In his excellent book A Question of Intelligence: The IQ Debate in America, former Fortune magazine editor Daniel Seligman describes what it’s like to take the WAIS-R IQ test. One page 8-9 he writes:
When the test ended, after about ninety minutes, I went over my answers with [examiner] Stern and watched him convert them into an IQ score. Actually, you walk away with three scores: one covering the overall verbal portion of the test (where I did quite well), one covering the performance tests (where the results were mediocre), and a weighted average that becomes your IQ. Being still coy, I decline to state the number on the bottom line…
I was able to determine Seligman’s scores (adjusted for old norms) on three of the six verbal subtests, and three of the five performance subtests. By taking the sum of the three verbal scaled scores and prorating, I was able to roughly estimate Seligman’s sum of scaled scores on all six verbal subtests. Similarly, by taking Seligman’s sum of scaled scores on three of the five performance subtests and prorating, I was able to roughly estimate Seligman’s sum of scaled scores on all five Performance subtests. Then by adding the prorated verbal sum to the prorated performance sum, I was able to roughly estimate Seligman’s sum of scaled scores on all 11 subtests:
Information 15 (age adjusted 15)
Similarities (unknown)
Arithmetic (unknown)
Vocabulary 16.65 (age adjusted 16.65)
Comprehension (unknown)
Digit Span 15.94 (age adjusted 17.94)
Sum of three known verbal unadjusted scaled scores: 47.59
Estimated sum of all six verbal unadjusted scaled scores: 95.18
Picture Completion: 5.8 (age adjusted 7.8)
Picture Arrangement (unknown)
Block Design 9.59 (age adjusted 12.59)
Object Assembly (unknown)
Digit Symbol 8.22 (age adjusted 11.29)
Sum of three known performance unadjusted scaled scores: 23.61
Estimated sum of all five performance unadjusted scaled scores: 39.35
Estimated sum of all 11 unadjusted scaled scores: 134.53
Using the WAIS-R manual, I was able to determine the verbal IQ, performance IQ, and full-scale IQ of 55-64 years with an unadjusted sum of scales scores of 95.18, 39.35, and 134.53, respectively. They are:
Verbal IQ: 146
Perfomance IQ: 100
Full-scale IQ: 128
Of course all of these figures are in U.S. norms which is what the Wechsler scales have used for the last several decades. In U.S. white norms (which the scales originally used and are still used in the technical literature), the corresponding figures are 146, 98, and 127 respectively. But it’s probably best to err on the high side because on page 9 Seligman writes:
…I discovered with some annoyance that the WAIS data are not extensive enough to make possible a precise fit for sixty-four-year-olds. It seems that in calculating my IQ score he had to think of me as belonging to the whole cohort aged fifty-five to sixty-four. This means I was being compared with sharp-witted folks in their fifties, whereas if I had taken the test six months later, after my sixty-fifth birthday, I would have been normed against dotards ranging up to sixty-nine–and my IQ would have been five points higher. I may go back for a replay.
Of course just as being the oldest in a younger cohort underestimated his IQ, being the youngest in an older cohort would overestimate IQ, so maybe split the difference and give him an extra 3 IQ points.
So now that we know Seligman’s IQ was 128+3 = 131 (U.S. norms) or 130 (U.S. white norms) it is interesting to look back at the guessing game we played before I began this series, to see who came closest. ruhkukah said 135-140, which for the purpose of this game, I interpret as 137.5. Konstantin said 138…but neither were as close as jameson who said in the 120s range, which for the purpose of this game, I interpret as 125. jameson’s argument was that since Seligman writes and talks about intelligence, he’s probably very intelligent, but not as intelligence as someone who is actually out there doing intelligent things. Writers and talkers in a given subject are not as talented at that subject as actual doers.
Still, Seligman’s IQ was higher than 98% of white America’s, and higher than most PhDs and Ivy League undergrads, making him an extremely intelligent man.
So who’s the loser in this game? Sadly, it’s grey enlightenment who estimated Seligman’s IQ to be 150. grey later revised the figure downward, but once the series began and scores started being revealed, it’s too late to change your guess, but in grey’s defense, he was very close to Seligman’s verbal IQ, and since the game was to guess Seligman’s IQ based only on a sample of Seligman’s writing, his guess made a lot of sense.
Wow Mr. Person, you did a really good job on this Daniel Seligman series! There were many highs and lows along the way, almost like a story. I’m glad his estimated full scale turned out so high in the end.
