It is more likely that one of your tests was inaccurate than it is that your IQ actually changed by 7 points... that is such a large variance, that it points to the test and not the person who took it.
Not to say that it could not have happened but statistically the chances of that are incredibly low... When in doubt just nix your lowest score and claim your highest ;)
ha, I'm more than ok with that. I attributed it to my age. While I know age doesn't make a difference, I did also have a lot more issues with attention/focus when I was younger, so just assumed that was what contributed to a lower score. My last two were both much closer together, hitting 139 and 142 (and 135 with my first, when I was young).
Out of curiosity, since you seem to know a lot more about this than I do: what would make an IQ test inaccurate? If they are professionally administered, shouldn't they all essentially be the same test (just swapping out variables in the same questions or something to ensure you don't take the same test over and over?)
yes, if they were professionally administered they should all be accurate, and that would make you one heck of an anomaly!
There are other factors that can affect your test, like if you had an emotional trauma or were extremely sick that day or whatever. I'd go with my top two, if they were all 100% legit tests. The reason for that is that there are reasons why you may test out low (divorce and death and stuff), but there isnt any reason why on one particular test you would test out high on accident. If it were me, I'd say it's "around 140" and be done with it.
Besides, as someone who tests in the top one percentile, you know like I do that the higher you get on the scale, the less discernable difference there is in your ability to perform and relate. I find that people with an IQ of over maybe 125-130, there's rarely a whole lot of PRACTICAL difference. Functionally theres a pretty big diff between 100 and 120, but way less-so if youre comparing someone with a 140 to someone with a 160. Smart is smart.
Congrats on your score BTW, not too shabby my fren.
Disagree. The difference between 100 and 120 is exactly the same as the difference between 140 and 160. That's how the scale works. Stephen Hawking (~160) is much smarter than me (~145). One standard deviation smarter (significant)
It is more likely that one of your tests was inaccurate than it is that your IQ actually changed by 7 points... that is such a large variance, that it points to the test and not the person who took it.
Not to say that it could not have happened but statistically the chances of that are incredibly low... When in doubt just nix your lowest score and claim your highest ;)
ha, I'm more than ok with that. I attributed it to my age. While I know age doesn't make a difference, I did also have a lot more issues with attention/focus when I was younger, so just assumed that was what contributed to a lower score. My last two were both much closer together, hitting 139 and 142 (and 135 with my first, when I was young).
Out of curiosity, since you seem to know a lot more about this than I do: what would make an IQ test inaccurate? If they are professionally administered, shouldn't they all essentially be the same test (just swapping out variables in the same questions or something to ensure you don't take the same test over and over?)
yes, if they were professionally administered they should all be accurate, and that would make you one heck of an anomaly!
There are other factors that can affect your test, like if you had an emotional trauma or were extremely sick that day or whatever. I'd go with my top two, if they were all 100% legit tests. The reason for that is that there are reasons why you may test out low (divorce and death and stuff), but there isnt any reason why on one particular test you would test out high on accident. If it were me, I'd say it's "around 140" and be done with it.
Besides, as someone who tests in the top one percentile, you know like I do that the higher you get on the scale, the less discernable difference there is in your ability to perform and relate. I find that people with an IQ of over maybe 125-130, there's rarely a whole lot of PRACTICAL difference. Functionally theres a pretty big diff between 100 and 120, but way less-so if youre comparing someone with a 140 to someone with a 160. Smart is smart.
Congrats on your score BTW, not too shabby my fren.
Disagree. The difference between 100 and 120 is exactly the same as the difference between 140 and 160. That's how the scale works. Stephen Hawking (~160) is much smarter than me (~145). One standard deviation smarter (significant)