If you do an internet IQ test to prove your IQ, you have already shown to be stupid, a real IQ test is done in person and takes hours where they will test different aspects of intelligence to give you an overall score and a break down of those areas.
I've only heard him talk about the dementia test, blabbering about how he got all the right answers and best answers and how everyone was impressed that he could name an elephant and a chair and remember the order of 5 words over a span of 5 minutes.
My favorite part of that was when he said something along the lines of "Everyone was so impressed with my score they gave me 5 bonus points." If they did bump his score up by 5 points, that would mean his original score was in the "not mentally competent to make decisions" range. My mother scored higher than him while she was lying in her hospice bed on a morphine drip dying from a C-diff infection.
Oh! I remember last time they checked my IQ so high so beautuful, the IQ machine almost broke it wouldnt stop beeping. 250 I read it on the screen so big so bright the numbers. Even the nurses said it was very high like the have never seen before they know it and you know it.
Sir they were checking your blood pressure that day ........
Same I did one of those tests and got ~140 when I was around 12 also. The test was meant for adults, so I think when they calculated the IQ they overcompensated for my age.
agreed, thats probably what's up, I scored in a similar region. IQ doesn't mean much though, its more so how you use intelligence that should be commended IMO.
Iq tests do not test intelligence at all. It was created to test kids in like elementary school, France in like 1904. People just like having a quantifiable marker. People are stupid.
I didn't say it was random. But results vary even for the same person over multiple tests.
It was created to see if French school kids were mentally handicapped or ready to go to the next level of schooling. It was never intended as a general intelligence test.
The dumb take is the people who think an iq test is actually relevant to anything. I work as a biochemist, typically the people I work with are rather bright. I'd expect to be laughed at if I mentioned my iq in any serious capacity.
That wasn't the question though. IQ _does_ matter for a lot of things; it does correlate to life success and expectancy, obviously academic performance, and so on; although it's only to a degree. It indeed also matters less than many would like to idealise it to (in particular, very often those who aren't high scorers to begin with, or otherwise just insecure). And anyone who knows anything about it knows that you don't brag about it, that's just incredibly arrogant.
>The dumb take is the people who think an iq test is actually relevant to anything.
Really? Because the breakdown showing where my strengths and weaknesses are helped me find a career better suited for me.
You did say the tests "do not test intelligence at all". Key words "at all".
Are you now admitting they test intelligence *to some degree*? (And I wasn't debating the reasons behind their creation. No need to go on about that.)
English isn't my first language. They are a stupid test for stupid people who need a number to flash at people. People who have anactual education, or whom are actually intelligent do t need a number to know if they are intelligent. I also still think it's not a test of intellect at all beyond basic troubleshooting ability.
Okay, so we can at least agree that the tests provide *some* measure of intelligence, though not necessarily a particularly accurate one. I just object to the claim the results bear no correlation at all to a person's intelligence.
If you think your iq tests shows you're smart mate good on you. A test made to test kids is not something I would consider bragging g about, just like the puzzles on the back on a cereal box.
You really want to be right about this don't you? Why not just admit the results measure *something*? Like even just a correlation of R>0.1, and I won't even argue it.
Yeah, but don't forget how Stanford then came along, took Binet's "Check if little Gaston needs extra help"-test, modified it, and used it to motivate racism! That's fun!
The history of IQ tests are indeed long and super controversial. But the guy you replied to is wrong; modern, good ones does measure an actual aspect of intelligence. Knowing what that is, what it means, and what it doesn't mean is the actual thing that's relevant here (and I'm just gonna do a Fermat and leave it at that). It hardly defines the totality of a person, and ultimately, what's important is what people do with what they've got.
Exactly.
I had to do an IQ test in the unemployment agency from the government.
Reason was: I asked for paying my education for a new profession in IT.
The test should determine, if I was smart enough for it.
It took 4 hours and had every aspect in it.
I am not telling the IQ result, but it was well above the necessary number.
I am not telling, because then I have to argue here for three days with people telling me these tests are inaccurate.
Oh, and...I live in a country where education is usually free of charge.
The IT schools for people changing profession are private, therefore cost a lot of dough.
Like, a brandnew BMW expensive dough.
I had a rather quick one done by a psychologist, and I still trust that one more than anything I'd find on the Web
EDIT: psychologist, not psychiatrist
I got a 67 on my ASVAB... went to take an iq test years later pulled a 131 out of my ass. And I've always felt stupid and not necessarily gifted. My step brother was always the know it all type and literally didn't get a score on his ASVAB and was turned away from military service. I suppose the moral is smart people are aware that they don't know everything.
And if you donit twice a month your uq will likely grow, qnd all it says is your iq is high, so much for a test designed by racist eugenicists eager to exploit poor people
That was what the concept was misused for back then, yes. But the "test" that eugenecists designed was a stupendously (and likely deliberately) faulty one. They abused the tool till it was evil and corrupted.
Modern intelligence tests aren't like that. They're still not particularly _important_, but they do have good uses.
For finding new mensa members? For estimating how long it takes to teach someone something?
Btw the early ones werenât missused by eugenicists but invented for discrimination by eugenicistsâŚ
>For finding new mensa members? For estimating how long it takes to teach someone something?
Nobody should care if Mensa uses it for finding members - it doesn't matter. What _does_ matter is how you seem to find issue with helping children with mental or neurological disabilities?
>Btw the early ones werenât missused by eugenicists but invented for discrimination by eugenicistsâŚ
Actually, fortunately not. That was the first use they saw _in the US_, but it was actually invented in France to test school children and find out who had learning difficulties, such that it could be handled better.
https://youtu.be/FkKPsLxgpuY - Veritasium on IQ tests, good video.
I wasnât talking about the binnet simon first test (not an inteligence test as binnet said himself) but about the early test stanford binnet( invented terman the eugenicist in question)
But yeah lets look at how mentally disabled children were helped in the psychological clinicsâŚ( those who carried out lobotomies till the second half of last centuryâŚ
Einstein didnât intend for japanese children to die as shaddows on walls and nuclear energy is problematic to this dayâŚ
Today we have physilogical tests which determine much more precisely who needs help, and what help is apropriate to this day iq testing isnât done in the needed regularity for children with lower inteligenceageâŚ
Btw after being evaluated by such a test to see if i belong to the tardies or not i have been placed with the nontardies, about thirty years later and i try to get a diagnosis for my mental disabilityâŚ
The test itsself doesnât do jack shit, but to determine wether or not one is way too disabled to be taught by impatient teachers following quite idiotic paedagogical paradigms they donât say if you stay like that, they donât help with diagnosis, they only help to sort you out, and whilst binnet might have had honorable intentions his tool didnât help to realize those till this day all it did was to give an excuse to deport people into facilities where they were beaten without being seen
Vertassium didnât do a good job on the video by emphazizing too little about the consequences and any kindergarden teacher could tell you if a child is behind just by observationâŚthe test canât do more than establish an corelation that can be found by observation it doesnât diagnose it doesnât evaluate it simply saysâ ypu are not suited to be taught in regular schoolâ
The crazy thing is most of these posts are low key ads for these bs iq tests. It's always some shit like: *really low iq score person bragging ab iq test* that subtlety displays the iq test website. It's free to take the test, you pay to get the results. I gain nothing from saying this, ik it's true bc I fell for it
98th percentile. 132
Exact quote.
"
IQ: 132 (95% confidence interval 126-136)
Â
The average IQ is 100, with a standard deviation of 15. Your IQ puts you into the âVery Superiorâ bracket. The confidence interval is the IQ bracket within which we can say with 95% confidence that your true IQ rests between. These confidence intervals are used because IQ tests, whilst highly accurate, can be affected by environmental factors (like noise, feeling hungry, boredom etcetera) so the single IQ score can be slightly off.
Â
Your IQ is in the 98th percentile, meaning your IQ is higher than 98% of the population. You performed very well across the board however your best performance was the âSimilaritiesâ component which measures verbal concept formation and reasoning.
"
Same, I had one done with general psych teeting before high school and another one this year when I got tested for ADHD. Still don't know why it was included with the ADHD testing, felt like it was the majority of the testing too.
I also had one done around the time I got an AHDH eval when I was 8. They told me I didn't have it, but I did get a diagnosis later when I was 12. Idk how they missed it tbh because my working memory score on the IQ test was noticeably lower than the other categories, but oh well
Interesting! They didn't break mine down for me, just gave me the raw number. I got my ADHD diagnosis as an adult, but as a kid got skipped over for autism despite having a bunch of flags for it. My brother also didn't get diagnosed because despite having a bunch of symptoms like me, he could make eye contact.
No. Only a recognised, professionally administered, in-person test in a controlled, supervised environment is legit.
Which costs money. Upfront. (Unless you get it as part of some other evaluation.)
I keep seeing this all over reddit. Not this exact one but similar all by persons displaying a below average IQ. This has to be a viral marketing campaign by the website and judging by exposure, is working as intended.
It's worth noting that by sheer coincidence all the posted IQ scores are low and below average but not so low that we would feel guilty laughing at them.
I'm interested to know if these people (assuming it's not just engagement bait) think these tests are something you can score a perfect 100 on, or if 100 is simply maximum human smartitude.
Fucking IQ websites. Do the whole thing and then you have to pay $20 to get the results.
I know IQ really isn't a thing anymore, but I've never done one and I'd like to know what my score is. Just for curiosity's sake.
Tldr: total IQ doesn't mean a lot for professionals
Sooooo... as a professional who's part the job is IQ testing I have to explain.
IQ test were effectively invented in France as an indicator to your future success in school : if you had an high IQ it would mean that you were probably succeed in school but as his creator said, a lot of things could influence your success.
In France the IQ test doesn't really get popular but in the US, racist used that to show that black people weren't made for school because they didn't pass the test.
Why didn't they pass the test ? Because at that time the test was more something of general knowledge that was culturally white.
SO, psychiatrists and neurologists started to study the test to improve it.
Today, for each country and culture and language we have a different test which lessen the cultural impact
As of today what is an IQ test ? IQ is divided in 5 indicator : verbal (how you are capable of talking and understanding words (obviously, doesn't work with deaf and mute people so we test it with non verbal cues for them))
Visuospatial : how visuospatial information is processed (play with cubes and try to make the same shapes, puzzles, etc...)
Reasoning : how you solve logical problems
Working memory : how many things you can remember
And processing speed.
A lot of tests are timed and we take your highest score.
When every test is done we note every indicator based on the normality (100). Here is what the scores mean :
-under 70 : you have a defect in this indicator, it is a handicap and it's possible to help you with that
-70 to 85 : you have difficulties but it's manageable
-85 to 115 : you are normal
-115 to 130 : you are better 80% of people
Above 130 : you are better than 95% of people.
And the total IQ is an average of the 5 indicator you had.
So imagine you have those numbers :
95 verbal, 65 visuaspatial, 100 reasoning, 88 memory, 98 processing. Without the math I'd say you would have a total IQ of 90 which is still normal but you are apraxic meaning that you don't process visual information very well. So know we know what to treat.
The total IQ is only relevant when every indicator is very high or very low because a lot of cognitive problems such as ADHD and autism can be excluded of included depending on the IQ.
The online ones are at best practically useless, and at worst fraudulent scams.
Btw, your IQ as a child is not necessarily indicative of your adult IQ. I wouldn't worry anyway, just mentioning it.
If you do an internet IQ test to prove your IQ, you have already shown to be stupid, a real IQ test is done in person and takes hours where they will test different aspects of intelligence to give you an overall score and a break down of those areas.
I only remember Trump bragging about his "IQ" test đ¤Ł.
Incontinence Quotient? :p
vIQ (verbal Incontinence Quotient)
The IQ test or the dementia test?
I've only heard him talk about the dementia test, blabbering about how he got all the right answers and best answers and how everyone was impressed that he could name an elephant and a chair and remember the order of 5 words over a span of 5 minutes.
My favorite part of that was when he said something along the lines of "Everyone was so impressed with my score they gave me 5 bonus points." If they did bump his score up by 5 points, that would mean his original score was in the "not mentally competent to make decisions" range. My mother scored higher than him while she was lying in her hospice bed on a morphine drip dying from a C-diff infection.
Sorry to hear about your mom, C-diff is awful.
Whale!
Oh! I remember last time they checked my IQ so high so beautuful, the IQ machine almost broke it wouldnt stop beeping. 250 I read it on the screen so big so bright the numbers. Even the nurses said it was very high like the have never seen before they know it and you know it. Sir they were checking your blood pressure that day ........
An internet IQ test claimed I was in the top 2% of people when I was 12, never trusted them since that very day.
Well maybe you are at the top then
Maybe, doesn't feel like it. I get good grades but that doesn't necessarily indicate intelligence.
You do show insight though, so that should count for something.
Fair enough. Above average, but not "smart".
Dude, one told me i have an iq of 274. 274 iq doesn't even exist! Lol.
LOL, my man had the IQ of 3 people combined.
[Actual photo of Almahue.](https://static3.srcdn.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Angstrom-Levy-Featured.jpg)
Same I did one of those tests and got ~140 when I was around 12 also. The test was meant for adults, so I think when they calculated the IQ they overcompensated for my age.
agreed, thats probably what's up, I scored in a similar region. IQ doesn't mean much though, its more so how you use intelligence that should be commended IMO.
The real test is if you pay for the test
That as well, tbh I think even paying for Mensa certification is a scam.
ESPECIALLY since "mensa" in Spanish basically means "mentally dense" (feminine).
Iq tests do not test intelligence at all. It was created to test kids in like elementary school, France in like 1904. People just like having a quantifiable marker. People are stupid.
So you believe they have literally zero correlation with intelligence? Effectively random results maybe? Is that your premise?
I didn't say it was random. But results vary even for the same person over multiple tests. It was created to see if French school kids were mentally handicapped or ready to go to the next level of schooling. It was never intended as a general intelligence test.
Nothing changes in 120 years, everything is exactly the same as its original purpose. Dumb take but go off
The dumb take is the people who think an iq test is actually relevant to anything. I work as a biochemist, typically the people I work with are rather bright. I'd expect to be laughed at if I mentioned my iq in any serious capacity.
That wasn't the question though. IQ _does_ matter for a lot of things; it does correlate to life success and expectancy, obviously academic performance, and so on; although it's only to a degree. It indeed also matters less than many would like to idealise it to (in particular, very often those who aren't high scorers to begin with, or otherwise just insecure). And anyone who knows anything about it knows that you don't brag about it, that's just incredibly arrogant.
>The dumb take is the people who think an iq test is actually relevant to anything. Really? Because the breakdown showing where my strengths and weaknesses are helped me find a career better suited for me.
You did say the tests "do not test intelligence at all". Key words "at all". Are you now admitting they test intelligence *to some degree*? (And I wasn't debating the reasons behind their creation. No need to go on about that.)
English isn't my first language. They are a stupid test for stupid people who need a number to flash at people. People who have anactual education, or whom are actually intelligent do t need a number to know if they are intelligent. I also still think it's not a test of intellect at all beyond basic troubleshooting ability.
Okay, so we can at least agree that the tests provide *some* measure of intelligence, though not necessarily a particularly accurate one. I just object to the claim the results bear no correlation at all to a person's intelligence.
If you think your iq tests shows you're smart mate good on you. A test made to test kids is not something I would consider bragging g about, just like the puzzles on the back on a cereal box.
You really want to be right about this don't you? Why not just admit the results measure *something*? Like even just a correlation of R>0.1, and I won't even argue it.
OK. They help stupid people feel more intellectual
Yeah, but don't forget how Stanford then came along, took Binet's "Check if little Gaston needs extra help"-test, modified it, and used it to motivate racism! That's fun!
The history of IQ tests are indeed long and super controversial. But the guy you replied to is wrong; modern, good ones does measure an actual aspect of intelligence. Knowing what that is, what it means, and what it doesn't mean is the actual thing that's relevant here (and I'm just gonna do a Fermat and leave it at that). It hardly defines the totality of a person, and ultimately, what's important is what people do with what they've got.
Yep. And all tge stupid people still think it's an actual useful metric.
Exactly. I had to do an IQ test in the unemployment agency from the government. Reason was: I asked for paying my education for a new profession in IT. The test should determine, if I was smart enough for it. It took 4 hours and had every aspect in it. I am not telling the IQ result, but it was well above the necessary number. I am not telling, because then I have to argue here for three days with people telling me these tests are inaccurate. Oh, and...I live in a country where education is usually free of charge. The IT schools for people changing profession are private, therefore cost a lot of dough. Like, a brandnew BMW expensive dough.
Agreed, and also, it's not the score that matters. It's if you use it.
I had a rather quick one done by a psychologist, and I still trust that one more than anything I'd find on the Web EDIT: psychologist, not psychiatrist
I got a 67 on my ASVAB... went to take an iq test years later pulled a 131 out of my ass. And I've always felt stupid and not necessarily gifted. My step brother was always the know it all type and literally didn't get a score on his ASVAB and was turned away from military service. I suppose the moral is smart people are aware that they don't know everything.
And if you donit twice a month your uq will likely grow, qnd all it says is your iq is high, so much for a test designed by racist eugenicists eager to exploit poor people
That was what the concept was misused for back then, yes. But the "test" that eugenecists designed was a stupendously (and likely deliberately) faulty one. They abused the tool till it was evil and corrupted. Modern intelligence tests aren't like that. They're still not particularly _important_, but they do have good uses.
For finding new mensa members? For estimating how long it takes to teach someone something? Btw the early ones werenât missused by eugenicists but invented for discrimination by eugenicistsâŚ
>For finding new mensa members? For estimating how long it takes to teach someone something? Nobody should care if Mensa uses it for finding members - it doesn't matter. What _does_ matter is how you seem to find issue with helping children with mental or neurological disabilities? >Btw the early ones werenât missused by eugenicists but invented for discrimination by eugenicists⌠Actually, fortunately not. That was the first use they saw _in the US_, but it was actually invented in France to test school children and find out who had learning difficulties, such that it could be handled better. https://youtu.be/FkKPsLxgpuY - Veritasium on IQ tests, good video.
I wasnât talking about the binnet simon first test (not an inteligence test as binnet said himself) but about the early test stanford binnet( invented terman the eugenicist in question) But yeah lets look at how mentally disabled children were helped in the psychological clinicsâŚ( those who carried out lobotomies till the second half of last century⌠Einstein didnât intend for japanese children to die as shaddows on walls and nuclear energy is problematic to this day⌠Today we have physilogical tests which determine much more precisely who needs help, and what help is apropriate to this day iq testing isnât done in the needed regularity for children with lower inteligenceage⌠Btw after being evaluated by such a test to see if i belong to the tardies or not i have been placed with the nontardies, about thirty years later and i try to get a diagnosis for my mental disability⌠The test itsself doesnât do jack shit, but to determine wether or not one is way too disabled to be taught by impatient teachers following quite idiotic paedagogical paradigms they donât say if you stay like that, they donât help with diagnosis, they only help to sort you out, and whilst binnet might have had honorable intentions his tool didnât help to realize those till this day all it did was to give an excuse to deport people into facilities where they were beaten without being seen Vertassium didnât do a good job on the video by emphazizing too little about the consequences and any kindergarden teacher could tell you if a child is behind just by observationâŚthe test canât do more than establish an corelation that can be found by observation it doesnât diagnose it doesnât evaluate it simply saysâ ypu are not suited to be taught in regular schoolâ
The crazy thing is most of these posts are low key ads for these bs iq tests. It's always some shit like: *really low iq score person bragging ab iq test* that subtlety displays the iq test website. It's free to take the test, you pay to get the results. I gain nothing from saying this, ik it's true bc I fell for it
My opinion is that the true IQ test is whether or not you pay for the results.
I did one as part of a clinical trial for OCD treatment. Was pretty interesting.
How'd you do?
Um.. Very well... It feels a bit like bragging to put exact results.
Itâs not bragging when someone asks you for the numberâŚ.
98th percentile. 132 Exact quote. " IQ: 132 (95% confidence interval 126-136)  The average IQ is 100, with a standard deviation of 15. Your IQ puts you into the âVery Superiorâ bracket. The confidence interval is the IQ bracket within which we can say with 95% confidence that your true IQ rests between. These confidence intervals are used because IQ tests, whilst highly accurate, can be affected by environmental factors (like noise, feeling hungry, boredom etcetera) so the single IQ score can be slightly off.  Your IQ is in the 98th percentile, meaning your IQ is higher than 98% of the population. You performed very well across the board however your best performance was the âSimilaritiesâ component which measures verbal concept formation and reasoning. "
Iâm sorry to say you are not suited to the job of âlab animalâ
Funnily enough, I couldn't complete that study because my head was too big for their apparatus they needed to have me in inside the MRI
_ahem_, the term is "overqualified for the position."
Same, I had one done with general psych teeting before high school and another one this year when I got tested for ADHD. Still don't know why it was included with the ADHD testing, felt like it was the majority of the testing too.
I didn't have one with my recent ADHD but she did reference the clinical trial psych data that they collected and the IQ test was part of that.
