# What's your IQ? And do you believe in it?



## Mantis (Feb 7, 2010)

My dad is one of the best professionals I know..knows more maths and physics than all the professors I had in school, and he told me that he got one of the lowest IQ scores when they were tested, at the Military Academy...it was somewhere between 110 and 115.

So is the IQ really that relevant? 

We got tested in freshman high school, when I was 14, and I got 123. I was quite disappointed..lol. I also read that the IQ does not change much after that age...

But I also read of serial killers who had IQs in the 160s range..I guess you had to be smart to become a serial killer..lol.


----------



## dalsgaard (Aug 14, 2010)

You do understand that 100 is the norm, right? That means that 123 is fairly high compared to most people.


----------



## Ben (Aug 23, 2009)

IQ is just a number and just serves to stereotype people (as in, some seem to assume that someone with a high IQ is automatically smarter and destined for success than one with a relatively low or average IQ). I'm all for it's original purpose--to help place kids in certain classrooms so that their educational needs may be met aproppriately. Other than that, it's meaningless, and I hate it when people make judgments about others based on IQs.

There's also the issue of multiple intelligences, which the general IQ doesn't measure. That gives some people, who may be especially talented in one area (say, musical or bodily-kinesthetics), a social disadvantage because they don't have a high general intelligence, which (I think) measures analytical and spatial skills.

/end rant.

That being said, I think my IQ score was around 120 last time I took a test. However, I've never taken an IQ test that wasn't online, and online tests aren't always reliable or valid.


----------



## Transcendence (Apr 25, 2011)

My best friend (an INTJ) scored over 147 on an IQ test in sixth grade. 
Her therapist at the time wanted to figure out her strengths and weaknesses, so they took the test. 

The reason I'm impressed is that having 150 IQ makes you, well, an official genius. 
And at the age of 11, you're a child prodigy, so I'm impressed. 

But IQ is only one of many different intelligences, and I say bullshit. 
However, for my friend, I'd say that her results are pretty relevant.


----------



## Monkey Fritz (Apr 23, 2010)

Official IQ test results are age based, so an 11 year old scored 50 points above the average 11 year old. Still impressive, but doesn't mean that 11 year old was 50 points higher than the average adult. One more reason why the official tests are more accurate than online tests. Also why beyond a certain age the IQ tends to remain the same, because all the different learning rates have caught up, so the average they base it on is more stable. A 20 year old might have an official IQ of 130, then ten years later its only 125 because they had a faster learning curve than the average, but by 30 the average had caught up just a bit more.

Also, depending on your source, genius is 126, or 150, or in some cases 160. Sometimes seen as genius: 126, true genius 160.

Last online test I took scored 146, I wouldn't call myself a genius. Rather smart, but not a genius. I think the qualifications for being a genius are a bit more than just an IQ test.


----------



## Obsidean (Mar 24, 2010)

Terman is God!!!


----------



## MissJordan (Dec 21, 2010)

110, according to some random ENFP.

I don't really care what mine is, though.
I _know _I'm awesome.


----------



## absentminded (Dec 3, 2010)

I've only taken online tests, but I usually score in the 150-160 range. They're tons of fun.

I'm not sure how valid they really are. I mean, they test your ability to solve a certain type of problem logically, but does that really apply to the real world at all? I know people who, like the OP's father, was/is very intelligent, yet scored negligibly on tests.

I know I've used this example a zillion times, but take Richard Feynman. He scored 127 on an IQ test and went on to be the youngest scientist in the Manhattan Project (he was actually responsible for directing the work of senior researchers), create quantum electrodynamics, formulate a third approach to quantum mechanics, and revolutionize physics in numerous other ways. My avatar consists of four Feynman diagrams, which are similar to chemical equations but for quantum physics instead.

Does this mean that IQ doesn't measure intelligence completely, or does it mean that one's ability to learn isn't predetermined? I don't know. Only time and research will tell.


----------



## Emerson (Mar 13, 2011)

My IQ averages around 137, I have only done the Stanford Binnet, this particular IQ test has a standard deviation roughly of 17 points, I am smart, but by no means a genius, I don't think there is really a line in which you can call someone a genius.

Richard Feynman had an IQ of 125 I've heard and if someone was a genius it was probably him... IQ's mean just about nothing.


----------



## Arbite (Dec 26, 2010)

133 at last count. However, IQ proves very little apart from analytical skills and pattern recognition. I've always thought people who hold it as a badge are just retarded and annoying.


----------



## Mariz (Jun 15, 2011)

Last I checked, it was around 135. But I doubt it was accurate enough.
As for your question, yes I do believe in it. Science has proven its power. I just don't give it much thought.
It's just some measurement of how much you know or how well you can analyze or solve problems.
It doesn't actually measure the things that actually count like: how far would you go for the people you love?
And according to some researches, a higher EQ is more useful than a high IQ.


----------



## absent air (Dec 7, 2010)

I envy my sister for taking a certified WAIS-III test and not appreciating it.

IQ tests are fun.

she scored 101 btw.


----------



## Coonsy (Dec 22, 2010)

Typically around 133, but I don't find the tests all that useful or informative. 

That, and a good dose of common sense can make up for a seriously lacking IQ - I know some pretty smart people (ie high IQ) who are complete idiots (zero common sense). That, and just because someone has the intelligence, doesn't mean they'll use it.


----------



## ErrorCode (May 5, 2011)

Anywhere from 125-135 on the online ones, never bothered to take offical tests like the Binet.

All it measures is how quickly you can solve logical/spacial puzzles. Anyone can do what they want to do if it's really _what they want to do._ Not every recognized intellectual has an IQ over 150.


----------



## Rationalized Insanity (Jun 9, 2011)

I don't think IQ means that much; it is more about perseverance. 

Here's s nice article about what perseverance can get you.
How to Be Genius


----------



## alextyrian (May 2, 2011)

I've tried taking some IQ tests online, and I don't have the slightest clue what they're even asking me for (except my name, email, home address, and cell phone number).


----------



## Psychosmurf (Aug 22, 2010)

I don't remember what the test was called, but I scored in the 99.9987th percentile if I remember correctly. I think this converts to 156 on the Wechsler scale, 160 on the Stanford-Binet scale, and 190 on Cattell. 

The online IQ tests I've taken usually place me somewhere between 130 and 145. However, I do remember this one online test that I took, but can't find anymore, which gave me a score of 103. :tongue: Yes, it was ridiculously hard... :mellow:

I think it's rather naive to consider IQ as a measure of intelligence, when I take into account even the little I've learned about AI recently. IQ tests mostly measure one's abilities on the level of concepts. Even the most difficult problems are only challenges on the level of thoughts. Which is simply reusing and recombining the concepts you've gathered over the years. Don't get me wrong, this does measure one's intelligence, _up to a certain point_. 

True intelligence, I believe, occurs at the level of deliberation. Virtually no problem on an IQ test will challenge you to explain, to predict, to plan, to design, to discover, indeed, to change the way you think or even to change the way you live your life. The real world, on the other hand, you can be sure will do all of these terrible things to you. :tongue:

EDIT: I should add that deliberation can only ever make sense within the context of real-world goals. I don't think it's possible to test this with pencil and paper on a 40 minute test.


----------



## tuna (Jun 10, 2010)

~180. it hasn't been particularly relevant to my life, other than occasionally cheering me up when I felt really stupid in elementary school and middle school. it's just a score on a test; as cool as I think it is that I scored so high, it just means that when I was 12 I was good at scoring high on IQ tests.

ia with absent air, legit IQ tests are hella fun. ( ≖‿≖) but I'm a weirdo who likes tests/exams in general, lmfao.


----------



## dalsgaard (Aug 14, 2010)

<insert standard ramble about my IQ being unusually high, followed by standard ramble about how it really doesn't mean anything>


----------



## ProfessorLiver (Mar 19, 2011)

Jesus, there are a lot of IQ threads.

I think IQs should be regarded as ballpark estimates on how smart a person is, not to quantify exactly. For instance, a person with 150 isn't going to be an idiot and a person with an 80 isn't going to be the sharpest crayon in the drawer, but that doesn't mean one can't be skilled where the other isn't.

I did the Kaufman Assessment when I was fourteen (about three years ago, upon entry to a non-traditional school) and got a 146, which I've resented because of the workload it provides me.

Also, serial killers generally have IQs towards the Bright to Very Bright range, which is 110-120, on the Binet scale. ~100 is considered average, 80-89 considered "dull", 70-79 considered borderline mental deficiency. >140 is considered "genius", but, like I said, it's just a ball park estimate. I'm a smart mofo, but I don't consider myself a genius, and I definitely don't consider any of the people in my classes geniuses.


----------



## Entr0py (Oct 20, 2010)

I was 4th out of 3669 people (had 284 points out of 300, the first had 287, second and third had 286... Fifth was way lower than us, somewhere around 265, and the average score on the test was 122.2 points) on the IQ test that was a part of the entrance exam for a college... I have no idea what score would that translate into, note that I would have been the first if I haven't made an error that was obvious to me at the second that the testing was over and I couldn't fix it anymore :/

On the internet tests I always get the maximum score, and I've read some articles about the correlation of IQ and behaviour and I would put myself into the 150-160IQ bracket (deviation 15).

Do I believe in it? I think it definitely measures some parts of our intelligence, because people that I generally perceived smart did way better on that test than those who I always found less intelligent, but I don't think it measures our creative thinking that I think is my strongest trait.


----------



## killerB (Jan 14, 2010)

They tested my brother and me in Kintergarden because my parents were having some issues, and we both topped at about 135-139. I don't remember the exact scores, my parents have the paperwork. I think it's just a number, and it is known to change up to 10 points day to day, depending on circumstances and how you feel. Even the interpreter can cause it to differ. 

People use it to limit so much, I think it should not be used at all. It's no free pass, like some others think it is. Even having a 'so called' higher IQ, my life is not any easier. I didn't pass all my classes in high school, but I did see how low I could get the grades and still pass. I learned everything the hard way, and still do. I usually see things differently or understand at a level that others don't....which makes me feel freaky, and like I don't fit in. I make jokes that few laugh at unless they can understand where my mind rambles to. It took me awhile to get self esteem because I have always felt like a freak and had interests in things the majority had no interest in. 

IQ scores just limit and place unfair demands on a person, it's a number, that's it. It makes others think that you suddenly should know everything and always 'do the right thing'. 

People who tout it around just look silly and insecure.


----------



## killerB (Jan 14, 2010)

MisterLiver said:


> Jesus, there are a lot of IQ threads.
> 
> I think IQs should be regarded as ballpark estimates on how smart a person is, not to quantify exactly. For instance, a person with 150 isn't going to be an idiot and a person with an 80 isn't going to be the sharpest crayon in the drawer, but that doesn't mean one can't be skilled where the other isn't.
> 
> ...




Looks like we're all just Serial Killers in the making..............JK


----------



## ProfessorLiver (Mar 19, 2011)

killerB said:


> They tested my brother and me in Kintergarden


Everyone has a higher IQ when they're smaller because your ability to learn is quite vast at that age, so this might be skewed a tad.


----------



## absentminded (Dec 3, 2010)

MisterLiver said:


> Everyone has a higher IQ when they're smaller because your ability to learn is quite vast at that age, so this might be skewed a tad.


Actually, IQ is normalized by age.

The calculate IQ scores by testing a thousand or so people who are all approximately the same age (ie they are all five years old on the Georgian calendar). Then when someone comes in an takes the test at that same age, they look at the data and see how likely it was that someone would get that score based off the data they collected. I believe a 130 on the Binet scale corresponds to the top 2% and 145 is 1%.

For your reading pleasure:
Modern method of IQ measurement
Standard deviation of normal distribution


----------



## TheSeer91 (Nov 2, 2010)

IQ can tell you how quickly you understand and process information but it can't tell you whether you will ever write as well as shakespeare or unify quantum mechanics and general relativity.


----------



## Djanga (Nov 28, 2010)

I've only taken online tests, and my scores have always been different; anything for 125 to 145. I think it has the potential to be a fairly accurate measure of intelligence, but I also don't think you should consider yourself doomed to failure if you have a low IQ. There are many many other factors involved.


----------



## TheSeer91 (Nov 2, 2010)

Richard Feynman had an offical iq of 125


----------



## Antares (Jun 8, 2011)

I don't necessarily believe in IQ. I always thought I barely made the cut of 120, but it appears to be 130 or more. All I know is, how well you solve those assignments says nothing. Even the combination of EQ and IQ says nothing, because I believe they're measuring EQ wrong. All I know is: solving logical and math problems doesn't make you 'smart' and how to recognize and behave conform 'everyone else' does not make you less empathic. When these tests stop measuring it against "a wilfull state of being" perhaps it will stand a chance.


----------



## zerogravity (Aug 21, 2010)

My school requires IQ test for freshmen and my IQ was 123, and genius 130.
I don't really care about it though, I don't really think intelligence could be determined by numbers..


----------



## dagnytaggart (Jun 6, 2010)

Some range around 155, this was in high school. I did eat three glazed donuts during the lunch before the test, so I think the sugar rush helped. The brain runs on glucose, right? 

(but then again, my SAT scores and GRE scores translate approximately to the same range. I didn't study for either of those tests. I don't remember what I ate.)


----------



## Mantis (Feb 7, 2010)

tuna said:


> ~180. it hasn't been particularly relevant to my life, other than occasionally cheering me up when I felt really stupid in elementary school and middle school. it's just a score on a test; as cool as I think it is that I scored so high, it just means that when I was 12 I was good at scoring high on IQ tests.
> 
> ia with absent air, legit IQ tests are hella fun. ( ≖‿≖) but I'm a weirdo who likes tests/exams in general, lmfao.


Holy Shit. 180? That's realy high. You must have some special talent in some area, you need to find it if you haven't, already.


----------



## Mantis (Feb 7, 2010)

Djanga said:


> I've only taken online tests, and my scores have always been different; anything for 125 to 145. I think it has the potential to be a fairly accurate measure of intelligence, but I also don't think you should consider yourself doomed to failure if you have a low IQ. There are many many other factors involved.


I've taken online tests, too, but I don't think those count. In fact, I believe many of them do come with the warning that it is "for entertainment purpose", mainly.

I took the tickle iq test and scored 140. This was when I was about 15 or 16, but like I said, when we were tested in high school, I scored 123, and that was way longer and more tedious than the online tests.
It was a small booklet of exercises we had to solve in one hour, if I remember right.


----------



## Mantis (Feb 7, 2010)

Rationalized Insanity said:


> I don't think IQ means that much; it is more about perseverance.
> 
> Here's s nice article about what perseverance can get you.
> How to Be Genius


yes, it does make sense. It would explain my dad, too, him having an IQ around 110, and being incredibly smart and skilled in several(related) fields, but he has the biggest work capacity of anyone I know.
He's the type who can lock himself up in a room with a pot of coffee, a stack of blank notebooks and some physics/maths courses, and just sits there and studies, doing and re-doing proofs and stuff, for 10 hours straight. Also has an amazing ability to focus, and is very well-read.
So, yes, it's mostly about interest, and perseverence.

But I think the "theory" of IQ is that someone like my father, but with a higher IQ might've revolutionized physics, or maths, or...engineering. I think he's an ESTJ or ENTJ.


----------



## Mantis (Feb 7, 2010)

dalsgaard said:


> You do understand that 100 is the norm, right? That means that 123 is fairly high compared to most people.


yeah, but I saw myself as a genius in the making back then so finding out I was merely above average was sort of deflating.


----------



## Mantis (Feb 7, 2010)

alextyrian said:


> I've tried taking some IQ tests online, and I don't have the slightest clue what they're even asking me for (except my name, email, home address, and cell phone number).


what do you mean, no clue what they're asking you for?


----------



## Mantis (Feb 7, 2010)

MisterLiver said:


> Jesus, there are a lot of IQ threads.
> 
> I think IQs should be regarded as ballpark estimates on how smart a person is, not to quantify exactly. For instance, a person with 150 isn't going to be an idiot and a person with an 80 isn't going to be the sharpest crayon in the drawer, but that doesn't mean one can't be skilled where the other isn't.
> 
> ...


some serial killers have ridiculously high IQs IQ of Famous Serial Killers - IQ Criminals - Famous Serial Killer IQ - Criminal IQs

I didn't know there were so many different types of IQ assesments. I have no idea which one I took, but I did get the results which said "123-superior intelligence". If 123 is superior intelligence, then over 140 would definitely make you genius material.


----------



## Emerson (Mar 13, 2011)

Mantis said:


> yeah, but I saw myself as a genius in the making back then so finding out I was merely above average was sort of deflating.



For a quick ego boost on your part-

Richard Feynmann- IQ 125
Andy Worhol- IQ 72 (However he was severley autistic)


----------



## Mantis (Feb 7, 2010)

Emerson said:


> For a quick ego boost on your part-
> 
> Richard Feynmann- IQ 125
> Andy Worhol- IQ 72 (However he was severley autistic)


yes, feynmann was mentioned earlier before.
I might also add Ted Bundy- IQ 124.lol


----------



## Emerson (Mar 13, 2011)

Mantis said:


> yes, feynmann was mentioned earlier before.
> I might also add Ted Bundy- IQ 124.lol


Yeah I thought I might've mentioned him, he's my favourite above average IQ celeb. Ted Bundy eh? That's awesome, I heard somewhere that Charles Manson's is somewhere in the 170-190 range... Wouldn't surprise me, he's one smart guy. Can't draw to save his life though.


----------



## Mantis (Feb 7, 2010)

Emerson said:


> Yeah I thought I might've mentioned him, he's my favourite above average IQ celeb. Ted Bundy eh? That's awesome, I heard somewhere that Charles Manson's is somewhere in the 170-190 range... Wouldn't surprise me, he's one smart guy. Can't draw to save his life though.


Chalres Manson's was 109. I posted a link in an above post with the IQs of some famous serial killers.


----------



## Emerson (Mar 13, 2011)

Mantis said:


> Chalres Manson's was 109. I posted a link in an above post with the IQs of some famous serial killers.



Ha, Mansons one of the smartest people of his generation I'd wager, and that's more evidence for the "IQ isn't all that hot pile"


----------



## mrbluey (May 3, 2011)

Mantis said:


> Holy Shit. 180? That's realy high. You must have some special talent in some area, you need to find it if you haven't, already.


 It depends on the deviation of the scale used. For instance, a score of 150 on the Stanford-Binet scale would equate to 175 on the Cattell scale, because the Stanford-Binet uses a deviation of 16 and the Cattell uses a deviation of 24.

IQ conversion

Big difference :wink:


----------



## dagnytaggart (Jun 6, 2010)

Emerson said:


> Yeah I thought I might've mentioned him, he's my favourite above average IQ celeb. Ted Bundy eh? That's awesome, I heard somewhere that Charles Manson's is somewhere in the 170-190 range... Wouldn't surprise me, he's one smart guy. Can't draw to save his life though.





Mantis said:


> Chalres Manson's was 109. I posted a link in an above post with the IQs of some famous serial killers.


yeah, one of you seemed to mix up the digits, quite a difference! Lol

Serials killers...a surprising proportion of doubledigiters:

IQ of Famous Serial Killers - IQ Criminals - Famous Serial Killer IQ - Criminal IQs


----------



## alextyrian (May 2, 2011)

Mantis said:


> what do you mean, no clue what they're asking you for?


Some of them just put up three pictures of intersecting black lines like a game of pick-up sticks and ask which fourth picture completes the set. To me they all look completely random. I guess there is some sort of pattern that I'm supposed to be picking out, but question after question like that I couldn't find anything. It was like, well, I guess I score a zero.


----------



## Mantis (Feb 7, 2010)

dagny, 

I just posted that link earlier. That's where I got Manson's IQ from.


----------



## ProfessorLiver (Mar 19, 2011)

Mantis said:


> some serial killers have ridiculously high IQs IQ of Famous Serial Killers - IQ Criminals - Famous Serial Killer IQ - Criminal IQs


Aaaaaaaaaaand for every one that has a very impressively high one, there's another that has a disappointingly low one. 



Mantis said:


> I didn't know there were so many different types of IQ assesments. I have no idea which one I took, but I did get the results which said "123-superior intelligence". If 123 is superior intelligence, then over 140 would definitely make you genius material.


In terms of analytical thinking, maybe. I won't go all Dunning-Kruger fake modest or anything, like I said, I'm pretty smart, smarter than most people, but I wouldn't consider myself quite a "genius".


----------



## goodgracesbadinfluence (Feb 28, 2011)

I've never been officially tested, but online tests usually score me from 120-130.


----------



## Scarecrow793 (May 8, 2011)

IQ is utter bullshit. I wrote a paper on it last year. Alfred Binet didn't even believe in its use as an intelligence test; he was simply commissioned by the french education minister to make a test to help identify children who were candidates for special education. IQ is almost completely subjective to socioeconomic and educational status. Innate intelligence is far too subtle and multifaceted to be summed up in a number.


----------



## mrbluey (May 3, 2011)

Scarecrow793 said:


> IQ is utter bullshit. I wrote a paper on it last year. Alfred Binet didn't even believe in its use as an intelligence test; he was simply commissioned by the french education minister to make a test to help identify children who were candidates for special education. IQ is almost completely subjective to socioeconomic and educational status. Innate intelligence is far too subtle and multifaceted to be summed up in a number.


Maybe, but the initial purpose of IQ testing belies its potential.
These links may provide insight into the relevance of examining abilities IQ is supposed to measure.

High abilities at fluid analogizing: a cognitive neuroscience construct of giftedness. - Free Online Library
http://www.guilford.com/excerpts/flanagan.pdf


----------



## Valentina the Great (Jun 22, 2011)

I've always scored between 154 and 162. I don't think it means much really, and the tests are reeeeeeally boring to take.


----------



## wiarumas (Aug 27, 2010)

When I was in elementary school, I scored as a 144, but I have no idea how legitimate the test was - seems young to me. They wanted me to skip from 3rd to 5th grade but my parents declined for social reasons.


----------



## Entr0py (Oct 20, 2010)

wiarumas said:


> When I was in elementary school, I scored as a 144, but I have no idea how legitimate the test was - seems young to me. They wanted me to skip from 3rd to 5th grade but my parents declined for social reasons.


Probably a good move from your parents.


----------



## MiasmaResonance (Jul 18, 2009)

My IQ is poo like you so shoo.

Also, I like how everyone on this thread has a conveniently high IQ.

*whistles*


----------



## Entr0py (Oct 20, 2010)

MiasmaResonance said:


> My IQ is poo like you so shoo.
> 
> Also, I like how everyone on this thread has a conveniently high IQ.
> 
> *whistles*


We are INTPs though...


----------



## MiasmaResonance (Jul 18, 2009)

Entr0py said:


> We are INTPs though...


What do you mean by this exactly? Is it that, because we are INTP, we are thus more likely to have a superior IQ?

Or...is it that, because we are INTP, we are more likely to place a high value on IQ and therefore fabricate our own intelligence in order to prove our worthiness?

Hmmm. :wink:


----------



## L'Empereur (Jun 7, 2010)

I haven't taken an official test, but I always get around 126 on the online tests.


----------



## Entr0py (Oct 20, 2010)

MiasmaResonance said:


> What do you mean by this exactly? Is it that, because we are INTP, we are thus more likely to have a superior IQ?
> 
> Or...is it that, because we are INTP, we are more likely to place a high value on IQ and therefore fabricate our own intelligence in order to prove our worthiness?
> 
> Hmmm. :wink:


I would say the first. If IQ has anything to do with intelligence, then INTPs on average should have a superior IQ.
Have you read the description of our type? Everything screams high intelligence... Thinking all the time (absent minded), good at solving complicated problems, highly developed creative thinking, scientist/philosopher a-like personality, easy time grasping complex ideas and concepts, witty humor. 

I think thats what people actually consider intelligence... Only thing we lack is the organisational skills, maybe we are great at it, but we just don't care enough to even try. 

Anyways, I know only one confirmed INTP except me and I would say he is the smartest person I have ever met. I suspect maybe 2-3 more people to be INTPs and they are all pretty darn intelligent.

So yea, I do think INTPs have a higher IQ on average, if IQ actually measures intelligence.


----------



## MiasmaResonance (Jul 18, 2009)

Entr0py said:


> I would say the first. If IQ has anything to do with intelligence, then INTPs on average should have a superior IQ.
> Have you read the description of our type? Everything screams high intelligence... Thinking all the time (absent minded), good at solving complicated problems, highly developed creative thinking, scientist/philosopher a-like personality, easy time grasping complex ideas and concepts, witty humor.
> 
> I think thats what people actually consider intelligence... Only thing we lack is the organisational skills, maybe we are great at it, but we just don't care enough to even try.
> ...




Yes, I have read our type description. I have been going to forums like this one for a few years now. 

Because of that, I have seen numerous threads just like this one where NTs (mostly INTPs) post their extremely high IQs for the world to see. I'm sorry, but not all of you have an IQ that high. In fact, the vast majority of you don't. You are perhaps slightly above average, if that.

I don't know if everyone here even grasps the rarity of a high IQ.

I look at the INTP method of thinking as coming off as intelligent. However, just because you have a certain method of processing information, does not mean you have the capacity to take it any further than that.

Being an INTP does not give you the right to come up with random numbers, like I can imagine many of the people on this thread are. Your method of processing information, and the world, may be in a similar fashion to Einstein's, but that does not mean you have the brains to be a genius. Sorry folks.

So anyway, I can ask you if you're read the type description, in rebuttal. Because really, knowing all about the INTP is why I came to my second conclusion (in my first post) anyway. INTPs are a type that value intelligence very, very highly. If an INTP happens to be "average" in terms of intelligence, I can see them over thinking it and concluding that "well, the way I think is superior anyway, so my IQ must be high, the test be damned". Or, say, they want to save themselves from falling into a black abyss of depression, from knowing they are average, so they make up a number. And they come to believe it after a while. And, once again..knowing our type, the INTP is likely to lie about it in order to prove themselves. 

I stand by my second conclusion, from my first post, in regards to this thread.


----------



## Monte (Feb 17, 2010)

This is the NT thread.

Everyone's scored about 700.

That's what they're going to say anyway.


