chippie wrote:
kizzykat wrote:
133 , Does that mean I'm average?
33% above average, I think. ?
No, 133 would put you somewhere in the top 2 or 3% of the population. I don't trust the ones I've seen on-line, so I'm not going to post any links, but if you google IQ distribution charts, yeah, they're probably at least roughly accurate. Basically a bell curve, with 60% to 70% of all individuals falling +/- 15 points of 100, and then outliers on both ends both sides beyond that.
Though back when I gave a hoot about stuff like this, I do know there were controversies like what effect, if anything, the
The Flynn Effect (link) was having on scores. I think some specialists were arguing something like 105, 106 as the new 100, but it was (and I'd wager still is) a very contentious issue.
Quote:
As has been said by others, it's just numbers. To my mind a high I.Q. is only relevant if you can find a way to harness and use it. I've been searching for a bloody long time
I agree to an extent, but also disagree. Certainly someone with a high IQ can be impaired with mental illness, be confused and directionless or just simply be lazy. But the "raw material" is there, should they have a change or heart or a recovery. But someone with an IQ below 85 is going to have a tough time academically doing college level work, no matter how much effort they put forth.
FWIW, my IQ is 125, Weschler test done in a psychologist's office, the whole bit, within the past six months. I feel positively below average on this thread.
_________________
"The man who has fed the chicken every day throughout its life at last wrings its neck instead, showing that more refined views as to the uniformity of nature would have been useful to the chicken." ? Bertrand Russell