[UPDATE DEC 16/2015: A REVISED VERSION OF THE BELOW CHART CAN BE FOUND HERE. PLEASE USE THE REVISED VERSION]
| sat score (verbal and math combined) | pre-april 1995 iq equivalent (u.s. norms) | pre-april 1995 iq equivalent (u.s. white norms) | post-april 1995 iq equivalent (u.s. norms) | post-april 1995 iq equivalent (u.s white norms) |
| 425 | 71 | 68 (educable mild mental retardation) | 68 | 64 |
| 475 | 77 | 74 | 72 | 68 (educable mild mental retardation) |
| 525 | 82 | 79 (borderline mental retardation) | 75 | 71 |
| 575 | 86 | 83 | 79 | 75 |
| 625 | 90 | 87 (dull) | 82 | 78 (borderline mental retardation) |
| 675 | 94 | 92 | 85 | 81 |
| 725 | 98 | 96 | 89 | 86 |
| 775 | 100 | 98 (average) | 92 | 89 (dull) |
| 825 | 106 | 104 | 96 | 93 |
| 875 | 108 | 106 | 99 | 96 |
| 925 | 111 | 109 | 102 | 99 (average) |
| 975 | 115 | 113 (bright) | 106 | 103 |
| 1025 | 118 | 117 | 109 | 106 |
| 1075 | 120 | 119 | 113 | 110 (bright) |
| 1125 | 123 | 122 (very bright) | 116 | 113 |
| 1175 | 127 | 126 | 119 | 117 |
| 1225 | 131 | 130 (extremely bright) | 123 | 121 (very bright) |
| 1275 | 133 | 132 | 126 | 124 |
| 1325 | 137 | 136 | 130 | 128 |
| 1375 | 140 | 139 | 133 | 131 (extremely bright) |
| 1425 | 145 | 144 (brilliant) | 136 | 134 |
| 1475 | 149 | 149 | 140 | 138 |
| 1525 | 155 | 155 (very brilliant) | 143 | 141 (brilliant) |
| 1575 | 165 | 165 (extremely brilliant) | 147 | 146 |
| perfect 1600 | 171 | 171 (mega level) | 148 | 147 |
The above table contains columns which show IQ equivalent expressed on a scale where the mean and standard deviation of the overall U.S. population is set at 100 and 15 respectively (U.S. norms) and on a scale where the overall U.S. white population is set at 100 and 15 respectively (U.S. white norms).
To determine the U.S. norms IQ equivalent for post-April 1995 SAT scores, I used this formula which I created.
To determine the U.S. norms IQ equivalent for pre-April 1995 SAT scores above 789, I was able to get approximate numbers using WAIS IQ equivalents in a chart in section 8.3.3 of the Prometheus Society Membership Committee report.
To determine U.S. norms IQ equivalents for pre-April 1995 SAT scores below 790, I converted scores on the original scale to scores on the recentered scale, and then converted to IQ using the post-April 1995 formula I created.
To convert U.S. norms IQ equivalents to U.S. white norms IQ equivalents, I assumed that before April 1995, on a scale where all Americans averaged 100 (SD = 15), white Americans averaged 102 (SD = 14.5). After, April 1995, I assumed (citing data from Charles Murray’s book Coming Apart) that on a scale where all Americans average 100 (SD = 15), white Americans average 103 (SD = 14.5).
Using this data, I converted U.S. norms IQ equivalents into Z scores with respect to the U.S. white distribution of their time, and then multiplied said Z scores by 15 and added 100, to get the U.S. white norms IQ equivalents.
Because IQ is scored on a bell curve, and whites generally score higher than most minorities on standardized tests, the more non-white America becomes, the further above 100 the white IQ goes. To avoid this statistical artifact, it’s best to use U.S. white norms which keep the mean and standard deviation of white Americans at 100 and 15 respectively, while the mean and SD of America as a whole is allowed to vary. See here for more details.
Lastly, the above chart is not intended to predict your score on an official IQ test based on your SAT score. Instead, it is simply your SAT score expressed on the same scale as IQ. The correlation between SAT scores and official IQ tests is far from perfect, so people with high SAT scores often regress to the mean on official IQ tests, and vice versa. To see just how acute the effects of regression can be, see the IQs of Harvard students.
Pingback: The IQ distribution of Pumpkin Person readers | Pumpkin Person
The primary problem with using SAT as an estimator of IQ is that there are a multitude of reasons why someone may have scored poorly on SAT, yet have an outlying IQ. SAT (arguably) requires years of *learning* (knowledge), *in conjunction* with outlying intelligence, to score highly on. Obviously, the advantage of IQ testing is that knowledge (minus basic literacy) isn’t a factor. I scored under 1200 on SAT (post-’95), yet my IQ is well above the 99th percentile (indicative of a “should have been” SAT score of at least 1400). Why is this a problem? Employers, apparently attempting to substitute banned IQ testing with an “equal” measure of capability, frequently ask for SAT scores. Without giving them my life story, I can’t very well detail why my SAT score was at least 200 points beneath “should have been,” per historical SAT/IQ correlation. My SAT score implies that I’m barely above average, though the IQ scores I provide them with (very specifically) go entirely ignored (or worse, generally speaking, are seen as simple “boasting,” etc., and are used against me).
(If employers knew how to hire people [rest assured that they do not], they’d find ways to determine candidates’ IQs, immediately cease “interviewing” people [rolling eyes], immediately cease looking at photographs of people [rolling eyes], and recognize that, as was proven long ago, virtually nothing but raw intelligence [IQ] is valid as a predictor of potential job performance.)
<>
-have + has…(this happens when caffeine intake is as-of-yet insufficient…) 🙂
high IQ indicates that you are smart, high SAT score indicates that you are smart and hardworker
people don’t want a smart lazy people working for them
No, that isn’t what SAT indicates. It indicates that you were able to stay on the “right track” through high school. Some, for various reasons, were not; a 1200 SAT score should not, therefore, be used as a proxy of either intelligence or effort (I have multiple degrees and 99.9th percentile strength/body fat percentage–I’d say that these are evidence of hard work, which the 1200 SAT score would likely contradict, per your explanation of its meaning). Further, there are a slew of individuals who’ve scored very highly on SAT, but relatively lowly on WAIS, etc. This is presumably why SAT hasn’t been accepted by high-IQ societies for many, many years.
