Planetarion Forums

Ragnarak · 4 May 2003, 19:30

can hardly wait for the forum to be full of "haha i'm a genious cos i got 150 on a crappy test" posts

Deffeh · 4 May 2003, 19:34

when is it?

i was only just above average last time.

Ragnarak · 4 May 2003, 19:35

Quote:

Originally posted by Deffeh
when is it?

i was only just above average last time.

20 minutes

workmonkey: sorry to disappoint but no

you could always try Nod for some of that hot man on man loving that you crave

MrL_JaKiri · 4 May 2003, 19:36

It's a terrible test for the measure.

ps.

I did it last time by saying the answer in between the time when they read the q out and gave the answer (in the answering stage), and got one wrong

Admittedly, it's the one THEY got wrong, and I got it right, but there we go.

Deffeh · 4 May 2003, 19:37

gish, im having people over
so i guess ill have to do it online another time (it is online again)

Starbucks · 4 May 2003, 19:39

might do it online

Nodrog · 4 May 2003, 19:42

In before the "IQ TESTS ARENT A TRUE MEASURE OF INTELLIGENCE/YES THEY ARE AND I HAVE AN IQ OF 160" tantrums.

MrL_JaKiri · 4 May 2003, 19:45

Quote:

Originally posted by Nodrog
In before the "IQ TESTS ARENT A TRUE MEASURE OF INTELLIGENCE/YES THEY ARE AND I HAVE AN IQ OF 160" tantrums.

I have a high IQ, and I still think they're a terrible measure.

I don't need the small ego reinforcement it brings.

acropolis · 4 May 2003, 19:46

IQ TESTS ARE CLEARLY A TRUE MEASURE OF INTELLECTAUL ABILITE AS I HAVE JUST SCORED 88.

WHICH IS A DAMN GOOD SCORE AT, SAY, PCGAMER.COM

(unreal tournament 2003, for example, scored an 88. i rock.)

queball · 4 May 2003, 19:50

hat

Ragnarak · 4 May 2003, 19:58

Quote:

Originally posted by acropolis
IQ TESTS ARE CLEARLY A TRUE MEASURE OF INTELLECTAUL ABILITE AS I HAVE JUST SCORED 88.

WHICH IS A DAMN GOOD SCORE AT, SAY, PCGAMER.COM

(unreal tournament 2003, for example, scored an 88. i rock.)

100 is the 'average' not the maximum....

(yes i know you're trolling but will rise to it anyway)

acropolis · 4 May 2003, 20:00

Quote:

Originally posted by Ragnarak
100 is the 'average' not the maximum....

(yes i know you're trolling but will rise to it anyway)

I AM FAR MORE THE SMART BY MY WAY OF COUNTING THANK YOU MUCH

Nodrog · 4 May 2003, 20:00

Quote:

Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri
I have a high IQ, and I still think they're a terrible measure.

In what way are terrible, and what measure do you think is better?

It is hardly the fault of the tests if people misunderstand their purpose/significance.

MrL_JaKiri · 4 May 2003, 20:08

Quote:

Originally posted by Nodrog
In what way are terrible, and what measure do you think is better?

'Very poor at measuring what people assume they're measuring'.

And you can't have a test for pure intellegence, it's like trying to be able to hold the number 2.

Nodrog · 4 May 2003, 20:13

Quote:

Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri
'Very poor at measuring what people assume they're measuring'.

Again, it depends how you analyse the results. Ive personally found rather high correlation between how "intelligent" I perceive someone to be, and their reported IQ. Expecting the number someone receives from the test as a definitive measure of their intelligence only shows that you misunderstand IQ testing. They arent meant to be a highly accurate measure of "intelligence", especially when applied to adults.

Quote:

Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri
'
And you can't have a test for pure intellegence, it's like trying to be able to hold the number 2.

You can if you use a quantative definition of intelligence, which is what IQ tests propose to be doing. Noone is claiming that they are a 'test for pure intelligence'.

MrL_JaKiri · 4 May 2003, 20:17

Quote:

Originally posted by Nodrog
You can if you use a quantative definition of intelligence, which is what IQ tests propose to be doing. Noone is claiming that they are a 'test for pure intelligence'.

It's creator stated that it was a test for certain abilities.

ps.

The 'IQ test' on that Test the Nation thing is about as good at being an IQ test as an IQ test is at being a horse.

