/sci/ - Science & Math

Let's post numbers guys xD

>>2485173
From an actual ~hour long interview with a licensed psychologist, 147 - 150, taken was I was 14 (?) I think.

Holy shit! I must have made some new record... I got 404!

>>2485190
>From an actual ~hour long interview with a licensed psychologist, 147 - 150, taken was I was 14 (?) I think.

>>2485190
Trollpost detected

>>2485206
I'm confused. Can you ridicule me in a more specific way so I know what you mean to say is outrageous, or what you mean to troll?

190. i geuss im just one of those ppl who use more than 10 porcent of there brane

This seems familiar...

Questions start this shit: X||| |X|| ???? X|||

Nope.rar

>>2485208
On the off chance you're not trolling;

Your IQ when you are 14 is in absolutely no way reflective of your IQ now

The psychologist clearly has a massive incentive to show demand characteristics

An interview is even less scientific than the test OP links to

Your score puts you in the top 0.1-0.001 percentile. No offence, but that's bullshit

And, moreover, your post generated RAAAGE in me, a clear sign of a good trollpost

I don't have enough time to take this now, I have to go and eat lunch but I did 4 tests last year (online- but respectable ones like mensa) and I was getting 140-145 in them all.

>>2485227
IQ was initially developed specifically for children.

I'm not the guy your responding to but I've had the same kind of 'interview'.

It consists of a series of questions and puzzles your responses are recorded both your answer and the time taken.

This is a proper IQ test not an internet or Mensa one.

Also I scored a 145 at age 13. Never did any work in high school. Scored in the top 2%.

BAHAHAHA by clicking at random I got a 103

what a shitty test OP

114
I think this test can only measure one portion of the intelligence. But it's more comlex than just recognizing patterns

>>2485248
Fine, whatever, thanks to your devastating rebuttal I now fully believe that there are two people in this thread with IQs that mean they are the top ten thousandth of the population

Boy will I feel stupid when you guys cure cancer from your moon bases

>>2485261
To be honest I don't care what you think.

But if nothing is stopping you from getting yourself tested but your fear of failure.

Too bad I don't have such fears because I'm smart enough to succeed at anything I try.

>>2485267

I was interviewed two years in the future by a certified psychologer and scored 214. My penis is also three inches longer than yours

>>2485273
>Implying people on a science board will show a standard distribution of IQ

>>2485250
>Clicks randomly
>Complains about a random score
>mfw

>>2485282

I'm not complaining about a random score. I'm complaining about the fact that if I can get a 103 essentially blindfolded than how accurate can this test be...?

This test again?
This is mine.

>>2485274

>>2485261
An IQ of 145 is only the top 0.13 percentile. Nowhere near the top ten thousandth which is 0.01

>>2485287
Can anyone confirm that this is a shoop?

>>2485294
Trial and error

>>2485274
>An IQ of 214

i got 140 and most of the time it felt like what i ultimetly chose was determined by a very small detail. Like the movement-pattern of a single shape or somesuch.

>"By the answers you submitted your score would be so low that it is outside the area that this test can reliably measure. Therefore we do not announce your result accurately but only state that compared to the result 50 it would be somewhere below"

I'm smart yet?

>>2485303
smart enough to know what the wrong answers were.

>>2485287

eat ya heart out, ja bastard

I kno tha rest of ya jelly

>>2485250
I tried and got 96

FUCK.

>>2485274
>my penis is 3 inches longer then yours
>yfw i am a girl
sorry about that

>>2485312
Lol'd heartily

>>2485307
You messed up.
I KNOW this is shooped.

>>2485320

you WISH it was shopped - ftfy

iqtest.dk

this is a much more reliable IQ test, and it's harder to shoop

*cough*
>>2485307
>>2485287
*cough*

Since when has intelligence been a competition?

Here I was thinking smart people were smart enough to get along with each other without giving a crap about their IQ's.

You disappointed me /sci/

>>2485335
We need some measure to tell us who to exterminate and who to keep alive.

>100

i guess. it's ok

>>2485208
>lolz i r goin to mak maself look fanci so i appeer 2 be smartikles xD

>>2485335

implying that thiss thread is representativve of /sci/ and aren''t just the same 3 idiots with 1 or 2 new trolls each time.

>>2485335

Your grammar is erroneous.

There are two correct variations of your faulty sentence, choose one:

A. You have disappointed me /sci/

or

B. You disappoint me /sci/

>>2485267
>intellectual mastermind
>LOL STFU I DONT CARE WHAT YOU THINK!!!!!!!

>>2485354
I'm a descriptionist, grammar doesn't bother me as long as you can get the message across.

>>2485357

>>2485367

>I'm a descriptionist, grammar doesn't bother me as long as you can get the message across.

