"Psychology Today" magazine has an on-line IQ test you can do that has "....been designed and built by highly qualified Psychiatrists with unrivalled experience."
http://www.psychologytoday.com/pto/self_tests.php?cat=IQ
Pick the "Classic IQ test"
They say they are using the results for "research" purposes (you can give them permission to use your results or not). Be warned though, if at the end of the test, and before you get your results, you say that you're male you will be penalized 6 points! It's not a peer reviewed journal but is it still a serious science publication? Apparently so according to their own mission statement which states their staff "...include individuals who have extensive expertise in the field of psychology, both from a clinical and an academic perspective. Many of our articles are written by, and rely upon information provided by, Doctors and Ph.D.'s who have dedicated their professional lives to the promotion of sound psychology.." ( http://www.psychologytoday.com/pto/about.html )
Is this more offensive to men or women? And also when they publish the results do you think they'll publish the fact that they sexually biased their results?
Try it. After you get your results back click and change your sex then "get results" again. You'll be amazed at your fluctuating IQ.
Hmm, I got a difference of 4 points. Strange though...
Yeah, that's for sure. Kinda makes you wonder if psychological study is more concerned with social-engineering than scientific inquiry. 
newbs... they are normalizing the results. it is known that males get a score 5-10 points above females in Iq tests. this is done is balance the results.
QUOTE (Guest_a_ht+Feb 7 2006, 12:40 AM)
newbs... they are normalizing the results. it is known that males get a score 5-10 points above females in Iq tests. this is done is balance the results.
I didn't know that was known. I thought it was first disputed and then disproved, and that the difference was chalked up to a bias in the educational system.
I didn't know that was known. I thought it was first disputed and then disproved, and that the difference was chalked up to a bias in the educational system.
a_ht,
Is the implication that Females are smarter in ways that can't be tested for?
If so, how would you know what "offset" to add?
hmmmm
Arthur
Is the implication that Females are smarter in ways that can't be tested for?
If so, how would you know what "offset" to add?
hmmmm
Arthur
I lost five points. ( Fuckers. 
Actually, what this test indicates is that if a woman can answer as many questions right as a man can then she must be smarter than him. What the ***??!!!
( Fuckers. Actually, what this test indicates is that if a woman can answer as many questions right as a man can then she must be smarter than him. What the ***??!!!
Hi, me again.
I just turned 17 3 months ago and my IQ has already dropped by three points.
If I were to take the test as a ninety year old man and score the same my IQ would be 5 points higher than what it is now. But if I take it at age thirty, my IQ would be seven points lower. Do people really get dumber as they get older?
I just turned 17 3 months ago and my IQ has already dropped by three points.
If I were to take the test as a ninety year old man and score the same my IQ would be 5 points higher than what it is now. But if I take it at age thirty, my IQ would be seven points lower. Do people really get dumber as they get older?
QUOTE
Actually, what this test indicates is that if a woman can answer as many questions right as a man can then she must be smarter than him. What the ***??!!!
Or it means that men in general get higher scores than women on IQ tests, so they 'scale' it so that the percentiles will be equal. So basically, maybe compared with the rest of the female population, the same number of correct answers translates to a higher IQ score than a man with that many correct. I have no idea really, just a speculation.
If this is how they "proved" women to be smarter than men then blimey talk about biasy.
Personally i dont think either sex has anything above each other, if women were so much smarter im pretty sure you wouldnt need in depth testing to get the answer, it would be worldly noticable, the only time youd need intricate testing like this is if the intelligence difference is so small-which proves nothing.
Just because a female beats a male in an IQ test doesnt mean males are more stupid, because that male might have been in the 30% percentile of most intelligent males where as she was in the 90% percentile of most intelligent females.
They say they will do the tests on opposite sexes with "similar intelligences" but if they get different IQ scores then theyre obviously not, and the difference doesnt prove much anyway.
I personally think its just females being more naturally adept in one thing, and males being more naturally adept in something else.
With practice and training both male and female can understand and learn the answer to anything.
Personally i dont think either sex has anything above each other, if women were so much smarter im pretty sure you wouldnt need in depth testing to get the answer, it would be worldly noticable, the only time youd need intricate testing like this is if the intelligence difference is so small-which proves nothing.
Just because a female beats a male in an IQ test doesnt mean males are more stupid, because that male might have been in the 30% percentile of most intelligent males where as she was in the 90% percentile of most intelligent females.
They say they will do the tests on opposite sexes with "similar intelligences" but if they get different IQ scores then theyre obviously not, and the difference doesnt prove much anyway.
I personally think its just females being more naturally adept in one thing, and males being more naturally adept in something else.
With practice and training both male and female can understand and learn the answer to anything.
The issue of IQ test scores has essentially been reduced to the point of nonsense. As the "Psychology Today" IQ test displays, it has become so laden with social-engineering and politics that that no real "research" can be performed or reported about it. I wouldn't give credence to any study you read about IQ. Effectively the goal of making IQ test scores irrelevant has been accomplished. A good argument can be made for why this is a good thing for everyone, especially under the widely accepted theory of multiple intelligences.
"The three great strategies for obscuring an issue are to introduce irrelevancies, to arouse prejudice, and to excite ridicule.... "---Bergen Evans, The Natural History of Nonsense
"The three great strategies for obscuring an issue are to introduce irrelevancies, to arouse prejudice, and to excite ridicule.... "---Bergen Evans, The Natural History of Nonsense
QUOTE
If this is how they "proved" women to be smarter than men then blimey talk about biasy.
It would actually "prove" that men would be smarter than women. I truthfully don't know which one is more ridiculous.
QUOTE (*vanadesse+)
Or it means that men in general get higher scores than women on IQ tests, so they 'scale' it so that the percentiles will be equal. So basically, maybe compared with the rest of the female population, the same number of correct answers translates to a higher IQ score than a man with that many correct.
But if a man answers a certain amount of questions correct and a woman answers the same amount of answers correctly, logically, they are of equal intelligence. So then why does the woman have a higher IQ? IQ stands for Intelligence Quotant, in other words, the test tries to catogorize your intelligence based on your answers. It doesn't say if you are a man you are dumber than a woman even if you have equal intelligence. You should take anything this sight says with a grain of salt.
But if a man answers a certain amount of questions correct and a woman answers the same amount of answers correctly, logically, they are of equal intelligence. So then why does the woman have a higher IQ? IQ stands for Intelligence Quotant, in other words, the test tries to catogorize your intelligence based on your answers. It doesn't say if you are a man you are dumber than a woman even if you have equal intelligence. You should take anything this sight says with a grain of salt.
