r/RiotIQTest

Been seeing debates about this pop up a lot and wanted to actually look into what "reliable" means in a testing context, since people seem to use it loosely. Turns out reliability specifically refers to consistency, if you retook the same test under similar conditions, would you get roughly the same score. Major standardized tests (WAIS, Stanford-Binet, etc.) actually score really high on this, usually in the 0.90+ range on a 0-1 scale, which is considered excellent by psychometric standards, way higher than most personality or aptitude tests.

That said, reliability isn't the same as accuracy for a single test-taker on a given day, stuff like sleep, stress, test anxiety, or even just an off day can still shift your score by a few points. So the tests are consistent as instruments, but that doesn't mean any one score you get is a perfect permanent snapshot of your ability.

Curious if people here have noticed variation retaking the same or different tests, or if scores have stayed pretty consistent for you?

Keep seeing "Mensa" brought up in these threads and realized I don't actually know much about it beyond "smart people club," so I did a bit of digging. Turns out it's basically the largest and oldest high-IQ society in the world. The only requirement to join is scoring in the top 2% on an approved IQ test.

What surprised me is that it's not really about academics or achievement, it's literally just the score that gets you in. Once you're in, it's more of a social thing, local meetups, puzzle events, special interest groups, that kind of stuff. Anyone here actually a member?

Been wondering about this since I keep hearing mixed things, some people say IQ is basically fixed for life, others say it shifts a lot depending on your age. From what I found, your raw cognitive abilities do change over time, stuff like processing speed and fluid reasoning tend to peak in your 20s and slowly decline later, while crystallized intelligence (vocab, accumulated knowledge) actually tends to hold steady or even improve into your 50s-60s. But since IQ scores are normed against your own age group, your actual "IQ number" usually stays pretty stable relative to peers, even as the underlying abilities shift.

So genuinely curious, has anyone here actually retaken a test years apart and noticed their score change, or does it usually stay close to the same?

As big a brain as Stephen Hawking had little time for this kind of thinking. In a 2004 Q&A with The New York Times Magazine, the physicist was asked what his IQ was. “I have no idea,” he replied. “People who boast about their IQ are losers.”

the first practical intelligence test was created by French psychologist Alfred Binet in 1905, originally designed to identify students who needed extra support in school. it was never meant to rank people or label them permanently

the term IQ itself came later from German psychologist Wilhelm Stern who created the original mental age divided by chronological age formula around 1912. the modern deviation IQ that tests like RIOT use today was not introduced until the 1930s by David Wechsler
so the number you get on a test today is the result of over a century of refinement. got 112 on RIOT and knowing the history behind how that score is calculated actually makes it feel more meaningful

...did you know IQ testing has been around that long or did you assume it was a more recent thing?

Keep seeing this question pop up but never really see people dig into it, so figured I'd look into it myself. From what I found, IQ tests are pretty solid at measuring specific things like logical reasoning, pattern recognition, working memory, and processing speed, and they're actually decent predictors of stuff like academic performance and job success in a lot of studies. But they don't really capture things like creativity, emotional intelligence, or practical/street smarts, so it's more of a partial measure than a complete one.

So genuinely curious what people here think, do you consider IQ a solid measure of "intelligence" overall, or just one narrow slice of it?

I've been seeing Mensa mentioned a lot lately, so I got curious about what it actually takes to join. I always assumed you just needed to have a really high IQ, but apparently there's more to the process than just knowing your score.

I've been looking into IQ testing lately, and it got me interested in taking a proper test first before thinking about Mensa.

Hi! I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask, as I'm relatively new here.

For those who have taken the Wechsler Intelligence Scales and the Mensa DK, how much do your fluid reasoning scores differ from your Mensa DK score?

And another question: have you tried the CogniFit IQBE test? It seems to have test-retest reliability and correlates with the original Raven's Progressive Matrices (although that probably means some inflation due to recent statistical changes, even though its scoring is supposedly based on its own database).

(Sorry if there are any translation errors or anything like that in my post; my English isn't great.) (God, forgive me for the title).

