IQ and INTP

[Andrew N.]

Hi everybody,

First subject here. I wondered what link could be noticed between being INTP and IQ.

What is your IQ ? Keep anonymous because of the poll, but let share your point of vue about the question writing an answer there !

A.

[sasapurdue]

There was a thread similar to this one once before and if I remember correctly it got kind of ugly!
I will tell you this much: There are a lot of people on here who are certain they have VERY high IQ's. Now whether that is the objective truth or the truth as the INTP sees it, that question remains.

[geniusndisguise]

You would never know it, but I'm a genius. ;)

[Snowflake]

My IQ is zero.

[Andrew N.]

Eh eh, I hoped people would be honest. I just wanted an estimation, not necessarly results of a psychometric assessment. Most of us already spent few minutes trying an IQ test on the web or anywhere else, and know approximatively how high (or low) they are. Some of us have a SAT result, which seems to be (I don't know how, actually :-)) correlated with IQ score.
Anyway, comparing to peers and considering yourself honestly, you should have an idea.

[Snowflake]

In that case, I've tested about 125-140 on various online IQ tests, but I don't really trust IQ tests, let alone internet based tests.

[ptGatsby]

Hmm, I took one in grade 8, which had my adjusted IQ at ~144. Which is an utter joke. The internet one I did take put me at 138, again, is utter crap.

My IQ is probably ~ 110 or so. I based this upon my position in life, my frustration with many concepts and such. I also have huge blind spots, such as languages, that not all tests seem to pick up on.

I also took an European 'IQ' test, though I forget what it was actually called. This is the only test I would have any faith in - it had more breakdowns than the American version, though I can't remember a thing about it. I just know that my language skills were well below decent (8x?) and my math and spatial skills were above average (12x?). The rest were average.

[ApeTheDog]

I got 156 once, and test around 130 now in the recent ones I take. I think my real IQ would be somewhere between 130 and 140 if I were to take the test in Dutch (making it easier to get those 'unscramble the word' things).

[Lee]

I don't know my IQ, though based on academic performance and current position in life, I chose < 85.

:mellow:

[ApeTheDog]

I think you're around 95-105, Lee.

[Lee]

I think you're around 95-105, Lee.Oh please! I am not that old.

[booyalab]

I usually estimate my IQ at 130-ish, but I've been feeling stupider lately so I chose 115-130.
On online IQ tests, my scores have ranged between 120 and 185, so I dont really trust any test I've taken...and I'd rather risk estimating too low than estimating too high. (a humble genius is better than an arrogant idiot)

[Neppy]

I estimate mine to be between 100 and 130. Basically average or above-average.

The highest result I got (that I know of) was 131. I took an IQ test at school but they didn't tell us our results.

[bergenski]

I've never had my IQ measured...I don't even know how to do it...isn't there a lot of debate about IQ...anyway, I know my EmotionalQ is in the toilet...

[Edmond Zedo]

I usually estimate my IQ at 130-ish, but I've been feeling stupider lately so I chose 115-130.
On online IQ tests My scores have ranged between 120 and 185, so I dont really trust any test I've taken...and I'd rather risk estimating too low than estimating too high. (a humble genius is better than an arrogant idiot)
I think yr probably about 20 points below me, whatever mine is.:whistle:

[eyebyte_atWork]

I do not think free tests are all that accurate... DO do score well - but the variance always makes me think the tests can be tricked.

*stops to drool in cup*

Having said that I once knew this dean (I did work study in college) and he mentioned that the best way to boost your score was to expand your vocabulary with those vocabulary builder books. He said you can boost your score by 10 points within a few weeks.

*stops to drool in cup*

I never did that and totally suck at my langauge skills as can be seen by my spelling. I do score between 129 and 143. Again - that proabably translates to something more like 105 when all is said and done. Sometimes I feel like it is more in the 65 range.

*smiles funny*

[PiccoloNamek]

My IQ is "only" 124. Doh.

[April]

I don't really know an exact number, but if I had to guess, I'd say between 130 and 145. I took a practice Mensa test and it said that I would probably get into the organization. Whoopdee. I've never been formally tested, though. Although, in 2nd grade, they did test my vocabulary. It was about a 10th grade vocab. Not bad.

[meshou]

I was officially tested at a over 145 as a kid. Not by much though, and I'm pretty sure it's wouldn't be that high if it got tested again.

[Shadow]

Professional psychometric instruments (formally proctored) aren't very accurate for those outside a certain range (two standard devatiions, perhaps?) due to ceiling effects. Often times, people are exceptionally gifted in a certain area, and if the test doesn't challenge that person in that area enough, the IQ score result will be lower than it ought be, even though the full scale score may be far away from the ceiling.



i think iq is nonlinearly proportional to short-term memory capacity, and measures more superficial manipulation of information rather than the underlying machinery


I believe the Performance section of Weschler IQ tests are specifically designed to test your working memory. There is typically a large spread between Verbal IQ and Performance IQ on these tests in people with ADHD and Asperger's syndrome, two disorders that affect working memory.

IQ tests don't measure creativity (actually, they're probably biased against it if anything). They only test if your thoughts model the majority (a decisive, linear pattern). That's professional tests, though, which aren't designed to measure high rollers anyway.

So I'd take it with a grain of salt.

[MasterMerk]

My IQ is relative to the size of my head. Which is very small in the morning but gets bigger towards the end of the daytime.

[misutii]

118-126

for someone to have an iq of over 130 they either have to be brilliant or have practiced taking iq tests too much in their free time. considering the type of people here i'd bet on the latter.

[booyalab]

118-126

for someone to have an iq of over 130 they either have to be brilliant or have practiced taking iq tests too much in their free time. considering the type of people here i'd bet on the latter.

I've known several people with IQs in the upper 100s and they're more normal (seeming) than you might expect.

[Leftfield]

I've ranged between 131-134 everytime, so it's very consistent, but I try to find the most authoritative places to test...

[meshou]

118-126

for someone to have an iq of over 130 they either have to be brilliant or have practiced taking iq tests too much in their free time. considering the type of people here i'd bet on the latter.I was 11. I'd never taken one in my life. But thanks for the compliment.

[Nadiar]

When I was tested as a child I came in at 155-165 (it was 2 seperate tests). When I took a test aimed at 'high IQ ranges' I tested at 186. Now, my PERSONAL belief here is that I'm in the 155-165 range, however the 'high IQ range' test just happened to have the problems that I excel at. The ones that I really remember were complex 3D shapes, with questions like "which of the following shapes is the same object if rotated 90 degrees clockwise along the horizontal axis."

The problem with IQ tests, is they really just test your NT-ness. I've always been somewhat jealous of those people that are able to memorize something with only a few readings. I think this ability would be amazing. But I'm sure not giving up my ability to generalize and associate disparate facts together (NT) in exchange for some memorization and 'work ethic' (SJ).

[J.L. des Alpins]

My IQ? 100 ± 99.

By definition, virtually half of us here are in the 2 digits.

JL

[ptGatsby]

By definition, virtually half of us here are in the 2 digits.


I doubt that a specific cognitive type (1-3% of pop) and technically savvy group is similar to the total population average.

[Watermark]

What is your IQ ? Keep anonymous because of the poll, but let share your point of vue about the question writing an answer there !

What is my IQ? I don't know really. I've not ventured to take online tests, and I guess it wasn't sufficient enough to turn heads when in primary and secondary school. All I can say is that I am perhaps above average. As a visual spatial learner with possible attention/dyslexic issues, certain aspects of the IQ test would have me falling through the cracks. I tend to favor the theory of multiple intelligence, that which IQ tests fail to cover.

[Zephyrus055]

Oh, I disproved both Howard Gardner's theory of multiple intelligences and the traditional conception of IQ.

[fripping]

My IQ is so high that it's actually measured as JR. Bitches.

[DeadDove]

I took one (the only one that seemed culturally unbiased to me, lot's of patterns, math etc...) several yrs ago and it came back "high." I don't put much stalk into IQ test though, and just quote mine for "fun". I have always tended to let "my behavior" speak for me. <shrug>

[Carebear]

158, 156, 163, 168 (american word test, which must have been tailored, since english is my 2nd or 3rd language), 159 (on some mensa related test), never bothered to take the actual mensa test + some other less reliable "pay to get a printout"-online tests which put my IQ up in the skies.