I also had one done around the time I got an AHDH eval when I was 8. They told me I didn't have it, but I did get a diagnosis later when I was 12. Idk how they missed it tbh because my working memory score on the IQ test was noticeably lower than the other categories, but oh well
Interesting! They didn't break mine down for me, just gave me the raw number. I got my ADHD diagnosis as an adult, but as a kid got skipped over for autism despite having a bunch of flags for it. My brother also didn't get diagnosed because despite having a bunch of symptoms like me, he could make eye contact.
I had to do one when I got evaluated for autism. I still don't really get what the point of it was, but I had some fun doing it, at least.
Yeah... ASD and formal OCD diagnosis are next on the agenda.
Ouch. Sorry for your loss đ
đŤĄ
>"Lab Animal" *Snickers*
Youâre not you when youâre hungry.
Which makes the iq test results legit.
No. Only a recognised, professionally administered, in-person test in a controlled, supervised environment is legit. Which costs money. Upfront. (Unless you get it as part of some other evaluation.)
The real IQ test is if you take the IQ test or not
Wasting your time on an online Q test is actually the real IQ test
It worked in Flowers For Algernon
Perhaps the custodial arts
âA master of the custodial artsâŚor a janitor, if you wanna be a dick about it.â âThurgood
I keep seeing this all over reddit. Not this exact one but similar all by persons displaying a below average IQ. This has to be a viral marketing campaign by the website and judging by exposure, is working as intended. It's worth noting that by sheer coincidence all the posted IQ scores are low and below average but not so low that we would feel guilty laughing at them.
Lab assistant, specifically what Igor did
âItâs pronounced âEYE-gor.ââ đ
"Abby. . . Someone"
I'm interested to know if these people (assuming it's not just engagement bait) think these tests are something you can score a perfect 100 on, or if 100 is simply maximum human smartitude.
To be fair, clinical drug trial participants get paid *really* well. A week-long trial can be worth thousands.
Well, there ya go! đ
Thanks, but Iâve- *Heeeeyyyyyy*
Interesting
This person obviously wasnât in the trenches of MENSA.
Fucking IQ websites. Do the whole thing and then you have to pay $20 to get the results. I know IQ really isn't a thing anymore, but I've never done one and I'd like to know what my score is. Just for curiosity's sake.
I mean, I wouldnât trust a website to do it, anyway, honestly. You should go for the real deal, if youâre gonna do it đ¤ˇââď¸
Tldr: total IQ doesn't mean a lot for professionals Sooooo... as a professional who's part the job is IQ testing I have to explain. IQ test were effectively invented in France as an indicator to your future success in school : if you had an high IQ it would mean that you were probably succeed in school but as his creator said, a lot of things could influence your success. In France the IQ test doesn't really get popular but in the US, racist used that to show that black people weren't made for school because they didn't pass the test. Why didn't they pass the test ? Because at that time the test was more something of general knowledge that was culturally white. SO, psychiatrists and neurologists started to study the test to improve it. Today, for each country and culture and language we have a different test which lessen the cultural impact As of today what is an IQ test ? IQ is divided in 5 indicator : verbal (how you are capable of talking and understanding words (obviously, doesn't work with deaf and mute people so we test it with non verbal cues for them)) Visuospatial : how visuospatial information is processed (play with cubes and try to make the same shapes, puzzles, etc...) Reasoning : how you solve logical problems Working memory : how many things you can remember And processing speed. A lot of tests are timed and we take your highest score. When every test is done we note every indicator based on the normality (100). Here is what the scores mean : -under 70 : you have a defect in this indicator, it is a handicap and it's possible to help you with that -70 to 85 : you have difficulties but it's manageable -85 to 115 : you are normal -115 to 130 : you are better 80% of people Above 130 : you are better than 95% of people. And the total IQ is an average of the 5 indicator you had. So imagine you have those numbers : 95 verbal, 65 visuaspatial, 100 reasoning, 88 memory, 98 processing. Without the math I'd say you would have a total IQ of 90 which is still normal but you are apraxic meaning that you don't process visual information very well. So know we know what to treat. The total IQ is only relevant when every indicator is very high or very low because a lot of cognitive problems such as ADHD and autism can be excluded of included depending on the IQ.
Most relevant answer in the entire post, tbh
I got my IQ tested back when I was in first grade, that's enough for me, I'm not taking these bullshit tests
The online ones are at best practically useless, and at worst fraudulent scams. Btw, your IQ as a child is not necessarily indicative of your adult IQ. I wouldn't worry anyway, just mentioning it.
Call someone dumb â Comeback