I've taken a proper IQ test, a fairly long winded and old one. Measured at 145 or so, but that was back in HS.
On most of these online tests, I get anywhere between 135-145.
This is a ****ty test. Too easy, and then to make up for that, they grade you according to speed. If I was actually serious about this, I could've gotten over 160. If I'd taken my time, I would've gotten 130. I got a 154, first and only try.
As they're including time in the scores, I bet the maximum you could get would be 160 only. Probably means most of us are smarter than the test-maker.
The Stephen Hawking joke is a partial truth. An IQ test can only measure your intelligence against the tester or designer. For pattern recognition and abstraction, the IQ test will only be accurate in determining that you see patterns in a
similar way to the designer.
For the rest of the areas of IQ testing, cultural bias plays such a huge role that your scores will swing wildly based on where you live, your educational background, and your cultural background. I've scored high on almost every IQ or aptitude test I've ever taken merely because my Dad's a logic puzzle freak, and I learned the
norms of the logic puzzle from him. If I were a Bantu tribesman, I could have the intelligence of Einstein and still only score an 80.
In other words, I've practiced for IQ tests all my life. Whenever I get a low score (below 95% or maybe IQ 130) on an abstract reasoning exam, it's usually locally designed and poorly executed. In other words, I'm smarter than the test maker.
On professionally designed tests, I usually score relatively high. Online tests score me ten points lower. Meh.
.
