/sci/ - Science & Math

>>6263786
And do you think posting this thread every day is good way to spend your time?

>>6263786
yes it is, only people with low IQ or some agenda dont think so.

>>6263786
Yes, only people with low IQs or an agenda believe it's not.

>>6263792
This thread is the epitome of intellectualism.

My IQ is 190 and IQ is the only scientific measure of intelligence.

iq 73 iq dont mena shit i are very smrat cs major mastr raec

>>6263786
154 IQ officially tested at a psychologist here.
It is the only known method of testing intelligence so far, It probably gives you a good 90% image of what a person intelligence is. I am currently 2 years ahead and finishing my doctors degree in mathematics,

However I have not been able to find a job and will probably end up being useless and unemployed due to my social retardation, so is the fate of every single person in this thread.

/thread

Anyone who actually thinks that the vase spectrum of human intelligence in all its varieties can be accurately and reliably mapped to the set of positive integers does not belong on /sci/

can we please ban IQ threads already?

>>6263870
>It probably gives you a good 90% image of what a person intelligence is
No it doesn't.
It gives you a very hazy ballpark estimate. Someone who gets 90 is pretty dumb obviously, someone above 140 is pretty bright
But if you honestly think that a person who got an IQ of 150 is certainly "more intelligent" than someone who got an IQ of 145 then you're pretty naive.
Even someone with an IQ of 140 could possibly think circles around someone with an IQ of 150 in some situations.

IQ is useful, but everyone on /sci/ has taken it to entirely new levels because they care about intelligence so much that having a number to throw around to other people is extremely appealing to them.
It's sad that a group of people who hold science in such high esteem would be so biased by their own desires

My IQ is 290.

You are all below me.

>>6263786

>2000
>iq is 145
>2010
>iq is 130

i'm guessing it's about 125 now

IQ before /sci/: 170
IQ after /sci/: 150


Two years on this board have killed my intelligence.

>>6263913
I was actually making a mockery of people with high iq's but okay.

Neither is my iq 154 nor have I or do I care for measuring it.

The best estimate of intelligence would be what useful deeds you can accomplish.

>>6263786
I don't know my IQ, and I don't care.
IQ is an arbitrary measurement made by arbitrary humans.
Richard Feynman was measured to have an IQ of 125, yet he predicted in extensive detail how computers would be THIS day, in 1959.
http://www.zyvex.com/nanotech/feynman.html

In the end, IQ is not a law of the universe, and as such is a poor indicator of intelligence.
Consider the fact that the human brain is not even remotely understood.
You can't measure what you don't understand.

IQ a poop

175 IQ reporting in

IQ is the only measure of intelligence, if you criticize it you are anti-science

>>6263786

No. IQ is current estimation of your mathematical potential, nothing more.

>>6263958
I thought the tests were mainly pattern recognition?

Though maths has quite a bit of that.

>>6263960
>geometry

>>6263786
The only reason I don't care about IQ is because it's a part of psychology, and psychologists just piss me off with their fantasizing over the "scientific method". If it was a neurological test with solid grounding I'll be all for it.

mine is over 9000

IQ is the international SI unit of intelligence.

>>6263939
but it's not accurate

>>6264749

Intelligence is what IQ tests measure.

>>6264754
no

>>6263786
When I was in 3rd grade my IQ was 87, in 6th grade it was 134... so no I don't believe in any psychometric testing.

122

I am 20 years old.

>>6265064
...and you can't defeat my cognition.

>>6263786
>And do you think that IQ is a scientifically accurate way to indicate our intelligence?

Yes, of course. Science behind is solid.

Eh, at least it's better than the Myer-Briggs personality test bullshit.

136

Hard work can take you far, but beyond a certain point you'll see diminishing returns and never be able to intuitively visualize abstract concepts.

>>6265106
>INTX detected

>>6264756
yes

>>6268686
nope

intelligence = g factor not IQ

Why don't we put resources into human intelligence amplification? After that, we can find better and better ways of amplifying intelligence, and before you know it we're traveling the galaxy.

>>6268690
g is accurately measured by IQ

IQ is a good measurement of what is generally considered to be intelligence, however IQ does not guarantee success nor does it demonstrate a valid superiority to those with lower IQ's

>>6263845
Mine is 0.999...

>>6270989
>accurately
nope

>>6263870
See here what this guy is talking about.

He wants to be a doctor or have a nice job so he can make lots of money... Etc. I am just assuming this, maybe he really does want to help others lol.

But wouldn't a genius person just see the pursuit of money as frivolous and be nihilistic as humanely possible?

After all wouldn't they see that the reward of a good humanitarian life or bad selfish life is the same, death. So they would probably look for a simple job and use their free time to do whatever they want. They probably wouldn't even try to get a degree because they would see it as pointless... And would study but on their own free time?

Inb4 good will hunting

But that's just my opinion maybe you guys can enlighten me. I know I am somewhat above average intelligence but I don't think I am the smartest guy here. And it's been years since I took an IQ test and can't remember what I scored.

>>6271027
Yes. You apparently don't know what the standard IQ test is.

ITT: plebs post exaggerated IQ's to make themselves feel unique socially accepted in this board.

IQ wont do shit for you if your not motivated enough to use it to it's full potential.

>mfw when true geniuses are never successful in life due to their lack of social skills and susceptibility to others taking advantage of them

>>6271076
nope

>You apparently don't know what the standard IQ test is.
0/10

>>6271099
What a sophisticated reply. You sure convinced me with all that butthurt.

>>6271102
>babby doesn't know shit about statistical significance

>>6271091
This. QTF.

Here is a good example. Tesla and Edison. Tesla shits on Edison in just about everything and probably would have scored high as shit on an IQ test but Edison whereas May have not been as smart wasn't a social autist So who do you think more people know of? If you guessed Edison then you were right.

Probably for every person who knows about Tesla there are 10 people who know about Edison.

>>6271091

Obviously some people like to think they are superior to others without having done anything to achieve it, so height, IQ, looks or something else that makes them feel super special is how they choose to gauge it

>>6271109
in this day parents make their children feel like their one of a kind, that they can do anything and be anyone, that they are in a sense "bound for greatness".
no-one raised with this mindset ever grew up to fulfill the false illusion their parents convinced them to believe as legitimate.

2 perfect examples:
the United States 43rd president: raised and grew up with the mindset that he would follow in his fathers footsteps. his father did everything in his power to make him succeed in life and ended up disappointed in the least sense. (along with the rest of the country)

Winston Churchill: father treated him like shit and told him he was bound for nothingness. You know how the rest of the story goes

133
yes

>>6263870

>>6263933
>Neither is my iq 154 nor have I or do I care for measuring it.

>The best estimate of intelligence would be what useful deeds you can accomplish.

Don't bother. It's about 104.

>>6271130
This vision that parents give their children is not always bad though if I may add to your post.

Manifest Destiny bro. I have a crude understanding of it and though it may be circular reasoning (another thing which I have a crude understanding of). I believe I will do great things, I will do great things because I work hard. I work hard because I am destined for greatness. And while I may never be great I will be well off. A personal thought of mine.

You see you have to believe in yourself, you have to believe you are the best and that is the reason you struggle because you were meant to do this. And why should that "thing" that you struggle for be yours? Because you worked for it.

Until of course you hit your mid life crisis and those of us who didn't "make it" struggle to come to self actualization. This is a "crack" in this thinking that many will fall through. Life is uncertain and the home team doesnt always win.

The highest IQ in this thread is represented as x

My IQ is X+1

>>6271159
We evolve beyond the person that we were a minute before. Little by little we advance with each turn. That's how a drill works!

>>6271159
yea but i think if someone else raises you constantly saying that you will do great things i think it backfires. I agree if oneself believes in oneself but if other people also do, especially during development, it fucks it up

>>6271170
I like that. A little bit of mental masturbation is good for the brain. But you have to remember that this is all it is.

At the end of this play and your part as a character is finished there will only be one question. Would I go back and do it over again and change some things? If you answered yes then you never reached what I believe Neitzsche (sorry if I got the name wrong) called the übermensch.

If however when death comes and you answer no, that everything you wanted was achieved and every stones you wanted turned up was so then you have achieved übermensch.

Lol I know this is a sci and math but I feel like I am on what should be a philo board.

>>6271197
That man did not give a fuck.

>>6263934
>making claims about famous people
>no source
>using single examples to attempt to disprove correlations

>>6270989
Most of the time, but not always. Training fucks up the relationship, cf. training effects and FLR (Flynn-Lynn-R) effect.

The only "real" IQ test I've ever taken was this kind of cognitive skill test in 5th grade. It said I was 140 and above, though I'm not sure on the exact details because I was in 5th grade.

Based on online tests, I'm around 130, give or take, which sounds about right. I think IQ can work as a general indicator (I'm bright, but not a genius), but isn't the end all be all to determine intelligence.

>>6263786
accurate ±10 points

if someone has an IQ of 98 and another an IQ of 105 you can't really say one is more intelligent than the other

if someone has an IQ of 140 when 98% of literate reasonably intelligent and informed people who take the IQ test score below 131 then you know the person with 140 IQ is doing something right

>>6263786
It is very important for groups of people and becomes less meaningful as the population shrinks. A person with an IQ 125 could be just as productive as a person with an IQ of 85. But a group of 125's is going to be much more productive than a group of 85's.

>>6272903
If someone has an Angry Birds score of 5000, and another has an Angry Birds score of 5867, you can't really say one is more dexterous than the other.

If someone has an Angry Birds score of 7143 when 98% of reasonably dexterous and beautiful people who have an android phone score below 6684 then you know the person with a score of 7143 is doing something right

>tfw IQ of 100
>Douchebag cousin with superiority complex has iq of 150
>he's still making much much much less money than me and still feels the need to boast about his iq score
IQ doesn't mean shit you faggots. Stop posting the same threads.

Anyone knows any good accurare IQ tests online?

No, but I think that my IQ is higher than the frozen girl that I keep in my freezer to sodomize.

Entropy=BAM.

>>6263786
My IQ is 135 - 140 (I like to post a range because I think it's a little more accurate. I got tested as a kid due to psychological difficulties and my scores were generally within that range). I know thats a high score, but I'm actually really uptight about it, I'd give my right arm for another couple of points

>And do you think that IQ is a scientifically accurate way to indicate our intelligence?

That's a loaded question. When I was younger, before getting into research myself, I liked to say no. The problem is that all the experts in the field of IQ swear by it- after reviewing all the evidence, doing all the study, they have inescapably come to the conclusion that IQ is real and valid. So basically, IQ deniers are a kinda like climate change skeptics or intelligent design people- they are people outside the field who are questioning the conclusions of people who frankly know far more than they. It really worries me when a topic of research is far more controversial outside the field than inside it.

Only people that actually convince themselves that IQ is a good measure of intelligence are people that took one and got a high score.
IQ is an indicator, but not an accurate measure. If you score 150, you have a high probability of being smart, while if you score 80 you have a high probability of being a retard.
That said the guy with 150 could very well be dumber, slower, or more naive (or all 3) than the guy who scored 100.

It's just an indicator, tells you "You are probably intelligent/average/dumb". Also absolutely not an indicator of how much you will/can accomplish, in fact if I recall correctly, the highest average salary is around 125-135IQ.

Also a lot of IQ tests focus way too much on pattern recognition, good pattern recognition usually indicates intelligence, but the opposite doesn't indicate stupidity (not by itself, anyway).

>>6273468
cont.
For the record, I recently listened to a google tech lecture from a guy called Steven Hsu, who is doing a genome wide association search to discover genes for high IQ, and he reports that modern IQ tests are about as accurate as measurements for height. That strikes me as pretty damn accurate.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=62jZENi1ed8&list=PL0AD5316AD9D8CDE1

In my opinion, if it's real, they are going to be finding genes for it pretty shortly. Because of this, I'm wary of casting a stone one way or another, because as soon as the genomics study is done, someones going to be standing around with egg all over their faces. So, meekly, I cast my stone on the IQ side of the debate, yes I think it's real, yes I think it's accurate, and a good measure of human intelligence, barring of course, any new conclusive evidence coming in from genomics.

Offhand though, I would like to formally petition the mods to make an IQ sticky thread, so that we don't have to deal with this ridiculous IQ spam thats killing /sci/.

>>6273469
>Only people that actually convince themselves that IQ is a good measure of intelligence are people that took one and got a high score.

I generally find precisely the opposite. It's ALWAYS high IQ people that are arguing that IQ is unscientific. I have never seen an average dolt argue that he could perform as well as a genius; generally they say things like "I'll leave it up to the nerds" or some such.

>the highest average salary is around 125-135IQ

And people that score above that are as rare as hens teeth. The biggest factor in success is not IQ, it's not hard work, or motivation, or extroversion; it's straight dumb luck. Bill Gates had an IQ that was easily above 135, and he was the richest man in the world. Of course, he also happened to live within walking distance of one of the worlds first programmable computers and happened to attend a school that purchased time for students on it. The guy got lucky. Steve Wozniak, also happened to be a genius, and also got lucky because his high school friend was one of the slimiest used car salesman of all time - Steve Jobs. The reason the highest salary is at 125-135 is probably just statistical artefact, the sample size above that number is too small.

>>6273465
That doesn't make any sense.

>>6263913
"My IQ is .6% less, but my dick is 2% more."
>Checkmate

>>6264768
Dude, the correlation between the results two IQ tests taken by the same person is about 0.87. That's a pretty good correlation. Maybe you should look at research rather than generalizing from two data points.

i have a low IQ and I have good grades

4th semester towards BA in physics

>>6264768
>>6275503
Also, IQ is more stable during adulthood than childhood, because children develop at different rates, meaning that a slow-developing child seem stupider compared to his contemporaries. (For example, black kids mature faster than white kids, which means that there is a much smaller gap in academic performance between young black kids and young white kids.)

>>6263913

Second, can all IQ threads be deleted and all their posters banned please?

>>6275507
>BA

>>6277210
My literal response before I saw this. Get out of my head!

124 IQ reporting in. Thinking of trying my hand at physics... thoughts?

>>6277210
>>6277232
Some places call it a BA in science, others call it a BSc. It's usually the same thing.

>>6277238
In the States it's usually differentiated by course requirements. The more rigorous courses such as math-physics, QM2, stat-mech, and so on are usually not in the BA.

1300

>>6277236
Physics might be too hard for you. Maybe you'll pass 1st year with hard work but QM will kill you.

>>6263786
155

While I think IQ is the best way to measure intelligence, calling it 'accurate' is fucking retarded.

>>6263786
I refuse to take tests and also refuse to accept absolute validity of them. I know my IQ is lower today than a point in my life some years ago, but I do not worry about it, it goes up and down with will and tiredness, alongside other factors.

yeah they're bullshit.

my IQ on ritalin: 128
my IQ normally: 98

Either ritalin increases my intelligence greatly or IQ is bullshit.

>>6273469
doesn't the risk of depression or other mental illness increase after 130 or so? Not sure where I heard that so it may be bullshit but I thought there was a link between psychological problems and intelligence.

>>6278391
I will but in here. IMO, the risk does not increase, so much as the potential for acknowledging certain concerns too often. To not put it in this kind of light, might have counter positive effects to readers. It is difficult to extreme to think about a general normalcy whilst stuck thinking about a plausible abnormalcy within. Breaking the cycle is sometimes not easy, because real world events have caused the situation to begin with and this means irreparable external situations sometimes must be dealt with by internal diversion away from the usual acceptance that those situations are self repairing based on attitude. High IQ is sometimes self defeating, just the same as low IQ. Ignorance is a tool any-one is entitled to use and has been given a far too bad reputation.

>>6278339

Not that anon but explain why their 124 IQ is insufficient for physics.

>>6278626
Because physics requires abstract thinking at a high level.

127
and no, intelligence is a product of conciousness, and we don't know shit about conciousness, so there's no way we could hope to accurately quantify intelligence

also frankly i think the whole concept of intelligence is just a social construct, and a way of feeling superior to others

but that's just what i reckon, i could be wrong

>>6279384
no it doesnt

>>6278626
I was making a joke cause Feynman.
"…On the trip home from the Nobel ceremonies in Stockholm, Feynman stopped at his high school in Far Rockaway, where he looked up his grades and IQ score. “My grades were not as good as I remembered, and my IQ was 124 or 126, considered just above average,” he says. Reports Gweneth: “He was delighted. He said to win a Nobel prize was no big deal, but to win it with an IQ of 124, now that was something.”

122 IQ is good for an architecture student?