re: When does the PoliBoard start posting their IQ scores?

quote:

---

Triple Nine requires an IQ of 1 in 1,000 or 99.9th percentile. This is about 3 S.D.'s above the norm. The exact IQ score will depend on the S.D. of the test in question. On the WAIS-R, it would be about 145. On the Stanford-Binet, it would be about 148. On the Cattell, it would be 172. They also accept SAT/GRE scores (from decades ago as the modern versions aren't as g loaded).

---

I feel like I'm having a discussion The WAIS is on its fourth edition, the Stanford-Binet is on its fifth edition, and I don't think the Cattell test has been out of use for many decades, and I'm not sure if it ever was really used much anyways.

In addition, I don't know of a single individually administered IQ test that hasn't gone to a uniform distribution of standard scores with a mean of 100 and standard deviation of 15. The Stanford-Binet changed from 16 to 15 in 2003.

quote:

---

hey also accept SAT/GRE scores (from decades ago as the modern versions aren't as g loaded).

---

The still have a fairly high G-loadings, and I'm not sure if they are any more or less than previous version. I would imagine that the issue is that they have fundamentally different samples that form the distribution (college and/or graduate bound), and the residuals are more likely to be non-random, systematic error because they are not intended to be intelligence tests.

As for Cattell, he's actually extremely important to modern day IQ tests because the predominant, empirically supported theoretical foundation for the IQ tests, is the Cattell-Horn-Carroll Theory, which refers to three stratum of abilities (general intelligence; 7 main broad abilities but more theorized; and narrow abilities within broad abilities).

quote:

---

I'm not a teacher, but I would imagine most of them chose that career path because they enjoy it. In other words, they don't view it as "being stuck with highschool students."

---

And I think there are a lot of personality (extroversion, agreeableness, etc.) and motivation factors (job security, schedule, vacation, helping others, etc.) that play a role as well.

quote:

---

eaching is a solid secondary job for a person married to a breadwinner. second income, flexibile schedule around kids schedule, etc

the plant worker/teacher combo is a legit household strategy around here

---

Salaries can vary greatly though, and it could be a viable first income option depending on where it is.

For example, a local school district near me, just completed a new bargaining agreement, and a teacher with no experience starts out at over 46,000 with only a BA and 51,000 with a MA, and 10 years experience is over 70,000 for a BA and over 77,000 for an MA.

quote:

---

At 13 it was a 172. Since that time I’ve started drinking, reading and posting on a site called tigerdroppings, published papers, been awarded patents, earned a PhD and now am a department head of a fledgling engineering department so I assume it’s dropped significantly.

---

Honestly, I find everything about this post believable, except for the bolded statement.

With a 172 IQ, then your score would be at the 99.9999181946 percentile, and by my quick calculation (with my lesser intelligence) would be higher than all but 263 out the 323.1 million Americans.

And since about 107 billion people have ever lived (according to google), and if we assume the distribution is the same across the world, and across time, then you would have a higher IQ score than all but 87,356 people in history. And since we've gotten progressively more intelligent with each generation, and the US likely skews higher than most of the world, you're one of the most intelligent people to have ever lived, if you have a score of 172.

quote:

---

Because where I grew up schools rank all students for gifted programs (middle school, high school and college),

---

But you just said you've never taken an IQ test, which is usually standard for general gifted programs, at least as part of the evaluation. It's definitely a requirement in Tennessee, at least present day.

Regardless you can't compare your rank order (if that's even accurate) of a small, non-representative subsample, to infer your percentile ranking on a continuous distribution intended to reflect the population distribution, especially if the rank order isn't even based on the variable of that distribution.

so has anyone posted scores that were believable?

quote:

---

so has anyone posted scores that were believable?

---

I don't know. I didn't read any of this. But I know a LOT of people who lie about their golf scores.

quote:

---

i'm saying that the IQ of this board could legitimately appear to be over 140 if the right set of posters are the only ones contributing scores. within the actual thread, it's much more likely people who can peacock are posting and those who feel inferior won't, which will artificially increase the sample. add in some lying and a very small sample and you get 140

---

Well lying negates the point because Navy was arguing that people are lying.

But even if we assume the distribution of posters is skewed higher than the normal population and the self-reporting would skew even higher, to get an average IQ around 140, is just not reasonable. Here is why:

Out of the general population, about 1 out of every 261 people will have an IQ 140 or above. Going through this thread, it appears that roughly 8 of the posters who are trying to legitimately report their IQ, have at least 139 (round to 140 for argument sakes).

In addition, most people have never taken an IQ test, and while I'm sure those who have legitimately taken an IQ test are most likely going to be in the tails of the distribution (high and low), it will still be less than 100% regardless. And of those who have taken it, those who actually remember that they've taken one, and remember the score will be less than 100%. Then that person has to be willing to actually feel confident and comfortable to self-disclose the score.

There are currently 835 members logged in, and this thread started in the early hours (3:09 AM CDT) so it hasn't been 12 hours, a few of which were during the downtime. So lets assume 2000 users have been logged in at sometime during the 12 hours to participate. And one has to read the board AND read the topic to even have a chance to participate. I can't imagine that more than 500 (largely the same people posting in this thread) active users have even read this thread to have an opportunity to post.

So with 500 people, and we assumed 100% of those 500 people took an IQ test, remembered the IQ score, and were willing to post it, we would expect MAYBE 2 people (1.92 to be precise since given 1 out of 261 from above) to have an IQ of 140, based on the normal population. Even if we are twice as likely to find one out of the 500, we still need over twice as many people to be able to post for that to be expected even with those unrealistically favorable assumptions.

It's just not reasonable unless people are lying or mistaken.

quote:

---

You know how I know you don't have an IQ over 140? You wrote all of that, no one will read it or care.

---

Or maybe it's something that is relevant to my education and profession so I find it interesting.

But you're right, I don't have an IQ near 140.

quote:

---

Well your 139 brought it down to 139.45. You dummy. Of course, I didn't include mine because it would bring it down a lot more.

Apparently when I'm called an idiot on here, it's true in comparison to the genius level intellect of the board as a whole.

---

I hate IQ discussions for a number of reasons. You've humorously touched on a couple. Watching folks continuously wrecking themselves "practicing" to boost Mensa IQ exam results was an eye-opener, and a big turn-off for me.

There are bright folks posting here. I find it far more enjoyable discussing matters with a thoughtful person regardless of IQ, than with an egocentrist self-impressed at his/her IQ number.

Your insight in this thread is appreciated BTW.