Reading speed and IQ

[Manchegan]

So i was looking at the "what we read in August" thread and was amazed by how many difficult books some folks read in one month. At first, I chalked it up to people having more free time than I, but then I remembered reading less high brow fiction in just a day or two (ender's game, da vinci code, patterson novels).

So now I'm thinking that I'm intelligent enough to digest mid level fiction quickly and that many of you are intelligent enough to read the masters at the same speed.

So if it's not too personal, I'd like to ask what some of your IQs are. I just want to know where I stand. And since I asked, don't feel like you're being a braggart.

[LitNetIsGreat]

But is IQ directly linked to reading speed? I'm not so sure. You also have to consider the balance between speed and comprehension. There's little point in racing through books just for the sake of it. For me reading literature is about the quality, and not necessarily the quantity. Both in a sense of what you get out of the individual book and the entire process of reading itself.

Personally, I would rather read one book of quality, and nothing else the whole year, than a 1000 trashy novels. This has nothing to do with my IQ, but my tastes.

However, increasing the speed rate and maintaining (or even improving) the comprehension rate is quite workable. I would suggest getting hold of a couple of speed reading books if you are really interested in the matter.

As for my IQ I really wouldn't know as I've never taken a proper test. I'm not all that sure that they are that much of an accurate judge of true intelligence anyway. I think true intelligence can't really be quantified. Though if I did take a test I don't think I would get an offer from Menza, let's put it that way, but that certainly doesn't worry me.

[kiki1982]

I agree with Neely. It's not the quantity, but the quality that matters.

My father reads 100s of pages in one evening, but as soon as the book is finished, he can't remember what happened.

My mothr reads very slowly but she still remembers whole stories after years and years and can remember every single book she read, at least what it was about.

For me personally the reading speed depends on my mood. If I have an overload, I cannot read. If I am out of the habit, I cannot read. If I've had to concentrate to much (as that is the cse now as I am trying to learn Russian), I cannot read. Over all, I don't think I'm a fast reader, but not so very slow either.

I don't think IQ matters too much. I have taken different tests on the internet an one made a staggering 131 of it and others 119 or around that, so they are not really consistent. A serious one I have never taken, but for what it's worth...

[PeterL]

There is no particular relationship between reading speed and IQ, and there is a trade-off betwen speed and comprehension. There was a time when I read faster than I can speak, and that was fine for light fiction. I slowed down, because I ran out of things that I especially wanted to read, and I found that I missed the subtleties when I read fast. Reading slowly gives one the chance to find connections in the text and with the rest of the world.

That is from the perspective of a member of Mensa.

[kiki1982]

There is no particular relationship between reading speed and IQ, and there is a trade-off betwen speed and comprehension. There was a time when I read faster than I can speak, and that was fine for light fiction. I slowed down, because I ran out of things that I especially wanted to read, and I found that I missed the subtleties when I read fast. Reading slowly gives one the chance to find connections in the text and with the rest of the world.

That is exactly my opinion. Reading fast looses you all profounder meaning.

[Helga]

I agree with Neely, and I think it's different between books, some just take me a few hours but other a lot longer. Now I have taken an IQ test with a psychoanalyst recommended by my school but I don't think that it's important I got 118, and another thing, are the same standards everywhere in the world?

[Janine]

I am a slow reader, extremely slow. In gradeschool, I was told I had a high IQ. I have no idea now, what that really means. I put little stock in IQ tests...too many variables. I don't think the two things are connected at all. I know that what I do read, I consider to be 'quality' material and I believe my comprehension is very good. I attribute that to the fact, that I do read slowly; often repeating some passages, to better understand the subtlies, as PeterL has pointed out. I would fully agree with what he wrote about this subject. It's not quanity but quality that counts.

[ClaesGefvenberg]

But is IQ directly linked to reading speed? I'm not so sure. Nor am I. Now... We have had previous discussions about speed reading, and I suggest a look at:


How fast do you people read, and how did you get that way? (http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=35014)
Speed Reading (http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=27082)


/Claes

[Scheherazade]

It's got to be a negative correlation between the reading speed and IQ... I am kind of a slow reader.

