Hey, IQ fags, if pic related means I'm smart, why do I feel so dumb?
>>7996303
Because online IQ tests mean close to nothing. However you're probably not stupid. Dunning-Krueger effect and all.
>>7996303
Because if you genuinely took an online IQ test and think it means anything you really are dumb
>>7996309
>>7996312
I am aware that it's not a real IQ test as a real IQ test consists of several different types of tests, which aim to measure reasoning, spatial awareness, short term memory, etc. Your overall IQ score is determined by how well you did on all of the tests.
The test in the OP was designed by two mensa fags to specifically imitate the spatial reasoning tests that are present in a real IQ test. From what I've heard, it's pretty accurate in that regard.
>>7996318
Real IQ tests are pretty pointless too. Smart people always feel dumb, but dumb people often feel dumb too. Your fucked like the rest of us
IQ tests are worthless and they mean nothing.
And I'm not just saying this to compensate for my low IQ. trust me
>>7996357
This. You can argue many answers for the arbitrary patterns they assign to you and expect you to choose the one they think is right.
>>7996303
Because you're pathetic
IQ is just a very crude measure of one's potentials. In your case, procrastination may leads to underachieve leads to lack of self-confidence.
>>7996443
Also "online" iq test results are usually inflated so you may not be that smart
>>7996303
Who cares of your IQ. Get to work and learn new shit and you'll feel smart
>>7996445
that IQ test only measures one area of reasoning. You can't predict internal inflation with an inaccurate methodology.
>>7996445
The correct answers are available though
>>7996303
You feel dumb because society has not yet started rightfully discriminating against sub-humans based on IQ, thus validating you and all others who have a high IQ.
>>7996458
You forgot the gorilla pic, gorilla poster
>>7996331
>Oversimplifications
I would like to refer you to Gottfredson's "Why g matters." All national standard exams are basically IQ tests. ASVAB, SAT, GRE, as long as they have percentiles and a high correlation to intelligence.
>>7996303
Let's say your IQ really was 135. That's 99th precentile intelligence, a 2200 on the SAT give or take. That only puts you at the average or below average of elite STEM programs. If you are 50th percentile for a math/physics student then it feels like being 5'9.6.'' Statistically average.
>>7996451
All areas of reasoning correlate, to varying degrees, therefore any measure of one area will represent general intelligence to a certain degree. It is agreed that patterns have the highest correlation and are the most culture fair (no previous learning or knowledge required).
>>7996357
Then why are you saying it? Where is your research? Citations?
>>7996381
They're not arbitrary. They're designed and centered by innumerable researchers. It's no different from any test.
>>7996533
Except IQ never has an R value above 0.8. And correlation does not equal causation.
>>7996443
See pic.
Before 1995, SAT scores WERE IQ scores, in that they correlated almost as much with a person's IQ score as two scores taken on the same IQ test by one person (.93 correlation).
Here were the odds of certain achievements in Terman's Study of Mathematically Precocious Youth.
>>7996543
With what? Real world performance is .5-.7, but academic tasks correlate much more.
Causation was never implied.
>>7996545
>Here were the odds of certain achievements in Terman's Study of Mathematically Precocious Youth.
The same Terman that coupled a bunch of high IQ kids into one school because he thought he could produce geniuses that would win Nobel prizes. He failed miserably. To make matters worse, several rejects to his school won Nobel prizes. The irony is succulent.
>>7996557
Yes, the Terman that served as the president of the APA, was one of the most cited psychologists of all history, and fathered one of the two men who founded Silicon Valley.
Not to mention, Terman's studies occurred in the incipiency of IQ testing. With BGI and genomic sequencing, we'll have much more accurate models of intelligence very soon (next half century).
Here is a graph to illustrate why it isn't surprising nor ironic that Shockley and Alvarez achieved more than the average Termite. By the way, both were only slightly below the cutoff and Alvarez's score was artificially depressed by speaking English as a second language during the elementary school test).
And while two Nobel Prizes are impressive, this is out of the vast pool of rejects.
The most significant result of the Terman Study was the revelation that the Termites were, on the whole, taller, better educated, more successful, and better adjusted than average. For example, 70% graduated from college, with 67% of the men and 60% of the women continuing on to graduate school (in the 30's)..Among the men, 86% were to be found in the professions, the semi-professions, and higher business. No gifted men were found on the lowest occupational level, compared to 13% of the general population.
Terman's initial group consisted of 857 males: 70 earned listings in American Men of Science, and 3 were elected to the National Academy of Sciences. Ten had entries in the Directory of American Scholars, and 31 appeared in Who's Who in America. The list goes on.
>>7996318
Raven Matrices. It measures fluid intelligence and the test alone is suppose to be a good indicator of overall g.
Also, Feynman scored a 125 on his IQ test. Who on where with an IQ higher than 125 (most of this board) would make the claim they are smarter than Feynman? That reason alone is why IQ test are useless when it comes to measuring intelligence accurately. Feynman was top 99% yet any faggot here scores higher than he on their test than he did on his.
>>7996557
"Nearly 2000 scientific and technical papers and articles and some 60 books and monographs in the sciences, literature, arts, and humanities have been published. Patents granted amount to at least 230. Other writings include 33 novels, about 375 short stories, novelettes, and plays; 60 or more essays, critiques, and sketches; and 265 miscellaneous articles on a variety of subjects. The figures on publications do not include the hundreds of publications by journalists that classify as news stories, editorials, or newspaper columns, nor do they include the hundreds, if not thousands, of radio, television, or motion picture scripts."
The group had an average IQ of 151 or about 3.4 SD above the average. You can see how impressive their accomplishments are, while not Nobel Prizes.
Here is why the two cases of Shockley and Alvarez are not surprising. 1444 children were chosen for the study out of 268,000. That's 266,556 children, rejects, from whom two Nobel Prizes came (a Nobel Prize is about 1 in a million in America).
The Termites were incredibly prolific and superior to the general population in every way, not just intelligence. Social skills, looks, health, wealth and height.
>>7996589
Ah the ol' Feynman analogy.
It would have been nice if you naysayers did more than a basic minimum of research where inevitably you ran into some pop-sci blog or news website with articles spoken to the masses.
Here is why IQ is so repulsive to average people and why, despite overwhelming evidence, commoners and people concerned with social justice are still so bent on discrediting it.
>Beginning about 1850, it became fashionable to perceive highly intelligent children as misfits who "burned out", or overtaxed their brains and died young. They were thought to be pale, asthenic, bespectacled, and stoop-shouldered, and headed for adult stupidity or insanity. "The myth became prevalent that many of the great geniuses were dunces in childhood." The view developed that a rich and well-balanced maturity depends upon the prolongation of infancy and the fullest experience with each developmental stage. The bright child should protected from intellectual stimulation, "and any tendency toward early cleverness should be positively discouraged."
> This must have been very comforting to the average citizen, and to the intellectually challenged. That smart kid in class would pay for it when she/he grew up.
>The Terman Study showed that gifted children grow up to become gifted adults, and that they tend to be successful, well-adjusted, and long-lived.... healthier, wealthier, and wiser. They're taller and better-looking, on average, and they're an invitation to uncomfortable comparisons for the rest of us. It's hard not to feel competitive with them, and at a competitive disadvantage.
As for Feynman, he took a test with a low ceiling. I will get into that.
>>7996589
>I have always felt that Feynman was cognitively a bit "lopsided" -- much stronger mathematically than verbally. This might be partially responsible for his way of learning -- it was often easier for him to invent his own solution than to read through someone else's lengthy paper. (Personality factors such as his independent streak, and his strong creativity, also play a role.) But this sometimes left him with gaping holes in knowledge. In contrast, Schwinger had at age 17 an encyclopedic understanding of what was known about quantum electrodynamics -- he had read and mastered all of the literature as a high school kid!
This excerpt reveals that Feynman did not understand the conventional formulation of QED even after Dyson's paper proving the equivalence of the Feynman and Schwinger methods. (When someone explained the action of a creation operator on the vacuum, Feynman reportedly objected "How can you create an electon? It disagrees with conservation of charge!" :-)
... I was struggling gradually to learn. I mean, I had to learn something to prove the connection between my thing and the same thing. Dyson had done a great deal in that direction. That didn’t satisfy me because I couldn’t follow that. Dyson told me, when he wrote his paper, “Don’t bother to read it, there’s nothing in it that you don’t know, except that it proves it’s the same as what everybody else knows, but it doesn’t say anything different or do anything different than is in your paper. Nothing more in it,” he told me.
