>tfw IQ is 110 >tfw last time I got this test I got 112

>>25817189
link pls anon?

originale

>tfw 142 IQ
It's obviously not true though because they just want to sell their certificates and real tests take hours

>>25818494
It's basically a practice test, like doing 3 sections of the SAT before you take that.

>>25818291
iqtest.dk

>>25817189
110 is 75th percentile. It's not bad. You can be anything in life but a lawyer, physicist, doctor, mathematician, philosopher, engineer, or CEO (unless your parents are loaded). I mean if you have god tier work ethic you could become one of those, but you'd be in the bottom 40 percent.

more than half the world is less than 100 which is close to retarded, I'd say you are pretty fucking smart.

File: image.gif (3KB, 200x100px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 200x100px

friendly reminder that if you unironically believe a random online test to be credible, you probably have an "IQ" well into the double digits

>>25818658
Half of the developed world*

The world average is like 70.

File: garma.gif (289KB, 392x400px) Image search: [Google]

289KB, 392x400px

>>25817189
>had to take an IQ tests when I was younger, because teachers said I was highly gifted
>got 162 as a result
>fucked school up completely later on
>feel like I'm becoming dumber every year
>retake the test half a year ago
>174 now
IQ tests are bogus and pseudoscience

>tfw 128
>no matter how many times I try on different tests can't break the fabled 130

I guess I'll just be a retard then

File: iq.png (444KB, 1323x657px) Image search: [Google]

444KB, 1323x657px

>>25817189
Old screenshot I took about 4 threads about this ago. IQ is essentially a meme though, honestly. I'm a deadbeat NEET who will probably end up working some stupid fucking dead-end job because of my mental health issues. Only time IQ has actual meaning is when you have the perfect concoction of motivation and mental health in unity. If you have motivation and decent mental health, you can achieve more than somebody with high IQ and the lack of the two prior.

>>25818731
There is not adult test that goes up to 174 unless it uses an SD of 24. If you don't post proof, you are most likely lying. What was your SAT/ACT score? Post a screenshot. Which IQ test did you take? Just having an IQ of 145+ would let you remember half of the test even now.

>>25818838
You're retarded for thinking 128 is retard. That's 97th percentile, retard.
Fucking ingrates.

>>25818671
>>25818838
>>25818617
op here

these pattern recognition tests hurt my head. i feel like that negatively affects me, because i have a tendency to introspect heavily when i'm stressed (which is very often), and look for patterns and solutions to my problems, usually to no avail. i feel like my lack of problem solving and pattern recognition causes me to run in circles very often.

my linguistic IQ is in the 85th percentile or so, but I'm awful at cohesively expressing my thoughts because my concentration is around the 30th percentile.

it freaks me out that there are people that can do these patterns without any stress on their mind.

>>25818888
well, i'm progressively becoming more depressed and anxious as I'm getting older, and my executive functioning is very poor, always has been. I do not have the "motivation and mental health".

IQ is such a flawed and archaic way of measuring intelligence. There are so many different aspects when it comes to processing information. IQ is comparable to Miggs-Bryers in how it gathers it's information, and MB is comparable to astrology in how it applies itself.

The fact that you get autistic calculators alone makes IQ measurements not work.

Haven't you ever noticed how nobody scores under 100? Gee, I wonder why.

>>25819285
it's not really the fact that I feel uncomfortable about my "IQ score", it's just that I feel very weird that there are people that can do this type of test so easily and I struggle with it.

>>25819019
In that case, you're screwed. As edgy as it may sound capitalism has further ruined my mental health. A system which assumes infinite growth and infinite consumption will someday be doomed.

File: ss+(2016-01-17+at+08.00.28).png (186KB, 1373x925px) Image search: [Google]

186KB, 1373x925px

hello original friends :>

>>25819333
yeah, not a big fan of capitalism either. just doesn't seem sustainable to me.

>>25819515
It's far from sustainable. Reason why unemployment is so rampant and there's so few employment opportunities is because we're becoming more and more efficient. It's impossible for every single person in countries like the US, Australia, etc, to work. I'm in Australia and have applied for well over two dozen different jobs. My entire household exists only on welfare currently, which is only a soothing cream to stop us from seeing how unsustainable the capitalist regime is. Ideally I'd love to see communism take a foothold, but after Stalinism and Maoism everything is just a smear campaign.

