/sci/ - Science & Math

Not science or math.

what the fuck

>not using the offical online IQ test from cambridge psychometric center

Fucking brainlets

https://discovermyprofile.com/myIQ/introduction.html

ALSO, POST YOUR RESULTS, BRAINLETS!

>>9478190
My advice.

Don't try doing the test while watching Tv, changing tabs in 4chan and listening to music.

The time spent doing the test is important. The more time you spend, you get a lower score.

>>9478190
>118

>>9478190
Op here. Would be interesting if people post results from both tests. I'll try that one tomorrow when I'm not tired as fuck.

>>9477946
>taking online IQ tests serious

What could that possibly tell me about your intelligence?

>>9478321
t. Brainlet who is too insecure to post his score

>>9478190
123 :(

guess im sudoku'ing

130 you fucking brainlets and Im a loser who hasnt achieved anything in his life and will probably kill himself in the next 5 years.
TOP KEK

Listening to music probably was a mistake but nonetheless this is it for me lads, Im straight retard.

>>9478190
128, I did the test while being a bit buzzed on alcohol.

>>9477946
anything above 120 means you are capable of going into literally any field
also
>trusting online IQ tests

>>9478662
I can vouch for that. Anything I set my mind to do I can do it at a great level. Too bad I'm a lazy piece of shit.

I am brainlet. :)

141. Honestly though, they only measure how good you are at online iq tests.

Also
>>9478662
Yay.

>>9478190
>98
I usually get over 130. IQ online tests are so unreliable

I just got bored at the end

>>9478716
This one is extremely accurate. It correlates with WAIS-IV scores to about 0.83

>tfw only mildly autistic and not hyper autistic.

>>9478722
>get 28/29
>120
i did get distracted by my dad for about 30 seconds, but it seems to me like it weights processing speed too heavily.

>>9478722
I'm a materials science major and I'm going into research so I uh, h-have my doubts.

>>9478738
Another drawback is that one type of operation occurs almost everywhere...

>>9478744
>>9478741
Okay cool, but the research says otherwise. IQ tests on /sci/ are too heavily weighted. Most people on here are in the 105 - 115 range.

I hope no one takes iq tests seriously

IQ is a sketchy at best concept that is primarily employed for bragging rights and wankery. It was thought up as a way to explain differences in ability but its failed at doing so.

I had my engineer friend take that cambridge test and he got a 98 despite working for a highly respected company designing crucial infrastructure that millions of people rely on each year. I got a 130 and I havent accomplished shit in comparison.

dont let iq psych you out

>>9478738
That's a fairly accurate score. RAVEN progressive matrices exams only really function for the 70 to 125 IQ range.

>>9478751
The scores here are off by about 10 points, putting your engineer friend at a 108, which isn't all that rare.

>>9478716
How many did you get right to get a 98?

>>9478751
hmmmm it's almost as if a professional would pace themselves and check their answers. imho IQ based on time should be disregarded.

>>9478757
19/29. Not good.

>>9478744
>>9478752
ok i did it again (turns out the one i got wrong was the very first) and now it shows 123. i was obviously able to go faster this time, so the test must not be timed at all, ie >>9478199 is WRONG and >>9478640 is a LIAR

>>9478722
>max score is 123
>if you know what XOR is you can solve almost all problems with no issues
>not even a timed test

>extremely accurate
huh?

good thing Im female and don't have to be smart.

>>9478809
but you do have to post 'em
>inb4 post what anon

>>9478809
Eyyy 1st percentile

>>9478809
>being proud of being a dumb bimbo

>implying IQ tests actually correlate with intelligence
>implying they have any validity

Also do the face perception test on the discovermyprofile page for getting nightmares.

Clicking randomly as fast as I can results in a score of 90

Well, that proves the value of online IQ tests at least.

>>9478853
>implying you're not only denying it because you got a low score

Too bad I'm so shit at studying.

I did 2 different online test ealier in the week and it gave me roughly ~130

>>9478864
>implying you're not defending it because you scored adequately

>>9478853
Ok so the online tests are nonsensical horseshit.
>>9478716 is me and I scored below av on the Cambridge one but I just took the one in the OP link and got 130.

Just look at this one question. Inexcusably rubbish.

>>9478190
>no time limit
>IQ test

>>9478910
Follow the pattern anon.

>>9478910
please god, don't tell the answer is the X because you were supposed to rotate the + by the amount depicted in the other circle.

>>9478910
>my brainlet brain can't see the pattern so it's rubbish

not good but not bad either
aspiring EE

>>9478910
So uh what is the correct answer?

I don't think I'm a brainlet, but now I'm questioning.

>>9479062
x or nothing.
>I really dont know, just a random guesstimate

>>9478751
>It was thought up as a way to explain differences in ability but its failed at doing so.

This is actually objectively wrong you idiot. IQ is very highly correlated with success in life, even when other factors are taken into account such as culture, upbringing, etc.

Let me guess, you got sub 90 and are in denial of your retardation?

>>9479069
Conscientousness is far more important than IQ. Good Luck passing Your Physics exams without opening Your book, nor going to lectures

>>9479072
They're both important. Obviously no one is going to deny the importance of conscientiousness, but surely you must admit that general intelligence is also important?

You're not going to be passing your physics exams without studying, but no matter how good your work ethic is, you're also not going to be passing them if you have down syndrome.

>>9479062
>>9479068
looked it up, looks like some people think it's the top right, because the tip of it points directly at the next thing, which points at the plus sign.

>>9478936
oh please brave wojakposter enlighten me with your wisdom. Because I just checked your post again.. and I didn't see any answer.

>>9479160
>>9479068
>>9478935
>>9478928
>>9478910

its bottom right
2->4->8

>>9479069
relax dunning kreuger

its correlated with success because of the way is distributed/most successful endeavors dont require that much.

ie yes, some dirt eating jungle dwelling moron or trump voter or someone retarded has such a low iq that they fail miserably in life. thats what gives the correlation, the absolute retards fail hard.

that doesnt contradict that once you hit 100+, its up to a lot of other things.

plus "success" can be defined a million different ways. i know rich people who genuinely believe in ghosts, i know university professors who buy into diet fads. and like i said, i know an engineer with a 98 whos in charge of a monumentally important task

>>9479208
multiplying by 2 once doesn't establish a pattern if you ask me.

>>9479226
>132 iq
>windows
youre not fooling anyone

>>9479227
back to >>>/g/ with that gay shit

>>9478863
I'm sorry, what point are you trying to make?

You picked completely random points, so you got a score that is extremely close to average, so the test is flawed?

Are you sure you didn't just take the test?

>>9478190
118? Scored 27/29 in 16 minutes. Strikes me as a bit low, but then again my ego just got shattered.

>>9479247
i'd like to see what you get

I just rushed the test cuz I heard time is a factor. Had to guess for like 10 of them

>>9479252
did the cambridge one - 110

>>9478190
>98
Ok it's 7am and I'm still in bed but no fucking way that's for real. One third of those were simple XOR and the other ones not too hard either

>>9479277
It actually is. It's a far more realistic IQ test, which is undershooting your IQ by about 6 points, according to the literature surrounding it.

>>9479236
linux is undebateably superior to windows in every situation except where windows apps are required for work or school

it doesnt take a genius to figure out that contributing to microsoft, google and this entire corporate marketing scheme ecosystem is a dumb idea

>>9479277
>122
With well over 15 minutes left though. Maybe I'm just nlt awake yet. Man fuck me

>>9479283
>MUH EBIL GOOGLE REEEEEEE

>>9479292
Oh look. The (((FaceBook))) generation retards that have successfully been indoctrinated into not caring about their privacy and attacking others that do. You drooling fucking retard holy shit

>>9479312
Oh look. The (((90s))) generation retards who grew up in the tech boom and who pretend they are entitled to technological privacy as an extension of their politics, paranoia, and loneliness when they never had any in the first place and never will. You self-convinced fucking retard holy shit.

>>9479099
No question about that. But at a certain point (Eg 120-130), you wont notice the difference between the smart one and the dumb one. Meanwhile conscientoussnes is far more noticeable.
>The fat genius compared to the /fit/ brainlet

>>9479321
Cute, but as opposed to you. I'm right. But do your masters bidding. You have no choice. Good goy. You made good life choices

>>9479328
Yeh whatever, go tape your webcam brainlet.

23/29 108

What am I even supposed to do here?

>>9479370
7

>>9479370
Pretty sure the answer is 7. From left to right, the pattern appears to be that the arrows are removed from the picture, and 7 is the only one that fits this. Furthermore, from top to bottom, the pattern appears to be that the black circle at the center is removed, and 7 is again the only shape that fits.

I just found out that my Mom (stay at home mom) has an IQ of 135. And my dad (very successful businessman) has an IQ of 110. I always assumed my dad was smarter because he was so good at what he does.

Wait a minute...

>>9479396
3

>>9479401
I thought so too. I just happened to think the star of david was funny.

Now I'm seeing Bionicals language.

>ITT: /sci/ learns they're all brainlets
jokes on you faggots I'm not taking it so I can keep my delusions

>>9479435
You scared of the truth, friend?

>>9479442
Yes, exactly as I said.

