/sci/ - Science & Math

depends on the test; all tests are standardised so that there is a score which is the "average" by definition. See here for IQ conversion between different scales: http://www.davidpbrown.co.uk/psychology/iq-conversion.html

>>6310460
Thanks. So what you're saying is, some people with deficiencies got under 80, and some gifted people got above 140, and it averaged out?

The definition of IQ is literally "most people get 100 average on IQ tests and the standard deviation corresponds to 15 points". That is it. If your IQ test does not give a person with median performance a score of 100 (such as the one your image is from) it fails the literal only criterion for being an IQ test.

It can be a clash of ninja tournament if you want it to be. IQ is shit, you can't measure intelligence by a bunch of pattern matching problems because intelligence is 1) more complicated than that and 2) a made up concept that people disagree on the definition of anyway.

Fuck IQ.

>>6310463
That's the rough idea
>>6310462
different tests use different standard deviations tho, and have different mean points.

why do faggots on rhis board even do iq tests

>>6310471
my mum made me lol; I think it helps with getting jobs too as the general public really have no clue what they mean or how accurate they are

If you want to see people of below average IQ, take a CS class. I know some people are gonna call me a troll for this comment, but it's really what I experienced. Nowhere else have I ever seen people failing so hard at understanding very basic, intuitively obvious things like the semantics of propositional logic. As a TA I had to grade students who were unable to write down a truth table for "X implies Y".

>>6310462
>It can be a clash of ninja tournament if you want it to be

There wouldnt be much correlation between IQ and ninja champions, though.

However, there is a very strong correlation between IQ and those in professions considered intelligent.

>>6310496
>There wouldnt be much correlation between IQ and ninja champions, though.

Actually there would be. Ninjas are highly intelligent. Good spatial reasoning skills and intuition of physical mechanics are essential to martial arts. If you ever practiced such a sport, you'd know that those of higher ranks are usually also of higher education. Participants of low intellect tend to be motorically untalented as well.

>>6310502
>>6310502
>Actually there would be. Ninjas are highly intelligent

Oh please...

You are just redefining intelligence now.

This is a typical "progressive" trick to make everyone look intelligent.

Are you good at moving your arms quickly? Then you are intelligent.
Are you good at talking to people? Then you are intelligent.
Are you good at drawing comics? Then you are intelligent.
Are you good at football? Then you are intelligent.
Are you good at expressing emotion? Then you are intelligent.
Are you good at anything? Then you are intelligent.

Hurrah! Everyone is intelligent and we're all equal!

>>6310514
Nope. I meant formal intelligence as in predicting and inferring spatial relations and understanding mechanics.

>>6310456

Well, many IQ test use 110 as a mean value, so people can feel smart..

The funny thing is, you can train for IQ test very well. This can make a huge difference in the results.

But did get 25 percent smarter, because you spent 14 days on learning "here are three numbers, which one is the fourth?" or "which colour has the part in the middle? " - no, you didn't.

There are even diffent types of intelligence and while Bach might have been a fucking moron when it comes to math, he would still be considered an outstanding genius on the piano and organ.


So IQ-test can predict some things, and it's not a bad thing to have.

But it's not the single value that says everything about your mental capacities, and that's what many people believe. And that's why IQ-test are overrated.

An IQ-Test makes sense if you want to find out if a child is unchallenged or overchallenged, because both leads to pretty similar results.

Otherwise it's just a number, and if it helps little nerds to sleep better because they feel superior, so be it.

>>6310502
But people with high motor skills does not tend to be intellectually talented or having a high IQ.

>>6310462
But you can. IQ is the single best predicator of success,productivity, self discipline,salary, life expectancy and overall life quality.

Increasing your iq with just 1 point is equal to 1000$ difference in income.

Its not bullshit, but keep telling your self that so you can feel better about your low IQ

So what are some ways I can do to increase my IQ?

>>6310593
But it's no guarantee of any of those things.

>>6310602
Exercise. Strength training and cardiovascular.

saging IQ troll

>>6310602
Study the specific problems offered on the type of IQ test in the region in which you reside.

Seriously, just learn shit all the time and don't worry about trying to quantify it. Doing exercises to improve your IQ is like doing bicep curls with 1 lb. weights rather than hauling sacks of rocks around or digging ditches.

>>6310456

niggers from nigger africa

I thought the average was about 140. I don't understand how anyone with the ability to navigate 4chan can score below that lol

>>6310487
>I think it helps with getting jobs too

the fuck?

>>6311154
some jobs ask you to take an iq test

>>6311148
A chimp can navigate 4chan. 4chan isn't a place where all the smart nerds come to let our their inner demons or pretend to be smart when they aren't.

