The common notion that an IQ exist is completely backwards. To understand where I'm coming from you need to understand that the IQ test was invented in the early 20th century to attempt to "classify intelligence". It was a man-made idea put into existence.
As I see it, intelligence can not be measured. Some humans simply do not try when it comes to knowledge. Anyone can be amazingly intelligence if they put their time to it. And IQ test only test patterns and the ability to do IQ tests.
Feel free to engage with me on this subject.
>inb4 you must be a brainlet.
>I've taken several "internet IQ test"
>My scores ranged from 140-149
> but I still don't believe in an IQ
>speed is a man made concept
>speed cannot be measured objectively
>some people are simply not trying in a competition
>you cannot determine who runs faster
>this fatass here could be faster than Usain Bolt, if he tried
Shitty argument. Speed is easy to measure. The smartest people in the world can't even agree on how intelligence should be defined. You're comparing counting cards with rocket science.
Explain this to me then op:
I am studying computer engineering/science;
How come that despite I spend 3x amount of time compared to my clever friend I score 60% on the exams while my friend score 90% despite him parting every day and living the student life?
He is smarter, some people despite the effort can't achieve the same result as some other people.
There are differences in intelligence and IQ is an attempt to measure. Now how accurate it is i dont know, but I know for a fact that my clever friend has a much higher IQ than me. It's a fact and you just have to deal with it that IQ exists.
People on /sci/ who score well on IQ tests have an incentive to believe in them. Considering they haven't achieved anything else in life, this is the one thing that allows them to feel superior to others, something they desperately need to do because they're shallow husks, void of basic humanity.
>The smartest people in the world can't even agree on how intelligence should be defined.
Well there are clearly differences in intelligence and thus it should be possible to measure it. IQ measures your ability to solve problems, some of these skills can be learned however given that the two people that take the IQ-test has not prepared for it; it will give an accurate measurement of how well they will do in college.
An IQ test is asymmetrical in utility. A low result is an excellent indicator of the subject's inability to perform complex tasks. A high result is a poor indicator of such. The reason for that is obvious: High intelligence and INSANITY have a high rate of overlap.
I.Q. is the Intelligence Quotient. It is a statistic, meaning if you could derive it, you are smarter than it. I.Q. has a merit as a diagnostic tool for helping people with learning disabilities, not to in any way have them qualify as insufficient. If we audited low scores from the test, everyone's I.Q. would drop. Meaning your intelligence is dependent upon the scores of other people.
>speed is a man made concept
>speed cannot be measured objectively
km/h, kilometers is a distance, distance does not exist outside of perception, as with time. To say the past has an existential quantifier, not a qualifier. I am more certain that yesterday is still now as it was measured since yesterday. It is by the thought we are able to claim things as seemingly proportionate.
I don't really think that's true.
I know I study more than some people who gets (sometimes) better grade, but if I try to discuss with them any idea, anything further than the book, they appear stupid and retarded, and the worste? they don't even want to talk about it.
Remember that if your test is oral you get a vote also on how you present yourself, and that means a lot of people will give higher grade to the "nice good looking guy". Also I may study 4-5 hours more than them to "get" the meaning of a math passage, or get the idea behind that. Will this give me a better grade? nope, because you can memorize that and forget about anything else.
So yeah, don't let them trick you, I think being smart is actually being interested in learning, rather than achieving high results.
My dad had me and my siblings IQ tested at a very young age through some neuro-lab he was working in.
130 on that test, and the range this demo gave me had a lower-bound of 140 -- for sake of reference. They probably do make it a bit easier so you're compelled to pay for the service.
I clicked through the test in about 45 seconds, it was only 8 questions IIRC. Some of the illegitimate ones online calculate your score largely based on amount of time it took to complete the test, so I assumed this was scored that way since there was a timer at the top of the page.
>The common notion that an IQ exist is completely backwards. To understand where I'm coming from you need to understand that the IQ test was invented in the early 20th century to attempt to "classify intelligence". It was a man-made idea put into existence.
>It was a man-made idea put into existence.
So are numbers, yet we can use them to make some pretty amazing conclusions about the universe. The IQ test isn't perfect, but it isn't completely useless either.
Kinda in the same situation as you guys. Some of my friends only look at their handbooks and they'll get awesome grades. Others just memorize w/e they have to learn and get great grades as well. There are others who brag about their high IQ and how gifted they are and fail their test in a spectacular way, because they didn't study.
So, yeah I do think that some people are more intelligent than others, but I doubt that IQ is a good way of measuring that. Your perfornance will also depend on a lot of different factors, motivation, discipline, etc.
I tend to study much longer on certain subjects because I want to understand them. I do get annoyed by that feeling when I've studied for a long time and, I still fail, while others just roll through it. On the other hand, the feeling when you finally understand something, is just priceless.
I remember when learning about Taylor polynoms, I didn't understand anything about it. Few months later, it randomly hit me out of nowhere, and I simply wrote the formula down and understood it.
Anyway we shouldn't let intelligence hold us back. If I fail then I'll work harder next time.
I think it is true. I have 135 IQ and study way less than other other students, but I still can easily understand any concept quickly and get good grades. Lectures are always boring and too easy for me, while students around me usually can't keep up with lecturer and mindlessly write down everything so they can study it on their own back home.
I always study 2-5 hours before exam and get fairy good grades too. Also I never use these online lectures where everything is explained even slower/simpler which are extremely popular here. For some reason people can't believe me I just read up definitions on wikipedia and can understand them.
I'm not saying I'm the smartest kid around, like >>7808479 said, others catch up because of motivation, discipline and better knowledge/experience in general. But when it comes to quick understand and solving problem of a new kind, I'm usually the best around.
I know people who are smarter than me as well, and it's really great to talk with people like that because normal person usually just can't keep up with our conversation.
To prove something to exists, you need to define it first.
>I think it is true. I have 135 IQ and study way less than other other students, but I still can easily understand any concept quickly and get good grades. Lectures are always boring and too easy for me, while students around me usually can't keep up with lecturer and mindlessly write down everything so they can study it on their own back home.
Most of the times that's true, I think the main difficult behind university is actually about the quantity over than small hard pieces
>I always study 2-5 hours before exam and get fairy good grades too. Also I never use these online lectures where everything is explained even slower/simpler which are extremely popular here. For some reason people can't believe me I just read up definitions on wikipedia and can understand them.
Those are really boring for me too, but they mostly are 101 so that's expected
Point is,if you can get a good grade without actually knowing what you are doing (and I've seen people doing that, just because they memorized some words and repeated like parrots) it means grades can not be used as a reference to intelligence.
I did some tests when I was young, and I got about 135-150. When I was in high school I was literally the best in the class (and school actually). But then in uni things changed, mostly because teachers don't give a fuck about giving a real grade, they really don't give a fuck about anything (at least, here in Italy).
So yeah, for example, this guy the day before his Electronic test comes to me and says "dude but why don't we just put an INVERTER after a LPF to obtain an HPF?" this guy got the best grade possible.
My point is, grade doesn't mean that much.
But more on topic, an IQ test is useful only if you can't study for it.
That test is crap lad. Says my IQ is in the 130 -149 range. I've never had a real IQ test, but I've done the Danish one which is supposed to be the best online IQ test and I only got 115.
>Anyone can be amazingly intelligence if they put their time to it.
If they did it when they were young, the brain crystallizes rapidly and if you've ever met a purebred moron you'd know that they're irredeemable.