high IQ's
-
ok so im stupid. im so sorry for being stupid.
-
Airpork.Originally posted by the.owl:LOL, your IQ is 198? pigs can fly.
I got IQ just near 100! Yay~~~ I am normal! Woo hoo~~~!!!
-
Anybody who believes he can confidently state he's got an IQ of 198 is, quite simply, an idiot. No measurement above 165 is statistically reliable, therefore no confidence may within reason be attached to such a score. Quod erat demonstradum - emphasis on "dum".
-
-
this was only started so that other intelluctally capable people could discuss things about their life and share discoveries that they've made or to share ideas or discuss the string theory, neurological discoveries of the past century and how they compare to modern times, etc. anyways, it's ok to havean opinion, but if it's hurtful please keep it to yourself. thank you very much.
-
This is sgforums, not some medical journal forum. I guess even people with high IQ mess up the logic part eh.Originally posted by heavenly angel32:this was only started so that other intelluctally capable people could discuss things about their life and share discoveries that they've made or to share ideas or discuss the string theory, neurological discoveries of the past century and how they compare to modern times, etc. anyways, it's ok to havean opinion, but if it's hurtful please keep it to yourself. thank you very much. Funny though, is it a new trend to state your IQ in an intro? : 12/m/198 (IQ) -
wah so high i took a test but all american stuff about math than all is miles miles feet,foot fail like sht iq in the end 75
-
Oh, puhlease. String theory? Neurology? You don't even have a grasp of first-year statistics, so don't go trying to run before you can crawl. You might just hurt yourself.Originally posted by heavenly angel32:this was only started so that other intelluctally capable people could discuss things about their life and share discoveries that they've made or to share ideas or discuss the string theory, neurological discoveries of the past century and how they compare to modern times, etc. anyways, it's ok to havean opinion, but if it's hurtful please keep it to yourself. thank you very much. -
Now, that there's a particularly smart observation. IQ tests of any given form are subject to biases, and those biases can be along cultural, linguistic, educational or gender lines. The fact is that after nearly a century, nobody's yet figured out how to measure Spearman's g - not even those with 198 IQs.Originally posted by M551Sheridian:wah so high i took a test but all american stuff about math than all is miles miles feet,foot fail like sht iq in the end 75
Of course, there's also the issue of what the number IQ actually means. It's quite simply (mental age/chronological age)*100. Translated, a 12-year-old with an IQ of 198 is fairly equivalent to a 24-year-old with an IQ of 100. Not much to write home to mum about, is it now? -
Ooh ooh! Den I more den 24 wif IQ slightly more den 100...Originally posted by Gedanken:Now, that there's a particularly smart observation. IQ tests of any given form are subject to biases, and those biases can be along cultural, linguistic, educational or gender lines. The fact is that after nearly a century, nobody's yet figured out how to measure Spearman's g - not even those with 198 IQs.
Of course, there's also the issue of what the number IQ actually means. It's quite simply (mental age/chronological age)*100. Translated, a 12-year-old with an IQ of 198 is fairly equivalent to a 24-year-old with an IQ of 100. Not much to write home to mum about, is it now?
Duh.............
*Walking on the butt. -
12 years old who can create thread IQ become 198????? even as low as 8 years old can start one.
-
really? so your IQ decreases as you grow older? or does the IQ test difficulty increase according to age?Originally posted by Gedanken:Of course, there's also the issue of what the number IQ actually means. It's quite simply (mental age/chronological age)*100. Translated, a 12-year-old with an IQ of 198 is fairly equivalent to a 24-year-old with an IQ of 100. Not much to write home to mum about, is it now? -
Finally!! A fellow intellectual, lets get the ball rolling shall we?Originally posted by heavenly angel32:this was only started so that other intelluctally capable people could discuss things about their life and share discoveries that they've made or to share ideas or discuss the string theory, neurological discoveries of the past century and how they compare to modern times, etc. anyways, it's ok to havean opinion, but if it's hurtful please keep it to yourself. thank you very much.
Today got cheat which cai png unker ha? -
I dunno much about my very own intelligence quotient, but i do know 1 thing after reading this thread, and that is my intelligence quotient dropping drastically.
-
Originally posted by spadeTwo:I dunno much about my very own intelligence quotient, but i do know 1 thing after reading this thread, and that is my intelligence quotient dropping drastically.
-
Originally posted by spadeTwo:I dunno much about my very own intelligence quotient, but i do know 1 thing after reading this thread, and that is my intelligence quotient dropping drastically.
-
They tie it to the average score of the chronological age grpOriginally posted by the.owl:really? so your IQ decreases as you grow older? or does the IQ test difficulty increase according to age?
Therefore if he is 12 and his IQ is that of the average 20 year old then it becomes 100*[20/12]. In this case, his IQ is equivalent to that of a 23.76 yr old.
but to have an IQ of 198 at 12 means that he is probably a genius for the age group. -
he's a liar okay...Originally posted by ben1xy:They tie it to the average score of the chronological age grp
Therefore if he is 12 and his IQ is that of the average 20 year old then it becomes 100*[20/12]
but to have an IQ of 198 at 12 means that he is probably a genius for the age group
those iq test max points only 16x to 17x at most... -
usually it goes to 160 something max i think. i cant really recallOriginally posted by spadeTwo:he's a liar okay...
those iq test max points only 16x to 17x at most...
lazy to google
-
einstein got an IQ of 180 plus.are u saying ur smarter than him?
fine.then invent sth for me to see. -
the most successful people do not have the highest IQ.
Bill Gates is rich because he is smart enough to employ people smarter than him to work for him.
However, although i believe EQ will have a higher impact than IQ in most people's life, having high EQ alone is not enuff also.
Like ying and yang, there has to be a balance.
-
No, theoretically, there's no cap on the number. Given the equation I mentioned earlier, if, for example, a 5-year-old is able to complete IQ test questions suited for a 50-year-old, the child's IQ would be calculated as 1000.Originally posted by spadeTwo:he's a liar okay...
those iq test max points only 16x to 17x at most...
HOWEVER....
There are a number of problems with this measure.
First and foremost, as mentioned earlier, nobody can work out g in the first place. Any current measure of intellectual ability is at best a corollary of g. The WAIS is biased because you'd need to know English, have had basic education in mathematics and lived in a country with snow to have an even chance. Did someone say Raven's matrices? Biased against women on the visuospatial ability count. Bottom line, it's a whole load of bovine excrement any way you cut it.
Secondly, there's the matter of IQ score distributions, which are based around a mean of 100, with standard deviations of 15. Given the normal distribution, anything above 165 represents such a tiny number that unless you had census data on every single person within that range, the probability of getting any particular score in that range would be about as reliable as flipping a coin.
Most important is the fundamental flaw of classical test theory, employed by the Stanford-Binet, WAIS and their clones. How does one determine if a test item is indeed representative of a 50-year-old's level of function? The obvious answer is to test a bunch of 50-year-old individuals to see how many of them can get the answer right. However, this raises an interesting conundrum. How do you know that this group of 50-year-olds is representative of all 50-year-olds? The answer depends on their performance on the test items, but the test items are themselves an unknown measure - after all, you started out trying to find out how tough the questions were in the first place.
We therefore have a vicious cycle of working out how tough the question is based upon how many people of a certain group could get the answer right, and conversely working out how bright this group is, which in turn is influenced by how tough the question is.
Now, theoretically, there is a way out of this in the form of Item Response Theory. Starting with a Poisson distribution, the parameters of the individual's level of ability and the item difficulty may be iteratively ascertained simultaneously using the equation: Pi(q) = 1/(1 + e-Dai(q-bi)), where:
q is the examinee's ability level
i is the item
bi is the difficulty parameter for item i
D is a figure of 1.7
e is a transcendental constant of value 2.718
to determine Pi(q), which is the probability of a person of ability level q getting item i correct. Note that the answer is specific to the measured ability, not g, and requires a sample of at least a few thousand for a reasonable goodness-of-fit statistic to be achieved.
Let's face it, that's just too much work for determining something as trivial as IQ. -
is your theory partly copied from other website?Originally posted by Gedanken:No, theoretically, there's no cap on the number. Given the equation I mentioned earlier, if, for example, a 5-year-old is able to complete IQ test questions suited for a 50-year-old, the child's IQ would be calculated as 1000.
