Fair enough. Well, since you would like to know, I’d check out some torrent sites. They’ve got quite a few decent IQ tests there (supposedly used in various organisations e.g. academia, military, workplaces etc.). They’re usually divided into 3 parts, 60 minutes each, but that varies. I think you would get a better estimation although they are rather boring. There’s also a certain disadvantage in working with some questions where, if you are reading it off a computer, and writing your answers down on a piece of paper, there would be lag created in constantly looking up and down, so, it might be a good idea to print them off.
Oh, and that’s a lousy idea of fun, gib.
Yes, you can, for no, I didn’t. And note that I listed my score for test #3 as 195 there, meaning I conceded not having known the right answer to the last question, which was the only one I “cheated” at. I still think I deserve the 198.75 though, considering Wendy guessed some questions. If I hadn’t cheated, I’d have flipped two coins. (This does presuppose there’s no way to “intuit” the answer to such questions.)
Have you tried taking tests 1 and 3? Test 1 especially: impossible to score higher than 136, which means the 140+ range is completely out of reach. I suggest you take it and see how much it strokes your ego.
It might be a difficult test but it still isn’t a standard IQ test.
What’s the point of getting a result on a website with a distinct scoring system and an insignificant sample size? That’s not what people are interested in (well, unless they have dishonest motives and end up declaring that the results of such sources are their actual IQ scores or perhaps they simply wish to compare with others in their vicinity), they are interested in the (common) standard that is used (like the ones Jared Taylor and other popular researchers refer to/utilize), since the result one gets on such sites is not comparable or reflective (at-least until one goes through the trouble of finding connections between the two and posits equivalencies) of the fixed standard, or at-least one verified to be a suitable alternative.
Is anyone here paying attention to the extreme variation in results from one test to the other, the lack of time constraints, or the lack of a standardized structure? Simply unreliable.
I know, or at-least I hope, everybody here realizes this.
I had no choice but to guess. Did you not understand my reason why? I am on a psychiatric drug which labors my thinking and the more I push it, the worse the headache. I don’t see any comparison between my guesses and your cheating.
And Sau sau, are you refusing to answer another of my questions that was several posts above?
“There are 12 pens on the table, you took 3, how many do you have?”
Oh, the tension!
Anyway, if one wants to get a closer estimation to what their standard IQ is, take the lowest score achieved, and start detracting (by 5 to 10). Also, take the quiz in which one got the lowest score, and begin to imagine doing a test that is at-least 5 times the size of that quiz with rigid time constraints.
Great fun.
Now, once one finally arrives at this result, remember the saying (not too literally, please) “size doesn’t matter, its about how you use it” (what is that intelligence PRODUCING?), and no, this doesn’t mean someone who is borderline retarded is going to be intelligent simply because of effective use, but, it does mean, that it is possible to use what we inherit very ineffectively (which does not mean that everyone with high IQ is using their particular inheritance ineffectively, and certainly does not mean that IQ has no value as a measurable variable).
Or, if all of that sounds like gibberish, I don’t know, use the magical number to finally end the question of what it means to be intelligent.
Sorry to hear that but were you to come off it it would improve your thinking so have you tried this
Hate IQ tests much?
Yes, but it never ends well.