Do you have dyslexia or something, brainlet?

>>9479409
3

>>9479451
That was an easy one. Now comes the hard part.

>>9477946
130. But I usually score in the 115-125 on online tests

>>9479457
You remind me of those guys who's penis sizes shrunk when a nurse measured them as opposed to them measuring themselves. It's because they would jam the ruler into their abdomen, you see. They wanted to be as long as possible. When a single nurse measures them all the same way, they all have lower lengths. Nobody was ever underscoring themselves.

In this scenario, the nurse is online tests.

>>9479454
That one got me i guessed 1

>>9479454
5

>>9477946
130. But I usually score in the 115-125 on online tests. The last test I took was some six months ago. Since then I've been spending more time learning both an instrument and a language (not with the goal of increasing my IQ). I've also had a couple of tough courses at uni since then that forced me to think abstractly and study harder than I've ever done in my life.
Something I noticed while doing this test is that I wasn't as anxious about my performance as I'd get in the past, so that might have been a factor as well. Either way, either my IQ has increased or I'm getting better at taking IQ testes.

>>9479454
>hard part
>addition/substraction
5 lmao

>>9478190
115. I know I didn't do my best though. I was just staring at the screen on some of the easier questions and kept thinking about shitposting on 4chan.

Once I realized most the questions are just adding and subtracting shapes it was pretty fucking easy. There must be more to IQ than that, surely?

>>9479472
Go ahead nigger. See where that gets you. Pro tip, there's no correlation.

>>9478809
>This score is higher than 1% of people.

Wow.

>>9479476
Anything vertical is positive, anything horizontal is negative. What are you, a brainlet?

-1rectangle + -3rectangle = -4rectangle
1line + 2line = 3line

Easiest question on the test.

>>9479481
How does that apply at all to the other rows?

>>9479489
Jesus Christ.

1 rectangle + -4 rectangles = -3 rectangles
-2 lines + 3 lines = -1 line

-2 rectangles + 1 rectangles = -1 rectangle
3 lines + -1 line = 2 lines

where you not taught the number line in grade 2 or something?

Well fuck. And I only have a highschool education.

>>9479476
Source: making this godawful test while taking a shit at work

>>9479499
>>9479504
I'm
>>9479500

And I selected 8 for that question as a guess. I only got one wrong, so I guess you had the right idea.

>>9479489
It's two superimposed 3x3 magic squares. One for thin lines and one for thick--count the number of lines in each. Rotation by 90 degrees switches sign from positive to negative (overall sign is arbitrary for each).

>>9479507
Dammit, didn't mean magic squares. The sum of the first two equals the third, reading horizontally or vertically.

>>9479504
I respect your intelligence. Are you an astro physicist or something?

>>9479481
Only that doesnt work on the rest of them you nigger fuck.

>>9479514
>t. actual retard

>>9479499

>>9479519
What do you do for a living, you arrogant fuck?

>>9479532
I make more money than you fuck. Why fuck? Because I'm smarter than you fuck. Now fuck up fuck. Your retardation is negatively affecting my enjoyment of this thread fuck.

>>9479538
I'm almost as smart as you. I bet you're a janitor or something.

>>9478773
I thought the patterns were too familiar for some reason. I also took this test after an all nighter. Some rest woulda helped me focus more tho

I can't find the tests you guys are taking, so I used queendom. It's a psychology-ran and validated site that impliments a psychometrics based standardization system for its tests (as are real life IQ tests). I tested myself a few times on this site and found that it only deviated from my actual score on the WAIS by ~1-2 points.

>>9478190
Ooga booga, wer de smart wimmenz at?

>>9479208
But then why would there be a crossing and not an angle between the two sticks on the upper row ? 4->4->8 isn't really logical and don't tell me the crossing is of no importance otherwise they would have drawn an angle ?

>>9479628
If you were as smart as you thought, you'd know that smart women don't put out.

>>9479628
I like how you tried to cut out the date on your computer screen by cropping the screenshot and then left the file name to show that your screenshot was taken last year.

>>9479647
Smart women suck as many dicks as they can while in college before marrying a naive cuck like yourself. They just don't put out to you before securing your commitment.

>>9478910
I did blank circle and got 135

>>9479665
Unlikely. I doubt any woman who would touch your peepee would be anywhere near smart.

>>9478190
>101
Am I a retard?

>>9479756
No. The score is standardized to have certain limits. Max appears to be 128 and it isn't timed.

>>9479312
I hope you're wearing a lot of tinfoil, otherwise I have bad news
tip harder faggot

>>9479789
>faggot
Why the homophobia?

>>9479665
So you are telling me the average instagram thots are all 130+ iq? Damn.

