/sci/ - Science & Math

>>8885136
nice b8 fuccboi

you heard it here first folks!

someone get this clearly intelligent man a gold star!

>>8885136
>Not knowing that the reason IQ scores in intelligent people is going down is actually because the population as a whole is getting smarter.

100 IQ is the average score among all test-takers, it is not a fixed number. This means that as the average intelligence rises, the harder it is to score those amazingly high scores from the past. Basically, these academics are just as smart as they were 60 years ago, but because there is now less difference in intelligence between them and the average person, they score lower on the test.

I am assuming that this is some sort of troll topic, so my post is probably going to be ignored in favor of Constanza faces with text reading ">sub 120 IQ manlets".

>>8885146
>these academics are just as smart as they were 60 years ago

What are you talking about? Modern scientists would run circles around scientists 50 years ago, just as basketball players today would run circles around basketball players 50 years ago.

Sure, you have outliers, etc. But generally speaking, as the supply of talent increases, institutions can be more selective than ever.

I scored 135. What do I win?

Why does OP need to post this every week? Take your statistical bull shit that suffers from the problem of induction and shove it up your ass, boy.

>>8885211
>t. 115 IQ brainlet

inb4 "nuh uh I gots 150"

Everyone knows IQ has tremendous predictive power.

Indeed, IQ becomes MORE predictive of success at the high end, not LESS.

https://my.vanderbilt.edu/smpy/files/2013/01/DoingPsychScience2006.pdf

IQ is the most studied phenomenon in social science, with over a century of results, some of the longest and most careful studies, huge n's, etc.

People just hate the idea that wanting something badly enough doesn't mean you'll get it lol.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gxTRCPKFltE

>>8885213
Are you mad because I hurt your religious beliefs? You act just like a religious zealot who can't take any criticism, and then to top it off you post some short clip from some movie to just show case of how much of a modern whore you are.

>>8885213
>IQ is the most studied phenomenon in social science, with over a century of results, some of the longest and most careful studies, huge n's, etc.
But every study regarding IQ that references it's correlation with race in anyway is automatically pseudoscience and racist. Also, this is now a /pol/ thread.

>>8885136
OP. I find it funny you talk about the legitimacy of IQ, but you post an online IQ test. Don't you know the only real way to get an IQ score is to get it tested in real life?

>>8885228
That particular test is a pretty good gauge of how well you'd do in a real one, though.

>>8885234
So, we are arguing about papers,facts, and statistical analysis and now we base things on "It's a pretty good gauge". At least be consistent.

>>8885242
I'm not OP.

>>8885185
gas

I scored 122.

:( :( :(

>>8885136
>Its another /sci/ argues over online IQ tests episode

The final couple of questions in that test are BULLSHIT.

>>8885136
Wow, op, you're completely right. It's completely impossible to assist in scientific discovery with an IQ of less than 145. I can't believe we didn't figure this out before!

>>8885556
Not impossible, but very difficult.

These days, even minor discoveries require a deep understanding of your field, along with a passable knowledge of many other fields and a high degree of creativity. You will be hard-pressed to find a 130er with tenure at a research uni.

>>8885136
>http://www.iqtest.dk/
Why do I have to download something? Gay

>>8885136
Cool, now show us your autism test results

>>8885185
we can be bros

>>8885234


Hahahaha, yeah no. Raven matrix is only a small part of a real IQ test. Even if you scored above 145 in this really shitty IQ test your real IQ could be 100.

>>8885913
Doubtful. Raven's matrices are about "meaning making," which is very close to what g actually is.

>>8885743
it's chrome. try another.

>>8885913
In some countries, Mensa only has Raven Progressive Matrices as the single component of their assessment. People should stop obsessing over IQ and invest serious effort into the things that interest them -- if they truly do this, they'll find out soon enough whether they have potential for becoming successful at it. Way better predictor than IQ tests. In a world of so much obfuscation, truisms like these are necessary.

t. former Mensa member who stopped paying his controbutions

138 but I rushed it so I could get back to my sweet maths

>>8885971
Not bad, but not enough.

