Test your IQ

[robot]

The disclaimer at the start of the test says that you are not awarded "bonus points" for finishing before the allotted forty minutes is up. It's assumed that you will take your time. The questions also gradually increase in difficulty as you go.
I guessed on majority of the last ten to fifteen. I also rushed through most of it. That is how I take almost all tests, though.

[arias]

Originally Posted by JOJOS'STAR

I think the timing factor should play a more important role. I had 104 in total but I finished with 20 minutes left on the counter. Seems like it wasn't much of a time challenge and rapidity to anser.. I admit I made some decisions quickly but some questions were also pretty easy to anser. Like if I took all of the time I could've possibly get a diffrent result. BTW I'm not trying to prove I'm not stupid cause I know I'm not a genious. I just don't feel like this test is getting all of our potential out. Any thoughts?

I'm a Psych major so I can give some insight? ; )

The test was a variation of Raven's Progressive Matrices test. This means that you get a set of patterns with a missing blank, which you will have to fill in by choosing out of a given selection of patterns. It's a different test from IQ test, which is usually multi-dimensional --- testing language, spatial ability, math, etc. I quote from wikipedia:

Raven's Progressive Matrices (also Abstract Reasoning Test) are widely used non-verbal intelligence tests. In each test item, one is asked to find the missing pattern in a series. Each set of items gets progressively harder, requiring greater cognitive capacity to encode and analyze. The test is considered by many intelligence experts to be one of the most g-loaded in existence.

Source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raven's_Progressive_Matrices

RPM has one of the highest correlations with IQ-tests, meaning that people who score well on RPM usually do well on IQ tests as well. However, we should note that language is probably the most notable absence from RPM... people who are good in language; be that of verbal or comprehension, will have no guarantee of doing well on the RPM. In this sense, the RPM doesn't "get all our potential out".

It's also important to note that while IQ is often accused as an artifact that doesn't "show a person's full intelligence", IQ test scores are actually the strongest predictor for future success -- in financial terms as well as social status (this does NOT mean that if you are smart, you will necessarily succeed). It's kind of hard to explain what a "predictor" is, since you have to have taken statistics to understand its full implications...

Also, completing the test ahead of the 40 minutes given does give you more points, I think. However, completing the questions accurately is definitely more important than speed in this case.. The last 8 get incredibly difficult, and I basically couldn't handle the last four.

[JOJOS'STAR]

Originally Posted by arias

I'm a Psych major so I can give some insight? ; )

The test was a variation of Raven's Progressive Matrices test. This means that you get a set of patterns with a missing blank, which you will have to fill in by choosing out of a given selection of patterns. It's a different test from IQ test, which is usually multi-dimensional --- testing language, spatial ability, math, etc. I quote from wikipedia:

Source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raven's_Progressive_Matrices

RPM has one of the highest correlations with IQ-tests, meaning that people who score well on RPM usually do well on IQ tests as well. However, we should note that language is probably the most notable absence from RPM... people who are good in language; be that of verbal or comprehension, will have no guarantee of doing well on the RPM. In this sense, the RPM doesn't "get all our potential out".

It's also important to note that while IQ is often accused as an artifact that doesn't "show a person's full intelligence", IQ test scores are actually the strongest predictor for future success -- in financial terms as well as social status (this does NOT mean that if you are smart, you will necessarily succeed). It's kind of hard to explain what a "predictor" is, since you have to have taken statistics to understand its full implications...

Also, completing the test ahead of the 40 minutes given does give you more points, I think. However, completing the questions accurately is definitely more important than speed in this case.. The last 8 get incredibly difficult, and I basically couldn't handle the last four.

Thanks for taking the time.

I understand the statistics meaning. Pretty simple in logic that is. People with higher IQ are more successfull generaly.

About the 40 minutes.. I doubt they give you credit for making it fast since it says at the beginning that you should take all your time to anser instead or rushing to finish. But I don't deny the fact its possible they do credit since they also say its preferable to anser wrong then skip a question... Ansers are more valuable then timing I guess. But timing is worth a little something, yeah possibly. ^^

[monster]

I got a mere 108. I know they want me to take my time but a lot of the questions were so difficult for me that I wouldn't care to spend more than 30 seconds on them. It'll just hurt my head.

Originally Posted by JOJOS'STAR

they also say its preferable to anser wrong then skip a question... Ansers are more valuable then timing I guess.

Actually, they say it's better to guess than to skip a question since you're not penalized for wrong answers. So guessing gives a higher chance of getting the right answer than skipping it. But I don't see the point in that since that just adds luck to the equation.

