I keep seeing different numbers online and I’m confused about what’s actually considered “normal” or average for IQ scores.
Is it 100? And what range is considered typical? Like is 95 normal? Is 110 normal? Where’s the cutoff?
Just trying to understand what a regular person would score.
It is normed to 100 so the average will always be 100
100 is literally the average by design - that’s how IQ tests are calibrated. “Normal” range is 85-115, which captures about 68% of people. So yeah, both 95 and 110 are completely normal. Below 85 is below average, above 115 is above average. Most people fall somewhere in that middle range.
exactly this. I scored 103 and was disappointed at first until I realized that’s literally dead center average lol. The way they set it up, 100 is always the middle.
To add: 130+ is considered “gifted” (top 2%), and below 70 is where intellectual disability classifications start. But anything from like 85-115 is just regular normal person territory.
Yep, the scale uses a mean of 100 and standard deviation of 15. Here’s the breakdown:
90-109: average (50% of people)
85-114: normal range (68% of people)
70-84: below average
115-129: above average
130+: very superior
@Marcelo don’t feel bad about 103 - that’s perfectly normal and frankly IQ doesn’t mean as much as people think. Discipline and work ethic matter way more in real life.
Honestly, I’d be a little careful about putting too much stock in these numbers. IQ tests measure certain types of problem-solving and pattern recognition, but they don’t capture everything about intelligence. Also, your score can vary depending on the day, which test you take, your education level, and even your familiarity with standardized tests.
These score interpretations are pretty much it. Though, I wouldn’t worry too much about where someone falls in there. The differences between the ranges in real life are pretty minimal.
IQ scores are kind of overrated and don’t really tell you much about how regular or capable someone is. The tests have cultural biases, they favor certain types of thinking, and they’ve been used historically to justify some pretty awful things.
I agree that it has a pretty dark past, but the harms don’t necessarily outweigh the pros. It helps us detect learning disabilities and it also allows us to quantify a person’s intellectual capabilities, which can then unlock opportunities for them to maximize their “gift.” As for cultural bias, I believe there are tons of research being done to mitigate this. My point is having one tool is better than having no benchmark at all.
That’s the official line, but norming assumes a stable population. With demographic changes or the Flynn effect reversing in some countries, maintaining exactly 100 requires constant renorming. Otherwise, the “average” could drift if tests aren’t updated.
100 is the average score for most IQ tests because they are scaled that way. The “100” average is set for each population that a test is designed for. As a result, one country’s 100 is sometimes not the same as another country’s 100. But that doesn’t have any impact on comparing people to one another within a country.
The range of average is arbitrary. On the RIOT, the average range is 91-109. Half of the population scores in that range. On other tests, it’s 85 to 115, which includes 68% of the population. No matter what the “average” label gets applied to, 100 is probably going to be in the middle, and half or more of people are going to be near that value.