In this series I’ve been estimating a reader’s IQ using different methods, and now in part 3 we examine his psychometric history. Psychometric history is especially important in forensic cases where criminals may have faked their current low scores to avoid culpability, so they need to be corroborated by past scores.
The reader wrote:
My ‘reading level’ was assessed at 4th grade when I was in the 3rd grade, and 5th grade when I was in the 4th grade.
Unfortunately claims like this are ambiguous because “reading level” is not defined. Does reading at a 8th grade level mean reading like the average 8th grader? I don’t think so because even half of U.S. adults can’t read at an 8th grade level, so maybe these grade levels are relics from an era when only elites made it to high school.
The reader the provides a less ambiguous statement:
At 13 I was given a reading comprehension test and told that I was on the same level as the average college freshman.
Americans with “some college (13 -15 years of education)” have an average IQ of 102 (U.S. norms). Americans who graduate college (16+ years of education) have an average IQ of 111. College freshman eventually enter either of these categories so let’s split the difference and assume they have an average IQ of 107 (68 percentile).
Of course reading comprehension and IQ are not identical, but they are so highly correlated that we’d expect college freshman to be around the same percentile on both (for young adults).
If average college freshman reading skill is at the 68th percentile for young adults, what percentile is it at for 13-year-olds? I don’t have data on reading comprehension per se, but using vocabulary as a proxy, the WAIS-R and WISC-R manuals show that a vocabulary score that would put you between the 63rd to 75th percentile among 18 to 19-year-olds, would put you at the 95th to 98th percentile among 13-year-olds. So we might guess that the reader had a reading IQ of 128.
The reader also wrote:
The mean of my scores on Paul Cooijmans’ tests is 131. The median is, I believe, identical. My highest score is 148 and my lowest is 118 (excluding one spatial test on which my raw score was 0).
A raw score of 0 on Cooijman’s spatial test probably equates to an IQ of 103 or less.
The reader states:
My US Mensa ‘pretest’ score was 120. This was the first I.Q. test that I took as an adult. My [redacted by pp, 2021-04-14] score was 130 (137 verbal, 118 performance). I won’t mention any other online tests because they probably aren’t even remotely credible.
I redacted the name of one of the test’s he took because in my opinion, that test gives people too much exposure to the type of content on professional tests, and thus could compromise them.
So it looks like on credible tests, his scores range from 103 or less, all the way up to 148. Assuming his highest and lowest score were on tests that correlate about 0.7 (typical correlation between different IQ tests), 128 is what his real IQ is likely to be. Perhaps lower, since his lowest score suffered from floor bumping, but not much lower since his lowest score was an outlier.
Pumpkin Person 
“A raw score of 0 on Cooijman’s spatial test probably equates to an IQ of 103 or less.”
As does misplacing that apostrophe
“I redacted the name of one of the test’s he took because in my opinion, that test gives people too much exposure to the type of content on professional tests, and thus could compromise them.”
Why might it “compromise them”?
Because once you’ve seen similar test items, they no longer measure novel problem solving
Are tests experience-independent or experience-dependent?
Rather, is the information (items) on any test experience-dependent or experience-independent
It depends how you measure experience. Flynn came up with a genius way to quantify the effects of shared experience on different tests. He found that on several tests thought to measure novel problem solving the effects vanished in early childhood. On crystallized tests like Vocabulary they could persist to middle age.
Which book/paper?
https://pumpkinperson.com/2016/08/31/james-flynns-brilliant-new-book/
Please link to cooijman’s spacial test.
I would tell the subject that he has a good brain and to stop obsessing about IQ. It’s a human construct that does not define a person and it’s true purpose is to identify those in need of remedial help, not to be worn like some badge of honor. It doesn’t exempt you from responsibility to work and create. He should focus on finding what he loves and is passionate about(I realize this is easier said than done) and try to build a skill set where he can gain some stability and $$$ in his life. The world is tough for everybody and we all have a learning curve and can be made to feel stupid or inadequate at times. Most human activities don’t require that much intelligence to achieve a high degree of mastery. When asked what traits Nobel laureates had in common, the famous physicist enrico fermi said,”none, not even intelligence!”
Wow, I think what you said was really inspirational and beautiful. Thank you so much.
So the bio-demographic score was right. Based on what he wrote in the first post, my guess was 120-125. That spatial test is my favourite, it’s beautiful and fun. IIRC you draw all of your answers, which I loved.
I can’t find the test you guys speak of. Could you link me to it?
I don’t think you can get the spatial test by itself, it’s included in this one https://iq-tests-for-the-high-range.com/tfg_ns16.html
It takes certain skills to achieve a high SAT IQ. If a high SAT IQ meant something then it should be transferable to learning in other areas of study. What does transferable mean in IQ terms? It means solving problems not specified on the SAT.
And so if you have an SAT IQ of 145 and went off by yourself to solve problems in your given domain, what advantages would you have. What exactly is it that having a high SAT IQ not helpful for?
If I am the best videogame player is that the same as the best SAT scorer. If I get a high SAT score and I suck at video games then the skill between them is low. A high SAT score does not necessarily help on video games but perhaps on other things.
SAT IQ is not as narrow as toothpick IQ or train IQ but it is wide enough to be correlated with (g). Its problem though is that it may be low on fluid intelligence as many kinds exist people could use to substitute other fluid forms of intelligence.
My bankrupt university cut my program. Either I can continue my degree online at another university, or I will need to switch to a different program. Parliament will probably intervene though, so I will wait a while before deciding.
Since I was 9 almost every teacher I’ve had has told me I’m incredibly smart, at 18 I took an iq test and scored 158 but I call it bullshit
I’m unemployed have shity bedroom, I’m very bad with girls, I hate social interaction more than anything. And can stay indoor for 10 years without having a problem and Eat only bread and milk
So Iq is irrelevant if you can’t live in society, or contribute working or have children, no matter if you have a 200 iq.
You are no better than a parasitic [redacted by pp, 2021-04-15] as as far as I’m concerned
I took an iq test and scored 158
uh no.
The idea of you scoring above the one in 10 thousand level on any test is just ridiculous sir. You’re possibly one in 10 level. And maybe much less.
130+ iq is not uncommon among Asperger autistics, so if you take the factors you are using to come up with the 1 in a 10,000 level and narrow it down to autists its much more common. also if you exclude non-whites it’s even more common
Me aspergers isn’t a concept they want to use anymore but I still find it helpful to say it to refer to functionally capable autistics who can live independently. Most autists are low Iq retardants. I had a friend growing up who I realised later in life was an aspect and he had a brother that just was cemetery retarded and who had to live in a special home. I bet anything he was autistic as well.
Another William Playfair Websaid:June 21, 2016 at 5:55 am
Is the level at which someone writes, roughly the same as reading level?
For instance, you could estimate the IQs of some of your readers by the comments they write?
pumpkinpersonsaid:June 21, 2016 at 6:12 am
A member of Prometheus did that once for fun.
I think it works at low levels, but beyond a certain point, complex writing is actually bad writing, and thus a sign of low IQ. However it takes a high IQ to understand bad writing.
Chris Montez
I rest my case ladies and gentlemen.