/sci/ - Science & Math

23rd, what a scam

>>11413894
where did you get tested?

No.


Ranking online IQ tests:
JCTI-Removed and now available only in archived version which isn't as accurate and tend to underestimate results.
https://www.free-iq-test.net/
http://www.mensa.fi/wordpress/?page_id=27
http://test.mensa.no/
https://mensa.dk/iqtest/

86th, probably fake & gay. Ive done way too many drugs to hit that.

>>11413944
>https://www.free-iq-test.net/
120 on three hours sleep isn't too bad, though the test was boring af.

>>11413864
Fucked up real bad... scrambled letters are the bane of my life. Kill me.

>>11413944
What makes them more accurate?

Also has anyone here actually gotten tested by a psychologist. Most people online claim to have scores above 120 despite how rare that should be, I'm included in that. But something has to be wrong with the test right. I'll take these if your sure they're a little better though.

I guess Im also a bit biased because It would be a little comforting to know Im somewhere around 80.

Where are all the /sci/ 160+IQ chads now that a real intelligence test is posted?

>>11414130
You forget to account for the fact that people who are likely to take the test online are generally not from the general populace but a specialized subset.

>>11413864
Literally the worst test ever. If you take the time to actually read the questions instead of randomly answering, you are heavily penalized. Any test where randomly answering gives better results than actually reading (not even thinking, just reading) is obvious bullshit (it is extremely skewed toward whether or not you have learned speed-reading, which is not a skill even high-IQ individuals who haven't explicitly trained for it actually acquire).

>>11414201
Intellect is not only about right answer. It is also about speed.

>>11414217
That's why I explicitly differentiated between quick thinking and quick reading, and between the edge condition 'random answering' and actually reading (as opposed to even 'random answering' vs actually thinking which should be the actual edge condition).

>>11414221
Fair enough.

I am a bit puzzled, why here on 4chan people are so often obsess with I.Q. It is just one of metrics, which not always translates in real world problem solving. Have met some quite high IQ people (really good in mathematics), who are problematic with day-to-day problem solutions.

There is more like, very successful people have high IQ, but not all high IQ people are successful.

>>11414217
Most questions had an obvious way to get the answer and a shorter way. By measuring time you can measure how efficiently the problems are being solved. It's not perfect, but its the best we have without a proctor.

>>11413944
I think this is bs as I left blank half of the answers on my first try and got 114
Also my history of iq tests done online ranged from 107 (lowest score I've scored) to 115 (highest)
I'd assume that on a "real" IQ test I'd be able to score above 100 but not too far from 100
IQ tests are a meme and if I'm pretty sure that if I took another one that differed in methodology I might even score below 100

>>11414258
Very successful people don't even have high IQ, they have mildling IQ. High IQ people are unsuccessful because they're bottleneck by forward thinking and low IQ people are bottlenecked by their low IQ.

>>11414276
For some random online IQ test got 142 at first attempt. Could be the same as here. And come to similar conclusions. Although frequently meeting some dumb people, i also have met some really, really smart and gifted, and i know that i am far beyond them. More realistic result would be 95...105.

From other hand, there are quite a lot of alcoholics out there, and their IQ are mostly deteriorating. May be they, are effectively dragging this average IQ down.

>>11414130
>Most people online claim to have scores above 120
Online tests are a joke, and in fact because of online availability of practice questions, even legitimate IQ tests are being gamed.
I received an IQ test score of 130-something back in the 1980's (I believe it was the Wechsler, not the Stanford-Binet) but online IQ tests are easy to get 140-160 on.

>>11414285

Idea was, that IQ tests check somehow narrow aspect, basically math and logic. It is quite useful abstraction, as usually those who are highly capable in math, also are capable in some other areas. In my experience, in most cases, successful people have way above average intellect. When quickly trying to find exceptions, those mostly are involved in professional sport. There genetics and persistence have more impact.

About low IQ people, quite often i see that they need to be "spoon feed", their capability for critical thinking, abstractions in different levels are somehow limited. In result, menial jobs for them are more comfortable.

>>11414331
>In my experience, in most cases, successful people have way above average intellect
Bullshit. They definitely have above average intelligence, but only just.
>When quickly trying to find exceptions, those mostly are involved in professional sport.
Just look at any C-level exec ever, or investor.
>In result, menial jobs for them are more comfortable.
It's a lot more than that. They literally don't have the capacity for more than that.

>>11414088
This was really hard, I'm surprised that I got a 120 on it

I took the test and by answering randomly and I got an 84, an IQ that can within one standard deviation of the mean... it seems like it could be inflated

>>11413864
>>11414088
My results for reference.
Didn't try too hard on either, ran out of time on the stanford binet and made a few stupid errors.

JCTI:

https://web.archive.org/web/20180701142825/http://www.cerebrals.org/jcti/index.html


Your score here is likely close or even lower than if you took the official WAIS.

>>11414130
When I was 19 I payed to get tested by local Mensa. Scored >=135 so I assumed that was the highest score possible. It was timed and I remember answering every question, and only being uncertain about the very last one.

I heavily doubt the percentile and they won't tell you the IQ, huge scam

Didn't think the questions were too reliable either

It's not an IQ test in the traditional sense, you retards. They test the site visitors and take the average to be 100.

>>11415579
Here's the other one
Assuming blank answer = wrong answer, could have just skipped over ones I thought were too challenging instead of pondering over them too long, which would have meant I'd get to see all the questions.

Silly test, guessed all the ones that weren't just obvious to me.
Simply finishing the test guarantees a higher score.
Was fun.

>>11413944
If from /fit/, like to browse here occasionally.. this any good??

>>11415900
>this any good??
I mean, you literally posted the distribution curve along with your results, dude...

>>11415903
Wouldn’t have the slightest clue mate, don’t speak German and don’t know if this test is credible in any way. I was just having a browse for coronachan info on /sci/, really starting to bug out over it..

>>11413944
>https://www.free-iq-test.net/
found that one fairly easy, idk how accurate it is

>>11415900
>mensa.dk
that one was a little harder, perhaps more accurate

>>11415924
Should I go be getting tested? Shits easy as fuck.

>>11414276
>Take it another time right after the first attempt
>"I think it's BS"

First try is the only reliable one.

LOL. Got 46th percentile, but I'm hungover to hell and didn't answer even half the questions.

>>11414822
>>11415579
>>11413864
Does getting 50 percentile in this test mean average IQ?

>>11416123
See >>11415625
The explanation makes a lot of sense.

>>11416171
So how the fuck do you derive an IQ score from that

>>11415625
So getting 0 would be the best score?

>>11416193
It's not silly.
It's a percentile ranking on a test of 50 questions (or 100 if you did the longer one like me).
It's like IQ, but NOT IQ at all.

>>11416362
So 20 percentile would mean you did better than 80% of test takers?

>>11416395
no retard
20 percentile means 80% did better than your brainlet ass

>>11416412
The average score on that test is 100, retard.

NOOOOO, I'M A BRAINLET

>>11413864
OP should kill himself for posting such a shitty test and wasting everyones time

>>11415900
Got 126 as well. I started guessing after question 33 and finished it in 10 min. Think it's bullshit, if my IQ was that high I wouldn't feel so stupid.

>>11415006
WAIS IV FSIQ: 136
I don't remember my confidence intervals.
Pretty nice, they were pretty hard too.

>>11413944
pretty sure i fucked up the cube ones

>>11413864
>Hey /sci/ is this test valid
There are no valid online IQ tests.

>>11418127
This one is >>11417043 >>11415006

>>11418207
>This one is >>11417043 >>11415006
There are no valid online IQ tests.

>>11418127
There aren't any valid offline IQ tests either.

>>11418214
/thread

>>11417043
Does this test take your SATs into account and stuff because those are the only other tests I remembered taking? I wonder if the lack of information is pushing it towards the middle, if not then my results are plausible.

>>11413944
Really how credible are these things?

>>11413864
This is bullshit

My IQ is 140 on degraded mode (without my ADD meds)
The true predictor of how good you'll do in life is how fucked up or not was your childhood.

>>11417043
>>11418207
I got 126-135 on that version of the JCTI, but I heard it's deflated.
What could my actual result be?

>>11418461
None of the extra information you provided affects your score, only your age.

>>11418530
kek

>>11418796
Perhaps it could be the higher end of your confidence interval, 135.
Just a guess though. Really the only reason you might need an IQ test is if you are detrimentally insecure to the point that it affects your work, or you have a disorder that affects learning like attention deficit hyperactivity disorder or autism spectrum disorder.
If it really is causing you that much trouble and insecurity, spend the money and take the WAIS IV if you so please.

>>11417043
How legit is this test?

>>11418115
>>11415920
How much you got on the JCTI?

>>11418214
Who knew that Taleb posts on /sci/ too? I knew his technical work is on generally on signal to noise ratio and applied probability, but I never figured he got off of /lit/ or Twitter for a few minutes to post on /sci/ as well.

>>11419610
Nothing like real matrices on the WAIS, but they were pretty hard so give it a shot.

>>11419630
this is me
>>11415920 i got 130 on the JCTI, which i'd say is the most accurate of all

>>11413864
I'm not paying $5

>>11421129

Tried the other and missed some... What's the point of these if you don't get feedback?

>>11414098
Yeah this for me too
I just 'asd'ed those scrambled ones and called it a day

>>11421840
Yeah, I spent half the test sitting on those scrambled questions. Have never been good at them, and always hated that segment of Countdown with a passion. Will try again by just skipping them and see how I get on, because 8% percentile is a real kick in the teeth.