Is scoring high in all of those internet IQ test meaningless? Does everybody score high?
Yes.
For the low price of 19.99 I'll tell you why everybody wins online IQ tests.
If you can improve your IQ(and there are studies that have done this) in what sense is it a measurement of intelligence?
Or do IQ proponents say it can change?
>>7758309
>you can improve your bench press maximum weight by training
>therefore the weight you press is not a valid measure of your strength
Okay, retard. Got any more stupidities to amuse us?
>>7758326
Did you read my entire post? It isn't very long.
>>7758283
Everyone claims they score high.
If anything, it proves insecurity even in anonymous settings
>>7758351
Did you read it yourself? If you meant to post anything relevant or at least non-retarded, you unfortunately forgot to add it to the comment you submitted.
>>7758359
But does actually scoring high mean something?
Yes, it is useless. I scored 140+ on all the online tests I could get my hands on.
I completed the mensa online test, and I did extremely well. But, to join mensa I had to make another test which would end up costing me money. I decided not to do this.
Just recently I started to develop mental problems, and I went to a psychologist for an evaluation. I had to take an IQ test named WAIS-IV. This iq test is an official test, and mensa will accept you if you score high enough on this test.
The scale is a bit different from most of the iq tests out there, and 130+ is considered genius instead of 140+.
They test a whole range of mental cognition, such as pattern recognition, short term memory, verbal comprehension etcetera. So there are multiple iq scores given for different mental abilities.
I scored 97 on short-term memory, which is worse than 50% of the population. This was my lowest score. I scored 124 on verbal comprehension, which is within the gifted range.
With all the different scores combined, I score an average IQ of 114, which is considered high average. This ruthlessly knocked me off my 140+ iq high horse. I Am not as smart as I thought I was after all :P
It also made me realize that websites give you high iq scores, because they want to make money off of you. Boost your ego, and then ask for a payment.
And the psychologists I talked to said that IQ tests do not reflect your actual intelligence. It is more useful in the context of diagnosing, not to determine actual intelligence.
So don't get caught up in the IQ race. It's actually detrimental to your intelligence, because you become complacent when your score is high, instead of actually applying your intelligence to something productive.
>>7758467
The worst part is that high schoolers come on here and do these online tests and decide to not go into physics or mathematics because they didn't score 140
If you study for an IQ test, you will get a higher score. IQ isn't that reliable. People can become smart and become dumb. Unless you're literally a retard, you have no excuse.
>>7758473
Yeah, an IQ score does not reflect your intelligence and everything that is associated to intelligence in general such as success, scientific breakthroughs etcetera.
It is just a diagnostic tool, that scratches the surface of your mental abilities to get an indication of what might be going on inside your brain. People with autism for example, score very high on one particular cognitive ability, while the rest is very low. Even this is not always the case, and it only shows one piece of the puzzle. That's why psychologists never draw a conclusion solely on your IQ score. They take alot of other tests and talk with you personally to fill in the gaps of the big picture of what is causing you mental distress. Based on this combined information they make a plan and try to help you.
But, due to ignorance, our culture values people with high iq's simply because of the misconception that a person's intellectual capabilities can be measured by a few questions and translated into a number. This is just not true.
>>7758467
Which ones?
iqtest. dk is quite reliable.
Wais is quite debatable when it comes to iq.
Ravens is more widely used.
IQ tests are for scientific use, not for bragging opportunities for individuals.
>>7758848
So are height measurements, strength measurements, penis length measurements, numbers of sexual partners, ...
IQ doesn't mean a whole lot. People can vary with ton, if I remember correctly it's an average of around 20 points in difference variance between testing periods. That's for those who do vary, there are a significant amount of people who are extremely steady in their scores.
Intelligence is hard to quantify. Things like whether we should test for current knowledge, or if it would be more appropriate to test how quickly a person picks up new concepts. Even then, discovering/being taught a new strategy for memory/mental math etc could drastically change your score. The minds plasticity is well established, if you put the effort in its unlikely you'll be unable to eventually learn most things
>>7758867
>height measurements
Five foot seven manlet reporting in.
When will science find a cure for height deficiency?
