**[NOTE: Pumpkin Person does not endorse the SAT (old or new), as a great measure of IQ, BUT, if one wants to express their old SATs on the IQ scale, here are simple ways of doing so]**

I have previously cited a rare study showing that if all American young adults (in the early 1970s) had taken the old SAT (pre-1995), not just the college bound elite, the mean verbal score would have been 368 with an SD of 111, and the mean math score would have been 402 (SD = 112).

Thus converting old SAT verbal and math scores into IQ equivalents (U.S. norms) was simply a matter of converting them to Z scores, then multiplying by 15 and adding 100.

So,

formula 1:

verbal IQ (U.S. norms) = [(verbal SAT – 368)/111][15] + 100

formula 2:

math IQ (U.S. norms) = [(math SAT – 402)/112][15] + 100

Now what happens if you want to convert the composite old SAT score (verbal + math) to IQ. Well we know the mean score if all Americans had taken the test would have been about 770 (the mean verbal + the mean math), but we don’t know the standard deviation.

On page 779 of the book *The Bell Curve* by Herrnstein and Murray, they cite the formula for calculating the standard deviation of a composite score.

r is the correlation between the two tests that make up the composite and σ is the standard deviation of the two tests.

Herrnstein and Murray also claim that for the entire SAT population, the correlation between SAT verbal and SAT math is 0.67. Of course we’re interested in the correlation if ALL American young adults had taken the old SAT, not just the SAT population. If they had, it’s possible the correlation would have been higher than 0.67 given less range restriction in the general population compared to the college bound population. On the other hand, the college bound population had studied verbal and math skills more diligently during high school, thus perhaps inflating the correlation. Assuming these two factors cancel out, and the correlation was probably the same for the college bound population as for the general population, then applying the above formula gives a general population combined standard deviation of 203.77.

So,

formula 3:

full-scale IQ (U.S. norms) = [(combined SAT) – 770)/203.77][15] + 100

This formula appears to give fairly good results, at least up to the mid 1550s. For example, scholar Ron Hoeflin claimed that out of a bit over 5,000,000 high-school seniors who took the SAT from 1984 through 1988, only 1,282 had combined scores of 1540+.

Hoeflin has argued that even though only a third of U.S. teens took the SAT, virtually 100% of teens capable of scoring extremely high on the SAT, did so, and whatever shortfall there might be was negated by bright foreign test-takers.

Thus, a score of 1540+ is not merely the 1,282 best among 5 million SAT takers, but among ALL fifteen million Americans who were 17 years-old anytime from 1984 through 1988. In other words, 1540 was a one in 11,700 score, which on the normal curve, equates to an IQ of 157 (sigma 15).

Using formula 3, 1540 also equates to exactly IQ 157.

However above 1560, the formula seems to yield IQs that are too low, given their actual rarity. This is because people who scored above 1560 typically hit the ceiling on the math section and approach the ceiling on the verbal, so people capable of scoring well above 1600 if the test had more hard items, tend to cluster in the high 1500s.

chocolate babies?

said:apparently 90% of the canadian curriculum is hockey.

no need to look it up peepee.

rho(X, Y) = E(XY)/sigma(X)sigma(Y).

var(X+Y) = E((X+Y)^2) = E(X^2 + 2XY + Y^2)

therefore var(X+Y) = var(X) + var(Y) +2sigma(X)sigma(Y)rho(X, Y)

pumpkinperson

said:I discovered it in Murray’s book over a decade ago. Just citing it. But good job explaining it.

pumpkinperson

said:Now if you can extrapolate to a composite of three sub-scales, you can calculate the theoretical rarity of a high GRE score

agniputraabhoy

said:Can anybody please solve this? apparently an 130+ IQ question

9753, 7824, 1814106, 87, ?, ?

The Philosopher

said:9753, 7824, 1814106, 87, 36282012, 9646

The Philosopher

said:9753, 7824, 1814106, 87, 36282012, 9646, 72564024, 105

agniputraabhoy

said:???

Barack Thatcher

said:Close, I think, but why did you shift from multiplying single digits x2, to doing double/tens digits?

I.E. 1814106->36282012

18×2, 14×2, etc.

but in the given it was 9753->1814106

9×2, 7×2, etc.

using your method it would’ve been

97×2->194

53×2->106

so it WOULD have been 9753, 7824, 194106

?

agniputraabhoy

said:the only solution I can find is

for the first number…Just double every alternate number from the first number digit-wise

9 7 5 3

18 14 10 6

noe taking 1814106

1 8 1 4 1 0 6

2 16 2 8 2 0 12

OR 216282012

now the second number

9753

7824 second number of first line become first number of second line and second

number of second line is +1 of the first number of second line

1814106

87 second number of first line become first number of second line and second

number of second line is -1 of the first number of second line

216282012

12 second number of first line become first number of second line and

second number of second line is +1 of the first number of second line

(Alternate + and -)

Only thing is the 24 of 7824 remains unaccounted for

Barack Thatcher

said:That’s probably right because one can just look at how the ‘number of numbers for each number’ are increasing at a certain rate.

agniputraabhoy

said:Philosopher could you. Please. Elaborate. Your answer. …

RaceRealist

said:Why refer to yourself in the third person?

agniputraabhoy

said:I am not the second account of Philosopher..I am my own person..Philosopher is most probably white..I am fair skinned high caste North Indian

okay I have found another way to tackle the answer and I feel that 24 is like “junk code” (like junk dna code) in the whole pattern

9753

7824 again the second digit of first line becomes the first digit of second line

Now from 9753 take 7 out as it has already been used in the second line

Now 9+5+3 is 17 and 1+7 is 8

So second digit of second line should be 8

1814106

87 again the second digit of the first line becomes the first digit of second line

so from 1814106 we take 8 out, but we also take the last digit out…since in

first iteration we used all the digits except the one used in the second line#

so we get 1+1+4+1+0 = 7 …so the second digit of the secind line is 7

216282012 ———————normal doubling of the digits that we already figured out

12 again the second digit of the first line becomes the first

digit of the second line .

but now in this third iteration we will take out two digits

from the end for out calculation purposes

as well as the second digit of the first line

so answer for the secind digit of the second line is:

2+6+2+8+2+0=20

2+0=2

This we we get 1 and 2 therefore 12

Off topic: How many of you view Reality/existence is Cosnciousness based and/or a

computer simulation

Anybody of you interested in Aryan philosophies like early Buddhism,Upanishads, Bhagavad Gita, Rig Veda and stuffs?

I personally am convinced that Reality is a computer simulation running on some sort of distributed consciousness cores OR a Consciousness engine

RaceRealist

said:I was talking to PP.

What about Aryans? Muh blonde haired blue eyed Aryans?

Santo piece und loeb

said:PP is quite narcisistic…

The Philosopher

said:The 24 is not junk.

It makes sense.

The Philosopher

said:This is a curious rule that is quite unique! Maybe I’m seeing something not there. But it makes sense…look at my second answer with another iteration.

The Philosopher

said:Barack, that sequence comes in sets of 4 digits. You cannot change that decision rule with multiplication.

The Philosopher

said:ABCD X2 = A(2) B(2) C(2) D (2)

Not A(2)A'(2) B(2)B'(2) and so on.

The Philosopher

said:I meant to say 4 slots, not 4 digits.

The Philosopher

said:There are 2 sequences, not one overall decision rule.

agniputraabhoy

said:would you please explain in a bit elaborate terms please ..how you did? and especially the rules for the second level of numbers

like 7824,87, 9646,105

The Philosopher

said:Well that would spoil the fun now, wouldn’t it Agni.

Santo piece und loeb

said:”Autism or very low verbal IQ is a minimum libertarianism requirement. You cannot believe anarchy could work if the people were of various races, with no united/authoritarian enemy, and without a central incentive/punishment system for deviant behaviour if you weren’t autistic.

Autists simply extrapolate their rule following and low T behaviour to other humans. WORK HARD PLAY FAIR AND IF THE IRRATIONAL BULLIES BEAT ME UP THAN NOBODY WILL TRADE BASEBALL CARDS WITH THEM.

You can judge a person’s political affiliation by their upper body strength and sense of fashion.”

Philosopher,

great part of brazilian libertarians i know personally and in the social medias don’t appear to be autistic to me.

You are literalizing wrongly the Seiler sentence: ”libertarianism is applied autism”. It’s not.

illuminaticatblog

said:I looked up ACT on Wikipedia and it turns out the highest score possible is 36. It is not scaled at all. My composite was 19 which is the 41st percentile.

About the same number of people take the ACT as the SAT. This means 33 percent of people take the ACT and 41 percent of 33.3 is 13.653 – That number added to 66.6 is 80.253 – The 80th percentile in IQ is 113. And 113 is my full-scale score on the wais 4

agniputraabhoy

said:Race Realist

Talking about Indo Europeans who migrated to India