So it seems I'm functionally retarded. What to make of this?
September 23, 2013 10:07 AM Subscribe
Whenever I've taken an IQ test, in childhood or adulthood, I've scored fantastically low. I probably shouldn't have the cognitive faculties to be typing this right now. Help me make sense of what's going on?
I don't feel stupid. As a kid, I never had any problems making decent grades in school. It feels lame to talk about stuff from so long ago, but with a few exceptions I received straight A's from 7th grade on up. Admittedly, the schools I went to did not have the highest standards. However, I still managed to make 4s and 5s on my AP courses which were judged on a national level. 98th/99th percentile in standardized tests, blah blah blah. I don't remember being a study-maniac at this time. I just did the work that was required of me, made sure I understood it and went on my way.
I think I did fine in college. The majority of my grades were As and Bs. I worked a lot harder (on average), but during that time I was/am dealing with a lot of different problems-- PTSD, depression and other exciting things. I'm not sure how much of the difficulty was due to my being a moron versus my being distracted.
How smart I am compared to other people is not something I usually think about. I've always been shoehorned into gifted classes and I've always seen myself as average. Other people tell me how smart they think I am but I'm not sure what information they're basing these thoughts on.
My question is: how am I pulling all this off when I shouldn't be able to do much more than drool down the front of my shirt?
IQ tests are considered a pretty valid measure of intelligence. I know there's a lot of controversy surrounding them but I'm not sure if there's anything, research, studies, whatever, that accounts for the fact that someone as low-scoring as I am is still able to tie their shoes and live a relatively normal life.
Part of what I think might account for my low scores is that I'm a person who needs to do things multiple times before "getting it." Anecdotally, I'd say I do poorly on tasks initially (It's kinda hilarious) but then I learn quickly from my mistakes. So in first grade, I started off in the "special" reading group but by the end of the year, I was at the top of the class. This pattern has repeated itself many times in my life. I.Q. tests rate accuracy heavily. Is it valid to argue that there's a distinct difference between being literally "slow" and being outright stupid?
I feel like the topic of this question is going to make my usual typos and grammatical errors stand out even more than they usually do. And before anyone mentions it, I've not been taking online I.Q. tests.
I don't feel stupid. As a kid, I never had any problems making decent grades in school. It feels lame to talk about stuff from so long ago, but with a few exceptions I received straight A's from 7th grade on up. Admittedly, the schools I went to did not have the highest standards. However, I still managed to make 4s and 5s on my AP courses which were judged on a national level. 98th/99th percentile in standardized tests, blah blah blah. I don't remember being a study-maniac at this time. I just did the work that was required of me, made sure I understood it and went on my way.
I think I did fine in college. The majority of my grades were As and Bs. I worked a lot harder (on average), but during that time I was/am dealing with a lot of different problems-- PTSD, depression and other exciting things. I'm not sure how much of the difficulty was due to my being a moron versus my being distracted.
How smart I am compared to other people is not something I usually think about. I've always been shoehorned into gifted classes and I've always seen myself as average. Other people tell me how smart they think I am but I'm not sure what information they're basing these thoughts on.
My question is: how am I pulling all this off when I shouldn't be able to do much more than drool down the front of my shirt?
IQ tests are considered a pretty valid measure of intelligence. I know there's a lot of controversy surrounding them but I'm not sure if there's anything, research, studies, whatever, that accounts for the fact that someone as low-scoring as I am is still able to tie their shoes and live a relatively normal life.
Part of what I think might account for my low scores is that I'm a person who needs to do things multiple times before "getting it." Anecdotally, I'd say I do poorly on tasks initially (It's kinda hilarious) but then I learn quickly from my mistakes. So in first grade, I started off in the "special" reading group but by the end of the year, I was at the top of the class. This pattern has repeated itself many times in my life. I.Q. tests rate accuracy heavily. Is it valid to argue that there's a distinct difference between being literally "slow" and being outright stupid?
I feel like the topic of this question is going to make my usual typos and grammatical errors stand out even more than they usually do. And before anyone mentions it, I've not been taking online I.Q. tests.
IQ tests are considered a pretty valid measure of intelligence.
I think you are mistaken about this. Isn't MENSA considered kind of a joke?
posted by fingersandtoes at 10:11 AM on September 23, 2013 [12 favorites]
I think you are mistaken about this. Isn't MENSA considered kind of a joke?
posted by fingersandtoes at 10:11 AM on September 23, 2013 [12 favorites]
My question is: how am I pulling all this off when I shouldn't be able to do much more than drool down the front of my shirt?
Given the massive pile of evidence that you are not, in fact, a drooling idiot, don't you think it's possible that the test is flawed, rather than your entire life being some sort of lie?
posted by showbiz_liz at 10:13 AM on September 23, 2013 [50 favorites]
Given the massive pile of evidence that you are not, in fact, a drooling idiot, don't you think it's possible that the test is flawed, rather than your entire life being some sort of lie?
posted by showbiz_liz at 10:13 AM on September 23, 2013 [50 favorites]
Part of what I think might account for my low scores is that I'm a person who needs to do things multiple times before "getting it." Anecdotally, I'd say I do poorly on tasks initially (It's kinda hilarious) but then I learn quickly from my mistakes.
Which is more important than the sort of intelligence that IQ tests test for.