QUOTE (longlivelinky+)
Personally i dont think either sex has anything above each other, if women were so much smarter im pretty sure you wouldnt need in depth testing to get the answer, it would be worldly noticable.
And this includes women who say they are four times smarter than a man.
but suppose I wait until I'm 35 years old and compair myself with the average of this age in 2006? I know for a fact that if what you are saying is true then my IQ'll shift, because the average intelligence will shift, but will always stay at 100 points.
But what I'm saying is testing in two different age groups.
And this includes women who say they are four times smarter than a man.
QUOTE (Guest+)
I wouldn't give credence to any study you read about IQ.
Don't do that, you'll miss out on a lot of research. Usually, if it's full of *** you'll know. Like this test.
Don't do that, you'll miss out on a lot of research. Usually, if it's full of *** you'll know. Like this test.
QUOTE (555Joshua+Feb 8 2006, 11:49 PM)
But if a man answers a certain amount of questions correct and a woman answers the same amount of answers correctly, logically, they are of equal intelligence. So then why does the woman have a higher IQ? IQ stands for Intelligence Quotant, in other words, the test tries to catogorize your intelligence based on your answers. It doesn't say if you are a man you are dumber than a woman even if you have equal intelligence. You should take anything this sight says with a grain of salt.
Well, IQ tests measure only part of what we call Intelligence. It measures capabilities of using logic, making abstractions, visualizing 2D and 3D shapes and making mental operations, like rotation, on them. Other areas, like intuition, communication skills, watchfulness, etc. are never measured in such tests. However, generally men are better on first skills and women are better on latter. So, its normal to adjust the value for women.
Well, IQ tests measure only part of what we call Intelligence. It measures capabilities of using logic, making abstractions, visualizing 2D and 3D shapes and making mental operations, like rotation, on them. Other areas, like intuition, communication skills, watchfulness, etc. are never measured in such tests. However, generally men are better on first skills and women are better on latter. So, its normal to adjust the value for women.
Then alter the test. Don't alter the score.
QUOTE (555Joshua+Feb 7 2006, 07:31 PM)
Hi, me again.
I just turned 17 3 months ago and my IQ has already dropped by three points. If I were to take the test as a ninety year old man and score the same my IQ would be 5 points higher than what it is now. But if I take it at age thirty, my IQ would be seven points lower. Do people really get dumber as they get older?
The IQ in the basic tests is reated against the adult average ( or is it mean? ) Anyway, the basic adult on the street should get around 100 on such a test.
The average 3 year old would get a lot less.
So would the average 90 year old ( hey, half are senile or just plain dead!
)
So, if you are 3 and most 3 year olds score 30, while you score 100 they assume you are 3 times "smarter" than average and adjusted for age that gives you an IQ of say 330.
Of course most precocious 3 year olds are smarter than other three year olds, not smarter than adults, so as they get older their IQ 'drops" closer to the adult average as they get closer to teh average age.
I just turned 17 3 months ago and my IQ has already dropped by three points.
If I were to take the test as a ninety year old man and score the same my IQ would be 5 points higher than what it is now. But if I take it at age thirty, my IQ would be seven points lower. Do people really get dumber as they get older? The IQ in the basic tests is reated against the adult average ( or is it mean? ) Anyway, the basic adult on the street should get around 100 on such a test.
The average 3 year old would get a lot less.
So would the average 90 year old ( hey, half are senile or just plain dead!
)So, if you are 3 and most 3 year olds score 30, while you score 100 they assume you are 3 times "smarter" than average and adjusted for age that gives you an IQ of say 330.
Of course most precocious 3 year olds are smarter than other three year olds, not smarter than adults, so as they get older their IQ 'drops" closer to the adult average as they get closer to teh average age.
QUOTE (555Joshua+Feb 8 2006, 02:31 AM)
Hi, me again.
I just turned 17 3 months ago and my IQ has already dropped by three points. If I were to take the test as a ninety year old man and score the same my IQ would be 5 points higher than what it is now. But if I take it at age thirty, my IQ would be seven points lower. Do people really get dumber as they get older?
Well, speaking from experience, and I'm only 30..most of the people I know have not become dumber, but more to the point they get stuck in a certain mode of thinking. Basically they don't evolve mentally.
I just turned 17 3 months ago and my IQ has already dropped by three points.
If I were to take the test as a ninety year old man and score the same my IQ would be 5 points higher than what it is now. But if I take it at age thirty, my IQ would be seven points lower. Do people really get dumber as they get older? Well, speaking from experience, and I'm only 30..most of the people I know have not become dumber, but more to the point they get stuck in a certain mode of thinking. Basically they don't evolve mentally.
Okay, does that mean I'm getting smarter as we speak? Until I reach 90? 
An IQ Test score is relative to the age of the person who takes the test, meaning that your score is divided by the average score of all people in your age group (and presumably this test takes into account your gender as well). Therefore, it's not that you yourself are expected to become "smarter" or "more stupid" as you age, it's that people of different ages score differently.
Ideally, if you took an IQ test every year, your score should pretty much stay the same over your lifetime, as you are being to compared to the same group year after year, and the members of that group would be getting smarter/dumber with you.
It's not really purposeful to say,"I changed my age to 35 on the test and gained 5 points, therefore 35-year-olds are not as smart as me," because you are not taking this test as a 35-year-old.
It's all relative.
Ideally, if you took an IQ test every year, your score should pretty much stay the same over your lifetime, as you are being to compared to the same group year after year, and the members of that group would be getting smarter/dumber with you.
It's not really purposeful to say,"I changed my age to 35 on the test and gained 5 points, therefore 35-year-olds are not as smart as me," because you are not taking this test as a 35-year-old.
It's all relative.
QUOTE
It's not really purposeful to say,"I changed my age to 35 on the test and gained 5 points, therefore 35-year-olds are not as smart as me," because you are not taking this test as a 35-year-old.
but suppose I wait until I'm 35 years old and compair myself with the average of this age in 2006? I know for a fact that if what you are saying is true then my IQ'll shift, because the average intelligence will shift, but will always stay at 100 points.
I don't understand why it's a "fact" that your IQ would change. You might become smarter before you reach 35, but other people in your age group likely would as well. So, above average now, above average later, should score the same.
Maybe I don't understand your question.
Maybe I don't understand your question.
QUOTE
You might become smarter before you reach 35, but other people in your age group likely would as well.
But what I'm saying is testing in two different age groups.