:goof:

[LitNetIsGreat]

I am a slow reader, extremely slow. In gradeschool, I was told I had a high IQ. I have no idea now, what that really means. I put little stock in IQ tests...too many variables. I don't think the two things are connected at all. I know that what I do read, I consider to be 'quality' material and I believe my comprehension is very good. I attribute that to the fact, that I do read slowly; often repeating some passages, to better understand the subtlies, as PeterL has pointed out. I would fully agree with what he wrote about this subject. It's not quanity but quality that counts.

Hey, it was me that said that.:santasmil

Though I do find it interesting that you read slow and maintain a lot of comprehension, which is what Kiki was saying about his mum.

When it comes to comprehension one of the MAJOR factors that affects me in a negative way is when I have something on my mind, I just don't take in much at all sometimes, to the point that I put down the book because it is pointless. I am reading the words but not the meaning, I drift through the the book. That is usually when I am stressed about something, stress is not good. But hey, I have got a new job today with far less stess :banana::banana:, so I am a happy monkey!!!


Nor am I. Now... We have had previous discussions about speed reading, and I suggest a look at:


How fast do you people read, and how did you get that way? (http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=35014)
Speed Reading (http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=27082)


/Claes

Yes I will read those tomorrow when I have more time. Seriously though, I find speed reading a very interesting subject. I'm not talking about a page a second nonsense, but just general increases in speed and comprehension, and the balance between them.

Even so, the pleasure of reading good literature cares little for no such concepts.

[Desolation]

I agree with what other's say about losing comprehension and meaning due to reading too quickly...Lately I've actually been struggling to read much more slowly and carefully rather than quickly and lazily as I have been. However, I'm sure that there are many people that can read quickly and deeply.

[Gladys]

I have a son who read soon after his second birthday; and read fluently for meaning. By his sixth, he had read many classics, including The Hobbit, Lord of the Rings and The Silmarillion more than once. His reading speed had far outstripped mine and his comprehension and writing ability was also exceptional.

Late in high-school, aged fifteen, I noticed that he seemed incapable of understanding major nuances in plays and novels set for Literature. We eventually discovered that he read these so fast by deliberately omitting, perhaps, 20% of the words in every line of text. He assumed everyone read so!

Always a slow reader myself, reading speed and comprehension are highest when I'm enjoying the book. And I read every word: is this unusual?

[Like_Herod]

I think that as you read more your speed and comprehension will naturally increase to some extent - at least I think this has been the case for me. I went a while without reading much and when I started seriously reading again I struggled for a while, not always understanding things as well as I'd have liked to. However, after making it a habit to read more often I found that by increasing my vocabulary and instinctively learning to recognise patterns of words my speed increased to at least some extent.

I do also think that your reading speed changes dramatically depending on what you are reading. I've been reading some Dickens recently and haven't been able to read it as fast as other things I read due to the more challenging lexis and sentence structure. It is natural that your brain would need longer to accurately comprehend this kind of material and I try to make a habit of slowing myself down so I fully understand it. I do also think it important to know when this level of care is not required so that you can skim through things more quickly - I find this is the case with a lot of stuff I read on the internet or in my day at work.

[TheFifthElement]

Manchegan, I think reading speed is something that’s hard-coded rather than linked to IQ. You can probably learn to read faster or slower but you’ll have a natural inclination one way or the other and to do the opposite will take tricks, training and effort. I read fast and it’s an effort to read slowly; but my fast reading comes as a result of skimming, albeit largely unknowingly. I don’t lose comprehension, though sometimes I will lose detail, but there are times when I’ll be reading and I’ll go back to a passage and read it word for word to absorb implication and meaning. So I suppose it’s a bit like scanning the page and picking out the bits that really matter and reading them, but it happens so fast you don’t really know that’s what you’re doing.

This came to light for when my son was learning to read. He speed reads like me. What we noticed was that he found it difficult to concentrate on the specific words. So he might be reading a sentence which says this:

“On walking to the shops Barry swayed his bag, banging it against the wall.”

and what my son will read is this:

“On walking to the shops Barry swung his bag, bumping it on the wall.”

so he kind of omits words but fills them with other broadly suitable words – he’s got the general gist of the sentence but doesn’t reproduce it exactly. This is exactly what I do! I also find that when I’m reading aloud if I come across an awkward sentence I’ll change it so that it says roughly the same thing but in a different way but again this happens very quickly.