My guess, given your performance on standardized tests in the past, is that you were "used to" the kind of tests you took in grammar school and high school, since they fit the pattern of tests you encountered before, which you learned to do well on, and you got high scores. Whereas now you probably picked up an IQ test where the pattern of questions and required answers was a lot different than what you had encountered in the past, and it had a very clear negative effect on your score.
posted by deanc at 10:15 AM on September 23, 2013
Which is more important than the sort of intelligence that IQ tests test for.
My guess, given your performance on standardized tests in the past, is that you were "used to" the kind of tests you took in grammar school and high school, since they fit the pattern of tests you encountered before, which you learned to do well on, and you got high scores. Whereas now you probably picked up an IQ test where the pattern of questions and required answers was a lot different than what you had encountered in the past, and it had a very clear negative effect on your score.
posted by deanc at 10:15 AM on September 23, 2013
I don't feel stupid.
Then you're fine. More evidence that you're fine: you are doing fine.
College boyfriend of mine was mad that people were apparently "challenging" his intelligence (they weren't, he just had crappy self esteem) so actually took an IQ test just to prove that he was a genius. I don't remember what he scored, but it was high. He hung the results up on his wall.
You know what it proved? It proved that he was an asshole, and not a single thing more.
You're fine. Don't put so much stock in a stupid number.
posted by phunniemee at 10:15 AM on September 23, 2013 [19 favorites]
Then you're fine. More evidence that you're fine: you are doing fine.
College boyfriend of mine was mad that people were apparently "challenging" his intelligence (they weren't, he just had crappy self esteem) so actually took an IQ test just to prove that he was a genius. I don't remember what he scored, but it was high. He hung the results up on his wall.
You know what it proved? It proved that he was an asshole, and not a single thing more.
You're fine. Don't put so much stock in a stupid number.
posted by phunniemee at 10:15 AM on September 23, 2013 [19 favorites]
I don't mean to pry, but what is your actual IQ score? It's hard to know how to interpret your story without that piece of information. My impression from reading a bit on the subject is that IQ scores hold the most validity when they are dividing people into very basic categories, especially on the low end: "severely impaired," "developmentally delayed." "normal functioning," etc. and become increasingly useless towards the high end of the scale. So if your "low" is, say, 100-115, I'd say big deal - any responsible IQ test interpretation would easily allow for you to do well in school and in life, even if people in your milieu tend to score higher; but if you were scoring, say, 70, I'd say that was interesting and strange, and might suggest an undiagnosed learning disability manifesting itself in the testing environment but not in real life.
posted by pretentious illiterate at 10:15 AM on September 23, 2013 [15 favorites]
posted by pretentious illiterate at 10:15 AM on September 23, 2013 [15 favorites]
Do a bit more research on IQ tests. There is a lot more to it then just 'controversy', measuring IQ can be pretty tricky once you start throwing in different varribles. Think of it like this... An IQ test is great as long as everyone taking it are pretty much the same person.
posted by edgeways at 10:17 AM on September 23, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by edgeways at 10:17 AM on September 23, 2013 [1 favorite]
If you were dealing with depression/PTSD/difficult family life as a kid when you took those tests, it is likely that this is reflected in the score. I know a person who is very smart and who did well in college, but was considered retarded as a kid because they did poorly on IQ tests (nobody figured it out until they got away from their horrible family.) Could you have been influenced by stress at the time you took the tests?
Also, some people just really don't test well. IQ tests are not really a measure of anything meaningful if you're able to get through your daily life OK. They really only test if you're good at taking IQ tests.
posted by blnkfrnk at 10:20 AM on September 23, 2013 [2 favorites]
Also, some people just really don't test well. IQ tests are not really a measure of anything meaningful if you're able to get through your daily life OK. They really only test if you're good at taking IQ tests.
posted by blnkfrnk at 10:20 AM on September 23, 2013 [2 favorites]
Admittedly I've never done a lot of research into it, but I've always been a bit curious about what people mean when they talk about IQ tests being so very, very flawed as measures of intelligence. This question pretty much clears that up for me, so thank you. It's pretty clear to me, even just from the way that you use language in this question, that you are an intelligent person.
posted by needs more cowbell at 10:21 AM on September 23, 2013 [3 favorites]
posted by needs more cowbell at 10:21 AM on September 23, 2013 [3 favorites]
IQ tests are considered a pretty valid measure of intelligence.
I dunno; in this cubicle, IQ tests are considered a hoop you have to jump through to get the right educational services.
PTSD, depression and other exciting things. I'm not sure how much of the difficulty was due to my being a moron versus my being distracted.
You know what, "distracted" is kind of an oversimplification; mental health problems can mess with your cognitive ability.
posted by clavicle at 10:21 AM on September 23, 2013 [4 favorites]
I dunno; in this cubicle, IQ tests are considered a hoop you have to jump through to get the right educational services.
PTSD, depression and other exciting things. I'm not sure how much of the difficulty was due to my being a moron versus my being distracted.
You know what, "distracted" is kind of an oversimplification; mental health problems can mess with your cognitive ability.
posted by clavicle at 10:21 AM on September 23, 2013 [4 favorites]
I would no sooner be worried about a low score than I would be impressed with a high score. I am most impressed by people who work to their full potential. Keep up the good work!
posted by JohnnyGunn at 10:22 AM on September 23, 2013 [2 favorites]
posted by JohnnyGunn at 10:22 AM on September 23, 2013 [2 favorites]
IQ tests don't measure intelligence (whatever "intelligence" means). They seem to measure something since the scores have the nice properties we want from tests, but nothing that's actually applicable to real life.
