post you're IQ in this thread
mine's around 135+
Last test I took said 112.
Me not very intelligence.
The probability is 75%. My IQ is 160.
>>27658441
When we took an IQ test in middle school I was pretty amazed to score almost a perfect 100. I never thought of myself as a genius, but after that test, a lot of things seemed to make more sense, like how I had a hard time relating to normal minds, and how I would get bored easily. In some ways, I think I would have been happier never knowing, and being able to live around normal people. But some things can't be undone.
>>27658441
Took a real IQ test about a year ago and it said I have an IQ of 132.
>>27658478
>160 IQ
>can't figure out simple question
...But it is 50%.
>post you're IQ in this thread
>you're
>>27658441
Picked this baby up for $13,500
If you don't have an iq in the quadruple digits you need to get off this board now
Online IQ tests posted on here have me in the 155-160 range. Took a real one as part of a psych evaluation and got 132. Take that u dweebs
>>27659199
lmfao
copying and pasting from the other thread:
You'll be inclined to look at it intuitively and say "oh, you can only have chosen one of two boxes if the first ball is gold, thus the probability of the second ball being gold is 50%, since one of the two boxes has another gold ball."
The problem is the same as the one here; each box containing at least one gold ball is not equally likely to be chosen. If you choose a box at random and see that one of the balls is gold, you're more likely to have chosen the box with two gold balls than the one with a single gold ball.
Consider the six possibilities that can play out after you've randomly selected the box and looked at a single random ball:
1. Pick box 1, see the first (gold) ball
2. Pick box 1, see the second (gold) ball
3. Pick box 2, see the first (gold) ball
4. Pick box 2, see the second (silver) ball
5. Pick box 3, see the first (silver) ball
6. Pick box 3, see the second (silver) ball
We only care about situations where the first ball is gold, so we eliminate possibilities 4, 5, and 6. Now we see that there are two possibilities where we selected the first box and saw a gold ball, and only one possibility where we selected the second box and saw a gold ball. Thus, since we are more likely to have selected the box with two gold balls, the probability that the second ball is gold is greater than 1/2. It's actually 2/3.
let me explain to you why it isn't 50%
Ok, so you have these three boxes:
[g1,g2] [g3,s1],[s2,s3]
Here are the situations where you pick a gold ball first:
you picked:
g1, meaning you'll pick g2 next
g2, meaning you'll pick g1 next
g3, meaning you'll pick s1 next
In two of three cases you're picking gold next. It seems counter intuitive but it's true.
>>27658441
Wait so this is 50% right? It's guaranteed it's etiher Box 1 or Box 2 based on the question so that leaves a 50/50
>>27659199
wrong-o dumbdumb
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertrand%27s_box_paradox
>>27659201
post you're waifu
solving problem
1. as per assumption, we have a box with at least one gold ball in it, thus the one with no gold balls is out (silver only)
2. the ones left are gold;gold and gold;silver - that means I have a 50% chance of grabbing another gold ball.
good bait
>>27659355
look up bertrand's paradox senpai
>>27659355
here
>>27659335
>>27659349
I see my mistake, didn't account for 3 possiblities where you pick a gold ball first, thanks
IQ is 162. Am 34 yo NEET. No qt gf.
>>27659302
Sounds about the same as myself. Scored about 145 online. But the apparent "real" test I took in elementary school in the TAG program put me at 138.
148 mensa babby (but I took the test when I was 14 so it's probably not true)
answer is 2/3
>>27659355
This is what catches most people, and its a reasonable misinterpretation of the question.
The set up is really that you picked a ball at random, and it happened to be gold. That should make it clear to see why its likelier you'll pick gold next.
i could be iq 80 just as possibly as iq 140
iq is a meme and it has no power over me
>>27659384
The other posts helped me realise, thanks man, that's pretty cool, it reminds me of the Monty Hall problem
>>27659407
The online tests focus like 90% on pure pattern recognition. I can do that very well, but the test I took IRL involved auditory working memory and concentration tests which I failed horribly. I got the highest score the testing lady had ever seen in the "random bits of trivia" section of it though. I am quite proud of that.
>>27658441
>you're IQ
>135
I'm 215
>>27658441
>>27658478
t. people whose self-esteem is based on internet IQ tests
>>27659415
Aye, I failed to account for there being 3 possiblities where you pick a gold ball first rather than it being based on the 2 boxes. Thank you (and the others too) for the clarification
>>27659381
actually, wait, no. This is one of those things where the wording is really important and I fucked up on that
gold(a);gold(b)
gold(c);silver(a)
you have to be a pedantic asswipe and realize that you can pick gold(a) from box 1 or gold(b), which are two different possibilities in addition to the gold(c), meaning you have a 2 out of 3 probability of getting the coin
even though in reality once you have a box with at least one gold coin in it, it's 50% whether it's the box with two or one
fucking wording ass non sense
If you choose a gold ball out of one of the boxes, that eliminates the 2 silver ball box, leaving 2 gold, 1 gold 1 silver box. Say if you don't put the ball back in, you'll have a 50% chance of grabbing a gold ball since one will be silver one will be gold. My IQ is like 90
>>27659442
(I made a post but it seems to have disappeared)
do you know if the parts of the test you did poorly on have a high g loading? from some amateur knowledge of psychometrics, pattern tests like raven's matrices are preferred because of their higher correlation with other intelligence proxies
My IQ is 240. Dont believe these internet tests they are useless and let a professional measure it out.
Jk. I have no fucking idea what my IQ is and I dont care at all. Stop basing your self-esteem on meaningless internet pattern-recognition-tests and do somethin meaningful.
