/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.14178606]

I got an iq score of 142 and 134 on different tests. Are iq tests even reliable?

[Anonymous No.14178619]

If it was a DIY IQ test then you need to subtract 50 points for accuracy.

[Anonymous No.14178627]

>>14178606
Average them idk

[Anonymous No.14178630]

>>14178606
No, they aren't, and you're automatically 75 IQ if you ever thought they were.

[Anonymous No.14178636]

>>14178606
Just do the official mensa test or get psychologists to give you one.

[Anonymous No.14178641]

>>14178606
>iq test
Kek. The ultimate libtard meme. So bad that right-wing people fall for it.

[Anonymous No.14178666]

>>14178636
lol the actually IQ test is if you're dumb enough to pay them so that you can take a stupid test

[Anonymous No.14178672]

>>14178606
>online IQ tests

NEVER, EVER, EVER, EVER, EVER , EVER, EVER, EVER, EVER, EVER, EVER, EVER, EVER, EVER, EVER, EVER, EVER, EVER, EVER, EVER, EVER, EVER, EVER, EVER, EVER, EVER, EVER, EVER, EVER, EVER, EVER, EVER, EVER, EVER, EVER, EVER, EVER, EVER, EVER, EVER, EVER, EVER, EVER, EVER, EVER, EVER, EVER, EVER, EVER, EVER, EVER, EVER, EVER, EVER, EVER, EVER, EVER, EVER, EVER, EVER, EVER, EVER, EVER, EVER, EVER, EVER, EVER, EVER, EVER, EVER, EVER, EVER, EVER, GONNA MAKE IT.

[Anonymous No.14178880]

>>14178606
>>14178630
>>14178672
IQ is pseudoscience
https://medium.com/incerto/iq-is-largely-a-pseudoscientific-swindle-f131c101ba39

[Anonymous No.14178884]

>>14178636
I took an official mensa test when I was 16, never really cared about it in later life. I recently dug out this paper while going through some old documents. I didn't even remember the exact score I got, thought it's around 142

[Anonymous No.14178886]

>>14178880
>medium.com
midwit website

[Anonymous No.14178907]

>>14178886
The article was written by Taleb.

[Anonymous No.14178929]

>>14178606
Those online tests usually are not calibrated. Here is how the mainstream IQ tests work: they create the test and make tons of people use them. Then, they give a score. The median person will have an IQ of 100. For the others, each standard deviation above the mean will give 15 points. So, if you are two deviations above the mean (you are smarter than about 97% of the people and dumber than 3%), you will have an IQ of 130. Some IQ tests actually have different scores and instead of giving 15 points to any Std deviation they give you 16.

That said, even calibrated IQ tests will likely not give you the exact number. You will have a rough idea of where you are. So, your IQ is likely in the 135-145 range...

>>14178641
>>14178666
IQ tests actually do measure something that is very important.

[Anonymous No.14178937]

>>14178907
And he's a retard who got btfo

[Anonymous No.14178945]

>>14178937
By whom? Alt right midwits?
They don't know enough about statistics to refute Taleb.

[Anonymous No.14178953]

>>14178606
i refuse to take iq tests so i will never have proof i'm dumb

[Anonymous No.14178959]

>>14178953
Go ahead, score low. It only shows that you can't do IQ tests well; nothing else.

[Anonymous No.14178966]

>>14178959
Thinking about it, I almost forgot that I took an IQ test at the age of 10 as part of some check for autism.
All I ever heard about it was that it was nothing significant.

[Anonymous No.14178989]

>another IQ thread

[Anonymous No.14179000]

>>14178606
IQ tests are valide, reliable and objective. They fulfill all criterias for tests.

IQ is not fixed. It depends on your daily fitness. Then it is important to know how you have to interprete the results. Someone with an IQ of 133 is not more intelligent then someone with an IQ of 132. Because 1 point difference is not significant. Meaning that they are equally intelligent. Normally your IQ varies +/- 5 points. So if you have for example an IQ of 138 then it can be that if you have a good day you score 143 and if you have a bad day you only score 133. This also means that lets say a person has an IQ of 130 and another person has an IQ of 139 then both are still equally intelligent, because it is within the interval. Because the 130 person can have a good day and score 135 and the 139 person can have a bad day and only score 134. As you see 9points difference mean nothing at all.

You have to interprete IQ in a bigger interval. For example:
90-110 is average
110-120 abover average
120-140 superior
> 140 genius
Then you would be between superior and genius.

[Anonymous No.14179014]

>>14179000
*disproves you*
https://medium.com/incerto/iq-is-largely-a-pseudoscientific-swindle-f131c101ba39

[Anonymous No.14179015]

>>14178606
>>>/sci/

[Anonymous No.14179026]

>>14179014
Not really because he refers to iq of nations. And there it is also no error or pseudoscientific swindle. It is onnly descriptive statistics. Though he is right when he says that this is stupid, because it does not check for socioeconomic millieu.

[Anonymous No.14179032]

>>14179026
>Not really because he refers to iq of nations
Which are fabrications made by neo nazis and barbarian supremacists.
>And there it is also no error or pseudoscientific swindle
The whole article disproves IQ. There is no salvaging IQ after this Taleb article.

[Anonymous No.14179043]

>>14179014
?
Taleb is not a specialist in IQ research. He is a public intellectual, someone more like Dawkins, Sam Harris or Milo Yiannopoulos.
If IQ was so easy to "dismantle" that some public intellectual who has not have read deeply about it could do it, left-wingers would have done that long ago.

[Anonymous No.14179052]

>>14179043
>Taleb is not a specialist in IQ research.
His critique of IQ is statistical and mathematical. Secondly, Taleb is much smarter than psychologists. He has read hundreds of psychology books.
>He is a public intellectual
No, he actually posts academic papers and gives lectures at universities. Yesterday he gave his first lecture in Lebanese.
>If IQ was so easy to "dismantle" that some public intellectual who has not have read deeply about it could do it
Taleb has deeply read about IQ, imbecile.

[Anonymous No.14179053]

>>14179032
You don't seem to understand the article. It does not disprove IQ per se. It disproves a link between IQ and wealth of nations.

It says nothing about the reliability on individuals. If you take an IQ test and you score 110 then this is reliable.

[Anonymous No.14179068]

>>14178606
There exist reliable IQ tests, yes. Some tests grade differently.
>>14178880
IQ is the most rigorous thing to come out of the social sciences.

[Anonymous No.14179074]

>>14179053
>You don't seem to understand the article. It does not disprove IQ per se. It disproves a link between IQ and wealth of nations
You have not read it, fucking imbecile. If you want Taleb's debunking of country IQs it's here: https://twitter.com/nntaleb/status/1116342266195476481?s=19
>It says nothing about the reliability on individuals
That's precisely what it is about.

[Anonymous No.14179076]

>>14179068

>IQ is the most rigorous thing to come out of the social sciences.

which is most unfortunate, because he proves it is not rigorous

[Anonymous No.14179077]

>>14179052
>>14179074
This way of writing...
You are Taleb himself, aren't you?

[Anonymous No.14179078]

>>14179074
the other 84.3% can be accounted for by the deep trauma inflicted on me when I was placed in public school with commoners and niggers

[Anonymous No.14179083]

>>14179068
If IQ is the most rigorous thing to come out of social sciences, then the social sciences are fucking pathetic.

[Anonymous No.14179089]

>>14179068
>IQ is the most rigorous thing to come out of the social sciences.
Why do IQcels keep repeating this? It's a meaningless non-argument.

[Anonymous No.14179091]

>>14179089
They can't cope with fact Taleb massacred them.

[Anonymous No.14179093]

>>14179089
Arguments are so 2010.

[Anonymous No.14179105]

>>14179091
>be Taleb
>talk in a way only high IQ can understand
>somehow this refutes IQ

[Anonymous No.14179123]

>>14179052
>Secondly, Taleb is much smarter than psychologists
Do you mean he has a higher IQ than they do?

[Anonymous No.14179133]

>>14178606
No, not really. The fact that there is no standardized measure among IQ tests means that they are basically fucking worthless. Plus, the fact that someone can take an IQ test at 16 and then retake it at 30 and get a mountain of difference should be enough proof that IQ doesn't measure anything except your actual knowledge at a given period in your life.

[Anonymous No.14179140]

>>14178606
Most IQ tests are basically pattern recognition trials, which means that, at best, they measure ONE part of a person's intellectual ability. They won't tell you how good a person's memory is, for example.

[Anonymous No.14179143]

>>14179133
IQ tests adjust for age and same results at higher age give lower score

[Anonymous No.14180359]

>>14178606
An IQ test is similar to an SAT. There is a correlation between intelligence and score, but its hardly reliable. The IQ test was designed to identify retarded people within the population, not rank intellect.

[Anonymous No.14180387]

>>14179052
I like Taleb. I don't even care if he's right or not I just like his pugnaciousness.

[Anonymous No.14180543]

>>14178606
>Posting on 4channel
Your IQ is 96, maximum

[Anonymous No.14181006]

>>14179068
>>14179083
these two replies should be taken together
>IQ is the most rigorous, "predictable" thing to come out of psychology
>that being said, it doesnt seem to predict particularly well (at least no where near close the uninformed lay person's idea of predict)
1) all IQ provides is a very low-resolution picture. it seems to be pretty good for filtering out the straight up retards. it doesnt seem to be as good for organizing those above average.
2) IQ alone is a pretty worthless measure, especially when trying to predict for something like success
>IQcels conveniently leave out the "conscientiousness" part

also side note. Mensa seems like a meme organization.

[Anonymous No.14182480]

>>14178907
a midwit writer wrote an article for a midwit website, color me surprised.

[Anonymous No.14182524]

>>14178606
They are reliable but only the true tests, those you take that are given by a psychologist or neuropsychologist. It usually is the WAIS-IV and costs around 800$. Online or self taken tests are absolutely meaningless, as are all those matrices ones. I took the WAIS-IV a couple of years ago, there are barely any matrices in it and they are much easier than those stupid shit you find online. Matrices tests only show you how good you are at matrices tests. The neuropsychologist's interpretations and observations are key to the results. A true test like the WAIS takes a couple of hours to complete and almost as long to analyse, compare and compile the results.

Also, they are not pseudoscience, it's only that IQ is generally very poorly understood by plebs on the internet that discuss it.

[Anonymous No.14182527]

>IQ is pseudo-science

[Anonymous No.14182614]

>>14182527
Is... i-is that... WOJAK???!!?!!?!?!?!?!?!?!
ARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGHGHGHGH HOLY FUCCCCCCCCCKKKKKKKKK WOJAK YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS OH MY HOLY FUCKING GOD FUCKING WOJAK YESSSSSSSSSS

I LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOVE WOJAK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I CRAAAAAAAAAVE WOJAK!!!!!!!! I'M A WOJAK BEAST!!!!!! I'M A WOJAK MONSTER!!!!!!!!!!! I'M A WOJAKBRAIN!!!!!!!!!!! I'M WOJACKING OFF OH MY FUCKING GHODOODDDODODDOOOOOOOOOOOD

ROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSHHHHHHHHH AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHRGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH I'M FCKING COMING!!!!!!!!!!!!1 I'M FUUUUUCKING COMMMMMMING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! COOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIING!!!! UNFFFFFF UNF UNF UNF UNF UNF YASSSSS YESSSSSS YOOOOOOOOS

OH MY GOD OH MY FUCKING SO GOOD HERE IT COMES HERE IT COMES THE FUCKING BEST WOJAK ARHGUGHGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHGGGHGHG YES YES YESSSSSSSSSS UNF YES

SOOOOOOOOOONIC HEROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOES
SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONIC HEEEEEEEEROOOOOOooooooooooooooooooOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS

A
AHH
AHHH
AHHHH
AHHHHHH
AHHHHHHHH
AHHHHHHHHHH
AHHHHHHHHHHHH
AHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
AHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
AHHHHHHHHHHHH
AHHHHHHHHHH
AHHHHHHHH
AHHHHHH
AHHHH
AHHH
AH

GOOSH GOOSH GOOSH GOOSH GOOSHGOOSHGOOSHGOOSH ABGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHSNNSJSDJ FSSSSSSSSHHPPLLLLUGGGHRRRTHTTGHGH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Anonymous No.14183040]

>>14182614

[Anonymous No.14183052]

>>14183040
Forgot to label axes

[Anonymous No.14183057]

>>14183040
>>14183052
FUCKING.

OWNED

[Anonymous No.14183061]

>>14183040
>>14183052
>>14183057
IQ is pseudoscientific nonsense. Please stop having dick measuring contests about IQ.
https://medium.com/incerto/iq-is-largely-a-pseudoscientific-swindle-f131c101ba39

[Anonymous No.14184159]

>>14183052
Since I can't tell anymore if you guys are retarded or joking, I'll precise that the joke was probably because IQ is following a normal distribution.

[Anonymous No.14184232]

If cognitive ability tests are so discredited why do militaries still use them to determine what roles a person is eligible for? Do the "IQ is discredited" people also have a problem with things like the MCAT/LSAT that test deductive reasoning?

[Anonymous No.14184262]

>>14184232
MCAT isnt accepted by the various "high IQ" organizations
i am under the impression that is because a lot of what the MCAT tests is content-based, as opposed to something more general like aptitude.

[Anonymous No.14184270]

>>14184232
Do you think militaries don't have dogma?

[Anonymous No.14184870]

>>14178606
If you want to honestly compare IQs they should be derived from the exact same test. So if you want to compare IQ with someone have them take your 142 test and avoid the shameful 134 test.

[Anonymous No.14184888]

>>14184159
That's precisely the joke, retard. Jesus Christ.

The first poster of the chart was making an insult to him, then the person who relabeled the axes was making an insult again.

It's kind of a mixture of low brow and high brow humor. :3(although I don't ascribe to IQ myself, I found this humorous)

[Anonymous No.14184907]

>>14184888
>>14184159
I feel like, if you wanted to take it a step further, you could have just rotated the image and took one more joke at him. That would have been even funnier (and still pretty intelligent).

But you decided to be actually retarded. Thanks, idiot.

[Anonymous No.14184988]

>>14178606
nigga you lost 8 iq points between tests wtf

study more to increase your iq

masturbation with non-dominant hand helps to further develop brain development

[Brownman cometh !!S3+Zy3a3/0J No.14185214]

>>14184988
>masturbation with non-dominant hand helps to further develop brain developmen
quotes from anon vol. 14

[Anonymous No.14185330]

>>14178884
WTF. What do you do now (your field)? Usually I dont believe people on the net but you seem to have proof. Does it feel like an advantage? How is your social life?

[Anonymous No.14185337]

>>14185330
IQ is a meme. It means nothing.
See >>14178880

[Anonymous No.14185819]

>>14184888
>>14184907
High IQ posters right there, true gentlemen and scholars, would gift gold.

[Anonymous No.14186563]

>>14185330
I study computer science, but I wouldn't consider myself one of the best students, because I tend to be lazy. It's not hard for me to learn new things, that feels like an advantage, but I'm not sure if it's because of my IQ. I kinda feel I could've achieved a lot more if I worked harder, but then again, I don't really care that much. As for disadvantages, I tend to overanalyze things often, but I'm trying to avoid this. I don't think I've ever mentioned my IQ score to anyone except my parents and one friend who told me about the test, and I'm sometimes wondering if it "shows" somehow. I don't really "believe" in IQ, but I have to admit this paper (even though I forgot the exact score) gave me some confidence boost (I'm not really a confident person).
My social life is pretty good right now, however, it wasn't always that way. I had no friends in middle school, but it changed in the last year of high school, I just need to spend more time with people to like them I think. On the university the number of friends I had snowballed and I'm very happy for that. I never was one of the "cool guys", I was always chosen last on PE, I'm physically weak. At the university, I've never managed to join any student organization, even though I tried twice. I just couldn't stand the normalfag vibe there. Even though I was often told I'm good-looking, I couldn't find a girlfriend, because I was shy, and I really had no idea how to build an emotional relationship with someone, even though I yearned for it. This changed a few months after my 22nd birthday - I found my first (and hopefully last) gf whom I love to death, never before felt this way about anyone. Maybe if you find the right person it gets easier. It's funny, because I knew her from my university for a long time, and I thought she was a popular and "cool" girl I could've only dream about, when in reality she also had her problems and insecurities, and she made me realise how lucky I am for my friends, and that some people whom I considered "normie" back in middle/high school deep down could be a lot less happy than I am right now.
Well, I'm still nervous when I'm with a lot of strangers, for example at work (I work at Intel) I'm known as the "quiet" one, but I don't really care.
All in all, I used to dislike my life (well, not hate), but in the end everything went so well, I wouldn't change anything.
Also, I have to admit, reading books in general helped me a lot to learn how different people can be, and this board inspired me to read. Thanks guys.

well, sorry if that was a bit rambling, but I like to share my story, even though it's nothing much, I'm also slightly hungover right now and I got emotional

[Anonymous No.14187228]

>>14179123
>iq is pseudoscience
>he is smarter because of arbirtrary reasons even though I can't prove it because it is pseudoscience
kek