How smart is /lgbt/?
(if this test doesn't work then then try opening it in a different browser)
>tfw to smart too be a bimbo but to stupid too be a programmer
also, here's a quicker test, it gave me a very similar score to OPs one and my real life one
I'm guessing it's some kind of happy medium between fundamental skill sets and an inclusive indicator of intelligence, oh well, if you want to take anything from this, IQ doesn't represent all of your intelligence.
I took a Mensa test irl and I got 128, it was used a standard deviation of 15 as well
people on internet forums are generally pretty smart for some reason
single point IQ tests are a sham
multiple-point tests like the Weschler Scales of Adult Intelligence separate various areas of ability and make much more sense
my scores for conceptual thinking and linguistic intelligence are in the 150s but in other areas like working memory I'm in the low 70s because brain damage
I've gotten ~135 on other tests, but this one is pretty hard and I'm quite tired.
for reference, I took MENSA's online test and they told me I would probably pass their in person one. I don't care enough to actually take it because being in a club that prides itself on being smart sounds autistic.
Thought I was dumber. Probably bullshit but eh, ego booster.
t. college dropout
Mensa in general is terrible. IQ tests are best delivered by experts, and mensa is just a giant dick contest festival.
"when will these girl pills start making me smarter"
My hypothesis is that T makes you more anxiety-proof and better at focusing on one and only one thing ; while estro makes you better at multitasking and picturing many possibilities (realistic or not).
Girls pills make you probably more receptive. Which you can turn into more smarts.
>tfw 90 iq
>i got excited when I thought bunny rabbits make eggs cause of easter
i just want someone to touch me and love me before i get old and ugly
Have the be the same one.
First off are IQ tests usually very inaccurate.
Secondly, there are loads of different IQ measurements.
It's like saying you got 8 in penis length. If it's in cm it's a pretty sad situation, but if it's in inch, you have a pretty big thing between your legs.
>normies don't know how iq works
online tests are shams no matter what, and give everyone a score somewhere in the 120s or 130s regardless of actual ability (even if your actual ability is *higher* they usually go around there)
90% of the population has an iq between 75 and 125 (67% between 85 and 115 -- differences of only a few points are pretty substantial), if you think a score in the 120s is low you probably score a lot lower than 120 yourself
all iq subtests correlate with each other on a group level in what is known as g, for general intelligence factor, which is how tests that measure only single aspects (pattern matching, word recognition) correlate almost as well with life outcomes as full-scale tests -- though on an individual level some people, especially autists, will have substantial subtest gaps
g has been validated a lot of times, the history of psychometrics can pretty much be summed up as 'someone tried to disprove g and make a test showing 'multiple intelligences' and it turned out it just tested g'
iq has a decent correlation with all those assorted good life outcomes (income, healthy relationships, lower disease risk, etc), it's the most consistently reproduced finding in psychology despite/because of all the people constantly making studies in an attempt to discredit it
if someone says their iq is 140+ and they don't show you the non-online test to prove it they're lying
I've taken a real Mensa test and scored higher on it than I did on the test OP posted desu
and besides, when I posted it to /r9k/ there were quite a few people scoring in the 90s and 100s
i've seen threads with it on /r9k/ where a lot of people got really low scores (like, in the borderline intellectual functioning range) which is believable to me because of the correlation between iq and life outcomes (the stereotypical robot did not have a good life outcome), but the results curve of online tests is skewed in a way not seen in real tests that cannot be explained by confounders
and you scoring higher on the real test than the online test fits with my first statement that even if you score higher than the range usually given by online tests you'll be fit into that range, the results are meaningless not in the sense that they're too high but that they don't have any meaningful correlation with the real ones
though scores too high is still certainly a part of it -- your mention of 'in the 90s and 100s' is a sign of how online tests, media, etc have skewed the average person's perception of it, because the interquartile range of iq is 90-110 so in an actual meaningful test with a general population there will be two scores in that range for every 110+ and i haven't seen that in any of the /r9k/ iq test threads
Iq tests are not perfect senpai. you are a moron or never took one if you think otherwise. theyre gruling and make you feel stupid. it is very easy to give up in the test and become down on yourself. self esteem is important to test taking, and if you don't think so you're just as stupid as the people you are insulting
118 here btw
i'm not insulting anyone, i'm educating them on a topic on which there is widespread information
i apologise if any of my statements caused offense, any insult within them was simply in the context of 4chan discourse norms
however, the fact that iq tests by definition challenge people's cognitive capacity and sometimes cause insecurity related to that is not a bug, it's a feature, and it does not make them a poor assessment of general intelligence
if 'the skill of taking iq tests' correlates with all meaningful outcomes, it's a pretty great skill to have, no?
