Nobody calls 110 a problem score. 90 is its mirror image.
"Normal" in psychometrics means inside the central hump, where variation is expected. A clinician reading 90 doesn't flag it. Some sites label it "low average", but on the Wechsler bands 90 is the bottom of Average, and 80–89 is low average.
Take the test again. And again.
Suppose your true score is exactly 90. A single sitting typically lands within about ±5 points of it. Simulate sittings and see how often one lands near the average anyway.
Most of the jobs that run the economy are well within reach
The common thread: concrete, practical reasoning tends to be a strength at this level, and highly abstract material just takes more deliberate effort.
Two people at 90 can lead completely different lives
Once you're in a reasonable range, conscientiousness is among the strongest psychological predictors of career outcomes. Persistence, turning up, finishing what you start and treating people well move outcomes more than ten IQ points. And the test never looks at most of what follows.
Today's 90 is a tougher bar than the same number used to be
Measured scores rose about 3 points a decade through the 20th century, so tests are re-normed to keep the mean at 100. Your 90 is ranked against today's adults, not your grandparents'.
In a small company, every employee who works in Sales has a company phone. Mara has a company phone. Which must be true?
Percentiles, the dot line and the sitting simulation are computed from a normal distribution (mean 100, SD 15). Job and conscientiousness points summarise published research; the Flynn figure is a deliberately simple illustration.