/sci/ - Science & Math

miracles

This question has been bothering me for few years now. I too wonder what's it like to be able to see the world with such intellect. It must be intense.

160/100 is 1.6. That means such a brain is running at a 60% overclock. Unless you have sufficient cooling and sufficient-quality components, this will significantly reduce your brain's operational life span.

Neurons zap eachother until something comes out.

Better

exactly like everybody else's brain.

By being functionally retarded in some areas.
Having a 160 IQ sounds great and all but it usually comes with social skills that render you incapable of holding down a job.

>>2167005
That's a filthy myth made up by niggers and you know it.

My IQ was measured as 172. I don't see anything wrong with me. Relatively well adjusted and all that shit. I'm just good at doing these little puzzles.

>>2167011
lol

>>2167011
It's a half truth, in some cases intellegence comes at the cost of other skills (idiot savants) but a lot of it is just genetics & training.
Whats a man that knows the answers to an IQ test before he takes it? A man with an IQ of 200.

>>2166980
lol

>>2167020
>Whats a man that knows the answers to an IQ test before he takes it?

A cheater.

>>2167024

>>2167005
>Having a 160 IQ sounds great and all but it usually comes with social skills that render you incapable of holding down a job.
Yeah. Sad, but almost true. Meaning, I'm one of those people. I've had jobs but I'm a bit difficult as a person. In my case, also color blindness and some kind of "inability" to like any music. Normally I don't listen to any music and prefer quiet. I think these factors may have contributed to higher IQ. Then again, I don't think "IQ" is a good concept wheras my social IQ is equal to a retard. You don't need much math in life and math skills / high IQ doesn't guarantee what most consider to be "success," especially if you're socially inadequate.

Also I think many blind people from birth are very intelligent. They have truly fearsome abilities to hear.

>>2166971
My IQ was measured at 164. It depends on the person when i was <20 i was terribly socially awkward but i forced my self to sit down and to take the time to analyze social interactions so i could function well with most people. Once you have the social side of life down we think pretty much the same we just come to conclusions faster and get to those conclusions in different ways than most people.

Another thing about how i think that most people don't seem to is i can see an object or hear a phrase and it will trigger some other barley related part of my memory and i have fucking amazing ideas come to me from seemingly nothing

You know, I don't think they are full of profound revelations. People with truly original ideas are few, especially in the "all-encompassing ideas" that concern reality, nature, humanity etc. Even then the greatest innovators on these topics borrowed from people before them.
Most likely these brains just operate better mechanically: they memorise information better, they produce images with greater clarity, they can perform abstract logic more quickly and can relate ideas more efficiently, they can discern patterns adroitly etc.

>>2167045
yes... i suffer from this too, so many tangent thought trains that barely relate to anything

>>2167005

Not really. All the smartest people I've known have been very congenial folks. If they're assholes, they're usually not so smart and have a complex.

>>2167015
>IQ score in the hundred-thousandth percentile.
>No explanation to why he would take an IQ test.
I don't think so. At least entertain us with a backstory.

I've never gotten my IQ tested, but I've had equivalent tests (WAIS IV) rank me in the 98th percentile overall (IQ test would probably rank me at 130 then?) which I took because my social skills are so fucked up from assburgers that my mom applied for government funding. Apitude tests are used to determine eligibility. I did however absolutely destroy the two visual/spatial tests in a time significantly faster then the examiner had ever seen. Was this because of genetics? Maybe, but it's primarily because I play chess every day and my brain is wired to handle visual/spatial shit. Had I not played chess regularly my IQ scores would probably be much more modest then the *fantastical* ninety-eighth percentile shit (I do not believe I'm smarter then 98% of the population)

IQ as a metric I've never seen used in a way that impresses me. It's also too much a measurement of current abilities, not potential.

>>2167061
I agree. Brain is a "muscle" that gets better with training or worse for the lack of use.

Also, please consider mirroring wikileaks: http://wikileaks.info/mass-mirror.html

>>2167053
>If they're assholes, they're usually not so smart and have a complex.
Or say things as they see them, which may lead to problems in work places where boss is bullshitting everyone and hates the truth tellers. Socially smart would have known to keep his mouth shut and play the asskissing liar game. Experience leads to wisdom and smarts.

