# NT IQ's



## Adrianl (Apr 12, 2012)

KINGJADEX said:


> You write like you understand it just dandy! :happy:


While I consider my English knowledge good enough to get by most discussions, there are terms which I don't come across and therefor, looking in the dictionary to see what they mean take off the time of an IQ test. 

Besides, there are moments when I blank out thinking if that word is exactly what I know it is or if I understood something properly after the translation, and then I come back and to quote Britney "Ooops... I did it again!" :laughing: j/k.

Thanks for the compliment though!


----------



## bluenlgy (Apr 27, 2011)

Imagine if a "certified" IQ test wouldn't be passed by a artificially designed robot with a full score, and, if this can happen, think if such robot can match the intelligence of a dumbest human in a real life situation. 

Imagine this scenario, and you know how flawed or how perfect the current knowledge about human's real intelligence is.


----------



## Elveni (Feb 22, 2012)

Jennywocky said:


> I agree. I get a very fast feel for how smart someone is just from a short bit of conversation. Lots of factors play into it (articulateness, openness, quick thinking, intuitive leaps / pattern recognition, etc.).


Based on this I would be a genius, and the girl who is currently my class valedictorian would be a moron. However, she's the one who skipped a grade (just turned 15), takes PAP Pre-Calculus and makes a consistent 100 in it, as well as her other P/AP or honors classes. So, ultimately, it's like there's no reasonable way to assess intelligence.


----------



## Jennywocky (Aug 7, 2009)

Miss Willow said:


> Based on this I would be a genius, and the girl who is currently my class valedictorian would be a moron. However, she's the one who skipped a grade (just turned 15), takes PAP Pre-Calculus and makes a consistent 100 in it, as well as her other P/AP or honors classes. So, ultimately, it's like there's no reasonable way to assess intelligence.


I'm sorry, you must have misunderstood my post. I'm not sure what point you are making, since I care about workable intelligence (which to me has a component of relevance and usefulness), not necessarily raw IQ which can be entirely ineffective and thus useless.


----------



## Jennywocky (Aug 7, 2009)

Miss Willow said:


> Based on this I would be a genius, and the girl who is currently my class valedictorian would be a moron. However, she's the one who skipped a grade (just turned 15), takes PAP Pre-Calculus and makes a consistent 100 in it, as well as her other P/AP or honors classes. So, ultimately, it's like there's no reasonable way to assess intelligence.


That's not what I was saying. First of all, I care about workable intelligence (which to me has a component of relevance and usefulness), not necessarily raw IQ which can be entirely ineffective and thus useless.

I would also perceive in exactly the way I said where someone is at -- i.e., I can tell when someone is really smart but has a lack of social skills and/or inability to apply their intelligence in certain ways. In the same way, i can tell when someone isn't so smart but has a much better handle on how to apply what smarts they have, and what types of "intelligence" they do possess.

So I'm still not sure how your comments negate my original point.


----------



## Elveni (Feb 22, 2012)

Jennywocky said:


> That's not what I was saying. First of all, I care about workable intelligence (which to me has a component of relevance and usefulness), not necessarily raw IQ which can be entirely ineffective and thus useless.
> 
> I would also perceive in exactly the way I said where someone is at -- i.e., I can tell when someone is really smart but has a lack of social skills and/or inability to apply their intelligence in certain ways. In the same way, i can tell when someone isn't so smart but has a much better handle on how to apply what smarts they have, and what types of "intelligence" they do possess.
> 
> So I'm still not sure how your comments negate my original point.


My intention wasn't to necessarily "negate [your] original point", although I can see where it may have come off that way. I was trying to further illustrate how intelligence is immeasurable. Because your choice in diction was "smart" instead of intelligent it seemed you were referring more to one's usefulness rather than their innate intellectual abilities, which does generally go much further than any inborn capacity that some test may indicate and can usually be recognized by the traits you mentioned.


----------



## Glor (Oct 19, 2011)

I scored 138 on that site. Based on online tests I have done so far, my range is between 112-130+. But it's really hard for me to trust this because IQ tests are somehow subjective. It's not sufficient (nor will it ever be) enough to accurately test someone's "intelligence".