[arias]

Originally Posted by monstert

So guessing gives a higher chance of getting the right answer than skipping it. But I don't see the point in that since that just adds luck to the equation.

Not really.

Let's say you look at the bunch of data, and then despite not being able to explicity tease out the pattern structure, you hazard a guess what the answer should be.. This is also a form of cognitive ability (or thinking ability). In short, most cognitive psychologists think that there are two forms of thinking --- System I (unconscious, associative) and System II (conscious, explicit).

Say, talk about riding a bike. When you first learn to ride it, it's an EXTREMELY explicit (System II) process where you put alot of conscious energy to balancing, maintaining speed etc. However, after you master riding the bike and achieve automaticity, you perform these balancing acts unconsciously (System I). Similarly, this happens for tasks leaning to the academic.

So, having a "hunch" or a "good guess", is sometimes a product of those unconscious processes in you rather than just luck : )

[monster]

Hmm, never really thought of it like that. But I still think that

Originally Posted by arias

So, having a "hunch" or a "good guess", is sometimes a product of those unconscious processes in you rather than just luck : )

is the keyword here. Which still allows for "luck" to be factored in, even if it's not the main component.

Though I am curious how a guess could be similar to riding a bike. In my opinion, guessing is not something that you can practice. If you guess at something and get it right, it doesn't mean that the next time you guess you'll get it right as well. Because each time you guess, the variables are reset. But things like riding a bike is something that you force your mind/body to remember how to do under pretty much the same conditions.

[Vaines]

Also, concentrating on IQ tests to measure intelligence is not in my opinion the best idea (i.e. see emotional intelligence, etc.). Hmm, no time to go on about this, but there's so much to be discussed. *Goes to study Political Economy for tomorrow's pre-exam*

I did not do this test here because I did not have time to do it, but I usually get around 142 (and English is not even my first language, I should try it in French).

[Shay]

I PWN!

[Shini_GamI]

hahaha.... i got 108 =D beat that =P

[Rurik]

Originally Posted by arias

This IS a variation of Raven's Progressive Matrices.. but how standardized it is, I have no idea. They may be too harsh, or too soft; or it might have a strong correlation with formal tests such that it constitutes a good substitute for a formal test.

I wish they would give the answers, because I have no idea how to do the ones I didn't understand. I had 140.

Well, seen that you are a mayor in Psych I will take your word for it, (I have a degree in Psych, but not as extended as you) either way, I scored a 147 in this test, as I expected, its above my Official IQ test (but not by much).

But, I do not take to much in consideration this online test, I always tough of them as a test that give you an Idea of your IQ, but not the exact number when you take official tests.

[arias]

Originally Posted by Uchiha_Rurik

Well, seen that you are a mayor in Psych I will take your word for it, (I have a degree in Psych, but not as extended as you) either way, I scored a 147 in this test, as I expected, its above my Official IQ test (but not by much).

But, I do not take to much in consideration this online test, I always tough of them as a test that give you an Idea of your IQ, but not the exact number when you take official tests.

Eh, if you have a Psych degree your understanding of this should be quite deep. All that matters is whether this score correlates with that of "official" tests; and that matters solely for the reason of standardization. You want to be able to compare IQs across the same boards using the same standards.

Plus, ALL tests have some variance in scores. A regression line which is a best fit still has alot of variance that is unexplained by the individual's performance -- there is residual that is caused by other factors. This includes the fact that IQ performance has been shown to be affected by emotional states, with depression being able to knock up to 15 points off your average performance.

[arias]

Originally Posted by monstert

Hmm, never really thought of it like that. But I still think that is the keyword here. Which still allows for "luck" to be factored in, even if it's not the main component.

Though I am curious how a guess could be similar to riding a bike. In my opinion, guessing is not something that you can practice. If you guess at something and get it right, it doesn't mean that the next time you guess you'll get it right as well. Because each time you guess, the variables are reset. But things like riding a bike is something that you force your mind/body to remember how to do under pretty much the same conditions.

No, let's say you do such a test and luck gets factored in. How much luck COULD be factored in, exactly? Plus, if other people who take the test guess as well, they have their allotted share of randomized luck. Over multiple tests, the "luck" distribution evens out.

As for guessing; an experiment went like this: a couple of psychologists generated a grammar structure upon which they placed random strings of alphabets as words. So you have something like "sffss x ciji", "gsgw fsfc ag" and such, but there IS an underlying structure to parse these words. Then they had two sets of subjects.

The first set of subjects, they just exposed a whole bunch of these generated sentences to. Then they gave the subjects a list of sentences, some of which were generated from this grammar, and some of which were not, and asked them to choose which ones were likely to be from the same sort as the ones they were exposed to. The subjects "guessed" in this case, and achieved success WAYYYY higher than chance.

