daily reminder

[Anonymous No.6042241]

you're not above average intelligence

[Anonymous No.6042245]

I can accept that.

[Anonymous No.6042249]

Speak for yourself, OP.

[Anonymous No.6042266]

>>6042249
I suggest attaching that to any resume you send out.
A1 plan.

[Anonymous No.6042269]

>>6042249

you have gender identity issues?

[Anonymous No.6042270]

b-but senpaii
;^;7
my poor results is just wasted potential
>muh IQ

[Anonymous No.6042271]

>>6042241
why do you think so OP?

[AL !!9YCj0HNhQB4 No.6042273]

>>6042241
>projecting

[Anonymous No.6042281]

>>6042273
>Internet test
>didn't even get full score

Fucking lol.

[AL !!9YCj0HNhQB4 No.6042285]

>>6042281
I dont have time to replay these games all the time like other people.

[Anonymous No.6042291]

>>6042269
No. Why do you ask?

[Anonymous No.6042292]

>>6042285

good thing you have time to play these games at all

[Anonymous No.6042294]

>>6042291

'cause I wanna stick my dick in something that isn't an asshole

[Anonymous No.6042296]

>>6042294
I highly doubt you're ever gonna stick your dick into anything at all, other than your own hand.

[Anonymous No.6042302]

>>6042249
I got 127 on that iqtest.dk thing and 130 on Mensa Norge.
A psychologist evaluated me at 115.
It could be that the psychologist was wrong and 2 online IQ tests are right, but don't count on it.

[Anonymous No.6042305]

You serious OP? Even the most retarded /sci/ poster probably has above average intelligence.

You clearly have not spoken to some one with average intelligence in quite some time.

[Anonymous No.6042318]

>>6042296

how about a fleshlight

a fleshlight would work, right?

[Anonymous No.6042339]

>>6042241
I am, and I am also above average weird in a non cool way and above average in bipolarism.

[Anonymous No.6042352]

at least im smarter than him

[Anonymous No.6042360]

>>6042352

is that average intelligence?

[Anonymous No.6042362]

>>6042360
think about how stupid the average person is, half of the people are dumber than that

[Anonymous No.6042366]

>>6042360
No, that's above average intelligence. He might have made a typo, but at least he understood that he has to do math with letters. Someone of average intelligence can't even do math with numbers. For example he couldn't solve 6/2*(1+2).

[Anonymous No.6042364]

>>6042362

I don't want to believe

[Anonymous No.6042373]

>>6042366
>Someone of average intelligence can't even do math with numbers

[citation needed that individuals with IQ 100 and basic language skills cannot solve 6/2*(1+2) after 1 month of training]

it seems to me you're just trying to inflate your IQ here.

[Anonymous No.6042421]

No, no I'm pretty sure I am.

[Anonymous No.6042459]

>>6042241
>you're not above average intelligence
...of which population?

[Anonymous No.6042464]

>>6042302

>what is standard deviation

[Anonymous No.6042472]

>>6042464
I don't know, you tell me.

[Anonymous No.6042476]

why does /sci/ think that people with average are barely able to spell their names?

[Anonymous No.6042479]

>>6042472
>standard deviation

well the standard deviation of those online iq tests is 15

[Anonymous No.6042481]

>>6042476
Are you implying they can?

[Anonymous No.6042484]

>>6042479
Yeah, but why would the psychologist use something lower?
The normal ones are 15, 16 and 24 afaik, and unless the tests used 24 and the psychologist 15 it wouldn't be 130 to 115

[Anonymous No.6042488]

Pretty sure the sample of people on the internet is above average intelligence, not even /sci/ specifically. People on the internet are more likely to be white, western, educated, middle class+, etc. all of which correlate with intelligence.

[Anonymous No.6042490]

>>6042488

go back to /pol/ you racist

[Anonymous No.6042496]

>>6042266
online IQ tests will make them hire you.

[Anonymous No.6042573]

>>6042241
if we assume that there is a normal distribution of ability on this board (or iq, or whatever) then we could expect OP to be a faggot 50% of the time.

that said, people on the very latest end of whatever metric of ability/intelligence/whatever probably aren't reading this since they are too busy eating play doh. this would imply that OP is a faggot >50% of the time.

unless OP is actually a homosexual, wouldn't want to offend the gays.

[Anonymous No.6042644]

>>6042249
>>6042273
>IQ Test that is heavily dependant on your inclination to solve the puzzles and heavily dependant on luck since many of the solutions are arbitrary in the sense that they're often ill defined

I do admit the solutions can (most of the time) be logically deduced based on prior sections however you may be able to understand the patterns and reasoning without seeing them unless their profoundly distinct and non-ambigious. The solutions are very easy, its just a matter of being able to see them and being inclined enough to look.

