I had a true educational assessment done back in November. I've had them done at various times of my life since I was confirmed as a gifted learning disabled student. They can take many hours to complete and so much of the results are determined by how the one administering the test interprets your responses/actions.
My full-scale IQ result is 125; however, this is deceiving in my case because my language based skills actually score around 110 while my non-verbal reasoning skills score 140+. So like I said, my full-scale score underemphasizes some of my skills and over emphasizes others, and therefore really isn't very useful.
If you ever get the chance to have the assessment, I recommend it, especially if you live in a place or goto a school that will pay for it.
Cheers,
PS. 100 is average. The scale has something to do with relationships, 110 being the 75th percentile, 125 being the 90th.. etc etc. Somebody who knows more could explain it properly.
PS. 100 is average. The scale has something to do with relationships, 110 being the 75th percentile, 125 being the 90th.. etc etc. Somebody who knows more could explain it properly.
Not quite:
The distribution is some specific form of the gaussian curve ( I am not sure the exactly equation, but a list from this site is as follows).
Code:
IQ Percentile
65 01
70 02
75 05
80 09
85 16
90 25
95 37
100 50
105 63
110 75
115 84
120 91
125 95
130 98
135 99
If I was keen, I would plot these parameters and get the particular constant of the gaussian, but I don't care.
If I was keen, I would plot these parameters and get the particular constant of the gaussian, but I don't care.
I think you mean "If my IQ were high enough, I would plot these in my head and put them in a row with fake versions, not tell you what they were, and ask you to find a pattern."
The distribution is some specific form of the gaussian curve ( I am not sure the exactly equation, but a list from this site is as follows).
If I was keen, I would plot these parameters and get the particular constant of the gaussian, but I don't care.
IQ is on a normal (gaussian) curve, with a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15 or sometimes 16. That means that if you have a score of 130, you're two standard deviations above the mean, or in the top 2% of the population - that's a characteristic of all normal curves. That's why I always enjoy looking at people's scores on these internet discussions - 90% of people are in the top 5% of the population.
IQ is on a normal (gaussian) curve, with a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15 or sometimes 16. That means that if you have a score of 130, you're two standard deviations above the mean, or in the top 2% of the population - that's a characteristic of all normal curves. That's why I always enjoy looking at people's scores on these internet discussions - 90% of people are in the top 5% of the population.
Maybe you know this, why is the standard deviation 15%?
Has any one actually done a broad cross population analysis other than looking for the average?
The standard deviation could be 20% or 5%, why 15%?
Maybe you know this, why is the standard deviation 15%?
Has any one actually done a broad cross population analysis other than looking for the average?
The standard deviation could be 20% or 5%, why 15%?
It's 15 for the same reason the mean is 100: It's just set that way in order to communicate results easily. You could transform the numbers into something else and it wouldn't make any difference. The (old) SATs and GREs have means of 500 and standard deviations of 100 per section. Some IQ tests are set to have a standard deviation of 16. It's just playing with numbers and doesn't have any empirical basis. (It's actually not 15%, it's 15 points.)
Same with the mean - the 100 is completely artificial. In fact, IQ scores have gone up significantly over the past several decades (it's called the Flynn effect). But it's constantly re-centered so the mean stays 100 regardless. It's like we just can't get any smarter.
It's 15 for the same reason the mean is 100: It's just set that way in order to communicate results easily. You could transform the numbers into something else and it wouldn't make any difference. The (old) SATs and GREs have means of 500 and standard deviations of 100 per section. Some IQ tests are set to have a standard deviation of 16. It's just playing with numbers and doesn't have any empirical basis. (It's actually not 15%, it's 15 points.)
Same with the mean - the 100 is completely artificial. In fact, IQ scores have gone up significantly over the past several decades (it's called the Flynn effect). But it's constantly re-centered so the mean stays 100 regardless. It's like we just can't get any smarter.
Um, it makes no sense that they set a standard deviation. Given a large sample of test takers, a standard deviation will arise, but you cannot set that deviation a priori. If you try to do so, you artificially force a population to distribute itself about the mean in artificial ways...
Well that's what they do. It's not empirical, it's just data transformation. If you get a standard deviation of 30, you divide by 2 and then add 50 to make the mean 100 again, et voila. You could set the standard deviation to 25 if you wanted, or pi, or whatever. Some tests set it to 16. It's merely convention, so everyone knows what a score means in percentile terms.
Our own little bell curve is starting to look like an inverse bell curve.
Yeah, I always look for threads like this because they always amuse me. I don't know if the tests are biased, or people are just lying, or only people who do well report their results, or what. But the scores are always absurdly high.
Okay, so only a little better than "normal" at 110. But I also had about 20 minutes to go. I get bored taking these tests. I either see it or I don't and I don't have much patience for working it out.