I don't really care what my real IQ is. I'm good at maths, have no problems with tasks that require IQ. (I.e. logical, pattern-recognition, math-related intelligence.) IQ doesn't really measure anything important. You can study IQ tests and get better at them, it doesn't say anything about language skills, social skills or any of those dodgy multiple intelligences. And more importantly, my IQ tells nothing of how lazy I am.

I never had to do any homework in maths to get good grades before I went to university, and faced with the workload there, I went for the easier exams without any real effort involved, got ok grades, delivered poems and failed on the harder exams, and jumped to the human arts, where I could continue to do barely anything and still get ok grades.

What good does it do to have a high IQ if you're to percieving to really bother to achieve anything?

IQ, EQ, multiple intelligences, all just words and numbers. Your shown skills in the field you apply yourself to, your achievements, your personality, what you say and what you do, these speak for you. Having to show somebody that you theoretically are e.g. smart or socially skilled is just lame.

Edit: Yes I contradict myself. Remembering and showing off my results from so many different tests and then going on about how lame said bahaviour is.. I smell a hypocrite! Damn me for pointing it out.

However, I also know that my place is in the 6th level of hell together with the heretics and that I'm either Mother Theresa or Albert Einstein, depending on which of the shorter or longer test I rely on, and that I'd be Hannibal Lechter if I was a mass murderer, so basically I guess I'm just hooked on tests and have difficulty forgetting the results afterwards.

[Carebear]

By the way, I didn't vote on the poll, in order to not fuck up the search for the link between INTP and IQ.

[Biff_Loman]

My IQ < people think.

[Mr. Beef]

I propose a formula for a person's actual iq

(200-stated iq) = actual iq for all real numbers.

What disturbs me is there are a lot of people saying "160" or even "180"....

[ApeTheDog]

Your formula is so scientifically baffling that I immediately accept it as truth, Mr Beef.

I remember them testing my intelligence as a child as well on one of those phyiscal and mental testing days, and telling my parents I belonged to the top 3% intelligent people in the world. Which was no fun, because I happened to have the lowest grades in school. It changed my perspective on myself for the rest of my life, and gave me quite an inflated ego. They also said I should lose some weight and not drink cola.

[Mr. Beef]

Your formula is so scientifically baffling that I immediately accept it as truth, Mr Beef.

Yeah...it took a lot of long hours in the lab and years of research (by which i mean casual observation of human behavior), but voila...a solid and effective formula.

[ApeTheDog]

I do believe people overstate their IQ. And of course, there is always what test you take. It doesn't really say which tests they've gone through. They could be tests that came in a chewing gum wrapper for all the information we have.

But I'm inclined to trust people won't lie about this, more than that we'd brag about this. We're all smart enough to see through it when someone would claim to have an IQ of 180 but couldn't back it up with intelligent ideas.

[Mr. Beef]

Yeah....i couldn't say for sure, and different people take different tests, but I highly doubt that there is anyone with an iq above 160, registered on this site....and i'd have to give that 160 to Lee or Hypnos. The fact is that many people go based off of ineffective measures of iq, i.e. internet tests, and even those who don't have a tendency to exaggerate or even flat-out lie. I'd guess that the average for this site is somewhere around 125-130, which is about 10 points lower than your typical Harvard undergrad. I've personally never taken an IQ test, but based on my old SAT scores (assuming SATs are a valid correlate of iq) it's about 146, but i don't know if it's that high and i could care less if it wasn't.

[ApeTheDog]

How can you gauge other peoples intelligence, Mr Beef, if you're not yourself more intelligent than they are?

That is as if you were standing on a molehill, staring straight ahead of you at the base of the mount everest, unable to look up though, and would be able to predict how high it runs.

[Mr. Beef]

How can you gauge other peoples intelligence, Mr Beef, if you're not yourself more intelligent than they are?


First, IQ doesn't mean intelligence. I largely regard it as a measurement of only certain aspects of cognition, most of which can be improved with practice. Second, that analogy is slightly flawed. I would say that it would be more like standing on top of a mountain looking at a higher mountain. When someone who doesn't play basketball watches michael jordan in action, does that mean that they can't tell how good he is? No. They might not comprehend his acumen as well as a fellow NBA player, but they can tell about how good he is relative to other basketball players, and i certainly at least "play basketball" in this analogy.

[Mr. Beef]

Besides, IQ is trivial. I'm just saying that if everyone took an official IQ test here, based on my experience i would put Lee or Hypnos near the top, but i really have no idea.

[ApeTheDog]

Ah, that's okay then.

[Andrew N.]

I don't know my IQ, though based on academic performance and current position in life, I chose < 85. (Lee)

I just do not think that academic performance and current position in life can be directly reliable with IQ. Of course, depends of what you mean by "academic performance". If you're not good at school but like to learn by yourself, even more in more technical and scientifical areas, your academic performance does not matter. If you're not good at school because you're bored by, because courses doesn't stimulate you intellectualy as much as you need, well Einstein was like you.

Creativity is not anyway well estimated by academic performance, and I think it's one of the more reliable thing with intelligence (that's also why I can't totally believe in IQ tests, especially WAIS (I do not know so much Catell or Standford Binet so I can't actually judge them) which is particularly culturaly, socially and "conformistly" biased. So I agree with what someone said before.

[ApeTheDog]

I seriously doubt that Lee thinks his IQ is below 85. I would say things like that myself, but there is no way I would ever mean then.

[euterpenc]

I'm indifferent to IQ... it's existence is entirely arbitrary to me.

[ApeTheDog]

Yet you once said you had an IQ of 180, and compared yourself to Nietsche. You're as indifferent to IQ as any of us are, Zeitgeist.

[Lee]

(Lee)

I just do not think that academic performance and current position in life can be directly reliable with IQ. Of course, depends of what you mean by "academic performance". If you're not good at school but like to learn by yourself, even more in more technical and scientifical areas, your academic performance does not matter. If you're not good at school because you're bored by, because courses doesn't stimulate you intellectualy as much as you need, well Einstein was like you.

Creativity is not anyway well estimated by academic performance, and I think it's one of the more reliable thing with intelligence (that's also why I can't totally believe in IQ tests, especially WAIS (I do not know so much Catell or Standford Binet so I can't actually judge them) which is particularly culturaly, socially and "conformistly" biased. So I agree with what someone said before.I don't think my IQ is that low.

I suspect my IQ is in the 110-130 range, but I really have little idea. These kind of threads never go how you intend, for a number of reasons:

The inevitable debate about the validity and accuracy of IQ testing arises.
There are all kinds of tests out there, some of which are clearly not reliable indicators of IQ.
We have those vague and unverified comments about how "when I was 12 I took a test at this place and they told me I had an IQ in the 170+ range."
Alternatively, there are people who scored much lower than they expected and subsequently feel untrusting and bitter about IQ tests.
A particular member who has never displayed any particular signs of high intelligence claims to have scored 160+ on an IQ test, at which point any hope of the thread being taken seriously diminishes rapidly. Most of all, people feel like they are being pitted against one another. To an INTP, their intelligence is the source of their self-esteem and they gaurd it carefully. Threads like this are akin to asking everyone to whip their penises out to be measured in competition against each other, so few want to engage in it directly, but would rather shift attention to related topics.

INTPs tend to dislike being watched, judged and tested, they would rather let their theories live or die on the quality of those theories, the source should not be that important.

[meshou]

On top of lee's, if you take IQ tests young, which is usually when anyone'd get an official one administered, they ALWAYS end up skewing too high.

Second, IQs are dubiously designed and applied. If you go into educational psych, there's this little chart where they demonstrait that children with 80-100 IQs go into the service industry, 100 IQs become policemen and secretaries, 120 is where teachers are, 140 are lawyers, doctors and businessmen, and 160 or above are scientists.

