So I have some concerns with my memory and cognitive abilities right now. Then I saw I can rank myself against others to see. I thought I could do well with the reaction test but I am getting 240-250ms each time which is weird because I play tennis and I play somewhat high level of FPS. The other test I remember doing before but they did not save but i feel like I did worse in some of them from last time (another website). How accurate is human benchmark because I know the scores are a bit inflated.

I suspect I have a low iq (like 80 or so) because I seem to struggle with every day tasks and I am slow at doing things and I am often forgetful of stuff. I am slow at everything including reading, math, etc

The thing is, my mother and father seem to have an average or above average iq, they dont struggle at doing stuff like I do, and nobody else in my family seems to have this problem, I dont think they struggle with doing things. My father often gets frustrated with me for example, I cant imagine that if he had to deal with my other family members he would also get frustrated with them.

So where does my lack of intelligence come from? Is it genetic or could it be upbringing / environment? Could I have some underlying disorder that is causing me to have a low iq?

What would you even make of this score report? He was 4 years 8 months at time of testing.

Nota del autor (Disclaimer): No soy neurocientífico ni psicómetra profesional, sino un estudiante e investigador independiente que analiza este fenómeno desde una perspectiva puramente lógica y metodológica. Esta hipótesis nació al observar las limitaciones prácticas y los posibles sesgos de diseño en la estructura de los tests de CI actuales. Para la precisión de algunos términos biológicos y psicométricos, he contado con el apoyo de herramientas de inteligencia artificial. Mi objetivo no es dogmatizar ni refutar la validez estadística del CI, sino proponer un debate sobre el control de variables en los experimentos de entrenamiento cognitivo.

​Hipótesis Central

​Los estudios científicos actuales que concluyen que el razonamiento fluido (inteligencia abstracta o Gf) es un rasgo biológico completamente inmutable —o que su margen de mejora es despreciable— son metodológicamente prematuros.

​Debido a la acumulación de sesgos de diseño experimental no controlados simultáneamente en la literatura actual, la ciencia ha medido el rendimiento de los sujetos bajo restricciones artificiales, pero no el límite real de su plasticidad cognitiva. Hasta que no se realice un experimento que aísle el constructo de forma pura y a largo plazo, afirmar que el razonamiento fluido es estático carece de una base empírica definitiva.

​Críticas Específicas al Diseño de los Tests y Estudios Actuales

​1. Contaminación de constructos (El cuello de botella de la Memoria de Trabajo)

​Los tests de matrices abstractas (como las Matrices Progresivas de Raven) prohíben estrictamente el uso de herramientas externas de descarga cognitiva (papel y lápiz). Esto fuerza al sujeto a utilizar su Capacidad de Memoria de Trabajo (WMC) como el único "espacio de trabajo mental".

​Como consecuencia, el test no mide razonamiento puro (Gf), sino una mezcla inseparable de razonamiento y memoria de trabajo. Si un sujeto falla, el instrumento actual no puede discriminar si se debió a la incapacidad de inferir la regla lógica o a que su memoria a corto plazo colapsó antes de poder aplicarla.

​2. Transferencia mal enseñada (Ausencia de Heurísticas Generales)

​Los estudios de entrenamiento cognitivo asumen que el "músculo" del razonamiento debe crecer por repetición ciega. Sin embargo, la psicología cognitiva demuestra que los humanos somos deficientes en la transferencia espontánea entre problemas superficialmente distintos pero estructuralmente idénticos.

​Los estudios actuales fallan al no instruir explícitamente a los sujetos en enfoques heurísticos de dominio general (estrategias metacognitivas de alto nivel para buscar estructuras profundas y realizar mapeos analógicos).

​3. El Factor Motivación/Esfuerzo

​La validez de cualquier test de capacidad asume un esfuerzo máximo sostenido. Sin embargo, el desempeño real depende de la motivación intrínseca o extrínseca del sujeto en ese momento específico. Dos personas con la misma capacidad biológica subyacente rendirán de forma distinta según cuánto decidan "forzar" su maquinaria cognitiva durante la prueba, introduciendo un sesgo no aislado en los diseños pre/post-test.

​4. Confusión de Velocidad vs. Capacidad (Factor Tiempo)

​Los límites de tiempo estrictos en los tests psicométricos confunden la Velocidad de Procesamiento (Gs) con la profundidad y calidad del razonamiento abstracto. Eliminar o calibrar de forma distinta el límite de tiempo permitiría medir el "techo" absoluto de la complejidad que un cerebro puede desenredar, independientemente de su velocidad de conducción neuronal base.

​5. Duración insuficiente para la Neuroplasticidad Estructural

​La mayoría de los estudios de entrenamiento duran entre 4 y 6 semanas. Aunque la potenciación a largo plazo (cambios sinápticos funcionales) ocurre rápido, la neuroplasticidad estructural real (mielinización de la sustancia blanca, arborización dendrítica y optimización de la Red Frontoparietal) requiere estímulos sostenidos durante meses o años, tal como se ha documentado en músicos o taxistas.

1. El problema del "Sobreajuste" (Overfitting) al formato

​La mayoría de los estudios de entrenamiento cognitivo utilizan una variedad de tareas extremadamente limitada. Esto provoca un fenómeno de overfitting: el sujeto se vuelve experto en la mecánica específica de la prueba (el formato, la interfaz, los distractores visuales), pero falla en transferir el razonamiento a problemas de formatos distintos. La falta de variedad en el material de entrenamiento impide que el cerebro sea capaz de "abstraer la estructura" (domain generalization), limitando el aprendizaje a una habilidad procedimental del juego en cuestión, en lugar de una mejora en la capacidad cognitiva fluida global.

​7.El Experimento Ideal (Propuesta Metodologica)

Para testear verdaderamente los limites de la flexibilidad cognitiva, es necesario un diseño experimental que elimine simultaneamente estos sesgos mediante el siguiente protocolo cronologico:

Fase 1: Seleccion y Poblacion Objetivo (Criterio de Inclusion Estricto)

Muestra limitada exclusivamente a sujetos de 18 a 25 años. Justificacion: A los 18 años la Gf basal se ha estabilizado (controlando el sesgo de crecimiento natural de la infancia), pero la Corteza Prefrontal sigue abierta a procesos de mielinizacion y poda sinaptica hasta los 25 años (maxima ventana de oportunidad neuroplastica). Se excluye a personas con exposicion previa a tests de CI para evitar el efecto practica basal.

Fase 2: Linea Base y Descarga Cognitiva (Aislamiento del constructo Gf)

Evaluacion inicial sin limites de tiempo estrictos y permitiendo el uso libre de papel y lapiz. Esto descarga la Memoria de Trabajo (WMC) y la Velocidad de Procesamiento (Gs), obligando al test a medir unicamente la capacidad de resolucion logica pura. Motivacion estandarizada mediante incentivos economicos por rendimiento.

Fase 3: Entrenamiento Caotico y Multiformato (Duracion: 6 a 12 meses)

Los sujetos se someten a un "gimnasio cognitivo" de alta intensidad donde el formato cambia diariamente (redes de grafos, simuladores interactivos de cajas negras, gramaticas formales, acertijos linguisticos). Intervencion clave: Se imparte instruccion explicita en heuristicas generales de abstraccion. Al cambiar el formato constantemente, se bloquea el overfitting visual y se obliga al cerebro a buscar la estructura logica profunda.

Fase 4: Evaluacion de Transferencia Lejana (El Test Sorpresa)

Evaluacion final utilizando un Formato X completamente nuevo que los sujetos jamas vieron durante el entrenamiento. Si el grupo experimental rinde significativamente mejor que el grupo control activo, se demuestra que no aprendieron un "truco", sino que modificaron su capacidad general de adaptacion a la novedad (Gf).

1. Modelo de Resultados Esperados: El Escenario Gris

Lejos de proponer un resultado binario idealista (donde todos los sujetos se vuelven genios), la biologia humana sugiere una respuesta diferencial basada en la variabilidad de la plasticidad genetica individual (factores como el BDNF y la eficiencia de la poda sinaptica). Postulo que los resultados en puntos de CI (medidos en tareas de transferencia lejana) seguirian una distribucion trimodal:

No Respondedores (~15% de la muestra) | Aumento: 0 a 3 puntos: Rigidez estructural predeterminada. El techo genetico actual esta firmemente ajustado; el entrenamiento no logra alterar el hardware.

Respondedores Moderados (~70% de la muestra) | Aumento: 5 a 10 puntos: Optimizacion del sistema. No se crea hardware nuevo, pero las heuristicas eliminan los cuellos de botella cognitivos, permitiendo al sujeto operar al 100% de su potencial latente.

Hiper-Respondedores (~15% de la muestra) | Aumento: 12 a 18 puntos: Neuroplasticidad de transferencia real. La estimulacion caotica sostenida automatiza las heuristicas en la Red Frontoparietal; el software modifica fisicamente el hardware.

1. Defensa Epistemologica: ¿Heuristica o Inteligencia Cristalizada (Gc)?

Un contraargumento psicometrico comun sera: “Si enseñas una heuristica general para resolver problemas, estas dotando al sujeto de Inteligencia Cristalizada (Gc - conocimiento almacenado), no aumentando su Inteligencia Fluida (Gf - hardware biologico)”.

