The Forum's IQ

[Skarekrow]

@Skarekrow

I was the same way. Except a lot of times I wouldn't do any of it.

I'd not turn in ANY homework and pass all the tests. How? I don't know. I just knew stuff. I absorbed things like a sponge and this was actually noted by my teachers - the sponge analogy was their analogy, I leaned it through their use of it to describe how I am, to me.

They knew I knew the stuff , knew I was different, fully admitted my intelligence right to my face, and then refused to give any quarter.

Furthermore, I was showed little compassion or consideration. They were like machines who couldn't think for themselves. I eventually got some 'help' yeah, begrudgingly, after I'd driven them crazy enough. They didn't help me out of care, they helped me because they were sick of their way not working.

It was like "be this way, or else" or else what? I'll be miserable? I'm way ahead of you there! Want to act like a machine? I can be a better machine. I poop bolts and piss oil! Don't argue with the machine!

I used to either hide or discard assignments I was supposed to do....as early as the 1st grade...in the 3rd grade I actually threw my math book away in the garbage and told them I lost it....lololol. And yes, I was the same...I was very much a sponge...I could talk and tell you very intricate details about things that I was interested in. Finally, and I mean finally my senior year of HS I told the guidance counselor that I had insomnia (bald face lie to which he didn’t check) and couldn’t stay awake in class to which I was able to do independent studies for that year....it was so wonderful! I understand about the test taking too...I am the same way...I don’t learn by repetition unless I am trying to instill myself with muscle memory. Usually if I listened in class that was all it took...even more so in college...man, it used to piss people off...they would see that I didn’t take notes, never had any study materials out before a big exam...but yet I would ace it.
Guess that is just how my brain works.
In grade school they actually did try a little to figure me out...mostly by the persistence of my Mother...like I said I was IQ tested and when that showed that I was above average they referred me to UCLA (about a 3 hour drive) to see some big-shot Psychologist or Psychiatrist...not sure which it was...it wasn’t only for the school issues but also because I had unrelenting night terrors (to which I am now mostly convinced were actually out of body experiences ((whole other subject))) I think my Mom has the report somewhere...funny, but I have never really been curious enough to seek it out and read. I did however continue to see various Psychologists and Counselors until the age of 14 or so. The teachers never tried anything differently...they continued to teach the same way...and I can understand why they didn’t....they probably either didn’t feel qualified...did not have time...or never cared enough given all the other crap they had to put up with already. I know that there are schools and programs out there for kids like I was but I never made it to one....c’est la vie...I’m not gonna cry about it now....everything happened just how it did.

 

[sprinkles]

[MENTION=5045]Skarekrow[/MENTION]

Yeah, what sickens me is that I wanted to learn. I never as a child identified school as 'the learning place' and everywhere else as 'not school'. Hence I'd read the books without even being asked.

I didn't get it. Didn't understand why it had to be that way. What purpose is the distinction? From my view, the world is school and I was never not learning.

 

[Skarekrow]

@Skarekrow

Yeah, what sickens me is that I wanted to learn. I never as a child identified school as 'the learning place' and everywhere else as 'not school'. Hence I'd read the books without even being asked.

I didn't get it. Didn't understand why it had to be that way. What purpose is the distinction? From my view, the world is school and I was never not learning.

I can identify....my favorite day at school was always going to the library...I loved to search through the shelves for things that interested me...at home a had a huge set of science encyclopedias that I would sit and read for hours. When it came to learning certain rules about things, they couldn’t have been done in a more boring way had Ben Stein himself been teaching (Bueller Bueller). It was the same way with certain things in HS....such as writing a 5-paragraph essay where you have a thesis statement, then supporting sentences...blah blah blah....follow this formula, show no creativity...how damn boring is that...I’m sure the teachers didn’t even read through them....ugh. I wonder what the beat poets from the 60’s would think of that essay formula...lol.