>>2167061
It's also just disturbing how many people think they must lie about 160-170 IQ scores. IQ scores of 140-150 are rarely claimed, despite being hundreds of times more common.

This is my first visit at /sci/. I was under the impression that you guys were well-educated and intelligent.

Yet you actually believe IQ to be a measurement of intelligence.

>>2167081
Cmon guys, it's not like 140 is bad. Take former chess world champion garry kasparov, and also has a masterful command of russian, english and knows many other languages. He has an IQ of 140.

>>2167080

No, the smart people will find actual flaws in people's research. The people who are trying to seem smart will claim to have found a flaw and get really upset when you explain to them why they're wrong. Smart people are willing to work alongside others in the lab and provide fully fleshed out protocols for what they want you to do, but the less smart have to work alone because you're just going to screw up anyway so why do I want your help.

The smarter actually want to know more. The less smart just want the recognition.

Just because you don't know how to deal with people doesn't mean you're a genius.

officially tested 145 here... i have a few close friends and a girlfriend (though it's not really working out because i've no idea how to function in a relationship) but i avoid talking with most other people. guess there is something to the hypothesis that higher iq's lose out on other skills

>>2167005

It's not true that high IQ people are social retards. James Woods the actor supposedly got a perfect or near perfect score on his SAT, the same with that Hiro guy from Heroes.

In my experience they seem completely normal. Another famous example is that porn-star Asia Carrera, who seems fairly normal.

In most cases, life is just unfair; some people are good at sports and language and math and social interaction and some suck at all of them. There is no justice in nature.

That most people lurking on here or any other places where IQ is some criterion (mensa, etc.) have social or other problems is inherent to the situation and not the persons.

We also have to keep in mind that the topics and everyday "social" nature of human contact is fairly retarded, and may be avoided just because of that fact in the intelligent person. A man in his 40s is not always able to relate to 15 year old, even though his ability to emphathize and be social (whatever that means) in general far exceedes that of the 15 year old.

>>2167081
i agree, im the poster above who claimed to have had my IQ rated at 164. in all honesty i believe my score is inflated above what it really is because of ways my memory works.
I am extremely good at visualizing concepts in my head. Almost everything i read i visualize and even if i do not remember it verbatim i remember the concept of everything i read. When i first joined the air force i made straight 99's on the ASVAB including the mechanic/automotive section even though i consider my knowledge of that subject to be extremly terse

ITT: People who think an IQ test determines how smart you are....

Those tests just show how much knowledge you have gained in your life it has nothing to do with your actual smartness..

If you don't know what I mean you are stupid.

>>2167110

They don't even test how much knowledge you've gained in your life. They test things like how big your visual cortex is.

>>2167105

In fact, come to think of it. I distinctly remember reading that the most prominent features of children in the 180+ range are twofold; the first is inability to answer simple questions due to the ambigous imprecise nature of many of them, such as, "what does a doctor do?". They will see too many answers, and are too creative to settle on any one as the final correct one. A second feature is that they are extremely able to emphathize, more often being vegetarian and able to relate to grown-ups emotions much, much earlier than normal kids, as well as an ability to use this in fields such as chemistry to be able to "feel" the interactions between atoms and so on to remember and understand theory more vividly.

>>2167116

Ya and like the amount of things you can process at once and the speed... That stuff doesn't matter. The only thing holding me back from getting a 160 on an IQ is that im too lazy to try to process that fast...

retards like to think smart people are socially inept so they feel less pathetic

Only person I know with IQ over 160 is my sister and she is the opposite of a social retard

IQ is basically 2 things:
1. Logic skills
2. Memory skills

>>2167107
Ooh I know what you mean, when I did block puzzles I felt like I was cheating the amount of small steps I broke the puzzle into.

i'm very smart.
I have a hard time living normally.
it sucks.

>>2167136

Living normally does not take much smarts, so your first two statements are pretty contradictory!

>>2167124
I'm the person that posted that, I have an IQ of 130, which puts me in the 98th percentile, and have social issues myself. You are completely wrong about my motivations.

>>2167116

What kind of a test is that?

The important thing to note, though, is that they use the tests that work. I can't be assed to explain it here. But the interrelationships among tests and different variables point to a measurable feature, that, if we try to measure that independently (and we do this fairly well with different tests), those tests will correlate amazingly well with all kinds of things -- and that narrow measurement is IQ testing.

But there's always potential to cheat. Because if - in general - intelligent people have good vocabulary, then psychologists will start to measure vocabulary - that doesn't mean necessarily that anyone with a good vocabulary is intelligent.

>>2167136
fine... I have a hard time living up to what I feel/have been told my potential is.

>>2167139
it doesn't take a lot of smarts but it does take a lot of n which I don't have.
I drink dxm to lower my iq and it helps me feel normal

Being a social retard doesn't make you a genius. It makes you a social retard. I'd wager to say that most of you are in fact below average intelligence-wise.

>>2167143
Saying you can design a test that only measures potential is absurd. All visual-spatial things use the same analysis techniques like breaking down a problem into steps, the key points that you need to look for often are used in multiple visual-spatial activities.
I had to do an apitude test where I had to solve a puzzle involving making a shape using 9 differant blocks. Had I never done puzzles, I would have never thought to start with the corners, and then the edges.

>>2167061
>At least entertain us with a backstory.

Hope this story is entertaining then. It was 1992 in former Soviet Republic of Estonia. Estonia allowed all descendants of refugees to come back and gain citizenship. It was our first Parliamentary election after 50+ years of foreign occupations.

One returning refugee was an IQ enthusiast. He also decided to run for parliament. As part of his plan to get media attention he organized public Mensa IQ test.

It was all so exiting for us so many people went. Test was somewhat modified from standard as it didn't contain linguistic part. Got a result back 172, 99.9%, you are accepted to Mensa, send $20 membership fee. Would have probably done worse if linguistic part were in. I probably let the number get into my head a bit at first but have calmed down now.

$20 was fucking ridiculous amount of money for these days and I was a kid so that was that.

Have taken some internet test afterward and got all the answers right.

Dude got elected with second highest sum of votes. He was a pretty cool guy. Gained US citizenship by fighting in Korea War. Later became a green beret and reached the rank of lieutenant-colonel. He did important things to rebuild Estonian Army, but there was always something little weird about him.

People with higher IQs tend to analyse more things and analyse them more thoroughly. This leads to a greater understanding of things in general, and thus a greater understanding of IQ test questions. The more you analyse, the more links you make in your head. These links are the basis of IQ tests.

153 here, I analyse things very deeply. And by analyse I don't just mean casually thinking about something. I mean recognising patterns, linking things to other things, working out reasons for things in your head, etc .I often find that I'm the only person to notice a link or a mistake in something because other people just haven't been analysing it as thoroughly.

>>2167174

I'd wager that the words "to say" were redundant in that sentence of yours. I'd also wager that you're wrong.

>IQs in this thread
>130, 130, 145, 160, 164, 172
You guys do know how staggeringly unlikely everyone is telling the truth/were tested correctly?

>>2167249
Like these look modest, but 160 is like 1/10,000, 170 is 1/100,000. And the distribution with almost no weight towards lower IQ scores.

>>2167249
Did you honestly expect believable scores on the internet?

>>2167249
you must factor in that butthurt 90-100´s never reply as well, so it is not as unlikely as you might think, though still unlikely.
Also you are at a board for science and maths who might be slightly overrepresentated with people with above average Iq´s as well

>>2167261
Like you should be seeing thousands of guys with IQs below 130 because you see one with 172 or above.

>>2167267
Obviously, but even if you choose the highly unlikely number of 130 as average to account for the ashamed people/above average people, the likelyhood of a collection of people with this high IQ with nobody at a normal IQ range posting is still about as likely as winning the lottery.
And you see this shit. Every time.

Chris Langan is a pretty cool guy. He works as a bouncer, has a theory of Universe that involves God and his IQ is 195.

>>2167268
I don't think having an IQ of 130 distribution wise and scoring 130 in the test is the same. People just score more and there is nothing you can do about it.

>>2167385
If lots of people score above 130 the IQ test you're taking is completely busted.

IQ tests are just too easy for me...

>>2167375
Christopher Langan:
>"since Biblical accounts of the genesis of our world and species are true but metaphorical, our task is to correctly decipher the metaphor in light of scientific evidence also given to us by God"

IQ of 195 is 1 in 8 billion. Guy seems legit.

