IQ is not dependent on age. Regardless of age, a person who possessed an IQ of 75 would be Mildly Retarded, or very close to that.
The IQ would be 100.
If the boy's chronological age and mental age are equal, his IQ would be assumed to be 100. (Using chronological age x IQ/100 as the template).
Since IQ (intelligence quotient) refers to the apparent mental age compared to the current age, an IQ cannot be applied to a vegetable since this would require the presence of observable intelligence. If anything, a vegetable would have an IQ of 0.
IQ is traditionally the ratio of mental age to physical age multiplied by 100. At the extremes, it's largely meaningless - an IQ of 1 would mean a 100 year old person with a mental age of 1. The average IQ (Intelligence Quotient) is between 90 - 110. So for one to have an IQ of 1 would be highly improbable.
IQ is not strongly associated with age. An IQ of 56 represents mental retardation, but nothing about the person's age.
The IQ would be 100.
According to the bell curve, I would think so.
If the boy's chronological age and mental age are equal, his IQ would be assumed to be 100. (Using chronological age x IQ/100 as the template).
IQ has nothing to do with your age or gender. Your IQ would be the same no matter what age you were. And an average IQ is 100. So yours is slightly above average.
Since IQ (intelligence quotient) refers to the apparent mental age compared to the current age, an IQ cannot be applied to a vegetable since this would require the presence of observable intelligence. If anything, a vegetable would have an IQ of 0.
IQ is traditionally the ratio of mental age to physical age multiplied by 100. At the extremes, it's largely meaningless - an IQ of 1 would mean a 100 year old person with a mental age of 1. The average IQ (Intelligence Quotient) is between 90 - 110. So for one to have an IQ of 1 would be highly improbable.
100 is the average IQ - for any age. One's IQ is graded against the average for one's age. So a person with an IQ of 100 at age 10, could well have the same IQ at ages 20, 30 or any other age. Significantly above or below 100 is note-worthy.
IQ is not strongly associated with age. An IQ of 56 represents mental retardation, but nothing about the person's age.
Good IQ tests, administered properly, are not age-dependent. An average IQ, by definition, is 100, so a score of 124, at any age, is well above average. Congratulations!
What it roughly means is that a person at age 5 would have the intelectual development of an average child (one with an IQ of 100) of age 6.6, at age 10 would be intellectually equal to an average child of age 13.2, and at age 15 would be mentally equal to an average person who was almost 20. In broader terms, someone with an IQ of 132 would be considered "gifted" but not a genius. An IQ of 132 would supposedly place a person 2 standard deviations above the average. This translates to being in the top 2.3% of the population in intelligence. A genius, by contrast would have an IQ of at least 145 and be in the top 0.3% of the population.
It is slightly above average, and IQ has nothing to do with age. Your IQ would be the same no matter how old you were. -thanks for the answer
IQ measures problem solving skills and things that come naturally, you can't learn to have a better IQ. The older kid will be more knowledgeable because of schooling and the overall learning process of life. However, no matter if you take the IQ test at age 3 or at age 25 your IQ will stay the same and will not fluctuate unless you become mentally ill.