>>9478190
Op here, took the test.
>mfw confirmed brainlet by multiple tests
JUST

>>9479939
you literally cant score higher you humblebragging brainlet

>>9479334
don't forget to rip out your mic

>tfw 212
Should I end it right here, right now?

>>9477946
90%
115 iq (WHITE MALE biased??)

>>9480137
meant for the cambridge one, the other is a meme and got 125

>>9479481
didnt think it that way thank bro

Doubt this test is accurate desu.

>>9479649
It's completely on purpose though- I took this specific test last year. They also changed the number of questions from 33 to 29, which makes it obvious it's an older screenshot anyways. Not gonna spend 20 minutes every other week when someone makes a IQ shitpost thread.

>>9479409
Glad I'm not the only on be that saw that too.

>>9480206
The other test.

I didn't realize there was a time penalty I probably would have been quicker if I knew.

>>9480261
>I didn't realize there was a time penalty I probably would have been quicker if I knew.
Wait which one do you mean? I thought the cambridge one didn't measure the time?

Male super-geniuses outnumber female super-geniuses by about 100 to 1

>>9480338
>that fucking gap after 2 SD (where it actually matters)
Bitches ain't shit but hoes and tricks t-b-h.

>tfw no emotional intelligence

>>9480261
Nope. This is us, /sci/. Probably we average 115. We're brainlets. Imagine how superior the brain of a Terry Tao is to ours? I can't go on

>>9477946
ahahahah, so sick, I took the cambridge one and scored 110, when I take the mensa one at iqtest.dk I get 130 (and have been consistently). I also went and paid for the mensa test offline and got scored 130.

is this because I am awake on my nearly 40th hour now, or am I legit brainlet?

Also, some of the questions, I thought there were clear mathematical solutions that had logic following all the pictures, but were not in the answer solutions. Since they're fishing for 1 solution only I suppose.

I think it's very inaccurate (my ego is speaking) I would suggest some answers that might have required higher IQ than the actual answer, but you don't have a paid specialist to look at the answer and thought process, so it just sees it as wrong. Hmmm..

>>9477946
127, you

>>9479249
my nigga, comes as a relief after every other test jerks my ego off tho

>>9478190

>>9481373
Impressive!

How does it feel to be that intelligent? Also, how fast did you answer the questions?

>>9478927
the test have time limit

>>9481373
Fake. Perfect score gets like a 123.

>>9481433
I am pretty sure it's not about getting them right, but how long you take to answer. If you answer all correctly, but take super long, you get lower score.

>trusts online iq tests

>>9477946
Is my score reduced because I said I was white and American?

>>9481444
It's not. Everyone with a perfect score gets the same IQ. Threads about this test get made like every week.

>>9481506
oh alright, in that case, this test is stupid

>>9479226
>>9479236
Windows untermensch will not be joining us in the singularity kys.

>>9481216
The Cambridge one is probably more accurate to your real iq. You've been doing the other tests repeatedly in order to get used to the questions and artificially boost your quotient. Then you did the Cambridge one for the first time and got an answer to how well you actually adapt to problems you aren't familiar with.

>>9481537
No, you just faked your score.

>>9479321
Imagine selling your privacy to the jew without a care in the world people like you are why we need eugenics. Do the whole world a favor and kys to decrease the surplus population, we don't need you.

>>9481499
No, you paranoid person. I got that score without filling in the guestions about myself.

>>9481553
Cambridge probably stops at a low number because the questions that an IQ test asks you only measure problem solving ability to an extent. I assume on the tests that go up to 160 (15 SD is what they're called I think) the back 30-40 points is almost completely inaccurate

>>9477946
Got like uh 115 on the cambridge one too, /sci/ is full of beta undergrad larpers confirmed haha.

>>9481506
Exactly. I took 10 minutes 2nd try, and got same score after taking 1 hour first time (just to quadruple check)

>>9481553
The first time I did the simple mensa I got 130.
Also I went and got the offline one at their "recruiting" thing.. got same score.

But it might just be, who am I to know

I didn't realize Ian that dumb

>>9479500

Anything past basic education doesn't improve your score on these tests you fucking brainlet.

>>9477963
This "IQ is not science" brainlet again...

First try of this test over a year ago.

Lowest score of all the online meme tests I've taken, all others have been 130 - 135 but this seems the most reputable.

>>9481758
You're pretty damn close to average, for a European. Average is good.

>>9481780
>get everything right
>still 127 IQ brainlet

>>9477946
Me but I don't take IQ tests because I don't have a way to kill myself fast and painless.

