Talk:IQ classification

Richard Feynman and IQ

The idea that Feynman actually scored a 125 on an IQ test of some kind is ridiculous on the face of it. Yes, I know that the man himself liked to tell the story, but I can only assume that he was having his usual iconoclastic fun in doing so. The man who taught himself calculus by age 15 was in the high gifted range, to be sure, and those who accept the story on face value are flunking one of life's little IQ tests themselves. The fact that his biographer accepted it says more about the leftist antipathy to intelligence testing than it does about Feynman. Of course, I can't prove that he didn't actually get such a score on a test, but if he did, it would have been as a prankk - the kid knew what he could do. MarkinBoston (talk) 20:34, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Well back then (when was it?) the tests where not made to exclude certain biases, so it could be true and if he did poorly on the general knowledge, word meaning, spelling, perception, puzzle etc parts, he could get a lower score! Thats why these days they are all on logic puzzles, pure intelligence without he effect or memory, general knowledge etc!--Femanistfantasical (talk) 09:07, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

A key question.

Where is the formula or table that converts IQ 100 to raw scores for each age group? I suppose that a standard raw score increases with age up to the age of 16, and is constant up to 60, and then starts to decline. 85.193.228.103 (talk) 14:56, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Every test has conversion tables either in print or software. The conversion is the other way around: raw scores to IQ (or "standard score" for some subscales). Average raw scores do increase with age but not necessarily evenly. Some tests include different subtests at different age groups, so there is no clear pattern of increase in raw scores. The statistics that convert to IQ adjust for this so that the average IQ is always 100 for each age. These technicalities are too advanced for general discussion on a Wikipedia talk page. I should also comment that talk pages are for improving articles, not general discussion of the topic, although I'm sure you ask these questions in good faith. Sundayclose (talk) 15:17, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

But my questions are absolutely fundamental to understand what IQ really is. And I do want to improve the article. You wrote about "too advanced technicalities". But what is complex in a simple table that shows correlation between age and scores? It would be easy to understand even for 8-year-old children. After all, they all take tests in school and surely understand what the word "score" means, let alone "age".

PS. I understand that my questions are uncomfortable for professional psychologists which want to be real scientists or at least to be perceived as such. 85.193.228.103 (talk) 17:28, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Your questions don't make me uncomfortable; I've been a university professor, psychologist, and physician for decades; I deal with technical questions and challenges on a daily basis. By "too advanced" I refer to the statistics to create the conversion tables, not the simple process of looking at a table. If you want to improve the article, tell us specifically what is not addressed with reliable sources in the article. If you want the entire process of test construction and psychometrics in the article, that is not within the scope of this encyclopedia article since there are many books and journal articles devoted to the process. You won't find it in any broad-spectrum encyclopedia such as Britannica. You certainly can learn about these statistical and psychometric issues either in university courses or on your own with the right sources. But Wikipedia is not the place to try to teach statistics. I don't want to judge your intentions, so no comment about your statement "want to be real scientists or at least be perceived as such" except to say that if you want to critique the field of psychology, the best place to do that would be Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Psychology, but again keep in mind every post should relate to improving articles (with reliable sources), not a place to express your personal likes or dislikes. But again, I am assuming good faith on your part. All the best.

Fishing and the Murray Clause

The section on Low IQ contains this perplexing statement: "the clause was originally coined to protect Jackson Murray whose IQ was 57 but due to his fishing accomplishments, he avoided capital punishment". Does anyone know of a relationship between Murray's recreation and his ineligibility for execution? If anything, being a skilled angler would presumably tend to increase his perceived intelligence and thus his eligibility for capital punishment, unless there is something about fishing that is itself protective. Could it be that hanging judges all have a common psychological bent that accounts for both their homicidal tendencies and inclines them to treat fishermen more leniently? And I'll stop there... Pootle (talk) 01:05, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Iq

Iq 76.85.177.44 (talk) 00:28, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Section on pop culture High IQs

In popular media, you see lots of articles talking about how so and so has an IQ of 200-250 or something ridiculous. Since this is not feasible with most reliable tests, should there be a section discussing this?