In Australia we have 'democratic socialism' currently, which is just buttered up capitalism still. What a world to be born into though, where unemployment is seen as some dire hedonistic sin, even though there's more people than there are jobs.

Good news OP,

This test was normed so that 100 was the average of everyone who took this single test, not against the general population. as you might imagine the sort of people who seek out online IQ tests to do are a bit smarter on average than the average joe, probably by about a standard deviation. You're likely closer to 125

> but I got 110 in a real test kill me now

>>25818888

But at least you seem to spend your time reading and talking about shit on /lit/ - that's got some social value.

all I do is watch TV series

>>25818494
I got the exact same, I'm a narcissist though so I don't want question the validity of the test because I scored well

Can all the 135+ people in this thread explain what you actually do with your day?

I get being NEET, but how do you spend your time? Isn't it hard to fail completely given how obviously easy everything is to you? Don't you put down your philosophy book and go, ''hey, you know, most of the human race isn't even interested in this shit, let alone capable of really comprehending it on a deep level, Maybe i'm not so bad.''

File: yeah ok sure.png (137KB, 1279x698px) Image search: [Google]

137KB, 1279x698px

>>25820306
So I guess I'm a fucking rocket surgeon

test was easy af

>>25820636
I'm >>25818888.
I spend my time, as you stated, reading philosophy, higher mathematics, theoretical physics, and some fiction books. I still consider myself a terrible person though. I can't drive because of crippling anxiety, often become disillusioned about the government being after me, and have major depressive disorder. I was also born lower-class and teach basic philosophy to my undereducated sick mother. I never went to university and dropped out of high school because it was a bore, but then learned without credentials nobody cares about you.

Some days are spent crying in the office of my social worker. All I care about is my personal academia, my art, and my time. I am not somebody who belongs in the capitalist system and only have a roof over my head because of government-subsidized public housing.

There's a reason many intellectuals succumb to drug addiction. World order functions in a way where your economic class stunts your ability to be anything. Ideally, I'd love to become a professor, but after watching a dozen lectures online I realized how much they trivialize it. And a friend's father of mine works in academia and it developed severe depression for him because the politics are immense and the workload is brutalizing.

I like to think I was just born in the wrong time, but that just makes me sound like a snowflake. I'd love to see a world be created where private property and private education are abolished, work becomes that of passion, and unemployment isn't seen as sinful hedonism. If it doesn't come to term in my lifetime I will die in agonising sadness. And that is why intellect is a horrid curse.

>>25818617
>doctor
Lmao

File: 1426803022017.png (390KB, 374x374px) Image search: [Google]

390KB, 374x374px

>taking online IQ tests seriously
best way to spot an underage faggot/retard

>>25818617
>engineering
Haha, no.

My IQ is a 104. I'm about to graduate from UCB with a Chem Eng BS. I've got a 3.82 with minimal work ethic, and just studying 2-3 days before a test.

>>25820958

Don't you think it'd be far worse of a curse to just....sit and watch TV shows and play video games. NEET people are considered scum, unless you can justify yourself through higher pursuits, in which case a lot of people seem to just sort of let you be.

I don't know, I have a few recommendations. irt academia, if I were you, i'd go for it. I believe the average phd has an IQ of about 125. Despite all of the politics, the workload, and so on, I'd imagine you'd be so clearly superior that you'd easily be able to find a cosy job at some small middle ranking university?

>>25820958

Also you say that you were born lower class - what do you mean by this? Is there anyone in your family that is as smart as you at all? Just really curious since most of the people I meet who are extremely smart, the rest of their family is very similar

>>25817189
you can say online iq test score minus 30 is the real iq.
not really though, because online iq tests are retarded bullshit

>>25818617
IQ doesn't mean shit and is only the most basic level of intelligence. Overall it's worthless.

>>25821047

UCB eh

Do people ever talk about the supreme gentleman now?

>>25821329
Politics of the educational world would crush me like a snail. Ideally I'd like to live off my literary works, but it'll be nigh impossible if not entirely so. Should read some Nietzsche, friend. He was a brilliant intellectual, became a professor at, I believe, 22, and proceeded to drop out because of the trivialization and politics. He proceeded to live off his literary works (and by that I mean in poverty) before having a meltdown at 40-odd years old which he never recovered from.

All because somebody is intelligent doesn't mean they have life easy or can even make life easy. I don't even consider myself an intellectual, but we're a doomed type often.

