I've always been a little ambivalent about IQ. On one hand, I've liked to think I'm a pretty smart guy, and that I'd do well on any tests thrown my way. I have friends with IQ's of 140-150 that say, "Hell, you're as smart as/smarter than me! I'll bet you'd do great!"
On the other, I've been skeptical about IQ tests, and more to the point, skeptical about my ability to do well on them. I've secretly worried that if I ever got a real IQ test, it would be dismally, disappointingly low. So I was happy to just not have it tested, and remain a legend in my own mind.
But it turns out that without knowing it I already took one. To matriculate into Graduate school I took the Millers Analogies Test (MAT) which can be used as an IQ test of sorts. The analogies are stuff like: Mozart is to composing as Monet is to _____. a)eating b)painting c)dental hygiene, etc.
Pretty easy in theory right? But most of the analogies are more like this-
UNION JACK : VEXILLOLOGY
toad : ornithology
turtle : microbiology
gymnosperms : botany
friend : home economics
algae : zoology
So basically, if you don't know what vexillology is (and I sure don't- Hell, neither does the spell checker on this browser), then you're screwed. When I did the test the analogies were quite simple. My problem was general (and not so general) knowledge. Simply put, if you don't know the trivia, you can't do the analogies.
Some psychometricians distinguish between "crystallized" intelligence- having a broad cultural knowledge of historical facts, vocabulary, etc, that gives them advantages in many types of tests, and "fluid" intelligence, which is more of a general inferential process. Fluid intelligence is measured by tests with as little cultural bias as possible, and in theory would be just as easy for a person with a disadvantaged childhood, or even someone that doesn't speak English, as it would be for someone prepped all their lives for academic success.
Grady Towers, who wrote the article about High IQ people I posted a while back, complained that most of the high-IQ societies he belonged to were of the "crystallized" IQ variety, and that their members always seemed more interested in nit-picking various facts than in formulating new ideas or adding insights of their own (Towers tested well on both types of tests, though he preferred the company of people with "fluid" IQ).
While the MAT purports to test people's ability to draw abstract analogies, a tremendous amount of it relies on general historical and scientific knowledge. I know people that do really well at games like Trivial Pursuit, and always seem to know precisely what civilization had the run of central America in the 1400's, the name of the guy that invented the vacuum cleaner, and other stuff that comes in really handy when you do a test like the MAT. I'm not one of those people. I've always sucked at stuff like Jeopardy, so there was no way I was going to do well on this.
Despite getting matriculated okay, my score never arrived for some reason, and I let it go...but then Nick at Brighten College (one of the places I work) took the test for the program too, and got into the 98th percentile, good enough to get into MENSA. When I found out about his results I had to see my own.
Turns out I'm a stinking, like, 80th percentile of people applying to grad school, meaning I did better than 79% of people that took the test and worse than 19%. Not bad at all, the program director assured me. Pretty good, even...but it makes for a pretty mediocre genius. Translated into IQ points, that percentile works out to a lowly 110-115 (Nick would be a little above 130 using this measure).
The only consolation is that generally, IQ is supposed to test the population at large, with people with IQs of 60 being very, very slow (to the point of being unable to function in a basic way) and people with IQs of 140 being very, very bright, etc.
But the MAT is usually only taken by people trying to get into graduate school, which means they've already finished college and gotten B.A's- only about 20-25% of the population. So under that scale, a person with an "Imbecile" IQ of 30 or 40, who in the general population probably wouldn't even be able to talk, would still be a college graduate, and a guy with an "average" score would still be smarter than about half of the nation's college graduates that pursue higher education -a pretty strong average (hard as it is to believe, I just read that even today the average person doesn't finish college). So given that, if I took a general IQ test it would probably be a fair bit higher. Suppose that generally, only the top 50 percentile of the population took the test to begin with. That would put me up to the 90th percentile, for example.
As better as it makes me feel, That's all just rationalization though. And anyway, if 80th percentile translates to a much better general IQ score, where the heck does that put Nick? Rock on, Mensa Boy.