 

[sprinkles]

[MENTION=5045]Skarekrow[/MENTION]
Yeah. I wonder what changed so that some people just don't fit in anymore?

Henry Cavendish. He weighed the earth. Was so socially anxious that he couldn't talk to most people. Had a back staircase added onto his house to avoid his own housekeeper.

Yet people were willing to work with him. It was said of Cavendish that those who "sought his views, speak as if into vacancy. If their remarks were worthy, they might receive a mumbled reply, but more often than not they would hear a peeved squeak and turn to find an actual vacancy and the sight of Cavendish fleeing to find a more peaceful corner."

After Cavendish died, it was seen in his notes that he'd already discovered things that other scientists ended up famous for.

 

[Gaze]

I can identify....my favorite day at school was always going to the library...I loved to search through the shelves for things that interested me...at home a had a huge set of science encyclopedias that I would sit and read for hours. When it came to learning certain rules about things, they couldn’t have been done in a more boring way had Ben Stein himself been teaching (Bueller Bueller). It was the same way with certain things in HS....such as writing a 5-paragraph essay where you have a thesis statement, then supporting sentences...blah blah blah....follow this formula, show no creativity...how damn boring is that...I’m sure the teachers didn’t even read through them....ugh. I wonder what the beat poets from the 60’s would think of that essay formula...lol.

I have an issue with the thesis statement. It's been made into some law for judging whether writing is effective. However, I have some serious issues with the formula. I know this is not a popular view in college classrooms. However, I found it confining and limiting. I preferred the hypothesis. Pose question than observe and analyze the text or evidence to see what you will find. Technically, nothing should be confirmed until the conclusion. This is one view. I don't think many will understand this view. But it made it very difficult to write papers because apparently, your paper was marked as good or bad depending on whether it had a well defined thesis - something you can't really have unless you've really studied something in depth or are an expert. How can you have a good thesis when you're just learning a subject. That never made sense to me. And the idea that a paper can have only one specific central idea doesn't click when so many ideas are interrelated. And most of the organization of thoughts in the books we read in class contradicted the idea of the thesis. Most were never organized around on one idea but developing or showing connections between related ideas. It was an exploration of thoughts rather than prescription of one thought or idea as the focus. Thesis sounds like prejudging or predefining what you will find before you find it.

 

[SealHammer]

I have an issue with the thesis statement. It's been made into some law for judging whether writing is effective. However, I have some serious issues with the formula. I know this is not a popular view in college classrooms. However, I found it confining and limiting. I preferred the hypothesis. Pose question than observe and analyze the text or evidence to see what you will find. Technically, nothing should be confirmed until the conclusion. This is one view. I don't think many will understand this view. But it made it very difficult to write papers because apparently, your paper was marked as good or bad depending on whether it had a well defined thesis - something you can't really have unless you've really studied something in depth or are an expert. How can you have a good thesis when you're just learning a subject. That never made sense to me. And the idea that a paper can have only one specific central idea doesn't click when so many ideas are interrelated. And most of the organization of thoughts in the books we read in class contradicted the idea of the thesis. Most were never organized around on one idea but developing or showing connections between related ideas. It was an exploration of thoughts rather than prescription of one thought or idea as the focus. Thesis sounds like prejudging or predefining what you will find before you find it.

I had a tendency to want to pose questions at the start of a paper and then answer them culminating to an overarching point at the end - when I was younger. I think I had that taught out of me over the years. The fact is that it is much easier to grade thirty papers that are all written in the exact same format than it is to grade thirty papers which each approach a subject in their own way. It's about efficiency; how many students can be pushed through the system.

As much as I want to say that it was done with good intentions, all I can think of when I see English classes is good, creative, free writers being taught how to be bad, unoriginal, constricted writers. I tend to share Ken Robinson's belief that some things in a school's curriculum teach kids out of their creativity, especially classes involving writing, one of the most basic creative tasks.

 

[Skarekrow]

I have an issue with the thesis statement. It's been made into some law for judging whether writing is effective. However, I have some serious issues with the formula. I know this is not a popular view in college classrooms. However, I found it confining and limiting. I preferred the hypothesis. Pose question than observe and analyze the text or evidence to see what you will find. Technically, nothing should be confirmed until the conclusion. This is one view. I don't think many will understand this view. But it made it very difficult to write papers because apparently, your paper was marked as good or bad depending on whether it had a well defined thesis - something you can't really have unless you've really studied something in depth or are an expert. How can you have a good thesis when you're just learning a subject. That never made sense to me. And the idea that a paper can have only one specific central idea doesn't click when so many ideas are interrelated. And most of the organization of thoughts in the books we read in class contradicted the idea of the thesis. Most were never organized around on one idea but developing or showing connections between related ideas. It was an exploration of thoughts rather than prescription of one thought or idea as the focus. Thesis sounds like prejudging or predefining what you will find before you find it.

I agree...I had a huge problem with being limited in such a writing style! And then we had to take the writing proficiency test by it....I remember the subject I got was “What is your favorite season of the year and why?” Really? How lame is that? You want me to write a five paragraph essay on that? What if I don’t have a favorite season of the year? And seeing as how I grew up somewhere that only really had summer and then a slightly cooler version of that it was utter bullshit.
I think kids should learn the various essay forms of writing and then be free to flow in whatever way suits them....or jump between the styles, just so long as it is not all over the place and shows they are a competent writer then why not? I understand the reasons of course as to why they teach that way...I just have never been one to follow the rules I suppose....lol.

 

[sprinkles]

I had a tendency to want to pose questions at the start of a paper and then answer them culminating to an overarching point at the end - when I was younger. I think I had that taught out of me over the years. The fact is that it is much easier to grade thirty papers that are all written in the exact same format than it is to grade thirty papers which each approach a subject in their own way. It's about efficiency; how many students can be pushed through the system.

As much as I want to say that it was done with good intentions, all I can think of when I see English classes is good, creative, free writers being taught how to be bad, unoriginal, constricted writers. I tend to share Ken Robinson's belief that some things in a school's curriculum teach kids out of their creativity, especially classes involving writing, one of the most basic creative tasks.

If they can't grade 30 papers that are a bit different in due time, then maybe that's their problem.

The world would be more efficient if we killed some people off, too. Doesn't mean it's a good idea.

 

[SealHammer]

If they can't grade 30 papers that are a bit different in due time, then maybe that's their problem.

The world would be more efficient if we killed some people off, too. Doesn't mean it's a good idea.

Well, I would totally advocate disappearing certain politicians and world leaders, but that's neither here nor there.

Widespread, public access to education is a fairly new concept compared to how long schools and the art of teaching have been around, so it's not terribly surprising that the immediate response for some people to the question "How do we get more people educated?" is to say "Industrialize it!" Even compared to just fifty years ago, there are so many teachers employed in school systems and in businesses around the world. As much as I like progress and hate nostalgic longing/rose-colored time goggles, I do think that in making teaching a job (learn how to make product, make product, repeat), and downplaying its roots as a philosophy (indeed, the first teachers were philosophers) and lifestyle, it is diminished.

Not everyone is cut out to be a teacher. In fact, I'd say most people aren't cut out to teach, but a rather sizeable economy has been created around education, and so long as it continues to produce capital, the concerns of those who are interested in actually doing their jobs well will be ignored in favor of those who yell the same old tired shit about "focusing on math and the sciences" and who basically advocate turning schools into early training institutions for businesses.

 

[sprinkles]

Well, I would totally advocate disappearing certain politicians and world leaders, but that's neither here nor there.

