/sci/ - Science & Math

There are no accurate online IQ tests.

>>9819724
Also, it's over-all score.

The mean score on the RIAS is 4 points over the WAIS, so it's the overall score, not the free test.

>>9819724
>It's 13 points off of your score if you're lazy
how did you arrive at that conclusion

Scored a 134. 99th percentile.

It was easy for me, but it's not culture-neutral and therefore not a legitimate IQ test. I don't even understand how vocabulary can even correspond with intellect - isn't that essentially just memorization? You could be a fucking retard and just read all day, memorizing random words you encounter.

As >>9819734 said, there are no accurate online IQ tests. The concept of IQ is already pretty fucking ridiculous - it's an outdated, archaic method for quantifying intelligence that doesn't correspond with anything meaningful and is useful only in establishing whether or not someone has a learning disability.

I say this as someone with a professionally measured IQ of 144, by the way. Stop obsessing over arbitrary numbers that have long been debunked as "accurate" and do something with your life instead. Nobody cares what your IQ is.

>>9819779
The Queendom website is 9 points over the RIAS on the higher-end of the scale. On the lower end (105- (which I don't see most people on here score), it's 10 points over.

A RIAS score of 105 translates to 101 on the WAIS (All sub-scores of the RIAS are cranked higher than the WAIS)

It's a crank-over over a crank-over, so it's 13 points above what it should be at. (4 points inflated on the RIAS, 9 points inflated on the test itself)

It's not "The people taking internet IQ tests are smarter", or you wouldn't see that 105 RIAS score (which is already inflated) next to a 110 Queendom score.

So, a score greater than

124 = -13

and a score less than

118 = -10

This is the most accurate test possible.

>>9819808
That's 92nd percentile.
Scroll down to the bottom of

https://www.queendom.com/tests/showpdf.php?name=classical_iq_lite/classical_iq_lite.pdf

and compare it to the crystalized intelligence bracket.

How did you score 144 IQ in real life?

I want all IQ fags to an hero

>>9819811
>This is the most accurate test possible.

It must physically hurt to be this retarded.

I took an IQ test - a REAL one - and it was nothing like this or any other online "test". Real IQ tests are conducted by professional psychologists and incorporate various areas of intellectual reasoning, including block manipulation and verbal reasoning. Answering some questions lifted from other bogus online IQ tests and mashed together doesn't paint a reliable picture of your intellect in any way.

If you REALLY want to know what your IQ is - which, again, is a waste of your time and money since IQ has been thoroughly debunked by numerous studies - contact a local psychologist. Until then, stop spamming /sci/ with this drivel.

>>9819816
Because real IQ tests are not bullshit online quizzes that constantly pressure you to give some sketchy company your credit card information, you fucking moron.

>>9819820
>Your online quiz is bullshit

If it is bullshit, why didn't you score beyond the 92nd percentile?

It's not like you've come from a radically different cultural than me.

>>9819825
>ace this super-duper accurate online "IQ test" or you can't criticize it

Again, not an IQ test. Call it a "logical puzzle test with concepts vaguely based on IQ tests" and we'll talk.

Also, IQ is worthless.

https://thedirtpsychology.org/alert-iq-scores-meaningless/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2250681/IQ-tests-meaningless-simplistic-claim-researchers.html

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/9755929/IQ-tests-do-not-reflect-intelligence.html

http://trendintech.com/2016/07/28/scientists-prove-traditional-iq-tests-useless/

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/iq-scores-not-accurate-marker-of-intelligence-study-shows/

But please, continue to waste your time on an anime imageboard talking about your IQ instead of actually putting effort into something. I'm sure women will love hearing about how you aced that online quiz.

>>9819830
> dailymail
> telegraph
> popsci rags and tabloids

Come on.

>>9819833
The articles have plenty of valid sources that you can investigate and verify at your leisure, Jimbo.

>I only accept direct links to research papers *tips fedora*

>>9819830
>IQ is worthless

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5485431/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2640161/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16260814

https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2757&context=jclc

http://criminal-justice.iresearchnet.com/crime/intelligence-and-crime/3/

https://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2008/02/06/correlations-of-iq-with-income-and-wealth/

>alt-right neckbeard tryhards on 4chan believe in racially biased antique "metrics"

Why am I not surprised?

>>9819840
>IQ tests are "racially biased"

You should go talk to a black man in real life.

You should go play strategic board games with Mexicans.

It's real. You're just full of shit.

>>9819842
>You should go talk to a black man in real life.

Remember when I said people who believed in IQ being legitimate were edgy racists? You're not exactly disproving my point here, chief.

>>9819846
There's nothing worth disproving. There's nothing wrong with observing that races are inferior to others.

When you stare at black people weighing 300 lbs and struggling to grasp a pencil, you KNOW they've got brain problems ON AVERAGE. You are lying and hurting the black race by treating them all like white equals when it's obvious they can't think.

They never evolved with the rest of the human species, and now, they're living in technological hell. "Edgy" is just an opinion.

>>9819851
>There's nothing wrong with observing that races are inferior to others.

rac·ism
ˈrāˌsizəm/Submit
noun
prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior.

If you're going to argue that blacks are inferior, that's fine, but at least be honest about the fact that you're a racist. Don't cover it up with euphemisms and half-assed justifications. You're racist, just accept it.

I personally don't give two shits if you're racist or not - most people on 4chan are - but it does speak volumes that you believe in the legitimacy of IQ, one of the most racially biased metrics to have ever been developed.

>>9819830
IQ is an accurate predictor of success, it is even used by government agencies across the Western world.
You should really look at the scientific papers, which show it as that.
Instead of these ARTICLES from JOURNALISTS.
Jesus, fuck.
Have you really been lurking for 7 years? Doesn't seem like it.

>>9819862
How could it possibly be racially biased if others races are biologically inferior when it comes to mean population intelligence?

It's like watching a Kenyan runner beat white men into the dirt.

African Americans go to school in the USA, and they score 85 IQ due to European admixture

>>9819866
Don't bother, he hasn't even replied to the actual scientific papers that prove his MSM articles WRONG.
You're basically arguing with a dumbfuck newfag, no sweat.

