/sci/ - Science & Math

>>12104399
I completely blew the spatial and verbal portions of the test. I am skeptical about the test as a whole though. Aren't IQ tests supposed to be measure fluid intelligence without any prior knowledge needed? Isn't the idea of verbal IQ a bit of an oxymoron because vocabulary is something that is learned? For the part of the test where you select whether or not the sequence of letters can be unscrambled to make words, what if you simply hadn't known some of the words that were hidden within those sequences? I'm genuinely curious if there's any validity to these sort of tests.

>>12104399
I can't into anagrams, at least not fast because of ADHD.
Memory was 141
Verbal was 108 (Same vocabulary as you but I got 8/27 for the anagrams, ugh)
Spatial was 136
Full scale was 132

I don't think this test is all that accurate, you wouldn't group a subtest that heavily relies on processing speed in the verbal section.
It was fun though.

>>12104399
i donno what to do with this info. i thought my memory would be my best trait but i spaghetti'd on the box placement memorization part

>>12104399
so,
Memory IQ is largely: processing speed and consequently quite correlated with fluid intelligence
Verbal IQ is largely: a posteriori, acquired, crystallized knowledge
Spatial IQ is largely: imaginative, detail oriented, moderately correlated with fluid iq

am i missing anything

a lot of these scores are really interesting
>>12104476
>perfect score on VM, arguably the hardest and timed
>flunked on MR, arguably the easiest and not timed
how tho? you have infinite amount of time to rotate the object in your head and then check the analogous ones. what's so difficult about it?

>>12104399
My IQ is too high to waste my time on an internet test

I was afraid of choosing more options for the EM section because I felt it would nuke my score.

>>12104399
>online test

>>12104399
Fuck that test, do this test, time yourself 40 mins: http://splushka.com/intellect.htm
(The first one by the way, not the second)
Calculate your score with this: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/247728337_Raven%27s_Advanced_Progressive_Matrices_Norms_for_First-Year_University_Students_and_the_Development_of_a_Short_Form
If you can't figure it out, I'm so sorry anon.

>>12104560
how do i improve my visual memory bros? judging by these scores, the Full Scale IQ score is most highly tied to how good your visual memory is: is this why i can never think of anything to say in conversations in real-time situations? is this why my social life is a disaster and why i bring books to parties and never get sunlight? is it because my eyesight has always been 20/300 bros? is it because i have clinical OCD bros?
>Additionally, an individual with obsessive-compulsive traits may earn lower scores, not due to a processing speed deficit but rather due to a specific response style. Moreover, an individual with mania who rushes through these tasks will likely make sufficient errors and obtain lower scores on the PSI subtests and index. Again, this may not be due to an underlying processing speed deficit but rather a behavioral correlate (i.e., impulsivity) of a psychiatric disorder.
am i working on inferior hardware?

>>12104657
>am i working on inferior hardware?
That's a very upsetting way to parse that, but you aren't technically wrong.
I wouldn't be too upset about it though, your working memory isn't even that bad, it's not going to affect anything, trust me.

>>12104655
>RPM
So literally just one variation of the same exact genre of IQ test posted in every other thread that you're bizarrely gatekeeping?

>>12104677
>gatekeeping
go back to r*ddit moron

>>12104684
i have no idea what you're talking about but it seems like you know a lot about reddit, also
>gatekeeping a word found in the merriam webster and cambridge english dictionaries
high iq poster

>>12104690
You have to go back

>>12104691
ok reddit expert

>>12104677
Gf is better, so yeah I'm going to use matrices that are clinically valid.
Now do the test brainlet.

>>12104716
i did. ever since i was 16 i've gotten about 133 (if normal w/ 15 sd) on every rpm-like test, which is much higher than the score i get on the test in this thread by almost a whole standard deviation

>>12104399
phone posting and lack of patience but pretty happy.

anagrams are definitely my weak point, i hate em

>>12104729
Did you do this test specifically? Because this test is given by psychologists (pic related).
If you can get 133 on it, then your Gf is probably something like 133, how is this hard to comprehend?
Did you check with the study?

>>12104690
please stop posting

>>12104745
yes, is there a more automated version?
>how is this hard to comprehend?
what do you mean? i understand that these style tests are way more accurate, but they're all quite similar relying on gate logic and we've had millions of threads about them. the style of test in this thread allows me to see where certain deficits are - even if these strengths/deficits correlate much weaker with intelligence
>>12104765
cope. imagine caring so much about anonymous posts

>>12104784
you are embarrassing yourself, samefag

>>12104399
ok I guess

>>12104791
>doesn't know what samefag means
point to the post where i'm pretending to be someone else, newfag

>>12104399
I have nigger iq, pls halp

Fuck you niggers

Jews are great

>>12104876
Based.

How does one improve their verbal IQ? How do you remember complex vocabulary without forgetting

>>12104810
>point to the post where i'm pretending to be someone else, newfag
>>12104784

I never took a proper IQ test. Did one in 7th grade, sort of a memey one and got 136. Makes me wonder how high I am. I like to imagine in the 160s but then again that's just daydreaming. This board is figuratively and literally retarded.

>>12104784
There's no automated version you lazy shit.
You should know how to score it yourself with all that I've given you.

>>12104399
>anagrams
>same meaning
Really gay for non native speakers

>>12104610
op here i dont like how ur smarter than me im gay and u turn me on

>>12104476
because the verbal intelligence is standardized and if u had an iq of 130 like me, youd largely have the same vocabulary

>>12106282
Don't worry friend.
You had a better anagrams score than me. I'm pretty bad at that haha.

