How accurate is this?
>>580440
>le int masterclubmen
>/pol/ higher than /x/
i/q/ so high it ain't even there.
>/fit/ so high up
>/g/ that high
>>580452
>Can I train my penis for the same reason I train my muscles, to make it bigger?
>How big can I get from doing thousands of pushups a week?
>Why can't I find a girl who's into sex without being a total whoring nympho?
>Daily reminder that this is the ideal, /pol/-approved female body
>Is anyone else tired of being a NEET?
>>580440
I agree with /x/ being the lowest. It gets god awful how unbelievably stupid posters are on there.
>>580440
/g/ is full of fucking dumbasses tho.
Whoever made this infographic must have had a very low IQ indeed
It seems you forgot the board with the highest intelligence. Perhaps your test was not able to measure such high intelligence?
>>580552
/qa/ does not have the highest intelligence
Where's /po/ am I just retarded and overlooked it?
>>580440
it's bullshit
>>580599
You can't take the average of an empty sample
>>580440
>/r9k/ after /lit/
you're obviously from /x/ according to your chart.
>>580645
Where is r9k?
What the hell is Weishaupt's Plateau anyway?
>>580440
The only possible way is through self-reporting. I remember shitposting in a few threads over the years about IQ with really low or high values.
So really it doesn't even matter. It's simply not possible for the graphic to be accurate and that's all there is to it.
Furthermore, there are things that stand out on the chart too that should make you realize it's bullshit. For one would you really expect a discontinuity in IQ across 4chan boards (between gray and blue)? There's too much cross posting for that to make any sense, and not to mention the gray board scores actually put them on the borderline of being classified as mentally retarded _on average_ (meaning there would have to be quite a few users there that can't tie their shoes). All memeing aside I highly doubt any board on 4chan is dominated by potatoes.
Then there's the fact that the image maker called the ones at the top "outliers" which makes no sense. He probably thought that because they were too high to be believed they should be outliers but that's not how it works. They fall in place on a smooth increasing IQ trend. The real outliers are the gray boards.
So the real question is, was this chart 100% pulled out of someones ass or was it based on actual self-reported shitposting data?
Either way it's more or less meaningless.
/sci/ wishes their iq was that high lamo
>/tv/ this high
inaccurate
>>580665
nobody cares you autist
>/jp/ and /co/ lower than /pol/
I always love these board IQ bait images. Wanted to make my own as well.
>>580440
I wouldn't call any board in here "smart"
Some of them like /b/, /v/ and /x/ are obviously at the bottom, the rest are more or less equal though. It's obvious that a butthurt /lit/fag made this