I think the most obvious outcome of this is that we notice Seligman’s stereotypically Jewish profile– extremely high verbal, mediocre spatial. It’s no wonder he became a journalist, a field with a number of Jews.
Have you considered contacting the Estate of Daniel Seligman to discuss with them your interesting findings? They might be interested in the analysis you present here, although they might already know his FS IQ…
Wow Mr. Person, you did a really good job on this Daniel Seligman series! There were many highs and lows along the way, almost like a story.
Thank you!
Have you considered contacting the Estate of Daniel Seligman to discuss with them your interesting findings? They might be interested in the analysis you present here, although they might already know his FS IQ…
I doubt they’d be interested. This is mostly of interest to IQ junkies. Though they might be happy that people are still talking about their dad and that book he wrote.
in fact such a lopsided score is rare among gentiles.
and no pp the difference between my p and v at age 9 was less than a third of seligman’s. i scored well above average on p. it was at least 1 sd, but i don’t remember what either score was exactly.
but after age 9 i went on to excel at things which require visuo-spatial IQ and not as much at verbal things. i think it depends on the effect of testosterone during puberty.
my biggest weakness still today is the attention factor, although i’m still above average.
i didn’t score below average at age 9 on any subtest.
and no pp the difference between my p and v at age 9 was less than a third of seligman’s.
So your difference was no more than 15 points.
i scored well above average on p. it was at least 1 sd, but i don’t remember what either score was exactly.
You remembered that you verbal was in the 99%ile (IQ 135+) and your performance IQ was above 115, and 15 points lower than your verbal.
Perhaps it was:
Verbal IQ 135
Performance IQ 120
On the WISC-R this gives a full-scale IQ of 130.
This is also consistent with you saying you were labeled a gifted underachiever, since 130 is the cut-off in many schools to be considered gifted. It’s also consistent with you only mentioning the verbal IQ as being in the 99 percentile (135+)
Of course, the WISC-R was normed in the early 1970s so you score was probably inflated by old norms. If you took the original WISC (normed in the 1940s) the score was probably inflated by super old norms.
I suspect that your childhood WISC underestimated your adult IQ, but that your college admission scores overestimated your adult IQ.
You need to take the WAIS-IV.
the jewish chess prodigy reshevsky scored below average on everything except the digit span.
i expect jews excel at the attention factor too.
”extremely high verbal, mediocre spatial”
Mediocre performance too.
Yep, meant performance
and he scored the ceiling on the digit span.
it seems that if it’s genetic it’s the result of the most talented talmudists having more kids.
and NOT the result of occupational specialization as proposed by cockring and harpoondick.
“cockring and harpoondick”
LOL! Your talent for wordplay shows a very high IQ!
Have you read the excellent new HBD book “Hive Mind” by Garrett Jones?
Greg Cochran reviews here https://westhunt.wordpress.com/2015/11/22/hive-mind/
Check out all the comments too, they’re pretty good too. JayMan’s are great, that man’s one of the HBD treasures.
Lol, then hbd is super trash!!!!
jayman sexually harass this boyz-propaganda like ”Carl Churchill”, no have other explanation.
”TIME’s Person of the Year
I voted for Elon Musk. Brilliant engineer, * altruistic * entrepreneur, far-sighted visionary”
greater ”philosopher” richard dawkins,
hbds are jewcock-suckers, limaof
jensen had ONE jewish grandparent.
lion is LYING. that’s what jews do.
and peepee is sucking his cock again.
ASK LION WHY ISRAEL WON’T TAKE ANY SYRIAN REFUGEES.
the level of over-representation of jews in mass media, entertainment, finance, etc.
cannot be explained by jewish IQ, verbal or “full-scale”.
this is a point also made by nisbett.
in fact it can’t even come close to explaining it.
jews should be 6% of those with IQs high enough to win a national merit scholarship…150 or so…that is 3x their % of the general population.
not anywhere near 50% or 25% or whatever.
lion likes to play word games, because he’s a jew.
“liberal” and “conservative” don’t mean anything except in a mass media which keeps the populace forever mesmerized.
the figures from the NMSQT are much better than finding a mean and then using the same variance as used for the population as a whole.
and IN FACT jews are only 6% of national merit finalists. cited by unz in his famous article.
if one believes in the heritability of IQ, he MUST also believe that the more genetically homogeneous the population the SMALLER will be the variance of its IQ distribution.
and ashkenazi jews are, obviously, MUCH more homogeneous than europeans as a whole.
You would think Jews would have a smaller IQ variance than white Gentiles. On the other hand, some of the greatest minds have been Jewish, suggesting they are well represented at the extremes
Also national merit is weighted by state which might disadvantage jews who are less geographically diverse
”Einstein” or Freud???
MOST of greatest mind of humanity were gentiles (whites, east asians as older philosophers)!!
that’s bullshit peepee.
unless you think that the world was created in 1900.
jews can’t hold a candle to european gentiles.
no one can.
unz was taking into account the states differences in cutoff scores. the 6% figure is the % of jews above the mean cutoff.
considering that national merit finalists are fewer in number than the annual intake at america’s top ten unis…the representation of jews at these schools should be even less than 6%…because with their higher mean it should be expected that the higher the cutoff the greater the over-representation…and thus below the cuoff the less the over-representation.
so one sees that the real purpose of racial affirmative action at these schools is to exclude white gentiles.
if the US went by a test based admissions only LIKE ALMOST THE WHOLE REST OF THE WORLD…the result at elite schools would be:
1. asian %s would stay the same.
2. black and latino would fall to near 0%
3. jewish % would be cut by at least 2/3ds
4. white gentile representation would be about the same as its % of the general population.
5. the classes would be much more diverse in terms of the income of the parents. that is, there’d be a lot fewer rich kids and more middle class and poor kids.
Many would argue that John von Neumann and William James Sidis were two of the smartest people to ever live. The fact that both were Jewish, despite the small population, is hard to square with Jews having a smaller IQ variance than white Gentiles.
On the other hand, a small variance makes sense given that both you and Swank have argued that high IQ mutations are much more rare than low IQ mutations, so if Jews were hyper-selected for high IQ, there was probably only enough time to raise their IQs by eliminating low IQ genes, not mutating new high IQ genes (contrary to Cochran)
High IQ mutations are more likely to be found in East Asians, who have been arguably selected for IQ for a much longer time, though because of personality differences, are probably much less likely to manifest those high IQs creatively,.
the world’s fastest “cuber”…looks like a white goy.
surname “etter”.
i think if germany and scandinavia and even italy had the same sort of education system as s korea and taiwan and singapore and hong kong and japan etc.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PISA_2012#Results
their kids would score as high as the kids in those places.
and why do the poles score so high?
in the US there’s a genre of “polack jokes” about how dumb the polacks are.
china’s results may be meaningless as it may only be an elite who take the tests.
my own impression never contradicted is:
1. there is really such a thing as verbal intelligence.
2. it’s a lot more than the ability to do crossword puzzles or whatever.
3. mongoloids are conspicuously under-represented at the high end of verbal intelligence.
high end of verbal IQ:
William F. Buckley, Christopher Hitchens, even James Baldwin, and…
all of my relatives.
i remember whit stillman was interviewed by terry gross and terry (a jewess less than 5′ tall) asked whit why the people in his movies were impossibly erudite.
whit responded that…that’s the way the people i know actually talk.
and as my dad’s uncle was married to one of marshall field iii’s daughters my dad had an experience just like that of Metroplolitan.
ya know my mom wasn’t the only one utterly charmed by the “table talk” of my dad’s family.
SO WAS JOHN IRVING.
he visited my dad’s parents at their house once.
but my math genes are from my mom’s side…if there be such things as “math genes”.
no. lucas etter looks super jewy.
so the jews prove that performance IQ is for monkeys.
how on earth did your brother get into porn, dude?
Strategic thinking correlates a lot with creativity.
http://henrymakow.com/000258.html
This entire series just makes me want to take the WAIS IV for fun. What’s wrong with me?
Unfortunately the WAIS-IV is not as fun as the WAIS-R which Seligman took. They got rid of several fun subtests & replaced them with boring ones
if he’d taken the stanford-binet he’d magically have a higher IQ…because it’s much more verbal…
according to peepee…who still can’t grasp that “official” IQ tests hardly EVER give the exact same result.
I’m well aware of that
Again, that’s, true but we’re not arguing Jewish elites are good on immigration; we’re saying Jewish elites are essentially no different from gentile elites. How many elite gentiles that you care about are anti-immigration?
who’s “we”?
this is typical of jews.
