What is your IQ based on this free online test
www.iqtest.com
Mine was 120.
Johan De Silva / Portfolio
Mine was 120.
Johan De Silva / Portfolio
140. Woo!
And I have no idea what a congruent regular hexagon is.
And I have no idea what a congruent regular hexagon is.
132.
Which is about right for me.
Accessibility != Bobby
Which is about right for me.
Accessibility != Bobby
from iqtest
Your general IQ score is: 137
i think this test is a little generous
i also did one a couple of years ago from a diffent place
which i cannot remenber of hand, that gave a lower figure of 127
or does taking part in this forum increase your IQ
Your general IQ score is: 137
i think this test is a little generous
i also did one a couple of years ago from a diffent place
which i cannot remenber of hand, that gave a lower figure of 127
or does taking part in this forum increase your IQ
76....
...but then i filled 'em in at random...
IQ tests are bunk IMHO, they just attempt to prove how good you are at taking IQ tests...
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1995/Ukpga_19950050_en_8.htm#mdiv57
...but then i filled 'em in at random...
IQ tests are bunk IMHO, they just attempt to prove how good you are at taking IQ tests...
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1995/Ukpga_19950050_en_8.htm#mdiv57
Aye Jim, they are total bunk. The statistic measurement is, mathematically speaking, horse-hockey and the twins on whom the original research was based never existed!
Accessibility != Bobby
Accessibility != Bobby
This is a really bad example!
Its not an IQ test.
Its not an IQ test.
Actually IQ tests do serve a purpose.
I've never come across a perfectly accessible website, but I don't say web accessibility is bunkum.
However they are suseptable to missinterpretation. They do not measure, like a set of scales. But more like an OCR algorithm. They can detect traits. But not absolute quantities of anything, which is why most folk are skeptical (rightly) to call them a 'measurement' of anything.
Last edited by Phil Teare on 14 Nov 2006 04:34 pm; edited 1 time in total
I've never come across a perfectly accessible website, but I don't say web accessibility is bunkum.
However they are suseptable to missinterpretation. They do not measure, like a set of scales. But more like an OCR algorithm. They can detect traits. But not absolute quantities of anything, which is why most folk are skeptical (rightly) to call them a 'measurement' of anything.
Last edited by Phil Teare on 14 Nov 2006 04:34 pm; edited 1 time in total
| monkeygod wrote: |
| or does taking part in this forum increase your IQ |
or are people with high IQs inherently more likely to take part in the forum?
or is it just that people with low scores who've genuinely tried are keeping quiet?*
or possibly all of the above?
Linkage does not in itself prove causality or the direction of cause: Geordies are happy when Newcastle win. Unfortunately - and believe me we've tried - Newcastle don't win automatically just because we're happy.
*note, although I don't expect you to believe me, I've not done this test yet because I'm at work. I plan to do it tonight.
...has anyone read S.J Gould's the Mismeasure of Man? Great book about IQ testing/ eugenics and so on...
Jack Pickard The Pickards Information Services| Blog | Twit
| JackP wrote: |
| ...has anyone read S.J Gould's the Mismeasure of Man? Great book about IQ testing/ eugenics and so on... |
Mike Abbott
Accessible to everyone
I haven't (I'm 'thinly read' as Eddy Izzard would say).
But eugenics is the biggest stain on the whole IQ issue. An LSE lecture raised its ugly head reasently.
That is were it all falls apart, because the qualities of interlect are subject to culture, and thus gender, age and geolocation. So eugenics arguments are horribly flawed from the beginning, which is little to do with their (IQ tests) 'local' or intra(not inter)group based usefulness.
Last edited by Phil Teare on 14 Nov 2006 04:35 pm; edited 2 times in total
But eugenics is the biggest stain on the whole IQ issue. An LSE lecture raised its ugly head reasently.
That is were it all falls apart, because the qualities of interlect are subject to culture, and thus gender, age and geolocation. So eugenics arguments are horribly flawed from the beginning, which is little to do with their (IQ tests) 'local' or intra(not inter)group based usefulness.
Last edited by Phil Teare on 14 Nov 2006 04:35 pm; edited 2 times in total
I'm gross
that is my score was 144 
Mike Abbott
Accessible to everyone
Mike Abbott
Accessible to everyone
Many of the questions look like common "brain teasers" which someone might already know the answer to. However, according to their IQ Comparison Chart, there's quite a few geniuses on these boards.
As for me, I'm thick as two short planks. I got 129.
As for me, I'm thick as two short planks. I got 129.
I have done the real thing before under exam conditions when I was a teenager.
Might be interesting to do a unofficial web one now I am old aged.
};-) http://www.xhtmlcoder.com/
WVYFC chose the Yorkshire Air Ambulance as the main charity to fund raise for in 2006
Might be interesting to do a unofficial web one now I am old aged.
};-) http://www.xhtmlcoder.com/
WVYFC chose the Yorkshire Air Ambulance as the main charity to fund raise for in 2006
My personal view on IQ tests is that it's not a true indication of one's cognitive abilities. You could have someone who is an absolute genius at math, while they stumble on understanding the english language. Like the question about the doughnut shaped house, what if 'doughnut' was understood to mean 'cone shaped'? It would definitely change the dynamic of the question
Having said that though, I got 130. What that means? I dunno. I didn't know what a congruent regular hexagon was either
Crazy Bat Designs
Home of the phpBB WASO
Helping you reach the most people possible.
Having said that though, I got 130. What that means? I dunno. I didn't know what a congruent regular hexagon was either
Crazy Bat Designs
Home of the phpBB WASO
Helping you reach the most people possible.



