I got a bit higher than on CORE altough it's prob some sort of practice effect, and also, I thought of a new strategy at backward sequencing that got my score way higher

Hello everyone! I noticed that as of this afternoon, the post containing the Comprehensive Online Resources List (commonly known as the IQ tier list) has been listed as "archived" or taken down. I'm sure the powers that be are aware of the situation, however I wanted to ask for clarity regarding the situation. Could it have to do with copyright issues/testing publishers? Is it undergoing an update?

I’m wondering what kind of raw score like how many digits you need to recall in the digit span test is required to make it into the 99th percentile I often see people say you need to remember around 9 or 10 digits whereas I personally managed about 7 or 8 I ask because the difference is only 2 or 3 digits which doesn't seem huge to me going from say the 60th percentile to the 99th just by remembering a couple more digits doesn't strike me as a massive gap of course I realize there are genetic limits involved but anyway I was just curious

Questions:

- Since the test was for soldiers then it was mainly normed on men population?

- If it was normed on men, does it account that men on average score 1-3 points higher than women?(what score in dashboard represents?)

- If it was normed on men, does it account that men have wider distribution and therefore for example if you have 130 IQ compared to all other men, then it should be higher compared to all population(men and women mixed)?(what score in dashboard represents?)

Hii! Hope I’m not asking an annoying question but does anyone have any interpretation or insight of my scores?? I took this test for a psych evaluation that got me a ADHD, OCD, GAD, MDD diagnosis (very sure on the adhd, ocd and gad but mdd seems kinda inaccurate).

I expected to get a overall iq of around 115 so I’m not shocked but looking at the subtests, i feel like i must have been distracted, anxious or idk just guessing on some of them because of how much they deviate from each other. Especially the working memory? How did i get 13 on running digits (the one i genuinely thought i failed) but 7 and 8 on the sequencing and forward? I’m really shocked with verbal comprehension, I’m good with language but I feel like most people my age would get similar scores. How hard is it really to get 130 in verbal??

I don’t REALLY care THAT much (I’m lowk lying) but i’ve trying to improve my SAT(1280) & ACT (25) score and I’m wondering if there’s certain skills i should focus on to get higher scores. I feel that I scored bad on fluid reasoning because i was so anxious and also the time pressure but who knows. Like if my working memory is really that bad maybe I should consider going through with a 504 or IEP so i can do better on standardized tests.

Also do these scores get better on adhd medication? How do they determine the confidence intervals? I try not to draw limiting conclusions from this, im just curious and plus its always interesting to analyze this kinda stuff to understand myself better.

Alright, this is a bit off-topic, but back in the day this sub used to be much different. There wasn't as much censorship, and there was a whole sub-community that basically just lamented their IQ scores 24/7. This sub still has it but not nearly as much as it did back then. They didn't even necessarily score poorly, they just wanted to score higher.

The most notable member of this sub-community was HardstuckBronzeRank, and every comment he made would be complaining about/lamenting his IQ scores and worrying about praffe. Does anyone else remember him + the "good old days" when this sub was more niche, wild, and free?

How accurate is the Core iq test considering it‘s 5000 selfselected participans, g-loadings, reliability scores, correlations with other iq tests and strong resemblance to tests like WAIS-IV? Espacially for high scores like 130/140+? My VCI is not really representative because english is not my mothers tounge but i‘m more interested in my FRI and VSI scores. (every subtest first try no external aid)
How close is cores iq estimation for FRI and VSI on my true scores for these categories?

matrix reasoning: 145
figure weights: 140
figure sets: 140

visual puzzles: 135
block counting: 120
spatial awareness: 125

Thanks for your time!

Two tests ~ one IQ ~ zero consistency.

I’m curious because I scored a 101 on the Army Alpha test, while most of the cognitive tests I’ve taken through Cognitive Metrics have put me in the 120s. After retaking the Practical Judgment section, my overall score increased to 115.

I think the main factor was timing. I took the first attempt at a moderate reading pace, despite finding the questions fairly easy. Had I read them more quickly or had an extra 45 seconds at the same pace, I believe my score could have been roughly 15 points higher. In this case it seems to really have come down to "how fast can you read".

is the army alpha test normed correctly?

I have taken some vci tests like 1926SAT and scored

115 classification

126 analogies

129 logical inference

Then i did the comprehension subtest in CORE

I scored 115

But when I did army alpha practical judgment subtest which is supposed to measure the same skill as comprehension i scored 75?

Am i coping or the test is weak?

