Frequently asked questions

I.Q. Tests for the High Range

The questions and answers

Which tests are accepted for admission by the ... Society?

See that society's pages at GliaWeb.

What are the norms or statistics for the ... Test?
How many have taken the ... Test?

See the section with statistics and norms. It contains all available statistics and norms, so that includes all "how many have taken" information.

Can you recommend a test for me?

Yes, but it is preferred that you choose a test yourself based on the test descriptions provided online. If a test is recommended, the aim is always to select a test that will assess your ability level well, which is not the same as to select a test that you will "like", or that will let you score high as possible.

Are repeated attempts at tests allowed?

No. The reasons for not allowing retests are explained in Recommendations for conducting high-range intelligence tests , under "Retesting".


If a test has no time limit, what would be a reasonable amount of time to spend on it?

The time it takes until one can find no further solutions. The irrelevance of the absolute length of that time interval is implied in, and inherent to, the principle of untimed testing. Provided one adheres to the rules, there is no risk of arriving at an unrealistically high score, as some beginners fear.

What did [some well-known person] score on your tests?

For reasons of privacy and confidentiality that is not revealed.

Why is real-life achievement not accepted as a measure of I.Q.?

I.Q. is a score on an intelligence test, and the purpose of such tests is and has always been to predict (in the statistical sense of "correlate with") real-life achievement. The correlation between I.Q. and real-life achievement is ultimately the validity of the test. Although real-life achievement is obviously more important than test scores, someone who only reports real-life achievement and takes no tests is not contributing to the study of intelligence and creativity, or to the development and validation of the tests.

Why do I keep receiving scores of zero on the tests? Am I persona non grata? Do you do this to keep consistency between your tests?

A score of zero means that the number of correct answers is zero. With repeated scores of zero one should conclude the tests one tried were too hard for one. All scores are reported objectively, without bias against particular persons and without taking priorly achieved scores into account.

When taking a test, is it allowed to use divination to arrive at answers? If so, should only answers from one's own subconscious be used, or are anwers from external intelligences in the spirit realm allowed too?

It is allowed to use divination, and both answers from one's subconscious and from the spirit realm are allowed. It is forbidden to consult other psychics or mediums in the physical world, obviously.

Why do I get different scores on different tests?

Because of any of the following causes:

There are so many tests nowadays on the Internet. How do I recognize incompetent dilettante test creators and scorers?

Incompetent dilettante test designers and test scorers may be identified through the following forms of behaviour:

  1. They allow multiple attempts on one and the same test;
  2. They publish online lists of "high scores" with names of candidates (sometimes without the candidate's consent or knowledge, so watch it!);
  3. They offer one-sided tests (that is, consisting of only one problem type), which are the most popular with candidates, but are less valid with regard to general mental ability, and are the most vulnerable to score inflation;
  4. They publish item analysis data, thus revealing the exact level of difficulty of each problem, which greatly helps future candidates and creates inequality between earlier and later candidates;
  5. They are "empathic" and helpful toward the candidate in communication (for instance, they congratulate the candidate with one's "excellent" score - which is rather inappropriate because a test score is an objective result and not an achievement - or make remarks that allow one to infer where in the test one's errors were);
  6. The quality of their communication and work betrays they are not particularly intelligent themselves;
  7. Their material contains linguistical and/or typographical errors and sloppiness;
  8. They try to impress with credentials that are in sharp discordance with their actual level of functioning, such as a "doctor" title or "PhD", or high I.Q. scores supposedly obtained by them;
  9. Persons you know have scores on their (the dilettantes') tests that are not in accordance with those persons' apparent ability levels;
  10. They have slow-loading web sites and provide documents (like reports) that are far too heavy in file size relative to the their contents;
  11. They give credit to more or less plausible alternative answers (rather than concluding that their test items are ambiguous and should be removed or revised);
  12. They have little regard for privacy and share test data, including names of candidates, with others, without the candidates' consent or knowledge.