>>9819866
Hmm, should I go with some guy on 4chan or the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit?

https://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/1984/02/08/05320018.h03.html

>Judge Peckham noted that even "if it is assumed that black children have a 50-percent greater incidence of this type of mental retardation, there is still less than a one-in-100,000 chance that the enrollment could be so skewed towards black children."

>Judge Peckham noted that even "if it is assumed that black children have a 50-percent greater incidence of this type of mental retardation, there is still less than a one-in-100,000 chance that the enrollment could be so skewed towards black children."

>>9819869 see >>9819838.
A COURT finds, last time I checked, courts weren't scientific tribunals. :'D
Also, that's 1 source to 6 sources.
And it isn't pertinent to scientific discussion.

>>9819869
Fyi, that doesn't refute IQ, it calls it biased.
Reminder again, they also find poverty biased.
How exactly can a concept be biased?

>>9819872

Causation != correlation

Taller people tend to be more successful in life - studies have shown this. So have people with blonde hair.

Feel free to read the study mentioned in this article:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/iq-tests-are-fundamentally-flawed-and-using-them-alone-to-measure-intelligence-is-a-fallacy-study-8425911.html

>>9819869
Also, I'm almost 100% sure you haven't heard of the culture fair IQ test based upon Raven's Progressive Matrices (or similar tests), that don't require knowledge which COULD be biased.
It just tests pattern recognition and the ability to manipulate shapes (mentally).
If that's biased, the person you're testing is JUST stupid.

>>9819873
Yeah, no shit. You were trying to argue that IQ tests weren't racially biased, which they very much are.

>>9819869
>85 mean IQ
>1 in 6 blacks have an IQ of 100
>1 in 4 blacks have an IQ of 75
>1/4 of special needs students were black

Those kids needed help.

>>9819874
Correlation is a statistical tool, you retard, and is fit for purpose.
If you wan't to find a perfect method for displaying data, go ahead.
Because, guess what, it isn't an argument of refutation.
>Another MSM article.
Just stop, you reek of newfag.
Try posting a PAPER.

>>9819877
That particular test is rarely administered in the US. It's far more common to be administered the WAIS, which IS culturally biased. The test OP linked is more similar to the WAIS than any culture-fair test. I took the fucking thing. I would know.

>>9819869
>>9819879
>roughly 1/4 of 9% needed help in school
>roughly 25% of the black child populace

It's probable

Slightly inflated by poverty, but no bias here.

>>9819878
The original topic was the validity.
Which was proven, so you changed it.
You're whats known as a sophist.

>>9819881
Not when that "purpose" is trying to draw a correlation between IQ and success when other factors are not accounted for ;)

I have an IQ of 144. Where's my six figure salary? Causation = correlation, right?

>>9819882
I love how you keep moving the goalposts.
>All IQ is biased!
>Ah yes, of course, expect his one.
Lol, you're funny dude.
What've you been doing for those 7 years of lurking? Posting on /b/? You aren't very sharp, at all.

>>9819886
>proven

>>9819887
>Not when that "purpose" is trying to draw a correlation between IQ and success when other factors are not accounted for ;)
But they ARE, IQ is only used as one predictor, you disingenuous retard.
>I have an IQ of 144. Where's my six figure salary?
What is anecdotal evidence?
How about you produce your own study to refute it?
OH WAIT, you can't, because you don't accept correlation as a valid way of assessing data. :^)
Lol, k.

>>9819893
The only evidence you have offered in refutation is a link to an MSM article, you fucking retard.
Pretty sure journals and the government have more weight than the Independent.

>>9819891
If you read the post - you know, with your eyeballs - you'd realize I never said the WAIS was valid. All IQ tests are invalid.

Richard Feynman had an IQ of 120 and was one of the most celebrated physicists of his time. 120 is not low by any means, but certainly not at the level one would expect for such a success story. Andy fucking Warhol had an IQ in the 80's - very close to the threshold for mental retardation - and was one of the most widely celebrated artists of his time.

If you're going to draw such a stark and poorly supported conclusion as "IQ = success", it doesn't really make sense to dismiss every issue with the concept of IQ by linking studies - which are contested by other studies - and calling anyone who disagrees with your archaic viewpoint a retard, newfag, or whatever other adjective you pull out of your ass.

>>9819891
I agree.
This man is 92nd IQ percentile
He probably went to someone that didn't care to administer a proper test.

He is the walking, talking, 122 IQ

>>9819898
A direct link to the study is in the article, chief.

>>9819899
>Richard Feynman had an IQ of 120

No he didn't.
He took some fucked-up, verbal IQ test as a little boy (when verbal IQ is at its lowest)

You are spouting bullshit.

>>9819905
>officially measured IQ of 120
>"It isn't valid because X"

And I'm the one grasping at straws.

>>9819899
>If you read the post - you know, with your eyeballs - you'd realize I never said the WAIS was valid. All IQ tests are invalid.
I was talking about rests derived from Raven's, you spastic.
Perhaps you should try:
>read the post - you know, with your eyeballs
Kek, so much for that 144 IQ, I must be at least pulling 188 right now. :^)
>Richard Feynman had an IQ of 120 and was one of the most celebrated physicists of his time.
Which is within the standard range for that field/profession.
>120 is not low by any means, but certainly not at the level one would expect for such a success story.
He worked extremely hard and may have had unique cognitive ability.
But guess what, that isn't a case study, you're using 1 person to try and refute studies that contain NUMEROUS examples.
So again, anecdotal evidence of an outlier.
>Andy fucking Warhol
That isn't academic ability, you spastic.
>If you're going to draw such a stark and poorly supported conclusion as "IQ = success"
It isn't the be and all and end all, but as I said earlier, it is a USEFUL PREDICTOR (among others).
>calling anyone who disagrees with your archaic viewpoint a retard, newfag, or whatever other adjective you pull out of your ass.
>anyone
No, only you, because you've offered nothing BUT supposition and MSM articles.
Oh, and plenty of anecdotes and platitudes.
Where's that 144 IQ? Or were you lying?

>>9819903
>1 paper, to 6
And from the quality of MSM scientific journalism, I can already tell they're misrepresenting.

