How does "REAL" IQ Compare to online tests?

My partner asked me to do one o these today and I got a score of 180 and make no mistake I am far from being that clever so yea there just a peice of entertainment with no real substance

reply to post by JPhish

I agree that the online iq tests seem suspicious, but I don't think it's true that intelegence isn't something we can improve on. It seems most anything in life, you improve with effort and practice. I guess it depends on how you define intelegence. If you look at it as being able to use your brain effectively, than yes I think you can improve it just as your friend improved his iq test scores. I don't think anyone has ever found a way to measure a persons limitations, but I'd rather look for possibilities rather than limitations anyway.

I took an in the flesh IQ test once as part of a scholarship requirement. The scholarship required you have an IQ of 125 or higher, and I had one of 135.

I took the Stanford-Binet test when I was 11 to asses what level I'd be studying at when I moved to middle school (or intermediate, as it's known here in NZ). I was never told the score but was put in a class for those with learning disabilities, even though I don't have any.
I doubt that validity of the test because of that.

I've taken the tickle.com IQ test and scored 138, yet have taken the test on IQtest.com and scored 97, and 149 on free-iqtest.net.

I think I'm a better judge of my own intelligence than any test...

Besides, unless you are intellectually disabled, IQ doesn't have much to do with how you succeed in real life. My mother has an above average IQ and earns near to minimum wage and her husband, who is in the average range, his salary is a lot higher. What about all the sociopaths with an above average IQ who end up in prison? It's a load of bull to judge someones ability to succeed in life based on a number.

blah blah blah. IQ tests...all it measures is how well you can take the IQ test. dont feel stupid if you do a crappy job. maybe you have ADD? maybe you werent awake. so many reasons could lead to a crappy score. same thing with all standarized testing.

i gots a 154 so i be a genius

every personality has a value that cant be calculated. i seriously doubt they will ever invent a system to accurately measure a persons intelligence.

i took a few tests online. ended up first with 95 then 137 then 105. and i did everytest randomly. just randomly clicking away on the so called intelligence measuring tests. there are some gifted children but people who are gifted in a feild dont have much variety or cant be versatile. on the news i heard of this kid who could do hundreds of math sums just by looking at them and in minutes but she almost failed in everyother subject.

reply to post by GradyPhilpott

I was placed in the gifted program at my school but my IQ score was witheld (132 minimum required for the program). At the time, I thought it was strange because my classmates knew their scores and I didn't. I tried to get a score report after I graduated but the board of education wouldn't release it. I took about 4 online tests and scored consistently at about 160. Years later, I took Mensa's qualifying test and was accepted but again, wasn't given a score. I only know that my IQ is in the top 2% somewhere.

I took a professional test when I was 13--scored 130 then. Later on, took another for school that placed me in the 140 range. Online tests, though? I score in the 120's, reliably.

The differences between the two (pro tests versus online) seems to be their focus on visual relationships (online) rather than numerical or critical thinking (pro), but intelligence, imho, is simply not an overall thing, though we tend to view it that way.

My opinion on it is that the only meaningful measure of intelligence is how readily a person can learn something new. Since the tests only determine how much a person understands at present, that's not exactly a measure of capacity, which is the more important aspect of intelligence in a real-world sense (again, in my opinion).

I've also seen that intelligence (both in the learning capacity sense and in the present understanding sense) is highly specialized. Some people do well with numbers, some do well with visuals, and unless the test is tailored to focus on a specific area, the numbers don't really indicate what strengths or weaknesses a given person may have.

I dislike IQ tests for that very reason. I've known far too many brilliant people with low scores and far too many less-than-brilliant people with high ones.

If you tell a child he's "average," chances are that he'll limit himself. If you tell a child that he's "above average," chances are that he'll push too hard, then give up at the first difficulty because he falsely believes that everything should be "easy" for him. Either way you go, the numbers limit the person.

Which is not to say that everyone should get a prize so that there are "no losers," but I think a more constructive method would involve focusing on individual strengths and weaknesses to help the child learn where they have innate understanding and where they'll need to work a bit harder, not just handing them a number and sending them on their way.

My two cents. Sorry, I went on a bit.

When I was 10 i was tested. My parents thought i possibly had a learning disability because was somewhat odd. I enjoyed messing with people and was a little different. Turns out i was just really smart. 162. Shocked everyone. But the test lasted for about 6 hours. I would do a round and then they would make it harder adn would see how i did, then make it harder until i started having trouble. They also test each kind of intelligence seperatly. like spacial, math, reading, vocab, etc...

The live tests are much better than the online tests for a few reasons. First they are much more in depth. you don't just get it right or wrong, you can be judged on how you id on a certain activity. like a 1-10. Also There is really no ceiling. You cant score a maximum of 180 by answering all the questions correctly like internet tests. the difference from a 180 and a 150 on a online 50 question test may be missing one question or guessing it right. They are better for measuring lower IQs but for higher IQs there really inaccurate.

but the online tests are jsut liek A B C D questions. and are all visual and are all pretty much the same. solve thei puzzle, or nscramble these words.

the live test was alot of puzzles. like blank shapes and was asked to recreate the shapes with shaped pieces. as i went on the shapes would get more difficult. It was actually fun. when i got tested i didint even know it was an IQ test. i didint even really know why i was there or whatit was for either.

i have noticed i score about 140 on online tests. But they cap me out in the section im strong at though. As i am very strong in spacial. I believe im upwards of 180+ in spacial category. But just getting 5 spacial questiosn right o na online test doesent really warrant that skill.

I took a supervised IQ test while a cadet at the Air Force Academy and scored 177 on the math IQ, and 158 on the non-math, as I recall. I was not, however, at the top or above the middle, of my graduating class. Intelligence is more than a test.

reply to post by Jim Scott


I had to take an IQ test that was created by the owner of the company at which I was seeking employment. It was only 30 questions and you had to score 16 out of 30 to even be considered for a position, they told me
18 out of 30 was the average score...I score a 24 out of thirty...I got the job!!

reply to post by Jim Scott


i think a test is a better tool for measuring intelligence than school rank. i was bottom 10th percent in high school. not because i wasn't smart enough but i just didn't enjoy it. And i couldn't stand sitting in a class room for 1.5 hours a day for a whole year just to learn one textbook that i could red in 3 weeks.

people learn differently and school is geared to only a certain group of people who think a certain way.

collage is a little better. i am now going to the University of Texas and am making great grades.

also i would learn topics slower but i would master then very quickly. And most teachers don't want to bother teaching someone who cant seem to grasp what they are teaching and then just assume you don't care about it or are not paying attention.

Originally posted by xXMorningstarXx
compare your REAL scores to this: www.highiqsociety.com
AnSweR Truthfully....

How does knowing who has and who hasn't received a Nobel prize contribute to your IQ? Or knowing who painted a certain painting?

I took a "real" test with a psychologist when I was 12, and I suppose the high IQ society's test is pretty accurate because I scored only 5 points over my real test.
As for the other internet tests I took, the results varied from 8 points under to 15 points above the real test's result.

reply to post by xEphon


That is what I always say. I do well with critical and abstract thinking, and enjoy science. And have a high IQ. But I can't do math to save my life. My husband on the other hand, could care less. But at 15, never having worked on a car in his life, he took out an engine of a camaro, rebuilt it, and put it back in and it worked perfectly. He can watch a video on how to do something, say plumbing, and then do it.

There are all different kinds of intelligence.