IQ Testing

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

mustangsally65

Sally 2.0
10+ Year Member
15+ Year Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2004
Messages
2,529
Reaction score
4
I had my IQ tested recently by a graduate student at my university, and was wondering how much one should depend on the accuracy of this score. I am a psychology major and have been told by many professors different things about the usefulness of an IQ score. Some put no stock in it, while others think it is very reliable.

Does anyone have any input on this subject? I am currently applying to medical school, and was told by the IQ tester that I would do well in med school based solely on my score.

I know that some have said IQ scores are only predictors of success in schools and not in the workplace or in life in general, but what are your opinions on this? Also, how much validity can be found in a score more than two standard deviations away from the mean?

Thanks! :)

Members don't see this ad.
 
mustangsally65 said:
I had my IQ tested recently by a graduate student at my university, and was wondering how much one should depend on the accuracy of this score. I am a psychology major and have been told by many professors different things about the usefulness of an IQ score. Some put no stock in it, while others think it is very reliable.

Does anyone have any input on this subject? I am currently applying to medical school, and was told by the IQ tester that I would do well in med school based solely on my score.

I know that some have said IQ scores are only predictors of success in schools and not in the workplace or in life in general, but what are your opinions on this? Also, how much validity can be found in a score more than two standard deviations away from the mean?

Thanks! :)

http://www.apa.org/monitor/oct04/learningdisabil.html
 
mustangsally65 said:
I had my IQ tested recently by a graduate student at my university, and was wondering how much one should depend on the accuracy of this score. I am a psychology major and have been told by many professors different things about the usefulness of an IQ score. Some put no stock in it, while others think it is very reliable.

Does anyone have any input on this subject? I am currently applying to medical school, and was told by the IQ tester that I would do well in med school based solely on my score.

I know that some have said IQ scores are only predictors of success in schools and not in the workplace or in life in general, but what are your opinions on this? Also, how much validity can be found in a score more than two standard deviations away from the mean?

Thanks! :)

i have scored genius level on several iq tests. you have to understand that the score is based off of testing different subjects and thinking on them. i think the most practical tests are ones that one would not be able to take any fore knowledge into the test with them, such as verbal or history. these are selective tests that will not compare well with other people who live outside of that political norm. then there are tests that basically you solve puzzles or identify patterns or see relationships with randoms objects, etc. these are somewhat more accurate as you could give the test to someone of nearly any political atmosphere and they could do it.

in the end, the two ppl most noted for their contribution to dna had nearly average iq's. the score just basically says that on average you may/may not have a easier time at learning/understanding something. this does not nessesarily mean you would be better or worse at medicine than another person. it may also interest you to know that the average iq of the human population as a whole is going up.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
mustangsally65 said:
I had my IQ tested recently by a graduate student at my university, and was wondering how much one should depend on the accuracy of this score.

I wouldn't put one iota of stock into it. In my opinion, if that student was running one of his or her first few tests, what that student did was unethical...and shame on his or her professors. When you are learning the test and practicing on others, you should not give feedback to the client as the test is most likely not valid. You are learning to administer it and if you made a mistake you could cause that person distress.

If that person is independently licensed, or is on practicum under supervision, then they should never say anything about your performance in any sort of higher education without an achievement battery and thorough clinical interview.

I teach IQ assessment, so I know what I'm talking about. While you might be pleased with the score, a different tester might find different results...for better or worse.

It is a fallacy that IQ is an unmovable object. While it might have generally good test-retest reliability (assuming test validity) it is definitely affected by outside variables on any given day.
 
As far as how you would do in medical school or anywhere else in life, IQ has very little to do with that. It takes more than a high IQ to achieve such goals. I have known many intelligent individuals with low grades and achievement and vice versa. It may correlate with the SAT, GRE, and other tests like that. I wouldn't put a lot of stock in it other than to say you are an intelligent person.
 
Janusdog:

Thanks for your reply. The graduate student was under the guidance of her advisor, a professor with a Ph.D. I'm pretty sure nothing unethical was done, because I volunteered to have the testing, and accepted the "risks."

