Topic: I'm too scared to take an IQ test.
Gerbils !5bwKgiJVXk started this discussion 10 years ago #49,788
I have a fear of decovering I have a low or below average IQ. Events through out my life suggests I'm a bit stupid but I just found out income directly measures up against IQ so from that we know Matt does not have the 180 IQ as he claims but also gives me hope that I might at least have an average IQ.Someone please direct me to an online IQ test.
squeegee joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 9 minutes later[^] [v] #647,190
i got one for you right here.
Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 7 minutes later, 17 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #647,192
0P
Fun to assume Matts IQ is 180
Such only proves even with a high number one still ends up having a education of no value. Unable to earn even the equiv of flipping burgers at Mc D's.
Squeegee your link fails to link please make it not so much so broke
Fun to assume Matts IQ is 180
Such only proves even with a high number one still ends up having a education of no value. Unable to earn even the equiv of flipping burgers at Mc D's.
Squeegee your link fails to link please make it not so much so broke
Big Daddy Derek !Uvm54ORbmo joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 18 minutes later, 35 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #647,196
@OP
> I have a fear of decovering
You have a low IQ. Thanks.
@previous (C)
Is obsession with Matt re: 15 minute dryve from thee?
> I have a fear of decovering
You have a low IQ. Thanks.
@previous (C)
Is obsession with Matt re: 15 minute dryve from thee?
kook !!mCVqftDha joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 2 seconds later, 35 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #647,197
Catherine, if it did turn out to be very high or low, what would that change?
Gerbils !5bwKgiJVXk (OP) replied with this 10 years ago, 11 minutes later, 47 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #647,202
@previous (kook !!mCVqftDha)If it turned out to be low I would try to descover why and what my strengths and weaknesses are. If it turned out to be high then it would satisfy the deep down feeling that I'm a flawed genius.
Now I answered you please find me an IQ test.
Anonymous C replied with this 10 years ago, 5 minutes later, 53 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #647,205
@previous (Gerbils !5bwKgiJVXk)
You remind me of Cathrine. Asking questions that even a simple search engine gives pages of free tests. You can spend hours taking them and then take the highest score.
You remind me of Cathrine. Asking questions that even a simple search engine gives pages of free tests. You can spend hours taking them and then take the highest score.
kook !!mCVqftDha replied with this 10 years ago, 40 seconds later, 54 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #647,207
@647,202 (Gerbils !5bwKgiJVXk)
But why do you need a test to discover your weaknesses? Also online iq tests are not accurate
But why do you need a test to discover your weaknesses? Also online iq tests are not accurate
Big Daddy Derek !Uvm54ORbmo replied with this 10 years ago, 33 seconds later, 54 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #647,208
Gerbils !5bwKgiJVXk (OP) replied with this 10 years ago, 12 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #647,210
@647,207 (kook !!mCVqftDha)Why does anyone wish to discover their weaknesses? So one can improve and gain a better understand of oneself.
squeegee replied with this 10 years ago, 4 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #647,211
@647,208 (Big Daddy Derek !Uvm54ORbmo)
-1pt mr 179
-1pt for each additional click also
-1pt mr 179
-1pt for each additional click also
(Edited 24 seconds later.)
kook !!mCVqftDha replied with this 10 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #647,212
Anonymous F joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #647,214
@647,210 (Gerbils !5bwKgiJVXk)
Can you increase biological intelligence? Research during the past decade using various neurotechnologies (aka, brain fitness programs) has suggested that it is possible to fine-tune your neural efficiency, or mental horsepower. Your cognitive functions can be made to work more efficiently. and in a more synchronized manner.
Can you increase biological intelligence? Research during the past decade using various neurotechnologies (aka, brain fitness programs) has suggested that it is possible to fine-tune your neural efficiency, or mental horsepower. Your cognitive functions can be made to work more efficiently. and in a more synchronized manner.
Gerbils !5bwKgiJVXk (OP) replied with this 10 years ago, 1 hour later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #647,225
@647,212 (kook !!mCVqftDha)Quit being obtuse. An IQ test can show me my weaknesses, self improvment comes after.
Anonymous G joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 4 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #647,226
@previous (Gerbils !5bwKgiJVXk)
> An IQ test can show me my weaknesses
So what the fuck is holding you back from taking them?
Man up. Or what the hell Girl up.
> An IQ test can show me my weaknesses
So what the fuck is holding you back from taking them?
Man up. Or what the hell Girl up.
Anonymous H joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 7 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #647,230
Gerbils !5bwKgiJVXk (OP) replied with this 10 years ago, 5 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #647,232
kook !!mCVqftDha replied with this 10 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #647,233
Anonymous H replied with this 10 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #647,234
@previous (kook !!mCVqftDha)
In a way it does. By not doing it, it shows an obvious fear of the truth.
In a way it does. By not doing it, it shows an obvious fear of the truth.
kook !!mCVqftDha replied with this 10 years ago, 2 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #647,235
Anonymous G replied with this 10 years ago, 7 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #647,237
Big Daddy Derek !Uvm54ORbmo joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 28 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #647,239
@647,192 (C)
> 0P
> Fun to assume Matts IQ is 180
> Such only proves even with a high number one still ends up having a education of no value. Unable to earn even the equiv of flipping burgers at Mc D's.
>
> Squeegee your link fails to link please make it not so much so broke
lol syntax failed the iq test
> 0P
> Fun to assume Matts IQ is 180
> Such only proves even with a high number one still ends up having a education of no value. Unable to earn even the equiv of flipping burgers at Mc D's.
>
> Squeegee your link fails to link please make it not so much so broke
lol syntax failed the iq test
!MLHqI35Srs joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 1 hour later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #647,248
I can't believe people have such shit understanding of psychometrics.
