# What is your IQ (honest answers!)?



## shy girl (May 7, 2010)

Please state whether it was an official test or one you took on-line. I know IQs are not important but I was just wondering if SAers tended to be more/less intelligent than the general internet population (average about 108, I would say) and if people would actually be honest .

I scored 147 on an official test and 139 and 148 on two different on-line tests.


----------



## Lasair (Jan 25, 2010)

do you have a link for an online test?


----------



## river1 (Jan 12, 2012)

Janniffy said:


> do you have a link for an online test?


www.iqtest.com

edit: nevermind.. spent a while doing the test and when i finished and clicked ok it asked for credit card information *_*


----------



## Lasair (Jan 25, 2010)

Okay after reading the guidelines I think bad Idea as I am dyslexic lol


----------



## guppy88 (Nov 12, 2010)

i've taken an online test before. I got a score of 140. I've taken one from school as well which was 110-115 can't remember exactly. I just felt dumb after it though.


----------



## One Man Wolfpack (Aug 11, 2011)

I got 133 and 149 on two online tests, I doubt they are accurate though.


----------



## TheRob (Dec 30, 2006)

I completed two IQ tests as a kid. But the administrators did not share the scores with anyone.


----------



## Rest or Real? (Apr 1, 2011)

I have a genius intelligence quotient. No lie. It's 160.


----------



## RenegadeReloaded (Mar 12, 2011)

I'm dumb as a rock :troll

Anyway I would like to have high EQ rather than IQ.


----------



## InfiniteBlaze (Jan 27, 2011)

Never took an IQ test.


----------



## laura024 (Aug 11, 2006)

I'm probably half retarded according to an IQ test. There are many ways to measure intelligence, so a low score doesn't mean you're dumb.

Btw, 100 is average.


----------



## pita (Jan 17, 2004)

I took an online test once. I don't remember the number--I just remember being of average intelligence, which is probably about right.


----------



## shy girl (May 7, 2010)

lolAname said:


> www.iqtest.com
> 
> edit: nevermind.. spent a while doing the test and when i finished and clicked ok it asked for credit card information *_*


You don't have to enter it, it sends the e-mail anyway.


----------



## InfiniteBlaze (Jan 27, 2011)

ITT: We learn that everyone on SAS is a genius


----------



## successful (Mar 21, 2009)

Never taken a IQ test, Probably never will.


----------



## thankyouberry (Aug 11, 2011)

I'm not going to take one. Having a numerical ceiling on your intelligence (regardless of how inaccurate it is)... that's just depressing. lol


----------



## estse (Nov 18, 2003)

I took an IQ test when I was around 22. It took a course of days and hours to get through everything, and what definitely anxiety provoking. Therefore, I discount my final score.


----------



## katiebird (Sep 25, 2011)

Idk... but it's probally very low


----------



## Cheesecake (Feb 2, 2007)

I have never taken one.


----------



## odd_one_out (Aug 22, 2006)

Okay, smart alecs, solve these  (I made them intermediate level so should be no problem). No one seemed to give them a go in my thread.


----------



## Blawnka (Dec 12, 2011)

Not a clue.


----------



## littlerivers (Jan 17, 2012)

Everyone thinks they're slightly above average. It's a trait typical of humanity.


----------



## luffy (Jun 2, 2011)

there's no such thing as IQ.


----------



## FitchForce (Jan 3, 2011)

I graduated from college with a 3.80, that's all i know.


----------



## thankyouberry (Aug 11, 2011)

odd_one_out said:


> Okay, smart alecs, solve these  (I made them intermediate level so should be no problem). No one seemed to give them a go in my thread.


Are we supposed to draw the answer?


----------



## odd_one_out (Aug 22, 2006)

^ Answer any way you like (through sketch or description) as long as the steps to how you arrived at the answer are clearly described or shown.


----------



## mixolydian (May 23, 2009)

Alright I'll have a crack! my paint skills have failed me so I'll just describe what I think they are. First one with the 4 circles in the big circle I think the next one should be the same as the first one. I'm pretty much basing that on the black circle rotating anti-clockwise. The second has me stumped, I'm guessing it has something to do with the straight lines and the half circles rotating at different angles to one another at each stage so that they come apart but I can't guess how. The third is just the shape rotating 135 degrees clockwise. The fourth has the furthermost semi-circles moving in two half-circle lengths each time while the inner-most semi-circles move in one half-circle length at a time. So based on that, there would be two intersecting half-circles a full-circle length apart.


----------



## David777 (Feb 6, 2011)

I don't recall my IQ score so-to-speak, but I remember back in elementary school they did have me take an IQ test and immediately afterwards they transfered me to the advanced classes where all the smart kids where.

And I must have really been something special! Because they even sent a special private shuttle that would come to my door to pick me up everyday.


----------



## LittleSister (Jan 22, 2011)

I kind of think IQ tests are bull.


----------



## guppy88 (Nov 12, 2010)

Rest or Real? said:


> I have a genius intelligence quotient. No lie. It's 160.


Can you be my tutor?


----------



## MJM58 (Jan 29, 2011)

InfiniteBlaze said:


> ITT: We learn that everyone on SAS is a genius


LOL! Couldn't have said it better myself! :haha


----------



## huh (Mar 19, 2007)

62. I win.


----------



## Matomi (Sep 4, 2011)

151
It's more than likely to be wrong, then again, who knows...


----------



## Charizard (Feb 16, 2011)

General FYI, online tests don't measure your IQ any more than you can guess what your SAT score would be from a flash game. They're fun and all, but the results mean nothing.


----------



## JAkDy (Jan 23, 2011)

Tested 3 times at different stages of my life.

I've scored between 133-139 each time.


----------



## anthrotex (Oct 24, 2011)

I tested as a child, which is when they're most accurate, and scored a 127. Online (which isn't very accurate) I always score in the 140s, as do most people.


----------



## lonelyjew (Jan 20, 2010)

Charizard said:


> General FYI, online tests don't measure your IQ any more than you can guess what your SAT score would be from a flash game. They're fun and all, but the results mean nothing.


I agree. I think online tests tend to be overly friendly. I think I got a 138 on an online one, never took the real deal, and honestly while I know I'm smart, I don't think I'm 138 smart given that 135 = 99th percentile for intellect (or rather the subset of intellect that the IQ tests test for). I'm also having a hard time believing some of the lofty claims being thrown around in this forum, but maybe that's a defense mechanism on my part lol.

In any case, I'm smart enough to get by, and to outperform the majority of my medical school class on exams . Those numbers will have to suffice for my personal pride.


----------



## Melinda (Feb 5, 2009)

I was tested in high school, came out somewhere in the 120-130 range.


----------



## cold fission cure (Aug 31, 2010)

Took one on the World Wide Internet at college and it said my iq was genious level and that I am deemably qualfied to purchasing membership in their high iq society. To bad my credit card was maxed out or I could be talking to fellow genisuses right now on a cruise ship sailing the seven oceans or something. Forgot to write down the web address to. Should've have printed it off so I could shove it in peoples faces who don't think I know stuff.


----------



## BobtheBest (Aug 27, 2011)

I did this just for fun. I got a 95.


----------



## DubnRun (Oct 29, 2011)

67,000

nah really though IQ test to define intelligence is just nonsensical


----------



## odd_one_out (Aug 22, 2006)

mixolydian said:


> Alright I'll have a crack! my paint skills have failed me so I'll just describe what I think they are. First one with the 4 circles in the big circle I think the next one should be the same as the first one. I'm pretty much basing that on the black circle rotating anti-clockwise. The second has me stumped, I'm guessing it has something to do with the straight lines and the half circles rotating at different angles to one another at each stage so that they come apart but I can't guess how. The third is just the shape rotating 135 degrees clockwise. The fourth has the furthermost semi-circles moving in two half-circle lengths each time while the inner-most semi-circles move in one half-circle length at a time. So based on that, there would be two intersecting half-circles a full-circle length apart.


You got the final 2 correct. Thanks for posting :] - you're the only person who's given them a go apparently.


----------



## bran808 (Apr 27, 2011)

Well I took an adult (if that makes a difference) iq test when I was 8 or 9 and scored around 105 so I'm guessing its a bit higher now.


----------



## Luka92 (Dec 13, 2011)

I scored 124 and 132 on online tests. I don't trust those things, I just did it for fun.


----------



## jessckuh (Jul 27, 2010)

Mines was 100 on an official IQ test. I've been doing extra studying because I felt like an idiot, lol. Lots of these sites would give anyone a 130+. Unless you're a GENIUS on a real IQ test you will not get over 120. The official one is HARD!! Lol.


----------



## lad (Sep 26, 2011)

I just did an online one and got 10 million, so I geuss that was wrong because when I did an official one I got 9,999,999. Can't trust anything on the internet nowadays.


----------



## Akane (Jan 2, 2008)

I have a tendency to get bored on those tests and start making fast intuitive guesses halfway through and usually get something like 120. I can't remember the official one in highschool psych class... maybe 115 or so. I know higher than 110 at least.

I don't know how accurate that really is for anything. I was never in less than the 95th and rarely less than the 99th percentile on standardized tests even the ones adjusted just for Iowa and if it wasn't for my language problems I would have had a 30 on the ACT (32 is perfect I believe). My academic knowledge is higher and my ability to look up and sort information is higher than iq tests (not online) would probably lead most to believe.


----------



## JAkDy (Jan 23, 2011)

I did it for fun, got 141.


----------



## Snail Shells (Feb 11, 2012)

DubnRun said:


> 67,000
> 
> nah really though IQ test to define intelligence is just nonsensical


Yep. IQ as a measure for intelligence is _extremely _silly.


----------



## Fruitcake (Jan 19, 2012)

I took a test at school and my IQ is 99. I never got 99 out of 100 on a test before so I felt pretty smart.


----------



## nonesovile (Dec 4, 2011)

I took a test and got 80

But got 118 on another


----------



## laura024 (Aug 11, 2006)

Fruitcake said:


> I took a test at school and my IQ is 99. I never got 99 out of 100 on a test before so I felt pretty smart.


It's not out of 100...lol. 100 is the average score.


----------



## estse (Nov 18, 2003)

laura024 said:


> It's not out of 100...lol. 100 is the average score.


Says you, girl genius!


----------



## laura024 (Aug 11, 2006)

Mercurochrome said:


> Says you, girl genius!


Not a genius, but not dumb either.


----------



## Rossy (Jan 15, 2011)

110


----------



## Fruitcake (Jan 19, 2012)

laura024 said:


> It's not out of 100...lol. 100 is the average score.


I know, I was being silly. A woman I knew once said that seriously.


----------



## estse (Nov 18, 2003)

I got a 130. I still don't believe IQ scores can ever be 100% accurate, but that's what the doctor scored me after hours of trial and tribulation. I didn't like his face.


----------



## River In The Mountain (Jun 6, 2011)

I have scored on a few different tests, all results between 140 and 160.


I don't think IQ tests are all that accurate though.


----------



## JimmyDeansRetartedCousin (Nov 28, 2009)

Probably a lot lower than I'd like it to be, but who needs a brain when you've got a smartphone!


----------



## blue the puppy (Jul 23, 2011)

35


----------



## AllToAll (Jul 6, 2011)

I took an IQ test when I was in high school and the score was 110. From what I recall that was average. I had no idea there were so many geniuses here in the SAS forums. :lol


----------



## Fruitcake (Jan 19, 2012)

Probably the people who got average or slightly above average scores just don't post here, but the ones with genius IQs all want to talk about it.


----------



## Boring Loser (Oct 21, 2011)

i don't know and i don't care


----------



## enzo (May 30, 2011)

I don't believe in IQ


----------



## Bethy (Jun 23, 2011)

-10 

oh wait....


----------



## jtb3485 (Nov 9, 2003)

I don't know mine and I don't want to know.


----------



## CWe (Mar 7, 2010)

1 
im kiddin, i dont know really...


----------



## shyguyy (Mar 1, 2012)

I score around 120 - 125 in the online tests. So my IQ is 130.


----------



## Jess2 (Oct 2, 2011)

I am pretttty sure online tests rate you as higher than you would be...

Ive never taken a test. maybe someday.


----------



## GameGuy (Oct 5, 2011)

I had one a few years ago. I don't remember my score, but I do remember I scored average on every part of the test. But in the creative skills section, I scored above average in the 120 range.


----------



## huh (Mar 19, 2007)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusory_superiority

Nothing to see here, just planting some seeds...


----------



## MsDaisy (Dec 27, 2011)

F


----------



## Onomatopoeia (May 27, 2011)

My grade 8 History teacher always used to say: ''IQ gets you in the door. EQ gets you to the top!"

CBC had a nationally televised IQ test a few years ago. I scored 136-140. I beat my dad


----------



## philosophy (Oct 15, 2010)

AllToAll said:


> I took an IQ test when I was in high school and the score was 110. From what I recall that was average. I had no idea there were so many geniuses here in the SAS forums. :lol


Yeah, quite the irony that most of the self-proclaimed geniuses tend to be cluttered together on online forums.:teeth


----------



## GameGuy (Oct 5, 2011)

Onomatopoeia said:


> My grade 8 History teacher always used to say: ''IQ gets you in the door. EQ gets you to the top!"
> 
> CBC had a nationally televised IQ test a few years ago. I scored 136-140. I beat my dad


 What EQ?


----------



## Onomatopoeia (May 27, 2011)

GameGuy said:


> What EQ?


EQ/EI = emotional intelligence


----------



## Nekomata (Feb 3, 2012)

Something really very low. *not all that bright*


----------



## Pennywise (Aug 18, 2011)

According to a "Mensa-like" test, I have a 124 I.Q.


----------



## odd_one_out (Aug 22, 2006)

Be aware, like with anything, there are tests administered by incompetent people who don't know the research basis, how you really need to do several tests to get an average, or how people's performances are partly dependent on their neurologies. For instance, timed tests and giving verbal answers are less suitable for introverts and the socially anxious (test anxiety wrecks performance), and tests of fluid rather than crystallised intelligence are more suitable for people with ASDs.


----------



## ShyGuy86 (Sep 17, 2011)

I've taken a few tests out of curiosity, and I usually score 105-110.


----------



## Chrysalii (Jun 24, 2006)

WAIS-III (about 7 years ago, so it's outdated)
102 Full scale (I don't recall the individual scores, but that's the aggregate of everything). It's also a one-to-one test (you and the test giver) so SA probably dragged that down.

Last time I ever took any form of one. The time before that I had a 115 (WISC-III, I think). 

Also I wonder why IQ scores are always reported as high on the internet. Could be some bias or sorts (people with higher scores are more likely to post them, lower scores are more likely to not), or bad tests or something else. It could also be flat out lying. but it's proof to me that IQ is useless (in a non-clinical sense) if the best someone can do is post it on the internet. That's also why I haven't cared since.


----------



## cold fission cure (Aug 31, 2010)

took a holistic IQ test online a lil over a year ago. it was free since i bought over $25 of magnetic healing crystals. each person's IQ is described with 5 "words of significance", rather than relying upon the quantitative score that the capitalist Pig Power Structure is so fond of. my IQ is "rushing, cosmos, paternal, dawn, and spheroid" (pretty sure those were my descriptors at least).


----------



## millenniumman75 (Feb 4, 2005)

Every test I have taken has put me in the 150 range.


----------



## axxs (Jul 30, 2010)

so many guys with iq above 130,everyone must be scoring 2200+ on their SATs lol.


----------



## Resonance (Feb 11, 2010)

302


----------



## Joe (May 18, 2010)

I got 149 on an online one about a year ago but I doubt its accurate.


----------



## TooLoud (Feb 17, 2012)

State test=128


----------



## heyJude (Aug 1, 2009)

I have no idea. But I do know that whatever it is, it decreases by about 50 points whenever I'm in the presence of a hot stud. Unfortunately. lol


----------



## TheoBobTing (Jul 8, 2010)

Thanks to a highly reputable online test I now know that my IQ is in fact 370.


----------



## Keith (Aug 30, 2008)

-Z They gave me a smiley face sticker and said I was special


----------



## enfield (Sep 4, 2010)

Around 125-135 i would guess . my scores on the SAT were 2140 and 2270.