>>12106300
its probably cuz im female brained

>>12106293
This does not apply if you have a learning disability.

>>12106303
who cares abut the 1% of test takers?

>>12106306
Because I'm the 1% of test takers with a learning disability :'(

I'm very pleasantly surprised that sports related concussions and casual drug use haven't ravaged me that badly

Is this a good IQ?

>>12104399
I'm really smart.

>>12104399
Hungover af tho.. :/

I not speak very good London

>>12104399
My visual memory is apparently terrible. It’s giving me anxiety thinking about how I can’t remember where squares were seconds after seeing them. Is this connected to how I have trouble doing math in my head? I depend heavily on a calculator.

>>12104590
why would you spend that much time on a test with questionable methods and results?
>>12106293
how exactly is verbal intelligence standardized? you can memorize the meaning of words, that has nothing do with fluid intelligence. and if your memory IQ was perfect like mine you might be able to remember points you've seen in the past as to why tests like this are bullshit.

>>12106643
you have a bunch of people with known iq's take a verbal test and you...get this...standardize it...much like in the way iq tests are made. then you base it on formulated questions

>>12104399
I'm fuckin smart

>>12106643
do u understand how hard it is for stupid people to learn new words and use them appropriate and retain them? you underestimate how much mental power talking takes

Got 97 percentile on ICAR 16. got 101 on this.

>>12106650
what if the words that you use frequently are just as complex and aren't assessed in the test?
>>12106652
any pseud can dedicate the time to learning fancy words and using them in conversation, it means absolutely nothing. most people who use bigger words in conversation are just compensating, it's why people are generally seen as less intelligent when they use complex words.

>>12106661
this post is anti-intellectual

>>12106663
taking online IQ tests seriously is anti-intellectual

>>12106683
if ur so smart whats the difference between this test and the questions on a paper test?

>>12106685
none

>>12106683
would u look at that an explanation of the test and how it sourced its questions
oh look theres also metrics that explain to you how they consider time
well ill be

>>12106691
then shut up

>>12106694
>>12106697
i never said that proctored IQ tests taken in real life are more valid than an online IQ test, and catching me in a contradiction wouldn't further any points that IQ tests accurately assess intellectual acuity.

>>12106706
ok mr ''taking online iq tests seriously is anti-intellectual"

>>12106708
I mean that's what we're doing in this thread, no? We're taking an online IQ test. Why wouldn't I mention specifically what we're doing? I never said "Online IQ tests are stupid and taking one in real life is far more valid." Not sure where you're getting this from buddy.

>>12106715
because you clearly stated its anti intellectual

>>12104399
https://youtu.be/elL-3_Idu-o

I am not smart

>>12106719
Yes, which I stand by. I also believe that IQ tests of any paradigm are anti-intellectual.

>>12106730
ok u can bring ur random opinion here
but ur not entitled to an argument

>>12106735
understandable

>>12104399
not native speaker

>>12106751
so 125 possibly

Non-native speaker here, also it is 2am.

>>12104476
Properly administered IQ test don't have bias, but when you give an English test to someone not profecient in English it introduces bias.
I suppose it could be biased towards people who play word games, but I'm not sure.

>>12104399
Feels good. Other online iq test like Mensa.no and the Denmark one put me at 125 iq. Not sure if I am actually smart though or just a midwit lol.

>>12106943
the denmark measures patterns only

>>12106951
it's supposed to be culture fair

fucking stupid anagram horseshit bullshit
i only got a single 5 letter anagram

>>12106996
how dumb do u have to be lmao

>>12107038

>104
Its OVER! Jdimsa...

>>12106996
The anagrams are a measure of processing speed, not verbal reasoning.
No real IQ test would ever put a test of processing speed in with the verbal reasoning.
I have processing speed issues myself because of ADHD.

I'm like around Tesla smart. If I had not wasted my life energy and being underdeveloped and understimulated and over stressed and so on. I know a few things about electricity and nature to. Which only I understand. Meds has made me stupider though. Sorry for wasting gifts.

>>12106653
What were your subscores?

>>12107223
Pffft, you claim you're smart, yet you don't even have irrefutable evidence of your intelligence by posting a screen cap of your online IQ results.

Hared tes

>>12107196
thats why they put two verbal tests in
also you may find this hard to believe but mental issues do indicate you have a low iq naturally because u have - a mental illness.

>>12107258
Ofc I've taken tests, but in which I don't know the exact results. But I do know How it went. And I was told where it went good and where it did not go as good. But I kinda blew the score through the roof here and the, and rather normal in other places. IQ tests cannot really categorize anyone by a number though. IQ tests are in futile and lack touch in real tasks and performance. like you can be bad with numbers but good in let's say sports and visa versa. But I can say in pure logic I did groundbreaking good in super time like nothing. I had 100% right in visual and memory tasks and spatial I were through the roof again. And memorizing and do patterns of anything were kinda good to. Other than that I have solved math that like no one understand and seen connections in formulas far off school pensum that involves new discoveries when it comes to energy and how it behaves. Dynamic energy etc.

>>12104399
i took an offical iq test and did poor on everything but VCI. what do it mean, how do i use it.

>>12107327
write speeches and essay for important people

>>12107331
is it really that intuitive?

>>12107332
well yea its high, higher than mine and sometimes i feel like i could write a blog that people would like to read

>>12107230
17/17 mental rotations
12/18 CP.
28/34 V
0/27 A
47/85 VM
EM 19/26

>>12107327
That VCI score is stupid high.
What did you do for that section if you remember?
You probably have a learning disability (that's honestly probably the reason you took it in the first place).

>>12107327
what is the difference between full scale and general ability?

Why is 4chan so high iq? I score 110 on this test and it is the lowest I have seen on this site, yet 110 should be above average. Is this really a site for geniuses?

>>12107543
This is an inflated online test. These scores aren't accurate. The spatial scores are nowhere near reflective of actual abilities. If you don't believe me wait for the fly box thread to be reposted, most of this board fails miserably at the problem. They also fail at the goat grass cutting problem and most basic physics problems that could be solved with spatial reasoning. If you deflated the spatial scores the thread avg would go down considerably. This board probably sits around 106-110. People with higher than average scores are more likely to post.

>>12107543
Yes.

>>12107543
>is this really a site for geniuses
no, the average IQ of a US college graduate is 114. the average person is just really, really dumb.

>>12107551
>This is an inflated online test.
Inflated, sure. OP's picture even admits that online tests are inherently inflated because the people that do them have generally done them before and are not a good sample of the general population. however this test does attempt to adjust for that

>why would you spend that much time on a test with questionable methods and results?
what are you talking about? my point is that it shouldn't take that much time, but even if it did (however you define it), it seems extremely easy and i can't understand not being able to rotate an object

>>12104399
Always new I was average. Can't remember stuff for shit, so not surprised about my memory IQ. No valid IQ test includes a vocab quiz though...

>>12107516
i have autism. i got the question right, questions were word definition, word similiarity, defining words in context and generally other such things. my discord (pic related) #9786 if you want to talk to me about things

>>12104920
How brain-dead are you? This is an extremely stupid post. I responded to >>12104655 and then this guy >>12104684
and this guy >>12104716 both responded to me and all I've done is replied to them. Do you hire someone to wipe your drool for you too?

>>12107593
post a picture for people to pay attention

guess im retarded

>>12107539
GAI is IQ without working memory or processing speed.

I'm a native speaker, decently articulate, and over 20. Just slow, i guess.

>>12107551
ur retarded box fly test measures how much iq 160?

>>12107587
and a retard you will remain

>>12104399
>>12104399
Those tiny boxes I have to click on memory test are so small I forget where object is out of bad handled javascript.

In spatial, I didn't read the thing, so I was not knowing that it's not spatial, but algebraic avaraganing.

Also hard to do english not so popular words, if you're not english man.

I forget I'm also stupid when to recognize isomerism.

>>12107750
It's not an iq test, but it is a g-loaded task. The visual-spatial portion of this test is far too easy. The denmark mensa test is a much better measure of spatial intelligence and from the scores I've seen posted from that test and the norway test the average iq would be considerably lower. For mensa it seems like ~120, for Norway a bit lower actually since I think it is a good deal harder to learn to do visual-spatial tests than matrix reasoning.

>>12107783
i always score 127 on the denmark, so yes the i tests are very reliable this one and ur denmark

>>12107790
Yes, but the scores on Norway and Denmark are much lower than in this thread. Which is why I doubt that it's a reliable test.

>>12107796
you realize people who get lower scores are less likely to post them, or even take the test for that matter

>>12107825
Yes I said that above, the test is still inflated. This has been discussed before in this exact same thread which has been made many times. The norway and the denmark test are less inflated, some autist tried all of the popular tests and figured out which ones were inflated, full-scale etc. and gave a report like 6 months ago.

This provides a full scale score that's much better than that shitty test. Of course it's not a REAL test, it's still pretty close and in my opinion, fun.
You do need to bypass a pay wall, it's easy though. Sorry if it's a little elaborate.
This one is really fun.
https://giqtest.com/
For it to work you need to use an email, use your normal one or a throwaway.
Save the test ID you get at the start and when the test is finished, paste the ID where the numbers are:
https://giqtest.com/iq-test/finalReport.html?testId=159808874104715&payOverride=true

i scored a sweet 155, but i bumped my head a lot since then so who knows?

>>12107945
Screenshot.

>>12104399
i am retort

>>12104399
I'm trying to increase my verbal IQ because of my autism but so far, it's not going well.

did this at like 12 at night and was pretty tired, had gym earlier. i sucked at the closest point part.

>>12104399
I doubt the validity of this test.

>>12104399
Seems like spatial IQ didn't affect my score?

>>12104399
verbal is bullshit. literally no one but mouth breathers speaks or writes in anything other than plain english

Too lazy to do it. But I made one when I was a kid and scored 115 so I'm just average. People still tend to say I'm the smartest person they've known so I guess everybody is just an idiot.

>>12108356
Cope.

>>12108356

>>12108250
Because memory gives you 85+26 =111 points
and verbal gives you 34+27= 61 points. While
spatial gives you only 17+18 = 35 points.

So I suppose spatial is underweighted in this test.

>spatial iq lower than verbal

Should I give up on STEM boys?

>>12108233
It's pretty accurate to other exams I've taken before including an actual paid one.

You may be like me where you're:
A) Surrounded by equally intelligent or people who are more intelligent so you don't feel that intelligent OR
B) You're surrounded by morons so you don't feel understood.

