I just took 3 seperate tests and they all scored me over 275 to me that is the iggest crock os mouse droppings I have ever heard. Do I look, or act like someone with over 275 IQ. I think not. I think by the way I look and act that my I should be arounfs the 80-110 Iq range so what is up with 275? Its a lie, its a conspiracy. I wonder how many other blathering idiots that they tell are are smart?
IQ tests lie
- Thread starter Todd
- Start date
R Nitelight
Her Rock
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2000
- Posts
- 10,003
Todd
You're not supposed to add them together....
You're not supposed to add them together....
Good Point
LMAO @ "You're not supposed to add them together!"
Actually, Todd, I totally agree with you. Such I.Q. (intelligence quotient, lol) tests are standardized just as many of the other tests we use to judge people in this country. Yup, don't let people say that standardized tests aren't a way for people to be judged, because even if that's not the intent, that's what they are used for. I remember back when I took the ACT, twice, everyone always wanted to know "What you got" to see if they were actually smarter than you . . . or if they had just been tricking themselves, lol. Yup, the ACT, SAT, LSAT, MCAT, etc. etc. are all a crock of shit. I say let the tests be essay format (or short answer). Let's see some answers in written form with logical explanations as to why "A", "B" or "C" was picked. A true judge of intelligence . . . I think NOT. A true judge of culture relativity, cultural bias, standardization, and uniformity . . . I think SO!
LMAO @ "You're not supposed to add them together!"
Actually, Todd, I totally agree with you. Such I.Q. (intelligence quotient, lol) tests are standardized just as many of the other tests we use to judge people in this country. Yup, don't let people say that standardized tests aren't a way for people to be judged, because even if that's not the intent, that's what they are used for. I remember back when I took the ACT, twice, everyone always wanted to know "What you got" to see if they were actually smarter than you . . . or if they had just been tricking themselves, lol. Yup, the ACT, SAT, LSAT, MCAT, etc. etc. are all a crock of shit. I say let the tests be essay format (or short answer). Let's see some answers in written form with logical explanations as to why "A", "B" or "C" was picked. A true judge of intelligence . . . I think NOT. A true judge of culture relativity, cultural bias, standardization, and uniformity . . . I think SO!
Closet Desire
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2000
- Posts
- 1,177
The Bell Curve revisited?
275? Sorry, but I'm not buying it. That would be something of a world record and few of the tests generally used are capable of registering that high a score (we do administer similar tests in our practice). Is it possible that the score is a raw score rather than a composite score which has not been adjusted?
I know few things bring up more violent responses than IQ tests, but they can be useful. Yes, they are culturally biased...they have to be...the society within which we live is biased on the basis of culture. I'm not saying that's good or bad, just that it is so. Some would even say they are largely subjective and I would be inclined to agree, BUT within a culture there is a high degree of corroboration between the score on an "IQ" test and certain measures of "success" in life. The biggest user of an IQ test is the military, which has administered the ASVAB (Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery) for decades. While it does not give an answer in IQ points, researchers found it is indeed a sophisticated IQ test whose only real weakness is that it is possible for highly intelligent applicants to overshoot the top of the measure. The ASVAB is an incredibly successful predictor of success within certain ratings and for whatever else you might think of the military they do have effective and efficient training programs for personnel. You'll seldom find someone best suited as a clerk being trained in electronics.
I'm not a big fan of using tests to the degree that America seems obsessed with and was always amused by the fact that you never hear of a school placing in the lower 50% of aptitude scores (have you?). I read that the reason for this is that schools teach a curriculum designed to achieve a good result on the particular test they choose to administer. Again, researchers found that when you gave these students a different test you got very different results.
The SAT and ACT for college entrance are almost a necessary evil because of the extreme differences in education across the US. There is no national curriculum so a graduate from one school isn't necessarily equal to a grad of another. An entrance exam ideally should level the playing field and help admittance officials to make more objective decisions. It shouldn't, in my opinion, be the only factor. Many schools now also require an essay to be submitted with the application although, one could argue, this may count against those with good science and math skills but marginal communication skills.
I don't know which is the better system. Here in England students follow a rigid national curriculum which, in the end, is no different from preparing for an ACT or SAT. In many ways I think it is much worse. The scores the students get from their classes (A levels) determine which universities will offer them a place. Same result, different methods.
On a personal level, valid standardized tests can help you determine where your strengths and weaknesses lie. Rather than disagree with the tests you can use them as a powerful tool to help guide personal career or education choices. At least this way it's in your own hands and not the hands of someone who might not have your best interests in mind.
I was a product of that period in time when psychology and testing were going to save the world. My parents and teachers decided that my math and science skills were very high and that I should pursue a career in engineering. That's what I did. I wasn't happy and, frankly, I was a mediocre engineer. Nobody ever considered the fact that my verbal skills on the tests were light years beyond my math skills. Afterall, this was the high time of the space race and "basket weaving" just wasn't fashionable. I finally walked away from it, became a writer and business manager instead. I never owned a Mercedes until I gave up math for writing. I was never happy until then either.
You can be successful by pursuing what makes you happy and using the skills that you actually have. Tests can be a useful guide if you are as objective about them as those giving them purport to be.
275? Sorry, but I'm not buying it. That would be something of a world record and few of the tests generally used are capable of registering that high a score (we do administer similar tests in our practice). Is it possible that the score is a raw score rather than a composite score which has not been adjusted?
I know few things bring up more violent responses than IQ tests, but they can be useful. Yes, they are culturally biased...they have to be...the society within which we live is biased on the basis of culture. I'm not saying that's good or bad, just that it is so. Some would even say they are largely subjective and I would be inclined to agree, BUT within a culture there is a high degree of corroboration between the score on an "IQ" test and certain measures of "success" in life. The biggest user of an IQ test is the military, which has administered the ASVAB (Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery) for decades. While it does not give an answer in IQ points, researchers found it is indeed a sophisticated IQ test whose only real weakness is that it is possible for highly intelligent applicants to overshoot the top of the measure. The ASVAB is an incredibly successful predictor of success within certain ratings and for whatever else you might think of the military they do have effective and efficient training programs for personnel. You'll seldom find someone best suited as a clerk being trained in electronics.
I'm not a big fan of using tests to the degree that America seems obsessed with and was always amused by the fact that you never hear of a school placing in the lower 50% of aptitude scores (have you?). I read that the reason for this is that schools teach a curriculum designed to achieve a good result on the particular test they choose to administer. Again, researchers found that when you gave these students a different test you got very different results.
The SAT and ACT for college entrance are almost a necessary evil because of the extreme differences in education across the US. There is no national curriculum so a graduate from one school isn't necessarily equal to a grad of another. An entrance exam ideally should level the playing field and help admittance officials to make more objective decisions. It shouldn't, in my opinion, be the only factor. Many schools now also require an essay to be submitted with the application although, one could argue, this may count against those with good science and math skills but marginal communication skills.
I don't know which is the better system. Here in England students follow a rigid national curriculum which, in the end, is no different from preparing for an ACT or SAT. In many ways I think it is much worse. The scores the students get from their classes (A levels) determine which universities will offer them a place. Same result, different methods.
On a personal level, valid standardized tests can help you determine where your strengths and weaknesses lie. Rather than disagree with the tests you can use them as a powerful tool to help guide personal career or education choices. At least this way it's in your own hands and not the hands of someone who might not have your best interests in mind.
I was a product of that period in time when psychology and testing were going to save the world. My parents and teachers decided that my math and science skills were very high and that I should pursue a career in engineering. That's what I did. I wasn't happy and, frankly, I was a mediocre engineer. Nobody ever considered the fact that my verbal skills on the tests were light years beyond my math skills. Afterall, this was the high time of the space race and "basket weaving" just wasn't fashionable. I finally walked away from it, became a writer and business manager instead. I never owned a Mercedes until I gave up math for writing. I was never happy until then either.
You can be successful by pursuing what makes you happy and using the skills that you actually have. Tests can be a useful guide if you are as objective about them as those giving them purport to be.
Cheyenne
Ms. Smarty Pantsless
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2000
- Posts
- 59,555
Forget any of the online tests you find on the Internet. If you're really curious to know something about your IQ, take a supervised test. Just like you did when you were back in school. Mensa local groups give them regularly testing for new potential members. They aren't that expensive.
Todd said:
I say let IQ tests (like sleeping dogs) 'lie'.
Is there a 'look' that equates with IQ? I think not. Everyone has it in their ability - excuse the irony - to be an idiot, 'blathering' or otherwise. Try to get behind the rationale of why these tests are put together in the first place, why you took them, and what all of this means to you. I've never taken an IQ test, but this doesn't mean I don't have an IQ - or does it? And if I did take such a test it wouldn't tell me anything I don't already know, it would only calibrate and translate certain elements of my knowledge (in conjunction with other factors such as the circumstances of the test) into a shorthand figure about me which, paradoxically (though not always), is ascribed value in relation to other('s) IQs. What we make of this depends on a cultural competence which is itself far from certain in definition ...
