VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1234567 ]


[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 02:34:22 08/31/00 Thu
Author: avalanche
Subject: Re: typical, you should all read this..
In reply to: oyster 's message, "Re: typical, you should all read this.." on 23:06:25 08/30/00 Wed


>
> I've an IQ of 130, 147, or 162. Which is why I don't
> trust IQ tests. I took 3 different ones and got three
> different answers.

that's because A), different tests breed different results
and B), the IQ is not static, but dynamic, your IQ depends greatly on your mood amongst other things.

do i even NEED to say duh? they are not meant to be THAT accurate, they're meant to be an INDICATION of your intelligence, seeing as all 3 results of you put you in the above average -> high above average department, that's where you are.

>
> Although all 3 of them said I was in the top 1% of
> some population.

that's not true. the top 1% of the population (in your country or the world) would require you to have a much higher IQ score than that, unless these were some weird non-standard tests. these results would've put you in the top 10-15% or so.



> James would get it if it was explained more
> specifically. It was too vague for him to get... even
> though I had no problems understanding it.


i explained it quite specifically.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]


Replies:


Post a message:
This forum requires an account to post.
[ Create Account ]
[ Login ]
[ Contact Forum Admin ]


Forum timezone: GMT-8
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.