I did at least one at primary school level. It was policy not to reveal scores except in broadest terms eg" “low average” “high average” etc. That was a while back. Don’t know my score and don’t give a shit either.
Nava writes:
> One of my brothers would get mad whenever I “beat him” at anything; one
> day, he was ranting to our other brother and said “it’s not as if she’s a genius
> or something!” “yes she is, actually” “uh?” “dude, she’s in Mensa. Since she’s in
> Mensa, I reckon she’s a certified genius.”
Well, umm, it depends on how you define the term “genius.” You need to be in the top 2% of the population to get into Mensa, which means at least a score of 132 on most I.Q. tests. Most “definitions” of “genius” set the bar higher than that. Some say that you need to have an I.Q. of at least 140 and others say it would have to be at least 160. Setting it at 132 strikes me as putting it awfully low. Next time you’re in a movie theater or something where there’s 200 people there, think about the fact that probably four of you are geniuses by that definition.
I put the word “definitions” in the previous paragraph in quotes to indicate that in fact there isn’t any agreed-upon definition of the word. It’s too vaguely used a word to have any single boundary. Incidentally, I don’t mean to imply that you don’t have an I.Q. of 160 or whatever. For all I know, you have the highest I.Q. of any SDMB regular. I’m only warning you that some people might question your use of the term if you say that anyone in Mensa is a genius by definition.
IQ tests, as it turn out, seem to be measuring a physical quantity - the speed of your brain on average. This is why time is a primary measurement during IQ tests : most any problem is solvable on a test, given sufficient time and the information needed. (you have to know the definition of every word used in an analogy, or the hidden rules governing geometric figure tests that the test authors were following)
They are scored on a bell curve, which is why “130” sounds so much higher than “100”. But we’re all human, and our brains our very very slow - just some are even slower than that.
There’s actually a very simple IQ test that involves waiting for a light to turn on, and pushing a button when you hear it.
Habeed writes:
> IQ tests, as it turn out, seem to be measuring a physical quantity - the speed of
> your brain on average.
That’s at least controversial.
I gave an example of a test that does correlate to IQ, and is making a physical measurement. So where’s the controversy?
I took one as a young child ~5 or 6. This was to get into special school programs, Gifted or something. My mother had me do it, clearly I didn’t know what it was all about then.
15 years later I would be terrified of taking one. I was around 130 and if I dropped off I would have an issue with that, considering how highly I think of myself. I would do it, but if the score was lower I would only consider the best score 
And having mentioned that, I believe that this is mostly correct. I know people whose IQ scores are both lower and higher than mine. I feel like the main difference is how quickly they understand things. For example, sitting in class as a mathematics undergrad… there are subjects that are quite difficult to wrap your mind around. You can almost see it in the looks of peoples’ faces when the light bulb comes on.
The best analogy I can think of is processor speed (or RAM) of a computer. Just because you have a nicer computer doesn’t mean you will do more meaningful things with it. And vice versa.
Look, my “physical quantity” thing is supposed to make you feel better about it. Human reaction times for that light test don’t differ by all that much. No one ever mentions the actual magnitude differences in intelligence. Sure, a person with a 130 got a few more questions right than someone with a 110, but it means the smarter person is on the order of a few percent smarter, not 2x or 10x or whatever.
The other way I conceptualize it is I’ve seen the actual brain tissue. We’re all just stupid blobs of cells in the end. (just some of us are slightly less stupid than others). We lack the technology to do so today, but it is almost certainly technically possible to one day build electronic analogs of human brain that run at least 1 million times faster, using conservative estimates based on the speeds of present-day chips.
I know I’m intelligent. I especially know I have the kind of intelligence that standardized tests measure (i.e. I’m good at answering multiple choice questions.) If I needed evidence, I could point to my scores on the SAT, ACT, GRE, etc.
I might take an IQ test strictly for fun, but I wouldn’t expect it to tell me anything useful. It might tell me what percentage of the population I’m IQier than (and I deliberately use the word “IQier” rather than “smarter” or “more intelligent”), but… so what??
Give me a citation for the claim that I.Q. correlates with the speed of your brain. In particular, show me that it’s not just a claim made in one scientific paper. Show me that it’s generally accepted by psychologists.
That’s how IQ is defined and tested. Show me a paper that has a standardized IQ test that is not calibrated against time.
This is a fundamental theorem, every paper about IQ supports it implicitly.
I can link you the paper where they did the reaction time test if you are interested.
I’d rather know. If only because I want to know as much stuff about myself as possible, generally speaking. But even more so because it makes me feel better.
In fact, I’m envisioning to be tested again. For instance by requesting a MENSA test or something. I’m 48, and it seems to me my brain has “slowed down” considerably. I believe I’ve a much harder time following a reasoning, solving problems and such (I’m talking about stuff generally related to IQ, not about everyday problems). For instance it seems to me it takes me a lot of time and concentration to understand some formal logic problems posted on this board. Or more generally analyzing informations and such.
I guess I wish to be reassured I’m not becoming dumb.
Answer to the op … I don’t actually know and have no desire to. I was actually tested when I was a young child as part of routine for the time and family lore says that my father from then on treated me as something special … which caused lots of family problems that I would not have wanted to have had happen. I don’t think the number was actually anything special but my brother became the kid who did well in school because he worked hard and I became the one who allegedly did well because I was smart. Excuse me? He was smart and I also worked hard. Not lazy here!
There are cases, like for Spud’s kid, in which the test is useful, identifying a mismatch between subscores that helps determine an educational approach. But mostly I don’t see what value knowing a number brings.
I also don’t know what number I’d want it to be. I’ve done okay for myself intellectually. What would make me feel better about myself - that it was easy for me to have achieved what I’ve achieved because I was born with some particular ability? Or that I worked hard to eke out the skills and habits of mind to make the more modest ability I have take me as far as it could? My self-image rests more on the latter story and my ego prefers that one. I’m sticking with it.
Being proud of a high IQ strikes me like being proud of being tall. I am more impressed with the less tall basketball player who excels.
IQ tests were developed in France to see if students could do well in the standard French education system.
Does it have any meaning in life? I don’t think so. I read an article about a Nobel prize winner who had an IQ of around 110. What he had was persistence and insight.
If it has no meaning, you should be able to find a Nobel prize winner with an IQ below average. If 110 is low for a scientist, that proves it does have meaning.
No meaning is an overstatement. Less meaning than many want to attach to it is more likely. I’d posit that being above average is requisite for significant intellectual success but of the universe of those people tenacity, creativity, curiosity, and broadly speaking habits of mind matter more than a higher score.
I had an IQ test in kindergarten to determine whether or not I qualified for the gifted program in school. Since I was accepted into the program I know my score was above average, but my mother wouldn’t ever tell me what it was. I’ve asked her a couple of times as an adult just out of curiosity but she still won’t tell me.
I don’t care enough about the actual number to want to spend the time and money on having my IQ tested just to find out my score, but if I had some other reason like wanting to join Mensa then I’d do it.
Not interested, no need to know. I’ve done fine intellectually in life; can’t imagine what knowing an IQ score would do for me. I know the inadequacies of testing, and though I’ve always performed well on tests, I don’t see the point. I don’t want to join Mensa either.
I don’t know my IQ, am not interested, and do not believe that IQ tests tell us anything meaningful about a person’s intelligence.
Sure, I guess. It wouldn’t really mean that much to me, since a high score would be mostly a reflection of the fact that I’ve always been a superb test-taker. But I might derive a bit of amusement from having a high number to throw around.
I don’t see the value in taking this test at this point in my life. I am not really interested in what my results would be