[definition of Q-function = 1/2*(1-erf(Z / sqrt(2)), Z = (IQ-100)/15, http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2/(1-erf((95/15)/sqrt(2))) ]

>>2167620
Bullshit.

Hello?!?! IQ tests are not to determine high IQ but to determine average IQ. Say I made a test and answered all the questions correctly, what would my IQ be? Say I completed an IQ test that was designed not to be completed, but to observe how you react under stress conditions, what then? It happened to me, so what am I then? I got a wife and kid, run/own a company, got lots of friends, travel the world, have a life, is that normal?

I have seen many tests but never completed them as I stop after a few question because the wrong answers are so retarded. But the the whole thing feels insulting and make it difficult to stay serious. I finished the uncompletable test only because I was tricked.

Actually, I have never seen or heard of a test that truly tests your IQ, because for such a test you need (per question) an additional indicator "How difficult was it to answer this question". But apparently you need a high IQ to create or rate such tests, and it seems that psychology is not a subject high IQ people will spend their time on.

I good at solving these silly tests.
I don't think I'm really different in any other way.

>mfw nobody in this thread understands how IQ tests are scored and interpreted.

>mfw nobody knows there are varied standardized deviations utilized on each test and "IQ points" are invalid.

>mfw nobody understand the common disparity of scores (especially in the higher ranges) that occurs between tests attempting to measure the exact same thing.

>mfw when I saw someone indirectly believe the "Mega test" to be a valid IQ test, despite it having dismal correlations with official psychometric evaluations.

Everybody posting IQ's above 160 either took their test on a higher deviation than 15, or is in their middle ages and a possible child prodigy. Fucking idiots, I think I'm about to throw up all over the place.

I scored 129 on the only official iq test I have taken, however have scored between 115-140 on online tests,(not that they can be taken seriously) I would say on /sci/ at least I would not be surprised if there were a larger amount of people around the 120-130 range but when you get several people claiming 150+ you know its bullshit.

And yes I realize not everyone on sci is going to be smart, just saying that I would expect a larger portion of people on here to be smart compared to /b/ and other areas.

>>2167620
Christopher Langan is an idiot who will never contribute anything of worth.

>>2169511
this

>>2169511

You don't know what you're talking about. You're simple and non-scrupulous in your thought process.

This thread is also terrible.

>>2169422 is right on all counts.

>>2169522
this

Having an high IQ isn't as fun as it sounds.
It comes with a deep hatred for humanity on a daily basis. and keeps you on the edge of killing a nigger with your bare hands everyday.

>>2169524
So you think every person on /sci/ is an idiot? I was just pointing out that out of all the boards on 4chan I would expect /sci/ to have smarter people on average... But please insult me some more, your superiority complex is showing.

>>2169537
hey i feel the same way and i doubt i have an iq over 100

must be an intrinsic attribute to being a human

>>2169539
>>2169539

Well, I did intend offense, but I'll calm myself.

Let me explain.

When factoring in various scoring methods utilized on various IQ tests, common stated scores in the 150's doesn't sound too outlandish.

Besides, absed on many of the SAT and ACT scores I read here, IQ's in the 140's and 150's not being terribly common (majority), but still being prevalent to a relevant degree seems statistically sound.

I'd imagine we have a fatter bell curve towards maybe a deviation to the right of the common median.

I used to have some pretty bad social problems but i gradually became very popular in high school and i was able to become very flamboyant about my physics obsessions without being thought of as weird. I pretty much studied how the high school social flowchart worked until i had no problem in social situations

>>2169572
I'm still a horribly stressed individual though. Everyday i'm on the verge of panic attacks.

IQ of 160 here (from an official IQ test they gave in elementary school in 1st and 3rd grade). ask me anything

>>2169604

What test did you take, faggot?

>>2169586

Faggot.

IQ of 206, I manage to hold down a normal job and exhibit generally normal social behavior....so stop being such a pussy.

>>2169569
I realize statistically speaking there are likely to be some people in the 150-160 range here, I was more pointing out the fact that this IS the internet and most people who claim to have very high iq's tend to be lying about it.(along with many other things people lie about online) I'm not saying they all are lying just that there often are people that will lie about stuff like that. I suppose I should have been more clear for my reasoning on why I think some of them are bullshit.

