# IQ tests



## *LukeMayn* (Apr 29, 2009)

I recently did my first ever IQ test and got *143*... I believe that is good.
This lead me to believe that speedcubing increases IQ. Do you think this is plausible? Also post you IQ here too.


----------



## byu (Apr 29, 2009)

What test? I'm going to try one now


----------



## Ellis (Apr 29, 2009)

Was it... a real test?


----------



## *LukeMayn* (Apr 29, 2009)

lol, I've been talking to dene. He said online tests are pretty inaccurate.
So I guess I'm just above average. maybe more like 115 - 120ish at a guess.


----------



## Nukoca (Apr 29, 2009)

Online IQ test are almost ALWAYS completely inaccurate. I took a whole bunch of different quizzes and got anywhere from 100 to 140.

Edit: Hey LukeMayn, you have 888 posts!


----------



## byu (Apr 29, 2009)

116 and I randomly guessed in the last two because I didn't understand the questions.


----------



## *LukeMayn* (Apr 29, 2009)

Nukoca said:


> Online IQ test are almost ALWAYS completely inaccurate. I took a whole bunch of different quizzes and got anywhere from 100 to 140.
> 
> Edit: Hey LukeMayn, you have 888 posts!



yeah... I guess it's better to just saw you got 1XX IQ though and roll with it. better for the self-esteem lol.
I also noticed I had 888 
8)


----------



## Ellis (Apr 29, 2009)

Those online tests are so stupid. The only real IQ test comes when you have accept or reject the results, so I think you failed that one LukeMayn


----------



## *LukeMayn* (Apr 29, 2009)

Actually I don't fail.
Now that I know those tests are fail.
So by your standards I raised my IQ


----------



## Sa967St (Apr 29, 2009)

I've tried a few IQ tests on facebook and I usually get between 125 and 170, but alot of them are really inaccurate


----------



## qqwref (Apr 29, 2009)

Online IQ tests are inaccurate because they're just designed to make people feel good. You can guess randomly and get over 100. The average cuber does not have an IQ of 120.

Why don't you try the eCMA? Let's see how you do on that one. That's an actual IQ test.
http://www.highiqsociety.org/iq_tests/


----------



## Escher (Apr 29, 2009)

IQ tests are only an accurate measure of how well you can pass an IQ test. Apparently I'm more intelligent than 99.5% of the planet but I don't believe that for a second; practically all of the IQ tests I've ever done have had several to lots of knowledge based questions, and things I've known just from doing other IQ tests where the question turns up again in a similar form. Hell, you can even *buy books* telling you how to pass a damn IQ test! 
I think Niels Bohr once said 'there is no such thing as intelligence, only interest', and I think that definitely applies in things like cubing, and (a major part of) schoolwork.
So yeah, don't worry about it, they tell you next to nothing anyway.


----------



## Jason (Apr 29, 2009)

I completely agree with Escher. It's become an industry. It's like those Nintendo DS games which are meant to train your brain. A published study showed that they have no real effect. Another thing that really makes me cringe is parents thinking their child is incredibly bright, go and get his IQ tested, and then force them into kindergartens for gifted children. There is a real psychosis on behalf of parents who try to purchase intelligence for their kids in order to give them an edge over everybody else, making them watch crappy "baby Einstein" videos and stuff. Anyway....


----------



## qqwref (Apr 29, 2009)

Many people can't accept that they, or their children, are not intelligent.

But make no mistake, intelligence (and naturally intelligent people) does exist.


----------



## F.P. (Apr 29, 2009)

Take a real IQ test; I would recommend a "culture free" IQ test (tests which aren't based on certain knowledge/don't contain knowledge questions).

Most online IQ tests aren't worth anything.

And Speedcubing (or anything related to it) doesn't raise your IQ.
I think there was a discussion about that in another thread...I bet we have to go through all this again.


----------



## Stefan (Apr 29, 2009)

F.P. said:


> I think there was a discussion about that in another thread...I bet we have to go through all this again.


Would you dismiss stuff again without defining it and ignore definition requests again? I know, it's wonderfully convenient to dismiss unclear stuff because then you can't be shown wrong, but it's also kinda pathetic.


----------



## Sebastien (Apr 29, 2009)

Hm, 134 on that eCMA test even if I didn't understand some of these questions (language issues).

