Female and male IQ disparities

So, if I take the Mensa self-test and get 126, then do the online tests over at the International High IQ Society and get 126, 128, 130, and a 147 respectively on four of the 5 available tests... Just how would this bell curve even be applicable?

…or, are we able to properly track sexual identities through IP addresses now?

…and yes… IQ tests ARE bullshit.

IMO of course... only IMO

 

IQ tests are idiotic. The person who invented them clearly stated that they were designed only to test for retardation and other extreme cases. He also said that using the test for anything other than that is stupid and pointless. Oh, and by the way, I took one of those online IQ tests (the most reliable of them, although I hear that they all suck) and got a very high number. Not that I think it means anything. The test looked to me like an average logic test. One that you can easily study for, and one that you'd do better on if you spent time practicing your logic. If somebody, no matter how intelligent, took this test without -ever- seeing a logic puzzle in his life, I doubt s/he would score very highly.

Bullshit designed by the Capitalist government to further split the population.

 

I have consistantly scored between 150-160 in IQ tests mandated by school or a psychologist from 1st grade and on. I've never studied once and still have a strangely high score. My IQ has actually "dropped" since I began testing because I've honed in on my verbal and emotional knowledge rather than scientific. I just have a predisposition towards logic which is pushing me into a law field. What I hate about IQ tests is that it's the standardized measure of intelligence- but just because I scored very highly on an IQ test does not mean I'm more intelligent than people who score lower than me. It just means that I'm a more logical person and/or a better test taker. There are many more forms of intelligence than that.

To me, intelligence is something that can't be given a simple number. Intelligence is too broad reaching for that.

 

I find it comical how those who decry IQ testing as "bullshit" or "idiotic" so often manage to work into their missive how high their IQ is as measured by those bullshit tests, even if their syntax fails to confirm the delusion. They're so smart but so humble too, don't you know.
Just for once I would like to see someone admit they're none too bright but IQ tests are bullshit anyway …

The problem the detractors have is there is nearly unanimous agreement among psychologists and other professionals who actually study this area that IQ is a valid component of human makeup that consistently can be accurately measured and replicated. I would suggest to posters fat tony and Kandahar, both of whose opinions I respect, this is a requirement for the scientific method that belies any pseudo-scientific label being attached to IQ testing.

I would also suggest that simplistic online tests, even the Mensa preliminary test, are unlikely to give you a correct evaluation. You cannot gain membership to Mensa, or any other legitimate high IQ society such as ISPE or Triple 9 by taking their online tests no matter how high you score. Those tests are used simply to give you a rough idea of your IQ, and whether it is worthwhile to take the supervised test.

 

Which is exactly what I'm saying. By bringing my own IQ scores into this, I am not trying to say that I am smart, but that the tests mean nothing. I don't think I'm a genious!

Where is this fact coming from?

 

You could start with the American Psychological Association.

http://www.apa.org/

This site has a wealth of information on IQ, aptitude and achievement testing, including the new SAT.

Undoubtedly there are PhD's in the behavioral sciences who do not agree that IQ is valid but they are a tiny minority.

 

I personally don't believe in intelligence tests. When I was tested, my intelligence came out as 'low normal'. Maybe that's true, I don't know. But if so, I don't know how I attended a prestigious college like I did, and got the grades I did. I don't know how I manage to know more than most people around me, or why people think I am 'intellectual'. If I'm below average, what does that say about the average?
The reason I score low on intelligence tests is that I have a learning disability, or mental block, in mathematics. It simply won't stay in my mind. I can argue logically on paper and in conversation, but the logic of math slides right by me. When I look at numbers my head hurts. I transpose numbers too--read a 35 as a 53, for instance. I have to balance my checkbook constantly just to make sure I haven't scraped the bottom of the barrel, and it's never right. I just make sure it isn't TOO off. When I was growing up I was sure this made me an idiot, and I had low self esteem problems over it for many years. But I finally realized that I have many other strengths, and having a weakness in one area does not make me stupid.
Nobody has mentioned Gardner's theory of seven intelligences yet, which I think has a lot more validity. They are :linguistic (as in writer/poet), logical-mathematical (scientist), musical (composer), spatial (sculptor, pilot), bodily kinesthetic (athlete), interpersonal (teacher), intrapersonal (persons who view themselves clearly). Maybe I'm just trying to make myself feel better, but it makes a lot more sense to me that different people can be smart in different ways. The stardard IQ test only measures logical-mathematical intelligence.

 

Celtgrrl it sounds as if you have a mild autism, and depending on your age that could have been seen as a form of retardation, as it was 30 years ago. Today that is not the case, and in fact autistic people are often highly intelligent although they may have difficulties in communication.

I think you should consider yourself an anomaly in this light, one of the few to whom IQ testing will tend to give a wrong result.

 

I don't agree with the part about "if you don't do well on test's you'll not do well on an iq test". I've been threw some of the advanced placement in school, pulled into the office many times asked why I fight with others and why my grades are only average in some courses and outstanding in others. Yet almost always poor test results... But each government test and iq test i've ever taken has been among the highest of the class. So personally I think being bored in class and having that same mind set for an in class exam as being the main cause for my lack of test results that score poorly. However when doing something one is interested in the sky is the limit.

There is one thing I would like to see added to the iq tests out there, simply an untimed unlimited answer sheet to measure creativity or maybe just how much of an idealist someone is / can be. Q: How would you solve the drinking water problem growing in major cities.

The answer would not have to actually work, but reading the person's answer would probably show alot more into how the writers mind works then simply answering a bunch of multiple choice questions about crap not normally used in real life.

 

Funny you should say that...I work with autistic children. I am not going to deny that I have some autistic traits. I know that I do. My xhusband and I were talking today and the subject of eye contact came up. He seemed quite astonished when I told him that I find eye contact extremely uncomfortable, and that's an autistic trait. It's not the only one I possess, although nobody has said that I am autistic in any way. But who would? I see a psychiatrist, but that is because I am bipolar. I have to pry diagnoses out of her, so if she thought that, I'm not sure if she'd tell me. (Yes, I know, I need to find another psychiatrist). Also, I am forty years old, so you're right, nobody would have have noticed it. I was never called retarded in any way, though I was in remedial math for a long time. If I were in school now, I'd be in special ed.
But I digress, because what I am really interested in is, how did you come with autism with the information I gave?

 

Celtgrrl, transposing numbers, and letters and words, is a classic sign of autism. Also, concentrating to the point of being unable to concentrate is another sign. These days I believe mild autism can be fairly easily treated. There are also tests that can test for this ailment.

 

Huh...i'll have to look into that further. But i don't know how it could be treated. I mean, it's a genetic disorder. I don't cure a child of autism; I work on getting them to communicate better, and hope that I made a dent. But for sure, communicating with verbal words is something i tend to have difficulty with. Also, I am very standoffish.

Sorry if I hijacked the thread.

 

1 dyscalcula is what transposing numbers is called, autistics are only slightly more likely to suffer from this from anyone else

2. dyslexia is the transposition of words and or letters, same spiel

3. Autism isn't treated, people develop "hacks" or workarounds to solve some of the problems but it is not cured or treated

4. There are no cut and dry tests any more than there is a cut and dry test for depression or any other behaviour modifying condition

5. There are some stupid fucks running around who believe autistics don't have emotion, they are indeed incompetent

 

i personally think this is a perfectly valid theory. And that while each ethic background mightnt differ much, that the original language someone knows and thinks and dreams in, and culture theyre brought up in as a child can affect their way of thinking entirely. as well as genetic traits.