– “hard work” + “consistently exceptional work ethic”
p.s. the correlation of intelligence with prospective job performance has precisely nothing to do with “hard work.” 🙂 (That’s “biographical data” and/or “education.)
Further, age is a factor with SAT testing, if your definition of its value holds true. Should I be assumed to be equally “motivated” twenty years later? Of course not–life has happened, in the meanwhile (during which I’ve attained a 99th+ percentile level of education). IQ testing is free of these problems, which is why it should be used *exclusively* by employers (remember, we’re not talking about educators, here). Do the extents of my vocabulary or calculus knowledge bear any relevance, whatsoever, to any job that doesn’t involve teaching these things? Nope.
…and finally, “hard work,” as you’ve put it, isn’t quantifiable (unless we’re talking degree count). By a wide margin, the correlation of “intelligence,” not “ethic” or “knowledge,” and prospective job performance is the highest (Hunter/Hunter, ’84, via “The Bell Curve”). Arguably, intelligence is the *only* statistically significant (valid) factor (thusly excluding ethic, etc.). (Further, “ethic” could be correlated with “interest,” which, as proven, correlates .10 with prospective job performance.)
…and *finally* finally, “people don’t want a smart lazy people working for them”
Per the afore alluded-to evidence, “people” (most of whom aren’t fit to judge those they’re judging [within the space of twelve seconds or less…]) should want a “smart” person, period. If I were hiring, an IQ test and criminal background check would be the *only* items used–and I’d win. 🙂
(You’re probably unaware of this fact: recent evidence has uncovered that the average company’s hire circa 2015 performs worse than a randomly-selected candidate [nearly universally]. I’m going to call that evidence of the fact that they, like you, don’t know what makes a good hire.) (No offense.) 🙂
I certainly didn’t stay on track during high school, but my SAT score was roughly what my IQ would predict. SAT doesn’t measure how hard you worked or whether you stayed on track. It is just a more narrow IQ test, and is somewhat more studyable than other IQ tests. It is more or less 2 or 3 subtests of WAIS that you, callitwhatyoulike, happened to be relatively worse at. Arithmetic and comprehension, basically. You probably could have found a subject test that you would have excelled at.
0.076% of students score a 36 on the ACT… which is equivalent to a 1600 on the SAT. This means that the average person with such a score is at the 99.962 percentile in the test population. This is 3.35 standard deviations above average (assuming perfectly normal distribution; (36-21)/5.4 is therefore an underestimate of the z-scores of these people. This 3.35 would translate to probably around 2.7 standard deviations above the average in the total population because the test population is a restricted one. Assuming a correlation with a full scale IQ of 0.77 (which is an overestimate given that such a correlation was found in a study comparing the ACT – which is more similar to the new SAT than the new SAT is to the old one – to the ASVAB g factor, which is known to be primarily a measurement of crystallized intelligence, with less emphasis on fluid intelligence compared to the emphasis found in modern IQ tests), this translates to 2.233 “normal-population” standard deviations above the average in the test population. Assume that the average IQ of those taking the SAT/ACT is 106. Then therefore, the average IQ of those scoring a 36 on the ACT or 1600 on the SAT is about 140 (106+2.233*15). And this is assuming that the correlation is 0.77, which is higher given that it is a skills-based test, and the correlation is derived for between it with g-factor derived from a crystallized intelligence test. So therefore your table is going to give people an inflated estimate at least at the extreme high end.
So even if your table would give an IQ-equivalent which possibly by definition assumes that the z-score of an ACT score in the general population is equal to the z-score of an IQ score, it seems worthy to mention that the actual average IQs will differ.
A formula for actually predicting the true IQs of the average person with a given SAT M+CR score would be (as the standard deviation of SAT M+CR is 216, and assuming the average IQ of those taking the SAT is 106):
IQ=106+[(SAT M+CR-1006)/216]*15*(4.8/6.0)*0.77
To create an “IQ equivalent” table which uses the same math as that predicting IQ from SAT assuming a perfect correlation between the two, a better equation would be:
IQ=106+[(SAT M+CR-1006)/216]*15*(4.8/6.0)
Where the (4.8/6.0) is the estimated ratio of the standard deviation of the SAT scores in the test population to the standard deviation of the SAT scores that would be seen in the general population. This factor would be less than 1 given that the population is restricted, as mentioned earlier.
And when I say that “your table is going to give people an inflated estimate at least at the extreme high end,” I mean that “your methodology is going to give people an inflated estimate of their IQ if they have extremely high scores, at least if they assume that this table is supposed to give an estimate of the average true IQs of those people with a given SAT score, as opposed to merely a translation of Z-scores in the general population to a score of the form 100+15*Z.”
If I had to change anything in the equations that I suggested below, I would change the intercepts to be consistent with an average IQ of those taking the tests to be 108, rather than 106. So the equations would read:
Actual average IQ:
IQ=108+[(SAT M+CR-1006)/216]*15*(4.8/6.0)*0.77
SAT Z score converted to same type of score system IQ uses:
IQ=108+[(SAT M+CR-1006)/216]*15*(4.8/6.0)
where the explicitness in the description of the second equation seems necessary given that people would probably have the tendency to misinterpret the table otherwise.
that I suggested above***
Incidentally, your table is consistent with
IQ=106+[(SAT M+CR-1006)/216]*15
which is the exact equation that I originally proposed for the “IQ equivalencies” (as opposed to the equation proposed to estimate actual iq), but without any math consistent with the fact that the standard deviation of the SAT will be smaller in the test population than in the total population.
This also seems to suggest that maybe indeed I should not have suggested a change from the average IQ of the test population being 106 to 108… or else that both of us made assumptions consistent with an inaccurate estimate of the average SAT score that would be found in the total population so that 108 should be the true value.