Nodrog · 4 May 2003, 20:19

Quote:

Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri
It's creator stated that it was a test for certain abilities..

Yeah, thats kind of what I meant by "qualitative definition of intelligence". They were never intended to be particularly accurate when applied to adults, rather than young children; its best just to treat them as a (very) general guideline of inteilligence, as well as a bit of fun.

Proteus · 4 May 2003, 20:20

IQ tests are stupid.

And I have a high IQ too (even though I do Classics).

MrL_JaKiri · 4 May 2003, 20:20

Quote:

Originally posted by Nodrog
a bit of fun.

It's all very well being a bit of fun until people start using it to justify arguments, which we both know WILL happen with some people.

Nodrog · 4 May 2003, 20:22

Quote:

Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri
It's all very well being a bit of fun until people start using it to justify arguments, which we both know WILL happen with some people.

People misunderstanding science does not invalidate the science being misunderstood.

MrL_JaKiri · 4 May 2003, 20:38

Quote:

Originally posted by Nodrog
People misunderstanding science does not invalidate the science being misunderstood.

That would be a wonderful argument if we were talking about a science, and not a TV show.

Nodrog · 4 May 2003, 20:41

Quote:

Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri
That would be a wonderful argument if we were talking about a science, and not a TV show.

I was under the impression you were talking about IQ testing in general.

MrL_JaKiri · 4 May 2003, 20:45

Quote:

Originally posted by Nodrog
I was under the impression you were talking about IQ testing in general.

In that case...

That would be a wonderful argument if we were talking about a science, and not a multiple choice quiz.

Cyp · 4 May 2003, 23:10

Does the test take less than the time it took to type this, when answering randomly without seeing the questions?
If yes, can it be taken without filling in an e-mail address, name, credit card number or birth certificate?
If yes, can it be taken online?
If yes, does it work without having to install any viruses or anything like that?
If yes, what's the url?

MrL_JaKiri · 4 May 2003, 23:17

www.bbc.co.uk

Somewhere on there

W · 4 May 2003, 23:18

IQ tests are pretty interesting as pieces of statistics. They're just that tho, and most "IQ tests" aren't even IQ tests at all, but just a test that gives a score and claims it has anything to do with IQ.

I have never taken a real IQ test.

I'm confident I'd own you ALL.

SbOlly · 4 May 2003, 23:25

Quote:

Originally posted by W
IQ tests are pretty interesting as pieces of statistics. They're just that tho, and most "IQ tests" aren't even IQ tests at all, but just a test that gives a score and claims it has anything to do with IQ.

Well surely it can only be one or the other? Either IQ tests are a valid estimates of personal intelligence, thus those results can be used as statistics, or just tests that give scores and claims it has anything to do with IQ, meaning the statistics taken from them are equally rubbish?

I think it's all crap anyhow.

I scored 130. It's clearly rubbish. I'm SO smarter than that.
I'm the SMARTEST MAN ALIVE ! MWHAHA!

MrL_JaKiri · 4 May 2003, 23:25

Quote:

Originally posted by W
I have never taken a real IQ test.

I'm confident I'd own you ALL.

I took one a good few years back, completed it in 1/3 the allotted time and got it all right.

MrL_JaKiri · 4 May 2003, 23:27

Quote:

Originally posted by SbOlly
Well surely it can only be one or the other? Either IQ tests are a valid estimates of personal intelligence, thus those results can be used as statistics, or just tests that give scores and claims it has anything to do with IQ, meaning the statistics taken from them are equally rubbish?

IQ tests aren't meant to be a sole measure of intellegence, and were never meant to be. They were picked up by people who thought it was nice to be able to apply numbers to everything.

All they measure is how good you are at doing the tests.

It doesn't mean you can't compare the statistics.

SbOlly · 4 May 2003, 23:29

Quote:

Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri
All they measure is how good you are at doing the tests.

It doesn't mean you can't compare the statistics.

So surely the statistics just show how well people are at doing tests, and don't show statistics on how intelligent people are.

W · 4 May 2003, 23:29

Quote:

Originally posted by SbOlly
Well surely it can only be one or the other? Either IQ tests are a valid estimates of personal intelligence, thus those results can be used as statistics, or just tests that give scores and claims it has anything to do with IQ, meaning the statistics taken from them are equally rubbish?

Whooooosh!