A more accurate way to measure this would be to give a person a set of logic rules to apply to very simple puzzles. Using their discretion to know when or not they should be used. However, this still wouldn't be accurate but it wouldn't measure solely observation skills. In the tests I am replying too, if you understand each and every solution the only difference is that the person taking the test didn't notice the pattern.

TL;DR: You're not a fucking genius, I got above 140 too. Hell I even think I got 149 which is near to max score on the cerebrals test. (The top one the first person I am replying to did)

OP is completely right, most people here are average kids who have taken an interest in science. However are very shit at making logical deductions or extrapolating information. The inability the deficiency in the bullshit IQ tests posted on here being just one example.

[Anonymous No.6042655]

>>6042249
>>6042273
>IQ Test that is heavily dependant on your inclination to solve the puzzles and heavily dependant on luck since many of the solutions are arbitrary in the sense that they're often ill defined

I do admit the solutions can (most of the time) be logically deduced based on prior sections however you may be able to understand the patterns and reasoning without seeing them unless their profoundly distinct and non-ambigious. The solutions are very easy, its just a matter of being able to see them and being inclined enough to look.

A more accurate way to measure this would be to give a person a set of logic rules to apply to very simple puzzles. Using their discretion to know when or not they should be used. However, this still wouldn't be accurate but it wouldn't measure solely observation skills. In the tests I am replying too, if you understand each and every solution the only difference is that the person taking the test didn't notice the pattern.

TL;DR: You're not a fucking genius, I got above 140 too. Hell I even think I got 149 which is near to max score on the cerebrals test. (The top one the first person I am replying to did)

OP is completely right, most people here are average kids who have taken an interest in science. However are very shit at making logical deductions or extrapolating information. The inability to see the deficiency in the bullshit IQ tests posted on here being just one example.

[Anonymous No.6042665]

>>6042249
>>6042273
>IQ Test that is heavily dependant on your inclination to solve the puzzles and heavily dependant on luck since many of the solutions are arbitrary in the sense that they're often ill defined

I do admit the solutions can (most of the time) be logically deduced based on prior sections however you may be able to understand the patterns and reasoning without seeing them unless their profoundly distinct and non-ambigious. The solutions are very easy, its just a matter of being able to see them and being inclined enough to look.

A more accurate way to measure this would be to give a person a set of logic rules to apply to very simple puzzles. Using their discretion to know when or not they should be used. However, this still wouldn't be accurate but it wouldn't measure solely observation skills. In the tests I am replying too, if you understand each and every solution the only difference is that the person taking the test didn't notice the pattern.

TL;DR: You're not a fucking genius, I got above 140 too. Hell I even think I got 149 which is near to max score on the cerebrals test. (The top one the first person I am replying to did)

OP is completely right, most people here are average kids who have taken an interest in science. However are very shit at making logical deductions or extrapolating information. The inability to see the deficiency in the bullshit IQ tests posted on here being just one example.

[Anonymous No.6042671]

I think most people who browse /sci/ are at least above average, just not very mature

[Anonymous No.6042680]

>>6042671
Lel.

[Anonymous No.6042932]

>>6042671
face_of_approval.tif

[Anonymous No.6043262]

>>6042318
so would an onahole

[Anonymous No.6043269]

>>6042665
But you got trolled (._.)

[Anonymous No.6043274]

>>6042366
>>6042373
I'm above average and I don't know how to solve 6/2*(1+2)

[Anonymous No.6043306]

>>6042241
I know, but I'm not sure if I would want to be above average intelligence the first place. I'm no genius but I suppose there must be better solutions for our problems, but then even if I knew how to change the world truly for the better chances are nobody would listen and I couldn't change a thing. Now having said that I imagine being gifted must be truly horrific and even though you know a better world is possible and how to get there, if people just would listen, you'd be still powerless because they don't.

[Anonymous No.6043311]

>>6042490
Not my fault science is racist.

[Anonymous No.6043643]

>>6043274
A genius-level IQ is required to solve that.

[Anonymous No.6043662]

does this qualify as above-average

[Anonymous No.6043666]

>>6043662
it qualifies as above average, but not above average intelligence
just above average sat score

[Anonymous No.6043671]

>>6043666
SAT correlates with IQ tests as much as any IQ test correlates with another IQ test, 0.8, so it is functionally an IQ test.

IQ is essentially intelligence. Unless you use operate under a bullshit romanticized mystical definition of intelligence where it is immeasurable.

[Anonymous No.6043673]

>>6043671
is that r or r^2? source?

[Anonymous No.6043679]

>>6042366
>6/2*(1+2)
>6/2*(3)
Parenthesis
>3*(3)
You do division first since it's the closest to the left. Talk about proper usage with BEDMAS or PEMDAS all you want but Division still ends up multiplication with fractions, in this case 6 * (1/2) or 6/2
>9
Only part left to do.

Could also argue that you're not really/don't have to solve that since it's not an equation and just an expression.

[Anonymous No.6043683]

>>6043671
Ryan Faulk?

[Anonymous No.6043693]

The overwhelming majority of people on 4chan are actually above average intelligence. Do you realize how fucking stupid the average person? Just being able to use a site like 4chan probably makes you above average intelligence.

[Anonymous No.6043695]

>>6043693
unfortunately this

[Anonymous No.6043753]

I had a little pet.
I used to hold him
and pet him
and squeeze him
but he don't move no more.

[Anonymous No.6043829]

>>6043269
Many people on this board are stupid enough to believe IQ is infallible.

Do you know how fucking stupid the people on this board are?

[Anonymous No.6043840]

>>6043671
>Here we go with full blown /sci/ level retardation

>SAT correlates with IQ tests
Okay, however you're implying the false premise that IQ is accurate

>any IQ test correlates with another IQ test
No many well accepted IQ tests are heavily dependant on your education and if you're not taught the shit, you won't perform well. Its like giving you a test about advanced quantum mechanics knowing you know jack shit about it. Also, it would be a measure of how inclined you are to follow instructions not your ability to reason.

>IQ is essentially intelligence
To pretentious elitist retards such as yourself. This comes from a guy who got a 149 on some of these bullshit tests.

>bullshit romanticized mystical definition of intelligence
I am not saying its impossible to be quantified, I am saying most humans are FAR, FAR too stupid to create an even partially accurate and unbiased IQ test and are often unable to see why their tests are flawed because their stupid and created these tests with their emotions.

TL;DR: >>>/b/ pls go

[Anonymous No.6043848]

>>6043693
Most normal people don't propose ideas like:

All white people are a collective therefore I am better than every black man that has ever lived.
All men are a collective so I am better than every woman that has ever lived.
Free will exists.
The jews are responsible for every hardship I ever encounter.
The IQ tests posted on /sci/ have no problems what so ever and are completely accurate.

I would prefer being around stupid non-vocal people as opposed to vocal pseudo-intellectuals. Holy shit, I remember going to mesna once, most pretentious, oblivious fucks I ever met in my life.

[Anonymous No.6044871]

>>6043848
"Pseudo-intellectual" is just a buzzword for "I'm jelly of their high intelligence, they are so much smarter than me".

[Anonymous No.6044886]

but I have a degree in mechanical engineering, and there's LOTS of dumb shits out there.

[Anonymous No.6045411]

>>6044886
How do you know that they are dumb? Did you obtain their IQ scores?

[Anonymous No.6045421]

>>6045411
You mean besides the exam scores?
I pick up stuff faster than pretty much anyone I know.
I'm always the "smart one" in the group that does all the math.
I don't take as much time to do things, and I get weirded out by people who consistently take longer than me.

[Anonymous No.6046094]

>>6043840
Bah no one uses bendep images here.

I blame high schools for overemphazising importance on sats. I knew retards who could not take take math or any sci ap class that score above 2000. There is no way sat = intelligence

[Anonymous No.6046108]

>>6045421
And do you think that constitutes intellect?

[Anonymous No.6046119]

>>6046108
sure why not?

[Anonymous No.6046121]

After 130-140 does the number really matter?, i mean you may take a little longer to grasp a concept but i don't think there will be such a difference.

[Anonymous No.6046126]

>>6046121
With most IQ tests score doesn't matter at all since it measures your inclination to find patterns, not your ability to understand them and its pretty much fucking assured that anyone can understand them since they tend to be so fucking easy.

My point being why would finding a pattern be any different from understanding it? Wouldn't the test just measure your inclination to find the pattern?

This is fucking obvious so I'll just say it, yes. So IQ isn't fucking accurate.

[Anonymous No.6046131]

>>6046126
Isn't "understanding a pattern" about just memorizing and recognizing patterns. What is "understanding" if not the ability to just cross reference patterns across multiple sources of data, which is btw, what a lot of iq test make you do.

[Anonymous No.6046130]

>>6046126
>My point being why would finding a pattern be any different from understanding it?
Those are the same thing.

>Wouldn't the test just measure your inclination to find the pattern?
This skill is what we call intelligence.

[Anonymous No.6046157]

>>6046130
You could easily call intelligence the inclination to do anything then. My point is if you explained it to a person articulately a person would understand almost all if not all puzzles on an IQ test. If a person is inclined to do a simple task that doesn't mean their inherently more proficient than someone who isn't inclined. Also IQ tests are usually defined as reasoning tests. You're arbitrarily calling it a searching test right now.

>>6046131
>memorizing and recognizing patterns.
Memorize: inclination to hold information
Recognition: inclination to understand an object/idea by generalizing from prior assessment of object/idea with similar traits.
>ability to just cross reference patterns across multiple sources of data, which is btw, what a lot of iq test make you do.
My point is the tests are fucking easy, they just make it convoluted so you have to find a random pattern in order to understand the very easy puzzle.

If it were solely cross referencing patterns across multiple sources of data without the obfuscation I would be more open, but MANY well accepted IQ tests out there were made by VERY stupid people who struggle to understand even basic logic and consider themselves capable of assessing the ability to reason of others.

Even if these problems we'rent so prevalent tests still wouldn't be infallibly accurate for numerous other reasons.

[Anonymous No.6046479]

>>6046126
IQ tests correlate with lots of other things we care about like academic performance and performance in the workplace. That's why they matter.

You can whine all you want about how IQ tests don't *really* measure intelligence, but whatever it is you believe they measure, learning someone's IQ gives you useful information about them which you can use to predict their success at problem solving and life in general.

[Anonymous No.6046483]

>>6043848
Dividing the world into groups, believe your group is superior and blaming other groups for your problems is something people do all the time. Have you not been paying attention to human history?

Every major religion and legal system in the world is based on the idea that free will exists.

[Anonymous No.6046492]

>>6043671
.8 isn't really impressive correlation bro. Skin color correlates with SAT more than that. What you are telling me is IQ SAT is less useful than a skin color pallete card.

[Anonymous No.6047357]

>>6046492
It is very impressive in psychology.

[Anonymous No.6048083]

I watched TV for a while, read some newspapers, etc since I tend to be the introvert and only tend to communicate with people I consider intelligent.

I forgot with most normal people there is no fixation towards logic and logical thought appears to be entirely optional. I guess the people on 4chan probably would have to be considered above average. No intention of condescension here, but people in the real world think like animals who act almost solely upon instinct, people on /sci/ think like educated animals capable of mild logical thought. Not to say there isn't a trace of logic within people or that I am a purely logical being, I am just saying holy shit. This is clearly a problem. This is truly distressing.

[Anonymous No.6048348]

>>6043695
scary, isn't it.
You're either smart enough to solve captchas all night or dumb enough to pay to avoid them.

[Anonymous No.6048359]

my mental age is infinity-million and three

[Anonymous No.6049207]

>>6048359
Mental age is cyclic.

[Anonymous No.6050397]

>>6049207
Only if you identify zero and infinity.

[Anonymous No.6050484]

>ITT people with self-esteem issues and people with massive ego's

Clearly talking about something interesting s beyond /sci/...
You may continue wagging your cocks at each other

[Anonymous No.6050500]

>>6042241
>no money
>no gf
>21
>still an engineering undergrad

Thanks OP. You made me feel good. Excuse me while I go inhale some of my own farts.

[Anonymous No.6050944]

>>6050500
That does not sound healthy.

[Anonymous No.6051037]

>>6043662
Pretty sure it qualifies as underage.

[Anonymous No.6052658]

>>6046492
>Skin color correlates with SAT more than that

No, it doesn't. Skin color and academic achievement are uncorrelated. Please keep /pol/ beliefs in /pol/.

[Anonymous No.6053543]

>>6051037
Who are you quoting?

[Anonymous No.6055106]

>>6053543
You can look up the post in the archive.

[Anonymous No.6056291]

>>6055106
Where can I find that?

[Anonymous No.6057759]

>>6056291
On the internet.

[Anonymous No.6058721]

But i'm smarter than the average bear, OP

[Anonymous No.6058723]

>82 posts and 12 image replies
seriously? I guess OP is right

[Anonymous No.6058780]

>>6057759
How do I use it?

[Anonymous No.6059934]

>>6058721
How smart is the average bear?

[Anonymous No.6060799]

>>6059934
Not as smart as the average cat.

[Anonymous No.6061698]

>>6042266
>IQ tests attached to the resume

Into employment she goes!

[Anonymous No.6062026]

>>6042241

Meanwhile in the real world, I scored 35 out of 36 on Ravens Advanced Matrices when the navy tested me.

But I guess that counts as "not above average intelligence" now? I mean, surely OP wouldn't lie to me.

[Anonymous No.6062050]

>>6042241
Maybe. But at least I work my ass off in my classes.

[Anonymous No.6062058]

>>6059934
Smarter than OP.

[Anonymous No.6062110]

>>6062026
Average intelligence can do them all, you couldn't do one of them. How does that feel?

[Anonymous No.6062120]

>>Average intelligence can do them all, you couldn't do one of them. How does that feel?

Feels like I'm better than you at adjudicating intelligence tests but that's not really a surprise.

[Anonymous No.6062138]

>>6042665
>However are very shit at making logical deductions or extrapolating information
>150 IQ
Sorry but I find this unlikely.

[Anonymous No.6062149]

reminder that average intelligence is really fucking low considering the potential of the human mind. it's not that hard to be above average

[Anonymous No.6062173]

Statistically, I have a 50% chance of being above average IQ. I also have a 50% chance of having an above average dick size.

Try a meaningful measurement like mode.

[Anonymous No.6062242]

>>6043679
Nobody asked for an answer, the people here are generally smart enough to solve that

[Anonymous No.6062268]

>>6042269
It's not an issue if you don't make it one

[Anonymous No.6063411]

>>6062149
So true. We only use 10% of our brain.

[Anonymous No.6063440]

>>6042269
>>6042291
>>6042294
>>6042296
>>6042318
I've seen this exact same convo before. OP is samefagging hard.

[Anonymous No.6063451]

>>6042273
>Your intelligence is off the charts!
>written just below a chart with your fucking intelligence on it

[Anonymous No.6063466]

I'm pretty stupid. I just have skewed priorities.

[Anonymous No.6064153]

>>6063466
How skewed? What is your skewness?

[Anonymous No.6064173]

i donnno, suppose there was someone soo stupid that they brought the average down low enough such that the majority of people were above average intelligence

[Anonymous No.6064959]

>>6064173
The average IQ remains 100.

[Anonymous No.6065102]

>>6042305
Nope

[Anonymous No.6065103]

>>6042362
>le George carlin XD

[Anonymous No.6065107]

>>6044871
Keep telling yourself that

[Anonymous No.6065111]

>>6046108
>muh deep philosomuhlogical "intellect"

[Anonymous No.6065114]

What am I qualified to do with IQs like this?

[Anonymous No.6065116]

>>6048083
>actually believing you're smarter than average

ishyggdt

[Anonymous No.6065148]

Intelligence has little correlation to new designs and ideas. There is a much stronger correlation between wealth and access to education with intelligence.

Look at any great figure in history. More than likely he/she is from a wealthy family and given access to whatever knowledge they needed. Even if you find 10 exceptions I can find 100 other figures from wealth.

Now of course as time went along education became more prominent but the fact remains; if you are given access to education you will change the world.

[Anonymous No.6065203]

>>6065116

>actually believing you're not

You must truly honest and legitimately stupid because 49% of the world's population is above average intelligence. Do you really think that the majority of computer owning, introverted fucks on /sci/ don't fall on the right side of the bell curve?

If not, you have a very poor understanding of demographics or are simply too idealistic.

[Anonymous No.6065332]

>>6042241
That is fine

[Anonymous No.6066106]

>>6065148
>Intelligence has little correlation to new designs and ideas

Nobody claimed it did.

[Anonymous No.6067292]

>>6066106
Instead there is a causation.

[Anonymous No.6067639]

>>6067292
Causation and correlation are the same thing. That's how we justify AGW. Saying stupid shit like "correlation =/= causation" would mean denyng AGW.

[Anonymous No.6067657]

>>6067639
Holy shit, it's that same guy from that psychology thread

[Anonymous No.6067936]

>>6067639
go correct
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation
so we will have free time without you

[Anonymous No.6067939]

iq tests tell me I'm smarter than 90% of the population, so yeah

[Anonymous No.6067951]

>>6042241
Daily reminder: 50% of the world is above average intelligence.

[Anonymous No.6067958]

>>6067951
y

[Anonymous No.6068751]

>>6067657
I am not a guy and I don't know what thread you are talking about.

[Anonymous No.6069607]

>>6067958
probability theory

[Anonymous No.6069781]

>>6068751
this : >>6067936

[Anonymous No.6070953]

>>6069781
>>6067936
If you honestly believe "correlation doesn't imply causation", then how do you justify AGW? Or do you deny it?

[Anonymous No.6071671]

>>6070953
GW justified by science
AGW -> no perfect proof ; precautionary principle

[Anonymous No.6071713]

>>6070953
>how do you justify AGW
I look at the colorful graph pictures.

[Anonymous No.6072583]

>>6070953
Global warming is not caused by human activity.

[Anonymous No.6073497]

>>6072583
But it is. Even the weatherman said so.

[Anonymous No.6073507]

>>6043671
SAT scores correlate heavily with the income of the house hold the student is from.

[Anonymous No.6073523]

>>6043274
This could be read as
6/2 x (1+2)
3 * 3
or
6 / '2*(1+2)'
6/6

[Anonymous No.6073654]

>>6062173
you actually have less than 50% because the exact average is a part of the spectrum.

pleb.

[Anonymous No.6073664]

This thread gives a new meaning to "daily reminder" since it gets bumped every day

[Anonymous No.6074102]

>>6073654
hum.
Do you prob ?

[Anonymous No.6074193]

>>6073507

>SAT scores correlate heavily with the income of the house hold the student is from.

Any speculation as to what the significance of this correlation?

[Anonymous No.6074236]

>>6074102
can you explain yourself not like a 10 y/o please?

[Anonymous No.6074240]

>>6042241

Well yeah, I'm human, I can't be intelligence, let alone an above average intelligence. Intelligence is an abstract concept, it's not a real being.

Silly anon.

[Anonymous No.6074659]

>>6074236
yes.
>>6073654
This post demonstrates that you have no basic understanding of probability theory.

[Anonymous No.6074706]

>>6074659
if you fall on the average you arent above and you arent below, so its not 50-50 for being above or below because you have to leave a 'chance' for the exact average

[Anonymous No.6076205]

>>6074706
Wrong, the correct result is 1/3 = 33.34%. A game of luck. You have successfully revealed your sea of breathtaking ignorance about the basics of probability theory.

[Anonymous No.6076209]

>>6076205
could u explain why its 50/50 then?

[Anonymous No.6076749]

>>6074706
that's what I thought.
You're dealing with discrete probs.

If you assume we're using continuous one (like for people size, for instance),
P(some_particular_size)=0 (yes, zero)

To be fair, I dunno how this charts are made, so I let you believe what you want.

But think to it, in a continuous world P(some_particular_value)=0

[Anonymous No.6077369]

>>6076749
>P(some_particular_size)=0 (yes, zero)

It isn't zero. It is infinitesimal but greater than zero. If it was zero, the event woudl be impossible.

[Anonymous No.6078513]

>>6076209
Because either it happens or it doesn't.

[Anonymous No.6078641]

>>6043840
If you make your argument by claiming that IQ is bullshit, are you operating on the premise that your IQ should come into account or not?
If it comes into account, then it obviously isn't bullshit. If you make it on the premise that it doesn't, why should we listen to you or care for what you said or how high your IQ is?

[Anonymous No.6078648]

Yes I am.

[Anonymous No.6078686]

>>6043306

If you're intelligent enough you can make other people aware or change the world without their awareness, like the Rothchilds and zionists bankers.

[Anonymous No.6078698]

i count to 2

[Anonymous No.6078943]

>>6078698
Please show steps.

[Anonymous No.6078945]

>>6078943
{0},{0,{0}},{0,{0},{0,{0}}}

[Anonymous No.6078954]

>>6063411
We use 100%

[Anonymous No.6078973]

nah I think I am

[Anonymous No.6078983]

>>6078945
>constructing the natural numbers with set theory

Why the fuck do people do this?

[Anonymous No.6078988]

>>6078983
Because they want to show everyone how deep and pseudo-intellectual they are.

[0110100001101001 No.6079104]

>>6042366
...are you saying there are people past the age of ten that actually can't solve that and it's -average-?

You're joking, right? Right Anon?

[Anonymous No.6079112]

>>6079104
Have you ever been in a school?

[0110100001101001 No.6079135]

>>6079112
Not since I was 12, I was homeschooled after that. Aswell, I didn't really interact with anyone in school.

[0110100001101001 No.6079240]

>>6079135
Recalling some random observations, I think I actually did see this average...
...I just suppressed it.

[Anonymous No.6080051]

>>6078954
No, we don't. Our brains couldn't handle that much energy. It would be like epilepsy.

[Anonymous No.6081276]

>>6080051
Wow, lrn2science. If there is one thing in psych you should look at, it is bio/neuropsych.

[Anonymous No.6082340]

>>6081276
>Wow, lrn2science.
I apply the scientific method every day.

>If there is one thing in psych you should look at, it is bio/neuropsych.
Clinical psychology is more interesting.

[Anonymous No.6083319]

Thank you for reminding me.

[Anonymous No.6083378]

>>6082340
>I apply the scientific method every day.
How do you make love using a "scientific method"

inb4 troll. I'm serious

[Anonymous No.6083381]

>>6083378
>Cut her head off
>She stops moving
SCIENCE

[Anonymous No.6083387]

>>6083378
What do you mean by "love"?

[Anonymous No.6083392]

>>6074193
Students with good socioeconomic backgrounds feel more pressure to study and succeed in academic pursuits than the average inner city kid.

Or at least I think so.

[Anonymous No.6083416]

>>6083387
Baby don't hurt me.

[Anonymous No.6083939]

>>6083387
getting laid, bitch

[Anonymous No.6083963]

ITT: superiority complex

I pity you.

[Anonymous No.6083971]

>>6083963
I know I have a superiority complex.
I try to only flaunt it on anonymous image boards though.
What's wrong with that?

[Anonymous No.6084109]

>>6042241
>implying 100 isn't average

[Anonymous No.6084898]

>>6084109
Not in 'murrica.

[Anonymous No.6084902]

130 IQ

Not a genius, especially since I've never really done anything with my intelligence, but I AM above average.

[Anonymous No.6085643]

>>6084902
In academia you are not above average.

[Anonymous No.6086852]

What is the average?

[Anonymous No.6088218]

>>6086852
100%

[Anonymous No.6089333]

I didn't know this.

[Anonymous No.6090293]

Was it really necessary to remind me? I was just about to forget it.

[Anonymous No.6091592]

I do not understand.

[Anonymous No.6092506]

>>6088218
Does that mean everyone passes the test?

[Anonymous No.6093531]

>>6092506
You cannot fail the test.

[Anonymous No.6094592]

>>6093531
But you can't pass it either.

[Anonymous No.6095769]

according to a preliminary test, I have 60% chance of being in the top 2 percent. Tell me OP, am I a special flower?

[Anonymous No.6095794]

>>6074102
>>6074236
lets do a test. there are 5 people with following IQs:

1) = 50
2) = 110
3) = 90
4) = 90
5) = 160

Average IQ: 100
3/5 have an IQ below average

>hurr always 50% chance to have IQ above 100

[Anonymous No.6095845]

just did the test, I don't think its legit.

[Anonymous No.6095890]

>>6095845
Butthurt cutfag here
I don't fucking care how high my IQ is, I'd rahter want an IQ of 80 and a fucking foreskin.

[Anonymous No.6095997]

>>6095890
can someone explain question 36 please?

[Anonymous No.6096014]

>>6042490

Confirmed shitskin.

[Anonymous No.6096034]

>>6095997
here's my assumption:
1) there are three images with a single black block, three images with two black blocks, two images with three black blocks (-> there has to be another one with three black blocks)
repeat with gray and lightgray and you'll know how many black, gray and light gray blocks there have to be
2) then there are one vertical and two horizontal ordered images in every row, so it has to be horizontal
that should be enough to find F, but..
3) the horizontal are oriented in opposite direction, so it has it's beginning on the right side
4) if you look at the images with the same orientation, you will see that they had every shading combination once

[Anonymous No.6096041]

>>6042241
My intelligence level is pointless if I don't have the motivation to work and study and to use it.

[Anonymous No.6096204]

>>6077369
>It isn't zero. It is infinitesimal but greater than zero. If it was zero, the event woudl be impossible.

HS spotted...
learn measure theory when you'll be a grow-up

[Anonymous No.6096205]

>>6095794
no, I think you missed what he meant, he wasn't that retarded I guess.

But he's still wrong :
>>6077369
>>6096204

[Anonymous No.6097256]

>>6096204
I don't need measure theory for something I can prove by common sense.

[Anonymous No.6098125]

>>6083939
That's a trivial application of psychology and biology.

[Anonymous No.6098201]

>>6042241
Isn't there more than 1 type?

I cannot do calculus or higher math level classes or really any fast paced work. Not due to not understanding concepts, due to having a impaired working/verbal memory and being unable to remember enough things to finish a problem to to follow the lecture at the speed of everyone else, or test like everyone else. I failed out of University. I also have limited ability to grasp abstract concepts. I don't get ambiguous things. Pair with the above, and It makes University style education impossible.

But, I can recognize where my deficiencies are and work around them. I am very gifted in the perceptual system. But my verbal and language systems are gutterslut tier.

I am very intuitive at solving problems in the world involve non-verbal skills. I am a very perceptual person.

I failed out of college, but I get paid over $250k a year under the table to be a successful Architect's " Assistant" .This means, I am actually the one who designs and creates the buildings to solve a specific set of requirements (Problems) set by the client in the most useful and aesthetic way possible that fits their general taste. And then thinking of all possible problems someone like them might have, and preparing seamless solutions into the design so they likely have no complains in the future since I thought of everything that could go wrong for them, and planned for it mid design so the end result looks fluid and the entire function matches the purpose intended with out sacrificing any eye candy or practicality/functionality. I don't have an ego really, I just have good reasoning skills so I do exactly what the client wants and I don't care about my "vision". I solve their problem. but can't deal with them. someone does it for me and tells me what the client wants, and i ask questions to the client sometimes but the Architect does the social graces.

[Anonymous No.6098202]

>>6098201
I can't work with clients, do paperwork, deal with politics/drama with the city bureaucrats, or lead a team, or interact smoothly with my peers though.

It's as if I put all my STAT POINTS
>Solving practical reasoning /Perceptual Learning
Past the 20 skill limit despite the penalties getting harsher and harsher to take more points.
And put nothing into any other attribute . Then got boned leveling up.

If that makes sense for anyone who plays RPGs. Best way to describe it.
I get to do my work at home, while smoking weed and other things while perpetually intoxicated. But there's a fine line between drugs enhancing creativity/thinking speed/reducing stress (there for, enhancing cognitive performance) and impairing the above from over intoxication.

A small amount of Marijuana, amphetamine, methamphetamine, MDMA, or LSD can do wonders as a performance enhancing drug when used right. Gotta know how it effects you at what dose and what cognitive processes it enhances/hurts and when you need those specific ones for what task at hand.

I do all my work high. I certainly don't tell who I work for this. But I work best alone, with the right drug depending on what im doing.

The architect I work for spends HOURS and HOURS double checking my work and goes through it 2x4 by 2x4 then nail by nail and checks to see it's sound. He asks questions and I explain, then if i explain the reason behind what I did and we go back and forth till a solution is made. Then he tweaks it to add his 'touch ' to it. And signs it and says it was entirely his work and stamps it claiming responsibility and credit for it so it's legal. I don't have a lisence or formal education though.

Would I not be considered intelligent in my own way? Im paid well to think for intelligent educated men basically since I do it better in this specific way. But I failed out of a state college and can't even hold a job at McDonalds let alone a professional white collar job with office politics.

[Anonymous No.6098726]

>>6097256
Ok, then MS spotted...
you're doing it (really) wrong, dude.
(And you proved nothing btw).

You can always pretend you were being playing (successfully) the retard, that's a common accepted excuse.

>>6076749

[Anonymous No.6098730]

>>6098125
>trivial application of psychology and biology.

->write a book
->become rich

[Anonymous No.6098746]

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

According to this guy, IQ tests are bullshit because you need to measure at LEAST three things in order to determine someone's true intelligence: short-term memory, reasoning and verbal skills. And even then it's just an estimation.

I agree with him, the human mind is a very, very complex thing. I took an IQ test when I was 5 years old and I got 105. Fastforward to when I was about to enter college and I got 138. Isn't intelligence supposed to be a static thing?

[Anonymous No.6098781]

>>6098746
>Isn't intelligence supposed to be a static thing?
no.

I don't reply to the thread, just notice you that.

[Anonymous No.6098793]

>>6098781

According to IQ tests intelligence is innate.

[Anonymous No.6098810]

>>6098746
Well, if you measure just one thing that the nervous system does and is easy to repeatably measure, even if it's not something obviously related to reaction time, what you find is that it correlates pretty well to just about everything else the nervous system does, and decently to other desirable qualities, such as health and attractiveness.

But an IQ test isn't supposed to be "measuring a single variable", a proper IQ test does normally measure reasoning ability, short-term memory, and verbal ability. Where it falls short is measuring things that take time to measure, like long-term memory (which itself has multiple dimensions). So I don't know what the deal is with this research.

[Anonymous No.6098821]

>>6098793
>innate.
doesn't mean it can't changes. You don't score the same at 5, 12 or 25 (and 70).

[Anonymous No.6098829]

>>6042352
>taking pictures of your screen with your cellphone

That's actually more stupid than what he was saying.

[Anonymous No.6098841]

>>6098829
this

he probably can't even code either

[Anonymous No.6098843]

>>6098841
This is hilarious on so many levels

[Anonymous No.6098858]

>>6098841
>go into paint
>crop

[Anonymous No.6098867]

>>6098858
>green words
The print screen thing isn't even the funny part.
The funny part is that she considers HTML code, that it's horribly written, and that it's horribly incomplete.
Even her indentation is off.

[Anonymous No.6098874]

>>6043829
I bet most of them aren't as stupid (or autistic, whatever) as you.

[Anonymous No.6098877]

>>6078641
There are a lot of faggots like that.

>HURR IQ IS BULLSHIT btw my IQ is 160

[Anonymous No.6098884]

at first i thought iq was not very indicative of intelligence.

then i thought about it and its logical to assume that it is at least indicative of potential intelligence.

last time i tried an iq test i got around 80.

i lol'd

[Anonymous No.6100362]

>>6042302
The best estimate would be the average of all three scores, i.e. 124.

[Anonymous No.6100397]

>>6078641
>>6098877

Typically when one criticizes the validity of IQ, the immediate troll response is "you're just mad because you have a low score." Saying that you in fact scored very well preempts that.

[Anonymous No.6100400]

>>6100362
>The best estimate would be the average of all three scores

That's assuming they all have equal validity, which is a bad assumption.

[Anonymous No.6100409]

>>6042490
You wish it was just racism. That way you'd have a chance.