----------



## OhReally (Nov 28, 2010)

MiasmaResonance said:


> Yes, I have read our type description. I have been going to forums like this one for a few years now.
> 
> Because of that, I have seen numerous threads just like this one where NTs (mostly INTPs) post their extremely high IQs for the world to see. I'm sorry, but not all of you have an IQ that high. In fact, the vast majority of you don't. *You are perhaps slightly above average, if that.*
> 
> ...


Yes INTPs tend to value intelligence highly of course to really function as an INTP you need good cognitive abilities. There isn't the F or S to help us work in society outside are cognitive skills. I would say that most INTP and NTs in general have a higher intelligent but not necessarily all of them. So I would suggest it either works one of the two ways
A: For the mind to start developing towards an NT personality the individual usually has a higher Intelligence which is the reason they could be succesful with this personality.
B: The use of a NT personality through development would require the cognitive skills to advance more than other types due to the reliance on these cognitive abilities.


However I find the fact that you specifically told entropy that he might be "slightly above average if that" fairly immature since you know nothing about that individual. I also find it humorous you say you "know all about INTPs" which is a rather large exaggeration. It appears you yourself seem to have a very inflated ego. I also find it interesting that they way you keep bring up having experience around people with this personality type as a reason to come to these conclusions. It kinda reminds me of racist logic really. I don't know why your so defensive about this whole thing maybe you scored low on an IQ test and it hurt your ego. Maybe in these other online groups you were picked on or they insulted your intelligence. Whatever it is you definitely seem to have a lot of rancor towards others on this topic.


----------



## Entr0py (Oct 20, 2010)

MiasmaResonance said:


> Yes, I have read our type description. I have been going to forums like this one for a few years now.
> 
> Because of that, I have seen numerous threads just like this one where NTs (mostly INTPs) post their extremely high IQs for the world to see. I'm sorry, but not all of you have an IQ that high. In fact, the vast majority of you don't. You are perhaps slightly above average, if that.
> 
> ...


Sorry to inform you, but I scored extremely high on an IQ test that was part of my entrance exam for college, I was better then 99,9% of people that wrote that exam, had almost the maximum score, while the average score on the test was 45%.

Sorry to inform you, but my philosophy essay and exam are by a good amount, the best in my generation. In my countries version of SAT... I am going to be in newspapers along with other students who were first in other subjects.

Furthermore, I didn't even study for that exam, I just wanted to write it out of the pure self amusement because I love philosophy so much, and I myself already wrote a good amount of philosophy thoughts in my notebooks.

Also, for the last 2 or 3 years, most of the professors in my school considered me extremely intelligent, some of them even used the word genius. That includes my philosophy professor, my biology professor, my psychology professor, my literature professor and some other.

Yes, I am definitely not 'slightly above average, if that'. Maybe me and my INTP friend i talked about are just two rare oddballs, and majority of INTPs actually aren't as intelligent as we are, so I could be biased... but from my perspective your post seems so wrong.

Edit: I consider myself to be very intelligent and I think I have a right to because everybody that knows me does, and a good amount of them (my close friends and pupils that I shared my classroom with) consider me freakishly intelligent.

I know my intellectual capabilities, but I am by no means an elitist, arrogant etc. because of it. People consider me to be very polite and goodhearted, but also stubborn sometimes, but I am not rude or egocentric...


----------



## Erudis (Jan 23, 2011)

I took some tests when I was a younger, but I don't think they are a good way to measure someone's intelligence. I like to take these kind of tests for the fun of solving logical problems, but I couldn't care less about the results.



MiasmaResonance said:


> I have seen numerous threads just like this one where NTs (mostly INTPs) post their extremely high IQs for the world to see.


Yes, we're such attenttion whores.

Btw, my IQ is bigger than yours. :tongue:


----------



## absentminded (Dec 3, 2010)

MiasmaResonance said:


> What do you mean by this exactly? Is it that, because we are INTP, we are thus more likely to have a superior IQ?
> 
> Or...is it that, because we are INTP, we are more likely to place a high value on IQ and therefore fabricate our own intelligence in order to prove our worthiness?


Many people now believe that a kid can have an IQ of whatever, but if he spends his life studying, thinking and experimenting, then that value will change. NTs are particularly given to activities that would cause one's IQ to increase.


----------



## wiarumas (Aug 27, 2010)

Its a thread about IQ - those with high IQ will be more likely to post in it. Not only because it gives them a chance to brag, but most often those who know their IQ have been tested under the suspicion it might be higher.

Its like the disclaimer that came with studies on penis size. They acknowledged the fact that the average size of the study might be larger because the participants that agreed to do the study may have done so because they have something more substantial to show.


----------



## MiasmaResonance (Jul 18, 2009)

Erudis: It's good that you admit it.


----------



## MiasmaResonance (Jul 18, 2009)

OhReally said:


> Yes INTPs tend to value intelligence highly of course to really function as an INTP you need good cognitive abilities. There isn't the F or S to help us work in society outside are cognitive skills. I would say that most INTP and NTs in general have a higher intelligent but not necessarily all of them. So I would suggest it either works one of the two ways
> A: For the mind to start developing towards an NT personality the individual usually has a higher Intelligence which is the reason they could be succesful with this personality.
> B: The use of a NT personality through development would require the cognitive skills to advance more than other types due to the reliance on these cognitive abilities.
> 
> ...


I'll let you believe what you want.

When I said "you", I was speaking to everyone in the thread, not just him. Of course I am not aware of the small number of people who are not lying about their IQ scores, but I have the right to take _everyone_ with a grain of salt. Do you have a problem with that? Why, that's insulting to my distrustful INTP nature. 

Yes, take my "I know all about INTPs" literally as well. It does help you make your point when you make it out like I meant that explicitly. However, it was an exaggeration that I acknowledged as I typed it. Of course, no one knows all about INTPs. I don't think that a good method when debating is to take someones obviously exaggerated statements and turn them into explicit facts to make them look bad (and thus help you make your point). I have never been immature here, and your gross misunderstanding of my posts is bothersome.

You try to insult my logic, calling it "racist", when you say the reason that I am so "mad" on this thread is because my own IQ score is low? That's very interesting.

Yes, I must be distrustful of everyone here because my own IQ score is low. Continue thinking this.


----------



## MiasmaResonance (Jul 18, 2009)

Entr0py said:


> Sorry to inform you, but I scored extremely high on an IQ test that was part of my entrance exam for college, I was better then 99,9% (out of 4000 people, 2 people had my score, and 1 had 2 points more, test had 300 points) of people that wrote that exam, had almost the maximum score, while the average score on the test was 45%.
> 
> Sorry to inform you, but my philosophy essay and exam are by a good amount, the best in my generation. In my countries version of SAT... I am going to be in newspapers along with other students who were first in other subjects.
> 
> ...


You did not have to post this to prove your intelligence to me (and, I suppose, everyone else on this thread). In my post, when I said "you", I was talking to everyone who had posted. You'll notice the rest of my post carried on that way as well. Also, why are you sorry? Is this some kind of ploy? 

I have the right to be suspicious of anything I see posted on internet forums, especially about IQ, due to what I've seen in the past. And also because believing everything you see on the internet is just silly. So, despite your lengthy explanation, I still do not have to believe you. This is not me being immature, or arrogant; that is me being my INTP self and not trusting everything I hear. Thank you.


----------



## OhReally (Nov 28, 2010)

wiarumas said:


> Its a thread about IQ - those with high IQ will be more likely to post in it. Not only because it gives them a chance to brag, but most often those who know their IQ have been tested under the suspicion it might be higher.
> 
> Its like the disclaimer that came with studies on penis size. They acknowledged the fact that the average size of the study might be larger because the participants that agreed to do the study may have done so because they have something more substantial to show.


I was actually thinking of bringing up the same thing same point. Of course the results are going to be above average considering:

You have to be intelligent enough to use the internet. Which also means read/write and us a computer.
You have to be intelligent enough to find a mbti test be able to answer the question and understand the concept.
Debatably NTs are more likely to have a higher IQ.
People who have scored higher on the IQ test are more likely to post..

All that really helps move the average higher than that of the norm.
With all that said Ive never personally taken an IQ test. Ive been in a class where we were given alot of similar problems and I was significantly better than anyone in the class to the point the teacher told me I didnt have to participate anymore and to go read a book. Do these things tell you a lot, no not really but they do show you a bit.


----------



## Entr0py (Oct 20, 2010)

MiasmaResonance said:


> I have the right to be suspicious of anything I see posted on internet forums, especially about IQ, due to what I've seen in the past. And also because believing everything you see on the internet is just silly. So, despite your lengthy explanation, I still do not have to believe you. This is not me being immature, or arrogant; that is me being my INTP self and not trusting everything I hear. Thank you.


Why wouldn't you believe me? Why are you suspicious? Is something wrong in your brain?

Reason why anyone should be suspicious about anything is a rational fear that the consequences of you believing in it will somehow badly influence you in any way or will just misguide you from the general truth. 