HOWEVER....
There are a number of problems with this measure.
First and foremost, as mentioned earlier, nobody can work out g in the first place. Any current measure of intellectual ability is at best a corollary of g. The WAIS is biased because you'd need to know English, have had basic education in mathematics and lived in a country with snow to have an even chance. Did someone say Raven's matrices? Biased against women on the visuospatial ability count. Bottom line, it's a whole load of bovine excrement any way you cut it.
More important is the fundamental flaw of classical test theory, employed by the Stanford-Binet, WAIS and their clones. How does one determine if a test item is indeed representative of a 50-year-old's level of function? The obvious answer is to test a bunch of 50-year-old individuals to see how many of them can get the answer right. However, this raises an interesting conundrum. How do you know that this group of 50-year-olds is representative of all 50-year-olds? The answer depends on their performance on the test items, but the test items are themselves an unknown measure - after all, you started out trying to find out how tough the questions were in the first place.
We therefore have a vicious cycle of working out how tough the question is based upon how many people of a certain group could get the answer right, and conversely working out how bright this group is, which in turn is influenced by how tough the question is.
Now, theoretically, there is a way out of this in the form of Item Response Theory. Starting with a Poisson distribution, the parameters of the individual's level of ability and the item difficulty may be iteratively ascertained simultaneously using the equation: Pi(q) = 1/(1 + e-Dai(q-bi)), where:
q is the examinee's ability level
i is the item
bi is the difficulty parameter for item i
D is a figure of 1.7
e is a transcendental constant of value 2.718
to determine Pi(q), which is the probability of a person of ability level q getting item i correct. Note that the answer is specific to the measured ability, not g, and requires a sample of at least a few thousand for a reasonable goodness-of-fit statistic to be achieved.
Let's face it, that's just a pain in the arse for determining something as trivial as IQ. -
please go and take PAID iq test ok....Originally posted by Gedanken:No, theoretically, there's no cap on the number. Given the equation I mentioned earlier, if, for example, a 5-year-old is able to complete IQ test questions suited for a 50-year-old, the child's IQ would be calculated as 1000.
HOWEVER....
There are a number of problems with this measure.
First and foremost, as mentioned earlier, nobody can work out g in the first place. Any current measure of intellectual ability is at best a corollary of g. The WAIS is biased because you'd need to know English, have had basic education in mathematics and lived in a country with snow to have an even chance. Did someone say Raven's matrices? Biased against women on the visuospatial ability count. Bottom line, it's a whole load of bovine excrement any way you cut it.
More important is the fundamental flaw of classical test theory, employed by the Stanford-Binet, WAIS and their clones. How does one determine if a test item is indeed representative of a 50-year-old's level of function? The obvious answer is to test a bunch of 50-year-old individuals to see how many of them can get the answer right. However, this raises an interesting conundrum. How do you know that this group of 50-year-olds is representative of all 50-year-olds? The answer depends on their performance on the test items, but the test items are themselves an unknown measure - after all, you started out trying to find out how tough the questions were in the first place.
We therefore have a vicious cycle of working out how tough the question is based upon how many people of a certain group could get the answer right, and conversely working out how bright this group is, which in turn is influenced by how tough the question is.
Now, theoretically, there is a way out of this in the form of Item Response Theory. Starting with a Poisson distribution, the parameters of the individual's level of ability and the item difficulty may be iteratively ascertained simultaneously using the equation: Pi(q) = 1/(1 + e-Dai(q-bi)), where:
q is the examinee's ability level
i is the item
bi is the difficulty parameter for item i
D is a figure of 1.7
e is a transcendental constant of value 2.718
to determine Pi(q), which is the probability of a person of ability level q getting item i correct. Note that the answer is specific to the measured ability, not g, and requires a sample of at least a few thousand for a reasonable goodness-of-fit statistic to be achieved.
Let's face it, that's just a pain in the arse for determining something as trivial as IQ.
they dont take your age as a factor 1..
i take before.. only got 4 diff age group to put a tick beside it.
and i paid like 60+ bucks just to know me iq is only 122... above average.. but still not clever enough. -
No, it was the substance of my longwinded and VERY boring doctoral thesis.Originally posted by BusSpeeder:is your theory partly copied from other website?