im worried are IQ testes legitamate /sci/?
should i kill mesell now ill never be smart ?
How the fuck do you even score less than 100 in that test?
80% of it was fucking obvious shits.
Well, even if the result is true, you shouldn't kill yourself. Not everyone is meant to be a scientist. You can find other job and be successful at it.
Don't listen to the /sci/ elitist.
There are about 10 errors in your two sentences, varying from grammatical to spelling issues. In evaluating if this is bait, I can't tell if that density of errors is an indication of legitimacy or of contrivance.
Here's why psychology stuff shouldn't be allowed to be read by anyone who hasn't had at least basic training in the research methodology that's used.
Ok, so there's this property of studies called "validity". Validity is a measure of how well a given instrument measures what it's intended to measure (there's also internal validity, but we needn't worry ourselves with that now).
IQ tests (of which there are only a few that are recognized clinical instruments, must be administered by someone qualified to administer them, interpreted by someone who knows what they actually say, and they come with a boatload of caveats) are generally both fairly accurate and precise -- however, they're not fully valid. There is not a single instrument that gives a general picture of human intelligence in a way that allows for comparisons. Each specific instrument measures only a facet of intelligence and is only a valid measure in the narrow field of what it examines and in terms of the operational definitions put forth by its creators.
Much of the debate over intelligence instruments is over what exactly is important about intelligence, and the answer usually ends up being "it depends". The mental profile needed for someone who is designing microwidgets is entirely different from the mental profile needed for someone who leads a large company is different from the mental profile of a master musician.
I only know of artificial reasons. In Fairbanks where I lived, the only liquid water outside was about a mile stretch of a Chena River where the powerplant kept it warm year round with waste heat
You live downstream from anything like that?
It's a natural form of supercooling created by keeping the water in motion. Water doesn't even have to flow at a fast rate to significantly cause the freezing point to drop.
Yes but no, that test can't messure all your mental habilities, but are focused on the math and science related habilities. So if you want to be a scientist probably it's a problem, but if you want to be a graphic designer, a driver, a football player... don't give a fuck. Ib4 srry for shitty english
Yes and know.
I like to think in terms of Cognitive diversity.
IQ testing evaluated a defined aspect of cognitive diversity.
Whatever your genetic potential is, it is your responsibility to fulfill it. No matter how much society tried to turn you into the common lowest denominator.
My IQ is 130. How much of a brainlet am I in /sci/'s standards?
Except high IQs correlate across all of those (except you should replace musician with composer for a better idea of what musical thinking really is). Correlation is not causation, but that doesn't mean it is cannot possibly be causation.
>and here someone who thinks they know something spews bullshit as though it's true
The short answer is no.
The long answer is, again, it all depends on how you're defining intelligence. Like look at how you're already discounting one flavor of intelligence for another with your comment about musician/composer. That there's external validity between certain instruments does not mean that they measure what they're claiming to measure, but that those instruments mostly measure the same thing. This is an important distinction to understand because only the big three instruments correlate well with each other. These three are born of similar thinking about intelligence. The remaining major instruments diverge in correlation at about the same rate as their creator's thoughts on intelligence do.
For example, there's a multidimensional model of intelligence that includes one's ability to control their body as a factor and includes social factors
let's not forget the other forms of intelligence
>muscular intelligence - the ability to lift heavy objects
>emotional intelligence - the ability to recognize and classify different emotions
>sexual intelligence - the ability to bring members of the opposite sex to orgasm
>receptive intelligence - the ability to believe what authority tells you
>diversity intelligence - the ability to accept different cultures and lifestyles into your life
>digestive intelligence - the ability to digest and convert different foods into fuel
>anime intelligence - the ability to classify, recognize and distinguish Naruto from Sailor Moon
IQ tests measure, primarily, how good the taker is at that particular IQ test, but a well designed IQ test can predict performance in future situations regarding the ability to accomplish arbitrary things given limited information using conscious thought. When people refer to intelligence, they refer to the ability to correctly assume arbitrary things given limited information, using conscious thought. While this not the only measure of brainpower, this is the only measure of a persons ability to correctly assume arbitrary things given limited information using conscious thought, commonly referred to as intelligence. Kinesthetic problems and social problems may fall under this category, but are different in that they are also heavily reliant on preprogrammed unconscious thought.
>When people refer to intelligence
You've obviously never taken a psychology r-meth class or weren't paying attention if you took into to psych.
It does not matter one whit what "people refer to" when they say intelligence. What matters is how the term is operationally defined.
>commonly referred to as intelligence
Again: This. Does. Not. Matter.
On these internet tests?
Consistently 140, with a few points margin for error.
I'm not going to bother redoing the test, and screen capping to post it here, just to prove that you are a pleb.
Believe me or not, I don't care.
Regardless, 118 is brainlet tier
Tell me /sci/, I took a WAIS IV as part of my IEP in high school and got a FSIQ of 141 with a high in verbal IQ and a low in performance. This was back in my Sophomore year and I never paid it much mind, but if the test was professionally administered how accurate is it?
what would happen if you had an iq of 1000? would you be able to logic your way into pussy?
My first test was 104 then I was butthurt and redone it, got 118. Try to do it again once, I'm sure you were just distracted when you did it the first time. I overanalyzed all choices and ended up ignoring the most obvious ones, don't repeat the same mistake.
I didn't even know there was a cheat sheet for this site...
yes, you should "kill mesell"