Quote:

IQ Test [sic] are so subjective. A person's score can vary from day to day, test to test.



Maybe you are just trying to be modest. Hey, don't worry about it! You scored really high, in the top 2%. Be proud!

But I am going to challenge you on the "subjective" part of your claim.

If you mean these fun fluffy little web tests, then, sure, I'll agree with you. Who knows where half of these things come from, but I enjoy doing them from time to time. The fact that my scores have ranged from 126-160 would seem to indicate that you are correct. That's too big a range to be very meaningful.

But when you get into the serious Mac Daddy psychological instruments such as the WAIS or the WISC, with massive amounts of research and development, then you are getting a good objective test of a person's IQ. Remember, an IQ is fairly stable over time, unless there's a disease process going on, like dementia.

Sure, a person can have a bad testing day, but these professional assessments are so thorough that, with an honest effort by the participant, they will accurately determine IQ within a margin of error of a few points. Usually, a psychological testing report will include a phrase like, "Peter's full scale IQ was 118. The chances of repeat testing yielding an IQ within the range of 113-123 are 90% ... " Speaking from personal experience, the assessment I had in elementary school was within 4 points of the one I had in my residency.

Full-scale IQ tests administered by skilled professionals are accurate and reproducible, and thus are scientifically valid. They are helpful tools providing valuable information for mental health workers, educators, and others.

Bears, beets, Battlestar Galactica.