>>2169620
Then I find your claim of a 200+ IQ to be unlikely if that's the case.

>>2169620
Yeah, I took my IQ test online too, got a 307.
Go fuck yourself.

>>2166971
returnin to ops question... I believe those 160+ bullshit 1 in 10,000,000 people geniuses got a large network of neurons up in their brain.. with better connections allowin them to use a larger portion of their brain, plus many have been know for their curiosity and hunger for knowledge... That is the real reason they are so "wisefags"
tls... /sci/ is genius

yall are fuckin silly. i got 235 on various IQ tests, your scores are total sub-human garbage compared

>>2169586
>>2169572
Another thing. I'm not claiming to be over 160 and am certain that I would not be ranked that high with concrete statistics. Having at least a legitimate 140 is genius. All the testing i went through as a kid said that i was "exceptional" but i've never been sure what that meant. I also failed in areas that weren't science and mathematics. I had to have special help for reading as a child

>>2169608
I hardly remember it, but it was given to all students at the time, and I only found out about it later and I had to privately view it in some office in my school. I guess they stopped doing IQ tests because of butthurt

I've been told my IQ tested at 160. I don't remember taking the test, and I'm skeptical of the results, but there's no doubt in my mind that I have a genius level IQ.

It doesn't feel special. I use most of my brain power to coast by with minimal effort on my part. The most challenging part is dealing with the fact that everyone, even the people closest to me, are just a little bit slower. It's like being tall, I guess. Everyone else just feels shorter.

>>2169682
Well, as of today, the U.S is ranked 24 for education in the world.

>>2169694
i tend to belittle those around me, only one i don't is my girlfriend, all others are shit tier

How does the brain of people with IQs < 160 fails to work?

>>2169698
good thing i'm french/algerian with dual citizenship

>>2169735
they were both worse than the us

>>2167020
You can't prove that high intelligence causes lower social skills

>>2169694
> I use most of my brain power to coast by with minimal effort on my part.

This. A million times this. As another person who's consistently tested in the 150's, that's really the only major difference. I have a lot of lateral thinking power, which means I can do stuff like develop ideas in the back of my head, 'cheat' in various facets of life through analysis, and so on. My social intelligence is pretty good (I've worked sale-driving retail most of my adult life and was ballin' at Model UN in high school), but that's in part to being able to essentially read out motivations and thought processes in real time.

Having a high IQ frankly doesn't mean much. I'm not overly successful in life precisely because I was able to do so well without any effort as a child that by the time I reached the point where effort is king, I'm screwed in not having had that drilled into me. The real skill set is perseverance; the student who studies and studies until they force themselves to get the material generally are set up to do better in life because that provides more reliable returns.

tl;dr - IQ alone =/=>> success

IQ is bullshit.

nothing special at all.

you can't measure intelligence.

deal with it, college kids

>>2167015
>I'm just good at doing these little puzzles.

That's the deal with IQ tests. They don't measure your intelligence or anything. Just how good you are at their little stupid puzzles.

My IQ is 300.

Because I mediated for so many years daily, my brain grew.

>>2169858
life is a big bunch of puzzles

>>2169806
First, he's only saying there's a trade-off at times, which is true; some people do lack social graces but have other mental talents.

However, from what I recall reading on the matter, the correlation between IQ and social intelligence is a generally positive one. While the greatest social darlings are rarely our greatest minds, many of the mental processes for social interaction are linked with parts in the traditional IQ measures.

If there's a modern reason we see in kids a division, it's one of peer reinforcement rather than physical matters. I've known quite a few people who were rather clever if you coaxed them to puzzle something out, but basically didn't because the people they spent most of their with were unable to do so, and the pressure to relate drives people to limit themselves for the stability of their peer groups.

>>2167005
This is not true at all.

I took a couple online tests back when I was 15 or so. Scored in the mid~upper (cant remember) 120s on both I think, not that it really means anything.

>>2169888
This is the problem in the US (and has been the problem for awhile now).

>>2169856
>IQ is bullshit.
>>2169858
>little stupid puzzles

>IQs measured 85-115 range.

How am I doing, simpletons?