>>25821353
Brother was officially tested at an incredibly high IQ when he was younger. We've been the only two anomalies in the lower-class family. He basically slept through high school, was awarded a scholarship into university, but then abruptly dropped out. It turns out he had severe schizophrenia. He's 30-odd years old and taken care of by our grandparents. I sometimes find him wandering the streets at night in dazed confusion and he talks about voices in his head. He underwent therapy, medication, and even electroshock therapy. He's the only person in my immediate family who can keep up a conversation with me, even though his mind often warders outside this world.

>>25818731

"BEST FRIEND"

from lol to qq in 0.2 seconds

>necessary reminder to you all that IQ tests are bs and if you were all really as smart as you say you are, you all wouldn't be on /r9k/

>>25821533
i've seen roasties legitimately shiver when he's brought up in conversation. he's kind of like a boogeyman.

Other than that, some of the diversity and feminism clubs occasionally mention him as an example of "terrorism" against women whenever they're doing their stupid fucking rallies, and as a paragon of rape culture in the STEM community, even though he wasn't even a fucking STEM major. I guess anyone with autism is STEM-related. Thankfully, not that many people in the sciences really give two shits about them, including the women. They're practically a meme in the engineering departments.

>>25821655
Wrong

I am actually smart and I have the life to back it up as I'm a PhD-student in mathematics at one of the better universities in the world. I have scored in the best 0.1 percentile over and over and in general I'm just succesful.

I think 4chan has a lot of intelligent people. /r9k/ is probably not one of those boards but I just come here to shitpost. It's a fact that only people with extremely high IQ enjoy baneposting for example.

>>25821725
can you do triple integrals

>>25821755
Considering the theory is identical to double integrals, yes.

>>25819700
That's shit all jobs though

File: IQmyass.jpg (117KB, 1126x799px) Image search: [Google]

117KB, 1126x799px

First time taking this test. Pretty cool desu senpai.

>>25818671
>each specific thing is a random thing if I can't be bothered to differentiate

>>25821725
>It's a fact that only people with extremely high IQ enjoy baneposting for example.
That's a big claim.

>>25822129
For you.
original comment desu please forgive me robot senpai

>>25822129
Big guys get to make big claims.

>>25821586

Do you really think it'd be so unmanageable? There's surely a lot of scope for socially awkward people up in academia, at least i'd imagine. But that aside, jeez, I just figure that, with capacity that great, there must be something you can do that would allow you to live a better quality of life (your family as well.) Even something as ridiculous as playing poker really well or some such - even some of my friends do that and live off of it, as a large part of it seems to be taking advantage of drunk people. Likewise I cant' help but feel there might be some way of managing your issues. Have you seen a therapist, a good/smart one, I mean? Have you tried drugs/nootropics - a lot of them really do wonders for my constant anxiety, so much that I forget I ever had it at times.

Thanks for the recommendation, but I can't read Nietzsche, I'm literally too dumb, it just drops out of my head.

That's sad about your brother.

Oh and, a bit of a weird request, but it'd be amazing to see how high you could get on a test like this: http://cognitivefun.net/test/10

>>25821586

holy shit 4chan seems to have deleted my response to you

>>25822231
I still see it here: >>25822207
I'm not immensely socially awkward but I'm severely mentally unwell. I'm considering publishing some literature soon, but so few can turn that into a living. I've been to a dozen or so therapists but they've all been horrendous. Medicated for major depressive disorder and anxiety. Have tried nootropics but got bored of them when I was a teenager.

It's a shame you can't retain philosophical work. It's oh so immensely interesting.

I'll give that test a whirl in a moment. It's almost 8:30AM and I haven't slept but we'll see how well I can go after I get some breakfast. Find it strange you've taken an unusual interest toward me. I'm considering just becoming a social worker for the disadvantaged, honestly. But who knows..

IQ tests are bullshit
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6GIyTWqVguE

>>25822568
This guy seems more autistic than me

>>25817189

Last one I did was 124, but its hardly accurate because I guessed a good few questions.

>>25821701
Feminazis should rally against stem programs in colleges. Letting all of these unstable autists onto campus is just asking for another Elliot Rodger.

129 here, feels alright.

>Im a loser phaggot but at least my IQ is high!

>>25822506

Oh, well, I'm like you in a lot of ways, just clearly a lot stupider. I'm interested in what makes smart people smart, and what the actual experience of living with different levels of intelligence is like.