What the IQ test reflects is that you're stupid if you think you're male. Obviously they have made an apriori assumption that only females would take the test, and not knowing what sex you are reflects low intelligence and should cost a few points.
Why don't they just skip the test and simply ask sex, race and maybe religion and then give you a number? Then they could do some statistics and analyze the correlation between IQ and sex, race or religion or whatever other question they wanted.
.... of course they could do something novel and simply have an IQ test try to measure intelligence. If they want to bias (or equalize, depending on your view) things, they can ask questions that women would be more likely to know.
Why don't they just skip the test and simply ask sex, race and maybe religion and then give you a number? Then they could do some statistics and analyze the correlation between IQ and sex, race or religion or whatever other question they wanted.
.... of course they could do something novel and simply have an IQ test try to measure intelligence. If they want to bias (or equalize, depending on your view) things, they can ask questions that women would be more likely to know.
That's what I've been saying all along.
I have an IQ of 149, is that a lot? I'm only 14. would 100 be the average score? the test said i was smarter than 99.95% of all people age 14 who took the test...
QUOTE (555Joshua+Feb 9 2006, 01:38 AM)
Then alter the test. Don't alter the score.
exactly
exactly
QUOTE (oomchu+Feb 10 2006, 04:55 PM)
QUOTE (555Joshua+Feb 8 2006, 02:31 AM)
Hi, me again.
I just turned 17 3 months ago and my IQ has already dropped by three points. If I were to take the test as a ninety year old man and score the same my IQ would be 5 points higher than what it is now. But if I take it at age thirty, my IQ would be seven points lower. Do people really get dumber as they get older?
Well, speaking from experience, and I'm only 30..most of the people I know have not become dumber, but more to the point they get stuck in a certain mode of thinking. Basically they don't evolve mentally.
Well this needs saying,,,I know people ,relatives even,,something happened
They no longer think--- they are happy ,,but they refuse to think,,whats up with that?
Do you realize how many soldiers will come home with blown off faces,,,brain damage,,emotional pain beyond our comprehesion-----and what clicks with these
people ---nothing,, a knumbness,,a nothing ness.
My relatives live ,,have parties ,,they do not wish to see,,,they want that Bush
is right and so by they are right
But the man who runs the funeral home is no longer the man to ask what is
happening,,for he is making a killing.
Now it is time to ask the priest who babtizes the babies,,just what is wrong?
So how is that related to IQ? May I ask?
So how is that related to IQ? May I ask?
On the battle of the sexes on points of minutiae, I recall when I read a recent report of a study that found that while the oddball male "Y" chromosome is short and crinkled,
Oh, stop it. I don't think it's even related to chromosomes. It just depends on the personality, on the society and on the thinking. Men aren't that bad enough. In fact, most scientists were men. Many geniuses were men. Honor students were mostly men. Okay. So stop that gender thing again. I'm not trying to defend the masculine gender here...In fact, I'm a feminine. I just don't want the topic about IQ being related to gender. That really sounds funny.
I just turned 17 3 months ago and my IQ has already dropped by three points.
If I were to take the test as a ninety year old man and score the same my IQ would be 5 points higher than what it is now. But if I take it at age thirty, my IQ would be seven points lower. Do people really get dumber as they get older? Well, speaking from experience, and I'm only 30..most of the people I know have not become dumber, but more to the point they get stuck in a certain mode of thinking. Basically they don't evolve mentally.
Well this needs saying,,,I know people ,relatives even,,something happened
They no longer think--- they are happy ,,but they refuse to think,,whats up with that?
Do you realize how many soldiers will come home with blown off faces,,,brain damage,,emotional pain beyond our comprehesion-----and what clicks with these
people ---nothing,, a knumbness,,a nothing ness.
My relatives live ,,have parties ,,they do not wish to see,,,they want that Bush
is right and so by they are right
But the man who runs the funeral home is no longer the man to ask what is
happening,,for he is making a killing.
Now it is time to ask the priest who babtizes the babies,,just what is wrong?
On the battle of the sexes on points of minutiae, I recall when I read a recent report of a study that found that while the oddball male "Y" chromosome is short and crinkled, the 37th "X" chromosome is actually large and full of information I called my Japanese girlfriend to tell her this news, adding my ironic comment, "I guess that is why you women are so mysterious," to which she replied, "No I guess that is why you men are so STUPID!!" Brutal but fun for a serious Japanese woman to say - in English no less. I conceded the point, noting that mine too was correct. (cf Men Are From Mars and Women Are From Vegas)
The point is IQ is an artifact of the dread "normal distribution" which we now know to be rather flaw in many places where it is routinely used such as stock market pricing and other economic behavior.
If we don't like to abide by the law of "not to be inhaled" marijuana, the law of not crossing on a red light, the law of reporting 100% of our income, and so on, why should we all have to obey the law of large numbers, and the tyranny of small minded bureaucrats who impose the false conclusions of bad statistics on us? (Not to speak of newspaper writers and Federal bureaucrats - "Trees cause pollution!!") Men are brighter than women and vice versa.
Mark Twain was right.
The point is IQ is an artifact of the dread "normal distribution" which we now know to be rather flaw in many places where it is routinely used such as stock market pricing and other economic behavior.
If we don't like to abide by the law of "not to be inhaled" marijuana, the law of not crossing on a red light, the law of reporting 100% of our income, and so on, why should we all have to obey the law of large numbers, and the tyranny of small minded bureaucrats who impose the false conclusions of bad statistics on us? (Not to speak of newspaper writers and Federal bureaucrats - "Trees cause pollution!!") Men are brighter than women and vice versa.
Mark Twain was right.
QUOTE
My relatives live ,,have parties ,,they do not wish to see,,,they want that Bush
is right and so by they are right
But the man who runs the funeral home is no longer the man to ask what is
happening,,for he is making a killing.
is right and so by they are right
But the man who runs the funeral home is no longer the man to ask what is
happening,,for he is making a killing.
So how is that related to IQ? May I ask?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| My relatives live ,,have parties ,,they do not wish to see,,,they want that Bush is right and so by they are right But the man who runs the funeral home is no longer the man to ask what is happening,,for he is making a killing. |
So how is that related to IQ? May I ask?
On the battle of the sexes on points of minutiae, I recall when I read a recent report of a study that found that while the oddball male "Y" chromosome is short and crinkled,
Oh, stop it. I don't think it's even related to chromosomes. It just depends on the personality, on the society and on the thinking. Men aren't that bad enough. In fact, most scientists were men. Many geniuses were men. Honor students were mostly men. Okay. So stop that gender thing again. I'm not trying to defend the masculine gender here...In fact, I'm a feminine. I just don't want the topic about IQ being related to gender. That really sounds funny.
