[Mr. Mojo]

If I remember correctly (and it's been many months), the test (as a pure IQ test) is faulty for at least three reasons: 1) It's not timed, 2) There are at least a couple of questions that don't have a right or wrong answers (but then again these were to determine one's type, not one's score), 3) The highest one can score is 144 (or so said numerous Freepers on the thread last year, who were utterly confident that this was the case. ....And I gave the test to a friend of mine who has some gaudy IQ, and she scored 144).

After I finished the test I hit the back button on my browser and redid a couple questions I thought I might've missed. ....And I scored lower as a result. Tried it again changing other questions, and still my score didn't rise.

[wardaddy]

I scored 135.....I took some psychologist administered tests as a senior in high school and scored nearly 150. I remember the guy telling me I would have qualified as genius 50 years earlier...lol...big help right?


I know IQ slips with age...the synapses just get a bit more elastic with time and whatnot.

But, experience and wisdom more than compensate...as does knowledge.

There are a lot of folks somewhat slower who are very successful because they have will, determination and character and maybe a bit of luck.

I always did ok on standardized tests...I was so lazy...that's all that got me in school.

Oh well, it's fun but it's sort of like just measuring horsepower on a car....so many other factors make up the whole package.

Regards

[Yardstick]

the test (as a pure IQ test) is faulty for at least three reasons: 1) It's not timed

This seems to me like a pretty big flaw in this test. After all, if the person who flies through it in five minutes and the person who struggles with it for an hour receive the same score, then how meaningful is that score? My Commodore 64 and my Pentium-powered IBM can both do some pretty impressive math, but I know that my IBM is smarter because it's faster.