Widespread, public access to education is a fairly new concept compared to how long schools and the art of teaching have been around, so it's not terribly surprising that the immediate response for some people to the question "How do we get more people educated?" is to say "Industrialize it!" Even compared to just fifty years ago, there are so many teachers employed in school systems and in businesses around the world. As much as I like progress and hate nostalgic longing/rose-colored time goggles, I do think that in making teaching a job (learn how to make product, make product, repeat), and downplaying its roots as a philosophy (indeed, the first teachers were philosophers) and lifestyle, it is diminished.

Not everyone is cut out to be a teacher. In fact, I'd say most people aren't cut out to teach, but a rather sizeable economy has been created around education, and so long as it continues to produce capital, the concerns of those who are interested in actually doing their jobs well will be ignored in favor of those who yell the same old tired shit about "focusing on math and the sciences" and who basically advocate turning schools into early training institutions for businesses.

Yeah.

It bugs me - production line education to prepare you to solve a vast array of problems that aren't going to neatly fit. Especially in medical, engineering, etc. How paradoxical is that?

I mean yeah, there are specialists. Efficiency is a thing. But I've never heard of a surgeon who says "I only do the left knee. Sorry, you're screwed. I have lots of left knee patients and I have to take care of them all quickly."

 

[Tin Man]

I can identify....my favorite day at school was always going to the library...I loved to search through the shelves for things that interested me...at home a had a huge set of science encyclopedias that I would sit and read for hours. When it came to learning certain rules about things, they couldn’t have been done in a more boring way had Ben Stein himself been teaching (Bueller Bueller). It was the same way with certain things in HS....such as writing a 5-paragraph essay where you have a thesis statement, then supporting sentences...blah blah blah....follow this formula, show no creativity...how damn boring is that...I’m sure the teachers didn’t even read through them....ugh. I wonder what the beat poets from the 60’s would think of that essay formula...lol.

You were lucky. My school was tiny and somewhat isolated. I had to rely on the monthly book-wagon for anything interesting to read. Most of the books at home were romances and crime novels. The only time I found John Gresham interesting was at the age of eight. I did have subscriptions to a few bi-monthly educational magazines such as The Tree of Knowledge.

I think the entire education system should be torn down to it's roots and rebuilt. It's a broken system that rewards those who think one way and punishes creativity and open mindedness.

The world would be more efficient if we killed some people off, too. Doesn't mean it's a good idea.

Finally, someone who makes some sense. If people would only open their eyes and see the potential for ending world hunger through butchering the stupid. I guess I'm just an idealist.

 

[Hazard]

[MENTION=4108]Radiant Shadow[/MENTION] that should be a really beneficial list. Thank you, I appreciate it. It will really help me get into a top college that I desire. I'm not saying I'm Ivy League status nor am I saying I'll make it to becoming a neurosurgeon but I certainly have a desire to and if I could accomplish one of these dreams in my life it would really be quite spectacular. Either way the information you gave will be extremely beneficial. You have my gratitude.

 

[Radiantshadow]

@Radiant Shadow that should be a really beneficial list. Thank you, I appreciate it. It will really help me get into a top college that I desire. I'm not saying I'm Ivy League status nor am I saying I'll make it to becoming a neurosurgeon but I certainly have a desire to and if I could accomplish one of these dreams in my life it would really be quite spectacular. Either way the information you gave will be extremely beneficial. You have my gratitude.

You are most welcome. Dedication, patience, and passion will be your best friends =) Best of luck! Let me know if I can be of further aid.

 

[Skarekrow]

The world would be more efficient if we killed some people off, too. Doesn't mean it's a good idea.

I totally want a license to kill....oh man, what fun I would have....MHHWWWAAAAHAHAHAHAHA!

 

[Quiet]

The main thing an iq test measures is one's ability to do an iq test. This is influenced by intelligence, awareness and understanding of the nature and construction of iq tests, cultural familiarity, enviornmental factors, general knowledge, conformity in thinking and interest in particular topics and activities.

So i just did a quick free online test here http://www.free-iqtest.net
This test is not a good or accurate measure of intelligence or 'iq' because of the way the questions are structured and its comparitively short length to other iq tests. But, long iq tests are boring and time consuming, and i personally find them a waste of time and fairly pointless.

