Talk:IQ classification

IQ classification has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: August 29, 2014. (Reviewed version).

Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about IQ classification. PubMed provides review articles from the past five years (limit to free review articles) The TRIP database provides clinical publications about evidence-based medicine. Other potential sources include: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and CDC

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Psychology High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

A fact from IQ classification appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 2 October 2013 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows: Did you know... that "genius" has not been a term used in IQ classification since 1937? A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2013/October. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/IQ classification.

In popular media, you see lots of articles talking about how so and so has an IQ of 200-250 or something ridiculous. Since this is not feasible with most reliable tests, should there be a section discussing this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.27.204.252 (talk) 14:41, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• • Not unless there’s a reliable source, otherwise it’s WP:OR Dronebogus (talk) 16:18, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect I.Q. test results and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 6#I.Q. test results until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. An anonymous username, not my real name 02:24, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

its missing the lower half of the average range. Looking at the source, “normal or average” should be 90-110. Not 110

Terman's Stanford–Binet original (1916) classification IQ Range ("ratio IQ") IQ Classification Above 140 "Near" genius or genius

120–140 Very superior intelligence

110–120 Superior intelligence

110 Normal, or average, intelligence

80–90 Dullness, rarely classifiable as feeble-mindedness

70–80 Border-line deficiency, sometimes classifiable as dullness, often as feeble-mindedness

Below 70 Definite feeble-mindedness 68.55.76.245 (talk) 01:24, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

done, Thanks. Moons of Io (talk) 01:27, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I did a Mensa iq test (not official test that you can use to apply) and my result was a score of 135. It asked to enter my age, and the youngest was 16. Being 13 years old, I selected that since it was closest. But it may not be accurate, since age can make a difference, so I’m wondering if my score would have been lower or something? Could anyone give an estimate On what it may have been? 2A00:23C5:DB42:2201:9C6A:B0B2:253A:677F (talk) 13:03, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ik it isn’t iq classification related really, but yea 2A00:23C5:DB42:2201:9C6A:B0B2:253A:677F (talk) 13:05, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]