>>9819910
>MSM articles are invalid because I'm too lazy to read them and actually click on the scientific studies that are directly mentioned in the articles

>>9819906
Verbal IQ doesn't measure all of the factors normally taken into account.
Also, if you accept verbal IQ, then you MUST accept culture bias tests.
So now you're being a hypocrite.
Funny.

>>9819912
Then link them and not the article?
What happened to that IQ?

>>9819912
>https://www.thedirtpsychology.org/alert-iq-scores-meaningless/
This one doesn't even link to anything.
Lol, you didn't even read it.
You're a fucking joke, buddy.

>>9819923
You're not even making arguments anymore. Repeating "What happened to that IQ?" over and over again isn't an argument. Go read the studies and come back to me when you aren't sweating so hard trying to make people buttmad.

Peace out, chief.

>>9819724
I can't even do the first question, wtf is this?

>>9819928
Lol, you're so dumb you can't even detect arguments.
"Verbal IQ doesn't measure all of the factors normally taken into account.
Also, if you accept verbal IQ, then you MUST accept culture bias tests.
So now you're being a hypocrite.
Funny."
Is an argument.
You've lost so drastically, that you can't even keep up the LARP properly.
I knew when you said 6-7 years of lurking and not a Plebbitard you were lying.
Why?
You keep using Reddit spacing and you clearly learnt to argue on either /pol/ or Reddit.
All you did was post anecdotes, conflicting ones at that. Platitudes. MSM articles, without posting their parent paper, which you really should post as science journalism is for popsci, not /sci/. - Oh and contradiction and hypocrisy.
Why don't YOU try making a compelling argument?
What really IS your IQ? I doubt it is 144, and if it is, where was that tested? By who?
Get off of this board, this chan in fact and NEVER EVER post again, you namefagging tripfagging kindergarten newfag Pledditard piece of shit.

>>9819928
Oh and for fun, this article:
>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2250681/IQ-tests-meaningless-simplistic-claim-researchers.html
Doesn't contain a link to a study and the only person mentioned, Roger Highfield, isn't suitable to be publishing about IQ.
>Roger Ronald Highfield (born 1958 in Griffithstown, Wales)[1] is an author,[2] science journalist, broadcaster and director of external affairs at the Science Museum Group.[3][4][5]
>Highfield was educated at Chase Side Primary School in Enfield and Christ's Hospital in Horsham.[1] He read Chemistry at Pembroke College, Oxford and was awarded a Master of Arts degree in Chemistry in 1980 followed by a Doctor of Philosophy for research on neutron scattering from chemical species.[3][6]
That doesn't qualify him to talk about the field.

>>9819928
Oh, forgive me, it mentions this guy:
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adrian_Owen
Who seems somewhat more credible.

>>9819928
Ah, that only applies to the culture biased test(s).
So, that's your first source down.

>>9819928
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient#Reliability_and_validity
>Psychometricians generally regard IQ tests as having high statistical reliability.[9][56] A high reliability implies that – although test-takers may have varying scores when taking the same test on differing occasions, and although they may have varying scores when taking different IQ tests at the same age – the scores generally agree with one another and across time. Like all statistical quantities, any particular estimate of IQ has an associated standard error that measures uncertainty about the estimate. For modern tests, the standard error of measurement is about three points[citation needed]. Clinical psychologists generally regard IQ scores as having sufficient statistical validity for many clinical purposes.[22][57][58] In a survey of 661 randomly sampled psychologists and educational researchers, published in 1988, Mark Snyderman and Stanley Rothman reported a general consensus supporting the validity of IQ testing. "On the whole, scholars with any expertise in the area of intelligence and intelligence testing (defined very broadly) share a common view of the most important components of intelligence, and are convinced that it can be measured with some degree of accuracy." Almost all respondents picked out abstract reasoning, ability to solve problems and ability to acquire knowledge as the most important elements.[59]
The studies linked:
>http://psych.colorado.edu/~carey/pdfFiles/IQ_Neisser2.pdf
>Mackintosh 2011, p. 169 "after the age of 8–10, IQ scores remain relatively stable: the correlation between IQ scores from age 8 to 18 and IQ at age 40 is over 0.70."
>Kaufman, Alan S. (2009). IQ Testing 101. New York: Springer Publishing. ISBN 978-0-8261-0629-2. Lay summary (10 August 2010).

>>9819928
>>9819955
>Terman, Lewis Madison; Merrill, MaudeA. (1937). Measuring intelligence: A guide to the administration of the new revised Stanford-Binet tests of intelligence. Riverside textbooks in education. Boston (MA): Houghton Mifflin. p. 44.
>Anastasi, Anne; Urbina, Susana (1997). Psychological Testing (Seventh ed.). Upper Saddle River (NJ): Prentice Hall. pp. 326–327. ISBN 978-0-02-303085-7. Lay summary (28 July 2010).
>Silverman, Linda Kreger (1991), "Review of The IQ Controversy, the Media and Public Policy", Gifted Child Quarterly, 35 (3): 153–156,
If you come up to a pay all, you might have to use Sci-Hub.

Online Test said I had 124, but wanted my credit card to finish the rest of the test.

I decided I was content with 124, and kept my money.

Street smarts.

>>9819818
Sounds like you're mad that you got a low score after subtracting. Sub-140, perhaps?

>>9819818
>which, again, is a waste of your time and money since IQ has been thoroughly debunked by numerous studies
just
fucking
LOOOOOOOL

>>9819808
>IQ doesn't matter
>b-but I got a 144

another high IQ libshit trying to virtue signal it seems

>>9819808
this whole post reeks of reddit

>>9819981
Yeah, because of the literal Reddit spacing.

>>9819983
That and the
>I don't believe in IQ buuuuuuut I do think it's worth pointing out how high my IQ is.
I've seen posts like that on reddit essentially word for word.

>>9819986
I feel bad for losing my temper with the Plebbitard though.
Poor form.

>>9819808
Notice how it's only (alleged) high IQs who say that it doesn't matter, boys.
There's two things that could be going on here.

1. He literally cannot comprehend the insane advantage he has by having his entire academic career handed to him on a silver platter. This is pretty common among people like him. They literally cannot comprehend people having their mental acuity challenged the things that come natural to him. Likely believes in the destructive "hard work" meme, same with all other blue-pilled boomer spawn. Luckily for him, he's one of the universe's chosen. IQ is all you are and all you ever will be.