The reason I suggested a change to 108 from 106 is that upon searching for information regarding the average IQ of the test population, I found the site: http://www.assessmentpsychology.com/iq.htm
which suggests that the average IQ of those in the test population is .53*15 points higher than those in the total population… which could easily be incorrect or outdated.
Very thoughtful posts.
The purpose of the table is not to predict how one will do on an official IQ test from their score on the SAT. but rather to assume the SAT is an unofficial IQ test, and thus convert scores to the IQ scale. After-all, the SAT correlates about as well with official IQ tests as many official IQ tests correlate with each-other.
I’m quite aware that people with extreme SAT scores will regress precipitously to the mean on official IQ tests. I’ve extensively documented the phenomenon here:
https://pumpkinperson.com/2015/04/13/do-harvard-students-have-an-average-iq-of-122/
And here:
https://pumpkinperson.com/2015/04/20/formula-for-predicting-official-iq-scores-from-sat-scores/
But keep in mind that similar regression to the mean occurs when people move from one official IQ test to another.
As for the distribution of people who take the SAT vs the general population, I ignored the difference in standard deviation between the two groups because I assume the test population is not normally distributed. Rather the working assumption among some who study this is that 100% of U.S. 17 years capable of scoring high on the SAT actually take the test (or the ACT) so if you get the highest score on the SAT, you’re assumed to have not only scored higher than everyone who took the test, but also higher than everyone who did not take the test if they did.
For a more elaborate explanation of what I did to map the SAT population to the general U.S. population, see this old post I wrote on my other blog:
https://brainsize.wordpress.com/2014/06/12/converting-post-1995-sat-scores-into-iq/
In other words, if roughly a third of 17 year olds take the SAT, and roughly 100% of academically gifted 17 year olds take it, then converting rarity in the SAT population to the general population is simply a matter of dividing by 3.
Thus if you score in the top 10% of SAT takers, that’s assumed to put you in the top 3.33% of all U.S. 17 year-olds (10/3 = 3.33)
If you score in the top 1% of SAT takers, that’s assumed to put you in the top 0.33% of all U.S. 17 year olds (1/3 = 0.33). Though linear extrapolation doesn’t work on the old SAT which isn’t linear.
These percentiles are then assigned normalized Z scores with reference to the general U.S. population and converted to IQ by multiplying by 15 and adding 100.
The division by 3 only works at the high end where it’s assumed 100% take the SAT, but IQ equivalents for lower SAT scores can then easily be found by linear extrapolation to the low end from two high points.
Though linear extrapolation doesn’t work on the old SAT which isn’t linear.
That would work theoretically, but in practice you have to take into account the fact that a fairly large proportion of people who score nearly perfectly only take one or the other of the SAT or the ACT. For example, of myself and ~6 of the people that I know that have scored well and also know whether they have taken both tests or not, 6 have taken only the ACT. Hence, that assumption may need reexamination.
Karl, you make an excellent point about the ACT. As a Canadian I just believed Charles Murray (2012, p. 366): “
In 2010, a combined score of 1400 put a student at about the 97th percentile of all students who took the SAT (based on the distribution produced by the known means and standard deviations for the two tests and a correlation of +0.7 between them). But the number of test-takers in 2010 represented only 36% of the seventeenyear-olds in the country. Any plausible assumptions about the proportion of
the 62% of seventeen-year-olds who didn’t take the ACT who could have
gotten a combined score of 1400 or more puts a student who actually does
score 1400 well into the 99th [per]centile of the seventeen-year-old population.
But Murray seems to be ignoring the fact that there are some 17 year olds who are capable of acing the SAT who instead take the ACT. Indeed my own poll on this blog found that a certain percentage of my readers did not take the SAT because they took the ACT instead.
The numbers may indeed require some adjusting.
So, 1225 is 130, but mensa considers 1250 130?
Explain the problem please.
Perhaps Mensa is being conservative. An analysis by Kjeld Hvatum found that 1225 old SAT = about IQ 130.
I don’t really buy that somehow…
Maybe it’s my mathematical ignorance and the apparent authority of Mensa, but it seems like they wouldn’t screw this kind of thing up…
The thing is that, and what really bothers me, is that if I use your formula to get an IQ from the modern SAT, and then plug that IQ into the estimated correlation of it to real IQ by Frey and Detterman, I get a result of 154; however if I plug the OLD SAT into the correlation IT has with real IQ, roughly .86, I get the exact same result, 154.
This all seems very very unlikely to me, as the upper-limit or ceiling of the old SAT was known to be much higher…
Perhaps this is merely an indication of the limited predictive power the SAT has towards IQ.
Thanks for your help as always.
You’re not making any sense.
Walk me through your calculations & I’ll tell you where you went wrong
Okay, well, lets take an SAT(Old) of 1250 to be 130 for the purposes of argument, this score generator-http://www.davidpbrown.co.uk/psychology/iq-conversion.html- suggests an SAT score of 1600 to be an IQ score of 164, this is corroborated by this-http://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/oldSATIQ.aspx-
If we take Frey and Detterman seriously, we should do the following to get a “Real IQ” based on the expected regression one gets from SAT to IQ test: 64(How many points over the mean)*.86= 55. We can surmise an IQ of 155.
This seems to me an underestimate based on the number a year that got a score of 1600
Following your new equation however, we can surmise an IQ of roughly 154 from a maximum score of 1600, plugging that into Frey and Detterman’s estimated correlation of .72 we get: 54*.72= 38.4732. We can surmise an IQ of 138.4732, which seems to me an underestimate, also for very similar reasons.
I got myself muddled up in the previous post, more or less what I meant was, based on Frey and Detterman we get 2 underestimates.
I don’t pretend to be anything more than mathematically illiterate, though.
If we take Frey and Detterman seriously, we should do the following to get a “Real IQ” based on the expected regression one gets from SAT to IQ test: 64(How many points over the mean)*.86= 55. We can surmise an IQ of 155.
This seems to me an underestimate based on the number a year that got a score of 1600
We’re talking about two different variables: SAT IQ and real IQ.
The number of people who scored 1600 on the SAT only corresponds to the SAT IQ (164 according to you). It does not correspond to the number of people with real IQs of 155+, which will be a much greater number, because some people with SATs below 1400 will have higher real IQs above 155.
So basically, the SAT is close to IQ, but to a certain extent, a whacky representation of it.
I mean I understood we wre dealing with 2 different variables in it but I was trying to get at a sort of more precise indication of what exactly an old-scale 1600 represents in more than just “SAT IQ” terms…
Ah well, thanks.
Keep in mind that all that regression is telling you is that the AVERAGE person with a 164 SAT IQ will have a 155 real IQ. But there will be a lot of people who don’t fit the expectation.
And conversely, the average person with a real IQ of 164 will have an SAT IQ of 155. That’s assuming the correlation is as high as you say, which I dispute, but that’s another topic.
So basically, the SAT is close to IQ, but to a certain extent, a whacky representation of it.
IQ is not a concrete trait like height and weight that can be measured directly, so every test will be a whacky representation of it. The SAT is just a little more whacky than an official IQ test like the WAIS, but neither are direct measures the way a ruler measures length.
I mean I understood we wre dealing with 2 different variables in it but I was trying to get at a sort of more precise indication of what exactly an old-scale 1600 represents in more than just “SAT IQ” terms…
It represents one in a million performance on a very g loaded cognitive test. Scoring 1600 on the SAT is to real IQ what qualifying for the NBA is to height. A very good indicator that you’re super tall, but not a direct proof that you have one in a million height (7’2″+)
In other words, if we couldn’t measure people’s heights directly, we could just assign everyone who qualified for the NBA a height above seven feet, since qualifying for the NBA has about the same rarity as being over seven feet. But if we actually made a tape measure, we would find that some NBA players are less exceptional in height than they are in basketball performance.
It’s the same with folks who score 1600 on the SAT. They’re assigned an IQ of 164+, because they have the same rarity as IQ 164+. But if given a better intelligence test, many would prove to be less exceptional on the new test than they were on the SAT.
>IQ is not a concrete trait like height and weight that can be measured directly
Sure it is. IQ can be measured just fine on the WAIS, Stanford Binet, and directly.
Just not intelligence.
I am aware that IQ is just an indication of intelligence, my conferring “whacky” status to the SAT was in relation to IQ tests only.
Give me a little credit, I’m not confusing IQ with intelligence.
“It represents one in a million performance on a very g loaded cognitive test. Scoring 1600 on the SAT is to real IQ what qualifying for the NBA is to height. A very good indicator that you’re super tall, but not a direct proof that you have one in a million height (7’2″+)”
So, maybe our own Jorgie, to use an example, with his stratospheric SAT of 1560, could have a massive range of real IQ scores.
He still hasn’t revealed his WAIS to the best of my knowledge, and if you’re reading Jorge it’d be really cool if you told us your WAIS and ACT scores! Your scores have been a treasure trove of data so far, it’d be helpful at least, thanks.
peepee has nothing to say on any question of mathematics or statistics gypsyman.
she’s dunning-kruger as fuck.
i think she went by the handle “iamexpert” on ahoe’s blog.
she’s anything but an expert. that’s why her shitty blog is so unpopular.
“peepee has nothing to say on any question of mathematics or statistics gypsyman.”
That’s one thing I’ve got to say about myself Jorge, I have a never-ending faith in the potential and abilities of others!
I’ll ask Pump questions and from there let him answer it to the best of his abilities! As I’m a total mathematical illiterate, I’ll deffer to Pump or you for these answers!
Also do you remember your WAIS and ACT? It’d be super cool if you had those scores!
Thanks again.
So, maybe our own Jorgie, to use an example, with his stratospheric SAT of 1560, could have a massive range of real IQ scores
Well when you look at his biography, he was basically just a dumb low IQ kid from a prole of part of a prole country. Tested on the WISC at age 9. Scored above the 99 percentile (135+) on the verbal, but did not do well overall. In fact, given that he was probably tested in the 1980s, when the test norms were quite obsolete, his IQ was really quite low. Lower than the average psychologist.
Meanwhile he had all these bimbo psychologists looking at him like he was crazy, so he would spend his whole childhood memorizing obscure math trivia, and convincing himself he was smarter than all the lady psychologists who would judge him and label him for the freak-show he is.
But the truth is, no matter how well he would coach himself into doing on tests like the SAT, he would never acquire a solid grasp of statistics, and his IQ would never be as high as the average 125 IQ psychologist. You dont go from 9-year-old moron to genius young adult as he convinced himself he had. because IQ is genetic. But SAT is not, and so that was saving grace, only to have elite universities slam their door on him because his grades (which require actual understanding) were so low.
It kills him, so he devoted his time to arguing that psychologists are dumb. What he thrives on are people like you Gypsyman, who will tell him how smart he is. He has a psychological need to be intellectually worshiped by others and he despises me because not only do I refuse to worship him and think the way he demands. but I genuinely regard him as my inferior especially when it comes to MATHS where I outrun him like a horse does a turtle..
I got a 135+ IQ as measured by CHRONOMETRICS. The actual physiological limit of my brains speed, working memory capacity, and consistency was objectively measured over many days and found to be PHYSIOLOGICALLY superior to well over 99% of Americans in the peak age group.
“Well when you look at his biography, he was basically just a dumb low IQ kid from a prole of part of a prole country.”
Woah woah woah, hold up hold up and hold up a little more. I know he started the whole “Prole” thing but can we just let it go? Along with calling each other mathematically illiterate and this and that and all of it, listen to me you both sound like goddamn superminds with all of this shit, I’m a real, mathematically untalented, illiterate dude, so c’mon Pump, rise above all of that.
“Tested on the WISC at age 9. Scored above the 99 percentile (135+) on the verbal, but did not do well overall.”
Well we know he did well in at least one area, and to the best of my knowledge he’s never revealed specifically how well he has done overall…
” his IQ was really quite low. Lower than the average psychologist.”
Well, I’ve had a range of scores in the 130 region, from 131 to 137 so if he’s dull, shoot maybe I’m dull too.
His IQ shouldn’t really matter anyway, but the quality of his ideas… not to say that they necessarily ARE quality I don’t know enough to evaluate your ideas and I don’t really want to create a massive argument by doing so at least publically.
