---

Quote: from xPhoenix at 6:50 pm on Aug. 29, 2009

---

Quote: from Ololade at 6:44 pm on Aug. 29, 2009

---

Quote: from xPhoenix at 6:39 pm on Aug. 29, 2009

---

I honestly haven't taken an IQ test in the longest time, but I believe last time it was a mere really low number of 120something, but I could be wrong. I hate those tests, they're centered around questions that aren't exactly the most reasonable things in the world, not to mention every test you take is bound to have a different set of questions.

---

  Take an online one for fun.

---

I will later, but I still don't see the point in them. It's not like we use them in society for anything.

---

Just take the goddamn test, Wayne.
sheesh.

---

---

Quote: from Ololade at 6:52 pm on Aug. 29, 2009

---

Quote: from xPhoenix at 6:50 pm on Aug. 29, 2009

---

Quote: from Ololade at 6:44 pm on Aug. 29, 2009

---

Quote: from xPhoenix at 6:39 pm on Aug. 29, 2009

---

I honestly haven't taken an IQ test in the longest time, but I believe last time it was a mere really low number of 120something, but I could be wrong. I hate those tests, they're centered around questions that aren't exactly the most reasonable things in the world, not to mention every test you take is bound to have a different set of questions.

---

   
  Take an online one for fun.

---

I will later, but I still don't see the point in them. It's not like we use them in society for anything.

---

 
 Just take the goddamn test, Wayne.  
 sheesh.  
 

---

All I'm saying is that they aren't an accurate test of anyones intelligence.

---

Anyway, I scored 158. I haven't taken another one since. I don't think it affects anything real.

-------
Spicy Pidgeon

---

When I was 6, I took an IQ test to determine my eligibility for 'academic gateway' in my school. I'd assume it was a legitimate test.

Anyway, I scored 158. I haven't taken another one since. I don't think it affects anything real.

---

---

I was told my test didn't mean anything because I had such disparate results. I scored thirty more points on my Verbal section than on my Non-Verbal, so the proctor told me it was completely useless. I still had to pay the money to have it done all the same, though!

---

---

Quote: from JeanClaude at 7:46 pm on Sep. 4, 2009

---

I was told my test didn't mean anything because I had such disparate results. I scored thirty more points on my Verbal section than on my Non-Verbal, so the proctor told me it was completely useless. I still had to pay the money to have it done all the same, though!

---

What was the actual result?

---

135 and 105, for a mean of 120. Apparently, because of the disparity, that functions as if it were closer to 100.

-------
yiff me you ugly son of a bitch
you ugly son of a BITCH

---

200+ Unmeasurable genius. One-in-a-billion. Leonardo dVinci. There are probably about seven people alive with IQs in this range.

180+ Mega genius. One-in-three-million. Galileo, Isaac Newton, Benjamin Netanyahu (Israeli PM). Chess grandmasters are often in this range (Bobby Fischer, Garry Kasparov).

160+ Super genius. One-in-ten-thousand. Einstein, Plato, Ben Franklin.

140+ Genius. One-in-160. You probably see a few of these guys walking down the halls at school every day.

130 + Superior intelligence. One-in-fifty. The "really smart kids" at your school are probably mostly in this range, the ones that win all of the contests and stuff. Most college professors have IQs in this range. Adolf Hitler's generals, many of which were tested, mostly scored 133-140. Most Fortune 500 CEOs are in this range.

110 + Bright. One-in-four. Your younger sister. Your neighbor's son. The average college graduate.

90+ Average. Go to the park sometime and have a seat on a bench. 68 percent of the people that walk by you will probably have an IQ in this range.

80+ Dull. Your friend that got held back a year and then dropped out. Andy Warhol. Adult convenience store employees are generally in this range (don't jump to conclusions though. Never assume.)

70+ Dumb. The really dumb but not genetically incorrect kids in at your school. The ones that are in the same remedial math class every year.

Less than 70 Retarded. The chances of you having this IQ and somehow surfing to this page and reading this whole thing are like 1/1000000000000000. The "special" kids at your school that can't speak English very well and do a lot of hand flapping. Several of Africa's most devastated countries have been shown to have average scores in this range or less.

