has anybody done an official one? I'm not talking about those ones on the internet, you usually score a lot higher than on the official ones.
I did the official one at my school (nagged the school's psychologist long enough 😉). I had a score of 116.5, which puts me in th top 10% of the population. But the funny stuff was the different categories. I was well over 130 in logical thinking (that didn't surprise me) and in general knowledge (that, on the other hand, did surprise me). I had a relatively low score in 3-dimensional thinking (turning objects around in your mind etc, no surprises here), and... well, language wasn't that good either 😳 (surprise here)
but... BUT... the thing where I got the lowest score? It was on the willingness to try hard/work hard.
But, it really is true. My logic is "If I study half an hour, I'll probably get a B. If I study 3 hours, I'll get an A. So, obviously I go for the B". Most of the time I just can't be bothered to do anything for school, even though I could do much better than now 😉
So... that means I'm smart but really lazy.
What were your scores? Which things dragged you down, and in which were you any good? 😛
Angie 😀
Originally posted by angie88I always score around 140, so while I'm "Smarter than the a-ver-age bear", I'm not one of the brighter bulbs in RHP-land.
has anybody done an official one? I'm not talking about those ones on the internet, you usually score a lot higher than on the official ones.
I did the official one at my school (nagged the school's psychologist long enough 😉). I had a score of 116.5, which puts me in th top 10% of the population. But the funny stuff was the different categories. I was ...[text shortened]... were your scores? Which things dragged you down, and in which were you any good? 😛
Angie 😀
I don't think you should underestimate the value of what is usually called "laziness". I think many smart people seem to be lazy. It's probably been a primary motivator in many an invention. A smart person, when faced with doing the same task over and over in a dull, inefficient manner, will instead take some time to invent a way to do it faster (or at least with less effort). Is this laziness?
Originally posted by RookRAKI dunno, yeah you might call it lazy.
I always score around 140, so while I'm "Smarter than the a-ver-age bear", I'm not one of the brighter bulbs in RHP-land.
I don't think you should underestimate the value of what is usually called "laziness". I think many smart people seem to be lazy. It's probably been a primary motivator in many an invention. A smart person, when faced with doin ...[text shortened]... take some time to invent a way to do it faster (or at least with less effort). Is this laziness?
I'm thinking the scale might have been different, as it pegged 116 on the border between over-average and (dunno the English word... "hochbegabt" if anybody happens to know). On the other hand, maybe everyone else having so much higher scores may be because we're on a chess site and I'm surrounded by geeks... or you took the internet test 😛
Originally posted by angie88Yeah, you are surrounded by geeks.
On the other hand, maybe everyone else having so much higher scores may be because we're on a chess site and I'm surrounded by geeks... or you took the internet test 😛
IQ tests, by design, peg "average" at 100.
The average IQ among chess players will vastly exceed that.
I've taken several tests over the years with consistent results.
I keep on shooting for a score of 68... dumb as a box of hammers.
Everytime I change jobs with the company I work for I get subjected to a variety of psych profile tests. I hover around 130, but, the same bank of tests routinely classify me as a borderline sociopath.
The funny thing is nobody seems to be concerned by the fact that my psych profile points to a need for control and a certain moral flexibility. Perhaps they don't care or are actively recruiting nutters for management positions.
Regardless, I think most of the tests for IQ and personality are flawed at best. Some of the most intelligent people I know, scoring of the chart, have absolutely no common sense.
For your information a sociopath checklist follows. I am sure many of you, No1Marauder, will find this applies to yourself.
1.Contemptuous of those who seek to understand them
2. Does not perceive that anything is wrong with them
3. Authoritarian
4. Secretive
5. Paranoid
6. Only rarely in difficulty with the law, but seeks out situations where their tyrannical behavior will be tolerated, condoned, or admired
7. Conventional appearance
8. Goal of enslavement of their victim(s)
9. Exercises despotic control over every aspect of the victim's life
10. Has an emotional need to justify their crimes and therefore needs their victim's affirmation (respect, gratitude and love)
11. Ultimate goal is the creation of a willing victim
12. Incapable of real human attachment to another
13. Unable to feel remorse or guilt
14. Extreme narcissism and grandiose
15. May state readily that their goal is to rule the world
Originally posted by RookRAK
I always score around 140, so while I'm "Smarter than the a-ver-age bear", I'm not one of the brighter bulbs in RHP-land.
I don't think you should underestimate the value of what is usually called "laziness". I think many smart people seem to be lazy. It's probably been a primary motivator in many an invention. A smart person, when faced with doin ...[text shortened]... take some time to invent a way to do it faster (or at least with less effort). Is this laziness?
when you think about it, logic and laziness go hand in hand 😉
Originally posted by angie88~150
has anybody done an official one? I'm not talking about those ones on the internet, you usually score a lot higher than on the official ones.
I did the official one at my school (nagged the school's psychologist long enough 😉). I had a score of 116.5, which puts me in th top 10% of the population. But the funny stuff was the different categories. I was ...[text shortened]... were your scores? Which things dragged you down, and in which were you any good? 😛
Angie 😀
and it's been said that laziness is the mother of invention....
Originally posted by angie88I did one when I was 7 in school to decide whether i was smart enough to cope in a higher age group, and i got 156.
has anybody done an official one? I'm not talking about those ones on the internet, you usually score a lot higher than on the official ones.
I did the official one at my school (nagged the school's psychologist long enough 😉). I had a ...[text shortened]... s dragged you down, and in which were you any good? 😛
Angie 😀
Whenever i do the online ones, or ive done a couple of others in the past, ive been just over 150.
The only thing I tend to struggle on, or find harder than the rest is memory based tests.