I also developed some brain damage a while back, which I made worse by continuing to use alcohol/drugs, long after I became very concerned with my declining abilities. That said I was never too bright to begin with.

Eh you could do worse than a social worker I suppose, but if you're sensitive to things, aren't you concerned it'll be a bit traumatizing/grinding to experience?

>>25821586
>>25820958
I'm kind of jealous; I'm practically retarded. It would be nice to have somebody speak to me and broaden my horizons about various topics. I assume with that level of intellect, you'll never experience that feeling of conversing with someone that really makes you think and reevaluate your way of thinking.

Mfw too dumb to be a tortured intellectual or understand anything of worth.

I have an IQ of 105 (based on iqtest.dk). What can I even do with my life?

>entire test is random boxes and shapes
its more of an autism test than iq test.

>>25821701

Have you ever thought about putting up some posters with his face on it around campus?

>>25817189
>tfw iq is legitimately 146 from tests when I was younger
>tfw wasted my life on video games
>tfw probably going to fail college because I can't face opening any of my books and just stare at 4chan or something

>>25824276

reeeeeeeeeeeee

why not just do enough to at least scrape by?! I can't do college now matter how hard I try

>>25824424
I might pass with a 3rd or low 2:2

I hate my course and only went to uni because I hated every other option just as much

I don't even do anything else with my time I just can't work up the energy to do anything

>>25824461
Mate block 4chan. It's mind cancer, particularly this board.

>>25817189
>tfw 137 IQ 4 years ago
>tfw it's now 114

What the fuck is happening to me

>>25823726
Anon, he's just some fucking autist roleplaying on /r9k/, you don't actually believe he thinks people like Nietzsche are his peers, do you? Or that he dropped out of high school because it was boring?

Either it's someone who's literally the incarnation of "I'm smart but lazy! XD" or the more likely option, he's lying.


By the way, if you're one of those people that calls themselves smart but lazy, you aren't smart. An IQ test isn't the be all end all of intelligence, and if you can't see why being lazy is a fucking bad choice, then you're fucking stupid.

>>25824461

You should probably look into your health chum

maybe try phoneix rising forums for advice on chronic fatigue syndrome. all you have to do is buy a few supplements. heck maybe just try modafinil. if you're not E-statting that should be enough to get a 2:1 cause it's pretty damn easy man - my IQ is probably around 110 and I can just about get a 2:1

>>25824563

A lot of people seem to get weird results on this particular test.

>>25824497
How the fuck do you block 4chan in a way that doesn't just let you unblock it and re-open it though?

>>25824761
I slept through my A levels got all *s/As and got into a uni that I can't keep up at

>>25824752

I've considered that as some of what he says seems a bit fantastical, but he writes very well so I'm inclined to believe it.

Also IQ tests literally are the gold standard for judging intelligence. Questions like 'if you can't see why being lazy is a bad choice...' are matters of insight or emotional function, though. Being smart doesn't mean one is rational, or has normie-range emotional priors and needs.

And no, I'm a genetic trash. I'm lazy but not at all smart.

>>25824761
I took the exact same test 4 years ago though. It's probably just my depression limiting my ability to concentrate, at least I hope so.

>>25824802
Same here. People are fucking machines here. I don't understand how they care so much.

>>25824802

Oh, I see. What uni if you don't mind me asking? I sort of figured you'd performed about the same in A-levels as you did at University now.

You should probably drop out for a time then man, until you work out what you want to do. if you have a family that'll have you.

Again as someone who is genuinely dumb/brain damaged, I wish I could get across to you guys how...I don't know, not 'lucky' you are, as I've been were you are and know you already probably feel guilty enough about it, but just...how much you just need to chill out and sort of realize that you are pretty lucky and with just a few tweaks you could have a really good future.

>>25824830
He does write quite well, but that doesn't make him a genius, it just makes him convincing at telling a story.

IQ tests seriously aren't though. Even a basic look into the actual clinical use of an IQ test says it's not enough to get an accurate measure of the intelligence of a patient, as intelligence is defined by more than just "How quick can you solve these puzzles". It's a useful tool for figuring out how functional mentally retarded patients have the potential to be, but not much past that.

Emotional intelligence is just as vital in getting an accurate picture as your analytical intelligence, and an individual that's more interested in making up excuses for his own failures is likely to be lacking in this aspect, meaning he's not all as smart as he thinks.