----------



## Ngg (Jul 22, 2010)

Miss Willow said:


> My intention wasn't to necessarily "negate [your] original point", although I can see where it may have come off that way. I was trying to further illustrate how intelligence is immeasurable. Because your choice in diction was "smart" instead of intelligent it seemed you were referring more to one's usefulness rather than their innate intellectual abilities, which does generally go much further than any inborn capacity that some test may indicate and can usually be recognized by the traits you mentioned.


Right, but Jenny's (and my) point still stand. Standardized tests only measure your ability to perform said standardized tests. Analyzing a person's thought process and ability to juggle abstract and concrete concepts is, in my opinion, the best way to assess intelligence that we know of yet.

Your friend may outperform you academically, but that says very little about her intellect, or 'intelligence' in the NT sense of the word. Keep in mind you are only in High School - where academic performance is an unreliable indicator of intelligence. The difficulty bar is not very high and doing well is more a function of hard work and xSTJ mindset.

This is how I like to look at it. 
Intelligence has two components: 'CPU' and 'RAM'. People with high 'CPU' perform well academically and generally have successful careers - they are quick, sharp and good at what they do. They memorize things easily and are proficient at using the knowledge they've acquired. However, they tend to have little depth and intellectual curiosity. You typically find these people in MBA's and mid-management corporate environments.
Other people have high 'CPU' but also have the intellectual depth and creativity - 'RAM' - to revolutionize the field they work in. In my experience, these people don't necessarily shine until later in their life . Look at the bios of all the great entrepreneurs, thinkers, philosophers and inventors, many of them fit this description. You're more likely to find these people in PhD programs or asking themselves questions about their career.


----------



## Alto (Mar 24, 2011)

I missed one question because I wasn't sure what the question was after.


----------



## ambiguous entity (Apr 8, 2012)

I've taken several IQ tests, the lowest was 118 and the highest was 133, this site was 121.. but there have been tests I've taken that were far more detailed and lengthy than this test.


----------



## KingFrog (Feb 15, 2012)

Everyone never seems to have a valid definition of intelligence, so I placed it upon myself to make one, for my own reference at least.

"Intelligence is the ability to gather and manipulate information efficiently." The more intelligence one may have, the more ability to gather and manipulate that information. 

Note: With that definition, simply being able to memorize information isn't enough. With higher intelligence come a higher ability to work with that info. And by manipulation, I don't mean lying, I mean manipulation as though one uses it like a tool.


----------



## saturnne (Sep 8, 2009)

On this one I scored a 138, but I wonder what the different scales are, like the Stanford-Binet and such.

And I'm not sure if NT's necessarily score higher on IQ tests, we just value objective reasoning more?


----------



## Penguin (Sep 25, 2012)

I googled this and it took me to this thread hahaha my IQ is somewhere between 140-165 but I'm not so good at math, my talents tend to be in more philosophical arenas. Could redefine the theory of multiple infinities but ask me to factor 8x^2*4x*16 and it would take me an hour (=

I think EN/IN would probably have the highest levels of intelligence. I reasoned this because the people like enfp's who are more in tune with their nature and others feelings act more on instinct I would guess and are less analytical because they aren't intelligent enough to realize the ridiculous number of connections between everything, driving them to be less analytical and more social?. Now that I've pissed off half the board I'll stop typing...


----------



## DiamondDays (Sep 4, 2012)

I took a mensa administered test and scored 135, but the scale wouldn't go higher and i aced it so my guess for my real IQ is somewhere around >9000.

And to all you IQ-test haters : IQ is one of the most useful tools available for predicting whether or not someone is likely to do "well" in life, financially and otherwise. So if you're saying that it is irrelevant you should be aware that is just a bunch of apologetic bullshit. IQ isn't the end all be all of the human experience but it certainly helps. Stupid people, sorry i mean average people, need a lot of drive and ambition to be able to do what us smart people do easily.