what intelligence/iq means is a topic still debated in the field of intelligence, but it's generally treated as one of or a combination of 'problem solving ability', 'turning situations around to your advantage', and 'understanding ideas'
It's intelligence quota.
It's basically comparing you to other people of your education.
An 8 year old with 120 IQ isn't actually as smart or has as much knowledge as a post-university 120 IQ adult.
100 IQ is the average, if you have 110 IQ you're a bit over average.
Of course, there are many IQ scales, so it's not always true that 100 IQ is average. In some tests, I believe they don't even compare you to your age group and education group.
In a professional setting though, they do compare you to people of same age and education.
It's expected that an adult knows who well known political figures are... But it's not expected of a child. These tests will test all your abilities, long term memory, short term memory, visual memory, number memory, spatial ability, "logical" puzzles, social knowledge, word knowledge, etc.
They'll then combine your score, and average it out.
>if 'the skill of taking iq tests' correlates with all meaningful outcomes, it's a pretty great skill to have, no?
Not in itself. The outcomes are independent of it regardless of correlation.
Anyway, doesn't IQ correlate with unhappiness?
>but it's generally treated as one of or a combination of 'problem solving ability', 'turning situations around to your advantage', and 'understanding ideas'
Is there evidence it indicates the first and last in other contexts besides the kinds of thinking being tested?
How does it indicate the second?
>It's basically comparing you to other people of your education.
But compares what?
If it's relative to your age and education (and iirc your point in time and country) then what it's measuring varies. The same word knowledge or social knowledge (what is that?) could mark you as smarter or less smart depending on your group. What's objective about that?
Word/literacy knowledge is knowing words, and basically understanding literacy.
Social is like faces, and the likes.
It's objective because it's taking the average.
If all people would suddenly become way stupider, 100 IQ wouldn't be the same anymore.
When retaking the test you'd have a higher IQ.
IQ tests are really only used to figure out if somebody has a mental handicap, it's useless for practically all other purposes.
>however, the fact that iq tests by definition challenge people's cognitive capacity and sometimes cause insecurity related to that is not a bug, it's a feature.
so you made it clear then that you are a science denier. this is retarded easy to influence and has nothing to do with intelligence you moron. otherwise the dunning krueger effect would not exist.
>Word/literacy knowledge is knowing words, and basically understanding literacy.
>Social is like faces, and the likes.
Those are just specific skills. You could get any different group of skills, test them, and say they reflect intelligence.
>If all people would suddenly become way stupider, 100 IQ wouldn't be the same anymore.
You said 100 IQ doesn't mean the same already, because it's only average for certain groups of people.
People who are good at making money tend to have the kinds of skills IQ tests. That doesn't make it intelligence. It just means it's a test of certain skills people with higher incomes are likely to have.
Being able to add up numbers, being literate and having social skills like recognizing emotions are helpful, so naturally they increase income. That doesn't mean they are intelligence. It just reflects the things the economy rewards.
>being better at reading, doing calculations, and making inferences from facial expressions aren't intelligence
>Spearman (1904) gave persons tests of many different kinds of cognitive ability. When he examined the correlations of these tests with each other, he found that all the correlations were positive, and called this the "positive manifold." The positive manifold leads to a large first factor derived from factor analysis, dubbed general intelligence, or g. The positive manifold implies that, for example, scores on a vocabulary test will correlate positively with scores on a mathematics test. Therefore, it is unimportant which particular tests are used to assess general intelligence--they all intercorrelate highly anyway (this is called the principle of indifference of the indicator).
