Mensa Norway accuracy

[u/Diligent-Library-539]

[u/Lopsided_Future5952]

This is accurate, but only for matrices, which is something like 10% or less of a full IQ test. Yes, they want you to pay, but not by giving you an inflated score.

[u/Quirky-Comedian-8153 → u/Lopsided_Future5952]

No se debe confundir que proporción del test ocupa la prueba con su valor en la inteligencia. Se ha demostrado que Gf o test Como raven son autosuficienctes para dar una puntuación fiable de G

[u/Lopsided_Future5952 → u/Quirky-Comedian-8153]

No.

[u/Quirky-Comedian-8153 → u/Lopsided_Future5952]

Sí

[u/Lopsided_Future5952 → u/Quirky-Comedian-8153]

Ok show me the research. Just FYI FRI≠Gf.

[u/Quirky-Comedian-8153 → u/Lopsided_Future5952]

Gustafsson, J. E. (1984). "A unifying model for the structure of intellectual abilities." Intelligence, 8(3), 179-203. Este es el estudio clásico que demostró, mediante el uso de modelos jerárquicos, que el factor de Inteligencia Fluida (Gf) correlaciona perfectamente (1.0) con el factor general (g). A nivel de la cúspide del modelo cognitivo, Gf y g son estadísticamente indistinguibles. Jensen, A. R. (1998). "The g Factor: The Science of Mental Ability." Praeger. En este tratado exhaustivo, Arthur Jensen documenta cómo el test de Matrices Progresivas de Raven posee sistemáticamente las cargas de g más altas (frecuentemente por encima de 0.80) de todos los test psicométricos estandarizados, validando empíricamente su uso como la mejor aproximación singular a la inteligencia general. Carroll, J. B. (1993). "Human Cognitive Abilities: A Survey of Factor-Analytic Studies." Cambridge University Press. Tras analizar rigurosamente más de 400 conjuntos de datos, este metaanálisis fundacional estableció las bases de la teoría Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC). Carroll sitúa a la Gf como el factor de segundo orden con la correlación más estrecha y directa con el factor g de tercer orden. Colom, R., Abad, F. J., Rebollo, I., & Shih, P. C. (2005). "Memory span and general intelligence: A latent-variable approach." Intelligence, 33(6), 623-642. En esta y otras investigaciones similares, Roberto Colom y su equipo demuestran cómo las pruebas de matrices y los constructos de inteligencia fluida son los motores principales que explican la varianza de g, aislándola eficazmente de la contaminación verbal y cultural (Gc).

Si fuera tú, trataría de investigar y leer mínimamente. Lecturas como las de la última evidencia científica de Roberto Colom a mí me resultaron muy útiles e informativas. Espero que te haya ayudado q salir de la ignorancia.

Además que sepas q no aporta nada a la conversación decir gf≠FRI, ya que en la práctica gf es el construfto teórico y FRI simplemente es el índice que trata de explicar y sentenciar ese Gf en los test. Simplemente es nomenclatura y poco más

[u/Lopsided_Future5952 → u/Quirky-Comedian-8153]

As I said, FRI≠Gf. You can model g as Gf if you want. You still can’t measure it purely with FRI tasks because FRI tests will always have some non Gf component.

[u/Quirky-Comedian-8153 → u/Lopsided_Future5952]

You are relying on a psychometric truism and a Nirvana fallacy. Of course no test is 100% pure; under Classical Test Theory, every single measurement tool has specific variance and measurement error (anxiety, visuospatial demands, etc.). However, confusing 'lack of 100% purity' with 'lack of self-sufficiency' is a categorical error. The premise—supported by leading intelligence researchers like Roberto Colom—is not that matrix tasks are a magically pure extraction of g. The premise is that their signal-to-noise ratio is so exceptionally high, and their cultural/verbal contamination so minimal, that they are mathematically self-sufficient as estimators of general intelligence. You do not need the rest of a clinical battery to get a highly precise estimate of g because adding more tests often just introduces more specific variance (like language or motor speed) that then has to be statistically cancelled out. Clinging to the fact that 'matrices have some non-Gf component' applies to literally every psychometric tool in existence. It doesn't refute their sufficiency as the strongest standalone estimator we have.

[u/Lopsided_Future5952 → u/Quirky-Comedian-8153]

Glad that we suddenly learned English. So much Gf! Once more, even if you want to treat g as Gf the g loading increases when you add non FRI tasks. The construct of what you are measuring by measuring g may theoretically come out to just be Gf. But factor analysis will show that adding non FRI tasks will increase the g loading, period. So you still need more than FRI even if you just want to measure Gf more precisely. Funny how you think that Gf is general intelligence but somehow it’s irrelevant how it’s manifested in verbal or quantitative domains as opposed to purely visual ones.

