http://www.mensa.dk/testiq.html

it's long and gets pretty hard near the middle and pretty much impossible for my feeble weak mind at the end...

I went through the first half
and then
clicked on A for the rest
and i got 106

eh, i only got 123 going through the whole thing...

btw, this is the scale:

Average: 85 - 115
Above average: 116 - 125
Gifted Borderline Genius: 126 - 135
Highly gifted and appearing to be a Genius to most others: 136 - 145
Genius: 146 - 165
High Genius: 166 - 180
Highest Genius: 181 - 200
Beyond being measurable Genius: Over 200

121 I just clicked randomly on the last 5 (getting bored)

it's in a foreign language

Originally posted by RX-GR8
it's in a foreign language

not the actual test...just scroll down and press the only button you can press...it looks like "start"

...I guessed it's timed; I didn't answer a couple and still got 128

I thought part of the IQ test was the ability to read Dutch. :)
The last half are hard. 119 for me.

Originally posted by Speed-ER doc
I thought part of the IQ test was the ability to read Dutch. :)
The last half are hard. 119 for me.

Dutch!?! If you succeded, you are an even BIGGER genius because its Danish.

That's MY language. ;)

I've been a MENSA member since I was a teenager, so I didn't "bother" with the test - I'm afraid to find out my score will be much lower now because of my hardening brain.:p

One does not take an IQ test on computer.

Don't get an IQ test confused with the construct intelligence. The theoretical question is: how well does the IQ test map onto intelligence? The easy answer with our current IQ tests is it does not map onto intelligence well at all. And this is even during our current inchoate state of determining what intelligence really involves.

^^^^^
Riiiiiiiight.

Got a 119!

Damn you are right that the test got hard at the end!

121

:p

Originally posted by ArXate
One does not take an IQ test on computer.

Don't get an IQ test confused with the construct intelligence. The theoretical question is: how well does the IQ test map onto intelligence? The easy answer with our current IQ tests is it does not map onto intelligence well at all. And this is even during our current inchoate state of determining what intelligence really involves.

The "construct" intelligence?
Theoretical question?

Welcome Captain Redundancy!

"Inchoate"? That was particularly arcane. "Incomplete" or "immature" would have not only been easier to swallow, it would have been more proper.

A Standardized Intelligence Test is just that: a testing standard by which people can be compared.
If you think a non-lingual IQ test like the one posted here is incomplete or inaccurate, you should try the one of the exit tests they administer to high-schoolers.
Trying to gauge an individual's overall functionality via an IQ test would be spurious at best.
I can think of several savant individuals that can complete our little test at a brisk pace, score well into the 99 percentile and still be completely incapable of feeding themselves.

IQ tests are just like any real-world indirect measuring method.
You take a known quantity (say, K.F. Gauss - probably an IQ well into the 200 range but we will never know for sure; he never took a test like we have today), measure it in an abstract manner (evaluate his works and writings) and then compare it to an unknown (everyone else, including those of us who didn't do our father's income taxes at the age of 4). The gradations can then be worked out as a function of scale.

Just like the way a boost gauge works.

130 132 or 148 :D depending on the button at the end, randomly selecting the last 5. And yes, it is timed.

As a card-carrying Mensan, I'll have to give it a try when I have time to dedicate to it without interruption. :)

Originally posted by Xanda
130 132 or 148 :D depending on the button at the end, randomly selecting the last 5. And yes, it is timed.

I got the same score and guessed on the last five. Last two I didn't even look at, seconds left on the clock.

Is there anyone here who can translate the final screen for me?

Originally posted by pauleta
Is there anyone here who can translate the final screen for me?

for me as well...i tried searching through the English pages for the English version of the IQ test but couldn't find it...Maniac, you're Danish right? :)

Yeah, there are 3 balls you can click on below the final IQ number that raises it some, some sort of allowance for variability or time?

130. Being color blind is a b!^@&.

Originally posted by Speed-ER doc
Yeah, there are 3 balls you can click on below the final IQ number that raises it some, some sort of allowance for variability or time?

i think there are several scales to compare your raw score to...i'm pretty sure one is called Welscher(sp?) Scale...i think those 3 buttons at the end represent your score on three different scales...100 is usually average intelligence...

Originally posted by maxwell72764
130. Being color blind is a b!^@&.

Maybe it helped :)

LOL

i got 116 and i clicked randomly for the the last 10 or so :\ finding patterns is boring

126

Originally posted by eccles
As a card-carrying Mensan, I'll have to give it a try when I have time to dedicate to it without interruption. :) 140, 143 or 164, depending on the button at the end. Had to pass on a couple and go back for them at the end, and totally guessed at the last one.

Originally posted by eccles
140, 143 or 164, depending on the button at the end. Had to pass on a couple and go back for them at the end, and totally guessed at the last one.

i could spend the entire 40 minutes on 36-39 and never get them...did you get those? i have no clue how to solve those and its bothering me...

Originally posted by BRx8
i could spend the entire 40 minutes on 36-39 and never get them...did you get those? i have no clue how to solve those and its bothering me... I found an answer that fitted for 36, though I don't know if it was the one they wanted. Nailed 37 and 38. 39 was a total guess - I could maybe have figured it out given more time, but I though it better to bail and get the time bonus than futz with it for more than a couple of minutes.

