Doomworld IQ test comparison

[Krispy]

I thought it would be interesting to find out my IQ, so I found this site here:
IQTest.com
From what they say, it's a pretty standard and credible test. I personally scored a142 on my first try. Since this is a bit higher than what I expected, I thought maybe doomworld should compare results.

The test is nice and short (13 minutes) and the results are free. So, what are you waiting for? Prove to the community you've got the mental capacity to be a Doom hero!

[Maes]

The only real proof of superior intelligence is not taking any test that asks for your email afterwards.

[The_MártonJános]

Maes said:

The only real proof of superior intelligence is not taking any test that asks for your email afterwards.

Agreed. The only thing worse I can imagine is something that even requires me to send phone messages, thus cost money. S**kers.

[Fletcher`]

Maes said:

The only real proof of superior intelligence is not taking any test that asks for your email afterwards.

[Dragonsbrethren]

I tried to raise my IQ over 128, but it just overflowed and crashed my brain.

[AndrewB]

Back in the 50s, Albert Einstein managed to get his IQ above 255, but because brains were all 8-bit back then, the resulting overflow caused a brain aneurism and he died.

[Technician]

I took it but my brain overflo-- ah fuck it.

[Joshy]

Man, visbrain overflows suck.

[darknation]

eat master mind flayer corpses

[GreyGhost]

Here's my score - did a little better than expected.

[Shadow Hog]

Joshy said:

Man, visbrain overflows suck.

Fortunately, I use a limit-removing brain port.

(Somewhat on-topic, I took an IQ test as a kid, and got something around 150 or so... Dunno what I'd get these days, but if this site requires my e-mail, I'm hesitant to supply it.)

[betabox]

GreyGhost said:

Here's my score - did a little better than expected.

Because it's Grey, I'll excuse that use :P

[Kontra Kommando]

My IQ was professionally tested back in grammar school, because I was doing poorly in class at the time. It turned out I had an IQ of 143. I did poorly because I was more interested in Super Nintendo.

[Creaphis]

I don't usually take these tests because I'm honestly afraid of what they'll tell me. So, to conquer that fear I went ahead and took this test anyway. I'm giving myself a solid B, since I wasn't dumb enough to give them a credit card number to see my results and I signed up with the email address I use to register for porn websites. Nothing of value was lost.

[Snakes]

*insert joke about switching brain formats and using intelligence transfer cerebral cortex action here*

[Aliotroph?]

I did a bunch of those online tests as a teenager in the 90s (had to print them out and have somebody score them by hand). My scores ranged between 120 and 175. My best friend's dad took the one where I scored 175 and managed 60! He's not more retarded than Forrest Gump; he either wasn't trying or sucks at tests.

I've been officially tested at least twice when I was a kid. When I was nine I scored 118 (two points too low for a gifted program!), and when I was four a psychologist said I had the cognitive abilities of a seven year old (175!), but couldn't hold a pencil properly. That session was interactive and just felt like fun school-type games to me. I didn't know anything about being tested until I found the report in a drawer years later.

The moral of this story? IQ tests are dodgy and nothing you can do in 13 minutes is going to give you a reliable result. Your scores can easily vary widely over your lifetime depending on what skills you learn at what ages.

[Krispy]

Agreed, which is why I had wanted some comparison, but people seem understandably skeptical. I also used a junk email for that site but I didn't give them a card number for my results and got them anyway. Talking about this topic reminds me of a movie I saw once, where this guy saw bright lights and then became a genius, but in the end it turned out he had a brain tumor.

[Doom Marine]

My IQ is 960 according to the test I created.
It has exactly one question:

IS YOUR IQ 960?

[ ] YES
[ ] NO

I answered yes, so my IQ is 960.

[Maes]

Creaphis said:

I don't usually take these tests because I'm honestly afraid of what they'll tell me.

Well, this particular one essentially tells you in a not-so-thinly-veiled way, that you're a schmuck and spam-bait.

Aliotroph? said:

My best friend's dad took the one where I scored 175 and managed 60! He's not more retarded than Forrest Gump; he either wasn't trying or sucks at tests.

I once read somewhere that Mike Tyson's IQ was measured to be 60 or so, but I can't imagine how that could ever be assessed -for some reason, I just can't imagine Mike Tyson sitting on a desk with pencil and paper and patiently thinking and ticking answers on a sheet of paper for a good half an hour or so. It's much more likely that he'll just yell "WHAT DA FACK IS DAT SHIT?!" after glancing at the very first page, spitting on the test, ripping it apart, breaking the desk and then sticking what's left of test (paper, pencil and all) in the attendant's ass.

[Caffeine Freak]

I took an online IQ test years ago and got a 123. I took another test a few years afterwards and got a 127 or 128 I think. But I don't put a ton of weight on those results, or for that matter, pretty much any online IQ test. I'm of the opinion that IQ tends to be less set in stone than many people believe.

