IQ GENERAL

>>9039124
>Prove to me that this isn’t a valid online IQ test.
Burden of proof is on you.

>>9039130

>Taking rhetoric literally

The psychometrician has already proven it. The statistical summary is there to be read.

File: 1492369152434.png (48KB, 924x560px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 924x560px

>>9039124
>trying to boil intelligence down to a single number
I seriously hope you guy don't do this.

Literally the only reason /sci/ has become obsessed with IQ is so that retards here can push the le smart but lazy meme. You can can completely fuck up at everything, drop out of school, and become a NEET, but you can still point to "b-but at least I have a big number for my IQ score."

File: 1466286874401.jpg (31KB, 332x493px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 332x493px

>>9039141


>Literally the only reason /sci/ has become obsessed with IQ is so that retards here can push the le smart but lazy meme

And I seriously hope you don't think you can read minds.

g as a statistical regularity is well-established and uncontroversial among scientists.

File: 1497218241075.jpg (912B, 125x125px) Image search: [Google]

912B, 125x125px

>>9039154
Then why is it that MENSA members never accomplish anything?

File: laughter.jpg (9KB, 200x200px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 200x200px

>>9039216

File: boss-skeptical-stern-ss-1920.jpg (170KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

170KB, 1920x1080px

>>9039133
> This classical IQ test measures several factors of intelligence, namely logical reasoning, math skills, language abilities, spatial relations skills, knowledge retained and the ability to solve novel problems. (Please note that it doesn't take into consideration emotional intelligence).

>she's a psychometrician who believes in emotional intelligence

File: 1237658376458.jpg (52KB, 604x341px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 604x341px

>>9039227

>she's a psychometrician who believes in emotional intelligence

I too watch Jordan Peterson lectures and would agree that EQ doesn't exist, but her opinions on EQ are irrelevant to the test in question.

>>9039216
>>9039227
>>9039141

You're all dodging the central question. None of you understand statistics well enough to actually critique the test.

>>9039237
>None of you understand statistics well enough to actually critique the test.
Do you understand statistics well enough to explain why the test is valid?

I got a 147. My SAT score would indicate an IQ of 125 or so. This seems massively inflated.

>>9039124

Why is the SD so fucking high? I tried the test and got 138. Is the time accounted for? I'm pretty fucking sure I busted the 30 minutes mark. Some of the early pattern problems were difficult for me, and the later problems required thought so it took time for me to do it. And there's one or two problems to which I didn't know the answer. I think this test is not rightly done, I should have gotten a much lower score, like around 110 or so.

>>9039244

That's an "I know you are but what am I" tier retort, but the answer's yes. The test's Cronbach Alplha score of 0.91 shows it has high internal consistency and its Pearson's r scores show that it correlates strongly with the WAIS-R and the Stanford Binet. The sample size of 15,884 is very high- higher than the sample size of 4,800 used to standardize the Stanford-Binet. This suggests very high reliability.

>>9039257

SAT no longer correlates to IQ. Unless if you took the test pre-1994.

>>9039266

I thought it still correlated about 0.8 or so.

In any case, there's no way I have an IQ that high. Maybe 130 if I'm lucky. I have only met one person in my life who might be pushing 150, and he got a perfect SAT score and learned calculus at age 12.

>>9039262

The test is supposed to take between 30-60 minutes, so it's fine if you went over 30. Stanford-Binet is supposed to take between 50-90 minutes, so you could conceivable do either test in under an hour. I'm not sure if time is accounted for.

The SD isn't particularly high. The Cattell IQ test is SD 24. It's not the SD or average IQ score on any particular test you should be looking at so much as it is that you should be looking at which percentile you fall in.

Also, just the fact that you were even able to take issue with the SD being somewhat high suggests your IQ is above 110.

http://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/iqtable.aspx

>>9039279

>I have only met one person in my life who might be pushing 150

Only about one out of every 2,330 people has an IQ of 150 and about one out of every 1,157 people has an IQ of 147, so it's not as rare as you might expect.

Got 135. Close to my MENSA score of 138. Those word problems were the hardest for me.

>>9039281

Well, the time is said to not be accounted for, but it says during the test, that the time is 30 minutes, which is why I asked the question. There's no way I could do this test in 30 minutes ; just reading some of the questions require time. I didn't take an hour, but still. It's just that internet tests often aren't legit, and I'm not an expert in IQ tests or anything, which is why I'm doubtful, especially since I had to write down some of the information the test provided, and the mental calculations took a while for me to do (not all, but some).

On another subject, anyone knows the answer to the first two questions? I didn't get the patterns at all.

>>9039290

I think Peterson said in one of his videos that he was 150 IQ, but that he was like 99th percentile in verbal reasoning, but that in numerical reasoning he was around like 80th percentile, maybe lower, though I don't remember the video all that well. I think it was his third lecture on biblical stories, maybe second.

>>9039281

Also I got 99th percentile, which seems a bit high for me, especially since my main language isn't English, so the vocabulary section should be lower for me than others who have English as a primary language.

>>9039334

147fag here. The first two questions are based on letters of the alphabet. I finished in just under 30 minutes, so it's possible time is accounted for.

>>9039338

The percentiles Peterson mentioned were in reference to his GRE score, which fits closely with his stated IQ of 150 (about 148).

>>9039342

You seem pretty fluent in English to me. It being a second language to you doesn't make much (if any) of a difference if you understand the questions.

>>9039351

I'm not familiar with GRE, but does that mean his verbal reasoning, is really high, considering his numerical reasoning is lower?

>>9039346

Ah. It makes sense for the second one. But what about the first?

And fair enough about the time. I didn't carefully look myself, but it just seemed close for me since I had to write down stuff.

>>9039334

>It's just that internet tests often aren't legit

Agreed, which is why I'm calling this one out in particular- I've never before seen an online test that validated itself using a statistical summary.

https://testyourself.psychtests.com/tests/showpdf.php?name=classical_iq_lite/psychtests/classical_iq_lite.pdf

>>9039357

Yes, ceiling effects may be preventing an accurate estimate of his verbal reasoning. Since the average GRE taker has an IQ of about 115, a 99th-percentile score suggests an IQ of 150 or so for that category. But since there are only 40 to 50 verbal questions on the GRE, if I'm not mistaken, his verbal IQ could register as much higher under a longer test.

Damn, a few points shy of 160. This was insultingly easy, but in line with my life history of near-flawless academic and career achievement.

I finished in under 30 minutes but I got a score of 134. Some of those questions seemed really ambiguous, so I ended up putting "I don't know" if I wasn't sure that I was being tested on "possibilities v. impossibilities" versus "what is true given the information", so I often said I don't know when I could have given a concrete answer.

File: peterposting.jpg (228KB, 1200x900px) Image search: [Google]

228KB, 1200x900px

>>9039376

Clean your room, bucko.

>>9039378

None of the syllogistic reasoning questions were ambiguous though. You should click false if you can think of any possible exception to the line of argument.

>>9039378

>I often said I don't know

The test has 57 questions. How many would you estimate you answered this way?

Does 134 seem wrong to you?

I got 148 which is lower than the last time I was tested, but that was before I took drugs and drank my way through college.

Man shit this test racist as a motherfucker. It say I got 85 and shit, but I click me all the answers. Ain't I get a few points for good luck? The fuck does God have a problem with me for?

>>9039382
I don't think I answered any syllogistic questions like that, and they were pretty straightforward. Just some of the word questions like "it is possible that 4 people came back with 3 bags". I guess?

I ended up putting "I don't know" because you'd think an IQ test would be more deductive and less ambiguous than that. Maybe one person took more than their fair share. But why would they consume a doggie bag before they get home? What the fuck is a doggie bag? Is it full of candy or dogfood? Are any of the people retarded enough to eat dog food in the latter case? I usually wouldn't consider most of those scenarios possible. I ended up saying "I don't know".