>>25824928
I don't want to give anything that specific away but it is one of the ones in the top 5 of all the league tables

Nothing I do is ever treated as an achievement, my a level grades were why are they not all *s.

I am already repeating a year I just want to get uni over with and then go travelling or something I have some saved up money. I see no future for myself without a degree either any kind of career path that would be "acceptable" for me requires a decent a degree

File: 1403492193068.gif (2MB, 320x221px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 320x221px

>Supposed to be an all-encompassing evaluation of your problem-solving ability
>Literally just a bunch of sequences of shapes

>>25818888
it's such a shame that your digits are wasted...
in all seriousness though, IQ is the best predictor of intelligence we have. of course you won't feed yourself if you don't work. it's not profound to make that connection. but hard work can only get you so far. the average Joe may be dedicated enough to get a reasonable job; but he will forever lack the necessary mental clarity and insight to make the great discoveries attributed to men with genius level intellect.
you may feel as though your intelligence is meaningless and squandered, and it may be. but it's still there. a smart man can make poor choices instead of achieving, and a dumb man can make good choices and achieve; but a man who has achieved much scientifically, mathematically, or medically has never scored low on an IQ test.
the tale that Einstein had trouble with math in school is just that, a tale. he taught himself calculus by the time he entered secondary school.

>>25817189
Ahaha Done this exact test. Got 125 first time. My classmate got 130

>>25825116
Holy shit, we've had this fucking argument before. IQ is in no way an indication of an individuals ability to become successful. As long as you don't suffer clinical disabilities, what you can achieve is pretty much limited by how hard you're willing to work.

You made the claim, provide some damn proof that what you're saying is anything more than justifying your own failures.

>>25818888
Totally original... The test walk through is on YouTube you stupid lying fuck

>>25820636
The people with 130+ is just betas who looked at the walk through on YouTube...

File: 1440984156112.gif (898KB, 540x400px) Image search: [Google]

898KB, 540x400px

106 here.

Is there a way to raise IQ at the age of 28?

>>25825243

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_Studies_of_Genius

nigger you just don't know what you are talking about.

Is IQ a perfect measurement of an individuals ability to be successful - no. But nobody has claimed this.

Is IQ even a completely accurate predictor of 'intelligence' - no. But then few people have ever claimed this.

Is it a meaningful/accurate enough predictor of intelligence, and is intelligence itself a meaningful predictor of success - YES. Doubting this is at this point just anti-science. It's no different than being a creationist.

dunno about all these shitty online tests

but when I had my IQ measured I remembered stuff like maths and spelling being included in it (the spelling part is how I found out I was 'dyslexic')

>>25822041
I got the same score. Tell me about yourself?

>>25822568
Only stupid people say it's stupid

>>25824075
my girlfriend tested at 104 and finished high school with a 4.0 taking ap classes and whatnot; I've never gotten anything other than a 130 over the years and I did shit in highschool and am currently doing shit in college

I know gpa means little in terms of intelligence but my girl is pretty damn smart and iq leaves a lot of aspects of intelligence out

some guy on sci had a Ph.D. in physics and a 109 iq; you can do literally anything anybody else can

>>25825450
130 here and it's stupid

>>25825296
YouTube tutorial? lol all of them are easy besides the last 2

>>25825055

Well there is no point being there if you are going to get a 2:2. It sounds to me like you are clearly hideously depressed and haven't yet accumulated the life experience necessary to know/accept what would be an acceptable life to you.

Again like, I get the feeling I am little bit older than you, and I can totally remember being in your shoes in terms of not feeling enthusiastic towards anything at all but especially towards doing nothing (except I'd failed everything pretty much I guess.) I don't know, do you spend a lot of time thinking about your options, and trying to work out whatever is the right course for your life? Clearly i'm a lot dumber than you so I feel ridiculous giving you advice, but it somehow gets far easier to accept things past the age of 23, and you somehow become far better at knowing what would satisfy you. I remember feeling horrified and bemused at the idea anyone could ever work as hard as they do, and just so disillusioned with it all. I've gotten the sense that aspie types just mature slowly, so just, don't spiral off into an abyss and totally fuck your shit up like I did, and kind of, be more accepting of where you are right now in terms of lacking motivation. Hopefully this doens't sound cringeworthy

>>25825304
Do LSD

>>25825547
I keep holding out until I hope it gets better

didn't get any better after 1st year or 2nd year and it isn't going great in the repeat of 2nd year

I know full well I am depressed and I've tried all the normal stuff like going running regularly just nothing really helps

I don't even like video games much anymore

>>25825502

how the fuck do you even begin to do the last two?