----------



## Fruitcake (Jan 19, 2012)

I would estimate mine to be 9001.


----------



## mzmz (Feb 26, 2012)

*trolls LOL*

I took an online test years ago. It was 119.
I skipped most of the math, becuase math makes me hyperventilate.:roll


----------



## Cletis (Oct 10, 2011)

Took one IQ test from a CD ROM and got like a 132 or something. Probably not accurate though. I took an EQ test from a CD ROM too and scored extremely high, don't remember the number but it said it was very high. Probably not that accurate either. I think my IQ is probably just slightly higher than average.


----------



## tea111red (Nov 8, 2005)

Average.


----------



## cgj93 (Dec 13, 2010)

-


----------



## blue the puppy (Jul 23, 2011)

for a better guesstimate of your IQ, try correlating your standardized test scores, like this: http://www.assessmentpsychology.com/iq.htm


----------



## Fruitcake (Jan 19, 2012)

LostIdentity said:


> I always thought that if you have social anxiety, your EQ would probably be quite low.


I think EQ places more importance on self-awareness and empathy. You can understand people's emotions and know how to respond to them but just be unable to because of anxiety, which means you can have a high EQ but not deal well with social situations anyway.


----------



## rosa1992 (Mar 7, 2012)

i think its not necessary for me im just dumb :l


----------



## estse (Nov 18, 2003)

Slightly above Dumbass Retard.


----------



## Layla (Feb 24, 2012)

I've taken two online tests before, my results were, 144 and 138, but as others have said, I don't know how reliable they are.


----------



## arnie (Jan 24, 2012)

Depends on which online test I'm taking.


----------



## targetbuddy (Jul 31, 2012)

I was evaluated last year for mental issues, and at that time I had a FSIQ of 121.


----------



## Genetic Garbage (May 7, 2011)

I have never taken an official IQ test but I am pretty sure it would tell me I am mentally retarded, or at least pretty close to it, since I am horrible at solving problems that occur in those tests.


----------



## rgrwng (Aug 25, 2011)

i will be nice to everyone and say my IQ is 0 (zero.)


----------



## ourwater (Jun 2, 2012)

132 the first time that I took it in Jr. High.


----------



## shyvr6 (Feb 18, 2008)

I took an IQ test a long time ago, but I don't remember what I got on it. Some say the IQ tests are too limited though. Now they have the multiple intelligence theory where IQ can be measured in different areas.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_multiple_intelligences

Some of you on here are either geniuses or your scores aren't very accurate.


----------



## ourwater (Jun 2, 2012)

blue the puppy said:


> for a better guesstimate of your IQ, try correlating your standardized test scores, like this: http://www.assessmentpsychology.com/iq.htm





> 125	Mean of persons receiving Ph.D. and M.D. degrees


I only scored around 75% - 80% average when I quit nursing school. I scored 55% slightly above average on their entrance exam. I hadn't had school for about 8 years. The last IQ test that I took (my school gave me each revised version) was 126, so I guess that is okay. One of my friends had up in the 150's and took honers courses so I was always jealous.


----------



## PickleNose (Jul 11, 2009)

You're not going to get a really accurate score from a free online test. I took several of them from different sites in 2001 or so and got an average of around 130. But I have a bad memory and when I "learn" things like math or whatever, it's usually only temporary. I seem to recall a lot of math on the test. If I took the same test now, I'd probably be lucky to get 100. 

As they say, there are different ways to measure intelligence. But you're still screwed if you're not smart in all the right ways.


----------



## lisbeth (May 18, 2012)

161 on an official test taken in-person under supervision, etc. I'm a member of British Mensa. They send me a magazine each month where in the letters page very pedantic people argue for months over the legalisation of drugs. There's occasionally an interesting article, but mostly it's just pictures of middle-aged people in trainers and anoraks playing board games at the latest meeting. I wish high IQ was a bit more glamorous. I really hope these nerds aren't representative.


----------



## Luka92 (Dec 13, 2011)

I never took an official test, but I took 2 online tests, out of curiosity. The results were 124 and 132.


----------



## 427 (Aug 6, 2012)

Forrest Gump had an iq of 75
i think the army does not want a person of 80 or less.
each occupation has a sweet spot -
if the person is too smart for the line of work they won't stay with it- high turn over.


----------



## ShadyGFX (Jul 18, 2012)

O_O I got 141 lol


----------



## Monotony (Mar 11, 2012)

97 doesn't count though since 95% of the questions where Math.


----------



## Marlon (Jun 27, 2011)

its over 9000


----------



## T-Bone (Oct 1, 2010)

I think a lot of you are so full of it. 
Anyways, i've taken several tests and the results range between 115-130.


----------



## InfiniteBlaze (Jan 27, 2011)

SomebodyWakeME said:


> I think a lot of you are so full of it.


Yeah, I think some people are lying, but there's also Selection Bias.


----------



## blackeroni (Aug 18, 2012)

96-118 on most online IQ test.


----------



## bluepaint (Jan 28, 2012)

odd_one_out said:


> Okay, smart alecs, solve these  (I made them intermediate level so should be no problem). No one seemed to give them a go in my thread.


I'll try:


----------



## Bbpuff (Sep 1, 2010)

I've never taken an official test yet.


----------



## odd_one_out (Aug 22, 2006)

bluepaint said:


> [...]


Thanks for replying. Half the answers are correct (including the one not attempted).


----------



## DeniseAfterAll (Jul 28, 2012)

Last time I took a very long IQ test and ran out of time.. 

the result was 40 something - A.k.a, Severe mental retardation


----------



## visualkeirockstar (Aug 5, 2012)

0


----------



## whattothink (Jun 2, 2005)

The only official IQ test I've ever taken was when I was in the third grade. I haven't seen the score, but I was given the opportunity to skip a grade. I don't really think I'm above average now, I just think I was an early bloomer.

The only other credible thing I've done is the Mensa Workout. Honest score was 24/30. Meh, I'm satisfied. I skimmed through some of the posts and I'm amazed at the number of geniuses we have here on SAS.


----------



## Visionary (Apr 13, 2010)

I can either let everyone on the internet know my I.Q or let everyone on the internet judge my actions as my intelligence. I'll leave it to that.


----------



## InfiniteBlaze (Jan 27, 2011)

whattothink said:


> The only other credible thing I've done is the Mensa Workout. Honest score was 24/30. Meh, I'm satisfied. I skimmed through some of the posts and I'm amazed at the number of geniuses we have here on SAS.


lol Selcetion Bias, bro.

The people with low IQs aren't posting.


----------



## Visionary (Apr 13, 2010)

InfiniteBlaze said:


> lol Selcetion Bias, bro.
> 
> The people with low IQs aren't posting.


or have no idea that this thread is here. I normally stay away from the GD, but I like to look through threads as this one because I know it's full of bull****. It's also great because the majority of I.Qs posted are from an internet I.Q test.


----------



## brownzerg (Jan 8, 2012)

I dunno its probably bad.

I've got a lot of common sense and intelligence so maybe that makes up for it?


----------



## UltraShy (Nov 8, 2003)

126 on the only official IQ test I've ever taken. A bit dated though as that was back in 1986.


----------



## LoneLioness (Nov 16, 2003)

98 according to http://www.iqtest.dk/main.swf I don't think I'm that dumb


----------



## whattothink (Jun 2, 2005)

LoneLioness said:


> 98 according to http://www.iqtest.dk/main.swf I don't think I'm that dumb


After a quick look, it seems that test only touches on a couple areas of intelligence compared to a standard IQ test.


----------



## louiselouisa (Jul 12, 2012)

according to official tests, 133 in 2002 and 109 in 2010


----------



## AceEmoKid (Apr 27, 2012)

Too lazy to try to take an online one right now, but I think I took an online test a while ago for a thread here on SAS and got 120 or 130. Bunch of BS. Lol.


----------



## totalloner (Jan 29, 2013)

120...a shock to find out I was not the genius I imagined myself to be


----------



## Monotony (Mar 11, 2012)

No clue but just about every person seems to feel the need to mention intelligence any time they need to describe me as if it's the only thing they can think of other than Quiet and independent worker.