I'm sure that cubing does not increase your IQ or even your intelligence, because one aim is, to do things fast without thinking about them. Indeed I'm sure that cubing increases your reaction delays


----------



## d4m4s74 (Apr 29, 2009)

I've done many IQ tests

On american sites I always score very high (138)
on dutch online test I score pretty high (135)
on one dutch official test I scored 128
and on a TV iq test I suddenly had 118

I'd go for the official one


----------



## mazei (Apr 29, 2009)

I got 117 on the one qqwref gave. I've gotten between 117(just now's) and 136 out of tests I did online but hey, most of them contain culture questions.


----------



## TobiasDaneels (Apr 29, 2009)

I did one official test in Belgium organised by my high school some years ago in which I had 143.
Afterwords I did another one online, and the result was: "between 140 and 150".

Needless to say though that intelligence isn't a guarantee for succes in life, with me as a great exemple.


----------



## F.P. (Apr 29, 2009)

StefanPochmann said:


> F.P. said:
> 
> 
> > I think there was a discussion about that in another thread...I bet we have to go through all this again.
> ...



I did that?
I don't even know why someone would think that something like cubing could increase the IQ.

The scores on IQ tests are mainly influenced by general knowledge (if the test isn't culture-free) and the short term memory.
About one year ago they found a way to improve/train the short term memory; it's not finished yet but they are heading into the right the direction and there are a few studies on it.

Somehow cubers seem to think that their hobby is special or something...actually it's not; at least not regarding the whole "intelligence"-thing (although most people like to think that).

Cubing is like "brain-jogging", playing chess or soccer.

All those kids who are spending a few hours with cubing everyday should score extremely high then, shouldn't they?

I just checked the old thread and you didn't write that much...only "proof please".

And well, you could also claim that playing soocer does improve ones IQ and noone could "disprove" you; but you wouldn't do that, noone would do that...but people do it with stuff like cubing, chess and memory sports.


----------



## Vulosity (Apr 29, 2009)

I just finished the test that qqwref linked to and I got an IQ score of 99.


----------



## ManuK (Apr 29, 2009)

I got an 89(full guess w/o even reading) and 114(full guess except a few qns of the last two sections) on the test link qqwref posted.
I will try the full test later when I have time..


----------



## d4m4s74 (Apr 29, 2009)

On the high iq sociity hard test I got 114, on the easy 109


----------



## masterofthebass (Apr 29, 2009)

Only got a 138 on the HighIQSociety test. I did just wake up though.


----------



## Escher (Apr 29, 2009)

qqwref said:


> Many people can't accept that they, or their children, are not intelligent.



Yeah, thats true, and I find it kind of sad that people worry so much about their basic intelligence, rather than the achievements they've made with what they have.



qqwref said:


> But make no mistake, intelligence (and naturally intelligent people) does exist.



Of course. I just don't think that an actually accurate measure of intelligence has ever been made*, and I think that until we understand a lot more about the brain, we wont.
I meant to use the Niels Bohr quote more in the context of 'skills' like cubing (or juggling, or chess (well, to some extent), or whatever), but I don't think I made that clear enough.


*(I mean, there are so many different types of 'intelligences', and is spending half an hour or whatever on answering a few different types of questions really going to tell you your basic ability in all of those areas? I really don't believe that we know that much yet to compress it all into a short test)


----------



## amostay2004 (Apr 29, 2009)

masterofthebass said:


> Only got a 138 on the HighIQSociety test. I did just wake up though.



Aww you're so humble.


----------



## F.P. (Apr 29, 2009)

Since Howard Gardner wrote his book about the theory of multiple intelligences, a lot of the points he made in his book have been disproved.

And it's also worth to mention that there is a huge correlation between the different tasks in certain IQ tests.
Some people who score(d) high on IQ tests often think that they have only been good at one of the tasks (let's say the verbal part) and average on the others.
But in general that's not the case.
People who score high on IQ tests are usually above average in every single task.

When looking at Gardners theory, one could also say that Ronaldinho is intelligent because he plays soccer intelligently; in some schools in the UK they tested every single kid on it's "talents" or preferences and then split the class into the different kinds of intelligence (by Howard Gardner) in order to support every kids personal preference...it sounds nice but it really isn't.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Apr 29, 2009)

I got a 138 on the test too - I must share a brain with Dan! (scary) 

I believe it's possible to learn how to do better at these tests, because I suspect it happened while I was taking this one. I didn't understand that the "fill in the blanks" questions at the beginning were organized in 3 rows of 3 at first, and so I was looking for a generic relationship among the 9 images. So I messed up the first couple. Basically it took me 180 seconds to figure that out. (I didn't even guess on the first one - I was going to but got distracted and missed that time ran out. A DNF - I hate it!) Once I realized it was in 3 rows of 3, I started doing better. I suspect I'd average a couple of questions better now after taking that test on any future tests from that site.


