06 Jul 2012, 2:28 am
06 Jul 2012, 3:20 am
Callista wrote:
Moonpenny wrote:
I don't understand those tests with chequerboards and shapes and diagrams. I just sit there staring helplessly at them, and have no idea what they mean or what I'm supposed to do – the last one I did gave me an IQ of 8. (Mind you, at the age of 53 I still haven't mastered long division, so that's probably about right when it comes to anything connected to maths or logic. 
)
And here we have one of the many weaknesses of IQ tests. By your writing, your use of words is average-range or better; but you're behind in math. When you take an IQ test, anything with math on it is going to pull down your overall score, even though your weakness is specific to math. )Here's the bald truth: There is no such thing as "intelligence". There are only many, many different abilities. Some of us are genetically luckier than others; some of us got better environments; some of us had more motivation or curiosity to learn. Some of us have problems with the skills that are required in daily life and at school, and we call those people "intellectually disabled". Others have unusually high levels of socially valued skills, and we call them "gifted".
Certainly people differ in what they can and cannot do. Even performance on an IQ test can be a useful gauge of what one might be good or bad at doing.
But "intelligence", as a real thing independent of anything else? No. Doesn't exist. It's a social construct. It's an abstract idea, an estimate, an opinion that one person has of another. We may use it as a shortcut to talk about what a person might generally be capable of doing, but the less specific your statements about someone's capabilities, the less they apply to a real person. By the time you get general enough to talk about "intelligence", you've become so vague that your statements have no practical application and no predictive value--or else your statements have become stereotypical, limiting, and ultimately false.
Absolutely agree. As for me, my written language skills are considerably better than average; my maths skills are considerably worse; my practical skills are somewhat better; for someone with AS, my independent living and employment skills are considerably better. I'm not gifted in any way, but I have a broad range of skills and aptitudes that, put together, make me a successful human being. IQ tests don't measure this success, but ultimately it matters a good deal more than having the knack of doing puzzles.
06 Jul 2012, 4:13 am
Verdandi
Veteran
Joined: 7 Dec 2010
Age: 56
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,275
Location: University of California Sunnydale (fictional location - Real location Olympia, WA)
06 Jul 2012, 5:33 am
06 Jul 2012, 11:59 am
06 Jul 2012, 12:18 pm
I have had lots of IQ test.
From them test I can say that my IQ is over 0 and is under 200 but is not 100 but is under and over 100. 
So with all them test I just do not know what my IQ is. some say very low, low, good, very good, high, and very high. 
The last 3 I had..
1. 82 (At age 12 in the 1980's)
2. over 150 Deleted due to errors)
3. 67
some I had showed it was in the 90's and some like 120
06 Jul 2012, 12:33 pm
Tollorin
Veteran
Joined: 14 Jun 2009
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,178
Location: Sherbrooke, Québec, Canada
06 Jul 2012, 12:43 pm
XFilesGeek wrote:
Tollorin wrote:
When I was a child some professional said I was "gifted", but a more recent test said as 82th percentile for verbal and 61th percentile for perfomance which according to this chart (http://www.douance.org/qi/tabqi.htm) make 114 IQ for verbal and 111 IQ for perfomance; I guess I grew more stupid. 
Research shows that people with Asperger's do better on Raven's matrices.
I've always been somewhat skeptical of this, myself. I've seen an article making this argument before, but it seems unlikely to me. Fully eighty percent of us have a non-verbal learning disability, and if you do, then pattern recognition probably isn't going to be your forte. Maybe it's better than other non-verbal measures, and going to the online version hosted through a legitimate website (the Danish Mensa, for what it's worth, although obviously it's still not a clinical IQ test), I did definitely score higher than is typical for me on a non-verbal measure, but still a lot lower than my typical VIQ score (although I could have gotten frustrated with it on the last four more difficult questions; they might have dragged it up to within ten points if I had gotten them right).
Well for me the score on Raven are better as a official test put at the 95-100th percentile on it (125+IQ), propably closer to 95 that 100 as a similar subtest of the WAIS 3 put me only at the 91th percentile; Guess even with those result I'm not gifted, beside having "gifted" interests.
globalwolf2010 wrote:
bizboy1 wrote:
loner1984 wrote:
Hmm well that was an interesting test in that link.
118, must have been one of my better moments today, or i just got a lot of them right by accident. They do say to choose a random one if you arent sure instead of not answering.
Definitely the exception i would get that high. i seem to recall one many years ago where i got like 70 or something. 75.
118, must have been one of my better moments today, or i just got a lot of them right by accident. They do say to choose a random one if you arent sure instead of not answering.
Definitely the exception i would get that high. i seem to recall one many years ago where i got like 70 or something. 75.
Research shows that people with Asperger's do better on Raven's matrices.
I've always been somewhat skeptical of this, myself. I've seen an article making this argument before, but it seems unlikely to me. Fully eighty percent of us have a non-verbal learning disability, and if you do, then pattern recognition probably isn't going to be your forte. Maybe it's better than other non-verbal measures, and going to the online version hosted through a legitimate website (the Danish Mensa, for what it's worth, although obviously it's still not a clinical IQ test), I did definitely score higher than is typical for me on a non-verbal measure, but still a lot lower than my typical VIQ score (although I could have gotten frustrated with it on the last four more difficult questions; they might have dragged it up to within ten points if I had gotten them right).
Well for me the score on Raven are better as a official test put at the 95-100th percentile on it (125+IQ), propably closer to 95 that 100 as a similar subtest of the WAIS 3 put me only at the 91th percentile; Guess even with those result I'm not gifted, beside having "gifted" interests.
The term "gifted" seems to rely just as much on whether a teacher thinks you're "special" as it does on any objective testing.
In my school, one of your parents had to either work for the school district or be really active in the PTA in order for you to be labeled "gifted."
What you describe sound like a bad gifted program. My parents are not the kind of peoples that would seek a "gifted" label only to be proud of their little "genius". (Though they were seeking a label, but one that would explain why I was different, turn out it was asperger.) And I was never been part of any gifted program anyway.
Giftedness is it's own reality, and gifted individuals got they own characteristics as well as a different way of thinking (arboreteous thinking) that sound pretty cool. http://www.gifteddevelopment.com/What_is_Gifted/characgt.htm
06 Jul 2012, 3:29 pm
06 Jul 2012, 7:00 pm
06 Jul 2012, 7:18 pm
06 Jul 2012, 7:25 pm
06 Jul 2012, 7:36 pm
06 Jul 2012, 7:41 pm
06 Jul 2012, 7:58 pm
06 Jul 2012, 8:59 pm
Callista wrote:
I sometimes wonder if I might not have benefited from a low IQ score. As a child I was tested; I had a huge VIQ/PIQ gap but no other problems. So, on the assumption that I was smart and perfectly capable of anything that was asked of me, parents and teachers used to get frustrated with me because I simply couldn't do some things that other kids my age could do; or I couldn't do them without help, or without being taught how first. I wasn't very good at taking care of myself. But because my IQ score wasn't in the MR range, they assumed I must just be defiant, rebellious, and stubborn. It's an experience that will probably affect me to some degree for the rest of my life. I've had a lot of catching up to do, and I still can't think of myself as responsible, no matter how hard I try or how much I manage to do. I'm very hard on myself and I can never seem to tell the difference between disability-related problems and laziness or irresponsibility.
I don't think you would have benefited from a low IQ score because that creates a whole different set of problem; like being held back because people underestimate you. What everyone would benefit from is the presentation of IQ test scores as components rather than a single FSIQ score. There's an important distinction between someone who scores 120 with all subtests being 12 and, someone who scores 120 with subtest scores ranging from 5-19. I've seen around 6 of these IQ threads since I joined WP and I'm sure you've seen more. Most of what I've seen on these threads is a 'bigger is better' mindset about FSIQ that somehow blocks their brain from realizing FSIQ says almost nothing. This IQ thing is like a plague on WP with online test numbers and misinformation have replaced facts. Whenever these threads turn into WAIS vs. RPM I always see "aspies are better on the RPM". Next thing you know there are "what are your aspie superpowers?" threads popping up. No matter how much you explain that AS is better than AS on RPM vs. WAIS, and AS is still lower than the general population norm on both people won't listen because the reverse feels better. The only thing that these threads prove is that people on the spectrum aren't immune to 'comparing cock size' for a little ego boost.
Anyway, sorry for picking your thread to mostly vent, I know I'm preaching to the choir
