# Explain my IQ(s) to me

Several years ago for medical reasons, I took an officially adminstered IQ test. After the test was over, I asked the guy what my IQ was. He said it was about 140. Later, when I met with my neurologist, he told me that the report said I had an IQ of 111. I was suprised. He then told me that he wished he had an IQ of 111. Frankly, I figured my neurologist was smarter than I.

I rationalized the difference to myself as being that 140 was the “standard” evaluation, but they must have adjusted the standard since society as a whole had become more educated. Thus the 111 score was the adjusted value.

Since then I’ve taken several online IQ tests, that always turned out around 140 (except for one that said I had 156 :dubious: ). However, after seeing that Frank Abagnale Jr.'s IQ was 136, and figuring that I wasn’t as intelligent as him, I decided to take another online IQ test again.

I tested 110.

Since most of my previous tests had sided with the “about 140”, I figured that’s what I had. But the 110 made me think that maybe the score that my neurologist reported to me was more accurate.

So, is there a logical explanation for the two values?

I can’t find a reference, but I seem to remember that IQs are standardized to a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15. Thus an IQ of 100 is higher than 50% of the general population, an IQ of 111 is higher than 76.8%, and 140 is higher than 99.6%.

I can’t explain why you were tested twice, and got 111 and 140, but I can tell you to ignore those online results. They mean as much as rolling a die.

Actually, I was only tested once, but got two different answers on the results: “About 140” from the tester, and “111” from the neurologist.

Oh… in that case, I even more can’t explain it.

An IQ is only an estimate of a theoretical value. It would be unreasonable for you to expect two tests to show exactly the same numbers; you have good test days, bad test days, and different tests.

110-140 does seem to be a rather wide range, but 140/156 isn’t all that unusual, and I speak from personal experience.

So why do you care so much? IQs don’t measure talent, education and many other worthwhile values. They are only a weak attempt to quantize a universal “brain constant”; a theoretical concept. Be glad your figures are on the plus side; you’re undoubtedly smarter than the average bear.

IQ is overrated and misunderstood… hell, most of the online “IQ tests” give a lot of 150+ results… for the most part, I don’t see many “official” references to IQ scores anymore. It isn’t really seen to be a measure of “intelligence” anymore.

When I was a pup in clinical psych grad school (no, I didn’t finish…) I was told that IQ tests like the WISC-R and the Standord Binet are clinical instruments, used to determine if, and how much, of an impairment exists. They do quite well for making distinctions in subnormal intelligence. That’s what they’re made to do.

They aren’t really that useful for measuring above normal intelligence. I suspect that’s why you don’t see too much weight put on a high IQ these days.

Yeah, what everybody said. I wouldn’t put much faith in IQ tests. I’ve scored everywhere from 95 to 166 at various times on different tests (the 95 I got when I had a nasty virus) and concluded that the number doesn’t mean much except how well you did on a particular test on a particular day. It’s an attempt to reduce a very complex set of phenomena to a single number, which seems to me pretty much doomed from the start.

I’d just like to take this opportunity to provide a counterexample to the statement of “IQ doesn’t mean much nowadays.” Maybe in enlightened parts of the world, this is true.

But IQ testing still means a heck of a lot to students in schools in the Los Angeles Unified School District, who need IQ scores above (I think) 130, or a similar criterion met, in order to get into a gifted/talented school. I’m in a program that requires a 145 or higher on a district psychologist-administered IQ test. I know kids with 144s who are going to significantly inferior schools (in terms of programs and classes offered) because of a measly IQ point.

It ain’t obsolete until we say it is, kids.

And, so as not to be a complete hijacker, online tests are indeed a load of BS, and you should ignore all results thereof.

I took the same tests way back in the '80s for the same purpose (only it was for the special gifted classes)…

But that is based on this old (silly, I think) philosophy… and in any case, all higher education advanced classes are based on grades and will, not tests.

Part of the reason I think they use them at that age is because of the difficulty of testing things like knowledge, writing ability, etc, though.

Maybe. But try this one out.

IAA Psychologist. Online IQ tests are generally grossly inaccurate and do not measure the breadth of factors that a WAIS or Stanford-Binet cognitive test does. “IQ” should be understood to mean an index of what factors the culture thinks make up intelligence, rendered in a quantifiable format to allow comparisons between your scores and the norm group. Your obtained IQ (your score) is understood as a score that falls within a range into which it’s 95% likely that your “true” IQ falls. Regardless of what these tests measure, they at least measure your performance on them relative to a large norm group taking the same test.