Originally posted by Maniac
The "construct" intelligence?
Theoretical question?

Welcome Captain Redundancy!

"Inchoate"? That was particularly arcane. "Incomplete" or "immature" would have not only been easier to swallow, it would have been more proper.

A Standardized Intelligence Test is just that: a testing standard by which people can be compared.
If you think a non-lingual IQ test like the one posted here is incomplete or inaccurate, you should try the one of the exit tests they administer to high-schoolers.
Trying to gauge an individual's overall functionality via an IQ test would be spurious at best.
I can think of several savant individuals that can complete our little test at a brisk pace, score well into the 99 percentile and still be completely incapable of feeding themselves.

IQ tests are just like any real-world indirect measuring method.
You take a known quantity (say, K.F. Gauss - probably an IQ well into the 200 range but we will never know for sure; he never took a test like we have today), measure it in an abstract manner (evaluate his works and writings) and then compare it to an unknown (everyone else, including those of us who didn't do our father's income taxes at the age of 4). The gradations can then be worked out as a function of scale.

Just like the way a boost gauge works.

Does anyone else detect arrogance here? Arrogance is fine if it's warranted but in this case it's not. It's clear that Maniac is talking about something he doesn't quite understand and hasn't studied or studied adequately.

Let me square you away on a few things, ok? IQ is circular; it's measured by a test called itself. In this sense it's empirical, concrete, and not theoretical. The problem is when you use it to try to measure something else, namely intelligence, which IS theoretical because we know so little about what it might involve and, equally important, what it does not involve. Much of the current research focuses on the two questions mentioned in my first post. First, what is intelligence (a theoretical question). And second, how might IQ map onto intelligence (another independent theoretical question). These are two prongs of ACTUAL scientific examination and there is obviously nothing redundant or logically invalid. The obvious question for a lay person is: how can we worry about how well IQ maps onto intelligence when we're not even close to having our definition of intelligence squared away? This is what should have been mentioned by Maniac, who seemed to suggest that tests exist to compare individuals along whatever and that should be just fine. What's been done with the IQ tests is NOT. You ask anyone off the street what the IQ test measures and they will either immediately or eventually say it measures intelligence; it does not. Psychologial/psychometric intelligence researchers are well aware of this problem and its HUGE political implications.

IQ was not initially meant to be an indirect measure of intelligence. Originally, it was designed to identify individuals whose cognitive functioning would be dangerously low for war. About 50 years ago, some researchers began tailoring it to try to measure a theoretical construct called "g," or psychometric GENERAL intelligence. For the next 50 years, these people (arthur jensen is one of them, and of course the authors of the Bell Curve, the deceased Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray) and new researchers continued to "hunt" for evidence of g. This class of researcher would fall under pure psychological research. Their research methods are called psychological or psychometric (as opposed to biological or neuroscience), and hence we have phrases like "measures of psychometric g."

This type of researcher is directly responsible for the 100 years of dangerously poor thinking and the current stagnation in research on intelligence. Three reasons are mostly responsible. First, researchers are deathly afraid to do research on intelligence for fear of political consequences (if you find evidence supporting a genetic basis, you're attacked; if you find evidence against a genetic basis, you're attacked). Second, most current researchers study it at the pyschological or psychometric level and this is NOT GOOD. Third, there is still no BIOLOGICAL model of human intelligence (we got a few psychological or psychometric models, some of which are measured by the IQ tests). In fact the state of intelligence research is so messed up that the only other area of psychological research that I can think of that's even close is attention deficit (Speed-ER doc might have some things to say about this, as do I on the theoretical issues/difficulties in gauging the construct "attention").

More recently some biological or neuroscience researchers have entered the fray using technologies like neuroimaging (PET, MRI, and functional MRI). But surprisingly, almost none are known as intelligence researchers. For instance, the famous William Greenough at the University of Illinois- Urbana Champaign studies neural plasticity (flexibility) in various environments, such as his studies on "enriched" vs "unenriched" environmental effects on rats. Also very noteworthy is that Illinois has the only consortium I've ever seen called Institute for Biological Intelligence. But get this, there is no one in the group known as an intelligence researcher. Rather, the researchers study various structures and aspects of brain and behavior. Illinois really mirrors what other major institutions and departments are thinking. FIRST, you map the brain and relate brain to behavior. When we have done this basic research sufficiently (which may take 50 to 100 more years), we will automatically begin to understand a whole bunch of secondary, higher level, more complex constructs such as attention, consciousness, and intelligence.