2. He acknowledges the immense, destiny-defining importance of IQ and simply spouts this nonsense and is attempting to do something similar to what >>9819980
says.
>>9819986
This. Seen it millions of times. Funny how low IQs never decry IQ's insane power.

>>9819818
>I took an IQ test - a REAL one
which one

>>9820003
Then how, if his IQ is so high, did I out-step him at every turn? I don't believe his purported score.

>>9820016

>>9820023
Yeah, but I did. This disinformation bullshit about IQ needs to stop, it isn't okay to lie to dumb people and tell them they're "capable of anything".
It's cruel.

>>9820025
Agreed completely. I personally dropped out of Berkeley after I got my WAIS IQ back at 114. I knew right then and there that a career in pure maths was gonna be unattainable.
I work as a plumber, now.

>>9820031
Good, that's exactly what you should've done. Good on you for accepting the cold, hard facts of life.
In all seriousness, I'm talking about <100.

>>9820031
Same, man.

After I got an IQ of 139 - one point shy of genius - I knew I'd never be a scientist. I immediately dropped out of college and began my career as a McDonald's cook, where I've worked for the past 60 years of my life. Sometimes I would think about topics that were not related to McDonald's, but I had to stop and remind myself that my IQ was inadequate.

Just can't argue with IQ. Accomplish great things for me, for genetics has cursed me with perpetual brainletism.

>>9820031
this is a joke, right

>>9820025
>Yeah, but I did

responding with this is just sad, man.

>>9820044
Nope, not a joke. There is nothing wrong with IQ. Zero flaws. 100% perfect

also fuck black people am I right 4chan anons? xD

>>9820045
I don't care, I won, I feel good.

>>9820047
Fuck off, you disingenuous prick. It's a good predictor, amongst others.

>>9820051
of how well you do on IQ tests, yeah

>>9820058
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient#Reliability_and_validity
>Psychometricians generally regard IQ tests as having high statistical reliability.[9][56] A high reliability implies that – although test-takers may have varying scores when taking the same test on differing occasions, and although they may have varying scores when taking different IQ tests at the same age – the scores generally agree with one another and across time. Like all statistical quantities, any particular estimate of IQ has an associated standard error that measures uncertainty about the estimate. For modern tests, the standard error of measurement is about three points[citation needed]. Clinical psychologists generally regard IQ scores as having sufficient statistical validity for many clinical purposes.[22][57][58] In a survey of 661 randomly sampled psychologists and educational researchers, published in 1988, Mark Snyderman and Stanley Rothman reported a general consensus supporting the validity of IQ testing. "On the whole, scholars with any expertise in the area of intelligence and intelligence testing (defined very broadly) share a common view of the most important components of intelligence, and are convinced that it can be measured with some degree of accuracy." Almost all respondents picked out abstract reasoning, ability to solve problems and ability to acquire knowledge as the most important elements.[59]
The studies linked:
>http://psych.colorado.edu/~carey/pdfFiles/IQ_Neisser2.pdf
>Mackintosh 2011, p. 169 "after the age of 8–10, IQ scores remain relatively stable: the correlation between IQ scores from age 8 to 18 and IQ at age 40 is over 0.70."
>Kaufman, Alan S. (2009). IQ Testing 101. New York: Springer Publishing. ISBN 978-0-8261-0629-2. Lay summary (10 August 2010).

>>9820058
>>9820061
>Terman, Lewis Madison; Merrill, MaudeA. (1937). Measuring intelligence: A guide to the administration of the new revised Stanford-Binet tests of intelligence. Riverside textbooks in education. Boston (MA): Houghton Mifflin. p. 44.
>Anastasi, Anne; Urbina, Susana (1997). Psychological Testing (Seventh ed.). Upper Saddle River (NJ): Prentice Hall. pp. 326–327. ISBN 978-0-02-303085-7. Lay summary (28 July 2010).
>Silverman, Linda Kreger (1991), "Review of The IQ Controversy, the Media and Public Policy", Gifted Child Quarterly, 35 (3): 153–156,
If you come up to a pay wall, you might have to use Sci-Hub

>>9819724
>>Assume the average IQ of this website is 100
This assumption is incorrect.

>>9819808
> it's not culture-neutral and therefore not a legitimate IQ test
You have no idea what you're talking about. The best (as in the most g-loaded) IQ tests are vocabulary size tests.

>>9820241
You're right. It's lower.

>>9819808
Language skills are not vocabulary. As someone who is adept at this it is actually about recognizing speech patterns and root words of words. It also means that people like me can recognize large patterns of language and learn them easily. I'm no monomath trust me but I have never had any trouble at all with any language classes i've ever taken and have passed with a's without studying. I'm subpar at math unfortunately. It just isn't my language. I much prefer to "show" rather than tell.

>>9819808
I agree with you on the memorization and learning speed thing. So what if sally knows 2+2 is four and gets an A if she's sucking cock by middle school? It's like they don't actually learn and understand what they aren't being taught.

>>9819846
Ok but seriously have you talked to a black man in real life?

my iq is like, a billion ama

>>9819818
> IQ has been thoroughly debunked by numerous studies
Get a load of this moron.

>>9820016
>I don't believe his purported score.
I don't either. The namefag is clearly a nitwit.

Anyway, I decided to take OP's test too.

>>9819811
That's not how correlations work anon. According to the data from the article you link in the OP, the queendom test might overestimate or underestimate your IQ. It's not a matter of simply subtracting x points from the amount you scored to get your "real" IQ.

>>9820316
They even say as much themselves:

>In sum, an inspection of score differences suggest that practitioners would find it difficult to interchange or adequately compare scores obtained from the standardized, individually-administered RIAS IQ test with web-based IQ scores, particularly IQtest and Tickle.

>>9820316
>That's not how correlations work

It's not a correlation.
It's an approximation according to a general trend.

It's like someone saying "This test is easier than this test", and taking the test and finding that it was in fact easier than the other test.

>>9820305
>136 IQ

Damn, you're excellent

>>9819724
Also, here's the percentile chart.
Find your crystallized intelligence score on this and match it the score percentile.