>>6310456
Essentially the same person to get a 1500 on their SAT

>>6310456
Most IQ tests are built around certain abilities that can be practiced. That's probably why in America (no offense, guys.) an average score is around 95 or something, and in Asia, where all those crazy tiger parents are, 110. These abilities are connected with problem solving and mathematical thinking.

>>6311204
are you denying that genes play a role in the IQ?

>>6310456
IQ tests are standardized, and then the scores are multiplied by 100 and the standard deviation is multiplied by 15 (or 16 or 24, rarely).

For a normal distribution 100 is ofc the mean.

>>6310462
All concepts are made up.

And yes, pattern/induction tests are good measures of g, cf. picture.

>>6310465
All major IQ tests have 100 as their mean. But the SAT/ACT have other scores.

>>6310494
Logic is highly g-loaded. Logic is very much like math.

>>6310567
>Well, many IQ test use 110 as a mean value, so people can feel smart..

No major test uses 110 as a mean.

>The funny thing is, you can train for IQ test very well. This can make a huge difference in the results.

Yes, but this won't make you smarter. Only introduce error in the measurement. Just like you can fiddle with a weight to fuck up the measurement.

>There are even diffent types of intelligence and while Bach might have been a fucking moron when it comes to math, he would still be considered an outstanding genius on the piano and organ.

There is only one intelligence, i.e. g. See: >>6311506

>>6310602
There is no good evidence for environmental effects to increase g.

>>6311171
For good reason, it is a good predictor of job performance. Smart employers give tests and use the results to discriminate among applicants.

The average internet IQ is 140 which is the 99.6th percentile.

Source: IQ threads

>>6310456
Would studying at a uni indicate an above average IQ, even if it is something like Law?

in order to know the average they would have to test everyone
not everyone is tested
therefore nobody knows the average

this means that IQ test results are not only meaningless, they are in all likelihood actually wrong

>>6311521

This is like those "post your dick size threads" and has serious bias in who actually posts. No one with an IQ of 100 will post just like no one with a 4" dick will post.

>>6311559
i was going to say the exact same thing.

IQ 143 here (honestly)

>>6311552
Of course. Probably nowhere on university is at or below 100 IQ on avg.

>>6311558
>in order to know the outcome they would have to ask everyone
>not everyone is asked
>therefore nobody knows the election outcome

>this means that election prediction results are not only meaningless, they are in all likelihood actually wrong

>>6311559
Yes, but a more likely bias is lying, or practicing on tests.

Apparently Phyiscs and Astronomy majors have the highest IQ (133) followed by Mathematical Sciences (130).

http://www.statisticbrain.com/iq-estimates-by-intended-college-major/

>>6310471

Because they're fools in need of some pacifier and IQ fits the bill.

>>6311647
>philosophy
>129

looks legit

I hate it when people talk about IQ.

Some facts:

The location, inherited wealth, race, and schooling are more important as factors in determining income than IQ.
>Bowles, Samuel; Gintis, Herbert (2002). "The Inheritance of Inequality". Journal of Economic Perspectives

IQ tests do not measure the full scope of mental ability because they fail to assess rational thought, which is central to happiness and fulfillment.
>Stanovich, Keith E. (2009-01-27). What Intelligence Tests Miss: The Psychology of Rational Thought (1 ed.). Yale University Press.

There is NOT one single one-dimensional variable that accounts for all correlations among any intelligence tests which qualifies as an "objective definition" of intelligence.
>Psychometrics of Intelligence. K. Kemp-Leonard (ed.) Encyclopedia of Social Measurement, 3, 193–201
>Famous artefacts: Spearman's Hypothesis. Cahiers de Psychologie Cognitive / Current Psychology of Cognition, 16, 665–698


In the "Terman Study of the Gifted" (a longitudinal IQ-Study, from 1921 till today) pupils were selected to be studied.
Two pupils who were tested but rejected because of low IQ scores were:
-William Shockley; Co-inventer of the transistor who got the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1956, and whose former employees started "Silicon Valley"
-Luis Walter Alvarez; American experimental physicist, Nobel Prize in Physics in 1968. "One of the most brilliant and productive experimental physicists of the twentieth century." (American Journal of Physics)

"It seems clear that these data powerfully confirm the suspicion that intelligence is not a sufficient trait for truly creative achievement of the highest grade.""
> Eysenck, Hans (1998). Intelligence: A New Look.

"At any rate, we have seen that intellect and achievement are far from perfectly correlated"
>Terman, Lewis Madison; M. H. Oden (1947). Genetic Studies of Genius: The gifted child grows up; twenty-five years' follow-up of a superior group (4 ed.). Stanford University Press

>>6311647
>cs
>not first
yeah nah

>>6310604

certainly not, but nothing in life is guaranteed. that doesn't mean that the two aren't highly correlated.

>>6313416
Philosophy isn't all sophistry/theology/those retards on lit.

>>6313598
>The location, inherited wealth, race, and schooling
all or each?

