Re: IQ'S OVER 200 FUGGETABOUTIT
- From: "Lab Rat" <robbie.buckley@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 21:49:07 +1000
"ruylopez" <a680086@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:0m7q96xhdh.ln2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Mar 25 2009 9:31 AM, Lab Rat wrote:
"ruylopez" <a680086@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:ekdo96x47b.ln2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Mar 24 2009 8:01 PM, Tad Perry wrote:
We went through this once before. First, the usual IQ test maxes out
at
140.
What is "the usual IQ test"? There is no credible IQ test that I'm
aware
of that maxes out at 140.
Doesn't mean there isn't one.
Well, I really should know, if there is one. But yea, I don't know
everything, and that's why I asked for the details.
However, my family expert claims that she does
not know of one either, which is good enough for me.
The WIIPSI, WISC, WAIS and the modern Binet all max at 150.
All the Wechsler tests max out at 160, although it's true they aren't
really designed to differentiate much above the 140-150ish mark. Again,
there just isn't good theory up there. I think you mean WPPSI on the
first one..? I'm not very familiar with that but it's for the very young
and probably scales out like the other Wechsler tests do.
I only know of Stanford-Binet being the one that goes up to 210 and can't
quickly find any info about the new test. I know it is scored using a
statistical method like the others now, but I'm not sure it maxes at 150,
and I would a little surprised if it did. But maybe you're right, can you
show me?
Um. Possibly here:
http://www.helendowland.fasthit.net/Testing%20gifted%20children.htm
Up to the SB 5, apparently, which doesn't ceiling at 160. The Linda
Silverman mentioned is apparently the guru of testing gifted kids in the US.
Yes, WPPSI is correct.
Another interesting article here:
http://nswagtc.org.au/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=288:disadvantages-of-using-the-stanford-binet-version-5&catid=50:early-childhood-matters&Itemid=90
Only est. 62 over 160 in Australia? Miraca Gross is currently tracking 40
160+ people, all between about 18-30. Which again suggests that the assumed
distribution of scores is wrong - or that Aussies are really bright - I
don't mind that interpretation.
Rob.
There is research around that also suggests that the IQ score range
within
the general population dos not follow the normal distribution, and that
it
is actually a superposition of one bell curve over two much smaller ones
with means closer to the extremes. This would have a large effect on the
expected numbers at extreme deviations.
FWIW.
I agree it's important to note that IQ distribution (whatever "IQ" is) may
not work out to be a perfect normal bell curve, and thus when we are
deriving estimates of the number of individuals likely to be above or
below some number we should use caution. However, the normal curve is an
underlying assumption to the current method of IQ scoring, so it can be
difficult to even talk about IQ without buying into the statistics on some
level.
These tests also tend to give the impression that intelligence is a fixed
quantity, which is most likely false. I am not convinced that IQ tests
have a lot of value, although they can be useful in identifying the gifted
and those that might need extra help, on a general level. I just want RGP
to get its facts straight, hopeless tho that may be.
____________________________________________________________________
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: IQ'S OVER 200 FUGGETABOUTIT
- From: ruylopez
- Re: IQ'S OVER 200 FUGGETABOUTIT
- References:
- IQ'S OVER 200 FUGGETABOUTIT
- From: FangBanger
- Re: IQ'S OVER 200 FUGGETABOUTIT
- From: Tad Perry
- Re: IQ'S OVER 200 FUGGETABOUTIT
- From: ruylopez
- Re: IQ'S OVER 200 FUGGETABOUTIT
- From: Lab Rat
- Re: IQ'S OVER 200 FUGGETABOUTIT
- From: ruylopez
- IQ'S OVER 200 FUGGETABOUTIT
- Prev by Date: Re: OT My feelings about the dishonestey and hatred spewed by " IRISH MIKE" for at least 9 years.
- Next by Date: Re: NYT article about eminent physicist and his Global Warming views
- Previous by thread: Re: IQ'S OVER 200 FUGGETABOUTIT
- Next by thread: Re: IQ'S OVER 200 FUGGETABOUTIT
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading