Posted on 07/07/2011 5:52:19 AM PDT by flowerplough
Geesh, she’s an ideal “diversity” student for UConn. She’s socialized just right.
From the MENSA Website: "Membership of Mensa is open to persons who have attained a score within the upper two percent of the general population on an approved intelligence test that has been properly administered and supervised."
The actual score for the top 2% depends upon the particular IQ test, how it is scored, and most importantly, how it is centered on the curve. On some tests, the 98% mark is approximately 130, on others, its 140, 145, 148, and even higher. Indeed, there is no precise definition of "genius," which is why the term is frowned upon in certain segments of the psychobabble community. "High IQ" is probably the better term.
“From the MENSA Website: ‘Membership of Mensa is open to persons who have attained a score within the upper two percent of the general population on an approved intelligence test that has been properly administered and supervised.’”
Glad to see I got that right. The upper two percent of the population is slightly more than two standard deviations above the norm. Which is what I said in my last post. And which, as I said previously, is a little over 130 on the Wechsler scale.
And, although the term, as I said several times previously, isn't one with a formal definition, or one that is used technically, a “genius” is not typically thought to be someone with an IQ that measures a little better than two standard deviations above the norm.
Members of Mensa are not necessarily geniuses, although their measured IQ marks them out as at least generally bright folks.
sitetest
"Doogie Howser, yer back door man"............
Hmmm, strange. The last course I took (granted it was over ten years ago) on psychometrics rather strongly declared that tests results of beyond three standard deviations were well outside of the target range of most IQ tests... so much so that scores beyond three standard deviations were likely to be meaningless (since the margin of error in any score at the extremes of the test would likely be higher than the score differentials between standard deviations). We were encouraged to refer to scores in that range as “3 SDs +” as opposed to putting possibly fictional monikers or scores on these results. It could very well be the tests or their accuracy have changed in the intervening time... but I always raise an eyebrow when I hear scores much about 145 (based on that info)...
I actually agree with you and thanks for the interesting exchange. The 98% for the Wechsler is indeed, about 130.2. There are other exams that hit the 98% at 148 and even higher. Perhaps this is the difference between the genius and the ordinary smart person. The genius will agonize about not scoring higher on a particular IQ test, but the ordinary smart person will simply take a different IQ test.
I actually agree with you and thanks for the interesting exchange. The 98% for the Wechsler is indeed, about 130.2. There are other exams that hit the 98% at 148 and even higher. Perhaps this is the difference between the genius and the ordinary smart person. The genius will agonize about not scoring higher on a particular IQ test, but the ordinary smart person will simply take a different IQ test.
I actually agree with you and thanks for the interesting exchange. The 98% for the Wechsler is indeed, about 130.2. There are other exams that hit the 98% at 148 and even higher. Perhaps this is the difference between the genius and the ordinary smart person. The genius will agonize about not scoring higher on a particular IQ test, but the ordinary smart person will simply take a different IQ test.
“The last course I took (granted it was over ten years ago) on psychometrics rather strongly declared that tests results of beyond three standard deviations were well outside of the target range of most IQ tests...”
I don't think I'd really disagree with that. The fact is, most tests that measure something like intelligence or aptitude don't even claim to measure beyond three SDs. My kids have taken any number of intelligence/aptitude tests that top out at 99%, which is about 2.6 SDs above the norm.
I remember when my older son was in Kindergarten, they gave all the kids an aptitude test. The teacher went over the results with each of us on an individual basis. There were five possible results for each subtest: average; below average; well below average; above average; and well above average.
So, I asked the teacher - are these standard deviations? Above average, below average, well above average, etc.? She asked, “What's a standard deviation?”
Education major.
I never saw the test before, but I guessed its ceiling was two standard deviations.
But the Wechsler, I think, tops out at 160, or four standard deviations, and I've never heard that it wasn't considered useful and accurate (with certain caveats applied) at that level.
I'm not aware specifically of other tests that might reach beyond that level. I left the field a long time ago, and the Wechsler was the test series with which I was familiar. However, folks in the field seem to test beyond that level, and though it may be tricky to get reliable metrics beyond a certain point, the problem is that there is something there to be measured, and so folks are going to try to measure it.
sitetest
LOL!!
You’re right, my arithmetic is wrong
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.