IQ says i am not bright, actually says I am 'BR' is it legit?

[SailorMars1994]

So for the fun of it I did an IQ test yestarday and thought I was doing rather well. I got my results and score and I was shocked, a bit in disbelief. Apparently I scored in the clinical range of 'borderline retarded' as it said :S

My questions is how can this be?? I have passed high school (though barley), can hold job that requires no supervision and can at the very least talk intelligently. However it says I am well, you can re-read the above. How can this be ??

[MaryT]

Even assuming the test is legit, IQ tests have only statistical validity.  A single test can't be regarded as a definite result.

[SailorMars1994]

Well thats relieving. I was just so bummed after it said I was BR. Like, even people i told (a few) didnt beleive it

[Deborah]

If it's an online test you shouldn't overly trust it.  If you want an accurate score you need to do a real test.

Also, unless you're trying to get a score to join Mensa it is somewhat meaningless. 

If you can do the things that you listed then whatever your intelligence is it is sufficient.

If you're still worried about it then there are ways to improve your brain function.  But they take a lot of work.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[AnonyMs]

Have a look at these.

http://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/occupations.aspx

http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/09/27/against-individual-iq-worries/

[MaryT]

Also, are you sure that it was marked correctly?  Many years ago, I did a programming aptitude test and did really well on everything except numeracy.  I queried it and it turned out that the tests were marked with a template.  The person doing the marking had used the wrong template for my numeracy test.  I wonder how many careers have been affected by that kind of thing.

[zamber74]

You are most definitely not BR. 

[The Flying Lemur]

There is no such thing as "borderline retarded."  There are only standard deviations above and below the mean.  Even if you were one standard deviation below the mean (and I'm not convinced that you are), that's still normal.  You don't get a diagnosis unless you're two standard deviations below the mean, i.e., have an IQ below 70.  The test you took seems to be pathologizing people for no reason.  My instinct says it's crap. 

[Artesia]

Online IQ tests are bupkis.  The last one I took said I had a higher IQ than Einstein.  I do not.  An actual IQ test is done in a classroom setting, and takes a few hours to complete.

[Bari Jo]

No way are you retarded, or BR.  My mom works with several BR people socially.  They need lots of help!  These tests are flawed. Even the Mensa test is flawed.    I refuse to take tests like this as no good information can come of it..  My outlook on life is that I can do anything.  If a test says I have a limitation, which of course it will, then I will feel like I've got a limitation on what I can do.  I'd throw that result away, then think of something you previously thought was impossible or unattainable, and how you overcome it.  To me that's way more healthy.

[Dena]

This may sound a little strange but IQ test measure only what they are designed to measure. My IQ is somewhere between 120 and 130. The 120 is off my ACT test in high school and the 130 was taking an online test. Do I believe either of these numbers - no. The reason is I have the ability to think creatively and that's nearly impossibly to measure accurately with any test. On the other side, I have my weaknesses. I stink at artistic activities and believe it or not, I am also weak in english though I may have improved over the years.

It's very possible to have somebody who others consider a genius test poorly on the test. On the other hand, I have been around people where supposedly bright that I wouldn't trust with basic tasks. In my profession, we often used the line, those who can, do. Those who can't, teach. If you are able to do your job well, you are a genius in your profession and you shouldn't worry about a test and especially an online test says about you.

[Lady Sarah]

Never trust online tests. Even the aptitude tests seem to be subjective. On everything except "clerical speed and accuracy", I should be considered genius. Looking at some of the posts on this site, I might be considered stupid.

[Custard Squirrel]

I know I'm kind of just echoing what some people have already said at this point, but that test has to be total bunk. IQ tests are a bit sketchy to begin with, so I'm highly skeptical of some free online quiz. I especially don't think you need to worry about being borderline mentally retarded; plenty of intelligent people don't test well/do well in school.

[sarah1972]

Don't trust it. Almost every online test is just for fun and results are bogus at best.

I have been through proper IQ testing and each time it was a multi hour session under supervision of a trained professional.

And even there have been differences due to age, tests chosen and even the country I took them in.

[Julia1996]

I just watched a show about this. They said IQ tests totally are not accurate for measuring IQ. The show was Adam ruins everything. They disprove a lot of popular beliefs about all kinds of stuff. I wouldn't pay any attention to the results of any IQ test.

[Tamika Olivia]

Even officially sanctioned IQ tests are racist nonsense that only measure a very constrained definition of intelligence. Online tests are basically glorified Buzzfeed quizzes, and should be treated with all the seriousness due that label.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

[Roll]

Even officially sanctioned IQ tests are racist nonsense that only measure a very constrained definition of intelligence. Online tests are basically glorified Buzzfeed quizzes, and should be treated with all the seriousness due that label.

Yeah, IQ tests are ridiculous examples of cultural bias. Different tests aren't even consistent about what content they cover. Here's a fun tidbit from the creator of the first IQ tests:

"Binet stressed the limitations of the test, suggesting that intelligence is far too broad a concept to quantify with a single number. Instead, he insisted that intelligence is influenced by a number of factors, changes over time, and can only be compared among children with similar backgrounds."

In other words, even the guy who made them wouldn't apply them like we try to today. (Well, in recent history at least. They've fallen out of favor.)

[Kylo]

Well we still have to have some way of measuring mental aptitude in today's world. Claiming they are racist isn't going to get the job done is it.

[Roll]

Well we still have to have some way of measuring mental aptitude in today's world. Claiming they are racist isn't going to get the job done is it.

The problem is bias, not racism. The designer of the test has inherent bias. For example: Someone my be a genius when it comes to math, but terrible with language. If a test were designed that focused on vocabulary and grammar by someone who believes that being well spoken is a sign of intelligence, the math genius fails, nevermind the fact he may have been the one to crack cold fusion. Now of course this is a simplistic purely knowledge based example, but even in a typical test will skew the results as there is a knowledge component.

[Tamika Olivia]

Well we still have to have some way of measuring mental aptitude in today's world. Claiming they are racist isn't going to get the job done is it.

Do we? The idea of a single "mental aptitude" is retrograde. I was able to learn the law with very little effort, but I lose my debit card 5 or 6 times a month and ran my car into a shopping cart that I had forgotten behind it. My sister is a fantastic history teacher who can't do math without her fingers. If you want a test that measures the various ways people acquire, process, and utilize information, cool. But this single measure business is unrealistic, and trying to keep it around has only lead to pain and marginalization.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk