IQ

Post Reply New Topic

Okay, my IQ is 113. Is that considered gifted or genius?

I believe it is considered in the high average range? Can someone help? I don't remember details very well.

For an adult it is just above average, for someone younger it could be considered gifted if the result was obtained from an adult test.

100 is average. above 140 is genius.

Pretty close of mine, this is not considered gifted sadly.
Gifted begin at 130.

Is there subtest scores, what about them?

113 is higher than average

IQ is measured on a scale with an average of 100 and a standard deviation of 15. At 113, you scored within one standard deviation of the average. About two-thirds of people score from 85 to 115; one-sixth below that, one-sixth above.

113 is considered to be a normal score; you aren't in the gifted range, but you are above the average, which is 100. You are at the 80th percentile: That is, you are better than about 80% of the population at taking this particular IQ test.

But considering you're autistic, don't read too much into this test. IQ tests don't really measure much beyond how good you are at taking IQ tests; and while IQ test scores do tend to correlate with how well you do in academics, IQ doesn't measure everything, and may miss weaknesses and strengths that are important. In many cases, IQ tests are outright invalid for autistic people.

Not that you can't take advantage of this. Your IQ score can be used to prove to people that you are capable of going to school, if you happen to need to prove that. Autistic people can sometimes seem to be "slow"--and can be quite slow in some areas; I know I sure am--so you could show that report to a case worker when trying to convince them that it's feasible for you to get a college degree. You'll learn that people place a lot of value on IQ scores. It can even change completely how they treat you. At least for you it's not remarkably low or high; if it were, you might run the risk of having people actually define you by your IQ score, which is not fun whether it's high or low.

If you can get your hands on your sub-scale scores, that could be more useful to you than the overall IQ score. How you did on particular tasks can tell you more about how you think, and what's hard versus easy for you. If you had a really hard time with specific tasks, that could point to a personal weakness; for example, when I took an IQ test, I absolutely sucked at arranging pictures into a sequence of events, because I didn't have enough time to think thoroughly about the motivations of the people in the images. That shows that I take longer and have a harder time figuring out people's intentions. But I found I was very good at arranging blocks into patterns, which shows I am good at thinking about how the parts of an object can be put together to make a whole, which supported my desire to become an engineer and design adaptive technology.

For almost everyone, IQ scores matter less than many other factors. Being able to identify and solve the problems that stand in the way of your learning effectively can make all the difference. Persistence, curiosity, and the sheer enjoyment of learning may be much more important than raw brainpower. My advice? Look at that IQ score, realize that it doesn't define you, and go do what you want to do with your own life.

I hope you don't mine Callista, I'm going to quote you in another thread (this one).

Definitely. I really couldn't care less about my FSIQ. It doesn't really show anything about me. I much prefer referring to my subtests. It really says a lot that my processing speed was 143 but my perceptual organization was 105. Makes me laugh at how staggered my skills are, too.

I had an IQ of 85 when I was 15 and that's the age I taught myself 3 different programming languages, began circuitry, figured out how to construct computers, and at age 17 I dropped out of highschool after 3 months, got my GED without studying my first try and have multiple certifications, I recently tested my IQ again to be 104, I think IQ scores are useless.. It doesn't tell you anything.. You could score 140 and still be a worthless couch potato xD Plus I don't think people like us are really good for them because we tend to test horribly..

Compared to me you are gifted, if that makes you feel better.

So what does my 240 mean?

Are you really telling us that you have a higher IQ than the highest IQ ever recorded? Sorry don't believe that for a second.

How was that score determined? To my knowledge, I thought IQ tests maxed out at 150-something...I thought the "smartest person ever" was in the 220's.

It means you should try a different online test and try to get your money back for the one you took.

Bingo. 240 is a meaningless number in terms of IQ scores. There aren't enough people in the world for anybody to be that many standard deviations above the average.

With a standard deviation of 15, the highest IQ score in the world (i.e., the best one out of seven billion) should be somewhere around 196. With a standard deviation of 16, used by some IQ tests, the highest score is around 203. And that's if you could somehow test every single person on planet Earth.

People have gotten higher scores, but that's mostly because IQ tests get so imprecise above 145 or so. Consider: When you norm a test, you need to have a lot of people to take it, and people who score extremely high are hard to come by. At 145, that's only one person in five hundred, and ideally you need a couple thousand people to figure out exactly where the averages are. There's only so many people you can scrape together and force to sit down and take your test before your funding runs out.

But does it really matter how high your IQ score is? Your IQ score is a number, that's all. It reflects how you did on a particular set of rather mundane tasks on one random day of your life. I don't hold with the idea that IQ scores reflect some sort of abstract "intelligence", because I don't believe intelligence to be a real thing to begin with. There are many different kinds of skills a person can have, and some people have more talents than others, but the more talents you add to the list, the less related they are to each other, the smaller any central, defining "intelligence" factor becomes. By the time you've listed all the useful skills a person could have, "intelligence" has dwindled into a meaninglessly small part of anybody's performance on a test. Yes, some people discover relativity and others never learn how to count to ten; but if I'm going to talk about giftedness or intellectual disability, I want to be specific about exactly what that person's talents or deficits are. We've had far too much stereotyping coming from the idea that a person is either smart or not, and that his "amount" of this abstract quantity called intelligence defines who he is. Couldn't be less true.