----------



## TobeyJuarez (May 16, 2012)

392.... yeah, i had an off day i could do at least 410 if i had gotten more sleep last night... lol jk, i got 124


----------



## Nitrogen (Dec 24, 2012)

I don't know. I took one online a few weeks ago and scored 120-something but I seriously doubt it.


----------



## enfield (Sep 4, 2010)

mine's is medium



Monotony said:


> No clue but just about every person seems to feel the need to mention intelligence any time they need to describe me as if it's the only thing they can think of other than Quiet and independent worker.


aww


----------



## 9mm (Feb 12, 2013)

We got a lot of geniuses on here.


----------



## Alas Babylon (Aug 28, 2012)

My IQ is 135. However I don't put much stock in IQ results, or in IQ based organisations. I've met plenty of people with higher IQs than me who I , honestly, can not take seriously in an intellectual discussion, nor could I view them as funny or truly 'witty' in any sense. And I've met people with lower IQs than me, who I have no doubt are more intelligent than I am. Actual intelligence depends heavily on personality and circumstance, you may have a high IQ, but if you aren't open-minded, or curious about the world, than it doesn't really mean anything.

Some people I have met may have a genuis IQ, but I doubt they have a clue as to ,for example, why there are no quadrepedal birds, why Latin America is poorer than areas colonised by the UK, how Etruscan could be considered Indo-Aegean, and other questions which I would consider relatively simple questions to answer, with the answers being that Avians evolved primarily for flight, and hence never developed quadrepedalism, and given their current biology would never be able to, Spainish and Portuguese colonies were essentially built to exploit the work and wealth of a majority for the benefit of an elite, notably in basing their economies around the exploitation of the native population, a system which current Latin American political and economic institutions are descended from, and Etruscan is theorised by several linguists to derive from a Proto-Aegean language/family that diverges from Proto-Indo-European distinctly enough to be considered as a seperate phylum. 

Relatively simple answers, which only require a basic understanding of geopolitics, history, linguistics, paleontology and evolutionary biology to provide, hence someone with an IQ of more than 120 should, in my opinion, be able to understand or come to these conclusions quite easily by themselves really, as long as they are curious, or have a workable general knowledge.


----------



## BeyondOsiris (Nov 2, 2012)

InfiniteBlaze said:


> ITT: We learn that everyone on SAS is a genius


It could be that only the people with high scores are posting because people with lower scores don't want to be seen as dumb or stupid.

Yes, I realize the post I quoted is more than a year old. lol


----------



## WineKitty (Nov 26, 2004)

I have scored as low as 123 and as high as 157. W the F ever. Doesnt really matter. I know I am not stupid. I don't need a number to verify that.


----------



## enfield (Sep 4, 2010)

Paradox Frog said:


> My IQ is 135. However I don't put much stock in IQ results, or in IQ based organisations. I've met plenty of people with higher IQs than me who I , honestly, can not take seriously in an intellectual discussion, nor could I view them as funny or truly 'witty' in any sense. And I've met people with lower IQs than me, who I have no doubt are more intelligent than I am. Actual intelligence depends heavily on personality and circumstance, you may have a high IQ, but if you aren't open-minded, or curious about the world, than it doesn't really mean anything.
> 
> Some people I have met may have a genuis IQ, but I doubt they have a clue as to ,for example, why there are no quadrepedal birds, why Latin America is poorer than areas colonised by the UK, how Etruscan could be considered Indo-Aegean, and other questions which I would consider relatively simple questions to answer, with the answers being that Avians evolved primarily for flight, and hence never developed quadrepedalism, and given their current biology would never be able to, Spainish and Portuguese colonies were essentially built to exploit the work and wealth of a majority for the benefit of an elite, notably in basing their economies around the exploitation of the native population, a system which current Latin American political and economic institutions are descended from, and Etruscan is theorised by several linguists to derive from a Proto-Aegean language/family that diverges from Proto-Indo-European distinctly enough to be considered as a seperate phylum.
> 
> Relatively simple answers, which only require a basic understanding of geopolitics, history, linguistics, paleontology and evolutionary biology to provide, hence someone with an IQ of more than 120 should, in my opinion, be able to understand or come to these conclusions quite easily by themselves really, as long as they are curious, or have a workable general knowledge.


what's more mysterious to me than the absence of quadrupedal birds is the success of bipedal mammals. like how did we survive on the plains when we could never outrun a cheetah. i will never understand that.

Latin america is not poorer across the board though, is it?. I'm pretty sure some countries are doing fine relative to those areas colonized by the UK. and aren't those the ones will less admixture between the native populations and the settled people? so maybe rather than a marred history of having economies hinged on exploiting the natives (america turned out okay even though the south's economy was based around the labor of imported peoples and their decedents) somehow having long-term ramifications and explaining the poverty observed today, it is more the the prevalence of the native people and their traits (lacking intelligence, industriousness, and so on, as compared the Europeans) in the different geographical areas that explain the respective location's economic success the most succinctly. and the way that this played out - lower intelligence causing less economic development - may be complicated. for example, one could imagine that as time went on the gaps between the populations would widen, making the weaker ones the targets for exploitation of various kinds, putting them farther behind, compounding their deficits, and perhaps locking them into certain roles in the world economy, where the natural path of development as followed by other nations is in some ways blocked for them. i don't know, it could be many things, but the messed up primordial government theory, which happens to screw them over for centuries, sounds kind of implausible.


----------



## Diacetylmorphine (Mar 9, 2011)

Never cared enough to find out.


----------



## Pennywise (Aug 18, 2011)

shy girl said:


> Please state whether it was an official test or one you took on-line. I know IQs are not important but I was just wondering if SAers tended to be more/less intelligent than the general internet population (average about 108, I would say) and if people would actually be honest .
> 
> I scored 147 on an official test and 139 and 148 on two different on-line tests.


Can you link this test you've taken if it's "official"? I've taken various IQ tests online, getting scores ranging from 86-134. Although most of the time I score in the low 120s, I wouldn't put much trust in these online tests considering such a wide margin of difference in scoring.


----------



## Alas Babylon (Aug 28, 2012)

enfield said:


> what's more mysterious to me than the absence of quadrupedal birds is the success of bipedal mammals. like how did we survive on the plains when we could never outrun a cheetah. i will never understand that.
> 
> Latin america is not poorer across the board though, is it?. I'm pretty sure some countries are doing fine relative to those areas colonized by the UK. and aren't those the ones will less admixture between the native populations and the settled people? so maybe rather than a marred history of having economies hinged on exploiting the natives (america turned out okay even though the south's economy was based around the labor of imported peoples and their decedents) somehow having long-term ramifications and explaining the poverty observed today, it is more the the prevalence of the native people and their traits (lacking intelligence, industriousness, and so on, as compared the Europeans) in the different geographical areas that explain the respective location's economic success the most succinctly. and the way that this played out - lower intelligence causing less economic development - may be complicated. for example, one could imagine that as time went on the gaps between the populations would widen, making the weaker ones the targets for exploitation of various kinds, putting them farther behind, compounding their deficits, and perhaps locking them into certain roles in the world economy, where the natural path of development as followed by other nations is in some ways blocked for them. i don't know, it could be many things, but the messed up primordial government theory, which happens to screw them over for centuries, sounds kind of implausible.


Human beings are endurance hunters, as opposed to a sprint hunter. Cheetahs can run much quicker than us, but only for a very short burst. Human beings can run for hours and tire their quarry out. Note how human beings have sweat glands and quite a lot of other physiological adaptations not commonly present in other mammals, that give us a superior ability to maintain homeostasis, whilst active, for extended periods of time.

Well, I was simplistic in my explanation because I didn't think anyone would read it if I went on for multiple paragraphs, but yes you are right in that assertion, Chile and Argentina were colonised in a noticeably different manner, and are hence wealthier than ,say, Paraguay or Bolivia. There are varying degrees, its more of a spectrum of exploitation, some countries, such as Haiti or Liberia, were almost entirely based on exploitation, whereas others, such as Argentina, were partially so, and yet others, such as Australia* and Canada, were almost entirely not based upon exploitation.

Addressing slavery and plantations, this is commonly accepted as one of the key reasons why the Southern states have been historically, and currently are, the poorest states within the US, and have a noticeably different regional identity, 'culture' and social conditions, because the southern states were colonised and settled in a way much closer to the manner in which Brazil or Mexico were. 
This didn't effect the entire US, as the majority of the US economy has never been solely based upon exploitation for a significant period, and its economic and political institutions derive from those formed in the Northern states, and not those formed in the South.

That doesn't make much sense, to claim a correlation towards the native population themselves. This is for multiple reasons, notably that native americans, especially mesoamericans, were not disadvantaged intellectually or economically. The Aztecs and Incans were extraordinarily wealthy and economically developed, as well as ingenius (especially regarding mathematics, astronomy,etc) and they were subjugated by European powers primarily because of their inferior capacity for warfare. 
Historically, the only thing the West has ever really held consistently is a monopoly on organised violence, and thats arguable (Middle-Eastern and East-Asian powers have frequently proved this assumption wrong). Economically, medically, scientifically and socially, the western powers have historically been matched by various Asian, Austronesian and Mesoamerican powers for consistent periods.
The point is, European-Caucasians are not the most intelligent, nor have they ever been, they've merely been the most violently expansionist.

Furthermore, claiming European intelligence is not legitimate. European peoples have been conquered and colonised previously, the Romans didn't think Celtic peoples were anything but savages, the Mongols laughed at Hungarian technology and the Caliphate seemed to enjoy its time in Iberia. Yet British, Hungarian and Spanish people have all since then risen and formed their own empires, which have since fallen. There have been significant periods of history where the centre of civilisation was the Middle East, for example, yet the descendants of these empires have themselves be exploited. There was a time when Iraq was a centre of power, innovation and intelligence, and now it is essentially a third-world failed state, _times change_, and prosperity isn't based upon race.

* As for Australia, some will argue that the use of convicts was exploitation, however, the convicts themselves were not truly slaves, and were afforded significant personal liberties and opportunities, especially once freed. At certain points during the 1800s, convicts in Australia enjoyed more political and economic freedom than a free, law-abiding citizen in England. 
The cause for this is simple, Australian Aboriginals were far too sparsely populated for their exploitation to support an economy, and the lands of New South Wales, Tasmania and other areas first settled, were unable to support plantation based economies, and the only way to actually create revenue was to grant economic and political freedom, to attract settlers and to cause what is now known as 'creative destruction'. Australia, even as a penal colony, had to allow significant freedom to be a successful investment for the British.


----------



## Genetic Garbage (May 7, 2011)

7

I got smarter over the past few weeks. Last time my score was 5.


----------



## Saintly (Dec 28, 2012)

Online - 138 & 144 on a even less legit one (what I remember)

Never took a real one and I would bet $100 that my iq would be average-ish.


----------



## enfield (Sep 4, 2010)

Paradox Frog said:


> Human beings are endurance hunters, as opposed to a sprint hunter. Cheetahs can run much quicker than us, but only for a very short burst. Human beings can run for hours and tire their quarry out. Note how human beings have sweat glands and quite a lot of other physiological adaptations not commonly present in other mammals, that give us a superior ability to maintain homeostasis, whilst active, for extended periods of time.


i don't know if that answers how humans escaped complete predation by the cheetahs and other similarly fearsome and carnivorous animals when we transitioned to the plains. all i can think is how rough it must have been - to start walking upright without yet having the means to protect ourselves. how vulnerable we must have been, and how miraculous that we survived. evidently i am missing some of pieces to the puzzle, unless our survival was really that harrowing.



> Well, I was simplistic in my explanation because I didn't think anyone would read it if I went on for multiple paragraphs, but yes you are right in that assertion, Chile and Argentina were colonised in a noticeably different manner, and are hence wealthier than ,say, Paraguay or Bolivia. There are varying degrees, its more of a spectrum of exploitation, some countries, such as Haiti or Liberia, were almost entirely based on exploitation, whereas others, such as Argentina, were partially so, and yet others, such as Australia* and Canada, were almost entirely not based upon exploitation.
> 
> Addressing slavery and plantations, this is commonly accepted as one of the key reasons why the Southern states have been historically, and currently are, the poorest states within the US, and have a noticeably different regional identity, 'culture' and social conditions, because the southern states were colonised and settled in a way much closer to the manner in which Brazil or Mexico were.
> This didn't effect the entire US, as the majority of the US economy has never been solely based upon exploitation for a significant period, and its economic and political institutions derive from those formed in the Northern states, and not those formed in the South.


but i would want to now how being colonized or settled in one way versus anther has this lasting impact you allude to. yeah the north got off to much of a head start with mechanized industry, and one can imagine that the people with talents in those areas gravitated there, and that the south could simply never compete on that front. and so, i guess, may you find a similar story with countries in latin america. that a few of them turned away from exploitation of native people and slaves more quickly than the rest, and then when it came to manufacturing, a few countries quickly assumed monopolies on the different industries, and the rest were, in some sense, shut out from competing. but international trade was certainly less prevalent at that time period, so i would wonder if that would really be enough to stall development in certain countries - the fact that nearby ones had developed the technology first, so the same incentives (to grab a big market share on whatever markets the technology afforded you the ability to do that to) were not present. so i don't know. 


> That doesn't make much sense, to claim a correlation towards the native population themselves. This is for multiple reasons, notably that native americans, especially mesoamericans, were not disadvantaged intellectually or economically. The Aztecs and Incans were extraordinarily wealthy and economically developed, as well as ingenius (especially regarding mathematics, astronomy,etc) and they were subjugated by European powers primarily because of their inferior capacity for warfare.
> Historically, the only thing the West has ever really held consistently is a monopoly on organised violence, and thats arguable (Middle-Eastern and East-Asian powers have frequently proved this assumption wrong). Economically, medically, scientifically and socially, the western powers have historically been matched by various Asian, Austronesian and Mesoamerican powers for consistent periods.
> The point is, European-Caucasians are not the most intelligent, nor have they ever been, they've merely been the most violently expansionist.


yeah i do think who got to exploit who, which depends, like you said, on the capacity for warfare and numbers of people, etc., is probably one of the main things to consider when thinking about why different parts of the world ended up so differently (and not, say, the intellectual differences of the different populations). though if do you want to explain why some areas developed faster technology than others, and had the more lethal weapons to being with, i would consider differences in the means and variances of different traits in the people as perhaps having a role in that. but i like that general story for why things are the way they are - some people got exploited while others benefited from the exploitation - a lot more than what it sounded like you first said.


> Furthermore, claiming European intelligence is not legitimate. European peoples have been conquered and colonised previously, the Romans didn't think Celtic peoples were anything but savages, the Mongols laughed at Hungarian technology and the Caliphate seemed to enjoy its time in Iberia. Yet British, Hungarian and Spanish people have all since then risen and formed their own empires, which have since fallen. There have been significant periods of history where the centre of civilisation was the Middle East, for example, yet the descendants of these empires have themselves be exploited. There was a time when Iraq was a centre of power, innovation and intelligence, and now it is essentially a third-world failed state, _times change_, and prosperity isn't based upon race.


yeah, well, to be clear, i don't really think that those in the middle east or asia, that the populations there, are noticeable less intelligent (inherently, not because of like higher incidences of malnutrition) than europeans. i never got that impression. even though when, yeah, today, we see that they are much less prosperous than some other areas. i would reserve _those_ speculations for populations like the native people of the ameircas, while bearing in mind that they, too, not only had conventionally intelligent people among them, but had their own sets of innovations, which were unique to them, and the things which they alone excelled in, etc. but that is a nice bit of history you told me. it may not be based on race but it _might_ be likely influenced by the genetics of the people.



> * As for Australia, some will argue that the use of convicts was exploitation, however, the convicts themselves were not truly slaves, and were afforded significant personal liberties and opportunities, especially once freed. At certain points during the 1800s, convicts in Australia enjoyed more political and economic freedom than a free, law-abiding citizen in England.
> The cause for this is simple, Australian Aboriginals were far too sparsely populated for their exploitation to support an economy, and the lands of New South Wales, Tasmania and other areas first settled, were unable to support plantation based economies, and the only way to actually create revenue was to grant economic and political freedom, to attract settlers and to cause what is now known as 'creative destruction'. Australia, even as a penal colony, had to allow significant freedom to be a successful investment for the British.


did you write this or quote it from somewhere? it is hard for me to tell since you have academic-ish writing.


