None of you know anything about iq

[Anonymous No.12435819]

1. There is no such thing as an iq above 160. Almost every pro test only goes up to 160 because anything above that is impossible to measure.
2. Anything above 130 is an extremely high score. You retards tend to talk about people who have iqs of 135-145 as if they are dreadfully inferior to people with iqs of 150+. Iq tests begin to lose validity around the 140 mark, and even then, the 5 point difference between a 145 and a 150 is nothing.
3. Online tests are bullshit. There are some which are semi reliable like the online mensa tests, but those only test one domain of cognitive ability, unlike the WAIS or other pro tests which give an fsiq and are more representative of cognitive ability.
4. Iq fluctuates. One person does not have a single, unchanging iq. Different tests will yield different scores, and the same test under different circumstances will yield different scores.

[Anonymous No.12435837]

Another thing, people with high iqs are not superior to people with low iqs. The majority of high iq people today exist purely as wage slaves, and are often physically inferior.

[Anonymous No.12435972]

>>12435819
low iq post
t. 165 iq

[Anonymous No.12436173]

>>12435972
As a 195 IQer, your post is midwit tier, scientifically speaking.

[Anonymous No.12436624]

>>12435837
Reminds me of this guy https://ktvo.com/news/local/heartland-theorist-proving-gods-existence

[Anonymous No.12436917]

>>12435819
>There is no such thing as an iq above 160. Almost every pro test only goes up to 160 because anything above that is impossible to measure.
you were wrong in your first sentence, revealing that you yourself are sub 90 IQ. there is in fact such a thing as IQs over 160, we just aren't confident in our abilities to measure such extreme IQs accurately on an individual basis.
t. 180 IQ

[Anonymous No.12436980]

>>12435819
true
>>12435837
cope

[Anonymous No.12437005]

>>12435819
>Almost every
>Almost
OP, do you know what that word means?

[Anonymous No.12437798]

>>12435819
Standard deviation, measurably by the time you complete full test, which is usual above 165iq,

It's just that you cannot measure.

Also insisting that things you cannot measure doesn't exist, is stupid.

[Anonymous No.12437840]

>>12435819
These are basically all points that have been brought up numerous times in IQ threads, but are ignored by the retards starting and continuing such threads. So now instead of stating those points, you get frogposters and people just telling them to stfu.

[Anonymous No.12439802]

>>12435972
>>12436917

How was your IQ's of 180 and 165 determined?
also Iq's above 160 exist, we are just shit at measuring them.
.t 134+ Iq :( we in a big pond

[Anonymous No.12439877]

I wish someone had told me IQ was just a meme earlier and that actually learning effort and discipline is far important to college success and lifetime earnings.

[Anonymous No.12439902]

>>12439877
Its not a meme, you thinking everything will work fine because of whatever your IQ is, is your own foolishness and optimism

[Anonymous No.12439931]

>>12435837
There's a small difference between wage slaving as a data analyst at BlackRock making 1 million a year and wage slaving at McDonalds for minimum wage...

[Anonymous No.12439975]

>>12437798
IQ is the result of a measuring. If the test can't measure it it does not exist by definition.

[Anonymous No.12439987]

>>12439931
The McDonald's employee has freetime and a life apart from work?

[Anonymous No.12440048]

>>12439975
wetard moment. your actually dumb and stupid and gosh.....
>IQ is the result of a measuring.
An IQ score is a result of measuring. However general intelligence, and individual differences in general intelligence exists independently of any test you use to measure it and capacities of this ability, surpass what would be quantified to be 160 on an IQ battery. Obviously an 'IQ score' cant pass 160, because that score isn't given, but nevertheless people Use IQ standardization and extrapolate that pass what typically what can be tested. Thus can generate estimates of individual competencies of general intelligence, and using the already familiar and quantitatively defined scoring of IQ to represent that.

By your logic, before IQ tests where measured, it would be impossible for one person to be more intelligent then another.
inb4
>thats a straw-man, I'm not talking about intelligence, I'm talking about 'IQ score'
fuck off wetard, thats you admitting your using dumm definitions no one likes or uses your retarded definitions "If the test can't measure it it does not exist by definition" stupid lmao dumb ass retard.

Anon ya sitcom-gargling ne'er-do-well, pop-psi faggot le reddit, beans nigger monkey stoopid.

like really? whats next u gon start saying purple light doesn't exist?

mid-wit wetard nigger
nigger

[Anonymous No.12440053]

>>12435819
OP u no u stupid nigger right (that's an idubbbz, with three 'b's, refrence)

wetard

[Anonymous No.12440069]

>>12439802
If you have a high enough IQ you don't need tests, you can just calculate your IQ in your head. Can't believe I'm wasting my time explaining such trivial things to pathetic IQlets.

[Anonymous No.12440070]

>>12440069
last 3 digits are my IQ

[Anonymous No.12440111]

>>12440070

[Anonymous No.12440116]

>>12440070
Rollan

[Anonymous No.12440117]

>>12440116
fug

[Anonymous No.12440288]

>>12440048
>By your logic, before IQ tests where measured, it would be impossible for one person to be more intelligent then another.
No, but how would you compare intelligence without a measure?
>you admitting your using dumm definitions
Yes, I use definitions. How else could we discuss anything without knowing what we talk about? Logical reasoning depends on definitions.
>whats next u gon start saying purple light doesn't exist?
Depends, what is purple light? (In case your midwit brain didn't get it, that was a rethorical question.)

