IQ to INT equivalent

[ArcOfCorinth]

can i say it.



if you didn't know someone, aka your teacher or you screwed up. that is pretty important history. considering it almost ended the world.

some of us were around then.

edit: we didn't know what the Soviets would do in response.

Ehh, it wasn't that close and we knew that. You're confusing the Bay of Pigs with the Missile Crisis, two separate things separated by a year.

As said before, IQ tests are pointless and have no application in life at all. Example: Northern Students in the 1960s scored much better than Southern Students. Why? It certainly wasn't IQs. The north had a much better school system. At the time, IQ tests were used for racial reasonings - thousands and thousands of immigrants to the U.S. in the 1910-1930 era failed the tests due to lack of exposure to Western Culture and were labeled intellectually inferior. African-American children also tended to score lower than "white" children and this was used for white supremacy arguements. The 1960s example shocked supremacists when they discovered northern "black" students outscored southern "white" students on average.

Therefore, your "IQ" pulls some from nature but it develops through nurture. This means your "IQ" is in a constant state of flux and therefore isn't really testable.

D&D is a great way to nurture your "IQ."

 

[Chun-tzu]

Therefore, your "IQ" pulls some from nature but it develops through nurture. This means your "IQ" is in a constant state of flux and therefore isn't really testable.

IQ changes over time, but not a lot. It's very testable (or more specifically, reliability of IQ scores is pretty good).

You've cited examples of the misuse of IQ testing. Yes, it's been misused in the past. That hardly invalidates IQ testing. It costs a LOT of money to get a proper IQ test; people don't waste that kind of money on useless things.

The biggest problem with IQ testing is how often results are misinterpreted. That's why when you take a REAL IQ test, you get a report that's several pages long, not just some meaningless number.

IQ tests determine, among other things:

* level of functioning (important for potential brain damage)
* level of ability compared to the general populace
* areas of strength and weakness (e.g., verbal vs math skills)

They're of most value for determining level of functioning in populations with very low IQs.

 

[Zappo]

As far as I know, IQ tests are only really useful to see if a child has some mental deficiency. In any case, the scores become less and less meaningful as they go up; basically, a high score means that you are a bright boy, but that's about it.

 

[Sixchan]

I use INT x 10 = IQ.

Always have, always will. Never listened to reason, never will.

 

[Kevmann10583]

Yea, I prefer the Int x 10 = IQ

I like it alot!

 

[DM_Matt]

True, IQ tests used to be, more or less intentionally, highly culturally biased.

Now they are not so much that way, but they stilll just are not that good a measure of actual intellegence. Their main purpose is to monitor development of children in certain areas, which can determine if A) a student is advanced in such a manner that they could benefit from differentiated education, such as gifted programs etc or B ) if a student is having developmental difficulties in one or more areas, which thus need to be addressed.

Later standardized tests are generally better, but still not exactly "intellegence" tests. Tests designed for use as entry exams are designed to predict performanc at the level of wahtever the perso nis trying to get into. For instance, studies show that a combination of the SAT and 3 SAT II subject tests is the best determinate of good grades in college, although getting good grades in college is not necessarily a measure of intellegence.

If you HAVE to use a test, though, the SAT is better than the IQ.

 

[Kevmann10583]

But I took the ACT, how does that compare?!?

 

[MrZoink]

There's no such thing (at least nowadays) as the IQ test. Several different tests exist, many having different biases or reliabilities.

Some IQ tests do make meaningful measurements, it's just that society often misinterprets the results of those measurements.

And yes, Mensa only accepts the top two percentile on a number of standardized tests including, I believe, the SAT. As to whether or not Mensa membership means anything, it depends on where you live. Some groups are more active than others.

 

[BVB]

Establishing one end of the scale is pretty simple, really. Just take a formal IQ yourself, and whatever standardized rating you receive is the equivalent of an "18" in D&D terms.

... Because every time we post one of those silly "What Are Your Stats?" polls, every gamer on the board humbly states that he's a bloody genius and that his DNA naturally rolled three 6s.

 

[Lord Rasputin]

Re: MENSA

I thought mensa took only the top 2% into their fold, and usually it's from scoring extremely well on standardized tests like the SAT or their own test questions. Not that the organization does much for you, but I suppose it's nice to be reassured you are smarter than normal.

Given the above 2% and statistics for a 3d6 roll I would say there would be a decent chance for an eventual medieval geek underground that might crop up in a campaign (that is, not including mind flayers and the like).

Mensa stopped accepting the SAT about 10 years ago. But yes, it's the top 2%, which is statistically an IQ of 130 or 132, depending on the test (one test has a slightly larger standard deviation than the other). The IQ test is the usual route to membership, as I understand it, never having met an actual Mensa member in the flesh.