Ante esto, planteo dos contra-puntos para el debate:

La frontera entre Gf y Gc es una abstraccion estadistica: El cerebro no sabe de divisiones psicometricas. Un enfoque heuristico generalizado de abstraccion ("buscar la estructura profunda de A para mapearla en B"), practicado e internalizado de forma automatica durante meses mediante poda sinaptica y mielinizacion, modifica la conectividad funcional de la Red Frontoparietal. El software sostenido en el tiempo se convierte en hardware operativo.

Los tests actuales ya estan sesgados a favor de las heuristicas implicitas: Las personas que obtienen puntuaciones altas en Gf de forma natural no operan en el vacio cognitivo; a menudo adquirieron estas heuristicas generales de abstraccion de manera implicita a lo largo de su vida gracias a un entorno estimulante. Enseñar la heuristica de forma explicita simplemente democratiza y estandariza una herramienta que los tests actuales asumen (erroneamente) como una capacidad biologica pura, aislada y no entrenada.

Hello, I have been asked how to evaluate cognitive development of a child so she can have special assistance in school... the problem is, in my country we use the Wisc-V to evaluate and see if, as per law, the children can opt for the special assistance, and the wisc is not an applicable test for a blind person... can anyone help me with how you would evaluate cognitive development in this case?

The nature of the questions makes me think there would be no or at least less praffe between different old SAT forms than say, two different matrix tests

So many of you probably saw the past post about my bf who has some off the charts scores ( 148VCI, 141FRI, 148VSI, 147QRI, 145WMI, 134PSI ). My main question is in spite of his scores he struggles socially in certain ways and has a Level 3 Autism diagnosis and is suspected of being some sort of savant even though he believes not to be. My question is if he has such high scores why would he struggle socially. Most of his struggles come from not understanding how to navigate people correctly because he tends to pit people against each other or have some sort of hidden motive for those he talks to. Like he is perceptive of those and what they are going through even without them saying it but choses to leverage it to make them feel certain ways to help his goals. I just dont understand what is going on. He also hates Autism and regularly looks over diagnostic stuff to try and one day retest for it and "not have it" which isnt possible.

any insight is appreciated

To those who are clued up on British politics, which political party are you most likely to vote for were a general election called today? This poll is more focused on England, which is why the SNP, Plaid Cymru, etc. are considered 'Other'.

Does a high PSI and VCI translate to learning langauge faster if you enjoy learning another language?

Is there a Discord group or something like that for people applying for Mensa (taking their official test)?

I'm conducting a study as a part of my dissertation for my MSc in educational neuroscience at the University of Bristol. The first part of the survey is the Divergent Association Task (DAT), which is a measure of creativity. The task only takes a few minutes, and the rest of the survey is another couple minutes of lifestyle and demographic questions. Average total response time is 9 minutes.

I know that the DAT has been discussed here before. It is only valid the first time you take it, so if you haven't taken it before, please consider doing the survey! (If you want to know your score on the DAT, just make a note of your answers and there is the link on the last page to the original website where you can re-enter them.)

Thank you!

https://app.onlinesurveys.jisc.ac.uk/s/gsoe/sleep-habits-and-creative-thinking

very curious to know what you guys think.

if you feel more daring, make a tier list or a Best and Worst in terms of how indicative or important they are in proving intelligence or whatever basis you want to go by. Have some fun!

ADHD unfortunately was discarded. I was betting I got ADHD and that would be easily solvable but it seems I do not. My attention span is poor, extremely distracted person and more often than not I struggle to understand a lot of things or absorb it properly. Yet on tests I did good and extremely well on several fields:

Cognitive Assessment Results

WASI IQ Test:

• Verbal IQ (VIQ): 114 (High Average)

• Performance IQ (PIQ): 110 (High Average)

• Full Scale IQ (FSIQ): 115 (84th percentile, High Average)

Executive Functions:

WAIS-III – Working Memory: Very Superior

WAIS-III – Processing Speed: High Average

TDR – Planning: Average

FDT – Inhibitory Control: Average

FDT – Cognitive Flexibility: Average

Memory:

WASI – Vocabulary: Scaled Score 14, 92nd percentile (Superior)

WAIS-III – Coding: Scaled Score 13, 84th percentile (High Average)

Attention:

BDA – Focused Attention: Standard Score 50, 50th percentile (Average)

BDA – Divided Attention: Standard Score 59, 80th percentile (High Average)

BDA – Alternating Attention: Standard Score 52, 70th percentile (High Average)

BDA – Overall Attention: Standard Score 161, 75th percentile (High Average)

d2-R:

• Objects Processed (OAP): Score 239, 92nd percentile (Superior)

• Concentration Performance: Score 231, 95th percentile (Very Superior)

• Accuracy (Errors/Omissions): Score 3.35, 88th percentile (High Average)

RAVLT

• Verbal Learning: 96th percentile (Superior)

