Hi /lit/
I have a 155 IQ, and let me tell you It's so lonely up at the top of the intelligence tower! A lesser like you just wouldn't understand. I jut can't deal with normal life, and the struggles of dealing with lesser baboons at risk of them tainting my intellect. What should I use my superiority for in the writing community?
>>7740229
Killing yourself.
>>7740229
You sound like this guy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ndW5uiwexL8
>>7740229
You're a standard deviation below me, fool, and you're lonely because you're a cunt and act like a faggot when you're not directly being a cunt. It's not your intelligence that makes you lonely, it's the fact you're a loathsome twat.
>>7740229
I have an IQ of 171 and I'm not being a bitch about it, like you OP.
>>7740246
Holy shit.
This guy is 4chan incarnate.
>>7740280
Joke's on you, my IQ is 199. Reading the words of mediocre human beings like yourself is, to my rarified genius, like being slowly stabbed for an eternity.
>>7740229
I have a verbal iq of 150
and a standardized iq of 115
What does this mean?
>>7740292
you're good with big words but bad at ikea furniture. probable femanon
>>7740273
>>7740280
>Damn OP, you're acting like a real twat about your IQ, it doesn't make you better (by the way mine's better)
>>7740292
Depends on when you took the test, but likely you've just done stuff that develops the skills required for a very high verbal IQ more than those for a high standardised IQ, as in you lacked in other areas.
>>7740288
I have smart autistic syndrome, you're state of mind goes past what I can recognize, you're nothing but a "plebeian" in regards to me.
Does any board on 4chan fall for bait as easily as /lit/ does? For a board that claims to read, you sure are bad at reading between the lines.
>>7740305
>implying OP's even using his real IQ
>implying anyone above an IQ of 100 should think IQ isn't less valuable than a pub quiz
do you now believe or have you ever believed the davinci code was a work of historical fact?
>>7740325
Most psychometricians regard IQ as a reliable indicator of intelligence. I'm thinking about taking an IQ test since I'm both pretentious and insecure about my intelligence
>>7740325
I agree with that completely, IQ is a tool designed for detecting the severity of patients with mental retardation, not really designed for showing how good at stuff you'll be past a certain point. IQ means fuck all if you don't make consistent efforts to learn, and even if you do, then it still means next to nothing.
I get that OP was just using a fake IQ as well, I don't see where I implied I didn't think that?
>>7740360
>IQ is a tool designed for detecting the severity of patients with mental retardation
(not true, by the way)
>>7740356
>Most psychometricians regard IQ as a reliable indicator of intelligence.
They really, really don't. It's only useful for people in a clinical sense, or for large scale populations. Like BMI really, it says absolutely nothing about the individual.
You can test an IQ of 140 and still be a fucking idiot, because you've got next to no education. Same as you can test 100 and be incredibly well educated and intelligent, because you've made a consistent effort to be so.
Boasting about your IQ is like boasting about how your dad used to be ripped. Sure, you've got the potential to be great sitting in your genetics, but that doesn't mean that you're any better than someone who doesn't have those. You're both at the same level.
>>7740356
>psychometricians
yes, but your local alchemist will tell you it's saturn and give you a shiny pendant and purgative.
>>7740360
it's not even that useful then. the flynn effect gets a lot of people off death row because of mental retardation setting in. it's useful for bureaucratic meanings and reassuring insecure people who are vaguely normal they are a special number, and most of its benefit probably comes from the latter category.
>>7740246
me in the video
>>7740374
But you're wrong anon, and here are some sources proving you so.
https://aaidd.org/docs/default-source/annual-meeting/tasse-dsm5-id-definition-5-23-2013-aaidd-2013.pdf?sfvrsn=0
http://behavenet.com/node/21026
Those are directly from the two most commonly used psychiatric diagnostic manuals. You're objectively incorrect in claiming that IQ isn't used to measure severity of mental retardation.
Just to clarify, read the notes of the first source, they point out what I'm saying. Adaptive functioning is more important, but IQ is still absolutely used.
>>7740246
I just watched this entire thing. This has got to be the single best refutation of the idea that IQ matters.
>Man has IQ of 190.
>Spends his 20s trying to get laid by constantly reentering high school
>literally eating dog food as he goes to high school by day and works in the service Industry at night
>eventually leaves high school at 26 and marries
>has a daughter and is now working as a stripper/bouncer
>sees that who wants to be a millionaire is coming on
>neglects relationship with daughter so he can practice for the show
>gets on and gets a tough question
>gets it wrong
>blames the show and producers for "phrasing the question wrong"
>spends 600 hours researching all aspects of this question he got wrong.
>TV show tells him to fuck off
Holy shit, that guy should have fucking killed himself in high school. What an absolute waste of potential.
>>7740442
IQ tests are not reliable in measuring intelligence, currently only neckbeards on reddit and 4chan care about IQ and claim to be misunderstood geniuses and underachivers
>man Im so smart but also lazy and unmotivated
People in here will praise anything that confirms their narcissistic delusions
>>7740452
>IQ tests are not reliable in measuring intelligence
egalitarian feeling has clouded your judgement
>>7740464
It's not my judgement, it's a fact mate.
Sadly you can't really discuss the legitimacy of IQ testing on 4chan, the only thing people here say is 'lmao u dumb low IQ fggt'.
>>7740442
>>Spends his 20s trying to get laid by constantly reentering high school
No his problems would've been solved if he went to a pro every so often and got laid.
>>7740478
cool can you post some sources to back up that fact
>>7740486
Awarding people money for doing well in IQ tests causes them to score better, a $10 incentive increased testers score by almost 20 IQ points.
Duckworth, A.L., Quinn, P.D., Lynam, D.R., Loeber, R. & Stouthamer-Loeber, M., 2011. Role of test motivation in intelligence testing. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108, 7716 –7720.
>>7740496
but the vast majority of IQ testing isn't done with incentives
it would be interesting to see if the incentive changed the standard deviation difference in the test takers
>>7740229
IQ is an extremely broad measurement of the overall cognitive capability of a person. Someone could have an IQ of 180 but be completely shit at writing - especially as people with high IQs tend to be extremely specialised and extremely inclined in one field, which compromises others. I know some mathematical geniuses and engineering geniuses who can't construct a coherent sentence,
Find an 'aptitude test' to take that breaks in your raw cognitive abilities, and if you score a high percentile in the literary provision in comparison with the others, then yeah
>>7740229
My IQ is safely above 150, but I don't feel this way at all. Guess it sucks to be you.
>>7740452
They measure intelligence as defined by the test-makers just fine, i.e. they do their job, but there are many many other factors involved in success, like extroversion, emotional resilience and environmental factors.
One can easily have an exceptional capacity to manipulate objects, numbers and languages and still be a foolish pussy. Being clever but lazy is definitely a thing, but it's nothing to brag about. Just as shameful as being dumb and lazy.
>>7740496
Not sure how you think it makes the test meaningless, since the tests require quite a bit of concentration and mental exertion. That's a pretty predictable result that has little to do with the purpose of the tests, which is to compare people who were tested under similar conditions.
>>7740229
My IQ is literally ten trillion and I still shitpost on lit
>>7740587
IQ tests only measure how good are you at IQ tests, you can even get better at them if you practice !
where do i take iq test?
>>7741924
>>Nobody is going to be able to devise a test that can be taken in only a few hours and that is abstract and simple enough that it isn't impacted by cultural factors, that people won't be able to improve with practice
That's why IQ tests are not reliable.
>>7741928
nvm got a 118
>>7741994
>can get better with practice
>score better if have a monetary incentive
>reliable
Lmao
>>7740375
>They really, really don't
You don't know what you're talking about. Psychometrics is the study of psychological measurement and historically has relied heavily on IQ tests, especially since it was the desire to test intelligence that created the modern field of psychometrics in the first place. The first psychometric instruments were intelligence tests.
>>7740377
>yes, but your local alchemist will tell you it's saturn and give you a shiny pendant and purgative.
