Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Polpolion on November 29, 2006, 05:01:40 pm
-
Has anyone ever bothered to take any? I know their all crap, but their still rather amusing to take. I took this one IQ test at this tickle.com place, and it said I had an IQ of 133. If I had that IQ I would not be posting here. And my keyboard would not be broken. Then you see all of those people at that one retarded quiz site, I forget what it is called, but it lets you make your own. I have never realized that so many people came up with such retarded ideas. Then there is that site that has this one "are you a nerd?" test, and an "are you stupid?" test and some other weird stuff.
And then there are the ones that make you pay! I have never done any of those, but holy crap. Why on Earth would someone pay for that garbage? Actually, most of the stuff you pay for on the internet is garbage. Does anyone here actually do that stuff? What are your opinions on them?
-
If you pay to have an online IQ test you have already shown that they needn't bother with triple digits. If you believe the score they needn't bother with the second one either.
-
Usually merely taking the test is implicative of the results ;)
-
Ive tried them...on whims...
When i was in JH i would do the relationship tests with me and people that i had a crush on...how incredibly lame ::)
-
Usually merely taking the test is implicative of the results ;)
I don't take the test expecting the results to be anywhere near accurate (and as you can see they're not).
I didn't even do it for the results. ::) :)
EDIT: wtf I spent my 1000th post on this topic?
-
Heh, I do them too sometimes for a laugh ;) But I can usually be pretty sure of the results before I ever started, simply by seeing if theres a 'Pay here for a breakdown of your strengths' tab at the bottom ;)
-
If you pay to have an online IQ test you have already shown that they needn't bother with triple digits. If you believe the score they needn't bother with the second one either.
Quoteworthy, wise sensei.
-
The only online test that was really good was the one that asks you lots of personal questions-- like how often you masturbate-- then, when you click 'submit', emails your answers to the person who gave you the link.
-
The only online test that was really good was the one that asks you lots of personal questions-- like how often you masturbate-- then, when you click 'submit', emails your answers to the person who gave you the link.
Forgive me for asking what might seem the obvious, but what sick, twisted son-of-a-***** would want to know how many times one of his mates masturbates?!
-
Who's to say it's a he?
-
Lol... those things are messed.
Really, 150 IQ, all the time. Comparitively, I tried one of those older tests... Bam. 100 IQ, dead on :D
Though... I overstated my age by three years... :doubt:
I know someone who did one and got 8.
You have the IQ of a potato :lol:.
-
The only online test that was really good was the one that asks you lots of personal questions-- like how often you masturbate-- then, when you click 'submit', emails your answers to the person who gave you the link.
:lol:
-
I occasionally do them myself. I couldn't give a stuff about the score but it's good to exercise your brain once in a while and even if the test score is worthless the act of taking the test isn't.
-
you can demonstrate instantly that they have no value, and are for entertainment purposes <miss chloe anyone?> simply by the absence of an "age?" query
the I.Q. is a ratio of tested intelligence v. age, if bill is 3 and has the tested intelligence of a thirty year old he has an i.q. of 200, if he is thirty and has the tested intelligence of a thirty year old his i.q. is 100, simple as that <well, okay, I'm oversimplifying, but the bell curve\cap thing sort of makes that happen>
the i.q. scale represents a bell curve, the distance between 99 and 100 is the same as the distance between 100 and 101, but the distance between 100 and 101 is not the same as the distance between 150 and 151
they represent disparate statistical groups, and they, thus, represent abstract, and disparate quantitative differences in knowledge
of course, perspective to these abstract numbers is... dependant on ones understanding of the system
I know exactly where the line genius stands, I also know exactly where the average line stands, I know for a fact I sound like a neichzhe worshipping asshole when I say I believe the only reason genius is so impressive a word or concept is that average is so bleeding stupid
just my perspective
disclosure:
156, tested at 6, 14, 17, aged 19 now <was 141 at 6 but to be fair I didn't answer any of the questions I had to even remotly think about, and 14 and 17 I got the same score, 156, and further rendering of fairness I'm autistic, think rain man, just less>
-
IQ tests are meaningless because you can't test obtained and applied knowledge, only abstract concepts of what might influence them.
