For entertainment purposes only. (Only a professionally administered IQ test will give accurate scores.)
1 Like
Please note, there are no legitimate online IQ tests. Formal IQ tests are professionally administered and take usually anywhere from 3-5 hours to do, (depending on the version). The most standardly accepted IQ test at present is the [WAIS-IV] ā (I canāt post links yet but the Wikipedia link for this is a good overview)
5 Likes
I scored 148, which is a terrible estimation given that I could not do an entire part of the test on my phone, I only got like two of the āfill in the blankā questions and I am definitely slower than when I would do it on the PC.
My IQ has been tested multiple times as employers, schools and psychiatrists love that stuff seemingly (WISC, WAIS, Raven, lots of different tests over the years). The score is not important but I did learn some things there.
Every IQ test is 99% bull in testing actual intelligence. It is a skill test in reasoning and knowledge. Logic, math, observation, those are things that agree greatly with my brain. It is just one big mass of reasoning, so every test that presents such questions will be obliterated. Test me on handiwork skills, emotional understanding and vocabulaire and I will score into the negative digits.
I managed to turn certain psychology problems into math problems, but put me in the jungle and I will be eaten in 0.48 seconds by a lion even though they dont even live there. I would be the retarded one there, so why give me an intelligence score of 148?
Catch me on a bad day and my IQ drops lower than the speed limit in my neighbourhood. Make me do a test when I am in full focus mode and I might just score higher than dutch weed gets you.
IQ is a popularity contest designed to make the average feel bad about being average. In fact, here in the netherlands we used to have an anual IQ test on tv. I remember one time when they published the results of people in the studio and those who played along at home. It had the classic bell curve, but here is the fun bit: the median was at 125.
IQ-scores, by standard definition (excluding 130+ and 80- tests), have their median at 100, because IQ has never been a test to show your intelligence. It always shows your capabilities to answer a fixed set of questions correctly when compared to a specified group of other people. By changing the questions (which the online test shared here also did) or the median, you get data that is no longer valid.
Taking those points into account, there is no such thing as an accurate IQ test, as IQ by definition is not meant to be anything accurate.
End of rant
4 Likes
I tried to take the test but failed at the first task already. The description said there would be twenty different symbols, but when I started, half of them were question marks which I didnāt know what to do with:
Guess Iām too stupid for this test 
1 Like
You might be able to fix that by opening the page in Firefox, and finding the menu on the top right of the browser that has three lines. Click on the menu item named āCustomizeā and drag the āText Encodingā icon to the toolbar. Then click that icon for alternate text encodings on the page to find the correct text encoding. (Try setting it to āUnicodeā if it doesnāt automatically switch.)
5 Likes
Very nice, the question marks turn into symbols when I manually switch text encoding from āUnicodeā to āWesternā. Thanks @Josh!
1 Like
Ahhhh. This isnāt exactly true, you know that most statistical tools we have in a lot of scientific research was developed from IQ tests? Because of how accurate they are. It of course depends on your definition of IQ. Vox has an article on this that explicates the nuances around this well.
A single well-made test is accurate when compared to itself. That forces three problems right away.
It has to be well-made.
It has to be compared.
It is only accurate if others also use that test.
Facebook is full of crappy tests that are made to give you a high score based on whatever the maker likes. Youtube is full of crappy tests that you ācan only do if you are a geniusā. Tests like the one OP linked, which give you a high score by default.
As I also put in my initial post, it is useless if you dont know what you are comparing to. The test to compare harvard graduates (bell curve at 100) will be different from the test used to compare the mentally-disabled (also curved at 100)
Most tests compare to the āaverage populationā which means that not only do you have a constantly changing baseline, you also have a worthless value on your own test once the baseline changes.
IQ says nothing on its own, and it says even less about the general capabilities of a person.
1 Like
Do not believe this test. Itās a lie. Distribution into the right and left hemispheres is a scientific myth, which has been repeatedly refuted scientifically. And they somehow figured out your hemispheric asymmetry. They calculated what does not exist.
Very strange. Another reason not to believe IQ tests. You have repeatedly said that you are a visual thinker. A developed visual thinking, in principle, is much more effective than verbal or even mixed. Thanks to the smooth communication between the prefrontal lobes and the hippocampus. I am sure that if you prepare properly, you will easy scored 160 +++
Read biographies of great people. One common thing is developed imaginative thinking. Where is the connection? And because the volume of short-term memory in the visual analyzer is much larger than in speech. This is confirmed in the theory of human evolution.
I donāt think itās fair to use what falsely claim to be IQ tests online as a metric to measure what IQ tests really are. All those tests are simply lying that they measure IQ. A true IQ test needs to be professionally administered and takes many hours to complete and is compared to A LOT of data-- specifically the Global Population.
You set out your thoughts very well. My respect. But there are holes in your arguments. The first one. Yes, I even think that Euler was the greatest scientist in the field of exact sciences of all time. Only Newton made the same contribution, but Euler thought exclusively with visual images, like Tesla or Einstein. He became blind only in old age, because cataracts began to progress in him. And this only strengthened his ability to visualize. The memory of visual thinkers is also very accurate, the same Euler could restore from memory the whole Aeneid. Maybe. this is due to the fact that you messed up. Recovering a song from memory is a type of sound image that has little to do with the phonetic loop that is used for thinking. There was a mistake with reading too. Perhaps you can read it by saying 1200, then explain how this is possible. In general, the reading limit with pronunciation is 500 words per minute. Yes, itās not a bad speed, but you wonāt be able to achieve at least Bill Gates reading speed of at least 770 wpm. About 1000 can no longer be a speech. Yes, I am not saying that everyone needs to abandon internal dialogue in an instant. But to solve really complex issues, good visualization is essential. Not a caveman anymore? The time that has passed since that time is a few seconds for evolution. Visual thinking has developed among scavengers for tens of thousands of years. The phonetic loop, however, arose only because a person had to learn speech, which is impossible without it. But this is still too imperfect a tool to use as the main tool of thinking. Auxiliary - possible. But not the main one. The secret of genius of any scientist we have listed is based on the combination of figurative and abstract thinking. So, to guess before the wireless transmission of current, Nikola Tesla saw how a pipe that fell into the water still emits something similar to smoke rings. I.e. Itās important not just to imagine well. One must be able to find really good associations. Mathematicians do not literally visualize mathematical concepts. They are abstract. But you can visualize these things on simple things, so that to understand the essence of the concept of symmetries, you just have to imagine a rotating table. In strategic games like chess, only visualization is used. To prepare well for a boxing match, the best method is to try to visualize this fight. Not all boxers do just that. But, as practice shows, all the best do it. Yes, but you are right, this is not a reason to abandon verbal thinking completely if it is very inconvenient for a person.
2 Likes
IQ tests have to be administered under controlled conditions by a trained examiner. Otherwise the results cannot be compared to any other results.
āOur circle of very patient friends included a couple of PhD psychs so with a little guidance and many iterations over the last decade and a bit you have the site youāre reading nowā
This is some guyās hobby. He presents no appropriate credential to show that he knows what heās doing. The test is not endorsed by any academic institution or association of psychologists involved in psychometrics. Itās amateur rubbish.
Sites like these are essentially clickbait.
2 Likes
of Cours it is not free, so if you are really smart donāt do it