The average person only uses 10% of his/her brain. People with a 160 IQ use more like 15%

>>2166980

>doesn't know how IQ works

a person with an IQ of 126 (okay doctor or engineer) has the mental ability of 10 100 IQ people if they could somehow perfectly synchronize their intelligence

hrm...
>>2166980 sufficient-quality components
and
>>2167011 niggers
does that mean nigger brains are just bad quality brains and burn out in a few years? Does that explain why nigger kids seem just as smart as white ones but by the time they hit high school they're all retards?

....ok, I'll go back to /b/ now.

>>2170092
Fuck. Off. That. Is. Not. Fucking. True.

ITS A MYTH SHITFUCK

>>2170016
yep, it's what we get for telling the dumb kids they're just as good as the smart ones and only really rewarding the dumb guys that are good at sports.

>>2170126
It's not a myth. More correctly stated it is that the average person only uses 10% of the brain at any given time.

Have you ever seen an MRI scan of a person that is thinking? Only a small part of the brain lights up meaning only that little part is doing any work.

The brain saves energy by shifting around what parts are doing the work.

>>2170157
Fuck off troll.

WELL TO ANSWER THE FUCKING OP's ORIGINAL QUESTION, the brains of those with exceptional IQ's probably work more efficiently because their corpus callosum does a better job at facilitating inter-hemispheric communication

>>2169537
Elaborate? I also have a deep hatred for humanity, but I'm not intelligent. Also, that bread looks delicious.

My SAT scores were
M: 720
R: 740
W: 740

I feel extremely bad because I got even got sent to some high priced test prep crap (against my wishes), and took at least 15 different full length SATs to achieve this.

I wonder if an equivalent IQ score could be obtained from this.

i only have an IQ of 116 and yet i feel like am i smarter then everyone else? how does it feel you big 160's?

>>2170844
illusory superiority bias. everyone feels better than others.

>>2166982

/thread

most of these hacks who pride themselves with a high iq are terrible socially and possess no creative skills. besides, with technology as it is, i don't have to have an iq of 160 when i can program. how does it feel to know my computer is smarter than you and you still can't paint or write a song?

It depends on the person. But the guy whose brain they studied on in Stan Lee's Superheroes was so smart because his brain was doing actual calculations and such in a part of the brain usually responsible for doing automatic tasks that require quick rough calculation (I think it was where depth perception and spatial recognition usually occurs or something)

>>2170122
Wow... If you're citing some kind of scientific findings, I'd be curious to know what that means for someone with an intelligence quotient of 180-190?

I took a professional IQ test recently (my psychiatrist suggested a full neuropsych evaluation because I have like 0 concentration now and it's killing me in my work - i'm a physics grad student). Overall I got 138, which makes me like a 1 in 200. i kind of zoned out in one portion which dragged me down a lot.

However, my "working spacial memory" IQ was something like 150, which is about 1 in 2500. Not bad.

I think I have a strong physical intuition for taking graphs/physical relationships and translating them into little movie clips in my mind that I link together with others to create a comprehensive picture of a system. I have a habit of applying perturbation theory to everything. Any sort of motion makes me generate some simple model then I kink the graph with perturbations to generate a more complete picture, and I try to imagine it for as complete a parameter space as possible. e.g. kicking a ball up a slope with rocks and bumps, I would imagine position as a function of time AND a variety of initial velocities, creating a 3d surface in parameter space. the fun part is imagining the symmetry, transformation, and continuity between these different parameter spaces.

>He thinks standardized IQ test measures intelligence

>I have a lot of lateral thinking power, which means I can do stuff like develop ideas in the back of my head, 'cheat' in various facets of life through analysis, and so on. My social intelligence is pretty good (I've worked sale-driving retail most of my adult life and was ballin' at Model UN in high school), but that's in part to being able to essentially read out motivations and thought processes in real time.


Doesnt everybody do this? ive never had a IQ test done but i was in the top 5% for some visual/spatial test i did for some research

>>2171805
>IQ tests don't measure intelligence

The old cliche for people with mediocre IQs so they can believe they are more intelligent than the tests demonstrate.

>>2170844
probably lonely, but at least out of touch.
slightly intelligent is probably better for a good life

>>2171774

that made no sense at all. i must be dumb as hell.

Every IQ test I've ever taken has been within five points of 135. All it means is that I'm good at taking tests, and it's true. I have an unbelievable confidence when it comes to those tests, dating back to when I was a kid and was pronounced "gifted". I really don't think I'm much smarter than most people

I don't have social skills. I'm not socially intelligent.
That's what really matters IRL.

