TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- IQ testing
Pages (2): [1] 2 »

IQ testing

Is there a way I can take an actual IQ test without spending a few hundred bucks ordering one from the organizations that make them? I am not interested in the BS online variety that give deliberately inflated scores; I want the real thing, like Raven's Progressive Matrices or Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale.

Also, what are your experiences with and thoughts about intelligence testing?

I've always done pretty well in all tests I've taken so far. I'd have to do some digging to find out what tests I took, and I'm not sure if I've ever been given a number (like those Mensa people that claim their IQ is over nine thousand).

One thing I noticed is that the more you study, the better you fare at most tests. That's why I said in that other thread that, if you're well read, or deal a lot with numbers, you're probably going to do just fine... at least, that's how it worked for me.

I'm talking just about the tests I took here but, I find them usually too biased towards the traditional definition of intelligence: mathematics and spatial puzzles galore. I'm sure Pythagoras would be very proud. No attention paid whatsoever to social intelligence, emotional intelligence, or anything Daniel Goleman would ever write about

Just so you guys know, I have the IQ of a mayonnaise jar. A very intelligent mayonnaise jar.

quote:

Originally posted by Lira No attention paid whatsoever to social intelligence, emotional intelligence, or anything Daniel Goleman would ever write about

true, but you do have other tests, like the Voight-Kampff test for instance, that deals with that.

i lol when people pay money to test how smart they are

quote:

Originally posted by Lira No attention paid whatsoever to social intelligence, emotional intelligence, or anything Daniel Goleman would ever write about

But these are not normally what people are talking about when they call someone "intelligent," at least not in English. Someone who is slow-witted but who is very personable and has lots of friends is nevertheless not usually called "intelligent," in my experience.

quote:

Originally posted by tubularbills i lol when people pay money to test how smart they are

That is just the thing, though. I am not willing to pay money, or at least not very much. I am curious, but not enough to pay the prices I have seen so far.

I've never had to take one of those, Alfi.

quote:

Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles But these are not normally what people are talking about when they call someone "intelligent," at least not in English. Someone who is slow-witted but who is very personable and has lots of friends is nevertheless not usually called "intelligent," in my experience.

That's why I said it was "the traditional definition".

quote:

Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles That is just the thing, though. I am not willing to pay money, or at least not very much. I am curious, but not enough to pay the prices I have seen so far.

good.

however, i hate it when people say, "see, that's the thing". i don't know why, just bugs the crap out of me.

High IQ Society test gave me very similar results as the official mensa test.

quote:

Originally posted by dj_alfi true, but you do have other tests, like the Voight-Kampff test for instance, that deals with that.

I'd like to see The Arbiter take that test.

quote:

Originally posted by tubularbills i lol when people pay money to test how smart they are

It usually means they aren't all that smart.

Most IQ tests I've seen have an overemphasis on shapes and pattern recognition. I really don't think the scores given on your ability to tell what comes next in a series of matchsticks or hexagons indicates how intelligent you are.

Is there any kind of intelligence that does not rely on pattern recognition in a very central way? Reading, math, art of all kinds, even so-called "social intelligence" all require a person to recognize and use patterns and relationships between different things.

quote:

Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles Is there any kind of intelligence that does not rely on pattern recognition in a very central way? Reading, math, art of all kinds, even so-called "social intelligence" all require a person to recognize and use patterns and relationships between different things.

It's a less an issue of pattern recognition and more about processing abstract visual information. People can be very good at handling one kind of information but very bad at handling another, which is why there are people who can work out visual sequences all day long but not see the writing on the wall in social situations.

I don't understand why you would want an IQ test as some sort of measure of self-worth, when all you're getting is a measure of a completely arbitrary and artificial construct. If you want to know if you're good at math, just take a math test. All an IQ test will tell you is that you're good at taking IQ tests.

quote:

Originally posted by Cpt.Cocaine I don't understand why you would want an IQ test as some sort of measure of self-worth, when all you're getting is a measure of a completely arbitrary and artificial construct.

Nor do I understand why you concluded that I would use a test to "measure self-worth" when I said nothing of the sort.

Because there is no reason why you should be more 'curious' about this than you would be about how paint drying on a wall looks like.

quote:

Originally posted by Cpt.Cocaine Because there is no reason why you should be more 'curious' about this than you would be about how paint drying on a wall looks like.

I just want to get an idea of how much horsepower my mental engine has. :-)

quote:

Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles I just want to get an idea of how much horsepower my mental engine has. :-)

What I was trying to say is that an IQ test won't give you any measure of that, because the score you get in the end isn't descriptive of you as much as it's descriptive of how the test has been designed in regards to what kinds of mental faculties are being discriminated, and what arbitrary values are being placed on them.

Here's a simple test I devised:



If you think this track is awesome then your result is 148. If you don't like it your IQ is 48. Any more questions?

I went under a battery of psychological tests when I was in 9th/10th grade for something.

I took an adult intelligence test because the guy didn't have the juvenile one.

I found out I scored in the "above average to superior range." I was quite proud of myself.

Of course he later went on to say "he is a chronic underachiever with little to no goals."

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J It's a less an issue of pattern recognition and more about processing abstract visual information. People can be very good at handling one kind of information but very bad at handling another, which is why there are people who can work out visual sequences all day long but not see the writing on the wall in social situations.

I agree. That's why I said I don't take the results of those tests very seriously: even though I'm good with pattern recognition and what have you, I'm stupidly clumsy. My friends in high school used to joke saying that I could pick up a language in three months, but it'd take me three years to learn how to kick a god damn football.

That's why I said in another thread that farmers usually think I'm slow: whenever I'm to do a physical task, I always end up doing it in an unusual way (though it's the best way to do it, in my opinion, others hardly agree).

Like the idea of intelligence itself, IQ is a construct, but it is still useful for predicting many outcomes in life, both academic and not. Apparently people with higher IQs even live longer and experience dementia later in old age -- even after you control for social class. How do we explain this in light of the notion that IQ tests measure only narrow "test-taking ability?"

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.