Vocabulary/IQ test

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

http://www.eskimo.com/~miyaguch/schmies.html

Apparently if you get 165 or higher on this test you might be in the 99.9th IQ percentile but it seems unlikely to me... it's quite fun though!

― Archel (Archel), Friday, 9 May 2003 13:28 (twenty-two years ago)

(I got 173 haha.)

― Archel (Archel), Friday, 9 May 2003 13:30 (twenty-two years ago)

I am too clever to spend time clicking two hundred boxes.

: )

― RJG (RJG), Friday, 9 May 2003 13:32 (twenty-two years ago)

A pitiful (compared to Archel) 169. Apparently, though, I missed one question out; so it could have been a life-changing 170

RJG: have you seen that fake "IQ Test" that is neverending; the longer you keep clicking boxes for, the more stupid it says you are.

― caitlin (caitlin), Friday, 9 May 2003 13:33 (twenty-two years ago)

thats too many big words.

― Chris V. (Chris V), Friday, 9 May 2003 13:34 (twenty-two years ago)

I am so smart.

― RJG (RJG), Friday, 9 May 2003 13:35 (twenty-two years ago)

it's quite fun though!

Archel, you are *such* a big geek!

― caitlin (caitlin), Friday, 9 May 2003 13:36 (twenty-two years ago)

HEY lady, wordz are beautiful!

― Archel (Archel), Friday, 9 May 2003 13:40 (twenty-two years ago)

Especially 'pyknic'. And 'imbricate'. It brings back happy memories of days spent on riverbanks, classifying soils according to their degree of imbrication. Well, happyish.

― caitlin (caitlin), Friday, 9 May 2003 13:45 (twenty-two years ago)

I got 142, Archel you have killed my brain, I was meant to be studying macroeconomics!

I need a lie down, I think I'd have done crap except I studied latin in school!

― Ronan (Ronan), Friday, 9 May 2003 13:47 (twenty-two years ago)

Oh I just looked at the percentiles and my score is lame.

Excrucior.

― Ronan (Ronan), Friday, 9 May 2003 13:51 (twenty-two years ago)

answering all questions as 'same' gives you 115, and 'opposite' gives you....yes you've guessed it 85 (except i didnt guess it, i wwas dozy enough to spend my time clicking the opposit buttons)

I wonder if 115 is a pass?

― james (james), Friday, 9 May 2003 14:01 (twenty-two years ago)

171. But I was just guessing a third of the time (i.e. I knew two thirds so I could count on scoring about 133, plus half of the remaining guesses ought to be correct on average, to bring it up to 166. My guesses just happened to work out slightly better. I think this is how it would work for most people).

― Eyeball Kicks (Eyeball Kicks), Friday, 9 May 2003 14:05 (twenty-two years ago)

And when I guessed I tended to choose 'same' more often than 'opposite', so James explains how come my guesses were good.

― Eyeball Kicks (Eyeball Kicks), Friday, 9 May 2003 14:07 (twenty-two years ago)

this one's boring. where's the dancing ladies?

― Horace Mann (Horace Mann), Friday, 9 May 2003 14:10 (twenty-two years ago)

i got 160 and squillions of them were guesses

― minna (minna), Friday, 9 May 2003 14:18 (twenty-two years ago)

154 and many many guesses. I be thick.

― robster (robster), Friday, 9 May 2003 14:28 (twenty-two years ago)

166. I'm half-bright, just like my momma always said.

― Jess Hill (jesshill), Friday, 9 May 2003 14:32 (twenty-two years ago)

141, not bad, I guess, forgot to click that about 50 were wild guesses.

― jel -- (jel), Friday, 9 May 2003 14:56 (twenty-two years ago)

89 out of the first hundred. I don't have all day, y'know.

― Michael Jones (MichaelJ), Friday, 9 May 2003 15:03 (twenty-two years ago)

Oh, OK, I do. 176. Gets hard between 100 and 160 and then eases up again.

― Michael Jones (MichaelJ), Friday, 9 May 2003 15:13 (twenty-two years ago)

152, and i left about 24 blank.

― jess (dubplatestyle), Friday, 9 May 2003 15:13 (twenty-two years ago)

152, but that was doing it VERY fast.

― Nick Southall (Nick Southall), Friday, 9 May 2003 15:26 (twenty-two years ago)

yea yea nick, thats what i tried to tell myself too

― jess (dubplatestyle), Friday, 9 May 2003 15:30 (twenty-two years ago)

I got a not-too-impressive 147, with 20 unanswered. Thought I did better than that.

― NA. (Nick A.), Friday, 9 May 2003 15:46 (twenty-two years ago)

149

― rosemary (rosemary), Friday, 9 May 2003 16:10 (twenty-two years ago)

6. What does "vocabulary" mean, again?

― SittingPretty (sittingpretty), Friday, 9 May 2003 16:51 (twenty-two years ago)

200 the second time. Although I did use Websters 188 times.

― SittingPretty (sittingpretty), Friday, 9 May 2003 16:58 (twenty-two years ago)

167. Man my eyz and brane hurt.

― N. (nickdastoor), Friday, 9 May 2003 17:08 (twenty-two years ago)

Apparently having a high "IQ" requires a knowledge of Latin and Greek roots. :P

― Kerry (dymaxia), Friday, 9 May 2003 17:14 (twenty-two years ago)

178, but I had quite a few lucky guesses

― C J (C J), Friday, 9 May 2003 17:30 (twenty-two years ago)

148, depressingly, and even with four years of prepschool Latin. I think I was too busy being dorky about those Martial epigrams where he talks about getting head from girls without teeth to actually learn Latin..

― miriam (serrano), Friday, 9 May 2003 18:12 (twenty-two years ago)

I am afraid to take this now, y'all are scaring me.

― Nicole (Nicole), Friday, 9 May 2003 18:15 (twenty-two years ago)

I did not cover this in my Latin studies (!).

― Jordan (Jordan), Friday, 9 May 2003 18:25 (twenty-two years ago)

I was kind of hoping that my Latin GCSE would help somewhere but it.. didn't. I blame all the ones I didn't get right on the Greeks.

― N. (nickdastoor), Friday, 9 May 2003 18:33 (twenty-two years ago)

tu es caudex

― Ronan (Ronan), Friday, 9 May 2003 18:34 (twenty-two years ago)

183 hahahaha!

― Paul Eater (eater), Friday, 9 May 2003 18:35 (twenty-two years ago)

I placed exactly on 165. I did guess on a number of them. Then again I never studied latin or greek or any of that shit.

― Mr. Diamond (diamond), Friday, 9 May 2003 19:31 (twenty-two years ago)

I had to take the back off the computer and pour water in it.

― PJ Miller (PJ Miller), Friday, 9 May 2003 19:38 (twenty-two years ago)

if y'all are getting these high of scores, this test is BS. (not that you're not all very smart, but, c'mon 200??)

― oops (Oops), Friday, 9 May 2003 20:00 (twenty-two years ago)

oh, she/he used Webster's. still...

― oops (Oops), Friday, 9 May 2003 20:03 (twenty-two years ago)

If it's a vocabulary test, I see no reason why some people wouldn't get all of them right. Presumably it's also perfectly possible to get under 60 or 70, which in IQ terms shouldn't leave you capable of reading or using a computer.

Anyway, I have scored higher than 200 on an IQ test, and there are loads of people here who are much cleverer than I am.

― Martin Skidmore (Martin Skidmore), Friday, 9 May 2003 20:04 (twenty-two years ago)

fuck that. (not directed towards Martin)(although, 'fuck that' w/that being IQ tests in general)
i lost interest after the first 20.

― oops (Oops), Friday, 9 May 2003 20:08 (twenty-two years ago)

i got 161. about 1/2-2/3 wild guesses.

― Maria (Maria), Friday, 9 May 2003 20:19 (twenty-two years ago)

Wahoo! I'm still in the lead!

― jel -- (jel), Friday, 9 May 2003 20:28 (twenty-two years ago)

165. I'm going to get business cards printed: "Chris H. - Genius."

― Chris H. (chrisherbert), Friday, 9 May 2003 20:28 (twenty-two years ago)

I agree with Oops about IQ tests - especially ones where knowledge of Latin and Greek roots give you an enormous advantage. I have nothing to do with them these days because I don't think they test anything very useful or interesting, and especially because I don't want to depress myself further by scoring less well than previously...