>>2171811
Not him, but he's right. IQ tests are pretty worthless.

146 here. Sure , it's not 160+ but not low either.

>>2166971
There's no difference really.

173 here. Pretty sure the test was not accurate.

>>2171878
>IQ tests are pretty worthless.
You are correct, sir.

>>2171878
>>2171888
Nice vacuous statements.

>>2171895
Would you care to explain?

>>2171895
You can become 'good' at IQ tests and score significantly higher than normal. I've taken a total of four, and have had a variance of over 35 points. That's huge. It's all over the board and completely inconsistent.

>>2171906

we're talking about REAL iq tests, not the shit you do online or out of some book.

which tests did you take? who administered them? why did you need to take them 4 times?

>>2171926
"The scale, properly speaking, does not permit the measure of intelligence, because intellectual qualities are not superposable, and therefore cannot be measured as linear surfaces are measured."-Binet

>>2171934
This; the person who developed the IQ test states it cannot be used as a measure of intellect.

>>2171934

and if you take a professionally administered iq test they break down your intelligence by categories, i.e. spatial working memory, verbal memory, processing speed, etc. Then they do a simple average to give a rough metric of general intelligence. if the scores are near each other, as they often are, then the conclusion is obvious. all my scores were all pretty tightly packed in the low 140s.

>How does the brain of people with IQs of 160+ work?

A better question to ask is; what good is it?

I have an IQ of 145 and I work at Mcdonalds flipping burgers.

You think if it was a few standard deviations higher I could make manager?

>>2171952
That's not really addressing what Binet is saying.
"Some recent thinkers seem to have given their moral support to these deplorable verdicts by affirming that an individual's intelligence is a fixed quantity, a quantity that cannot be increased. We must protest and react against this brutal pessimism; we must try to demonstrate that it is founded on nothing."-Binet

after about 120 IQ, success comes from dedication, hard work and other skills, not IQ. More of it generally only makes you lack other skills. 135 IQ mensan here, studying hard.

>>2171975

Nobody here is arguing about rigidity of intelligence, but IQ in general pretty stable.

I also don't believe in appealing to the authority of Binet on questions of neuroscience. The guy died 100 years ago.

>>2172000
These are matters of psychology,not neuroscience, furthermore, Binet's criticisms are fairly relevant, due to the fact that his test is still being administered, though it has been revised.
My argument was speaking of the rigidity of the test, which you addressed poorly. As for the stability of the IQ test; I would like more concrete proof for what you're claiming.

>>2172018
No, his criticisms are not relevant because our understanding of psychology is vastly different. This was the era of Freud. Our understanding has progressed, and so has the resolution at which we analyze the question. Neuroscience is more fundamental description.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_and_intelligence

I'm not sure when the rigidity of the test was mentioned, but it is in the 5th revision. As for the stability of intelligence:
>Fluid intelligence, like reaction time, peaks in young adulthood and then steadily declines... Crystallized intelligence increases gradually, stays relatively stable across most of adulthood, and then begins to decline after age 65.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluid_and_crystallized_intelligence

I concede. Well done, though perhaps my opinion may change once I research this more thoroughly.

>>2172073
Cheers to you, good sir.

Easy, your simulation systems works better than other people. Think of it this way: with a normal brain you would just think "sugar dissolves in water, it kinds of 'gets' in the water"... a superb brain thinks on how does tha large carbohidrates separate of each other an fit among the molecules of water, minerals, etc as you stirr the water with a spoon.

>>2170122
Citation needed.

Short of genetic engineering, no, intelligence cannot be augmented.

IQ is a horrible measure of intelligence, and who claims to have one over 130 has never had it properly tested or is lying....

>>2170566

that means that we should see more female geniuses than male ones but that's not the case.

>>2172399
I think it can for practical purposes. When a kid who likes puzzles and solves them then each of the next one is easier as he learns more and more about how to apply logic and even internalizes some of the common elements of problems. He will do better on IQ tests and also better in things that "intelligence" is supposed to measure.

Also wasn't it so that playing Tetris changes your brain and makes it better at Tetris.

As someone else pointed out earlier those with an IQ in the 160+ range may have taken an intelligence test with a SD x>15.

