Test your IQ

marshbaboon

mrwhimwham wrote: »

Did one of these when I was younger down in WIT and I can tell you that it's on-line counterpart there is piss easy in comparison.

The actual test is extremely long, and split into sections too.

mikemac1

102, I iz average

Sounds about right, ITV used to do these live tests on Friday night with Anne Robinson and Philip Schofield
You buy that days paper and then do the test as they tell you on TV
Got 95

1ZRed

I hate when they make you descramble letters! 3D shapes never a problem but I hate them!

Got Perth right on a guess though!

Colmustard

Why does it want your name and email, I really don't want to be their friend.

mrwhimwham

marshbaboon wrote: »

The actual test is extremely long, and split into sections too.

Ah it's completely different, but I do remember a set time limit of being able to complete it. Can't remember for the life of me how long (But it was 13 years go).

RUCKING FETARD

Colmustard wrote: »

Why does it want your name and email, I really don't want to be their friend.

http://mailinator.com/

Colmustard

RUCKING FETARD wrote: »

http://mailinator.com/

Thankyou that will come in handy.

MarkR

I is samrt! (I got potato)

Stinicker

I hate these things but I did it anyway and scored 108, I really hate those solving of sequence puzzles, I can do two or three and then my brain says like f*ck these, half the test was pretty much about them so if you are an autistic savant and have aspergers or whatever then grand but they are from a sign of true intelligence. General knowledge quizzes for me are the best test of intelligence with a varied mixture of questions all over the place.

Latchy

I recently got 17 out of 20 questions right on general knowledge quiz ( level 2/3 ) which had 7 participants.That will do me .

Dontfadeaway

114. Was expecting worse

evolving_doors

I did the test and blew up their server the score was so high...

mickgotsick

I got 123 but I gave my real email address, so obviously this test isn't accurate. I amn't smrt.

babymanval

I got 132; By nature of the conflicted interests of these things, it's probably a bit less. I reckon I've wrecked my brain with inactivity and many numerous vices in my 20's.

I, in a pursuit of complete tossery (thinking it would "help my CV", lolz), applied to and sat the MENSA tests back when I was 18. I did the initial post-away test and got "158", but then fell short of their 148 cut-off in the physical test, administered in one of their test centres (UCD, if I recall correctly). They're a complete scam (not because I failed, just how they rope people in).

Generally speaking, IQ tests don't nearly measure the full spectrum of intelligence types, and have been considered as arguably culturally biased etc.

le la rat

Is there anyway i can stop the clock so i can google the answers. I am very bad at these things

babymanval

I answered all the questions, then said "Put up more questions", and it came back and said "There are no more questions."

Wompa1

122. I've got 128 and 132 before on IQ Tests. I don't think they are accurate at all. No matter if they are aptitude test in colleges or jobs or whatever. They don't test your level of intelligence, they test your level of concentration at that given moment. If I did an IQ test after 4 hours of sleep or if I was sick or dehydrated, I'd get about 80 or something. Just my 2 cents

Wiggles88

I got 129. I'd love to do an actual IQ test though.

Casillas

I don't really get how some anagrams and maths questions are the key to judging IQ.

What of history, literature, politics, geography, physics....

Chuck Stone

The only conclusion that can be drawn from an IQ score is how good the person who took the test is at doing IQ tests.

IQ tests are a load of crap.

My name is URL

Casillas wrote: »

I don't really get how some anagrams and maths questions are the key to judging IQ.

What of history, literature, politics, geography, physics....

IQ tests really only determine a persons problem solving / reasoning capabilities. It's only one small part of what intelligence actually is as a whole.

There's a whole rake of different forms of intelligence. If every one of them were to be taken into account then most people who think they are of above average intelligence overall, would be in for quite a shock!

babymanval

Chuck Stone wrote: »

The only conclusion that can be drawn from an IQ score is how good the person who took the test is at doing IQ tests.

IQ tests are a load of crap.

Well, they're not a load of crap; but they're inadequate in terms of considering a wide enough range of intelligence, and in that sense, yes, they're crap. It's not accident that for generations they have been seen as a fairly solid marker of a person's intelligence; they do have some merit.

The city anagram question supposes a knowledge of geography/cities, which has nothing to do with your level of intelligence. A large portion of the rest of the questions seem to be about pattern recognition/sequences, whether that be shapes or numbers. Any questions that suppose or require a knowledge of some external subject matter, weaken a test's credibility. The questions about waves and water etc. could be said to do this too.

Chuck Stone

babymanval wrote: »

Well, they're not a load of crap; but they're inadequate in terms of considering a wide enough range of intelligence, and in that sense, yes, they're crap. It's not accident that for generations they have been seen as a fairly solid marker of a person's intelligence; they do have some merit.

The city anagram question supposes a knowledge of geography/cities, which has nothing to do with your level of intelligence. A large portion of the rest of the questions seem to be about pattern recognition/sequences, whether that be shapes or numbers. Any questions that suppose or require a knowledge of some external subject matter, weaken a test's credibility. The questions about waves and water etc. could be said to do this too.

What do you mean when you say 'intelligence'?

Eathrin

129. I Don't trust these online things though.

johnmcdnl

126 - would have gotten the counting letters backwards if I had about 20 more seconds left but clock was counting down from 0:10 when I seen it so just randomly guessed one of them.

Are you allowed use a pen and paper in real ones though because if I'd used a pen and paper I'd have saved about 1 and a half minutes on the Athletics question - just couldn't remember all the numbers in my head and it took me a while to figure that one out which caused me to rush in the end.

Always seem to score pretty much exactly this much on every single test like this I take so.

I would actually like to do a real IQ test at some point in my life just for the ****s and giggles to see how I'd do on one of them.

babymanval

Chuck Stone wrote: »

What do you mean when you say 'intelligence'?

Well, with some pause: I guess I take it to mean a person's ability to acquire and put to use information and abilities. It's not a quality I can really do full justice with a concise definition, and in modern times is taken to consider a range of various abilities. For the most part I consider it a very general "meta" trait, rather than being comprised of any set number of sections; e.g. "spatial reasoning" etc (despite what I said above). I would consider SR etc. to be closer to a variety of measure of intellect, which is distinct from intelligence.

seven_eleven

Got stuck on the first question. I cant math!! Then I closed the tab on question 3. Proceeded to thank Bluewolfs comment :cool:

Agricola

Some of the questions here were obvious or just basic numeracy stuff. I did a verbal and numerical reasoning test last year from a recruitment company and the maths side of it nearly broke me!

Chuck Stone

babymanval wrote: »

Well, with some pause: I guess I take it to mean a person's ability to acquire and put to use information and abilities.

Or in other words - how good a person is at doing an IQ test? IQ tests are value laden. A 13 year old Japanese kid living in Tokyo might have a high IQ but could be totally useless at getting along without his stuff.

How do you compare the intelligence of an Amazonian tribesman to that of an urban kid? One will have a very low IQ and the other will have a high one but which one is more valuable?

Wiggles88

Wiggles88 wrote: »

I got 129. I'd love to do an actual IQ test though.

they're boring

Chuck Stone wrote: »

What do you mean when you say 'intelligence'?

I think it's more an ability to learn new things thoroughly and quickly, and real ability to use reasoning

Chuck Stone

bluewolf wrote: »

I think it's more an ability to learn new things thoroughly and quickly,

That's not what is being tested when you do an IQ test. I could probably train myself to be good at IQ tests but might be useless at learning things quickly.

babymanval

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Or in other words - how good a person is at doing an IQ test?

Personally, I see that as a fairly substantial reach between my original definition of intelligence - and the learning of a very specific ability, vis-a-vis "how good a person is at an IQ test".

IQ tests are value laden. A 13 year old Japanese kid living in Tokyo might have a high IQ but could be totally useless at getting along without his stuff.

His stuff? I'm not sure I get your meaning here?

How do you compare the intelligence of an Amazonian tribesman to that of an urban kid? One will have a very low IQ and the other will have a high one but which one is more valuable?

Hyperbole. That's not a reasonable comparison. The Cattell III IQ test was developed to make testing "culture-fair", but is only effective when implemented within reason. For me, the above example borders on absurdity. I would suggest that there doesn't exist a testing mechanism to compare your two examples; or at least one that is mutually applicable, as well as comprehensive enough.

Laura_lolly87

Ficheall wrote: »

The clock on mind seemed a little messed up... It seemed to change when I moved up and down the page, rather than in line with actual time...

The phrasing on question 3 is dodgy, as is 23.

Another couple which I didn't really get:

Question 7:
Which set of letters, when unscrambled, gives the name of a city:
RHEPT
TRISK
GRITE

Anyone?

And Question 18:
Shot is to Host as Spot is to
Post
Pots
Tops
Spot
?

I went with Post, but I don't know if rhyming anagrams are what they are looking for...

27. Complete the series Z,X,U,Q
N
M
L
K
?

City one = Perth

Gandalph

Why are people bashing this test? Everything on the internet is legitimate... You don't need a high IQ to realise that! Clowns, luckily I scored over 9000

Chuck Stone

Chuck Stone wrote: »

That's not what is being tested when you do an IQ test..

Well no, of course not... babymanval was explaining why they're not a test of intelligence, you asked what intelligence was, and I was agreeing with them and giving my take on it

say_who_now?

Ficheall wrote: »

The clock on mind seemed a little messed up... It seemed to change when I moved up and down the page, rather than in line with actual time...

The phrasing on question 3 is dodgy, as is 23.

Another couple which I didn't really get:

Question 7:
Which set of letters, when unscrambled, gives the name of a city:
RHEPT
TRISK
GRITE

Anyone?

MY ANSWER:

PERTH (Australian City)

Ficheall wrote: »

And Question 18:
Shot is to Host as Spot is to
Post
Pots
Tops
Spot
?

I went with Post, but I don't know if rhyming anagrams are what they are looking for...

MY ANSWER:

Post is correct IMO- Put the first letter in third position, the second letter in first position.

