<p>how much do you guys think sat score correlates to your IQ and how smart you really are? my sat score sucks compared to my IQ and GPA. i feel so stupid when dumb asses in my class get higher sat scores than me.</p>
<p>It's like arm wrestling vs. strength. Not always a strong correlation, but overall, a good guide.</p>
<p>GAY does that mean im STUPID!</p>
<p>Perhaps people will think that i look stupid for responding to the post. This wouldn't be too different from the opinion help by most colleges after seeing my sat score. First time 1130. Second time 1210. Third Time 1350. IQ 150+ (SD 15) according to numerous actually creditable and recent online (culture-free)sources not including emode.com/tickle among other. High range tests are best predictors. The main reason i didn't do as well as i hoped was that A)I'm very careless on the math section, solving all the difficult problems correctly but reading the question or my self-drawn diagram incorrectly.B) I cannot do well on reading since I don't read on a normal basis(I'm sure many of you will think i'm an absolute idiot for my basis opinion that people have to read on a consistent basis to get an 800).C)Have copied answers off people for almost all of my academic life, I have not developed critical thinking as much. D)I stopped reading a long time ago in 5th grade when i was reading"ninth grade books"(which isn't very impressive but would suggest that i could get a relatively good reading score). E)Correcting idiotic sentences in writing has never been my thing. It is extremely boring and i consequently never paid attention in 7th grade and prior, and too mechanical. IMHO i enjoy the concepts and ideas, as those are what should be most emphasized(counterpoints to what i said are obvious but i dont want to elucidate). ~end of rant~
A)Please don't copy other people in school.
B)Take your first SAT in middle school.
C)Continue reading for fun.
D)Don't be careless on perhaps the most important examination(s) of your life.</p>
<p>Wow, adrenalinefix, you sound a lot like me.</p>
<p>Except I got a 2330...</p>
<p>Anyway, I think the SAT doesn't really correlate to IQ. I think that since you can study for it, and almost everyone does, it's more an indicator of your ability to take the SAT. Now, you might think "Oh, that means it's worthless," but that's not quite true. If you can study yourself to a 2300+, chances are, you can do well in anything by putting all your effort into it.</p>
<p>So, basically, I'd say the SAT measures your ability to be successful.</p>
<p>For the most part true as the educational systems most rewards conventional thinkers of the highest order(not saying you are). I simply don't care to be normal. I have my own ideas, and I won't let the educational system control my thoughts. Regardless i will continue to do math in my free time, go to a good enough college, than excel in grad school.</p>
<p>adrenalinefix you are honest!</p>
<p>iin77 if you think you got a 2330 from studying for the tests you may not be as smart as you are lol</p>
<p>iin77 and J'adoube, I think here is what we should know
Only 1% of the world population hath IQ higher than 160 (Goether perhaps was the man who hath over 200). So, that leaves us 99% population who have normal IQ. Each of us is shared the same chance and opportunity. So,</p>
<p>1% of Intelligence
1% Luck</p>
<h2>98% of effort.</h2>
<p>If you are smart, but you are arrogant and lazy, you are not going to win anybody.</p>
<p>Life is a machine, you are its component and have to work to excessively keep it constant. When you are squashed down to death, it shall replace you by a better metal component. Prepare yourself!</p>
<p>How much it correlates with IQ is an empirical question if you believe IQ is measurable. They have changed the SAT over the years to make it correlate less with IQ, however, for instance by dropping the analogies. It was initially devised as essentially an IQ test. Just look at the old name "Scholastic Aptitude Test", it was designed to test "aptitude". Now they have dropped that name, they just call it "SAT".</p>
<p>
[quote]
IQ 150+ (SD 15) according to numerous actually creditable and recent online (culture-free)sources not including emode.com/tickle among other.