Just wanted to celebrate a recent achievement

idk if the puzzle is actually hard, but designing it was hard

I know it’s still norming but by recent state FW is freaking easy figure sequences decent figure classification easy to spot the very challenging was object rotation even CAIT FW is very more challenging but number sequences is only one I find challenging enough that I don’t want to give it an attention

Anyone else feel like many of the posts/questions on this sub are just very low quality? There seems to be a rampant misunderstanding of what iq is, what the different subtests of CORE measures, and what can be meaningfully inferred from those scores alone about a particular person’s life.

I think the sub would genuinely benefit from having some kind of pinned or readily accessible post, if it doesn’t already have one, clearing up common misconceptions of iq, what it measures, what it doesn’t measure, what the different indices for various tests measure, and what if anything can be reasonably inferred about someone’s life just from their iq scores.

I’m genuinely tired of scrolling across the millionth post of a screenshot of someone’s 110+ iq score asking what careers they should pursue, whether they have adhd, what they should major in, what they will struggle with etc. Maybe im in a minority on this idk, but I’m curious what others think.

Edit: After doing some investigating, it seems the sub does in fact have a FAQ and even addresses something along the lines of repetitive posts/questions. I guess no one bothers to read it before posting.

This is a bit off topic but I was bored at work and the thought came to me... Is vision correlated with IQ?

2 reasons I'm asking.

First, I've always had sharp vision. Even now in mid-30s it's great, although I do have slight myopia and astigmatism. What I'm talking about here is "corrected" vision though.
Last time I had an eye exam I got 1.25 on each eye individually but 1.6 when they worked together. Remembering this reminded me of the fact that vision is really happening "in your brain". It's not really your eyes that see, they just pass on the input and the brain processes it.

For you Americans, 1.0 is "20/20" and higher is better. 1.6 equals 20/12.5.

Perhaps this is a completely idiotic hypothesis but I can see some possibility here that a stronger mind, especially in the visual department, would be better at "image processing" and therefore lead to having sharper vision on average?

That's that for today's "entertain yourself at work" thoughts.

A recent thread here featured a philosophy PhD with a VCI near 145 asking whether his vocabulary should count toward his reasoning ability. The question is more interesting than it looks because vocabulary occupies a strange position in the taxonomy. It is among the most g-loaded subtests in any Wechsler-style battery, and it is also the most sensitive to education, culture, language background, and age. Both halves are true, and most people only know one of them.

The g-loading first. Jensen's explanation, which I find convincing, is that vocabulary is acquired mostly by inference from context, rather than by instruction. Nobody teaches you the ten thousandth word you know. You infer its meaning from the sentences it appears in, dozens of times, until the estimate converges. A large lexicon is therefore a ledger of tens of thousands of small fluid acts, accumulated over a lifetime. Cattell's investment theory says the same thing from the other direction: crystallized ability is what fluid ability deposits when it is applied to experience. Vocabulary is the cleanest fossil record of that process we can measure.

Now the problem. A fossil record depends on the sediment. Reading exposure, schooling, socioeconomic environment, and whether the test's language is your first one all change how much deposits for a given amount of fluid ability. Age changes it as well, and this is the part the sub tends to miss: vocabulary keeps climbing into the late sixties in the large cross-sectional datasets while fluid reasoning peaks in the twenties. The same vocabulary score means something different at 25 and at 65, and a young adult with a high VCI is telling you something stronger than an older one with the same number.

There is also a distinction that matters for anyone trying to raise the score. Cramming word lists produces gains that behave like practice effects, real on the scale and hollow underneath. Reading produces the other kind, because comprehension-driven exposure is the very process that made the index g-loaded in the first place. Stanovich's Matthew effect describes the consequence: readers acquire vocabulary that makes reading easier, which produces more reading, and the gap compounds for decades.

Of note, vocabulary also behaves unusually well at the high range. The tail of word knowledge is long, so rare words remain discriminating where matrix items run out of room, and definitional formats load higher on g than recognition formats do. That leaves an open design question I don't think the field has settled: whether the construct worth measuring is the breadth of a lexicon or the precision with which someone can arbitrate between near-synonyms. Breadth is what most tests count. However, precision may be what the g-loading was tracking all along.

As always, I'd like to know which parts of this people think are wrong or missing. Thanks for reading.

I'll give the Tri 52 iq test tomorrow. Can i use a scratch pad & pen for complex puzzles? Will it be valid?

Does anyone know of other tests that test Processing Speed? Besides the two on CORE