>>7758678
>Wais is quite debatable when it comes to iq.
Pleb
>Ravens is more widely used.
KEK
>>7758283
>Online IQ tests
>IQ tests
>FUCKING IQ
You are already a dumbass if think IQ means something
>>7760200
low IQ tard detected
>>7760211
I got to /sci/ thinking I could join some smart threads, not arguing on how retarded is to measure something abstract and subjective like intelligence.
Not to mention "intelligence" is a buzz word anyway
>>7760227
Yeah dumbing down words for yourself will do the trick. I tried the same thing when I got F from all my exams and went to my teacher and said it was all arbitrary and not quantifiable. They all agreed with me and now I work at NASA.
>>7760236
Maybe you should read the rest of the thread too before replying
>>7760240
I'm not talking to the rest of the thread, I was talking to you when you directly adressed OP and not anyone in the thread.
Nice evasion though my low IQ friend
>>7760249
I am saying what it was already stated in a different way, so why are you replying to me? Can't handle being called a dumbass?
>>7760254
you have low IQ. why do you think your insults matter ?
>>7760259
You believe in IQ, do you think your posts matter?
>>7760269
You are the retard who thinks grades don't matter. Enjoy living in burgerflipping land
Just try your best at whatever endeavor. Strive to surpass your genetic limits (iq) never say you never tried.
>>7760286
Pulling words you wrote in my mouth now?
Guess that's how much I can expect for someone believing in IQ and using "low IQ" as an insult
>>7760293
Oh, I thought you didn't believe in arbitrary numbers that display your cognitive abilities and such.
You guys do know that IQs aren't static, right?
>>7760311
>>7760305
You know school grades aren't static as well right ? You know nobody gets the exact same score when they re-take the same test right ? Yet still it's used to determine if you're allowed to have further education and jobs and degree right ?
fucking retards. can't even form a consistent argument
>>7760314
Precisely what I said, PERFORMANCE.
You can do the same thing and perform really well the first time then fuck up the second time. And you really can't tell what affected your performance
Hence performance is not a static thing, it's like saying you get the same score in a vidya over and over again
>>7760334
It doesn't change the fact that it's an indicative of your cognitive skills. Sure you can get randomly lower marks but you can't get any higher than what your brain allows you
>>7760341
>but you can't get any higher than what your brain allow you
And I thought I was the one dumbing down things...
>>7760346
do you always evade the discussion like a boring twat or are you just incapable of making points and staying on the track ?
>>7760349
I did because you just proved my point anyway, as long there is a way to affect perfomance, you cannot determine a shit.
Sure, you can say "that guy looks good at math", but that's a skill only related to a subject, and intelligence ISN'T a subject
>>7760353
Do you go to runners and say they don't have any running skills or thigh muscles and they just happened to show a good performance by stripping everything related to what running is required ? Because you're trying too hard right now.
>>7760364
Nope, because that's a concrete and objective thing.
Intelligence/brain power is abstract and subjective, mind can be affected by too many attributes you cannot consider, unlike legs.
But hey, if you want to believe in IQ just because you probabily got a high number and this is good for your self-esteem, do it.
>>7760372
> believes running doesn't depend on your conditions and completely objective.
either trolling or extremely retarded.jpg
IQ is relevant when measured by a professional, not online. Online test just boost your IQ and your ego.
>>7760375
I was talking about muscles actually, my point is that legs and mind work in a totally different way
>>7760386
>IQ is relevant
For what?
>>7760390
Then how do you quantify running skills ?
>>7760399
What I want to quantify exactly? Speed? Resistance? There is no such thing as "running" skill
>>7760401
So that means whoever finishes first has nothing to do with his running skills...
>>7760405
First thing, you need to consider both "speed" and "resistance" attributes, because there is a good probabilty that the fastest one has less resistance and will lose to the other one because the distance is too long for him to mantain constant speed
So yeah, of course.
It's like saying I am more skilled than you at a vidya because I happened to beat you once in a map you are shit at or something like this
>>7760409
And now you are comparing IQ tests to vidya games. Not to mention IQ tests are not learned. All participants see questions that are completely new to them. Your example fails because you can actually play and learn the map and git gud at it.