----------



## Bryan (Apr 29, 2009)

Mike Hughey said:


> I got a 138 on the test too - I must share a brain with Dan! (scary)



Hmm.....I got a 138 also (and also after just waking up). I wonder what the range of this test is.

Speaking of intelligence, I always found it funny the people who try to argue that they (or their friend, or kid) is "Really smart, they're just not challenged, and that's why they're failing." Sorry, in my book, if you're failing school because "It's too easy", then you're not intelligent. I don't care about the different intelligences, failing "easy things" is just plain dumb.


----------



## shelley (Apr 29, 2009)

*LukeMayn* said:


> I recently did my first ever IQ test and got 143... I believe that is good.
> *This lead me to believe that speedcubing increases IQ*. Do you think this is plausible? Also post you IQ here too.



Exactly what did you base that conclusion on? One data point (with questionable accuracy)?


----------



## Tyson (Apr 29, 2009)

shelley said:


> *LukeMayn* said:
> 
> 
> > I recently did my first ever IQ test and got 143... I believe that is good.
> ...



Lol, I think you just proved that the test is inaccurate.


----------



## Kyle™ (Apr 29, 2009)

Online IQ tests are bogus. Everyone always scores above 120s, which is ridiculous. I once attended a prep school, and the average IQ of the student body of grade 12 was just over 130, so I think it to be rather silly when so many people are taking these tests and they actually think they even come close to that score. I am not directing this toward anyone on this forum, but rather informing those who question the accuracy of the online tests.


----------



## Escher (Apr 29, 2009)

F.P. said:


> Since Howard Gardner wrote his book about the theory of multiple intelligences, a lot of the points he made in his book have been disproved.
> 
> And it's also worth to mention that there is a huge correlation between the different tasks in certain IQ tests.
> Some people who score(d) high on IQ tests often think that they have only been good at one of the tasks (let's say the verbal part) and average on the others.
> ...



How didn't it work? Just telling me that it wasn't nice isn't particularly illustrative...


----------



## cmhardw (Apr 29, 2009)

F.P. said:


> When looking at Gardners theory, one could also say that Ronaldinho is intelligent because he plays soccer intelligently; in some schools in the UK they tested every single kid on it's "talents" or preferences and then split the class into the different kinds of intelligence (by Howard Gardner) in order to support every kids personal preference...it sounds nice but it really isn't.



Another thing I have seen is kids who test poorly either because A) they become very nervous on tests, or B) they simply do not care to do well on the test, or also possibly both.

Sometimes I have worked with math students who are more intelligent than they care to show. They have no interest in math, and thus don't achieve their full potential.

I wonder if some IQ test takers also fall into such a category. This might skew results. Aren't IQ test takers a self selective group in some sense? Mandating IQ test for the entire population might not work either, because people might purposefully fail.

When I was in High School, I went to NCSSM (http://www.ncssm.edu) which is an accelerated public high school we were mandated to take the American High School Math exam. It had 25 questions, and for each incorrectly answered question you receive 0 points. For unanswered questions you receive 1.5 points, and for correctly answered questions you get 6 points. Anyway the point is that many people in our school scored a 0 every year, much more so than would be expected by statistics or probability. This was because they were good at math, but did not care to advance to future rounds. They would solve each problem to the point that they knew a particular answer was definitely incorrect, then choose that answer. People said that this was their goal going into the test as well.

The probability of getting a 0 on such a test by random quessing is (4/5)^25 = 0.3% Considering that in our school 500 people took this test, then we would expect only 1 or 2 people to score a zero by random guessing.

I just thought it would be interesting to add that by comparing IQ scores, we are assuming that all individuals will try their best to achieve the highest score, which might not be a valid or correct assumption.

Chris

P.S. I also don't believe very strongly in a concept of intelligence as "smarts". Maybe moreso as "speed and ease of committing new information into long term memory". I think the capacity of the human mind is astounding, even in people who are not "intelligent" by most standard definitions.


----------



## JohnnyA (Apr 29, 2009)

qqwref said:


> Online IQ tests are inaccurate because they're just designed to make people feel good. You can guess randomly and get over 100. The average cuber does not have an IQ of 120.
> 
> Why don't you try the eCMA? Let's see how you do on that one. That's an actual IQ test.
> http://www.highiqsociety.org/iq_tests/



I got 113 on the harder one (the one on the bottom) and 108 (but didn't understand how some questions worked) on the top one.


----------



## ThatGuy (Apr 29, 2009)

my general area for IQ test i've taken online was like 150.


----------



## Lt-UnReaL (Apr 29, 2009)

JohnnyA said:


> qqwref said:
> 
> 
> > Online IQ tests are inaccurate because they're just designed to make people feel good. You can guess randomly and get over 100. The average cuber does not have an IQ of 120.
> ...


Bleh, IQ tests shouldn't have knowledge questions or anything related to them. Like half of that test was based on knowledge. :/


----------



## nitrocan (Apr 29, 2009)

Lt-UnReaL said:


> JohnnyA said:
> 
> 
> > qqwref said:
> ...



I did 140 on the top one, but what the hell? I didn't know what a triangle with all sides different called in English  Some questions were just lost because of the language difference.


----------



## JohnnyA (Apr 29, 2009)

Lt-UnReaL said:


> JohnnyA said:
> 
> 
> > qqwref said:
> ...



Yea, that's where I fell down. IQ isn't about acquired knowledge its about natural ability ...


----------



## Escher (Apr 29, 2009)

I just looked at that test that qqwref linked - oh my god, its disgusting! Thats one of the worst IQ tests I've ever seen! The number of fact based questions... I can't believe they call themselves a high IQ society, when they can't even develop something approaching a 'valid' IQ test. Ugh.

anyway,

http://www.holah.karoo.net/gouldstudy.htm

Have a look here, its quite simplistic (it is AS psychology...) but it should give you an idea of part of the origins of the 'stanford-binet' IQ test, and you don't have to buy Goulds book (which btw, is very good).
Yerkes was one of the members of the 'stanford' team that essentially bastardised Binet's test (which was invented to help identify and help children that were struggling to read).


----------



## qqwref (Apr 29, 2009)

I took the eCMA again and got 140 again... but what the hell with the knowledge stuff, I mean really. I shouldn't have to know that Mohammed Ali was diagnosed with Parkinson's, or what "acrophobia" is the fear of, or something dumb like that, to score well on an IQ test. Maybe you guys should try the TRI52, it doesn't have ANY factual questions (in fact none of the questions even have words in them!).

I tried taking the eCMA again with the help of Wikipedia and Google (for the factual questions) and got a 147. I'm guessing the upper limit of this particular test is close to that.


----------



## Escher (Apr 29, 2009)

qqwref said:


> I took the eCMA again and got 140 again... but what the hell with the knowledge stuff, I mean really. I shouldn't have to know that Mohammed Ali was diagnosed with Parkinson's, or what "acrophobia" is the fear of, or something dumb like that, to score well on an IQ test. Maybe you guys should try the TRI52, it doesn't have ANY factual questions (in fact none of the questions even have words in them!).
> 
> I tried taking the eCMA again with the help of Wikipedia and Google (for the factual questions) and got a 147. I'm guessing the upper limit of this particular test is close to that.



I have to say, the TRI52 is the best IQ test I've seen, simply in terms of user simplicity and lack of knowledge based questions. Good find


----------



## qqwref (Apr 29, 2009)

Yeah, I'd like to see people's scores on that one. If I recall correctly I got 890 and I think Dene got 930ish.


----------



## Kian (Apr 29, 2009)

I got a 141 on the EMCA test. Had a tough time with the first couple of questions but then I took more time and was able to understand the patterns.

What was with the math section, though? An 8 year old could get all those questions right.


----------



## JBCM627 (Apr 29, 2009)

JohnnyA said:


> Yea, that's where I fell down. IQ isn't about acquired knowledge its about natural ability ...



That probably does depend on age too - the older you are, the more you probably pick up.

Another thing I've agreed with is multiple types of intelligence, something IQ tests don't really deal with at all. For example you can claim to have an IQ of 300 because of some test, but in reality you might suck at sports and be the most unathletic person ever, or perhaps you are terrible at relating to people. So more accurately, you should say that your intelligence in a specific area is 300.


----------



## amostay2004 (Apr 29, 2009)

That's too long a test for me..I did almost 30 questions and got tired of thinking...I fast forwarded and got a 600 though..

EDIT: was talking bout qqwref's TRI52 test


----------



## Escher (Apr 29, 2009)

qqwref said:


> Yeah, I'd like to see people's scores on that one. If I recall correctly I got 890 and I think Dene got 930ish.



