/sci/ - Science & Math

Start taking any drug ending in *racetam. And be prepared to stop drinking alcohol.

yes, just add 5.

Your iq is not 125

Just because you took one of those free internet iq tests that tests the same problems every time does not mean you are at 125

Most likely ~100 because you are obviously either a child or retard from your question

>>2435174
It was an official test I took at school. I don't know if it was legitimate, but I imagine it's a bit different from websites giving laughably high scores so people will buy certificates from them.

IQ is meaningless.
My advice: stop worrying about a silly number.

>>2435163
Do those racetam drugs work? Been looking at piracetam or aniracetam, but I haven't seen any confirming research on them since the 70s. I would like to do some myself, but my university seems to hate human research :(

I'm around IQ 125 too. At times I wonder how lesser int people think and feel in every day life. I also tend to feel more self important about my intellect.

>Start taking any drug ending in *racetam
Prepare for alzheimers when you stop taking them lololol.

>>2435429

why? you're technically not even a genius...

I'm not going to tell you my IQ as I could make up any number, but I wouldn't start getting too excited about a 125 IQ...

I think some other /sci/duck said, don't even worry about IQ.

Take a look at rick rosner, chris langan, and marilyn vos savant they all have incredibly high IQ's and have done nothing. (it's because they figured out just how to take IQ test really well) The point is IQ test are obviously flawed, so just enjoy life and do what you love.

Your IQ "number" doesn't matter, your relative percentile does. There are varied scoring methods which yield differing composite scores.

On two different tests, 115 is the same score as 124 due to differing scoring methods.

IQ tests are also not as accurate as many think. You maye very well score a deviation higher or lower on a different test (though highly unlikely). Score variations of 1/3 to 2/3 a standard deviation (15 points constitutes a deviation on the most common rubric) are pretty common.

IQ tests attempt to predict general cognitive functioning by measuring specific facets that are highly correlated with full scale IQ. ambiguous circular logic, I know, but full scale IQ does correlate to real world performance.

What somewhat backs this up is how seemingly unrelated subtests correlate well with one another. Such as 3 dimensional block design and word analogies, for example. Visuo-spatial reasoning and arithmetic.

>>2435290

They aren't "meaningless".

No, don't reply with some inane argument about how "correlation =/= causation", unless you can explain to me why the cause of the correlation isn't self evident due to the strength, persistence, and intercorrelations between the subtests themselves.


>>2435290

IQs are meaningless. All they do is test common sense and your ability to recognize patterns.

Also it's just a number, a number has nothing to do with how smart you are.

>>2435586

You're a fucking idiot.

This thread is going to make me rage.

>>2435591
According to my IQ I'm not. Again, it's pointless.

>>2435595

Define "pointless". Obsessing over an arbitrary and mildly inaccurate number? Yes, that is pointless

You seem to be implying that they're entirely invalid for assessing cognitive function and therefore meaningless when attempting to utilize them for diagnostic purposes.

Because of this, I'm calling you out on your obviously childish reasoning. You're following an irrational path, and I think you realize this yourself.

>>2435606
>human
>irrational
Sounds perfectly rational to me.

Now as for diagnostic purposes, they're fine. But determining a individuals smartness into a simple number? No. Plenty of people with low IQs are smart and vice versa.

>>2435606
>mildly inaccurate
Without severe adjustment, Stephen Hawkings IQ is below 100 and Arnold Shwartzenegger is 135. So you wonder how it's possible to get an American average IQ of 98 by testing college and university students.

go to a university near you and start shooting people. this will decrease national average iq making your score higher.

>>2435670
Or just wait for blacks and Hispanics to have more babies.

>>2435616
While I can accept that there are plenty of stupid people with high IQs, I'm having trouble with the idea that there are intelligent people with low IQs.

>>2435653

>without severe adjustment

Clarify. And no, Stephen Hawking's IQ is now below 100 and Arnold having an IQ of 135 doesn't seem unreasonable.

The average IQ of a university/college student is around 108-110.

>>2435685

>now

"not", I meant, heh

>>2435685Stephen Hawking's IQ is now below 100

I guess given the difficulty of communicating answers in a reasonable time frame there's some way you could say that's true. Somehow I doubt that was the case while he was still in grad school.

Meh. 135 here. Doesn't mean shit, though. when I was tested I was doing shit in school and wanted to drop out.

If you want to improve your score so you can be an elitist twat, fuck off. If you actually want to be good at something, work hard at it.

Individuals should not stress over an IQ test.

If an IQ test shows that you have an IQ 90 and the first thing you think about is how to better your score... then you may be smarter then you think already.

>>2435697

That was a typo, lol.

The man doesn't have dementia.

Mine is 174 and I think I'm stupid as shit. So whatever.

>>2435697
That's exactly the problem, people don't write answers the moment they formulate them, nor does it test complex problems.

We need some type of MRI/CAT scan which will determine brain analytical activity.

Move to Africa. National average is always normalized to 100 so you would get a much better score there.

>>2435698
>work hard at it

This. This. This. Actually just came across an article the other day basically stating that high IQ isn't all natural intellect, and that genius is actually a lot of hard work COMBINED with intelligence.

>>2435723
>>2435723

We're a long ways away from predicting cognitive function with such technology with reasonable accuracy. Even farther from having practical enough implementation for them to replace testing.

>>2435723We need some type of MRI/CAT scan which will determine brain analytical activity.

I have a feeling it'll be a long time before that's more accurate than current testing methods. If you want to measure intelligence you can't just measure how much activity is going on in the brain, you also have to measure how effective the patterns in the brain are at computing. An MRI would be like benchmarking a CPU by how much heat it gives off.

Unless you're trying to get into mensa or just want to show off a high IQ I don't see the point. IQ tests all have common question types and you can typically train yourself to do the tests better and get a higher IQ, but it won't necessarily make you smarter. I think it's best to channel your energy into heavy reading, maths, critical thinking, logical puzzles and whatever creative activity you enjoy.

On a side note I read a book called "brain power" written by the person with the world's highest IQ. It wasn't that good and basically ended up being IQ training book by the time I was done. So if you think having a high IQ will impress people or make you well known the person with the highest IQ is pretty uncared for in this world, and I wasn't impressed.

Disregard IQ, study hard.

What's the point of making that number a few points higher if you still suck at everything other than IQ tests?

>>2435744
>>2435745
We can already measure IQ with an MRI, plenty of articles on it...

>>2435786

How high is the correlation? If it's significantly lower than 70% and has a outlandish amount of outliers, I'm not interested.

>>2435544

>>2435544
>>2435591