(I got a fantastically high score and my sister was abysmally low. That was great for my self-esteem but today she's the successful one, I'm the also-ran.)
posted by phliar at 10:22 AM on September 23, 2013 [1 favorite]
(I got a fantastically high score and my sister was abysmally low. That was great for my self-esteem but today she's the successful one, I'm the also-ran.)
posted by phliar at 10:22 AM on September 23, 2013 [1 favorite]
You don't even need to bring the validity of IQ tests into this. Everything you've said adds up to the simple fact that you're not good at taking IQ tests as a test, rather than as a means of measuring your intelligence.
You're a functional human being, you got great grades in school, you powered through college and did well there too, and you get bad scores on IQ tests. Three of these things point to an intelligent human being and one of them points somewhat to your perceived lack of intelligence, but a lot more to your being bad at a specific kind of test and good on all the other lifelong measures of intelligence.
posted by griphus at 10:23 AM on September 23, 2013 [1 favorite]
You're a functional human being, you got great grades in school, you powered through college and did well there too, and you get bad scores on IQ tests. Three of these things point to an intelligent human being and one of them points somewhat to your perceived lack of intelligence, but a lot more to your being bad at a specific kind of test and good on all the other lifelong measures of intelligence.
posted by griphus at 10:23 AM on September 23, 2013 [1 favorite]
IQ tests are considered a pretty valid measure of intelligence.
Any given IQ test, like every other test that you know you're taking, is a valid measure of your ability to take that particular IQ test, and very little else.
Don't let it get you down.
posted by Etrigan at 10:23 AM on September 23, 2013 [1 favorite]
Any given IQ test, like every other test that you know you're taking, is a valid measure of your ability to take that particular IQ test, and very little else.
Don't let it get you down.
posted by Etrigan at 10:23 AM on September 23, 2013 [1 favorite]
Hi Jumelle! Did you take the WAIS-IV or similar tests? Do you still have your results?
I just went through IQ & psych profile testing via Occupational & Vocational Rehab last month. You sound a lot like me...always told I was a smart underachiever, not working to my potential, blah blah, but I *knew* I had some cognitive difficulties and I could never get anyone to really take me seriously about it. I read way before everyone else, always processed information quickly and was bored in school, but struggled in math and in some areas I felt mentally delayed because I had to work so hard to understand the subject material. I usually/invariably exasperated my teachers and was always kinda labeled as a gifted slacker. :/
My scores had a huge point different between verbal IQ and nonverbal IQ, and it turns out I most likely have Nonverbal Learning Disorder and/or very mild Asperger's Syndrome! (Gah!) I have had so many instances my entire life of feeling both incredibly smart and humiliatingly slow and stupid. My verbal IQ was in the Very Superior range but my nonverbal processing IQ was in the Average/Low Average range, I have very poor math ability, etc. NVLD explains a lot of my particular cognitive issues, problems with executive dysfunction, etc. I was flabbergasted to see my results, actually, but it helped to understand the information behind the numbers in the scoring report. So maybe you have something similar going on with your results?
My proctor did not include ANY of this information in my post-testing report. I had to do the research myself and also discussed it a bit more with my therapist, who is a grad student studying to be a clinical psychologist. It was a *huge* relief for me to finally be able to say, "Hey, yeah I DO have something real happening here, there's a name for it and I finally have a reason for why this has been happening all my life, and now I can do research to better understand it."
Maybe you could discuss your scores with a clinical psychologist in your area, and discuss everything else with a knowledgeable therapist? This same issue has plagued me my entire life and it *is* humiliating and shaming to constantly feel like you are a big faker in a world full of "validly smart" people. It would definitely help to discuss some of this and just...get the poison of it out of you. You come across as very articulate and thoughtful in your question, and like me, you've probably been shamed a lot for things you didn't understand and couldn't control.
Best of luck! I'll be paying attention to the replies here with interest. *hugs*
posted by cardinality at 10:24 AM on September 23, 2013 [9 favorites]
I just went through IQ & psych profile testing via Occupational & Vocational Rehab last month. You sound a lot like me...always told I was a smart underachiever, not working to my potential, blah blah, but I *knew* I had some cognitive difficulties and I could never get anyone to really take me seriously about it. I read way before everyone else, always processed information quickly and was bored in school, but struggled in math and in some areas I felt mentally delayed because I had to work so hard to understand the subject material. I usually/invariably exasperated my teachers and was always kinda labeled as a gifted slacker. :/
My scores had a huge point different between verbal IQ and nonverbal IQ, and it turns out I most likely have Nonverbal Learning Disorder and/or very mild Asperger's Syndrome! (Gah!) I have had so many instances my entire life of feeling both incredibly smart and humiliatingly slow and stupid. My verbal IQ was in the Very Superior range but my nonverbal processing IQ was in the Average/Low Average range, I have very poor math ability, etc. NVLD explains a lot of my particular cognitive issues, problems with executive dysfunction, etc. I was flabbergasted to see my results, actually, but it helped to understand the information behind the numbers in the scoring report. So maybe you have something similar going on with your results?
My proctor did not include ANY of this information in my post-testing report. I had to do the research myself and also discussed it a bit more with my therapist, who is a grad student studying to be a clinical psychologist. It was a *huge* relief for me to finally be able to say, "Hey, yeah I DO have something real happening here, there's a name for it and I finally have a reason for why this has been happening all my life, and now I can do research to better understand it."
Maybe you could discuss your scores with a clinical psychologist in your area, and discuss everything else with a knowledgeable therapist? This same issue has plagued me my entire life and it *is* humiliating and shaming to constantly feel like you are a big faker in a world full of "validly smart" people. It would definitely help to discuss some of this and just...get the poison of it out of you. You come across as very articulate and thoughtful in your question, and like me, you've probably been shamed a lot for things you didn't understand and couldn't control.
Best of luck! I'll be paying attention to the replies here with interest. *hugs*
posted by cardinality at 10:24 AM on September 23, 2013 [9 favorites]
Response by poster:
Okay, many people are commenting that there's a lot of information out there concerning circumstances where IQ tests will not be valid. Can anyone link to or mention specific studies? All the information I've found has been kind of ambivalent.
posted by jumelle at 10:25 AM on September 23, 2013
Given the massive pile of evidence that you are not, in fact, a drooling idiot, don't you think it's possible that the test is flawed, rather than your entire life being some sort of lie?I don't know. My score is pretty low so I'm not too confident in my ability to successfully deduce anything from this information. ;)
Okay, many people are commenting that there's a lot of information out there concerning circumstances where IQ tests will not be valid. Can anyone link to or mention specific studies? All the information I've found has been kind of ambivalent.
So if your "low" is, say, 100-115, I'd say big deal...Nah, dude. It's waaay below average.
posted by jumelle at 10:25 AM on September 23, 2013
Nah, dude. It's waaay below average.
What is it?
posted by Jairus at 10:26 AM on September 23, 2013 [8 favorites]
What is it?
posted by Jairus at 10:26 AM on September 23, 2013 [8 favorites]
"The Mismeasure of Man" by Stephen Jay Gould is a discussion of how intelligence testing is used for discrimination and in the service of racism. While it's sort of a side point to your specific question, I remember discussion of how the test was developed and how culture plays into how people end up scoring, and how IQ metrics are not the one most important way to judge people. Refutes "The Bell Curve" quite handily.
posted by blnkfrnk at 10:30 AM on September 23, 2013 [4 favorites]
posted by blnkfrnk at 10:30 AM on September 23, 2013 [4 favorites]
Is it possible you're just really, really bad at eg. spatial visualization (or some other component of the test) in a way that doesn't impair your academic progress much?
I mean, you could have an amazing vocabulary and still be pretty lousy at Tetris.
posted by Andrhia at 10:31 AM on September 23, 2013 [4 favorites]
I mean, you could have an amazing vocabulary and still be pretty lousy at Tetris.
posted by Andrhia at 10:31 AM on September 23, 2013 [4 favorites]
Okay, many people are commenting that there's a lot of information out there concerning circumstances where IQ tests will not be valid. Can anyone link to or mention specific studies? All the information I've found has been kind of ambivalent.
Blam
posted by showbiz_liz at 10:31 AM on September 23, 2013
Blam
posted by showbiz_liz at 10:31 AM on September 23, 2013
If your IQ score is below 70, then I'd say that you probably have some sort of learning disability or cognitive processing disorder that makes the process of taking the test much more difficult for you than the test designers anticipated, and that you've found workarounds for these difficulties in your everyday life. Something like that would make an IQ test wildly inaccurate.
posted by KathrynT at 10:33 AM on September 23, 2013 [21 favorites]
posted by KathrynT at 10:33 AM on September 23, 2013 [21 favorites]
many people are commenting that there's a lot of information out there concerning circumstances where IQ tests will not be valid. Can anyone link to or mention specific studies? All the information I've found has been kind of ambivalent.
The Mismeasure of Man is a really good look at how the IQ test was created for one purpose and used erroneously for many other purposes.
Clearly there is a disconnect between how you scored on the IQ test and your abilities as far as thinking/writing go. A therapist or psychiatrist could talk you through that and/or try to help you find ways of more objectively assessing your strengths and weaknesses, even possibly relative to those of others. I'm not sure you're doing yourself or low-IQ people a favor with your uncharitable (drooling, moron) layperson analysis of what it's like to actually be functionally retarded.
posted by jessamyn at 10:34 AM on September 23, 2013 [14 favorites]
The Mismeasure of Man is a really good look at how the IQ test was created for one purpose and used erroneously for many other purposes.
Clearly there is a disconnect between how you scored on the IQ test and your abilities as far as thinking/writing go. A therapist or psychiatrist could talk you through that and/or try to help you find ways of more objectively assessing your strengths and weaknesses, even possibly relative to those of others. I'm not sure you're doing yourself or low-IQ people a favor with your uncharitable (drooling, moron) layperson analysis of what it's like to actually be functionally retarded.
posted by jessamyn at 10:34 AM on September 23, 2013 [14 favorites]
Look, a girl I was friends with in high school got a 630 combined score on her SAT and a 9 on her ACT. She barely made it through school, got Cs and Ds, and that was with a lot of help from me and the teachers. Got tested for learning disabilities at my strong suggestion, came up dry. She is an idiot, and I say that in the nicest way I possibly can.
And even she is not drooling on herself. She went to college, has a job, has a home, is married, has friends, and her testing/schooling/learning ability has very little bearing on her everyday life.
You really, really can't let this bother you so much.
posted by phunniemee at 10:35 AM on September 23, 2013 [6 favorites]
And even she is not drooling on herself. She went to college, has a job, has a home, is married, has friends, and her testing/schooling/learning ability has very little bearing on her everyday life.
You really, really can't let this bother you so much.
posted by phunniemee at 10:35 AM on September 23, 2013 [6 favorites]
Tests are really good at measuring your ability to perform on that specific test at that point in time. That's about it. I wouldn't worry about it.
posted by kat518 at 10:36 AM on September 23, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by kat518 at 10:36 AM on September 23, 2013 [1 favorite]
You sound perfectly intelligent to me!
There are all kinds of different ways to be "smart": math genius, polyglot, multi-tasker, artistic genius, high emotional IQ, broad and shallow knowledge, deep and narrow knowledge, prodigious memory, highly analytic, etc.
I hardly think an IQ test can measure all of those.
posted by Dansaman at 10:37 AM on September 23, 2013 [2 favorites]
There are all kinds of different ways to be "smart": math genius, polyglot, multi-tasker, artistic genius, high emotional IQ, broad and shallow knowledge, deep and narrow knowledge, prodigious memory, highly analytic, etc.
I hardly think an IQ test can measure all of those.
posted by Dansaman at 10:37 AM on September 23, 2013 [2 favorites]
FWIW, IQ tests, depending on how they are administered, can give results that range from extremely bogus to totally bogus. I've had variations of about 70 points on tests. One on-line test, that I recall fondly, was timed and I, in my usual fashion, completed the 20 minute test in about three minutes. There was a significant bonus for being fast and my IQ, according to this test, was 180. Another test concluded that I had an IQ of 110.
I believe the first, totally.
You've scored at the 99th percentile on standardized tests, got 4s and 5s on your AP tests, and got As and Bs in college? There is no way that that translates to "below average intelligence". No way.
Finally, who cares? Richard Feynman, the Nobel prize winning physicist, supposedly had an IQ of 120 (or something else that was above average, but not remarkably so). Marilyn vos Savant has the World's Highest IQ (tm) and has done nothing more significant than write annoying columns in Parade magazine.
And don't refer to people with low IQs as drooling idiots. It's insulting. The correct term is "Senator".
posted by It's Never Lurgi at 10:40 AM on September 23, 2013 [21 favorites]
I believe the first, totally.
You've scored at the 99th percentile on standardized tests, got 4s and 5s on your AP tests, and got As and Bs in college? There is no way that that translates to "below average intelligence". No way.
Finally, who cares? Richard Feynman, the Nobel prize winning physicist, supposedly had an IQ of 120 (or something else that was above average, but not remarkably so). Marilyn vos Savant has the World's Highest IQ (tm) and has done nothing more significant than write annoying columns in Parade magazine.
And don't refer to people with low IQs as drooling idiots. It's insulting. The correct term is "Senator".
posted by It's Never Lurgi at 10:40 AM on September 23, 2013 [21 favorites]
Okay, many people are commenting that there's a lot of information out there concerning circumstances where IQ tests will not be valid. Can anyone link to or mention specific studies? All the information I've found has been kind of ambivalent.
jessamyn's link is great for addressing this. While this short article by Isaac Asimov isn't a scientific assessment, it's a pretty astute commentary.
posted by Paper rabies at 10:40 AM on September 23, 2013 [1 favorite]
jessamyn's link is great for addressing this. While this short article by Isaac Asimov isn't a scientific assessment, it's a pretty astute commentary.
posted by Paper rabies at 10:40 AM on September 23, 2013 [1 favorite]
Think of it this way: say you sat a non-English-speaking college professor down in front of an English language IQ test and compelled them to complete it. They would probably score so low as to indicate that they ought to be institutionalized. Does that mean they SHOULD be? No, it means that the test cannot accurately measure their intelligence.
Obviously you took these tests in your native language, so this is an extreme example, but do you see my point?
posted by showbiz_liz at 10:41 AM on September 23, 2013 [2 favorites]
Obviously you took these tests in your native language, so this is an extreme example, but do you see my point?
posted by showbiz_liz at 10:41 AM on September 23, 2013 [2 favorites]
I will agree with everyone else that you sound perfectly intelligent.
Is there a possibility that there was a fundamental misunderstanding or error in the way you took the test itself, such as (1) skipping a question and filling in the bubbles in the wrong place; or (2) a misunderstanding about what the question asked, like confusing the words synonym and antonym?
posted by unreasonable at 10:42 AM on September 23, 2013
Is there a possibility that there was a fundamental misunderstanding or error in the way you took the test itself, such as (1) skipping a question and filling in the bubbles in the wrong place; or (2) a misunderstanding about what the question asked, like confusing the words synonym and antonym?
posted by unreasonable at 10:42 AM on September 23, 2013
Well, I feel vaguely qualified, as a 5th year PhD student in neuroscience, to tell you that we don't really know what "intelligence" is, and we don't really believe that IQ tests measure it. They measure a variety of cognitive skills and faculties, yes, but to actually say that the sum of all the cognitive skills measured by the test is "intelligence" is REALLY stretching it. My handwaving guess is that you have less ability on some of the cognitive skills on which IQ scores heavily depend (working memory is maybe my first guess, but it's TOTALLY a guess), and more ability on some of the cognitive skills that aren't very important for IQ score, which aren't as easy to talk about because, obviously, they are less studied and might be unknown or nameless.
posted by Cygnet at 10:43 AM on September 23, 2013 [8 favorites]
posted by Cygnet at 10:43 AM on September 23, 2013 [8 favorites]
It's possible that you just are really, really bad at test-taking, but fine in every other regard.