This is actually what it's designed for, and it is used in education to decide whether you're living up to your potential or whether you will be a failure and should not be given more attention. If you score high and do average in school, you're a failure and will hear about it. If you're below, you will be ignored in class in favor of people who aren't garaunteed to be failures.

[Nadiar]

First, IQ doesn't mean intelligence. I largely regard it as a measurement of only certain aspects of cognition, most of which can be improved with practice. Second, that analogy is slightly flawed. I would say that it would be more like standing on top of a mountain looking at a higher mountain. When someone who doesn't play basketball watches michael jordan in action, does that mean that they can't tell how good he is? No. They might not comprehend his acumen as well as a fellow NBA player, but they can tell about how good he is relative to other basketball players, and i certainly at least "play basketball" in this analogy.

IQ essentially measure's NT-ness. You're basically saying that if there was a forum for NBA stars to hang out at and talk shit with each other, that it would be impossible for there to be more than 1-2 professional basketball stars on those forums.

[ApeTheDog]

Not a rough estimation. A rought one, of course. Would a dog know who was more intelligent - britney spears or rain man? (major exageration here)

[Andrew N.]

Second, IQs are dubiously designed and applied. If you go into educational psych, there's this little chart where they demonstrait that children with 80-100 IQs go into the service industry, 100 IQs become policemen and secretaries, 120 is where teachers are, 140 are lawyers, doctors and businessmen, and 160 or above are scientists.

First I didn't necessarly ask for "psychometric IQ" but more for a general vision of ability, what I call "pur IQ", which is only a numerical way to estimate intelligence comparing to mass. Everyone can have honestly a moreless good appreciation of his intelligence comparing to mass. At least, I think.

Second, fortunately you don't need to score 160 to become a scientist : Einstein was estimated 160 (so exactly the score you shew), Feynman scored 126 (what is not so high for a so great physician !) and Poincaré even scored 105 ! Psychometric IQ is so much biased that we can't have a clear vision of someone's ability. Anyway, they had been designed to detect mental retartated then... strange to estimate greater intelligence with.

[Andrew N.]

By the way, I didn't mean that Lee estimated himself at 85.

[Mr. Beef]

You're basically saying that if there was a forum for NBA stars to hang out at and talk shit with each other, that it would be impossible for there to be more than 1-2 professional basketball stars on those forums.

No, I'm not. I was simply refuting Ape's assertion that one can't make a rough estimation of someone's intelligence unless they are of equal or higher intelligence.

[meshou]

No, I'm not. I was simply refuting Ape's assertion that one can't make a rough estimation of someone's intelligence unless they are of equal or higher intelligence.Actually, he's technically right.

A study (http://www.fau.edu/theatre/gamble/among_the_inept.htm) shows that competent people tend to slightly underestimate their competence in a given subject, the average are about correct, but the bottom 25% put themselves at above average to waaay above average.

The study suggests that the same skills used at being competant at a skill are used in judging and comparing that competancy to others. In other words, the most boring person in the world thinks he's funny and will insist on telling jokes, and stupid people believe they're geniuses.

So no, the way below average in nearly any skill do not accurately evaluate their own or other's competence.

[Mr. Beef]

Actually, he's technically right.

A study shows that competent people tend to slightly underestimate their competence in a given subject, the average are about correct, but the bottom 25% put themselves at above average to waaay above average.

The study suggests that the same skills used at being competant at a skill are used in judging and comparing that competancy to others. In other words, the most boring person in the world thinks he's funny and will insist on telling jokes, and stupid people believe they're geniuses.

So no, the way below average in nearly any skill do not accurately evaluate their own or other's competence.

Of course less intelligent people are more likely to misjudge someone else's intelligence. That's not what I was saying. I was saying that you don't HAVE to be as intelligent as someone to estimate their intelligence relative to other people, but you'll probably judge it more innacurrately the less intelligent you are. Also, that is referring to people at the lower end of the intelligence spectrum, which i am not. Though i'm probably no expert, i consider myself a pretty fair judge of iq range since i've encountered lots of different people in before.

[xHTx]

I don't know my IQ, though based on academic performance and current position in life, I chose < 85.

:mellow:

Incorrect, IQ has nothing to do with academic performance or current position in life. You can have a high IQ but you're lazy as hell to do work so you're academic performance is low. Take an IQ test, Lee.

[wildcat]

First I didn't necessarly ask for "psychometric IQ" but more for a general vision of ability, what I call "pur IQ", which is only a numerical way to estimate intelligence comparing to mass. Everyone can have honestly a moreless good appreciation of his intelligence comparing to mass. At least, I think.

Second, fortunately you don't need to score 160 to become a scientist : Einstein was estimated 160 (so exactly the score you shew), Feynman scored 126 (what is not so high for a so great physician !) and Poincaré even scored 105 ! Psychometric IQ is so much biased that we can't have a clear vision of someone's ability. Anyway, they had been designed to detect mental retartated then... strange to estimate greater intelligence with.
You know nothing about Einstein.

[Mr. Beef]

Incorrect, IQ has nothing to do with academic performance or current position in life. You can have a high IQ but you're lazy as hell to do work so you're academic performance is low. Take an IQ test, Lee

He's being facetious, genius.

[cjs55]

Second, IQs are dubiously designed and applied. If you go into educational psych, there's this little chart where they demonstrait that children with 80-100 IQs go into the service industry, 100 IQs become policemen and secretaries, 120 is where teachers are, 140 are lawyers, doctors and businessmen, and 160 or above are scientists.

This is actually what it's designed for, and it is used in education to decide whether you're living up to your potential or whether you will be a failure and should not be given more attention. If you score high and do average in school, you're a failure and will hear about it. If you're below, you will be ignored in class in favor of people who aren't garaunteed to be failures.

If you are saying that IQ tests are designed specifically so doctors and scientists do well on them, this is simply not true. This is certainly a side effect of the test, but it's not like the test-designers gave their sample tests to scientists until they found the one that scientists score best at and used at as IQ. I'm slightly confused as to what you are saying though.

Also, no IQ tests were ever applied to kids going to my school, however, pre-high school brighter kids were always given less attention (simply because they needed much less attention to do well on the test scores by which teachers and schools are judged).

[placid_panic]

i've never taken an iq test, and from what i read i don't see what there is to be gained.

[Hustler]

There is a formula you can use to find my IQ. Ready? Here goes:

Divide Ella's IQ by 2.
Add to this 1/2 joft's IQ.
Take the average of this number and meshou's IQ.
Subtract from this the number by which Edmond Zedo overestimates his IQ.
Now, take the absolute value of the difference between the IQs of Hypnos and Lee and add the number to 2 x this quantity.
Select an integer on [0,5] and add or subtract it to the number.
Subtract Ape's IQ from s0523's IQ, multiply this by 12 and average it with the number.

That will give you my IQ.

[Snowflake]

Infinity?

[Nemesis]

infinity is not a number, its a condition unbound by space and time.

[Snowflake]

infinity is not a number, its a condition unbound by space and time.

And so is Hustler's IQ.

[Nemesis]

:lol:

[Hustler]

Infinity?

I hate to burst your bubble, Snowflake, but you can't get a result of infinity by performing a finite number of arithmetic operations on a member of the set of positive integers.

[Nemesis]

12x[infiniti]

[Snowflake]

Sure you can.

That's what limits are for.


12x[infiniti]

Infinity is not on the set of positive integers.

[Hustler]

Sure you can.

No way, Jack.


That's what limits are for.

No it isn't.

[meshou]

If you are saying that IQ tests are designed specifically so doctors and scientists do well on them, this is simply not true. This is certainly a side effect of the test, but it's not like the test-designers gave their sample tests to scientists until they found the one that scientists score best at and used at as IQ. I'm slightly confused as to what you are saying though. I am saying that IQ tests are applied to children as a way of decideing for them what their potential is and whether they're living up to it. If a child in the "doctor" range wants to be a teacher, then they're not living up to their potential, or if one with an average IQ wants to be a scientist, you still plunk them on the path to tradeshool.