“Meanwhile he had all these bimbo psychologists looking at him like he was crazy”
Now don’t be cruel about some people you don’t even know Pump.
“so he would spend his whole childhood memorizing obscure math trivia, and convincing himself he was smarter than all the lady psychologists”
Don’t draw caricatures of people, there is nothing wrong with the pursuit of knowledge, Pump.
Even if Jorge WASN’T as bright as his GRE scores suggest, there would be NOTHING wrong with a desire to learn maths or maths trivia.
“What he thrives on are people like you Gypsyman, who will tell him how smart he is. He has a psychological need to be intellectually worshiped”
Correction, and don’t be a condescending arsehole, I could as easily live without this blogroll which, by the way I enjoy and respect, as not so please keep it civil.
My best heuristic for his giftedness, is what I do know for a fact, and what I DO know for a fact are his GRE scores, and therefore what am I to conclude but that he is gifted, now this may not be the full story, and I have made SEVERAL attempts to get as MUCH information out of him as I CAN regarding his scores because this provides me a FULLER picture of him as an OUTLIER statistic on a number of tests and discuss philosophy with him meanwhile you have not even attempted to interrogate him further over his ACT or Weschler, you mischaracterize my civility, kindness, and willingness to participate in discussion and act on my best heuristics as “intellectual worship” when it is NOT. You are transferring your irritation based on your OWN misgivings to me, I am capable of disagreeing with, and debating with Jorge and still maintaining a degree of civility, but never mischaracterize that as worship.
I worship no man, or no woman for that matter.
“I got a 135+ IQ as measured by CHRONOMETRICS. The actual physiological limit of my brains speed, working memory capacity, and consistency was objectively measured over many days and found to be PHYSIOLOGICALLY superior to well over 99% of Americans in the peak age group.”
You’re clever, was this ever in question? I’m clever too, about as clever as you within a tiny margin of error, pleased to meet you.
Jeez Pump, is Jorge really that deep under your skin?
i’ve never taken the wais and i don’t have my putative wisc scores only what my parents told me decades ago…and i say “putative” because the test was administered by multiple people, with the sole intent of discovering some pathology…none was found and i scored above average on every subtest except for digit span iirc on which i scored exactly average…but again the test may have been stopped as soon as it was determined i wasn’t below average…idk…that is, the only reason i was given the test is because i had already scored very high on two other IQ tests and my teachers were surprised…but as my harvard dad told me…”if you’re smart you know the schools are fucked.”
my sat and act scores? i’m sure i still have the reports, but i have no idea where…and i’d also have to find my digital camera.
my act was in the 99th percentile but the lower end of the 99th iirc. it was at least 31. i’m sure i still have those score reports too…but i don’t know where.
i also scored 770 on the GMAT and in the 99th percentile on all the ACS exams and the GRE subject test in chemistry, etc.
peepee is “trans-smart”…a dumb person who “identifies” as smart…she gets very angry when you tell her she’s not a man.
“my sat and act scores? i’m sure i still have the reports, but i have no idea where…and i’d also have to find my digital camera.
my act was in the 99th percentile but the lower end of the 99th iirc. it was at least 31. i’m sure i still have those score reports too…but i don’t know where.
i also scored 770 on the GMAT and in the 99th percentile on all the ACS exams and the GRE subject test in chemistry, etc.”
Thanks for producing all of this information dude! If you ever happen to find the reports and details let me know! Yeah this is awesome, thanks!
See Pump, if you’re civil, people are awesome, look at all of this information we have now…
Hey Jorge, do you happen to know the mean ACT at Harvard at the time you were tested, so I can get an idea where a 31 would be in relation to the academic “Gold Standard”, thanks again!
“i had already scored very high on two other IQ tests and my teachers were surprised”
If you can remember those scores, it’d be awesome.
So far you’ve given us a lot of cool stuff to work with, at the very least we now have an example of how the scores of various college exams prior to their being watered down relate to one another in the case of at least one high-scorer…
As you know Jorge, I don’t like to judge people’s character, I have faith that all of you are ultimately good people. I doubt any of you are stone-cold sociopaths.
so i saw a table for the current ACT which gave 33 as the 99th percentile.
so either i scored 33 or the scale has changed.
the ACT is both an inferior and superior IQ test compared to the SAT.
1. inferior because its content is much more specific…less abstract…it includes a section on punctuation and spelling, e.g.
2. superior because it is more selective…that is, in a small part of the country every one takes it…i wasn’t in that part…those who sat it where i lived were a select group of those who had sat the SAT…the reverse is true in that part of the US for the SAT, but it’s a smaller part iirc.
33 isn’t bad but it’s not really that impressive either. It’s about average for Harvard. I’ve known two people (at least) who scored 36 on the ACT, one who also had a perfect on the post-1995 SAT.
But I’m the last one who should making fun of anyone. I didn’t even take the ACT, and my SAT equivalent would’ve placed me only at 33 also (I think).
I think it’s entirely plausible that Jorge is in the 130-140 range, but I just don’t see him being much higher.
Well, if 33 Corresponds to and SAT of 1500 on the post 1995 scale, which corresponds to a real IQ of roughly 130~ give or take a few points (Possibly as low as 122, possibly) we’re all probably in a similar range of intelligence.
Perhaps we should all treat each other with dignity then and consider each others points in themselves rather than being committed to a game of intellectual one-upmanship…
Just a thought.
thanks negroe. the test has changed to help negroes score higher since i took it.
as if “130-140 range” meant ANYTHING. (do you even know what % score > 130 or > 140? no. of course not.)
there is no single number which is “correct”.
it all depends on the test.
whether it’s a self-described IQ test or an IQ test in all but name…it makes no difference…
but ALL OF THE TESTS I’VE TAKEN put me > 140.
uncle toms are so stupid.
movin’ on up…to the top…to a de0luxe apartment…in the sky…movin’ on up.