>>7760412
They introduce a new map, you are a "pro" player and get defeated by a newbie in that map, my example stands
>>7760415
A pro would never lose to a newbie in a map that both are completely new to.
>>7760417
What if it happens? I heard stories of "pro" players losing to rookies, literally can happen to everyone. You will never know how you performance can be affected by new things
![Afgan_mp[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/WUluyVg.jpg "Afgan_mp[1].jpg")
>>7760421
Too bad that excuse don't count at MLG when little fagets get rekt to pieces. Nobody can bitch like "omg they knew the map better" or "they happened to put a better performance let me be the winner D':" No, what you give is what you are. If you are better, you should have made better. Otherwise you don't got any grounds to bitch about it.
>>7760431
Best player can lose to an average player for some reason, but let's not get too much in this example
My point is, IQ tests are unreliable "intelligence" tests because "intelligence" is not an actual skill. Cognitive skills can be affected by too many things, there are chances you will figure out something before everyone with an higher IQ and still score lower just because you were able to get that single thing "randomly". They only thing they are good at is boasting your ego
>>7760449
Everything can be effected by so many things. Thats a cheap copout for pretty much everything and don't hold much water. And your hypothetical "what if" examples are not even a counter-argument. You seem to be focusing on boosing EGO issue too much as if thats your real reason for trying to deny IQ. Even though the result of your math exams can boost your ego, so can your gaming kill/death ratio, so can your running skills
>>7760459
Actually I said "it's the only thing its good at", not "that's my reason to believe it's bullshit".
The reason I believe it's bullshit it's because you are trying to "measure" a skill that isn't an actual skill
And they are not even actual "what if" since there are cases of those happening
>>7760462
It is a skill if it defines how good you are at doing something, it's like the definition of it. And you don't believe anything can be measurable because it depends on lots of outside factors. Which is just a retarded standpoint m8
>>7760473
Intelligence is something you can't really define, nor you can measure
But you can see how much fast someone is running or how much said person can run at a certain speed before getting tired
>>7760486
Not at all. It depends entirely on their diet, their medical conditions, their mood, the moisture in the air, the suns angle, the season, the wind speed and all that. It's not measurable at all.
>>7760507
This means nothing is actually measurable then but everything is relative to the attributes in play
>>7760515
Well that an excuse that just won't stick when you score low on IQ tests or fail your math exams or suck at yor job interview or miss the bullseye at archery. You will be righteously ridiculed to death if you try to say something like "well I know I suck but there were lots of factors that played which means I'm actually very intelligent so give me my reward"
>>7758287
First reply is best reply.
If you're scoring sub 100 and stuff then its more meaningful than anything else.
If you honestly care that much, pay to take a real test
>>7760391
It lets you skip courses in school and lets you get special education, dont be jealous.
IQ is correlated with income, achievement, etc.
But for anything below gifted/genius level, will, hard work and liking what you do is the most important thing.
>>7758383
Fuck you dude. You know EXACTLY what I meant. There are multiple studies that show one can improve their IQ, something NO-BODY should doubt if they've passed third grade. IQ is effectively deceased.
>>7758309
you're obscuring your score by learning it before hand. it's designed to isolate learning ability by making you complete time problems of an unknown form to determine how you are able to process the information
>>7758283
I'm a high school drop out with a GED. All of the online tests I've taken show my IQ around 132. Maybe I am a fuckin' genius though. But I doubt it.
>>7759263
>it's called suicide
But for real though, don't kill yourself. It's just a joke.
>tfw high iq and low test
>>7758467
I had the same thing about 20 years ago... administered by a clinical psychologist average over all was 116. I
I was adopted as an infant and while in foster care an MD evaluated me. I obtained records from the agency .
There is an Infant IQ test and my score was 167.
His notes stated I would be in the "gifted and talented" classes when entering school however public schools where i ended up had done away with them by the time I entered..
I never got the attention at the earliest ages which would have benefited me .
boohoo huh? well anyway often native intelligence come in handy so I am still grateful.
are IQ tests taken at a really young age much less accurate then ones taken later?
