What is considered dumb, below average, average, above average and genius? (as far as range of numbers)
Is it a standard test that everybody takes or some variation of such?
And what does such a test consist of? Is it kind of like a SAT test that covers a variety of subjects?
Does cramming a bunch of knowledge in your head before the test help the score? (in otherwords does it help someone do better that has gone to college or does it not matter)
Is it true or false that as intellegence rises common sense falls?
I’m not an expert, but I believe that most IQ tests are set up so that average is about 100. I’ve also heard that above 150 is “genius” and below 75 is “retarded.” Logically, such other numbers would depend on the variation on the particular test. (I believe that there are many different “IQ” tests. )
I’m sure there’s lots of information available on the internet about IQ, since it’s such a controversial topic.
As far as common sense goes, it would be interesting to devise a test for common sense. I wonder what such a test would be like . . .
A little about IQ tests. The intent of IQ testing is to negate the effects of education and measure pure ability. The intent is to measure the ability to manipulate information, perceive and interpret, evaluate. It is not like SAT that relies on a great vocabulary. It rather relies on ability to process.
Most IQ tests use word and number puzzles. This is because they are good ways to challenge the brain. There’s no complex math like calculus, just addition, subtraction, multiplication, division. It’s more about recognizing patterns than computing complex math equations.
There are IQ tests for children. Some even pre-literate children. These use picture puzzles rather than word games.
In practicality, if you take similar tests, you will pick up some patterns of how the puzzles work, what is expected from the tests. That makes subsequent testing to those types easier.
I don’t know about rankings much. Average is 100, with a statistical distribution pattern based off the results of everyone who takes the particular test. 120 is smarter, 140 is damn smart, 160 or so is about as high as will register. Similar patterns downward - 80 is slow, 60 is really slow, 40 is probably the bottom number that would show up.
The standard test given now is called the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale III (Revised). There is a different one for children. There are other tests given also, such as the Stanford-Binet, but that’s an old one.
There are basically two parameters measured: performance and verbal skills. From these, the “full scale IQ” is calculated. Those skills are purportedly based on innate intelligence, but, as we all know, learning and social upbringing has a lot to do with it. The results are supposed to be accurate to plus or minus 5 points.
IQ scores between 50-70 indicate mild mental retardation. 71-84, borderline intelligence. I don’t know the other ranges, but around 85-95 indicate low average, etc. I don’t know if there is an actual cut off for calling some one a genius, but I’ve heard that scores above 130 will suffice.
For the record: 35-50: moderate mental retardation.
20-35: severe. Below that, profound.
If you’re interested, you can take an IQ test online. There are some sites that do free testing, but you have to pay if you want more thorough results.
Excellent replies. I too have heard that the more IQ tests you take, the better you do. I also know that the more you improve your vocabulary, the higher your IQ. There is the old saying, “If there was such a thing as common sense, everybody would have it,” in reference to whether as your IQ goes up your common sense goes down. Sometimes the IQ is measured in percentiles, and I am in the 98 percentile. This means I am smarter than 98% of the people. Yet there is much I don’t understand, such as calculus and art criticism; the former is too hard for me and the latter doesn’t seem to me to be saying anything. I also don’t understand how an atomic particle can be called a particle and yet not be thought of as a little sphere.
I believe that the numbers are based on the statistical bell curve (Gaussian distribution). 100 is the mean. 68% of the population (roughly ± 1 std. dev) is considered average, and is within 85 to 115. Above that, the “high average” range is considered between 115 and 130 (between 1 and 2 std. devs). Gifted is considered 130+, and is roughly the top 2% of the population. 145+ is over 3 std. devs above the mean, and makes up only 0.13% of the population. View this distribution here
I don’t know about ladybug’s second link, but I’ve done some experimenting with the first link she offered. On one trial, I answered all the questions randomly (actually alternating true/false… I was lazy), and entered a time of 13 minutes, which they claimed was standard. I got a 104, or slightly above average. I then went through and answered each question with what I thought was the wrong answer, and entered a time of 26 minutes, and still managed to get, as I recall, a 60. Not, of course, that a web-based test that’s trying to sell you the full breakdown of your score would ever lie to you, of course… They especially wouldn’t have any reason to be biased to telling you what you want to hear.
I took an IQ test a year or two ago. I was very surprised at what the test consisted of.
Yes, there were some puzzles. But I was also asked to pronounce words and define words. I would say this only tests education, not intelligence. The only two words I remember are audacity and assuage.
I was also deeply shocked when I was asked to put a cartoon into the right order. The panels were shuffled around and I was timed as I put them in the right order. But here’s the problem: it was a cartoon I had seen before! It was one of O. Soglow’s “Little King” cartoons, the one where he catches fish, then when he leaves we see someone in the water (the implication being that person was putting fish on his hook to make him happy).
There was also an algebra question on my test, which involved solving for X and Y.
I scored 100 on the test but was deeply disastified with it. Please remember, my most serious complaint is that the test was biased in my favor! I just felt that too much of the test involved “education” instead of intelligence.
One scale of giftedness is 130 and above is gifted, 150 and above is highly gifted, 160 and above is exceptionally gifted, 180 and above is profoundly gifted.
Nobody uses the term genius in relation to IQ any more. It’s pretty meaningless. I wouldn’t use it for an IQ of 130, there’s just too many people scoring in that range for it to be meaningful. I think the WISC III uses superior and highly superior to describe scores in the gifted and highly range.
The Weschler tests ceiling out at 130. If a child scores 3 subtests scores of 18 and above on the WISC III, it is likely that their IQ is higher than 148. You will see some scores from WISC III testing which gives an IQ over 150 but it is possibly inaccurate and if further testing is done, a higher score might be possible.
There’s an effect where if you repeat the same IQ test within a 2 year period, your score increases. That’s why you can’t just keep on doing a particular IQ test and get a valid result.
There is not one single test, Bill which will measure everybody accurately. Some kids will do better on the WISC III and some score significantly higher on the SB LM. Most IQ tests were designed to test for normal IQ or for learning disabilities. They do a really crap job of measuring IQ at the extreme ends of the scale. This is partly due to a lack of people to use for norming the test and partly because there is not a huge need on a population basis to identify kids at the extreme.
And the tests on the web AFAICS score people very high and then try to sell you services
We all got tested at school; my buddy got 138 and I got 136 (and he never let me forget it). He went on to make millions and here I hover uncomfortably close to the poverty line.
I just got the results of one of the tests, and it came with an analysis of the score:
Average: 85 - 115
Above average: 115 - 125
Gifted Borderline Genius: 125 - 135
Highly gifted and appearing to be a Genius to most others: 135 - 145
Genius: 145 - 165
High genius: 166 - 180
Highest genius: 181 - 200
Beyond being measurable genius: Over 200
This test also claims to be accurate within five points of professional tests. I have no way of knowing this, though, since the last time I took an actual IQ test was in 10th grade.
Don’t take those online IQ tests too seriously. I took one a couple years ago, and scored 140. I took it again a couple months later, and scored 152. I’m no idiot, but there’s no way in hell those are reliable scores.
Nope. You’re not tested on factoid-type information. It’s more a test of your reasoning and analytical skills than things you know.
Having a high IQ is not in itself an indicator of success. You can have the highest measurable IQ, but without any motivation and ambition, you won’t get nowhere. A lot of people think IQ scores can tell you a lot about a person’s potential for success. They can’t.
Genius designations are bullshit. Technically, I’m a “genius” by ladybug’s scale. I was valedictorian of my HS, but then I nearly failed out of college in my 5th semester. I have a cum 2.9 GPA in college. I don’t feel particularly smart. If that’s genius, then it’s overrated. As Einstein (or some other guy) said “Genius is 1% inspiration 99% perspiration.” IQ measures the 1%, and it’s a pretty fair estimate. You need that motivation and work ethic for brains to mean anything.
Children’s IQ tests take into account their age. Theoretically, a person who scored 100 as a four-year-old should also score 100 as a forty-year-old. Of course, you’re unlikely to get the same IQ score on two different IQ tests, but it’s not as if a four-year-old scores a 60 IQ , then six years later it’s 80, then six years later it’s 100.
Binet’s original intent when he first devised his test was to measure how much children had already learned, and in which subjects they should receive more tutoring. He never considered the test to be a measure of innate, unchanging ability. This interpretation came later, and was already assumed to be true by time of the creation of the Stanford-Binet test.
Wildest Bill, an interesting book on the history and (mis-)use of intelligence tests is The Mismeasure of Man by Stephen J. Gould. I believe he also mentions the exact levels defining idiot, moron, feeble-minded and average.
And as for your last question, I don’t think high intelligence lowers common sense, but high education certainly does.