>>8885136
IQ tests are flawed as shit and high IQ societies are a scam

almost everyone on /sci/ will get near the max score at 135-145 but half of you are slightly above average at best. don't kid yourself into thinking you're super geniuses

http://test.mensa.no/

>>8885136
The Flynn effect corrected scores are 108-162, and these are not just 64 scientists, they are " the Most Eminent US-Born Scientists "

Symmetry in a distribution is a sign of researcher retardation.

You arrive at the conclusion of "If you want to be a scientist but don't have a >145 IQ, you are *fucked.*" without any basis. Pulling a number like 145 out of your ass is a sign of stupidity.

IQ is measured as a comparison between people. For example, if we are talking about Nations' IQs, then the West IQ would increase with any dumb population growth elsewhere. Reducing the IQ measures to national scores makes it unusable overseas, and it still fails to represent something constant because a nation is a big dynamical environment itself. Correcting IQ for age and gender makes this even worse, since it could drastically change the final numbers and throw the statistics farther into unreality. Overall it's hard to correct IQ over time And space. Having a high IQ feels like being normal while everyone else is brain damaged or crazy; It feels like practicing Propositional calculus whilst your friends are being c r e a t i v e.

>>8885136

>>8886132
138 on that one too. What did an above average anon such as yourself score?

>>8886386
138 iirc, took it a while ago

>>8886257
we 4channers are all 2+ standard deviations ahead of the curve

>>8885136
sorry but everyone should be in STEM

>>8885136
Everyone who takes this test gets 130+

It's fun reading these kinds of posts as someone giving up on trying and making excuses

>>8885701
I'm EE tenure-track faculty at a UC campus. My iq is 108-114. I can assure you the bulk of STEM researchers and professors reside below 130, not above.
You sound like an entitled freshman who's upset he failed calculus after his school psychologist told him he's "gifted."

Science is done in ever so tiny increments, not leaps. think of it like building a staircase out of toothpicks. It's from the ground up, one pick at a time. With your mindset, though, I doubt you have a research degree or will ever get one, however.

>>8886569
>My iq is 108-114
How/where did you test it? Is EE extra difficult at that iq? I'm guessing I'm around the same so I'm just curious

>>8886403
while reddit is behind the first quartile

>>8886595
I was administered a test in hs (by a psychologist) and that was 111. I've taken a couple of the online ones (without repeating the same test) that float around and score between 108-115.

My job is difficult, but I've never felt like an idea was just "out of reach" for me. When I hit a wall it's always due to lack of time, not knowing prerequisite information, etc. I don't feel any worse off than my peers, and although I'm not the most accomplished in my department, I'm not the least either.

I don't see any reason why someone of average to above averageintelligence 100-115 range) can't work as a scientist. Obviously someone with an iq of 150 plus equal ethic and determination is going to arrive at a conclusion faster, but the average person can still get there. This is especially true in EE where your work isn't necessarily discovering new things, but finding new ways to apply old concepts.

>>8885136
pee pee poo poo brainlet here

>>8885136
>to 64 scientists
you forgot to mention that these were the 64 most prolific scientists of their time

t. 116 IQ and at the top of all my classes at Caltech

I took one IQ test, and it had retarded questions like "make an english word from these characters" (wait, where's my english vocabulary?) or "find the next number in this sequence" (really hate this with passion, always give random number), it gave me 120±20. Are IQ tests supposed to be this retarded?

online IQ test scores are inflated as hell and actual reliable IQ tests still don't give reliable results in the 150+ range. OP is just baiting.

>>8886771
Thanks for the long response. It was encouraging

>>8886833
Last time I checked 145 is lower than 150.

>>8885185
A life long career as a greeter in walmart.