Next Generation Emulation banner
1 - 20 of 23 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
214 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I have seen many online i.q. tests with certificate.What is the value of this certificate?If I show it to anyone I don't think that they believe my i.q. written on the certificate.Because there is no proof that the certificate is real.Everyone will think that I made it myself with my computer.After passing major exams like O Level and A Level the certificate which we get is very valuable.Because everyone knows that the certificate is real and we all give those exams in school.We can't do any kind of cheating there.But giving an i.q. test at home and receiving a certificate doesn't seem right.Everyone will also think that I have cheated.I want to give a real proof of my i.q.So what should I do?
 

·
The one and only
Joined
·
3,660 Posts
uhh, go take a REAL I.q. test at a university or something?
 

·
soshin
Joined
·
2,595 Posts
That or find a legitimate psychological, or educational institution (i.e. Psychological, Counseling and Education Center) that provides such tests or measurements. What do you need it for anyway? IQ test results hardly prove anything nowadays, aside from how much intellectual potential that you have.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,441 Posts
once i went to this website. it said i was really really smart and stuff. than i went to this other website it said i was smart even smarter. the third website i went to i got the bestest score. i got a a grade 71%. one day i know im going to get 100%. by the way sameev29 i found out that you live in Bangladesh. you kan know change your location from Unknown to Bangladesh. another mstry that i have solved.
 

·
エリートキラー
Joined
·
392 Posts
Bangladesh:thumb:
Try a local university. What part of Bangladesh are you in?
And what do you need the IQ test for?
 

·
soshin
Joined
·
2,595 Posts
Hmmm I don't know mate, I'm sorry I never live there or have the knowledge of such places in Bangladesh. Try asking your school or university to find one. Usually universities that have psychology as one of their courses provide these kinds of services, or at least have the information about the places that provide it.
 

·
The one and only
Joined
·
3,660 Posts
i took an online iq test when i was 13 and i got a 138. i dont think they are very accurate even though im smart.
 

·
...and now they do.
Joined
·
20,002 Posts
Part of the I.Q. test is being smart enough to just make your own certificate on MS Word.
 

·
You're already dead...
Joined
·
5,472 Posts
What determines your intelligence has been debated for centuries. IMO, IQ tests should only be taken as a very-rough estimate as to how intellegent you are compared to other people.

Scoring around 100 would be average, then significantly lower would make you dumber compared to the average person or a retard, and significantly higher means you have a lot of intellectual potential or you're a genius.

IQ tests should purely be based on intellectual potential, and should try to limit basing any question on 'learned knowledge' as much as possible. Many tests I've seen fail to do so, which makes them no-better than a regular school exam based on what you studied.
 

·
From Love and Limerence
Joined
·
6,574 Posts
I.Q. tests are very biased and favored towards certain ways/style of thinking/people who think (maybe even behave) certain ways. The creators of the concept were likely those with such an "intellectual" and "high" thinking too, I'll bet. It favors itself towards patterns and abstract thinking, to be specific/for example. I think some are even timed, too. They're rubbish.
 

·
You're already dead...
Joined
·
5,472 Posts
Yeah a lot are timed (the online ones at least).
I don't think time should be a factor at all with an IQ test.

If IQ is a measure of intelligence, why do you have to be quick to answer questions? What does that have to do with your intelligence?
 

·
Ya'ver drink Brazilian bold from fkn dunkn donuts!
Joined
·
7,828 Posts
Means you have fast intelligence as opposed to slow intelligence.

Anyway I think IQ tests are rubbish by nature and design. Put anyone in a working situation over an extended period of time and you get a better measure of how well they perform intelligence wise. Well that is what I believe anyway.
 

·
soshin
Joined
·
2,595 Posts
I.Q. tests are very biased and favored towards certain ways/style of thinking/people who think (maybe even behave) certain ways. The creators of the concept were likely those with such an "intellectual" and "high" thinking too, I'll bet. It favors itself towards patterns and abstract thinking, to be specific/for example. I think some are even timed, too. They're rubbish.
There is no perfect measurement tool in psychology. This is one paradox in the study of psychology, that we want to understand human behavior in a whole, yet we isolate one factor each and quantify it, reducing man's meaning into numbers and scores. Whether or not the test is usable, or how close it is to the "truth", as in how accurate that tool in describing the factor it seeks to explain (in this case intellectual capacity), depends on its psychometric properties, the value of validity and the reliability of that tool. This method of calibrating how valid or reliable one measurement tool is painstaking to say the least. You want to have a large number of samples, not to mention you have to cluster the age units, not to mention it has to be free from cultural bias, and a lot of other factor. This is why we should take cautions whenever we take a test (especially online tests in the internet) and see our results. We need to know whether the test is valid and reliable, therefore describe acurately our intellectual capacity.

I'll take one IQ test, the IST (Intelligenz Struktur Test) by Amthauer as an example. One of the reasons why the tests must be timed, concerns with standardization of its scores. If it is not timed, the tool cannot differentiate between someone with adequate intellectual capacity, and the one with less intellectual capacity. Because IQ tests mainly measure general intellectual capacity, it has to be independent of factors such as general knowledge, or common math problems, for the reason that that kind of abilities are not general or raw intellectual capacities, but rather something that is learned and therefore affected by many other factors (i.e. the time spent studying, interests, motivation, etc.). That is why the content of the tests are usually simple number puzzles, matching words, pattern recognition, spacial recognition, etc. They are not the results of learning and can be done without any need of studying one particular subject or at least the most basic of abilities (i.e. language). The amount of time is standardized after a lot of amount of trials, and set as the time the average person can do most of the item of the test. If it is not timed, two person, one is shall we say smart, and another less smart, will be able to finish the test and even with the same score. But we cannot say which one has the better IQ if we only examine the result of the test, because the smart one finish it in, say, 5 minutes, but the less smart one finish it albeit correctly in 25. Intellectual capacity also concerns about the speed of the cognitive process, yes. It is correlated with the "path" one takes in his mental process.