1. until maimonides everything written in hebrew was written by several authors. just as in 1984’s Oceania.
2. jewish authors insist on using the collective singular term “jewry” in place of the plural “jews”.
3. how many times have i heard jews ask, “is it good for the jews?” less than half jokingly?
conclusion:
the jews are the fucking borg.
hitler was RIGHT.
jews should be allowed to live…in israel.
You should explain what you’re talking about. Most people here don’t know you’re responding to comments on LOTB’s blog.
To answer that comment, the Japanese elite and the Jewish elite are different. The Jewish accomplishment is much more individualistic than Japanese accomplishment. That means gentile whites elites are different from Jewish elites.
The Japanese and Korean businesses have managed to infiltrate America in markets while Europeans and Jews have failed so there is a difference.
I suspect that the elite differences were enough to cause the holocaust and pogroms because wars and persecutions are usually caused by elites and if Jews weren’t in the elite, despite their high iqs, that means it was an innate difference. This innate difference existed even though Jews were irreligious and pro assimilation.
again peepee you don’t get it.
neither my age 9 test scores…(which were given by several different people under a variety of conditions…and had the sole purpose of determining if there was something wrong with me…and therefore are MEANINGLESS…)…NOR my college entrance exams either underestimate or overestimate my “iq”…THEY’RE ALL IQ TESTS…THERE ISN’T ONE SINGLE CORRECT NUMBER…FUCKTARD!
i wasn’t even born when the wisc-r came out…fucktard!
and the only reason i was given the wisc-whatever was BECAUSE i had scored so HIGH on TWO OTHER tests…fucktard!
there is no single “correct” IQ you fucktarded fucktard.
all of my test scores are high…that’s all that matters…for me or anyone.
if i were given the WAIS-whatever…would i score as high as my highest other test score?
almost certainly NOT,
BUT THAT WOULD BE TRUE OF EVERY SINGLE FUCKING PERSON WHO SCORED AS HIGH AS I DID…IT’S CALLED REGRESSION…FUCKTARD!
ALL OF THESE TESTS ARE CORRELATED WITH ONE ANOTHER AT >.7…(BUT NONE AT 1.00)…
FROM THE PSYCHOMETRIC POV THEY ARE ALL EQUALLY GOOD MEASURES OF INTELLIGENCE…WHATEVER THE FUCK THAT IS.
THERE IS NO WAY TO DISTINGUISH THEM…
IF SOMEONE SCORED 160 OR WHATEVER THE CEILING WAS ON THE WAIS OR WISC…
IN YOUR UTTERLY FUCKTARDED LANGUAGE THIS WOULD MEAN THAT…
THE WAIS ALMOST CERTAINLY “OVERESTIMATED” THEIR IQ…WHEN THE IQ WAS IDENTIFIED WITH A SINGLE TEST…(OTHER THAN THE WAIS)…LIKE PERHAPS THE LSAT…
GET IT?
GIVE ME THE PERSON WHO HAS SCORED THE CEILING ON EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THESE? OR COULD. THEY DON’T EXIST.
AND IF YOU WANT TO IDENTIFY IQ WITH ONE SINGLE FUCKING TEST THEN ENTRANCE EXAMS ARE FAR BETTER THAN SOIDISANT IQ TESTS…
BECAUSE…
1. THEY ARE GIVEN TO FAR FAR FAR MORE PEOPLE!!!
2. AND EVERY SINGLE FUCKING QUESTION IS GIVEN TO THE SAME HUGE NUMBER OF PEOPLE…
BEFORE IT’S EVERY INCLUDED IN A NEW TEST.
WHATEVER THE TEST, THERE IS AT LEAST ONE SECTION WHICH ISN’T COUNTED…OR QUESTIONS INTERSPERSED WHICH AREN’T COUNTED…THEY’RE JUST USED TO ASSESS POSSIBLE FUTURE QUESTIONS…BUT YOU NEVER KNOW WHICH THEY ARE.
3. AND FURTHERMORE,
THESE TESTS ARE ONLY GIVEN TO A GROUP WHICH HAS ALREADY BEEN SELECTED FOR HIGH IQ…
Think of an IQ test as a poll. Just as a poll takes a sample of a population, each test (WISC, Binet, Raven, SAT) takes a sample of your intelligence
If one poll could survey the entire population, it would report the true public opinion, just as if one IQ test could sample your entire cognitive functioning, it would report your true IQ
The Wechsler scales arguabley come closer to the hypothetical true number than any other test because they measure the widest range of cognitive functions, much like a public opinion poll which samples the widest range of demographic groups
But, I agree that just as no one poll is definitive, no one standardized test is definitive…but many experts feel the Wechsler is the gold standard
arguabley
Best test is whichever one best matches your real-world performance.