>>9481758
>phoneposter
of course you're dumb. how couldn't you realize it? everyone's been telling you for ages. you just had to listen

>>9481216
>I get 130 (and have been consistently)
You know that one always shows you the same questions so doing it more than once is basically cheating. I got something with 120 when I did it the first time and then did it again a year later, still remembered some patterns and got 140.

>>9477946
I did a real IQ test for official purposes. The scale only went to top 4% and I gor full points.

I'm a fucking loser. IQ abote 115 is more trouble than it's worth.

>>9481933
>still remembered some patterns and got 140.
That means that you had to go through the questions again with the sole intent of figuring out the right answer. That or you looked up the answer online. Just seeing the question again doesn't automatically makes you see the right pattern.

130 and 118 respectively, but I had to hold my piss in for the entire time.

>>9480434
implying I don't want to upset other people

>>9481994
>That means that you had to go through the questions again with the sole intent of figuring out the right answer. That or you looked up the answer online. Just seeing the question again doesn't automatically makes you see the right pattern.
Nah but it's a timed iq test and I saved a lot of time on the things that I remembered from the last time.

The matrices test is a subtest of a real IQ test which is comprised of around 20 similar subtests, so it's not really meaningful on it's own.

I got 115 running through it very tired atm.

I hoped I could take it again tomorrow to compare, but there's no variation on the test sadly.

>>9479454
4

>>9477946
Spent like 2 hours doing the first half, which I got all correct. By this time I am exhausted, so I said fuck it to the rest of the test. Got 16/29 correct for a 91.

>>9477946
my resulrts while completely drunk

>>9478190
Oh yeah! I bet I could really fuck up their stats by taking their test a gazilion times. All the while getting really low scores and choosing a specific demographic.

>>9477946
got 130 on this and 113 on >>9478190

online iq tests are shit

>>9481559
feels bad for you anon

>>9483825
the cambridge one takes a toll from time and it seems to be more legit overall

>>9478190
>https://discovermyprofile.com/myIQ/introduction.html
So fucking boring.

>>9478199
Okay, I was really about to state that this test was completely bs.
Got 110 on it while I was officially tested 124 by an official austrian institution.
Must be due to watching TV and listening to radio combined during the test lol

brainlets btfo

I think the real question is why we haven't found a way to manipulate IQ yet amirite?

We don't even have breeding programs for high IQ individuals what the fuck are we doing.

I don't even give a shit about these anymore.

>>9478190
dank

>fourth iq circle jerk thread of today
leave this is the cancer of the board. this whole board has just become a game of who is smarter than who and it is every thread

>>9486298
brainlet

>>9477946
I'd take this test with a grain of salt. I took an IQ test with a psychiatrist about 6 years ago and it was very different. It measured a variety of different modalities, not just pattern recognition / spatial awareness. Some of it was math, some of it was historical awareness, some of it was literary interpretation, there was probably some other stuff I'm not remembering. I did worse in that test incidentally

>>9486298
>>9486428
look i'm sorry but you were asking for it

>>9486466
i understand but it only further proves my point. i haven't found a thread yet that doesn't eventually get to the point of someone proving to someone else that they are smarter than them. so much so that any proposition of any kind is met with brainlet. serious go look for a thread with more than 50 replies and find one that doesn't end with people just calling each other retard. you may find one or two but for the overwhelming majority things here are one way or another of people calling eachother retard. honestly the only thing remotely redeemable about this board is the math general

>>9478190
I believe people that dont max this one out are simply not focusing and get bored half way in. I refuse to believe there are people dumb enough to not figure out the 1 fucking repeating pattern with a 45 minute time limit. I actully did this focused, no music or any distraction, in 7 minutes and got everything right. Sent it to a friend im sure has similar iq with me (132 mensa) and he got 108. Turns out he did it on the phone while talking to some coworker

>>9478190
>88
MFW

Heh... were you brainlets never tested officially? I got 139 when I was a kid...
Internet IQ brainlets...
Nothing personell

>>9478190
I'm interested in knowing which ones I got wrong because I was only unsure about one of them, the rest I found a repeating pattern that had a logical next step.

There were too many fucking addition/subtraction questions though which are really boring.

>>9479467
WHY DIDN'T I SEE THAT.

>>9487026
IQ tests are more tests of patience than anything. I don't know how many times I was tempted too quit just because of how dull it was

>>9486451
>Some of it was math, some of it was historical awareness, some of it was literary interpretation, there was probably some other stuff I'm not remembering.
If this is really what IQ encompasses then the maxim that IQ can't be increased is bullshit. Read a history book and some math problems and you IQ increases by 10 points.

>>9478461
>tfw 116
burn in a fire brainlet

>>9478809
I bet you have feelings and shit

>>9478190
Fucking hell, I got 106 :( last time I took it I got 116!