[Nadiar]

There is a formula you can use to find my IQ. Ready? Here goes:

Divide Ella's IQ by 2.
Add to this 1/2 joft's IQ.
Take the average of this number and meshou's IQ.
Subtract from this the number by which Edmond Zedo overestimates his IQ.
Now, take the absolute value of the difference between the IQs of Hypnos and Lee and add the number to 2 x this quantity.
Select an integer on [0,5] and add or subtract it to the number.
Subtract Ape's IQ from s0523's IQ, multiply this by 12 and average it with the number.

That will give you my IQ.

So if we estimate that Hypnos, Ella, s0523, and Joft are all 100, we end up with:
IQ: -278.5

Please fill in what you're defining their IQ as.

From this thread, we have:
meshou: 145
Lee: 130
Ella: ???
Joft: ???
Hypnos: ???
s0523: ???
Ed: 150, so lets assume he's at most 50 points off. Although if he were really Superman, I would knock a lot more than just 50 off of that.
Ape: 156

[Carebear]

Of course less intelligent people are more likely to misjudge someone else's intelligence. That's not what I was saying. I was saying that you don't HAVE to be as intelligent as someone to estimate their intelligence relative to other people, but you'll probably judge it more innacurrately the less intelligent you are. Also, that is referring to people at the lower end of the intelligence spectrum, which i am not. Though i'm probably no expert, i consider myself a pretty fair judge of iq range since i've encountered lots of different people in before.

Intelligence != IQ

Intelligence = A dodgy, vague, rather subjective measurement of what the brain is capable of. (Social intelligence, logistical intelligence etc, basically any definition that can make the person using the term appear intelligent in that sense of the definition.)

If you consider yourself a fair judge of IQ range, does that mean you consider yourself able to judge someone's IQ by simply interacting with them? Or intelligence, however you prefer to define it?

The basketball equivalent of judging IQ by interaction is guessing Michael Jordan's average points per game by playing soccer with him. He's tall, he's fast, he has body control, so he might be good at sports, but the actual score? You'll only be able to judge someone's IO when you see them taking an IQ test, and only after critically going through the test to see exactly what type of questions the test asked.

The basketball equivalent of judging intelligence the same way would be to shoot some hoops with MJ to tell how good a basketball player he was. You'd be able to tell that he appears to be good, but if he was the best basketballer ever or just considerably better than you would be tricky. Unless you yourself was Kobe Bryant of course.

Nah... IQ tells near to nothing about someone's personality. Intelligence is to vague. Let's rather use words to describe people more specifically. Like "I find Lee to be one of the funniest people on the forum". Or "most original", "most knowledgeable about (e.g.) american politics", "strangest", "most socially skilled", "most depressed", "most artistic", "most structured", "with the greatest vocabulary", "best memory" or any other meaning normally included in the differing uses of intelligence.

[Carebear]

So if we estimate that Hypnos, Ella, s0523, and Joft are all 100, we end up with:
IQ: -278.5



I got -267,25. We can't both be right, can we? Even if we chose a different integer, we shouldn't have been able to get both .25 and .50, should we? Hm.. going to bed now, will find out who made the error tonight unless someone else checks it first. I chose +5 btw.

[Pugly]

I am warry of IQ tests. I usually score well, in the 120-140 range. But these are all those online ones. So being that I would much rather underrate myself, then gloat about an IQ that is meaningless, I say I am around 110-125.

I would kind of like to take an offical one, but its really pointless since I know what I can learn and understand... much more than what I can gleam from a number. My curiosity of how I compare to others tends to get the better of me. Not for any pompous reasons, just as another source of knowledge.

One thing that is interesting about IQ tests when I take them. I'll score above average, but the time it takes me is below average. I really don't work well under time pressure, I much prefer to investigate and soak up knowledge at a casual pace.

[misutii]

I've known several people with IQs in the upper 100s and they're more normal (seeming) than you might expect.

still the prevalence of these ppl among the population is miniscule and my point was most people here who claim to have iqs over 130 don't. i'm not doubting you do or anyone in particular, i'm just frustrated with myself for not doing my homework this semester and now having to cram so im creating dissonance and letting the majority of intps do what they do best: doubt themselves

[Nadiar]

still the prevalence of these ppl among the population is miniscule and my point was most people here who claim to have iqs over 130 don't. i'm not doubting you do or anyone in particular, i'm just frustrated with myself for not doing my homework this semester and now having to cram so im creating dissonance and letting the majority of intps do what they do best: doubt themselves

Why? We're going to have smarter people on these forums than the 'average' sample.

People keep using this word "statistically" like it means something in this discussion. Sure, if we were a random sampling taken from everyone in the United States, we wouldn't skew as badly, but the fact is... we're not. First of all, you can eliminate 25% of the population, since those that are much below 100 probably don't have jobs that afford them internet access, computers, and enough free time to do this.

So right off of the bat, you're basically invalidating any conclusions you are drawing.

Second, the Standard deviation in the US is +/- 15-16, and in Europe the standard deviations are +/- 24-25.

This means that 130 IQ in the US (+2 SD) is equivelent to 150 in the European version.

On top of this, its generally only the people outside of the norm that are given an IQ test, and we're excuding everyone that did badly on the test, so we're fucking the results up even more.

And most damning of all, IQ tests measure "NT-ness." It's like giving a group of people with a PhD in Mathematics an Algebra test, and then trying to figure out why everyone passed it.

[Architectonic]

You'd have originally thought that gullibility would be inversely correlated with IQ. As it turns out, that assumption could easily be false, based on the evidence on INTP Central.


The fact is the measurement of IQ is always going to be questionable, until an accurate physical methodology is used.

Right now, most of the quoted IQs in this thread are meaningless - because the conditions under which this was determined have not been stated. Different IQ tests have different methodology and can even have different scales (percentile of the general population vs IQ score). Even if a particular test was designed to match the bell-curve, when used in practise the results tend to be skewed due to the difficulty in developing standardized data. Not to mention that the accuracy of some IQ tests at the extremes (140+ for some tests) can be questionable.

[Snowflake]

So if we estimate that Hypnos, Ella, s0523, and Joft are all 100, we end up with:
IQ: -278.5

You're both quite wrong.

I still get infinity.

[Watermark]

Hustler's probably laughing that you are taking his post so seriously.

[meshou]

still the prevalence of these ppl among the population is miniscule and my point was most people here who claim to have iqs over 130 don't. i'm not doubting you do or anyone in particular, i'm just frustrated with myself for not doing my homework this semester and now having to cram so im creating dissonance and letting the majority of intps do what they do best: doubt themselvesBy your reasoning, since only one in six people have ever been on the internet, you should not believe any of us are on the internet since it's more likely we're not.

That we ARE on the internet (this filters out at least the bottom 10% of the population, which likely can't read or write well enough, and also insures we're likely at least of average income) and the sorts of person who'd be interested in the Myers-Briggs/ Keirsey/ Socionics typologies, and furthermore, is classified as being motivated by intellectual pursuits in those typologies skews the sample so that we're definately not going to match the general population's statistics on nearly anything anyway. IQ included.

[nihilist]

By your reasoning, since only one in six people have ever been on the internet, you should not believe any of us are on the internet since it's more likely we're not.

That we ARE on the internet (this filters out at least the bottom 10% of the population, which likely can't read or write well enough, and also insures we're likely at least of average income) and the sorts of person who'd be interested in the Myers-Briggs/ Keirsey/ Socionics typologies, and furthermore, is classified as being motivated by intellectual pursuits in those typologies skews the sample so that we're definately not going to match the general population's statistics on nearly anything anyway. IQ included.


The bell curve is utilized for a reason. It's so people don't compare themselves with the lowest or highest 1%. People who are incapable of learning to read and write are nevertheless in the bottom. What's the point of setting the bar so low as to compare oneself with the illiterate?

Reading, writing, and positing opinions in the guise of theories/insights doesn't indicate moderate or high IQs, maybe average IQs. Intellectual inclination in different systems and abstract concepts also doesn't imply high IQs. How does interest in MBTI correlate to IQ? Existence, as it is, is mundane and tedious, and hence many people find some way to exercise the unique attributes of the human mind (ie consciousness) and learn in whatever style that suits them. Human beings, by nature, are different from sheep.

