Talk:IQ classification

{{GA|03:06, 29 August 2014 (UTC)|topic=Social sciences and society|page=1|oldid=623262260}}

{{WikiProject banner shell|class=GA|1=

}}

{{User:MiszaBot/config

|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}}

|maxarchivesize = 100K

|counter = 1

|minthreadsleft = 4

|minthreadstoarchive = 1

|algo = old(180d)

|archive = Talk:IQ classification/Archive %(counter)d

}}

{{dyktalk|2 October|2013|entry= ... that "genius" has not been a term used in IQ classification since 1937?}}

"I.Q. test results" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]

30px

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)

This is wrong

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)

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

contradictory text

The third paragraph states that test scores are "approximately the same" across different testing procedures and then states that the scores diverge across different tests; this is confusing! 174.180.41.129 (talk) 07:09, 11 December 2024 (UTC)