But another thing - IQ tests are just a measurement for capacity, not actual "smarts", so to speak. It's like - think of brains like different-sized pitchers. The bigger the pitcher, the higher the IQ score.
However, when it comes to pitchers, then what's in the pitcher matters a lot too, as well as how the pitcher is used. And it's possible that even if your pitcher is smaller than the norm, you've just managed to fill it with champagne and it's being used in a really high-class restaurant, which is still doing better than some of the people with big pitchers who never fill them with anything more than rancid strawberry Yoo-Hoo.
In other words - even if your IQ really is that low, you've most likely made up for it in other ways that IQ tests can't measure, so you're doing just fine anyway.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 10:51 AM on September 23, 2013
But another thing - IQ tests are just a measurement for capacity, not actual "smarts", so to speak. It's like - think of brains like different-sized pitchers. The bigger the pitcher, the higher the IQ score.
However, when it comes to pitchers, then what's in the pitcher matters a lot too, as well as how the pitcher is used. And it's possible that even if your pitcher is smaller than the norm, you've just managed to fill it with champagne and it's being used in a really high-class restaurant, which is still doing better than some of the people with big pitchers who never fill them with anything more than rancid strawberry Yoo-Hoo.
In other words - even if your IQ really is that low, you've most likely made up for it in other ways that IQ tests can't measure, so you're doing just fine anyway.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 10:51 AM on September 23, 2013
One of the things I'm coming up with is that some people really get their thinkpad in a twist as soon as time-pressure is involved, or the sensation that someone on the other end is "waiting for results" [thanks, high school, for that]. Or in more general terms, it may that you get blocked when taking these tests. That's an issue of your psyche, not your actual IQ.
And before anyone mentions it, I've not been taking online I.Q. tests.
Now that is flawed. Why not? They're actually fun to do.
posted by Namlit at 10:53 AM on September 23, 2013 [1 favorite]
And before anyone mentions it, I've not been taking online I.Q. tests.
Now that is flawed. Why not? They're actually fun to do.
posted by Namlit at 10:53 AM on September 23, 2013 [1 favorite]
Your question is certainly not the work of a dunce.
posted by fivesavagepalms at 10:59 AM on September 23, 2013 [2 favorites]
posted by fivesavagepalms at 10:59 AM on September 23, 2013 [2 favorites]
IIRC, IQ tests include a lot of visual and spatial relations puzzles. Maybe you just really suck at those. Your verbal intelligence seems fine.
posted by Jacqueline at 11:06 AM on September 23, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by Jacqueline at 11:06 AM on September 23, 2013 [1 favorite]
IQ tests are considered a pretty valid measure of intelligence.
Ha ha ha no I'm afraid I disagree. Here's a link for you: IQ test scores have radically changed in the last 100 years, and the tests require constant recalibration to keep the average IQ at 100. Someone who scored a 100 a century ago would score 70 today. Do you think people 100 years ago were actually stupider than people today? No, it's that IQ tests are bullshit.
But since IQ tests do sometimes have some kind of vague correlation with other types of academic performance, I think you should listen to the suggestions that this may be indicating a specific type of learning disability or cognitive deficit that shows up particularly well on IQ tests for you. This is something you could look into.
posted by medusa at 11:07 AM on September 23, 2013 [3 favorites]
Ha ha ha no I'm afraid I disagree. Here's a link for you: IQ test scores have radically changed in the last 100 years, and the tests require constant recalibration to keep the average IQ at 100. Someone who scored a 100 a century ago would score 70 today. Do you think people 100 years ago were actually stupider than people today? No, it's that IQ tests are bullshit.
But since IQ tests do sometimes have some kind of vague correlation with other types of academic performance, I think you should listen to the suggestions that this may be indicating a specific type of learning disability or cognitive deficit that shows up particularly well on IQ tests for you. This is something you could look into.
posted by medusa at 11:07 AM on September 23, 2013 [3 favorites]
All a low score on an IQ test proves is that you are bad at taking IQ tests, or more correctly IQ tests are bad at measuring how you, personally think. Some people think in ways the tests can measure and some don't. Simple as that.
posted by wwax at 11:08 AM on September 23, 2013
posted by wwax at 11:08 AM on September 23, 2013
Unless somebody else is ghostwriting all your posts, you are obviously intelligent-- quite intelligent.
I would guess doing well on an IQ test would violate your conception of who you are at a very basic level, perhaps by separating you too much from your family or perceived social class, and make you feel like an alien who has no place to call home and no real identity.
... 98th/99th percentile in standardized tests, blah blah blah.
