I did many years ago. Scored 143. It was in the 97th percentile, I think.
I did many years ago. Scored 143. It was in the 97th percentile, I think.
Coevett wrote:
I took the official UK mensa test twice, once when I was 18 and then again when I was about 30. I scored 153 the first time, and 157 the second time. The maximum score is apparently something like 160, so I probably got one or two questions 'wrong' on the second test, which were likely open to interpretation (i.e. I had a better answer than the 'right' answer set by the test creator).
That puts me well inside the top 1% of the population, which matches my (self-made) income level, and getting to an elite university from a school in which only 1 or 2 boys each year would even get to university from. It also fits in with my surprisingly rare ability to see that having an endurance drug that improves 5K times by 40 seconds available in a particular region of Africa with no testing and where every athletic child goes into distance running, explains entirely the 'domination' by that region.
Dawdling on average two hours a day since five years on a message board for discussing that Coe's dick is the biggest in running history is some wasting of energy in any way. But doing so with an IQ of 157?
Such an IQ should be used for more important subjects.
How many people replying here took an online IQ test and are bragging about it? Probably re-took it 5 times to memorize all the questions.
Coevett wrote:
P U wrote:
These tests don't mean much.
I'd be surprised if there are more than 1 or 2 people on this forum more intelligent than me. Malcom Gladwell (I assume he does post here occasionally), and maybe Bad Wiggins and Jamin.
HAHAHAHA. First rule of exaggerating about your IQ:
1) Don't make a basic grammar error in the exact sentence where you are bragging about being smart.
You all but proved that either a) you're lying, or b) these tests don't mean anything in practical terms because you can't write any better than an average person. Get it together, man.
Even the smartest dog is still a f*cking moron. Same goes for humans. Even if it is possible to accurately measure intelligence (it isn't), having a high IQ doesn't mean you're smart; it just means you're slightly less of an idiot compared to the average person. A meaningless metric that only matters to eugenics freaks.
Coevett wrote:
I took the official UK mensa test twice, once when I was 18 and then again when I was about 30. I scored 153 the first time, and 157 the second time. The maximum score is apparently something like 160, so I probably got one or two questions 'wrong' on the second test, which were likely open to interpretation (i.e. I had a better answer than the 'right' answer set by the test creator).
That puts me well inside the top 1% of the population, which matches my (self-made) income level, and getting to an elite university from a school in which only 1 or 2 boys each year would even get to university from. It also fits in with my surprisingly rare ability to see that having an endurance drug that improves 5K times by 40 seconds available in a particular region of Africa with no testing and where every athletic child goes into distance running, explains entirely the 'domination' by that region.
The sole purpose of Mensa is to: (a) first flatter people into thinking they're well above average intelligence; and then (b) get them to pay an annual membership fee to be in a society with similarly 'intelligent' people.
The Mensa Admission Test costs $40, takes two hours, and consists of two separate exams: the Mensa Wonderlic® and the Mensa Admission Test. Anyone scoring in the 98th percentile or higher on either gains the right to pay $70 per year for membership.
aadfasdf wrote:
Go figure almost everyone who responds claims an IQ > 140.
Like almost everyone has run sub-15 5k and has $250k+ annual income. ;)
Coevett wrote:
I took the official UK mensa test twice, once when I was 18 and then again when I was about 30. I scored 153 the first time, and 157 the second time. The maximum score is apparently something like 160, so I probably got one or two questions 'wrong' on the second test, which were likely open to interpretation (i.e. I had a better answer than the 'right' answer set by the test creator).
That puts me well inside the top 1% of the population, which matches my (self-made) income level, and getting to an elite university from a school in which only 1 or 2 boys each year would even get to university from. It also fits in with my surprisingly rare ability to see that having an endurance drug that improves 5K times by 40 seconds available in a particular region of Africa with no testing and where every athletic child goes into distance running, explains entirely the 'domination' by that region.
I'm not sure if you really believe this. But if you do, maybe it is some consolation for you to know that you are not the only idiot who thinks to be some genius.
