polarbearz wrote:
Who here has an IQ worth taking an IQ test for?
Depends. I say scores from both ends of the spectrum are worth testing for. The scores are re-zeroed periodically so that 100 equals a completely average score. IQs have been increasing at nearly 0.5 points a year, a phenomenon known as the Flynn effect; in any case, the distributions are assigned so that 65% of scores fall immediately within 1 standard deviation of the exact average (i.e., 84-116) and 95% are within two standard deviations (70-130). 116 happens to be the cutoff point for "bright" (which I didn't know was a technical term) and 130 for "gifted"; every 10 or 15 points thereafter, you have other, impressive-sounding titles (e.g., "profoundly gifted"). Below 70 is considered handicapped and anything much lower than that, a person would need 24-hour care to perform basic daily tasks. (Wasn't Forrest Gump in the 70 range, to put things in perspective?)
Honestly, my Stanford-Binet results said I was some kind of gifted, but I don't put too much stock in those terms. I may have an IQ above 145 (stronger in concrete functions, weak in fluid or non-memorized situations) but my "common sense quotient" I swear must be in the low 10s, and that utterly kills my functional intelligence...