/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.2677488]

Go to: http://static.onemansblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/11/iqtest.swf

Complete the short IQ test (similar to raven's progressive matrices) and post your results


Let's see how smart /lit/ is.

[Anonymous No.2677492]

156

[Anonymous No.2677506]

>>2677492

Screenshot.

[Anonymous No.2677515]

"Can you recognize basic patterns?"

How does this measure intelligence?

[Anonymous No.2677540]

>98
Guess I'm near retard quality. Can't say it doesn't hurt my feelings.

[Anonymous No.2677544]

>97

I'm hurt. I guess I just have terrible recognition of drawn patterns.

[Anonymous No.2677565]

>>2677488
116 but I got bored so I guessed the last 8 or so. Will try again when motivated. I should be able to get at least 140 out of this bitch.

[Anonymous No.2677570]

>>2677515
Pattern recognition is basically what constitutes rational thought and logic.

This one is rather ugly and confusing though. If it were language based instead of weird pictures it would be a lot easier for /lit/ type of people.

[Anonymous No.2677572]

Did it in 16 minutes with dev. of 15 and got 122. Little lower than my psych says but whatever.
>dat 39
Did anyone figure that one out? I think I narrowed it down based on the movement of two of the squares, but I just got lazy and guessed between the 3 I had it narrowed down to.

[Noel Gallagher !AmNIYRdgeI No.2677596]

>>2677572
I got the same. 122 is a little low though, I'm usually at mensa level.

Couldn't figure 39 out either. One of the stick ones foxed me too.

The rest were easy. The patterns are there you just gotta mentally rotate and flip them about till they match. With the harder ones I tried not to look at the bottom options until I knew what the answer was.

[Anonymous No.2677598]

I hang out on /lit/, but I hate most of the people who constitute its posters, so I'm not exactly sure I consider myself a part of this place.

[Anonymous No.2677615]

I got a 122, I guessed a few. I wish I could see what I got wrong.

>>2677572
>>2677596

On that I chose the answer that had the colored squares in the one place they hadn't been yet. I confirmed with 3 colors before choosing, should be able to confirm with all.

[Anonymous No.2677616]

>>2677572
>>2677596
Q39

[Anonymous No.2677620]

Reppin' dat 118

[Anonymous No.2677621]

I only occasionally lurk /lit/

[Anonymous No.2677622]

>>2677615

actually disregard that, im looking at it again and that doesnt work with them all.

[Anonymous No.2677625]

>>2677616
>>2677598 here, I'm pretty sure that one is E. Not 100% though. You'll notice a lot of the squares move in diagonal patterns, and E seems to complete them the best.

[Anonymous No.2677630]

119

Not bad.

[Sunhawk !mRK/oMYODw No.2677631]

hmmph

[deathfuck !!PklrNon/Hpq No.2677638]

>>2677631
you did that on purpose ... right?

[Anonymous No.2677639]

96.

I have had about five shots of whiskey, in my own defense.

[Anonymous No.2677640]

Hmmm feel that I should have done better...

[Anonymous No.2677650]

suck my dick

[Anonymous No.2677656]

Is this considered good? Also I ran out of time on the last couple of questions.

[Anonymous No.2677665]

>>2677631
Sunhawk confirmed bro-tier for next week.

[Anonymous No.2677669]

122, dev. 16. Watching TV at the same time and had to get my laptop charger partway through. Guessed on 39. Last shrink IQ test I took was around mid-130's IIRC. It's been ages, might've been mid-140's but I'm erring on the side of caution.

[Anonymous No.2677670]

Average /lit/ IQ so far: 113.87

[Anonymous No.2677671]

>dat moment where you get fed up and start guessing for the sake of getting through with it

[Anonymous No.2677679]

I made it to about question 19 before I got distracted thinking about a song I hadn't heard in a while so I went looking for it on the youtubes, that led me to downloading the group's entire discography. Then I went to go make a sandwich and started playing Max Payne 2 I came back and only had 5 minutes left so I just spammed through and got 112.

Guess I'm pretty norman.

[Noel Gallagher !AmNIYRdgeI No.2677680]

>>2677669
Yeah, its not that accurate really. Pattern recognition is only 1 part of an IQ test (and unfortunately my weakest area).

[Anonymous No.2677684]

>>2677670
You're only counting pictures, right?

Also, a lot of people aren't going to post their results if they aren't as high as they'd like them to be, anonymous image board or no.

[Anonymous No.2677689]

>>2677680

Yeah, from what I remember there was "reproduce these images with these blocks", "put these cards in order", "repeat back this sequence at me... now do it backwards!", and probably some other stuff I don't remember.

[Anonymous No.2677699]

>>2677684
The Pictures are mostly higher than the others. If they are lying they must have had some pretty bad results.

[Anonymous No.2677709]

>>2677689

>>2677544 here. I recall taking a 200 question IQ test once when I was 14 that encompassed all of what you just said and I got a 120. Maybe I'm just not on form today.

[Anonymous No.2677710]

>>2677684
>dat 98
I wouldn't lie about that. Promise.

[Anonymous No.2677719]

wat

[Anonymous No.2677727]

105

[Anonymous No.2677730]

>>2677719
le monkeyface


mfw everybody between 110 and 130 tries to defend their "low" scores with excuses. how pathetic is that.

also, i got 108

[Anonymous No.2677733]

>>2677727
i should say i had no idea what was going on for about half of it. i rarely get these pictures. it just looks like nonsense to me which is why i suspect the result is wrong. i should be below 70 for not understanding the test

[Anonymous No.2677736]

No yeah, like i did the test, right. and i got like seven hundred. fuck all y'all

[Anonymous No.2677735]

I got 122, but guessed loads of them. I can't be bothered trying to work out obscure patterns, although some of them were pretty obvious. In any case, I feel this only serves to show the uselessness of IQ as a measurement of anything beyond skill at IQ tests.

[Anonymous No.2677747]

>>2677736
Genius...
>awedface.jpg

[Anonymous No.2677753]

>>2677736
>all y'all

The fuck is this? If you're going to be colloquial, at least do it properly.

[Anonymous No.2677757]

>>2677753
b-b-but isn't that how the working classes, and lower middle classes talk?

[Anonymous No.2677763]

I am average

[Anonymous No.2677766]

110

Little above average. Wan't expecting much different.

[Anonymous No.2677776]

>>2677719

I bet you memorized all the answers and then took the test again.

Cheater

[Anonymous No.2677780]

119

When I was a kid I was put under some psychological tests to see if I had ADD (I didn't) and it said my IQ was around 120, so it makes sense to me.

[truman No.2677783]

considering i'm tired and have an exam thamara, did better than i expected; usually get in ~125.

seemed like a very narrowly focused iq test, even by internet iq test standards.

[Satan !Y/B22fRjeo No.2677785]

I got 75, I expected a little higher.

[Anonymous No.2677810]

132

for the last one you have to take complete lines of three in consideration and not just single squares

[Anonymous No.2677833]

what was the answer to this?

it's d. all i am right?

[Anonymous No.2677838]

>>2677833

Am i right?*

[Anonymous No.2677841]

>>2677838
Yes

[Anonymous No.2677845]

>>2677833
I put G for that one

[Anonymous No.2677846]

They're basically the same thing.

[Anonymous No.2677848]

>>2677515

Believe it or not, reasoning skills aren't verbal or philosophical most of the time. Most of it is processing speed and perceptual. The way scientists measure this is with picture completion, block design and matrix reasoning questions like the ones on this test. Real intelligence is not what most people think (knowledge, grammar rules, memorizing things).

[Anonymous No.2677854]

what about this?

This shit was difficult.

[Anonymous No.2677856]

Took me 20 minutes flat and i'm drinkin' some wine.

Don't care.

[Anonymous No.2677857]

>>2677845
Well you were wrong. once the circle closes the arms start branching out. look at each column from top to bottom. you can see the lines from the circle getting longer on each.

the answer is d

[Anonymous No.2677859]

116

[Anonymous No.2677860]

>>2677719
>>2677650
>trolls

[Anonymous No.2677861]

I feel special.

[Anonymous No.2677864]

>>2677845

G is already on there so there is no way could be G

Look at the top middle

[Anonymous No.2677867]

122

Not bad.

I've seen a question like 37 before but can't remember how I solved it.

[Anonymous No.2677878]

132. yay.

Even though it was very one-dimensional in terms of not including language, music, etc.

[Anonymous No.2677881]

also 132

[Truman Capote !!cO9KVBDtkqQ No.2677891]

>>2677854

i answered b for that one.

[Anonymous No.2677896]

>>2677854
3 Colours stay in the same row. Row moves each step (up or down
So black white grey is on bottom row of answer. Red yellow pink is in middle row of answer...
/sci/ FTW

[Anonymous No.2677898]

>>2677891
So did I.

[Anonymous No.2677900]

>>2677854
Colors stay together in a line. White-grey-black. pink-yellow-red, and green-blue-cyan. The only answer that follows that is B.

[Anonymous No.2677902]

>>2677898

i figured that each side has no double color, so you have something like sudoku, middle square doesn't count because it has a different shading

[Anonymous No.2677908]

>>2677902

You can figure out the answer by looking at the black cube

[Anonymous No.2677916]

>>2677616
Answer is A, because colours always go in same groups in rows (grey, white, black, etc), and they only match in A.

[Anonymous No.2677917]

Took me a second to realize that this one was doing addition. I didn't realize the test did things like this, I was just pattern matching for all the other questions.

[JamesBond !!JAU/DZkp95n No.2677923]

>>2677917
Yes. It was one of the nice ones.

[Anonymous No.2677925]

>>2677917
I thought they were electrons and neutrons first of all.

assign the ones inside -1 and the ones outside +1

[Anonymous No.2677926]

>tfw schizophrenic but not smart enough to be a mad scientist

[Anonymous No.2677929]

I picked D for this.

Was i write?

[Anonymous No.2677936]

>>2677929
yes, and stop cheating, I can see you're halfway through the test.

[Anonymous No.2677937]

>>2677929
Yup. Circle rotates clockwise, and there's only one possible remaining position and colour of the cat.

[Anonymous No.2677938]

139

I was positive on all of them except 39. I wonder how much time plays a part in your score. I had about 19 minutes left

[Anonymous No.2677940]

101, looks like I'm a normal fag.

[Anonymous No.2677947]

>>2677938
it dosen't. the point value of each question goes up the more you get right. if you get them all right it gives you "above 140", 1 wrong is 132, 2 wrong is 127, etc.

[Anonymous No.2677954]

>>2677947

Thats not true, getting every question right in 5 minutes yields a higher score than every question right in 40 minutes

[Anonymous No.2677956]

Individuals with aspergers score higher on these tests.

http://i0.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/005/970/I-can-count-to-potato.jpg

[Anonymous No.2677957]

what about this?

[Anonymous No.2677961]

>>2677956
Whoops wrong link.
http://www.freewebs.com/adiscussion/Superior%20fluid%20intelligence%20in%20children%20with%20Asperge
r's%20disorder.pdf

[Anonymous No.2677962]

>>2677957
the lines rotate around the knot

[Anonymous No.2677965]

>>2677957
F

[Anonymous No.2677972]

>>2677929
>>2677957
>>2677833

Stop using us to cheat, faggot ass nigga.

[Anonymous No.2677977]

>tfw you will never be more than average
Admittedly I don't really trust IQ tests, but it's still disheartening.

[Anonymous No.2677990]

>116
>dat feel when you haven't into IQ tests before and now you're confirmed for nothing special

[Anonymous No.2677993]

>>2677977
That's 0.625 standard deviations above the mean, which means you're smarter than roughly 75% of the population.

[Anonymous No.2677996]

>do logic puzzles for an hour a day for a month.
>watch your score jump by 20, minimum.

what an awful means of measuring ''intelligence''.

[Anonymous No.2678004]

I did a IQ test, well more than one, by psychiatrists and shit. Motherfucker, I'm like ninja quick and at comprehensive reasoning. I was like the fastest she'd ever seen. Above average memory, below average math. Everything else was pretty good too.

Never did get a number...

>everythingwentbetter.jpg

[Anonymous No.2678070]

I'm guessing I posted this late enough for people to accuse me of taking the test twice.

[Anonymous No.2678072]

>Confirmed for third attempt

[Anonymous No.2678082]

>132

knew that maths degree was good for something

[Anonymous No.2678085]

>>2677878
>Confirmed for not knowing what constitutes an IQ.

[Anonymous No.2678102]

We should cross-reference this with the results we get from this test.
http://www.personalitytest.net/cgi-bin/q.pl

132, INTP here.

[Anonymous No.2678130]

Mine is 129, Richard Feynman's was 125.

I'll see you other above-125's in Stockholm!

[Anonymous No.2678143]

101

tired, rushed through it

[Anonymous No.2678150]

>>2678102

Above 140 ESFP here

[Anonymous No.2678167]

>>2678102

There really isn't a lot of evidence that either IQ or MB typologies have a lot of validity, but sure, why not?

119 and INTJ.

[Anonymous No.2678198]

100

amusing

[Anonymous No.2678204]

it's 1:30am and i have an exam tomorrow, need something to keep me busy

>103

this isn't cool

[Anonymous No.2678208]

I usually get between 130 and 140 on these tests. This was no exception.

[Anonymous No.2678215]

116. Which is weird, considering that I was tested at ~150 as a kid. What happened?

[Anonymous No.2678224]

>>2678215
Was that before you had ever used 4chan? See, I have this theory....

[Anonymous No.2678225]

>108
Chose A on the last 15. I don't have the concentration to complete this.

[Anonymous No.2678229]

>>2678215
Other people got smarter. It's easy for a smart kid to get a high score because other kids are dumb as shit. But as we age, the IQ deviation gets smaller, and you're more likely to score closer to the mean.

I usually score 135ish, even though when I was a kid I got a 150+ score from a psychologist.

[Anonymous No.2678236]

>>2678224
Oh shi-
Well what the fuck now? My arbitrary number was all I had going for me...

[Anonymous No.2678244]

112
Not bad but i never took a offline IQ test so i can't compare the results.

[Anonymous No.2678279]

124. I guess that's pretty good considering on the last six or so problems I clicked random answers as I have some shit to do.

[Mad Scientist Hououin Kyouma !!RBaVX6t0twu No.2678308]

102

So, so average. Anyway to get better at these? Pattern recognition has always been one of my weaker areas.

[Benny Profane !!muO1YE/mn/J No.2678339]

>>2677488

>121
checking in

not bad/10, I guess

[Anonymous No.2678350]

>>2677947
I got 132. Does that really mean only one was incorrect? Because I know which one it was, and it was pretty early.

[Anonymous No.2678375]

Of course /lit/ is self-selected to have a performance IQ lower than their verbal IQ. I got a 132.

The only idea I had about the last question was to watch the movement of the white-black-grey tromino. At least there always is one. But the second row really fucks that theory up.

>>2678167
>There really isn't a lot of evidence that either IQ or MB typologies have a lot of validity
Yes, true for MB. Just for a start, traits like personality are normally distributed (not bimodal). MB gives you a one or a zero to say whether you're above or below the mean. That's dumb.

IQ on the other hand is one of the most widely studied, reliable and powerfully predictive psychometric tools invented by science. It's about how fast your brain deals with information. The only reason you say that is because the results of IQ tests are politically inexpedient for a lot of people.

[Anonymous No.2678377]

>short IQ test
>40 minutes
I did it in 20 something but still...

Anyway, 122 here.

[Anonymous No.2678382]

>Standard deviation 16

So at 124 I could be genius or average, this test told me fuck nothing.

[Anonymous No.2678392]

Of course /lit/ is self-selected to have a performance IQ lower than their verbal IQ. I got a 132.

The only idea I had about the last question was to watch the movement of the white-black-grey tromino. At least there always is one. But the second row really fucks that theory up.

>>2678167
>There really isn't a lot of evidence that either IQ or MB typologies have a lot of validity
Yes, true for MB. Just for a start, traits like personality are normally distributed (not bimodal). MB gives you a one or a zero to say whether you're above or below the mean. That's dumb. I'm an INTP, sometimes J.

IQ on the other hand is one of the most widely studied, reliable and powerfully predictive psychometric tools invented by science. It's about how fast your brain deals with information. The only reason you say that is because the results of IQ tests are politically inexpedient for some people.

[Anonymous No.2678401]

>>2678375

Nah, I say that because there isn't a culturally and biologically valid definition or model of intelligence. It isn't all about cognitive speed though. IQ tests follow the general intelligence factor theory, which I (and most modern psychometrics experts) don't believe is legitimate.

[Anonymous No.2678406]

>>2678382
Standard deviation is a measure of how dispersed a set is. Along with the average (for a normally distributed variable), It's what gives the number you score meaning.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_deviation

[Anonymous No.2678409]

>>2678382

You seem to be mixing up Standard Deviation and Uncertainty. Standard Deviation denotes variation from the mean.

[Anonymous No.2678410]

In my life I've gotten from 108 to 140.

On this test I got 121.

I think I'll stick with 121.

[Anonymous No.2678412]

>>2678401

stands up and claps!

[Anonymous No.2678426]

>>2678401
Is the general-intelligence-factor theory the theory that g exists, or is there something more to it?

[Anonymous No.2678437]

124, dev 16. Not bad.
I totally got thirty-nine by my self, though. I feel proud about that. White/black/grey, pink/red/yellow, and blue/green/cyan stay in the same row relative to each other, and always in different columns than they were before.

[Anonymous No.2678438]

>>2678426
The idea that g exists is part of it; i. e. The idea that g exists as an actual thing out in the universe and not a derived measurement (e. g. the difference between the mass of one apple and the average mass of an apple) is one of the bigger points of contention.

[Anonymous No.2678449]

>>2678426

Basically it says that every different aspect of thinking is, or should be understood as, a single mental ability. Which makes no sense whatsoever. You look at how complex a brain is, and how each section is so specifically designed for a single function; then you look at how neuroplasticity changes the physiology of the brain, and make any individual area more skilled at the expense of other areas (just by repeated using it); then you look at how people who train their brains solely in a few areas can be geniuses at one form and shit at another, and you have to concede that insisting there is a general factor isn't just lazy science, it's dismissing something awesome just so you can place a crown on your head for getting into Mensa.

[Anonymous No.2678463]

118.

Is the score determined by how much time one takes on a given question, how much time one takes in total? I took my sweet as time on a few.

[Anonymous No.2678467]

>>2678449
You're mistaken. I think you think the brain is more specialized than it is. fMRI studies represent an extremely simplistic view of the brain unless you view them with skepticism. It's a little like the idea of a gay gene: it's just a vast oversimplification of something that is very complicated.
Individual areas are not necessarily strengthened "at the expense of others," learning takes place at a synaptic level, not at the level of brain areas, and strengthening one synapse does not pull resources away from other synapses.

[Anonymous No.2678468]

>>2678437
Hey, I said I got #39. FEED MY EGO.

[Anonymous No.2678490]

online IQ test

[Anonymous No.2678497]

>>2678467
I don't think homosexuality is very complicated. I think most strict homosexuals(as in not bisexual at all) faced sexual abuse in their childhood or have abnormal sex hormone levels for their sex, or some combination of both. This is why there are so many homosexual pedophiles.

[Anonymous No.2678505]

>>2678497
...I'm not going to touch that with a ten foot pole. Maybe it was a bad example. Consider extroversion, then: there's no straight-forward biological basis for it.

[Anonymous No.2678522]

>>2678468
So did I. Didn't think it was one of the tough ones. I totally guessed on a few because my brain just gave up (I'm a 122er).

Also, what do you mean 'by myself'? The only alternative would be cheating, and ISHIGGY BOPBADOOWOOP.

Finally, it definitely feels like if you practiced this stuff you could get quite a bit better. I started noticing patterns/styles of question during it, but if I did this every day I'm sure I'd notice a lot more... what does that mean about it as a test of general intelligence?

[Anonymous No.2678524]

>>2678505
Pretty much everything from what you find attractive to the kinds of food you like have a biological influence on them.

[Anonymous No.2678530]

>>2678467

I musn't be making my point very clearly.

>You're mistaken. I think you think the brain is more specialized than it is.

Yeah, people are extremely specialized. Western culture has a massive effect of the way brains configure themselves. Other cultures change the brain in other areas. This is just one example. I'm not a localisationist (obviously, I'm talking about neuroplasticity), but there is specialisation once the centres map themselves out and the brain stops releasing so much brain-derived neurotrophic factor. All brains set themselves up differently, that's why they have to record so many brains to have a valid study. The pictures in your textbooks are just approximations.

>fMRI studies represent an extremely simplistic view of the brain unless you view them with skepticism.

I'm not that up to date with neuroscience, but for how long has the brain been simple? References if you don't mind.

>It's a little like the idea of a gay gene: it's just a vast oversimplification of something that is very complicated.

K.

>Individual areas are not necessarily strengthened "at the expense of others," learning takes place at a synaptic level, not at the level of brain areas, and strengthening one synapse does not pull resources away from other synapses.

Oh, yeah, I understand the biology. But if you've devoted your life to literature then your language and visual centres would be working amazingly well, but spatial and math centres would suffer from disuse, that's all I meant by that. Then I sort of refered to the talks about the ethics of catering a psychometric tool to understand a general factor of intelligence purely according to a Western standard. That's why Western scientists and academics are always the smartest, they write the tests.

[Anonymous No.2678535]

>>2678438
So you're accusing me of reification? I misunderstood your first post as claiming that you were a psychometrician (to troll me). But I can see you're parroting some of Stephen Jay Gould's chestnuts.

So, I'm going to say Gould incorrectly defined reification, and this is really an irrelevant philosophical mire. G is a statistical factor. An abstraction.

Also, the mass of an apple is not a physical object any more than the average mass of an apple.

[Anonymous No.2678554]

>>2678468
That center cube was a dirty cheat. I would've been pissed if I had gotten the question wrong because of that. Definitely doesn't belong in an IQ test.

[Anonymous No.2678562]

>>2678524
Yes, an entirely hypothesized influence with little to no testing done on it. Still entirely unsubstantial.

[Anonymous No.2678567]

119. I scored 120 on a legit eval. when I was young.

It's like the mediocre of being intelligent.

[Anonymous No.2678576]

TL;DC on the link. I'm in Mensa though.

inb4 hur dur you pay for a smart club
I live in a shitty post-industrial river town. It's worth it to have intelligent conversation once a month and not hold back.

[Anonymous No.2678582]

>>2678535
I wasn't the guy who made the first post.

[Anonymous No.2678598]

>>2678562
The difference is there IS concrete evidence for certain behaviors and preferences being inherited. There's no such evidence for the sociological opinion(nothing more) that it's all nurture.

[Anonymous No.2678634]

>>2678497
0/10
>>/pol/

[Anonymous No.2678647]

>>2678524
Some biological influence, yes. Heritability, yes. But you'd be hard-pressed to pinpoint the exact biological/neurological basis of "extroversion" or any similar characteristic, partly because semantic categories like this do not conform to biology, they're invented based on broad patterns.

[Anonymous No.2678651]

>>2678634
That's how I feel based off of personal observations. You'll find reality isn't exactly politically correct so forgive me for being straightforward.

[Anonymous No.2678656]

>>2678535
(More ranting.)
It seems to be that Mr Gould objects to anything non-physical being referred to by nouns. The more you try and think about it, the more nonsensical it gets. He's saying "You think your factor g accounts for x% of variance in test performance, well did you know it's not even a real, actual object I can pick up. Fools."

The Mismeasure of Man is probably the most elephantine, heinous pseudoscientific travesty of the last 20 years.

Look at Morton's skulls. Gould just assumed that this scientist he mismeasured the skulls and made further errors, because he was racist. He doctors the evidence to fit his a priori assertion. Morton measured the skulls perfectly accurately, his errors tended to overestimate the volume of crania from Africa. Look it up.

[Anonymous No.2678664]

I pressed buttons at random and I'm as high as Krishna and I still scored 105.

This test rocks.

[Anonymous No.2678670]

>>2678651
>personal observations
>reality

[Anonymous No.2678689]

>doing puzzles instead of reading books and then comparing the results on the internet
This thread is offensive

[Anonymous No.2678697]

>>2678670
Yes, the things I observed were real. Whether or not they're accurate as general rules is yet to be discussed.

[Anonymous No.2678707]

>>2678670
But like, competing narratives man. You can't toatalize like that.

[Anonymous No.2678710]

>>2678697
You observed people's hormone balances?
That's some kind of super power. You should be in a lab letting people study that shit.

[Anonymous No.2678712]

i got a 34 on my act lol. don't do drugs kids

[Anonymous No.2678715]

>>2678712
fuck me forgot pic

[Anonymous No.2678721]

>>2678710
Well that itself is actually based off of studies I've read about prenatal hormones and digit ratios and how they relate to sexuality.

[Anonymous No.2678730]

>>2678721
So what do those studies say about pedophiles?

[Anonymous No.2678734]

>>2678651
Well I'm an invert and I was never abused. I'm a virgin.
And gay guys' hormone levels doesn't seem a likely explanation. They have slightly higher circulating testosterone than normal men. Promiscuity or something might explain it.

At some point during a boy's gestation testosterone kicks in hard, harder than puberty, and this basically masculinizes the boy's brain. Makes the right hemisphere of the brain bigger than the left, and a lot of other morphological stuff.

So what happens to male homosexuals is the androgens don't have strong enough effect. But they have missed the window in development for the sexual differentiation of the brain (all babies start off female-like, apart from gonad tissue, and then some diverge).

At least that's what I heard.

[Anonymous No.2678737]

>>2678730
They're bad, m'kay? You shouldn't fuck children, m'kay?

[Anonymous No.2678738]

>>2678715
>65
Jeeeeesus Chriiiiiii-
>/sp/
Oh, right. Carry on.

[Anonymous No.2678740]

>>2678730


That they like to fuck children.

pic related: my captcha, no lies.

[Anonymous No.2678742]

>>2678730
Notice how I said "that itself". I was referring to my belief in hormones affecting sexuality. As for your inquiry, I won't be specific. I'll just say there's a disproportionate amount of gay pedos relative to the number of gays in the general population.

[Anonymous No.2678743]

>>2678734
I should have said their hormone levels as adults. Hormones are obviously important in the little etiological narrative here.

[Anonymous No.2678745]

>>2678738
You missed
>How to take a screenshot

[Anonymous No.2678748]

>>2678715

>has tab open: how to take a screenshot
>screenshot reveals IQ 65

whythefuckaminotastonished.jpeg

[Anonymous No.2678751]

>>2678748
And he uses Chrome.

[Anonymous No.2678750]

>>2678738
>/sp/
AND
>how to take a screenshot.

[Anonymous No.2678756]

>>2678751
>>2678750
>>2678748
>>2678745
>>2678745
>>2678738

Oh you guys.

[Anonymous No.2678760]

>>2678742
But we have...
>I think most strict homosexuals(as in not bisexual at all) faced sexual abuse in their childhood or have abnormal sex hormone levels for their sex, or some combination of both.
>This is why there are so many homosexual pedophiles.
For the second part to follow from the first, pedophilia must be related to both (a) sexual abuse in childhood, and (b) the same hormone levels that are statistically linked to homosexuality.

[Anonymous No.2678769]

>>2678760
From my observation, there's a disproportionate amount of gay pedophiles relative to the amount of gay people in the population. I didn't say most pedophiles were gay or anything similar. Do my observations really anger you so? You'd try so desperately to discredit them?

[Anonymous No.2678775]

>>2678769
No anger, just trying to get some rigour going on here. How does part 1 function as an explanation of part 2?

[Anonymous No.2678785]

>>2678769
>disproportionate amount of gay pedophiles
stats or GTFO

[Anonymous No.2678790]

[Anonymous No.2678797]

>>2678790

>dat mad

[Anonymous No.2678798]

>>2678790
>He mad.

[Anonymous No.2678799]

>>2678790
Joke's on you, asshole. I have 131.

[Anonymous No.2678801]

>>2678790
You don't see the irony behind you making that, do you?

[Anonymous No.2678807]

>>2678797
>>2678798
>>2678799
>>2678801
>tfw we also mad.

[Anonymous No.2678809]

ahaha not even trying

>>2678790
>irony

[Anonymous No.2678810]

>>2678775
Plenty of people who are victims of sexual abuse as children go on to become abusers themselves.
>>2678785
I can't share my observations without statistical evidence? Youch you PC guys sure are religious about it.

[Anonymous No.2678818]

>>2678801
ahaha you ninja'd me on calling him out ahaha

[Anonymous No.2678819]

>>2678810
Assuming that's correct, though, that's only one part of part one. The hormone levels were also put forward as an explanation for a high number of gay pedophiles.

[Anonymous No.2678827]

>>2678810
"I heard about/got molested by some gay paedophiles" just isn't a basis for saying there's a "disproportionate" number of them. You'd need to know the proportion of gays to say what's "disproportionate" anyway. How do you know about all theses gay paedophiles?

[Anonymous No.2678829]

>>2678819
Oh no, I was just referring to sexual abuse. I don't think the same sex hormone imbalances that lead to homosexuality lead to pedophilia.

[Anonymous No.2678832]

>>2678827
That's something I said I wouldn't elaborate on.

As far as you're concerned though, it's nothing but an observation of mine. You should feel no urge to discredit it and yet you're trying desperately. Political correctness is a fucking religion. Swear to god.

[Anonymous No.2678833]

When I have sex with adults, I only really enjoy it with men (and I like them to fuck me rough and hard).

When I have sex with children, I always want to put my dick in girls.

Is this normal? I'm generally gay, but with kids I like the pussy.

[Anonymous No.2678840]

Side question for /lit/: are there opposite fallacies to the appeal to authority and the argumentum ad populum? You see it all the time here: the idea that because an argument goes AGAINST authority, or goes against what most people think, it's better. One example would be conspiracy theories: they must be true, because they're subversive of existing power. See also 'my opinion on race is right because it's politically incorrect'.

Not saying the anon here is necessarily doing that, it just made me think of it is all...

[Anonymous No.2678850]

>>2678840
I should add 'they're subversive of existing power and only a small group believe them'

[Anonymous No.2678855]

>>2678840
I've never seen anyone do either of those.

People like myself though, who hold opinions not fed to them from age 1 on, tend to pride themselves on breaking free from the dogma they've been indoctrinated with. Atheists are a good example. They're generally very ornery about it as well. This is why people like myself feel the need to point out the religiosity of the PC crowd. The sentiment is nice, sure. No one wants to hurt people's feelings. But denying truths because they might hurt peoples feelings is unforgivable.

[Anonymous No.2678856]

>>2678832
You got raped by a homo. Wow. That says nothing about larger trends. That's all I'm saying. I believe you got sodomized by a dude. I really do.

[Anonymous No.2678860]

>>2678856
I've never had sexual contact with anyone/thing, willingly or unwillingly.

[Anonymous No.2678861]

roll

[Anonymous No.2678863]

>>2678832
You said
>I think most homosexuals...
and
>there are so many...
Which are statements made for disagreeing with, and we're on the internet, which is built for disagreeing. It's a considerably-less-than-perfect-but-still-stormy storm.

[Anonymous No.2678865]

I have dyspraxia so it isn't an appropriate i.q test for me.

Also this: >>2677570 is bullshit, ability to recognise VISUAL patterns =/= intelligence

[Anonymous No.2678866]

no rolling here!

[Anonymous No.2678868]

>>2678855
There's nothing religious about wanting more than anecdotal data before drawing conclusions.


You got molested by a gay and now you're a gay who hates gays and probably wants to molest children too. Tell us your sob story if you want but it aint a statistic.

[Anonymous No.2678872]

>>2678863
I figured it was a general observation many people believe(as evidenced by gay adoption laws in some states), I didn't say it to cause a debate about whether or not it's true.

If you were really concerned with the topic I was discussing you could have simply said "there's not much evidence for that" and suggested a more likely theory.

[Anonymous No.2678873]

>>2678863
Why are you being such a zealot? I just expressed my opinion and the P.C. police jumped all over me because their world-view can't stand up to any criticism.

[Anonymous No.2678876]

>>2677730
>mfw everybody between 110 and 130 tries to defend their "low" scores with excuses. how pathetic is that.

Jesus. My thoughts exactly.

Are you really that insecure, /lit/?

[Anonymous No.2678877]

>>2678855
>denying truths because they might hurt peoples feelings is unforgivable

That's the thing, though. Where in this discussion are the people denying truths? Where are the truths?

[Anonymous No.2678881]

not sure if this is accurate. Also, why is this on /lit/ and why am I contributing to this shitfest?

[Anonymous No.2678884]

>>2678868
I don't hate gay people. My brother is gay and I'm bisexual. I run a gay image board. I just try not to flinch at uncomfortable ideas for ideological reasons.
>>2678873
This isn't me.

[Anonymous No.2678885]

>>2678873
Just offering an explanation for why people are disagreeing. It's not just PCness, because if you posted something PC, other people would disagree with you. If you think most people on 4chan, of all places, argue because they're committed to political correctness, then... I can't even finish that sentence.

[Anonymous No.2678888]

>>2678877
I was explaining to that person why "anti-PC"(and conspiracy theorists) people are so seemingly proud about having unpopular beliefs. The reasoning behind it is similar to the reasons atheists are so argumentative with religious people and tend to be obnoxious about it. If you rebel against something you've been taught to believe, you feel proud that you "overcame" it.
>>2678876
I got 116 and didn't post anything. I think only the insecure ones are posting because they feel the need to justify it. The others who got mediocre scores probably didn't feel the need to post.

[Anonymous No.2678890]

i got 110, but near the end they stopped making logical sense to me...so i guessed. just curious, how is asperger's supposed to help, since i suspect i may be an undiagnosed aspie?

[Anonymous No.2678893]

>>2678885
All I did was make a simple very generic and generalized observation. I don't think there was anything wrong with the language I used and I think 4 chan has an established reputation of defending pedophiles.

By the way; this isn't me>>2678884
I don't have a problem with gays who don't hurt anyone but I'm asexual and I think this is a pretty cheap way to troll/ insult me.

[Anonymous No.2678899]

>>2678888
Oh yeah, I totally get that. It's just that I think I have seen people effectively saying 'Your opinion is wrong because it's politically correct' or 'because everybody thinks that', and I was wondering if that was a recognised fallacy.

[Anonymous No.2678904]

>>2678899
It's just not an argument. It seems to be the inverse of the appeal to popularity. Appeal to exclusivity? I've never seen anyone do this though.

[Anonymous No.2678905]

>>2678833

Only on 4chan could this kind of filth be ignored. Only on /lit/ would it be ignored for some kind of pointless semantic debate,

inb4 summer. I'm already gone.

[Anonymous No.2678907]

>>2678893
>I don't think there was anything wrong with the language I used
There doesn't need to be to start an argument. You made an assertion and people questioned it. That's not unusual.

[Anonymous No.2678910]

>>2678905
>samefriending to draw attention to your own trolling
Only on 4chan indeed, friend.

[Anonymous No.2678911]

>>2678905
That's just one more reason to love 4chan. Stuff like that used to be common before the normalfags became the majority.

[Anonymous No.2678912]

>>2678905

thank litmod

[Anonymous No.2678917]

127
i'd be proud if I wasn't on /lit/

[Anonymous No.2678925]

>>2678907
That person's trying to confuse you by pretending to be me or he got mixed up in the quoting. These are him:
>>2678873
>>2678893

These are me:
>>2678832
>>2678855
>>2678860
>>2678872
>>2678884
>>2678888
>>2678904
>>2678911

He intercepted the argument at one point and has someone arguing with him who thinks he's me.