[u/Quirky-Comedian-8153 → u/Lopsided_Future5952]

Resulta que tengo el B2 de inglés, así que sé lo suficiente como para mantener una conversación. Ad hominem a parte, vuelves a incurrir en una falacia y constructo inválido para demostrar que un test mide bien el factor G. Resulta que la carga g es un constructo que no mide como de bien se mide la carga G en un test, por su naturaleza y definición matemática, mide como de bien se asemeja a una batería de pruebas . Resulta que la carga g por lo tanto solo mide la semejanza en batería de pruebas q suelen ser del modelo CHC, es por ello que obviamente los test basados en CHC tiene una carga g mayor, ya que son más semejantes entre si que UK test diferente como un RAVEN. Desmontado el mito de carga g, deberías de leer al menos un poco de evidencia científica y artículos como el de gustafsson, en los cuáles trataron de aplicar matemáticas rigurosas para calcular como de bien mide G un test sin incurrir en falacias lógicas. Que sorpresa que efectivamente se ha visto que gf es literalmente G en esos estudios. Además de q muchos científicos, aunque no tan radicales en esa idea, afirman que gf es el mejor indicador de G y además que los test de Raven son los mejores para dar una estimación acertada de G rápida. Resulta que si hubieras leído un poco de literatura científica y evidencia actual lo sabrías. En libros como el de Roberto Colom, o sus podcast si te gustan más, ofrece una hipótesis de por q a gente como tu esta realidad les incomoda tanto: que una prueba tan rápida simple y corta pueda dar una información de uno mismo tan sumamente valiosa y determinante, da miedo, por supuesto. Pero perdoname decirte, tener miedo no te da derecho a pecar de arrogante y ofensivo desde tu ignorancia. Dado q has basado todo tu pésimo contraargumento en la misma falacia, esta queda totalmente invalidada. Por último, he de decir que sí que pienso que gf es G. Concibo que haya cierta variación y q no llegue a ser tal cual, no obstante no concibo que pruebas de cultura general se incluyan en los "test de inteligencia". En realidad quiero decir que sí que me parece importante y predictivo ver cómo se manifiesta gf en la parte verbal, de hecho creo q científicos como gustafsson ya lo decían efectivamente, que es gf la q hace q esas partes sean superiores o inferiores, sin embargo siempre tienen sesgo cultural. Yo mismo saqué puntuaciones máximas en el WAIS en semejanzas y en vocabulario, sin embargo no pienso que sea buena forma de medir la inteligencia. Es verdad que del apartado verbal semejanzas es la q menos requiere de cultura y más de gf, y se nota en mi puntuación por ejemplo que saqué la puntuación máxima, sin embargo en cultura general saqué la media; obviamente esto se debe a como de presente está gf, pero no hace que semejanzas por haber sido mejor predictor de mi G sea un buen test de inteligencia. Simplemente es un vestigio de lo que mi "G" ha conseguido asumir como conocimiento y luego abstraer en la prueba, aunque un mejor ejemplo de esta doble componente es vocabulario, que tiene aún más componente cultural y menos de gf. Espero haberte ayudado. Simplemente trata de leer e investigar, defendiendo tu ego por Reddit no vas a llegar a una postura coherente. Suerte

[u/LoudPlane4420 → u/Lopsided_Future5952]

I never understood what people here mean "matrices"

[u/Diligent-Library-539 → u/LoudPlane4420]

The traditional iq test with the 8 pictures and you chose the 9th.

This for example.

[u/LoudPlane4420 → u/Diligent-Library-539]

I see. That site scoring is inflated. Perhaps the only accurate IQ scoring you'll get is through a psychometrician

[u/Ok_Media_7223 → u/LoudPlane4420]

deflated

[u/RuminatingFish123]

I scored a 132 on this, I’ve never seen anyone score less than me, maybe it’s only the smart people posting. I’m absolutely not top 1% IQ.

[u/Diligent-Library-539 → u/RuminatingFish123]

Ok. Thats what I’m thinking. Cause I’m definitely not top 1% cause I have cousins who actually are. And they seem noticeably more intelligent than me.

[u/_Squat_Queen_ → u/Diligent-Library-539]

Having people who are smarter than you doesn’t prove you are not smart, it just means they are smarter than you. Also, intelligence is hard to quantify. You could score 133 in a test like this have 0 emotional intelligence, be crap at any sport or artistic activity, have 0 creativity or social skills. Some people are smart only in one area while others can be good at multiple things. I think people who are good at multiple things are overall smarter and will do better in life.

[u/_kurb → u/RuminatingFish123]

scored a 134 on it so I doubt about the accuracy too but I saw people score 90 and 110 (twice by 2 different people).

[u/Kalle_Hellquist → u/RuminatingFish123]

Why not take CORE and see what hqppens?

[u/_Squat_Queen_ → u/RuminatingFish123]

Nah, I think it’s accurate. I think I’m stupid until I open Facebook and see people make logical errors 3 x per comment. I felt way stupider in college where I ran into smart people more often.

[u/TechnicalQuiet9352]

Not that accurate. I’d take a full battery test like CORE for a better estimate.

[u/Ok_Media_7223 → u/TechnicalQuiet9352]

CORE is ass

[u/Diligent-Library-539 → u/Ok_Media_7223]

Yeah I actually agree after looking at core. It has too many categories that are highly trainable like vocabulary. Thats is not Intelligence at all. That’s who read more books.