QUOTE (Guest_someone+May 5 2006, 11:38 PM)
I have an IQ of 149, is that a lot? I'm only 14. would 100 be the average score? the test said i was smarter than 99.95% of all people age 14 who took the test...
Good Job! Be cool my friend.
Good Job! Be cool my friend.
Can you walk,,,can you talk ? who cares ?
I can walk, I can talk, I'm a genius.
QUOTE (overlookedinfo+)
Can you walk,,,can you talk ? who cares ?
It seems over looked info is mostly comas.
It seems over looked info is mostly comas.
QUOTE (Analogical+)
On the battle of the sexes on points of minutiae, I recall when I read a recent report of a study that found that while the oddball male "Y" chromosome is short and crinkled, the 37th "X" chromosome is actually large and full of information I called my Japanese girlfriend to tell her this news, adding my ironic comment, "I guess that is why you women are so mysterious," to which she replied, "No I guess that is why you men are so STUPID!!"
You're not still dating her, are you? Hot damn, she's a b!tch.
You're not still dating her, are you? Hot damn, she's a b!tch.
You can't blame her..
She's a woman and that's just normal....
Hope this won't lead to the Battle of the sexes....
She's a woman and that's just normal....
Hope this won't lead to the Battle of the sexes....
QUOTE (howtothinklikegod+)
She's a woman and that's just normal....
OMG im 14 and my I.Q. is 140 it was 110 when i was 13 wht happend?
QUOTE (same+)
Hope this won't lead to the Battle of the sexes....
That would be one weird battle
Women: "Women are dirt rotten!"
Men: "Yeah, well guys screw up everything they touch!"
"Women cry too much!"
"Men can't find their way off the front yard without getting lost!"
"Women don't want to cook any more!"
"That doesn't matter cuz all guys wanna do is eat corn chips and drink beer!"
That would be one weird battle
Women: "Women are dirt rotten!"
Men: "Yeah, well guys screw up everything they touch!"
"Women cry too much!"
"Men can't find their way off the front yard without getting lost!"
"Women don't want to cook any more!"
"That doesn't matter cuz all guys wanna do is eat corn chips and drink beer!"
Hi im 14 and i just did an IQ test and my IQ is 118. Can anybody tell me if that is good or not because i dont have a clue! 
90 - 110 = average
111 - 120 = above average
121 - 140 = gifted
141 - 159 = highly gifted
160+ = genius
70 - 89 = retarded
50 - 69 = severly retarded
25 = to dumb to walk
111 - 120 = above average
121 - 140 = gifted
141 - 159 = highly gifted
160+ = genius
70 - 89 = retarded
50 - 69 = severly retarded
25 = to dumb to walk
Wow.... 118 is high. In my case, I think I'll belong to the average only....
QUOTE (555Joshua+Jun 14 2006, 04:36 PM)
90 - 110 = average
111 - 120 = above average
121 - 140 = gifted
141 - 159 = highly gifted
160+ = genius
70 - 89 = retarded
50 - 69 = severly retarded
25 = to dumb to walk
Seems to me you forgot something there....
The 24 and below section... you dont want to forget career politicians do you!
111 - 120 = above average
121 - 140 = gifted
141 - 159 = highly gifted
160+ = genius
70 - 89 = retarded
50 - 69 = severly retarded
25 = to dumb to walk
Seems to me you forgot something there....
The 24 and below section... you dont want to forget career politicians do you!
Hahaha!!!!
But still, you can't deny that some politicians are true geniuses...
But still, you can't deny that some politicians are true geniuses...
You don't have to be smart to be a terrible liar. You just have to be stupid to vote for them.
There are different types of intelligence, most IQ tests are based on analytical ability, which is more the realm of males. There is also emotional intelligence, artistic intelligence, athletic intelligence, etc., which are not measured by those tests. Michael Jordon may have been the Albert Einstein of basketball, but one may never know. Nancy Reagan is a genius with emotional intelligence and don't forget about Jimi Hendrix and artistic genius.
A better test would test all these things. Those who average genius after taking tests in all categories were call Renaissance men.
A better test would test all these things. Those who average genius after taking tests in all categories were call Renaissance men.
I didn't know crying made you smart.
QUOTE (MDT+Jun 20 2006, 10:55 PM)
There are different types of intelligence, most IQ tests are based on analytical ability, which is more the realm of males. There is also emotional intelligence, artistic intelligence, athletic intelligence, etc., which are not measured by those tests. Michael Jordon may have been the Albert Einstein of basketball, but one may never know. Nancy Reagan is a genius with emotional intelligence and don't forget about Jimi Hendrix and artistic genius.
A better test would test all these things. Those who average genius after taking tests in all categories were call Renaissance men.
Outstanding Point...
A better test would test all these things. Those who average genius after taking tests in all categories were call Renaissance men.
Outstanding Point...
darn....i got 5 points lower for saying im a male....what the heck is tht...humph...
So, is there a way we could make the test more accurate?
OMG im 14 and my I.Q. is 140 it was 110 when i was 13 wht happend?
Ya ate your vegetables?
I retook the test. I got 132 for being male. If I were female I would have scored 137. If I were still 16 I would have scored 136.
If I were female I would have scored 137. If I were still 16 I would have scored 136.
I just read this article and thought it fell in line with this thread perfectly (LewRockwell has a lot of good articles).
Want To End the 'Boy Crisis'?
http://www.lewrockwell.com/reed/reed102.html
It's basically about how attempts to add sexual discrimination in schools primarily just works against men without improving results for women (women have always done fine in schools though men tended to have a broader spread and usually higher technical abilities ... the move away from the more technical areas in education doesn't really help women but primarily ends up leaving men with fewer useful skills as a result). Maybe that all sounds sexist but we've all been waiting for this equalization process to finish at some point and it seems more likely that men and women have always been different with different skills and it doesn't take a genius to recognize the differences and why view this as a problem when you could just as easily see it as a benefit that people might as well appreciate and enjoy instead of wasting time trying to ignore them ... or tweak things, like this test, in an attempt to mask over differences. Ultimately, what benefit do we gain by trying to ignore reality? If we're just suppose to stick our heads in the sand and imagine what things should be like and then tell the next generation fairytales that they too will have to outlearn, it's just a waste. Men and women aren't the same and I'm happy my ancestors knew the difference and I'm also thankful my wife appreciates the differences also.