But anyway, i did extremely well on this test, and this is why:

- i am aware of and understand the structure of iq tests. I learned about them, their purpose, the structure of the questions etc when i studied them in psychology. In being aware of how the test works and how it has been created, and what it is trying to measure- i have a better idea of how to answer the questions- like learning to read and respond to a pattern.
With some of the questions, i knew how the test wanted me to answer, yet it was not the answer i really agreed with or would have naturally chosen. In this way, i think that doing well on an iq test is influenced by how well we understand expectations and can conform.

I have also done this when applying for work. They've given me a test to measure my capacity and aptitude for a certain job. Because i know how these tests work and what answers they want- i just fill it out accordingly to fulfill their expectations. This is plain manipulation and lying on my part. But i 'honestly' wanted those jobs (needed the money!), and i made myself jump through their stupid predictable hurdles.

I've also done something similar on many of my assignments and exams. I understood the critera, and i responded accordingly. Not because i agreed with the material, but because i knew what they wanted and i knew that to get a good grade i had to fulfill their expectations.

Doing this is not congruent and it feels 'wrong' to me. I dont enjoy this, and i dont find it conducive to learning and understanding. In many ways, education can be learning to conform. This is incredibly boring and unfulfilling.

- i have done iq tests before- ive had practice in doing tests like these. I did a lot of iq tests- different kinds- 'professional', tests administered by fellow students, free online ones etc- when i was learning about them 8-9 years ago. The more i did iq tests, the better i became at understanding the nature of the questions and how to answer them. The results improved with the experience i had.
I also really enjoy things like brain teasers, puzzles and lateral thinking. The more i do these, the better i become.

In the test i just did, i think i got one question wrong- im pretty sure i know which one. if i did that particular test again, i would most likely get that question right this time. Not because i am more 'intelligent', but because i am now more 'educated' or 'knowledgeable'. But i guess most people use these terms interchangably and they are related.

- i have good general knowledge and cultural familiarity. These things are influenced by level of education, general interests, exposure to and integration into culture. I read a lot, and i like things like geography, learning about different animals etc. So these things are familar to me. People may be very intelligent, yet also be uniterested and therefore unaware of things often included in iq tests. People may or not be engaged and intergrated into culture either. I remember many years ago, i ran through administering an iq test with a foreign student, someone who i knew was highly intelligent. She did very poorly with some questions- especaily questions to do with language, and with familial relations (eg.if w is e's uncle, and q is w's mother etc), because her native culture had a very different way of conceptualising family. Im sure she would have gotten an entirely different result if she had done an iq test designed and constructed in her native language and culture.

- i am very good at guessing- i think this is because of ni, or intuition in general. In the test i just did, there were 2 questions where i wasnt sure of the answer. I just made a likely guess- picked the answer that 'looked' right, although there is no way i can logically justify my choice.
This is one of the reasons why i think that this particular iq test is not very good- because of the multiple choice questions. I think intuitive people can sometimes 'know' the answer, just by seeing it there. If the questions hadnt been multiple choice, it would have been harder for me to do the test and i dont think i would have been able to answer two particular questions

- and lastly, and most controversially- i did well because i 'believe' im intelligent. I've always 'known' im intelligent and felt that im intelligent. People have consistently agreed with this. This makes it easier for me to be intelligent. This made it easier for me to be a nerd and immerse myself in all kinds of learning- people expected me to do this and they more or less supported it. It also made other people encourage me to learn more and be intelligent.