Comments
Originally posted by soulcrusher
130 in half the time but this is just stupid.
SO thats why you did it?
My full-scale IQ result is 125; however, this is deceiving in my case because my language based skills actually score around 110 while my non-verbal reasoning skills score 140+. So like I said, my full-scale score underemphasizes some of my skills and over emphasizes others, and therefore really isn't very useful.
If you ever get the chance to have the assessment, I recommend it, especially if you live in a place or goto a school that will pay for it.
Cheers,
PS. 100 is average. The scale has something to do with relationships, 110 being the 75th percentile, 125 being the 90th.. etc etc. Somebody who knows more could explain it properly.
Originally posted by mattyj
So intelligence = pattern recognition?
That is what modern our modern interpretation of intelligence has become.
Originally posted by Yose
PS. 100 is average. The scale has something to do with relationships, 110 being the 75th percentile, 125 being the 90th.. etc etc. Somebody who knows more could explain it properly.
Not quite:
The distribution is some specific form of the gaussian curve ( I am not sure the exactly equation, but a list from this site is as follows).
IQ Percentile
65 01
70 02
75 05
80 09
85 16
90 25
95 37
100 50
105 63
110 75
115 84
120 91
125 95
130 98
135 99
If I was keen, I would plot these parameters and get the particular constant of the gaussian, but I don't care.
Originally posted by hardeeharhar
If I was keen, I would plot these parameters and get the particular constant of the gaussian, but I don't care.
I think you mean "If my IQ were high enough, I would plot these in my head and put them in a row with fake versions, not tell you what they were, and ask you to find a pattern."
Originally posted by hardeeharhar
Not quite:
The distribution is some specific form of the gaussian curve ( I am not sure the exactly equation, but a list from this site is as follows).
If I was keen, I would plot these parameters and get the particular constant of the gaussian, but I don't care.
IQ is on a normal (gaussian) curve, with a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15 or sometimes 16. That means that if you have a score of 130, you're two standard deviations above the mean, or in the top 2% of the population - that's a characteristic of all normal curves. That's why I always enjoy looking at people's scores on these internet discussions - 90% of people are in the top 5% of the population.
Originally posted by BRussell
IQ is on a normal (gaussian) curve, with a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15 or sometimes 16. That means that if you have a score of 130, you're two standard deviations above the mean, or in the top 2% of the population - that's a characteristic of all normal curves. That's why I always enjoy looking at people's scores on these internet discussions - 90% of people are in the top 5% of the population.
Maybe you know this, why is the standard deviation 15%?
Has any one actually done a broad cross population analysis other than looking for the average?
The standard deviation could be 20% or 5%, why 15%?
Originally posted by hardeeharhar
Maybe you know this, why is the standard deviation 15%?
Has any one actually done a broad cross population analysis other than looking for the average?
The standard deviation could be 20% or 5%, why 15%?
It's 15 for the same reason the mean is 100: It's just set that way in order to communicate results easily. You could transform the numbers into something else and it wouldn't make any difference. The (old) SATs and GREs have means of 500 and standard deviations of 100 per section. Some IQ tests are set to have a standard deviation of 16. It's just playing with numbers and doesn't have any empirical basis. (It's actually not 15%, it's 15 points.)
Same with the mean - the 100 is completely artificial. In fact, IQ scores have gone up significantly over the past several decades (it's called the Flynn effect). But it's constantly re-centered so the mean stays 100 regardless. It's like we just can't get any smarter.
Originally posted by BRussell
It's 15 for the same reason the mean is 100: It's just set that way in order to communicate results easily. You could transform the numbers into something else and it wouldn't make any difference. The (old) SATs and GREs have means of 500 and standard deviations of 100 per section. Some IQ tests are set to have a standard deviation of 16. It's just playing with numbers and doesn't have any empirical basis. (It's actually not 15%, it's 15 points.)
Same with the mean - the 100 is completely artificial. In fact, IQ scores have gone up significantly over the past several decades (it's called the Flynn effect). But it's constantly re-centered so the mean stays 100 regardless. It's like we just can't get any smarter.
Um, it makes no sense that they set a standard deviation. Given a large sample of test takers, a standard deviation will arise, but you cannot set that deviation a priori. If you try to do so, you artificially force a population to distribute itself about the mean in artificial ways...
Originally posted by hardeeharhar
So the concept of IQ as a multiplicative relationship to average at a certain age has been abandoned for this percentile?
Yes definitely. It's not a mental age/chronological age "quotient" any longer.
Originally posted by Carson O'Genic
Our own little bell curve is starting to look like an inverse bell curve.
Yeah, I always look for threads like this because they always amuse me. I don't know if the tests are biased, or people are just lying, or only people who do well report their results, or what. But the scores are always absurdly high.
heheheh...