― Martin Skidmore (Martin Skidmore), Friday, 9 May 2003 20:30 (twenty-two years ago)

I always hate these things because I want to expand my answers into mini-essays: "'Essential' and 'sine qua non' don't mean the same thing, 'essential' means 'I probably have an office job' and 'sine qua non' means 'I probably have an office job but either work with lawyers or toss needless Latin phrases into things to remind people I went to Princeton and really should be doing something more important with my time.'"

― Tep (ktepi), Friday, 9 May 2003 20:33 (twenty-two years ago)

153, which I'm betting is damned impressive outside the context of present company!

― Aaron A., Friday, 9 May 2003 20:51 (twenty-two years ago)

171!

― Nicole (Nicole), Friday, 9 May 2003 20:53 (twenty-two years ago)

177, but some were a bit sketchy, still I'll take that.

― Matt (Matt), Friday, 9 May 2003 20:54 (twenty-two years ago)

wait, is it better to leave wild guesses unanswered?

― Aaron A., Friday, 9 May 2003 21:00 (twenty-two years ago)

I am too clever to spend time clicking two hundred boxes.

: )

Having looked at the test, I agree and give myself 200.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Saturday, 10 May 2003 01:46 (twenty-two years ago)

169. The idea that some of those words were "opposite/same" in meaning was tenuous, at best.

― Ally (mlescaut), Saturday, 10 May 2003 02:03 (twenty-two years ago)

Yeah, I noticed that as well in my glanceover. Forget that. IQ allows for nuance.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Saturday, 10 May 2003 02:07 (twenty-two years ago)

"universal" vs. "Catholic" though?

― Ally (mlescaut), Saturday, 10 May 2003 02:13 (twenty-two years ago)

SEE? That's my complaint. I mean, I think I see why they're going for that: being able to answer in binary terms requires knowing the different ways some of the words are used, and the broader concepts they're part of. But it feels sloppy, and I'm not sure that's an especially relevant intelligence to test for. I fear for the writer who would actually use some of those words as synonyms or antonyms as they're paired by the test.

I had the same problem with the Verbal sections of the SATs and GREs, too, though.

― Tep (ktepi), Saturday, 10 May 2003 02:13 (twenty-two years ago)

"universal" vs. "Catholic" though?

That one makes some sense, but it seems a silly one for them to throw in.

― Tep (ktepi), Saturday, 10 May 2003 02:16 (twenty-two years ago)

it's catholic with a small c.

cath·o·lic
adj.
Of broad or liberal scope; comprehensive

― N. (nickdastoor), Saturday, 10 May 2003 10:42 (twenty-two years ago)

Presumably it's also perfectly possible to get under 60 or 70, which in IQ terms shouldn't leave you capable of reading or using a computer.

On a simple binary test like this, scoring 60-70 would be pretty difficult. As James points out above you've a 58% chance of getting any given question right by answering 'same' (I took that approach with the words I'd never heard of). If your vocab was such that you were only certain of a quarter of the answers, you'd still score 135-136 with 'same' for everything else.

I got 24 wrong, so that could mean I guessed 56 or 57. Which sounds about right, not bothering to look at the page again.

― Michael Jones (MichaelJ), Saturday, 10 May 2003 18:38 (twenty-two years ago)

The fact that you can score 115, significantly above the average IQ, just by using the same answer all the time makes me even less persuaded that this measures intelligence.

― Martin Skidmore (Martin Skidmore), Saturday, 10 May 2003 18:54 (twenty-two years ago)

I don't think it claims to measure intelligence - it's a word classification test which, the web author suggests, may offer some correlation between a high score (or one close to/above his own) and a good scores in IQ tests (well, duh).

I imagine a score below 125-130 is lost in the statistical noise and doesn't pretend to map to an IQ of that figure at all.

― Michael Jones (MichaelJ), Saturday, 10 May 2003 19:24 (twenty-two years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.