>>9486841
1. there is no time limit
2. if one gets so bored that he begins clicking randomly but still expects a high score, he's a brainlet
3. The pattern might not be as obvious to 100 IQ people

>>9477946
130
>>9478190
118 (27/29)

>>9479454
I got this one wrong. I thought the pattern was that you needed I, II, and III sticks in each row/column. For the bars you do subtraction. A further pattern is that you have two horizontals and one vertical bar and stick in each row/column, so I chose figure 3.

>>9477946
130
>>9478190
118 (27/29)
>>9479454
I got this one wrong. I thought the pattern was I, II and III sticks in each row/column. For the bars I did subtraction. A further patterns is that each row and column have two sets of vertical bars and sticks and one set of horizontal, so I marked option 3.

What gives, why isn't the right answer visible?

>>9487923
Please tell me the answer isn't "ay lameo, 1-2 loops to to 3-1"

>>9487926
>>9487923
Because it the answer is "it loops because because, despite there being no indicative pattern", then there are two valid answers based on the assumption you make for whether you use lines or bars for the starting point.
And if you calculate it separately, that's fucking stupid. This is pattern recognition and logic, not engineering. I don't like assumptions.

help brainlet plz

137 according to the IQ test during my aspie diagnosis.

>>9487923
>>9487926
>>9487934
REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
The small line pattern is literally just counting.

>>9487923
I can tell you that the correct pattern does not involve any loops, nor any diagonal relevance.

Apparently I'm a 113 brainlet and I missed 5 despite identifying a wholly consistent pattern for all except the modern art paint roller one...
I know that the patterns I identified were valid, and there was only one right answer based on my identified patterns.
What's going on?

>>9478190
This can't be right. Got 103. But yea, first try and tired

>>9478190
>https://discovermyprofile.com/myIQ/introduction.html
>101

I guess I'm fucking killing myself now holy shit

I got my test taken when I was 10 and got a 132

Fuck I feel like such a nigro

>>9477946
who the fuck names their kid Abc?

>>9478190
fug

>>9488760
His parents.
I guess you didn't score much.

>>9478823

God female empowerment is strong now even in this place.

>>9478190
I got 132 from an official mensa test and 108 from this.Wtf?

>>9489698
I did it 3 months ago too,its not like I did it a long time ago

>IQ
>not cambridgebrainsciences
>not benchmarking cognitive, memory, reasoning and verbal performance
haha oh wow

>>9487923
Look at the rectangles. You count them and simply add/substract them. All vertical rectangles have the same sign and all horizontal ones aswell.

For example let's say vertical is minus and horizontal is plus (it also works the other way around):
First row: -1+4=+3
Second row: +2-1=+1
Third row: +1+3=+4 (answer 5)

Also for the small lines you always do the opposite. So in our case that means horizontal lines are negative and vertical lines positive.
So, looking at the small lines, it would be:
First row: +2-3=-1
Second row: -3+1=-2
Third row: -1-2=-3 (again answer #5)

>>9490654
>Also for the small lines you always do the opposite. So in our case that means horizontal lines are negative and vertical lines positive.
>So, looking at the small lines, it would be:
>First row: +2-3=-1
>Second row: -3+1=-2
>Third row: -1-2=-3 (again answer #5)
Oops. I autismed so ignore this part.
Anyway it's the same for the lines and rectangles. You just count how many you have, assign the vertical and horizontal ones opposite signs and then put the result in the 3rd column.

>>9490654
>>9490704
Yep, same reasoning here

What was your logic for the last question (the roller paint looking patterns)? Mine was clockwise rotation and uniqueness of the members in each horizontal set. I couldn't find any sequential pattern.

>>9478190
The equation for this test seems to be (roughly): score = 50 + 2.5x where x is the amount of questions you got right. What an amazing way to calculate it.

>>9478761
what the fuck?

this confirms the test is brainlet-teir.

if the average score is say 20/29, then 9 questions are covering the entire range from 100-160. that's nearly eight points per question.

>>9491089
Clockwise rotation. And there are 2 long black rectangles and 2 short ones in each row, was how I thought of it. So since the last row has 2 short ones and only 1 long it has to be the answer with only 1 long.

Now that I looked at it again I noticed that which rectangles appear in the third image is just XOR based on the first 2 images in each row.