-
real IQ tests aren't about knowledge, they're about mental capacity
* was tested during grades 3 and 7 ... i only missed two questions on the second one...
-
online tests are silly.... but sometimes silly is good - like the How Jedi Are You test
-
IQ tests are meaningless because you can't test obtained and applied knowledge, only abstract concepts of what might influence them.
the abstracts represent ability to aquire knowledge, I think I used the term intelligence in all of those spaces in my first post in that very reason, it isn't about knowledge, it is about rate and capacity for knowledge aquisition
if you are just testing obtained and applied knowledge you are going to get much higher scores statistically out of people who have more money, not saying you don't already do, but that is an affect of eugenics more than an affect of the test
testing aquired and applied knowledge is what the SAT is for, and unfortunatly it is biased
you have to look at the larger foundations of the concepts, think big picture
-
IQ = intelligence quotient
Basicly from what I understand it is how well you get things from context, interpret data, your ability to assimilate information.
Wait... yeah, it's like capacity for knowledge acquisition like Techie said.
And of course, the only ones that are possibly accurate ask you your age.
EDIT: Crap, I think someone already said that, too.
-
IQ tests are meaningless because you can't test obtained and applied knowledge, only abstract concepts of what might influence them.
the abstracts represent ability to aquire knowledge, I think I used the term intelligence in all of those spaces in my first post in that very reason, it isn't about knowledge, it is about rate and capacity for knowledge aquisition
if you are just testing obtained and applied knowledge you are going to get much higher scores statistically out of people who have more money, not saying you don't already do, but that is an affect of eugenics more than an affect of the test
testing aquired and applied knowledge is what the SAT is for, and unfortunatly it is biased
you have to look at the larger foundations of the concepts, think big picture
(SAT?)
I'm aware of the concept behind IQ, I just think it's wholly pointless as an actual intelligence indicator. At best it shows potential intelligence. Moreso, it's wholly meaningless because it's just numerical. If my IQ goes up, say, 2 points then how much smarter am I than before? Does it suddenly mean I can do a different job or learn faster? Does it reflect individual ability in different areas? What happens if I do one IQ test in a different mood or environment to the other one and get a different score? If my IQ goes/ has gone down between, say, 18 and 24 does that mean I have become less capable of learning? Even if I have a greater knowledge base and experience for learning? Does memory contribute to intelligence? What if I practice IQ tests - am I getting smarter, or just practiced? If an IQ test is randomized, can I really fairly compare to the result of another randomized test? What if some questions are simple counter-intuitive for me whilst others are very intuitive?
(NB: smarter in context of the supposedly measured learning ability)
-
your questions indicate a misunderstanding of the concept
studying skews the results, it's not supposed to be one of those things you study for <think urine test, just... different (and, yes, it is comparable, think of people who try all kinds of crazy **** to drive drug residues out of their kidneys)>
two points is within the margin of error, so that is a completly moot question, actually the farsical data that "on average habitual marijuana use causes a four i.q. point loss" god I would kill to remember which journal I saw that in, it's simply foam
the tests are not randomized, but nor are two given in sequence identical, however the variation is very nearly statistically meaningless, I say very nealy because, well, boom, margin of error, that is one of the contributing factors
different areas, well that is a fun one
there a few different "multiple intelligence" theories running around, this, yes, does just measure the classical idea of intelligence, hardly brushes by creativity and doesn't even acknowledge kinesthetic intelligence
however
if you look at the results of the gardner multiple intelligence tests the results do not form aggregate bell shaped curves, as they should, further, the questions are exclusionary
i.e. there are questions like
"do you prefer staying indoors painting or going outside to play ball" I would actually give you one of the questions verbatim as opposed to my poor paraphrase, they are just about that heinous, but my book is in my car and it's damn cold outside
now, think about that for a second
if you cannot score perfect, and you cannot score zero, how can the test provide accurate results?
