This isn’t the thread to debate the merits of I.Q. testing, to be humble and to downplay your intelligence. This is the thread to feel pride in yourself.
Mine is 130. I do take pride in knowing that I am amongst the top 2% of the population. I hope many posters have an I.Q. that is higher than mine.
What is yours?
42, but I think that was the wrong answer…
The most intelligent person I know ‘officially’ tested at 123. One of the stupidest got 153.
I’ve only ever taken free online tests - and everytime they’ve come up with a totally different number. I think 120 would be an average, although fairly meaningless.
One even told me that I ‘had scored somewhere in the regioin of 170, but was above the normal IQ range that the test was designed for’.
But to be honest, I think they just wanted me to buy the report and feels good about myself - they were assuming I was dumb.
I neither know nor care what my IQ is.
FYI I got my testing through the school psychologist when I was 8.
ditto.
The average I.Q score is 100…
I’ve not had a full professionally administered I.Q test but i know it is somewhere upwards of 130.
Every online test i have taken has put me in the top 1% of people who had taken that test.
My IQ as determined by massively culturally biased testing is between 155-165. I’m serious about that being consistant. However I don’t actually buy that. My math skills are average at best even if I can apply them to concepts of statistical probability it takes me a gross amount of time to actually work through numbers. I’m a human encyclopedia on some subjects but i’ve never been the human calculator that most people with 160 IQs are.
Though I do know about the heuristics/biases which confound human judgement calls on such subjects. I dunno, I have a mixed bag of intellectual gifts.
You can have an IQ of 240, but if you can’t consistantly apply rationality, all that genius is worthless.
In order to “be a human calculator” it just takes practice…
I recently saw something about the guy with the highest I.Q (200) and he had raised it significantly from a lower i.q simply through practice.
You can familiarize with the necessary math skills, it can become easy to do specific tasks, so i wager you could train for an i.q test…
I don’t know for sure. I think it’s about 117.
I take pride in knowing I can do calculus and a lot of people can’t.
I don’t know…I have just always done well in all tests, especially ones concerning literature. I’m very moral, careful, and I think a lot. I identify with people like Einstein, Socrates, Majorana or Sidis not so much intellectually as emotionally.
I’m more interested in knowing my E.Q. than my I.Q. I struggle to understand the behaviour of the masses because often I see that what they do is futile, destructive ( usually self-destructive ) or illogical. It’s not that I dislike them, I just don’t have the same interests as they do, I guess.
I take those online IQ tests for fun, I have ranged from 125 when tired or ill or buzzed to 160 when fully alert and raring to go… this tells me that tests are dependent upon how you are functioning at the time so their accuracy is not valid. But they are fun to take when you are bored. 
I took two online IQ tests as a recommendation from a friend in another philosophy site which I use to go to about ten years ago. They both rated me at 138. My math skills aren’t that great and that probably is the reason for the score. The two sites asked my age at that time, so I assume those tests were calibrated for different groups of people.
Online IQ tests are mostly crap. I’ve taken maybe 7, and ranged from 104 through 200+. In school I was administered two official IQ tests, one in high school and one in college as part of a psychology course. I got a 175 on the HS one, and a 156 on the college one. I do feel some pride in that, but rather akin to the pride one feels in getting a hard trivia question right - it’s slightly meaningful, but mostly just kinda neat.
Most people either overrate or underrate IQ. One can find plenty of examples of brilliant people whose IQ scores were disproportionately low, or vice versa. Richard Feynman, for example, got an IQ score of 130 or so, whereas a more appropriate score for him would have been 180. But that said, IQ tests are hardly meaningless on average. Standardized (non-online) IQ tests predict very well how well you’ll perform at a variety of tasks. In fact, there’s a 40% correlation between your IQ and how well you’ll perform at an arbitrary position of employment, which is actually quite impressive.
But nonetheless, IQ tests are not an end-all, be-all of whether or not you’re intelligent, any more than a state driving test is the end-all be-all of whether or not you’re a good driver. It’s naive to think that the tests don’t tend to predict this ability reasonably well. But in all such cases, the true indicator of ability is performance over a greater diversity of tasks, over a longer period of time.
“I think the tests are crap, but since I scored high, I’ll make sure I tell you anyway.”
and how fortunate are we to have so many gifted men/women browsing among us?
indeed how fortunate are we for internet, where everywhere is replete with prodigy and genius
Um, really? You think people who spend time on a philosophy site are going to have average IQs? Most of the IQs listed here are around 130, which I think is exactly what one should expect for a site devoted to non-professional philosophy. If this were a site devoted to professional high-level mathematics, and a thread on IQ popped up, would you be skeptical of those who claimed a 160 IQ?
Your sarcasm would be well-justified if this were a random internet chat room entitled, say, “Coffee Lounge”. It doesn’t hold weight here.
My giant library attests to my insane thirst for knowledge if not my intellect per se. Most 30-60 year olds don’t have half the library. Whether we’re gifted or not some of us here dedicate our time to the truth/education, or to improving our minds through studying heuristics/biases and etc. Most people here do border on autistic though.
A lot of people are claiming huge IQs - but the question is, does the quality of their posts match up? I once tested under 100, and have never reliably tested over 130 - so if the tests are worth anything my posts should frequently be worse than all of those claiming IQs of 150+. But unlike advanced mathematics, anyone can talk about philosophy no matter how intelligent they are.
If you want a demonstration of this point, you don’t have to look too far…
nb: I’m not saying all posts or posters on this board are demonstrations of the point. Far from it - I think the level of discussion on the boards is often quite high.
Also worth a note- only 0.5% of the population tests over 140. 150+ is considered genious level. Einstein is expected to be about 160 (apparently). So yes, we do seem graced with the presence of some mighty geniouses
Well I talk about evolutionary biology, behavorial genetics, evolutionary psycholgy, evo cognitive neuroscience, cog science etc. I hate the irrational babbling here but you do find a lot of good posts too. I usually enjoy Xunian’s posts for example.
I was just reading Homicide, Daly/Wilson’s landmark text on… Homicide. For example, unwed mothers in the sample they give (stats canada info spanning years) were responsible for 12% of births but like 50% of infanticides. Darwin ftw