1500 post ’95 SAT corresponds to a MUCH HIGHER IQ THAN 130 FUCKTARD.
it’s the 99th percentile…is it not?
but it’s the 99th percentile of a population which has already been selected for its HIGHer than average IQ.
a 99th percentile on the SAT is at least the 99.5th percentile for the general population.
more like 140.
peepee is “trans-smart”…a dumb person who “identifies” as smart…she gets very angry when you tell her she’s not a man.
You mean I’m “trans-intelligence”. A female who identifies as a male is transgender not trans-male, so a dumb person who identifies as smart would be “trans-intelligence” not “trans-smart”.
But perhaps I’m being pedantic.
See Pump, if you’re civil, people are awesome, look at all of this information we have now…
I’m the MOST civil and tolerant blogger in the HBD-o-sphere. Every other HBD blog banned him long ago.
movin’ on up…to the top…to a de0luxe apartment…in the sky…movin’ on up.
Were the Jeffersons Uncle Toms? Ambitious, but not racially treasonous. Though I haven’t seen reruns of that show for decades.
and as a matter of fact it is a finding…one contested by peepee et al…that the higher one scores on any given test the wider the dispersion of all his test scores is expected to be.
it’s called Spearman’s law…
1. dumb people tend to be dumb in every way.
2. smart people are very often dumb in one way or another or just average.
and it’s one of the many dirty secrets of psychometry that…
with enough tests the absolute difference in average score…rather than the relative/SD difference..tends to go to ZERO.
that is, the subtests of IQ tests are all already selected from among all possible tests for their ability to discriminate (not in the pejorative sense of “discriminate”).
a test which was composed of randomly selected sub-tests would produce far smaller absolute differences…so far as “absolute” can be operationalized.
LOL! ruhkukah is so good natured and nice, yet still manages to infuriate people more than anyone by gently implying they’re not as bright as they think.
First Afrosapiens, then Cale, now chartreuse.
“1500 post ’95 SAT corresponds to a MUCH HIGHER IQ THAN 130 FUCKTARD.
it’s the 99th percentile…is it not?
but it’s the 99th percentile of a population which has already been selected for its HIGHer than average IQ.”
All of the above counts for naught that when you realize that the post 1995 SAT only has a .72 Correlation with Real IQ roughly according to Frey and Detterman.
So figure it out, if with a perfect SAT-IQ correlation 1500 = 145, you take the number of points above the mean, multiply it by the real correlation, so 45*.72 = 32. So it regresses “Real IQ” of 32 points above the mean, or 132 as an estimate of performance on a real IQ test like the WAIS or SB5.
So either you scored roughly in the region of 130-135, or you were right in the first place and scaling has been changed drastically. Either result is nothing to be ashamed of.
GYPSYMAN PEEPEE IS…
LYING!
SHE DOES IT COMPULSIVELY.
ALL I TOLD HER WAS WHAT MY PARENTS TOLD ME MORE THAN 20 YEARS AGO., AND THAT THE TEST WAS LIKELY STOPPED AS SOON AS I MADE AVERAGE SCORES ON SOME SUBTESTS AS THE ONLY PURPOSE OF IT WAS TO DETERMINE IF I HAD SOME “LEARNING DISABILITY”
AND SHE NEVER TELLS YOU THAT…
1. I HAD SCORED HIGH ON THE CAT AND ON THE TAG ADMISSIONS TEST PRIOR TO BEING GIVEN THE WISC.
2. THE WISC WAS GIVEN TO ME BY MULTIPLE PEOPLE.
WHAT YOU HAVE TO KNOW ABOUT PEEPEE IS:
1. SHE IS A SOCIOPATH…PURE EVIL…ALMOST EVERYTHING OUT OF HER MOUTH IS A LIE.
2. SHE HAS AN IQ OF ABOUT 60 AND HATES IT.
“1. I HAD SCORED HIGH ON THE CAT AND ON THE TAG ADMISSIONS TEST PRIOR TO BEING GIVEN THE WISC.”
I don’t doubt it, I wasn’t going by your WISC results in the post you responded to though.
I was estimating what your ACT would translate roughly to on the WAIS, just estimating.
I understand your WISC results are probably unrepresentative of your real IQ
The estimated correlation of the new SAT and real IQ tests = .72
so called “real IQ tests” aren’t “real”.
they’re just “self-described” IQ tests.
in fact, they’re less “real” than american school entrance exams.
from the psychometirc perspective they are INFERIOR to exams like the SAT, LSAT, GRE, GMAT, etc. especially at the high end.
because:
1. they are normed on a much smaller number of test takers.
2. the college entrance exams are already selective…stupid people don’t take them.
the reason why they aren’t called what they are…
is POLITICAL…again.
and btw numskull…
the distinction between intelligence test scores and intelligence is just faggotry.
“intelligence” is a very imprecise concept in the first place.
the tests are the only thing commonly used to make it precise.
so to say, “A scored higher than B” actually means something.
but to say, “A is more intelligent than B…even though he scored lower”…wtf does that mean?
whatever you want it to mean.
Well, none of this mitigates the fact that there is an expected regression from the SAT GRE and ACT to IQ test scores.
You can moan all you want about intelligence being a nebulous concept and I won’t even disagree with you, I won’t even disagree that I think the SAT is a more precise measure of more useful skills in learning mathematics and literature.
But my opinion and yours on the RELEVANCE of those tests isn’t even the point in the first place, the point is very simple: People who do well on the SAT, well enough to imply scores as high as 145 if SAT and IQ were perfectly correlated, score as low as 132 on average based on empirical data.
no indeed..
BUT…
the steepness of the regression from “IQ scores” to “IQ scores” (on another self-described IQ test…there are many such don’t ya know.) is just as great or greater than that from entrance exams to “IQ scores”.
that is,
self-described IQ tests correlate no better with one another than they do with entrance exams.
this is an example of an “open secret”.
from the psychometric/scientific perspective the SAT etc.
ARE!
IQ tests.
not sort a kinda IQ tests…
ARE!
and are superior to self-described IQ tests in at least 2 ways.
and it all depends on the IQ test.
the SB is much more verbal than the Wechsler…and the Raven’s isn’t verbal at all.
it also depends on the assumption of a bivariate normal distribution for scores on one test and on another.
another interesting finding from both the WISC and the WAIS…at least in their old forms…the verbal subtests had much higher…
1. g-loadings
and…
2. heritability
than the non-verbal tests
AND…
3. this was not explained by their higher reliabilities.