Also interesting that most people think their intelligence is well over average.
G Cup wrote:
Coevett wrote:
I took the official UK mensa test twice, once when I was 18 and then again when I was about 30. I scored 153 the first time, and 157 the second time. The maximum score is apparently something like 160, so I probably got one or two questions 'wrong' on the second test, which were likely open to interpretation (i.e. I had a better answer than the 'right' answer set by the test creator).
That puts me well inside the top 1% of the population, which matches my (self-made) income level, and getting to an elite university from a school in which only 1 or 2 boys each year would even get to university from. It also fits in with my surprisingly rare ability to see that having an endurance drug that improves 5K times by 40 seconds available in a particular region of Africa with no testing and where every athletic child goes into distance running, explains entirely the 'domination' by that region.
The sole purpose of Mensa is to: (a) first flatter people into thinking they're well above average intelligence; and then (b) get them to pay an annual membership fee to be in a society with similarly 'intelligent' people.
The Mensa Admission Test costs $40, takes two hours, and consists of two separate exams: the Mensa Wonderlic® and the Mensa Admission Test. Anyone scoring in the 98th percentile or higher on either gains the right to pay $70 per year for membership.
You are forgetting (c) the monthly pub crawl.
I took it once before being trained to administer it. My score was nothing to brag about. I administered many Wechsler tests and a handful of Stanford-Binets before moving on to other types of assessment. My first question is, why did you take the test in the first place? Second, what test? Third, who administered it? Any one of these may belie deception or an invalid test. It's not that common to take a valid test but very common for people to take an online "IQ test" that are meaningless. If it's self-administered, forget it. All the high numbers here may be either false reporting or self-reporting by people who are proud of their score. Having administered 60-70 Wechsler tests (which by no means makes me an expert) I probably saw 2 that were over 140 (130 is 2 SD above the mean) which is about right. One of those gentlemen was very ill and while his IQ helped him in his job it often trouble in his life. He could explain and rationalize himself into a corner instead of listening . . . but that was not just a function of his IQ. Based on other instruments we predicted a psychotic break and, unfortunately, he was hospitalized less than a month later. High "IQ" people are lovely (more power to you!) but other factors (e.g., emotional stability, personality, etc.) are often more important.
That's my $0.02, for what it's worth.
I was in a new city and wanted to meet people, so I took the Mensa tests (two were administered, by a professional in a group setting, but I don't remember their names). Passed and joined Mensa for a while. Some nice people--good conversations at the "Friendly Friday" dinners--but I later made friends in other ways and let Mensa go. Anyway, that's my answer to "why get tested at all?"
Besides, it's an interesting thing to know about oneself. There's no "need" to get one's vertical tested either, I suppose--knowing the number won't change how high you can jump--but it's just an interesting datum to have.
The posts here sound a bit high to me. I have had mine tested several times, the scores were between 125 and 150 and the average is 132. I also scored in the 91st percentile on the SAT, the 90th percentile of the LSAT and the top 10% of people taking the multistate bar exam, so I figure my IQ score is probably pretty accurate.
letsdrum wrote:
Coevett wrote:
I took the official UK mensa test twice, once when I was 18 and then again when I was about 30. I scored 153 the first time, and 157 the second time. The maximum score is apparently something like 160, so I probably got one or two questions 'wrong' on the second test, which were likely open to interpretation (i.e. I had a better answer than the 'right' answer set by the test creator).
That puts me well inside the top 1% of the population, which matches my (self-made) income level, and getting to an elite university from a school in which only 1 or 2 boys each year would even get to university from. It also fits in with my surprisingly rare ability to see that having an endurance drug that improves 5K times by 40 seconds available in a particular region of Africa with no testing and where every athletic child goes into distance running, explains entirely the 'domination' by that region.
I'm not sure if you really believe this. But if you do, maybe it is some consolation for you to know that you are not the only idiot who thinks to be some genius.
Also interesting that most people think their intelligence is well over average.