---

Post edited at 7:06 am on Sep. 5, 2009 by InsaneBlue

-------
The man who once was but never has been.

Click Me

---

200+ Unmeasurable genius. One-in-a-billion. Leonardo dVinci. There are probably about seven people alive with IQs in this range.

180+ Mega genius. One-in-three-million. Galileo, Isaac Newton, Benjamin Netanyahu (Israeli PM). Chess grandmasters are often in this range (Bobby Fischer, Garry Kasparov).

---

Your chart is decent but it just gets silly toward the top.  The usefulness of any IQ test goes down in this range.  For any test (or set of tests), there would be someone who would get the highest score out of everyone in the entire world.  That said, the people who do get the single highest scores on IQ tests, even the most well-researched ones, are rarely the ones society perceives as "ultra super geniuses."

The reason for this is simple: IQ tests are inherently unable to test the same things that real life "tests" and the correlation between a written test and the complexities of real life scientific, mathematical, or intellectual achievement naturally gets weaker and weaker as the outliers are reached (after all, there are so few of them by which to construct a good measure).

What makes it even more confusing as most of the "famous people IQ charts" are completely made up, assigning historical figures such as da Vinci extremely precise and high numbers like 217.  This is completely nonsensical, since da Vinci never took an IQ test, and any attempt to give him an IQ score is based on a "percentile" that is subjective and based on a lot of information about his life that, quite frankly, isn't there.

The same goes for chess masters.  Kasparov is commonly reported to have an IQ of 190, but according to sources I've seen he is actually in the 130-140 range.  He probably has an exceptionally good memory and an incredible (if perhaps somewhat specific) set of skills, but this doesn't mean his IQ is high.  Keep in mind that a computer can play chess better than any human, working by what turns out to be absurdly simple programming and no "intelligence" at all.  There is nothing to suggest that chess-playing is a reasonable measure of "intelligence" or IQ.

IQ tests are indeed very useful for many situations, but determining whether someone is 1 in a million instead of "just" 1 in a thousand is generally not one of them.

Also, your claims about IQ's under 70 are not true, either, but I don't care enough to go into any detail about them.

-------
http://www.golivewire.com/forums/peer-yatapys-support-a.html

---

Quote: from InsaneBlue at 10:05 am on Sep. 5, 2009

---

200+ Unmeasurable genius. One-in-a-billion. Leonardo dVinci. There are probably about seven people alive with IQs in this range.  

180+ Mega genius. One-in-three-million. Galileo, Isaac Newton, Benjamin Netanyahu (Israeli PM). Chess grandmasters are often in this range (Bobby Fischer, Garry Kasparov).

---

Your chart is decent but it just gets silly toward the top. The usefulness of any IQ test goes down in this range. For any test (or set of tests), there would be someone who would get the highest score out of everyone in the entire world. That said, the people who do get the single highest scores on IQ tests, even the most well-researched ones, are rarely the ones society perceives as "ultra super geniuses."

The reason for this is simple: IQ tests are inherently unable to test the same things that real life "tests" and the correlation between a written test and the complexities of real life scientific, mathematical, or intellectual achievement naturally gets weaker and weaker as the outliers are reached (after all, there are so few of them by which to construct a good measure).

What makes it even more confusing as most of the "famous people IQ charts" are completely made up, assigning historical figures such as da Vinci extremely precise and high numbers like 217. This is completely nonsensical, since da Vinci never took an IQ test, and any attempt to give him an IQ score is based on a "percentile" that is subjective and based on a lot of information about his life that, quite frankly, isn't there.

The same goes for chess masters. Kasparov is commonly reported to have an IQ of 190, but according to sources I've seen he is actually in the 130-140 range. He probably has an exceptionally good memory and an incredible (if perhaps somewhat specific) set of skills, but this doesn't mean his IQ is high. Keep in mind that a computer can play chess better than any human, working by what turns out to be absurdly simple programming and no "intelligence" at all. There is nothing to suggest that chess-playing is a reasonable measure of "intelligence" or IQ.

IQ tests are indeed very useful for many situations, but determining whether someone is 1 in a million instead of "just" 1 in a thousand is generally not one of them.

Also, your claims about IQ's under 70 are not true, either, but I don't care enough to go into any detail about them.