Do we have any "twice exceptional" people here? Twice exceptional means someone who is highly intelligent with some sort of LD. It is where your intelligence mask your LD and your LD mask your intelligence and you appear average or above average (but actually extremely intelligence).

I notice I become extremely focused on something to the point where I tune out everything else around me (including eating properly) for hours and hours and hours.

Unlike some people I value being alone and isolated. I have a select group of friends and even within that group of friends I still have to tell them when I want to be left alone. I do have a girlfriend though, and I am average looking so nothing appears to be different physically speaking. I do not like changes in the environment. If I am in a house and someone walks a lot from room to room I become extremely agitated for some reason. I also have a strong sense of placement and smell for some reason.

I don't have much empathy for others and I like a narrow range of topics. I do exercise regularly and I do well in school if I don't have extreme anxiety. I've never had an accurate IQ test but my intelligence is probably within the "very superior" range.

As someone else pointed out earlier those with an IQ in the 160+ range may have taken an intelligence test with a SD x>15.

Do we have any "twice exceptional" people here? Twice exceptional means someone who is highly intelligent with some sort of LD. It is where your intelligence mask your LD and your LD mask your intelligence and you appear average or above average (but actually extremely intelligent).

I notice I become extremely focused on something to the point where I tune out everything else around me (including eating properly) for hours and hours and hours.

Unlike some people I value being alone and isolated. I have a select group of friends and even within that group of friends I still have to tell them when I want to be left alone. I do have a girlfriend though, and I am average looking so nothing appears to be different physically speaking. I do not like changes in the environment. If I am in a house and someone walks a lot from room to room I become extremely agitated for some reason. I also have a strong sense of placement and smell for some reason.

I don't have much empathy for others and I like a narrow range of topics. I do exercise regularly and I do well in school if I don't have extreme anxiety. I've never had an accurate IQ test but my intelligence is probably within the "very superior" range.

>>2172643
Does having low processing and high comprehension count? My processing ability drags me down, where I'd easily have a 150+ IQ otherwise.

Not that it matters, I'm a lazy shit.

>>2172399
Sure is regurgitated baseless claims in here, bro.

>>2172661
Very related link
http://www.aboutintelligence.co.uk/learning-disabilities-intelligence.html

I got 182.
thou jelloth?

i had a 165 iq (according to stanford binet) when i was 18.

i'm the same as everyone else except shit is slightly more obvious to me, is how it seems.

probably just more neurons/synapses. it's not a big deal

Most people on 4chan (and indeed in the world) are roughly as intelligent as each other, a difference of less than 40 IQ 'points' yields no practical differences in the way one lives their life.

you are not a unique snowflake.

>>2173039
So someone with an IQ of 100 and 60 have no practical difference?

>>2173039
174 point speshul snowflake here, u jelly?

>/sci/
>IQ
>265 posts and 100 image replies omitted. Click Reply to view.

I have good news. I've never taken a "legitimate" IQ test but according to this thread I am a genius. I share many qualities spoken of in this thread and I also just read the Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe and found that I have been working this out in my head independent of any previous knowledge concerning the theory. What's funny is that I know of a way to test the theory. Good times.

This is not a trolling attempt and I will not be replying to any hurtful remarks. Just know that I am here to help.

Protip: Opiates are awesome but extremely addictive.

>>2173401
YOU ARE NOT SMART, I HATE YOU

My IQ is 190, and my brain works pretty normal. I'm just fucking amazing at pattern recognition and memory.
I've crossed the road and avoided the cars before I've left the house, so to put it.

right so this is clearly a massive wankfest for people who have taken iq tests, got high iq results and gotten an ego boost from them. sorry but iq tests mean very little and do not make you clever, as others have said, you are not unique/better than others/to feel satisfied because you got assigned a number which you cling to as a defining feature/badge of pride/honor. go fuck yourself, your iq means nothing to me, fuck off. every person who has said 'i have an iq of ....' is a fucking faggot, swear down.

IQ tests are retarded. If I studied IQ tests eventually my score would raise. Intelligence is dumb.

>>2173514
Let me make sure I've gotten this right. Since you become better at pattern recognition and problem solving by practicing pattern recognition and problem solving IQ tests are invalid?
Where I come from we usually just call that learning.