Recently my readers and I took the quick and enjoyable Verbal (Gc) Test developed by Antjuan Finch. Finch provides the following norms for his test:
I polled my readers on how they did on this quiz
I converted these results into percentiles and then normalized Z scores, but because my readers are far smarter and more variable than the general U.S. population (mean 100, SD 15) the Z scores were multiplied by an SD of 19 and added to a mean of 129 (U.S. norms). Despite adding the Z scores to such a high mean, my IQ equivalents were still much lower Finch’s:
30 = 78 percentile (among PP readers) = IQ 144
29 = 48 percentile = IQ 128
28 = 34 percentile = IQ 121 (Very Bright)
27 = 25 percentile = IQ 116
26 = 20 percentile = IQ 113
25 = 16 percentile = IQ 110 (Bright)
24 = 14 percentile = IQ 109
23 = 13 percentile = IQ 107
22 = 9 percentile = IQ 104
21 = 6 percentile = IQ 100 (U.S. average)
19 to 20 = 5 percentile = IQ 97
18 = 3 percentile = IQ 94
STILL WAITING! said:
g loading depends on the population from which it’s derived dumb-dumb. That sample is not representative of all SAT takers, let alone all American teens
Goggle is the most g loaded word I know.
the wechsler tests are much more valid that the SAT...for dumb people. said:
just like the wechsler tests.
the SAT and ACT sample smart hs students much better. much much better. millions of test takers vs 2,000.
the above is the ONLY paper i could find.
the ravens is known from other sources to be a shitty IQ test.
[redacted by pp, nov 17, 2020]
More people taking a worse test is not an improvement. The SAT is basically like taking the WAIS if you exclude all subtests except vocabulary and arithmetic and if some people spend years being coached and others take the test cold.
So, if you exclude two of the most g-loaded subtests and neutralize the aspect of the WAIS which makes it a good intelligence test
I don’t understand this figure entirely. Please nerdsplain it to me somebody. Looks interesting.
Austin Slater said:
Every ray is a correlation. In figure A, g has a 0.90 correlation with the SAT.
King meLo said:
Wait it jumps 16 points for just getting one other question right?
It appears to, yes
Hello to all.
It looks like the ceiling is around 136 now (64 percentile) wich makes more sense, even if it goes further away from the author’s own scoring.
I scored 30 mostly by luck because I didn’t now « deft » means adroit or skillful nor that « dour » is a bit like our French « dur ». Thus I guessed.
It depends how you define percentile. If you define percentile as the percentage who score below that point then yes, about 64th but if you define it as the percentage who don’t score higher, then they’re the 100th. If the distribution were perfectly continuous both definitions would give the same value but since the distribution is discrete, I now split the difference and would assign it 82nd
Oprahtion Mamala said:
Oprahtion Mamala said:
Chrystallized and fluid facets of human intelligence are real things but IQ tests are not absolutely impeccable to “measure” them.
Cap'n Crunch has a high IQ. said:
vocab has or had the highest correlation with FSIQ of any subtest.
the Gc/Gf distinction is NOT crystallized vs fluid, this conceptual distinction has no basis in reality.
the tests called “crystallized” are just the most reliable and g-loaded subtests, and the tests called “fluid” are just the shitty cereal box tests that no one without autsim takes seriously.
it’s like: every chess game becomes unique after 20 or so moves, but grandmasters have years of experience and study so they can deal with the unique sitchuh-atchun.
Sadly whatever genetic mutation enhanced your GRE scores (assuming you’re not lying about them since unlike me you’ve never provided documentation) has damaged your social IQ to the point where you can’t grasp basic psychology. The difference between fluid vs crystallized is quite real as evidenced by the fact that WAIS performance IQ declines twice as much from age 50 to 70 as does WAIS verbal IQ. Extra life experience can’t negate a shrinking brain on novel problem solving the way it can on knowledge tests.
and scott adams is short. said:
btw, scott adams and i came to the exact same conclusions independently regarding the election.
That distribution makes it look like more people would have scored 31 than 29, which I find hard to believe. No obvious fake scores to rule out like the PATMA unfortunately. Although, it seems like avid readers of this blog are all 30+ y/o, so a high crystalized intelligence score is maybe expected.
Speak for yourself….Im 24.
I’m 20, but let’s not make this a competition. This post https://pumpkinperson.com/2020/09/17/the-iqs-of-pp-readers/ indicates 1/2 or more of all readers are +25 (assuming there are some international readers).
Austin Slater said:
I wonder what percentage of pp’s readers are married. I don’t think any of the regular commenters are.
Vegan DHA said:
I wanrt to brag a bit: My native language is not English, yet I scored 27/30. I did not know many of the words, but etymology and logic helped me.
Is there a way to estimate how well you would have scored if you were a native English speaker? How do you do on non-verbal tests or tests in your own language?
Vegan DHA said:
To be honest, I might have (have had?) the same score even if English was my mother tongue, cause some of those words seemed out of reach even for many Americans etc. I don’t take non-verbal tests in Greek but the English instructions are pretty simple. I do relatively well but mostly because of high motivation and experience. They’re always out of context, though: 1 RAPM question here, 1 number sequence there…all over the internet.
Vegan DHA said:
Bruno is back! I was wondering what happened.
Are you taking into consideration the “Lizardman’s Constant” in your poll?
Hard to correct for that but when possible I’ve done so
Fascinating stuff. Although, self-report scores are fairly unreliable. If you’d like, I can send you the results for everyone that took the test between November 17 and 18, as those results are likely mostly from people who took the test as a result of your posting here. Glancing over the results from those days, I see that there was a very high number of unfinished sessions and retakes during those days–I’ll let you all infer why that may been the case. Also, 43% of the test’s takers during those days did not achieve a perfect score on it during those days. If I were to provide a rough estimate of the average score during that period, I’d say that it was in the low 130s, or possibly high 120s.
Yes, send me it if you have time. it would be interesting to see how your data from that period corresponds to the self-reported data I got.
Lurker Man said:
FWIW I scored 29/30 on this verbal test, and 9/10 on the PATMA. I don’t know what my IQ is, I believe at least 120, but not sure of the exact number.
Here are the results from November 17th. You seem to have driven quite a bit of traffic to my site. Also, I should note that the adjusted sample’s results are likely to some extent inflated, as with the data I have I can’t be absolutely sure when someone retakes the test. It should also be noted that composite scores (FSIQs) tend to regress to the mean, so the actual average IQ of your readers, according to my test, is probably considerably closer to 130.
I know this is old but I took the test and got 28/30 which you equate to 121. I previously took https://openpsychometrics.org/tests/VIQT/ and also got 121 so your numbers seem good (Almost too good). I was under the impression that speed is supposed to be used as well though. Would think that someone who scored 27 but with say 7 mins to spare would be considered higher I than my 28 with 2 mins?
It should also be noted that people with relatively high IQs appear to more likely to actually finish tests that have moderately ceilings. So while the average Verbal IQ of the readers here who are willing to take a 15-minute test may actually be about 135, the actual overall Verbal IQ and FSIQ of your readers may be considerably lower.
Sultan Touma said:
I got a 30/30 and did not find it particularly challenging. I didn’t rush and still had 6:30 left. I don’t see that translating into 150 or anything close, but I would be skeptical of a 150 for me even if it was hard, which this wasn’t. I should take a real IQ test but I’m too lazy.
Having a somewhat plodding, word-by-word reading style, I’ve always envied you nimble readers. It seems that most of us are deficient in at least one capacity. BTW, great result.