/sci/ - Science & Math

No. Once you reach an IQ of 100, I think you're able to learn pretty much anything with enough practice. High IQ'ed people just learn faster. I've spoken to someone with an IQ of 160 and he was a fucking spaz.

>>6161052
How is this relevant to the question? No, people with IQ of 100 can't really learn everything. And maybe people with 50IQ think the same about you ...

be careful when comparing records of people with outlier IQ scores - there were several systems and some adults with 'record IQ scores' were measured using a children's test

>>6161040
No, IQ was designed to test for mental deficiency and gains coherency the lower it goes. Anything above 130 is generally seen as high IQ and left at that.

>>6161074
Fair enough, but what about 130 v 110 v 90?

>>6161070
Yeah, I'm not actually thinking about anyone in particular, just in general.

I'm aware that it can't be exactly the same, as even really smart people will consider 100 iq people as simply average, but the 110 IQ guy will consider a 90 IQ guy as dumb (below average)

IQ is a social construct

>>6161062

yeah but they don't. I don't even know if people with a 50IQ even think. IQ isn't "linear" in the fashion you think it is. Its not something fundamental to a person, like some fucking RPG. There's no subjects you unlock the ability to learn once you hit a certain IQ. All scientific concepts are designed for humans to grasp, if you have a functioning brain, you should be able to grasp them after some hard work. And just because you have a high IQ doesn't mean you can't be objectively spaztic.

>>6161079
As long as they're not cunts who inherently believe they are better than people with a lower IQ then the conversation would be almost identically to 2 people with closely matched IQ's

>>6161098
Oh come on, surely you can't believe intelligence doesn't matter? I'm not saying they can't talk, but there is an obvious difference ..

>>6161114
humans are much more than just their ability to see patterns and understand analogies.

>>6161040
First assume they are both identical spheres in a vacuum. And not not complex individuals with too many variables to list.

>>6161122
http://www.iqtest.dk/main.swf

How can I make a proper IQ test online? Everyone I find is kinda stupid.

>>6161122
Take this one!

Don't be disappointed when you fail. It's very hard and only covers the highest range of intelligence.

>>6161124
>this test
>culturally biased
Choose two.

Africans will score higher because they work with elephants and monkeys every day.

>>6161124

this test is way too ambiguous and has too many arbitrary solutions. if I marked them all I'd stll be at it tomorrow

>>6161124

I tried my best

>>6161151
>>6161157
You are both very intelligent.

>>6161123
>http://www.iqtest.dk/main.swf
how accurate is this?

>>6162373
If you're not being tested by a professional psychologist or psychiatrist, the test isn't valid or complete and you won't even begin to understand your results correctly.

>>6162379

On top of this, it's only as credible as how credible you see it. Psychology and Sociology is a clusterfuck of bad interpretation. The only field of either that I could take seriously, is behaviorism.

>>6161040
I'll replace the word "IQ" as "intelligence", as intelligence is actually meaningful in some sense at least, and can be built up over time. In that case, the answer is yes, but usually only when talking about difficult things. For people who are smarter than average, most people are at least smart enough to function socially and understand what is expected of them. So for example I feel like that when talking relatively smart people about math, but not when hanging out or talking about video games.

>>6162373
It is very accurate.

>>6162379
Why do you need a professional psychologist if a computer can check whether the answers were right or wrong?

>>6162385
IQ tests are objective. Either your answer is right or it isn't.

>>6164221
This is not so relevant to the traditional IQ tests mentioned here, but professionals have access to a more diverse battery of tests with the associated scoring systems. You can't easily find these online as the intellectual property is heavily protected - aside from being fairly niche, these tests are the ones used for the psychological vetting of employees in sensitive public sector and some private sector organisations, as well as triaging patients for further assessments by neurologists or psychiatrists. Free distribution of this material would obviously compromise their integrity as candidates could simply learn the correct answers. However, these tests are in general the most developed and best maintained measures of mental aptitude in a variety of areas, and their results are thus far more meaningful than an internet quiz.

>>6165410
many also have components which require interaction between the person being tested and the person giving the test; the instructions you are given and the manner in which they are given to you need to follow a very strict procedure in order to ensure consistency and minimise possible biases in test delivery.

>>6165410
>intellectual property is heavily protected

Not on the internet.

>>6161040
>150 IQ talking to a guy with 110 IQ feel the same as the 110 IQ guy talking to 70 IQ retard.

well, it could feel like that. go to one of the academic conferences and listen to people talk. if you're of low IQ, you'll never understand the conversation well enough.

>>6161052
>No. Once you reach an IQ of 100, I think you're able to learn pretty much anything with enough practice.

Bull-fucking-shit. That's the biggest lie I've ever read on here. Only libtards would say something wrong like that and claim it to be true.

>cut people off while they're talking because they're not describing what they're thinking right
>have to wait 2-3x longer for people to give responses to anything but the most basic questions
>the person hesitates to think of a word so you tell them which word they were going to use
It gets frustrating waiting for people. Don't even get me started on people who "learn" something by listening to incremental instructions then like completely fall and trip head first a million feet onto concrete as soon as you walk away.

>>6166943
I also tutor maths, which in our language means I hate everyone and everything.

>>6166950
You've seen nothing yet. Try to teach CS majors. That's the true horror.

>>6165419
The answers should speak for themselves.

>>6161040
You are asking if it's an interval scale. Yes it is.

See: Jensen, Arthur R. "Bias in mental testing." (1980). Chapter 4.

http://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/wp-content/uploads/Bias-in-Mental-Testing-Arthur-R.-Jensen.pdf

>>6161088
yes, more precisely, it's a statistical construct that helps us find talent in large groups of people.

and that's what makes it great.

>>6161040
>>6170356

I study testing for a living.

While it's agreed that IQ is generally linear, there's a common trend in testing. Basically, it's really easy to measure people in the middle, but as you get farther and farther away from the middle of the curve, it gets harder and harder to measure real differences.

How are we supposed to differentiate between an IQ of 130 and and IQ of 140 when only 0.3% of the population has an IQ of 130? It gets really hard to do statistics at this point.

So I'd be more confident about the difference between 110 and 70. There's still certainly a difference between 140 and 110, but since we see so few 140s, it's hard to tell exactly if we measured him properly.

According to some meaningless online tests and logical thought I think I hang around 125IQ. I feel like I'll tend to struggle with high level academics, and comparing myself to someone with 135-140 will show a significant difference. In my opinion the differences at the higher end of the scale tend to show much more than at the mid section (90-110).

>>6171194
That's more of a measurement problem than a problem with the scale. It is also a problem with the norming of the tests. Need a very large sample to get accurate norming for e.g. >140.

One useful and much used idea is just giving adult tests to younger children to lower the ceiling. Cf. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Study_of_Mathematically_Precocious_Youth

>>6171297

Exactly, norming for geniuses is tough, especially when we're talking about adult populations.

I agree that IQ has an interval scale. It's still true that we have measurement problems at extreme levels of ability.

If I had two pairs of tests - say, a 90 and a 100, and a 130 and a 140 - I would agree that both pairs represent the same difference. However, from a measurement perspective, we're more confident in the difference between the first pair, since it's easier to get good measurement for average people.

>>6171297
Measurement problems only occur in quantum mechanics

>>6166938
You're making shit up. Not understanding high level technical talks has very little to do with intelligence. The smartest person in the world would be completely lost in a basic calculus course if they didn't have the background. Obviously the background is not particularly difficult for something like that, but it is still necessary.

>>6171396
It should be possible to make a true ratio scale g measurement using chronometric and similar tests, which would also mean that they have no problems with ceiling or floor effects. Personally I'd love to engage in the construction of such tests, there are many leads to follow, but apparently not much scientific interest in the area. Too bad!

Some time ago, I was thinking about what properties an ideal test would have.

- Ratio scale
- Unlimited range
- Perfect measure of true g factor (i.e. uncontaminated and no missing possible variance)
- Practice resistant (i.e. it has no effect, or because it can easily be worked around)
- Easy to administer
- Quick to administer
- Noninvasive
- Standardized
- Unbiased/culture fair
- Unfakeable (i.e. cannot fake lower scores)
- ... more?

>>6172968
>perfect measure of g
>practise resistant

g is correlated between persons of similar genetic makeup by at most 0.8 as reported by any study of such. Unless you know of any other significant variable in cognition which is absolutely constant, you are garaunteed variation in such a test from relative practise between test takers.