"The American Psychological Association (APA) tried to set the record straight in 1996 with a report written by a committee of experts. Among the specific conclusions drawn by the APA were that IQ tests reliably measure a real human trait, that ethnic differences in average IQ exist, that good tests of IQ are not culturally biased against minority groups, and that IQ is a product of both genetic inheritance and early childhood environment. Another report signed by 52 experts, entitled 'Mainstream Science on Intelligence,' stated similar facts and was printed in the Wall Street Journal."
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/08/opinion-jason-richwine-095353?o=1
http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/reprints/1994WSJmainstream.pdf
>>7740393
>You're objectively incorrect in claiming that IQ isn't used to measure severity of mental retardation.
That was never my claim and I no way made any statement in support of that argument. I stated that IQ tests were not designed to test for mental retardation, which is true. There has been an interest in creating objective intelligence tests since the 19th century, and not simply to identify the retarded (which they are regularly used to do), but for the measurement of intelligence. How others use IQ results is not the purpose of intelligence testing, which is to determine everybody's intellectual capacity, smart, average, and retarded.
>>7740229
Please, write science education books, for those lessers who struggle to grasp and use the knowledge. Most of science, IE physics, chemistry, computer science, lacks visuals or examples that are more common and intuitive.
Big problem is that the science, where it´s at the frontier, is trully complicated in a sense that it´s unintuitive.
All in all > help science become more intuitive, more common knowledge > not so lonely
>>7740229
Let me guess, you were just pretending to be retarded?
> IQ talk
>>>/sci/
>>7742076
>APA study
oh, anon, you eat such bullshit. :3
>>7742076
>People who are employed measuring IQ say IQ is relevant
neat
>>7740229
gr8 b8 m8
>>7740229
maybe you should write harry potter fanfiction
>>7742139
If you replace IQ with Jesus, you can sell just as well in the bible belt. I'll take ten percent consultancy fee on the region, and you're not going to get a better deal than that.
>>7742159
I'm just trying to get you a book deal, buddy. If you're going to be acrimonious about it, I'll take 20% and the movie rights.
>>7742159
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0896627312005843
hurr durr wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_multiple_intelligences
read the fucking links
Literally no scientist other than psychometrists give a shit about IQ tests or lend them credibility.
>>7742217
You're just proving his point
>>7742224
It doesn't matter what his point is, I know a good pitch when I see one. We can handle the point in editing and probably sell it in multiple regions. It's bound to be a winner in the UK if we switch Jesus with Brexit. I'm already patenting this shit, you're just happy to know about my intellectual property. I expect a royalties check.
>>7742150
>>7742139
> There is nothing more to be said. clearly the belief in Jesus is itself an Jesus test.
checks out
>>7742279
if we cut it down to
>is itself a test
it's snappier and could really work well with locking in the rest of the series that first time purchaser. I'm seeing board games. Your post is legally plagiarism and I'll be suing you for wire fraud.
>>7740320
>joking casually back and forth
>falling for bait
>>7742362
>come on man, grow up
>says the guy who knows nothing about publishing on a lit board
>while defending an industry with a more casual attitude to data torture than a pop-sci imprint can afford these days
don't try to be evil and dumb at the same time, anon. it ends badly. you can be sued for the advance and more.
>>7740442
>gets a tough question
i knew it was quito from those options
>all the salty low IQ people ITT
IQ has been proven several times to have a strong correlation with academic performance, income, crime, and others.
>has an IQ of 155
>thought this thread was funny and worthwhile
top kek
>>7743059
people with an iq barely above average usually make the best comedians
>>7742084
Now you're just lying. You clearly said that I was wrong when I stated that IQ tests were used to detect severity. Look, I'll quote it for you.
>IQ is a tool designed for detecting the severity of patients with mental retardation
>(not true, by the way)
IQ tests were never designed so that people on online forums could jerk off over their useless result.
>>7742362
I'd like to add that you have no sources to any of your claims, and that literally the only test that I've ever heard about that measured level of success of people with high IQ's, is generally considered invalid because the person in charge of the research got involved with the people's lives, getting them into high level univerisities, and only picked people from a relatively small group of already successful children with strong family backgrounds, which means the population chosen was already biased.
Hell, the few studies done of average IQ's of people at educational levels mean very little. The average IQ of a PhD holder is around 120, which means that it's absolutely achievable for someone sitting at 100 to get one, just as much as it is that there would be people with IQ's of 140 holding them.
Most of what you're arguing is based off biased sources, or misinterpretation of information provided from more reputable ones. Don't act like everyone else is stupid for doing the same shit you are, it just makes you look pretentious and even worse.
IQ has not in any way been able to be used as a measure of an individuals success in life on its own. In combination with other traits, it has been, but those traits alone also show evidence of causing a much higher level of job and education performance.
This is just pseudoscience at best now.
>>7743450
>I thought you said I hadn't shown any sources?
True, bad wording on my part. You hadn't shown any direct citations, but the sources were generally not the best, or interpreted wrong.
>http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289616300411
Ain't gonna buy the article, but the abstract alone doesn't actually tell us enough. I agree that when you get to below average levels issues start presenting themselves, which it seems to support, but that's not proof of IQ being a cause of success.
>why do you think it is that an intellectually demanding role happens to test in the top 10% of the population?
This is where you're making a mistake though. An average doesn't mean that everyone is at that or above. It means that it generally sits somewhere in the middle of the scores provided. There would have to be plenty of people scoring below 120 or so for the average to be at that point, otherwise it would be far higher. So if we assume that that score of 120 sits directly in the middle, that would mean there are just as many people scoring below that, nearing the average level, as there are people who're far above it, reaching scores of 140+.
This seems to suggest that IQ alone isn't in any way an indicator of how successful a person will be, as evidently there are people who aren't particularly gifted according to the general scale used, that are still able to reach the absolute highest level of education available.
>
I don't even know what your objections are at this point? Are IQ tests biased? Do they not correlate with real world success? Is intelligence not a real concept, or do IQ tests not measure it?! What is it?!
It's a combination of these. I object entirely to the idea of an IQ test being able to in any way measure how successful an individual is. Hell, it doesn't even measure how smart you are. You can score 140 and still be a fucking idiot if you make absolutely no attempt to learn anything or further yourself. You can also be incredibly intelligent with an average IQ, if you make every attempt to consistently learn more and achieve in everything you apply yourself to.
The issue of intelligence being limited to simply your ability to solve a few puzzles is ridiculous in its own right though. It's also why IQ tests are only really useful for finding how mentally disabled a person is. At those far below average levels, yes, whether or not you can do basic puzzles will have a large impact on your ability to operate independently. However, when you get to average (around 100), and everyone can solve every puzzle there, it's simply a matter of how quick can you get things. Which means nothing in reality, as being able to learn something 3 seconds quicker than someone else won't give you any real ability in an academic field, as a person below you with a slightly better work ethic will easily overtake you.
I realise that last paragraph was kind of shit, but I think you get what I mean. I'll clarify if you don't.
>>7740229
I'm impressed that you were impressed enough with yourself to post this thread twice.
>>7740229
you should use it to read Gene Wolfe.
The frequency of which people argue about IQ on here is amazing.
Any other 80 IQ bros here?
>>7743563
The arguments last as long as they do because nobody uses sufficiently clear language to say what they mean without confusion.
Like arguing about whether "IQ matters" or not is never going to resolve, because that's not a real question. You could argue about how heritable it is, or how much it helps, or whether it's a measurable single thing or just an index, but to say that nobody who's bad at taking IQ tests ever succeeds or that being good at IQ tests tells us absolutely nothing about someone's brain is just absurd.
>>7743556
>1)
>B)
Why?
>>7743556
>IQ being correlated with success indicates that it (provided we assume it measures g and g matters - which we both do for this argument) is a contributory factor in success.
This does appear to be true, and I'm not denying that IQ doesn't appear to have some correlation. I'm arguing that we can't draw a direct link between IQ and success, and as such, having a high IQ is nothing to boast about. It doesn't make you smarter.
It's like saying that because your dad was ripped with great insertions, and you have the genetics to also look great, that therefore you look better than everyone else even while still being 200lbs overweight.
>being hard-working is correlated with success, but not 100% clearly. Does this mean that being hard working has no casual role in determining success
Not a fair point to make. Those that work harder are nearly always (there are exceptions, obviously) will always perform better than those that refuse to work. A person with a high IQ won't necessarily score better on any sort of test simply because of their IQ, nor will they do better in a workplace.
>1) IQ is not a perfect measure
I agree.
>2) the puzzles tested by IQ seem to map onto exactly the kind of thinking that is needed for real world intellectual performance
Okay, this is only partially true. The puzzles tested by IQ only map exactly onto the sort of thinking needed to be able to function day to day. They aren't really designed to do anything more than this. Once you get past the point where you can do all of it without much difficulty, you're perfectly able to function in the world, and in any field. Have you ever heard the saying "there's smart doctors and dumb doctors, but there aren't any lazy ones"? That's pretty much what I'm saying. Assuming you have a decent baseline where you're able to actually understand what's even happening (eg, you aren't disabled or ill), your work ethic is far more important than your IQ in any sort of performance except for IQ testing.
>Holding and comparing many things in your memory at once
Easily able to be trained, and entirely able to be almost entirely circumvented via writing shit down.
>Long term memory ability
Not really tested in IQ testing, they only go for a relatively short period of time. The most memory related stuff you'll do is going to be remembering stuff from a minute or two ago.
>Raw speed
True. But raw speed means fuck all if you don't actually know what you're remembering. This comes much more from study and consistently reminding yourself of important facts than an inherent ability.
>Ability to abstract and see logical patterns
I do agree with this one, it's the only one of your points that's difficult to train. But that being said, the IQ tests above that average level rely much more on how quickly you can see them, not if you can or not. You can simply take a while longer trying to see the patterns and perform just as well.
>>7743617
>it doesn't make you smarter
That depends on how you define "smart" you oblivious 'tard.
You and the guy you're arguing with are both idiots.
>>7743573
What does IQ have to do with leftism?
>>7743627
Maybe if you're read my posts, you'd see that I clearly define smart as actually having more knowledge, not being able to point out differences in a couple of pictures pretty quickly, or solve a maze.
>You and the guy you're arguing with are both idiots.
Maybe, but at least we've actually managed to have a discussion without just resorting to shitflinging like every other discussion on this site.
>>7743647
Yeah, you made a fairly arbitrary value judgement for one type of mental ability over another. I see that.
If you had to choose a surgeon to work on you and were presented with two world-class surgeons, one of whom you saw dominate the other at maze-solving, would you not pick the one who's good at mazes just to be safe?
>>7743656
No, I probably wouldn't, because ability to solve mazes doesn't relate to surgical ability at all.
>>7743676
So, all other things being equal, you'd flip a coin. Really dug in your heels on this one, huh?
>>7743694
You're definitely the lesser fool. Your crime is continuing to argue with someone who obviously thinks it's about winning and losing.
IQ tests can give a snapshot of how well someone can navigate novel problems, assuming that they have the prerequisite knowledge. Some problems, even when you have all the prerequisite knowledge, become so sophisticated that the factors IQ tests for become very important in whether or not you can solve the problem.
The LSAT is the most prominent example of IQ testing (the LSAT doesn't tell you your IQ explicitly, but it uses very related problems) in American society right now. What that test wants to find out, is how likely you are to pass the bar exam upon graduating law school. Turns out that there's a very clear cutoff for where someone is unacceptably likely to fail the bar exam, which is based on the kinds of problems real-world lawyers will have to solve. Best we can tell, this cutoff appears to catch people with an IQ somewhere between 115 and 120, meaning that there are very few lawyers with IQs in the first standard deviation.
Now, you can ace the LSAT, go to law school, not study enough, and fail the bar exam. It's just that if you don't hit the cutoff score on the LSAT, you appear to be at high risk of failing the bar exam whether you study a lot or not.
>>7743518
>This is where you're making a mistake though. An average doesn't mean that everyone is at that or above. It means that it generally sits somewhere in the middle of the scores provided. There would have to be plenty of people scoring below 120 or so for the average to be at that point, otherwise it would be far higher. So if we assume that that score of 120 sits directly in the middle, that would mean there are just as many people scoring below that, nearing the average level, as there are people who're far above it, reaching scores of 140+.