>You can also be semi socially and verbally retarded, but have immense logical ability.
Okay, sure (unlikely scenario though), but all the abilities are positively correlated, and if you take three or so and average them, that's going to be fairly close to your "real IQ".
People good at X will also be good at Y. The stereotype of the "genius savant" is a nonsensical feel-good myth invented by people who don't want to believe that some people are just better than them at basically everything. Unfortunately that isn't the way the world works; some people are just basically better.
You can be realistic and optimistic.
They are specific skills, not intelligence. You could arbitrarily pick any skills, test all of them, and call that intelligence. You can be good or bad an any of those skills irrespective of intelligence.
The more general and common a skill is, of course the worse it is for people without it, and therefore they will have worse outcomes.
You might as well call it "useful skills in our society" quotient.
>You could arbitrarily pick any skills, test all of them, and call that intelligence.
they might not be necessarily all positively correlated, nor would they necessarily statistically be well represented by a single general factor
>You might as well call it "useful skills in our society" quotient.
we can call it that if you like, I don't care?
>they might not be necessarily all positively correlated, nor would they necessarily statistically be well represented by a single general factor
Choose skills that come under generally useful skills in our society and they will.
>we can call it that if you like, I don't care?
It puts discussion of IQ in a very different context.
>Choose skills that come under generally useful skills in our society and they will.
that's the entire point... there are no *a priori* reasons that say that we should expect strong positive correlations between seemingly unrelated things (like English skill and mathematics ability)
personality itself has >=5 dimensions
>It puts discussion of IQ in a very different context.
no it doesn't
the discussion of IQ has always been in the context of "the factor extracted statistically from a manifold of cognitive tests which plausibly measures cognitive ability to function in modern society"
it has never been anything but that except to the uninformed
of course, if people want to make up their own definitions of intelligence and pretend as though IQ tests are a failure because they don't measure those, then they're free to do so
These are just raven matrices
Any score from this site is arbitrary. Real IQ tests require interviews as a part of testing a person's verbal fluency over the functions they are being tested on.
>there are no *a priori* reasons that say that we should expect strong positive correlations between seemingly unrelated things (like English skill and mathematics ability)
Yes there obviously are though?
Skills that can't be learned by the vast majority of people won't become the standard skills society functions on.
>it has never been anything but that except to the uninformed
Yell "uninformed" all you want, we're skill going to get threads asking "How smart is /lgbt/?" because the word intelligence is incorrectly in the name.
>of course, if people want to make up their own definitions of intelligence
We've established IQ isn't intelligence.
>We've established IQ isn't intelligence.
ok, so what is intelligence?
if you think intelligence isn't IQ, then you should be able to show me a test of cognitive ability uncorrelated (say, r=0.2 or below) with present measures of g, therefore proving the existence of a dimension of intelligence not captured by g
>As part of the Minnesota Study of Twins Reared Apart (or MISTRA), three batteries comprising a total of 42 different cognitive tests were taken by the twins studied and also by many of their family members. The three tests were the Comprehensive Ability Battery, the Hawaii Battery, and the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale. The tests are highly varied content-wise, with each battery measuring diverse aspects of intelligence. ... All 861 correlations are positive. Subtests of each IQ battery correlate positively not only with each other but also with the subtests of the other IQ batteries. This is, of course, something that the developers of the three different batteries could not have planned – and even if they could have, they would not have had any reason to do so, given their different theoretical presuppositions.
>The g factor is thus not an artifact of test construction but a genuine explanandum, something that any theory of intelligence must account for. The only way to deny this is to redefine intelligence to include skills and talents with little intellectual content. For example, Howard Gardner claims that there is a “bodily-kinesthetic intelligence” which athletes and dancers have plenty of. I don’t think such semantic obfuscation contributes anything to the study of intelligence.