So if you’re a homeless guy with a WAIS IQ of 100, then the WAIS is overpredicting your actual ability.
If you’re IQ 100 WAIS and you’re a multi-millionaire or a famous chess player or artist, then it’s under predicting your success.
Assuming intelligence is the ability to adapt, or to take whatever situation you’re in and turn it around to your advantage, the folks in the latter example are vastly underestimated by the WAIS, because there’s obviously some aspect of mental ability that the WAIS misses. Possibly another IQ test (or achievement test) would better detect their success, but maybe not. I think real-world performance (aka real-life) is the best test.
Separate question: Between the Wechsler, Stanford-Binet, and Woodcock-Johnson, what’s the best? I hope to take the other two someday 🙂
that’s an ideological position…a political position…a just world phenomenon position…
why?
because the test which best predicts real world performance or status or rank or whatever may vary from one time and place to another…from one society to another.
until very recently…like the last 200 years…verbal IQ was synonymous with intelligence. to be smart was to be verbally smart.
that’s not true anymore.
the social and material environment changes…those talents which make for success change too.
get it?
and furthermore it’s not as if test scores are independent of real world success as people are often selected based on test scores.
I was going to make the same point. The homeless guy with an IQ of 100, might for example have autism, and thus be unable to adapt to societies where social skills are so valued, but if he were stranded on a deserted island, he might be able to adapt better than 99.9% of people can.
By contrast, a multi-millionaire artist might just be lucky enough to live in a time and place where his innate artistic gifts are valued. Had he been born in another time and place, he might have been homeless.
Ultimately intelligence was of evolutionary value not just because smart people are well adapted to their current environment, but they have the ability to adapt when the environment changes.
Separate question: Between the Wechsler, Stanford-Binet, and Woodcock-Johnson, what’s the best? I hope to take the other two someday
Probably the Wechsler, though it’s gone downhill since Wechsler died.
ah…
but peepee…
the rate of cultural/technical change has become so fast that such a trait as general adaptability couldn’t possibly be of any advantage…because so far as such a trait was selected for in the distant past…it was for changes which were much much slower…and perhaps much smaller.
i’d say that the value of non-verbal IQ has increased in my own lifetime.
so is it a general adaptability that might be selected for in the last 200 years…or is it just whatever talents were most in demand…from decade to decade?
of course it’s neither as the most mal-adaptive in terms of social status have and have had the most children over the last 200 years.
and “social skills” or “social intelligence” aren’t the right terms, because…
the right term is “psychological traits which involve one’s interaction with other (generic) people of a given time and place”.
but wait…
THAT’S EVERY FUCKING PSYCHOLOGICAL TRAIT…EXCEPT MAYBE REACTION TIME.
even in a utopia like sweden…
criminal males have significantly more offspring than non-criminal males.
i forget the study…maybe it wasn’t ethnic swedes who were the criminals…but still!
by the way i just bought $10,000 of investor AB.
put your money there peepee.
it’s even outperformed VGHCX…the best performing mutual fund EVER. and not just because sweden’s stock exchange has outperformed all others over the last 20 years…and it has…despite social democracy…hint hint.
and its Wallenberg CEO makes less than 1 mill per year.
WUNDERBAR!
What is your opinion of progressive matrices tests?
It’s a bit overrated. It’s main selling point was that it’s supposedly culture reduced, but it’s probably as affected by schooling as many verbal tests.
some verbal tests, but not most.
mike anderson reports a case study of a severe autistic with an unscorably low ppvt iq and a terrible score on “sorting” items where the odd-one-out is one of a set of pictures of real-world items, but an iq of 128 on the raven’s and a good score on choosing the odd-one-out of a set of SYMBOLS. also great at jigsaw puzzles, a speedy calculator, and the son of 2 professional mathematicians.
his hypothesis is that the individual’s g or global processing ability is intact, but the remaining “modules” –– like those dedicated to specific linguistic processing –– are ruined. whence he cannot learn: he can only reason.
Very interesting reading. Thank you very much indeed . Greetings from India.