The thing is, the variance in that average might be very small or the distribution might be skewed; I'd imagine there would be a large positive skew on that distribution.
>>7743684
>But we've done studies on this, and they show that IQ correlates MORE with performance than hard-work does!
Except you haven't sourced this study, just claimed it exists. And the idea that someone who scores 150 on an IQ test but doesn't study much at all will score better than someone that scores 110 and studies consistently is just ridiculous.
>Tasks's dont just suddenly cut out in complexity, they scale fairly evenly. Remembering a pin code is as difficult to a retard as learning physics is to myself.
We're disregarding actually mentally retarded individuals here, they're obviously an extreme.
And are you claiming that your apparent high IQ allowed you to instantly jump into solving physics problems no issue at all? That you didn't have to work your way up through the fundamentals before that point? Because anyone who's consistently made an effort to learn the more simple aspects of that scientific field would be able to learn those same physics concepts.
>suppose you only had two items at a time available in your memory, but had to analyse a piece with say, fifty different items. you'd have to do it bit by bit, it seems like the sort of thing that'd be exponentially slower.
Sure, but no-one can analyse 50 things at once,lets be honest here. It's the difference between like 2 things at once and 4 things at once in the real world, and that's all that's really ever even tested for.
>This isn't true, most of these questions are untimed.
Nearly every question is timed in a legitimate IQ test performed by a professional. Some of them aren't, but generally it's not about how complex shit is, it's your ability to get those things quickly. This is because the tests don't get harder as you get older, they just scale differently. A 20 year old is doing the same questions as a 16 year old, they're just expected to do them quicker.
>Some problems, even when you have all the prerequisite knowledge, become so sophisticated that the factors IQ tests for become very important in whether or not you can solve the problem.
I agree with this. The absolute top level stuff can be related to IQ, but none of us are really ever going to be doing those. I object to the usage of IQ as people claiming they're smarter for having a high IQ. At best, IQ represents your absolute top level if you dedicate your entire life to a field. But that isn't really useful seeing as no-one really ever dedicates their entire lives to a field. We can always achieve more if we're more dedicated and consistent in our attempt to learn stuff.
>The LSAT is the most prominent example of IQ testing (the LSAT doesn't tell you your IQ explicitly, but it uses very related problems) in American society right now
American society is the only one I know of that uses IQ testing in it's education system anyway. Here in Aus, your ability to get into a topic is entirely determined by your results, and your extra-curricular activity.
>>7743726
Sorry, forgot to quote you in >>7743778
Last two points were yours.
>>7743727
This is true, I agree that there may be a small variation, and that's likely the case, but it still stands to reason that there's a variation of some kind. There's going to be people that are only slightly above average according to an IQ test.
>this thread has 80 replies
>>7743778
>Australia
It all makes sense now.
But seriously, the LSAT correlates EXTREMELY well to bar passage rates, so there's pretty much no case for dropping it. Grades and extracurriculars can vary for so many different reasons, but somehow this one test, year after year, tells us years in advance who's got what it takes to get a license to practice law.
>>7743816
>But seriously, the LSAT correlates EXTREMELY well to bar passage rates
I've read that the correlation is more modest, with GPA being a stronger predictor.
The BAR exam is abstruse enough to not as well generalize as a measure of general intellect or broad skill domains
>>7743865
No, I believe that IQ is mainly useful as an indicator for measuring how functional individuals with mental disability can be, and that it loses that purpose at higher levels.
>Don't we typically see intelligence as meaning the ability to solve problems
Sure, but not the sort of puzzles present in an IQ test. No-one thinks you're a genius because you can solve a maze.
Intelligence is far more reliant on knowledge in my opinion, as without knowledge, we can't solve any puzzles more complex than just basic brainteasers.
I'm claiming that intelligence on its own is a fucking useless label. How can someone be intelligent but have next to no knowledge about anything? Someone who's apparently less intelligent could be far more able to solve complex puzzles due to them having more knowledge, which would just end up making them the more intelligent individual. It makes no sense, and it turns into a circular argument very quickly.
>Again, I don't exactly know what your objections are?
My objection is to the separation of actually knowing shit, and being intelligent. That having a high IQ on its own should not be enough to be considered intelligent, as with no knowledge of anything, you're just an idiot who's good at taking IQ tests.
There's far more to being a smart individual than your ability to do a very specific test, which invalidates that particular test as a method of measuring the actual intelligence of someone, instead of purely their functioning.
>>7743803
I thought that when it had 30. For shame, /lit/.
IQ is a sufficient measurement of logical intelligence to an extent, however, extenuating circumstances can effect how you score (depression which effecting neurological functioning, test anxiety, insomnia, hadn't eaten that day, ADD/ADHD, etc). IQ tests should be done in a pristine psychological state-- if this isn't addressed, the person will have inaccurate results. However it is important to note as well that IQ tests only measure intelligence that is considering useful in academic and other capacities affecting functionality in some industrially meaningful way, as it does correlate heavily with success in functional mediums. IQ tests don't account for artistic talents and divergent thinking, as it's standardized.
Someone can think of a few methods in which to find the patterns, and therefore will be able to find a few answers to the question, but unless they're aware of the fact only one pattern is being tested they're in serious danger of 'failing' the test, despite their capacity to see connections in a formulaic method.
>>7743914
which effects*
>>7743903
This anon has it. IQ was originally made to detect intellectual disability and their functionality in order to designate special services. It still is quite useful in detecting intellectual disability, however once you climb above intellectual disability, which can be detected through other diagnostic methods, IQ is kind of arbitrary. Intelligence is really about being able to grasp nuanced and fluid information in high capacity in one or more subjects. IQ isn't the end-all-be-all of this.
How worthless are online IQ tests?
>>7740320
/mu/ does
>>7743991
Really worthless. IQ tests are actually extremely intensive and they do everything to make sure they determine results relative to your surrounding population. They'll even have you retake it if they feel your scores do not match everything they know about you. Online IQ tests aren't at all made to fit in this way. They're all bullshit.
>>7743617
i looked up that parable of the talent thing
>only 1 in 100000 people is capable of being a theoretical physicist
My iq is only 145, which means apparently I'm just not smart enough to do what I want with my life. Should I just end it now?
>>7744031
No. Work hard towards what you want to achieve, really dedicate yourself towards achieving it, and you'll get there anon. Just remember that everyone fucks up, and you need to learn from your fuckups, so you won't make the same mistakes next time. We're all gonna make it.
>>7744068
were not all gonna make it into a phd physics program at MIT, some people just arent smart enough. Mr. 145 might be able to make it if he works hard, but he'll still be a complete brainlet compared to most other theoretical physicists.
>>7744102
So don't go into the fucking MIT program then, or have stuff that makes you stand out compared to the rest of the candidates for the program.
Plus, it's not like the PhD program is going to test his IQ, they're going to look at his academic and extracurricular history, which can absolutely be good enough to get into that program if he's willing to dedicate himself to it.
You do realise that even if we considered IQ testing to be worth shit, 145 is pretty much as far up as most tests go though? They don't really scale up much further than that.
>>7744106
I don't think I want to know any more about my iq than I already do, it seems like a spook desu. You're right in that if I want it all I can do is work at it, so i thats what I'm doing.
wallaceposters cant have high iqs btw, that would mean someone was able to discern some talent.
>>7744119
I used MIT as an example of high achievement. the actual school isn't important, my point is that unless you are a genius than you will be a mediocre theoretical physicist.
>>7744127
Except it's literally not. It's absolutely able to be studied for, and if you fuck up, you can just take it again and send through the better score.
No IQ test would include shit like algebra or geometry, because it's entirely possible that someone may not know of those concepts, and therefore would be unable to be tested with them, meaning you'd get a skewed result.
>>7744145
Sure, but define genius. Is genius purely defined by having an incredible knowledge of the field? Because that's definitely achievable through intensive study.
ITT delusional retards defending unreliable IQ tests
I can understand you retards need to defend the only thing that perpetuates your 'I'm so superior' mentallity but c'mon
>>7744151
genius is accomplishing things on the same level as Feynman, or Einstan, or Neumann. There are plenty of hardworking physicists who never come close to that level.
>>7744156
>le high-quality thread contribution
>>7744173
>genius is accomplishing things on the same level as Feynman, or Einstan, or Neumann. There are plenty of hardworking physicists who never come close to that level.
Okay, I can agree with that definition. But in that case, the guy doesn't need to be anywhere near a genius to get into a PhD program, even at somewhere like MIT.
A lot of genius is just luck as well, stumbling across something that's absolutely groundbreaking for the field. You can be as talented as Einstein and just think of it the wrong way for your whole life.
>>7744185
sure there's an element of luck to it, but these guys were obviously for their entire lives.
Maybe its just me being autistic, but dedicating your life to something that you will never be REALLY good at seems kind of sad.
>>7744219
obviously brilliant*
>>7744236
>eventually you'll become so used to mediocrity that it stops feeling bad
I mean, you're right, but it still feels bad.
>>7744232
It's not a supposition though, that's a logical assumption. You can absolutely be extremely talented and just go down the wrong path of research, and never change the field in the way someone like Newton did. That's not something that a study can prove or disprove, it simply is.
>Every IQ post tries to back up it's claims with some kind of evidence in the form of studies
Blatantly untrue. They've just alluded to studies that have been done, without actually posting them, or made claims which have been already proven wrong in the thread.
And the only claims I've made that have been unsupported have been pointing out flaws in the few studies listed, or how linking a study that's behind an almost $40 paywall with an abstract that is way too vague to draw conclusions from isn't really enough for evidence.
>or at least clear reasons given accepted empirical/psychological facts and processes
As have I. Or are you denying that the psychological community wouldn't take IQ tests on their own as being of little use for anything but diagnosis of mental retardation, and ruling out disability? Because that's really all they're ever used for in a clinical setting.
You can have one done by request, but that's not a clinical setting, that's barely any more than a recreational usage.
Quit just claiming shit and then shitting on me for doing the same. You've also failed to address any of my major points, which I listed here.
>>7743903
Acting like you're arguing on a higher level than me when you're really not is just silly at this point.
>>7744261
>white woman in the front
Jesus christ.
I have a 164 iq and I'm so smart that I never feel anything as trivial as "loneliness"
Not about books or a text. Can the mods just delete these on sight.
>>7740229
My IQ's 180 and you're just being an emo
>>7740482
His problems would have been solved if women valued traits in men that are actually valuable.
>>7745139
>actually valuable.
Maybe if he turned his autism towards making some bank he would be more effective at signalling his offspring providing potentiality.
>>7745139
>His problems would have been solved if women valued traits in men that are actually valuable.
define 'valuable'.
>>7740587
>>7741912
IQ test scores positively correlate with education level, academic performance, working memory, income, job performance and some other metrics. Note that these are just parts of what is considered "succes".
Interestingly, IQ test scores negatively correlate with self reported happiness.
>>7745664
>IQ test scores positively correlate with education level, academic performance, working memory, income, job performance and some other metrics
I've read all the studies about it and most if not all of them are irrelevant since sample sized are way to small and/or have other studies with contradicting evidence.
Basically dick length tier study
My IQ is 185 (have been tested professionaly several times, I'm also a mensa member) I KNOW I could be changing the world right now but I'm so lazy, I just like to be on 4chan and youtube all day, I don't really have a job because smart people like me should invest their time in stupid shit like 'jobs'.
I'm so smart and also sad all day because people don't understand me, I can't get a gf but I'm pretty good looking it must be because I'm pretty shy too.
I know I'm a genius because I passed high school without even studying ! I dropped out of college because people there don't understand me.
>>7745680
My IQ is honestly 93. It may explain why my favorite author is <your favorite author>.
You can study for an IQ test.
There are multiple manners of intelligence and the IQ doesn't test for most of them.
Most Mensa members have accomplished fuck-all
Truly intelligent people spend their time accomplishing tasks rather than taking tests to see how smart they are
>>7747071
>intelligent people spend their time accomplishing tasks rather than taking tests to see how smart they are
It's not that uncommon to have your IQ estimated in school or if you saw a psychologist for any reason as a child.
>>7747071
ferrets are cute but why do you have to have a trip? God /lit/ tripfags really are the worst, kys desu
