<p>.13%
oh wow
ask yourself: do you have friends?
if you do, then we will know how BS that test is =)</p>
<p>Oh and I actually thought I did well... which is ****ing embarrassing. :rolleyes:</p>
<p>I do. Do imaginary ones count? In that case, I'm fairly popular.</p>
<p>
[quote]
A clinical psychologist would also give you an IQ test. You can't estimate someone's IQ without a test. Actually, you can't estimate IQ at all.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yes but there is more than one. The reason why Mensa is so universally hated by the medical elite is because it denies the spectrum of intelligence. The exam revolves around questions that generally fall under the same field of measure; patterns, interpretations, geometric shapes, etc. This is wrong.</p>
<p>If a psychologist tested your I.Q, he/she would administer a variety of tests, most not requiring reading or writing.</p>
<p>I scored something like 140 but I still think the entire thing is bull$@@%. </p>
<p>I actually attended a Mensa meeting. The entire gathering consisted of a bunch of losers who debate "intellectual" topics. When I left I noticed half the parking lot was riddled with 20 year old cars.</p>
<p>Anyways, this is my opinion. I'm sure others cannot comprehend such a daunting fact that their beloved Mensa society is nothing but a sham.</p>
<p>Sorry, just being honest....</p>
<p>be gentle admins. : )</p>
<p>lol you're in the lower .13%
haha but EQ tests are more BS than IQ tests anyways =)</p>
<p>
[quote]
If a psychologist tested your I.Q, he/she would administer a variety of tests, most not requiring reading or writing.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>What other tests would they use, then? They must have names.</p>
<p>I had a internship in the psychology department of a research facility this summer. They only used the Wechsler test.</p>
<p>But, yeah, I agree with you about Mensa.</p>
<p>
[quote]
you'd have to control for laziness. btw welcome back
[/quote]
</p>
<p>hm you noticed something. thanks btw. </p>
<p>"desire" and "laziness" are different in a sense. But yeah - a lot of us do work better under pressure. </p>
<p>i seem to socialize best with those of low EQs anyways. since we don't depend on unconscious social signals to communicate (or deceive people with) we're more comfortable communicating using words or online (and being totally honest with ourselves). nor are we apt to criticize someone as awkward and socially ungraceful.</p>
<p>
[quote]
What other tests would they use, then? They must have names.</p>
<p>I had a internship in the psychology department of a research facility this summer. They only used the Wechsler test.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I spoke with my therapist and he mentioned several, but I can't remember their names exactly. Wechsler was one of them however..</p>
<p>Standard-Binet? Idk. I think that is the name of a real IQ test.</p>
<p>Anyways, related, an e-mail I wrote to someone long ago:</p>
<p>"Personality tests only yield useful information on overly socialized
groups of people - their questions may reflect reality, but are only
accurate for people who are overly socialized. for people like me, if
I encounter a 'do you hang out with random people" or "do you go to
non-academic parties" - I'm likely to give a "no" answer even though
i'm not particularly introverted. It's just that I'm different, and
the ways to measure my level of introversion are ways that are distinct from
the ways that you can measure introversion in socially influenced individuals since my level of introversion IS contingent upon the environment I'm in, where the environment is one that is not particularly favorable to my socialization. This test has STRONGEST predictive validity in the common environments of the 20th century when the test was designed, and then its predictive validity is likely to be less for DIFFERENT environments</p>
<p>this is also why I respect cognitive psychology the most - since it
treats the mind as an information processing module and in how it
reflects the "teleological" demands of its model, it is in effect more
generic than studying psychology by means of the examination of
individual humans. i find abnormal psych especially interesting as
well though - since getting a grasp of the variation of a population
helps inform one of the general distribution of abnormal behaviors,
and the toleration of them thereof.</p>
<p>this reminds me of the psychometrics of IQ tests, which are accurate
for some people but not for others. It's the best-fit that matters, but in ALL best-fit lines, you have some data points that are close to the best-fit line and some that are way off the best-fit line. Since IQ tests have correlations of 0.5 with many factors of other measures of intelligence, and somewhat weaker correlations with societal success, the best-fit line has SOME predictive validity, but not ABSOLUTE predictive validity. It is BETTER than pure chance in sorting people out.</p>
<p>An institutionalized obsession wrt specifics rather than generals
tends to cause those critical of such institutions to resort to
relativistic arguments agaisnt such institutions - after all -
specific cases of societal trends and norms only apply to a particular
framework of society in this highly speicalized location. of course
when there are many possibilities to choose from, each with its own
proponents, the method of selection becomes arbitrary. Moreover, it
tends to draw people into a basin of attraction, where they are then
exposed to the positive feedback of such basins of attractions.
"</p>
<p>Yeah, the Stanford-Binet IQ test was the standard IQ test. It was used mostly on children.</p>
<p>The Wechsler is the most common IQ test. It is generally considered to be reliable and valid. There is a version for children (WISC: Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children) and one for adults (WAIS: Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale).</p>
<p>I believe that the Stanford-Binet test is the only one that involves finding an actual quotient. The formula for the results was originally (and possibly still is) 100 * (mental age/chronological age). The test would provide the mental age. It had a major problem. A 50-year-old with the same mental age as a 25-year-old would appear to have a lowe IQ. For this reason, most modern IQ tests use the bell curve.</p>
<p>Well. I've take about a million online IQ test (i'm an egomaniac) and almost all have ranged from 131-135. so i'd like to think that 133 is accurate</p>
<p>EQ: 111</p>
<p>I think that is fairly accurate.</p>
<p>
[quote]
[edit] Ability based measures are measuring conformity, not ability</p>
<p>One criticism of the works of Mayer and Salovey comes from a study by Roberts et.al. (2001) [29], which suggests that the EI, as measured by the MSCEIT, may only be measuring conformity. This argument is rooted in the MSCEIT's use of consensus-based assessment, and in the fact that scores on the MSCEIT are negatively distributed (meaning that its scores differentiate between people with low EI better than people with high EI).
[/quote]
</p>
<p>hahahahahahahahahahaha</p>
<p>If you guys want to even have a slight measure of your intellectual capacity, see. a. therapist. </p>
<p>Whatever tinkletest/mensa/spam you participated in, it is far from correct.</p>
<p>EQ: 123. (95th Percentile).</p>
<p>Tickle: 152.</p>
<p>If you believe that your tickle IQ test is what you would get on a real test like the Stanford-Binet, subtract 50 points.</p>
<p>IQ: 109 - Linguistic Architect</p>
<p>"The way you think about things makes you a Linguistic Architect. This means you are brilliant when it comes to language and words. You are also very good at understanding things on an abstract level. You are at your best when you put those two skills together to communicate new ideas and see how they fit into different contexts. You understand math and science on a gut level, even if the equations and science don't come as easily. You can use these skills to be a great communicator or to create a masterpiece."</p>
<p>I didn't bother to take the EQ test; you should know how you are around people already.</p>
<p>That IQ test is garbage. I know my IQ is higher than 109.</p>
<p>
[quote]
If you believe that your tickle IQ test is what you would get on a real test like the Stanford-Binet, subtract 50 points.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I got a 152 on Tickle and a 154 on the Stanford-Binet test... So it was pretty close for me.</p>
<p>
[quote]
If you believe that your tickle IQ test is what you would get on a real test like the Stanford-Binet, subtract 50 points.
[/quote]
lol, that would make some of us legally retarded</p>
<p>lol.......true</p>