That said, I belong to the school of thought in which IQ is essentially meaningless.

[Nadiar]

Hustler's probably laughing that you are taking his post so seriously.

I was off doing something else, and my mind kept trying to go over what the actual result would be, because from a cursory glance it wasn't going to work.

I'm weak like that.

[Hustler]

That said, I belong to the school of thought in which IQ is essentially meaningless.

What a surprise.

[Zephyrus055]

IQ is an artificial construct designed to measure brain power, although its means of doing so are supported only by correlation.

[mancroft]

Which IQ test are we supposed to use for answering the poll?

What is the standard deviation?

Some have a SD of 15 others eg the Mensa test have a SD of 24.

I score 148 on the Mensa test (ie just qualified!).

[Monkman]

yeah I took some stupid test having to do with mainly puzzles and like matching patterns with time.... I got like 153 or something and I thought I did horrible...

[misutii]

Why? We're going to have smarter people on these forums than the 'average' sample.

People keep using this word "statistically" like it means something in this discussion. Sure, if we were a random sampling taken from everyone in the United States, we wouldn't skew as badly, but the fact is... we're not. First of all, you can eliminate 25% of the population, since those that are much below 100 probably don't have jobs that afford them internet access, computers, and enough free time to do this.

So right off of the bat, you're basically invalidating any conclusions you are drawing.

Second, the Standard deviation in the US is +/- 15-16, and in Europe the standard deviations are +/- 24-25.

This means that 130 IQ in the US (+2 SD) is equivelent to 150 in the European version.

On top of this, its generally only the people outside of the norm that are given an IQ test, and we're excuding everyone that did badly on the test, so we're fucking the results up even more.

And most damning of all, IQ tests measure "NT-ness." It's like giving a group of people with a PhD in Mathematics an Algebra test, and then trying to figure out why everyone passed it.


smartass if you'd been here long enough you'd have realized the other "IQ" thread whereby 90% of the members took the easiest online IQ test they could find and then basqued in their "intellectual splendour" before figuring out that something was fishy and then only doubting every score but their own... do you honestly believe that everyone who voted actually took an official IQ test?

and if you're going to state something so bold as IQ tests measure NT-ness you better have the documentation to back it up, you know some(most/all)times no matter how much you tell yourself something it doesn't mean it's true just because you told yourself to tell yourself something that you told yourself to tell yourself today

[Andrew N.]

Which IQ test are we supposed to use for answering the poll?

That's a good question, but I guess it's implicitely said in the poll, as the sections are 100-115, 115-130 etc... That of course means that I'm waiting for an answer sd. 15.

[nihilist]

and if you're going to state something so bold as IQ tests measure NT-ness you better have the documentation to back it up, you know some(most/all)times no matter how much you tell yourself something it doesn't mean it's true just because you told yourself to tell yourself something that you told yourself to tell yourself today

Disgraceful! You've been here for more than a year and are just beginning to realize that many people in this forum don't back their claims with evidence; Instead, they somehow manage to convince themselves by deffering to their exponentially heightened states of consciousness, which in itself is the epitome of solipsism.

[panda]

Hustler pwned you all.

[meshou]

Disgraceful! You've been here for more than a year and are just beginning to realize that many people in this forum don't back their claims with evidence; Instead, they somehow manage to convince themselves by deffering to their exponentially heightened states of consciousness, which in itself is the epitome of solipsism.Or, perhaps, this is a frivilous fucking topic on an online discussion board, and getting bent out of shape because other members don't have the time or resources to back this sort of thing up is really stupid.

You KNOW where most people likely took their tests. You know this is not productive. Why not have fun or avoid it instead of making it into an excuse to look down your nose at the members here?

That's rhetorical.

[Nemesis]

Or, perhaps, this is a frivilous fucking topic on an online discussion board, and getting bent out of shape because other members don't have the time or resources to back this sort of thing up is really stupid.

You KNOW where most people likely took their tests. You know this is not productive. Why not have fun or avoid it instead of making it into an excuse to look down your nose at the members here?

That's rhetorical.
Testify Sista.

[misutii]

Or, perhaps, this is a frivilous fucking topic on an online discussion board, and getting bent out of shape because other members don't have the time or resources to back this sort of thing up is really stupid.

You KNOW where most people likely took their tests. You know this is not productive. Why not have fun or avoid it instead of making it into an excuse to look down your nose at the members here?

That's rhetorical.


exactly i'm not arguing to prove anything but merely to make other people look and feel like idiots

[Joe_Swyers]

A psychologist gave me a test which she figured would go high enough. It didn't. I didn't want to spend another couple hundred bucks back then (when I was still "middle-aged". Now I wish I had asked for another go with a test which went high enough (a Stanford-Binet). Various sources have estimated from my test score what the "real" score likely had been. It honestly is "Estimated more than 160."

Earlier contributors here are correct, though, about the previous thread on this topic getting very ugly. One of the members here had a very high score on a Stanford-Binet version that does measure to 200. Nearly everybody disbelieved and joked about that score -- even though she was apparently trying to be honest about a score she really attained. Some posts here were blatantly insulting. Many posts discounted any IQ test and any IQ scores, especially high IQ scores.

Very few here have had a psychologist actually give them a comprehensive IQ test. Thus the debates and arguments here are mostly about scores from online tests which vary widely and wildly. It is sad that anyone who does have, or may get, a comprehensive test from a psychologist, and who gets a high score, would be ridiculed on this forum for both those accomplishments.

Nevertheless, I post my results and then leave this discussion.

[skwayred]

I tried joining Mensa and I was placed on the 97th percentile. I'm going to take a re-test because it's a close call. My IQ is around 130-135. But one time, I took an online IQ test and it showed me an IQ of 150. Of course, online IQ tests aren't reliable so I wouldn't take much pride in that.

[Anonymous]

IQ tests are useless bullshit.

[wildcat]

IQ tests are useless bullshit.
It is waspie bullshit. Waspie bullshit does not make bullshit less bullshit.

[Hustler]

186,282.397

[rawr]

adjusted is 140ish.

[Hustler]

adjusted is 140ish.

Adjusted for what?

[Justin05]

My IQ is "only" 124. Doh.

Richard Feyman and you are in the same boat. :duel:

[Justin05]

A psychologist gave me a test which she figured would go high enough. It didn't. I didn't want to spend another couple hundred bucks back then (when I was still "middle-aged". Now I wish I had asked for another go with a test which went high enough (a Stanford-Binet). Various sources have estimated from my test score what the "real" score likely had been. It honestly is "Estimated more than 160."

Earlier contributors here are correct, though, about the previous thread on this topic getting very ugly. One of the members here had a very high score on a Stanford-Binet version that does measure to 200. Nearly everybody disbelieved and joked about that score -- even though she was apparently trying to be honest about a score she really attained. Some posts here were blatantly insulting. Many posts discounted any IQ test and any IQ scores, especially high IQ scores.

Very few here have had a psychologist actually give them a comprehensive IQ test. Thus the debates and arguments here are mostly about scores from online tests which vary widely and wildly. It is sad that anyone who does have, or may get, a comprehensive test from a psychologist, and who gets a high score, would be ridiculed on this forum for both those accomplishments.

Nevertheless, I post my results and then leave this discussion.

You are about 1 in 100,000 I believe. What is life like for you? I hope you stay around and just tell me what is like for someone w/ an IQ this high. I am not judging but I am very curious. I know mine is not this high(I don't really know how high). But I have always wondered what life is like for someone w/ a really high IQ. I mean I dunno if it sucks for you or if its good for you. B/C 99,999 ppl you come in contact w/ are not as intelligent as you...

[aklight]

A long time ago I scored a 126 on an online test. The site said I was just a notch under the genius level (borderline genius) and that I was smarter than 95% of the population. Even if that information was completely accurate, I still feel stupid. I mean, come on, only smarter than 95%? It's okay though, I can just assume that it was a bad test and that I'm actually a genius, or even though I'm not that smart I can still acheive whatever I want in life. Intelligence has nothing to do with happiness, in fact, sometimes it gets in the way. Maybe I can inspire other people to acheive greatness even though they are not that smart either. I'll probably never take a real test. I don't want to know. I'm smart enough. ;) To know would be to boost or harm my ego, and I'm trying not to mess with that at all.