----------



## Penguin (Sep 25, 2012)

DiamondDays said:


> I took a mensa administered test and scored 135, but the scale wouldn't go higher and i aced it so my guess for my real IQ is somewhere around >9000.
> 
> And to all you IQ-test haters : IQ is one of the most useful tools available for predicting whether or not someone is likely to do "well" in life, financially and otherwise. So if you're saying that it is irrelevant you should be aware that is just a bunch of apologetic bullshit. IQ isn't the end all be all of the human experience but it certainly helps. Stupid people, sorry i mean average people, need a lot of drive and ambition to be able to do what us smart people do easily.


none of this is true....iq is actually not at all correlated to success https://www.google.com/#hl=en&tbo=d...23,d.eWU&fp=650e83a55f34ea61&biw=1366&bih=598 

that's the google search because I couldn't put all 100000 articles on it, but ivy league schools have done the statistical analysis and iq isn't at all related to success. I'm not sure who you are but you're clearly lying.


----------



## DiamondDays (Sep 4, 2012)

Penguin said:


> none of this is true....iq is actually not at all correlated to success https://www.google.com/#hl=en&tbo=d&sclient=psy-ab&q=is+iq+related+to+succes%3F&oq=is+iq+related+to+succes%3F&gs_l=hp.3..0i13i10i30.2234.6902.0.7039.24.16.0.8.8.0.116.1192.15j1.16.0.les%3B..0.0...1c.1.3.psy-ab.0RoYv-RbrGc&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&bvm=bv.42452523,d.eWU&fp=650e83a55f34ea61&biw=1366&bih=598
> 
> that's the google search because I couldn't put all 100000 articles on it, but ivy league schools have done the statistical analysis and iq isn't at all related to success. I'm not sure who you are but you're clearly lying.


First of all a lie requires intent. It also requires the information i gave to be false, and it is not.

Obviously high IQ =/= success, but a high IQ ( and now i'm talking maybe one standard deviation or so away from the mean ) lets you do things in life that are not in reach of the people who possess a more average level of ability. Simply put, if you're not smart you're not likely to be able to do well in school, college and your career. You don't need to be hyper smart, you don't need to be in the top 1%, but you do need to be smarter than average. If you're not you're not going to be able to do the things that the educated middle class do. There's plenty of research on this. The returns gained by being really really smart are negligible, but to say that IQ is worthless in indicating likelihood of succeeding in life is wrong.


----------



## Penguin (Sep 25, 2012)

DiamondDays said:


> First of all a lie requires intent. It also requires the information i gave to be false, and it is not.
> 
> Obviously high IQ =/= success, but a high IQ ( and now i'm talking maybe one standard deviation or so away from the mean ) lets you do things in life that are not in reach of the people who possess a more average level of ability. Simply put, if you're not smart you're not likely to be able to do well in school, college and your career. You don't need to be hyper smart, you don't need to be in the top 1%, but you do need to be smarter than average. If you're not you're not going to be able to do the things that the educated middle class do. There's plenty of research on this. The returns gained by being really really smart are negligible, but to say that IQ is worthless in indicating likelihood of succeeding in life is wrong.


You're using logic based on experience, which is always dumb. Look at the statistics mate.


----------



## DiamondDays (Sep 4, 2012)

Penguin said:


> You're using logic based on experience, which is always dumb. Look at the statistics mate.


No i'm not and no it's not. You need a certain level of intelligence to effectively be able to learn some stuff. Stupid people can't learn say calculus in a manner efficient enough to be able to complete a college course of say, physics. A 100 IQ person might make it if it's not a very challengning school and he's very motivated but it's not likely. As i said there's plenty of research that shows this.


----------



## Penguin (Sep 25, 2012)

DiamondDays said:


> No i'm not and no it's not. You need a certain level of intelligence to effectively be able to learn some stuff. Stupid people can't learn say calculus in a manner efficient enough to be able to complete a college course of say, physics. A 100 IQ person might make it if it's not a very challengning school and he's very motivated but it's not likely. As i said there's plenty of research that shows this.