There are other researchers doing great work ASSOCIATED WITH (without being dubbed "intelligence research") and that uncovers some layers of the elusive construct "intelligence," like Richard Haier at UC Irvine, who is actually a neuroimaging expert. One final person I'll mention is the late Robert Thompson from LSU (and then UC Irvine until his death), who is the only human being on this planet to have come up with a biological model of intelligence (for the RAT). That seminal article took a RAT psychometric measure of g (gotten from the human conception of g) and tried to map it onto various brain structures known to be necessary for certain well-known (experimentally verified) rat behavioral/cognitive tasks. A valid conception of g should not only have great overlap on different psychometric measures (as has been observed; that's how we even have g, right?) but should ALSO overlap on a limited number of brain structures that presumably represent a network of structures necessary for general intelligent, cognitive functioning regardless of the specific differences in the cognitive tasks. Thompson's results indicated NONE of the eight brain structures was necessary for all of the cognitive tasks.

So there are 3 possibilities: (1) the rat behavioral/cognitive tasks are not representative of intelligent behavior, (2) psychometric g is invalid or flawed, (3) humans and rats are too different and the studies are incompatible. For anyone who truly understands rat neuroscience research and Thompson's method, the 3rd possibility is quickly thrown out. In fact, the rat behavioral/cognitive tasks are so sound that it would be difficult to argue not just that they have nothing to do with rat intelligence but nothing to do with human intelligence as well. Those paradigms were originally designed not just to understand rats but to understand humans through rats. Thus, the 1st possibility is quickly thrown out, leaving the 2nd possibility as the culprit. In fact, I had anticipated exactly this YEARS BEFORE a researcher I worked for mentioned Thompson to me.

I had already come up with a real good reason or hypothesis why psychometric g is flawed and why it would not map onto a biological model of intelligence long before I read Thompson's work. See, psychometric tests depend primarily on visual tasks and verbal tasks (which cross over with visual). The visual sense is not the primary sense for many mammals and other mammals do not have language. A valid conception of g should (1) be both psychometric and biological and (2) be consistent for a variety of mammals.

Robert Sternberg from Yale (triarchic model of intelligence), Howard Gardner from Harvard (multiple intelligences), Peter Salovey from Yale (who coined the term Emotional Intelligence or EQ; Daniel Goleman, the author of Emotional Intelligence, did not coin the term), and others, including Jack Block from Berkeley, blah blah blah etc., ALL study intelligence at the psychological or psychometric level. NONE can say anything about how brain structures and neural circuits map onto behavioral/cognitive tasks that most agree should be part of a construct of "intelligence," and how existing psychological/psychometric tests map onto these structures and neural networks.

The word "inchoate" applies perfectly. You just don't like that I chose to use that word.

Maniac, please by all means stick to things you know, like the boost gauge. That might help you, your cause, and what you have to offer this forum, which I think is a lot if it has to do with the Greddy.

Originally posted by Maniac

I've been a MENSA member since I was a teenager, so I didn't "bother" with the test

My using the word "inchoate" is probably less pretentious than your mentioning you're in MENSA.

MENSA is not that big of a deal, but people fear it like they do hearing the word "Harvard." MENSA is not some super incredible club. It's simply, in their own words, a forum for intellectually minded people to meet each other. They have no political agenda. They do not back any political, social, or scientific ideas. They simply get like-minded people to meet each other.

There are many ways to qualify and you only need to meet the requirements on one. A 1250 on the SAT is one way. Does anyone think a 1250 is that impressive?

Just finish your Greddy, for God's sake. You haven't written anything on your thread since the 25th. It's as bad as waiting for dyno's on Stage 1.

Originally posted by ArXate
MENSA is not that big of a deal, but people fear it like they do hearing the word "Harvard." MENSA is not some super incredible club. It's simply, in their own words, a forum for intellectually minded people to meet each other. They have no political agenda. They do not back any political, social, or scientific ideas. They simply get like-minded people to meet each other.Indeed, though they're not really even that "like-minded." The entry requirement is an IQ at or above the 98th percentile, which by definition, means that one person in fifty is eligible - hardly an exclusive club.

Since "intelligence" is the only criteria for membership, the members tend to be an incredibly diverse cross-section of the community, with equally diverse tastes and interests. I well remember the first meeting I attended, where I found one group of intellectuals gathered in the living room having a deep discussion about creationism vs the Big Bang, and in the kitchen I found another group gathered around the beer cooler telling dirty jokes. I'll give you one guess where I spent most of the evening. :D

I'm sure all those who claim to be genius level will post thier results. You when you guess on a few it drastically reduces the points.

Awesome story, eccles.

I got 130.
I am so smart.
I am so smart.
S. M. R. T.
I mean S. M. A. R. T.

-JiM

Originally posted by j1mb0x99
I got 130.
I am so smart.
I am so smart.
S. M. R. T.
I mean S. M. A. R. T.

-JiM

Yeah but rats can't read and vision is not their primary sensory modality.

Uhhhh, anybody got some gum?

133 under the "15" bubble
135 under the "16" bubble
152 under the "24" bubble

Anybody who understands the results page care to translate?

138, 140, 160

I figured out 38 and 39, couldn't figure out 37...

nevermind, I figured it out...

132...

You guys should all join MENSA and meet Maniac at one of the parties.

Maybe he will get all arrogant and manic and strip for y'all.

Originally posted by ArXate
You guys should all join MENSA and meet Maniac at one of the parties.

Maybe he will get all arrogant and manic and strip for y'all.

Yeah, baby!
Nudity rocks!