15,000 scores that validate this chart.

>>9820630
>It's like someone saying "This test is easier than this test",
It actually isn't. Read the article.

>>9820643
An excellent NEET? I agree.

>>9820689
It's okay.
I know a lot of really smart 130+ IQ dudes that are fucking around at Kroger.

Life sucks, and it takes more than intelligence to be successful.

>>9820693
No, it's not ok.

>>9819724
I got 141 on this test. Can anyone tell me what this means? Brainlet here

>>9820696
I guess you're right.
If you had a brain like that, you could be helping to cure cancer.

Instead you waste it as nothing at all, but this is a common occurrence. You also probably have your respective race, so you have a reason to go out and do great things.

Your life is boiling down to wasted potential.
It's alright for me to do that at 118 IQ as it's nothing special, but it's fucked-up for you.

>>9820721
It translates to 130 IQ

It's 97th percentile

>>9820248
Joking aside, anon is probably right. It is higher, niché shit like 4chan alone would select above average IQ, because it is a novelty.
Then, as many people on /sci/ clearly do study science and mathematics, their IQ is probably a little higher than that.
I'm not taking several deviations, but certainly above average.

>>9820759
>The average Queendom test taker is smarter

This is not true.
It's observable that 50th percentile on Queendom.com correlates to a 110 score which correlates to a 105 RIAS score which correlates to an IQ of 101 on the WAIS

That is literally the white American IQ norm.

>>9820757
That’s reasonably accurate. I was scored at 136 as a kid

>>9820763
No one said anything about the average queendom test taker.

>>9820772
It was stated that "average IQ of 100" was for the website Queendom.

How does it feel to be this retarded, /sci/?

IQ is worthless.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W3oUqKUx2o0

>>9820791
>Jews attacking IQ tests

Sounds about right

>>9820791
>truTV
See: >>9820061, >>9820063.
Actual studies.
Also, this only applies to culture bias tests, you should take a CULTURE FAIR test, like one derived from Raven's Progressive Matrices.
This tests pattern recognition and the ability to mentally manipulate the shapes.
If this is biased? Then the person you're testing is JUST an idiot.

>>9820797
Well anon, let me give you my $0.02 here:

I took the WISC when I was in middle school and scored a 144. I took the WAIS as an adult and scored a 135. The mensa.no test placed me at around 135.

Is IQ a decent method by which one can assess fluid intelligence/logical reasoning? For sure. Is it this "definitive predictor of success" people hail it as? No. There's a reason successful scientists/people in STEM don't brag about their IQ - it doesn't matter and nobody really cares. It just seems like people who put this much time and effort into discussing IQ (you included) are using it as a way to circlejerk and put people in the box.

Just let people's work speak for itself, man. I understand the studies support IQ's validity, but there have been countless conflicting studies and valid criticisms of IQ testing. Just move on and talk about something that actually matters.

>>9820805
btw only included my IQ scores because I know you'd ask

>>9820805
Brandon, what happened to the tripcode?
Just so you know, the namefagging and tripfagging aren't the only always to ID someone on this site.
Most poeple have a certain lexicon and writing style.
How do I know is it you?
The exact measurement of 144.
Reddit spacing.
Lexicon.
Use of a hyphen as punctuation.
And overall format.
SO, now that I've IDed you, you should probably see above as I've already supplied SEVERAL arguments against these points.
However, to do so again:
>WISC ISN'T culture fair
>mensa.no is probably more accurate
Also, I don't quite understand the point of stating your IQ (again).
>Is IQ a decent method by which one can assess fluid intelligence/logical reasoning?
Thank you for finally capitulating and accepting my argument. Because before, it was:
>Nah totally worthless.
>Is it this "definitive predictor of success" people hail it as? No.
I never said it was, I have repeatedly said it was useful predictor, but one of many.
>There's a reason successful scientists/people in STEM don't brag about their IQ
Precisely, which is why I don't IRL.
The same thing as salary, you shouldn't brag about it, it is bad form.
>It just seems like people who put this much time and effort into discussing IQ (you included) are using it as a way to circlejerk and put people in the box.
That sounds an awful lot like hypocrisy. As not only have you, in this thread, already posted and THEN removed your name and trip just to post again.
But you've also commented in several over IQ threads on /sci/ already active, and past ones in the archive.
>>>/sci/?task=search2&ghost=&search_text=&search_subject=&search_username=&search_tripcode=!!tbkOPmI7bEB+&search_email=&search_filename=&search_datefrom=&search_dateto=&search_op=all&search_del=dontcare&search_int=dontcare&search_ord=new&search_capcode=all&search_res=post
As someone else has already wonderful articulated on the archive:

>>9820805
>>9820816
>>>/sci/?task=search2&ghost=&search_text=&search_subject=&search_username=Brandon&search_tripcode=&search_email=&search_filename=&search_datefrom=&search_dateto=&search_op=all&search_del=dontcare&search_int=dontcare&search_ord=new&search_capcode=all&search_res=post

>>9820808
Why ask? I already know your IQ Brandon.

>>9820817
lmao okay jabroni, everyone who disagrees with you is the same person

>>9820828
>Changing writing style.
Lol, nice one, Brandon.
What do you mean disagree?
You said EXACTLY the same thing I did a few hours ago:
>Is IQ a decent method by which one can assess fluid intelligence/logical reasoning?
Check.
>Is it this "definitive predictor of success" people hail it as? No.
Check.
You capitulated, bent knee and now you're trying to pass it off as your original opinion.
Fuck off, Brandon, you're transparent.

>>9820837
The name's Mike. Mike Hunt.

>>9820839
See, I'm caught between hating you and finding you eminently amusing.
You should lurk moar, I think you've got some potential as a shitposter.

IQ. Is your processing power.

To a decree, its useless without proper software.

I believe someone was able to install Windows 10 on a computer built for Windows 95. Could be mistaken.

>>9820840
i'm really not the tripfag though, my dude.

not everyone who double spaces is a plebbit shitposter, maybe I just enjoy breaking up my thoughts

>>9820851
That's more like it!

Bald eagle thinks he's a chicken.

>>9820852
>Displaying the full power of that 144 there.
Impressive!