>>9039385
Like about 4 maybe. 2 questions because I thought the wording was vague and I would have asked "I need more information about the person because I'm not getting into "possibilities". Another 2 I didn't answer because I didn't know the vocab words.134 sounds about accurate.

I don't know if the test is representative until I know relatively how much to adjust it by. It told me that I got a 50 on the matrices section, so I don't know how well that translates into spatial intelligence (and thus the overall intelligence score). I don't really think of myself as more than a half-decent spatial intelligence person, I usually consider myself to have good verbal intelligence, and I guess my logic reasoning is fine. The last time I was tested was in kindergarten, and I had a 130 IQ.

130. Seems about right. I would guess the average on /sci/ is about 115. I seriously doubt many people below 100 come here.

>>9039394

How long did it take you do complete it?

>>9039124
114 masterrace

>>9039408
Also it turns out you're expected to do some of the problems with a calculator. Well, shit. That would have made things a lot easier than trying to do mental math on that NYC problem lol.

>>9039413

I mean, how many low or even average IQ people are going to be posting on a Science & Math image board on a Saturday night?

>>9039408

I know you're trolling about the doggie bag, but I seriously pity anyone who couldn't answer the vocab questions correctly. Anyone who doesn't know the antonym of vertiginous or the meaning of officious is sickeningly undereducated.

I got 127 on this test and 129 on an official one a couple years ago. I am dumb as a rock, so I can't even imagine how people 3 SDs below me learn to drive cars, make money, etc. It boggles the mind.

>>9039430
Well I understand Heidegger's Being and Time and I go to Princeton for undergrad so... well fuck I'm constantly reminded of the shame that I'll never have the classical liberal arts education that Princeton undergrads had a century ago.

Also I do remember I answered "I don't know" for whether somebody will go to the wedding or do their homework because of "will" and maybe they mean she can only do two activities at once.

>>9039385
I retook the test the way i was supposed to and got 141.

You know what would be interesting? Doing that critical thinking test released by Macat in partnership with the University of Cambridge.

If you took your IQ test online, it's not valid. The importance of an IQ test is in its ability gauge your executive functions, and that can only be done when a licensed psychologist is doing the test.

Anyway, this article is pretty interesting and deals with the topic at hand.

http://lesswrong.com/lw/lpf/the_truth_about_mathematical_ability/


The smart but lazy meme is the worst fucking meme in the world, if you are smart but lazy then you are trash because you have no excuses to be an ignorant mother fucker.

>>9039447

I'm jealous. I scored a standard deviation higher than you but I think you're smarter if you're in Princeton and understand Heidegger. It seems like you may have a slightly underdeveloped Theory of Mind, however, based on your difficulty grasping the implied constraints of certain questions. ToM is what lets you grasp what the test maker was most likely thinking when designing the test. I don't know if you have autism, but a high IQ and low ToM are more prevalent among such people.

File: flat,800x800,075,f.jpg (18KB, 248x189px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 248x189px

>>9039447
>Well I understand Heidegger's Being and Time and I go to Princeton for undergrad

>>9039463

>The importance of an IQ test is in its ability gauge your executive functions

100% false.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0887617707001679

>Planning problem solving, and insight certainly correspond to psychological and even lay concepts of “intelligent behavior”. However, evidence for a relationship of intelligence tests to executive function measures is not strong. It is well known that frank frontal lesions do not impair IQ (Damasio & Anderson, 1993; Milner, 1982). The few studies that have examined psychometric intelligence and executive functions have been inconsistent. In several studies with adults, executive function measures were not substantially related to IQ (Donders & Kirsch, 1991; Johnstone, Holland & Larimore, 2000).

File: Screen Shot 2017-07-16 at 5.47.49 AM.png (43KB, 284x621px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 284x621px

>>9039466
Well I'm pretty sure I have Aspergers, but I've never been diagnosed.

I was dumb enough to buy the report. I had some weird results, since I consider myself strong verbally and not so strong mathematically. Highest scores were always in history and philosophy, while I was always scared (but still somewhat competent) in mathematics. I was also surprised to see fluid above crystallized because my memory is probably my strongest asset.

The matrices section seemed obvious except for that second problem, don't know how I did poorly there but really well in the 2D/3D image manipulation, nor do I know what it entails. The analogies section was held back by the fact that I didn't know what most of (what I presume are tools) were. If the test took time into consideration, I think I would have scored higher considering I finished it in about 20-25 minutes or so.

This test is pretty heartening. I'm sure if I just keep using my brain, I'll be well equipped to tackle future challenges.

>>9039484

I feel the same as you concerning the visual puzzles and mathematical stuff. I can't represent anything in my head, so I had to write it down to even start thinking about the problem.

File: orangutan.jpg (123KB, 1000x600px) Image search: [Google]

123KB, 1000x600px

>>9039408
>But why would they consume a doggie bag before they get home? What the fuck is a doggie bag? Is it full of candy or dogfood? Are any of the people retarded enough to eat dog food in the latter case?

File: Capture.png (10KB, 503x253px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 503x253px

Seems way too high, or at least I self-percept as a brainlet

File: 1492391080752.jpg (233KB, 1200x800px) Image search: [Google]

233KB, 1200x800px

>>9039530

>tfw too smart to accurately gauge my own intelligence

>>9039463
This is almost surely incorrect. Anyway, if you're fap tempo corresponded this highly with IQ, then all you would need to do is measure that. Either it's a valid test or not. Being online doesn't mean it is or isn't.

File: cultmember.png (1MB, 898x670px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 898x670px

>>9039544
>>tfw too smart to accurately gauge my own intelligence
I was expecting at most like a 120, when I saw the 141 I thought it was one of those generic 'sample' graphs

File: 1424635672955.png (182KB, 1400x800px) Image search: [Google]

182KB, 1400x800px

>>9039447
dasein or no dasein, that is the question.
>>9039467
ikr?

>>9039553

Dunning-Kruger effect. You assume that which is easy for you is easy for everybody else, and thus underestimate your own intelligence.

Regardless, your anecdote doesn't matter. The test was standardized with a sample size of 15,884 people and has a strong statistical correlation (0.72) with Stanford-Binet. "Real" IQ tests are just about as long as this one, have the same types of subtests, and ask the same sort of questions.

File: 147_buynowgoyim.png (50KB, 585x595px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 585x595px

>>9039257
pretty sure it's a scam

>>9039576
Yes... yes... buy the report that will tell you how intelligent and special you are... You'll have a license to act like Dr. House around people!

>>9039408
>"it is possible that 4 people came back with 3 bags." I guess?
It's a retarded trick question.
It's possible that there are only 3 people if you have a man, his son, and his son's son
i.e. a grandfather, father, and son trio has 2 fathers and 2 sons.
it's dumb and in no way a test of IQ imo

>>9039571
>Dunning-Kruger effect. You assume that which is easy for you is easy for everybody else, and thus underestimate your own intelligence.
doesn't DK go the other way around?

>>9039589
Oh that makes sense. I never thought of it that way. Poorly designed question too because if it were attempting to be a riddle, 1) one might not have gotten that hint; and 2) one might have gotten it correct easily for the "wrong" reasons.

>>9039590

Ya, actually you're right. What I described is the corollary to DK effect.

>>9039594
What 'hint'?

File: 1468092243781.png (735KB, 1278x780px) Image search: [Google]

735KB, 1278x780px

>>9039580
>>9039576

>I tested high on an IQ test that wants me to pay money to see a detailed report of my results, it's gotta be a scam
>nvm that "real" IQ tests are paid for as well
>nvm that this test has a detailed statistical summary validating itself as legit that anyone can critique

>>9039124
for one thing, this test is voluntary, so there is no way to quantify non-response bias (which btw cannot be eliminated no matter your sample size). In layman terms, your data is shit and not publishable

>>9039619

The test was designed according to the American Psychological Association standards for educational and psychological testing. Test administration is tightly controlled for. Read about test administration and responses in the PDF below.

http://corporate.psychtests.com/tests/science_validity

http://corporate.psychtests.com/pdf/APA_Standards_Plumeus.pdf

My score on this was fairly close to what I received a few years back. I won't say what my actual IQ is, because I doubt anyone will believe me. But this does seem accurate.

>>9039679

You're on an anonymous image board. Who cares what other people think.

What'd you get?

>>9039693

155

>>9039124
>McGill University

Literally what?

>>9039703

Noice.

What did you receive on the test you took a few years back?

>>9039709

Canadian Harvard

>>9039124
>Standard Deviation = 18.67
What kind of wonky IQ test is this? A 140 is below 2SD.

>>9039716
The mean is also 109.59.

>>9039713

>Acceptance rate: 46.3%

I guess Canada doesn't have a lot of top geniuses

Can anyone who bought their results post what they got? I got 144 and it looks like everyone else here got around the same.

>>9039716
>>9039719

Cattell is SD 24. IQ scores and percentiles vary from test to test, what matters is the percentile you fall in.

http://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/iqtable.aspx

>>9039726

Average SAT and ACT scores among the average incoming student is very high though (2100 and 31, respectively).

From Wikipedia:

McGill counts among its alumni 12 Nobel laureates and 142 Rhodes Scholars, both the most in the country, as well as five astronauts, three Canadian prime ministers, 13 justices of the Canadian Supreme Court, four foreign leaders, 28 foreign ambassadors, nine Academy Award (Oscars) winners, 11 Grammy Award winners, three Pulitzer Prize winners, and 28 Olympic medalists, all of varying nationalities. Throughout its long history, McGill alumni were instrumental in inventing or initially organizing football, basketball, and ice hockey. McGill University or its alumni also founded several major universities and colleges, including the Universities of British Columbia, Victoria, and Alberta, the Schulich School of Medicine & Dentistry, the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, and Dawson College.

>>9039749
>Average SAT and ACT scores among the average incoming student is very high though (2100 and 31, respectively).
More like the Canadian version of Northwestern University, kek. There is no Canadian Harvard.

>>9039752

Haha fair enough. It's a very good school though.

>>9039763
I'm just shitposting. Don't give a fuck. They're all good universities and Ivy Leagues are overrated.

>>9039712

150, with SD15. I hit the score ceiling on a few of the subtests. My strength is definitely verbal tasks.

>>9039740

>IQ scores and percentiles vary from test to test

I meant average IQ scores and SDs vary from test to test.

>>9039787

Anyone have a graph showing the percentiles with the respective IQs?

>>9039124
Why the fuck would you even do a cronbachs alpha on more than 10 items, and that standard deviation is very large

File: tointeligent.png (44KB, 871x429px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 871x429px

>>9039124
>tfw brainlet

>>9039124
That histogram really, REALLY doesn't fit a normal distribution.

>>9039852

Neither do normal IQ tests, no matter how carefully normed. Social stratification combined with easy matching and migration via modern technology leads to lumpy assortative mating patterns.

>>9039257
The huge SD gives it away.

>>9039875

It's only a few points above the usual SD of 15. Internet users who would take an IQ test are not part of the general population.

>>9039874
So why the fuck do they assume that it is normal then? Central limit theorems? That's not how they work. Fucking mathematically illiterate imbeciles, the lot of them.

>>9039882
Ask me how I know you're a shill working at that site.

>>9039887
How do you know he's a shill working at that site?

>>9039885

Intelligence doesn't follow a normal distribution. Few things in nature do. It just so happens that intelligence is close enough to a normal distribution that it can be factor analyzed and rank ordered with predictive validity.

>>9039899
nothing you do in your pseudoscience will have predictive validity, don't be silly

>>9039814

The last page of the PDF shows a percentile breakdown. The 99th percentile is 144. So assuming a normal distribution with a mean of 109 and an SD of 15, 144 is exactly the IQ you would expect at that level. It seems the upper tail of this test matches the Stanford-Binet norms much more so than the 70-130 range, which is where you get the weird clumping and inflated SD.

>>9039902

Nice baiting.

>>9039888
The SD of an IQ test result is artificial. It is fixed by design to a certain threshold after the test has been calibrated to some sample population. Where test takers then fall on it is another matter entirely.

Stop trying to sell your scam. Fucking shills.

File: 2014_05_24_01_52_31.png (79KB, 550x480px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 550x480px

>>9039814

It's toward the bottom.

https://testyourself.psychtests.com/tests/showpdf.php?name=classical_iq_lite/psychtests/classical_iq_lite.pdf

One thing that's interesting is the percentiles they have in the statistical analysis don't match what they're reporting out. It could be that they're reporting out a percentile based on the score, or that they're reporting out a score based on your percentile.

In my picture, you can see that a score of 131 is in the 98th percentile, which matches what you'd see on a 15 SD IQ test, but based on the statistical analysis of the tests, a 131 would be in the 90th percentile. However, a score of 147 on both this test and an SD 15 IQ test is legitimately 99.93rd percentile (look at teh histogram). This leads me to believe they're converting test taker scores (based on what percentile you fall into) in SD 15 scores and reporting those out. That way the scores actually make sense.

>>9039908
Nice, more obfuscating, incorrect arguments.
Fuck off already shill.

>>9039426
I consider myself to be of average intelligence and I often come here.

>>9039916
Yep. This is what I noted here: >>9039908

I repeat this test is a scam and there are people ITT working for that site who are actively shilling it. Don't fall for it.
They're gambling on the fact that /sci/ is full of mathematically illiterate insecure nerds who wouldn't understand why the statistics mumbo-jumbo they published on their site is irrelevant.

Don't give them your money.
Over and out.

File: nice.jpg (37KB, 611x336px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 611x336px

am i supposed to solve it this way?

>>9039931

I can't tell if you're trolling or if you're actually this paranoid. /sci/ has been obsessed with IQ since day one.

Did you get a lousy score or something?

>>9039931

I'm the guy who started this thread and I'm not condoning that anyone pay for a detailed report. Not a shill. You literally don't even have to pay to see your score.

Fuck those word problems at the end. What the fuck?

Got 110, but being black adds like 20 IQ in academia so whatever.

>>9039945
>ooga booga
What did he mean by this?

>>9039938

Yes, number 4 is correct.

>>9039945
this. got 95 cristalized, whatever that means. But being an adjunt prof = still more successful than 90% of cumskins, kek.

Harvard Jew here. Guess my score?

>>9039961
132

>>9039964

Pretty close. 137. /sci/ is smarter than I thought if these scores are accurate.

>>9039972
The scores aren't accurate.

>>9039981

You sure? 137 is close to my actual IQ.

>>9039961
Current student? Returning sophomore here.

File: Cv5MNteUMAA0Iie.jpg (126KB, 669x960px) Image search: [Google]

126KB, 669x960px

>>9039981

Cool beans, kiddo. Just let us know when you're ready to start arguing.

https://testyourself.psychtests.com/tests/showpdf.php?name=classical_iq_lite/psychtests/classical_iq_lite.pdf

File: iq tests r dum.png (212KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

212KB, 1920x1080px

can someone explain the first two fucking problems on this iq test?

besides that this was way too easy. something i'd give my girlfriend for a confidence boost or something

anyways, iq tests don't measure intelligence. i've always been like two standard deviations above the mean in terms of pattern recognition. probably because i've been exposed to games and irrational internet/mom arguments from a young age, nothing else to it really. all learned behavior on my part, little to do with intelligence

>>9039995
First one was just the alphabet lol, try it again with a 90* rotation

Idk about the second one, perhaps an enlightened brainmore could tell us

File: 4chaniq.png (929KB, 2000x2000px) Image search: [Google]

929KB, 2000x2000px

>>9039972

/sci/ average is 120. Sounds about right to me.

>>9039995

The first problem are letters K, L, M, N but sideways, and the second problem are letters C, D, E against a mirror version of them. Took me a long time to figure out as well.

>>9040000
>>9040005
JESUS FUCKING CHRIST AM I THAT DUMB

I WAS LOOKING AT THEM LIKE THEY WERE MOON RUNES FOR HALF THE TOTAL TIME I SPENT DOING THE TEST

>>9039995

>everyone is equal
>iq tests don't measure intelligence

These are things we tell women, children, and minorities to make them feel better about themselves.

>>9040001
>/pol/
>141 IQ

>>9039916

That makes sense! Thanks. Also, I redid the test with a calculator instead of simply using my mind to calculate the problems (I know it's somewhat biased), but I got a score of 147 instead of the 138 I had gotten previously. Since time isn't calculated, and because of my calculator I only change I think 2 or 3 answer, this seems weird to me.

How anyone could struggle with the first two problems is beyond me. What the actual fuck?

>>9040012
My main board is /pol/ and I got 141:
>>9039530

>>9040006

Ah. I did the same. I stared on my screen for like a good 10 minutes, maybe a bit less, but still, just to figure this out. It's so funny, because I think the first two problems are the hardest of the whole test.

>>9040015

I don't know, it seems obvious when you know it that they are letters, but I had gotten into my head when I first saw the problem that they were simply a collection of lines, and I didn't see them as letters. I guess it would be analogous to the rabbit/duck image, and I saw the rabbit, and not the duck. I saw the lines only as lines, and not as letters.

>>9040018

Are you mentally ill? The first problem is literally just letters rotated 90 degrees. A toddler could figure it out. That's why it is the first question.

>>9040017
So? One person a data set does not make. Are you saying the vast majority of the users of /pol/ have an IQ equivalent or higher than yours?

>>9039124
111 brainlet reporting

File: what the fuck.gif (664KB, 253x200px) Image search: [Google]

664KB, 253x200px

>>9039265
>If I use as many proper nouns and acronyms as possible then other people will not be able to argue effectively.
Your arguing by obfuscation. It doesnt make you sound smart, it makes you sound like you dont have a very strong argument.

In reality, it makes you sound like the bogdanoff twins trying to write a quantum physics doctorate
>http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/bogdanoff/

>>9040015
How could anybody struggle with the word problems is beyond me. Took me like 5 minutes to breeze through them. The shit at the beginning tripped me up a bit, took me 1 min to get the first question, and I had to give up on the second question. I got too much tunnel vision on trying to observe how each shape changed into one another instead of trying creative solutions.

>>9040015
i got a 141 and i got the first two problems wrong LMAO. i would never have gotten those problems right either, which shows how retarded i am, which might attest to whoever thinks this is inaccurate

>>9040018
i really think so too. i've done a couple iq tests in the past, and that might be why my brain was so unable to see something so obvious. i spent like 10 minutes doing subtraction patterns in my head (where i overlap them and see which cancels out) or counting the lines, changing the angles of individual parts.. i thought it was some clue that they all shared a bottom line

jesus christ im hopeless

>>9040022
>Are you saying the vast majority of the users of /pol/ have an IQ equivalent or higher than yours?
I wouldn't be surprised, I get BTFO pretty often over there

>>9040012
>>9040017

/pol/'s my main board too and I got 147.

I think 141 might be too high an average but I wouldn't be surprised if the average of regular users is at least 130.

>>9040025
lol it's not his fault you are a brainlet.

File: 1498547409768.png (920KB, 1808x1204px) Image search: [Google]

920KB, 1808x1204px

>tfw didn't know what a vise was because it's spelled vice in my country

I got 155. Perfect GRE, so I believe it. Why don't tests like these have higher score ceilings? I was told by a psychometrician at age 14 that I was "way, way above 160" as far as she could tell, but she lacked the tools to converge on a precise score.

>>9040029
I frequent /pol/ but come on, half the board is retarded enough to fall for worldnewsdaily and other obvious clickbait

>>9040021
well this iq test is just retarded then if i can get well over two standard deviations above the mean but i can't even do something a toddler could do

>>9040025

No one cares what does or doesn't sound smart to you, mid-wit. Read the statistical summary and fuck off.

>>9040037

That, or you have a brain lesion or something. I mean come on. It's like getting the "a hanger is to a closet" question wrong.

>>9040036

90% of users are trolling or shitposting at any given time- you've got to filter out the noise. If you've ever gotten into a serious discussion on /pol/ you'd realize many of the users are highly intelligent.

File: fucksciencexDD.png (473KB, 960x852px) Image search: [Google]

473KB, 960x852px

>>9040036
no, it isn't. /pol/ slides those kinds of sources more often than not. it also serves as a discussion board for people interested in science /sci/ is not willing to discuss.

>>9040052
Many? Sure. I wouldn't doubt a high standard of deviation. But the average is no higher than 105 at best.

>>9040035

I'm in a similar position. Astronomically high IQ, as far as I can tell, but no way to tell if it's 160 or 170 or higher because the experimental tests designed for that level are so fucking inconsistent.

>>9040051
That was unironically the hardest analogy for me. Every other one of those analogies clicked easily, but nothing really clicked for that question except that, roughly, hangers are in closets like trees are in forests.

I'm so intelligent it should illegal, and this test confirmed it. 129, brainlets. I'm in the motherfucking 97th percentile.

>>9040060
>>9040035

I'd be legitimately interested to know how you answered some of the questions, because I'm curious about which questions I answered wrongly, since I can't know that for sure seeing as the answers aren't provided.

File: pol.jpg (112KB, 590x324px) Image search: [Google]

112KB, 590x324px

>>9040058

I'm not saying this is you, but if anyone thinks /pol/ as a board isn't highly intelligent because it's racist and buys into conspiracy theories, then those people need to learn to recognize their own hallucinations.

/pol/ is playing a much more subtle and ingenious game than most people suppose. And it's not an accident.

>>9040028
>I get BTFO pretty often over there

maybe you're just....dumb

>>9040070

I'm not the posters you're responding to, but I did get a near-perfect score. I'd be happy to help.

>>9040052
>dude it's all just satire and bantz my dude like cmon like 4 D chess lol kekistan

Fuck off

>>9040060

Damn that's high. How fast did you complete this test?

File: muh iq.jpg (64KB, 517x264px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 517x264px

I "guessed" maybe 1 of those later questions, but at least I filled in everything.

>>9040091

I didn't time it, but 15 to 20 minutes would be a good guess. I could have finished faster, plausibly, if I weren't on the phone while I took it.

File: poo.png (19KB, 530x288px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 530x288px

114 not too bad considering i am a drug addict and havent done anything like this since i graduated hs 5 years ago. still got some neurons to burn i guess

File: Capture.png (9KB, 452x230px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 452x230px

wat

>>9040114
My _________ brings all the boys to the yard,
And they're like,
Its better than yours,

A. Whiskey
B. Boobies
C. Milkshake
D. Gin

>>9040086

Well, the thing is that I'm not sure where I got it wrong, so I'll just ask answers to a few questions I'm a little uncertain about: what's the answer to 4, 5, 12 (I wrote Telephone, but I'm not sure if I should have just said Phone), 15 (I said the numbers of less than a 100 was equal, but it wasn't equal, just looked close enough), and 25?

All the other questions I'm fairly certain I got right. I got 147 overall, but it's difficult to know what I got wrong.

>>9040114
A milkshake is not the product of a single agricultural element.

>>9040089

Did I trigger you by granting plausible deniability to actual racists? :^)

>>9040114
>>9040127

A milkshake is a suspension and all the others are liquids.

>>9040122

4 is D. 5 is C. 15 is A. 25 is A.

I'm personally a little offended you found these difficult, but whatever.

>>9040114
fuck, i answered milk because i thought it's the only liquid obtained "naturally", but juice can be made of fruits.

Do I have a problem if I genuinely believe people who scored below 140 on this are unworthy of life?

>>9040145

Okay well I'm confused, because those were my answers as well. They weren't difficult, I was simply unsure. Oh well, I don't know what I got wrong then.

The syllogism were easy, same with the vocabulary, and the mathematical questions too, so I'm kind of at a loss.

>>9040135
>trigger
>:^)

this is an 18+ site, anon

>>9040145

Also sorry if I offended you with my uncertainty kind anon :c

File: iq.jpg (22KB, 508x260px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 508x260px

got 110 on popular online iq test with grey gradient background and red control elements

>>9040166

iqtest.dk? I got a perfect score on that fucker but only 140 on this one. How is that possible?

>>9040176
I got a 123 on that one but a 141 on this one. Then again I was horribly depressed back then.

Brainlet here. I got 98. How the fuck do I do the word problems? Stapler here, hamster there, somebody likes tea. Okay. What? Back to making race threads I guess.

>>9040006
keksimus moon runes

>>9040176
yeah, that one. although, the website doesn't work for me for some reason.
i got 110 when i was 16-17, now i'm 19.
there are 2 things that might have affected the score:
1. i didn't know physics or math. i barely got 3 (C) on both subjects and haven't learned anything in high school. at the age of 18 i started learning both subjects on khanacademy. now my knowledge can be compared to a high school's last year student + some calculus. math definitely did help me with few questions on this test, and there was one question from physics (s = d/t).
2. i stopped watching anime
also, now that i'm not in school i feel less depressed and autistic.

>>9039124
what...this test man, fhus test. FUCK. got 83 but cannot believe it. guessed on a couple but...man how the fuck is there no one in here got lower. I do not even imagine what its like to have a IQ so high you know what that mirror question is or what the fuck a "auger" is.

>>9040114
I answered "milk" because it doesn't require processing (juice also has to be pressed from the pulp). Just gotta have access to dem udders

File: 2017-07-16 15_53_07-Psychtests Profile.png (40KB, 1195x503px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 1195x503px

>>9039124
>one shot at life
>be a high-functioning brainlet
jdimsa

I'm a poor IQlet who only scored 115 :-(

>>9039615
>simultaneously holding that the test is trustworthy while completely dismissing the protests of those that scored the highest
The chance that this test is a scam is much higher than the chance that i'm 99.93 percentile

>182 posts, 37 posters
sage yourself OP

File: 1485977077952s.jpg (2KB, 125x84px) Image search: [Google]

2KB, 125x84px

>>9040001
i've seen at least 3 versions of this pic

>>9040058
>a high standard of deviation.
And this guy has the gal to cry that /pol/ is full of dum-dums.

>114
>b&
>pretty sure I got all the logic, spatial and pattern questions right
>probably didn't get a single english language question right, because It's not my native tongue
Damn the online tests.

>>9040454

>completely dismissing the protests of those that scored the highest

I also scored among the highest. They need to stop protesting and bloviating and begin making actual arguments.

>The chance that this test is a scam is much higher than the chance that i'm 99.93 percentile

There were plenty of people in this thread that scored 115 and lower, even some that had double digit scores. What would you tell them? "Don't worry, your score on a real test would be much lower. I scored high so it can't possibly be accurate."

Oddly enough, this is kind of what I wanted when I created this thread- a bunch of people complaining that their scores are too high because the statistical summary validates the test and they have no other means of legitimately attacking it on empirical grounds. If this IQ test is bullshit then so is every other one, which is a separate argument.

>>9039914

>The SD of an IQ test result is artificial. It is fixed by design to a certain threshold after the test has been calibrated to some sample population.

Yes, but the SD of the sample population is not going to be fixed pre-calibration. This test has been calibrated to SD 15, which you can determine by comparing the percentiles and their respective IQs reported on this test to the WAIS-R.

http://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/iqtable.aspx

>Stop trying to sell your scam. Fucking shills.

You literally don't even have to pay to see your results. Should I assume you're a psychologist shill who's only concerned with trashing online IQ tests because you want to maintain your monopoly on "valid" proctored IQ tests?

>>9040508
At least half of these posters with <120 are your self bump samefaggotry

>muh summary
Guess I can make my own iq test, copy that summary, throw it up on my site, and "150 iq" goys will donate to me

>>9040533

>Guess I can make my own iq test, copy that summary, throw it up on my site, and "150 iq" goys will donate to me

You'd have to comply with APA standards first.

http://corporate.psychtests.com/tests/science_validity

http://corporate.psychtests.com/pdf/APA_Standards_Plumeus.pdf

127 should I just off my self?

>pay money you get results
this is a good IQ test

if you take the test you have low IQ

Got 134, actually just as expected.

Fuck the first two questions

>>9040619

>pay money you get results

You don't have to pay to see your score or percentile, only to see a detailed report.

Also, pay no attention to the fact that you have to pay even just to take proctored tests like the WAIS-R, Stanford-Binet, or even the SAT.

So far people in this thread have argued:

>The test is invalid because I got a high score
>The test is invalid because you have to pay to see a detailed report of your freely reported score and percentile

I think the strongest argument against this test's validity is that people who scored high on it are making fallacious arguments like this.

Holy fuck is this board full of teenagers?

>>9040647
>Also, pay no attention to the fact that you have to pay even just to take proctored tests like the WAIS-R, Stanford-Binet, or even the SAT.
Exactly, and they already have your money, they don't have to convince you to buy a "report".

>I think the strongest argument against this test's validity is that people who scored high on it are making fallacious arguments like this.
Oddly enough, I already pointed out this contradiction.

>You'd have to comply with APA standards first.
Proof they're actually complying with these standards?

>>9040696

>Exactly, and they already have your money, they don't have to convince you to buy a "report".

You're saying this as if it's a counterpoint to anything. If you've paid for and are taking a proctored test, they've already convinced you to buy a report. This test doesn't ask you to pay anything to take it or receive a score because they're trying to obtain as many samples as they can to improve their data.

>Proof they're actually complying with these standards?

Proof that Stanford-Binet is complying with these standards?

Contact the company and they'll give you everything you're looking for. (Bottom of the page)

http://corporate.psychtests.com/tests/science_validity

>>9040679

Clean your room, bucko.

>>9039124

Got 147.

I couldn't get into mensa. This test is bullshit.

>>9040749
If we give it to /pol/ and they all report brainlet scores then we'll know if this test is legitimate.

>>9040750
Give it to a normie board instead. Pol is autistic as fuck, no doubt there will be high functioning outliers.

>>9040749

All of these anecdotes trump your anecdote.

>>9039443
>>9039394
>>9039333
>>9039679
>>9040035
>>9040635

>>9040757
>it is a problem if the results confirm our hypothesis
science brainlets please leave

>>9040750

Why don't you call and interview the psychologist that did the test.

>>9040817
It doesn't confirm anything if you have a high deviation and a small sample group. The quality of results from /pol/ are likely bad.

>>9039141
Some guy on r9k (presumably browses sci too) put his IQ on his resume lol no one hired him.