----------



## typemismatch (May 30, 2012)

D7 is that even a score. i'm sure it's what i got. but i think i was doing one that was maybe idk something. i want grapes. i can't remember the last time i just sat down and picked grapes off of the bunch (of grapes) and just ate them grapes like them grapes were the loveliest things of all. god i want grapes so much.


----------



## ItsEasierToRun (Feb 2, 2013)

IQ? I can't even spell it!


----------



## Alas Babylon (Aug 28, 2012)

> i don't know if that answers how humans escaped complete predation by the cheetahs and other similarly fearsome and carnivorous animals when we transitioned to the plains. all i can think is how rough it must have been - to start walking upright without yet having the means to protect ourselves. how vulnerable we must have been, and how miraculous we survived. evidently i am missing some of pieces to the puzzle, unless our survival was really that harrowing.


Human beings are themselves apex predators, we've hunted the cheetahs, in fact we still do. Hominids themselves would have been hunted by cheetahs and lions, but it is worth noting that these are mainly earlier hominids, such as australopithecus, later species of humans such as **** ergaster, habilis and erectus (the ancestors of H.Sapiens), developed tools and complex methods of hunting, and hence established hominids as dominant predators. By the time Sapiens came on the scene, human species were well and truly established apex predators.



> but i would want to now how being colonized or settled in one way versus anther has this lasting impact you allude to. yeah the north got off to much of a head start with mechanized industry, and one can imagine that the people with talents in those areas gravitated there, and that the south could simply never compete on that front.


Ok, firstly, I am going to explain something. Countries in the developing and third world, are poorer than the developed world, because the economies, and politics of these nations are based around providing for an elite, at the expense of a majority. That is a fact. 
The way large parts of Latin America were colonised, established an elite, and an economy and political system around those elites. The majority of the population, is exploited politically and economically, for the wealth and prosperity of the upper classes and rich in many of these countries. Since this system has been in place, it has not been removed, however , some countries , such as Chile, are reforming. The system does change, its just it as of yet hasn't in much of Latin America.
The way Australia, Canada and New Zealand were colonised, for example, did not establish a minority elite, or an economic and political system built around exploiting the majority. Instead it established greater political and economic freedoms, property rights and centralisation. This system remains in these countries.

Its easier to talk about nations descended from colonies, because we know how they were formed, and virtually their entire history. Nations in Europe, Africa and the Middle East are completely different stories. To understand why Eastern Europe is distinct from Western Europe, and somewhat poorer, you would have to go back to the divide of the Western and Eastern Roman empires, the Black Death and the Kievan Rus, as well as their 'recent' history (Ivan the Terrible, Peter the Great, The Russian empire, USSR, serfdom,etc).
The point is ,I used New World nations as an example because they're easier to talk about, it would take pages of writing to explain why the UK or Russia are like they are.



> did you write this or quote it from somewhere? it is hard for me to tell since you have academic-ish writing.


I wrote it.


----------



## enfield (Sep 4, 2010)

Paradox Frog said:


> Human beings are themselves apex predators, we've hunted the cheetahs, in fact we still do. Hominids themselves would have been hunted by cheetahs and lions, but it is worth noting that these are mainly earlier hominids, such as australopithecus, later species of humans such as **** ergaster, habilis and erectus (the ancestors of H.Sapiens), developed tools and complex methods of hunting, and hence established hominids as dominant predators. By the time Sapiens came on the scene, human species were well and truly established apex predators.
> 
> Ok, firstly, I am going to explain something. Countries in the developing and third world, are poorer than the developed world, because the economies, and politics of these nations are based around providing for an elite, at the expense of a majority. That is a fact.
> The way large parts of Latin America were colonised, established an elite, and an economy and political system around those elites. The majority of the population, is exploited politically and economically, for the wealth and prosperity of the upper classes and rich in many of these countries. Since this system has been in place, it has not been removed, however , some countries , such as Chile, are reforming. The system does change, its just it as of yet hasn't in much of Latin America.
> ...


you are teaching me some things...

want a grape?


----------



## Alas Babylon (Aug 28, 2012)

enfield said:


> you are teaching me some things...
> 
> want a grape?


Thanks, I guess?


----------



## BrookeHannigan (Mar 29, 2012)

Im not ashamed to say my iq is far away from genius,
I dont know the exact number but wouldnt be surprised if its very low like 80 lol
I value my life experience,knowledgde of all kind of people,and emtional scars more than intelligence i know 2 people who were always bragging how high their iq was :roll
I dont really care either lots of psychiatrist thought i was extremely unintelligent as well
It only pissed of my bf a lot lol but really idc


----------



## lonelyjew (Jan 20, 2010)

I took an online one, so probably not reputable, and got something like a 136 or 138. Don't put much stock in it, nor do I really care. I'm content with my intellect, and it isn't a limiting factor for me, though I suppose if I was a lot smarter, maybe I would be able to somehow actually get beyond the avoidance that does hamper me every day...

edit*
Apparently it was a 138, as I already posted in this thread... a year ago lol.


----------



## extremly (Oct 25, 2012)

I tried doing it but the first questions gave me a headache


----------



## visualkeirockstar (Aug 5, 2012)

I don't need take it. I already know its a 0.


----------



## DreamerInSlumberland (Mar 6, 2013)

I have never taken an official one. I don't trust the ones online and I also think there are different forms of intelligence, so I don't think these IQ tests truly prove how smart one truly is. Different people process things differently. Some of us are creative, others have street smarts, some have survival skills, and others are logical. It depends on your definition of what is intelligent.

I'm not going to take an online one, since I trust online tests even less. They are unreliable.


----------



## lonelyjew (Jan 20, 2010)

DreamerInSlumberland said:


> I have never taken an official one. I don't trust the ones online and I also think there are different forms of intelligence, so I don't think these IQ tests truly prove how smart one truly is. Different people process things differently. Some of us are creative, others have street smarts, some have survival skills, and others are logical. It depends on your definition of what is intelligent.
> 
> I'm not going to take an online one, since I trust online tests even less. They are unreliable.


With those conclusions, you sound like a very smart to me


----------



## Cletis (Oct 10, 2011)

I really don't know. I've taken a few IQ tests online and one from a CD-ROM a few years back. My results went from 117 - 132. I don't feel those tests are that accurate, however. I really have no clue what it really is, but I do feel it is probably slightly higher than average.

I had a shrink tell me once that I had one of the best memorys he had ever seen. So, I got that goin' for me. :blank


----------



## sociallydiseased (Jan 5, 2013)

*Free Online IQ TEST*

I took the test on... www.iqtest.com and I scored 149.


----------



## lonelyjew (Jan 20, 2010)

Paradox Frog said:


> *Some people I have met may have a genuis IQ, but I doubt they have a clue as to ,for example*, why there are no quadrepedal birds, why Latin America is poorer than areas colonised by the UK, how Etruscan could be considered Indo-Aegean, and other questions which I would consider relatively simple questions to answer, with the answers being that Avians evolved primarily for flight, and hence never developed quadrepedalism, and given their current biology would never be able to, Spainish and Portuguese colonies were essentially built to exploit the work and wealth of a majority for the benefit of an elite, notably in basing their economies around the exploitation of the native population, a system which current Latin American political and economic institutions are descended from, and Etruscan is theorised by several linguists to derive from a Proto-Aegean language/family that diverges from Proto-Indo-European distinctly enough to be considered as a seperate phylum.
> 
> Relatively simple answers, which only require a basic understanding of geopolitics, history, linguistics, paleontology and evolutionary biology to provide, hence someone with an IQ of more than 120 should, in my opinion, be able to understand or come to these conclusions quite easily by themselves really, as long as they are curious, or *have a workable general knowledge.*