Other people believe and are told the opposite- they are told they are unintelligent and are treated as such. They are not encouraged. I was always encouraged and forcefully pushed to be intelligent and do well acadamically. My sister was never told or encouraged by my parents.
This was also very apperant to me at school. I remember a particular occasion very clearly when a boy that didnt normally take interest in science suddendly started taking an interest in a topic we were covering. Because he was normally the 'funny, clueless' guy, no one took him seriously. They expected him to say funny and clueless things. Yet one day he started saying brilliant things, and no one took him seriously. It was so bad, during one particular class, he said something very clever and everyone ignored him. Maybe less that 10 minutes later, another guy said the same thing and everyone was like, oh thats amazing and so smart!' The guy ended up losing interest in the topic, started feeling resentful towards the class, and probably lost faith in himself.

Something kind of similar also happened to me in a maths class once. Because i hated high school, sometimes i behaved badly and was very deviant. There was one particular class that was so boring and painful that i spent the whole term either wagging it, ignoring the teacher or otherwise being a nuisance and minding my own business with my good friend. Lol, she used to spend the whole class speaking in accents and drawing underwear and penises all over books and desks, it was so funny...and annoying.. there were penises all over my books and it looked really weird and embarassing. But anyway, we had an exam for that term and when i got my test back, it said that i had barely passed. I was surprised, i hadnt answered all the questions for my own reasons but i knew that i should have still done well enough. So i went through the test and i saw that he had marked lots of it incorrectly. It was like he hadnt even looked at it and just marked it wrong anyway. I showed him and he realised his error. And then he accused me of cheating! It was so annoying and embarassing, he went on about it and asked the class who i was sitting next to during the exam, and if anyone had seen me do anything dodgy. It was horrible. And then he only stopped accusing me when he learned who i was sitting next to during the test, and he implied that the other person was so stupid that no one would cheat off them.

So anyway, i dont think that the iq test measures intelligence. Intelligence is...something very difficult to measure in a meaningful way. Despite what some may believe, i do think that intelligence is fluid and that the brain is plastic. I know this through my own personal experience and observing others. Intelligence can be increased and decreased, and applied in different ways in different circumstances. The best way to nurture the elusive thing that is 'intelligence' is to encouarge it, support its development, encourage critical thinking, and to try not to 'confine' intelligence to route definitions.
I dont think im a genius. Their are people that are smarter, people that are happier, people that are more successful in different life aspects, and vice versa. These comparisions are not very relavant and useful in most regards. They are only useful if they are used to understand and empower 'self'. There are many things that i 'get'. And many things that i dont get. Many things that im good at, many things that im not good at. I do stupid things a lot, and ive made many many stupid choices. Ive had a lot of fun and pain. A lot of failure and success. We learn thorugh mistakes and experience, more so than through just 'knowledge'. It takes all kinds of people to make the world go around.

I think that the easiest way to be would be 'average intelligent'. This would make it easier to relate to most people, understand them, conform, and get along. Ignorance can most definately be bliss. Thinking about things for long enough makes just about everything that society does seem completely ridiculous, incomprehensible and insane. It becomes hard not to feel completely alienated! This is why i come out schizotypal on personality tests! Seriously, the things we do to ourselves, each other, and the world is completely fucked up! Culture is crazy, the only way to really fit in is to completely brainwash yourself by fear, greed and consumerism and to become a mindless sheep.

I dont think intelligence ncessarily leads to happiness or success. It leads to awareness, and perhaps even unhappiness as the fuckedupness of our systems are grasped. Its awareness and empowerment that brings true happiness and wellbeing. This is something that anyone can achieve through becoming more aware of themselves, turning inward, and taking responsibility for creating their reality. Self awareness, honesty, gratitude and courage are key. And success- i think...is basically just doing what you want and enjoying what you do. If you do what you want...if work and joy are the same thing in your life...if you live simply for the joy of living...you are successful.