>employs capitalization
>proper punctuation
>uses arcane term

ok fred

>>2485371
Dammit is everyone in this thread a troll but me?

>By the answers you submitted your IQ is 40

>>2485373

I would like to inquire as to how one, such as yourself, came to the conclusion that the exposition of hypocrisy to the perpetrator of the act is one who must be committing the act of trolling?

>>2485384

Nigga you trollin.

>>2485384
Well since you claimed to not know a basic meta-linguistic term (descriptionist) I extrapolated that you must be intentionally appearing idiotic and abrasive in order to cause confusion and anger.

However I quickly saw through your ruse and denounced you as a troll.

IQ threads are the official cancer that is eating away at the very essence that once was called /sci/.
They're just as bad as the religion bullshit.

ITT: 12 year olds jerking off to some shitty online test

>IQ of 300
>300k starting
>any girl i want
>i've never even been to school

>>2485391

I never once said anything pertinent to my ignorance of the denotation of any terms derived from your propiolexicon.

Had one been more observant one might notice I merely remarked upon the term appearing nascent and therefore hardly ubiquitous.

I'd also like to call to attention you forgot a comma after "However", in your sentence.

>>2485402
Descriptionist is a very basic term used to describe a school of linguistic thought.

You are an idiot for not knowing it.

i got 35

>>2485408

No sir, you sir have shown an overwhelming capacity for idiocy as I must remind you, for the second time, I was fully able to surmise the semantic usage, but that using obscure, non-standardized verbiage is counter-productive to your stated purpose.

It now becomes perfectly apparent that you carry a fondness for your own gender.

>>2485412
I think I've argued with you before.

>>2485436

did I win then as well?

>>2485445
No I think the thread got deleted. Does

>The only reason behind my action to undergo carnal relations with your closest ancestor of maternal linage was to test the hypothesis that "fat chicks are easy"

Or something simmilar.

>>2485445
>>2485436
Knock it off you morons.

>>2485454
C'mon this thread is about an internet IQ test. Nobody really cares about it anyway

>>2485453

Well if I didn't win it wasn't me.... I never lose

I am der Ubermensch

>>2485464
Well then it certainly wasn't you, because I always win.

>>2485467
>>2485464
both of you always win, so if person A is either of you, person A always wins. Therefore every person A with aforementioned property must be you two, in other words: you're the same person.

I first thought of this when I noticed that I never before saw you in the same room.

Extrapolating from my obvious superiour deductive skills, what would /sci/ guess my IQ would be?

I accidentally picked Australia as my country and it immediately gave me my results: < 100

>>2485464
>I am der Ubermensch
Wat?
It's "Übermensch" and it's not really a well defined concept. If you're referring to Nietzsche, please shut the fuck up and kill yourself. Retards like you give him a bad reputation.

>>2485510
weird, when I selected Australia it just asked about what my favourite colour, music and geometric shape is. It then proceeded to attest me a "very special mind".

I printed it out and showed it to my mom.

>>2485503
A and B always win. If A and B compete, who wins?

Since A always wins, A must win.
Since B always wins, B must win.

Since both winning isn't winning at all neither can win and we have a contradiction at our hands.

Thus there can't be two people with the property of always winning occupying a logically consistent universe, unless circumstances were such that they never compete.

>>2485528

>>2485513

>>2485750
no u

This thread makes me lol, thank you /sci/, I knew there was a reason to come here.

>go on website
>see first question
>patterns, ok
>second question, patterns
>and the third
>and the fourth
>and the fifth

After the 5th question I just stopped.
Shit test OP.

>>2485790

confirmed for retard

>>2485819
no seriously, this test is shit. it's all about pattern recognition. there are ~9001 online iq tests better than this.

damn... Im so tired and this test is pure shite.

134
but i disagree with using IQ tests as an accuracte measure of intelligence, im good at practical shit but not theroretical determiniation; IQ tests dont test the kind of in depth sustained thought that goes with that kind of applied intelligence so misrepresent it in the result

Second time i accidentally end up in /sci/

Took the test, got 119

Now i have headache, fuck you /sci/ and fuck your test.

(picture relates, my face while taking the test)

I did as good as 1 percent of people!

>>2485956

Thing is, intelligence is context sensitive and not static. Best way to explain it would be to imagine that your mental resources are a single animal trying to survive whatever environment they're in.

Thus, weather you're intelligent or not will differ between cultures, occupations, and stuff like that.

>>2485882
Why don't people fucking realize already that intelligence IS pattern recognition?

Me = 122
Friend = 134
I hate friend now by 12 now.

>>2486516
Because it's not?

137 here.
This test was fucking hard though

>>2486921

Considering fluid intelligence is a huge part of one's overall intelligence and the most accepted view of what intelligence "is", yes it is.