The second set of subjects were TOLD that the sentences they were going to be exposed to HAD an underlying grammar structure (the first set of subjects were NOT told, they were just exposed right-away). And so during their viewing of these sentences, second set participants worked really hard consciously, trying to figure out the grammar. They also proceeded to do perform much worse than first set subjects in "guessing" which sentences came from the same grammar generator.

As such, "guesswork" involving such patterns are thought to have an implicit process as well -- your brain is working on it even if you are unconscious of it.

[Shay]

Not smart enough to use the edit button though, eh?

Spoiler:

[arias]

Originally Posted by Shay

Not smart enough to use the edit button though, eh?

Spoiler:

If I click your spoiler button fast enough, the smilie winks!

[Morgri]

106, I guess I'm just about on average with you guys... I did rush through, I had like 25 mins to spare.

[Blizzer]

Already found out my IQ with an official test and it comes to 130
dunno if thats good but I heard from a friend 110 is average

[Li Jianliang]

Gah, I forgot to take a screenshot but I got 133. I suppose it's somewhat accurate since I've taken short versions of two official IQ tests before in real life and I got scores in the 125-130 range.

[Newtyped]

yo u guys are liening and u kno it
no1 got more than 100, caus thats impossib;le

[Rurik]

Originally Posted by arias

Eh, if you have a Psych degree your understanding of this should be quite deep. All that matters is whether this score correlates with that of "official" tests; and that matters solely for the reason of standardization. You want to be able to compare IQs across the same boards using the same standards.

Plus, ALL tests have some variance in scores. A regression line which is a best fit still has alot of variance that is unexplained by the individual's performance -- there is residual that is caused by other factors. This includes the fact that IQ performance has been shown to be affected by emotional states, with depression being able to knock up to 15 points off your average performance.

Well, don’t get me wrong, I really don’t know what to call it when it comes to other countries, a minor maybe?, a technical Degree maybe? It not that’s vast as its sounds like, and yes, every one have a variation, (I don’t have to much experience with the test itself), but, while the variations should be related to the person current mind abilities, those that are official tend to give you a more “real” and “Believable” number. Sorry for my skeptics, but I have heard of many people that have taken the test that normally end up above the normal average, when seen the percentage of people with this IQ, makes me doubt this tests.

Now, regarding the residual factor, I for one take it as part of the test, because the test should reflect on how a person can solve problem with his mind on the moment, factor like stress, depression, and even mental distraction are good ingredient to know how this person is apt regarding problem solving, now, do you think this residual factor have a big incidence in the final number?

[arias]

Originally Posted by Uchiha_Rurik

Sorry for my skeptics, but I have heard of many people that have taken the test that normally end up above the normal average, when seen the percentage of people with this IQ, makes me doubt this tests.

Now, regarding the residual factor, I for one take it as part of the test, because the test should reflect on how a person can solve problem with his mind on the moment, factor like stress, depression, and even mental distraction are good ingredient to know how this person is apt regarding problem solving, now, do you think this residual factor have a big incidence in the final number?

Two main points, I guess.

First, the philosophical issue behind the denotion of IQ is quite complex. It's hard to say that it's a "solid" property in any sense, and the way it's standardized is such that IQ 100 is made the average of the population. IQ 100 (year 2006) is quite different from IQ 100 (year 1900), partly because of the Flynn effect. What IQ is, is essentially a generated number made from a series of tests, formal or not.

Standardization is the MOST important issue here; so when we compare IQ scores it is important that we are comparing from the same test, or a similar test which has the same validity. So, what's important is that this website's test, is just as valid as "formal tests". In terms of the questions, I think it isn't that far off.. what's important is that it is highly CORRELATED with formal tests -- that is, an IQ score of 80 on Weschler's, Stanford-Binet's etc, translates to a similar score on this website's test. This is basically a huge statistical issue, and not just a psych one..

It is also important to note that IQ tests administered online might have different results (like you said, they are higher than normal). This is obvious because not everyone in a normal population has internet access. It is likely that low-IQ or mentally handicapped people don't have access to the net. As such, the population captured by online tests are not necessarily representative of the general population.


Finally, while tests ARE holistic in the sense that you mention, it doesn't change the fact that emotional factors are a major factor in cognition. Your prefrontal cortex not only regulates higher-level thought like planning, it also regulates your emotions. Anger, depression, and polar-opposites like happiness have been found to affect thinking. I'm not sure what you're trying to make as your second point, but like I said, depression has been shown to affect IQ performance.