The thing about math is that it’s really a very linear progression. You generally have to learn addition & subtraction, then multiplication & division, fractions, algebra, etc. Each step gets a bit more abstract, and depends on the steps before it. If you don’t know the stuff from grades 5 and 6, then when you get to algebra it just won’t make any sense.
The other thing no one’s mentioned is that, for a child, a discrepancy of one or more standard deviations between aptitude test and actual performance is a red flag for learning disabilities. Testing is mandatory in most schools if you have that kind of spread. It’s possible that you have a (perhaps undiagnosed) learning disability which you learned how to compensate for between then and now.
As I’ve said more than once, my online test results have been fairly consistent with my offline, professionally-administered test results. If not in actual scores, then in comparing one aptitude to another.
Perhaps, but I have my doubts unless there is a learning disability limited to math. I could read before kindergarten, and by 4th grade I was reading at a high school level or higher. In school I was always commended on my writing ability. In junior high school I taught myself how to play multiple musical instruments. I’ve excelled at anything I’ve put my mind to and been willing to make an effort at (though the effort part has frequently been my downfall*). Even math gave me no trouble until 5th-6th grade, when I had my first troubles with long division. But once long division was explained to me by a fellow student who understood it, a light went on and it was easy after that. That suggests to me that the math teaching method in use at my grade school was the problem for me with regard to division - the student explained it in a completely different way that made perfect sense to me. But the trouble started all over again once I got into algebra.
- My mom kept all my grade school report cards, and gave them to me a few years ago. It was enlightening to read my teachers’ comments. There was one very consistent comment that kept popping up from one teacher to the next: “Richard is very smart, but he doesn’t do his work.” Looking back, and also looking at the way I am now, I can easily explain those comments: I grasped most things very quickly, and when something new was introduced it didn’t take long before I was way ahead of the rest of the class in understanding. At that point, all the homework and exercises and worksheets took on the status of “busy work” in my young mind. It became pointless repetition as far as I was concerned, and I looked at it like, “I know this already! This is a waste of time!” And so instead of completing the assignments or worksheets, I’d read or draw pictures. I’m the same way today when it comes to work. I loathe “busy work”. If I’m working in a restaurant kitchen, and it’s slow, and I have no orders to cook, the kitchen is cleaned and organized, the prep work is done, and the pots and pans are all clean, then as far as I’m concerned I have “nothing to do” and feel justified in sitting down and reading a book until I actually have “something to do”. Unfortunately, most employers don’t share this way of thinking and instruct me to “find something to do”. In other words, do busy work.
I recently read the results of a study (I thought I had bookmarked it, but apparently not) where they may have solved the mystery of why so many “smart” kids end up becoming underachievers. The jist was that they get told so often, by parents and teachers, how “smart” they are. When they’re successful, they’re told it’s because they’re “smart”, and when they fail at something, they get chastised and told that they’re “too smart” to fail. I can vouch for the validity of that premise, due to personal experience. What happens is that they/we come to believe that our success is purely the result of our “smartness”, and we simultaneously develop a fear of failure, thanks to the negative reinforcement we experienced when we failed. So when we run up against a situation where we think we might fail, we don’t take the risk. We choose to stick with the things we already know we’ll be successful at. I can see this in myself even now. In 23 years as a professional cook, I’ve been consistently lauded as the best cook in whatever restaurant currently employs me. And yet, I’ve never wanted to take the next step and train to become a chef, even though I know I could make considerably more money and have more prestige. Because I fear that I might fail at it.
On the flip side, according to the study, less smart kids who are consistently praised for their effort when they succeed end up with a tendency to look at failure as an opportunity to try harder - expend more effort - next time. And often, they succeed on a subsequent try, simply because they tried harder. They keep trying until they succeed, where the “smart” kid (or adult) fails once and retreats back to his comfort zone. The smart kid sees failure as evidence that perhaps he’s not as “smart” as all that, and that’s a very uncomfortable place for somebody who’s been constantly told how smart he is.
I think this may be what happened to me with math. Long division was the first time in my school career that I ran into a brick wall, and I gave up at that point. The fact that I hated the teachers I had at that time simply made the situation worse.
Anecdotal evidence with a hefty chunk of confirmation bias. If there is a discrepancy between your professionally administered tests and your achievement, you have asked a legitimate question that is the key question in the field of psychometrics. All truly scientific psychometric testing is administered in controlled environments by trained proctors and assessed using standardized procedures. Their predictive validity is ruthlessly examined and the results are presented by a neutral third party.
Online tests share none of these qualities. The grading criteria is hidden, the questions are not peer reviewed, testing is not done in a controlled environment, scores are not checked for predictive validity and and the data is analyzed and presented by a party with a vested economic incentive to lie to you.
I understand that you’re a smart guy who is disappointed that your potential was never reached, and I sympathize and relate. I think we had very similar childhoods in this respect. But insisting that whatever quizzes you took online have any validity in the debate is useless.
I’m not sure if anyone mentioned this or not, but another reason for math suckitude is attention (or lack thereof) to detail. Wrong answers due to misplaced signs or forgotten numbers, or transposed variables, or forgetting to carry the two (poor Opus), or … or … the list goes on.
Being able to do the problem requires more than understanding the concepts behind them. IMHO.
38 true/false questions. I entered “true” for all of them. My IQ? 88. Within normal range. I only had to give them my e-mail address to get that number, too (I’m sure it’ll be sold to spammers). Look at what you get once the test is completed:
Then I went and took the IQ test here, whose authors insist that it is actually the most scientifically valid test created by PhDs. Weird. This one’s a bit tougher. 41 multiple choice questions with 4-5 answers each. I answered “A” for all of them but 41, where I just decided that, no, I don’t want more information about Natalie Portman’s new movie.
Final score? 82. Pretty dumb, but a significant portion of the population and a heck of a lot better than I’d expect from someone who got roughly 20% of the questions right.
Wow. I is smart.
Okay, you’ve convinced me. That’s the same IQ test I took (on which I correctly answered 37 questions - and I dispute one of the answers that was marked incorrect - and was awarded an IQ of 138). I purchased the full report, which includes the correct answers for all of the questions. Going through the questions, I see that “A” (or the first option) is the correct answer to only six of the 40 questions (assuming you got the same set of questions I got, with the possible answers presented in the same order), for only 15%. With answer key in hand, it might be interesting to go back and retake the test, making sure to deliberately answer every question incorrectly, just to see what score is awarded.
I’m a “Facts Curator”, with an IQ on par with Bill Gates 
Don’t feel bad. I took that same test a few years ago, too. IIRC, I got somewhere in the high 140s. I figured they were upping the score a bit to egg me on, but had no idea exactly how much it was. When I found out that that it was completely bogus, well, I still felt pretty good about myself. Tricky thing about human psychology, there. 