[rawr]

Adjusted for what?
all of the diffrent parts of the test I took averaged together. :ph34r:

[Justin05]

My IQ is high enough to function in society. I am thankful for that. I am also capable of learning new things. I have no qualms w/ my intelligence level and I don't see a need to have my IQ tested. I am in the 90-200 range...

[MrECrow]

When I was a child, I was put in gifted classes as soon as they tested my IQ. The requirement to get in was 130. I tried to find out my IQ throughout most of my childhood but nobody was willing to tell me. They kept saying they didn't want me to brag. :smash: I've always assumed it's somewhere between 130-150ish. I tend to think it's a good range to be in.

[digesthisickness]

When I was a child, I was put in gifted classes as soon as they tested my IQ. The requirement to get in was 130. I tried to find out my IQ throughout most of my childhood but nobody was willing to tell me. They kept saying they didn't want me to brag.

nothing quite like a flawless plan

[Anonymous]

Alright, honestly, my IQ is around 181. Give or take 61, of course.

[Lurker]

On the Weschler's test I took at secondary school, my verbal IQ was 146. My performance IQ was......umm....much lower, which explains why I constantly goof everything up like an idiot. I wonder why there was a such a large discrepancy between the two scores. It's possible I had a learning/developmental disorder according to what I've heard, but it isn't any of the usual suspects (dyslexia, autism, ADHD, etc.) :(

[GhostOfTheChameleon]

I've always scored between 139 and 162, aside from the exception noted below, so I selected the 145-160 option. That might be optimistic, but the majority of my test results fall in that range.

I don't have much faith in IQ tests, though. I've broken many of them by tinkering around.

A lot of them have caps, and some of them are just downright idiotic. One test, for instance, had four or five categories, which averaged together into your IQ. One of the categories involved memorizing a 5x5 grid of multiple colored squares in something like 5 seconds. Every "question" let you view such a grid, and then you were asked to pick it out from several smaller grids that were about 85% similar to each other.

Some people might actually be able to do that, but my inability to memorize the exact condition of 25 multicolored squares within five seconds certainly doesn't warrant a zero averaged into five other values. All of the major formations were the same in all of your choices, so if you didn't memorize all the specifics, you're screwed.

I answered every question that wasn't exclusively knowledge-based with 100% accuracy, yet the test decided my IQ was 132. I guess if you don't know what a gloomaglobiconoraniacan is, you're not very good at identifying similarities, patterns, or logical flow.

Internet IQ tests are extremely unreliable. Some of them try to normalize their results by using the average score of test-takers to represent 100. That works in the real world, but there is an over-representation of intelligent people on the internet. People who are intelligent are also more likely to take an IQ test. You also have to consider the number of people who might have cheated to get higher scores. But... if they don't normalize their results like that, then it's all guesswork.

The only standardized tests I've taken were for placement in various gifted programs. I was never told my exact scores, but on the last one I took, I was told that I scored 2nd in the history of the district(in a large city with millions of people).

*shrug*

Dwelling on your intelligence will only result in arrogance, wasted energy, insanity, resentment, or all of the above.

-dp

[Lee]

186,282.398

[bergenski]

186,282.398
No way.

[s0978]

nothing quite like a flawless plan:lol:

[sbw]

The problem with IQ tests, is they really just test your NT-ness.

word.

Scott

[sbw]

My IQ < people think.

word (me too).

Scott

[KC85]

I think 132-3 is 98.6 percentile. So ugh, lots of really bright people on this board. I think the guiness book of world record holder for highest IQ for a woman is 180 (?) not sure though, read about her on wikipedia. They have lots of articles related to iq which may be of interest. Some controversial stuff as well, like this book called "The Bell Curve" ... I will leave it at that.

I took the Mensa fun test and it said "high probability ... yadayada" but thought the test was CRAP. Don't you have to pay to be a member of mensa?
If 100 is average, I would say I'm right around there. It could possibly be less than average as my attention span is like ... huh, what was I saying?

[bergenski]

I took the Mensa fun test and it said "high probability ... yadayada" but thought the test was CRAP. Don't you have to pay to be a member of mensa?
Ha, ha, ha, I did it too. Those smart motherfuckers know how to maintain their revenue.

[bergenski]

This is not surprising to me, considering that we represent the portion of society that:

A) Is technologically proficient
2) Is attracted to technology
III) Has time to spend on an internet website devoted to a psychological meme and esoteric / frivolous topics

All of which are indicative of privelege, which is usually a good indicator of education.
Uh, a fair amount of INTPs are not technologically oriented, spending a lot of time on an internet forum, no matter its nature, doesn't indicate brilliance to me, and none of what you cited necessarily indicates privilege. There are those here who have not obtained advanced education, which itself can easily be questioned in terms of relative importance, especially by INTPs.

[Jarno]

I did two official iq test with mensa when i was 28 years old
(cattel a+b, drenth numerical)

i scored IQ 137

i always feel a lot smarter though :)
guess i would score pretty high on the Arrogance test too (if it exists)

[skwayred]

I thought you could only take the test once (I thought I read that on the Mensa website), though I could be totally wrong.


In our country, they allow a re-take. :D Their reason is that maybe you just had a bad day or something. :ph34r: That last question was so freaking hard. I'm quite sure that that was one of the items I failed to answer.

[shyfulpanda]

I've tested with an IQ of 133, but on the SATs I scored a 940. Go figure.

[ZHASH]

I scored around 140

[Dieter]

I've scored between 100 and 130 on a bunch of different online tests, but I haven't taken one in a few years.

[Ellis]

My IQ is 9999. It'd be higher, but 9999 is the highest variable allowed in this game.

[Marston]

I took an official IQ test in 8th grade and scored 108-112. But I had a 1360 on the SATs, which suggests something about 30 points higher.

Somehow I don't think I became radically smarter during the 4 years I spent in high school...

[Atlas]

139

[Last Song]

I like the "estimated" options.


I saw a billboard for the lottery. It said, "Estimated lottery jackpot 55 million dollars." I did not know that was estimated. That would suck if you won and they said, "Oh, we were off by two zeroes. We estimate that you are angry."

[Gaupa]

Since all of the IQ tests I've done measure the qualities that are my absolute strengths - it's ibvious...! They don't measure things like "How well do you communicate your desires and needs to the people around you?" or "How good are you at gettings things done in time?" etc.

I once applied to the Air Force (this was looong ago, early 80s) and would have been denied at an early stage - if it had not been for the fact that I finished all the IQ tests with maximum score... So they decided to give me another chance (a two day evaluation in another city). But by then the tests were more varied (testing my knowledge of Air Force facts, my capacity for doing simultaneous tasks etc), and I fell through. (I knew close to nothing about what air planes they had on what bases etc - I assumed I would learn this, but this was considered as "lack of interest"...).

[Polly_G]

I've never officially had my IQ tested but I was getting a lot of Mensa types telling me they thought it must be high. I did an online test that measured it in comparison with others taking the test and came out *gasp* average.

It did say that those taking the test were likely to have a slightly hire IQ due to their interest level in taking IQ tests so I'm probably just slightly above average but not much.

I was watching this show on TV once that talked about IQ. It said that part of IQ scores relates to memory of details. I would think that would drag down an INTPs score.

[skip]

Yes, why is it "Estimated more than 160" when you can score higher than that, for example on the Stanford-Binet as someone else already mentioned?

[Last Song]

I've never officially had my IQ tested but I was getting a lot of Mensa types telling me they thought it must be high. I did an online test that measured it in comparison with others taking the test and came out *gasp* average.

It did say that those taking the test were likely to have a slightly hire IQ due to their interest level in taking IQ tests so I'm probably just slightly above average but not much.

I was watching this show on TV once that talked about IQ. It said that part of IQ scores relates to memory of details. I would think that would drag down an INTPs score.

*grin*

[bluebell]

The skewed distribution on this amuses me. There's another poll on here somewhere (too lazy to search for it) which is even more so.

[Polly_G]

hehe I dated an INFJ with an over 160 IQ score. OMG he was annoying. He knew enough that he could support irrational arguments with facts. He sounded very convincing and most just assumed he was right. He was, if you got rid of all the other information that made him wrong.

[Christopher]

IQ is a static measurement of a dynamic individual. On that basis, testing an individual is a chimera. Traditional IQ tests looked at an individual's crystalized knowledge; more recent tests have tried to measure fluid knowledge. The difficulty is that people continue to grow, recede, and gleen more information, more skills, and more personal quirks. All of these things effect the outcome of an IQ.

For example, a friend of mine scored IQ 142 (Stanford Binet) when he was in grade 9. In his first year of college, he scored IQ 110 (WAIS). A few years ago, he was given a battery of tests by a psychologist who determined that his IQ was between 130 - 140, that he was ADHD, and had learning disorders. In all, there are too many variables to accurately measure a person's intelligence; there are only best guesses.

Geniuses are usually people who have an incredible intuitive grasp of something. Mozart, for example, had an unbelievable intuitive facility for music at a young age but he was not known for being a pervasive intellect. Einstein couldn't do formal operations but created a system of mathematics to demonstrate his understandings of the world around him. Poincare was thought to be an average intellect but became known as one of the greatest polymaths in history, single-handedly changing the face of modern mathematics. Richard Feynman, the foremost physicist of the latter half of the 20th century, had a measured IQ of 124; his wife beat him at IQ 126. Nevertheless, Feynman is lauded as a genius.

In all these examples, I think that the person mentioned simply had an extrodinary intuitive grasp of a certain field(s), and could therefore do more within that field(s). True genius, I think, is much rarer than we suspect, and not necessarily quantifiable.

[Viva_Hate]

It's interesting to see the majority of people who answered the poll are in the same range (which happens to be the one I'm in also). I didn't think it would be otherwise though. You'd have to think people who spend that much damn time inside their heads would have to be intelligent.

[Deathdust]

115 - 130 except all the IQ tests I've ever done (which isn't many) were timed. And being rushed freaks me out and distracts me so I don't think I have a valid measurement.

[CheeZ]

Dooooood. Asia Carrera (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asia_Carrera) is a member of Mensa.

[stigmatica]

No option for "I havn't a clue"? I can't pick. Besides, I've learned that IQ Numbers and Book Titles are dangerous topics around here. *runs and hides under the bed*

[Ankitrn]

i will take an IQ test soon. i guess mine's in the 115 range. :P

[kali]

The poll result looks like it's giving me the finger.

[Aeternus]

Mine's in the 115-130 category, but aren't IQ tests surpassed? I tought they didn't consider the theories about multiple kinds of intelligence.

[Curtis24]

Hi everybody,

First subject here. I wondered what link could be noticed between being INTP and IQ.

What is your IQ ? Keep anonymous because of the poll, but let share your point of vue about the question writing an answer there !

A.

I have read that INTJs test the highest on IQ tests. Not sure where I read it, so I can't cite it. The same article claimed that the most important function for determining IQ was N-S - Ns scoring on average much higher on IQ tests. After that, the second most important function was E-I - with Is scoring higher. Given that info, INs would have the highest IQ, followed by ENs, ISs, and then ESs.

[Elisianna]

Mine is a little above 130.

I am very envious of my dad, his IQ is 187. I know IQ doesn't mean EVERYTHING but he is by far the most intelligent person I have encountered.

He remembers basically everything he reads too, including the bible which he once read in a few hours, even though he doesn't believe in any of it.

He thinks I am strange for wanting to be as smart as he is...

[Hustler]

I am very envious of my dad, his IQ is 187. I know IQ doesn't mean EVERYTHING but he is by far the most intelligent person I have encountered.

http://i.eprci.net/picard-facepalm

[celestecheng]

According to a recent test, my IQ is 138

[bethanygm]

I have read that INTJs test the highest on IQ tests. Not sure where I read it, so I can't cite it. The same article claimed that the most important function for determining IQ was N-S - Ns scoring on average much higher on IQ tests. After that, the second most important function was E-I - with Is scoring higher. Given that info, INs would have the highest IQ, followed by ENs, ISs, and then ESs.

That sounds about right to me. I can think of people that I know that fall into these types and their level of intelligence generally does seem to coincide with type. (In my experience... IN's can dig really deep into theoretical/abstract material, EN's can, too, but to a lesser extent-- my husband is one. I have had some interesting conversations with ISs, but I prefer ENs. I think ESs are mostly retarded. My mom is an ES and my dad is an IN. I like ESs when they happen to also be F's, though, because they can be really, really nice people. They just don't seem very bright.

Of course, I am sure intelligent people show up with every kind of personality type. (Although, maybe being intelligent causes you to act a certain way and the more intelligent you are, the more likely it is that you will end up an I and prefer N over S).

[ebolaRETURNS]

My sister and I took IQ tests as children, for entry into the "talented and gifted" program. However, my parents would not tell either of us the results, to avoid an ensuing dick-sizing contest. :) They've since forgotten our results. My score on the GRE suggests an IQ of roughly 140 (Stanford-Binet), but I don't know what the reliability of this correlation is.
...
The more that I interact with people, the more it seems that we over-emphasize and exaggerate differences in intelligence between people. I think it's more the case that people's differing interests lead them to act intelligently in different domains. INTPs happen to do well in domains of traditional book smarts, well, along with all other NTs. This is because concepts, the stuff of thought, become objects of thought themselves quite intuitively for such types.

ebola

[collin482]

I took an IQ test a year ago (WAIS III) and got 114, about high average. The odd thing is there was a 50 point difference between the verbal and performance scores, 89 performance and 139 verbal. I was told by a psychiatrist that this was indicative of a learning disorder(non-verbal learning disorder).

[fripping]

I took an IQ test a year ago (WAIS III) and got 114, about high average. The odd thing is there was a 50 point difference between the verbal and performance scores, 89 performance and 139 verbal. I was told by a psychiatrist that this was indicative of a learning disorder(non-verbal learning disorder).

you're at least the 5th or 6th person on here like that. if it's really a disorder many of us have it.

[1199]

I've never had my IQ measured...I don't even know how to do it...isn't there a lot of debate about IQ...anyway, I know my EmotionalQ is in the toilet...

Yeah i feel the same way about my EQ but i like it that way...

[proverbs6:13]

I'd bet people who put 3-2 SD would actually guesstimate closer to 2 SD than 3. Which is 1/50 vs 1/750 or 2% vs 0.13%. I'd say 2% is not a terribly inaccurate average, considering INTP's occur at approx. 4% and IN's make up a large amount of gifted students. Forum popularity and access, in the US, might decrease that number more than say MBTI interest would correlate with increased intelligence. Even so 2 SD is likely a mid-high average.
As for 4-3 SD well maybe and perhaps even some with higher IQs, as specialty boards seem to attract high IQ individuals, at least briefly.
Childhood IQ's regress so much that they are meaningless except in the very high reaches where they guarantee a profoundly gifted adult. So that Childhood IQ of 160 can equal an adult of IQ 120 but Childhood IQ of 200 likely equals an adult of IQ 160+. All the below refers to those who score as an adult which is much rarer than childhood scores.
145 means that you were likely the most intelligent person in your high school. Likely the most intelligent person your primary teachers would ever teach. Assume 30 students a year for 30 years = 900 students. At this level you would be among the brightest in any top university. If you studied any field outside of hard science/maths then probably among the brightest, top 100 say, your professors would see. Social problems are likely due to lack of peers.
At 150 the rarity is about 1/2000. Now you are entering most intelligent person you will ever meet territory. Easily the brightest person in your high school. Many teachers will likely never come across a child with an IQ this high. Brighter than many professors in college. Mild to Severe social problems as this person will almost never have peers, except in very particular fields and societies.
A leap to 160. 1/30000. Maybe once every generation of teachers, in a school, will this person be encountered. Likely home schooled or sent to gifted classes. Easily the brightest in all but the most intellectually competitive fields and colleges. A University sees one of these every 5-10 years. Severe social issues are mitigated by a drive to interact with the world not encountered at lower IQs, this behaviour is noted in children and marks the divide between highly/exceptionally gifted and profoundly gifted.
Above 160 you get to levels where the drive is curtailed by immense social problems. These individuals almost never fulfill their potential. In larger countries they have some chance at success but in smaller nations or rural areas they will disappear from interacting with the world.
Above 180. William James Sidis. Christian Heineken. JS Mill. Ludwig Wittgenstein. I'd include current scorers like Marilyn VosSavant, John H. Sununu, Rick Rosner, Chris Langan et al. but mentally Daniel Tammet might blow them out of the water. So in 50 years we'll see who gets added to the list.