Originally posted by angie88Laziness is a negative term for someone who can't be bothered sweating to make someone else richer.
has anybody done an official one? I'm not talking about those ones on the internet, you usually score a lot higher than on the official ones.
I did the official one at my school (nagged the school's psychologist long enough 😉). I had a score of 116.5, which puts me in th top 10% of the population. But the funny stuff was the different categories. I was ...[text shortened]... were your scores? Which things dragged you down, and in which were you any good? 😛
Angie 😀
It's frowned upon within capitalistic society. They'd much rather have you over-worked and stressed out.
I did 1. that I can remember. I got a 149 on it.
There's this weird thing about me; usually, I get A's if I barely study (5min before class starts), get B's when I study a reasonable amount
( 20 minutes), and get an "A" again if I study like an hour. Usually, the hour of studying brings in a higher A than the 5 min one, but there have been exceptions.
Yeah, I'm as lazy as you can get.😀😀😀😀😀😀😀😀😀😀😀😀
Originally posted by angie88IQ tests don't mean diddly squat. They don't measure the talent and intelligence that is required to pick up a musical instrument and play a master piece, they don't measure the ability to pick up a paintbrush and paint a masterpiece etc etc..
has anybody done an official one? I'm not talking about those ones on the internet, you usually score a lot higher than on the official ones.
I did the official one at my school (nagged the school's psychologist long enough 😉). I had a score of 116.5, which puts me in th top 10% of the population. But the funny stuff was the different categories. I was ...[text shortened]... were your scores? Which things dragged you down, and in which were you any good? 😛
Angie 😀
"Few people realize that the tests being used today represent the end result of a historical process that has its origins in racial and cultural bigotry. Many of the founding fathers of the modern testing industry — including Goddard, Terman and Carl Brighan (the developer of the Scholastic Aptitude Test) — advocated eugenics. Eugenics is a movement concerned with the selective breeding of human beings. Selected human beings would be mated with each other in an attempt to obtain certain traits in their offspring, much the same way that animal breeders work with champion stock. The eventual goal of eugenics is to create a better human race. The Nazis took this idea to the extreme. All “inferior” humans, especially Jews, retarded children or adults, and any individual with genetic defects, were to be destroyed; and so many ill and retarded people, and many Jews, were killed during World War II"
http://iq-test.learninginfo.org/iq01.htm
Go and read up on Howard Gardners MI theory
Originally posted by wucky3Yeah the show good times did an episode on a ebonic IQ test. The whites scored rather poorly.
IQ tests don't mean diddly squat. They don't measure the talent and intelligence that is required to pick up a musical instrument and play a master piece, they don't measure the ability to pick up a paintbrush and paint a masterpiece etc etc..
"Few people realize that the tests being used today represent the end result of a historical process that has it ...[text shortened]... II"
http://iq-test.learninginfo.org/iq01.htm
Go and read up on Howard Gardners MI theory
Originally posted by wucky3Interesting assertion. Actually, IQ tests do mean something and there have been enough studies that show a correlation between IQ and "success" in certain career fields. However, for people to conclude that high IQ equates to high intelligence is simply erroneous. It would be nice if they had called it something different than "Intelligence Quotient" because, as you pointed out Jo, there are many different kinds of "intelligence" or aptitude, and IQ tests measure only a very limited area. It's interesting to note that the Mensans (for those who might not know, Mensa is an organization whose members consist strictly of those whose IQ puts them in the top 2% of the population) have a saying: "The only thing you can say with any certainty about Mensans is that they do well on IQ tests."
IQ tests don't mean diddly squat. They don't measure the talent and intelligence that is required to pick up a musical instrument and play a master piece, they don't measure the ability to pick up a paintbrush and paint a masterpiece etc etc..
IQ measurements have been misused and misapplied (of particular note are the racists that you mentioned, Jo) by all kinds of people, mainly, I think, because they don't understand what IQ really means. There is one story that I find particularly interesting, which I believe is based in reality, but I can't say for sure. It seems there was this particular young lady who started her first year of teaching first grade (6 year olds). She was going through her students records at the beginning of the year and noticed that every one of her kids had an above average IQ. She figured she'd have to work really hard to stay ahead of her kids, and so she committed herself to doing so. She also didn't accept under performance from her students, since she knew they were all capable of great achievement, and sure enough the kids did great. By the end of the year, they were all reading well above grade level and the principal congratulated the teacher on an outstanding perfornance in her first year teaching. She was appreciative but had to be honest and told her principal that with a group of kids with high IQs like she had how could she not do well? When the principal asked her what she was talking about, she pulled out the class roster and showed him how all of the kids had above average IQs. The principal chuckled and told the teacher, "Those numbers aren't their IQs, those are their student ID numbers. We don't do IQ testing in this school system." {An aside here - my wife is a first grade teacher, and one of her principles is that children will do their best to fulfill your expectations of them - expect mediocrity or failure, and that's what you'll get; expect great success and watch the children flourish.}
IQ is a measure of certain types of mental reasoning abilities. There are certain career choices where people with high IQ have a higher aptitude for that line of work, just as someone with an inate musical talent has a higher aptitude for being a concert pianist, or someone with an inate athletic ability has a higher aptitude to be a professional athlete, or someone with an inate literary talent has a higher aptitude to be a best-selling author. However, just because someone has a particular aptitude does not mean that they will succeed without effort at the specific career for which they may have an aptitude. Calvin Coolidge (one of our lesser known presidents) put it this way (one of my favorite quotes):
"Nothing in the world can take the place of persistence. Talent will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent. Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education will not; the world is full of educated derelicts. Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent."