Was 75 ever average? 80 is the threshold for being to mentally disadvantaged for the death penalty in most states.
Well I thought it was, but it doesn't seem to the case. Either that or I am remembering something that I can't seem to find. https://www.hrw.org/reports/2001/ustat/ustat0301-01.htm
Regarding the average changing - They don't make the test easier or harder or anything, they just change the scale. It's not like you count up all the correct answers and if you got a hundred ticks that is 100 IQ. By definition 100 IQ is "average" . That is to say that if you test a million people, whatever the average result that comes back that is called 100 IQ. It's always an abstract number that doesn't mean anything really, just that 100 means average. So when they've updated the scale, all that means is taking the results from this year and whatever comes back as the average is now 100 IQ. That averaged figure has gotten slightly higher - We still call it 100 IQ but people have gotten slightly smarter. On the IQ scale from a decade ago, that result would have been 103 or 104. The point is that IQ scores are based on comparison to other people and the rest of society. Saying 115 IQ doesn't actually mean a specific level of intelligence. 115 IQ is more a position within the statistical landscape - It means "1 standard deviation above the average". 70 percent of all IQs fall within one standard deviation - So 70% of all people are between 85 and 115. To be at 115 means to be smarter than 70% of people. Which doesn't mean you are super smart, just that a lot people are in the middle. But it's not an absolute measure. If a lot of new people test as being smarter than you, your score drops because the average and distribution shifts. You stay as smart, but your position in the league table moves. That's a better way to think about it - Like a league of smartness and 100 just means "average team".
You'd guess wrong to a large extent. I'm shit at maths, shit at logic, and even shitter at stringing a sentence together when it comes to using my mouth. I've never taken an IQ, but suspect it would be well below average. ETA: I took one and scored 112. Is that good or bad? It was a shit online thing. I took a more official one before this, but they wanted £27 for my results.
It's ok, the antagonistic creature of my new story is none too picky as long as knowledge is superior to that of a simplistic scavenging animal. Though it has a small ways left to go before having the ability to keep the minds it captures alive, so as to use them in tandem with it's own, like a biological string of processors to greatly expand it's own intelligence. More brains, more smarts.
When I took the 'offical' one (the one that wanted payment for my score) I didn't even understand the questions. I reckon my score on that one would have been well below three figures.
94, 97, 101, 117, 125, 126,131,140...felt I was getting the hang of it—I had a break for dinner and repeated the (*cough* same) test three more times: 138, 145, (then a break with coffee, and a sense of urgency (calculator, caffeine + the ensuing need to wee))... 159. Practice makes (nr) perfect. I'm smarter now than Homer.
If you're smart enough not to pay £27 for an online IQ test, that would put you above average, I reckon. Ooops....
OMG. Don't get me started on MENSA. I've got a good friend here who not only is a MENSA member, but she actually administers MENSA tests once a month. However, she struggles to think her way out of a paper bag when it come to everyday problems. House keys? She can't ever remember where she put them, or come up with a system where they won't get lost in the first place. All of her friends and neighbours have spare keys ...until she borrows the spare keys because she's lost her own again, and then forgets to return the spares. (That gets fun when she locks herself out again and all the spares are inside the house. Yep, this happened not long ago. It cost her insurance company thousands to replace the damage the police had to do to break in. Will she consider getting the kind of lock that most of the rest of us have? The kind where you have to lock the door AS you leave the house? Nope. She likes the kind of lock that clicks shut behind you, and if you've left your key inside ...it's too bad.) Her dog eats the post every day, and she can't figure out what to do about it. She falls for every online scam that comes down the pike. I've been in her house when she's spent 20 minutes talking to a cold-caller on the phone. She's let dodgy people into her home who claim they are 'from the council' but have no ID. She may be MENSA, but she's had a common sense bypass. She needs looking after.
My keys wouldn't get lost if people wouldn't keep moving them on me. But, yeah, I've taken tonnes of I.Q. tests. Mostly for school and psych reasons, but my number can vary by 20 points, even in the same day, depending on the test, how much I've slept, the substances in me, or the general mood I'm in.
My friend lives alone. Nobody moves anything but her. To her credit, she doesn't try to blame other people for her problems, but she steadfastly refuses to actually solve them, the same way her MENSA brain solves Sudoku and cryptic crosswords. Real problems? Not a chance....