“is just as great or greater than that from entrance exams to “IQ scores”.”
Well, most well-regarded IQ tests correlate with each other .9 or greater.
Old-school SAT/GRE/ACT/LSAT(Still used to this day)/GMAT(Still used to this day) correlate .86 (GREAT correlation)
Modern day SAT correlates to IQ tests about .72.
And sure, I totally agree, the SAT is VASTLY superior to IQ tests, HOWEVER that STILL doesn’t mitigate the fact that a score of 1500 on the current SAT would translate to a score on the WAIS, for example of 132.
So while I totally agree that score of 1500 is worth more in terms of information it provides us about how good at maths somebody is in relation to all of the other intelligent college applicants, it still indicates an IQ of 132. Sure, it only INDICATES that, it could be higher OR lower.
So I totally agree with you that the college entrance exams are better, but even though I do, it’s not my point.
and another point always un-understood on blog’s like peepee’s…
even given the standard P = G + E model…
very high IQs have MUCH more of their advantage atrributable to E than do middling IQs…
the same goes for veey low IQs according to the P = G + E model.
that is, a “genetic IQ” of 160, the maximum score on self-described IQ tests…
DOES NOT EXIST…
according to the model.
And hey, refrain from calling me a “numbskull”, there’s a brain between these ears that isn’t totally broken, you know.
“even given the standard P = G + E model…
very high IQs have MUCH more of their advantage atrributable to E than do middling IQs…”
Sure, I could buy that.
I’m assuming you’re referring to the genetics and environmental model, yes?
Yeah I could buy the environment plays a much larger role in particularly very high IQ’s than some would think…
even given the standard P = G + E model…
As opposed to what? P = G^3/E^7? You always criticize the P = G + E model but never propose an alternative.
…on blogs like peepee’s…
self-described IQ tests correlate no better with one another than they do with entrance exams.
this is an example of an “open secret”.
from the psychometric/scientific perspective the SAT etc.
ARE!
IQ tests.
not sort a kinda IQ tests…
ARE!
Entrance exams correlate better with SOME IQ tests than SOME IQ tests correlate with one another.
But school grades correlate better with SOME IQ tests than SOME IQ tests correlate with one another. Are school grades IQ tests?
Subjective opinion of who is smart correlates better with SOME IQ tests than SOME IQ tests correlate with one another. Are subjective opinions IQ tests?
the alternative is an empirical surface peepee not a formula.
so you hear “heritability” a lot…
what that refers to is h^2 where the model is P = hG + sqrt(1 – h^2)E…where P, G, and E have normalized SDs of 1.
so if h = .84 and h^2 = .7, for example, then the SD of the G component is 84% that of the phenotype P.
and 4 SDs becomes 4.76 SDs…or 33 times less common.
that is, according to the RETARDED model,
for every one person with a genotypic IQ of 160 and a middling E, there are 32 with a lower genotypic IQ and high E.
the money shot is that if you had two MZ twins raised “apart”, and one had an IQ of 160, the likelihood the other would score as high or higher would be…
not 50%…
but only 4.6%.
the very smart hereditists, if there be any, don’t get this.
the money shot is that if you had two MZ twins raised “apart”, and one had an IQ of 160, the likelihood the other would score as high or higher would be…
not 50%…
but only 4.6%.
Correct, because given a 0.7 correlation between MZ raised apart, simple regression predicts that someone with an IQ 60 points above average would have an MZA that was 60(0.7)=42 points above average, standard error = 10.71
Thus only about 4.6% of the time would the co-twin also be 160+ because 160+ is 1.68 SE above the predicted value given the 0.7 correlation.
the very smart hereditists, if there be any, don’t get this.
Even the smartest people tend to be clueless about basic statistics.
so sub-moron delta minuses like peepee have no chance.
i did an integration numerically with excel. i admit i’m too lazy to find the formula.
but…demonstrating peepee’s mental retardation once again…
if the SD of a subpopulation were 2/3ds that of the population as a whole on one variable and yet it still has a .4 correlation with that other variable this corresponds to a full population correlation of ca .65.
on the other hand if the same subpopulation had the same conditional variance in the second variable as suggested by peepee-tard…
THIS WOULD REQUIRE THAT IT’S CORRELATION WITH THE SECOND VARIABLE BE ONLY CA .25. (AN EXAMPLE OF THE “RESTRICTION OF RANGE” EFFECT WHERE THE “RANGE” REFERS NOT TO A MINIMUM AND MAXIMUM BUT TO AN SD.)
MAYBE IF PEEPEE’S TELLS EVERYONE SHE’S A NON-WHITE FEMALE ETC. I’LL CALCULATE THE EXACT FORMULA FOR HER.
…ITS…
If your lowest score on the WISC was exactly average, your lowest scaled score was 10.
Your highest score you said was vocabulary. Giving you the benefit of the doubt, let’s assume you got a scaled score of 19 on vocab (the maximum).
If your lowest scaled score was 10 (Digit Span), and your highest scaled score was 19 (vocab) at the most, your average scaled score was 14.5, suggesting your sum of scaled scores across all ten WISC-R subtests was 145.
A sum of scaled scores of 145 equates to a full-scale WISC-R IQ of 133.
BUT
The WISC-R was normed before you were born, and by the time you were nine, was already a decade too old
That means your score was inflated by OLD NORMS, since the WISC-III was not yet available.
Adjusting for old norms, reduces your score to about 129, BELOW THE GIFTED LEVEL, and about the same as the average psychologist
And all this assumes you took the WISC-R and not the original WISC normed in the 1940s, which would have inflated your score by about a dozen points, suggesting an adjusted IQ of 120
i did an integration numerically with excel. i admit i’m too lazy to find the formula
You convince yourself you are too lazy, because it’s easier than admitting you are too stupid
but…demonstrating peepee’s mental retardation once again…
if the SD of a subpopulation were 2/3ds that of the population as a whole on one variable and yet it still has a .4 correlation with that other variable this corresponds to a full population correlation of ca .65.