You two are much better than me at this sort of stuff - I got 760. In the UK, there are several tests that are relatively rare (theres much more focus on passing GCSEs and A levels than actually assessing students ), but in my secondary school we took the 'CAT' test (I think Cognitive Ability Test 3, specifically), which had three 1 hour tests. I think the scores they could give you ranged from 60-140, which I think roughly related to the stanford binet scale (I had to look that up). One of the tests was very much like the TRI52... I got something like 127 in that test, and then in the other two tests (which basically equated to mathematical ability and language ability) I got 141+  

So yeah, thats my long winded excuse 

to JCBM - F.P mentioned earlier that Gardner's theory has been disproven on several counts. He didn't get much more specific than that though.


----------



## Dene (Apr 29, 2009)

I happened to spend an extremely long time on that TRI52 test. It took me many hours (with breaks in between). So if you rushed through it you may not have seen as much as I did. But I'm fairly certain at least near the end there was a lot of extraneous stuff that was rather silly, and I just happened to guess lucky. Bear in mind that I'm the one that was too stupid to realise that there were 52 questions


----------



## JBCM627 (Apr 29, 2009)

Escher said:


> to JCBM - F.P mentioned earlier that Gardner's theory has been disproven on several counts. He didn't get much more specific than that though.



Yeah, I did see the criticisms and opposing views section in the wiki article, which may be some of what FP was talking about. Although while aspects of it may be disproven, I still would argue that there is some truth to it - that 'traditional' intelligence isn't the only piece to intelligence.


----------



## Dene (Apr 29, 2009)

Ok I did the second test first and got 122, then did the first one and got 127. That test was an embarrassment to IQ tests everywhere. That's all I can say about it. It did not test anything to do with IQ at all.


----------



## qqwref (Apr 30, 2009)

JBCM627 said:


> For example you can claim to have an IQ of 300 because of some test, but in reality you might suck at sports and be the most unathletic person ever, or perhaps you are terrible at relating to people. So more accurately, you should say that your intelligence in a specific area is 300.



No offense to jocks, but I don't think being good at sports counts as a type of intelligence.


----------



## goldencuber (Apr 30, 2009)

hmmm that's odd, I did qq's test link I got a 143 for the first one, then I tried the other ta3 and got 129. This reminds me of this other test me and my friends took last year. It was at some cafe testing site or something. It was ridiculous, we both got 160+. No way either of us was that smart. Then we clicked the back button (it saves your answers?) and changed one answer and it turned out there was like a 10 point difference in whether or not you know the definition of millennium.


----------



## JBCM627 (Apr 30, 2009)

qqwref said:


> No offense to jocks, but I don't think being good at sports counts as a type of intelligence.



I'll give you that it isn't quite on the same level as academia, but it does require a certain attention and focus that a lot of people just don't have. After having coached swimming for a couple years, I've seen that some kids will pick up concepts significantly faster than others.

anyway, there are other kinds of intelligence some people lack too... definition #1. Although definition #4 can be true too, and made me laugh.


----------



## *LukeMayn* (Apr 30, 2009)

goldencuber said:


> hmmm that's odd, I did qq's test link I got a 143 for the first one, then I tried the other ta3 and got 129. This reminds me of this other test me and my friends took last year. It was at some cafe testing site or something. It was ridiculous, we both got 160+. No way either of us was that smart. Then we clicked the back button (it saves your answers?) and changed one answer and it turned out there was like a 10 point difference in whether or not you know the definition of millennium.



LOL I don't trust IQ tests now 

EDIT: HAHA
I *guessed* the whole of the one qqwref gave and got 104 
I'm an above average... guesser?


----------



## qqwref (Apr 30, 2009)

*LukeMayn* said:


> EDIT: HAHA
> I *guessed* the whole of the one qqwref gave and got 104
> I'm an above average... guesser?



Do you mean the TRI52 or the eCMA? I think both are designed to test higher-range IQs (for the TRI I think it's most accurate around 120-160 or so) so I wouldn't be too surprised that random guessing will get you an acceptable score. Especially for the eCMA, because that one's pretty badly constructed.


----------



## Stefan (Apr 30, 2009)

qqwref said:


> I don't think being good at sports counts as a type of intelligence.


I don't know if there's a special "sports intelligence", but I believe that at least certain sports do require intelligence.

Maybe not something like sprint, although I believe to get to world class you still need much more than just raw physical talent. You need to do many things right to tap the full potential and that does need some kind of intelligence.

But certainly more complex stuff like basketball, where you need to be good at predicting and reacting to and causing fast interactions of ten people and a ball in a small area, and where tactic theory plays an immense role.


----------