>>6313598
>inherited wealth
>more important factor in determining income than [something]
#whoah

>>6313641
but that's pretty much it

>>6313651
No, philosophy is simply a method of thinking. Its a two ended stick people use to come to absurd conclusions, and modern analytic philosophy is a joke, sure.

But the average person isn't going to read Kant's Critique of Pure Reason and understand it, for example. Philosophy dealing with forms of logic is quite rigorous, and I wouldn't lump it in with Theology of all things.

>>6311506
>Logic is highly g-loaded. Logic is very much like math.
>>6310494

What the hell is g-loaded?

I can understand simple if x then y things but with numbers I get confused if trying to do it in my head even with simple problems sometimes. It's hard for me to remember lots of small things like phone numbers and such. But I don't have a problem at all if I'm writing it out or knowing what to do next.

Does this mean I'm stupid and should I try to learn CS?

100 is always the average IQ of any population that is the way they are

IQ tests measure your "mental age"

the formula is:

(real age / mental age) * 100

in that way, the average mental age is always the real age, making it 1 * 100 = 100

>>6314041
They no longer use mental age. Modern IQ tests arbitrarily set the average score at 100, and make 1SD 15 points. So if you score at the 98th percentile, your IQ is 130. That's just how they do it. Norm it at 100, and then go off SD.

>>6314041
>100 is always the average IQ of any population that is the way they are

Yeah, did you know the average IQ of Mensa members is 100?

>>6313598
This is a weird post, consisting of odd quote minings and some citations of literature. I happen to know most of the sources, so I can comment on it.

The IQ x income correlation is about 0.3. Other factors make income heritable as well (personality mainly). There is also a lot of noise due to chance events.

>IQ tests do not measure the full scope of mental ability because they fail to assess rational thought, which is central to happiness and fulfillment.

No one claimed otherwise.

>There is NOT one single one-dimensional variable that accounts for all correlations among any intelligence tests which qualifies as an "objective definition" of intelligence.

No one has believed this to be the case since Spearman's simple 2 factor model. g factor is simply the most important factor, and removing the g variance reduces predictive validity to about zero for most cases.

Anecdote data about Terman study is irrelevant. I might as well add that Shockley later become a prominent proponent of IQ tests.

Of course high g is not a sufficient trait for truly creative achievement. It is however a necessary trait.

Yes, of course achievement and intellect (g) are not perfectly correlated. No one has proposed otherwise.

>>6313664
>modern analytic philosophy is a joke, sure.
>Philosophy dealing with forms of logic is quite rigorous

This two seem to be incoherent.

>>6313728
>What the hell is g-loaded?

Loads on the g factor, cf. the picture you linked to. The number in the g factor column on the pic to the right is the g-loading. Not all tests have equal g-loadings.

>>6314041
Mental age method hasn't been used for decades. Modern IQs are deviation based, cf. >>6314071

>>6314300
>Yeah, did you know the average IQ of Mensa members is 100?

Presumably deliberately misunderstanding things. Yes, if you norm a test to Mensa members, the mean is 100. If you norm a test to a general population, and then measure Mensa members from that population, the mean will be in the 131-150 range (not sure where exactly).

>>6314363
>correlation of 0.3
oh fuck, this is psychologists trying to posture as rigorous scientists

>>6314368
>>6314041

What's the best internet IQ test that I can take? I don't care if it's not 100% correct I just want a good grasp on where I stand. I feel that my intelligence is declining in recent years.

>>6310456
I'm stupid as shit but even I got 120-130 on some tests, the other day you get only 100. Depends on your mindset and motivation.

>>6310471
e-penis

Yo anons, Where can I take an IQ test ?

>>6315189

You don't.

>>6310602
IQ is a measure of SKILLS considered important for intellectual work; it is not a measure of g, the only way g could be measured if we knew the exact genetic and developmental factors that go into shaping it by the end of brain development.

TLDR IQ is a skills test and does not measure genetic mental ability

>>6311506
average SAT scores in the 50th percentile, and in the state of maine it is in the 40th compared to national averages, which means g is not based off genetics.

>>6311517
>There is no good evidence for environmental effects to increase g.

So, if I'm dumb then I just stay stupid? But what if I dream to become brilliant?

>>6315220
>But what if I dream to become brilliant?
Impossible. You can appear it by reading a lot, but you'll just be a pseudo-intellectualist and asshole.

>>6314934
>oh fuck, this is psychologists trying to posture as rigorous scientists

Correlations of 0.3 are very important for social areas. Correlations of 0.3 in medicine are rare, and we gain greatly from using treatments with much lower correlations, e.g. cancer treatments.