---

Yes, it's true that they aren't reliable in the very high range, especially considering that IQs way up there need to be estimated. However, I think it's generally safe to assume that Mr. 200 is more intelligent than Mr. 175 (though the 25 point disparity definitely means less with those scores than it would with, say, a score of 100 and one of 125).

As for chess success not reliably indicating high IQ, I need to disagree, but only somewhat Both chess and IQ tests require advanced spatial/temporal reasoning skills to succeed at, as well as pattern identification skills and creativity. Of course chess and IQ tests aren't one and the same and shouldn't be treated as such (though many HighQ societies deem them reliable enough to allow entry on their basis).

And the chart isn't mine, I just like it because it puts things into a more every-day perspective

Post edited at 8:04 pm on Sep. 5, 2009 by InsaneBlue

-------
The man who once was but never has been.

Click Me

---

However, I think it's generally safe to assume that Mr. 200 is more intelligent than Mr. 175 (though the 25 point disparity definitely means less with those scores than it would with, say, a score of 100 and one of 125).

---

In that case I would say that you have a different definition of "safe" from me.  

---

As for chess success not reliably indicating high IQ, I need to disagree, but only somewhat Both chess and IQ tests require advanced spatial/temporal reasoning skills to succeed at, as well as pattern identification skills and creativity. Of course chess and IQ tests aren't one and the same and shouldn't be treated as such (though many HighQ societies deem them reliable enough to allow entry on their basis).

---

Again, I disagree.  Like I said, chess does not require any of these things, as computers can play chess better than humans without any pattern identification or spatial reasoning whatsoever.  Of course, humans tend to employ these skills when playing chess, but it is not required and chess simply doesn't test a wide enough range of skills to represent general intelligence in a meaningful way.  Like I said, the best chess players in the world often have IQ's that aren't really above the one-in-a-hundred range.

I'm curious as to which societies specifically consider chess-playing as an acceptable measure of IQ.

-------
http://www.golivewire.com/forums/peer-yatapys-support-a.html

Btw, I agree with telomere13, chess is more of a game of pattern, than a game of intelligence.

-------
Also...


Go Die.

---

Quote: from InsaneBlue at 11:02 pm on Sep. 5, 2009

---

However, I think it's generally safe to assume that Mr. 200 is more intelligent than Mr. 175 (though the 25 point disparity definitely means less with those scores than it would with, say, a score of 100 and one of 125).

---

 

In that case I would say that you have a different definition of "safe" from me.    

---

As for chess success not reliably indicating high IQ, I need to disagree, but only somewhat Both chess and IQ tests require advanced spatial/temporal reasoning skills to succeed at, as well as pattern identification skills and creativity. Of course chess and IQ tests aren't one and the same and shouldn't be treated as such (though many HighQ societies deem them reliable enough to allow entry on their basis).

---

 

Again, I disagree.  Like I said, chess does not require any of these things, as computers can play chess better than humans without any pattern identification or spatial reasoning whatsoever.  Of course, humans tend to employ these skills when playing chess, but it is not required and chess simply doesn't test a wide enough range of skills to represent general intelligence in a meaningful way.  Like I said, the best chess players in the world often have IQ's that aren't really above the one-in-a-hundred range.  

I'm curious as to which societies specifically consider chess-playing as an acceptable measure of IQ.

---

DAMN YOU TEST!

Anyways, I'm having a very hard time finding any high IQ societies that take ELO rankings and it appears that "many" was an exaggeration. I do recall looking at the admissions page for some society and seeing ELO > 1500 though. I had thought it was triple nine but apparently they either removed that criteria or it was a different site that I saw it on.

As for the whole computer thing, you kind of corrected yourself on it. Computers don't use the same skills in accomplishing the same tasks. And no, I don't think chess skill "represents" intelligence, but I have plenty of anecdotal evidence that leads me to believe that they correlate very highly. It would be nice if someone actually got some statistical data on that.

And I'm curious to see who these brilliant chess players with less than brilliant IQs are (link to the Kasparov one?) and what criteria their intellect is judged upon. I'm not aware of Kasparov or many other chess players having actually disclosed their IQ scores.

Post edited at 10:27 am on Sep. 6, 2009 by InsaneBlue

-------
The man who once was but never has been.

Click Me