>>25825351
only the distinction between sub/super median. having an IQ below 100 has been shown to significantly correlate with low income etc. from median upward however, no. there's no real connection between intelligence and success afaik, only between intelligence and lower-class/low income.

File: 64637724.jpg (98KB, 590x411px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 590x411px

>>25817189
Bragging about IQ is retarded.
Intelligence mean jack shit if you cannot use it nor create something big.

The key to success is mix between discipline and practical matters.

>>25825705

> running

come onnnn, you know you're depressed when the only thing you can bother to do to get out of it is running. I'm sure it helps but it isn't going to do much for guys like you.

http://hotelconcierge.tumblr.com/post/116790700524/we-need-to-sing-about-mental-health

this is the best thing i've come across IRT mental health and shit (and nah, its honestly good, it isn't full of shit. also stabs normie scum directly in their foul hearts.)

perhaps try some mdma, lsd etc, to give you a sense of a different perspective. when you're in the state you're in it seems more or less rational, something read off from the world rather than a clearly modifyable interpretation of it.

further to that try:

phenibut,
tiantapine
all the classic antidepressants, prozac etc.
classic stimulants etc

Kratom, if you want to just chill out for a while.

srs

>>25825936
I don't even drink

I can't see getting into any kind of drugs helping in any way

>>25826078

What's the opposition to it. I'd at least consider trying an anti-depressant

uhh headaches from the abstract reasoning is probably to do with poor short term memory.

your brain is trying to find a pattern, and it'll struggle without being able to seamlessly filter through all the images in short-term memory.

it'd probably be worth it to look into n-back training or something to build up your short-term memory & attention.

>>25826138
eternally trying to live up to the person I should be with the opportunities I have had

it isn't healthy but anything like drugs I am sure could knock me off an already unbalanced path

>>25825351
You do realise that link doesn't prove what you're saying at all, right?

You made the claim that success was linked to having a high IQ. I asked you to prove it. You posted a link about a study that says that some people with high IQ's are successful, and says nothing about people with low to average level IQ's ability to succeed.

>Doubting this is at this point just anti-science. It's no different than being a creationist.

This is a completely dishonest attempt to argue against me, you can't just go "I'm right, and if you disagree you're disagreeing with this entire other concept and are literally X, Y or Z".

>>25820517
Are you me?Is what I would ask but I am clearly better despite our scores being identical.

>>25826326

That's ridiculous! You accuse me of being dishonest for making an ad homimen point (possibly you could call for me a fallacious argument, but hardly dishonesty) but your own request doesn't seem to be at all honest.

You wanted proof that success was linked to having a high IQ. I referenced a study showing that a group sampled due to a high IQ achieve success far beyond that that would be expected from a randomly selected group. Now somehow that doesn't count?


the science is completely unequivocal to the extent that I can be almost sure any random who discounts IQ as unimportant just simply hasn't read enough about it.

Sorry I've been trying to link the rest of what I wrote for about 10 minutes now but 4chan keeps on telling me it's spam. I'm removing the links but I can try add them on later.

IQ is correlated with:

Education levels
Brain structures

In a study, all eminent scientists tested scored 140-150 points.

emember here that 'g' was discovered by accident. Nobody searched for it directly, it was 'invented' because people noticed that results on any sort of cognitive test was correlated with the results obtained on seemingly dissimilar cognitive testing e.g. if you have a high vocabulary you are expected to have a fast reaction time as well, etc. the components of an IQ test get complicated, but at its simpliest level literally test things that seem fundamental to thought in an extremely direct way. How long can you hold things in your memory. How fast can you identity symbols on a page. How easily can you detect various patterns etc.

Just, in the end, ask yourself whether it is likely that a factor found by chance, that correlates with all other cognitive skills, with education level, and of which you can only find obviously very intelligent people that have at least got 150 points of it.. that seems to be built up of very basic skills that you'd also need, to a far lesser degree, to perform basic tasks like calculating a shopping bill, reading a map, or remembering your keys. that correlates with brain structures you can detect via MRI and so on. Is it really beyond plausiblity that there we are measuring a real feature of the world here?