I came across the term “intellectual disability” while reading about IQ, and I realized I didn't really understand what it meant.

I used to think it was simply about having a low IQ, but it’s more complicated than that. It can involve difficulties with learning, reasoning, and everyday skills, and it can affect people differently.

It made me realize that an IQ score alone doesn't tell the whole story about how someone functions in daily life.

I've been looking into IQ tests lately, and it's surprisingly hard to tell which ones are actually worth taking. There are so many random quizzes that give you a score without much explanation.

I came across RIOT IQ while looking for a more proper assessment. I'm thinking of trying it instead of jumping between random tests and getting completely different scores every time.

Been curious about this since it always gets brought up in these threads but never really explained. From what I can find, IQ is considered partly heritable, twin and adoption studies usually put heritability somewhere between 50-80% in adults, though it's lower in kids and rises with age. But heritable doesn't mean fixed, environment (nutrition, education, stimulation) still plays a huge role, especially early in life.

So genuinely curious what people think, does knowing it's partly genetic change how useful IQ feels as a "self-improvement" metric, or does the environmental piece still make it worth working on?

I've seen people throw around different IQ numbers for Elon Musk, but most of them seem to be guesses. It got me curious about how people actually test IQ and whether these estimates are based on anything real.

I ended up looking into IQ tests myself because I'd rather get an actual score than try to guess someone's from their achievements.

got 112 on RIOT which puts me in the Above Average range and top 20.6%. here is how the full scale breaks down roughly:
below 70 is considered extremely low, 70 to 79 is borderline, 80 to 89 is low average, 90 to 109 is average where 50% of people land, 110 to 119 is high average, 120 to 129 is superior, 130 and above is very superior or gifted, and anything above 45 is exceptionally rare to the point where the tests struggle to measure it accurately

what i found interesting is how wide the average band is. half the population sits in just a 19 point range which makes a score like 112 feel more meaningful than it sounds at first

where does your score land on the scale and did the label surprise you??

Been seeing this come up a lot in different threads and wanted to actually dig into what "bias" means in this context, because I think people use the word differently depending on the argument they're making. Turns out psychometricians actually have a technical definition for this, "test bias" specifically refers to whether a test predicts outcomes (grades, job performance, etc.) equally well across different groups, not just whether average scores differ between groups. Most large-scale studies on major standardized IQ tests (WAIS, Stanford-Binet, etc.) find they're not statistically biased in that specific sense, meaning the test predicts outcomes similarly across demographic groups even when average scores differ.

That said, there's still legitimate debate around stuff like cultural/language loading in certain test items, access to test prep/quality education affecting scores, and whether socioeconomic factors get baked into results in ways that aren't really about "intelligence" itself. So genuinely curious what people think, is "bias" mostly a misunderstanding of statistics, or are there real, valid concerns baked into how these tests are built?

I've been wanting to try an IQ test, but there are so many free ones online that I have no idea which are actually worth taking.

I don't need anything super official, just something that isn't obviously clickbait or going to make me pay just to see the score.

took it through OnlineJobs and got 112. test covers 15 subtests across 6 cognitive abilities: spatial, verbal reasoning, working memory, processing speed, and reaction time. so it is not just pattern puzzles and word problems, it is a lot more comprehensive than most online tests

took me just over 20 minutes which is short for something that detailed

has anyone else taken it and which section did you find the hardest?

I've been wanting to take an IQ test just to see where I actually stand, but there are so many online tests that it's hard to know which ones are worth taking.

Some are only a few minutes long, while others seem much more serious. I don't really want to take a random quiz and end up with some ridiculous score that doesn't mean much.

I'm mainly looking for something reasonably reliable and not just one of those clickbait tests.

I was wondering if the “average” IQ changes as you get older. I used to think a 12-year-old would have a lower average IQ than a teenager, but that's not really how properly standardized IQ scores work.

For modern IQ tests, the average is generally 100 for each age group. The test compares your performance with people around your own age, so a 12-year-old and a 14-year-old can both have an average IQ of 100.

What changes with age is the type and difficulty of the questions used to measure cognitive ability—not the average IQ itself.