Serious question: How reliable are IQ tests? No memes please.

>>8676564
These IQ tests are pretty much useless. They do not measure your intelligence in any way. All they do is measure your ability to solve these kind of IQ tests.

They're very reliable.

I've conducted hundreds of IQ tests and the subjects were found to have an IQ 100% of the time. Although this wasn't a full scale experiment, new research suggests that all 7 billion people on this planet have an IQ.

They're a pretty good predictor of success.

If you're majoring in math or physics they're decently reliable.

If you're majoring in anything else they're shit.

Einstein was tested and got 87, just think about that.

Also, Feynman got 99 and he predicted he would get 95.

>>8676564
IQ tests correlate well with a number of things like lifetime earnings, number of children, and a lot of other stuff.

People will hate on The Bell Curve, but basically no one has read it.

IQ is a far better predictor of lifetime economic outcome than anything else they've ever studied.

Now, I'd suggest this has a lot to do with measuring obsequience rather than intelligence. BUT, obsequience will reward you as well in today's society so could easily account for the correlation.

If you really want to know though, you need to read The Bell Curve.

>>8676630
[citation needed]

>>8676640
You are lazy, but the guy who typed what he typed is just spewing bull.

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=feynman+iq+test

>>8676645
I'm not lazy
I type [citation needed] to call bullshit in the least impolite manner

>>8676564
The test I was forced to pass younger to enroll a 160 IQ min. Society was way WAY harder than any kind of test school psychologists ever gave to troubled pupils.
However, it's not clear what those tests are measuring. Maybe because I'm not well-versed in the subject.

>>8676630
where is proffs

>>8676651
>The test I was forced to pass younger to enroll a 160 IQ min.
So you failed? lul jk but that sentence...

File: 287617-9164cc844ceb47817054cf5f1b907e5b.jpg (68KB, 884x800px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 884x800px

My IQ is 160 and I am a total failure.

I have designed a lot of interesting things in the past, but due to lack of social skills and autism I can't handle the stress of running a large business.

They're a good indicator of how good you are at solving logic puzzles.

They're not so great for measuring any kind of innate intelligence because you can practice them to increase your score

If we can solve the human DNA so that time we have one true method.

intelligence != success

you also need street smarts. Something Nicola Tesla didn't have.

>>8676630
Feynman got like a 125 or something you retard

>>8676630
Richard Feynman didn't believe in IQ tests. He only took one in High School and achieved a score of 125. He would joke that his sister Joan scored 127 on the same test. Joan Feynman, though not as famous as Richard Feynman, is a noted astrophysicist.

There is some correlation but it depends on the test, a lot of tests rely too heavily on experience. For example, there use to be a question with a picture of a bike asking what was missing. Obviously you could be the smartest person in the world but if you never rode a bike you would have a hard time answering that question.

In my undergraduate opinion I think the only questions that should ever be on IQ tests are those "what comes next in the pattern?" questions, because those don't rely very heavily on cultural experience.