The only consequence of you excepting my words as true is that you will possibly feel bad about yourself because you are possibly not as intelligent as I am. So, that is the only reason for you not believing me.

You are acting silly... this situation is very similar to this:

Two people are having a friendly conversation about their day at work:

Person A) Today I had a very bad time with my coworkers... We had a big argument on when will we start doing ''insert job a'' and when we will end doing ''insert job b''. I also ate a really good pie on my way home.

Person B) I don't believe you, I don't have enough information or evidence that support your story.

Person A) Are you insane? *bursts out laughing*

Conclusion: The whole fact that you are suspicious about me telling the truth and as a consequence you do not believe in it makes me doubt in your mental health.

Edit: I don't like you... You seem like a prepotent, bitchy person. And I think there is more then one person here who shares my feelings.

2nd Edit: Why are you even here on this forum if you don't believe anything that someone says to you online? Why are you then reading threads? THEY COULD ALL BE A LIE! xD you are silly... How can you even live an every day life, and interact with others in a normal way with that kind of approach?

3rd Edit: I don't believe you are an INTP, I refuse to listen to you. (this is just me acting like you do...)


----------



## OhReally (Nov 28, 2010)

MiasmaResonance said:


> I'll let you believe what you want.
> 
> When I said "you", I was speaking to everyone in the thread, not just him. Of course I am not aware of the small number of people who are not lying about their IQ scores, but I have the right to take _everyone_ with a grain of salt. Do you have a problem with that? Why, that's insulting to my distrustful INTP nature.
> 
> ...


You is a second person singular pronoun not a plural pronoun. You're communication was inefficient for what you intended. Of course you have the right to, I never said otherwise.
No not really, naturally INTPs are more likely to be cynical. 

You're use of exaggeration is you're own undoing. It also was used as to solidify your argument. If you were to say "I know something about INTPs" then you're argument falls apart real quickly, since most everyone else here does as well. You kept on reiterating the fact that you have extensive knowledge and experience with INTPs which was you're main premise you used to promote your position as being cogent. Communicating clearly and precisely during arguments is extremely important, I interpreted it exactly as written. Use rhetoric cautiously. 

I only said that might be the case, I also suggested something else might be the case. I actually pretty explicitly stated I didn't know.

I actually find this kinda fun really.


----------



## MiasmaResonance (Jul 18, 2009)

Entr0py said:


> Why wouldn't you believe me? Why are you suspicious? Is something wrong in your brain?
> 
> Reason why anyone should be suspicious about anything is a rational fear that the consequences of you believing in it will somehow badly influence you in any way or will just misguide you from the general truth.
> 
> ...


The only reason I commented on this topic is because, on every forum on the internet I've EVER been to, there has been a thread similar to this one. And no one has ever really posted an IQ under 110-120. Rather suspicious.

I suppose that if I chose not to believe everyone here, there is something wrong with my brain, eh.

I am not acting silly, I am merely giving my opinion. You seem to have a problem with my opinion, due to either your own insecurities or some other issue with me. You may be sexist. Who knows. See what I did there? Kind of similar to what you just said to me. 

I am not insecure enough to be affected by what you say about your IQ on an internet forum. I have said numerous times why I responded to this thread, yet that part seems to go over everyone's heads. All I'm hearing is that I must be less intelligent and therefore jealous to even bring up the fact that I don't believe everyone. It is very egotistical of you to think that my only reason for pursuing this topic is because I am upset about not being as intelligent. If you cannot see the problem with this, I cannot help you.

That last statement was uncalled for and rude. You call me foul names because my opinion is different than yours and because I am distrustful. And because I'm not a fickle person and don't back down on my opinions._ That_, to me, is silly.


----------



## MiasmaResonance (Jul 18, 2009)

OhReally said:


> You is a second person singular pronoun not a plural pronoun. *You're* communication was inefficient for what you intended. Of course you have the right to, I never said otherwise.
> No not really, naturally INTPs are more likely to be cynical.
> 
> *You're* use of exaggeration is* you're* own undoing. It also was used as to solidify your argument. If you were to say "I know something about INTPs" then *you're *argument falls apart real quickly, since most everyone else here does as well. You kept on reiterating the fact that you have extensive knowledge and experience with INTPs which was *you're* main premise you used to promote your position as being cogent. Communicating clearly and precisely during arguments is extremely important, I interpreted it exactly as written. Use rhetoric cautiously.
> ...


I'm sorry that you couldn't understand. Perhaps I should have said "you all" or "ya'll" (I'm southern, haha). 
But really, "you" is both a singular and plural second person pronoun. The way I used it was not technically incorrect. And I've never had people misunderstand it before.
But since you corrected me on that, I'll just let you know you are using "you're" improperly. You should have been saying "your" (I bolded your mistakes for reference). :blushed:

My reiteration of the fact I know much about INTPs was not to prove to you that I do in fact know a lot. It was mostly to explain to you why I made my comments in the first place. Because I know y (from the past), I conclude that x is untrustworthy until explicitly proven.

I believe I have communicated clearly, but as the majority of the people offering me rebuttal seem to be personally offended, they are misunderstanding and looking over my true purpose for posting in this thread, and instead finding explanations that paint me as the bad guy.


----------



## OhReally (Nov 28, 2010)

Wow Ive been doing that for a while now Im surprised I didn't notice.


----------



## MiasmaResonance (Jul 18, 2009)

OhReally said:


> Wow Ive been doing that for a while now Im surprised I didn't notice.


It's all good.  I would never have become the grammar/spelling nazi that I am if it hadn't been for a good friend of mine teaching me the error of my ways when I was 13/14. Heh.


----------



## MiasmaResonance (Jul 18, 2009)

Entr0py said:


> 2nd Edit: Why are you even here on this forum if you don't believe anything that someone says to you online? Why are you then reading threads? THEY COULD ALL BE A LIE! xD you are silly... How can you even live an every day life, and interact with others in a normal way with that kind of approach?
> 
> 3rd Edit: I don't believe you are an INTP, I refuse to listen to you. (this is just me acting like you do...)


You are generalizing my way of thinking. Of course I don't distrust everything. I have stated over and over again why I have posted here. In other threads, there is generally no REASON to lie. Because of this, I am less likely to question anything. Practically everyone operates in this way to a certain degree. 

In this thread, however..it comes off as a thread where people attempt to prove themselves to the rest of the forum members. Of course there are genuine people, but I believe that most here are just lying to make themselves seem grand. Why? Who knows. I DO know that this happens all the time though. Like I've said, agaaaain and again, the reason I brought this up here is because of the prevalence of threads like this (in which everyone who posts is a genius) on many other forums. For once, I decide to comment on this because it really IS suspicious and I point out my observations. And here we are.

So there is a difference in my logic. Like I already pointed out, you are generalizing. Why, I do not know. It will not help you prove your point. It fact, it makes it easier for me to disprove you.

And in response to that last edit..read the above. That is nothing like my logic. I don't even know how that fits in any were here.


----------



## Entr0py (Oct 20, 2010)

Have you ever considered that people only post high scores?



MiasmaResonance said:


> Of course there are genuine people, but I believe that most here are just lying to make themselves seem grand.Why? Who knows. I DO know that this happens all the time though. Like I've said, agaaaain and again, the reason I brought this up here is because of the prevalence of threads like this (in which everyone who posts is a genius) on many other forums.


You... are just paranoid.


----------



## MiasmaResonance (Jul 18, 2009)

Entr0py said:


> Have you ever considered that people only post high scores?
> 
> 
> 
> You... are just paranoid.


Perhaps, but my train of thought is just as logical as that one.

Paranoid? Ok, thank you for your subjective opinion..~


----------



## Khar (May 21, 2011)

IQ is represented by a simple bell curve with standard deviations, which lacks scope to adequately measure various forms of intelligence beyond linguistic, mathematical and visual constructs. It's use is limited and is a generalized level of intelligence. Hence it is fairly easy to test the reality of most of these figures. Most IQ tests out there I've seen tend to be for show rather than for use, for the record.

I have to admit, I agree with @_Erudis_ , @_Ben_ , @_TheOpenDoor_ , @_Monte_ , @_dalsgaard_ , @_Scarecrow793_ and @_MiasmaResonance_ in their various views about the slant of this thread and perhaps IQ in general. I've moderated forums for a long time, and have enjoyed pointing out that every forum I've been on has somehow managed a statistical impossibility with the posting population of the entire forum, let alone active posters. If we assume that we have a standard population on this forum, only three or four people should be above 150 (depending on the test type). Now, let's say that this is doubled (generous) and that there should be six to eight people on this site with an IQ greater than 150. This includes inactive accounts, those with no posts and so forth. 99.9570883466% of people should be below this (SD calculation, claims of 180 would be higher than 99.9999951684% of the population or 1/20,696,863 of an average population so we've already managed to be an outlier).