>>9478236
>time to die

Is link related reliable?
If 75 is my percentile, my IQ is 110-111 ± 5
http://www.avlisad.com.ar/test/
I did the Woodcock Johnson III when I was 14-15 and got 104, though I think I subconsciously performed slightly worse on some tasks because it was sold as a dyslexia text not an IQ test, and I'd been conned into thinking I actually had dyslexia. On the other hand WJIII seemed pretty verbal based and I worried that I was a retard at base g but masked it with high verbal IQ. I think most tasks I was average, "logical reasoning" above average, and working memory & processing speed shockingly low.
Apparently if you have low working memory you fuck up academically and that aptly describes me (failed to get NZ University Entrance; did an IT bridging course at polytech & just barely passed because I lack discipline/essay-writing skills + accidentally missed a test worth 30% of a paper; went to a worse polytechnic to do the 1st year of the bachelor; dropped out.

Now I'm starting a civil engineering course and praying like hell that I miraculously ace it.

>>9477946
125

Wasn't able to answer all the questions, so I put some random answers at the last second for several of them.

I have some doubts though, gonna post them here.

This one I picked the black star, because the background is black (on top of the fact a 5 pointed star is needed)...

>>9494383
I didn't have time to figure out the following ones, gonna post them here.

>>9494423
Ah, ok, I get this
They're all moving clockwise by one each time
So the correct answer

>>9494452
..is row 1 column 1

>>9494434
Last row, last column

>>9494434
>>9494443
>>9494460
>>9494473
seriously stumped at these

>>9494443
First row, last column

>>9494678
What's the mechanism?

>>9494434
I counted the seven white dots on the bottom row and chose the option that also had seven dots.

>>9494724
Thanks, got it. Whites sum, greens subtract.

>>9494693
what about this one?

>>9494696
It seems to me that each set of the first row has a certain number of blue pellets, and the second row has double the number of pellets as the first row, and the last row has the same number of blue pellets as the first row. could be wrong tho.

>>9494443
>>9494452
>>9494460
>>9494473
Had trouble with these and pic related. The rest were really easy.

>>9494759
I think I am wrong, this anon >>9494724 got it

>>9487026
exact same score as me

>>9494745
>what about this one?
The "wireframe" (three lines touching) cuts the square into three pieces, find the missing piece

>>9494434
you have to add the white dots from left to right and substract the green dots from each other.

>>9486451
Me too. I got 127 on this online test which is a much better result than I scored at a valid test with a psychologist (average in every category, sometimes even worse).

>>9494795
if the dots match, they swap colour in the third column

the greens are the same in r1c1 and r1c2 so they become white. the white dot in r1c1 has no corresponding dot in r1c2 so it disappears

in the second row, only the whites in the left quadrant correspond, so they switch to green in r2c3. the others disappear

in the third row, none of the dots from the first shape are the same as those from the second
they all disappear and you get a blank square.

>>9494819
ah nice
never would've gotten that

>>9487923

horizontal bare are positive, vertical bars are negative, and the horizontal lines are negative, and the vertical lines are positive, add the first 2 in each column to get the 3rd one

>>9494434
lets look at the number of green dots from top to bottom:
2 | 1 | 1
4 | 2 | 2
2 | 1 | x
so it's easy to see the number of green dots constantly switches from one number to another, therefore x = 1
now for the empty dots:
3 | 2 | 5
1 | 1 | 2
4 | 3 | y
it's easy to see that the number of empty dots in the last row is sum of the empty dots in previous rows, so y = 5+2 = 7
1 green dot and 7 empty dots
only one answer satisfies this condition

do you brainlets seriously not see it instantly? it so obvious what you need to look for

>>9477946
One taking IQ test?

>>9494819
>>9494878
I bet people who are good at art would have a way easier time with this than me. I have a hard time visualizing what all the pieces look like together.

>>9494906
good job m8

explain these two ( >>9494460 >>9494473 ) while you're at it

>>9494452
I don't understand how seeing two shapes is enough context to solve this one.

>>9494473
last row first column, it seems that those 2 dots in the upper left in the first image move down a row and to the opposite side each image and those other dots move up two rows, confused about the third image though

>>9477946
I got 79 on a real IQ test (borderline retarded), but 119 on an online test. Goes to show what results to believe.

>>9494937
some post in this thread explained it as the number of lines inside the circle doubling each row
so 2 in the first, 4 in the second, and 8 in the last (meaning the bottom right answer). not really the most intuitive answer but best explanation I've got so far

>>9494938
I'm not really convinced.
I'd figured out the bit about the two connected dots as well, but the movement of the other two is a bit confusing

>>9494987
>lines
segments*

>>9494934
this one >>9494460 isn't really measuring anything a proper IQ test measures, you can come up with infinite explanations with modular arithmetic and there is no way to deduce which one is correct
kind of the same with >>9494473
this is half IQ test and half pulled-out-of-my-ass test with infinite solutions
picrelated is from their site, doesn't make it much better

>>9495004
seems unlikely there'd be no logical solution
I'm sure someone's gonna figure them out

>>9478190
wondering which one I got wrong
kind of easy with no time limit though

>>9478809
*brown skin female

>>9477946
MOM GET THE CAMERA

>>9478910
all Brits are retarded i swear

>>9494938
>>9494987
it might be that the movement of the two separated dots is meant to be nonsensical to obscure the pattern for the two connected ones. as long as you recognize that pattern and remember that every previous layout had four green dots, you can safely answer with the bottom left choice.