>>9820828
So what did you score on the queendom IQ test?

I got 124, but I was frustrated that I was answering so many questions, and they were starting to get irritating with the "COUNT BACKWARDS AND THEN FORWARDS, AND THEN BACKWARDS AGAIN", so I skipped 5 on the test.

My real score could be as high as 131, which is a 120 IQ on the WAIS

>>9820862
140 but that apparently isn't the actual score if the dude who has posted eight billion times in this thread arguing with anyone who challenges his points is to be believed

i'll take my actual IQ score over some internet quiz's score, thanks

>>9820862
>>9820868
>[REACHING LEVELS OF BRANDON SAMEFAG SHITPOSTING THAT WEREN'T THOUGHT POSSIBLE BEFORE]

Somepeople will do a samefag to another lost that wasn't them.

Thingfag, did Kurt russle escape antartica?

>>9820869
>everyone who double spaces is the same person

you belong on /x/ with your wild conspiracy theories

>>9820875
>The exact measurement of 144.
>Reddit spacing.
>Lexicon.
>Use of a hyphen as punctuation.
>And overall format.
>wild conspiracy theories

>>9820883
by this logic >>9820862 is also brandon

>>9820884
I dare you to take a screenie including these:
>https://imgur.com/a/hKQNBSo
Fyi, if you take longer than you normally do, I'll assume you edited them.
I'll also check at the pixel level.
Let's see how bad our Brandon infestation really is.

>>9820891
what is this even supposed to prove beyond having a wide ass resolution

>>9820902
I want you to take the same range of screenshots.
Then post them.
Obviously.

>>9820907
sorry I only have a 139 IQ

>>9820908
>Oh, fuck, he's caught me out!
>Better decrease my IQ.
>Literally the octopusian active camo of /sci/.

>>9820909
bruh I'm shitposting just chill out

>>9820913

>>9819869
I still can't believe how precise IQ is though in real life.

>1 in 4 black people have an IQ of 75
>1 in 21 white people have an IQ of 75

If you have 1100 people in the room, and 100 are black, and 1000 are white, you will get this many with an IQ of 75

48 Whites with an IQ of 75
25 Blacks with an IQ of 75

I think that supreme court justice was full of shit and accepting money from liberals in California.

>>9820955
Brandon rtaking the redpill.

>>9820780
That's the average for any IQ test, by design.

>>9820805
>There's a reason successful scientists/people in STEM don't brag about their IQ
Not this shit again...

I got a score of 101. I feel terrible

>>9821278
Holy shit, that's probably within the margin of error too.

>>9819724
I'm too lazy to do the rest of these, so here are my results for the first one

>>9821278
Look at the average IQ of your country. If you're higher, than congrats you watch Rick and Morty

>>9821278
Don't feel too bad.
You can probably add 4 points

I found papers showing the RIAS is almost as accurate as the WAIS

>>9821408
for example my country is albania that is 83 on that famous world wide study even though it’s in europe and is white

Scored 111. I blame the language barrier.

>>9819724
>get 120-130 on every IQ test that is post on this board
>get 104
shit taste is shit.

>>9819830
Holy fuck that reddit spacing

>>9819846
>Le pol xddd

who here brainlet boys?

>>9821531
I kind of like it

>>9821671
>that pic
I just had to look up the source: 男子 高校生 を 養い たい お 姉さん
My kokoro is very pleased.

Please stop worrying about your IQ, if you're intelligent enough to care about IQ you're intelligent enough to do difficult things.

Imposter syndrome is a form of anxiety, intelligent people are particuarly susceptible to anxiety disorders.

>>9821948
>stop being insecure lmao
Dumb post.

>>9821958

Insecurity is inversely proportional to intelligence.

>>9821965
The lack of a correlation (positive or negative) between trait Neuroticism and trait Openness proves otherwise.

>>9819724
>146 IQ
>friend with 112 IQ is more successful in life then me.

You dont need to be a genius to understand that IQ doesnt amount to much in the real world.

>>9821654
ay good for you, you can have a happy life.

>high iq denying that the gift nature conferred on them has anything to do with their success
same with people who inherited lots of money who went on to make millions more claiming it was all about their hard work and nothing more

it's how they maintain their monopoly and is why they are so staunchly opposed to eugenics and gene therapy for increasing intelligence, it threatens their monopoly so they obfuscate it all

it's all very slimy, the whole modern day approach to obviousness of hereditarian nature of intelligence is pure slime

>>9822072
i'm the anon with 146 IQ above you and i have no success in life. Everithing i have is because my family worked hard to give me and i'm currently a neet by lack of option. My ex girlfriend probably has an IQ of 80 or something and she is more successful then i'll ever be. Mostly because she has great social skills and a pretty body.

>>9822081
you're the equivalent of a person who is 6'8" who doesn't play for the NBA because he never bothered trying out for the JV college basketball team telling everyone else height is completely irrelevant when it comes to success in basketball

it's your fault and your fault alone you're not putting your gifts to good use. but don't come here claiming the gift doesn't exist and/or is meaningless.

>>9822087
I'm not saying it's meaningless, it definetly helps. but it's not automatic success. There are many other factors involved. And trust me, i not only tried but am still trying to be successful. What i'm trying to say is that a lot of people with around me with a lower IQ have more success with less effort for different reasons.

>>9822072
Or maybe, just maybe, we know how shit our situation is and scoring "high" on some IQ test is no consolation against that reality. Do you want me to tell you how I am now literally on the brink of dying from starvation (assuming I don't slit my wrists beforehand)?

t. >>9820305

>>9822094
2 packs of ramen left for me.

>>9822094
i honestly don't wanna hear about what specific circumstances led to you being on the brink of starvation. it's honestly irrelevant. I am sorry to hear that you are struggling but in all likelihood you're in a minor trough in your life that you could easily overcome with the slightest of effort. there are many, many people who are in a similar situation to yours that they can never hope to pull themselves out of because their iq hovers around the low 80s. so spare me your psychic pain, you're still way better off than 999 of the next 1000 people you see every day, let alone the homeless and the hungry.

t. 117 iq with a history of mental illness who has been homeless in the past who now stacks boxes at ups for a living because the us government gives subsidies to companies willing to hire the mentally ill

>>9822101
at least you have a job. i've been on 12 interviews last month and counting.

t. 146 IQ

>>9822104
are you autistic? a lot of autistic people score super high on iq tests. try to make use of services that help high functioning autistics get jobs. you'll be cracking $100k a year in no time.

>>9822106
lol i wish i was.

>>9822126
Dumb thing to wish for.

>>9822160
do i really have to point out its a joke?

>>9822176
I am autistic.

>>9822331
And with that in mind...

>>9822106
Please provide more info. Do you have any links to such a service? I'm in the EU by the way.

i got 117
i gave up my patience on that test so i guess i just ruined my actual result but that test was boring as shit

>>9822358
It was a boring test.
I wish it was more fun.
Then the scores would be higher.

>>9819724
>Take this test
>Get 116 IQ

Sounds about right.

I scored 134 first time taking the test. I knew I hadn’t got any of the opposite/similar definitions correct as English is not my first language. After retaking the test and looking up the definitions I achieved a score of 147, what does this mean?

>>9822545
>Search the definitions

That's cheating even if you speak English.

>>9822562
It's cheating yes, but how is it fair to determine an individuals IQ using the definitions of words that they would or would not know based on whether they had researched the definitions at some point in their life before taking the test? Even if the person taking the test was fluent in English but unlucky enough to have never encountered the word before; their IQ would be deducted by 13 points- is that really correct?

>>9822581
It's fair because the chosen words are picked at random.

>>9822613
True, but if English wasn't your first language and you completed this test: is your IQ therefore less then someone who answered every other question the same as yourself, but had seen the words that required definition before (in context) allowing that person to then complete that section correctly? I just don't see how it could be fair, even if the words were chosen at random - because your final score would be based on luck, have you seen these words before or not? If you have, you're IQ is higher.

>>9822625
The "fairness" which you are trying to argue for here only has meaning in a statistical sense. Case-by-case bargaining is meaningless. On the whole, someone who speaks X language has a certain chance to have encountered any given sample of words from language X; "fairness" obtains from this. That probability is higher for someone who speaks the language natively, but this is where any discussion of a "handicap" or "unfairness" stops.

Vocabulary tests measure the rate at which one _retains_ new words, not the rate at which one encounters them.

>>9822645

"someone who speaks X language has a certain chance to have encountered any given sample of words from language X, fairness is obtained from this"

If there's a chance that a person may have encountered the given sample, then there's a chance they may have also never encountered them no? A case by case argument could be made then, I have genuinely never seen several of the words involved in the test before in my life. If I had seen them in context, I believe I would have been able to answer the question correctly. Unfortunately I haven't, so my IQ score lessens.

Honestly though I think I may be retarded and completely missing your point.

>>9822645
>>9822702
My point is that I'm a victim of chance, not that the test isn't fair.

>78
uh.. fuck...

what do?

>>9822702
>If there's a chance that a person may have encountered the given sample, then there's a chance they may have also never encountered them no?
D'uh, that's how probabilities work. The point is that the chance is roughly equal for everyone (among native speakers; people who learn it as a foreign language have lower probabilities of encountering any given sample of words because they've been speaking the language for less time and in fewer contexts).

Ergo, the test is fair in that sense.

>>9822719
I think the problem here is that despite me saying that the test wasn't 'fair', I meant more so that there is clearly a chance that I may have never encountered the words used - and I hadn't, so the score I received first couldn't have been accurate, because how can my ability to retain definitions be tested when I had never seen the selected words before - and thus hadn't even had the chance to retain them in the fist place.

>>9819724
You. You and your god damn cat girls. ENOUGH.

IQ: 127

ENOUGH.

>>9822732
>I meant more so that there is clearly a chance that I may have never encountered the words used
So what.

>>9822735
Cat-girls are a miracle of the universe of the universe and you're a fag.

>>9822747
...if there's a chance I may have never encountered the words in the test - and I then take the test, and get to the vocab section, and realize that I have never encountered the words, then my score is inaccurate - because, like I said in my previous comment which you seem to have only read half of, I would then be being tested on my ability to retain words, using words that (((by chance))) I had never seen - meaning I never had the chance to retain the words, meaning my retention isn't being tested actually. Meaning my score might be inaccurate.

>>9822769
Anon, what part of "your individual case is irrelevant" is so hard to understand? There is literally no way to create a noiseless measure of such a test without imposing draconian measures on the tested population. Re-read our conversation. Slowly.
Something might just dawn on you.

>>9822735

>>9822787
No I get that, my case is irrelevant to whether the test is fair or not - there's obviously very little they can do to test vocab other than the way they have. I'm not saying the test is unfair, just that I feel in this specific case, my score has been affected by chance. As a result, I can't tell if my IQ is 121 or 134 based on everything else that has been said in this thread.

Forgive me for wasting your time on something so pointless. Especially if its seems like I'm not really listening to what you're saying, because I am trying to understand.

Corroborate your results with the tests on this page: https://discovermyprofile.com/

>>9822823
Do you work for University of Cambridge?
Is that website at all accurate?

>>9822879
>Is that website at all accurate?
Depends on which tests you're referring to. Some of them are still being calibrated. The "MyIQ" one only measures IQ in the "normal" range, and it is very accurate for that purpose. But if you don't fall in the "normal" range for intelligence, it won't be very useful for you, giving you only a lower or upper bound for your IQ. (Pic related.)

Not that it's too big of a deal though, since Raven's progressive matrices styled tests are very unreliable starting around 2 standard deviations away from the mean. (Which is to say, I wouldn't put too much weight in your mensa.no score.)

>>9822898
I don't feel up to par for an IQ test right now, so I'll take this test in about an hour and report back to you.

I got 124 on test.mensa.no
123 on GIQtest.com
and 116 on the test in this thread, but if I add 5 points (RIAS and WAIS scores aren't too big of a gap away from one another) I get 121 according to IQ of 100 instead of 105.

I also got 124 on the mensa.dk test, but I was prepared mentally because I've been taking IQ tests like crazy.

I think My IQ could range from 115-125, but it's not 100.

>>9822072
wokest of all wokest posts

t. eugeno-communist

>>9822900
>123 on GIQtest.com
What was your performance/verbal breakdown?

