Posted by pinksharkmark (206.105.238.65) on December 12, 2000 at 20:37:38:
In Reply to: I`m a goof posted by cher on December 11, 2000 at 10:29:27:
I doubt that this test is very accurate. The first half was trivial, and seemed to be nothing but filler. I can't see ANYONE with intelligence enough to tie their shoes missing a single question.
Even the second half had maybe three or four questions at most that actually required some real thought.
I have serious doubts that a simplified true/false format can produce the accuracy rate claimed (within 5 points of actual) for the entire spectrum of IQ levels extant, especially when dealing with levels over 140 points or so, where the difficulty of accurate measurement increases exponentially.
To obtain an accurate IQ rating requires several tests of much longer duration... at least two preliminary tests to adjust for cultural bias (i.e. Imperial versus Metric measurements, native English speaker or not, level of formal education, etc), and to narrow down the broad range of IQ. For example, a test designed specifically for those with a roughly measured IQ in the 120 to 150 range will be much more accurate for those within that range than a single test designed to cover everyone.
The most accurate tests are also observed by a qualified interpreter... scores are adjusted according to observed difficulties in certain areas.
Part of my high score is due to the "speed bonus". The fact that I am a VERY fast reader, and am able to complete the test faster than most people simply because I can absorb the question faster, has nothing to due with IQ, nor does the fact that I am a very fast and accurate "mouser".
I have taken much more challenging tests than this in my life. I suspect that it may be deliberately designed to boost the ego of those taking the test in order to sell their products.
It was fun to do a "stopwatch race", but in my opinion the results must be taken with a VERY large grain of salt.
pinky