I hadn't put much stock in it myself, but was wondering if some people on this forum might have different opinions if they had given similar tests. I'm a Psychology major myself, and have heard many times about both good and bad things about IQ testing. Most of them are bad, however, and it is a measure more useful in determining who might need help in the early academic setting than in success in undergrad or graduate endeavors.

Thanks again! :)
 
hmm... i also find it interesting that ppl who tend to score higher on the tests tend to favor them more than ppl who do not do as well. i know a few ppl with iq's 180+ that are really big into it. i wonder if ppl that do actually do well on them do well because they are that interested and focused where as those who do not dont know what to expect/are not into it/feel threatend in some way by it.
 
If you know folks with a 180 IQ, I would doubt them heavily. I know of only one test (used by MENSA) that claims to test that high, and I have my doubts about that. 100 is the mean, median and mode for the general population, and most have SD's of 10-15. You do the math..

:cool:
 
There is lots of controversy about testing beyond a certain mark (140) after that it becomes extremely difficult. An IQ of 140 is considered genius beyond that is just unreliable. I wonder what these individuals with an IQ of 180 are actually doing with their lives. A number does not mean much and does not account for that individual?s motivations and eventual success. I personally know several people who have scored beyond the average on IQ tests but they have achieved nothing and lack motivation for anything. I also know people with average IQ?s who have achieved much. I guess bottom line is high IQ can give you the tools to succeed but motivation gives you the fuel to get there. :idea:
 
PsyDRxPnow said:
There is lots of controversy about testing beyond a certain mark (140) after that it becomes extremely difficult. An IQ of 140 is considered genius beyond that is just unreliable. I wonder what these individuals with an IQ of 180 are actually doing with their lives. A number does not mean much and does not account for that individual?s motivations and eventual success. I personally know several people who have scored beyond the average on IQ tests but they have achieved nothing and lack motivation for anything. I also know people with average IQ?s who have achieved much. I guess bottom line is high IQ can give you the tools to succeed but motivation gives you the fuel to get there. :idea:


i dont know them personally. i just talk to them sometimes about iq tests. that is about all they do, well... in their free time anyways.

mensa is a joke in the iq world.they have the lowest standard of any high iq organization to get into. you have to be in the to 2% of the general population to get in basically... think about that...

statistically there are about 6 billion ppl, assuming 2% on average is a genius, then 120 million ppl in this world are genius level or higher. have fun with that...
 
I have always had a question regarding these high IQ scores. I was tested several times as a child and once as an adult and recieved high scores every time. Now I can understand getting an IQ of 140, but for an IQ test to find an IQ of 180, I would have to assume that someone of at least that high of an IQ would have to design the test. How many people do you know with 180 IQ's and sufficient quantitative skills to design such a test.

On a seperate note, I have often wondered whether such high intelligence was as much a bane as a gift. One has to believe that a person with an IQ well above the mean would have a hard time relating to others, especially in their age group. Wouldn't that lead to an intellectual isolation(if you can call it that)? Any thoughts?
 
PsyDRxPnow said:
There is lots of controversy about testing beyond a certain mark (140) after that it becomes extremely difficult. An IQ of 140 is considered genius beyond that is just unreliable. I wonder what these individuals with an IQ of 180 are actually doing with their lives. A number does not mean much and does not account for that individual?s motivations and eventual success. I personally know several people who have scored beyond the average on IQ tests but they have achieved nothing and lack motivation for anything. I also know people with average IQ?s who have achieved much. I guess bottom line is high IQ can give you the tools to succeed but motivation gives you the fuel to get there. :idea:

This is very true. In fact, being too intelligent can actually be a disadvantage. If you are that bright, you often skip steps in your deductive reasoning and make the assumption that other people do as well. Then you get frustrated when you can't communicate with the lay population.
This reminds me of a former high school math teacher, who btw, was a member of mensa. No one did very well in his classes. Should be doing research with Stephen Hawking, not teaching.
True genius, imho, results from inductive reasoning. The ability to combine previous information into new ideas. That is what made Einstein (and his brain) so special.
 
Sanman said:
I have always had a question regarding these high IQ scores. I was tested several times as a child and once as an adult and recieved high scores every time. Now I can understand getting an IQ of 140, but for an IQ test to find an IQ of 180, I would have to assume that someone of at least that high of an IQ would have to design the test. How many people do you know with 180 IQ's and sufficient quantitative skills to design such a test.

