Take this test if you really want to know how smart you are. This test is free and you should complete it in 30 minutes.
http://www.emode.com/tests/uiq/


A score of 90 -100 is average, so don't get discourage if your score falls between this range. You need an IQ of 90 at least to pass your drivers license test. Don't be ashamed of putting your score on this board. Lets see if this test really works. Kids are given this test to see if they should belong in a gifted school. If this test is the thermostat to test your mental caliber, it should be pretty accurate.

What do you guys think? Is it accurate or not. It could determine your destiny in some instances.

131

This is a pretty bad test.

133.. I've taken pretty much all the free IQ tests out there and got something in the 130's almost every time, so I guess they're fairly reliable.

yep, me too .. 131 ...
check out http://www.eskimo.com/~miyaguch/hoeflin.html
.. just found it

there's another page that had .. oh yeah: http://www.highiqsociety.org/
they'll blow your mind

139, hehe Finished in 10 minutes, rushing thru

140

131 here, too. I've scored differently on different IQ tests, though, ranging from 165 to 131.

The test wasn't too bad, though I've seen ones that are more thorough.

One test which was really fun was this one:
http://test3.thespark.com/untest/

Have fun! Lemme know how you do on it.

-Ramon http://razor.ramon.com

I thought I was special with my score of 133. Two things could have happen. You guys have an above average IQ (110), or this freaking test is too easy. The average should have been between 50% to 60% of the population scoring in the range of 90 to 110.

I’ll take another one.

[This message has been edited by Dana Hanson (edited March 28, 2003).]

Nah, photoreading is supposed to tap into resources of the brain that are rarely used by the average person. When scientists studied the brains of geniuses like Einstein immediately after they died, they found little difference in the structure compared to an average brain except for numerous connections between neurons of certain portions. These connections are created every time we learn something new. I'm not too surprised if an average group of photoreaders possess greater brain power than the general population if we can accept the dogma that one's intelligence isn't necessarily determined at birth and can improve when learning to use underutilized portions of the brain.

OK, here's the scoop.

They're trying to sell you something.

Everyone is inclined to believe they have above average IQ. This "test" gives you the "pace."

Of course, you want to be smarter, don't you? That's the "lead." They are trying to sell you their IQ-increasing program.

Almost everyone who takes the test scores in the 130's.

Miss Detective, I think you are wrong.

I thought of that before taking the test, so I made sure that they were not selling anything like that. What they sell is a report of what your score means. And no, you can’t score 130 as easily as you think. I took the test again, but now I answer them incorrectly. I got an IQ of 70 by doing this, so I don’t think that your hypothesis is accurate.

Why don’t you give the test a try? You’ll be surprised.

If they were trying to sell you something to make you smarter, don’t you think it will be a good idea to lower scores?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaiden:
OK, here's the scoop.

They're trying to sell you something.

Everyone is inclined to believe they have above average IQ. This "test" gives you the "pace."

Of course, you want to be smarter, don't you? That's the "lead." They are trying to [b]sell you their IQ-increasing program.

Almost everyone who takes the test scores in the 130's.[/B]

---

Bah. The only way to get an accurate iq test, is to sit down with a professional for about 5-7 hours and answer some of the most outrageous questions i have ever heard of. I recently took this test about a year ago, and scored a 132, where as on all of these online tests, i score 110-140.

I am fairly recent to these boards, and have not *successfully* photoread any books so far. I plan to be putting more time into this, and hope to get as much info from these boards as possible.

Being pretty young myself, i am curious as to what you think about how photoreading results differ depending on age.

Give age. I'm 17

lol, 15 here.

This test means nothing, i score all over the place on these exams 128,145,135,169, etc. etc. this one was a 145 (i took it awhile ago, and a friend of mine scored 138 who is def at least as smart as me)

quote:

"Nah, photoreading is supposed to tap into resources of the brain that are rarely used by the average person. When scientists studied the brains of geniuses like Einstein immediately after they died, they found little difference in the structure compared to an average brain except for numerous connections between neurons of certain portions."

This is incorrect. Even people with brain damage use 100% of their brains. What these scientists found is that there's a slightdifference between average folk and those wish above average intelligence; they have better hardware. The main thing about Einstein was his beefy temporal lobes, which play a large part in spatial awareness/reasoning. Photoreading Idiot:Isaac Newton as Honda ricer:Porshe 911

When you're born, the activated genes in your DNA tell your body how to grow. As your nervous system is being developed, you get a nice big release of neurons in your fontanelles as the "brain highway" takes shape. Better genes = better transit system.

Anyway, this test HAS to be bogus. Nearly every person who has replied here has gotten a score 30 points above standard intelligence (100) in the classic yet erroneous (mental/physical)x100 age model. Either this proves shcools have started creating students to look smart on paper, or Kaiden was correct in assuming the creators of said tests intend on selling the gullible folk who take these a "professional" version.

If you want to know how smart you aren't, pay a psychometrist to give you the Wonderlic, the Stanford-Binet, and the Wexler.

Do you realize that the unconscious--the sidebands of awareness--pick up and "record" everything you've ever saw, heard, felt, tasted or smelt? Clearly not everyone is using 100% of their brain. I challenge you to try some of Dr. Wenger's methods at www.winwenger.com which demonstrate the very powerful abilities you have and how everyone has genius abilities.

And yes, I beg to differ with you, it was NOT a difference in size, with Einstein's brain--it was a difference in the amount of synapses--connections between neurons.

Also, about the iq test--first, iq tests are anything but the best. Secondly, of course everyone here on this board is going to be above average! Everyone here is really smart--even to be interested in PR'ing shows they are interested in knowledge and how they think.

Face it, perhaps were more intelligent than you are, but who cares? You can increase your intelligence easily.

120 age 17...

krisk, go read a book on how logic/lingual IQ is measured, please....

and Arthur, it was both. Please go read one of the half a dozen books on Einstein's brain....I think it's still touring that country with Dr. Thomas Harvey, the eccentric 84-year-old pathologist who's hung on to the damn thing ever since he swiped it from the autopsy.

As for "our brains picking up everything we ever sense" this is most certainly NOT the case. There is a FINITE amount of data the average human brain can hold, believed to be around one terabyte. Considering at least a quarter of that space is taken up with what you need to get by on a daily basis, this leaves very little room for "subliminally memorizing" the library of congress.

LMAO. HAHAHA. Limit what you want man.

Hey... there goes the white rabbit, lets eat it for dinner.

[This message has been edited by Chang Liu (edited April 14, 2003).]

PR'ing is possible and it works. You are smarter than you think you are and you know much more than you think you do. PERIOD!

If you want to keep using your "terabyte" of a brain of which a "quarter" is used to "get by" while the rest of us are using the whole 90 terabytes, then fine.

If you don't want to believe it, you don't have to. If you don't want to read at 25,000 wpm, you don't have to.

And if you don't want to be more intelligent, I'm not making you, but please, don't go raising heck on this forum telling us how Paul's a con artist, how PR'ing doesn't work, or how stupid we are.

Why do you insist on it? Is it getting you any where?

Nothing quite like a good dose of "analysis paralysis" to keep us on our toes.

And, one can be a slave to what they don't understand.

But for those of us who get the experience, PhotoReading truly is amazing.

PR doesn't work
PR does work

Its the same thing.

Two posts were deleted here just a sec ago. I think one was Saraswatface and the other...?