another thing that brought my score up a little was the cube puzzle solving. That was a breeze. My brain just finds that kind of thing easy even if no one taught me anything about how to use it.

Last edited by stabilator on 03 Jun 2014, 2:25 am, edited 1 time in total.

I forgot to mention, here's my subscores:

Cube design = 5 (wow)
Verbal abilities = 12
Matrix reasoning = 15
Pictures & similarities = 6
Quickness: 80
Working memory: 94
Perceptual functiom: 92

RCFT (memorizing a picture and drawing it again three times): I miss many details when drawing the picture and the pictures differentiates with time. I have a difficult time putting the pieces to the larger picture.

I also performed poorly for some reason, I was nervous and I don't like being observed when working so I simply enough rushed through it, might this be a reason for the low results?

I have an officially recorded IQ of 160 but I need extra time in exams, study support and I struggle with independent living skills. I can't even fry an egg or open a bank account. What shoved my IQ score up were my good visual memory, my ability to manipulate three-dimensional problems in my head, my prodigious skills in mathematicsand my developed vocabulary. What they failed to realise is that I'm rubbish at real life practical stuff. I have amazing at rote memory and understanding of complex research papers. However I have learning difficulties (dyspraxia, neurological visual processing disorder and hyperkinetic disorder) as well.

IQ is an average. I scored 121 in one subtest but 187 and 171 in two other subtests.

There's your answer - skill scatter. Your Matrix reasoning score is what would be expected from someone with an IQ of about 125, while your Cube design score was more typical of someone with an IQ of 75 (borderline cognitive disability).

So, in areas that tap similar skills to the Matrix reasoning test, you'll function like a person with an IQ of 125 (high average), while in areas tapping the same skills as Cube Design, you'll function more like someone who is on the border of mental retardation. The averaged-out score of 87 means very little in your case because you have such dramatic skill scatter. (Most NTs get very similar scores in each subtest, which makes their total IQ a lot more meaningful.)

I was tested recently by the CDC (I believe this is the Child Development Clinic?) and it has been recorded that I have an IQ of 145.

I have always wanted to join MENSA, but my mother says they are full of "stuck-up smart people".

My stepfather always tries to make me feel inferior by claiming that he has an IQ of 160...with an IQ that high, there is uaually some type of mental issue within the brain, such as, with me, autism, or schizophrenia, or even something entirely different.

Yet, he asks me how to spell words frequently, how things are pronounced, etc. I suppose I am just a natural at these things because of my hyperlexia.

I have been diagnosed with Asperger's, PDD, and PDD-NOS by all sorts of different doctors. That is why I prefer the label "autistic", because I never really knew who I was.

I apologize if some of these points are irrelevant, but I really do have trouble staying on-topic.

Anyway, Intelligence Quotient tests do not always determine you ractual intelligence. It tests your ability to learn. Also, it sometimes includes verbal and memory sections, which can make the score go higher or lower, depending on your abilities. You should not feel bad about yourself. My older sister took a test and scored a 79, despite being a brilliant writer. Remember, this number should not define you.

All the best,
~SDR

IQ/genius is very influenced by determination

I started learning to write sentences at age twenty-three, and now I work in patent law.

I agree. I've looked over their websites and such, and they seem to be all about having a place to gather and feel superior. I'm all for gifted people getting together to share experiences, but not if you're going to act like IQ = worth as a person. My IQ of 137 doesn't make me any more valuable a person, it just means I happen to have some innate skills that are useful in academic/learning contexts.

lower than the average IQ doesnt automaticaly mean someone struggles with inteligence,to use a more extreme example many people score in the intelectual disability range but still dont get diagnosed with ID as its specific issues that have biased their score.
those of us who have ID [am diagnosed under mild ID] score overall equaly low in performance and verbal and we have significant difficulties in everything from basic functioning to education to behavior to understanding.

I believe the official definition is that the person has to have a full-scale IQ below 75 (or 70, depending on the context) and have significant impairment in practical skills.

If a person had an IQ of 68 but no problems in functioning in everyday life, they would not be diagnosed with ID.

Conversely, if a person has a nonverbal IQ below 70, but a high verbal IQ that drags their full-scale IQ above 70, they would not have ID. Or a below-70 verbal IQ but a high nonverbal IQ.

A person with a few skills in the normal/above-average range, but whose full-scale IQ is under 70 and who has impairment in practical skills could be diagnosed with ID. 'Savant Syndrome' is a common term for ID with a few above-average skills.

Autistic people can have an IQ at any level, but usually have a lot of skill scatter.

I have read that schizophrenics generally have lower IQs. However even when I was having a relapse on a secure unit, I would produce pages and pages of solving differential equations. I looked at them later when I was well and they were totally correct. However I did have severe delusions, one of which was that I could see all water as yellow and not clear, and was convinced that someone was adding a toxic amine compound to my water. I didn't eat or drink at all for five days until the nurses said they'd have to send me to the general hospital to be force fed and put on an IV because my kidneys were failing. It's interesting to reflect in my delusions when in hospital in the past as they were all very elaborate and usually based on scientific theories and conspiracies.