If it's B you need new friends my dude

That average dot 1 spaced me out the first few tries I felt like an utter monkey

>>12108825
>implying I'm surrounded by anyone
Maybe it's because I don't know anyone or do anything now so I feel like a failure and thus end up thinking I can't be that intelligent or else I wouldn't be in this situation.

try this guys?
https://humanbenchmark.com/

Slowbrain reporting in, i'm dogshit at fps games so it makes sense

>>12104399
I got 117 but i blame that on alcohol. Is there an IQ/alcohol percentage ratio..? I feel like if I do it again i'd do significantly better by simply knowing the rules better as well.

>>12108918
the dot one becomes easy once you just make a first order guess, and then think to yourself: if i move it one to the X, how many am i getting closer to, how many am i getting farther away from? you probably figured this out but thats all it is

>>12109355
we had a thread for this last week i think. 263 isnt that bad, when i was younger mine was like 230 until i got a desktop, 144hz monitor, mech keyboard, etc, then it went down to 170. aim trainer is a weird one that requires good mouse precision and spam clicking as fast as possible (you dont lose points for missing) and a good fps sens imo

>>12109389
263 is trash. normal is 180

Honestly, I thought I tanked the "pick the closest point from the squares" worse than the anagrams. Picked a lot of anagrams, which is probably why the score is so low. Sometimes knowing a bit of multiple languages makes you forget what the scope of English words actually is.

I think seeing the timer also stressed me out more.

>>12109468
The closest square ones aren't that hard. Just look at the largest clusters and ignore small clusters. You'll generally get within a square of the right answer. When their are no clusters just plop it roughly in the middle of the region that has squares.

Verbal should not be on an IQ test. It's closely correlated with memory but also dependent on your cultural background. Just test memory.

>>12108356
Jerk, don't judge me!

>>12109355
I do well on most online IQ tests, but my scores at humanbenchmark were brutal.

>>12109355
Reaction timers depend greatly upon your computer. They're useless unless run on standardized hardware.

>>12109540
Do you have a learning disability?
If not, the having a verbal ability assessment on an IQ test has actually the highest correlation with g.

>>12108233
its not. The correlations between this test and the WAIS are questionable. They state the correlation between this test And the ACT is 0.55, but the WAIS and the ACT is 0.73. This test is acting like a proxy to WAIS. This board is full of r/Mensa fags that know data but don't know how to interpret said data. The WAIS is much different to this test in time and in questions, no shitty anagrams, no matching synonyms.

>>12109607
Try this one:>>12107873

>>12109650
not paying for a report. already taken the ICAR 16 and got 97 percentile

>>12109790
Nigger, do you know how to read?
Do you not know what the word "bypass" means?
I'm starting to doubt you're 97th percentile.

>>12109838
Wanna bet? Already know what GIQ iq is I skim read your crap.

>>12109892
>can't even take a screenshot
>can't read
Take the test anon. I think you've been duped

>>12109916
this is a more accurate test, its made by psychometricians in the field from Cambridge.
ICAR or International cognitive ability resource.
You are telling me to take a test by armatures with no understanding of what they are doing. And saying its accurate.

>>12109937
NORMED BY 50 people.

>>12109937
We will see how accurate it is when you take the test.

>>12109992
How the hell I'm I going to take the test I don't know how to bypass. And if I don't know how to read how can I write?

Non-native speaker. Feeling like I might've had an unfair advantage in the geometry part though, did almost half a semester focused entirely on rotations and related matrixes while in uni.

>>12110015
I just told you how to bypass it.
Use an Email, save the test ID, put the test ID in the link when the test finishes.
I also took your garbage test.

>>12110082
congratulations you scored high on the cognitive it means you have an high iq

>>12110082
How is the test garbage?

>>12110102
It was really easy.
Maybe I'm over-estimating the intelligence of the average person.
I see that they have their statistics public, I'll read them now to figure out what the results actually mean.
Try the GIQ test, it claims to measure higher.
I'm guessing the ICAR only measures up to 98th or 99th percentile, but no finer measurement than that. The GIQ test is also more fun.

>>12110082
Be happy, You have an High IQ

>>12110119
easy? easy for you. For us. It was normed on the average internet user(they are not the general population, they are higher), All those hobby tests you may have been doing are not accurate because they were measuring specific skills not G. Look up cattell horn carroll theory of intelligence. It took lots of money to develop this test. Its not supposed to be hard for everyone. Again it discriminates against cognitive ability. You should not be angry at me. If you took the WAIS for a challenge you WILL be disappointed. Most true IQ tests are easier

Only intelligent people post on 4chan.

>>12110169
That can't be true because I post here.

>>12110171
A very keen observation which proves my point.

>>12110119
I know how to take a screen shot I was lazy. I did not test as well but I'm tired.

>>12110165
I'm not angry at you friend.
I'm more surprised than anything.

>>12107873
How long does it take to calculate, mine has been going for 10 minutes or so

>>12110211
Did you use an email?
What was your test ID?
Did you refresh at all during the test?

>>12110214
>Did you use an email
Yes
>What was your test id?
159987549357862
>Did you refresh at all during the test
No

>>12110235
You fucked it anon.
Redo the test, this time with a different Email.

>>12110242
Dammit

Took this GIQTest a while back, 127 full score
PhD in aerospace engineering, just graduated and job market sucks feel unemployment bro

>>12110251
Very good, friend!

>>12107873
>>12110211
Took it again, not sure what the problem was the first time. I am also >>12106943, so I guess a little over 130 seems accurate.