Seriously you are proud of something you were born with because you have nothing else to be proud of. Youre like the 21sth century version of racists: A bunch of pathetic faggots who search excuses for their own misery instead of facing the reality. Namely that you guys are, as previously mentioned, a bunch of narcisstic, pathetic and lazy faggots.
My IQ is 90. I know I'm dumb. At least I don't have to lie about it on the internet to anonymous people in order to make myself feel better.
>>27659578
>My IQ is like 90
you didnt really need to clarify that
>>27659578
see my posts for a clarification of the initial problem and an explanation of the result.
>>27659415
>>27659349
>>27659687
The racists are mad about their own failings meme is stupid.
>>27659760
That's good. You're a self-aware person, Anon.FUCKING NORMIE GET OUT REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
80
For the love of god kill me
made a sim which might help people understand:
https://jsfiddle.net/ag7x0ycc/3/
Click run to run simulation again, but it runs on pagelaod
>>27658544
>Perfect 100
You know what IQ is, right my friend?
>>27661025
You know what bait is, right my friend?
I don't know my iq desu mi familia
>>27658441
137, i took it after being told to by neurologist
>>27658459
You are still above average
>>27658441
>implying IQ matters
So many geniuses here, i wish i was born as intelligent as some of you guys, you literally have a higher probability of being academically and financially successful.
>>27661421
I can link you papers that show the relationship between iq and academic success, and other things it has a strong correlation with. Studies on twins separated at birth may interest you.
my performal iq is 100 my verbal iq is 130
Had to get my IQ tested multiple times.
IQ is 139. On internet tests I score way higher but these kind of tests are pure bullshit anyway.
And if you get any self esteem out of your IQ kill yourself.
Your IQ matters but it doesn't make you any better than the rest.
Where the fuck do I get an IQ test? Preferably without paying for it. Is Mensa the only legit place?
134, on the Catell B scale or some shit. Used to be a shitty angsty edgy teen that was upset I wasn't smart enough for MENSA but I'm alright now. Still in the 99th percentile which is pretty sweet
Do you keep the gold ball or do you put it back?
>>27661655
My school ran them out for the "gifted and talented" program they had, free of charge. If you go on the MENSA website there are links to arrange a representative to come out and test you, for a fee.
>>27661691
That's pretty interesting, you keep the ball out but your way works out with the same odds I think
>>27661629
This is equivalent to saying chad isn't better because of his superior genetics, he is, and so are individuals with high IQ to low IQ individuals, it's possible for a short guy to get good enough at basketball to play with tall players, but we shouldn't lie to ourselves and say tallness isn't an advantage and therefore superior to shortness in a game like basketball and IQ in a game of life.
>>27661741
It doesn't specify so therefore it is either a trick question or unsolvable
>>27658441
Anyone from the UK know if a CAT score is the same as IQ? I got 123 on one back in year 7 (ages 11-12 if you're unfamiliar)
>>27661800
Using better to mean a higher level of fitness fyi.
>>27661804
What? Yes it is, you just assume one way or the other, the wrong interpretation doesn't invalidate the correct one
>>27661826
Yeah, it's the same. Mine was in the UK too and they use something called the catell scale or something like that, called shorthand CAT. It's normalised to 100 so the results are the same
>>27661719
>for a fee
Nope.
What about campus doctors? Does NHS cover this shit for immigrants like me?
150, it's was like 8 years ago, don't know if this thing change over time.
>>27661800
I don't disagree on the analogy of basketball players but honestly far too many people that have a higher than average IQ think they are better than the rest of the world and that the world owes them. I simply don't like people that think they are better because of the pure luck of being born with a high IQ.
tl;dr I hate arrogant people
>>27658441
answer is 50% or 75% depends on if you put the first ball back or not
>>27661945
If I remember correctly it can change a bit but will generally decrease slowly as you get older.
>>27661945
They shouldn't, as they're nomalised to the average of your age population and that should stay constant, with maybe a bit of drift to account for different maturation rates
>>27661969
See this a lot on the internet it's ridiculous. Then they'll blame the fact that noone likes them on their intelligence or some shit
Maybe its best I don't know?
I've never been tested, but I'd be shocked if my IQ weren't 180+, or whatever the genius threshold is. I have intellect unmatched by the likes of most humans. If only I were given the opportunity to thrive I truly believe I could make the next great discovery or invention. I am a man who sees problems and the answers to them in abstract ways. I often find myself pondering equations in my head for fun. I sometimes wish I could be dull like most, but alas I've been cursed/blessed with an elite mind.
>>27658441
290. A facebook app told me so.
>>27662027
I've seen this a lot in real life because I had to go to special groups because "this kid is so talented we should put him in a group with other high IQ tards!" That's why I'm so butthurt with people claiming they have a high IQ like it would make them a better person. A high IQ can't change your shitty personality. And people on the internet will always claim they have no friends and no one gets them because muh IQ but in reality they are just shitty people that no one likes and I bet not even half of them actually have a high IQ.
>>27659168
well he can actually
I got 139 in one, then 106 in another, much longer one.
I'm feel I'd be smarter than almost any random joe out there, yet with nothing to show I'm supposed to be just another nerd with dellusions of grandeour.
>le smart but lazy m3m3 xD
>>27661804
The answer is either 2/3 if you keep the ball, or 3/4 if you put it back. Either way, if you think the answer is 50% you're a retard.
>>27662447
But it shouldn't be about number of balls, but situations?
You got 3 situations, eliminating the one with both silver you got 2 outcomes left if you cannot change boxes.
>brb killing myself because mentaly dysfunctional for not being able to solve internet puzzle
>>27662006
even from 12 to 20 years old?
>>27661909
Could you imagine paying to take a test only to discover you're intellectually on par with retards? I know i'm not a genius, so the only thing an IQ test can do for me is tell me how stupid i am.
