Brief thoughts on the norms in high-range I.Q. tests. Criticism and self-criticism.

© Paul Laurent-2011 All rights reserved

Suppose that Mr. X has obtained the following I.Q. assessments (sd15) in various high-range I.Q. tests (HRT) or other timed I.Q. tests from various sources on the internet: 126, 127, 132, 135 and 149. Mr. X automatically forgets all the scores except the last one only, and publishes that information in various media (lists of scores, social networks, I.Q. forums, etc.) with the subjective certainty (or without any certainty) that it is entirely correct. Obviously, the right thing to ask oneself is: why are there such differences in evaluating overall performance, while taking into account that these tests are first or second submissions and what kind of test it (numerical, spatial, verbal or mixed) and how are the norms of all these tests established? Where is their commonality? Does a higher score on one test really reflect a higher ability? And if so, why should there be such discrepancies if one obtains high scores on one test but not others?
Apart from this, we must take into account the inflation of I.Q. scores in IQland. The norms are constructed according to various more or less scientific or creative methods but usually with a tendency to rise, probably because they take into account not only the results obtained in supervised I.Q. tests, but also in the results obtained in other HRT. In some cases, there are overly generous norms that give results greater than 15 I.Q. points on average with regard to other norms as a general rule!
Also note that on the general issue of possible inflation in IQland, it is generally acknowledged that the world population mean is almost certainly 10 to 15 points below the Western (or developed) World mean. This gives rise to a further complication when considering that the scores given to examinees in IQland, which naturally implies that scores are not truly representative on a world scale whatever inflation there may be – if the sample of scores almost exclusively comes from such developed areas as Europe and North America. Indeed, when one takes into account that these undeveloped areas do not easily permit human access to good nutrition, education, etc., the differences that may be there on account of these deprivations give rise to further complications in evaluating where the world-wide mean is. Hence, this suggests that there are inherent difficulties in portraying a score on a test, especially if the sample taking the test already skews apparent (relative) performance on the assessment which is not on an absolute scale.
An example of this monstrosity might be the following case: an I.Q. 150 sd15 has an approximate rarity of about 1/2,300. Fifteen points implies an I.Q. of 165 (sd15) with a rarity about 1/136,000! Unfortunately, this implies a clear inflation of the I.Q. score, something very good for the ego of our Mr. X. If we look carefully at percentiles and compared these percentiles with the high theoretical number of super-geniuses in IQland, it will seem like something is not quite right, especially if we bear in mind that in IQland these obviously aren't all that they theoretically should be (e.g., where are the Chinese?). In general, IQland (I.Q. > 130 sd15) is primarily composed of Europeans and North Americans – a large portion – but it is doubtful that this is truly representative. We have a problem, a problem that many perhaps do not want to see.
Of course, there are real I.Q.’s greater than 160, or even greater than 170, in IQland, and you could be one of them, if, for example, you have obtained in some supervised I.Q. tests scores greater than or equal to 160 or similar scores in several HRT. But it would perhaps be better not to give too much attention to such a score, if you have only proven this level in only one HRT.
Perhaps, one sometimes might think "what a low I.Q. score I have obtained in this test, the norm is most certainly not very accurate!" However, when you get a high I.Q. assessment on other I.Q. tests, then be honest with yourself and ask, "This score tells me that only 1/100,000 can achieve this. Do I truly believe I am the best out of 100,000? This norm may not be very accurate."
Finally, it is advised that you take my I.Q. evaluations as something merely indicative and it may be best to keep in mind an arithmetic mean with other tests that you've taken so as not to lose sight of an objective self-evaluation. (One could even entertain a composite score of all the tests one has taken, but this is generally a more complicated computation to do.)
One may regard HRT’s as an excellent hobby and as an excellent tool to gauge one’s potential without falling into the trap of supposed accuracy in being given three digits. There are all sorts of confounding variables that give rise to differences in scores; therefore, it is always advisable to be skeptical of the results you obtain.
And if your interest is very keen on this sort of thing, then it would be even better to take some supervised IQ tests directed by a qualified psychologist.

References

-Walker, John. "Global IQ: 1950-2050". Fourmilab. April 2004. October 2011 <http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/IQ/1950-2050/>.
-Recommendations for conducting high-range intelligence tests March 2007-May 2010 Paul Cooijmans. <http://www.paulcooijmans.com/intelligence/recommend.html>
-IQ percentile and rarity chart. <http://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/IQtable.aspx>
-A Possible Explanation for the Flynn Effect. <http://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/a_possible_explanation_for_the_flynn_effect>
-Genius IQs <http://www.eoht.info/page/Genius+IQs>
-High range IQ tests 2007-2011. <http://webs.ono.com/iqtests/>

 

Thanks to J. Griffin for his assistance in the translation/edition of this text.