I don't think I'm any kind of genius. The point I was making was in response to all the people with average IQs here saying that IQ is meaningless. I consistently score in the top 1% in IQ tests and have done twice on the publicly administered Mensa test. Agreed that in itself is meaningless. However, I earn in the top 1%, I gained admission to a top 1% university, I've also achieved 1% status in two other 'intellectual' areas. That was my point.
To express an opinion here like you have so dogmatically, suggests that you, like everybody else, especially here, consider yourself more intelligent than average.
Yet like most of you, you probably have not a single objective reason in your life to warrant that belief. Not even a near worthless IQ test.
Truth is Here. wrote:
Even the smartest dog is still a f*cking moron. Same goes for humans. Even if it is possible to accurately measure intelligence (it isn't), having a high IQ doesn't mean you're smart; it just means you're slightly less of an idiot compared to the average person. A meaningless metric that only matters to eugenics freaks.
If the likes of Leonardo de Vinci, Socrates, Einstein, Beethoven were all morons, consider what that makes you.
restrunner wrote:
Coevett wrote:
I took the official UK mensa test twice, once when I was 18 and then again when I was about 30. I scored 153 the first time, and 157 the second time. The maximum score is apparently something like 160, so I probably got one or two questions 'wrong' on the second test, which were likely open to interpretation (i.e. I had a better answer than the 'right' answer set by the test creator).
That puts me well inside the top 1% of the population, which matches my (self-made) income level, and getting to an elite university from a school in which only 1 or 2 boys each year would even get to university from. It also fits in with my surprisingly rare ability to see that having an endurance drug that improves 5K times by 40 seconds available in a particular region of Africa with no testing and where every athletic child goes into distance running, explains entirely the 'domination' by that region.
Dawdling on average two hours a day since five years on a message board for discussing that Coe's dick is the biggest in running history is some wasting of energy in any way. But doing so with an IQ of 157?
Such an IQ should be used for more important subjects.
I doubt if I've averaged more than 10 minutes a day in 5 years. Some, like you, spend hours each day here just to insult others. That seems a waste even for a sub 90 IQ troll.
Curious I'm accused of 'wasting my time' fighting doping in running, on a running forum where I guess the average person spends 8 hours a week trying to improve their 5K time by 20 seconds, and those here who are elite are having their full time life choices rendered futile by dopers (unless of course, they are doping themselves).
Coevett wrote:
restrunner wrote:
Dawdling on average two hours a day since five years on a message board for discussing that Coe's dick is the biggest in running history is some wasting of energy in any way. But doing so with an IQ of 157?
Such an IQ should be used for more important subjects.
I doubt if I've averaged more than 10 minutes a day in 5 years. Some, like you, spend hours each day here just to insult others. That seems a waste even for a sub 90 IQ troll.
Curious I'm accused of 'wasting my time' fighting doping in running, on a running forum where I guess the average person spends 8 hours a week trying to improve their 5K time by 20 seconds, and those here who are elite are having their full time life choices rendered futile by dopers (unless of course, they are doping themselves).
I’d love to see what you look like in real life. Bet it would be pretty entertaining. Post your real name so we can all check out how impressive you are lol.
Yes! Scored a 96! Suck it, losers.
Coevett wrote:
Truth is Here. wrote:
Even the smartest dog is still a f*cking moron. Same goes for humans. Even if it is possible to accurately measure intelligence (it isn't), having a high IQ doesn't mean you're smart; it just means you're slightly less of an idiot compared to the average person. A meaningless metric that only matters to eugenics freaks.
If the likes of Leonardo de Vinci, Socrates, Einstein, Beethoven were all morons, consider what that makes you.
Fascinating.
This place really does attract some people with really quite interesting personality disorders.
blasphemy wrote:
How many people replying here took an online IQ test and are bragging about it? Probably re-took it 5 times to memorize all the questions.
Maybe the young guys. Mine was done before Al Gore invented the internet.
1 post was removed from this page.