Thread: IQ Tests - Good Test of Intelligence... maybe Potential instead?

Person A has an IQ of 90, while person B has an IQ of 120. Give them some various educational books, and assuming they put the same amount of time and effort into reading those books and trying to understand them, it would make sense to me that person B would have learned and understood more.

That is probably true for a lot of people, possibly even most people, (but I doubt it) but some people would not follow this standard. Everyone has their own strengths and weaknesses. A person who did well on an IQ test may have just as hard of a time trying to read the books as the other person, but may be great at rearranging shapes for some reason and doing whatever it is you are supposed to do w/ them (I took the test once, but honestly can't remember:p ). Really, a complete idiot could pass one of those things. Or a really smart person could fail it b/c they are not good test takers.

The other problem with standardized testing is that there's no such thing as standardized. That's because there's no such thing as a 'standard' person. There are cultural differences that are at the root of not just grammatical issues, but also intuition. No test design committee could possibly guess what they're missing, and that affects the results as well.

Now, when are people more likely to pay for that thing, if they get a low score, or a high one? That's right...

Honestly - I don't know. You do not need to pay to receive a score... only some crappy in-depth analysis that'll end up telling you you are good at whatever.

How about... neither? Dumb people don't care, and smart people know better, so how about the average people?

I'd like to take a real test. My IQ is somewhere in the 130s but I don't know for sure.

Cymek... 130 is below average for internet IQ tests. I made this kid who was a feckin retard take an IQ test and he got like, at least a 150.

Originally Posted by blade5x

Dumb people don't care, and smart people know better, so how about the average people?

Average people need that validation the most, I think .

Originally Posted by ataraxis

Cymek... 130 is below average for internet IQ tests. I made this kid who was a feckin retard take an IQ test and he got like, at least a 150.

About 8 years ago, when I decided to take some online IQ tests for fun, I scored between the 130s and 190s. Those scores mean absolutely nothing.

If you take a "real" test (I guess you can call it that), your results will be more consistent, in that the average will be 100, and yours will be relative to that. But unless there's a really wide difference, I don't think different IQ scores in two people mean anything. And if the difference is big enough, you don't need the IQ score to tell who's better at stuff 'in general'.

Originally Posted by ataraxis

Cymek... 130 is below average for internet IQ tests. I made this kid who was a feckin retard take an IQ test and he got like, at least a 150.

Funny post. There are about three fallacious "arguments" in there.

Originally Posted by M-Cat

Funny post. There are about three fallacious "arguments" in there.

You are fallacious n00b.

Well almost all of them are timed as well. I am not convinced you can tell who would be better at solving long complex problems based off of who can spit out the fastest answer on easier ones.

I mean sure it might give a nice base to start from. Its just that though, a base, not the final answer.

Originally Posted by ataraxis

Cymek... 130 is below average for internet IQ tests. I made this kid who was a feckin retard take an IQ test and he got like, at least a 150.

What? I don't remember mentioning internet IQ tests.