-CARNIFEX-[LOC] wrote:
rdx-fx wrote:
1) IQ tests are weighted by age. If you understand the reasoning used in an IQ test at a young age, you get inflated IQ scores.
2) Most IQ tests max out at 165. To test above 150, a completely different test series is required.
So theoretically if you're given an official IQ test in gradeschool to see if you place into "gifted" classes, the max score on that test would be 150 and if you hit that you would need another test to reach the true value?
And are any of the online IQ tests actually close to accurate? The only one I ever took put me about 10 points higher than the "real" one I was given back in gradeschool, so I was assuming they try to inflate scores to make people want to buy the results.
I'm also thinking that Lythberg fellow is pretty damn high on the charts.
I don't recall being given any IQ tests specifically
for gradeschool. All of the tests I ever took for any 'gifted' courses for middle school or beyond, were more like variants of the SAT or ASVAB. The experience may vary depending on the individual.
The normal IQ tests max out at 165. This would explain why you see a handful of people who can claim a 165 IQ, but seldom anything higher.
From what I've seen, up to 165 is 'just' conventionally smart. Nothing unusual about the person, other than being very smart.
Perhaps an unusually good memory for numbers, but not quite photographic.
Perhaps an unusually good sense of spatial relations or mechanical visualization.
To warrant being given the more elaborate individualized IQ testing for 150+, it seems one has to exhibit some unusual trait like
eidetic memory, or some other savant-like ability. The majority of people that score up to 165 on the conventional tests, don't warrant further testing beyond 165.
My knowledge & perspective of this is just based on personal experience, talking to peers from gradeschool age through military career.
The highest concentration of very smart people I've ever seen, was at DLI (Defense Language Institute).
At the
category 4 language barracks for the Army (A & B Company, 'oriental' and 'arabic' generally speaking), a 165 IQ score was pretty much the average.
Definitely a shock for some people, who's egos were too tied up in being the smartest kid on the block, to suddenly be
just average Refreshing for the rest of us, to be around a crowd of similar people.
As an example of crazy smart: my roommate at DLI could look at a page from one of our textbooks for 15 seconds, and recall every last word of it perfectly.. even a couple hours later.
And it was all in Korean. He was unusual, but not unique. 5 or 10 people like that, out of 100
For me, IQ tests were always easy. Took a handful of them from age 9 through 17, getting 159 through 165.
The SAT, I got a 1581/1600 (shows my age, I guess. Only went to 1600 when I took it)
The ASVAB I've taken a number of times between 1990 to 2003, including a few
beta test versions. Old paper & pencil version with the
Coding speed section, I scored a 127GT & 99.9% AFQT percentile in 1990. Newer adaptive computer based one, my raw scores were 246-247 across the board (max is supposed to be 246 raw scores for the various subsections) - I think the overall score ended up being 134GT/99.9%, in 2003.
The hardest, most interesting test I've ever taken was the DLAB (Defense Language Aptitude Battery).
That test is something completely different than the usual questions you see on SAT or ASVAB. The DLAB tests specifically for pattern recognition, language learning ability, and the ability to stack multiple simple language rules together to form complex sequences in a completely made-up nonsensical language. The max is supposedly 176, I got a 135, and the highest scoring people I've ever personally known had a 145 and a 146.
The point of all this?
It's not how well you score on an arbitrary test - it's what you do with it that counts.
I know
plenty of very smart people, with no drive, no determination, no follow-through, and no common sense.
The slacker-genius is a common stereotype for a reason...