If I were to describe it I’d say it’s like looking at a painting, you can immediately see what the painting depicts but to fully appreciate the artistry you need to hone in on the fine details. Skimming gives you a decent appreciation of the picture without looking at every brushstroke. I have tried, over the years, to examine those brushstrokes but it’s not my natural inclination and to do so, continually, through a book is such an effort I’ve never been able to keep up.

[Manchegan]

Methinks mine question was misworded. I don't really seek to speed up my reading, and I fully understand that if I were to push myself to read faster, it would be at the expense of comprehension and appreciation.

I'm simply curious whether other, more intelligent folks are able to read deep literature with the same ease and speed that I am able to read James Patterson or Dan Brown.

My curiousity is more an attempt to understand how geniuses might experience art and the world, in the same way one might wonder what it feels like to be trapped in a slower mind.

To get the IQ aspect rolling, I'll tell ya'll mine. I've never been officially tested, but a few online tests have all produced scores of 138. With dense fiction, I'm guessing I read a page in about 3 or 4 minutes.

so how's about ya'll?

[papayahed]

Another thread on reading speed:

http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=29929&highlight=page

I can read 37 pages/hour. (~0.6 pages/minute)

How I derived my rate:
http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showpost.php?p=490777&postcount=42

[LitNetIsGreat]

I'm simply curious whether other, more intelligent folks are able to read deep literature with the same ease and speed that I am able to read James Patterson or Dan Brown.


I still don't think it works like that exactly. I'm not being awkward, I just think that reading deep literature, as you term it, at whatever speed has little to do with IQ.

The very nature of literature is that it absolutely resists the quick read. The reason that somebody can read Patterson or Brown quickly is that those books have nothing to say; whereas reading the likes of Milton or Shakespeare is a whole different experience. I guess you probably know that already, and that is not the point of your interesting thread, as I say I am very interested in IQ and speed reading, but I just think you can tie it down like that.

I would be more inclined to link reading speed and comprehension to reading experience as a factor, rather than high IQ. Someone with such reading experience would be much more likely to comprehend at higher speeds "deeper" works, as opposed to someone who only reads occasionally. I think it has already been said by somebody that the more you read the better at it you get, well I would go along with that in the main. The same could be said of anything I suppose, experience and study is the key.

Imagine an artist who quickly glances at a painting, they would be able to see much more than the standard Joe. They may immediately see symbolic representation, notice the tricks the artist has produced, the plays of light and colour, texture, etc, as well as the practical things like the materials used, how the artist applied the brush strokes, the size of the canvas, etc; whereas our Joe the scientist, with a high IQ or not, might think it is a nice picture of a sheep!

Edit: I'm not even convinced about IQ testing alone. A person can practice the sort of questions that are asked on IQ tests and improve their score that way, as opposed to it being a straight test of innate intelligence. Maybe Peter L could offer a few insights of IQ testing, as I think it is interesting, but I'm as yet unconvinced how reliable it really is as a actual measure of intelligence.

[stlukesguild]

I doubt that IQ always or even commonly correlates to reading speed. Some persons with the highest of IQs may have little or no experience with literature... focusing more upon science, mathematics, music, etc... I, myself, have more than an average experience with literature... but I'm not the fastest of readers... although I can probably get through a lot of poetry... even older stuff... more rapidly than those without much experience with it. You may wish to consider that the number of books read in a month will vary based not only upon reading speed... but upon the time spent reading. There are those who work 9-5 jobs and have families and thus less time to read. There are students majoring in literature who are required to tear through huge quantities of reading. I work full time, spend a good amount of time in the art studio working upon my art career, and spend an equal (if not greater recently) deal of time with music as I do with reading... and yet I still get through a respectable amount each month... largely because I need only 5-6 hours of sleep most days and I almost never waste time with TV. As for my IQ... I had a professional test taken a good number of years ago... but I wouldn't want to embarrass you all. :D

[JBI]

It all depends - I read with pen and paper when I read poetry generally, so my speed decreases - but I can plunge through 100-120 pages of a novel if I am not really stressing my "close reading" (which I generally won't do, as I generally read closely).

