There isn't a limit to IQ but tests themselves are made with a limit (it's 140 here for standard tests, which aren't really much use to me). The standard test contains 40 questions. If you're getting 39 or 40 right then it's statistically pointless. The ideal test is one in which you get closer to 50% right. Statisticians who understand permutations and combinations will understand what I'm getting at here. A score from 40% to 60% gives a much more accurate result.
Hans Eysenck published a book, which I own, with some tests for people with an IQ above 140. The scale is exponential and there aren't many above 180 so it covers most.
1 in 33 people have an IQ above 130
1 in 160 people have an IQ above 140
1 in 1100 people have an IQ above 150
1 in 11,000 people have an IQ above 160
1 in 160,000 people have an IQ above 170
1 in 3.5 million people have an IQ above 180
1 in 100 million people have an IQ above 190
From your test scores, I'd suggest a more advanced test. I've tested above 180 and a 130 or 140 test would have sold me very short. As a side note, I tested high as an 18 year-old under the influence of caffeine. I'm no longer 18, no longer mess with caffeine, and have destroyed huge swathes of my brain with alcohol. I'm lucky to test over 170 now. And thank God, because I wouldn't have survived how I was.
Take a more advanced test and if it comes out scarily high, work out what you can do to lower it a little. Don't endanger your life or anything like that but the closer to the magic 100, the better. Averageness is happiness. Higher is worse. Much, much worse.
Well I'll just drop by for a second in the middle of dappled's... subtle (?) shoutout to his own test scores, to point out that there are several different tests with several different score systems. Your entire explanation is basically rendered moot if you don't refer to which test, because it might as well have been a fucking online "IQ test". A 170 on one could easily be a 120 on another.
Almost perfect answer, though no need to scare the OP! You also seemed to have missed their second question! tut tut ... also i might have to buy that book... would be good to see what a few years of drug abuse have done to the old noggin :/
Yeah, true - it was 1am, I was much less than sober and I broke one of my own cardinal rules and said something I never thought I'd say here. Just amazed I got away without any obvious typos.
To the OP - virtually all of what we consider IQ is thought to be largely genetic. The skills to take the test are acquired but the score you achieve via the test (if you have the ability to understand what is being asked) are not acquired.
little understood about iq score
← View full post
There isn't a limit to IQ but tests themselves are made with a limit (it's 140 here for standard tests, which aren't really much use to me). The standard test contains 40 questions. If you're getting 39 or 40 right then it's statistically pointless. The ideal test is one in which you get closer to 50% right. Statisticians who understand permutations and combinations will understand what I'm getting at here. A score from 40% to 60% gives a much more accurate result.
Hans Eysenck published a book, which I own, with some tests for people with an IQ above 140. The scale is exponential and there aren't many above 180 so it covers most.
1 in 33 people have an IQ above 130
1 in 160 people have an IQ above 140
1 in 1100 people have an IQ above 150
1 in 11,000 people have an IQ above 160
1 in 160,000 people have an IQ above 170
1 in 3.5 million people have an IQ above 180
1 in 100 million people have an IQ above 190
From your test scores, I'd suggest a more advanced test. I've tested above 180 and a 130 or 140 test would have sold me very short. As a side note, I tested high as an 18 year-old under the influence of caffeine. I'm no longer 18, no longer mess with caffeine, and have destroyed huge swathes of my brain with alcohol. I'm lucky to test over 170 now. And thank God, because I wouldn't have survived how I was.
Take a more advanced test and if it comes out scarily high, work out what you can do to lower it a little. Don't endanger your life or anything like that but the closer to the magic 100, the better. Averageness is happiness. Higher is worse. Much, much worse.
--
flutterhigh
12 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
-
Mr.Pink
12 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Well I'll just drop by for a second in the middle of dappled's... subtle (?) shoutout to his own test scores, to point out that there are several different tests with several different score systems. Your entire explanation is basically rendered moot if you don't refer to which test, because it might as well have been a fucking online "IQ test". A 170 on one could easily be a 120 on another.
...I SCORE 3,006 LOLoLO
Am I cool now? Was I discreet enough?
Almost perfect answer, though no need to scare the OP! You also seemed to have missed their second question! tut tut ... also i might have to buy that book... would be good to see what a few years of drug abuse have done to the old noggin :/
--
dappled
12 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Yeah, true - it was 1am, I was much less than sober and I broke one of my own cardinal rules and said something I never thought I'd say here. Just amazed I got away without any obvious typos.
To the OP - virtually all of what we consider IQ is thought to be largely genetic. The skills to take the test are acquired but the score you achieve via the test (if you have the ability to understand what is being asked) are not acquired.