What is your IQ?

Post Reply New Topic

Same here

I think I got 97/98/99 scores on the original IQ test I did for that reason. I'm happy enough to accept that my IQ is 99ish if this is the case, but it doesn't seem possible I could achieve the academic results I do with this IQ. I know that the psychiatrist looked shocked when I told him my GPA and the OP I got after he'd read my records (which had the old IQ test results in it).

It irritates me, because to me it's further proof of the inaccuracy of IQ tests.

If the psych was the one who diagnosed you or was aware of your diagnosis, his surprise seems strange considering that he should know IQ tests are often not accurate measures of ability for those with neurological differences.

The mention of "crystallized intelligence" has reminded me of a book I once found by 2 supposed experts. I could not find any credentials beyond their production of many popular publications, so they probably don't represent offical tests very well. However, their tests contained some striking examples of prior knowledge requirements needed to get the correct answers, which I'll list. This was just for one of their tests:

- Knowing several different types of window names (e.g., lancet)
- Knowing a certain idiom
- Knowing 2 quotes
- Knowing what an aiglet is
- Knowing what a hock is
- Knowing what a buskin is
- Knowing how words such as Heller and Tester are related

(The test following it was very similar and also contained 3 mistakes.)

When reducing the number of items requiring "crystallised intelligence" (which were present to the extreme in the poorly designed tests above), tests become more g-loaded. Raven matrices is an example of this. IQ tests are tools that can easily be misused and/or poorly designed.

I would flunk that test for sure- which is your point. I only know a few window types (stained glass window, storm window, transom...which might not even really be a window). I don't know what an aiglet, hock or buskin are. I have no idea how Heller and Tester are related or even if they are names of people, places or famous chemical reactions. Based on all that the odds are low that I'd recognize their idiom or quotes. I'd be zero for zero, probably.

The psyc was a different one, but I think the old one would be equally shocked. He told my mum I had average intelligence, wasn't particularly smart.

I agree with you about crystallized intelligence; especially back then my crystallized intelligence would have been absolutely abysmal. Even in Year 12 I still didn't know the number of days there are in a year, and I actually had to put up my hand in the middle of a Maths B (algebra) exam to ask this, and the examiner couldn't believe it, but told me the answer because she said that the purpose of the test wasn't to test our calender knowledge. Still came out of maths at the end of the year with an A.

I can't actually remember what the psychologist tested me on back then at all, I don't even remember him giving me a test in the first place. Most of my memories from that time are pretty blurred though because of my ADD; before I started taking ritalin in Grade 11 I was completely disconnected and off the planet for the vast majority of the time.

I don't really see how IQ tests can be even close to accurate. For instance when I took mine I got tested on some math questions for one portion. I was told my math skills were average. I still don't know my multiplication facts but I can do things with fractions and such they asked me to do despite that and so I got an average score. I'm not good at math but my score didn't reflect that at all.

only drummers.

100-115, Idk.

At least 2 people here are douche bags. :B Come on, if you're smarter than Stephen Hawking, why are you moping around on an autism forum instead of inventing a time machine or something?

its not always that easy, sometimes people are happier to be doing less than their potential. Particularly if they are having problems in society as a result of a higher intelligence.

This is quite similar to me. People would assume that I not only possessed adequate general knowledge, but that it was excellent, and would invite me onto their quiz teams, only to be disappointed. People also assume I am a fully independent adult who knows how to deal with banks, shopping, travelling, paying bills ... all that kind of knowledge, which I do not possess. If they discover such deficits, they patronize.

Aside from "crystallised intelligence", I remember many other issues that became very apparent at university (which I'll list), showing how much of an impact neurological differences can have on perceived ability:

- I could not follow verbal instructions or lectures
- I could not follow written laboratory instructions. Everyone but me would find a lab partner, so I would spend the entire lab session (often 2 hours long) sitting alone just trying to fathom the instructions and not touching any equipment. It also wouldn't occur to me to seek help.
- I could not understand what the classroom assignments were requesting. Therefore, I would sit alone for the duration, doing nothing. The lecturers assumed I was unintelligent. I could only grasp the material by directing my own learning and working at home, and this is how I managed to do well in the end.
- Timed tests do not suit me, so I could not do well during informal classroom tests. However, I was very lucky that all the official exams were designed to allow plenty of time.
- I was unable to communicate verbally (except for sometimes being able to say things like "yes" or "no") during tutorials. They automatically assumed this was a reflection of academic ability.
- Similarly, I was unable to give any presentations.
- I had poor executive functioning skills and would forget to do most weekly assignments. It was lucky that they did not count much towards the final grades.
- I had undiagnosed and unsupported AS, along with severe anxiety disorders, which compounded the above.

Very few with such issues made it through back then. When I got into research a few years later, the disability office were very unfamiliar with supporting people at that stage, because not many had reached it. My doctor and counsellor also couldn't understand how I had reached it. I think it involved using idiosyncratic coping methods that allowed me to tap into strengths and underlying ability.

I completely understand. Only I am fortunate enough to have help with organization, and assignment management and stuff, allowing me to achieve to my full potential. I can't imagine how hard it must have been for you, and other undiagnosed aspies to get by back then. Are you in Psychology? I intend to hopefully get into research one day too, but I have only just finished the first year courses so far.

Yes, it seems to be very recent that institutions are taking disability issues more seriously. If there had been support back then, I'm not sure about the extent to which it would have been helpful at that late(ish) stage. The issues had become severe by that stage, so it's doubtful I would have listened to or trusted anyone. The support person(s) would have had to have been very proficient and experienced, I think. I'm in physics. What area of research do you wish to get into?

200+ IQ, you should be able to think outside of the box enough to do SOMETHING.

I haven't decided yet. Currently there isn't an area I don't like, although I'm leaning away from early developmental psyc. I'd particularly like to do some sort of combination between neuropsychology and something else, I think, from the minimal amount I've learned so far.

I scored above average in the 120's my parents said and the was the last IQ test I have ever taken when I was 12. I have scored a lot lower than that in the past. I think I was tested every year for my IQ and it rose up every year.

More evidence to back up my case. IQ tests do not say anything about your potential or how well you will do in school. I'm sure there's a 900 number to a psychic that can tell you your future if you really want to know. IQ only shows what you know right now.