I have not, and will not ever check my IQ (the whole notion of reducing someone's intelligence to a standardized test revolts me), but I arguably am a decent reader (as well as a prolific one). It all depends though - I read a lot when I have time - this summer, for instance, I barely got through any books because I lacked time - this year I doubt I'll push through that many pleasure reading books (I will keep up the poetry, most likely, but definitely won't be able to put down novels like I used to). It all depends.

[Manchegan]

You bring up a good point Neely. Experience is likely the more important factor. Still, I think it would be foolish to think that all people have equal potential for comprehension and that all it takes is excessive practice for anyone to reach higher levels of speed and understanding. Intelligence is part of the equation. Period.

[LitNetIsGreat]

Yes that's true, but I never said that all people have an equal potential for comprehension or reading speed, because all people are not equal. Intelligence is part of the equation I would agree, but I'm still to be convinced of IQ as an accurate measure of intelligence. In fact I'm pretty sure that you can greatly improve your IQ by studying IQ tests and practising the sort of questions they ask you, (pattern recognition, logic, word choice etc) but would the improved IQ score mean improved intelligence? I don't think so.

[Manchegan]

well, if you practice and improve your ability to recognize patterns and use logic, how haven't you improved your intelligence?

I'm not saying that the tests are a perfectly accurate measure of intelligence, but they narrow it down and help to define it. Intelligence is a tricky, complex concept. The idea of giving it a number is a tad presumptuous, but it's all we got, and i'd say it works well enough.

[LitNetIsGreat]

Where are the stats, the facts, the science? Works well enough for whom? :brickwall

I think IQ means little more than nothing. I believe I could raise my IQ by 20 points in two weeks just by studying the tests, would this mean that my intelligence would have risen by 20/30% then?

This world thrives on putting people in boxes, and IQ appears to me as just another paper box.

I've yet to see or hear anything to change my mind about the matter and nobody appears to be able to make a decent case against my position... because there isn't one?

[Manchegan]

Well, (this is a total cop-out, but...) where's your science? You say you BELIEVE you could raise your iq 20 points, but have you tested that belief?

The test may be open to manipulation, but its used so widely, and enough people have put effort into designing and testing it, that I have to think it has some merit. Especially if the test taker is simply curious about his own ranking. Why would he cheat?

You've admitted that individuals have different degrees of intelligence. It's clearly visible in day to day life. Why is it so far fetched that the difference could be tested and measured?

[Jazz_]

I've never had my IQ formally tested, and the few I've completed online were more for fun than to 'measure' my intelligence. I don't believe an IQ gives an accurate enough result for it to act as the sole measure of intelligence, but I believe it provides a rough estimate.

I haven't had nearly as much time to read this year as I have had in previous years - but still manage to read the novels I'm studying in Literature reasonably quickly. During my break earlier in the year, I read about 4-5 (lighter) novels a week, slowing to one a week for the 'deeper' ones. I don't usually find that reading more slowly leads to greater comprehension, but it does increase my enjoyment (more relaxing) :)

[LitNetIsGreat]

Well, (this is a total cop-out, but...) where's your science? You say you BELIEVE you could raise your iq 20 points, but have you tested that belief?

The test may be open to manipulation, but its used so widely, and enough people have put effort into designing and testing it, that I have to think it has some merit. Especially if the test taker is simply curious about his own ranking. Why would he cheat?

You've admitted that individuals have different degrees of intelligence. It's clearly visible in day to day life. Why is it so far fetched that the difference could be tested and measured?

From what I have read and seen about IQ (which I suppose is not that much) there is enough doubt surrounding the whole of it, to question its reliability even as a rough estimate.

I have never had a full formal test, but what I have done has varied so widely as to make it a bit of a joke. I think of the tests I did I ranged by about 40 points, or something as vast as that, and yes, I did improve my IQ score by very loosely practising, just a little, some of the questions. This stands to reason as hopefully studying does increase knowledge or I'll not bother reading any more literary theory for my upcoming class. Either way, my little ventures into IQ tests have not left me convinced, but if someone did provide sound evidence as to its benefits as a guide to intelligence I would be open to listen. Even though I would still abhor reducing a human being to a number.