however the mind is the brain and the brain is more complex than a one dimensional field that can be plotted. its not only the basic structure of the brain, which is very complex (genetic mind), but also the way each part of the brain connects (learned mind)

i dunno if you put in those things in the brackets or not but i think they completely mis-term each of the intelligences youve mentioned.

each of these conencts to senses: linguistic is our sense of recognition and structure. mathematics is our sense of logic and linking of ideas and concepts. music is sound. spacial is sense of space. kinesthetic is sense of touch and feel. interpersonal is sense of other minds or environments. intrapersonal is sense of self (but i see that as a more complex sense integrating ego and such)

but these are just tagging in what we can percieve to be seperate senses. only by understanding more about neurochemistry can humans really show an indication of intelligence

until then all we can do is place people in a relation over how well they can do a set mind-task.

intelligence = mind power

so by plotting mind power over one dimension this would assume that the mind can only do one task?

that is why IQ is bullshit in determining a persons actual intelligence. its useful in a social context though, because in society it doesnt matter what your intelligence is unless you can express it in a way that other people can interpret (in basic form this = IQ test)

what about sight? visual artist.. taste? is a chef a type of intelligence or something else?

 

Stoner Bill: The things in the brackets were meant to be examples. I got those off another site, but you put it better... and a TRUE chef is an artist, so I guess that would indeed be a type of intelligence.

Quest_Techie: you are quite right on all points.

 

1. The six intelligences are wacky (personal opinion, notthat I think their invalid or anything it's just a lot of people take them for too much)
2. I'm a big autistic analog child, gives me some pretty damn clear ideas what that crap is about.
It's okay for women to have better linguistic skills (even accepted by many of the people out for the castration of the guy who brought this up in the first place at stanford) But it's not okay for guys to be better geeks, wtf is that, isn't it a double standard? I thought that was what feminists had been fighting against (unequal pay for the same job, tougher grading for women etc) hell I think women get the short end of the stick in this society, doesn't give those outspoken few the right to be hipocrites.

 

What I have read is that womyn tend to score better on verbal IQ and men do better on math and spatial reasoning.

It makes sense it you look at it from an Evolutional standpoint. Womyn are traditionally the nurturers, and gatherers, and teachers of the young (especially teachers of language) that requires better communication skills, better color skills (and womyn see color better than men do) ect. Men are traditionally the protectors and the hunters, that requires the ability to tell how fast something is going, where it will be in space in a finite time, predictably, and also spatial skills are used in building housing and devising strategies to protect the womyn and the children (and eventually the cattle and land, as well.) Makes sense to me.

Hmm. I do well on both. I do better on Verbal, though. Mine's pretty high. (I put my number, but thought the better of it, and edited it) and I haven't grown a penis yet.....LOL.

I DO NOT think IQ tests are "bullshit." They measure how one learns and how one makes links between things. It isn't everything, but it does tell us something about people's abiilty to learn and absorb the ability to use what they have learned.

Oddly enough, most tests given in schools will not be able to give you a score above 130. You have to have a private test for that. Also one CANNOT study for an IQ test. It doesn't quiz you on information.

 

Highly doubtful. The stupid and the below average vastly outnumber the genuis in any society, and the intelligent are almost always socially shunned. That would be a very uneven "population split." One very large group, and one very very small one.

And the less intelligent, because there are more of them, almost always get their way. Look at anything from the Crusades to the latest USA election. Dumb and unenlightened win due to vast numbers.

 

130 would include the 95th percentile, which is adequate for most. If you have ever done the Mega test (which is aimed at 145 and above if memory serves me right) or the Four Sigma test you will see that even some of the questions would be impossible for most people to understand, let alone try to answer.

Most of the junk "Test your own IQ" paperback tests are more for entertainment, and so of course give people an inflated score (especially on spatial) so they can come to this forum and brag about how smart they are while at the same time denigrating IQ tests, even though of course they have never taken one.

I do not know if the male/female anomaly applies to these junk tests, but on second thought all tests that measure average IQ's would measure across the board.