>>9489345
based

>>9495725
you were right ( >>9495420 )

>>9478190

does timing matter

>>9496783

How can you supposed logicians not see the blatant flaws in this test. Multiple aspects of it.

So what's the most correct online IQ test? Need to confirm I'm double digit brainlet.

>>9496953
mensa.no
95% of online tests are pure gabage except for 3 tests so far :
mensa.no, iqtest.dk and discovermyprofile.com

iqtest.dk underestimates your score a bit (by about 5-10 points) while discovermyprofile.com underestimates it greatly (by about 15-25 points) and the maximum measure is 123. Mensa.no is very accurate and the questions are more varied. Take it also because the other two overestimate your score if you have a low score.

>>9477946
barely got 130
fucking brainlet :((((((

>>9497016
>mensa.no
Interesting. Is navigating that site to find the iq test itself part of the IQ test?

>>9478199
Is it really worth measuring your potential maximum IQ?
I think everyone should be forced to take these tests while distracted and under duress.

>>9497031
type in "mensa no" in google and it will show up.

>>9497086
dont help him, i found it in a few seconds just looking at the menus its even in fucking english
>>9497031
yes

>>9497019
should i kill myself at this point?

>>9497086
>>9497088
I found it after looking at the menus. Only finished 60% of the test but still ended up in the red percentile. You sure it doesn't overestimate your IQ sore if you underscore like the other sites?

>>9479454
It felt good to get this

>>9497106
On iqtest.dk I gave random answers and a few correct ones (the first 3 out of 39) and it said that was an IQ of 87. On mensa.no I tried to do the same, it said the IQ score was too low to be measured.

>>9497125
>>9497106
Wait, what do you mean "red percentile" ? That's the amount of people who get a higher score than you. What score did you get ?

What?

>>9494383
Tbh this test is retarded as fuck. I think the black isn't even the same colour as the background.

>>9478190
My almonds were working overtime, i'm telling you.

>>9479370
I answered 2, my thought was that the arrow is moving counter clockwise and the dot is moving clockwise then they meet at those two corners, but i could be autistic so that was probably wrong.

>>9478190
>108
Killing myself

>>9485259
I'm pretty sure there are 140+ IQ dating sites or forums, you have to provide proof of your identity and IQ score to get in and post.

>>9497135

>>9494460
Is this it? Red squares seem to be different

>>9494460
>>9497333

>>9496705
yay

>>9497338
you got it m8, thanks

>>9477946
127.

>>9478190
120.

Psychotherapist gave me a mid 130s result after a three hours long test some years back.

>>9478190
Raven's like these are too easy
There's like three different patterns they ever use, learn them and you're all set

I think I solved this one. I'm not very sure, but it's what I'm going with

>>9497260
I scored 91, I feel genuinely retarded now well guess I have to live with that... I chose 7 just because deducing the second row from first, gave black dot in each case

>131-15=116
phew, almost ended up in the green brainlet tier

>>9486841
Dont dicount possibility of miss-clicking (me on 2nd answer.

>>9497586
>116
>not brainlet

>>9497586
why would you substract 15 points ?

>>9497657
That's the standard deviation for these tests.

>>9497631
115 is brainlet cut-off point
115-130 is pseudo-intellectual tier (still dumb, most college educated libs are here)
130+ is legit smartchad tier

>>9497675
and?

>>9497768
kinda ashamed of this one. did worse than I expected

>>9497768
>>9497770
how does it feel being smart?

>>9497798
it feels pretty normal. honestly, it feels very surprising that I am supposed to be so much smarter than most other people. I dont feel that smart actually. it just sometimes feels like other people are unbelievably stupid and I just cant understand how they can not apply basic logic

>>9497809
I know that feeling. Though I study engineering, I guess most people in this field are indeed brainlets.

>>9497459
Try a different test, you may have flunked by not focusing enough or being tired etc.

>>9479500
brainlet fuck! fuck you kys

Amazing podcast on race and IQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y1lEPQYQk8s

>>9489702
Same, I got 138 from mensa, and 112 from this.
>>9492151 makes sense

I like to live dangerously