>>6315019
Take a couple, take the average:

IQ tests
http://www.mensa.no/olavtesten/index_2.html
http://sifter.org/iqtest/
http://mensa.dk/testiq.xml
http://mensa.se/bli-medlem/provtest/

>>6315208
>IQ is a measure of SKILLS considered important for intellectual work; it is not a measure of g, the only way g could be measured if we knew the exact genetic and developmental factors that go into shaping it by the end of brain development.

Fullscale IQ and g correlate at >0.9. This is due to the Spearman-Brown effect.

>>6315215
It implies nothing of that sort.

>>6315245
>Fullscale IQ and g correlate at >0.9. This is due to the Spearman-Brown effect.

I don't understand what this means.

>>6315233
Most retarded thing on the thread. "If you're not smart, just be dumb." Wtf? "Reading a lot looks smart" = What kind of a fucking idiot thinks that?

And "asshole" is a characterization of behavior. A person who silently reads a lot would not be called "pseudo-intellectual" or "asshole."

>>6315245
>Take a couple, take the average:

Why did you link me to a bunch of sites that I can't even understand the language?

>>6315233

Thanks, guess I'll just stay stupid and not waste anymore time reading books since it's pointless.

>>6315279
It was if you were reading the books to "become brilliant" rather than for interest's sake, etc.

>>6315245
>implying you can measure g

If you were nit born with intelligence, but do intelligent type things, you are a pseudo intellectual by definition. >>6315271

>>6315189
You won't really test your "IQ", but a lot of abilities, and the gameplay is cool :
http://www.cambridgebrainsciences.com/

>>6313664
>But the average person isn't going to read Kant's Critique of Pure Reason and understand it, for example. Philosophy dealing with forms of logic is quite rigorous, and I wouldn't lump it in with Theology of all things.

I'm studying both, theology and philosophy and they are pretty much the same.

>>6315286
Reading is an "intelligent type thing?" I mean, reading some things might be, but without qualifying that, I'm fairly certain you can't just assume a person who reads anything is engaging in an "intelligent type thing."

>>6313664
anyone can understand anything if explained properly, or given a curriculum and the discipline to learn.

>>6315284

Guess I'll just stay at my 125 IQ level and never get any more smartest.

>>6315346
It was mostly a joke, but I do think that this kind of analysis of intentions is necessary. I don't think the guy who reads textbooks all day is can ever match the guy who reads them out of interest.

If you have a valid argument against this, please share. I'd love to be told that this apathy I have for most things intellectual isn't a sign of me just being dumb.

>>6315358
*The guy who reads textbooks because he wants to be brilliant vs. the guy who "can't put them down" I mean.

>>6315358

Is there something wrong with me just wanting to have a more powerful mind? Do you think better of someone who just reads for fun compared to someone who reads because they just want to be as smart as they can be?

>>6315382
Depends on what you read

>>6315382
Personally, I think the guy who reads because he "wants to be as smart as he can be" deserves a lot more credit. He's the one that has to work hard. My point is that it seems like, despite his hard work, there's just no substitute for that autistic love for whatever the subject is.

>>6315392
That too.

>>6315330
This is demonstrably not the case. Take your optimistic BS back to your parents.

>>6315402

Ok then. Try explaining the most difficult subjects you know about. I'm sure anyone will be able to understand it.

>>6310456
I scored around between 100 and 111 on a formal test administered when I was 17 (currently 23) which is zero to a little under one standard deviations above the mean. I'm a white male majoring in Electrical Engineering.

Here's a breakdown:
Nonverbal IQ: 104, 61st percentile
Verbal IQ: 111, 77th percentile
Full Scale IQ: 108, 70th percentile

Fluid Reasoning: 112, 79th percentile
Knowledge: 106, 66th percentile
Quantitative Reasoning: 105, 63th percentile
Visual Spatial: 111, 77th percentile
Working Memory: 100, 50th percentile

I'm betting most people who browse this board actually have IQs between 100 and 115 but claim they have higher to inflate their egos. Also the results of online tests are dubious at best and should not be taken seriously.

>>6315442
You fail to account for people with brain damage, children, etc.

Before you say "it was assumed, you pedantic fuck," I'll just say that you went out of your way to use the word "anyone" which makes you wrong.

It may be true that almost anyone can learn almost anything if explained properly, etc., but you should know better than to speak in absolutes with aspies around.

>>6315490
>I'll just say that you went out of your way to use the word "anyone" which makes you wrong.

Well, I was going to say anyone here reading it.

So, are you going to try explaining something to us or not?

>>6315484
It's worth noting I'm at a disadvantage with my nonverbal IQ being so low as it's generally more helpful than verbal IQ for subjects like math, and heavily math based courses like physics and engineering.

Like I'm going to let that stop me though.

>>6315484
>I'm betting most people who browse this board actually have IQs between 100 and 115 but claim they have higher to inflate their egos. Also the results of online tests are dubious at best and should not be taken seriously.

Most people on this board have IQ's less than 100. Have you seen the shit that gets posted?

>>6315500
I would be more than happy to try explaining something that any single person -- retarded or not -- within the category of "anyone" could not understand, but I'm pretty sure you're somehow still thinking that I'm saying that people reading things here wouldn't be able to understand. As I'm not saying that, I won't be explaining anything.

>>6315518

Thanks for proving that I was correct in my hypothesis all along.

>>6313645

Each of them.


>>6314363

>No one claimed otherwise.
Neither did I claim that sombody claimed that, did I? But it's important to know that IQ is just a part of the human abilities, and often an overrated one.

>Anecdote data about Terman study is irrelevant.
I don't think so.
In my opinion it's very relevant, because often you meet the naive assumption "more IQ = smarter people", though there are truly dumb people with a high IQ and smartasses with a "slightly above average" IQ.

It should rather be called "problem solving ablility" or something like that.

>Of course high g is not a sufficient trait for truly creative achievement. It is however a necessary trait.
There are many different opinions about that topic, but many studies (like http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23825884)) say that an average IQ (100) is enough for non-demanding creativity tasks - again it's a test about PROBLEM SOLVING and not about pure creativity.

Contrary to that, creativity test like the "Group Inventory for Finding Creative Talent" (GIFT), "Group Inventory for Finding Interests" (GIFFI) or the "Preschool and Kindergarten Interest Descriptor" (PRIDE) are often underrated.


Don't get me wrong, IQ is a nice thing an an impotant one, but I don't how people misuse this concept..

>>6315524
Ah, I see. You're one of these optimistic, sub-average IQ people who keep posting.

Keep on, friend. Maybe you can move objects with your mind if you really want to too, since clearly we can change our nature with wishful thinking.

>>6315262
All cognitive tests measure g to some extent (they are g-loaded to some extent). If you average the results of many different tests that each measure g to some extent and other stuff (other factors, error), you get a better measurement of g. Do this a lot of time and you end up with a pretty good measurement of g, even if you average things equally weighted when you shouldn't. You should weigh them by their g-loading.

>>6315274
The tests themselves are nonverbal.

>>6315484
108 would put you in the lower range of university. Unless you were especially tired or similar the day you took the test, this should be noticeable to you and other people.

If you are high in conscientiousness, this can offset the relatively low g score of course. If you aren't smart, you have to work harder. Academic achievement = g * work effort * creativity * opportunity, or something close to that.

>>6315556
>Neither did I claim that sombody claimed that, did I? But it's important to know that IQ is just a part of the human abilities, and often an overrated one.

It is most often an UNDERrated one. Just look at this board and in the media. It is the most important human trait.

>It should rather be called "problem solving ablility" or something like that.

These semantic discussions are uninteresting. If you insist, I will just switch to talking about g.

There is AFAIK no strong evidence for the validity of creativity tests. It is mostly something IQ denialists talk about but never test.

>>6315746
>108 would put you in the lower range of university


How's 125?

>>6315763
Around average in high-end STEM fields. Physics is about 130.

http://telescoper.wordpress.com/2013/05/26/iq-in-different-academic-fields-interesting-quite/

Guessing from GRE scores anyway.

>>6315771
That list shows that I'm only good enough to do Philosophy but I like Astrophysics and computer science most.

>>6315806
No, these are averages. Usually, there is a somewhat large range within a field or job. For instance, for lawyers, the 25th centile is about IQ 100, while the average is 120.

>>6316024

Yeah, but it means that I wouldn't be as good since I would be dumber than average.

>>6316193
Unless you have other things that are relevant and above average.

>>6315771
>based on conversions from GRE scores
>medicine listed

Confirmed bullshit. Premeds don't take the GRE, they take the MCAT.

>>6316193
Intelligence only matters up to a certain point. After that it's about insight, creativity, serendipity, and work ethic.

Richard Feynman had an IQ of 125. That didn't stop him from getting a nobel prize.

>>6315490
it was assumed; and if you cant handle the fact that you couldnt come up with a good rebuttal you should think before you post next time.

>>6310456
I got an 85

>doing really well on test invented to check for mental retardation of children and passing it as "genius"
nawh man, you just aren't retarded....
or are you?
also
>not taking Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale test

>>6316356
>Intelligence only matters up to a certain point. After that it's about insight, creativity, serendipity, and work ethic.

Ah, the Gladwell myth. It isn't true.

There is no threshold.

>>6317576
>not taking Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale test
Uhm, interjection if I may.

I'm gonna take this shit for real (for free, don't get mad. (for some "reasons", doctor wants me to be tested)) in some weeks.

What is it about? Did some of you already take it?
I have never heard of it before (well, except from joke-IQ online free websites, I dunno a lot about all that subject).

>>6319217
It's one of the well-tested standard tests used.

>>6310462
>it's literally a thing that's wrong
just because the mean is standardized to 100 does not mean everyone gets a 100. relatively very few people probably get a 100 when you consider all the scores it's possible for them to get.

