What does /sci/ think about IQ tests, are they a reliable way

File: political_pictures_stephen_hawking_done_more_answer_2_xlarge[1].jpg (20KB, 350x285px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 350x285px

Yes. Unless you're a small IQ brainlet. Then you'll shitpost about IQ and bitch about people with high IQs.

I.Q. is a statistical means for smart people to compare dick size.

>>7800655
I see it that way.
It is a measure of how well you could answer questions related to "logic, pattern recognition, spatial visualization, etc" compared to other people. It may or may not fit your definition of intelligence.
It is not 100% reliable, it does not guarantee you anything, some tests are shitty, you'll do better on some days, etc
But it does measure something and it can help you learn about yourself.

It doesn't really matter what the tests measure. IQ tests are an efficient method of predicting life outcomes, and IQ is about 80% inherited. Whatever "IQ" really is.

With that being said, I don't see the point in bragging about something you didn't earn. I agree with Hawking.

>>7801313
> 80%
Where are you getting that number? I hate to break it to you, but the jury is still very much out on that one.

Only people without publications brag about their IQ

If you're actually intelligent, your work speaks for itself tee bee aiytch.

Except Hawking is extremely vain and actually obsessed with shit like his IQ.

>>7801313
>IQ is about 80% inherited
your information is about 80% incorrect

>>7801683
/thread

>>7801713
At least, he used to be.

When he was first coming down with his disorder and fell down some stairs, he was knocked unconscious. Afterward, he was worried about brain damage, so he took an IQ test to ensure the fall hadn't made him any dumber.