On a seperate note, I have often wondered whether such high intelligence was as much a bane as a gift. One has to believe that a person with an IQ well above the mean would have a hard time relating to others, especially in their age group. Wouldn't that lead to an intellectual isolation(if you can call it that)? Any thoughts?

it would outwardly appear to be the case, but it is not. when designing the test, you as the test maker are not timed, have access to notes, answers, etc.

check out this site guys, it will really explain a lot i think.
http://www.eskimo.com/~miyaguch/hoeflin.html
 
Members don't see this ad :)
cooldreams said:
hmm... i also find it interesting that ppl who tend to score higher on the tests tend to favor them more than ppl who do not do as well. i know a few ppl with iq's 180+ that are really big into it. i wonder if ppl that do actually do well on them do well because they are that interested and focused where as those who do not dont know what to expect/are not into it/feel threatend in some way by it.


Yep, past 140 is where they start to get unreliable... anyways isn't 180 like 99.999999999% of the population? I don't think the Standford-Binet or the WAIS get that specific.
 
Allotheria said:
Yep, past 140 is where they start to get unreliable... anyways isn't 180 like 99.999999999% of the population? I don't think the Standford-Binet or the WAIS get that specific.

actually, 99.9999999th is about the highest class for a society right now, and that is the giga-society.

check this out (also from that site, you guys really should read it:

"
In 1921, Lewis M. Terman, by means of teacher selection and multiple testing, identified 1,500 of the most intelligent children in the California school system. His aim was to follow this group of gifted people throughout their lives and observe their achievements in the widest possible sense. He was interested not only in their educational and vocational successes, but also their hobbies, interests, reading habits, health, and many other things.

As children, the Terman group was larger and heavier than the average California child; they matured earlier and their health was better. They averaged one full grade ahead of their contemporaries in grade placement, while at the same time more than half of them had mastered the curriculum a full two or more grades beyond their classmates. There was no evidence that the gifted group was cursed with any compensatory weaknesses, but because they did prefer older playmates and more solitary play, they were sometimes reported by others to be "queer" or "different". Nevertheless, they were not thought to be any more unsociable or unpopular than other children.

As adults, most went on to college and many earned academic distinctions. Delinquency and crime were both below average in frequency, and suicide rates, marriage rates, and age of marriage were the same, or nearly the same as those of the general population. The group's war record, occupational success, and income was clearly superior. By age 35, they had published 90 books and 1,500 articles. By age 45, the group had produced 2,000 scientific papers, 230 patents, and 33 novels, as well as many shorter literary works. All in all, the general picture was one of high scholastic achievement and pronounced occupational success.

Terman entitled his longitudinal research project Genetic Studies of Genius, and quite clearly, this was exactly what Terman expected it to be. But soon the evidence began to mount that IQ was not the index of genius that Terman had first thought. There was no John F. Kennedy, no Robert Oppenheimer, no J.B.S. Haldane, and not even a Henry Ford. Clearly, IQ was the single most important variable ever discovered for the prediction of achievement, but it was just as clear that genius was too elusive to be captured by the IQ net alone.

Finally, in the 39th Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education Part I, pp. 83-84, Terman made a most astonishing statement. "Our conclusion is that for subjects brought up under present-day educational regimes, excess in IQ above 140 or 150 adds little to one's achievement in the early adult years." A little farther on he says, "The data reviewed indicate that, above the IQ level of 140, adult success is largely determined by such factors as social adjustment, emotional stability, and drive to accomplishment."

In other word, an extremely high IQ conveys no practical advantages at all."


"...for individuals in a profession known to require high intellectual prowess there is, nevertheless, a wide variability around the median IQ of 125.5. The actual range of Full Scale IQ on the WAIS for these young physicians is from a low of 111 (77th percentile) to a high of 149 (99.9th percentile).

Matarazzo goes on to say, "Another point which is well understood among the few currently growing group of specialists in this country who deal primarily with the assessment of individuals applying for entry into medicine, law, graduate nursing, physics, economics, psychology, English literature, graduate business school, and a host of related scientific and humanistic disciplines is that, on the basis of a purely intellectual index, such applicants are so similar as to have come from the same population.

Currently practicing physicians are also similar to these young medical students in Full Scale WAIS IQs. (Matarazzo and Goldstein, Journal of Medical Education, 1972, 47, 102-111)

Holt and Luborsky in Personality Patterns of Psychiatrists, 1958, p. 40, reported that the "Average Wechsler-Bellevue Scale of Adult Intelligence was 128" ... "Scores ranged from 110 to 145. IQ was not decisive in gaining admittance; the average of those accepted was only slightly higher than those who were rejected. The average verbal subscore was 131 with a range of 115-145."

"

basically most of this studies say that typically, and iq over 140 wont help much in business success.... interesting?
 
Well that is quite interesting, but I think it is understandable. The Einsteins, Fords, etc. were not simply intelligent. They also had other qualities, such as an ability to take chances. Also, for the most part many of these people were not simply trying to attain traditional definitoins of success. I think that their ability to think outside of the box and not simply try to follow the garden path is what set them apart, aside from their intelligence.
 
mustangsally65 said:
Janusdog:

Thanks for your reply. The graduate student was under the guidance of her advisor, a professor with a Ph.D. I'm pretty sure nothing unethical was done, because I volunteered to have the testing, and accepted the "risks."

Right. But one doesn't expect a client to deal with poor care just because, well, "s/he signed a waiver, so whatever she gets, she gets."

Maybe everything was on the up and up...that's fine, I'm glad. All I'm saying is that I don't know why that person was allowed to debrief you with only an IQ test. That is unfamiliar to me and is not how I was trained, nor how I train others.
 
cooldreams said:
actually, 99.9999999th is about the highest class for a society right now, and that is the giga-society.

Ummmmm.... I was attempting to be a smart ass. Alas perhaps my IQ isn't high enough so that explains why I failed. Thus I'm a dumb ass. ;o)

That was an awesome post about the Terman study though....
 
Janusdog said:
Maybe everything was on the up and up...that's fine, I'm glad. All I'm saying is that I don't know why that person was allowed to debrief you with only an IQ test. That is unfamiliar to me and is not how I was trained, nor how I train others.

So what would you recommend besides the IQ test? I had no idea this was not the standard way of doing things. I'm interested to know what your take on this is, and what you were taught.

Thanks! :)
 
mustangsally65 said:
So what would you recommend besides the IQ test? I had no idea this was not the standard way of doing things. I'm interested to know what your take on this is, and what you were taught.

Thanks! :)

do u know if it is going to go into any permanent file of yours?? call me crazy (which im sure most ppl do) but im somewhat hessitant to take iq tests of any sort. dont you remember how governments (including this one!! eek!!) conducted operations to exclude certain ppl out of the human genetic pool, mostly based on iq, but also on a few other factors??

i know that when taking the test with mensa, they will only tell you if you scored high enough to get in, but not what score you got. :thumbdown:
 
statistically the top 2% of the general pop are genius level. if the usa has about 250million ppl, then about 5 million ppl are there. do u think the government intelligence community keeps track on all of those ppl?? i heard something weird about when there is a bomb threat or whatever, one of the first searches the fbi does is lookup all of the mensa members in the community and eliminate them as possible suspects.... odd ?
 
cooldreams said:
statistically the top 2% of the general pop are genius level. if the usa has about 250million ppl, then about 5 million ppl are there. do u think the government intelligence community keeps track on all of those ppl?? i heard something weird about when there is a bomb threat or whatever, one of the first searches the fbi does is lookup all of the mensa members in the community and eliminate them as possible suspects.... odd ?

Not sure if that is true, but it makes sense. Another example of highly intelligent people not accepting the mainstream herd values. Consider if you will the Unabomber or Timothy McVeigh. Both intelligent but right wing and eccentric. These guys see the big picture.
Consider the planning and calculation required for genocide, and it makes sense. Something tells me Osama is a fairly bright guy too.
 
cooldreams said:
do u know if it is going to go into any permanent file of yours??

No, it's not in any permanent file. I volunteered for this testing as extra credit for a psychology class because my instructor's graduate students needed more volunteers. It was more for them to learn how to give the WAIS-III, rather than anything else. I was just curious about its reliability and validity. :)
 
Top