From "got 34 right" to an IQ
A test is given to a large norm sample matched to the population. Whatever their average raw score is becomes 100, and one standard deviation of raw scores becomes 15 points. Your IQ is just where your raw score falls against that sample.
Change the sample and the same raw score means something else. That's how the Flynn effect shows up: later samples score higher raw, so tests are re-normed to bring the average back to 100.
How many people are within ±5 of 100?
Typical adult performance, in four domains
A correlation of about 0.4 with income looks like this
Adult IQ and income correlate at roughly 0.3–0.4: real, but far from destiny. Each dot is a simulated person. People at IQ 100 (the blue band) are spread from the bottom of the income range to the top.
Test scores, yes, somewhat. Underlying ability, much less.
Familiarity and practice can lift a repeat score by 5–10 points, mostly on pattern items. General intelligence in adulthood is far harder to move.
Before you trust it, check the conditions
A clinical test like the WAIS-IV has a standard error around 2–3 points; online tests are usually noisier, often 5–8. A single online 100 is best read as roughly 90–110. Tick what applied when you took yours.
as FISH is to ?
Shares near 100 are computed from a normal distribution (mean 100, SD 15). The norming and income charts use simulated data to illustrate a method and a correlation, not real records. Education, income, SEM and brain-training points summarise published research.