I give up


----------



## DiamondDays (Sep 4, 2012)

Penguin said:


> I give up


Good. I don't think you understood what i was talking about anyway.


----------



## Lanced Jack (Mar 24, 2013)

134 as a kid, and then 147 when i took it again in college


----------



## GenericallyUnique (Mar 24, 2013)

I got a 117 on the test provided, but I assume that's because I'm ill informed and more speculative. Or at least that's how I'm willing to rationalize it with myself seeing as I am a bit disappointed. Either way if it is true that just means humanity has that much greater of a potential to be amazing and that is very cool imo.


----------



## gintariukeas (Feb 8, 2013)

125 official test  *feels too dumb for nt*


----------



## QrivaN (Aug 3, 2012)

ARGH! As soon as I started the test, my mom said it was time to eat, and now I can't take it anymore!


----------



## Midknight5000 (Feb 23, 2013)

115
makes sense, I've scored 133 and 101 on two other sites.


----------



## Persephone (Nov 14, 2009)

Internet IQ tests put me anywhere from 124 to 145. My SAT score is 2260, with 1570 out of 1600 if you take out writing. I was told that correlates with IQ.


----------



## FlaviaGemina (May 3, 2012)

I took a Mensa test for the fun of it and I'm in the top 7% of the population. I took it in English, though, which is not my native language. Ironically, I did best in the verbal part of it. (At least I think I did. They don't break down the results, but the 'thinking outside the box' test is the last one you take and by that time my brains were totally addled because I hadn't slept much the previous night.)


----------



## Pogona Vitticeps (Mar 18, 2013)

I often score in the above average range(110-120), it's flattering to be in that range but I'm personally sceptical of IQ as the true measure of intelligence. I don't argue against that some people are smarter than others, that's a given. But I'm of the opinion that both intelligence and stupidity will express itself differently in each person, and I think that will be hard to accomodate. Not to mention that even the best of psychologists is not without biases, and that will impact the tests.


----------



## Opus101 (Feb 23, 2013)

On this test I scored 126, well my results always varies between 120-130.


----------



## SeñorTaco (Jun 5, 2013)

i always score around 130 

i got 132 so im pretty average for an NT


----------



## SeñorTaco (Jun 5, 2013)

BeardedAgam said:


> I often score in the above average range(110-120), it's flattering to be in that range but I'm personally sceptical of IQ as the true measure of intelligence. I don't argue against that some people are smarter than others, that's a given. But I'm of the opinion that both intelligence and stupidity will express itself differently in each person, and I think that will be hard to accomodate. Not to mention that even the best of psychologists is not without biases, and that will impact the tests.


I personally don't think it has to do with intelligence tbh, but I think it has an iNtuitive aspect to it that makes it easier for NT types to score higher


----------



## SeñorTaco (Jun 5, 2013)

Persephone said:


> Internet IQ tests put me anywhere from 124 to 145. My SAT score is 2260, with 1570 out of 1600 if you take out writing. I was told that correlates with IQ.


it doesn't


----------



## SeñorTaco (Jun 5, 2013)

FlaviaGemina said:


> I took a Mensa test for the fun of it and I'm in the top 7% of the population. I took it in English, though, which is not my native language. Ironically, I did best in the verbal part of it. (At least I think I did. They don't break down the results, but the 'thinking outside the box' test is the last one you take and by that time my brains were totally addled because I hadn't slept much the previous night.)


yeah okay we get it, you're really smart.


----------



## FlaviaGemina (May 3, 2012)

natashalim said:


> yeah okay we get it, you're really smart.


No, you don't get it. That's not what I said at all.


----------



## bluekitdon (Dec 19, 2012)

I'm in the upper 1% as far as IQ. The older I get the more I realize that Einstein was correct when he said “Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.” though. 

All depends on what you measure...not too many IQ tests that measure social skills, specific specialized talents like playing basketball which could earn you millions of dollars a year, ability to manage people, or a person's willingness to work hard for examples.