This site does not have the population to support more than a handful of people above 140. Even assuming an extreme shifted tail on the test, our active posting population only shouldn't have more than a handful of people above 130. Of all members with 100 posts or more, we should have 0.5 with an IQ of around (within a few points of) 150 or more. Yet in this small sampling of NTs, we have 6 people claiming to be around there (or above), 12 times what it should be, 6 times if we once again slanted the curve so 1 would be what we're working with. Since NTs make up 27.3% of the forum population, this is a large assumption right there. Since those claiming to have that level are predominantly above the 800 post mark, we're actually dealing with a group of closer to 200 than 1000. Including the NT percentage makes that only smaller by a great deal. I would support two possibilities amongst at least some of the respondees:

1) Lying.
2) Flawed testing. 

In terms of one thousand, we may have one. Perhaps, maybe two, although probability states a low likelihood. Three would make us a pretty extreme outlier. Six is crazy. Let alone if this was assumed to be a normal population. 

This thread consists largely of people in a grouping of maybe 200 members post-wise, only consisting of a type which makes up a little over 27% of the site population. Only 2% of all active posters on the site (hell, let's double percentages again and assume 300 base population which would include all types, not just NTs) should be at or above 130 for your atypical most commonly used IQ test. 12 people, 4% of 300, is a very liberal and slanted estimate for the amount over 130. Ten people claimed it in only this thread by page 2, in a forum for NTs (most of whom are way above the 100 post cut off I am using) -- four by page 1, if we assumed a normal population. We went over a very slanted example after that. Even at that level we see problems. 

At best, those claiming IQs of 130 or above in this thread are part of a posting population of, at maximum, 100 persons (including predominant post count and NT type). 2 of us should be at or above 130. Assuming the scenario I've been using above to make it more likely, 4. Not ten or twelve or sixteen. We should have 0.05 people at, around or over 150, not five or six. You can times that one by 50 and we still wouldn't be close to not being an outlier.

Whether you look at NTs, the entire posting core with 100 or more posts, or the entire site including inactives, we simply do not have a population to support IQ claims of around 150, and we do not have the population to support claims of 130 or above considering even the population with that level of posts. 

So yes, @_wiarumas_ is likely correct in stating that those with high IQs are more likely to post in it. The problem is that those high IQs don't seem possible in the overall site population. It's not that only high scores are being posted, it's that too many high scores have been posted. 

I do question @_Entr0py_ 's example. A better example would be making a claim of superior athletic skill to person B, the other person you barely known refusing to believe it and neither of you having anyway to prove it -- in real life, people would likely fight that. Simply put, while they do have to consider the possibility with a lack of contrasting evidence, they do not have to take you at your word, especially if they see trends which lend suspicion to such positions. People taking you at your word are doing so out of courtesy. We also must consider trends, such as this sort of thing happening frequently on forums. Accepting such things on sight does cross some logical fallacies. 

Finally, being an INTP is not as important, nor being an NT in general, as some folks have stated in my opinion. While it does prescribe the preference towards activities which cause a predilection for higher IQ, it does not measure aptitude in and of itself and definitely crosses viable use of the MBTI system.

Of course, this is all just five minutes of calculations so I could easily be wrong, but this is my opinion. I did try to be forgiving in what would be considered acceptable statistically, as seen above. It's always possible that it could occur, but that is a very, very big "could" in this case.


----------



## Entr0py (Oct 20, 2010)

Khar said:


> I do question @_Entr0py_ 's example. A better example would be making a claim of superior athletic skill to person B, the other person you barely known refusing to believe it and neither of you having anyway to prove it -- in real life, people would likely fight that. Simply put, while they do have to consider the possibility with a lack of contrasting evidence, they do not have to take you at your word, especially if they see trends which lend suspicion to such positions. People taking you at your word are doing so out of courtesy. We also must consider trends, such as this sort of thing happening frequently on forums. Accepting such things on sight does cross some logical fallacies.


My example was like it was because I wanted to exaggerate this situation. If anyone claimed here what I have claimed, I would be skeptical about its veracity, that's for sure, but I wouldn't dismiss it as 'probably a lie'. Maybe I just think in a different way than she does... When someone is telling me a story about anything, I always think its true in the start but taking its validity with skepticism, allowing me to spot logical inconsistencies. Basically, I would consider your story as true, but I wouldn't put my money on it if anyone asked me to, nor would I talked with others about it as it is certainly true, I would say: ''That's what he said, at least, I don't know.''

Anyways, being so skeptical and distrusting about such irrelevant topic seems rather peculiar to me.


----------



## undead (Nov 28, 2010)

Short Answer: No.


----------



## Ylajali (Mar 27, 2011)

hey guys. hey.

I once scored really well on an internet IQ test. I then gave the same test to my slightly retarded neighbor and guess what? He scored 132. So then I took the test again, picking always the third choice as my answer. I scored 126. 

Be wary of bullshit results.


----------



## ErrorCode (May 5, 2011)

Yeah, I will admit most online IQ tests like to use that "feelgood" tactic to make people hand over their money, and may give out 130+ scores like candy.

Still, is it possible to find the _average_ real IQ score of an NT? I can't shake the feeling that using the standard 100 point scale for humanity as a whole is a real issue if we're talking about a subpopulation known to receive higher scores. Perhaps the likelihood of having such a large 140+ pool is even more unusual than what we think.

If we can find a reliable NT average, we'll have something much more solid to work with in determining how badly IQs are represented online.


----------



## Nivia (Mar 25, 2010)

This thread seems to be an amalgamate of misconceptions about IQ and it's correlates.
I will, pithily as I might, attempt to straighten those out a bit.


Confusion prevalent in topics concerning Intelligence Quotient is by no means surprising; everyone is as eager to exalt their score as they are keen to undermine the whole idea lest they are taken for a stuck up, self conceited fool -- or worse yet -- find out eventually, with a professionally administered test, that they fall short of their inflated ego.

You should acquaint yourselves with the Downing effect:



> "One of the main effects of illusory superiority in IQ is the Downing effect. This describes the tendency of people with a below average IQ to overestimate their IQ, and of people with an above average IQ to underestimate their IQ. The propensity to predictably misjudge one's own IQ was first noted by C. L. Downing who conducted the first cross-cultural studies on perceived 'intelligence'. His studies also evidenced that the ability to accurately estimate others' IQ was proportional to one's own IQ. This means that the lower the IQ of an individual, the less capable they are of appreciating and accurately appraising others' IQ. Therefore individuals with a lower IQ are more likely to rate themselves as having a higher IQ than those around them. Conversely, people with a higher IQ, while better at appraising others' IQ overall, are still likely to rate people of similar IQ as themselves as having higher IQs.
> 
> The disparity between actual IQ and perceived IQ has also been noted between genders by British psychologist Adrian Furnham, in whose work there was a suggestion that, on average, men are more likely to overestimate their intelligence by 5 points, while women are more likely to underestimate their IQ by a similar margin.[4][5]"


Illusory superiority - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Now that I brought you down to earth and perhaps put in a slightly disquieting state, I will allow myself to make a twist and present to you a study covering Myers-Briggs Type Indicator and it's relation to giftedness:



> "In this study, the author synthesizes results of studies about personality types of gifted adolescents. Fourteen studies were coded with 19 independent samples. The total number of identified participants in original studies was 5,723. The most common personality types among gifted adolescents were “intuitive” and “perceiving.” They were higher on the Introversion, Intuition, Thinking, and Perceiving dimensions of the personality scales of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) when compared to general high school students. Also, gifted adolescents differed within the group by gender and by ability. Based on the findings, the author discusses teaching practices for gifted students according to their personality preferences."


SENG: Articles & Resources - Gifted kids at risk: Who's listening?

Many disagree on what intelligence is exactly, but most professionals agree what it's not:
:: processing speed -- this factor is implicitly measured on timed tests, yet more often than not fails to accurately approximate the final outcome ( so called g factor -- general intelligence )
:: working memory -- vide supra, poor correlation with g
:: creativity -- this trait is as elusive and inscrutable as intelligence itself, although lately it's been linked by researchers to the workings of dopaminergic systems in the thalamus (divergent thinking negatively correlated with density of D2 receptors in the aforementioned region of brain)

For those endowed with creativity who find themselves lacking in reasoning skills -- despair not!



> "Academic Achievement of Groups Formed Based
> on Creativity and Intelligence
> Ananda Kumar Palaniappan, Ph. D
> Faculty of Education, University of Malaya
> ...


I could go on and on expanding on how motivation of the examinee influences the IQ score or how physical exercises are proved to incite neurogenesis in CNS which in turn affects intellectual ability et cetera et cetera.. BUT.. it's all out there, a few nimble strokes on the keyboard will get you invaluable information.. or a pile of BS, depending on your skills, imagination, persistence and ability to discern between a solid source and spurious hogwash.



> What's your IQ? And do you believe in it?


That's a poorly phrased question.. Do I believe in my IQ? What does that even mean? And what does belief have to do with psychometric evaluation? Belief indicates no assessment of evidence, it's worse than guessing -- that's very unINTP. I'm very nitpicky, I know, but -- alas -- that IS very INTP. 
As for my IQ -- it's 3 s.d. from the mean and I'm not going to be apologetic about it. (Assessed with WAIS.)

Disclaimer:
I'm in no way affiliated with psychological institutions of any kind.


----------



## sistersledge (Jun 28, 2011)

135 last I heard


----------



## absentminded (Dec 3, 2010)

@Nivia, don't worry, you're preaching to the choir:



Mantis said:


> So is the IQ really that relevant?





Ben said:


> IQ is just a number and just serves to stereotype people (as in, some seem to assume that someone with a high IQ is automatically smarter and destined for success than one with a relatively low or average IQ). I'm all for it's original purpose--to help place kids in certain classrooms so that their educational needs may be met aproppriately. Other than that, it's meaningless, and I hate it when people make judgments about others based on IQs.





TheOpenDoor said:


> But IQ is only one of many different intelligences, and I say bullshit.





Monkey Fritz said:


> Last online test I took scored 146, I wouldn't call myself a genius. Rather smart, but not a genius. I think the qualifications for being a genius are a bit more than just an IQ test.





absentminded said:


> I'm not sure how valid they really are. I mean, they test your ability to solve a certain type of problem logically, but does that really apply to the real world at all? I know people who, like the OP's father, was/is very intelligent, yet scored negligibly on tests.





Emerson said:


> Richard Feynman had an IQ of 125 I've heard and if someone was a genius it was probably him... IQ's mean just about nothing.





Arbite said:


> IQ proves very little apart from analytical skills and pattern recognition. I've always thought people who hold it as a badge are just retarded and annoying.


...and this is just the first page of responses.

Your condescension was much appreciated, though.


----------



## ErrorCode (May 5, 2011)

@Nivia: What a strange post. The air of implicit superiority is incredibly thick, yet you're....saying that we are more intelligent than we think of ourselves? The posters in the thread are not trying to exclaim how wonderfully intelligent they are, at least to my knowledge.

Perhaps it's rather disgust for how we are behaving in a predictable manner, but it's only natural. If the human psyche was any different, we would not even _exist_ (I'm sure you are familiar with the butterfly effect). We would instead have a different society with different people, different values, and _different mistakes._


----------



## david (Apr 22, 2011)

62. Is that good?


----------



## sistersledge (Jun 28, 2011)

sistersledge said:


> 135 last I heard


....and in addition-I agree with absentminded's reply to nivia:

(by the way, my IQ results didn't come from "rating myself")


----------



## TARZAN (Jul 5, 2011)

Yes I'm drinking, but this is an honest answer...

I've taken plenty of the "online IQ tests" and I score somewhere between 125-155 LOL.

I was given an true IQ test, in person, over a 2 hour period, including quick Q&A, hands on puzzles, etc....I scored a 144 I believe (give or take one, I don't have it in front of me and it's been a couple years).

I was also given an in-person, professionally administered IQ test when I was 7 or 8, and I scored within 2 points of the same score.

I cannot speak to the validity of an IQ test, but I can say that the results were very similar.

But you never know...I may have just been lucky twice. It's not really that statistically hard to believe considering how many tests the average person takes in their lifetime!

-Will


----------



## sistersledge (Jun 28, 2011)

sistersledge said:


> ....and in addition-I agree with absentminded's reply to nivia:
> 
> (by the way, my IQ results didn't come from "rating myself")


 or the internet


----------



## absent air (Dec 7, 2010)

ErrorCode said:


> Yeah, I will admit most online IQ tests like to use that "feelgood" tactic to make people hand over their money, and may give out 130+ scores like candy.
> 
> Still, is it possible to find the _average_ real IQ score of an NT? I can't shake the feeling that using the standard 100 point scale for humanity as a whole is a real issue if we're talking about a subpopulation known to receive higher scores. Perhaps the likelihood of having such a large 140+ pool is even more unusual than what we think.
> 
> If we can find a reliable NT average, we'll have something much more solid to work with in determining how badly IQs are represented online.


There is no point in finding an average for a definition used by an abstract theory. What IQ is represented online is of little use either, realistically it would be a massive waste of money and time without producing reliable results. IQ is a term that is not accepted by everyone. MBTI is very unkown in the mainstream world, let alone accept the definitions used to perform categorization. 

While nitpicking on your post I was struck with some clarity.

If we can determine how big the % representation of the NT-population is within the generally gifted population, we can determine the standard deviation curve all together, thus producing a reliable average. 





















Anyone willing to help out? Math doesn't like me much.


----------



## LeafStew (Oct 17, 2009)

Apparently the average IQ of university student is around 120. So I must be somewhere not too far from that.


----------



## Jennywocky (Aug 7, 2009)

My IQ has typically been in the 140 < x < low 150 range whenever it's been tested. I used to feel smarter when I was younger, nowadays I feel a bit slow. Maybe that's because I've found smart people to talk to and because I've focused on cultivating other traits in my life than raw thinking (although it could also hinge on my rather deplorable sleep habits).

It's not really an end-all, be-all, and I think IQ mostly only measures one of many types of intelligence... although I think one dominant pattern in useful intelligence (all types) is the ability to rapidly apply and leverage one's current pool of information in new situations. In a maze, the non-intelligent creature will get stuck in the same dead ends, again and again, while the smart creature is quick to see when something isn't working and figuring out a different approach.

I agree with one of the longer comments about how people of more average intelligence are more successful. I've seen reports on people with IQs above 160; their intelligence is remarkable, but in the process they lose some ability to relate to the bulk of the bell curve and package their knowledge for consumption by others. There can also be socialization issues. So the same intelligence that sets them apart in good ways can also leave a miserable gap in terms of feeling known and understood by others and being able to relate. I don't think I would want to be any "smarter," I'm happy where I'm at, and I'm not sure it's made my life any better per se.

I think the same sort of thing can happen on a lesser scale. I've been sort of amazed as time has passed watching those who score in the 120 range on the IQ test... success doesn't necessarily correlate to higher intelligence, it actually correlates a great deal to perseverence and the ability to not give up. I think sometimes intelligence can leave someone not attempting something because the rate of sucess will be low, but not attempting it at all automatically leaves failure as a result; meanwhile, someone with some degree of intelligence and a strong will can actually achieve success sometimes even when the theoretical rate of success is low if they keep trying. Sometimes brute force does work... and meanwhile, never downplay the importance of networking, which never really happens if one stays inside one's own head.

Intelligence can also become circular -- energy is directed into the reasoning process itself, well past the point of application, and nothing is ever achieved by it. Those who use intelligence more as a tool rather than as an end in itself will apply that tool to goals and likely achieve something by it.


----------



## MartyMcFly1 (Nov 14, 2010)

Here is what I will say, IQ definitely has a correlation to certain things. For example there is a definite range that mentally impaired and feeble minded people will test into. It's also no coincidence that Kim Ung-yong has scored higher on the IQ test than anyone else. It's gotta be testing what they say it does.


----------



## Pete The Lich (May 16, 2011)

bleh i feel that it correlate to your ability to problem solve
my iq is around 160 along with my INTP and INTJ brothers


----------



## absentminded (Dec 3, 2010)

MartyMcFly1 said:


> Here is what I will say, IQ definitely has a correlation to certain things. For example there is a definite range that mentally impaired and feeble minded people will test into. It's also no coincidence that Kim Ung-yong has scored higher on the IQ test than anyone else. It's gotta be testing what they say it does.


I'd just like to clarify this a bit.

Someone who is retarded will always score poorly on an IQ test. Not all people who score poorly are retarded.

Set theory ftw.


----------



## redmanXNTP (May 17, 2011)

My INFP girlfriend, who is a clinical psychology PhD, just told me that she believes my IQ would test in the 145-150 range, FWIW. 

Of course, that and $1 will get me . . . well, shit, $1 doesn't buy me much of anything anymore!


Oh, and as usual, @Jennywocky is right on the money.


----------



## freeeekyyy (Feb 16, 2010)

Online tests have scored me as high as 135. Most are known for being unreliable, though. The only proper, professional IQ test I've ever taken scored me at 115. That seems reasonable and believable. I know I'm more intelligent than a lot of people, but I'm not even close to genius.


----------



## freeeekyyy (Feb 16, 2010)

Mestarious said:


> Apparently the average IQ of university student is around 120. So I must be somewhere not too far from that.


 I have a tough time believing that. Maybe at some of the more prestigious universities; I doubt the average IQ of most universities is more than about 110.


----------



## LeafStew (Oct 17, 2009)

freeeekyyy said:


> I have a tough time believing that. Maybe at some of the more prestigious universities; I doubt the average IQ of most universities is more than about 110.


Possible. It was a psychologist specialized in psychometric that told me that. He might be wrong, he might be right. I don't know. 

