Information about IQ Test

This is an official IQ test so if you want test you can go through it .

Note that this site is not https

My software didn’t detect any malware.

When I click on the link that you posted, the target site says “Not secure” to the left of the link.

AFAIK, IQ sites are frequent targets for malware or scams.

Just mentioning it :smiley:



What he meant is that most of those test websites will give your computer a virus, even if google presents the site to you.

He just confirmed for us that it is safe (if you dont click any of the billion ads) because the website itself does not present its safety certificate.


It’s an HTTP site. Not an HTTPS (secure) site. It pays to be wary of sites w/o a security certificate, they can be a source of infection. @OldGrantonian is just saying he checked it out and it seems safe, implying that others can click on the link with confidence.

HTTP sites probably won’t cause problems unless they are asking you to submit personal information or passwords — then they are dangerous, because other people can read the data as it goes over the network.

I’d be wary about entering data into random quiz websites though, especially if you can’t see who is actually running it. They are often just data collection schemes. It says “Cambridge developed IQ Test” but I don’t see any information that directly links the site to Cambridge.


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] – (I can’t post links yet but the Wikipedia link for this is a good overview)


The last logic question on that test makes you learn something interesting -> to parse logical statements as function arguments.

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 “fill in the blank” 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


I have sifted through the bulk of research on IQ for a while in my past time and quite plainly I agree with you.

If anything

I wouldn’t even say it is quite that. Raven for example you can solve by math or you can generate a bunch of manipulations to have them match, or you can logically reason the correct answer or you can know the common patterns they are using in the test or … The fact that you can do many different things that all change your score on the same test, makes me question what exactly it is trying to measure so ‘precisely’.

The correctly part is also a bit on the dubious side. If you find some pattern that the test ‘creator’ has not found, then that is it. The only way to really ensure you are not finding novel patterns is by hoping the creator has done some maths and by ensuring you only deal with the properties of the objects and not any representations they make. For me that is akin to being a little lazy.

That said I find IQ tests are the only real puzzles of sorts I can find reliably. I kind of wish there was a bank of puzzles to adjust my framework of reasoning.

I kind of held back from doing this and instead looked at the positives of that small test, I learned something new, so it was somewhat worthwhile. I am really glad someone made this rant.

1 Like

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 didn’t know what to do with:


Guess I’m too stupid for this test :sweat:

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 “Customize” and drag the “Text Encoding” 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 “Unicode” if it doesn’t automatically switch.)



Very nice, the question marks turn into symbols when I manually switch text encoding from ‘Unicode’ to ‘Western’. Thanks @Josh!

1 Like

Ahhhh. This isn’t 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 “can only do if you are a genius”. 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 “average population” 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. It’s 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 +++

Verbal thinking is really not as bad or slow as it sounds.

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 don’t really find any one from the past all so great yet, It goes about as far as von Neumann and Einstein for me.

Nikola Tesla. However think about the case of Euler who was a blind mathematician stating his prowess to have increased after becoming blind. By most, Euler is still considered one of the greatest of great people.

Sure I can visualize a room full of numbers of which there are more numbers than a computer generates in a second. Sure when doing this verbally it takes a significantly incomparably longer time, even if I recall 6 different voices calling those different numbers simultaneously. This is not short-term memory however. Even if you can visualize all those numbers it does not imply that you can evaluate all of those numbers at the same time. The ability to display many things at the same time is the strength of a visual system. I have before listened to a song once and managed to recall it from start to end later. When I recall a song in my head its always at the exact same pace I listened to, it practically serves as a perfect timer. The visual system would struggle with something of this nature a lot more than the verbal system. Hence :

This indicates some use for verbal thought in general, such as keeping track of rhythm. Furthermore, you can read sentences and verbally recall them with a accuracy of 100% , when you convert these to images you are lacking a lot of detail unless you pre-learn such detailed association. When you absolutely want to precisely recall it (with a visual system) and do not have a pre-made system you have to use your visual parsing. This is a lot more hopeless in duration then the verbal system on default. Verbal semantic parsing also works very well, so you can have a sequence of meanings serve as a cue for something else in a small unit, visually this doesn’t make a lot of sense. With verbal thought you can only go forwards and not backwards, or across, while this may be a disadvantage its equally so advantageous to not be able to do so.

Just some examples of verbal thinking is not really as bad as it sounds.

As for speed, when you are reading things, verbally at a rate of lets say 350wpm. The amount of sounds you are outputting is greater than the amount of words. Phonemes in a word can be estimated to be around an average of 7 per word. This implies you are sound wise processing 2450 distinct units at that speed. Processing 2450 images a minute isn’t very fair of a task.

That is not to say that the visual system is less useful than it seems, it’s indeed very useful, there are ways to bypass a lot of what I mentioned above but this doesn’t directly make the verbal system obsolete, there is a reason why it is there.

As a visual thinker : if you want a summary of what I have said : Imagine that you are seeing floating cryptic lights that form objects where the color indicates the precise speed they are travelling at, These lights interconnect from different directions flowing one way as if through a circuit creating objects along the way ‘per end’. Visually you have to ask yourself whether you would want to process this cryptic representation as a form of distinct symbols and how you want to represent these interconnections. Visually you are suddenly going to be dealing with millions of distinct objects.

Going directly through the objects(not the symbolic ones) is going to force you to form your own network that does not all directly relate to the one you are perceiving. How much more difficult is it to form this cryptic by the combination of those objects? Even not doing so at all, It’s going to still be easy while it is analysis, but when it is not you are pretty stumped without creating your own system.
Such cryptic visually also has a 1:1 mapping to a sound’s object network. Not to mean you have to use it, there is definitely some(not more of) eases present for sound, such as rate. You could alternatively get by using overlapping similarities or otherwise simple differences to produce such a mapping expensively. Keep also in mind that your output is in a 1:1 mapping to sound if you are planning on informing anyone of it until you create a new system.

Visually again, because such a mapping is feasible the core consideration is related to the structure of such an approach, what you get with a recurrent one-directional speech system of parts. Is going to not instantly be worse in every single way then what you get with any other structure.

An overall comment, there isn’t a reason why verbal thinking will impede visual thought, these two things are perfectly operable together, just as forms of synesthesia are beneficial. For example when I developed mouse-line synesthesia it automatically forced straight line movements of my mouse where otherwise I would naturally make loops at higher speed. Normally I would have to, over long periods of time, train my hand to make straight lined movements to a target with a mouse.

For the 350wpm average, its still perfectly feasible to verbally read at 1200wpm.

i’m no longer a caveman so I guess it doesn’t apply to me anymore.