now stop that knee jerk hippie "peace and flowers everyone is equal" reaction
the thing is
that test is broken, as are all of the other multiple intelligences tests because they use the same premise, if a person with absolutly no capacity could answer the questions they could still score just about average across the board on one of those because it's all touchie feely bull****
I.Q. variation over age, well, see, that's the fun thing about it, the most a persons i.q. is ever supposed to vary over their entire life span is fifteen points (if it varies more either something dramatic happened physiologically or the test was performed wrong)
I however am on the outs statistically even with that, most people don't change at all
a flat aquired\obtained knowledge test score is going to change as someone ages, as are virtually all other measures of personality, capability, and aptitude, granted the test does scale to age, it is supposed to, that is how it works
so many people detract from the value of the thing without having any beginning of an understanding what the hell the thing is to begin with
-
It's not a 'knee jerk hippie "peace and flowers everyone is equal" reaction'; I have never intimated a belief that everyone is 'equal'. I simply disagess the IQ test provides anything beyond a fairly meaningless number, and feel it has no value in actually judging a persons' mental capacity (not potential, as so many other things factor into learning - environment, opportunities, teaching, etc).
-
it is the potential to excel beyond others given average conditions
or... not
a high i.q. indicates that if you put me in the same environment as 100 point bill, with the same oppurtunities, with the same teaching, that I will do better
oy, the spoonfeeding
think of it as a piece of paper, bigger i.q. value, bigger piece of paper
adversity is occulation, you cannot use occulted parts of the sheet
well, you still have more writing surface because you had a larger piece of paper in the first place
my god, am I going to have to start hunting down peer reviewed journal articles to prove you wrong?
-
Name me two people who study in absolutely identical environments.
What is the practical use of an IQ value?
-
to tell someone with an IQ less than yours "haha I'm smarter than you!!!" even thought it doesn't really work like that.
-
IQ tests have well-known socioeconomic and racial outcome biases, despite being generally regarded as well-designed. It doesn't matter how much predictive power a test has in theory; in practice it's going to be subject to all the same social and cultural factors. That doesn't mean the IQ test is useless; it just means that it can't provide us with a complete picture of anything, especially on a large scale.
-
who said complete picture, I admitted it was just the one measure, conventional learning capacity, it doesn't measure creative capacity, doesn't measure kinesthetic, doesn't measure intrasocial or intersocial skills, but what it does, if it is used properly it does well, if I use a nail gun correctly it works well, if I use it wrong someone is calling an ambulance, that the procters produce faulty data is not the tests fault
it is the procters
BUT
I will tell you at least part of the socioeconomic drift is accurate, and if you thought about it you would know it
people with money tend to marry people with money, they tend to go to the same schools, they tend to run in the same circles, and they tend to breed with each other
people who are intelligent have a tendency to make money if they learn how to apply their abilities, which is often the case <how many blithering morons are on forbes top 100?>
people with traits pass them on to their children, be they wealth, intelligence, what have you
as to race, even if a black kid had a high i.q. would they want to show it off? would they get tested in the first place? hell no, people only get tested if they are particularly smart or particularly dumb, it's pretty hard to hide if you are that dumb, so your ass is getting tested, but if you are afraid of the anti intellectual backlash it is god damned easy to play dumb, not the test tha's racist, it is society
you want to tell me that there are per capita as many black people as white in colleges?
it's society that's broken in that sense, not this test, and to drop that complaint at it's door is faulty, there are problems, and all of them are either in the application of the test, the misinterpretation of it, or are sufficiently minor to dissapear into margin of error
-
intersocial skills,
Follow these steps:
1. Imagine dumb blonde cheerleaders (With clothes on, you sick ****!)
2. Try to tell me with a straight face that social skills should be used as a basis for determining intelligence.
-
'Intelligence' as measured by the IQ test focuses on the ability to solve problems of logic. Which is fairly a narrow definition, but does apply to a lot of problems.