*Edit maybe the average IQ is skewed by higher IQ programs like medicine/pharmacology/engineering/physic/actuarial/math/etc.


----------



## Frank Chameleon (Jul 5, 2011)

OH myyyyyy gawdddd, I absolutely cannot believe what I am reading. Are you bonified? 
Sharon Stone has an IQ of 150, she is an ESFP.
I mystified...


----------



## Frank Chameleon (Jul 5, 2011)

IQ has nothing to do with personality type or MTBI. ESFP's are very intelligent. Change is necessary for growth. Attitude is everything. I have had a professional IQ test, the results a zenith in comparison to what I thought.


----------



## lyricalnuisance (May 6, 2011)

149. And, arrogant as it may be, yes


----------



## absentminded (Dec 3, 2010)

Frank Chameleon said:


> OH myyyyyy gawdddd, I absolutely cannot believe what I am reading. Are you bonified?
> Sharon Stone has an IQ of 150, she is an ESFP.
> I mystified...





Frank Chameleon said:


> IQ has nothing to do with personality type or MTBI. ESFP's are very intelligent. Change is necessary for growth. Attitude is everything. I have had a professional IQ test, the results a zenith in comparison to what I thought.


Correlation does not mean exclusion.

It is a demonstrated fact that there are more INTPs in the gifted population than any other personality type. Someone earlier in the thread cited the study that indicated such.

That doesn't mean there are outliers or that other personality types are less intelligent. IQ specifically measures the ability of one to be an intuitive thinker. I.e. to recognize patterns and make logical deductions about them.


----------



## MiriMiriAru (May 1, 2011)

147. I took a certified test some years ago at the end of high school, can't remember what it was though, wasn't paying enough attention (it was administered by the nun counsellor, somewhere around the time she "diagnosed" me with asperger's and said I should see a psychiatrist for depression... turns out the cure for that was getting a girlfriend :crazy. I think it was the one mentioned by @absent air, the WAIS-III (sounds familiar, and was released the year before).

Apparently this is reasonably high, but it's not done me a lot of good, so it doesn't mean much really.


----------



## octetstream (Mar 1, 2011)

I was tested at the age of 10 resulting in an IQ of 165, later tested at 20 resulting in an IQ of 187. I put no faith in IQ scores as a measurement of general intelligence.

As a child I was grounded on a regular basis because I share my name with my father. My parents had the most brutal divorce of anyone I've met. My mother threatened me with prison since I was a child, which is the primary reason why I haven't committed credit card fraud to turn myself into a millionaire.

I used to be a nice, quiet, happy little boy. People should've been nicer to me.


----------



## Versatile Leader (Nov 4, 2009)

octetstream said:


> I was tested at the age of 10 resulting in an IQ of 165, later tested at 20 resulting in an IQ of 187. I put no faith in IQ scores as a measurement of general intelligence.
> 
> As a child I was grounded on a regular basis because I share my name with my father. My parents had the most brutal divorce of anyone I've met. My mother threatened me with prison since I was a child, which is the primary reason why I haven't committed credit card fraud to turn myself into a millionaire.
> 
> I used to be a nice, quiet, happy little boy. People should've been nicer to me.


"Primary the reason why l have not committed credit card fraud" lol :laughing:


----------



## CountD (Jul 24, 2011)

IQ is just a means of quantifying intellect by (for all sakes and purposes) analytical thinking capacity. It is scaled on a bell curve so that the average is set to 100. That being said, there is a significantly bigger difference between 110-120 than 100-110. It's just a conversion of percentile.

My IQ is supposedly 142, though I really don't put much faith in the IQ assessment. I also think that the statement that IQ doesn't change is COMPLETELY fraudulent. Current research in neurology is showing more and more that our brains are far more elastic in development throughout our entire life than we ever imagined. Previously it was an accepted idea that our brains don't change once we reach a certain age. Completely untrue and unfounded.


----------



## CountD (Jul 24, 2011)

Another comment I will make on the matter is that this is a measurement that uses other people as the standard. So it's really a standard of your analytical capacity with respect to other people. There is really no objective standard by which you are being evaluated, which is why I don't...really like this test or the philosophy behind it. It is also biased to people who think more with certain parts of their mind.


----------



## OrdinarinessIsAFWTD (Jun 28, 2011)

I've never taken a formal IQ test, chiefly because it never struck me as anything of heft. Pattern recognition is important and all, but it's not the only facet of intelligence.


----------



## MNiS (Jan 30, 2010)

I was given an IQ test when I was a kid. I don't remember my score though. Online tests (lol reliable right?) place me at least 2 standard deviations above the norm, and usually 3 stddev or more. 

I don't really think about my IQ from day to day life. After all, there're much more important factors to success in academia, work, personal relationships etc than a large raw IQ.


----------



## dagnytaggart (Jun 6, 2010)

According to the Stanford-Binet, 156. 

Nothing that I've accomplished or even do reflects that. All of my success (to date) can be credited to my creativity, perseverance, and ability to create and optimize networking relationships conducive to my goals.

I don't see myself as even remotely intelligent. Taking the IQ test was just an experience oscillating between boredom and amusement (and having to pee).

Truth be told, I'm not a great student - because graduating magna/summa/whateva cum laude isn't a priority for me.


----------



## cranberryplains (Aug 1, 2011)

I've gotten 139 on an online test. It doesn't mean much, though, because it just measures analyzing.


----------



## Valdyr (May 25, 2010)

I have had IQ tests formally administered to me twice, for therapeutic/clinical reasons. My childhood IQ was 146 (i.e. it measured my intelligence relative to other children my age), while my recently measured IQ was 142 (which is an adult IQ score, i.e. it measures my intelligence relative to adults). Given that the instrument used had a standard deviation of 15 in both instances, I am more than two standard deviations above the average (100). It's also interesting to note that while my second test did give the overall score, it placed more emphasis on my performance on each parameter, showing that IQ does take into account different parts of intelligence. Those parameters are/were:

Fluid Intelligence (Gf) - I scored the highest on this; more than three standard deviations above the norm [145+]
Crystallized Intelligence (Gc) -I also scored very high on this, but in the third standard deviation [130-145]
Quantitative Reasoning (Gq) - I scored in the third standard deviation on this [130-145]
Reading & Writing Ability (Grw) - I scored in the second standard deviation on this [115-130]
Short-Term Memory (Gsm) - I scored within 1 standard deviation on this (in other words, the same as about 2/3 of people) [100-115]
Long-Term Storage and Retrieval (Glr) - I scored within 1 standard deviation on this (in other words, the same as about 2/3 of people) [100-115]
Visual Processing (Gv) - I scored in the third standard deviation on this [130-145]
Auditory Processing (Ga) -I scored in the first standard deviation on this (in other words, the same as about 2/3 of people) [100-115]
Processing Speed (Gs) - I scored in the third standard deviation on this [130-145]
Decision/Reaction Time/Speed (Gt) - I scored in the second standard deviation on this [115-130]










_Normal distribution of IQ scores. This graph is valid for scores on specific parameters as well, as they too are ordinally scaled according to a normal distribution._

I honestly find these assessments of my specific strengths much more useful than the overall score.

There are several important things worth understanding about IQ before one either puts too much stock into it _or_ irrationally rejects it. It does _not_ seek to quantify "intelligence" _broadly_ defined. To continue with the Richard Feynman example, he had a lower IQ than myself, but I would consider him considerably more _intelligent_. IQ works with a more narrow, clear conception of "intelligence" that is useful for specific clinical purposes - it's a generalized score derived from performance on tests measuring pattern recognition, processing speed, etc., as shown above. It's accepted by most psychometricians as valid for clinical purposes.

It is also important to understand that IQ is an _ordinal scale_, not a scalar quantity, and thus IQ is _not_ linearly correlated with mental ability. To illustrate this concept, consider a car race. Suppose an Audi finishes first and a Peugeot finishes second (no offense to anyone's car sensibilities, but I like Audi : P). This does not mean that the Audi is "1 faster" than the Peugeot, merely that it is faster. IQ works similarly. Someone having a score of 125 and someone having a score of 110 does not mean the first person is "15 more intelligent," it merely describes their relative positions in a population following a normal distribution.

All these factors together show why not to take IQ as an all-encompassing quantification of "intelligence," broadly speaking. It is a valid clinical instrument that defines "intelligence" far more narrowly, for research purposes. Furthermore, it only describes intelligence relative to something else.


----------



## DeadboredreD (Aug 2, 2011)

120<X<222; Then???


----------



## Katmandu (Jul 27, 2011)

I find it rather unbecoming to post intelligence quotients like power levels from Dragon Ball Z.



Emerson said:


> Richard Feynman had an IQ of 125 I've heard and if someone was a genius it was probably him... IQ's mean just about nothing.


I would say IQ scores are very limited, certainly. If the man who gave us quantum electrodynamics, "the jewel of physics", isn't a genius… then the title of "genius" doesn't carry much weight with me.


----------