>The sine qua non of IQ tests is that they reveal and predict current and future real-world capabilities. IQ is the best single predictor of academic and job performance and attainment, and one of the best predictors of a plethora of other outcomes, from income, welfare dependency, and criminality (Gottfredson 1997) to health and mortality and scientific and literary creativity (Robertson et al. 2010), and any number of other things, including even investing success (Grinblatt et al. 2011). If you had to predict the life outcomes of a teenager based on only one fact about them, nothing would be nearly as informative as their IQ.
>It has been established beyond any dispute that cognitive abilities are heritable. (Shalizi has some quite wrong ideas on this topic, too, but I will not discuss them in this post.) What is interesting is that the degree of heritability of a given ability test depends on its g loading: the higher the g loading, the higher the heritability. A meta-analysis of the correlations between g loadings and heritabilities even suggested that the true correlation is 1.0, i.e., g loadings appear to represent a pure index of the extent of genetic influence on cognitive variation (see Rushton & Jensen 2010).
>Arthur Jensen referred to g as the “active ingredient” of IQ tests, because g accounts for most if not all of the predictive validity of IQ even though most variance in IQ tests is not g variance. From the perspective of predictive validity, non-g variance seems to be generally just noise. In other words, if you statistically remove g variance from IQ test results, what is left is almost useless for the purposes of predicting behavior (except among high-IQ individuals, as noted above).
I seriously have no idea what you're talking about.
There are differences in scores, and it's not "unlikely scenarios".
If I remember it right, which I believe I do, I had around 120 "IQ" at logical thinking (puzzles, those stupid things like in OP test), around 110 in verbal and literacy. BUT I had like 90 or maybe slightly below it in short term memory.
There were some more areas as well, but overall it ended up at 110 IQ on average.
IQ is just measuring your functioning intelligence, if you're bad in some area, your functioning in society will be lowered because of it, and so your averaged IQ should be lowered as well.
Do you think the ability to spot logic mistakes such as yours about a priori correlations between "seemingly unrelated" things is uncorrelated with g? If so, that's one example.
If you think intelligence *is* IQ, then you should be able to address the problems with it that have been pointed out in this thread.
There are people that will always be better than you by some rubric, maybe multiple. Intelligence, looks, wits, will, ethics, etc.
You have to learn to not give a shit, swallow your ego, and enjoy what little life you have on this weird planet full of arrogant hairless monkeys before you die.
those "logic mistakes" don't exist
>Choose skills that come under generally useful skills in our society and they will [be positively correlated with each other]
>Skills that can't be learned by the vast majority of people won't become the standard skills society functions on.
empathy is generally useful; working memory is generally useful; many people are empathetic, and many others have good memories
the correlation between empathy and working memory is, to my knowledge, not particularly strong
feel free to think about why this might be the case
by helping you act in a way that lets other people like you
otherwise the book "how to win friends and influence people", which basically says "treat other people as though they were actual independent entities and don't act like a total asshole to others, and doing so will bring you success in life" wouldn't be so popular
another example: physical fitness and literacy
maybe that is why I'm so smart. Low T...can't be all of it. Family genetics likely has much more to do with it.
I couldn't show you the non online test I took because it was taken in the '70s. All I remember was I got all answers on the test right, so a score couldn't be determined. It was just a IQ test they gave to all students in my school system. I don't think it could provide a score above 140 or so.
As another data point, after having my brain damaged by an assault I scored all 36s on the ACT test except for the English area which was 19. At that point I was still relearning English.
>There are people that will always be better than you by some rubric, maybe multiple. Intelligence, looks, wits, will, ethics, etc.
So true, so true. Even for me.
I think the most important ability I have is self learning. I can teach myself nearly anything using appropriate reference materials. My biggest obstacle to learning is maintaining interest in the subject. :}
Are you fucking retarded?
I've been arguing that the only use for IQ tests is to figure out if somebody suffers from a mental handicap.
In this case, my memory was bad. That can be from a lack of concentration.
Had it been much worse, you could've started to try to look for what's causing it, and then add "crutches" to help with those issues.
This is pretty common.
