As decades go by, educational standards increase. And so I.q. tests become harder as time goes by.You are not getting any dumber; the younger generation is simply raising the bar. Want to see some bad I.q. Scores, just take everyone into the future a 100 years.
What is the avg. IQ of players on chess.com
Sort:
Time2c if you take everyone into the future 100 years, the IQ scores will only be down on 5-6 points, which is barely a difference when taken into consideration of the wide range of IQ as of right now.
IQ does not change too tremendously, because IQ is the intelligence quotient, or, in other words, how fast you are able to learn something. It is not merely based off of mathematics, physics, or any other of how your skill is. That is why IQ decreases the older you get.
Amro742001 wrote:
Guys how can I see when was someone last online through the mobile app not the website
To see your friends last online status, go to More > Friends, beside the rating should be when they were last online.
As for other people, you have to input their username into your browser, and you should see their last online status.
ZaiFaLi wrote:
Think about this: the IQ of a person that was just born is 100. The average IQ of the citizens of the USA is 98. Somehow they get dumber. The average IQ of China, for example, is . My IQ is 168 (as of right now). You do not know the specific IQs of each person. However, in my next post, I will have a good idea.
- Someone just born cannot take an IQ test, ergo, IQ = 0.
- IQs are corrected for age, so 100 at 7 years old is not the same as 100 at 70 years old.
- You are about as likely to have 168 IQ as other posters here that claim 160+.
ZaiFaLi wrote:
However, according to much research that was tested many times, playing and learning chess is helpful to the brain, so you may as well add 6 points to your end result.
Link your source, or forego making specific claims like this.
ZaiFaLi wrote:
IQ does not change too tremendously, because IQ is the intelligence quotient, or, in other words, how fast you are able to learn something. It is not merely based off of mathematics, physics, or any other of how your skill is. That is why IQ decreases the older you get.
IQ is actually only your ability to take a test that tries to approximate this using knowledge from over a century ago.
ZaiFaLi wrote:
... IQ is the intelligence quotient, or, in other words, how fast you are able to learn something.
IQ tests don't measure how fast someone is capable of learning something.
Their main fuction is to assess one's education level - and that's also what they were originally designed for: to help identify children who may need remedial support in the school system.
These days, there are better tests to assess this kind of stuff. And I suspect that IQ tests, as we know them, will eventually fade into the ether.
Here's a quick read on the subject, for anyone interested: The Past and Future of the IQ Test
Mar 17, 2023
0
#170
IronSteam1 wrote:
ZaiFaLi wrote:
... IQ is the intelligence quotient, or, in other words, how fast you are able to learn something.
IQ tests don't measure how fast someone is capable of learning something.
Their main fuction is to assess one's education level - and that's also what they were originally designed for: to help identify children who may need remedial support in the school system.
These days, there are better tests to assess this kind of stuff. And I suspect that IQ tests, as we know them, will eventually fade into the ether.
Here's a quick read on the subject, for anyone interested: The Past and Future of the IQ Test
Good article by a well-informed writer. Covers the basic history with the addition of several salient points concerning abuse of the concept.
Wow, pretty good explanation, do you work in child psychology or mental health?
Also thanks, I needed that information 
Mar 17, 2023
0
#173
Optimissed wrote:
IronSteam1 wrote:
ZaiFaLi wrote:
... IQ is the intelligence quotient, or, in other words, how fast you are able to learn something.
IQ tests don't measure how fast someone is capable of learning something.
Their main fuction is to assess one's education level - and that's also what they were originally designed for: to help identify children who may need remedial support in the school system.
These days, there are better tests to assess this kind of stuff. And I suspect that IQ tests, as we know them, will eventually fade into the ether.
Here's a quick read on the subject, for anyone interested: The Past and Future of the IQ Test
Not quite .... they were first developed to measure brain functionality as an inverse ratio of chronological age to expected age. The expected age is the age, usually measured in years and months, at which the average child performs mentally at the same level as the subject. So if a child aged exactly 10 performs at the same level as the average child of exactly 12, their IQ is considered to be 12/10 x 100 = 120. It isn't about their education because they tried to cancel out that variable by making tests independent of cultural and educational differences. In general, the brighter a child is, the longer their mental ability continues to improve, so whereas a dull child may not improve much after say 15 years of age, a very bright one will continue to increase in mental ability into their early 20s.
A problem arose when they tried to measure the mental ability of adults. Since they have stopped improving in brain functionality, it's no longer possible to render IQ as a quotient of mental age to chronological age, so adults have to be calibrated against samples of children with known IQs and I think more than likely there are various ways of attempting to do that and it's very likely that errors will creep in via various routes, making the assessment of the IQ of adults unreliable. I'd suggest that no such IQ test can be accurate for adults unless the age of the adult is factored in, possibly in quite a complex way. All we really get at the end of it is the idea that someone is average, someone is slow-witted, or bright, or the next levels or performance in either direction. My own experiments proved that the same person can achieve a variation of over 50 points depending on how they're feeling on the day. That was the purpose of the experiment .... to look into that. I never performed at my best in the experiments because I was recovering from acute hepatitis, which affects brain functioning. In my opinion, the range is 60 to 70 points. So an IQ test only measures IQ with an accuracy of =/- say 60 points or so. However, it seems unlikely that someone scoring 140 could really be 80, for fairly obvious reasons. But maybe someone scoring 102 could really be 162, at a pinch.
