Mine: 150 points > 130 seconds
Mine: 150 points > 130 seconds
wow youre slow
Online IQ tests aren't real buddy.
Who takes IQ tests anymore? I haven't myself and don't personally know anyone that has. The appeal of the SAT/5k thread was that everyone and his brother takes the SAT.
Sorry, but I don't think this will be as big of a hit as the 5k/SAT thread.
No converting to seconds...so basically you have to be sub-2 and ridiculously smart.
if converted to seconds. my IQ exceeds my 800 pr. and no, it was not an online. it was real, and a long ass test
kartelite wrote:
No converting to seconds...so basically you have to be sub-2 and ridiculously smart.
Yup ^. Not convinced anyone on Letsrun can truly pass the test.
close but no cigar
152 < 1:57
i would be willing to bet thousands of dollars that your IQ is not above 130
the intelligent miler wrote:
Mine: 150 points > 130 seconds
1:59 and something in the range of 120 prob. If we convert to seconds I could probably do it, otherwise I gotta beef up on brains and break off about 30 seconds from my PR (only 15 seconds a lap, right?)
high roller wrote:
i would be willing to bet thousands of dollars that your IQ is not above 130
the intelligent miler wrote:Mine: 150 points > 130 seconds
The odds would be on your side. IQs above 130 are quite rare, I doubt that as many people here as claim to have >150 are actually that smart. That's a super-genius right there. No, you are probably not one.
As for me, 131<204. Admittedly, that test may not have been clinical quality, but I know I'm smart, so I really don't give a shit.
Wise Guy wrote:
Who takes IQ tests anymore? I haven't myself and don't personally know anyone that has. The appeal of the SAT/5k thread was that everyone and his brother takes the SAT.
Sorry, but I don't think this will be as big of a hit as the 5k/SAT thread.
Oddly, I NEVER took the SAT (ACT only), and I HAVE taken an official IQ test, though I admit that is different from the norm.
ALAN WEBB
IQ: 167 (Sd = 16) based off of an ACT taken as a 13 year old (only thing I can think of that I took where I avoid the constant ceiling of 150 and the edge effects that come with it). It's not exactly official, but it is the most accurate I can come up with given the data I have at my fingertips. This is a more complex derivation than it looks because I had to factor in the fact that ratio tests have a different effective deviation than adult IQ tests. Otherwise I get to claim a misleading 181.
800 time: 1:48
Even if you accept this rather dubious derivation, I'm still well short if you do it off of purely minutes (1:48 = 1.8 minutes). (At the same time, any measurement of IQ is itself not a part of the hard sciences, and this uncertainty at the generality of what is being measured would increase at higher rarities, so a dubious derivation isn't as terrible in comparison as it could be). I would be extremely impressed by anyone who actually accomplished this based on the minute standard.
1:49.28 > 149
Dammit
Wise Guy wrote:
Who takes IQ tests anymore? I haven't myself and don't personally know anyone that has. The appeal of the SAT/5k thread was that everyone and his brother takes the SAT.
Sorry, but I don't think this will be as big of a hit as the 5k/SAT thread.
Well, actually, very few people outside of the US take the SAT, and the IQ (while problematic) is better validated that the SAT. And since the max score on the SAT changed by, oh, 800 points, it's not a very constant comparison.
I'm getting the sense not too many of you can make this standard?
high roller wrote:
i would be willing to bet thousands of dollars that your IQ is not above 130
[/quote]
Why not? And how many thousand dollars? What odds?
I know it's several standard deviations over the mean and thus well into the 99th percentile, but someone has to be. Are you sad it's not you?
If you're that motivated to pay money to be punked, mail me the check and I'll mail you the certificate. I'm completely serious.
high roller wrote:
i would be willing to bet thousands of dollars that your IQ is not above 130
someone else wrote:
The odds would be on your side. IQs above 130 are quite rare, I doubt that as many people here as claim to have >150 are actually that smart. That's a super-genius right there. No, you are probably not one.
As for me, 131<204. Admittedly, that test may not have been clinical quality, but I know I'm smart, so I really don't give a shit.
As the kids say, haters gonna hate. I am genuinely sorry that my IQ is higher than yours.
I'd like to think I'm bright and reasonably successful by most measures, but not a "super-genius." I'm the first to state that a high IQ represents only specific aptitudes, and doesn't necessarily carry over into real-world acts of genius. Many high-profile "geniuses" have had only mildly above-average IQs, and many people with ridiculous IQs (160+) haven't done that much. Honestly, having a number like that stamped on you as a teenager just sort of messes with your head and eventually induces guilt for not inventing the time machine or curing kitten cancer or whatever it is that geniuses are supposed to do all day.
Oh, and by the way, if you want to bet that I didn't get a near-perfect SAT score, we can do that, too.
It's been a long time since I checked--is the IQ test still normed at 100, with 15 points per standard deviation? If so, you get your traditional 70 and under for whatever we now call retarded, and 130+ for the gifted. Perhaps a better question would be what are the equivalent norms for running?
If we can assign multi-event scores to equate Pole Vault, hurdles, and a 1500, or project that a certain 5k is equal to a certain marathon, we ought to be able to create a multi-table for almost everything. Is a sub-5:00 mile the same as dunking a basketball? Is a 2:40 marathon equivalent to reading the New Testament in Koine Greek? How about an equivalent performance in earning potential? Is running a certain 400 time just as hard as earning 6 figures?
Maybe this needs its own thread...
139* My mistake.