----------



## etranger (Jan 17, 2013)

Using the GRE-to-IQ convertor (and without any test prep nonsense)--I am somewhere around the 99.9th percentile.

That result is flattering, so I'll keep it.

Also, because this got me interested in the IQ test for a second--I have to say, "High IQ societies" are a pretty weird thing. Y u no tmail?


----------



## tacosauce (Aug 24, 2013)

I have scored between 132 and 152 in all the tests I've done over the years.

This being said, I think true intelligence does not necessarily have to do with IQ.

I feel IQ is a... maximum power / potential. What differentiates stupid and intelligent people, IMO, is how well they use their intelligence. For instance, someone with a mere 100 IQ could be smarter than someone with 130, if he used his potential to the max and the 130 person was "brain lazy".

Here is an example :

-100 IQ dude uses most of his "brain power" to study physics. He has a hard time understanding, but with hard work manages to figure out what he needs to go further.
-130 IQ dude uses most of his "brain power" to study pony cartoons. He understands them pretty easily, and doesn't bother thinking about much else.

This may not be the best example, but I'm sure you get my point. Who do you feel is smarter, in the above example?

I have been gifted with a somewhat high IQ, but I don't feel I use my potential to it's maximum extent (I'm becoming better at it as I'm getting older, though).

Then, there's also the fact that IQ tests often require a certain level of knowledge. I remember, when taking tests, sometimes there were words that I hadn't encountered before. Knowledge has nothing to do with intelligence ; while intelligent people tend to be more knowledgeable, in theory, you could have zero knowledge and still be a genius.


----------



## ApostateAbe (Aug 8, 2013)

natashalim said:


> it doesn't


Yes it does.

Scholastic Assessment or g?

The linear correlation coefficient is 0.82. This is very high.


----------



## SeñorTaco (Jun 5, 2013)

ApostateAbe said:


> Yes it does.
> 
> Scholastic Assessment or g?
> 
> The linear correlation coefficient is 0.82. This is very high.


Dude, when you buy the SAT text book, it says clearly on the back "Not an IQ test".


----------



## ApostateAbe (Aug 8, 2013)

natashalim said:


> Dude, when you buy the SAT text book, it says clearly on the back "Not an IQ test".


Right! It is NOT an IQ test. It is fundamentally different from an IQ test. But, its scores are _highly correlated_ with IQ. Correlation is not equation. Maybe it would be equal to an IQ test if the correlation with g were more like 0.95. It is just 0.82, which is still very high.


----------



## Penguin (Sep 25, 2012)

DarkWolf said:


> Exactly. Many people think that life is easier when you have a high IQ. That's just bullshit.


yep.


----------



## JoanCrawford (Sep 27, 2012)

Parad0x said:


> I was having a debate with myself wondering if NT's are prone to having high IQ's considering their value for knowledge.
> 
> Can everyone post your IQ's if you have taken a test?
> 
> ...


Nope! My IQ was around 90 last time I took the test.


----------



## DarkWolf (Sep 6, 2013)

JoanCrawford said:


> My IQ was around 90 last time I took the test.


----------



## JoanCrawford (Sep 27, 2012)

DarkWolf said:


> View attachment 82889


----------



## Nyu (Jun 29, 2013)

I scored 93 :tongue:

being a female INTJ is all the awesome I get, the intelligence part was left in the hospital when I was born I suppose. Do you think someone stole it from me when I was an infant? I was also home schooled. I actually haven't taken an IQ test before this one, I never really cared. I don't think intellect can be accurately measured this way. The entire concept of an IQ test is flawed by the way people use it. not all NT are intellectually gifted.


----------



## SkillandVerve (Sep 8, 2013)

145-155 on the official tests I have taken. I also scored 2210 on the SAT, though honestly neither of these things mean much to me.


----------



## styles373 (Sep 16, 2012)

*INTJ ranting* 


I score 90 IQ on this test, Never that I test it officially nor I care, because if think about the numbers they do tend to variety from one test to another. therefore,it is impossible to pin point one`s own intelligent, but again IQ theory its doesn't really seem to work.