Which contradicts absolutely nothing I ever said.
Dude, you’re wasting your time trying to catch me in a math error. My innate capacity for intuitive statistical logic is at least two standard deviations above yours. I wasn’t joking when I said that.
When it comes to stats I’m scary smart. You’re not, and never will be.
Get over it.
Focus on your strengths.
My innate capacity for intuitive statistical logic is at least two standard deviations above yours. I wasn’t joking when I said that.
When it comes to stats I’m scary smart. You’re not, and never will be.
YOU SEE…PEEPEE IS A JOKE…A PATHETIC JOKE…
SHE CAN’T STOP LYING AND LIKELY SUFFERS FROM…
NARCISSISTIC PERSONALITY DISORDER IN ADDITION TO
ANTISOCIAL PERSONALITY DISORDER..
I HAVE FACTS WHICH I CAN PROVE…
I MADE A PERFECT SCALED SCORE OF 10 ON THE SoA’s EXAM IN PROBABILITY AND STATISTICS.
I HAVE PASSED EVERY MATHEMATICAL EXAM OF THE SoA.
PEEPEE…
YOUR ONLY “STRENGTH” IS BEING A NARCISSISTIC SOCIOPATH…
IN EVERY OTHER WAY YOU’RE…
WAY BELOW AVERAGE.
WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY.
AND YOU KNOW IT!
VERY SAD.
Pumpkin, I disagree with Jorge that Canadians are dumber than Meriproles. Dumb Canadians usually head down to the border. Usually they are also more money oriented. The average IQ of Canada should be higher than the US. You do know that the US is place where one wants to get rich.
I was suggested by a Canadian that one can live a good life in Montreal by having the best of both. If I can work remotely and get paid with a US salary, I can really take advantage of the low cost of living in Montreal.
Hopefully you saved some money before coming to Canada. If so you can take advantage of the lower Canadian dollar.
Montreal is a relatively cheap place to live. Some people complain about the low salaries when compared to Toronto or the states. But the lifestyle in the city is more laid back and social than the Anglo places, and unlike English speaking areas, with a an emphasis long work hours and high salaries. You can say spending culture and social culture are two different things. The Anglo-sphere is more of the 1st.
I DON’T AGREE WITH ME EITHER, BECAUSE I NEVER SAID THAT.
CANADIANS AS A WHOLE SHOULD SCORE HIGHER THAN AMERICANS, SIMPLY BECAUSE CANADA IS BASICALLY A WHITE AND CHINESE COUNTRY…
WHAT I SAID WAS THAT SO FAR AS ELITE STATUS IS MEDIATED BY EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT A COUNTRY, LIKE CANADA, WHICH HAS NO ENTRANCE EXAMS FOR UNDERGRAD AT LEAST…
WILL HAVE A DUMBER…
ELITE.
IN THE SENSE THAT ITS ELITE WILL SCORE LOWER ON IQ TESTS.
I’VE HEARD CANADA’S NEW PM IS SOME SORT OF CUNT THROB, BUT I’M GUESSING HIS IQ IS A LOT LOWER THAN OBAMA’S.
The only Canadian Prime Minister with a known tested IQ was Kim Campbell (IQ 154+), much higher than any U.S. president with known test scores: Nixon (143), JFK (119), or GWBush (128-SAT equivalent)
Canadian elites were also smart enough to not get dragged into the war in Iraq though that may be because Canadian elites have fewer ethnic genetic interests in the Middle East and because Canadian politics is less dominated by money
If the U.S. has smarter elites than Canada, and there’s no evidence that it does, it can be explained by the much larger population from which the U.S. can select its best and brightest
It’s unlikely the role of the SAT in mediating education and thus mediating elite status plays a significant role. School grades correlate almost as much with IQ as SAT scores do, so top Canadian universities can recruit the best and brightest without SATs (though Canada doesn’t have as much of a university hierarchy )
Further, if dumb people don’t get screened out at the college level, they might get screened out later in their careers (at least in competitive fields)
” School grades correlate almost as much with IQ as SAT scores do”
School grades correlate with the NEW SAT about as much, .6-something for school grades based on the IQ and academic achievement thing and .72 or thereabouts for SAT.
But the old SAT correlated much better with IQ tests than did school grades…
Yes, Canada is a less money oriented country than the US. All of the Canadians whom I’ve met in NYC, were either working in the media/show business, or in high paying fields (law or finance, but not STEM related). Furthermore, it appears that Canuckistan has more meritocratic measures starting from college to career life, where as in the US, it’s mostly a caste system based on de facto status for elite and high paying positions. Furthermore, the US elites love importing low skilled immigrants to lessen the competition for top positions, which also drives down the wages and raise the cost of living standards, which then lowers the quality of life for the middle class types.
It appears that Canada is a better place to self actualize versus the US which only focus on careerism and salaries. One can make this observation with the cost of higher education in Canada (which is much cheaper) versus the US (which is very expensive, and many students take out hefty loans to pay for school and need to slave themselves after graduation).
To sum it up, the US is a very evil place for an industrialized nation!
Pump, I hope you’re reading your emails.
Yes, I saw your emails. I get so many emails that I tend not to respond unless I’m asked a direct question, but I did read them.
Hope you’re much amused.
🙂
Thanks so much for this. My honors type sons had a laugh with me looking up my old (1980s) scores and their current scores. A true “Rick and Morty” moment (urp!). Surprised them, I think (me too actually). I spend my days doing super science crap which can be impersonal at times, and we had a bonding moment on being “oddball” smart guys, in a world that seems to continually vote for mediocrity and hate (from both ends of the spectrum).
All the lauds, national merit and TIP programs, scholarships and phi b etc. be damned, engineering degrees and test pilot school aside, you’re no “genius” and no real Man (or Woman) if you can’t pass on what you’ve learned and raise the next gen to be productive, empathetic citizens of good morals who can love their fellow man (woman). There is an Emotional IQ as well… which is a challenge for all of the high IQs out there who are Aspergers types.
Cheers, and love,
Spam