[dew]

Maes said:

I once read somewhere that Mike Tyson's IQ was measured to be 60 or so, but I can't imagine how that could ever be assessed -for some reason, I just can't imagine Mike Tyson sitting on a desk with pencil and paper and patiently thinking and ticking answers on a sheet of paper for a good half an hour or so. It's much more likely that he'll just yell "WHAT DA FACK IS DAT SHIT?!" after glancing at the very first page, spitting on the test, ripping it apart, breaking the desk and then sticking what's left of test (paper, pencil and all) in the attendant's ass.

They asked him questions and he punched the assistant on the left for YES and the one on the right for NO. Both if thinking about the question just made him angry. Also he's actually a suspected genuis-level mind, but at 30th question they ran out of assistants.

I don't know about my IQ, but judging by this thread, just being a Doomworld regular puts me safely into the 140+ zone. Actually, make that 240+, because I didn't take the test and thus aced the Maes intelligence criterion.

[Maes]

Caffeine Freak said:

I'm of the opinion that IQ tends to be less set in stone than many people believe.

Some tests cover their ass and for any result above 120 or 130 they state something to the effect that the test is not reliable beyond this point and that you should get a professional/clinic assessment if you want a more reliable answer, or that your high score can simply mean that that you are good at this specific kind of test (Ha!), which I deem entirely possible. If you train at shape matching, sequence/pattern recognition etc. of course you're going to ace it.

And, surprise surprise, many corporations and organizations use similar tests for assessing the "cognitive, numerical and comprehension skills" of a candidate, as part of their preliminary interview/testing process. But they are NOT called IQ tests, and people DO train for getting better at them. An example: the EU EPSO battery of tests. Do they look familiar?

I once was subjected to a much harder battery of tests for an engineering position at the national oil company, and the preliminary skill test was just like an "IQ test" on steroids: practically, you had to answer a large number of logical, mathematical and reading comprehension questions (over 300, I recall) in a fixed amount of time, I think this worked out to about 20 seconds or even less per question. There were about 500 candidates (!) and I ranked 40th or so, but only the top 35 would get shortlisted for the next selection phases.

My point is that you can train and prepare for such tests, artificially inflating results, and thus they do not really measure natural IQ at all. The point of IQ tests should be to see how well you fare on something you were not specifically trained for, based just on your "natural" intelligence skills. That's why ideally IQ tests should be protracted, exhaustive, very variable and only applicable to people who never saw one before, to see how well they really "get it" on their own, not after having done 100 or so such tests before.

Oh and of course you can "lose" IQ points by factors such as fatigue, drug use, stress, etc. so of course they are not set in stone. Your brain might be the same -more or less- but it won't perform the same, and some substances are actually proven to kill neurons, so in theory you can really lose even "natural", "true" IQ by fucking up your body.

[SavageCorona]

I'm smart enough to not take an IQ test because I know it'll be inaccurate and send spam to my email.

[TwinBeast]

I got 113 from that.. but I got bored of reading the questions after a while and answered at random. Also I was quite tired.

[MFG38]

I got 125 out of the test.

[Hellbent]

131, but I had just eaten so I'm sure I could do better if more blood was going to my brain and less to digesting the giant meatloaf I just imbibed. Funny, tho, I took an online IQ test many years ago from a different website (about a decade ago) and I scored 130 or 131. I had taken it a few times and always scored 130 or 131. Now I take a different test about a decade later and I score the same number. O_o

[kristus]

So I got 142. But most of it was pretty simple math that you could do in your sleep. And furthermore since it was just true or false questions, it was not really a good test to gauge one's intellect since the chance for just guessing the right answer is always at least 50 pct for each question. An actual intelligence test should be open ended with lots of possible answers that should be able to gauge how your mind works and how many possibilities you yourself can imagine from different situations. But such a test would also not return a quaint little score that you could wear as a badge of honor afterwards as it would be more of an essae of your personal intellect.

[Maes]

Well, don't pretend too much out of a dumbed-down logical/mathematical skill test. You're likely to encounter one at least 5 times as long as part of a job screening test. If you had to complete it in...say, 5 minutes, then we'd be talking.

[kristus]

Only had to do such a test for the army. Never seen anyone do that since here in Sweden. But I work as a teacher, so it'd be rather silly if they would employ nonsense like that in their employee searches. I suppose it can be a efficient way to weed out a lot of applicants like in the example that you provided but I wouldn't advice anyone who's hiring to base much if any of their final decision on what score you get on a standardized test like that.

[Maes]

Also, people who are to take part in TV quizzes and the such ofter train in similar problems or a wide selection of trivia, vocabulary and skill/speed-based logical/linguistic games, depending on the quiz's format.