[Anonymous No.2678927]

>>2678925
Eh, I can argue with both. I'm on the internet!

[Anonymous No.2678928]

>>2678925

If you care so much about attribution, become a tripcunt.

Or fuck off. I don't care either way.

[Anonymous No.2678929]

>>2677598
bro! same IQ and same feelings about the /lit/any

[Anonymous No.2678930]

>>2678928
I usually use a name for this very reason. I didn't want to confuse anyone further though by adopting one in the middle of the discussion.

And why are you mad that I don't want people misrepresenting my position?

[Anonymous No.2678976]

>>2678925
>>2678930
I tried to let this conversation die because I really honestly didn't mean to start an argument and now I've got some PC troll pretending to be me and trying to invalidate my posts so he continue is subtle "I'm so gay" line. It's not even funny, why would you do this? It's probably someone trying to argue with a straw man just to defend his views on the gay lifestyle.

[Anonymous No.2679004]

What /lit/ should do is do another IQ test and post results with their highest educational and/or career achievement. I'm a doctoral candidate at a world top 10 university and I got a sweet sweet 122 from this test.

(a horribly unsuccessful candidate, but still...)

We really need a new test, though. Any online IQ tests out there that have any credentials behind them?

[Anonymous No.2679011]

>>2679004
>credentials behind them
go die in a fire

[Anonymous No.2679017]

>>2679011
no u

(all I mean is, this is a random blog and clicking on 'about' gives you 'coming soon'. Be nice to have something more... authoritative)

[Anonymous No.2679062]

I really thought I was going to do worse.

[Anonymous No.2679071]

136

Acceptable.

[Anonymous No.2679082]

>>2679071
No picture=unacceptable.

[Anonymous No.2679118]

>>2677616
>>2677854
>>2677902
the correct answer is the only cube that has the same horizontal patterns as the ones in the example. Grey, black, and white are one row; yellow, pink, and red another; and green, dark blue, and light blue are the third, while the middle block retains this grouping with a 90 degree flip. The correct answer will have the grey/black/white row on the bottom with the other colors all correctly grouped.

[Anonymous No.2679137]

127, disappointing.

[Anonymous No.2679152]

Can't screen cap due to being on a iPad, but I scored a 145.

[Anonymous No.2679153]

>>2677596
the stick ones were usually sticks rotating on a point, and some could hold shape and move in a fixed direction. I got exactly 1 SD above the mean - 116
When you get to the difficult ones, some are obtuse and some are apparent, and it seems to hinge on whether or not the algorithm or progressive logic behind them is accessible based on what you are seeing. For me the stick ones, even (especially) the last one was exceptionally obvious, but the dot matrices took ages (also the shape addition)

[Anonymous No.2679179]

>>2679152
>>2679152
press home button and the other button at the same time. I would insult you but its finals week

[Anonymous No.2679181]

114, meh

[Anonymous No.2679186]

119.

I'm not going to say that I thought I'd do better like you 120+ people, because I'm not dumb enough to think I'm smarter than everybody. ;)

[Anonymous No.2679193]

>>2679186
so what you are implicitly saying is, you think you are smarter than people who scored higher than you

[Anonymous No.2679199]

>>2679193

Perhaps.
But if I'm saying that while saying I don't think I'm smarter than everybody, is it safe to assume that I don't think I'm as smart as those who scored below me?

[Anonymous No.2679209]

>>2679199
no

[Anonymous No.2679211]

>>2679209

Correct, because I was being sarcastic to begin with anyways.

[Anonymous No.2679378]

127.
Not a /lit/ regular, just curious. And I'd happily trade 30 or so IQ points for greater emotional intelligence.

[Anonymous No.2679661]

114, I am not surprised.

[Anonymous No.2679690]

>>2677488
I had 135 yesterday when I did it on /v/. So much for /lit/ being the smartest board.

[Anonymous No.2679695]

114, think I tested slightly higher when I was younger but that was probably on tests of even less reliability than this one.

Staring at those patterns really hurt my eyes though so fuck you /lit/

[Anonymous No.2679707]

>answer randomly
>still get 88

[Anonymous No.2679715]

>>2679707
heil hitler

[Anonymous No.2679716]

>got 105 on this test
I've been tested properly a long time ago and I remember I got over 120.
Take that as you will.

[Anonymous No.2679718]

>>2679716
Why do you feel the need to come up with excuses? Insecure? Need constant validation for your intelligence? Baby.

[Anonymous No.2679720]

>>2679715

[Anonymous No.2679722]

>>2679718
Why would you say that?

[Anonymous No.2679732]

>>2679722
Because you are a baby. Waaaah you want your mommy baby? You want some milk baby? You crying? Baby.

[Anonymous No.2679738]

124. That was a pretty fun test though.
If we're trying to see how smart lit is though last time i was officially tested i got a 142.

[Anonymous No.2679741]

Your IQ is now the last two numbers of your post / 2 and +100.

[Nona No.2679943]

Satisfied. >160 :)

[Truman Capote !!cO9KVBDtkqQ No.2680039]

people who brag about their IQ are invariably losers

[Anonymous No.2680043]

>>2679943
>standard deviation 24
Just use the default like everybody else cuntface. Are you that desperate to assert to superiority? You just proved the very opposite.