I was bored so I decided to take an online IQ test that I saw on an advertisment on a web page. The site is http://www.emode.com. I took the test, its like 50 questions and it told me I had an IQ of 136. I was thinking that the average human IQ was around 100, maybe as high as like 115, but I am not totally sure. I mean I like to think I am pretty smart, but I am no Einstein. See I probablly didn't even spell his name right. Heck I am not even any where near as smart as Ben Stein. But anyway, I was just wondering, if you thought those tests were remotely accurate, or if my guess at the average IQ was lower then it should be. Thanks
What is the average human IQ? Or, Are those online IQ tests acurate?
- Thread starter coolred
- Start date
130 is below average for ATOT. I believe 160 is the norm here. 
But seriously, take online IQ tests for fun, but don't put too much faith in the scores.
Oh, and 85-115 is considered one standard deviation (68% of of all occurances falling within that range) and thus the average range for the Stanford-Binet IQ test.
But seriously, take online IQ tests for fun, but don't put too much faith in the scores.
Oh, and 85-115 is considered one standard deviation (68% of of all occurances falling within that range) and thus the average range for the Stanford-Binet IQ test.
Cool thanks, yeah i was taking the score as gospel or anything, just wondered if they were in any way close to accurate, or if they just do something like "Well you got 35 out of 50 questions right, so we will pick a number at random from the range of 115-140." Or something.
Yeah but I would prefer being a below borderline idiot on the boards and someone with a life outside of the boards. Rather then a super genius on the boards and total wack job that never leaves the house off the boards.
Please no one take offense to this. First off it was meant as a joke, and secondly, I am not saying anything bad about all the wack jobs out there, I am just saying its not the life I choose to live. Have a nice day
Roughly 99% of the population should be under 145 points. Remember this is the general population so 136 may not be out of line. Conisder however Richard Feynman, a famous physicist and winner of numerous awards including the Nobel prize, considered one of greatest physicists of his era had a "tested" IQ of 115.
on a 16SD test 137 is about 99% of the population and 149 is roughly 99.9%. Feynman was 'estimated' as having an IQ of 190+...
DannyBoy
Diamond Member
Yeah I attempted a Mensa test once. But got bored cause it was so long. I guess that tells me I COULD be the smartest person on the planet, if only I had an attention span long enough to do anything significant.
Last time I did the emode one I got a score of 135, if I remember correctly. Three friends who did it got 134, 134 and 133.
Nice confidence booster, but I wouldn't put it on your resumé
The whole IQ system is less than perfect anyway, let alone these online tests.
Nice confidence booster, but I wouldn't put it on your resumé
The whole IQ system is less than perfect anyway, let alone these online tests.
lol, yeah IQ isn't a major factor when it comes to measuring 'true' success....
The original purpose of the early IQ tests were to measure a person's ability to do complex problems, i.e. college level (and beyond) problems...
Actually, I remember reading an old LA Times article of a survey of extremely gifted students after the kids had grown up. Among the group, the median earning wage was ~$7000 a year when ~$4000 was the national average. Several had won Nobel Prizes, written books, plays etc. Also, around 20% commited suicide. So fairly high intelligence (IQ >160) would seem to be a fairly good indicator of success if given a proper education. But for people of average intelligence or near average (like me
) IQ scores are meaningless and depends more on how hard you work to reach your goals.
silverpig
Lifer
- Jul 29, 2001
- 27,703
- 12
- 81
IQ is supposed to be a gaussian distribution with mean 100 and standard deviation of... 16 is it? I can't remember exactly, but it's well defined as such.
Now, those stupid online IQ tests are so lame it's not even funny. I've not scored lower than 145, and I've gotten all the way up to 180 on a few. What's more, taking one test before dinner gave me a 152, and after dinner I got a 167 on a different one. Your IQ should stay reasonably stable throughout your life, so a fluctuation of 15 points (almost 1 SD) over dinner is the sign of some bad testing, or a lot of alcohol (not the case hehe).
What's more, I STILL get the emails from those IQ testing websites in my spam account saying what my IQ is, and that if I want to pay $9.95 I can get a "full detailed report" or some crap like that.
Further still, IQ tests are very shady about determining real intelligence. Earlier versions contained questions relating to pop culture (American pop culture mind you). Billy Joe Bob from Looseyanna, 30-odd years and still in the 3rd grade gains a point on Albert Einstein because he happens to watch more American TV? Sure...
Granted, it's not that way nowadays, but there are still questions as to what makes a person intelligent. I guess the legitimacy of the test is enhanced being that it is statistical; you are ranked against an average score, not against a test. Either way, too much credit is often given to IQ scores as being absolute measures of intelligence. I guess they're more of an indication at best.
Now, those stupid online IQ tests are so lame it's not even funny. I've not scored lower than 145, and I've gotten all the way up to 180 on a few. What's more, taking one test before dinner gave me a 152, and after dinner I got a 167 on a different one. Your IQ should stay reasonably stable throughout your life, so a fluctuation of 15 points (almost 1 SD) over dinner is the sign of some bad testing, or a lot of alcohol (not the case hehe).
What's more, I STILL get the emails from those IQ testing websites in my spam account saying what my IQ is, and that if I want to pay $9.95 I can get a "full detailed report" or some crap like that.
Further still, IQ tests are very shady about determining real intelligence. Earlier versions contained questions relating to pop culture (American pop culture mind you). Billy Joe Bob from Looseyanna, 30-odd years and still in the 3rd grade gains a point on Albert Einstein because he happens to watch more American TV? Sure...
Granted, it's not that way nowadays, but there are still questions as to what makes a person intelligent. I guess the legitimacy of the test is enhanced being that it is statistical; you are ranked against an average score, not against a test. Either way, too much credit is often given to IQ scores as being absolute measures of intelligence. I guess they're more of an indication at best.
You're right, I just rechecked my numbers and I forgot the extra .9
As for Feynman that exactly is my point. His achievements point to much higher intelligence but in grade school his tested IQ was 'only' 115 (actually I was going on memory it was 125) but he estimated IQ by his accomplishment in regard to the general populace was 190 or so.
One should not believe IQ test are not indicative of anything, rather one should take their results with a grain of salt.
eh, 133 on that emode test. Does taking that test has anything to do with how fast you take it?
peace
sean
peace
sean
Hmm, I took the emode one a few months back and got a 136. At the time I was pissed because I was 4 points (I believe) off mensa level
Now I feel better knowing I'm in the 150's Probably not though...TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter