/sci/ - Science & Math

You got an 80 on an IQ test? You are borderline retarded OP.

Define intelligence.

It's more than pattern recognition which IQ typically measures.

80 iq? hahaha oh wow, you have wild african niggers level of inteligence.

>implying IQ tests = smart
>implying 80 is what you scored
>implying implications

Ideally, an IQ test is supposed to measure intelligence as defined as the capacity for reasoning, learning, etc. From that perspective (assuming an IQ test is actually valid), a low IQ is related to a low capacity for learning.

Some things that IQ tests measure, such as spatial recognition, can be improved with practice. This would imply that IQ is not a fixed trait in people.

Some things that IQ tests measure, such as memory, can be improved with techniques. This would imply that IQ has something to do with the way people think, not simply their cognitive capacity.

Some people who do intelligent things in life do very poorly on tests. This would imply that IQ tests do not accurately measure a person's intelligence.

IQ tests have their uses, but that number is not you. If you are still worried about it, there are ways to increase the various skills tested for by IQ tests. Google it.

>>1989005
So what do you do when you have a low capacity for learning? What if you have a really good memory but, a low capacity for learning would they offset?

>>1989014
Impossible.
If you have good memory, you are good at learning.
This is why people with photographic memory are fucking awesome.

>>1989016
So are you saying that IQ tests aren't a measure for the capacity to learn?

>>1989014
Learning is merely the process of copying data from short-term memory to long-term memory.

The whole point of leaning something is so you can remember that something later on when you could apply it.

>>1989016
If you're in high school, where you memorize pre-digested text and spit them back out on tests, you are probably treated as though good memory = intelligent.
In the real world, where you need to recognize and interpret patterns that are not readily pointed out to you, you need to make choices among many possibilities, and you need to understand complex processes to be successful, memory is only one of many capacities you will have to rely on.

IQ can be compressed/generalized into ranges:

below 80 = no one on /sci/ will even consider you human

80-100 = sorry bro. it's code monkey time! your limit would probably be math undergrad. this is useful for teaching. or screw academics and pick up something else, like music or sports or cooking or drawing.

101-115 = you could be an engineer or a doctor or a high school teacher, and those with higher iqs, even geniuses, maybe not perform as well as you because these skills are acquired/affected by other talents other than intelligence. probably the average of all software engineers. able to understand complex math, but must put in an exhaustive amount of effort.

116-129 = pretty damn smart, could achieve 130s averages (ie. theoretical science, pure math, quantz, finance) with a lot of hard work, but very little chance of any major discoveries. able to understand complex things, but probably not create new ones. could be inhibited by lower memory/reasoning score.

130-141 = university math professor at a top institution, nobel prize, etc.

greater than 142 = pretty much can do anything, just needs to work hard, but a lot of other factors can inhibit. all other iqs are pretty much just in a non-hierarchical sea at this point. notice how those with 180 iqs or so aren't much smarter than those with 140s. in fact, a lot of them are fucking dense, such as that bouncer dude (proves god with equation) or that newspaper columnist woman. could be outside psychological factors, but their logic isn't any more sound than people in the same range. this is the range in which people can learn several languages quickly, have insane memorization and reasoning, etc.

>>1988980

Yes, of course you could. IQ tests aren't always right and they often undervalue people who think in non-standard ways; Feynman only scored 125.

However, they are right most of the time

>>1989052

80-100 for a maths undergrad? 110 for a doctor? Sounds too low for me, unless you're talking about the best such people could achieve with an exceptional amount of work, or you live in a country with poor academic standards.

>>1989052
>greater than 142 = pretty much can do anything,
not how it works, dude.
higher iq = more specialized brain

OP Here: Well I have read probably more than 1,000 books in my life including text books on topics like advanced organic chemistry and quantum physics and I understand and remember the ideas. My memory is definitely above average. However, I took my first IQ test today and got an 80 so I guess I am fucked as far as critical thinking. Might as well be a cook that just had a large amount of random knowledge that will never be real world applicable.

>>1989130

Dear, God.

How well do you do on achievement tests? 16 on the ACT? Your predicament sounds very dubious. What test was administered?

>>1989130
why not be a physician assistant? or a pharmacist? that way you can make tons of cash doing, er, applied science.

actually i got a better idea. you should be a teacher! or a civil engineer!

>>1989135
I got a 31 on the ACT back in high school but, didn't end up going to college.

>>1989052
>greater than 142 = pretty much can do anything,
see: idiot savants

>>1989145
>>1989145

The ACT =/= IQ test, but you have an IQ much higher than 80 with a score like that. Or perhaps you have some sort of major dysfunction in a very specific aspect of cognition that was being tested. This could appear on something such as Raven's Matrices of Cattell's Culture neutral.

It's more likely there was a malfunction in computing your score or you were sent another individual's score than for you to actually have an IQ of 80.

That's definitely comical though!