I just had another little epiphany - consider why we tend to subdue and femanize society - because we figuratively don't trust cat's with claws and are worried about them tearing up the furniture. On the other hand claws are useful tools, when used correctly. So the issue is more of a moral one than simply drugging and otherwise pacifying people into an inactivity. The issue is about (re)learning individual responsibility, which we've been teaching people to ignore and instead rely on society. Basically, as things tend toward encouraging social responsibilities over individual responsibilities, people don't learn as much individual responsibility and it ends up being that society feels a need to restrict individual actions and men typically fall into more of these extremes, but this isn't necessary and is a poor solution compared to empowering individuals and letting them learn how to best use their abilities (of course all the while maintaining that you don't scratch up the couch). Half of what I learned about chemistry was from making skyrockets as a kid and I'm one of the best electronic engineers around in some areas, and a lot of the motivation came from building "shock boxes" that the school later had to declare weren't to be brought on campus anymore (ahhh, the good ole days of having ~10 kids all holding hands and getting shocked at the same time ... they'd probably call in a SWAT team nowdays and haul the "perpetrator" off ... though I guess there are some upsides in that fewer kids get hurt doing stupid stuff but you can see from education that there's a learning process missing along the way).
Want To End the 'Boy Crisis'?
http://www.lewrockwell.com/reed/reed102.html
It's basically about how attempts to add sexual discrimination in schools primarily just works against men without improving results for women (women have always done fine in schools though men tended to have a broader spread and usually higher technical abilities ... the move away from the more technical areas in education doesn't really help women but primarily ends up leaving men with fewer useful skills as a result). Maybe that all sounds sexist but we've all been waiting for this equalization process to finish at some point and it seems more likely that men and women have always been different with different skills and it doesn't take a genius to recognize the differences and why view this as a problem when you could just as easily see it as a benefit that people might as well appreciate and enjoy instead of wasting time trying to ignore them ... or tweak things, like this test, in an attempt to mask over differences. Ultimately, what benefit do we gain by trying to ignore reality? If we're just suppose to stick our heads in the sand and imagine what things should be like and then tell the next generation fairytales that they too will have to outlearn, it's just a waste. Men and women aren't the same and I'm happy my ancestors knew the difference and I'm also thankful my wife appreciates the differences also.
I just had another little epiphany - consider why we tend to subdue and femanize society - because we figuratively don't trust cat's with claws and are worried about them tearing up the furniture. On the other hand claws are useful tools, when used correctly. So the issue is more of a moral one than simply drugging and otherwise pacifying people into an inactivity. The issue is about (re)learning individual responsibility, which we've been teaching people to ignore and instead rely on society. Basically, as things tend toward encouraging social responsibilities over individual responsibilities, people don't learn as much individual responsibility and it ends up being that society feels a need to restrict individual actions and men typically fall into more of these extremes, but this isn't necessary and is a poor solution compared to empowering individuals and letting them learn how to best use their abilities (of course all the while maintaining that you don't scratch up the couch). Half of what I learned about chemistry was from making skyrockets as a kid and I'm one of the best electronic engineers around in some areas, and a lot of the motivation came from building "shock boxes" that the school later had to declare weren't to be brought on campus anymore (ahhh, the good ole days of having ~10 kids all holding hands and getting shocked at the same time ... they'd probably call in a SWAT team nowdays and haul the "perpetrator" off ... though I guess there are some upsides in that fewer kids get hurt doing stupid stuff but you can see from education that there's a learning process missing along the way).
QUOTE (StevenA+Jul 12 2006, 08:29 AM)
I just read this article and thought it fell in line with this thread perfectly (LewRockwell has a lot of good articles).
Want To End the 'Boy Crisis'?
http://www.lewrockwell.com/reed/reed102.html
It's basically about how attempts to add sexual discrimination in schools primarily just works against men without improving results for women (women have always done fine in schools though men tended to have a broader spread and usually higher technical abilities ... the move away from the more technical areas in education doesn't really help women but primarily ends up leaving men with fewer useful skills as a result). Maybe that all sounds sexist but we've all been waiting for this equalization process to finish at some point and it seems more likely that men and women have always been different with different skills and it doesn't take a genius to recognize the differences and why view this as a problem when you could just as easily see it as a benefit that people might as well appreciate and enjoy instead of wasting time trying to ignore them ... or tweak things, like this test, in an attempt to mask over differences. Ultimately, what benefit do we gain by trying to ignore reality? If we're just suppose to stick our heads in the sand and imagine what things should be like and then tell the next generation fairytales that they too will have to outlearn, it's just a waste. Men and women aren't the same and I'm happy my ancestors knew the difference and I'm also thankful my wife appreciates the differences also.
I just had another little epiphany - consider why we tend to subdue and femanize society - because we figuratively don't trust cat's with claws and are worried about them tearing up the furniture. On the other hand claws are useful tools, when used correctly. So the issue is more of a moral one than simply drugging and otherwise pacifying people into an inactivity. The issue is about (re)learning individual responsibility, which we've been teaching people to ignore and instead rely on society. Basically, as things tend toward encouraging social responsibilities over individual responsibilities, people don't learn as much individual responsibility and it ends up being that society feels a need to restrict individual actions and men typically fall into more of these extremes, but this isn't necessary and is a poor solution compared to empowering individuals and letting them learn how to best use their abilities (of course all the while maintaining that you don't scratch up the couch). Half of what I learned about chemistry was from making skyrockets as a kid and I'm one of the best electronic engineers around in some areas, and a lot of the motivation came from building "shock boxes" that the school later had to declare weren't to be brought on campus anymore (ahhh, the good ole days of having ~10 kids all holding hands and getting shocked at the same time ... they'd probably call in a SWAT team nowdays and haul the "perpetrator" off ... though I guess there are some upsides in that fewer kids get hurt doing stupid stuff but you can see from education that there's a learning process missing along the way).
Very interesting article, and I almost completely agree with it. The one issue I had was with the author's statement that women teacher's "don't care" about their male students. Sure, some of them don't know how to handle them, some of them care more about female students, but teachers care about their students. Not counting old burned out Nazi's, all teachers care about their students. They wouldn't teach if they didn't. As for teacher's favoring girls in the classroom, I can relate with this. I have been in a position of authority over small children, and while I love to play around and enjoy the energy boys bring wherever they go, it makes the job so much easier to teach calm, attentive students. Girls have the greater focus.