>>9822918
My verbal score was 121, and my performance score was 125

I was a little bit groggy when I took it, so I think I could've gone up a point or two, but it's otherwise fine.

https://giqtest.com/iq-test/finalReport.html?testId=152849062727042&payOverride=true

>>9822922
Woah, I just realized you can copy and paste that, replace the testId number, and you'll get a free score

>>9822927
>>9822922
Apparently my IQ score is 99.

This test is garbage.

>>9822922
>>9822927
This is a very neat find. Whoever was in charge of security on that site wasn't the sharpest tool in the shed.

>>9822932
What's your result on this one >>9822823

>>9822900
126 from no
131 from dk
120 from mensa itself albeit I kinda jobbed that one.

>>9822937
I'm still debunking GIQtest
I'm about to go and take the cambridge one.

I'm hitting 99 IQ randomly, but now I'm going out of my way to make sure every answer is wrong.

>>9822937
>>9822943
Well, this is my lowest possible score on GIQtest.com

Maybe it is real

https://giqtest.com/iq-test/finalReport.html?testId=152961222831186&payOverride=true

Weeb thread on /sci/ and has 200+ replies.

>>9822937
I got 110 IQ on that one

>>9822992
>>9822937
And apparently it's 83rd percentile

I think this test is a bit harsh.

I skipped a couple because they were a headache to visualize, but I got 24/29 right.

>>9819724
I got a 78, thats a breddy big numbar

>>9822993
>>9822992
>>9822937
I think something is off with this test.
83rd percentile shouldn't give an IQ of 110

There's something going on with the way that it's normed.

https://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/iqtable.aspx

>>9822973
Literally autists jerking themselves off over useless metrics.

Fuck this board

>>9823016
>He's mad because he got utterly BTFO on this very same thread.

>>9823059
>justifying racism
>BTFO

:thinking:

>>9823062
At what point did I justify racism?
Besides, you ended up accepting what I said, so does that mean you justify racism too?
Oh look, I guess you were, and are:
>BTFO
Also, don't you the Discord form of emoji, you retard.

>>9823069
>Besides, you ended up accepting what I said

Where, senpai? Is this you believing that everyone with reddit spacing is the same person?

>At what point did I justify racism?

Right around the point where you recommended I "talk to a black man in real life" and implied that IQ tests were somehow not racially biased.

>>9823077
>>9823062
>>9823016
Fuck off Brandon.

>>9823077
>Where, senpai? Is this you believing that everyone with reddit spacing is the same person?
>Being this disingenuous and retarded.
See:
>>9820816
>>9820817
>>9820828
>>9820837
>>9820839
>>9820840
>>9820869
>>9820875
>>9820883
>>9820884
>>9820891
>>9820902
>>9820907
>>9820908
>>9820909
>>9820913
Besides, if that isn't even you (which it is as the last few replies confirm), you agreed even earlier with me in the thread.
>>9823077
Not me, dumb dumb.

>>9820003
IQ is associated with adaptibility.
They can either become sociopathic ignorant or overly tolerant and the second case is very unlikely to look down on average people

>>9819724
I can't believe how successful these threads are

>>9823062
Classic Brandon.

What's the best strategy when coming into an IQ test? What are the best ways to spots clues in the chain of deductions?

I don't get it.

>>9823881
I went with 5 in the end, but I'll be damned if I can actually explain what the fuck is going on. I am open to suggestions.
In the meantime, I'll do the rest of the test.

>>9823898
I don't get it either but I'd pick the triangle (3).
Simply because it doesn't appear anywhere.
I think it's a sequence of non-sequiturs.
Feel free to prove me wrong.

>https://giqtest.com/iq-test/finalReport.html?testId=152966696623163&payOverride=true
Yet I have no more money for food and my internet and electricity will probably get cut off next week since I haven't paid the bills. The gods never bless whom they don't first curse, huh?
I am strangely content though. Like, I haven't felt so at ease in months.
I think I'm slitting my throat tonight.

>>9823898
>>9823940
The first shape influences the form the 2nd shape.

If you just get rid of all of the bullshit (little balls), you get number 2 as the answer.

The square came from the little square on the 2nd picture inflating itself in a + manner because the circles form a + in the first picture.

>>9819906
>Richard Feynman had an IQ of 120
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/finding-the-next-einstein/201112/polymath-physicist-richard-feynmans-low-iq-and-finding-another

>>9824605
Oh look, Brandon was wrong yet again.
Surprise!

>>9824524
>The first shape influences the form the 2nd shape.
How exactly.

>>9824652
This is what I see.
This could just be evidence that the test is valid though, and I'm not high IQ enough to see that there is no connection

>>9824791
>>9824652
Also, I scored 16 on the picture portion of this test

>>9824798
>>9824791
but the first time I took this test, I hit 4 because I didn't think about it enough.

>>9824791
That doesn't make any sense.

>>9824798
>I scored 16 on the picture portion of this test
I'm not surprised.

>>9824791
The answer is 1.

Look at the matrix vertically (top to bottom). At the top of the first column and the bottom of the first column, there are two circles. Same with the second column.

The answer must therefore be a variant of the item at the top of the third column.

>>9824811
You're right.
I just ran through the test, hit 2 for my answer, and got it wrong.

It's probably 3

>>9824836
It's 1. See >>9824828

>>9824828
>>9824838
Thanks Brandon

>>9819846
>https://www.queendom.com/tests/access_page/index.htm?idRegTest=3108
im pretty sure everyone here above 100 agrees with the black thing

>>9824840
He's wrong.

>>9824900
Huh, he is in fact wrong

So what is the answer?

>>9824900
It seems it really is the triangle like I said here >>9823940 by the way. I redid the test keeping all answers intact but changing that one final matrix/picture answer to something other than triangle and my score dropped on that section.

>>9824921
It's not wrong lol.

I did the same thing and putting 1 improved my score.

>>9825013
It is wrong.
I put 1 and cranked everything to incorrect, and it did not shift from 9 to 10.

1 is the wrong answer.
It's obvious that the first vertical row invalidates 1 as an answer.

>>9825013
>I did the same
You probably have a poor memory and accidentally changed some other response besides the one on that question.