Some people need to learn what statistics really is.

W · 4 May 2003, 23:32

Quote:

Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri
I took one a good few years back, completed it in 1/3 the allotted time and got it all right.

Well, they had a "personality test" at the interview for the army, which I guess really was a decent IQ test. I also got it all right, don't remember how much of the time I used, but I was second to have it done, and #1 had checked randomly.

MrL_JaKiri · 4 May 2003, 23:34

Quote:

Originally posted by SbOlly
So surely the statistics just show how well people are at doing tests, and don't show statistics on how intelligent people are.

Where did Woo state that that was what he meant that they were interesting for that reason?

Thatthatthatthatthat

Jammers · 4 May 2003, 23:40

126, which was better than the 80or so I got last year

Nodrog · 4 May 2003, 23:41

Quote:

Originally posted by SbOlly
Well surely it can only be one or the other? Either IQ tests are a valid estimates of personal intelligence, thus those results can be used as statistics, or just tests that give scores and claims it has anything to do with IQ, meaning the statistics taken from them are equally rubbish?

A good IQ test is an accurate measure of the aspects of general intelligence which the person(s) who designed the test decided should compose the "intelligence" to be tested under exam condictions. What does "personal intelligence" even mean? Common sense? Level of education? Critical thinking? Creativity? Reasoning? Ability to learn? All of the above?

Deepflow · 4 May 2003, 23:49

what a wonderful atmosphere

roadrunner_0 · 5 May 2003, 00:04

i was too busy being in the pub killing brain cells to take the test!

Deepflow · 5 May 2003, 00:05

see

thats much better

Sarina_Joy · 5 May 2003, 00:53

Henry :)

I didn't take the test I was too busy working, I wish I had been down the pub :(

Sarina_Joy · 5 May 2003, 01:01

Flavius :)

Radical Edward · 5 May 2003, 08:48

Quote:

Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri
It's a terrible test for the measure.

ps.

I did it last time by saying the answer in between the time when they read the q out and gave the answer (in the answering stage), and got one wrong

Admittedly, it's the one THEY got wrong, and I got it right, but there we go.

I did that too. It was well funny, as I was playing a game at the time, and mum was working hard at the test, and I wandered in just as they were doing the answer thing and mum couldn'T work out how I came up with all the answers so fast.

Phang · 5 May 2003, 09:30

similar to Eddy here. 138, but im under 16 so meh. and since I've taken 'proper' IQ tests and got >145 before, and scored 100% over two legs on the 11+ a few years back, and looking at the questions they had there, I can say this:

IT IS A LOAD OF UTTER SH]IT.

Radical Edward · 5 May 2003, 10:18

Quote:

Originally posted by Phang

IT IS A LOAD OF UTTER SH]IT.

Absolutely. most of the intelligent people I know slate IQ tests, regardless of their personal scores.

menth0l · 5 May 2003, 10:21

i got a 116 on that.

7/12 on the language questions :C

Radical Edward · 5 May 2003, 10:22

only 7?!? look at the middle bit of my sig :P

Marilyn Manson · 7 May 2003, 16:59

I got 95. Call me biased in this, but I think I have at least some measure of above average intelligence.

I think the fact that I cannot do maths to save my life may have been prejudicial.

W · 7 May 2003, 17:06

Quote:

Originally posted by Marilyn Manson
I got 95. Call me biased in this, but I think I have at least some measure of above average intelligence.

I think the fact that I cannot do maths to save my life may have been prejudicial.

Anyone who lacks matematical ability is necesarilly sub-par.

Marilyn Manson · 7 May 2003, 17:10

Quote:

Originally posted by W
Anyone who lacks matematical ability is necesarilly sub-par.

Only if you're a physicist or Carol Vordeman. Otherwise, I can't see any need in it whatsoever.

Words are what are important.

Deffeh · 7 May 2003, 17:12

i like how you are all slating it, but you all took the test anyway.

And you end it with either "and besides i aced that test" or "anyway i have a high IQ really so the test doesnt matter"

W · 7 May 2003, 17:17

Quote:

Originally posted by Deffeh
i like how you are all slating it, but you all took the test anyway.

And you end it with either "and besides i aced that test" or "anyway i have a high IQ really so the test doesnt matter"

We're critisizing it as an IQ test not as entertainment. It's great entertainment, but a sucky sucky IQ test.