>get 150 IQ with online tests >actual IQ measured at 120

>>38521162
>Trying to brag about IQ on anime image board.
KYS

File: DSC_3704inline.jpg (53KB, 500x332px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 500x332px

>>38521162
Only 120 IQ? I was tested at 119 in 6th grade. Am now over 160. Pathetic brainlet humblebrag

Yeah, I got 120 too on a real test and it was really disappointing. I got 98th percentile on SAT and I heard that correlated to an IQ of 140 but nope.

>>38521177
>120 IQ
>bragging
What's there to brag about? That's like if I were trying to say having a 5 inch dick is huge. Neither is true

>>38521221
How did you get a 160 IQ??

File: 1490541011865.png (32KB, 292x267px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 292x267px

>>38521267
WE ALL KNOW the average is 100. stop seeking validation from 4chan of all places

>>38521162
What a retard, I was evaluated with an IQ of 300.

File: 114.png (54KB, 470x698px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 470x698px

>>38521162
damn I must have like 80 because I consistently score 110 when it comes to online tests

>>38521267
A mixture of good genetics and luck.
Desu makes life boring since you always have to talk to people like they were children.
Tfw people too stupid to even comprehend my basic thoughts
Tfw willingly avoid thinking to make life bearable

>>38521267
>faggot has no idea how IQ is measured
>m-muh low IQ
Go read a Wikipedia article at least, Jesus fucking Christ.
what the fuck, why was I warned?

>>38521413
Average for whites is like 108. 120 is barely above average.

I'm an actual clinical psychologist, currently working in a specialized clinic (mostly people with autism) and I professionally measure and report on IQ at least 2 times per week. If any of you actually want facts on this I'll be here for a little while to answer questions.

>>38521162
online IQ tests are bullshit, I consistently find people that expect to get something close to 130, because the internet told them and then finding 104. Finding 120 is very rare in the field, I don't know why you are bitching.

>>38521221
highly doubt this.

>>38521522
What do you think of tests that are reportedly accurate like iqtest.dk or test.mensa.no

>>38521498
>i don't know how standard deviations work
yeah you are retarded

>>38521522
How does IQ develop over time? Is there a general trend or does it vary greatly from individual to individual?

File: 1492016197242.jpg (166KB, 1032x1080px) Image search: [Google]

166KB, 1032x1080px

>>38521522
>highly doubt this.
tfw too smarts to care if anyone does

>>38521162
120 IQ is way above average and there are people with IQ 2 times smallers than yours, cheer up

>>38521522
Is IQ able to be improved, and if so, how? What do tests look like? When does high IQ start negatively affecting one's mental state? How rare is 115? How rare is 130? Imagine a conversation between someone of say 105 and someone of say 125, what would it look like?

>>38521162
154 iq here. so many dummys on this board, i feel out of place.

>>38521616
>How rare is 115? How rare is 130?
Look up standard deviations, fuck.

>>38521556
no online test is going to be accurate. Like I said, I regularly test people that have taken tests like these online, thinking they're some kind of super genius, just to find they are average. IQ as a single measure is fairly useless anyway, I never report "your IQ is XXX", but rather a detailed analysis of intelligence profile, differentiating between verbal, perceptual organisation, working memory and processing speed.

>>38521597
IQ over time has gone up, the 100 line keeps being adjusted. The transition from WAIS-III to WAIS-IV was heavy enough that, if you got tested 5 years ago, compared to today, you would end up with about a 10 point decrease. Overall, people seem to be getting "smarter" (high IQ is not the same as smart)

>>38521616
Results on IQ tests can be improved by practicing IQ tests. Sadly, there is no real benefit to this. IQ is not the same as "smartness". Above 120 IQ differences matter less than below.

>>38521162
>seriously thinking that mathematical intelligence equals your whole cognitive ability
At least you've realized that you're stupid on the early stage, that's impressive.

>>38521625
>so intelligent he has to brag on a forum full of idiots
this is how you spot a pseud btw

File: F1.large[1].jpg (109KB, 1800x833px) Image search: [Google]

109KB, 1800x833px

>>38521616
>>38521642
See attached bell curve with matching percentages for your information.