File: brainlet.png (4KB, 183x275px) Image search: [Google]

4KB, 183x275px

brainlet here.

Got a degenerate score of : 110.

I want to know what I didn't answer correctly. Could someone who got a really high score post their answers?

Is this test genuine? I've only scored 111?

>>9040023
ayyy join the 10s club
114 brainlet here. where's the short bus?

>>9040734
>You're saying this as if it's a counterpoint to anything.
It's a major counterpoint, and you've failed to address it.

>They've already convinced you to buy a report.
Stop being disingenuous. You paid to even be able to take the test. They have no motivation to show a boosted score or sugarcoat the result in any way.

>they're trying to obtain as many samples as they can to improve their data.
I seriously hope they're not dumb enough to trust unreliable online samples to improve their data.

>Proof that Stanford-Binet is complying with these standards?
Are you trying to imply that there's no proof?

>>9040783

It's obvious they are lying. Are you 13?

>>9040944

>It's a major counterpoint, and you've failed to address it.
>Stop being disingenuous.
>You paid to even be able to take the test. They have no motivation to show a boosted score or sugarcoat the result in any way.

All this blind conjecture.

What you're failing to understand is that it makes no difference whether or not an IQ test has to be paid for if it's proven to be statistically valid. I can't read minds, so I'm not going to speculate on the financial motivations of the psychometrician who created this test considering that the statistical summary indicates it's valid.

>I seriously hope they're not dumb enough to trust unreliable online samples to improve their data.

Yes, online samples are going to be less reliable than samples you'd obtain in a proctored test, but they're certainly not unreliable with a sample size of 15,884. You seem to think a significant number of test takers are going to cheat so that they can obtain a score that they know is false, not that they're going to do their best without cheating because they want an honest score. Should we consider online college course grades unreliable as well? If the samples are good enough for the APA they're good enough for me.

>Are you trying to imply that there's no proof?

No, I'm implying you wouldn't hold proctored tests to the same level of proof because you're inherently biased against online tests.

Ask yourself, could an online IQ test EVER be valid? What standard of proof would convince you it's valid? How about a statistical summary validating it against valid proctored tests?

>>9040757
>Pol
who calls it this?

>>9040025
>I don't understand these words so you're wrong
Jesus Christ, man.

>You may use a calculator

>You cant use a dictionary
why not

>>9041189

Having a calculator at your disposal doesn't mean you understand the calculations required to solve a problem.

A dictionary clearly defines words and provides a straightforward answer.

I scored 147 which is substantially higher than the 130-135 I typically score on these IQ tests

I score 125. Exact same score I got on my official IQ test in high school.

>>9041215

Same. Well except that I score 138 first, because I thought we weren't allowed to use a calculator, but I score 147 with the calculator. So yup.

>>9041264
wait weren't there only like 3 questions on data tables that needed a calculator?
138-->147 = graph reading comprehension

post your MS excel certifications here, boys.

>>9041267

I failed the one on the sq miles, people per household, and the Terry/Chris question.

Okay. I will admit since I'm leaving this stupid fucking racist /pol/ outpost indefinitely. I'm the one who has been making posts claiming to have scored low on other tests and high on this one. I fucking despise tests like this. And if you had any decency, OP, you would never have made this thread. See you never.

>>9041267
were you also allowed scrap paper?
cause i tried to do all the algebra in my head

>>9041280

OP here. I appreciate the honesty. Take it easy.

>>9041280
>when your eq is below 50

breath in through the nose
hold for a sec or 2
exhale through mouth
repeat

>>9041007

kys my man

File: 1493041706138.jpg (200KB, 750x722px) Image search: [Google]

200KB, 750x722px

>tfw 141 IQ brainlet

>>9040029
>the lowest common denominator new-user board is high IQ
Only if everyone on r/T_D was a fucking genius when they came over.

>>9041347

Perhaps, but there's enough Ashkenazi JIDF shills there to bump the average up at least one SD though.

Got IQ 114. 4 points above the last time I tried years ago. Huh. Though English is not my native language.

But I some things to say: The test is bullshit in some places.

The first 10 or so questions asking "what would logically compelte this set" are not just one task but two: You have to create the context yourself, otherwise you are just seeing images with no logic or reason. Different persons will create different contexts in which the logic fits an answer. From where I see it, these kinds of tasks can't really be use to measure speed of thought

Furthermore, I don't think you can just ask 7 or so questions for each area of intelligence you are measure and call it a day. I feel the test should be longer

Furthermore, but this isn't related to the test itself, it's retarded to assume I am American, English is not even my mother langauge

The only good way to measure anything according to the speed at which you solve problems would be to measure it according to the tasks stimulate specific areas of the brain most, and even THEN it's not definite way to ascertain someone's intelligence, just the level of stimulation / speicalization some areas of their brain have.

So a much better IQ test would be one that measures each area of the brain separately and doesn't put them in an average.

>>9039443
How do you know you are dumb? Can you even draw a correlation between the tasks you are "dumb" at and the tasks you had to do in this test?

>>9041215
you only score that high because you spend all time doing IQ tests then.

>>9040114
This question should be deleted, check the other 5 anons that answered - their all created their own context with different outliers.

i don't the autism to procure the data to support it, but i think every question is worth about 3 points.
if that's true, the test implies your vocab skills are worth an entire standard deviation of intellect

t. butthurt 114 brainlet who'll never get anywhere in life

>>9040021
it's dumb because at no moment you are told they are the alphabet.

Why would an IQ test make you think about the box?

>>9041393

>I feel the test should be longer

This test is supposed to take 30-60 minutes. Stanford-Binet takes 45-90 minutes. It would be better if this test were longer but it's technically about as long as other legit IQ tests. IQ tests aren't necessarily supposed to be as long as say the SAT.

>So a much better IQ test would be one that measures each area of the brain separately and doesn't put them in an average.

That's not really how it works. Watch this video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jSo5v5t4OQM

So far I haven't seen anyone post a pic of a perfect score.

I find that interesting. Maybe it really is that hard to get 155 on this test.

>>9041393
>From where I see it, these kinds of tasks can't really be use to measure speed of thought
That's not what they measure. You need creativity and awareness to come up with a consistent and plausible solution.

>>9041443

>it's dumb because at no moment you are told they are the alphabet.

Not having to be told it's the alphabet is the test of intelligence.

>>9041453
Define "creativity"

>>9041459
how the hell is that intelligence? How are you supposed to know it refers to s specific concept?

How would a Russian or a Japanese solve this question in their native langauge?

It's no different thana fucking Rorschach test

>>9041453
Intelligence is nothing more than the speed at which you can process information.

>>9040114
milkshake is similar to milk
gin is similar to whiskey
juice is similar to nothing on that list

>>9041468
>Intelligence is nothing more than the speed at which you can process information.
Doubtful. There are some things that dumb people are never able to grasp, no matter how well and lengthily they are explained.

>>9041469

But Milkshake is the only one made from multiple resources (ice cream + milk), while milk is just milk, juice is extracted from a fruit, and those two alcohol come from grains.

>>9041448
If this video is meant to convince me of something, the only thing that it convinced me of is that the proffesor is filled with hubris and preconceptions about not only intelligence but practically everything.

>if you throw down IQ you might as well throw down psychology

nigga please take an actual degree in psychology

>"if you think of intelligence as that which may move you forward successfully in the world"
>why do we even have to debate this

this is only getting worse.

>smart people go to university
>that measures how well you do in university
>if intelligence isn't associated iwith university success, then you aren't talking about intelligence

what the fuck

>recognizing different emotional reactions is not intelligence

pfft

Enough. this man is retarded. this video is retarded. your claims are retarded.

>>9041479
The brain is not "absolute" It develops constantly. If it didn't, people wouldn't be able to relearn lost abilities after losing part of their encephalic mass.

Why do you think so people harp about education all the time? If you don't stimulate the brain from an early age, body doesn't see a need to develop the brain and your intellegence is handicapped, you will not be able to do some things as fast as others.

Why do you think niggers and rednecks are retarded? None of them were made to take school seriously, none of them tried to, none of them cultivated their brain

now looks at that american popsci nigga, he went to school and got a degree and he's virtually no different than anyone else.

Hell we can do the same thing with chimps and dogs, stimulate them at an early age and they will be able to grasp certain tasks much easilier than your average stray dog or jungle chimp (though strays are experts at recognizing human emotion and reactions - they depend on that to beg for food)

Furthermore, you are also assuming those dumb people want to grasp the concept and are not so single-minded they don't care

>>9041549
>>9041469
ITS VISCOSITY

>>9041566

But the viscosity of juices can vary. Also how would you even know the viscosity of gin or whiskey or milkshake. Milkshake! You don't even know the exact composition of the thing.

I'll admit that's pretty smart to think of that though, never even crossed my mind.

>>9041561
>snip
Excuses, excuses. You are aware that the "pure nurture" camp has been thoroughly discredited, right? If not, read up.

>>9039124
115

well fuck my life

>>9041575
I never argued that, you fucking idiot.

Half of those snippets are central to the point of the idiot's argument.

If the basic argument is "the results must mean the process is acurrate" then the basic argument is retarded. Pseudoscience at it's finest.

I'm not even saying there isn't some truth to IQ, neurologists and analizing of the brain has proven that. I'm saying it's light years from being grounded in reality.

Until people have acurrately linked intelligences to their unique brain processes, IQ will always be meme tier.

File: 1479827493367.jpg (463KB, 1280x1920px) Image search: [Google]

463KB, 1280x1920px

>>9041549
>>9041469
>>9041566
>>9041571

Welp, color me retarded.

I chose milk because it's the only "natural" non human modified beverage on the list. You don't find milkshakes, whiskey, gin or juice coming out of woman's tit.

Or maybe I'm just a pervert

>>9039619

This.

Guys, what the fuck is the first answer?

>>9039662
>American
>Psychological

Americans can't into psychology.

>>9041619
Turn your head sideways.

>>9041633

That's absurd.

Thank you.

https://youtu.be/7p2a9B35Xn0

>>9041642
It's funny how all these points he brings up about nature and nurture have absolutely nothing to do with the validity of IQ as a measure itself. It's simply irrelevant how your problem solving ability came about.

Sounds more like feelgood consolation for people who score lowly, for those who scored lower than they expected, and for those seeking to defend groups that score lowly.

IQ = intelligence

Does having a high IQ mean that you’ll do better in life?

Generally yes, it’s the number one predictor of success.

However, you also have to factor in personality traits: conscientiousness, neuroticism, openness, extraversion and agreeableness.

If you have a high IQ and even rank high on openness (which would make you a particularly creative type), but have low conscientiousness and high disagreeability, then you might not do so well.

Additionally, you could have a high IQ and have a personality disorder, or perhaps just a mood disorder; then you’d be smart, but could end up being an absolute failure of a human being by societal standards.

IQ is a good measure of intelligence, but intelligence alone doesn’t mean much; you have to factor in other variables.

>>9040152
And what if people who scored 150+ think you're unworthy of life?

>>9041608
>>9041469
So why aren't these a valid answer? It shows just as much reasoning.

>>9041671
He mentions a lot the validity of IQ as a gauge of how a population is doing in relation to others. It's not irrelevant how your abilities came about, because it can point to specific problems some children face.

>>9041685
Yeah, the question was retarded and one could draw many conclusions from it and it would still make sense.

>>9041685

Analogy questions dont need a universal answer. They just need an answer that correlates strongly with performance on the rest of the test. In other words, a 150-person answers X, so X is close enough to a "right" answer that you get points for it. An IQ test just has to be good enough at triangulating a particular rank order of mental ability. It's not about litigating every fucking possible answer, because you could make an excuse for almost any answer to any possible question.

>>9041762
>a 150-person answers X, so X is close enough to a "right" answer that you get points for it

So neurotypical brainlets dictate the right answer?
Doesn't seem like a positive thing since more intelligent people would likely come up with more complex conclusions ten what 83 IQ points Tyrone would be able to think of.

>>9041774
*then what

>>9041774
I don't see how that's any less fair than "neurotypicals" dictating the meanings of words in the vocabulary section.

Yes, IQ is to some degree context-specific and based on a civilization-wide consensus on certain conventions. If you take China's gaokao exam, for example, you will find a somewhat different set of conventions. But so what? IQ doesn't need to be a perfect measurement. It just needs to be "good enough" at predicting achievement, etc.

>>9041774
If persons who score well on objectively difficult portions of a test regularly pick a certain option for a more fuzzy question, then this option can be given higher IQ weight. It won't be picked by normies because its particularities are difficult to spot and assess by them. Basically, a test can calibrate itself if you make the options obscure enough.

>>9039124
There is no way I have an IQ of 137, I am a fucking retard and I'm convinced I am BARELY average, or perhaps slightly bellow average. I didn't answer like five of the questions lmao...

>>9041762
>It's not about litigating every fucking possible answer, because you could make an excuse for almost any answer to any possible question.
thats a good point.


I guess i think the biggest flaw with iq tests is not choosing "i dont know" when you dont. Can they account for this?

I filled in completely random answers and got 145. How does it feel you stupid fucking racists?

>>9039124
131 here, smart enough to justify going to college for engineering.

Is there a great chance of my 6yo iq score to be close to my present (18yo) iq score?

Why hasn't anyone posted a score above 150 yet? Is 147 the score ceiling?

>>9042018
Brainlet.

>>9042030

People claim to have scored higher, and the test looks to have a ceiling of 155, but no one has posted a pic of a score above 147. The histogram doesn't show scores above the number either, as far as I can tell. I find this interesting.

>>9042037
The people with 150+ IQs are too smart to buy a score.

>>9042048
The score is free.

>>9040522
>You literally don't even have to pay to see your results
yes you do. if you want to know all your results, you have to pay.

>>9041608
This is why tests like stanford-binet and wisc/wppsi/wais are so much more accurate

the proctor actually asks why you answer the way you did.

>>9042063
>everybody gets a participation trophy
everyone one of your autists who didn't pick the frothy thick beverage ought to neck themselves

>>9039124
When you're asked at the end your fucking "gender identity":

male
female
genderqueer
transgender
two-spirited
agender
etc etc etc


What the fuck is this? How can anyone take these psychologists or whatever seriously. They're fucking retarded.

>>9042076
I'd have to do it again to tell but weren't the only options male female and then the two trans counterparts?

>>9042053

>if you want to know all your results, you have to pay.

FFS the score and percentile are free. You only have to pay if you want to see your scores on all the subtests.

>>9039124
>Prove to me that this isn’t a valid online IQ test.
It purports to measure "IQ". /thread

>>9041608
>>9042063
Is this a fucking joke? It doesn't matter why you chose milk, it doesn't matter if you had a valid reason; it's a less intelligent choice to chose milk simply because you should have been able to realize the viscous desert drink is a much larger and more likely outlier than whatever retarded reason you had to chose milk

You definitely have a lower iq if you can't put yourself in the head of other people

>>9042076
You're retarded. Aren't you curious as to whether or not the people that identify as transgender or dinosaur have a lower iq? Wouldn't that be telling of something? Your disagreement with their exact brand of social construct has duck all to do with anything

>>9041561
>>9041594

>114 IQ
>These posts

dunningkruger.txt

>>9042124
>You definitely have a lower iq if you can't put yourself in the head of other people
oh, the irony.

essentially what you're saying is the person with the highest IQ is the one who can divine what the test makers intended when they designed the question. so what we're measuring isn't intelligence but rather willingness to please and conform.

i scored 147 (99.93 percentile) on this ACCURATE IQ TEST you're defending, btw.