I'm pretty damn smart if i may say so myself but my memory is complete shit.

I have to put an inhuman effort into learning the latin names of plants for example.

While at the same time math, physics, economics, computer related stuff is a stroll in the park.

>>1989130
You're only stupid if you let an IQ test discourage you. Which is kind of ironic. Seriously. You shouldn't need an IQ test to tell you what kind of thinking you're good at. Do what interests you.

>>1989157
The ACT doesn't ask me about patterns and shit like that though. It was all knowledge you can get from a book, remember and recite. You can't learn pattern recognition.

idk anything about IQ but sometimes I wonder what's up with my head. I seem to understand stuff faster than most kids in class, remember things, do well on tests etc. but I'm functionally retarded when it comes to interpreting directions, speech, etc. I guess the brain isn't one thing. oh wait it's probably because I have no sample data because I spend all day on 4chan.

>>1989130

>OP thinks he is stupid because he did bad on an IQ test
>OP is stupid

>>1989145
>>1989145

What test was administered? Thoroughly answer me question. Also, you don't have an IQ of 80. If you're being honest, the score you received was a false estimation of your cognitive capacity. A 31 on the ACT is far too high for such a pitiful level of cognition.

>>1989163
So you won't win a nobel prize in pattern recognition. OTOH, they don't offer one. You don't have to be a wiz at pattern recognition to do great things.

>>1989163
>>1989163

What? there is an above 70% correlation with the ACT and general intelligence. This correlation is far to large for someone to score above Mensa-level on the ACT and attain a score in the bottom 10% of the population. You know nothing about psychometric intelligence testing if you believe there wasn't some sort of malfunction or mix-up.

>>1989014
Some autists have awesome memory but can't get dressed by themselves. Just because you have a good memory doesn't means that you are a good learner.

>>1989170
I would say 50% of the test was different types of pattern recognition and describing which answer would best fit the next item in a series. That is the section I did horrible on.

>>1988980
>Is it possible to do very poorly in IQ style tests and still be intelligent?
IQ doesn't mean shit, study,
>Will your natural intelligence grow as you apply yourself
yes
>someone who is naturally intelligent
nobody is naturally intelligent

You will find out in the future why you didn't do so well with that test OP. It isn't because you are stupid it is because your brain works differently.

>>1989184
>>1989184

That's certainly strange, OP.

Get an EEG or MRI done. You may have traumatic brain injury or at least some innate and severe neurological abnormality.

You're certainly no dullard and do not view yourself as such.

Read some neuroscience books and you will never mention "IQ" again.
You will see(and no assume)that its much more complicated than that,there is no "intelligence" but specialties, you just have to find your strength and use it properly.

>>1989201
wrong,some people have greater potentials in cognitive functions.

>>1989201
>nobody is naturally intelligent

please be trolling

You probably end up having to put more effort into learning than most people but, since most people are lazy they don't end up learning much so you seem smarter than them.

>According to Treffert, something that almost all savants have in common is a prodigious memory of a special type, a memory that he describes as "very deep, but exceedingly narrow". It is narrow in the sense that they can recall but have a hard time putting it to use (for more on this see section on savants in Advanced Memory).[2] Also, many savants are found to have incredible artistic or musical ability.

You can be retarded and be good at something but you will be retarded no matter how hard you try.

>>1989287

It doesn't work that way. You're vastly understating the capability of those who have IQ's in range of OP's.

I indomitably stand by OP's reading being either false or himself having a strange neurological abnormality.

>>1989302

Err, understating the inability.

I should have just used "overstating", hehe.

Should I just take another online IQ test and see if the results correlate?

>>1989316

You took an online IQ test?

I've been defending you throughout this thread and you tell me rubbish like this?

>>1988980
1. Someone should photoshop the pic of michael cera's face on a blue background on figure e. of that picture.

2. IQ tests are bullshit

>>1989322
Yea it was an online test.

>>1989316

>>1989335

10/10

>>1989335
>>1989335

Why did you think it was a valid assessment of your cognition? You're joking?

Shut the fuck up and delete this thread. Based on your ACT, you're probably significantly above average. If you actually care about your IQ take the WAIS or Binet. All other tests are shit-tier amongst the already poor accuracy of these two tests.

>>1989351
fuck you

>>1989335
80 sounds about right then
captcha: duebot answer

>>1989322

quantifying intelligence into one number is bound to fail.

>>1988980

no OP, someone with an IQ of 80 will not have the analytical skills or reasoning as someone with an IQ of approximately greater than 100 (+/-)10.

Maybe, sometimes they might be capable solving a challenging problem, but they would not be able to do it at the speed of someone of higher IQ.

IQ tests can't explain something as complex as intelligence, but they provide a nice little metric for what your capacities might be.

To answer your question, no, no degree of persistence will allow you to exceed your basic potential. You will probably never be able to grasp difficult concepts with the ease that more intelligent people do.

I'm no brain scientist, though.