The IQ test is scored based on the following: it is supposed to represent your 'mental age' as a percentage of your physical age. Since the brain does not develop further (based on age, not external factors) beyond about age 18, they cap physical age at 18 for purposes of calculation.
Basically, they work out the average score for each age range, and that score is IQ 100 for that range. This graph is then used to score either side of the mean in each age range.
Re: online IQ tests: I've taken one once. This was in response to someone claiming an IQ of 133 according to that site, so I took it and got 143. I then said, "the mere fact I took the test means that my score should not exceed 100. What does this say about you, since you scored even lower?"
They could choose to believe the test, and be insulted, or claim (rightly) that it was a load of crap...
Problem with online, unregulated tests is that they're marketing exercises. They're telling the 'customer' what they want to hear, so they'll tell their friends, who also visit the site, which pushes up the hit counters and increases advert revenue.
-
I don't think anyone answered my question as to what is the practical use for an IQ test?
-
I don't think anyone answered my question as to what is the practical use for an IQ test?
What's the purpose of a post count?
ePenis of course.
It's a pissing competition...
-
It makes a good 2-page long thread on here?
-
I think you're applying a rather elastic definition of 'good' here, Flip :D
-
I don't think anyone answered my question as to what is the practical use for an IQ test?
You can tell people you got a higher IQ than that you're more intelligent than them. I'd say that is quite fun and worthwhile.
-
I don't think anyone answered my question as to what is the practical use for an IQ test?
if they were actually used properly you could handle school sub division, the waste of time that is the necessity of teaching to the bottom of the class, or as close to the bottom as the teacher has to to get the necessary test scores <esp. now with AYP> it sorta screws over the upper echelons
and though the argument could be made that you could place straight A students in advanced classes, as is often the case, many times they are simply the beaureaucrats, the people who are willing to put up with the busy work that all of primary and secondary education is, I mean, for the love of god, copying answers from a book, oh, one notch better, applying the formula you memorized to a math problem of that exact variety
teach everything heuristically, put people with those who are actually close to their peers, don't zone schools by physical location, zone them by merit, not like you have to worry too much about the extra funds any how, you're just bussing the top 5% and the bottom 5% any significant distance, all the average folk, thanks to the very nature of the bell curve, are pretty darn close to each other and will find the nearest school sufficient
it'd never be done, but what the hell, it makes sense
-
I don't think anyone answered my question as to what is the practical use for an IQ test?
if they were actually used properly you could handle school sub division, the waste of time that is the necessity of teaching to the bottom of the class, or as close to the bottom as the teacher has to to get the necessary test scores <esp. now with AYP> it sorta screws over the upper echelons
and though the argument could be made that you could place straight A students in advanced classes, as is often the case, many times they are simply the beaureaucrats, the people who are willing to put up with the busy work that all of primary and secondary education is, I mean, for the love of god, copying answers from a book, oh, one notch better, applying the formula you memorized to a math problem of that exact variety
teach everything heuristically, put people with those who are actually close to their peers, don't zone schools by physical location, zone them by merit, not like you have to worry too much about the extra funds any how, you're just bussing the top 5% and the bottom 5% any significant distance, all the average folk, thanks to the very nature of the bell curve, are pretty darn close to each other and will find the nearest school sufficient
it'd never be done, but what the hell, it makes sense
It's institutionalized discrimination that intentionally creates a primary and secondary education disparity on the assumption that IQ is the be all and end all of intelligence, with absolutely no regard for individual achievement and applied learning (because you ruled out grade-based). Hell, I experienced both sides of graded-schooling (that is, being placed in exam-result based classes for the next year, both high and low); I don't believe my IQ changed, and yet I leaped from the '2nd bottom' to 2nd class.....