As you've mentioned, however, these differences make life more interesting, and who doesn't love a bit of fun? I definitely agree that schools should have a greater number of male teachers. In my own experience, my favorite teachers have all been male. I could relate to them. They could relate to me. We understood each other. In all of elementary school (K-5), there was only one male teacher at my school. By the time my class reached 5th grade, all of the boys were hoping to get that one male teacher. It wasn't that the female teachers were bad, far from it, but they couldn't understand the boys like another male could. He'd been there. He knew what it was like.
Anyhow, thanks for sharing that article; it was an excellent read. I especially enjoyed the author's style for whatever reason. Very nice.
Want To End the 'Boy Crisis'?
http://www.lewrockwell.com/reed/reed102.html
It's basically about how attempts to add sexual discrimination in schools primarily just works against men without improving results for women (women have always done fine in schools though men tended to have a broader spread and usually higher technical abilities ... the move away from the more technical areas in education doesn't really help women but primarily ends up leaving men with fewer useful skills as a result). Maybe that all sounds sexist but we've all been waiting for this equalization process to finish at some point and it seems more likely that men and women have always been different with different skills and it doesn't take a genius to recognize the differences and why view this as a problem when you could just as easily see it as a benefit that people might as well appreciate and enjoy instead of wasting time trying to ignore them ... or tweak things, like this test, in an attempt to mask over differences. Ultimately, what benefit do we gain by trying to ignore reality? If we're just suppose to stick our heads in the sand and imagine what things should be like and then tell the next generation fairytales that they too will have to outlearn, it's just a waste. Men and women aren't the same and I'm happy my ancestors knew the difference and I'm also thankful my wife appreciates the differences also.
I just had another little epiphany - consider why we tend to subdue and femanize society - because we figuratively don't trust cat's with claws and are worried about them tearing up the furniture. On the other hand claws are useful tools, when used correctly. So the issue is more of a moral one than simply drugging and otherwise pacifying people into an inactivity. The issue is about (re)learning individual responsibility, which we've been teaching people to ignore and instead rely on society. Basically, as things tend toward encouraging social responsibilities over individual responsibilities, people don't learn as much individual responsibility and it ends up being that society feels a need to restrict individual actions and men typically fall into more of these extremes, but this isn't necessary and is a poor solution compared to empowering individuals and letting them learn how to best use their abilities (of course all the while maintaining that you don't scratch up the couch). Half of what I learned about chemistry was from making skyrockets as a kid and I'm one of the best electronic engineers around in some areas, and a lot of the motivation came from building "shock boxes" that the school later had to declare weren't to be brought on campus anymore (ahhh, the good ole days of having ~10 kids all holding hands and getting shocked at the same time ... they'd probably call in a SWAT team nowdays and haul the "perpetrator" off ... though I guess there are some upsides in that fewer kids get hurt doing stupid stuff but you can see from education that there's a learning process missing along the way).
Very interesting article, and I almost completely agree with it. The one issue I had was with the author's statement that women teacher's "don't care" about their male students. Sure, some of them don't know how to handle them, some of them care more about female students, but teachers care about their students. Not counting old burned out Nazi's, all teachers care about their students. They wouldn't teach if they didn't. As for teacher's favoring girls in the classroom, I can relate with this. I have been in a position of authority over small children, and while I love to play around and enjoy the energy boys bring wherever they go, it makes the job so much easier to teach calm, attentive students. Girls have the greater focus.
As you've mentioned, however, these differences make life more interesting, and who doesn't love a bit of fun? I definitely agree that schools should have a greater number of male teachers. In my own experience, my favorite teachers have all been male. I could relate to them. They could relate to me. We understood each other. In all of elementary school (K-5), there was only one male teacher at my school. By the time my class reached 5th grade, all of the boys were hoping to get that one male teacher. It wasn't that the female teachers were bad, far from it, but they couldn't understand the boys like another male could. He'd been there. He knew what it was like.
Anyhow, thanks for sharing that article; it was an excellent read. I especially enjoyed the author's style for whatever reason. Very nice.
i am 14 years old and my iq score was 104 is that average or under or higher??? i really want to know plzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
I just tried two of them, & got 138, 147 & I'm 14 as well
Is that good, bad, what does that mean?
Is that good, bad, what does that mean?
My dad paid for the cultural one, (bcus I persuaded him hehe)
And in the emotional one I got 132, while in memory I got 97.
I dont believe they measure ANYTHING but practise at those sort of events and matters, in the IQ bit.
I put down I'm a guy for two of them, and retook as a woman for two at age 20 with college education (teehehe).
I dont like being a kid!
And in the emotional one I got 132, while in memory I got 97.
I dont believe they measure ANYTHING but practise at those sort of events and matters, in the IQ bit.
I put down I'm a guy for two of them, and retook as a woman for two at age 20 with college education (teehehe).
I dont like being a kid!
QUOTE (sophie+)
i am 14 years old and my iq score was 104 is that average or under or higher??? i really want to know plzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
90-110 is average.
90-110 is average.
QUOTE (Laila+)
I just tried two of them, & got 138, 147 & I'm 14 as well
That's in the highly gifted range.
That's in the highly gifted range.
QUOTE (same+)
I dont like being a kid!
You'll get over it. In the mean time, work on your spelling. (practise)
(I'm one to talk. )
You'll get over it. In the mean time, work on your spelling. (practise)
(I'm one to talk.
)QUOTE (same+)
I put down I'm a guy for two of them, and retook as a woman for two at age 20 with college education (teehehe).
What where the different scores?
What where the different scores?
I scored 5 lower than if I were a woman, although I can't see why it would make a difference.
On a related note, it doesn't matter what your IQ is. If you have a very high IQ, great. If not, it's not a big deal. What's important is how you use what you have. What good does having an IQ of, say, 160 do you if you don't contribute anything to society. On the other side, if you have an average IQ yet contribute great things to society or learning and knowledge in general, you have accomplished something. It doesn't do anybody any good to have an IQ if all they do is brag about how smart they are. Use your gifts if you have them, and use what you have if you don't. Even an average person can accomplish great things if they have the drive to do so and are willing to persevere.
On a related note, it doesn't matter what your IQ is. If you have a very high IQ, great. If not, it's not a big deal. What's important is how you use what you have. What good does having an IQ of, say, 160 do you if you don't contribute anything to society. On the other side, if you have an average IQ yet contribute great things to society or learning and knowledge in general, you have accomplished something. It doesn't do anybody any good to have an IQ if all they do is brag about how smart they are. Use your gifts if you have them, and use what you have if you don't. Even an average person can accomplish great things if they have the drive to do so and are willing to persevere.
The test is flawed if it the results have to be biased in this fashion. More verbal questions or less logic questions could have balanced the test without the need for discriminatory scoring.