Forgive me, as I'm a bit drunk (wahoo for finding the delicious beer I had tucked away!) and it's 5:00am, but those bolded bits don't seem to work together, unless you're assuming that every given smarty pants has that workable knowledge. The way I had always interpreted intelligence (ignoring the notion that there are different varieties of intellect for the sake of simplicity), was basically one's capacity to not simply learn, but understand. For any given concept, there may be people too "dumb" to ever understand it, some of whom however can be made to "parrot" (take doing a mathematical procedure - you can do it by following a pattern, without understanding the logic behind it) it with guidance, while more intelligent people may be able to "parrot" it with more ease, but need extensive time and explanation to understand that concept (I bring up math again because I remember throughout my childhood having "eureka!" moments when the logic suddenly became clear in my math classes in particular). People who are smarter yet may be able to understand the concept intuitively, with relative ease, however the "geniuses" will be able to go beyond simply understanding, and see that concept in a unique way, and draw even deeper conclusions from it that would be evident to most people.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that I don't think it's fair to judge a person for their knowledge, or lack thereof, of a given subject, but rather how easily that person learns and is able to apply new knowledge. Maybe a good, though simplistic, way of putting it would be to put it in role playing terms (I'm sorry if you don't acquainted the D20 system) but a given topic requires a roll of 15 to repeat/see a pattern in to be able to use it on some minimal level, however a 20 is required to actually understand it, while a 25 allows you to use the concepts of that topic in unique and unobvious ways. The dumb person has an intelligence of 6, which gives any role a -2 modifier, so while they can hope to be able to use the concept, they won't ever be able to actually have a full understanding of it. The average person has a 10, with no modifier, meaning that they can hope to get that 20 eventually, and actually understand it. The smart person has 16, which gives any roll a +3, making it relatively easy get that 20 (since now a 17, 18, 19, and 20 would all get that 20), while the genius, with a whopping intelligence of 20 would be able to not only get that understanding far more quickly, but able to do things that others bellow their caliber would have been able to imagine with that knowledge.

Ok, I'm rambing, with D&Dish examples; I think it's time I go to bed lol.


----------



## Chloe321 (Mar 25, 2013)

98.... Oh dear


----------



## LouAS (Jul 20, 2013)

At age 7 was 145, at age 18 it's at 140, so around there


----------



## Noll (Mar 29, 2011)

i once scored something ridiculous like 80 and another time i scored 107. not like i care about IQ though.


----------



## DarrellLicht (Mar 9, 2013)

I was in Junior High when I took my first/only IQ test. I got a 98 -shrug-


----------



## markwalters2 (Mar 18, 2013)

The last time I took was about 2,779


----------



## louiselouisa (Jul 12, 2012)

133 when I was 10 yo
took the test again at age 18 but I'd rather not tell lol

and true, IQ doesn't matter... or to be more precise, number doesn't matter.


----------



## RuggedMan (Oct 2, 2010)

Like 7 maybe


----------



## Sacrieur (Jan 14, 2013)

128

;)


----------



## Raeden (Feb 8, 2013)

InfiniteBlaze said:


> ITT: We learn that everyone on SAS is a genius


That must explain why we're all alone. We're all misunderstood, eccentric, geniuses!


----------



## lzzy (Nov 28, 2012)

Took a test in English (not my native language) and got 126


----------



## starsonfire (May 28, 2013)

Just took iq test online.. 131.


----------



## Glass Child (Feb 28, 2013)

Probably low, haven't taken a test yet


----------



## tbyrfan (Feb 24, 2011)

150 on an official test.


----------



## Tabris (Jul 14, 2013)

Probably below average.


----------



## zonebox (Oct 22, 2012)

I'm intelligent enough not to waste money on these sites. I went to IQtest.com, I scored a 120 this time, last time I think it was a 128.. I get bored with the questions and sometimes just start clicking whatever seems to be right without actually thinking it through.

Having a 140 - 160 IQ on the Internet is not unusual. Everyone is a genius, on the Internet :lol


----------



## To22 (Apr 6, 2012)

tbyrfan said:


> 150 on an official test.


----------



## AceEmoKid (Apr 27, 2012)

Haha, I just did a quick one online right now and it stressed to do it all mentally. But I really can't work that way, unless it has to do with creating new things...not solving existing problems. Especially problems with _numbers_. Plus the timer with penalizations gave me major anxiety (i've always had test anxiety, in general, so this is just the cherry on top). That just made me feel like utter crap. I didn't even check the score after because I knew it was going to be bad. I kind of just feel like crying right now from the stress, and my chest is rather tight.


----------



## Limmy (Feb 15, 2013)

im pretty much a genius, i think last time i checked it was 69

#2Mature


----------



## BTAG (Jun 27, 2013)

I think last time I checked, I was between 130-145. I don't think IQ tests are accurate measurements of intelligence though. I've seen several really intelligent people get average scores, and people that seem to know nothing get high scores.


----------



## Twelve Keyz (Aug 28, 2011)

Limmy said:


> im pretty much a genius, i think last time i checked it was 69


the only post I actually believe in this thread.


----------



## InfiniteBlaze (Jan 27, 2011)

Since the average IQ in this thread is 147, I'm assuming the average SAS male has a 9 inch penis and that the average SAS female is an E cup.


----------



## Sacrieur (Jan 14, 2013)

AceEmoKid said:


> Haha, I just did a quick one online right now and it stressed to do it all mentally. But I really can't work that way, unless it has to do with creating new things...not solving existing problems. Especially problems with _numbers_. Plus the timer with penalizations gave me major anxiety (i've always had test anxiety, in general, so this is just the cherry on top). That just made me feel like utter crap. I didn't even check the score after because I knew it was going to be bad. I kind of just feel like crying right now from the stress, and my chest is rather tight.


A few timed questions about spatial reasoning and language does not a test of intelligence make.

IQ should stand for inane quiz, because its results are more or less useless. It's like trying to measure how fast you can run by how much you can bench.


----------



## To22 (Apr 6, 2012)

InfiniteBlaze said:


> Since the average IQ in this thread is 147, I'm assuming the average SAS male has a 9 inch penis and that the average SAS female is an E cup.


Well many of us are just stating the result of an online test...which is probably a poor representation. The results may be lying and not really the test taker.


----------



## IveGotToast (Jan 1, 2013)

InfiniteBlaze said:


> Since the average IQ in this thread is 147, I'm assuming the average SAS male has a 9 inch penis and that the average SAS female is an E cup.







I've never taken an IQ test before, and i never will.


----------



## Richard Pawgins (Jul 11, 2013)

I've never taken a IQ test



where do they even give such test?


----------



## JayC123 (Nov 3, 2010)

An IQ test will tell you two things. The quantity and quality of your neuronal connections, and processing speed (how fast communication between your neurons takes place).

If your IQ is high, this shows that your brain as a whole, is very well connected. However, you can have an IQ of 80 and still be referred to as a genius. Why? Well a person with a high IQ, globally, has a very well connected brain. Math and abstract thinking will be a breeze for such people. However, a person may be considered a genius in fields such as art, or music and yet score low on IQ test because the parts of his/her brain that make him the genius in said field, is abnormally well developed and connected, but the rest of his brain (how well connected it is a whole) may very well be way below par, making him kinesthetically challenged (clumsy) or mathematically challenged... Whatever... So yeh, the IQ test measures how well all parts of your brain work together in unison, and how fast that communication takes place.

I cannot say that a person with an IQ of 160 will be without weaknesses but I can say these weaknesses will be MUCH less likely to impinge on their mental capabilities. Perhaps they are more likely to suffer from depression and perhaps be less physically agile or robust. Thats my view anyway guys.


----------



## markwalters2 (Mar 18, 2013)

72. It is an A from where I come from.


----------



## sad vlad (Nov 9, 2013)

I have never taken a proper test, measured by a specialist. I was asked to take an IQ test(the one with the geometrical shapes) at age 18 during the army recruiting process. I was never told how I scored.

I took at some point a few free online tests(I have big doubts on their relevance) and I've scored anywhere between 110 and 130. I am sceptical about 130 because in most tests that is considered to be the IQ of a genius or near genius. I am not delusional enough to consider myself a genius. So I guess I am probably in the area of 115-125. In most tests and scales that is High Average or Superior.

I am sceptical about the scores submitted by anyone who claims to be above 130. Unless they have used a different test than usual ones and the IQ scale is very different than in most(for example 150 in that test is actually the equivalent of 120 in other tests). Moreover, some of these tests are thought for kids or teens. You are supposed to pick your real age after you have finished the test so they can apply the ''age penalty''(that will significantly lower the final result). If you do not do it and leave it like that, the shown IQ will be an exaggerate one. Irrelevant.