>>2485882

Any REAL IQ test (ie run by professionals in psychometrics, shit you pay hundreds of dollars for) is ALL pattern recognition and memory, because that's the universal measure for intelligence.

>>2486021
>Thus, weather you're intelligent or not will differ between cultures, occupations, and stuff like that.

Not with current IQ tests. They are designed so that class, culture, etc have no effect in the results. Someone from Africa can score high just as easily as a rich businessman from America, because any legitimate IQ test contains nothing but pattern recognition and memory, which is universal for all humans.

Pattern recognition on a test is so subjective though. It's just testing if you think the same way as the other people who made the test.

>>2487098

Wat.

I couldn't even begin to imagine how pattern recognition is subjective. How could there possibly be more than one answer, or be open to interpretation? Patterns are objective, for example a number pattern (1, 3, 5, 7, 9...) obviously 11 is the next in the pattern. It certainly doesn't seem subjective to me.

This measures only the performance IQ. People on the autistic spectrum tend to score bad on the performance scale, and very good on verbal. I was diagnosed with an autism spectrum condition and my verbal IQ was considered as 'too high to measure' (160+), while performance IQ is only 70.

>>2487081
Amen brother.
inb4 liberal butthurt

>>2487154
Given an ordered set of numbers x_1, x_2, ... , x_n
There are infinite functions f such that f(i) = x_i, where i is the index number. Any one of these functions could represent the pattern, as they all interpolate it, so there are infinite possible f(n+1) and therefore infinite possible x_n+1

Instead of IQ why don't people post a standardized test score? Seems like a better indicator, especially if it's some stupid online IQ test.

see:
>>2488750

>>2487256
It's ironic that you used the notation "<span class="math">x_1,x_2,\ldots,x_n[/spoiler]" while arguing that similar notations using ellipses is too ambiguous to be meaningful.

>>2489000
It's not ironic at all; you're just digging for something to criticize. "..." is probably the most used symbol in abstract mathematics.

139.
That was a silly test, you can't judge intelligence on the SAME type of question.

Is this bad?

>implying you can measure IQ by 35 same questions that only ask for perception

I got 115.... someone pass me the dunce cap....

129 callin' bullshit, I'm too fucking stupid to attain that,
IIRC got a 112 on a actual pro administered iq test about 4 years ago, however I was high and gave little fuck. Anyone else figure that the overall time factored into the results and blowing through tough questions with a guess yields better results?

No Intelligence from recognizing a so called pattern. This test is stupid just like all other IQ tests.

Intelligence = creativity (an idea)

OP is faggot.

IQ is just a theory (a geuss)

Quick estimation where this thread is going

>>2491062
Perception is everything bro

>>2491260
It measures potential, it doesn't measure knowledge or domain-specific tools, which is fine by me.

I picked half the answers at random and got a a112

> Mean results by country
> The mean results are displayed by the Cattell distribution. Only countries with at least 100 taken tests are displayed.
mfw United States not included

>>2491287
Americans are too busy shopping for ice cream and cheap furniture to actually take this test.
Also they lack the attention span required for it.

got 106 while simulatneously reading bakuman, air gear, and bbc >.<

>>2491499

>The test will soon be able to define the level of the person taking the test, and will thereafter present questions that the person will most likely answer correctly approximately 50 per cent of the time.

>Per
>cent

I lost it.

>>2485334
>>2485334
>>2485334
>>2485334
>>2485334
>>2485334
>>2485334
>>2485334
>>2485334
>>2485334
>>2485334
>>2485334
>>2485334
>>2485334

ya goddamn re-tards

>>2491639
Damn hippie

>>2485521

Does that good?

>>2491910

I would have scored higher if the background didn't look like a dick with a hole in it going into an ass.

God tier 127 reporting in.

I'm not even mad.

>>2492353
>127
>God-tier
What the fuck am I reading?

144 here. not that IQ is something to brag about

I got 116.

In my defense, I was about to click one of the options when the time was up and I accidentally clicked on the next question D:

I once had a 4 hour long IQ test, got 123... I'm cool being there. And it's not like it means something, I just like saying it, it's talking about penis size without having sex.

itt: liars

The result of the test

By the answers you submitted your IQ is

38

The same or a better result is reached by

99.54% of the people taking the test.

ITT: faggots that have been indoctrinated that evaluation by a third party means something. and sometimes not only that, but is what matters the most. (i,e school grades, iq tests, etc)

>>2492963
Sure, except that this is a false analogy.
Every single interaction with your environment and its merit is governed by your level of intelligence.
The higher it is, the greater the biological benefit one can make of it.
In a sense, you're having sex every time a neuron causes a substantial reaction in your brain.