I know that it's a little off-topic, but is this image actually

>>8024995
Anon please. You're embarrassing you'reself.

>>8025001

wise anon!


/wg/ is the 3th? Hahaha!

>>8025001
I'm mostly doing this to start a thread on the validity of IQ covertly by way of obvious bait.

Why? I'm bored.

>>8024995
this is rather entertaining even if it's very wrong

IIRC there are multiple versions of that pic optimized to troll different boards. It seems to be working.

>>8025054
Oh, I had assumed that /lit/ made it to put down everyone else.
Who made it, do you know?

>>8024995
No way it could be right, there's a lot of cross board posting on 4chan so you'd never see that significant a difference.

Not to mention it has sci and lit as on average geniuses, and you can tell by this shitty thread it's not the case

I think there's another one of those that is a bit more credible

Ill put it in simple terms: in order for the data on this graph to be accurate, a very, very heavy majority of the posters on your board would have to be undergoing some form of mental retardation. It is simply improbable that, even with genius-level outliers, that many mentally retarded people could browse one board. Even if all they discuss is whether the earth is flat or not.

Also it would be unnecessarily difficult to obtain this information using a double-blind cross reference test, (commonly used for testing the effects of new pharmaceutical treatments), and even so the data would be skewed.

>>8024995
I literally saw around 30 versions of that chart...

>>8025076

You're playing it low on that too. You can't even stress enpugh how impossible this graph is.
What a lot of people who only do online IQ tests do is that anything above 120 is only 1% of the world population. Same with anything below 80.
On average every board would have an IQ of 100 and the outliers would be the ones who have 1 or 2 IQ points more.

To be realistic the graph would need to extend at max from like 95 to 110 or something to even be remotely valid.

But 147, that would mean that every single poster on the board is an Einstein level genius

>>8025088
>>8025076
>>8025073
OP here. I know that it's bullshit. Look at the filename.
I'm just shitposting.

>>8024995
>actually the result of a study
> just /lit/ jerking themselves off

This is 4chan. What do you think?

>>8024995
obvious bullshit, though the data set they describe would be pretty fun

>>8024995
I thought we were done with IQ threads?

>>8025069
An anonymous 4chan user.

>/fa/, /mu/, and /lit/
>above cuttoff for mentally handicapped

/lit/ believing in IQ automatically puts them to the bottom of the list.

>>8025113
I was more referring to boards.
I know that it was an anon, but from where?

>>8024995
>is this image actually the result of a study that some anon did, or is it just /lit/ jerking themselves off?
What would you say with the monkeyposting board being this high although it has been taking the [math]0.999\dots \,\neq\, 1[/math] bait for at least five years?

>>8024995
If anything most of 4chan falls below average IQ.
Let's be real here no board's average IQ is 120+.
It's AVERAGE, so statistically we'd see a bunch of 100s with little variation.

>>8025192
Have you spent time elsewhere on the internet?

I would be willing to bet there isn't a single board with a lower average than 110.