>>7996589
>... Yeah, because I remember him telling me not to worry about the paper. It hadn’t anything in it, you see. ... But then I thought I had to understand the connection, for publication purposes and others. And I had a good opportunity, because Case sent me his theorem — the manuscript of a big paper that he was going to publish in the Physical Review, which had all the steps of the theorem. Now, I argued in the meantime with myself, in my usual physical way of arguing, and concluded for several physical reasons, by some examples and other things — simpler examples that weren’t so elaborate as the calculations I made — that it couldn’t be true that the two methods would give the same result. ... I prepared a letter in which I wrote the physical arguments. Then I decided, that isn’t going to convince him. Nobody pays any attention to physical arguments, no matter how good they are. I’ve got to find a mistake in the proof. But the proof has creation and annihilation operators and all kinds of stuff. So I went to some students, in particular Mr. Scalator who was only fair, but he understood. He had learned in a pedestrian way what it all meant, and he explained to me what the symbols meant. So I learned like a little child what all this was about, so I understood what the symbols that he was using in the paper meant, and I tried to follow the proof, and I learned enough to be able to do that kind of mathematics, see — for the first time. So I followed the whole thing through, and I found a mistake, a very simple algebraic error, in the proof. He commuted some things that didn’t commute and so on.
>Feynman never carefully read either Schwinger or Tomonaga's work:
Weiner: How about Tomonaga’s work? When did you first hear of it?
Feynman: I don’t know when I first heard of it. The work itself, I never knew exactly what it was, and I don’t yet know precisely what it was.
Weiner: You read his paper?
(side note, here's the graph I forgot)
>>7996616
>>7996610
My point is IQ test are flawed. Feynman is on the extreme end of the spectrum intellectually, but failed to reflect it on an IQ test. He isn't the only one, except he was highlighted cause it was publicized. Feynman was an exceptional brain, one we won't the likes of ever again. You couldn't quantify intelligence like his. It's too unconventional and it isn't 'fair' to have his low verbal scores suppress his overall IQ but that's exactly what these IQ exams do.
>>7996623
(cont)
Feynman: No.
Weiner: I mean, there’s one paper that is often cited —
Feynman: No. No. I don’t think I read the paper. But this must be understood — I don’t mean anything disparaging. If Schwinger hadn’t been in the front yard at Pocono, or next to me, I wouldn’t have known what he did either. I got the same as everybody else. If you can do it yourself, why learn how somebody else does it? So I don’t know precisely what the relation of Tomonaga’s and Schwinger’s work is or the relation of his and mine. I think the relation of Tomonaga’s work to my work is very small. I mean, I think he’s gone around much closer the direction that Schwinger went.
Weiner: I think it’s the general impression.
Feynman: But I don’t know the precise relationship of their work. But I believe, if I’m not mistaken, although you’ll have to ask Schwinger, that everything that Schwinger did he did without knowledge of what Tomonaga did. I hear, but I don’t know, that Tomonaga did a very great deal, and did essentially what Schwinger did, except perhaps for working on certain practical problems. I don’t know. That’s what I hear. But I don’t know. I’m sorry, that sounds stupid, but I have never looked into it, and I never read Schwinger’s paper in a comprehensible way. I don’t know what’s in that paper of Schwinger’s.
Weiner: Haven’t tried to read it?
Feynman: Never. Tried in the sense that I looked at it and I flipped the pages, because it’s too hard. I read it at a time when I didn’t even know what a creation-annihilation operator was. I read it — you probably can prove that by the fact that I refer to it in various places, and get certain formulas out of it — I read it in the same way that I talk to him. When something looks like something, I know that’s it, you know? But I didn’t follow all the steps. I never followed all the steps.
Weiner: But you did know, when you talked to him at Pocono, and then —
>>7996627
Hence they are inaccurate. Plus he actually did shit with his brain and didn't brag about having a big IQ.
>>7996628
Feynman: I know Schwinger — that’s what I say, I must have read it in pieces and bits. I know what Schwinger did; I know more or less how he did it. ...
