[Eug]

Originally Posted by SVass 

Anyway, does a Canadian have an environment sufficiently similar to a United Statesian to make this test valid for us? sam

Yes.

[Miniryu]

Originally Posted by itistoday 

If an IQ test is timed it means it's compensating for the poor quality of the questions it's asking.

True IQ tests are those that give you a generous amount of time to solve a problem so that the question becomes no longer whether you had enough time to provide the correct answer, but whether you were capable of giving it in the first place.

Not true. If it takes you half an hour to add 3 plus 3, but it only takes me 1 second, I am better at addition- regardless of the fact that we were both capable of producing the correct answer. Speed of processing is an important component of all types of intelligence. The quantity of semantic knowledge someone has is only one facet of intelligence- being able to access and use it is another.

However, you are correct that there are many intelligence domains not tested here, and that an IQ should be consistent across various IQ measuring tools.

Originally Posted by Dakar² 

Look at the pics posted:

Language
Memory
Logic
Math
Visual memory
Perception

That's a decent sampling of IQ domains- the real question is how much research supports the accuracy and validity of the test items.

Originally Posted by :dragonflypro: 

The logic and perception would be harder to cheat on, but the others, especially memory types, would be easier to manipulate.

It is a principle of standardized testing that taking any type of test twice, including logic and perception, can increase your score significantly.

If your score didn't improve on the second testing, then you should be concerned.

[PER3]

Well, I got 113 after six beers.

All of the logic and something questions were great, but my memory questions were rooted.

Oh, logic and perception...

[SVass]

Oisin changed the word "number" to the word "word" in order to twist the meaning of a statement! Eug claims Canadians and those to their South have identical backgrounds. Both argue illogically! IQ tests are inherently designed to impress the taker with the superior intelligence of the maker who is too dumb to know any better.

(My IQ test score has been measured above the range of applicability of the tests that you use.) sam

[Eug]

Originally Posted by SVass 

Eug claims Canadians and those to their South have identical backgrounds.

No I didn't.

[torsoboy]

Originally Posted by Miniryu 

That's the largest gap between any of the results- even on the entire results page.

And have you ever studied statistics? We have no idea what varience is.

I have been giving IQ tests for the U.S. goverment for the past two years, just so you know.

Are you implying that because you have been "giving" IQ tests (to whom by the way?) for the government for two years, that that somehow means that you know everything about them and how they are compiled, created, etc.? That doesn't seem like a valid thing to say. Does a person that has been giving ACT/SAT tests for two years know anything about them? Most likely not... you pass out the test, and collect it and the machine scores it.

So aside from giving these tests to people, why do you believe that you are someone that knows better than anyone else on this board what should be on the tests? And why is the test you give any more valid than any other test of this sort?

[Oisín]

Let me simplify your argument to "Which number comes next in this list: two, three, ...?"

The "correct" answer could be four or five with the latter being true if this were a list of prime numbers.

Absolutely correct—which is why my list was of the words, “one, two, three, ...”, not simply “two, three, ...”. Had the list been “two, three, five, ...”, it would have been just as ambiguous (since there are two obvious patterns: 2 + 3 = 5; 3 + 5 = 8, answer is 8; or prime numbers, answers is 7). Had it, however, been “two, three, five, seven, eleven, thirteen, seventeen, ...”, there’s not much ambiguity left, though if you search long enough, you can always find a different pattern to base more or less any answer on.

You ignored the premise of my argument that all such tests are valid only within a limited range and only for those raised in a similar environment.

With some questions in some IQ tests, yes. A good example is IQ tests that ask you such questions as “In what year was the battle of the Alamo?”—that’s obviously a US-centric question that people from different parts of the world would have little chance of answering (I wouldn’t know, for instance).

Your example (and mine) above, though, are questions of universally applicable logic, equally usable for anyone who has received a certain amount of education. Obviously, a three-year-old who can barely count to ten can’t be expected to see the patterns, but IQ tests are, after all, by their very nature, not made for 100% of the population, but only a certain part of it (for a test like this one: adults with relatively normally functioning brains). Whether you grew up an upper-class kid in Beverly Hills or work as a cleaning lady in Phnom Penh, you’d have more or less equal chances of seeing the pattern.

Anyway, does a Canadian have an environment sufficiently similar to a United Statesian to make this test valid for us?

There is very little in this test (besides the language factor, that it needs to be taken by someone with good English skills) that is environmentally conditioned. I’m Danish, and thus grew up in an environment quite different to both the US and Canada, yet I did quite well on the test. My boyfriend, who is Chinese and grew up in an environment vastly different to both the US, Canada, and Denmark, didn’t do quite as well as I did overall; but in the logic, memory, and perception ones, he actually did better than me—he just did poorly in the language part, because his English skills are poorer than mine (many of the language questions depended on knowing ‘fancy’ words, which I do, but he doesn’t).

[Cadaver]

I had my IQ tested a couple of times when I was in elementary school prior to my parents moving me to a private school. I know what the results were then, so I don't want to risk seeing the number go down. So no more IQ tests for me.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by Cadaver 

I had my IQ tested a couple of times when I was in elementary school prior to my parents moving me to a private school. I know what the results were then, so I don't want to risk seeing the number go down. So no more IQ tests for me.

Not all IQ tests necessarily have the same ranges. ie. 100 for one test ≠ 100 for another test.

[macgeek2005]

I got 106, but it said it calculates based on my age, and i'm only 16, so that's not really fair. I'm gonna do it again and tell them i'm 70 and i'll get a higher score.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by macgeek2005 

I got 106, but it said it calculates based on my age, and i'm only 16, so that's not really fair. I'm gonna do it again and tell them i'm 70 and i'll get a higher score.

At least you didn't say 140 like I bet you were tempted to.

[macgeek2005]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

At least you didn't say 140 like I bet you were tempted to.

Why would I be tempted to say that? But anyways.. I don't understand how they calculate it, why should age make a difference?

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by macgeek2005 

Why would I be tempted to say that?

Uh, I would think that the kind of guy who pities others because he believes himself to be in a higher class of intellect due to his taste in cinema would be the kind of guy to lie about an IQ score.

But anyways.. I don't understand how they calculate it, why should age make a difference?

I could be wrong but I think that, as opposed to your assumption, it gives some extra points to younger people based on their lack of accumulated knowledge. I wouldn't give it too much weight, though - I did some research and found people who said it's the least accurate of the free tests online - so I decided not to take it. I doubt a good IQ test would give you an open opportunity to improve your score prior to taking it; that just sounds like it could be gamed really easily even if it were accurate otherwise.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I could be wrong but I think that, as opposed to your assumption, it gives some extra points to younger people based on their lack of accumulated knowledge. I wouldn't give it too much weight, though - I did some research and found people who said it's the least accurate of the free tests online - so I decided not to take it. I doubt a good IQ test would give you an open opportunity to improve your score prior to taking it; that just sounds like it could be gamed really easily even if it were accurate otherwise.

Here is the way they calculate the score.

I'm not sure of the reasoning, but with the same amount of answers right, based on the age, the ranking changes.

For example, at 55 answers right, here are the calculated IQs:

1) 55+: 147
2) 35-54: 135
3) 25-34: 136
4) 16-24: 132

OTOH, at 41 questions right:

1) 55+: 121
2) 35-54: 112
3) 25-34: 109
4) 16-24: 106

Why are 25 year-olds give a higher score than 35 year-olds when they've answered 55 questions right, even though 25 year-olds are given a lower score than 35 year-olds when they've answered 41 questions right? I don't get it.

[centerchannel68]

Originally Posted by Eug 

I don't get it.

I guess you aren't intelligent enough to understand.