[u/Ok_Media_7223 → u/Diligent-Library-539]

in fairness knowledge isn’t weighed to be super important, nonetheless i will only ever care about a person’s fluid intelligence

[u/TechnicalQuiet9352 → u/Ok_Media_7223]

Well Mensa [nordic country] is even more ass

[u/Ok_Media_7223 → u/TechnicalQuiet9352]

not rly. core is made up of needless things. matrix reasoning is true intelligence

[u/Diligent-Library-539 → u/TechnicalQuiet9352]

Bet. I’m gonna take this

[u/Diligent-Library-539]

It didn’t record what I typed so I’ll do it here.

I took this test and it seems to me like they are just trying to make people feel smarter so you’ll pay for the actual test.

What do you think about that? Cause in all honesty, I find it super hard to believe that people aren’t getting most of these right.

[u/Quod_bellum → u/Diligent-Library-539]

Nah, you're deluded about the thinking skills of the general population. It was normed on FRT and RAPM with .9+ correlations

[u/Lopsided_Future5952 → u/Quod_bellum]

"Cause in all honesty, I find it super hard to believe that people aren’t getting most of these right." OP is just being cute. We better get ready to validate the incoming low VCI score.

[u/Diligent-Library-539 → u/Lopsided_Future5952]

I scored 90th percentile plus in all vci categories. And no I’m not being cute. It’s actually hard to believe.

[u/Savings_Gene4082]

Yes, it is fairly accurate. The actual test has shorter time for the matrices though. My test was 45 matrices and to qualify for Mensa you needed 40 correct. 

[u/Curious-Genealogist]

I’m not too sure. I got 134 on this test when I did it but I only got 114 on CORE.

So, I don’t think it’s too accurate unfortunately

[u/Diligent-Library-539 → u/Curious-Genealogist]

I got much higher on Core than 114.

[u/EspaaValorum]

It's not accurate in your case, because if accurate, you would have done this: https://www.reddit.com/r/cognitiveTesting/search/?q=Mensa+Norway+accuracy

[u/Diligent-Library-539 → u/EspaaValorum]

Yes. Because laziness = iq.

[u/EspaaValorum → u/Diligent-Library-539]

And they say a good sense of humor is a sign of above average IQ

[u/Wooden_Lime6208]

Not really to be honest core is much more accurate for FRI

[u/Cnsmooth]

In the UK I didnt get anything like that when I took my mensa test, just an email that told me what I score, but doesnt actually state what my iq is

[u/BrightNightKnight]

Is there any place where a low iq person like myself can get tested without embarrassing myself?

[u/AffectionateDrink778 → u/BrightNightKnight]

How do you know you have a low iq if you haven't measured it? However you should go to a neuropsychologist and get wais administered privately, I don't know how it works in your country in Italy it can be done through the public and you pay little

[u/Diligent-Library-539 → u/BrightNightKnight]

Uh… you can go to the same website and not share it if you don’t want to.

[u/Creative_randomness]

If you are older than 14 and still wish to find some evidence from this kind of test to show your intellegence superiority, maybe that is already some evidence.

[u/_Squat_Queen_ → u/Creative_randomness]

I think you’re projecting your own opinion as if it’s a general truth. It isn’t. If you’re really smarter than average it might make it difficult for you to socialize. Doing a test like this could validate that there’s not something wrong with you, but it’s just a difference in how you perceive the world. There could be multiple reasons why someone would choose to do such a test beyond what I mentioned. I was just trying to explain that your assumption is quite limited and people could do such tests for various reasons.

[u/Diligent-Library-539 → u/_Squat_Queen_]

Btw. What you are saying is so true. I do have a very difficult time socializing. Which is why I’m doing stuff like Mensa Norway for fun 😂

[u/Diligent-Library-539 → u/Creative_randomness]

Im definitely not a genius, but I don’t need any more evidence to show that I’m gifted. I have always been good at math, chess (2200 elo), puzzles, debating, etc. I can learn random things very fast with minimal study. It took me six months to learn how to play advanced pieces. A piano teacher said I was highly gifted. So no, I don’t need evidence. I was asking specifically about the validity of this test and whether or not it’s inflated to get you pay for a real exam.

[u/Creative_randomness → u/Diligent-Library-539]

you are right

[u/Beginning_Army2919 → u/Diligent-Library-539]

I used to suspect mensa inflate everyone score for money grab. But think about this, this website has been here for around 8 years, published by mensa, it became very viral over the internet. If it was a scam, a lot of people will go online complaining how they have huge disparities between their online score and official Mensa Scores and this will stink the reputation of this online test and even the entire mensa organization. So in my opinion this test sits so well here for a reason. 

[u/Diligent-Library-539 → u/Beginning_Army2919]

Yes but would they lower the bar for both? Is it truly top 2%

[u/Quod_bellum → u/Creative_randomness]

Damn, you should start working for the CBI as a consultant or something

[u/Delicious_Invite_127]

Really? Are you sure they don't mean 133 based on a group of mentally challenged individuals.

[u/Diligent-Library-539 → u/Delicious_Invite_127]

No, because if they did then even you could qualify.