There was a national IQ test done on the BBC a couple of years ago, which only seemed to weaken its case once again. Nationally they found that the unemployed had the highest overall IQ and that high earning executives had the lowest; I assume they had hoped for the opposite. They also found that the individual with the highest IQ in the country (who took the test of course) played IQ games in their spare time, logic and word puzzles etc, which only strengthens my argument that you can increase your IQ by study.

So its just not reliable enough for me. Other factors seem more important like subject experience and passion for a particular area, and nobody can really put a figure on things like that.

[Jazz_]

Of course you can increase your IQ by studying - but this doesn't weaken it's estimate of intelligence. We are not born with the same level of intelligence we posses now, but have developed through study. If you improve your logic and reasoning skills (and consequently your IQ) you increase your understanding of the questions - you're not simply memorizing the right answers. Does increased logic mean increased intelligence? Perhaps not, but then what is intelligence?

I don't believe IQ scores should be used to rank people or that it is accurate enough to pin-point a person's level of intelligence - but it is not completely without merit.

[Scheherazade]

http://img32.imageshack.us/img32/4381/slowreading1.gif (http://img32.imageshack.us/i/slowreading1.gif/)

http://img32.imageshack.us/img32/8177/slowreading2.gif (http://img32.imageshack.us/i/slowreading2.gif/)

[papayahed]

http://img32.imageshack.us/img32/4381/slowreading1.gif (http://img32.imageshack.us/i/slowreading1.gif/)

http://img32.imageshack.us/img32/8177/slowreading2.gif (http://img32.imageshack.us/i/slowreading2.gif/)

ohhhhhhh, so that's why I read so slow!!! (Now what about my running?)

[Hurricane]

Oh, if only reading speed correlated to running speed...

I've never taken an IQ test, but I'm a very fast reader. I think it just has to do with doing it often, like anything. I have friends, all very smart people, who barely read, so when they have to it's a long and laborious process. With school kicking up, I'm not getting as much of a chance to read, but over the summer I was basically tearing through a book a day (yes, I remember what happened in all of them) when I had something to read.

[qimissung]

I would tend to agree with Neely on the issue of IQ. I read at a moderately fast rate. I remember once in school, I think I was in fifth grade, and for some reason we had to read with a partner. Whenever I would finish the page I was reading I would wait, very politely, for the girl I was partnered with, to finish. At one point she got up and spoke to the teacher.The teacher came over and told me I was reading too fast and to slow down.

I am still in a state of amazement over that one.

I don't think it's terribly important to read quickly. I think it is important to read. I read once that one can acquire the equivalent of a college education by reading.

[Scheherazade]

ohhhhhhh, so that's why I read so slow!!! In my case, Lucy's suggestion hasn't been ruled out yet.

[caddy_caddy]

I am slow in reading and I really hate it .
I wish I can be faster and grasp the meaning of what I'm reading at the same time.

[baddad]

Been tested many times throughout my life. It never changes.Happy to brag. I.Q of 149.

A fast, voracious reader. Comprehension is good. Only book I did not finish reading was "War and Peace" . If you have ever tried to read it, you know why. I have read upwards of 5000 books in my lifetime, and this may be a conservative estimate by many, many hundreds.

But I.Q is more of a way a brain is wired, the way the operating system in your head files and retrieves information, concepts, etc. One can take no credit for having it. And a high I.Q has many drawbacks, the least of which is the high expectations others may have of you, social awkwardness issues, ego issues and a host of others.
............of course, I suffer none of these.........

I.Q can manifest in many ways, and not neccessarily in academics. In some people a high I.Q manifests itself as wisdom, and in others, peacefullness.

I do realize that my I.Q is by no means Mensa material.

Now if i could only figure out what those little "i" and "q" letters actually stand for........

[LitNetIsGreat]

I’ve been reading a few books on psychology and IQ recently, and whereas it is not true that I have done a u-turn on my original opinions of IQ, it is perhaps fair to say that I have reformed them a little, at least around the merits of IQ itself, and not in relation to reading speed.