>>38521616
>a conversation between someone of say 105 and someone of say 125
I don't know about 125, as I'm way above that.
But usually when talking to people I have to outline every single passage of my arguments and wait for them to process it in the hopes they might get a glimpse of the actual meaning.
Unfortunately most "average" people fail at about the second level of abstraction.
So, rather pointless and frustrating.

>>38521663
I think i worded it badly, I meant development of IQ for a single person. If person A started out 130 and B 130 as well, how would they compare after 10-15 years? Would their different lives lead to different measured IQs or would they develop/stay the same?

just like 100 is """average""" so is """average""" height of 5'9 and """average""" dick size of 5"

>>38521663
The tests I've posted are reportedly accurate due to giving similar results to people who've taken an IQ test in professional environments though.

Also, is it true that IQ decreases as you age?
I got tested once as a kid and I was in the 140-150 range. I've only ever done online tests aside from that but I get around 120 now. Assuming they're inaccurate and my actual score is closer to 100, how the fuck did I lose 50 points in less than ten years?

File: IQAveragebyCountry.png (975KB, 1366x634px) Image search: [Google]

975KB, 1366x634px

Hey mr IQ doctor smartypants, would you say this map accurate?

>>38521745
I misunderstood then. IQ doesn't drastically change, other than down. I've seen serious drops in IQ only in my patients that have abused drugs extensively. Long term drug use can fuck up your brain. The capacity you were born with is the one you've got though, doesn't really go up after that.
The only exception to this is early schooling, like I said, IQ is measured in several different factors. The factor of verbal comprehension can definitely be improved through schooling, but only to the extent your other factors allow this. You processing speed and memory are a little "trainable", but won't move much over a lifetime.

>>38521790
IQ doesn't decrease over age (unless you have some form of dementia, or abuse drugs extensively). We use different tables calculating IQ for different age groups. The same score on subtest at age 35 gets you a lower IQ score than at age 55 for instance. This is done to control for decreasing neurological function due to age.

>>38521841
>IQ doesn't decrease over age
I really doubt I have a >140 IQ though, I'm not very intelligent.
I know the test I took as a kid was legit, too.

>>38521522
Where can i take an official iq test? Originailla

>>38521931
I don't know what to tell you man. IQ tests for kids are not necessarily a reliable measure for lifetime IQ, but I'm not too familiar with child psychology. The online tests aren't unreliable that they always give you a higher score than warranted (that would actually make them reliable with a conversion chart), the problem with them is that they usually give high scores. Sometimes that's accurate, because even a broken clock is right twice a day, but most often it's not.
Your IQ doesn't really define who you are, though, as long as it's over 100. Everything over 120 is a poor predictor of skill and success. If you did any kind of higher education, I'd expect your IQ to be at least above average.

>>38522072
>IQ tests for kids are not necessarily a reliable measure for lifetime IQ
Why is that? Could you elaborate?
>Everything over 120 is a poor predictor of skill and success.
Eh, it depends when you look at averages for college majors and level of education (BSc, MSc, PhD)

>>38522060
I don't know how this is everywhere else in the world (I work in Europe), but here, you can't really. Unless there's good reason to, it takes a long time (2 - 4 hours) to get an accurate measurement and unless this is part of a broader diagnostic process, there isn't much use to it. A flat IQ is just a number that isn't very informative on its own. People take it waaay to seriously outside the field of psychology.

I'm not saying it's not a serious measurement, but it doesn't do what most people think it does.

>>38521498
Average for whites is about 95-100; 108 is average for asians you brainlet fucks.

>>38522130
Like I said, my basis is firmly in adult psychology. I could ask my colleagues in the children's department, but could never be bothered so far. This is a thing I picked up "at the water cooler". I'm more confident talking about adults.

What I meant with the 120+ thing is that at around 120 you are neurologically capable of most things and other factors become much better predictors of success (such as personality, social skills, socio-economic background, access to resources etc.). Someone with a 120 IQ,a solid work ethic and no serious mental issues will outperform a "lazy" person with IQ > 140 in almost every field.

>>38521413
Average people are retarded. "Smart" begins at 130. It's hell with anything less.

