Lawquacious wrote:ajmanyjah wrote:Just for those comparing the LSATs to IQ tests, they aren't considered to be in the same class of test by those who make it. They also consider any measurement beyond 130 (ie three standard deviations, 99th percentile) in ANY test to be inherently unreliable, at least when it comes to aptitude. And the first Binet tests were primarily tests of reflexes, not cognitive abilities.
FTR, 130 is standard deviation 2 (not 3) for most IQ tests, and actually Stanford-Binet is a 16-point standard deviation increment test, meaning that 132 is the SD2 level. Each SD increase from the 100-level IQ baseline represents the addition of a "9" to the percentile rank in descending place-value order corresponding to increase by standard deviation (the increase is actually in terms of 'rarity' of the score). Therefore, using a 15-point increment curve: SD1 (115 IQ)=90th percentile/out of 10 people you are smartest; SD2 (130 IQ)=99th percentile/out of 100 people you are smartest; SD3 (145 IQ)= 99.9 percentile/out of 1,000 people you are smartest, SD4 (160 IQ)= 99.99 percentile/ out of 10,000 people you are smartest; SD5 (175 IQ)= 99.999 percentile/out of 100,000 people you are smartest etc. Using a 16-point increment scale (such as Stanford-Binet), the scores corresponding to these increments are 116,132,148,164,180. The scale (bell curve) also moves in reverse below one hundred, though I lack much understanding in how intellectual deficits/MR is measured, especially into the very profound and unusual range. From what I have read there is considerable variability across different types of IQ tests; in fact, a person who arguably has the world's highest IQ has one calculation that is around 180, and another around 230, which are considered essentially the same score due to the different types of scales used/tests administered. I question whether individuals who score extremely high like this on IQ tests are perhaps extremely good at performing the tasks required by these tests rather than necessarily having a profound intelligence in the functional (useful) sense. I think that real genius centers upon the question of utility and accomplishment more than that of ability. Profound cognitive ability is required for certain types of intellectual accomplishment, but apart from helpful application I believe that high-IQ is in fact a totally neutral quality (just as likely bad as good- reference UNABomber who has a 167 IQ, or Bobby Fischer with a 180s IQ, who though not comparable to UNAbomber in terms of negative impact, made some pretty outrageous and bizarre racist statements according to what I have read).
Really?...hmm I need to brush up, my psych test prof would kick my ass (though the class was damned easy in the end)