It would appear that IQ is a much stronger factor in calculating certain things about a person than I gave credit for. Studies by psychologies have more or less proven that IQ can help them predict quite a lot about an individual, ranging from the likelihood of gaining well paid jobs, to the type of person they are likely to end up marrying, even to predicting the likelihood of dying in an accident (those with very low IQs are two/three times more likely to die in an accident then someone with normal or high IQs) and a whole range of other things.

It is fair to say though that the accuracy of IQ tests are very suspect, even the very best of them have a 15 point margin of error. This could mean that a person could score 90 on a test and think that they are below the average 100 mark, whereas they could in fact be slightly above with a score of 105, and the same is true of the opposite. It is unlikely that tests found on the internet or in cheap publications are going to be anywhere as accurate as this, instead most of them are likely to be more or less a complete waste of time. This is because it costs a great deal of money to devise a good test, with psychologists having test study the results over a range of individuals and so it is unlikely that one over the internet will have gone through such a process. It appears that the only way to find your likely IQ score is to pay for a proper test or to find one of good quality. Many people who claim high IQ scores have simply not taken accurate tests as 95% of people sit within the 80-120 range. This effectively means that only 2-3% of people have actual scores above 120.

It is fair to say that there are a lot of interesting side issues that come up around the whole IQ issue and it is certainly something I am going to dig a little deeper into when I have the time.

[Alexander III]

Personally I am a slow reader, as often I read something and like to consider the words or thoughts in my mind for a bit, letting them mingle with myself and my emotions at the time before i return to the book. And I took an I.Q test last year, an official one with a psychologist, and my score is 98.

[El Viejo]

Where to start;

baddad offers a score of 149 and follows with the comment that it isn't 'mensa material.' Mensa's threshold for entry is scoring in the 98th percentile, and on some tests 149 well exceeds that limit. On some tests I believe 138 qualifies.

But when measuring IQ, comparing numbers doesn't help unless everyone is using the same scale. What counts is how far your IQ is from the mean, and I think that's called the z value/score. AKA how many standard deviations do you lie from center.

On the other hand there is, as Neely points out, a margin of error. If it is 15 points as Neely says, then the margin of error is a full standard deviation. Pretty big. Hard to use the scores as a ranking/valuation tool.

This is a good place to ask 'what is IQ anyway?' The tests measure a set of mental abilities, but by no means all of them. I think one could make an analogy with a Physical Quotient test--run the subject through a series of tests of speed and strength, then sum it up with a number (or z score). We'd find that not all subjects with the same number would have the same abilities because the test is not comprehensive. It neglects things like hand-eye coordination and flexibility, just for starters. IQ tests have similar limits. In a clinical/educational setting they have specific applications, but they aren't guaranteed predictors of anything except capability on IQ tests.

Here's something to consider--if being in the 98th or higher percentile makes one a genius, then there are over six million genii in the USA. Two of every hundred people you know. More if you hang out with, say, physicists, lawyers, or appreciators of things musical and literary. But as Alexander III's post shows, unless one waves a sign advertising one's IQ few, other than trained, experienced professionals, will be able to tell the 'average' from the 'exceptional.'

I see that very few posted scores here. I think what you've received answers your question better than a series of numbers would have.

:beatdeadhorse5:

[keilj]

if there's a relationship between reading speed and IQ, i'd say it's an inverse one

[solaris]

I don't think it's terribly important to read quickly. I think it is important to read. I read once that one can acquire the equivalent of a college education by reading.
all i'd like to add to that is the word 'well' - it is important to read well. i tend to read paragraphs rather than individual words and lines when reading a book - i can only bear to read fat books as i get through them like a dose of salts when i've the time to pick one up. HOWEVER, this does mean i've lost detail before; interesting to be able to read LOTR over and over and get fresh insight each time, lol. since becoming a writer and critter of poetry myself, though, it's taught me to be able to slow right down, to savour each word, weigh it, its nuances, its flavours. pretty useful for me. also, i could never read something out from a page without stumbling over my own tongue, simply because my eyes were well ahead of my lips! all sorts of problems. memorising what i needed to say if having to speak aloud was the way around this. same as when playing violin as a kid - i couldn't look at the music AND see where my fingers had to go, so i memorised the tune and watched my fingers as i played.


Where to start;

baddad offers a score of 149 and follows with the comment that it isn't 'mensa material.' Mensa's threshold for entry is scoring in the 98th percentile, and on some tests 149 well exceeds that limit. On some tests I believe 138 qualifies.