On what base do they use? understanding? perception? cunning? wisdom? (AKA common sense) or maybe perhaps logic itself, even the term is vague. 


if they test intelligent on problem solving skill rather then logic, it would be more suitable IMO. but again problem solving skill is one form of intelligent.

*rant over*


----------



## -Halo- (Sep 22, 2011)

Asvab 92 iq 135


----------



## absyrd (Jun 1, 2013)

My IQ is 4.


----------



## peoplesayimanahole (May 21, 2013)

I've had pretty average scores on unofficial tests ranging between 105-120. Meh. I think I'm an xntp.


----------



## Aaron Boal (Jun 2, 2011)

I took that test and got 110. I, myself, don't understand IQ tests as they only test for one type of intelligence. There is EQ tests around that test all round intelligence. I see those as better indicators for intelligence.


----------



## Arjan (Jul 31, 2013)

styles373 said:


> *INTJ ranting*
> 
> 
> I score 90 IQ on this test, Never that I test it officially nor I care, because if think about the numbers they do tend to variety from one test to another. therefore,it is impossible to pin point one`s own intelligent, but again IQ theory its doesn't really seem to work.
> ...


And that's where all plans involving world domination came to a screeching halt... :tongue:


----------



## SmilesforMiles (Jan 1, 2013)

I took this test and got 130 Free IQ Test - Fast, Free and Accurate Online IQ Test
Which I was told by a psychologist that performs iq tests with his patients that this is a fairly acurate iq test, however real iq tests have hundreds of different questions and many seperate measures of iq that add to a very accurate iq score.

I didn't like your test... and not just because my score was low. I only got a 100 which I know that I am not in the low portion of the bell curve. Not to mention I believe this test is made to hawk this websites crap


----------



## SharpestNiFe (Dec 16, 2012)

Recently, I've tested between 140-146.

When I was in elementary and middle school, I scored slightly higher on the actual test that lasted a couple of days that included pictures, storytelling, blocks, math, language, the whole 9.


----------



## Arjan (Jul 31, 2013)

SmilesforMiles said:


> I took this test and got 130 Free IQ Test - Fast, Free and Accurate Online IQ Test
> Which I was told by a psychologist that performs iq tests with his patients that this is a fairly acurate iq test, however real iq tests have hundreds of different questions and many seperate measures of iq that add to a very accurate iq score.
> 
> I didn't like your test... and not just because my score was low. I only got a 100 which I know that I am not in the low portion of the bell curve. Not to mention I believe this test is made to hawk this websites crap


The test you link to is too easy and too short. I took it at the toilet, I'm hung over and I still scored in the genius regions.


----------



## Marac (Mar 26, 2012)

I got 115 on the test, but I got 128 on the offical Mensa one.

Most developed: spatial intelligence. Least: pattern recognition.


----------



## bearlybreathing (Aug 6, 2013)

The link the OP had lost all credibility when after taking the test reading the analysis I find:


> Well done! Your performance on the test was well above the population average which means that you have the ability to achieve success in life.


:frustrating:


----------



## SmilesforMiles (Jan 1, 2013)

Arjan said:


> The test you link to is too easy and too short. I took it at the toilet, I'm hung over and I still scored in the genius regions.


Well I did say that real IQ tests are much longer with many more and different kinds of questions. I just thought I would share the link to the test that I was told is fairly accurate.

Btw maybe I am just stupid, but when I took the test this thread mentions it was like midnight and I had been drinking. Not making excuses... just sayin


----------



## Sifow (Apr 29, 2012)

Got a score of 141, which seems to be the max score of this test since I got all the answers right according to the analysis.


----------



## jaybird117 (Aug 23, 2013)

I've consistently scored around 2 standard deviations above. Honestly though, IQ alone is like a single function in your stack - even if it's the most well-developed function in the world, it's pretty useless without everything else to back it up. Physical fitness, social comfort, and mental health are all just as important as raw intellect. It isn't "I'm really good at this so I'll rely on it", it's "I'm good enough at this so I can spend time developing other areas".


----------

