IQ test scores

Post Reply New Topic

I had heard that some of them were made to give you a high IQ, and I wanted to see it by myself. And maybe that was what happened.

The differences on types of IQ are often seen in autisms, they don't define it. And MOST won't have the same IQ everywhere, so your 2% is sttaistically insignificant anyway.

BTW Even my STEPBROTHER(who is MR, and officially recognized as such and is NOT autistic) understands language. That doesn't make him autistic. HECK, he is even lying, interested in women, etc.... So what makes him MR? He has a low IQ, is not self sufficient, incapable of learning relatively simple things, and doesn't understand things like money. But even his mother openly states he isn't autistic. He LOVES company, has NO special interests, and his "small talk" is repetitive and contains NO worthwhile info. Frankly, I try to avoid him like the plague when possible because of that last bit.
I could never accuse him of being autistic, and certainly NOT AS! AGAIN, that phsyciatrist should go back to kindergarten or something.

Steve

42

PS: Yay for Doctor Who calling an episode '42'

6 x 7 my dear

And THAT shows you where science will get you.

OR 21*2 OR 43-1 OR 41+1

Maybe you should rethink the mensa thing!

JUST KIDDING!

Steve

Tickle.com seems to figure out IQ in the following fashion:

That is, a random number between 100 and 140.

Why do you say that? I only took it once, and my score was a little under 140(I tried to answer two questions in a more truthful way, they were overly self deprecating, and I think I slipped on one other, I would have gotten it right) I guess, in retrospect, 140 probably was close to the top, but why do you think it is random?

Steve

Is it just my perception or is there a real "anti-IQ-testing" spirit in here?

IQ levels, in my personal opinion, like all other labels and tests we use are just references... they don't define nor limit me, but give a good idea of who and how and why and what I am. Pretty much as saying Asperger or HFA or "White Hispanic Male born in Mexico and living in the US" or "middle class"

By the way... I always score noticeably higher on visual/spatial/math tests than in verbal (I always confuse something or understand things differently - even though I have a very good language level --- specially in Spanish)

And I am always around 137, sometimes higher, sometimes lower... most of the time there, and very close there... and there. The only weird counting was once on Tickle, that it reported me with 163

The person that gave me my latest IQ said it was misleading to my "Aspie" nature and said I was probably of average or above average intelligence.

Feibel,

I think most here DO test at about 130 or higher. I DID get nearly all the tickle questions right. They do tell you later how you did answer by answer. Still, I usually test higher, and on official tests I have. When I was tested officially, I don't even know if they DID have more than one. NOW, they have like 7, and like 3-4 of them are tested for in various IQ tests. I think every test I have taken HAS covered the 4 areas.(Spatial, Analytical, Math, Verbal)

Still, there ARE some questions that always seem to be the same or close.(Whether official, mensa, tickle, whatever....) Some here have said that they were originally used to test for mental retardation.

Nobody is saying they are worthless, just that they aren't that meaningful after a point, or for some things.

Steve

SteveK,

While I do tend to agree with you that it is likely that most of the people in here would get high scores, I don't understand the reason behind the remarks on your post, nor the emphasis you put saying that "nobody is saying they are worthless, just that they aren't that meaningful after a point, or for some things"... then... I would have to apologize since I thought that the following expressions meant they were useless: "random number between 100 and 140" / "Don't trust Internet IQ tests" / "Tests test <test taking> ability" / "All IQ tests are BS IMO". And my posting was in regards to these.

Anyway, when I was a kid, I took several IQ Tests and my performance would be very different if the tool had squares and circles or if it had questions... I was able to read since I was 4, before going to school, but in order to understand the question I would need to diagram it on an additional piece of paper (questions like "if Anne is older than ..." would take me forever if the expected answer would be something like <Cannot be known with the actual information>).

And today, just some months short of 40, the difference between both sections is a lot less obvious but still present. Specially when filling insurance or government paperwork (no, wait! Scratch that!... I guess EVERYBODY has problems with the instructions in those...)

Lastly, just for the pleasure of it, I have just taken the Tickle test... And I was thinking on saying something like "Just call me Mari(o)lyn (Von Savant)"... but no, it said 142 - Facts Curator... with a picture of Bill Gates.

The random number one was one I questioned myself, but was for an ONLINE test! Another spoke of ONLINE tests! There ARE reasons for such concerns! The "ALL are BS" comment was made by NoCriminalIntent. I don't know if I trust that person. Was that the SAME one that said you should go back and guess? If so, then OF COURSE the score would be different.

I could ALSO read before I was 5. I KNOW I read at 4, and my mother agrees. We just aren't sure if I read earlier. I seem to remember reading some at 3. Heck, by the age of 6 I subscribed to Popular mechanics, popular electronics, and radio electronics. Unlike today, I read EVERYTHING! That meant even SCHEMATICS! Electronics was my first real interest.

I DO have more trouble with word math, but I don't have to diagram it. I do ok with insurance. HECK, I even know that insurance dividends are, Quoting the California Insurance Commission, "Repayment of excess premium paid"! For government, they can't even get their OWN statements straight! Income used to be income, and now they have like 3 types! I had everything down pat in 1984, and the passed TEFRA! WHAT A PIECE OF GARBAGE!

As for the IQ. My last official IQ test was 154.

As for my statements? IQ tests DO sometimes assume one answer when others fit. You CAN learn to do better at them. They don't cover everything, and may be biased. AND, unfortunately, smarter people may not necessarily work hard or be driven, so a high IQ doesn't GUARANTEE that you will be more successful than someone with a lower IQ.

HECK, a lot of the electronic stuff I did has since been done by someone else, or made realtively insignificant by computers. I DID move into computers in the late 70s. That was my last really big interest, and is my current job.

That is certainly not saying anything against anyone that tests high. I'm just saying it is no reason to be haughty, a few points may not be significant, etc... HECK, it's a TEST! Contrary to what some think, it IS subject to the same failings.

BTW I LIKE having a high IQ. As dumb as I feel at times, I am obviously smarter than most. My employers recognize it. I am certainly not belittling anyone here. And, while I won't openly advertise having AS, I'm fine with it, and wish the world had a lot of the symptoms! They ought to be looking for a CAUSE rather than a cure!

Steve

Haughty? I can assure you that my IQ doesn't back me up on that... I don't think even a "beyond metrics" IQ would.

If the fact that I mentioned that I could read at 4 or read the "Don Quijote" by 6, or that I mention that I have a metric of 137, or tried to make a joke mentioning Marilyn Von Savant and Bill Gates are the reasons to think that I am belittling anyone, then I want to make a PUBLIC APOLOGY.

I, simply, thought that I didn't need to control my expressions to make my participation "palatable" and assume that a fact-statement approach would be the best. Never was my intention to offend, insult or make anybody feel uncomfortable. I can certainly control my expressions and the way I present my point of view; but, then, controlling myself is something I am used to and was hoping not to need to do it here.

Of course a high IQ is no guarantee of success. Of course is just a test with many possible outcomes from the same person on different days and under different situations. Of course that tests assume one answer when another fits... (and generally, they are designed to measure this possibility).

Anyway, I guess I am overextending and boring people with this.
================================================

And if I am misunderstanding and missing the point and I am not the one called "haughty", then... I just tend to do that sometimes.

No. I'm impressed. I don't think that I could have dealt with Quixote at 6. Tolkien yes, Cervantes no.