I can't really describe the reason why abstract thinking is the most advanced type of thinking. Try the work of Jean Piaget, that explains our development of cognitive abilities.

Usually if we are talking about IQ tests, they usually measure what we call the G factor (no, not G-spots :p). It more or less measures the general cognitive abilities or the intellectual potential that someone has. Mind you, that recent studies show that the correlation between performance and IQ scores has low correlation coefficient. Meaning that how you perform your tasks, succeed in your life or in your job does not depend entirely on how high you score the IQ test. IQ only contributes to roughly 30-40 percent to one's performance.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
23,263 Posts
i generally score in the 130 to 160 range.... depends on the test i take
 

·
From Love and Limerence
Joined
·
6,574 Posts
There is no perfect measurement tool in psychology. This is one paradox in the study of psychology, that we want to understand human behavior in a whole, yet we isolate one factor each and quantify it, reducing man's meaning into numbers and scores. Whether or not the test is usable, or how close it is to the "truth", as in how accurate that tool in describing the factor it seeks to explain (in this case intellectual capacity), depends on its psychometric properties, the value of validity and the reliability of that tool. This method of calibrating how valid or reliable one measurement tool is painstaking to say the least. You want to have a large number of samples, not to mention you have to cluster the age units, not to mention it has to be free from cultural bias, and a lot of other factor. This is why we should take cautions whenever we take a test (especially online tests in the internet) and see our results. We need to know whether the test is valid and reliable, therefore describe acurately our intellectual capacity.

I'll take one IQ test, the IST (Intelligenz Struktur Test) by Amthauer as an example. One of the reasons why the tests must be timed, concerns with standardization of its scores. If it is not timed, the tool cannot differentiate between someone with adequate intellectual capacity, and the one with less intellectual capacity. Because IQ tests mainly measure general intellectual capacity, it has to be independent of factors such as general knowledge, or common math problems, for the reason that that kind of abilities are not general or raw intellectual capacities, but rather something that is learned and therefore affected by many other factors (i.e. the time spent studying, interests, motivation, etc.). That is why the content of the tests are usually simple number puzzles, matching words, pattern recognition, spacial recognition, etc. They are not the results of learning and can be done without any need of studying one particular subject or at least the most basic of abilities (i.e. language). The amount of time is standardized after a lot of amount of trials, and set as the time the average person can do most of the item of the test. If it is not timed, two person, one is shall we say smart, and another less smart, will be able to finish the test and even with the same score. But we cannot say which one has the better IQ if we only examine the result of the test, because the smart one finish it in, say, 5 minutes, but the less smart one finish it albeit correctly in 25. Intellectual capacity also concerns about the speed of the cognitive process, yes. It is correlated with the "path" one takes in his mental process.

I can't really describe the reason why abstract thinking is the most advanced type of thinking. Try the work of Jean Piaget, that explains our development of cognitive abilities.

Usually if we are talking about IQ tests, they usually measure what we call the G factor (no, not G-spots :p). It more or less measures the general cognitive abilities or the intellectual potential that someone has. Mind you, that recent studies show that the correlation between performance and IQ scores has low correlation coefficient. Meaning that how you perform your tasks, succeed in your life or in your job does not depend entirely on how high you score the IQ test. IQ only contributes to roughly 30-40 percent to one's performance.
Okay, but all of that intellectual stuff misses the basics. I know plenty of others online who claim higher scores than me, for example (even if this is on some standard run of the mill internet site, since we both took the same test, the standard used to compare is still the same across both parties), but on certain things, sometimes most other times/situations, I feel the person is mentally "below" me, or that the other person may be really, well, "stupid" compared to me (not necessarily stupid overall, but at least in the given situation/subject/time/whatever). I know the real reason I get that feeling isn't because I think they're really below me, but because we think differently. What I was trying to say is that I.Q. tests are alot more limited to certain types of thinking (abstract thinking is not "necessarily" the most "advanced" type of thinking, it's just the type this test and it's ideal/concept/backing rewards), and for certain applications, than they're hyped up to be. They're sometimes thought of as a standard, a "real" or "defined" scale that people are actually on, or the be all end all, when they're very, very, very far from it. I do personally think they are rubbish, but I was not trying to say they don't have their (obvious) uses. For the most part though, that use is trying to reduce people to a numbers scale, as you mentioned. Humanity likes to put things on a scale/in a box/whatnot, and that's what this is.

I don't know. I just don't think/agree with the idea that the human mind can really be "measured" per se. It's all just a "pissing contest" per se to even need to compare them. Use your common sense to judge stupidity and genius. Yes, one's own common sense isn't a static variable, but I guess that's what makes it fun/what makes everyone different/unique/special/whatever. I often find stupidity in alot of those claiming high scores. It's funny how that works.

Thanks for the interesting read/explanation though.
 
1 - 20 of 23 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top