Feynman: Yes, because we talked together, we had the physical idea of what starts it, but there’s a difference from that and checking all the equations, ... I don’t know whether he really read mine in detail or not. But he knows what’s in it, and I know what’s in his, but I can’t tell you. Perhaps if I look at his paper carefully, I can see that I really did read it, you know? I mean, I’d have to have it and look at it and see if I did read it. That’s a good way to look. I doubt that I read it in detail. I doubt that I looked at all of the various complicated sub-things that he had to worry about, like what to do with the longitudinal waves — because I don’t think there’s any problem with the longitudinal waves. I couldn’t pay attention to such a thing, see? So I doubt that I’ve ever read the paper in any careful way like a student would try to learn it. I don’t believe I’ve ever done that.
(fin)
>>7996627
Let me get to that please. Not only was Feynman's IQ lopsided, he took a test with a low ceiling, as are abbreviated tests and children's tests. If the test had a cap of 135 (Wechsler Abrv form at the time), then he could've gotten 125 with a 135 math and 115 verbal. It's not necessarily that IQ tests in general are flawed, but more that we were testing an Olympic swimmer with a town pool.
Clearly, there were other tests that aptly measured Feynman's abilities. The Putnam, Princeton's physics entrance exam (which Feynman aced), etc.
>>7996634
The IQ tests that are 100% surely flawed are the ones that include 'verbal'.
The other ones, I don't know, I think some of them are really good.
You all do understand how giftedness is ultimately determined? Psychologists look at everything you do/have done over a substantial length of time. You don't just take an IQ test once and are deemed a genius unless there are extenuating circumstances.
>>7996347
Cruz, pls go
>>7996538
When I look at OP's IQ test I see a ton of different ways things can be arranged due to patterns of the individual lines and how they connect to each other in a sort of contiguous movement. It's really, really subjective. Researchers standardize since a certain implied structure is automatic in most people. This is only one of its flaws. They should make it so that when you take an IQ test you can opt to explain your thought processes to your psychologist.
>>7996630
They aren't that inaccurate. They are very, very accurate from the ranges they are meant to test, but like any test, they have a limit.
You should know that n=1 is not a good indicator at all.
Perhaps you should look at a larger number of eminent scientists. According to Anne Roe, they are far superior to the average.
http://www.amphilsoc.org/collections/view?docId=ead/Mss.B.R621-ead.xml
(the papers)
http://infoproc.blogspot.com/2008/07/annals-of-psychometry-iqs-of-eminent.html
(Stephen Hsu, my life hero's, commentary)
>>7996697
They are as unsubjective as possible. People seem to assume that the tens of thousands of researchers, often much smarter than the average person, who have worked on the development of this field haven't already considered the shit you spout.
Every pattern has some sort of logic, and they only seem subjective to those who can not discern the logic. Movement, counting, addition, subtraction, multiplication, reflection, folding, transforming, etc are all examples of patterns. They seem arbitrary and random so that the test measures your fluid intelligence, your ability to deal with new and unusual information and situations, and not your crystallized intelligence, the knowledge you already have. This is not a flaw, and the psychologists have already come up with all the major permutations of possible though processes in the answers that are given, some of which are meant to mislead you.
>Explaining your though processes to your psychologist
>not "really, really subjective"
It is true that having an individual assessment from an attentive psychologist can reveal certain aspects of your cognition that a standardized test cannot. However, that is by definition, subjective, unlike the test.
>>7996654
In what way is including "verbal," flawed?
It correlates very highly to other intelligences. Someone who is good at math is almost always also good at reading and writing. Granted, there are exceptions as with anything. In fact, discrepancies can be indicative of a neurological deficit like autism or schizophrenia. Autists have higher performance IQ than verbal, and Schizo's have higher verbal than performance often.
(cont regarding verbal)
Verbal scores are only inaccurate in children with certain conditions (ADHD) and circumstances (foreign parents). Read "why g matters" as for why vocabulary is a good measure of intelligence in all other cases.
Some recommended reading to cure your opinions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G_factor_(psychometrics)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient
https://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/reprints/1997whygmatters.pdf
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1011.0663v1.pdf
>>7996713
Thing is is that patterns can be constructed in a number of ways, and different structures can be seen from the information given. So long as it can be explained either deductively or inductively, who is to say that it's wrong? It is literally logic. It would also be defined as fluid intelligence, as it is making sense of unrelated information in order to draw conclusions. I never said I couldn't draw conclusions from the information. Either, the shape in my head isn't there, or I give the incorrect answer. Sometimes it is there, since I scored 113. You get my point.
I'm also autistic, so.
>>7996736
It's all one guy.
>>7996303
iqtest.dk is relatively accurate.
i made this test to 10+ people and i realized that the test was designed to show most people average or a little above average.
if your IQ is around 95, you usually get 100-105. But after 110 it becomes harder to get higher scores without being genuinely smart.
135 is what i got in the first try. you can get maximum 145 in that test. i solved all the problems later, they are not so difficult but not easy to finish in time.
>>7996752
>i solved all the problems later, they are not so difficult but not easy to finish in time.
But that is the whole point, you have to do it in a time limit. Otherwise it's meaningless.
>>7996743
Not sure what exactly you're asking, I just explained by thought processes. I know I'm 'objectively' wrong, because the word is being used within the parameters of established psychological research. However, it should be understood that these theories and findings can be shifted given the correct structure of reasoning and evidence to back it up. You shouldn't take what research says so literally, there is a context.
To answer your question (?) I have a very high verbal ability and reading comprehension ability, tested by psychologists. I read a lot and had esoteric interests. I learn things quickly when I don't have anxiety or don't over-complicate. I was never good at math, though. A few of my professors say that I write at a graduate level. From an early age I questioned everything, from religion to school, etc. My teachers worried since I seemed to ask profound questions about the work, but they wouldn't align with the assignments. Eventually I complied in high school, since I wanted to go to college. I did quite well there and am doing well in my classes currently. There are my 'problems.' Being autistic I was extremely dissociated from everything except my mind, though I still have problems with it. But it doesn't interfere as much as it used to anymore. I'm currently working with a professor on a thesis I have in mind.
>>7996743
>Kono ore da
Sorry I'm not a weeb.
>>7996764
>it should be understood that these theories and findings can be shifted given the correct structure of reasoning and evidence to back it up
In other words
New ideas happen and the sky is blue
I can see that you're learning something, but you're still not arguing the point, only tangents.
My points were that 1. IQ tests aren't inaccurate or meaningless in that it correlates very highly with any task that uses your brain 2. Single cases like Feynman, Shockley and Alvarez are not conclusive evidence nor are they indicative of what you think they are 3. Eminent scientists do in fact have higher IQ's and Terman's study did have conclusive findings (Anne Roe for further reading).
I don't know why you are turning this into a personal matter. Who exactly questioned your qualifications? I pointed out that you were affected and it is true apparently. You don't know anything about the issue but you have a "high verbal ability" with which you write to disguise a lack of substance and knowledge.
>Read a lot and had esoteric interests
>Learn things quickly when I don't have anxiety or don't over-complicate
>Write at a graduate level
>Early age questioned everything, from religion to school
>Teachers worried since I seemed to ask profoud questions about my work
>Being autistic I was extremely dissociated from everything except my mind
>Currently working with a professor on a thesis I have in mind
The story of sci
except
>bad at math
I truly don't know what you are trying to say or prove. With this post you have preached to the choir. You're basically bragging about being 6'4'' at the NBA.
Everything you say is tangential.
>>7996533
How do you know how the exam was measured or what exam feynman took? generally curious as I couldn't find anything on it and searched for years.
>>7996793
The exam was unspecified, but it was at his high school. I'm paraphrasing the speculations of a certain polymath physicist, university head of theoretical physics and adviser of cognitive genomics.
The abbreviated forms of IQ tests and short tests like Raven's have a low caps (2-3 standard deviations) while full batteries have caps only going to 4 standard deviations (1 out of 32,000).
I read No Ordinary Genius: The Illustrated Richard Feynman but like you, I don't have any exact numbers. In fact, people vary in reporting his IQ as 123, 124, 125.
It also wouldn't be surprising if Feynman reported his lowest test score to make all his accomplishments seem bigger.
>>7996796
7996752 is not me
It's funny how meaningless people like you have made the word autism. Apparently having more than a superficial level of knowledge in anything is autism now.
>>7996788
What does it mean if a subject scores all over the place on the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale ?
They scored low average on most of the sub-test, average on others, superior-very superior on the raven matrix (but would have been higher if they finished the section) and overall it made their IQ average. they have a slow processing speed so suspect if they could have finished the raven matrix exam they would have aced it.
>>7996804
>>7996825
I won't know unless you tell me all the specific scores and the composite score. Did he take a computerized version?
Standard progressive matrices or advanced? 125+ is a raw score of 28 on the 2007+ SPM I believe, no?
But you really need to tell me which specific sub tests.
Don't remember the specifics but it'd be a scale score as low as a 6 on a few sections, and 16+ on others. Such a big difference.
>>7996853
So we know absolutely nothing. How about this person's achievements on standardized tests, SAT, ACT, GRE, MAT, State exams, etc and academic accomplishments?
Are you some kid's mom?
>>7996861
SAT below 1000 out of 1600 due to slow processing speed. Described as incredibly smart from teachers, high HS GPA, nerd, reads math books all the time. Big brain does well in class. Doesn't reflect it on standardized testing.
>>7996788
I know it may sound like I'm parroting, but: correlation does not equal causation. We need to examine what IQ tests actually test. Pattern recognition? Anyone can interpret the test deviantly and apply their own context in which to frame the questions. Looking at answer videos on Youtube, it seems that there is a particular inductive structure they wanted you to find, and answer within that. However, it's particular, and doesn't speak for other opportunities of interpretation. Going back to my original point, just because it may not be the said structure that's being asked from the test-taker doesn't mean there isn't still implicit logic being executed.
>You don't know anything about the issue but you have a "high verbal ability" with which you write to disguise a lack of substance and knowledge.
No, I'm just contextualizing what's happening. g factor is averaged from individual quantitative tests that are conceptually similar to IQ, in that they're both in the realm of psychometrics, correct? So, in >>7996713 , if you're trying to refute IQ for its rigidity, this presented argument is a bit unfalsifiable. This is all measuring performance, not deviation, which is what I'm arguing for. School performance implies a degree of compliance also, and that the conditions of this schooling are well-adjusted for the student's needs and possible mental health symptoms. Using school performance to evaluate all of this is a bad idea.
>>7996869
Sigh...
I never once implied that correlation equals causation 37 posts ago when you made that same accusation. Where exactly are you saying that I mistook correlation for causation?
You won't find a place where I did, because I didn't.
Just stop it with your facile arguments and attempts at sounding like you know what IQ tests are even about. I already linked you to the wikipedia pages for g factor and IQ so that you can have a modicum of knowledge.
>Trying to refute IQ for its rigidity
No.
>School performance implies a degree of compliance also, and that the conditions of this schooling are well-adjusted for the student's needs and possible mental health symptoms. Using school performance to evaluate all this is a bad idea.
OK. No one said school performance has almost nothing to do with anything I said. And what are you talking about?
For someone with "very high verbal ability and reading comprehension ability, test by psychologists," you're missing pretty much everything that I'm saying.
Also, word salad much?
>>7996868
Sounds like some sort of attention deficit disorder. Scattershot scores are often indicative of neural deficits. But like I said, since you didn't give me the specific subtests, I can't say much. It's like asking for a doctor to diagnose an illness by saying "it hurts!" but not telling him where it hurts.
By the way, there is a notoriously low correlation between teachers' assessments of giftedness--particularly, extreme giftedness--and children's actual levels of giftedness and the kids who do best in typical classes are often the mildly intelligent and not the severely intelligent.
>>7996903
No, the kid is actually really smart. I think you're on to something with ADHD.
What are better (non-test) correlations with giftedness? Sounds like one could be very gifted and have a low GPA.
>>7996903
>By the way, there is a notoriously low correlation between teachers' assessments of giftedness--particularly, extreme giftedness--and children's actual levels of giftedness and the kids who do best in typical classes are often the mildly intelligent and not the severely intelligent.
Wow thanks. Now I can pretend I am the mid bottom of my class because I am too smart.
>>7996917
Yes one can indeed be gifted and have a low GPA. In fact, there's over twenty times the expected number of high school dropouts in the IQ 130+ range.
You say the kid is really smart, but his tests don't with only his teachers' and your opinion to say otherwise. I don't know his accomplishments and you're obviously emotionally attached to the kid and his "smartness."
On the WAIS, relatively low working memory and processing speed are correlated with ADHD.
>>7996919
No. That's bad logic.
>>7996928
He scored very highly in Raven matrix (scaled 16+). Lowly in processing speed and working memory (scaled 6-7). All I remember.
>>7996931
>averaged
No.
>I have attention difficultives and depersonalization issues and din't read your links
I tell. Immediately. Schizophrenic word salad, tangents and repetitions.
>>7996932
OK so two separate tests. Raw score 16+ on Raven and 6-7 working memory on WAIS?
I told you everything I could with the little you gave me.
>>7996935
I could tell*
>>7996942
No. Are you talking about the matrices section OF the WAIS or Raven's matrices? Those are separate tests.
Autistic savants, for example, are really good at one thing and only one thing. It's very different from being gifted, which is a more global and general intelligence.
I don't get it is this supposed to be good or bad.
>>7996948
119 is 89.7362862436th percentile with SD 15. Fairly low for STEM but high relative to normals.
>>7996947
matrices section OF the WAIS is what I meant.
>>7996942
There is a different between scoring high on all subtests except for one or two and scoring low on all subtests except for one or two.
>>7996961
What is the difference? They score low to average on all subset except one or two. They exhibit extreme anxiety and didn't finish the subset in a timely manner. They exhibit the same anxiety on any exam whenever not relaxed.
>>7996935
so pleaze dont be mean, I ask. how do i come back to my body?
>>7996974
how does asking for respect make me an idiot? maybe you have ideas, i dont know. all you have to say is that you don't.
>>7996975
Believe whatever you want, but don't make your kid or friend or yourself or whoever this person is believe too much in talent they don't have. You'd be setting them up for disappointment.
1 or 2 good out of 11 sub tests means absolutely nothing. I promise you. ADHD is just working memory and processing speed, which are specified parts of the test.
>>7996984
ok i will put them in an average school. my interpretation was they are highly intelligent but their ADHD and anxiety inhibits them from showing their potential.
>>7996982
>so pleaze don't be mean, I ask, how do i come back to my body?
kek you are asking for it
>How does asking for respect make me an idiot?
That's not what made you an idiot. It was your mom.
You lost my respect when you replied 8 times with your inane questions and tangents. At this point, all my patience is gone.
>maybe I have ideas
These are THE ideas. They are not just mine nor are they up for debate to an ignoramus like you. Read a book.
>>7996990
Are you serious? You're letting a stranger on the internet decide what you're gonna do with your kid?
Talk to a certified psychologist. Are you even qualified to raise a child?
Maybe your child seems so smart to you because you're an idiot.
>>7997003
no he is smarter than me for sure. ok i'll take him to see a doc.
>>7996993
I was just seeing how to deal with depersonalization, all you have to say is that you dont know. I read when I'm not having mood issues. you can stop now, theres no need for this
>>7997012
If it bothers you, you can press the "X" button at the top right of your screen.
Despite my profanities, I did give you advice. If you are truly depersonalized, either get a grip on yourself by reading or focusing or see a shrink. See a therapist, which I am not.
>>7996713
>They are as unsubjective as possible.
No they're not you incompetent fucktarded dumbass, the anon you replied to is right. IQ tests mean fuck-nothing. And this is coming from someone who got 150 on his last IQ test, and always gets well into the 130s at minimum.
>>7997025
Who is the incompetent fucktard dumbass? I cited EVERYTHING. You make claims on the internet without any proof. What test did you take on the IQ test? How long was it? Who administered it? Where did you take it? What were your subtest scores? Standard deviation, percentile, etc, etc,etc
See, you don't know anything. You baited me though, good job, Got me!
I gave you countless sources as to why it is valid and why it is such an accurate model for real world success. EVERY standardized test, including the SAT, is modeled in some way after the psychometric research of the 20th century.
IQ's do mean something, literally. It is an ORDINAL RANK of cognitive capacity. Do you believe in hierarchies? Do you believe that people can be ranked by ability? IQ is real.
>>7997025
Oh, btw, that's fallacious. Your IQ and your credentials, which are lies anyways, have no bearing on the truth of your argument for the same reason ad hominem is fallacious.
The wonderful thing about idiots like you is that you drag everybody else down to your level.
>>7996318
Correct,
The multiple aspects are defined as factor analysis
The WAIS-R is the "real" IQ test (used for MENSA and admittance into Gifted Programs)
Stanford-Binet only measures one aspect, "g", general intelligence
>>7996796
The one guy who uses facts to argue his point gets brushed aside because he's 'autistic'. Fucking people and their ad hoc reasoning bullshit
>>7997131
Autism xD
Rate?
>>7996955
I just study math on my free time
>>7996303
>graph gets blacker the lower it goes
heh
>>7996303
you should be proving this to us mr genius :^)