>>25827234
>possibly you could call for me a fallacious argument, but hardly dishonesty

Fallacies are intellectual dishonesty. And I asked you to provide proof, it's the basis of any sort of argument.

>
You wanted proof that success was linked to having a high IQ. I referenced a study showing that a group sampled due to a high IQ achieve success far beyond that that would be expected from a randomly selected group. Now somehow that doesn't count?


No, that's not what I asked. I asked for proof that without a high IQ, and individual could not be successful. Proving that some individuals with high IQ's are successful is not an argument for what I said, as it's not incompatible with the idea that less intelligent people may also achieve great success.

>the science is completely unequivocal to the extent that I can be almost sure any random who discounts IQ as unimportant just simply hasn't read enough about it.


You really lack understanding about how this works, don't you? IQ is not in any way a reliable indication of character, and the study you provided has proof of this. The samples chosen were chosen from already highly achieving students (it's how the gifted programs work), not necessarily all of the ones with high IQ's. Then the person in charge pushed for them to succeed by meddling in their lives, giving them unfair advantage.

Other studies have also shown that any random group of children from similar family backgrounds will achieve highly, not necessarily gifted ones.
The study you posted, as well as not being particularly relevant, is in no way reliable science, and the data derived from it as such has no value.

>>25827353

sure, i think the point here though is that human cognition cannot reliably be reduced to a number.

is the guy with the higher fluid intelligence superior to the guy with a high crystallized intelligence? maybe? depends what circumstance we're in I guess?

would a high Gc be superior to a high Gf in medicine? I mean possibly a lot of it is memorization, would we want those high Gc guys in Emergency Medicine though? mm probably not when we could have a high Gf guy, but in pathology shit we probably want guys with really high Gc because they're able to retain so much more raw information.

once you're in the bell curve it's not as easy as round peg to round hole, I think that's the point.

especially when you consider of a lot of the research on intelligence is purely theoretical and expanding constantly.

i mean do you know the guy with literally the highest IQ in the world chooses to work as a bouncer? is he 'smarter' than the guy with an IQ of 120 - 130 who is successful in his intellectual field?

it's not always black & white.

>>25827464

Calling a situationally appropriate ad homiem 'dishonesty' is ridiculous.

I think you are being deliberately pedantic here -- success, in terms of what we are talking about, is clearly relative. If we can indicate that IQ is a causal factor, or at least strongly correlated with success, then it stands to reason that a lower IQ will be less correlated with success.

Nobody is going to argue that you cannot find an example of a successful person with a lower iQ. What they are arguing is that IQ has a large casual role in determining success, so that it'd be very unlikely to find a successful person with a lower IQ.


Terman searched for children with high IQs - not children who were doing well at school.

His level of meddling doesn't seem consummate with the insanely above average achievements of the children.

And finally, you can't accuse me of a lack of understanding of how 'this' works when you reference one study that shows children from similar backgrounds will perform similarly as a point against the influence of IQ - If IQ is heritable, we'd expect children from certain backgrounds to perform similarly to each other.

I'm going to try post some other studies now and hope 4chan lets me.

>>25827464

Okay it's literally classifying any link I send as spam, so if you are interested search:

steve hsu, IQ of eminent scientists

iq and education

iq and brain scans etc

>>25827649

> sure, i think the point here though is that human cognition cannot reliably be reduced to a number.

I agree. I don't think any iq advocate would argue that you could reduce intelligence to just a number, heck, most of them wouldn't even suggest it was that good a predictor of anything on an individual level. But that doesn't mean it isn't a valid metric at all.

Bear in mind also that we are touching on two different arguments here - that cognition can't be totally summed up in a single number, and that life success (e.g. the bouncer dude) isn't totally correlated with IQ.

>>25827709
I didn't talk about the ad hom, I talked about you saying that if you disagreed you were against science and were literally a creationist. That's intellectual dishonesty.

You're arguing with no real proof though, if an individual with low IQ is capable of gaining success in a field of his choice, then the IQ score itself is pointless, as it doesn't predict your ability to succeed.


Terman searched for gifted children, it clearly says that, not necessarily high IQ ones.

His level of meddling involved getting them into fucking Stanford, and giving recommendations for jobs, clearly impacting their success.