But when measuring IQ, comparing numbers doesn't help unless everyone is using the same scale. What counts is how far your IQ is from the mean, and I think that's called the z value/score. AKA how many standard deviations do you lie from center.

On the other hand there is, as Neely points out, a margin of error. If it is 15 points as Neely says, then the margin of error is a full standard deviation. Pretty big. Hard to use the scores as a ranking/valuation tool.

This is a good place to ask 'what is IQ anyway?' The tests measure a set of mental abilities, but by no means all of them. I think one could make an analogy with a Physical Quotient test--run the subject through a series of tests of speed and strength, then sum it up with a number (or z score). We'd find that not all subjects with the same number would have the same abilities because the test is not comprehensive. It neglects things like hand-eye coordination and flexibility, just for starters. IQ tests have similar limits. In a clinical/educational setting they have specific applications, but they aren't guaranteed predictors of anything except capability on IQ tests.

Here's something to consider--if being in the 98th or higher percentile makes one a genius, then there are over six million genii in the USA. Two of every hundred people you know. More if you hang out with, say, physicists, lawyers, or appreciators of things musical and literary. But as Alexander III's post shows, unless one waves a sign advertising one's IQ few, other than trained, experienced professionals, will be able to tell the 'average' from the 'exceptional.'

I see that very few posted scores here. I think what you've received answers your question better than a series of numbers would have.

:beatdeadhorse5:
whilst IQ tests can offer generalities, they aren't too hot on specifics. i certainly am no genius, with my 150 (mensa tested donkey's years ago), but relatively smart and adaptable.

i come from a family of siblings all with higher scores than mine, and not a genius amongst them. the higher the score, though, the flakier the sibling ;) my eldest sister married a systems analyst with a 180 score - and whilst super-smart he lacked almost every social grace. in my own tests, i had to miss out the math section entirely - the turned-on-their-axis shapes, the ... *shudders at the math*

one thing that bugs me immensely is how some brag about their IQ. i don't understand. it's something we're born with, like brown hair or liking for toffee over nougat, f'rinstance, and whilst it can be 'warmed up' some with exercise, the potential isn't anything we've earned. another point i'd like to make is that i see the test-results in something along the lines of a bar graph: you might have a brilliant score in the lateral thinking department, but a lousy one in reading comprehension; or a huge one in the sort of word-processing our brains can tackle but a lousy one in the math. perhaps it is better to have a lower evenly attributed score than a rollercoaster one... whatever we have, though, if we play to our strengths yet work on our weaknesses, we'll do alright :D

p.s some of the most amazing minds i have ever been aquainted with belonged to artistic people who scored awfully in an IQ test.

[katelbach]

I have done quite a few tests in my time and am eligible for Mensa (just), but i despise the elitism of it and IQ testing in general just by virtue of the fact that it compares people on something they have little control over, resulting in feelings of exclusion and valuelessness in many people taking the tests. I acknowledge they may have their place in some spheres, but i'll never take one again.

As with others i'm unconvinced about any link with reading speed, as I also read quite slowly - i want to allow the books i read to leave a lasting impression. I have occasionally read books very quickly if they are really easy to read (e.g. book of the month - THHGTTG), but this often leads to me forgetting great swathes of story. The best example was how i raced through Michel Houllebecq's 'Atomised' a couple of years ago and a few months later i could remember ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about the novel! A quick look on Wikipedia jogged my memory slightly, but there's still about 98% of the content missing from my memory. Very odd.

[Alexander III]

Actually Mensa officially states, and this is the general consensus of psychologists in the field, I would know my mother being one of such, anything above and IQ of 140 is considered to be a genius. Of course that is a 140 of a real IQ test, not one of those internet thingies.

[Gladys]

all i'd like to add to that is the word 'well' - it is important to read well. i tend to read paragraphs rather than individual words and lines when reading a book - i can only bear to read fat books as i get through them like a dose of salts when i've the time to pick one up.

Is it really possible to read paragraphs and still pick the nuances in a Henry James novel or an Ibsen play, where just an incongruent word or two - when you least expect it - makes all the difference?