Aptitude tests such as the SAT are usually treated as interchangeable with IQ tests, by the way, and high scores there are generally taken to imply a high IQ.
posted by jamjam at 11:25 AM on September 23, 2013 [4 favorites]
I would guess doing well on an IQ test would violate your conception of who you are at a very basic level, perhaps by separating you too much from your family or perceived social class, and make you feel like an alien who has no place to call home and no real identity.
... 98th/99th percentile in standardized tests, blah blah blah.
Aptitude tests such as the SAT are usually treated as interchangeable with IQ tests, by the way, and high scores there are generally taken to imply a high IQ.
posted by jamjam at 11:25 AM on September 23, 2013 [4 favorites]
Where have you been taking these IQ tests? And why won't you just tell us what the score is? You've already teased that it's "waaaaay below" 100. You are being weirdly vague about this.
Go back to your schools and ask for your IQ tests. Everyone takes standardized testing all throughout school that is administered by whatever state you live in. It will give you a sense of how you scored over time and and give you more than one opinion. I am inclined to think wherever you're taking your IQ tests now is a joke, because if you scored that poorly in, say, grade school, they would've placed you in special ed classes. My high school's social worker consulted my parents about my IQ tests because I had been performing poorly in classes -- tests confirmed I was well above average and shouldn't be struggling so much in school. (My issue was actually depression.)
posted by AppleTurnover at 12:37 PM on September 23, 2013 [2 favorites]
Go back to your schools and ask for your IQ tests. Everyone takes standardized testing all throughout school that is administered by whatever state you live in. It will give you a sense of how you scored over time and and give you more than one opinion. I am inclined to think wherever you're taking your IQ tests now is a joke, because if you scored that poorly in, say, grade school, they would've placed you in special ed classes. My high school's social worker consulted my parents about my IQ tests because I had been performing poorly in classes -- tests confirmed I was well above average and shouldn't be struggling so much in school. (My issue was actually depression.)
posted by AppleTurnover at 12:37 PM on September 23, 2013 [2 favorites]
I do this for a living. A diagnosis of intellectual disability requires IQ below 70 (based on your posts and academic success, this seems unlikely), daily living skills below 70 (if you're living on your own, this seems unlikely), and delays during the developmental period (were you slow to walk or talk?). I don't think you have an intellectual disability which makes me question these scores.
Who administered these tests? Why were these tests given to you? They're not given to every child. Did the examiner produce a written report? How did they explain the low scores given your evident academic success? What exactly was your "significantly below average" IQ score? And what were the index cores (verbal, perceptual, etc)? Clearly you have strong verbal skills based on your posts and college success. It's possible that low skills in other areas (visual-spatial skills, memory, processing speed) brought down the overall average score. It's possible that you just don't test well. It's possible that the tests were administered in unfavorable conditions (were you tired? hungry? in a noisy room?). It's possible that the test was scored incorrectly (how many were you given? By who?). Do you have a learning disability, ADHD, test anxiety, or any other challenges that could affect your results? Any hearing or vision problems?
We're going to need more information to give you an answer here. But I especially want to know who gave you the tests, why, and what the actual scores were. I mean, 85 could be considered "far below average" by a layman but is actually within the average range (1 standard deviation from the mean).
posted by Nickel at 12:58 PM on September 23, 2013 [13 favorites]
Who administered these tests? Why were these tests given to you? They're not given to every child. Did the examiner produce a written report? How did they explain the low scores given your evident academic success? What exactly was your "significantly below average" IQ score? And what were the index cores (verbal, perceptual, etc)? Clearly you have strong verbal skills based on your posts and college success. It's possible that low skills in other areas (visual-spatial skills, memory, processing speed) brought down the overall average score. It's possible that you just don't test well. It's possible that the tests were administered in unfavorable conditions (were you tired? hungry? in a noisy room?). It's possible that the test was scored incorrectly (how many were you given? By who?). Do you have a learning disability, ADHD, test anxiety, or any other challenges that could affect your results? Any hearing or vision problems?
We're going to need more information to give you an answer here. But I especially want to know who gave you the tests, why, and what the actual scores were. I mean, 85 could be considered "far below average" by a layman but is actually within the average range (1 standard deviation from the mean).
posted by Nickel at 12:58 PM on September 23, 2013 [13 favorites]
Medusa is talking about the Flynn Effect. Hypotheses for the increase in average IQ over the past century tend to focus on improved environmental factors (better access to education, familiarity with test taking, better nutrition and health care). In fact, the increase has been slowing down and even stopping in most developed nations over the past 20 or so years, which tends to support those environmental theories.
posted by Nickel at 1:10 PM on September 23, 2013
posted by Nickel at 1:10 PM on September 23, 2013
Those visual-spatial puzzles killed me -- I still remember the horror of looking at them and realizing I had no idea what the right answers were. I'd never seen questions like that before and was so busy having my mind blown and freaking out that I probably got every puzzle wrong. All evidence points to me not being an idiot, but I'm too scared to take an IQ test to this day because of that.
Maybe the same thing happened to you -- the information/how it was presented was just too different and you didn't know where to start, or ended up making a lot of wrong guesses? When you took the test, did it feel like you had no idea what you were doing, or did it feel like it was going OK?