I took a CSI test at school (cognitive skills index) and I was pretty surprised to find I scored 141. I'm only 12 too. I guess thats good. I'm not sure. Im' trying to get higher by doing puzzles and reading plato, I hope its working.
I agree with amac. It woudl seem easier if you had a high IQ to make a difference on the world, so why not try it?
Heheheee Josh I know I know........
I can spell good..really I can apart from when I can't be bothered
Amac is right. The tests, now that I've read accurately into this subject matter and its assessment criteria DOES NOT matter!
I'd say a positive one you can bag as your good - and the negative looking as the tests bad I hate these tests as they make people feel innately bad about themselves when they shouldn't be and its not true. It might destroy their futures by diminishing potential along with confidence. 
Our results are due to our endeavors, practice and repetition of these sort of puzzles/problems- thats all
I believe most individuals can score in the 120s at least if they attempt similar tasks a few times before the test sometime.
Josh the difference I wouldn't know, as that is how I took the tests. Two as male two as female. And those are the results listed above.
For two I put down I'm a man for at age 20 with college education and got 138 & 147. Other two I put down I'm a female with college education but they were the emotional an memory ones.
See ya
I can spell good..really I can apart from when I can't be bothered
Amac is right. The tests, now that I've read accurately into this subject matter and its assessment criteria DOES NOT matter!
I'd say a positive one you can bag as your good - and the negative looking as the tests bad
I hate these tests as they make people feel innately bad about themselves when they shouldn't be and its not true. It might destroy their futures by diminishing potential along with confidence. Our results are due to our endeavors, practice and repetition of these sort of puzzles/problems- thats all
I believe most individuals can score in the 120s at least if they attempt similar tasks a few times before the test sometime.
Josh the difference I wouldn't know, as that is how I took the tests. Two as male two as female. And those are the results listed above.
For two I put down I'm a man for at age 20 with college education and got 138 & 147. Other two I put down I'm a female with college education but they were the emotional an memory ones.
See ya
QUOTE (Guest_someone+May 5 2006, 11:38 PM)
I have an IQ of 149, is that a lot? I'm only 14. would 100 be the average score? the test said i was smarter than 99.95% of all people age 14 who took the test...
I also have an iq of 149 and am a 14 year old female.
I also have an iq of 149 and am a 14 year old female.
Hi, I am 14 years old and my IQ is 127. Is that good? What is the average score for 14 year old girls?
I'm a recently bronzed plate of spaghetti and I scored 212 when I was served with sauteed chicken breast, but then scored 301 when I arranged my noodle into a rich tapestry symbolizing my complicated inner life. Does that mean that I'm insecure that my degree over-represents my actual abilities? Can that mean that because I'm super smart in immeasurable way's I become bitter and angry at quantitative measurements? And most importantly, since I've only just recently been bronzed, does any one know of a display case I can sit in that pays well?
QUOTE (Guest_someone+May 5 2006, 11:38 PM)
I have an IQ of 149, is that a lot? I'm only 14. would 100 be the average score? the test said i was smarter than 99.95% of all people age 14 who took the test...
The IQ system is a math equation thats all the equation is
100 times (mental age over chronological age)
One hundred is average for an adult under 80 and your dumb under i think its 65 and your concidered mentally retarded so if your IQ is 149 and you are 14 that means you have the mentallity of a 20.86 yr old person wich basically all that tells you is your mature and knowledgable for your age
The IQ system is a math equation thats all the equation is
100 times (mental age over chronological age)
One hundred is average for an adult under 80 and your dumb under i think its 65 and your concidered mentally retarded so if your IQ is 149 and you are 14 that means you have the mentallity of a 20.86 yr old person wich basically all that tells you is your mature and knowledgable for your age
QUOTE (amac+Aug 31 2006, 02:54 AM)
I scored 5 lower than if I were a woman, although I can't see why it would make a difference.
On a related note, it doesn't matter what your IQ is. If you have a very high IQ, great. If not, it's not a big deal. What's important is how you use what you have. What good does having an IQ of, say, 160 do you if you don't contribute anything to society. On the other side, if you have an average IQ yet contribute great things to society or learning and knowledge in general, you have accomplished something. It doesn't do anybody any good to have an IQ if all they do is brag about how smart they are. Use your gifts if you have them, and use what you have if you don't. Even an average person can accomplish great things if they have the drive to do so and are willing to persevere.
Excellent point and I agree wholeheartedly. It's what you do with what you have that counts.
On a related note, it doesn't matter what your IQ is. If you have a very high IQ, great. If not, it's not a big deal. What's important is how you use what you have. What good does having an IQ of, say, 160 do you if you don't contribute anything to society. On the other side, if you have an average IQ yet contribute great things to society or learning and knowledge in general, you have accomplished something. It doesn't do anybody any good to have an IQ if all they do is brag about how smart they are. Use your gifts if you have them, and use what you have if you don't. Even an average person can accomplish great things if they have the drive to do so and are willing to persevere.
Excellent point and I agree wholeheartedly. It's what you do with what you have that counts.
QUOTE (Guest_someone+May 5 2006, 11:38 PM)
I have an IQ of 149, is that a lot? I'm only 14. would 100 be the average score? the test said i was smarter than 99.95% of all people age 14 who took the test...
Snap mate, I'm a 149er myself. Go us! I'm 16, but your IQ is meant to stay the same throughout your life. 100 is the average.
Snap mate, I'm a 149er myself. Go us! I'm 16, but your IQ is meant to stay the same throughout your life. 100 is the average.
I'VE BEEN TOLD THAT PEOPLE WITH IQ'S ABOVE 140 ARE ONE IN A MILLION. THIS DOESN'T SEEM RIGHT. IF THAT WERE TRUE THERE WOULD BE ONLY 6000 IN THE WORLD. ANYBODY KNOW THE TRUE STATISTICS? 
MITCH RAEMSCH -- LIGHT FELL --
MITCH RAEMSCH -- LIGHT FELL --
The test results indicate that my IQ is 147. I’ve never trusted online IQ tests for their accuracy. I extremely doubt my IQ is this high. I do not lack confidence in my intellectual capabilities yet I think that’s too high. I would estimate that I'm around 120.
Hi! I am also 14 and my IQ is 131
Hallo I did the test. My IQ was 24, then i realized i wouldn't be able to walk with such an IQ so i changed sex. What a downer :( I really have enjoyed being male :)
QUOTE (e+Mar 13 2007, 03:35 PM)
Hi, I am 14 years old and my IQ is 127. Is that good? What is the average score for 14 year old girls?
i am 14 in 2 days and i have an IQ of 109
i am 14 in 2 days and i have an IQ of 109
IQ, contrary to PC notions, *is* meaningful and *can* change over time.