[Anonymous No.12440320]

>>12440288
>No, but how would you compare intelligence without a measure?
>Yes, I use definitions. How else could we discuss anything without knowing what we talk about? Logical reasoning depends on definitions.
You've really missed my point. Read it again but slower.

[Anonymous No.12440366]

>>12439902

Everything did work out fine for me, because I focused on my education and career, not wasting time on /sci/ arguing about abstract psychological constructs.

[Anonymous No.12440417]

>>12440288
>>12440320
tell ya what, I'll read it out for ya.... wetard
>No, but how would you compare intelligence without a measure?
The fact that we can't measure score above 160 using typical psychometric tests, is not to do with the nature of g (general intelligence), but a flaw with the IQ test. The point I was making is when people say for example "Isaac Newton has an estimated IQ of ≈190, estimated by intelligence researchers" they saying he took some test that we don't know about and scored 190, using whatever metrics they use to estimate that, albeit being astoundingly inaccurate and flawed, there is an attempt at measuring an underlining ability, which being g, that exists regardless if you measure it. IQ test are the exact same thing, an attempt at measuring g, which as you have said:

"Iq tests begin to lose validity around the 140 mark, and even then, the 5 point difference between a 145 and a 150 is nothing... Iq fluctuates. One person does not have a single, unchanging iq. Different tests will yield different scores, and the same test under different circumstances will yield different scores."

thus traditional psychometric tests are also flawed themselves.

>Yes, I use definitions.
Its just semantics, when people are talking about IQ referring g. An IQ score just happens to be how that is quantified. Any flaws in how that score happens to be quantified does not effect the nature of g which is ultimately the subject when people talk about "IQ".

to reiterate a point, before IQ tests exists, IQ does not exist, and anyone that hasn't taken an IQ test does not have an IQ. Yes by definition you are right, but that's just not what people are referring to when they say IQ.

>>12440116
>>12440070
Dont worry, 70 and 116 is higher than op

[Anonymous No.12440425]

>>12440417
>>12440288

Addendum

>Depends, what is purple light? (In case your midwit brain didn't get it, that was a rhetorical question.)
purple light, as in light that is purple blind ass mf'er (if that was a rhetorical question then how come i answered it nigga)

nigger, also you to >>12440366 fucking nigga ass wetard

[OP does not know anything abou(...) No.12440443]

>>12435819
1. he is dumb
2. he is a wetard
3. he is a nigger
4. i'm smarter

[Anonymous No.12440464]

>>12440425

Low IQ hands typed this post.

[Anonymous No.12440533]

>>12440320
No, I didn't miss it. I just thought it was kinda obvious and not worth addressing.
But how about you reading my response again and maybe try to understand it? You might learn something.

[Anonymous No.12440534]

>>12435819
> 145 and a 150 is nothing

No it isn't you dumbfuck, look up the relative frequency of both.

[Anonymous No.12440830]

>>12440533
p1).

Ill start from the beginning really slow.

>None of you know anything about iq ... There is no such thing as an iq above 160.
Yes, by definition IQ is a score, and if a score above 160 can not be diagnosed, that an IQ of 160+ can not exist. Literally anyone that has an Idea about how IQ tests works knows this. Stop imagining people (outside of normies and pop-sci) don't understand this so you can feel smarter than them.

>then why do the same people, that understand IQ scores above 160 don't actually exist, talk like IQ's above 160 exist?
Hers is what you don't understand OP
1. g is real and is independent of how you measure it
2. but we're going to measure it.... and so IQ tests and IQ scores are invented. Ultimately, IQ score is an attempt at measuring g. Unfortunate they can't score over 160 because the test is flawed.
3. because IQ scores where made to quantify g, people are ultimately going to use 'IQ' to describe g itself, abandoning the narrow definition of "IQ is a score", thus people can describe someone to have an IQ above 160, despite the original definition. Meaning people are thinking of IQ, not as the score or measurement, but what that score or measurement is attempting to represent.
>but noooo you are butchering definitions, How else could we discuss anything without knowing what we talk about? Logical reasoning depends on definitions.
Sorry but Prescriptive grammar is bullshit.

[Anonymous No.12440836]

>>12440830


p2).


If that doesn't make sense to ya, maybe an analogy can help

1. lets suppose you have a dick, and in inches, is 3.88923948...long, from the base to the tip, no matter how you measure it, its that long.
2. your dad asks you, "how big is your dick?" and so you measure it with a ruler. Because of Parallax error and you pushing the ruler into your groin, you measure 4 inches long.
3. When your dad originally asked "how big is your dick?" he is inquiring how big your dick is objectively, being 3.88923948...inches. Unfortunately, because of flaws in your method, you compromise and propose 4 inches to be the length of your dick in lieu of the objective length.
4. with IQ or your dick length, A flawed, compromised measurement is being used in lieu of an objective measure. In both cases the purpose of the flawed measurement is to describe the objective measure, thus people are going to think of the flawed measurement as the objective measure, thus people are not going to think of 'IQ' as a score, but what that score represents (being g which scopes above the equivalence of 160), that is why people talk like IQ's above 160 exist because it is descriptive and it communicates information effectively.

And if you did understand that, what was the point of your original post. you're just mentally masturbating.

>But how about you reading my response again and maybe try to understand it? You might learn something.
I don't need to because i already understand your post and agree with it.

anyway nigger, nigger fuck you nigger wetard.

imma sleep fuck you