But perhaps it is 'intelligence' that gets us there. My best friend (who is one of the smartest people i know) has a theory that intelligence is directly related to inspiration. The more we are inspired, awed and impressed by something, the more intelligent we become in regards to it. We are all inspired by different things and therefore more naturally intelligent with certain things. He also believes that the best way to support intelligence in a child is to inspire them and be inspired by them. This is really awesome for me, because he is my child's dad! I can relate to his thoughts and theory. I learn things because i feel inspired to do so. I have learned a lot of things because i feel inspired by lots of things. And sometimes there's a point when im learning something that i dont want to learn any further, because i dont feel interested in doing the necessary brain excercise or putting in the necessary effort to get there. If im not inspired by something...i dont care to know. Like...hiking up a mountain, we have to be really motivated to climb, curious about the view etc.

We live in an incredibly awe inspiring reality, and perhaps the more we tune into that, the more aware and 'intelligent' we are. The true joy of life becomes apparent when we let ourselves be inspired, moved, awed, when we let ourselves imagine...when we allow ourselves to really be honest and feel, and we become grateful for all that it is we are. When we acknowledge and become grateful for the incredible, mindblowingly creative and powerful wonder that it is to exist.

Pretty much as this 'genius' says,
“I believe in intuition and inspiration. Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited, whereas imagination embraces the entire world, stimulating progress, giving birth to evolution. It is, strictly speaking, a real factor in scientific research.” -Einstein

 

[Snowman219]

Took an IQ test a few years ago from the Mensa website and scored 109. I can get 150 on the fake tests : ). SMRT.

 

[Snowman219]

i was tested a few times as a child, and as a result i was taught fifth and sixth grade in one year and skipped to seventh.
although i was never given the actual number, as a teenager my IQ was recorded to be in the superior range.
when i was around 40 i took the test again and it was 127. i feel smarter than i did at 15 but apparently i was much quicker then... or something

It's based on people in your age group. I'll just assume that it's easier to slam dunk people at a younger age . The playing field levels off as we get older cause some of us are late bloomers.

 

[Snowman219]

What is the relevance of the IQ (except in finding a compatible partner?) Hint: There is no relevance. No one cares. Those who want to argue about their intelligence in real life will find themselves sitting alone.

Haters B Hatin'. It's nice to know where you stand sometimes. A fool that knows he's a fool is still smarter than the fool who thinks he's brilliant.

 

[sprinkles]

It's based on people in your age group. I'll just assume that it's easier to slam dunk people at a younger age . The playing field levels off as we get older cause some of us are late bloomers.

Yes. In fact IQ used to be mental age compared to chronological age. So for example an IQ of 100 would mean you're exactly 'normal' for your age. e.g. being 12 years old and having the ability of a typical 12 year old, since it was MA divided by CA times 100. For a 12 year old with the intelligence of a 12 year old, it would be 12 divided by 12, which is 1, times 100, which is 100.

Now they use a normalizing group to determine the factor for a given age range, so they don't directly calculate mental age anymore but it is still similar.

 

[Gaze]

Yes. In fact IQ used to be mental age compared to chronological age. So for example an IQ of 100 would mean you're exactly 'normal' for your age. e.g. being 12 years old and having the ability of a typical 12 year old, since it was MA divided by CA times 100. For a 12 year old with the intelligence of a 12 year old, it would be 12 divided by 12, which is 1, times 100, which is 100.

Now they use a normalizing group to determine the factor for a given age range, so they don't directly calculate mental age anymore but it is still similar.

Hmm, interesting. So, it's not really measuring IQ relative to everyone else in a particular age group anymore? Wouldn't that change how we interpret the entire concept of IQ?

In other words, is 100 at 12 the same as 100 at 25? This has always confused me because as we get older, our brain develops and as someone said, some people are late bloomers. So, if someone is tested young and gets 100, they could test higher when they're older because of course, they're older and developed their cognitive ability especially if they continue to higher education. When I take IQ tests today, there are clearly some questions I can answer better today because I've taken courses in college math and have better developed reasoning skills. So, does the IQ test correctly evaluate someone's IQ for all time or just where they are mentally at the time they are evaluated? If someone doesn't develop their cognitive skills over a period of time, wouldn't that lower their IQ score if they are not essentially exercising their mental regularly?