What is Your IQ score ?

I don't know where you come off so smart, but I'm talking about Angel and you owe her an apology.
 
^Angel^ said:
Your IQ score is 104 .... :cry:
Click to expand...

No need to feel bad—104 is still above average. Don’t forget that the mean (average) IQ is by definition 100. So a score of 104 puts you at or above the 52nd percentile. In other words, if you were in a room with 99 other people, you’re smarter than 52 of those people. So wipe those tears and smile! :D
 
Katzie said:
I don't know where you come off so smart, but I'm talking about Angel and you owe her an apology.
Click to expand...

aww Thank you Katzie *hugs*....He already apologize to me in pm :ily: ....


And Thank you Levonian , U just add a smile on my face :ily: ....


U guys are soo sweet! :mrgreen:
 
No problem Angel *HUGS* I got PM from him, too. All is clear now... happy posting! :dance:
 
crackerjackjez said:
WOW! :bowdown: I got 154
Click to expand...

I think it’s becoming pretty obvious that the folks at Emode are trying to blow sunshine up everybody’s asses in an attempt to extract $15.00 out of them. Of the 15 people who have so far reported their results here, 14 have an IQ which is above average. Since by definition 50% of all people have an IQ which is above average and 50% have an IQ which is below average, the statistical probability of 14 people randomly selected from a normal cross section of the population having an IQ which is above average is the same as the probability of tossing a coin 14 times and having it come up heads all 14 times—which is 1 over the fourteenth power of 2, or 1 in 16,384. In addition, 9 of the 15 report a score which places them at, above, or very near the genius range. Look at the chart below showing the Gaussian distribution of IQ scores in the general population. Crackerjackjez’s score of 154 places her at almost 4 standard deviations from the mean, or at about the 99.995th percentile of the population. In other words, only about 5 out of every 10,000 people have an IQ this high. Now compare the chart with DeafSCUBA’s score of 35. 35 places him at greater than 4 SD below the mean. Which means that DeafSCUBA is stupider than crackerjackjez is smart. If DeafSCUBA’s IQ were really 35, he would be little more than a drooling vegetable. So the bottom line is that the Emode test is seriously flawed. Don’t be too quick to condemn yourself for a low score or pat yourself on the back for a high one.
 

Attachments

  • NormalCurveRod.gif
    NormalCurveRod.gif
    8.2 KB · Views: 34
Last edited:
Levonian said:
I think it’s becoming pretty obvious that the folks at Emode are trying to blow sunshine up everybody’s asses in an attempt to extract $15.00 out of them. Of the 15 people who have so far reported their results here, 14 have an IQ which is above average. Since by definition 50% of all people have an IQ which is above average and 50% have an IQ which is below average, the statistical probability of 14 people randomly selected from a normal cross section of the population having an IQ which is above average is the same as the probability of tossing a coin 14 times and having it come up heads all 14 times—which is 1 over the fourteenth power of 2, or 1 in 16,384. In addition, 9 of the 15 report a score which places them at, above, or very near the genius range. Look at the chart below showing the Gaussian distribution of IQ scores in the general population. Crackerjackjez’s score of 154 places her at almost 4 standard deviations from the mean, or at about the 99.995th percentile of the population. In other words, only about 5 out of every 10,000 people have an IQ this high. Now compare the chart with DeafSCUBA’s score of 35. 35 places him at greater than 4 SD below the mean. Which means that DeafSCUBA is stupider than crackerjackjez is smart. If DeafSCUBA’s IQ were really 35, he would be little more than a drooling vegetable. So the bottom line is that the Emode test is seriously flawed. Don’t be too quick to condemn yourself for a low score or pat yourself on the back for high one.
Click to expand...

:werd: !!

100 is the average IQ- supposedly. Because 100 is the minimum IQ you could have for your age- any belower suggests that you have a IQ of 12 yrs old at age 18, et cetera.
IQ is being calucated by your age divided by 100 then times.. 81? I have forgetten the formula but age plays an IMPORTANT role. I don't think this EMODE/TICKLE test did ask for your age? (I don't take it because it is not authentic). I did figure out my IQ based on that formula in my senior year when I was 17 and I came to have an intelligence quotient of 126. So basically at age 17, I was thinking like a 23 (or 24? ah, whatever) years old person.
Also this IQ forumla doesn't apply to older people (i think, 40s and over) because IQ is based on the intelligence level up to 40 yrs old(not sure).. so if you are 50 yrs old and take that test, it probably would tell you that you have IQ of a 33 yrs old. But what kind of intelligence would 33 yrs old would have?
That case may apply to DeafScuba- The emode/tickle IQ test is probably aimed to a younger audience and he happens to be a tad older- so the IQ test could have ended up telling him that he thinks like 21 yrs old.. which attributes to his low IQ score due to the -AGE-.
That is the flaw in the IQ test.
Everybody calucates their IQ differently. ;)
 
Last edited:
You’re partially correct, Gnarly. The formula you described above is how the Stanford-Binet test measures IQ. The WAIS uses a more straightforward scoring technique which does not take into account chronological age, and gives a much more accurate score when testing adults. For this reason, the APA standard is to administer the Stanford-Binet to children and the Wechsler to adults.

http://members.chello.nl/p.cooijmans/essay/sd15.html
 
Back
Top