There are several types of tests out there, each one measuring a different aspect of your intelligence. The results on each one can be very different. Your mental and phisical state in the moment you took the test are also important. Cause you may not feel well, be very anxious and can't focus as usual and so on. So for a relevant result you should always take a complex test that can test all aspects of your intelligence and conducted by a specialist. If you think you didn't give it your all because of an objective reason you can be tested again after a certain period of time.

I think IQ is overrated. It only shows if you have high ''native'' intelligence or not. If you had good genes. You can have great genes but not study anything and be dumber than someone with a lower IQ than yours. Or you can have a lower IQ but by learning you can be smarter or more successful in life than guys with high IQ. Judging people based on IQ alone, is stupid!


----------



## Mersault (Dec 18, 2012)

I hate this sort of pretentious question. Mine is around 200 anyway.


----------



## blue2 (May 20, 2013)

philosophy said:


> Yeah, quite the irony that most of the self-proclaimed geniuses tend to be cluttered together on online forums.:teeth


yeah ...:teeth...seem's like a waste, i feel humbled now with my average IQ of 105, 115 on a good day, at least i'm smarter than most dolphin's, that's all that matter's to me....of coarse i'm averaging this from internet test's, not real professional test's...


----------



## straightarrows (Jun 18, 2010)

I think 136,,,,, well, worth nothing if u don't know how to make $$$$$$$!!

I think being Left-Handed is behind my I.Q. lol


----------



## blue2 (May 20, 2013)

straightarrows said:


> I think 136,,,,, well, worth nothing if u don't know how to make $$$$$$$!!
> 
> I think being Left-Handed is behind my I.Q. lol


that's very true, someone who might score a low IQ but know's what they really want to do in life and apply's themselve's 100% to that task will alot of the time end up earning more money or being more successful in life, being witty and talkative can get you alot of place's in life, i know a man who couldn't read or count till he was in his 30's not very smart that way, but he had wit and charisma and a great belief in himself, now he has a small business...success is more about belief in yourself not IQ..


----------



## Crimson Lotus (Jul 26, 2013)

I got 10, me really smart.


----------



## blue2 (May 20, 2013)

DerSteppenwolf said:


> I got 10, me really smart.


lmao ..indeed i'd hang out with ralph any day, over a genius with his head up his *ss, and an IQ of 140...:teeth....i like eccentric genius though...
......


----------



## Unnecessary (Nov 16, 2013)

Last time I took an online test it was around 110, just about average.


----------



## Gavroche (Jan 12, 2013)

I'm intentionally not posting my score because I don't want to seem boastful and most viewing this thread probably believe people are lying about their scores anyway, so what's the point? 

I just want to say that I think you shouldn't put too much stock in an IQ tests no matter if they puff you up or pull you down. What does it profit someone to have a high IQ but remain ignorant by choice? And what if someone has a lower IQ but is resourceful and makes good use of the information available to them becoming more knowledgeable than someone with a much higher IQ? At its core the IQ number is just a way of describing performance on the IQ test, it doesn't encapsulate all of the amazing things the brain can do.


----------



## licorice (Oct 5, 2013)

The last time I was officially tested it was in the average range. Doesn't prevent me from reading numbers backwards, falling down the same flight of stairs twice, and putting everything in the kitchen away in the wrong places.


----------



## Alienated (Apr 17, 2013)

I was tested by a State Rehabilitation Program to see if qualify for college, and scored 133. 12th grade straight across till I got to vocabulary and problem solving, and scored of the charts. They said I would have to take a different test to see how high I would score.... I didn't go back.


----------



## DeniseAfterAll (Jul 28, 2012)

Can't pay attention .

Thus . . mentally Retarded . :stu


----------



## Lacking Serotonin (Nov 18, 2012)

115 in 7th grade.


----------



## Tokztero (Sep 12, 2013)

I was worried i had a developmental condition, so i took two IQ tests on different websites abour six months ago.

On the first one i got 117 and on the second one i got 122.


----------



## Nada (Dec 19, 2004)

Mine fluctuates greatly on a daily basis.


----------



## IveGotToast (Jan 1, 2013)

No idea.


----------



## Blue Rose (Feb 5, 2014)

I was tested 2 times in high school and i got iq scores between 105-110.
On online test i scored between 110-120.


----------



## AceEmoKid (Apr 27, 2012)

um 24


----------



## Nitrogen (Dec 24, 2012)

3


----------



## Daniel C (Apr 17, 2012)

The only time I took an IQ test was when I was seven. I scored 155. I hated it. In any case, I hardly think that score would still be applicable today.


----------



## AceEmoKid (Apr 27, 2012)

Nitrogen said:


> 3


hey im 24 i meen my iq 24, anyway ur liek me dividsible by 12!!! or is it 7,,,,,,, i dont remeber haha i bad at math/


----------



## blue2 (May 20, 2013)

AceEmoKid said:


> hey im 24 i meen my iq 24, anyway ur liek me dividsible by 12!!! or is it 7,,,,,,, i dont remeber haha i bad at math/


hey did you go crazy or something...just from a guess, from thing's you said i'd say your 124 iq....


----------



## ManuelVinn (Jun 14, 2012)

I did one in lazy *** style and I scored 127


----------



## Mister Spirit (Mar 28, 2013)

So basically, an average is anywhere in the 100's? If so, I must be retarded because I scored 96.


----------



## Putin (May 21, 2013)

dont know and dont care


----------



## Sacrieur (Jan 14, 2013)

Like 125.


----------



## mdiada (Jun 18, 2012)

iqtest.com says my IQ is 122


----------



## zomgz (Aug 17, 2009)

I took one of those clunky funk online IQ tests and got somewhere in the 120's. It's not really something that's important to me either way.


----------



## GotAnxiety (Oct 14, 2011)

1


----------



## red3002 (Sep 11, 2013)

DeniseAfterAll said:


> Can't pay attention .
> 
> Thus . . mentally Retarded . :stu


lol yep.

Me too.


----------



## Steinerz (Jul 15, 2013)

like 60


----------



## oku (Dec 9, 2013)

I don't want to waste my time and energy just to find out I'm stupid.


----------



## LeeMann (Nov 29, 2012)

Usually somewhere between 130 and 140 ... supposedly good.


----------



## Nitrogen (Dec 24, 2012)

2


----------



## AceEmoKid (Apr 27, 2012)

Nitrogen said:


> 2


me 2


----------



## AlchemyFire (Mar 4, 2013)

I went along with that Test The Nation thing that aired 7 years ago. Apparently I scored 120, but I doubt that's legit. I've never felt patient enough to do one again, nor do I know where to find an official one.


----------



## diamondheart89 (Mar 21, 2011)

oku said:


> I don't want to waste my time and energy just to find out I'm stupid.


heh same. Also IQ tests are so boring. Why don't they test my ability to understand abstract ideas that don't have anything to do with blobs or lines or squares. Replace them with cats I say.


----------



## JakeBoston1000 (Apr 8, 2008)

doesn't really seem to matter what people's IQ's are because some of the most brilliant people that have been in my life are total morons when it comes to common sense real life shiat. Not impressed by someone's IQ. Personally i'm dumb as rocks.


----------



## Yer Blues (Jul 31, 2013)

Yeah right, like I'm going to post mine.

What does the - mean before the number?


----------



## Rainbat (Jan 5, 2012)

I took the WISC twice, at 8 and 11, and scored 124 and 127 respectively.
At 19 I took the WAIS and scored 141.
My MBTI assessment was nearly always INTJ over several tests (INTP once).

All tests were conducted by psychologists/psychiatrists that I was seeing at the time.

It should be noted that IQ is hardly an indicator of potential once you're more than 1 standard deviation above the average. Richard Feynman had a standardized IQ of 127 -- nothing remarkable -- yet he is a Nobel laureate (1965) and is considered one of the most renowned physicists of the 20th century.


----------



## googleamiable (Jun 5, 2009)

well it's not something I care about at all really but I took 6 or 7 of those IQ tests and my average is 162


----------