[solaris]

Is it really possible to read paragraphs and still pick the nuances in a Henry James novel or an Ibsen play, where just an incongruent word or two - when you least expect it - makes all the difference?

no, i don't think it would be, which is why i appreciate how the writing and, perhaps more immediately, the critiquing of others' writing has helped me slow down when reading - helped me weigh each word's worth. when i say i 'read paragraphs' it's sort of like seeing all the words at once but they register and make sense. shorter paragraphs rather than longer ones, of course! the intricacies of the language as employed by someone like James Joyce or even Tolkien are definitely best savoured slowly.


Actually Mensa officially states, and this is the general consensus of psychologists in the field, I would know my mother being one of such, anything above and IQ of 140 is considered to be a genius. Of course that is a 140 of a real IQ test, not one of those internet thingies.

i think it's fair to say that 'genius' is not qualified by a score, however high, but rather by a person's contributions to the field. for example, someone might have an IQ of - let's say 150 - but has not done anything that is remotely 'genius' and probably won't. another person might have a lower IQ - let's use 135 here as an example - and go on to make fabulous scientific discoveries, or mathematical leaps of faith. as i say, not what number a person has, but their actions determine whether or not they classify as genius material or not ;)

[Hyacinthine]

I don't know what my IQ is. I was last tested in the eighth grade, and my teacher told my mother, "With that IQ, she can do whatever she puts her mind to," but I was never told what it was.

I read about a page a minute on what I think of as easy fiction (even classics, as long as the prose is not overly complicated). I read about a page every minute and a half on somewhat more difficult items. With something like Ulysses or dry non-fiction (not to compare Ulysses to dry non-fiction), one page every two to three minutes.

However -- these times are only relevant when I'm just "regular reading" as opposed to close reading. I also often do this thing where I analyze and break down as I read, in which case it's a lot slower. I sometimes take notes on things like beautiful or interesting quotes, and I write down what I think the author was doing in certain areas and how I think they did it. I reread certain sentences or phrases over and over. I pay attention to the paragraph structures and how the work is structured as a whole.

Obviously it would be impossible for me to read like that all the time -- I'd never finish anything -- but I do it at least a little bit with every book I admire.

[jmnixon95]

My IQ was tested at 145 at fourteen years of age (I am now fifteen.)
As far as reading speed goes, it heavily depends upon the material that is being read. For instance, it takes me much longer to read, say, a chapter of Dostoevsky's The Brothers Karamazov than it does a chapter of Ayn Rand's Anthem (assuming that both chapters have identical or near-identical word count.)

[Paulclem]

My wife is a very fast reader - she scans down the centre of the page taking in a line or more at a time. She can read a novel a day. She also very intelligent.

I'm not a fast reader, and my wife, upon being asked by my friend why I was usually happy, said it was because I'm dim. I don't know if these unrelated facts are relevant, but at least I can still make my wife laugh by acting stupid.:lol:

For example I can do a good impression of an ape - the walk that is. The bandy legs help with that. Sorry.. I'm way off topic here...

[Armel P]

I know people who read faster than me that I believe would have lower IQs than I have (though not by much). I don't think they're related at least not always. I'm sure if you compare extreme examples there would always appear to be a strong correlation but if the examples are not extreme, it probably allows for more complicated, or rather, less obvious mechanisms of the brain to come into play.

[JuniperWoolf]

As a former psych student, I think that IQ is a garbage method of determining intelligence. It basically measures puzzle solving ability and vocabulary, people like Picasso and Beethoven (and hordes of others) would have probably been measured as average rather than the geniuses that they were. It doesn't pick up on new ideas or creative intelligence, let alone athletic intelligence (oh yes, there is such a thing) at all. Don't live by it, folks.

(and no, this has nothing to do with a poor personal performance - I’m a solid barely-above-average 120 on the puzzle-solving scale)

[Gladys]

As a former psych student, I think that IQ is a garbage method of determining intelligence.

Similarly, comprehension tests are a garbage method of determining reading ability. Reading a book well involves massive cross-linking of textual evidence; comprehension tests involve following a handful of links to find Wally.

In my experience, literature is invariably understood days or weeks after finishing the book, if at all. I wonder how well very fast readers read. Is there research available?