I got the impression from a previous post of yours that you may work in either child psychology or mental health.
You should read the linked article. It is far more accurate than your summary.
I read it both, they were pretty similar
Edited moderator stumpyblitzer
Mar 17, 2023
0
#176
ZaiFaLi wrote:
I read it both, they were pretty similar
You already confessed that you are weak in history, so it is no surprise that you missed the inaccuracies in the screed posted here.
I like how @ZaiFaiLi is being nice to everyone
Mar 17, 2023
0
#178
IQ tests are scored with reference to all who take them. The median score is set as 100, with higher/lower scores reflecting the degree of difference between the individual and the group's norm. Therefore, should someone design and administer a test to all chess.com members the average score will by definition be 100.
Mar 17, 2023
0
#179
Because when a test is designed and given to a group of people the scoring system is based on the average score equaling the basis score of 100. Any test designed and administered to all chess.com members would then have he average score achieved to be 100, and higher and lower scores rated by the % by which said scores differ from the average.
Mar 17, 2023
0
#180
Optimissed wrote:
Ziryab wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
IronSteam1 wrote:
ZaiFaLi wrote:
... IQ is the intelligence quotient, or, in other words, how fast you are able to learn something.
IQ tests don't measure how fast someone is capable of learning something.
Their main fuction is to assess one's education level - and that's also what they were originally designed for: to help identify children who may need remedial support in the school system.
These days, there are better tests to assess this kind of stuff. And I suspect that IQ tests, as we know them, will eventually fade into the ether.
Here's a quick read on the subject, for anyone interested: The Past and Future of the IQ Test
Not quite .... they were first developed to measure brain functionality as an inverse ratio of chronological age to expected age. The expected age is the age, usually measured in years and months, at which the average child performs mentally at the same level as the subject. So if a child aged exactly 10 performs at the same level as the average child of exactly 12, their IQ is considered to be 12/10 x 100 = 120. It isn't about their education because they tried to cancel out that variable by making tests independent of cultural and educational differences. In general, the brighter a child is, the longer their mental ability continues to improve, so whereas a dull child may not improve much after say 15 years of age, a very bright one will continue to increase in mental ability into their early 20s.
A problem arose when they tried to measure the mental ability of adults. Since they have stopped improving in brain functionality, it's no longer possible to render IQ as a quotient of mental age to chronological age, so adults have to be calibrated against samples of children with known IQs and I think more than likely there are various ways of attempting to do that and it's very likely that errors will creep in via various routes, making the assessment of the IQ of adults unreliable. I'd suggest that no such IQ test can be accurate for adults unless the age of the adult is factored in, possibly in quite a complex way. All we really get at the end of it is the idea that someone is average, someone is slow-witted, or bright, or the next levels or performance in either direction. My own experiments proved that the same person can achieve a variation of over 50 points depending on how they're feeling on the day. That was the purpose of the experiment .... to look into that. I never performed at my best in the experiments because I was recovering from acute hepatitis, which affects brain functioning. In my opinion, the range is 60 to 70 points. So an IQ test only measures IQ with an accuracy of =/- say 60 points or so. However, it seems unlikely that someone scoring 140 could really be 80, for fairly obvious reasons. But maybe someone scoring 102 could really be 162, at a pinch.
I got the impression from a previous post of yours that you may work in either child psychology or mental health.
You should read the linked article. It is far more accurate than your summary.
What I wrote was completely accurate. It wasn't a summary since I hadn't read the article. I read the article after I finished writing. I thought the article was ok but it seemed he got a bit bogged down in apologetics and oversimplified and dumbed down at other points. It could have been much better but of course, he's no more a professional psychologist than me.
Also, if you say I should read it, that must mean you think I hadn't read it, so why did you describe my post as a summary?
The article was clear, but less specific than
Later revisions compared of “mental age” to “chronological age” and others later added the idea of dividing these to form a ratio: a child of 10 with a mental age of 15 would then get a score of 15/10, converted to 150...their “intelligence quotient”: IQ. Somewhere along the line, we also get definitions for terms once clinical and today used only crudely: “m*r*on” (originally an IQ from 50-69), “imbec***” (20-49) and “idi**” (less than 20). [some words modified to please the bots]
https://ischool.uw.edu/podcasts/dtctw/alfred-binets-iq-test
Your summary of the history, however, directly contradicts this.
With an IQ of 165, you should have read the article with greater comprehension.
i see it thank you