Also, maybe you need(ed) glasses? Or maybe you filled out the answer sheet wrong or the computer misread your answers? Even though it's an "intellectual" test you're still operating in the real world, with physical constraints.
posted by rue72 at 2:00 PM on September 23, 2013
Maybe the same thing happened to you -- the information/how it was presented was just too different and you didn't know where to start, or ended up making a lot of wrong guesses? When you took the test, did it feel like you had no idea what you were doing, or did it feel like it was going OK?
Also, maybe you need(ed) glasses? Or maybe you filled out the answer sheet wrong or the computer misread your answers? Even though it's an "intellectual" test you're still operating in the real world, with physical constraints.
posted by rue72 at 2:00 PM on September 23, 2013
Part of what I think might account for my low scores is that I'm a person who needs to do things multiple times before "getting it."... Is it valid to argue that there's a distinct difference between being literally "slow" and being outright stupid?
YES!!! It sounds like you are an intelligent person with a learning disability that makes it hard for you to take in new information the first time. Given an appropriate accommodation (enough time to review and practice) you can and do learn the material and your mastery shows up in your good grades, work performance etc. In fact, the hallmark of a learning disability is exactly that discrepancy So an IQ test, with its unfamiliar format and emphasis on timed accuracy loads heavily on your areas of challenge. My guess is that if I took an IQ test ten times in ten days, my score would improve a little with practice whereas you took it ten times in ten days you would show fantastic improvement.
Trust the evidence of your life that you are an intelligent person and reconcile yourself to the fact that an IQ is just not an appropriate way to assess you (even within the limits that it might be accurate for most others). If this really bothers you, it might be a good idea to get a good, careful assessment of learning differences - sometime it can really help to have a name for the problem and it can also make it easier to talk to others about what you need to help you do your best.
posted by metahawk at 2:49 PM on September 23, 2013 [2 favorites]
YES!!! It sounds like you are an intelligent person with a learning disability that makes it hard for you to take in new information the first time. Given an appropriate accommodation (enough time to review and practice) you can and do learn the material and your mastery shows up in your good grades, work performance etc. In fact, the hallmark of a learning disability is exactly that discrepancy So an IQ test, with its unfamiliar format and emphasis on timed accuracy loads heavily on your areas of challenge. My guess is that if I took an IQ test ten times in ten days, my score would improve a little with practice whereas you took it ten times in ten days you would show fantastic improvement.
Trust the evidence of your life that you are an intelligent person and reconcile yourself to the fact that an IQ is just not an appropriate way to assess you (even within the limits that it might be accurate for most others). If this really bothers you, it might be a good idea to get a good, careful assessment of learning differences - sometime it can really help to have a name for the problem and it can also make it easier to talk to others about what you need to help you do your best.
posted by metahawk at 2:49 PM on September 23, 2013 [2 favorites]
I think I've taken one IQ test in my life. Are you taking these a lot or something? Seriously, it doesn't mean a thing.
posted by dawkins_7 at 3:14 PM on September 23, 2013
posted by dawkins_7 at 3:14 PM on September 23, 2013
SAT scores and IQ scores are supposed to measure pretty similar things and empirically they correlate pretty well. Based on everything else you said, that makes the IQ score the weird outlier.
I'm guessing either you have trouble with something really, really specific that in real life you work around well (like KathrynT mentioned above), or you are really psyching yourself out about that type of test.
posted by en forme de poire at 3:35 PM on September 23, 2013
I'm guessing either you have trouble with something really, really specific that in real life you work around well (like KathrynT mentioned above), or you are really psyching yourself out about that type of test.
posted by en forme de poire at 3:35 PM on September 23, 2013
What Nickel said. I'm not going to dismiss the whole concept of IQ tests. However, demonstrably you are intelligent, therefore the tests must have been wrong.
Either that or you have uneven patterns of intelligence that average out to a low score. That's quite common for people on the autistic spectrum, not suggesting that you are.
posted by tel3path at 3:45 PM on September 23, 2013
Either that or you have uneven patterns of intelligence that average out to a low score. That's quite common for people on the autistic spectrum, not suggesting that you are.
posted by tel3path at 3:45 PM on September 23, 2013
Honestly, based on this question as well as your posting history, I think your problem is not really "IQ" and is more about giving a disproportionate weight to things that make you feel bad (scores on one type of test), while minimizing any evidence to the contrary (good standardized test scores and GPA).
posted by en forme de poire at 3:45 PM on September 23, 2013 [5 favorites]
posted by en forme de poire at 3:45 PM on September 23, 2013 [5 favorites]
IQ tests are considered a pretty valid measure of intelligence.
By whom? Alfred E. Newman? IQ is a myth, pure & simple.
posted by LonnieK at 4:58 PM on September 23, 2013
By whom? Alfred E. Newman? IQ is a myth, pure & simple.
posted by LonnieK at 4:58 PM on September 23, 2013
Depressive episodes can also severely reduce IQ scores for months at a time, so if you were being tested as an adjunct to other treatments you would expect to score in the bottom 5% until your brain began its gradual recovery.
posted by johngumbo at 10:14 PM on September 23, 2013
posted by johngumbo at 10:14 PM on September 23, 2013
« Older Where can I buy bandannas that are nice and soft? | What is the name of this book that offers... Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.
College graduates average around 115, if I recall; advanced degree holders skew somewhat higher.
In any event, there seem to be a lot of questions out there about how relevant and applicable IQ scores are.
posted by dfriedman at 10:10 AM on September 23, 2013 [1 favorite]