If you work hard at understanding difficult concepts and/or solving difficult problems, it gets bigger.
The main reason most psychologists claim it's just something you're born with and doesn't change over time is that they've done studies attempting to increase students' IQs and found that the increases in measured IQs from their studies were smaller than they'd expected, so they dismissed the results as meaningless.
This was a convenient interpretation of the results, as the real interpretation had some uncomfortable (for them) implications.
First, the study assumed that the best way of teaching kids was the "open classroom" unstructured teaching approach, and while that may help preschoolers come up to speed quicker, it doesn't really help teaching highly structured courses like Calculus or Physics, which requires students to shut up and listen while the instructor teaches the material. The IQ study showed, first and foremost, that this unstructured teaching approach isn't as effective as they'd like everyone to believe.
The other uncomfortable implication was that IQ does increase with effort, but it takes a *lot* of effort to increase it significantly. The implication is that smarter kids deserve more respect than the dumb kids teachers tend to focus most of their efforts on. The teachers have traditionally treated the smarter kids as if they were born lucky, rather than acknowledge the fact that they'd already accomplished more than their dumber contemporaries.
There are parallels to weightlifting. Most people don't go to the gym, and their bodies are mostly defined by their genes and their environments. They tend not to look good at the beach. Some people go to the gym, but don't put much effort into their workouts, so they improve a little bit, lose interest, and soon return to their old lifestyles and their old gene/environment-defined bodies.
Then there are the body-builders, who train hard and sculpt their bodies into what shape they desire, regardless of their genes and their environments.
Psychologists would rather have people believe that no one can succeed in changing their IQ than recognize that the newest PC teaching methods don't work better than the old ones and that individuals are accountable for their intelligence level, for better or worse.
IQ's can and do change. Mine was about 125 when I was about 13, then I took some accelerated-pace classes in a special summer school that taught college-level classes 6.5 hours per day, five days per week, all summer long. After four summers' worth, my college board exams showed my IQ had increased to 145. Post college I worked in various challenging engineering jobs and decided to go back to grad school and had to take another exam to get in (the GRE, which is like the SATs for undergrad college), and my IQ according to that test was then up to 154. The increase, from 125 to 154, wasn't accumulated luck, it was the result of all those years of education and working at jobs that required me to use my brains on a 40hours/week basis.
If you work hard at understanding difficult concepts and/or solving difficult problems, it gets bigger.
The main reason most psychologists claim it's just something you're born with and doesn't change over time is that they've done studies attempting to increase students' IQs and found that the increases in measured IQs from their studies were smaller than they'd expected, so they dismissed the results as meaningless.
This was a convenient interpretation of the results, as the real interpretation had some uncomfortable (for them) implications.
First, the study assumed that the best way of teaching kids was the "open classroom" unstructured teaching approach, and while that may help preschoolers come up to speed quicker, it doesn't really help teaching highly structured courses like Calculus or Physics, which requires students to shut up and listen while the instructor teaches the material. The IQ study showed, first and foremost, that this unstructured teaching approach isn't as effective as they'd like everyone to believe.
The other uncomfortable implication was that IQ does increase with effort, but it takes a *lot* of effort to increase it significantly. The implication is that smarter kids deserve more respect than the dumb kids teachers tend to focus most of their efforts on. The teachers have traditionally treated the smarter kids as if they were born lucky, rather than acknowledge the fact that they'd already accomplished more than their dumber contemporaries.
There are parallels to weightlifting. Most people don't go to the gym, and their bodies are mostly defined by their genes and their environments. They tend not to look good at the beach. Some people go to the gym, but don't put much effort into their workouts, so they improve a little bit, lose interest, and soon return to their old lifestyles and their old gene/environment-defined bodies.
Then there are the body-builders, who train hard and sculpt their bodies into what shape they desire, regardless of their genes and their environments.
Psychologists would rather have people believe that no one can succeed in changing their IQ than recognize that the newest PC teaching methods don't work better than the old ones and that individuals are accountable for their intelligence level, for better or worse.
IQ's can and do change. Mine was about 125 when I was about 13, then I took some accelerated-pace classes in a special summer school that taught college-level classes 6.5 hours per day, five days per week, all summer long. After four summers' worth, my college board exams showed my IQ had increased to 145. Post college I worked in various challenging engineering jobs and decided to go back to grad school and had to take another exam to get in (the GRE, which is like the SATs for undergrad college), and my IQ according to that test was then up to 154. The increase, from 125 to 154, wasn't accumulated luck, it was the result of all those years of education and working at jobs that required me to use my brains on a 40hours/week basis.
As for the importance of IQ related your profession i don't believe there is that much of a correlation :) Don't get me wrong now, you need to be reasonably intelligent off course to manage a difficult position but there are a lot of people f ex in Mensa with very high IQ but working in very ordinary positions. That doesn't mean that you shouldn't feel proud over a good result. It takes some sweat to go through one of those tests. As for my definition of intelligence, well that has widened over the years, i know people that are very wise without making any fuzz about themselves, i know people that are very handy in their professions, some people are quiet mostly but very good to listen to when they have something to say etc etc. So i don't give those tests to much of a value, try to do the best you can in all situations and be what you want to be, not the one people expect you to be, then i think things will turn out ok.
I am 13 and have an IQ of 159
I have an IQ of 149, I am male, I am 13, I don't do homework. Is that good, It says I am smarter than 99.95% of the world.
QUOTE (Yesternews+Jul 23 2007, 02:18 PM)
I have an IQ of 149, I am male, I am 13, I don't do homework. Is that good, It says I am smarter than 99.95% of the world.
I think you answered your own question.
Please, everybody try to refrain from making this a thread about how smart we all are. Nobody cares.
I think you answered your own question.
Please, everybody try to refrain from making this a thread about how smart we all are. Nobody cares.
Yeah we don't care how smart you are certainly....
I mean what good does it do you when you put that intelligence to use and find hey they take your freedom of speach away for that....
BTW I'd never deal with this country in any talks KJI so please take that into consideration in the future.... Oh wait there is no need to say that aloud....
I mean what good does it do you when you put that intelligence to use and find hey they take your freedom of speach away for that....
BTW I'd never deal with this country in any talks KJI so please take that into consideration in the future.... Oh wait there is no need to say that aloud....
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.