If this IQ test is so accurate, why did I score 96 on my first try and 132 on my second?
> the same butthurt small IQ fgt shitposting
I told you 500 times, take the official Mensa test you retard. Solving some crappy online math test won't make you a math genius either.
IQ is stupid anyways. It doesn't actually mean anything. You could be a fucking genius and not know how to take the retarded ass test.
>still thinks IQ tests are legit
I shiggy diggy
Intelligence Cannot Be Accurately Quantified
Every IQ test I've seen is a joke and none of them test very much for actual intelligence. Many questions can be rather vague with more than one answer.
There's also a major caveat. You can't make a test that has a result higher than your own intelligence. This is the same as "You can't write a character in your story who is smarter than you are." Not only that, but a test that only relies on written word on a piece of paper/screen is a terrible test.
Unless William James Sidis made the tests you are taking, they are probably shit from the get-go. IQ tests are the "What Harry Potter Character are YOU!? test" of intelligence.
>tfw a question is in a field you know nearly everything about and the question itself is improperly worded so that the outcome is ambiguous.
>tfw some are pop sci questions
>tfw some are pop culture questions
Most tests are incorrectly geared towards a specific mental type which excludes many others.
>Most tests are incorrectly geared towards a specific mental type which excludes many others.
100% correct in regard to the OP test. It is highly specific for one mind and nothing else. It is like taking a test for a ballerina class, but on the disco dance floor you are amazing. A test for either one of those specifically don't properly determine the overall skill or in the OP test, intelligence.