>>12110297
Of course my smoothbrain forgets the picture lmao

>>12110300
You did well.

>>12107287
It's not a verbal test, idiot.
And my IQ is 132 from the WAIS IV, my GAI is 140.

>>12104399

New netflix show: Post your iq and then post how much your take home income is...the results will surprise you!!!

>>12110411
You're up first.

>>12107873
https://giqtest.com/iq-test/finalReport.html?testId=158260811082247&payOverride=true

>>12107873
I'm retarded.
https://giqtest.com/iq-test/finalReport.html?testId=159989142859221&payOverride=true

wtf why do i have a huge rating on memory my memory is horrible shits rigged

>>12110701
These tests have to be quick. You might have good short term memory but poor long term memory.

>>12110300
Why are they giving an IQ for Washington and Napoleon? Also, Koko the Gorilla was a fraud perpetrated by her caretakers.

Are there any ways to improve your memory? My memory is always my worst score on these tests.

>>12110698
Not retarded, friend.
Pretty smart

>>12110728
Do you have ADHD?
Medication can help a lot.

>>12110719
For normalfags who read pop psych articles about IQ and decided to pay for a 10 dollar test.
Don't think about it too hard.

https://openpsychometrics.org/tests/FSIQ/results.php?data=juhpovn3yiKB
This shit is retarded. Memory and verbal are low (seems right) but spatial is too high given that I rushed it thinking that time is a factor.
Also, everyone who fell for that shit is low iq madafaka, can't realize they are just farming data and know that retards from 4chan will gladly participate.

>>12110793
It's more likely that people are insecure, which isn't the same as stupidity by the way.
Try this one, it's more like the WAIS IV than the other one:
>>12107873

Do I need to be a native english speaker to get a valid verbal score?

>>12104399
feels decent man, thought I'd do worse because I struggled with the anagrams

you ARE smarter than joe rogan arent you?

>>12110922
I don't believe Joe Rogan's IQ is that high.

I suck at English (non-native speaker) so I guess that is part of the reason why I only scored so low on verbal. I want to train my memory with those fancy techniques, has anyone got experience with that? I think I was quite good with the remember the icons game but I sucked at the shaded squares one.
Anyways, still happy with the result because spatial is quite high and that is what I need for my job and hobbies

I think I am going to end my life. This explains why in every endeavor, I am average and remain average regardless of effort or time put in. I am just a dumbass and will never contribute anything to the arts or sciences. Fucking wish I got my severe sleep apnea treated when I was a kid, studies I was able to look at thru my unis database show it can absolutely fuck up your cognitive development as a child. Also I was anorexic at the age of 14 so that also probably fucked my brain. Unlucky man. Unlucky.

>>12111000
Just do it quit whining about it you pusy fuck. I fucking hate you, don't breed you absolute fucking filth. Your genes are worthless, you are worthless. Die, painfully I hope.

Still feel like a stupid fuck

>>12111000
Kill yourself

>>12111000
nice double trips
imagine believing that you need a high IQ to contribute something to the arts. You just need to have some commitment and try to be creative

Jesus I didn’t know my IQ was this fucking low

>>12107753
Guess I have astronomical IQ as I know 4 langs and many words that are specific to given lang?

>>12104399
Not sure why I got memed into doing this. Astrology for redditors. Being presented with the results and deciding whether or not this has any basis in reality is the true IQ test.

>>12104399
/sci/ why am i a stupid cunt?

Am I the only one who can't think under time pressure? Like, I can't even do simple shit.

>>12111163
Don't worry, all of us are.

I scored 115 but as a non native english speaker I fucked the anagram part completely

>>12106730
I consider IQ tests anti-intellectual when I consider what actually goes into a mind, which is a vast number of experiences and relationships with the world. To reduce the whole of cognitive experience to a single number is just about the greatest absurdity imaginable. Adding a system of multiple measures of different kinds of intelligence isn't any better.

Surprised my verbal isn't lower and spatial isn't higher.

My memory is probably skewed a bit high since I recognized a lot of the icons as linux distro icons and could remember them more easily than random meaningless icons.

>>12107324
I hope you're baiting

Did some absolute retard shit with a few of the midpoint ones and memory sucks bc sleep deprived but meh
Fun lil test, similar to results I've gotten from other normed tests but definitely inflated since I did quite poorly imo

Second time i took it. first time i got a 96 after just waking up

>>12110602
Damn son, nice.

>>12111163
This doesn't make sense. Memory is weighted the highest, and your verbal was only 97, so your full scale doesn't seem like it should be so low. Seems like it should've been 106 or 107 not 101

>>12109552
GIQ score of 137, compared to 143 on the FSIQ.

>>12110411
This >>12111654 is me. I make about $40k a year. Doing well on online IQ tests doesn't translate to income, shockingly.

>>12111680
Maybe it is because you think calling yourself shitcock is funny

>>12111689
>tfw too high IQ to laugh

>>12111689
Yeah, I probably shouldn't be listing that as my name on resumes.

i'm a midwit. what the fuck is the pattern here?

>>12104476
And yet you feel the beed to brag on 4chan.....sure your smart, but you’re not very wise

>>12111739
nevermind im not that much of a midwit according to this stupid fucking fake test that i just paid 10 dollars for

fuck word bullshit, only made to inflate ego of native speakers

I thought /sci/ told me that /pol/ was full of retards but the iq is about the same

>>12111821
same here bro

>>12111872
>Pol users take an IQ test
>Those who score low decide not to post results
>Only those who score high post their results
Do you seriously not see the flaws present there?

>>12112246
I expect to see the same on /sci/ but in a greater magnitude, so your argument is invalid.

>>12111872
Which test?

>>12111804
>stupid fucking fake test that i just paid 10 dollars for
You got it, anon. That was the real IQ test.

>>12104399
>Your responses may be recorded and anonymously used for research or otherwise distributed.

Fuck off, glowie.

>>12112380
I assumed they were joking since it's been posted how to get the results for free, but maybe not...

>>12107873
is there anybody who has taken this and gotten an average or below average score? seems to me like online tests give everyone a high IQ

>>12112246
Not exactly - as you can see in the image, those with low results just claimed to be black.

>>12111821
>>12112202
>Same

>>12112547
No one from pol claimed to be black. The pol results were based on U.S., Anglo, or EU, shown in the second line graph. The first line graph was to show pol's distribution compared to non-pol whites and blacks.

>>12112541
Yes.
I have many IRL friends who are midwits who get 100 on this.
You're just smarter so you don't think it's hard.

>>12111739
It's addition, retard.

>>12113224
How do you explain the positions?

>>12113233
They don't matter.
You're supposed to find a logical solution to the pattern, if there's no pattern for the position of the squares, then they don't matter.
This is just making sense of raw data, which is just finding patterns.
It even works vertically.

did i get the highest in the thread? i always thought i was average at best

>>12113244
You didn't get the highest.
And it doesn't matter how intelligent you THINK you are, that rarely ever lines up with reality.
Both stupid and smart people will think they are smarter or dumber than they actually are.
Whether or not your performance on this test is actually representative of your cognitive ability is not known.

>>12111739
Option 5, think the black boxes inside the boxes as like negative values and the ones outside are positive.

>>12113253
ah, thanks. this is my first time taking it and i think iq tests are fuckin' stupid and unrepresentative, i expected to get like 110, but i suppose it's also just bad data

>>12107753
According to vocabularyzone.com

Why do we all care so much about our IQs?

Isnt the value of intelligence in what it can do for you?

>>12112317
>I expect to see the same on /sci/ but in a greater magnitude, so your argument is invalid.
Sci doing the same thing does not make my argument invalid, the only point I made was that the pol average is likely lower, as not everyone will post their results. I never said anything about sci's average, midwit.

>>12113434
My post was a comparison of /sci/ and /pol/'s iq. You clearly lack comprehension, you likely don't even know what a midwit is either.

>>12113434
Why wouldn't everyone post their results on an anonymous board? It's not like they can't enter a new thread and then shitpost there as if the IQ test never happened.

>>12113486
>Why wouldn't everyone post their results on an anonymous board?
If you're trying to build up white people as superior, you're not going to want to post low scores.

>>12113526
Then why does the same occur on /sci/?

>>12113545
Because people are embarrassed?
It's shameful feeling to get a low score, why would someone humiliate themself?

>>12113553
Embarrassed on an anonymous board? You're full of shit.

>>12113555
Or, an alternative theory, this board actually doesn't have many below average people, and even fewer will actually try the test.
Also, lots of people will try the test because they like puzzles any challenges, and those who actively play puzzles and enjoy them are far more likely to be above average.
Most average and below average people are not interested in mathematics or science
There's actually a lot of things that could be going on.

I'm not even sure what the test /pol/ took was, but it could have been piss easy and a massively inflated score.
If you want to try a real IQ test, I can always link the RAPM set II, as well as validity studies and correct scoring norms.

>>12113545
The people who tend to take IQ tests tend to be the people who do well on IQ tests. I wouldn't expect the scores you're seeing to be the average score here. But there actually have been a few lower scores posted. Look at the pol scores. 50+ results, not a single one under 100, and only two under 110. Have you read some of the posts there? Do you really believe those scores are an accurate sampling?

>>12111872
You can have a bell curve even if there's a skew in who's likely to report their IQs and who is not.

>>12113571
Yes, yes, you're special for posting here.
>Also, lots of people will try the test because they like puzzles any challenges, and those who actively play puzzles and enjoy them are far more likely to be above average.
Only valid point but then the same could be extrapolated to /pol/.
>>12113574
Do you not know that /pol/ is the bait central of this site? A lot of stupid posts are stupid precisely because they want to elicit reaction from the reader.

>>12113605
>Do you not know that /pol/ is the bait central of this site?
Sure. It also attracts legitimately stupid people. I'm not saying there's no smart people there, I'm saying there's definitely some dummies as well, and they're not represented at all in those IQ scores. It also hasn't been posted what IQ test was actually used.

>>12113577
the skew should be mostly the same for pol and sci, so it doesn't matter. But the kicker is that sci treats pol like it's some washed up retard baby, but the iq test threads show mostly the same iq scores.

>>12113610
>It also hasn't been posted what IQ test was actually used.
I thought sci was supposed to be smarter than this.

>>12113610
>hasn't been posted what IQ test
I see, I already knew I was talking to someone who didn't even read the picture but this seals it.

>>12113605
>Yes, yes, you're special for posting here.
And so are you.
Not many people like math or science, I state that as a fact, not as something to sperate myself from others.
There's nothing wrong with this line of thinking.

>>12113616
>But the kicker is that sci treats pol like it's some washed up retard baby
Sounds like sci is correct in that regard.

>>12113625
I don't consider myself special and even if I were that kind of thinking would only lead to self-complacency and arrogance, i.e., laziness and biased "thinking".

>>12113635
sci couldn't figure out which test pol used, I'm not sure which one is the washed up retard baby

>>12113638
I never implied that you had to think of yourself as special, I simply stated it as a fact.
I don't think I'm all that special either, and thinking that I'm special makes me feel bad, but I do know the statistics of interests and their connection to intelligence.
People who complete degrees in mathematics with IQs less than 120 are rare, it's just a plain fact (not saying that people here are completing degrees in math, it's just an example).
One can infer that people with a serious interest in math having IQs less than 105 are rare (it's a guess, but not an outlandish one).
This applies to most of the other sciences.

>>12113438
Yes, and my post was simply stating that pol's iq results are likely inaccurate. This does not mean that sci's results cannot be inaccurate either. You are right about one thing though, I must not know what a midwit is, because I called you one even though you are actually a dimwit.

>>12113642
Sure, everyone at pol just pretends to be retarded.

>>12104399
take this for what you want but I have a Masters Degree in Comp Sci with work experience on non web-shit stuff (graphics and computer vision) and I got a 115 (130 spatial), and my father who's been a senior computer engineer for over 25 years at a major fortune 50 company scored a 85 even though he graduated top of his university. not sure what to make of this

>>12113658
It was a comparison between sci and pol. Asserting that pol's data is flawed, for a reason that is also applicable to sci, is meaningless without making a distinction between the two.

>>12113658
>can't even find what test /pol/ used when it's staring him in the face
>calls others midwit/dimwit
The quintessential /sci/tard.

>>12113667
Out of curiosity, does /sci/ go to pol and talk shit or something? I don't know why you even care to come here and discuss this.

>>12113669
I am not from /pol/, but that wouldn't be a good enough excuse for you, so you won't accept it.

>>12113674
Well in this thread, with no discussion of pol, someone came and posted an image. I don't know why anyone would care enough to do that.

>>12113685
It's an IQ thread and anon posted something IQ related.

>>12113693
So why get angry at people being mean to /pol/ when it wasn't even part of the discussion until someone went out of their way to instigate it?

>>12113696
Stop talking about it. Last (You) from me.

>>12113701
>brings up pol
>gets angry about discussing pol
Makes sense.

>>12104399

actually the test is deflated. they take into account that it's online and that many people taking it have practiced IQ tests before and they overcompensated in the other direction.

source: scored 139 IQ on a real test, only scored 113 on this.

Are these tests actually representative of IQ when run on "normal" people? I'm always a little surprised at /sci/'s and my own results when taking these, considering 140 is usually considered *really* high. Has anyone gotten Redditors to take these online IQ tests and confirmed that the results are <90??

>>12113729
https://www.reddit.com/r/mensa/comments/hyd4ok/has_anyone_tried_open_psychometrics_fsiq_test_and/
Literally first result I got and redditors are complaining at their low scores.

>>12113729
>I'm always a little surprised at /sci/'s and my own results when taking these, considering 140 is usually considered *really* high.
Same. At least in my own academic life, my intelligence only seems slightly above average, or I'm really misjudging what average is. I feel like most intellectual pursuits should be ridiculously easy once a person is in the 140 range.

I don't even need an iq test to know I'm don't have a high score, 130 tops.

>>12104399
it's 2:30 am here

>>12113740
>I got FSIQ=108 ... I have a PhD and work as a research scientist at a well known tech company
lol
>I can tell you right now that taking a view of it based on distilling things to one number is misguided.
Ultimate cope

>>12113750
In fact, here is my 1:30 AM blow-through of the exam, I think if I was in normal conditions my memory would be higher, other than that idk

>>12113767
also english ain't my native language, anyhow, guess I'm a retard ?

>>12113767
And also damn I really need to build up my language abilities.

>>12113771
You're non-native and probably not a jew. I've only ever seen jews get higher verbal but trash spatial on IQ tests like these.

>>12113776
so my veredict is? trash memory and ok spatial?

mfw I'm probably autistic

>>12113784
Your verbal is ok, considering you're non-native. People usually score the lowest in verbal.

>>12113771
dude I think you quoted the wrong post, that was my post.

Not a native English speaker, and desu having vocabulary tests in an IQ test is pretty moronic.

>>12104794
>>12104560
>>12107738
>>12110978
How does it feel being so extraordinarily good at spatial?

>>12113967
Is this the most well rounded score?

Math PhD from Mocкoвcкий гocyдapcтвeнный yнивepcитeт here. Beat my score you stupid burgers.

>>12113972
At least we won't die of alcohol poisoning.

>>12113972
Post image of PhD or gtfo

At least have some harder problems guys.

>>12106663
>this post is anti-intellectual
Actually he's right. Why the fuck would an arbitrary set of words be an indication of IQ? If I'm in sciences, I almost never use any of those fancy vocabulary that end up on an IQ test, and it's not like I ever learn them interacting with the everyday idiot or the guy who's been doing so much math/physics that he sometimes accidentally talk in numbers instead of actual words. Also, English isn't my first language, so that for sure makes things less fair for me. Scored 105 on verbal and I speak 4 languages using 3 different types of script. But because I've never heard half of the words on the list, apparently I'm just average.

>>12113995
The fuck are we even supposed to be solving?

English not being my first language made the verbal test harder, I guess

>>12114015
The pattern.
What's the pattern for the left side?
How is the pattern different to the right side?
The objective is to spot the differences between the two sides.
Usually, the right side is the opposite or a negation of the left.

>>12113741
You're misjudging the average at least somewhat, this test isn't too inflated so it probably has you at least within the right standard deviation. There are a lot of really dumb folks out there.

>>12113972
only smart person itt

>>12104399
English is not my first language and I did bad at the Verbal thingy. I think my spatial score is high because I often work with 3d vectors and thus I've learned to "simulate" them in my mind. Memory is bad coz of fuck this shit.

I work as a 3D modeller so a spatial IQ that high is understandable

>>12104399
Good?

Give it to me straight /sci/, am I a fucking retard? Am I fucked for life?

I want so desperately not to be stupid because I fucking hate stupid people. I'm not very academically educated if that matters, was homeless throughout high school and didn't do homework or any kind of work really. Shitty childhood in general, I guess.

Got a 23 on the act and I napped during it as well.

>>12114233

This is my result, give it to me straight.

>>12114237
you will live a blissfully ignorant life

Post your Major/Degree/Field pls!!

CompSci checking in

ESL phoneposter here, my score is all over the place. My tested IQ is 110 but my spatial is 139

What the fug, explain this meme

>>12114559
Also, I got distracted during the last mem. test but eh, fuck it it's pretty spot on. I can't remember names for shit

>>12113665
You can still assert an image's inaccuracy in it's data, what part of that do you not understand?

>>12113667
Never said anything about what test pop was using.

>>12110978
Try artofmemory.com for advanced memorization techniques like POA or memory palaces. And for practicing these methods you can use memoryleague.com
Good luck anon, I hope this helps.

>>12114619
what part of it being a comparison escapes you?

>>12114194
>VM: -112 / 85
Kek

My question about this test is this: wouldn't it be really easy to raise your iq at type of stuff, I would think verbal can be improved on tremendously with just a little bit of age, and memory can be improved with drugs like adderal and games like brain age. Spatial iq is just learning math really, so why is iq said to be consistent throughout life?

>>12115016
What part of "Its an inaccurate comparison because one or both sides being compared contain faulty data" do you not get? If at least one side has the potential for faulty data, its a comparison that can't be made accurately. It doesn't matter that your original point was that its a comparison, my point was that pol's data is likely faulty, making the comparison moot irregardless of the data here collected on sci.

My memory is so dog shit

>>12115591
>What part of "Its an inaccurate comparison because one or both sides being compared contain faulty data" do you not get?
because the reporting bias should be roughly equal to both boards? Unless you can show otherwise your argument is worthless.

>>12115946
>because the reporting bias should be roughly equal to both boards?
According to who or what? The burden of proof here is on you since you are the one making the assertion. I currently see no reason to assume this is true.

t. ESL

>>12115984
Your argument only stands if the reporting bias is different. If they are the same it wouldn't matter. So the burden of proof of showing if they are different is on you.

>>12116022
No, it stands on you. There is no reason to assume they are the same in the first place.

>>12112246
Here's what you don't get. Asserting that reporting bias is a problem applies to both boards. Unless you make a distinction between the boards, that they are different, it is a meaningless claim. Which means the burden of proof, the one saying the comparison is false because of reporting bias, needs to make that argument. claiming reporting bias would be a valid point if you were looking at the results of the boards individually, but on a comparison basis of which one is smarter it doesn't matter unless you make that distinction that the reporting bias is different.

>>12116262
meant for
>>12116222

>>12116262
>Asserting that reporting bias is a problem applies to both boards
Yes, this is true.
>Unless you make a distinction between the boards, that they are different, it is a meaningless claim
The boards are already inherently different, one is a politics board and one is a science board.
>Which means the burden of proof, the one saying the comparison is false because of reporting bias, needs to make that argument.
I never made any assertion, you were the one to do that here >>12115946. What reason do you have to immediately assume reporting bias is exactly the same?
>claiming reporting bias would be a valid point if you were looking at the results of the boards individually, but on a comparison basis of which one is smarter it doesn't matter unless you make that distinction that the reporting bias is different.
There's still no reason to assume reporting bias will be the same between two different boards just because they happen to be anonymous and on the same site, when the boards themselves host different kinds of content and thus attract different kinds of posters.

None of this also detracts from the original criticism applied to the pol infographic you posted, which was that it itself is likely inaccurate, making any comparison using it inaccurate. This is in complete isolation of whatever results sci posts. I get your initial post was a comparison between sci and pol, but me pointing out a flaw in your infographic isn't nullified by the fact you were comparing it to the results currently in sci.

>>12113971
>>12113972

>>12116385
>I never made any assertion, you were the one to do that here
the assertion was that /pol/'s info was inaccurate due to reporting bias, which you agree is the same problem for /sci/, and is therefor incomparable
>What reason do you have to immediately assume reporting bias is exactly the same?
Read the next sentence "unless you can show otherwise". Saying "pol's data is inaccurate because of reporting bias" is a blanket statement by itself, but using that to detract from a comparison (which again the same criticism applies) is worth practically nothing. I don't know if the reporting bias is different, no one has shown if it results would go way or another for either board. If you can't then you can assume they are roughly the same.
>None of this also detracts from the original criticism applied to the pol infographic you posted, which was that it itself is likely inaccurate, making any comparison using it inaccurate
this is wrong. If the bias is skewed in the same direction for both data sets then for comparison it doesn't matter. What you can't get however is specific data but you can safely generalize.