<p>LOLOLOL THIS IS DEFINITELY FAIL
hahahahaha</p>
<p>163</p>
<p>162</p>
<p>
[quote]
I'd say the chances of even one of the 30 or so people who posted here being in the range is close to zero
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I know this has been repeated several times, but there's a clear sample bias. In a random sample of 30, there's a ~50% chance at least one of the 30 will be in the top 2% of the general population. But this isn't a random sample.</p>
<p>If one assumes class rank is a decent approximation of intelligence, and only the top 2% score over 130 (I'm pretty sure it's actually less than 2% though), then in a high school class of 500, the top 10 students would be over 130 IQ. There are plenty of people on this site that are in the top 10 in their class.</p>
<p>Mine was 1 point different from my actual IQ test taken by a private psych for a school app 4 years ago.</p>
<p>It's funny that mine matched because I studied for the SAT but of course not for the IQ test...this doesn't really seem like a true indicator but it is fun discussing it!</p>
<p>156</p>
<p>I just took a test on iqtest.com and got a 144 (I've had anywhere from 120 to 145 in online and in-person tests in the past). SAT and IQ scores don't match perfectly, but there is some correlation. It seems obvious that someone who has a high score on one is more likely to have a high score on the other.</p>
<p>So people study for IQ tests?</p>
<p>Ahahahaha, 165. Sweet. </p>
<p>Prepare to be annihilated, inferior beings!</p>
<p>I stopped reading at this:
[quote]
standardized tests are more complicated and you MUST study in order to optimize your score
[/quote]
LOOOOOOOOOLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLOLOL</p>
<p>I would have withheld my intelligence and standardized scores, but it's no secret that I'm dumb as bread.</p>
<p>According to this calculator my IQ is 83.
My real tested IQ is 97.</p>
<p>It's no fun being stupid. Seriously, these are my real scores.</p>
<p>SAT puts me at 140</p>
<p>My verbal IQ is about 140
Non verbal is ~110, yet I scored HIGHER on the math part of the SAT than on the verbal.
Doesn't make sense.</p>
<p>BTW, the average doctor only has a 110-120 IQ (depending on the test)...</p>
<p>And you absolutely can improve your IQ. Play n-back to improve performance/fluid ability and read books to increase crystallized intelligence.</p>
<ol>
<li>Braingle - this is just a site that wants to extract money and/or functional emails for spamming purposes. So, don't be much impressed by anything you find on it.</li>
<li>The scaling for SATs/IQs is wrong - it gives lower scores for perfect scores on the old SATs which were harder - and in those days students rarely prepped much if at all.</li>
<li>SATs were originally intended to be somewhat linked to IQ, but have been decoupled.
SAT scores clearly can be affected by study. IQ tests (legit ones) are closely guarded and there is much less specific prep that can be done. Somebody who raised their SATs by cramming in piles of vocab, for example, has not raised their IQ.</li>
</ol>
<p>Suprisingly, it was pretty close to my "tested" IQ when I was 9:</p>
<p>SATs: 150
Tested IQ: 154</p>
<p>It could be argued that someone who has improved vocabulary and reading comprehension has become smarter in the real world, regardless of the person's IQ score. </p>
<p>The biggest fallacy that is being repeated over and over again in this thread is the idea that IQ scores are fixed over the course of life. They are not. IQ scores are sufficiently stable from one time of taking an IQ test to the next that most psychologists conclude that what is estimated by an IQ test can be regarded as a “trait” rather than a “state” of an individual test-taker. And yet IQ scores, especially in childhood, do vary over the course of a test-taker’s life, sometimes varying radically. Deviation IQ scoring was originally developed to make for more stability of scores over the course of childhood. Nonetheless, deviation IQs for children can also change considerably over the course of childhood (Pinneau 1961; Truch 1993, page 78; Howe 1998; Deary 2000, table 1.3). “Correlation studies of test scores provide actuarial data, applicable to group predictions. . . . Studies of individuals, on the other hand, may reveal large upward or downward shifts in test scores.” (Anastasi & Urbina 1997 p. 326). </p>
<p>For example, young people in the famous Lewis Terman longitudinal Genetic Studies of Genius (initial n=1,444 with n=643 in main study group) when tested at high school age (n=503) were found to have dropped 9 IQ points on average in Stanford-Binet IQ. More than two dozen children dropped by 15 IQ points and six by 25 points or more. Parents of those children reported no changes in their children or even that their children were getting brighter (Shurkin 1992, pp. 89-90). Terman observed a similar drop in IQ scores in his study group upon adult IQ testing (Shurkin 1992, pp. 147-150). Samuel R. Pinneau conducted a thorough review of the Berkeley Growth Study (1928-1946; initial n=61, n after eighteen years =40). Alice Moriarty was a Ph.D. researcher at the Menninger Foundation and describes in her book (1966) a number of case studies of longitudinal observations of children's IQ. She observed several subjects whose childhood IQ varied markedly over the course of childhood, and develops hypotheses about why those IQ changes occurred. Anastasi and Urbina (1997, p. 328) point out that childhood IQ scores are poorest at predicting subsequent IQ scores when taken at preschool age. Change in scores over the course of childhood shows that there are powerful environmental effects on IQ (Anastasi & Urbina 1997, p. 327) or perhaps that IQ scores in childhood are not reliable estimates of a child’s scholastic ability. </p>
<p>So it would be much more intelligent, when talking about IQ testing, to say "I got this score on this occasion on this test" rather than to say "My IQ is ____." Your IQ score obtained on testing today might not be what you obtained the last time you were tested. </p>
<p>Anyway, most websites about IQ testing are bogus, and especially websites that try to match scores from one test to another. ALL mental scores correspond to a RANGE of scores on the other brand of test.</p>
<ol>
<li>ha .</li>
</ol>
<p>I got a 1440 in 2002. That was 98th percentile for all the test takers. I've taken a few IQ tests (when I was younger) that put me at ~130 (also 98th percentile). This one puts me at 149, more than a full standard deviation greater than expected...</p>
<p>I've taken a few online IQ tests. I got 165 on one (that was the max), and 97 on another.</p>
<p>you all know that convertor is bogus right.. If only I bought the blue book so I my intelligence would be forever increased.</p>
<p>As has already been said, this is SO incredibly inaccurate:
SAT IQ: 161
Actual IQ (tested this year for AP Psych): 134</p>
<p>I don't believe this at all.</p>
<p>In my high school,probably more than 95% students can get full score in SAT/GRE math.</p>
<p>But I'm pretty sure some of them are very stupid.</p>
<p>I got 154 on this calculator, and other tests put my at 148-158, so it seems to work decently... but I think that it's strange that 600/600 will get you an IQ of 124, b/c some of my classmates just studied their backsides of to get that kind of score because their parents promised them a mercedes, and really aren't all that bright.</p>