Speaking as someone who used to test at the high end of school IQ tests, it means you are good at demonstrating the things IQ tests measure *under exam conditions*. Usually that’s shape and spatial reasoning, pattern recognition, memory, sometimes things like reading comprehension, vocabulary and logic – and it significantly overvalues quick thinking over accurate thinking, because tests are usually timed. The tests taken in childhood produce a score for where you are expected to be for your age and ideally also your background (if you never saw a book you won’t be able to read, for an extreme example), and compare your test scores to that to give an index that might measure how smart you are. I read better aged 7 than many adults do, for example, and can still get through an entire novel on a two hour plane flight aged 40.
‘High IQ’ like I have (had?) is pretty well associated with being good at the kinds of tests you do in maths and science at school. I got great grades and hardly worked for them. I am still very convinced that I do not think any better than people closer to the mean on IQ tests, but I did think noticeably much *faster* than my peers at Cambridge (many of whom were, not being funny, very very much better than me at all the things I’m supposed to be good at) and I come across in conversation as a lot smarter than I actually am.
It’s also a danger to a kid’s education to let them skate based on their test taking skills. My teachers didn’t get on my case about homework because I literally couldn’t have better test grades. I nearly crashed and burned at Cambridge University – I had to re-learn how to study *aged 19*, on my own, when I could no longer get by on photographic memory, reading comprehension and basic logic.
Latest Answers