>>9042117

4/10

Too obvious. People on /sci/ aren't actually this stupid- it's a dead giveaway. Maybe try arguing that the SD or mean IQ is too high or something next time.

>>9042112
No, i remember two-spirited.

File: 1461721392221.jpg (21KB, 474x355px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 474x355px

>>9042148

>One of the test's questions involved classification of objects through the use of inductive reasoning and I may have gotten it wrong

>Therefore we can logically conclude that both this question and the test itself do not measure intelligence

>>9042180
>implying I got it wrong
I picked Milkshake.

But I'm able to put myself in the head of other people, so I can see why they might have gotten it wrong. Unlike you.

I wish I could remove all the people above my IQ from existence in the most painful way possible.

>>9042180

>implying I'm the anon you were arguing with

Doesn't change the fact that you don't believe the test is accurate because it doesn't have a proctor despite being statistically validated as accurate.

>>9042204

Meant for

>>9042183

>>9042076
Why would you not want more information to go with the data.

>>9042204
>Doesn't change the fact that you don't believe the test is accurate because it doesn't have a proctor
Point out to me where I said this.

>got 94
>being a spic is suffering.

I got a 137 here.
I got a 129 when I was tested in high school.

Eh. Seems a little inflated.

Hmmm....

There sure are a lot of people on /sci/ who have been officially IQ-tested, if we are to believe their posts.

Kind of interesting, since it's so expensive and unusual to administer IQ tests to normal functioning adults.

>>9042345
If they're anything like me, they were gifted students in high school or below and were given a test to place them into an advanced program of some sort.

Then they'll try to ride that high for the rest of their life to make up for their mediocrity and lack of accomplishment in adulthood

>>9042361
What did you get on this IQ test?

I got 147. Was tested in school for a gifted program, but didn't make the cut. Kind of makes me think this test is bullshit.

>>9042372
I just posted, was >>9042330

The cut-off for my gifted program was 125. I actually got 126 the first time I was tested in elementary school, and then 129 in High School for some other reason.

They never revealed to me these cut-offs or my scores until senior year of high school. It was against the rules to share that information with the students, apparently.

I recall the official tests taking upwards of 2-4 hours and being a lot more intense. This online test had a lot less going for it.

>>9042382
Are you from the States? That's interesting. I always thought "gifted" was 130+. I find it baffling that you scored 10 fewer points than I did, given that you probably have a higher IQ. Oh well.

File: 473153924_182b7a84ab_o.jpg (42KB, 465x473px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 465x473px

>tfw i was in my elementary school's "gifted" program
>tfw the other kids told me "gifted" was a euphemism for "retarded"
>tfw i believed them
I only found out like 2 years ago that it actually was a legit gifted program.

>>9042386
Yeah, the states. I believe 130+ is the typical definition for "gifted", it'll probably vary per school, though. I grew up in a hick town, maybe their standards were lower.

As for this online test, I sort of half-assed it near the end and gave up on a few answers. And if it was timed I definitely alt+tabbed for like 20 minutes.

My "intelligence" scores have always been really skewed, too. I tended to score top 1 or .5 percentile in mathematics/logic based tests, but other tests (typically verbal/communication based) I'm like top 25% or something, which is a huge gap. My ACT/SAT scores reflected this. Most of my peers were a lot more well-rounded in their test results.

I hope you enjoyed my autobiography.

>>9042305

Eh... assuming this was you, sorry if not. Too much implying going around, we need IDs.

>>9042063

>>9039124
Do you even see those bins which are trying to fit to? Must have failed all math classes at least a couple of times.

>>9039227
Emotional intelligence is real, you will notice when you get fired from your first few positions for being socially inadequate.

>>9042372
It could be that the school was shit too, you know.

>>9041679
They don't. There's plenty of people in that range who use the less smart as social safety net in our democracies. A majority is already below 105 and we all get to vote. Would be smarter of the super smarties to try and manipulate the dumber to vote in ways that increase their money and power than to try and get rid of them.

>>9042685

Although that happened to me, (not exactly, I just wasn't hired in the first place), emotional intelligence is meme, like any other specific ''intelligence''. It was a legitimate hypothesis, but it's been disproven.

>>9042697
Yeah that too, being thought not fitting not because of skillset but social (in)competence.

What do you mean it has been disproven? What does it claim and what method would disprove it?

It is clear to me that if you are wise to choose your words carefully you are much less likely to piss people off by accident. And if you are perceptive to know what would disappoint people, then you have a larger chance to avoid making them dislike you. That is what I would call emotional intelligence.

File: leBrainlet.png (10KB, 535x272px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 535x272px

>has brain damage and amnesia

>>9042728

What seem like you describe either correlates with intelligence in general (choosing the correct words = verbal reasoning), or compassion (=being perceptive to know what people would feel) or being wise (=not making you hate them), but there's no ''emotional intelligence'' that goes into your general intelligence, especially since I don't believe compassion or wiseness is correlated at all with intelligence, though my only source on wiseness is Dr. Peterson, so take that as you will.

>>9042146
burn

>>9041613

>this test is voluntary, so there is no way to quantify non-response bias

>this

Testing for non-response bias is very simple; just compare the first and fourth quartiles of samples for consistency.

High Cronbach's Alpha of 0.91 = high internal consistency = you btfo

>>9039916
>>9039908

http://corporate.psychtests.com/pdf/APA_Standards_Plumeus.pdf

From the test's APA standards documentation:

>4.4
>When raw scores are intended to be directly interpretable, their meanings, intended
interpretations, and limitations should be described and justified in the same manner as
is done for derived score scales.
>No
>Our tests scores are given in a standardized, rather than raw format.

This confirms that reported IQs are being standardized from their raw score with SD 18.67 to SD 15, so you can interpret your score the same way you'd interpret a WAIS-R score (131 is 98th percentile rather than 90th).

Looks like the scores are legit.

>>9044139

I'm sorry, but no fucking way I have 147 IQ. Or 130ish for that matter. I can understand that this test is way more legitimate than most other internet tests, but it is still wrong. I feel it inflates IQ.

>>9044252

>I feel it inflates IQ.
>I feel

I was really buying into the statistical analysis validating the test as legitimate for a moment there but if you've got a strong feeling about it I suppose I'll have to reconsider.

>>9044286

No, a feeling =/= a demonstration or proof, you're correct, but the test gives me an IQ which I cannot have. I am definitely not a very smart person, or close to one. I do not have the intellectual capacities to have 147 IQ. I simply suspect the test has some form of bias in it, perhaps in the lack of questions, perhaps in the demographics of those tested, perhaps elsewhere, but I can't show it. Don't you find it weird, most people who posted are 130+? That's unlikely. You could claim it's a bias because we're on a /sci/ board, but even the average IQ of graduate students isn't 130+, it's around 125.

>>9044322
>>9044286
Took the test and got 154. I was professionally tested back in elementary school and scored 147.

This is the most accurate internet test I have taken. Not that it says much though.

>>9044322

Why can't you have an IQ of 147? Your lack of achievement? Read up on the Terman Study. Most people with genius level IQ live mundane lives.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_Studies_of_Genius

By the 4th volume of Genetic Studies of Genius, Terman had noted that as adults, his subjects pursued common occupations "as humble as those of policeman, seaman, typist and filing clerk" and concluded:

“At any rate, we have seen that intellect and achievement are far from perfectly correlated.”