I had a coworker like that. He was supposed to be smart on the few specialized tasks he had to perform.But it was impossible for him to step out of his cognitive confort zone. I was sent to an errand, I had no clue how to reach that address, so I asked him to draw a basic map on a paper. "I can´t draw" he said. Dude, I am not asking you to draw the Mona Lisa, just make a few lines and arrows on a paper. So he finally did, so I was on my way, waiting for him to give me the "map"...and the guy takes it and puts it into his pocket. I had to remind him the map was supposed to be for me.
*almost rolling on the floor laughing* Thank you for that! I was good with the "shapes" logic thing, and some numerical things (minus, plus) until I had to multiply. Then my brain would stop working. I still dread one question in IQs tests about a train that runs at some speed and departs at some time, and they want you to answer something about it (usually related to some other train). At this point I could have looked up the answer online to solve this problem if I were presented with it again, but I'm too lazy to even conquer my dread. Maybe I enjoy don't giving a damn about said train. I really, really excelled in made up languages. I got everything right. I don't think they told us the result when we made the test in high school. Not to traumatise us and all that. I did a IQ test online that I honestly took seriously because I really wanted to know. Result was about 128, give or take. I simply ignored the question about the train and moved on.
My wife took an IQ intelligence test for her - the almost a 'final stage interview' - and she was anticipating the result greatly, and she scored 3%. The most devastated woman...with a series of auto-conclusions 'written' underneath her blank script by an algorithm upon a corporation scorecard, which I enjoyed a little... Candidate unable to facilitate independent thought must be monitored closely in all workplace environments, not suited for customer-facing situations, unable to schedule activity not overseen by any number of low ranking functionaries. Candidate suited potential for potential door opening, and possibly the closing role in a charity sector only, assisted. Suggestion of Jobtech: pencil-sharpener (archaic), cup carrier (trainee), office pet monkey stuffed, fan. ... She thinks the machine 'timed out.' I told her I still loved her because she was my stupid. I caressed her like my stupid, and she didn't want to leave me and get a big job, did she? And tears were leaking all over our bottles.
yes. and as you speculated, I did score higher on verbal than anything else...but it wasn't by very much.
Is it reasonable to describe IQ tests as a ‘throwback’ and discredited? I thought they sort of sat aside lie-detector tests, and under home astrology? Am I wrong? The ‘IQ test guy’ of the past memory was always a kind of idiot with his certificate, & chip on the shoulder because he was stupid. What’s the current research/position?
I have no idea what you're talking about, matwoolf. sorry. I haven't been paying attention to the politics of IQ tests or anything like that.
I'm hesitant about commenting this... Your post tells something about the level but not the numbers. Nice way to put it.
No, IQ is actually one of the most robustly researched things in all psychology. It's not without weakness, of course, but it is something that has proven it's worth. If you think about it, that makes sense. It is obvious to everyone that some people are more intelligent than others. It's also pretty obvious that very smart and very stupid people are a pretty serious minority, and that most people are somewhere in the middle. Having a way to measure that and which fits well with the observed facts is nothing contentious. There are a bunch of much more controversial things relating to IQ research, but not to the concept of IQ. For example, there is a lot of disagreement over the veracity of IQ testing across cultural and/or linguistic lines, especially in the developing world. IQ tests don't quite necessitate an education and a knowledge of western culture, but it certainly helps. Some have argued that IQ merely measures "the intelligence of people like ourselves" and while I think that's a bit much and that there isn't some mythical African intelligence that like of which we can only guess at, it's certainly true that if you understand what an IQ test is and have done similar problems before you will score way better than if you haven't. The really edgy stuff is correlating IQ with genetics. This is a very difficult subject especially in the present climate because the most visible genetic groups are racial, and (according to the data) different groups do have different IQ averages but that's extremely hard to have an honest discussion about right now. There's a lot of people who want to shout "See! I told you the magenta people were stupid!" and just as many who want to say that observed difference in IQ make IQ racist because everyone is born as a blank slate and anything that says they aren't is evil by definition. Both of these are not just wrong but also very unhelpful. Long story short, it's a nature/nurture thing, and of course the truth is somewhere in the middle. Anyway... The notion of IQ is still supported, it's more that having quantifiable measures of intelligence can lead one to difficult debates about society.
Thank you @LTP for this very handsome response. All best [Mat returns to quackery sub-headings on Wiki for repletion of his totally destroyed arsenal of BS]
