Do you know your IQ?

[dragonfly411]

I don't know mine. I'll have to ask my mom. I was in the gifted program throughout school, but I'm a horrible horrible test taker, so it was never reflected in my SAT's or any of that. I'm also very right brained, so I tend to do things in a more creative outlet (writing, painting, drawing, photography). I had a terrible time with numbers growing up as well, and am just now finally FINALLY grasping math and it's fascinations. So who knows.

 

[partgypsy]

The study that she has been involved in for over 40 years is designed to determine whether or not IQ is static and thus far her own personal opinion based on her own data is that it is not. Her youngest is almost 7 and she is working again and her IQ is back up again. It didn't just drift off due to age. She thinks it was influenced by hormones, perhaps lack of sleep. Regardless, if it changes it by definition isn't static.

I guess I don't even like the term "IQ." I'm not sure what people even mean when they say "IQ". The results of a test or something else? There are many reasons why a person's test scores can change, only 1 being that the underlying construct changes. The fact that a sleep deprived new mom scores lower on the test, than when she is not a home-bound and sleep-deprived, or a child exposed to lead or poor nutrition scores lower than one not exposed is not surprising. Is it surprising to you? Or if a child is exposed to an intellectually stimulating environment using the same skills that are assessed by the test, improves on the test, also does not surprise me.

Second, if IQ is used to measure aptitude towards academic or other acheivement, then what is the purpose of taking this test, multiple times, when you are an adult? At this point all the stuff that it is supposed to predict, has already happened. I wonder what the utlity of using the test beyond it's stated purpose/limitations.

 

[Dancing Fire]

yes,i'am 1 point above Albert Einstein...

 

[partgypsy]

As far as "genius" score, it is a term used for a cut off beyond some point, just as they use "moron" for some cut off below the norm. An arbitrary cut off. However it doesn't seem to be a particularly lax cut off, looking at Wikipedia, a score of 145 signifies someone in the top 99.+% of the population. That is, less than 1% population scores higher. The same article talks that when get past a certain point in the very high scores become less distinguisable and predictive of differences.

Personally I think of genius is someone like Mozart; it is a qualitative term so it is confusing used in this context.

 

[MissMina]

The Stanford-Binet test is the one I took and 140 was rated as "genius"
I never was sure what that meant and didn't think of myself that way.
Just as a person of reasonable intelligence with a good memory.

I had an acquaintance with an IQ of 164 who ended up in prison because he thought
he was smart enough to steal without getting caught
He wasn't

 

[somethingshiny]

I've seen info stating that "genius" starts at 160 and another piece of info stating 180.

I'm over 140 and sure as heck ain't no genius!


Re: static IQ. Mine dropped 4-5 points.



DF~ Are you yanking my chain? IQ tests weren't around when Einstein was....

 

[Cehrabehra]

The study that she has been involved in for over 40 years is designed to determine whether or not IQ is static and thus far her own personal opinion based on her own data is that it is not. Her youngest is almost 7 and she is working again and her IQ is back up again. It didn't just drift off due to age. She thinks it was influenced by hormones, perhaps lack of sleep. Regardless, if it changes it by definition isn't static.

I guess I don't even like the term "IQ." I'm not sure what people even mean when they say "IQ". The results of a test or something else? There are many reasons why a person's test scores can change, only 1 being that the underlying construct changes. The fact that a sleep deprived new mom scores lower on the test, than when she is not a home-bound and sleep-deprived, or a child exposed to lead or poor nutrition scores lower than one not exposed is not surprising. Is it surprising to you? Or if a child is exposed to an intellectually stimulating environment using the same skills that are assessed by the test, improves on the test, also does not surprise me.

Second, if IQ is used to measure aptitude towards academic or other acheivement, then what is the purpose of taking this test, multiple times, when you are an adult? At this point all the stuff that it is supposed to predict, has already happened. I wonder what the utlity of using the test beyond it's stated purpose/limitations.

Well this is a whole nother debate! lol

The concept is a strange one... my husband and I are "very bright" people but we are different... we pretty much have come to an agreement between us that while I am more intelligent (quicker, able to draw more accurate inferences - come up with the right answers without following all of the steps) intuitive, and theoretical, he is smarter, more logical, and has a larger knowledge base and higher deductive reasoning ability.

 

[JulieN]

Second, if IQ is used to measure aptitude towards academic or other acheivement, then what is the purpose of taking this test, multiple times, when you are an adult? At this point all the stuff that it is supposed to predict, has already happened. I wonder what the utlity of using the test beyond it's stated purpose/limitations.

It measures how well you are able to learn at that point in time.

 

[jaysonsmom]

Yes, like many of the pp, I was tested several times growing up due to academic achievement.

All I'm going to say is that it's on par with my jewelry .....