[/quote]
Not credible. No online tests are credible.</p>
<p>I don't care really. IQ or UQ or something Q is only a norm for arrogance. The score report is most important. Hard-working and creative people make up this world, not just one Einstein.</p>
<p>All the smart people I know have high SAT scores... Although that's not to say there aren't plenty of idiots with amazing SAT scores too.</p>
<p>A lot of people dislike IQ tests as a measure of intelligence for the same reason that people dislike SAT tests as a measure of academic ability. They're really similar instruments: lots of tricky puzzles in a short amount of time, requiring a certain dexterity and inventiveness but not profound insight. </p>
<p>As a matter of fact, it's possible to "study" for IQ tests too. Your IQ results can change a lot as a result of your environment, etc.: they are certainly not a pure, absolute indication of your intelligence.</p>
<p>So even if the scores of IQ and SAT tests did correlate, it might be more the result of their superficial similarities--and even their shared problems as testing instruments--than a sign that the SAT measured intelligence.</p>
<p>lol at the adrenaline guy for thinking any online IQ test is credible</p>
<p>Perhaps you're the one with the uncredible sources. Do you think mensa tests are credible? There used to be a test called the dominoes test. It was available at nicologic.com[/url</a>]. Don't try the link since it doesn't exist(why give the link then? The answer is to show through my next source that I am much less likely to be a liar)[url=<a href="http://www.cerebrals.com/board/viewtopic.php?t=2487&sid=0e6503e5bd9d27a0cd78d8f2d43d54e8%5DCerebrals">http://www.cerebrals.com/board/viewtopic.php?t=2487&sid=0e6503e5bd9d27a0cd78d8f2d43d54e8]Cerebrals</a>' Society Board :: View topic - Nicologic Tests
This discussion concerns the tests available on the now defunct link(the first one). Regardless I have wasted my time defending my opinion in what I'm guessing to be an unfair arguement based on rigged past knowledge.</p>
<p>Calm down adrenaline (your username is a painkiller right :) ), I don't care and never mind what the heck one can do with IQ score. Unless we can prove that we are all Einstein, then we really have nothing to assure. Each of us have the same opportunities. Linking SAT with IQ is not a good comparison. I see pointless when one get 12 on Essay has not even a proper US history research paper.</p>
<p>Yeah, there is no way you're IQ 150+, Sorry. My friend has professionally tested @ 164 and scored 1600 without studying on his first try.</p>
<p>Also, don't take IQ exams too seriously if you're going to a psychologist to get tested. They know they're getting paid to tell you you're smart.</p>
<p>what if technologies grow so advanced one day as to measure your intellect by a machine. you wouldn't have to take a test or anything. everyone just goes and puts on a cap and the machine tells you how smart you really are. then nobody could complain. you're either stupid or not</p>
<p>I apologize the annoyance comes from a number of members on CC who often ensue the concept of "bandwagoning" where they pretend follow an idea which is all the time immature, most of the time annoying, and not often funny. I'm assuming they do it because they don't have the guts to do it in real life an can only do it under alias names. They primarily do it because it makes them feel better, and also possibly it makes them feel superior by others people "taking the bait" as they are "controlling the fishing pole". As you said cuong, IQ should be meaningless even though it always carries weight(just like sticks and stones which of coarse are always painful). Some good evidence of confirmation comes from the artofproblemsolving forum where most polls show many of the excellent and relatively "talented" math students who make math olympiad don't necessarily have exceeding rare IQ percentiles. Another good math example is John Nash, who couldn't become a putnam fellow despite his rumored IQ of 190(which is obviously exceedingly rare
SD15
99.9999999010%
1,009,976,678
SD 16
99.9999990699%
107,519,234. This would be significantly higher than other another entrant in the examination. This shows further evidence of Ben Franklin's quote mentioned just previously.</p>
<p>Duper despite the fact that IQ is relative to the population, arguing that someone(your friend) aced the SAT without trying,without studying, never cracked a book in his life(I've heard hundreds of excuses like that before and they all ironically come from immature high school and sometimes older but most often younger students looking to find their place in the intelligence spectrum or "bell curve") is invalid due to the extreme error introduced by further comparing IQ to SAT. So lets get this straight A)Iq varies throughout life.B)Iq changes daily depending on testing conditions.c)SAT varies in the same ways but is further convoluted by the fact that scores can increase by over 100 points.D)There isn't a very strong statistical correlation to begin with. E)Further your friend didn't list the SD which could likely range from 24 to 15. F)Theoretically speaking your friend has a higher IQ than me. I could come up more because honestly, I would like to stop at Z just to complete the alphabet!</p>