• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Skepticism and IQ

Blackened

Student
B
Joined
Apr 18, 2011
Messages
34
I was wondering whether those two are related - if yes, how strongly. I know that skepticism isn't the natural state of everyone with a high intelligence, not only because of real-life examples, but because there are other personal qualities also related to that, but let's not get into detail.

Below is an IQ test, made by a PhD in psychometrics and with proven strong correlations with clinically approved IQ tests. It is absolutely free.

http://www.cerebrals.org/wp/tests/jcti/

Please post your result even if it's low (or PM me, I'll keep it anonymous) - I'd still expect to see only the higher results, because people tend to not post their results if they are low, but if the average IQ is significantly different from the usual average IQ for forums, that would be visible.
 
My predicton is that the IQ will average in the 130s. (me too, 136) I think that would hold for any factual forum. Not so for the social fora like u-tubes, they will average nearer the norm, 100.

Though you will suffer from selection bias- those who have a higher score will take the test, those who have normal range won't.

But I do believe skepticism is a psyche thing, not an intelligence thing. You need to show us some ink blots that look like animals having sex ;) to test that hypothesis.
 
Just based on personal experience, I would think there was a relationship. I've never been officially tested and I can't take the test on my phone but I suspect that I would fall in the below average to average range. I don't think being a skeptic makes me an exception, though, because it was only until about 8 years ago that I pretty much believed anything I was told. Being a skeptic seems to come natural to the more intelligent folks. It more of a struggle for someone like me, who doesn't always get things so easily.
 
I did the first 20 questions, then just clicked the top-left choice for the remainder of the choice. Score 119.

If getting (at best) 20 out of 52 correct puts me almost a standard deviation up, I weep for the future of humanity.
 
DallasDad said:
I did the first 20 questions, then just clicked the top-left choice for the remainder of the choice. Score 119.

If getting (at best) 20 out of 52 correct puts me almost a standard deviation up, I weep for the future of humanity.
Click to expand...

According to the author, "I've added the 5 consecutive misses’ rule for stopping the scoring." So it seems, like other tests, the items get progressively harder. All your "top left" choices probably made no difference.
And the sd is 15, just like many other IQ tests.
Anyone notice the similarities to Raven's Progressiove Matrices?
 
I suggest you review some of the threads on IQ on this forum.

Many of us question whether a single metric is reflective of intelligence.

Some of us overflow with disdain at the thought.

As for me, I won't encourage this by either taking another IQ test or reporting any scores.
 
Complexity said:
I suggest you review some of the threads on IQ on this forum.

Many of us question whether a single metric is reflective of intelligence.

Some of us overflow with disdain at the thought.

As for me, I won't encourage this by either taking another IQ test or reporting any scores.
Click to expand...

Just out of curiosity, to whom was this post addressed?
 
arthwollipot said:
I've yet to see any evidence that IQ is a valid or useful measure of anything.
Click to expand...
I've seen it mentioned countless time in scientific psychological sources - nobody denied it, so apparently, the scientific consensus is that it's valid. I can find some evidence to back up this, but the point of the thread isn't to argue about whether IQ is valid.
DallasDad said:
If getting (at best) 20 out of 52 correct puts me almost a standard deviation up, I weep for the future of humanity.
Click to expand...
This is logically invalid. The fact that someone made an IQ test, most of whose questions are very difficult, doesn't mean that the average person is bad at taking the test - it means that the test isn't designed proportionally (so that an average person would solve 50% of the questions). And proportionality isn't needed anyway, so it tells absolutely nothing about the test and the average person (except that maybe the test is better fit for people with above average IQ).
 
I got 120.

I've no idea what ones I got right and what ones I got wrong.

I guessed the final 3 as I didn't have a clue.
 
Last edited:
Blackened said:
http://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/IQtable.aspx
Most of the other things in the same website are untrue.

Also, people who rush the test get lower than their actual score.
Click to expand...

IIRC, the GED test was the only one I ever took that was slightly time critical. The proctor had the first one or two of us to finish hand the papers to her, and she marked them. Others stacked them in the pile when complete. I scored 98th percentile on reading comprehension, 73% on math. But to my way of thinking, speed of thought is as important as correctness. I win about 20 Freecell games per hour, 73%, but can't find any body who has any comparison. The game stats don't keep track. Hey, the games are free, wasting a couple is meaningless to me.
I worked in production my whole life (so far), I single handedly cooked more Big Macs in an hour than anybody EVER, I think.


My definition of perfection- "Flawless in zero time, with zero labor". It can't be attained, so everything is a compromise, cost vs outcome. Establish the balance by critical thinking.
 
I got the same three that Quarky did. So I'm feeling pretty sharp. Put me down for a 164.
 
Gawd, that JCTI was torture. Couldn't even figure out what was being asked some of the time. Never want to do that again!!

124, tried my bestest.
 
I tried the verbal analogies.

Here are a few that I don't understand.

Anybody?

tongues : glossanolia as repetition : ?

hair : capillary as female servant : ?

wordplay : pundit as censorship : ?
 
D'oh!

Guess I tend to think a little too rigidly -- I'm suspect you're right, but...but...

Something in me just balks or shuts down, because, for example, so much is suggested by "pundit" : "wordplay" -- which seems like a much more complicated relationship than "censor" : "censorship".

Explain further if you feel inclined, Casebro.

You're probably right but I still don't get those.

A pundit, being a (presumably serious) authority or scholar, wouldn't be indulging in wordplay unless...unless what?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom