IQ scores

The majority of the HA wouldn't realise until they were eating tarmac.

 

Utterly meaningless bollocks propagated by a racist loony. The whole point
of an IQ test is that is is standardised on a particular population - it is
very dubious practice to try to compare results for different populations
where there are substantial language and cultural difficulties as these will
influence interpretation of test items and possibly influence other aspects
such as motivation and perseverence. There is no effective way to control
for such variables. Even the so-called culture-free tests have intrinsic
bias. I suspect that we Northern Europeans might not fare so well on IQ
tests devised by, say, the Bushmen of the Kalahari or by the Inuit.

 

Mine was measured as 178 under exam conditions (quite a while ago.) If
that doesn't prove that IQ means **** all, I don't know what does.

 

Using which standardised test? I am curious because WAIS III (one of the
most common adult tests) is maxed out at IQ 155. If tested as a child
using the WISC (which maxes at 266 for 6 year olds and then has a decreasing
potential maximum therafter) you should have shown the overall ability of an
average 16year 11month old at age 9y 0m. You would be one of the top 60 or
so most intelligent people in the UK - ahead of most Nobel prize winners and
university professors.

 

Spete wrote:

Heh. Dogweed, perhaps?

 

Which standardised test?

 

Indeed. I'm quite good at all this IQ malarkey and apart from the fact
I can sail through wanky programming and logic tests and get hired, I
don't see the point of the IQ measurement system at all.

<fx: re-thinks strategy>

 

No idea. Just dug out the cert (sad, huh?) and it says:

"MENSA CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that <insert name here> has taken the Mensa
Supervised Test and achieved a score of 178 which is attained by 1 per
cent of the population. This score gives a true IQ rating.

Harold Gale BA
Executive Director"

I was about 14 or 15 when I did it, iirc. Had no interest in joining
MENSA, just did one of those little puzzles in the back of the Radio
Times once and it got me wondering. I was certainly no slouch in the
bonce department at the time, but a few years of fairly fast living in
my early/mid 20s blunted the scalpel somewhat.

 

IQ of 148 in Cattell tests correspond to an IQ of 130 in Wechsler tests.

 

From my limited experience, IQ tests measure the ability to solve
abstract problems. This ability has very limited use in the
world-at-large. Tbe abiilty to solve abstract problems *should* inform
people to *run away* _FAST_. Quite how it is so revered is beyond my
ken.

 

ogden wrote:

Ah, the old 'take the test as a child to artificially boost your score' trick!

From the Densa website:
"A middle aged adult can only get a maximum IQ of 161 on the Cattell IIIB test."

 

I've never heard of genuinely gifted children being considered
'special needs' in state education. From my own experience, the
Special Needs department of the comp I went to was dedicated
exclusively to the school window-lickers. The education system is
geared to producing a barely-acceptable mediocrity, and if you don't
fit, tough shit.

 

Let me translate Rope's post for you.

"My kids have all been lumped under 'special needs', but their mum says
they're above average intelligence, so there must be something wrong
with the education system."

 

Rope says...

There's no degree value when measuring in Kelvin units.

 

Maybe not.

273.14.

Approximately.

 

Makes a change from factory fodder, I suppose. That's only because of
the lack of factories, these days.

Innit da troof.

 

Which is the odd grub out?

Spot the leopard.

Which polar bear is nearest and which is smallest?

Which chief's daughter do you ****?

 

Sort of, I can see what you mean. My point is that there is little or
no extra help for those most able to benefit from it; there will
always be the exceptional few who don't need it to excel, and good
luck to them. IMO, however, those just above average, who have the
potential to be so much more, are held back by the system, not helped
up.

 

Cattell test - your score would probably be around 150 in Wechsler scales
which is still impressive but not in the "one in a million" category that
the raw score implied. There is also a problem if the test is supervised by
an organisation that is keen to expand its membership rather than by a
qualified professional who has no vested interest in the outcome.

The problem with quoting scores without quoting the test is that different
tests use different ways of rating intelligence. Also the tests do not
fully correlate - for example the Cattell only has about a 0.72 correlation
with the Wechsler scales. In the UK professional psychologists tend to use
the Weschler scales or, for children, the British Ability Scales, both of
which give lower scores than the Cattell.