The discrepancy between what you were told by the examiner and the neurologist, if based on the same test, can only be attributed to error on the part of one of them. If you’re really curious, ask that a psychologist sit down with your and your medical record and go over the scores. The WAIS breaks out IQ into three categories: Verbal (VIQ), Performance (PIQ) and Full Scale (FSIQ, a combined category). If the test was a WAIS, it is possible that one or both of these folks reported a VIQ or PIQ rather than your FSIQ, which is the one you think of as “IQ.” VIQ and PIQ can be very different.

I don’t know why your neurologist wishes he had an IQ of 111. Perhaps he’s misunderstanding the scoring, or perhaps he wishes that he were less intelligent so he didn’t have to work as a neurologist. The average IQ of a US college graduate is around 110 IIRC.

Well, they don’t seem to be selling you stuff like most places at least, but only 20 questions? I think it was a little too lenient, since I got a 144. I’m not that smart. Still, it was kind of fun.

I agree. The only question that had be stumped was 17 (the one where you have shape operators on top of a box with shapes in them). What are the functions ?

Wow, 17 was much easier for me than some of the others. The operators are:Undivided box - addition. This one should be fairly obvious.
Divided box - intersection. A symbol must appear in both operands to be the in the intersection.
Divided gray box - annihilation. So if a symbol appears in both operands, it gets annihilated. Only what appears in only one remains.
6, 9, 14, 15, and 16 all had me stumped.

Undivided box - addition. This one should be fairly obvious.
Divided box - intersection. A symbol must appear in both operands to be the in the intersection.
Divided gray box - annihilation. So if a symbol appears in both operands, it gets annihilated. Only what appears in only one remains.*

I still haven’t got this. Let’s take an example. How does the sole triangle affect the shapes (a white and a red triangle, 3 white squares and a white and red circle) ?

I’ll assume the order of the questions remain the same.

here we go…

For 6…

Look at each row. The number of orange blocks remain the same. Then the difference between the first and second square is that each orange block has “moved” 1 block. Now, the last square is the “opposite” of the first square. So, choice 5 looks good to me.

For 9…

T:1->2 == reverse Col 3 -> new Row 1
reverse Col 4 -> new Row 2
reverse Col 1 -> new Row 3
reverse Col 2 -> new Row 4

For 14 and 15…

While this could be completely different, I just assumed that the aim is to trace a non repetitive path back to J. Although, I could be wrong in this regard given the complexities of the paths connecting the letters. However, I think they are extranous and deliberately misleading.

For 16…

The last 4 in the sequence have six colored triangles. Only 1 does among the choices. Also, each triangle has an unique color. A dark triangle gets painted orange and a light one gets painted yellow. The same choice with 6 painted triangles is the only one that satisfies that condition.

OldMan-

Your IQ results have ranged from 95 to 166! You’re not talking only about standardized tests right? Are you also counting the on-line tests which call themselves IQ tests. Where everything else is equal (e.g. you’re not sick when taking the test) I’ve never heard of valid, standardized test scores being that different. Even within a lifetime. Saying the 95 wasn’t valid since you were sick - what other scores did you receive on standardized tests? — if you don’t mind of course since those are interesting results -

Skott -

I hear that your IQ drops in the months just before your death. No lie. Good thing this was the same test!

Hardly. I’m pretty sure there are recluses with an IQ of 160 who couldn’t pull off at 25 what Abagnale pulled off at 16.

His success was due to his street smarts, confidence and charm.

Skott

someone’s stuffed up the interpretation of the test. Neurologists are not qualified to interpret IQ tests and would be very unlikely to have access to the resources you need. It’s possible for tests to differ widely for the same person. FE a kid of 5 with learning disabilities can score in the 99.9th percentile on the WPPSI-R, be tested with the WISC III at 9, score at the 98th percentile because of the learning disabilities then be tested with the SB LM and score at the 99.999th percentile. The WISC III discriminates for LD’s and the other two tests don’t. At 9 you’re hitting ceilings on the WISC III purely because of age anyway. But the same test pretty much should have the same interpretation no matter who looks at it.

No online test is accurate. Period.

The WISC III is valid up into the teen years, so I’m not sure what you mean when you say “At 9 you’re hitting ceilings on the WISC III purely because of age anyway.”