People don't perform uniformly across different tasks.
>a plugin is needed to display this content
135, as expected. (I had a professional IQ test in a psychiatry before, was also in the high upper range.)
Proof positive that Radical Feminism is the choice for people with superior intelligence, as I'm a hardcore radfem-supporter.
I always get 130~ on these things.
Well dayum. I know I'm good at pattern recognition and spatial reasoning, but this is the best I've done.
I wonder if other trans attracted lesbians score like I do.
>chart doesn't include pure lesbians
>they're off the chart, on a whole different plane of enlightenment, where dick doesn't exist, the grass is bread, and when it rains, clouds pour out a golden nectar
when i was a kid they tested me at 141 and placed me in smart classes.
then in highschool they tested me to see if i was emotionally disturbed or if it was something cognitive, and i got 131.
lord knows what the fuck i am now after deteriorating in a room alone and depressed doing nothing
Fuck dum dum. Just read some books and work out. It seems impossible, but do it. There's loads of good books, and you can listen to podcasts while on walks or bike rides. Nothing is going to change unless you act. I was in your shoes for years, but 4 years later and it seems like a lifetime ago.
>TFW IQ is a fucking noob trap but still on the good half of the bell curve so whatever
hstses are of average intelligence
in fact the netherlands study found 107 to be the average hsts female iq, but the additional seven points were probably from miscategorized agps (they failed to account for meta-attraction)
hstses being below average is because /tttt/ has passed through denial and anger and is now onto bargaining ("s-sure i'm agp, but it means i'm smarter and better than these pathetic gayboi fucks!")
why do you think individuals will by necessity be exactly average?
you can be hsts and extremely high iq, or a*p and extremely low (because high iq is not an inherent part of a*p, it's caused by selection pressure and that pressure is a lot weaker than it used to be)
that's not my point, my point is that /tttt/ as usual is completely misinterpreting reality because either they can't understand it or they don't want to
How stupid do you have to be to not know that 107 is above average, average being 100?
It's speculated that post agriculture famine has caused a reduction in brain size over the last 10,000 years. Those with smaller brains use less energy, and thus survive famines better. Our pre civilization ancestors were smarter than we are.
>lying through your teeth
As expected from a /pol/ack.
My personal theory on why AGP have above average IQ, as a male TERF with mild AGP:
Having high IQ correlates with being hyper-sensitive. Hyper-sensitivity is associated with stereotypes of femininity. Therefore, males with high IQ are more likely to identify with stereotypical femininity.
Being heterosexual and growing up in a culture that sexualizes femininity, these men not only identify with feminine behavior, but also find their own femininity adorable and sexy. Watching a lot of porn in which women are being dominated and act as if they enjoy it probably also makes their high-IQ brains conclude that being sexually dominated is something enjoyable, adding further to the sexualized aspect of identifying with femininity.
Further, their disidentification with masculinity, and negative stereotypes of men who are visibly anatomically male (narrow hips, body hair, etc.) yet feminine in terms of personality, also causes a sort of disgust for their own nature, which sometimes leads to a cross-over from AGP to dysphoria. (In some cases they may even have pure dysphoria with little outright AGP.)
Of course, accepting these facts would mean that they
- admit to really just being feminine men
- admit to fetishizing stereotypical femininity and female sexual subordination
- admit to any actual dysphoria they have stemming from self-loathing,
so naturally they vehemently oppose this obvious theory.
Usually I wouldn't resort to anecdotal evidence but given that it's just a personal off the top of your head theory, my entire life contradicts everything you wrote
shit theory you dumbass
Now that you question me further, it gives me doubt. Off the top of my head, I remember one somewhat passing trans with a GitHub t-shirt on Twitter who would vehemently argue against feminists, but I don't remember many more.
IT aside, I know one more tgirl who looks fairly feminine who's studying philosophy and was able to outline a certain anti-feminist "transwomen are women" position in greater depth than I was used to seeing from all the people I tend to argue with...
But I'm not sure now what gave me the impression, over the years, that young AGP tend to be feminine in appearance.