I referenced the study that proves your reference to be untrue, as any child from a similar background to the ones used in your study, not necessarily high IQ ones, will have similar levels of success, implying that it's the social standing that gives them that ability. You can't say that a random sample is going to be the same as a selected one simply because there's similarities in the pool they're chosen from. Eye colour is heritable, yet if I choose a group of people with white skin, they won't have the same eye colour as if I choose people with white skin and blue eyes, obviously.

>>25828099
I did read those, and they're also irrelevant. My point isn't that some people who're successful have high IQ's, that's a given. My point is that IQ is not a measure of an individuals ability to succeed, as it only measures very specific forms of intelligence.


>>25828209
These two are closely linked, you can't claim that IQ isn't a valid way to measure an individuals cognitive ability, yet that it's still somehow a good way to measure how successful someone will be in a single sentence.

>>25828426

> You're arguing with no real proof though, if an individual with low IQ is capable of gaining success in a field of his choice, then the IQ score itself is pointless, as it doesn't predict your ability to succeed.

Okay, I'm sorry but if I'm not mistaken, you are claiming that if an individual with a low IQ is capable of gaining success in a field, then IQ is pointless? So one possible exception means an entire trend is discounted. Is Emma Watson isn't attractive as an individual man may not want to fuck her?

The rest of your post seems to contain stuff I have real issues with. look like, you seem like a smart guy, and this is what I mean about creationist like thinking. As far as I can make out from what you've said, your point is that it doesn't matter if IQ is correlated with success, or cognition, because there may be some cases (doesn't matter how many) of individuals succeeding without a high iq. read it over

>>25828847
>I'm sorry but if I'm not mistaken, you are claiming that if an individual with a low IQ is capable of gaining success in a field, then IQ is pointless?

It means it's pointless as a way to predict success, yes, as many people with average IQ's are successful individuals. If there's no direct correlation between two things, then you can't claim that one's a result of the other.

>Is Emma Watson isn't attractive as an individual man may not want to fuck her?

Not the same point, nice strawman.

You're ignoring my point. You can't use something as a way to predict success if it's not a trait that all successful people have. If there are plenty of people with high IQ's that are failures (there are heaps) and plenty of people with average IQ's that are successful(there are), then you can't claim that having a high IQ is a good indicator that you'll be successful. You could use that same argument to imply that if most rich people had blue eyes, then if you have blue eyes you'll probably be successful. It's not a trait that directly relates to level of success. A person with 150 isn't necessarily going to be better than 140, and 140 with 130, so on and so forth.


Other personality traits, sure, but not intelligence.

File: iq 2016.png (196KB, 1152x738px) Image search: [Google]

196KB, 1152x738px

mine hasn't gone up or down much since 2008

i was apparently a freakish genius with an IQ of 157 as a child, but a youth placed in front of the television by uncaring parents took care of that

anyway

i recently graduated with a degree in manufacturing engineering tech, so my iq is still high enough to live comfortably, at least

>>25829133
Too bad the IQ is almost 100% nature and practically 0% nurture...So you being in front of a tv with uncaring parents didn't do shit.

>>25820636

I put myself through grueling college work

Or, I practice cooking.

>>25829080

> You can't use something as a way to predict success if it's not a trait that all successful people have.

That just isn't true though. This is so silly I feel like i'm being trolled, but surely you must recognize that its possible to have a trait that plays a casual role in being successful but does not have a 1:1 correlation with success?

For instance,it's clearly true that being hard-working is an advantage in life. But also clearly true that not every hard working person is successful. being hard working is correlated with, and a casual factor, in success, but isn't the only thing that matters.

You could make the blue eyes argument about a trait like hard working as well. The issue is whether you can reason or tests for ways this is casual, and at least one of those ways is through blunt statistics (e.g. if all blue eyed men are millionairess, i'd start to think maybe it was important as it'd be very unlikely for that to happen if it were not.)

>>25829846

Isn't the work fairly easy considering your mega-IQ?

>>25831404
I didn't say a 1:1 correlation, read the rest of my post. I said it's not even necessarily related, as plenty of failures have high IQ's, and plenty of successes have low ones, it's not a direct link, and can't be used to predict as such.

Hard working is directly linked with success, the harder you work, the more successful you'll be. If you dedicate your life to something, you'll likely have great success in that field, and if you don't try at all, you likely won't have any.

Something being linked to a group doesn't make it the cause of that group existing, it's the whole correlation not equaling causation point. We're also not talking about absolute populations in the first place, I clearly said "most".