>>38522228
Oh, alright. I'll do my own research then. What I really want to know is why there's such a discrepancy between the official test results I got as a kid and the presumably inflated results I get now.
>neurologically capable of most things
120 is 1 SD above the median right?
What is the practical difference between a person with 120, 140, 160?

>>38521162
there is no good reason to find out what your IQ is

>>38521779
why are you putting quotation marks around average? because actual measurements don't agree with informal guesses and estimates?

>>38522371
It's painful. I only have 125, the test just makes me feel useless.

>>38522320
>What is the practical difference between a person with 120, 140, 160?
To be honest, not too much is known about this. Most properly validated IQ tests don't measure below 65 or above 135, because at that point we're talking about something that exists in far less than 1% of the general population. Because it's so rare, it's relatively unstudied and not much of use can be stated about that. This is why I tend to be wary of people claiming IQ's of 150+. It's possible, but extremely rare and most official tests won't even measure it. As I've said before, flat IQ measures are very uninformative, I'd want to see an IQ profile. The practical difference between someone with, say, 120 IQ on working memory and 140 IQ on working memory is that the second person would be able to store more data in short term memory with more ease. This might help some with very advanced problems, but won't honestly be super noticeable in daily practice.

>>38522446
I see
>an IQ profile
How do you determine this?

>>38522460
It's just a result of the IQ test. We do a number of different subtests that all measure a different factors. In fact, in the manual for every IQ test I've ever used it explicitly states not to put a heavy emphasis on total IQ, unless the profile is "harmonic", which means that every factor has about the same score. More often than not, however, there will be some significant discrepancy within factors. This means that, for instance verbal understanding, processing speed and perceptual reasoning are functioning above average, but working memory is functioning at average or below average. At this point, using an average of all 4 as Total IQ is misleading, as that would probably be "above average", but wouldn't be an accurate representation of the capacities of that individual. So my report would downplay the Total IQ and focus more on the individual factors and how they might influence function

Why would you want to know your IQ? Nobody cares about your number if you have nothing to show for it, and you should already have a general idea of how intelligent you are.

>>38522965
>you should already have a general idea of how intelligent you are.
Wrong. Dunning kruger is real.
In my experience most stupid people are too dumb to know humilty and believe themselves to be much smarter than they really are.

>>38523019
Most people still have a vague idea where they stand, even if they overrate their intelligence. Most egotistical retards still know they suck at math for example.

>>38523066
>Most people still have a vague idea where they stand, even if they overrate their intelligence
So effectively they have not an idea precise enough to be useful.
Do you talk to people irl at all?
>Most egotistical retards still know they suck at math for example.
They'd blame external factors or dismiss math as important then.

>>38521221
Why'd you have to post that pic? Now I won't be able to get over the fact that she's poor somewhere, struggling to make it through life with abusive parents that probably take their frustrations out on her.

The correct way of measuring intelligence is whether I like you or not. The more I like you, the higher your intelligence. Since I dislike you, you're stupid. Simple as that.

File: 312567541235.jpg (431KB, 1000x723px) Image search: [Google]

431KB, 1000x723px

>>38521162
>tfw designed my own IQ test because cant trust IQ tests made by brainlets
>IQ of 230
>"""professionals""" tested my IQ to be 83
yea rite

actual extremely smart people don't "feel smart" at all. I mean when there is something to compare our intelligence to, sure, but I don't brush my teeth bathing in dopamine because of how smart I am.
i

>>38523283
I really wish this was real, that would be so hilarious.

>>38523115
They are aware enough to know what they can and can't learn, even if they having coping mechanisms for being stupid.

>>38523893
anon I'm pretty sure you are one of those people now

>>38521790
I was 139 as a kid in elementary school, but I'm far more likely to be int he 120s. They're highly unreliable during childhood, the earlier the less reliable.

280IQ here, AMA

>>38521162
>120 is stupid

100 is basic level intelligence, and over 75% of black people in America tests lower than 90. So probably don't feel so down about an arbitrary number assigned to you by an archaic test that was always complete bullshit.

>>38521162
okay but what is your annual salary? this is the only real number that matters. if we can use two numbers, then the second one is how many kids or how much vacation do you get.

>>38525268
>annual salary
People with a >140IQ are millionaire.
It's almost impossible not to get rich.
You'd have to actively try.