Ficheall wrote: »

27. Complete the series Z,X,U,Q
N
M
L
K
?

MY ANSWER:

K, each step increments by an extra letter backwards, so Z to X is three steps, X to U is four steps, U to Q is five steps, and Q to K is six steps.

hope this helps!

Chuck Stone

babymanval wrote: »

His stuff? I'm not sure I get your meaning here?

Being good at the things that measure IQ.

Hyperbole. That's not a reasonable comparison. The Cattell III IQ test was developed to make testing "culture-fair", but is only effective when implemented within reason.

Culture fair? How can any test be fair if it's attempting to be fair? Who decides it's fair? Shirley a test is a test is a test?

I would suggest that there doesn't exist a testing mechanism two compare your two examples;

But people will use an IQ score to compare two different types of people nevertheless.

What many people who believe in the efficacy of IQ tests will do is choose to entirely random variables and try to make a connection.

Evidence? The bell curve.

babymanval

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Being good at the things that measure IQ.



Culture fair? How can any test be fair if it's attempting to be fair? Who decides it's fair? Shirley a test is a test is a test?



But people will use an IQ score to compare two different types of people nevertheless.

What many people who believe in the efficacy of IQ tests will do is choose to entirely random variables and try to make a connection.

Evidence? The bell curve.

Please don't call me Shirley.

Gee Bag

I done got me 65,



...........but my sister sure is real pretty.

Skerries

my cats breath smells of cat food

Wibbs

Chuck Stone wrote: »

That's not what is being tested when you do an IQ test. I could probably train myself to be good at IQ tests but might be useless at learning things quickly.

Back in my late school days I knew a chap who did just that. IIRC he was intent on moving to the US to go to college after his leaving and part of that was doing an SAT. He bought books on IQ tests etc and practised doing them. Very driven lad. The upshot was he improved his score to quite a degree. 15 odd % again IIRC.

babymanval wrote:

His stuff? I'm not sure I get your meaning here?

Ah jeez B, you failed the question.

Please don't call me Shirley.

... but you're back on track here.

Overall I'd reckon IQ tests give a fair if narrow indication of mental prowess. Certainly for employers in most businesses. They don't(naturally) take into account emotional intelligence(EQ), mental innovation and imagination, ability to link what appear to be widely disparate notions together in a novel way and the like. They don't(again naturally) measure I dunno whatchacallit physical intelligence? IE an average minded dancer/guitarist may be more physically intelligent than a brainy boffin and so on. They don't measure artistic ability(can be separate to imagination. Some great draughtspeople can be low on imagination).

They don't measure sheer bloodymindedness and perseverance either. Kinda similar example; today professional cyclists(and other athletes) are checked early on in their career for their VO2 max. This is a number that very broadly indicates the athletes ability to convert oxygen into power. Back in the day our own Sean Kelly one of the finest all round pro cyclists in history with a career that spanned two decades and into his 40's was strapped into an early version of a machine to test his. The results? He was average, no great shakes at all(today he would probably no get a place on a pro team if that was found early on). When informed of his result, Sean's reply was "Yea? Well does that thing measure pain?". A high IQ score is a big advantage, however the many's the dead end cubicle jockey that sports one. The people who tend to make a difference are the ones who apply whatever IQ and other talents they have in application and dedication.

the groutch

123, and I don't read books at all, so take that everyone on that other thread.

babymanval

the groutch wrote: »

123, and I don't read books at all, so take that everyone on that other thread.

Well I read a book a week, so...

Colmustard

Speaking of IQ

I am looking at something about Shark attacks in Australia in one particular summer. There are loads of them and great whites from 15 to 20 foot long.

Now I am not a member of mensa, but I am not getting in the water if there are sharks in there, simples so Australians must be thick.

Icyseanfitz

123 as well...but i do read books so i must be stupid damn it :pac:

johndoe99

after all that i get:

Error, update query failed

Undiscovered

132. Round about what I always get on these type of tests. Although having studied psychology and done a project on intelligence testing I can tell you that IQ testing is flawed area and I would take any results from these kinda things, especially online ones, with a very large grain of salt.

Colmustard

johndoe99 wrote: »

after all that i get:

Error, update query failed

That's because you score was so high the IQ calculator crashed,,respect.

Greentopia

I'm not doing another online IQ test. I did one years ago out of curiosity to see if the number differed from when I took the test in school. It did, I lost two IQ points in the interim 10 years or so, so I dread to think what it's like now. That's if the online one was accurate of course.
And I got bloody pop-ups from them on my computer afterwards that I had a hard time getting rid of. :mad:

The whole question of what is intelligence has not been settled anyway, as there are differing and competing definitions of what exactly it is. As has been said here IQ is a rather narrow test of intelligence, but it does have it's use in helping to predict educational outcome and employment status I would imagine. But then one also has to be motivated in taking the test to do well so how accurate they are is open to question I think.

I'm not being critical of them because I did poorly btw, I didn't, but perhaps if I'd been more motivated on that day in school I would've done better, who knows.

Mr. CooL ICE

Did you all actually give your email address to this site?

If so, you don't need an IQ test to know if you're smart or not.