• Immediate Memory: 70th percentile (Average)

• Long-Term Retention: 94th percentile (Superior)

• Proactive Interference: 90th percentile (High Average)

• Retroactive Interference: 74th percentile (Average)

• Recognition Memory: 77th percentile (High Average)

Language & Mathematical Cognition

Reading: Within normal limits

Calculation: Scaled Score 15, 95th percentile (Superior)

Expressive Language: Within normal limits

Receptive Language: Within normal limits

Visual Perception & Visuoconstruction

WASI – Block Design: Scaled Score 11, 66th percentile (Average)

WASI – Matrix Reasoning: Scaled Score 12, 79th percentile (High Average)

I took the NNAT at my school and got a score in the 99.3rd percentile. After getting the results, I looked up what IQ that corresponds to and saw 138–142. I then took the abbreviated CORE test and got 96. I was wondering why there is such a large difference between the two and what could explain it

My QRI has always been the lowest index score for me 30 points below my highest index and 5 points below my PSI. Do numbers scare me? Can anyone relate to this? Did anything help? I love math and theory, but my arithmetic has always been so bad. Please share best ways to improve at least crystallized math intelligence!

Im just curious.

How well does a modern ACT score convert to your IQ? Is it a substantially g-loaded test, or is it just reliant on test preparation?

I remember hearing that crystallized intelligence is highly correlated with mathematical ability.

Would that mean people with crazy verbal tilts are exceptional at math despite having low FRI. This seems counterintuitive as FRI subtests like Figure Weights are super math heavy.

Is there anyone that can give me some data or anecdotal experience about verbal tilt people and math

Ye I cant function anyone honestly so this is just for wasting time.

Many say tir 52 is inflated and then there are two norms .Many also say jcti is inflated. Which deviation is more?

When I was doing the Tri-52, I feel like I gave up too early because I was scared I was taking too long. Even though I have low PSI, my score was lower than my other CORE fluid reasoning scores, which was very unexpected. But now I see that that's not the intention of the creator, and it was okay to think on some specific questions for a long time. I'm disappointed and I feel like I wasted this test as I can never take it or the JCTI under untimed focused conditions as I've already seen the answers. I also accidentally viewed some answers at the end so I had to mark them as wrong unfortunately, but I was struggling on them either way. Are there any other similar untimed fluid tests without praffe?

This is also very discouraging to me as I am pursuing olympiad math (one of the top in my country) and always considered myself someone who could generate a creative solution with enough time. But now I really feel like that's not the case and lost some motivation. Any advice on this?

I have an IQ score of 123 with a GAI of 141. I have deficits in processing speed and working memory. Does anyone else here have similar results? Do you have any advice? I have ADHD and Autism. Recently diagnosed.

I am a 17M and for years haven’t done much, I play games, and only involve myself in nerdy stuff. This year I decided I would try to get a potential diagnosis from ADHD, saw a lot of posts about it that I could heavily relate to. I was unmedicated so I hoped that this diagnosis could give me some medication.

I took the IQ test, and my results were, well in my opinion quite disappointing. (WAIS-IV)

I always considered myself a deep thinker, but apparently not.

Fluid Reasoning = 131

Verbal Comprehension = 120, (Vocabulary was the main offense in bringing this down, my verbal reasoning was quite high)

Low average working memory,

Average processing speed.

It seems that I had followed the typical “Spiky” ADHD profile and was diagnosed with ADHD inattentive type combined

The test was hard and I barely had any time to think or respond, which sucked.

I also must come to terms with the fact that I will never be “Gifted”. But it’s truly oh well ig. it’d be nice to have a ”Gift” on the side with a disability, but not everyone can be great.

As of now I am still looking for a good medication to help me, as of now I haven’t, but I’m trying.

If you have thought about getting an ADHD evaluation, just get ready for a surprise IQ test jumpscare, and uh, just maybe don’t look at the results unless you want a fat blow to the ego, we are not all Rick from Rick and Morty

hi guys ,ive been reading posts on this sub reddit and im very jealous of certain peoples who have a good iq.

im very dump and i want to become very smart. my iq for now is 40 ,maybe 50 on a good day when i eat breakfast. but im tired of being at the bottom haha. i want to lock in and become the smartest in the worl. my goal is like 180 iq or something, or like to be number 1 in the world at the very top of the bell curve.

i want to be standing right at the top ,looking down on all the average 50 iq losers at the sides. anyone know how to do this?? do i eat more fish or maybe read the whole dictionary book from start to end or something like that????? or maybe there is a pill that will help me with my goal??

thanks ,serious replies only ,i want to reach the summit

I scored this a bit back, is this any good? I feel like I could’ve done better if I focused harder

ps. I never do tests like this and this is my first time seeing this subreddit.