>>6317569
that's high

I score in the 90s on most IQ tests.

Somehow I made it to calculus 2 though, despite being stupid. It's not impressive to you guys, but to a stupid person it is.

>>6320093
It's not your fault. IQ is 80% heritable.

>>6320099
>It's not your fault. IQ is 80% heritable.
Which means success is 80% hereditary.

I'm definitely too stupid to be successful, so I just set my goal at 50k/year. That should be enough to live.

>>6320104
No. Correlation between IQ (actually g) and whatever success criteria you have in mind is lower than 1.

I don't believe a second that someone with IQ 90s will make it though calc 2, unless it's really dumbed down at your uni.

>>6320240
>I don't believe a second that someone with IQ 90s will make it though calc 2, unless it's really dumbed down at your uni.
Community college man.

>>6320244
Doesn't exist in my country. :)

I've only taken an IQ test twice. The first time I made a full effort and got 147. The second time I got lazy halfway through and half-assed the last half of the test and got 136

>>6320099
No it's not. Regression to the mean.
And look at all the rich doctor mom lawyer dad parents who have swagfag kids.

My uncle scored a 150 on an IQ test and he was a 40 year old virgin that had 2 masters degrees and 2 bachelors degrees and struggled at many times in school. Never moved out of his parents house. Got his masters when he was 36. He ended up getting married later in life and working pretty plebby ~100k job. He isn't exactly successful.

Just how successful is this guy?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lcDfoo76dKY

>>6320385
my father was never a braniac yet he was great with people and was able to get into a field that he was successful in and made over $300,000 a year. I'll be lucky to be as successful as him and he's nothing but average to slightly above average.

>>6319217
bump for this.

/sci/ always bargain about IQ scores, but when it comes to actual questions about a fucking actual test, no one replies...

claims, claims, claims
>and no, scoring 145 www.iqtest.dk is not enough to make you an extraordinary person

Please excuse my brutality, but I'm srsly disappointed

Cool illusion in pic.

>>6311647
Those sat scores seem really low for the iq's

>>6313664
I just looked through the text, it looks overly verbose to the point of obscuring what could probably be summarized in a few points.

>>6321056
Those are actually fairly aligned to the sat vs iq correlations I've seen.

>>6321033
I got a 105 on the test. I normally get in the 90s.

It's within my standard deviation, so it makes sense.

>>6315513
Anon, you won't be taking any mentally demanding math courses in undergrad eng, you just have to pay attention and study

>>6321096
That's Kant in a nutshell. For that kind of philosopher, never read the primary texts.

>>6315245
took one of these tests, only answered 20 out of 33 questions (actually couldn't be fucked, i fucking hate pattern questions)
still got 120 IQ with 13 questions left

>>6321033
>get 105 IQ when I'm 13, feel like a pleb.
>realize in high school that I'm a very curious person, love physics


>major in Physics
>21
>IQ 140

wtf happened?

>>6321897
Maybe you just didn't try as hard when you were 13.

I still score 105 trying.

>>6321921
I had pretty bad ADHD when I was a kid, maybe that's why. I took meds all throughout high school and early parts of college. No longer take them.

Huh.

>>6310456
protip; they don't

>>6321925
There you go, you just forced yourself to be able to concentrate and use your actual abilities.

As for me, and most other dumb people, you can stare at one of those pattern things for 30 minutes, do all sorts of mental gymnastics, and then after you're done, you'll look at it again and be like "What the fuck is this shit? It makes no sense."

>>6321897
the main thing which iq test shows it's your proficiency with tests including iq tests

so your real iq is probably 105, any improvement it's you learned to cheat the test

>>6321937
not sure if serious. First time I've taken an IQ test in pretty much a decade.

>>6321861
If true, then you probably underestimated yourself.

The reason these tests are often used is that they work for any native language. So we don't have to make a test to match every language there is.

They are also easy to give, since they can be given to a group at a time. And they can easily be scored, which was relevant before modern computers. The army in pretty much every country uses tests to sort out the very dull from military duty.

What if the distribution is actually bimodal?

>>6310593
>termans termites

cmon now

>>6310496
Well, there will be a strong selection bias because people who are intelligent but bad at ninjutsu will be killed off quickly. So you'd have a strong correlation between ninja skill and intelligence, but it would be an artifact of censoring in the model.

>>6323925
By definition it isn't. You might suppose that there is some unobserved quantifiable factor z that encapsulates everything we understand by intelligence, and which IQ tests measure with a certain amount of error, but even in that case the way IQ tests are designed and scored will result in a normal distribution.

>>6323925
It isn't.

>>6324467
g, like most other human traits, is normally distributed, so the fact that we force the distribution of IQ to be normal too isn't a problem.

>>6310591
This is not high school anymore anon

Did a pro one when I had to choose my path in life.
Got 117 which is kinda good, of course I'm a bloody lazy sloth so the bonus points fade away

>>6327037
>Did a pro one
which one.
Speaking of "your IQ" without mentionning the test is completely meaningless.
It's not against you, just a thinking I have when I read this thread.

>>6310456
The test in pic is shit. Number of correct answers times 10 equals iq.

Srsly, 3 wrong answers? what are you? an imbecile?

>>6327091
Post yours then, faggot

>>6320349
>Regression to the mean.
You have no idea what that means

>And look at all the rich doctor mom lawyer dad parents who have swagfag kids.
..and you clearly have no idea how genetics works either and base your knowledge off of anecdotes and cherry picking.

Typical IQ denialist!

>>6327125
IQ test is a measure of logical intelligence performed by a monkey for other monkeys to interpret how well said monkey will work confined in a cubicle all day building weapons of mass destruction and other things to enable and support the patriarchy.

It is a sign man has domesticated himself, treats himself like any other piece of livestock on the farm.

>>6327137
I guess posts like this are what happens when an autist tries to be "ironic". You disability is painful to watch.

>>6328774
iq is garbage and you know it

>>6328809
All I know is that I'm sexy.

-----------
>>6319217
I have the whole administration book, but for WAIS-III (I should scan it and upload it to libgen...), dunno if it can interest you, since they may be very different.
(also, translation problem)

>>6329297
if regression to the mean works, then why do people say IQ is heritable?
won't all our children eventually regress to the human mean?

>>6329323
why are you quoting me?
I have no idea of what you're talking about neither any opinion about the "validity" of IQ concept.

Anyway, nice to meet you

>correlations of correlations of correlations

>ill defined terms; unknown neurologic and genetic foundation

To a physicist as myself, reading research about IQ and intelligence sounds like the theory of how gobbledy gook influences higgledy piggledy.

We can say safely that the great portion of the body of research on the topic of IQ, intelligence, and society isn't worth the humanities degree of the psychometricians
that produce them.

>Really I am tired of IQ threads. I have been avoiding it but I can't ignore that it keeps on coming.I mean who are you guys must be retards. And OP is surely faggot father fuck asshoel

>>6329334
take a guess tho

>>6310502

>motorically

>>6313598
>psychology
>economics

>>6329337
> To a physicist as myself
> Infantile cartoons for manchildren
Typical IQ denier.

>>6311506
>SAT is a decent measure of g
>SAT is a decent
>SAT

I know this entire image is bullshit. The SAT is a horrible exam, and should never, by any means, be used as an indicator, and this is coming from someone who did fairly well on them. It's just an examination on time and how acutely you manage to follow their uncannily convoluted sentences which contain zero meaning and are worded in the most appalling, if grammatically correct, ways.

>>6315484

One IQ test I had taken online was from Mensa's website (it was in Norwegian) and I had managed to score a 121, but I think that may be a little bit generous. I'd actually be satisfied if I had mine in the 110's but low 120's would be optimal. Anything more than that and I disregard it as being absurd (such as one test giving me a 129.)

Major is chemistry, so it is especially worrisome that I won't be able to graduate due to lacking the necessary mental facilities.

My genetics are pretty solid but I have/had some environmental handicaps. Really bites that we don't get to choose our traits at birth-- with compromises of course.

Most people score above 100...
But then there's Congress.

>>6329562
I scored a 135, bitch. Three times, bitch.

>>6315520
R U DISSIN' ON MAI WAIFU?
Just so you know I have scored consistantly over 130+ points in every IQ test I have taken making my tastes superiour than any of you'rs plebs. Don't make me mentalZAP you and fry your're puny brian with my mental powars fgt.

>>6310456
>take IQ tests a 10 times while growing up
>parents were slightly crazy about education
>range anywhere from 100 to 140.
>they keep wanting me to test to show them I'm higher.
>finally have enough and just refuse to take the 11th

I know that's a bit off, but one thing is why was my range of IQ so different? 100-140 is a bit large. I don't consider myself too intelligent, but just slightly above average so I know that I'm probably 110 at least, but why did I gap from 40 points when most others only have a gap of 10?

>>6329562
>but I think that may be a little bit generous.

IQ scores are dragged down a lot by retards and trailer trash and nigs. Probably most the people you spend time around are in the 115 range.

Sorry you are just average. 130 is slightly higher than baseline maybe you will graduate college. 145 is graduate school level. 160 is PHD material.

>>6329855
>but why did I gap from 40 points when most others only have a gap of 10?

psuedo-science

IQ is based on a pseudo science called 'psychology' and is utter and complete garbage

>>6329855
I wonder how many of those tests could be considered proper ones.
I had a book filled with IQ tests as a kid and I found some of the questions quite problematic. It had pattern matching excercises okay, but some of the questions were linguistic word relations undecipherable to non-native speakers while some were outright based on a supposed common sense. Like "which animal doesn't fit into the list?" Hell if I know, I've read a shitton about the listed animals and I could find dozens of reasons why one of them wouldn't fit into it.
I always interpreted and scored these questions flexibly though, since no one bothered to correct my tests and I had to do them on my own. Fuck you mom, why bother buying me such a book if in the end you can't even give a shit about it?

>>6329855
>anecdote
>not actually saying which tests it were
>ignoring training effects

Try harder.

>>6329505
The image is not about SAT tests...

SAT tests are decent measures of g.

http://pss.sagepub.com/content/15/6/373

"There is little evidence showing the relationship between the Scholastic Assessment Test (SAT) and g (general intelligence). This research established the relationship between SAT and g, as well as the appropriateness of the SAT as a measure of g, and examined the SAT as a premorbid measure of intelligence. In Study 1, we used the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1979. Measures of g were extracted from the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery and correlated with SAT scores of 917 participants. The resulting correlation was .82 (.86 corrected for nonlinearity). Study 2 investigated the correlation between revised and recentered SAT scores and scores on the Raven's Advanced Progressive Matrices among 104 undergraduates. The resulting correlation was .483 (.72 corrected for restricted range). These studies indicate that the SAT is mainly a test of g. We provide equations for converting SAT scores to estimated IQs; such conversion could be useful for estimating premorbid IQ or conducting individual difference research with college students."

>>6329562
121 is 92th centile for whites. It is around 98th centile for the world (average about 90).

>Major is chemistry, so it is especially worrisome that I won't be able to graduate due to lacking the necessary mental facilities.

121 is plenty for chemistry.

>>6329871
This guy is making stuff up.

Average IQ on university is 115.

Average for graduate physics is around 130. Average for PHD is about the same.

Average for eminent scientists is around +4 SD, i.e. 160, at least according to that one old study of this.

>>6329878
>denying science

>>>/pol/

>>6330314
>Average IQ on university is 115.

Only in murrica. Here in Europe its 130.

>>6330700
> gb2/pohl/ xDDD
great, reddit raiding us again...

>>6310456
Einstein never took an IQ test.

>>6329323
Are you retarded? The children of tall people regress to the mean, too.

Wait a second.

Is that the Abe-Lincoln impressionist with the museum?

>>6332016

europe uses 24 sd. america uses 16.

>>6332016
Blatant bullshit

Since the beginning :
>muh creationnist scientists !

>>6332016
No. It's about the same in Europe (northern Europe anyway).

What IQ tests are you all taking?

>>6332097
it's a pic from an online "iq test"
http://www.mbti123.com/iq/en/
200 will give you Da vinci.

>>6334611
that's the very problem. It makes absolutely no sense to speak from IQ without mentionning the test and its sd... But anyway, this is /sci/...

>>6332744
Nope, it's the other way round.

>>6333866
>>6334567
All we can infer from your posts is that you are clearly not attending any kind of higher educational institution.

>>6335210
Is that IQ test supposed to be easy? Got 170, I'm good with patterns

>>6335606
yes, there are only 2 tricky questions.
(the array with 2 lines of letters)
And the grid with numbers.

I always thought those online IQ tests were fronts to get your credit card info. Reminds me of a KotH episode, where Luanne takes the same test Peggy took and scored high.

pic related: From the same episode.

Op's test just gave me an IQ of 140.

That must be wrong.

>>6339226
i got 180 and i skipped 2 and guessed two. lol
is there a way to check the answers?

Are there any online tests that are semi accurate? Or are they all bullshit?

>>6339331
check the sauce, dumbass.
But you just lose 10 point for asking it, sorry.

"semi-accurate" : >>6339367
Maybe Mensa pre-test, but they are very specific. They don't cover a lot of abilities, it's most of the time Raven's matrices.

For the rest of it, play them like games and just enjoy them.
"IQ" alone without a proper administration of a GIVEN test with a person who is ABILITED makes few sense.

>>6310502
I agree with this man.

Also, ninjas were known more for their espionage skills, and ability to learn a group of people, integrate themselves seamlessly, and extract information covertly. Often this might involve learning new languages or customs quickly, requiring some level of intelligence.
Martial arts and weaponry is just one aspect of ninjutsu.

But regardless, I think this just goes to show that there are multiple types of intelligence, you might call martial arts or gymnastics kinetic intelligence, as there is such a thing as muscle memory. This is a good reason why IQ tests fail to fully quantify intelligence. As if a simple 3 digit number could accurately rate something like the human brain.

>>6339367
IQ tests
http://www.mensa.no/olavtesten/index_2.html
http://sifter.org/iqtest/
http://mensa.dk/testiq.xml
http://mensa.se/bli-medlem/provtest/