I came across a banner advertising an online IQ test (from the dilbert.com site). The banner had this sentence written on the top:
Many people are surprised to learn they have an above average IQ
Anyone who falls for this line doesn’t realise that 50% of the population has an above average IQ. Which means they are stupid. So, stupid people take online IQ tests. 
It is possible to have an above average IQ and still not be familiar with how IQ scores work. I bet there are a lot of smart folks who think an IQ is an absolute amount (i.e. someone who is x amount of smart will always be 120 IQ regardless of other folks’ test results) rather than a sliding scale with the 100 always at the peak of the bell curve.
So I don’t think that online IQ tests are for stupid people, but I DO think that they inflate scores somewhat. I’ve taken several of these just for kicks and have scored between 140 and 160. :eek:
Ummmm… I ain’t that smart.
There’s been a major problem with major IQ tests that have existed for decades. People do better and better on them over time. So while 100 was average 50 years ago, now 115 or somesuch would be average now.
So I’m amused alright, but not at not the same ones the OP thinks.
Well, if treated as anything other than something to do for kicks then yes, they’re for stupid people. In order to have any value at all, an IQ test must be properly and professionally designed, calibrated, and administered. Anything you find online should be taken about as seriously as you’d take a Cosmo quiz.
No, it wouldn’t. People do perform better on IQ tests now than they did decades ago (“The Flynn Effect”, a phenomenon that has yet to be explained), but the average is always 100. The tests and scoring system are recalibrated regularly to ensure this. Thousands of people take the test, and the mean score is set to 100. Scoring 100 now requires more correct answers than it did decades ago, but it’s still the mid-point of the IQ bell curve.
Back to the OP, 50% of the population does not have an above average IQ in any meaningful psychological sense. A score of 100 is the perfect mathematical average, but the average range is generally considered to be about 90-110. Roughly 50% of the population falls into this group. Only about 25% of people score higher than that.
IQ tests are, individually, of little use outside of specific niches. They can be of great value in tracking programs, diagnosing learning disabilities, and so on. As for measures of intelligence the concept of intelligence is nebulous and the aptitude aspect of IQ tests is suspicious.
The Flynn Effect, one of my favorite effects, is not observed in ‘g’. ‘g’ is derived from a number of different tests, has biological correlates, and is taken to be a better approximation of what ever the hell we are talking about when we say intelligence. Some have accused it of having its origins in statistical voodoo. Others say it isn’t aptitude enough for what people want. Neither of this criticism have as much support, or are as damning if true, as the one that it still doesn’t define intelligence in a rigorous manner. It correlates with certain types of success and mental performance, but so does height (hmmm, maybe the Irkens are on to something).
As for on-line IQ tests they are doubly meaningless. Not only do they have no context but they aren’t administered in a rigorous manner.