[apollos]

Similar experience. I once did some test on the internet scoring above the supposed 98th percentile for verbal intelligence but they figured I was as emotionally intelligent as a tortoise with Asperger's Syndrome... Still feels good though ;p

[manza]

I took an IQ test a year ago (WAIS III) and got 114, about high average. The odd thing is there was a 50 point difference between the verbal and performance scores, 89 performance and 139 verbal. I was told by a psychiatrist that this was indicative of a learning disorder(non-verbal learning disorder).
I took neuropsychological testing recently and my IQ came out to a 115. Apparently it would have been dramatically higher, but my ADHD brought it way down because of my difficulty with attention- and short-term memory-related tasks. My intelligence testing came out to the 99th percentile while my performance in some of the attention/memory tests was below the first percentile. Sucks to be me.

[Qfwfq]

I took neuropsychological testing recently and my IQ came out to a 115. Apparently it would have been dramatically higher, but my ADHD brought it way down because of my difficulty with attention- and short-term memory-related tasks. My intelligence testing came out to the 99th percentile while my performance in some of the attention/memory tests was below the first percentile. Sucks to be me.

This is a large part of my problem too. It afflicts me strongest when I sit down to write a test and my mind gets wiped. It could be performance anxiety actually. I took "Hustler's test" a year ago and scored 135, but when I took it again to get into the HIQ forum I scored about 120. (not that I really care)

Excuses, excuses, right?

[cripple]

This is a large part of my problem too. It afflicts me strongest when I sit down to write a test and my mind gets wiped. It could be performance anxiety actually. I took "Hustler's test" a year ago and scored 135, but when I took it again to get into the HIQ forum I scored about 120. (not that I really care)

Excuses, excuses, right?
What are you going to use all that IQ for? You got huge problems to solve?

[nonperson]

It is a shame it is a hidden poll. I selected Estimated less than 85 which seems about right.

[Qfwfq]

What are you going to use all that IQ for? You got huge problems to solve?

No I have the solutions, I just need to find the problems.

Anyway I don't really give a shit about IQ, I think learning your potential is like finding a crutch to lean on. Akin to seeing how you're going to die. And frankly I hate the whole concept of ranking people. Fuck you IQ threads.

[atheistsunite]

I took a real iq test for the first time, was undergoing a psychological examination, and received a score of 146, and I can completley agree with what proverbs said, except I suprisingly wasn't the smarted kid in my high school. What's even more suprising is the fact that my graduating class was only around 120 students. There was one kid, he had aspergers, and had to have had an iq of at least one standard deviation above me, even I couldn't relate to him.

[atheistsunite]

but mentally Daniel Tammet might blow them out of the water. So in 50 years we'll see who gets added to the list.

I disagree. From what I've seen Daniel Tammet is very, very talented, but's he more like a computer than a genius. He can store immense amounts of knowledge, but I don't think he can necessarily analyze it. He may be able to recite the first 22,000 digits of Pi, but can he come up with an entirely original mathamatical theory? In my opinion he's more of a Rainman than an Einstein.

Has anyone taken Hoeflin's Titan test? I'm currently trying, with trying be the key word. The psychologist I saw told me it may be able to give a better representation of what my true iq is. Honestly, I'm really struggling. I think/hope I'll be able to get between 15-20 right.

[proverbs6:13]

I disagree. From what I've seen Daniel Tammet is very, very talented, but's he more like a computer than a genius. He can store immense amounts of knowledge, but I don't think he can necessarily analyze it. He may be able to recite the first 22,000 digits of Pi, but can he come up with an entirely original mathamatical theory? In my opinion he's more of a Rainman than an Einstein.

Has anyone taken Hoeflin's Titan test? I'm currently trying, with trying be the key word. The psychologist I saw told me it may be able to give a better representation of what my true iq is. Honestly, I'm really struggling. I think/hope I'll be able to get between 15-20 right.

Yes but then Sidis and Heineken should be considered merely machines too, neither contributed anything approaching a large amount of new ideas and both could perform near miraculous feats such as Tammet. The reason I mentioned Tammet is that he displays none of the usual crippling problems associated with savantism nor does he have any of the specialization. So he can learn languages in a few days and also memorize extremely long digits, while savants can only do one. As for analysis, from what I've seen of him he seems perfectly capable of introspection and original thought, which should immediately rule out savantism. Similarly, he does not display the usual obsession with facts that savants display. As for contribution, I don't think anyone else I mentioned has contributed much, unless you count the neo-Leibnizian CTMU. But then again I never said that high IQs necessitated contribution, so I stand by my assertion that Tammet may be the smartest human alive.

I 'took' the Titan test. As in, I answered as many questions as I could then looked for the answers online. All I can say is that I wasted a large amount of time. I got 13-15 right on the verbal then maybe 4-5, I don't remember, on the other questions. Basically, you NEED college level mathematics. I spent a long time imagining dissections of 3d cubes when if I had taken a few math classes I would've just had a formula to plug the question into. Anyway, it frustrated me when I realised I'd spent so long solving problems that I wasn't expected to solve.

There are better high range IQ tests out there and most are free. My favorite one was Concep-t which is based on pure abstract thinking. The high end visual tests on nicologic are also very good, but I have a poor attention span so the timer reduced my enjoyment of them.

[Vynt]

I think ESs are mostly retarded. My mom is an ES and my dad is an IN. I like ESs when they happen to also be F's, though, because they can be really, really nice people. They just don't seem very bright.

......

Of course, I am sure intelligent people show up with every kind of personality type.

One of my closest friends is an ESTJ. I - like nearly everyone here, I estimate - only surround myself with people who can follow my trains of thought on the same level I think them, and she's one of the few people I've met who can. They're not generally thought processes she would come up with herself, but once I introduce them to her she can get as invested as I am. I haven't taken the time to sit and classify too many of the people I know, so I can't compare her to other ES's I may be around. It's likely that she's an exception (she does baffle me very often. Easily one of the smartest socially-involved people I know). Just wanted to point out that not all ES's are morons.

I don't think she'll ever really change that E to an I, and I don't remember if she was close to splitting or not (she's admitted to me that I've been rubbing off on her. I've actually caused her to panic once or twice for bringing up a deep-seated thought process that she had been subconsciously avoiding), but smart ES's do exist... we wouldn't be friends if she wasn't.

[ACow]

It is a shame it is a hidden poll. I selected Estimated less than 85 which seems about right.

Great minds think alike :P

[spitfire]

I fall in between 140 and 160 with online and Mensa tests with a wild card of 178 that came out of nowhere. That's a huge gulf but I'd go with the lower number just to be safe. I've probably taken over 50 tests purely for the purpose of inflating my own ego. In the end it doesn't really matter. As an INTP I always feel like I just don't know enough anyway. I think it's better to feel that way and to strive for more knowledge than to rest on your laurels.

[kali]

Has anyone taken Hoeflin's Titan test? I'm currently trying, with trying be the key word. The psychologist I saw told me it may be able to give a better representation of what my true iq is. Honestly, I'm really struggling. I think/hope I'll be able to get between 15-20 right.

Ooh. If that's the case, then he must think you're pretty smart, since it's a high-range IQ test. I'd be happy to get 5 right.