1. A good IQ test is non-cultural and thus ideally non-verbal i.e. reliant on performance measures, preferably something more tangible than processing speed alone (the reaction time test is notorious for overestimating the general intelligence equivalent of women, for example).
2. A good IQ test should have results that are not mediable by any degree of preparation, lest test mediation effect diminishes the general loading of the test. For instance, opportunistic liberal researchers in Johannesburg tried to claim that they had raised the IQs of an elite Black high school from 83 to 97 (still low by the standards of the best Universities and certainly a pathetic indictment on the furthest end of intellectual perforance attainable by the best Blacks) by using such test-mediation techniques, their measure? The verbal subsection of the Weschler. Completely unscientific way of saying "we can train Black monkeys to perform our tricks".
Any IQ test claiming an improvement of results in any sub-group by way of "mediation" is basically admitting in a fancily circumventory way to allowing that group to cheat.
3. There is one accurate IQ test, both offline and on; it's the Raven's progessive matrices and its online replica (iqtest.dk), which is exactly the same test, randomized to the same degree of unpredicability in its constituent items. Researchers were so impressed with the predictability of intellectual perforance granted by this measure that not only has it been consistently used to measure NVIQ/PIQ scores in Africans and Mongoloids over a period of nearly a century, but its online equivalent was used in a study of Creatine Ethyl Ester in its mediation of dihydrotestosterone-mediated fluid intellectual performance enhancement.
4. Time-sensitive and even time-insensitive Raven's performance measures more closely correlate to essential biological correlates than any other IQ measure, whether it be reaction-time g-equivalency, the Weschler verbal or abbreviated, or the Cattel-B. There is no better indicator of an IQ test's accuracy in predictability of performance than whether or not essential socio-biological correlates closely align with a high degree of correlation the group of test taker's results.
That's to say, there's no better way to guage the accuracy of that test than whether or not it's witnessed that Blacks score lowly, East Asians score highly, autists score with a predictably mixed and distorted profile in the direction expected of stereotypically neuromasculine neurology, or Brahmin score high NVIQ/Ashkenazi score terribly on certain visuospatial measures like block design. It speaks to nature without being fallaciously over-reliant on its given necessity.
1. A good IQ test is non-cultural and thus ideally non-verbal i.e. reliant on performance measures, preferably something more tangible than processing speed alone (the reaction time test is notorious for overestimating the general intelligence equivalent of women, for example).
2. A good IQ test should have results that are not mediable by any degree of preparation, lest test mediation effect diminishes the general loading of the test. For instance, opportunistic liberal researchers in Johannesburg tried to claim that they had raised the IQs of an elite Black high school from 83 to 97 (still low by the standards of the best Universities and certainly a pathetic indictment on the furthest end of intellectual perforance attainable by the best Blacks) by using such test-mediation techniques, their measure? The verbal subsection of the Weschler. Completely unscientific way of saying "we can train Black monkeys to perform our tricks".
Any IQ test claiming an improvement of results in any sub-group by way of "mediation" is basically admitting in a fancily circumventory way to allowing that group to cheat.
3. There is one accurate IQ test, both offline and on; it's the Raven's progessive matrices and its online replica (iqtest.dk), which is exactly the same test, randomized to the same degree of unpredicability in its constituent items. Researchers were so impressed with the predictability of intellectual perforance granted by this measure that not only has it been consistently used to measure NVIQ/PIQ scores in Africans and Mongoloids over a period of nearly a century, but its online equivalent was used in a study of Creatine Ethyl Ester in its mediation of dihydrotestosterone-mediated fluid intellectual performance enhancement.
4. Time-sensitive and even time-insensitive Raven's performance measures more closely correlate to essential biological correlates than any other IQ measure, whether it be reaction-time g-equivalency, the Weschler verbal or abbreviated, or the Cattel-B. There is no better indicator of an IQ test's accuracy in predictability of performance than whether or not essential socio-biological correlates closely align with a high degree of correlation the group of test taker's results.
That's to say, there's no better way to guage the accuracy of that test than whether or not it's witnessed that Blacks score lowly, East Asians score highly, autists score with a predictably mixed and distorted profile in the direction expected of stereotypically neuromasculine neurology, or Brahmin score high NVIQ/Ashkenazi score terribly on certain visuospatial measures like block design. It speaks to nature without being fallaciously over-reliant on its given necessity.
Catherine !TGirlYJKXM joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 20 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #647,261
@647,197 (kook !!mCVqftDha)
What made you suspect that Gerbils is me? It's not.
@647,190 (squeegee)
Hahaha, I feel foolish hovering my cursor over that to see if the link was real.
@OP
Ask Sophie, she has a IQ test for you to take. I got a score of 101 on it twice and he still wouldn't shut the fuck up about some Internet IQ score.
What made you suspect that Gerbils is me? It's not.
@647,190 (squeegee)
Hahaha, I feel foolish hovering my cursor over that to see if the link was real.
@OP
Ask Sophie, she has a IQ test for you to take. I got a score of 101 on it twice and he still wouldn't shut the fuck up about some Internet IQ score.
Anonymous L joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 1 minute later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #647,264
!MLHqI35Srs replied with this 10 years ago, 7 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #647,268
@647,261 (Catherine !TGirlYJKXM)
It speaks to its predictability, as I told you! A test's consistency is another measure of its reliability.
It speaks to its predictability, as I told you! A test's consistency is another measure of its reliability.
Sheila LaBoof joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 7 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #647,270
some psychometrics is bullshit where some items are completely unrelated to what is supposed to be measured, but because of past high statistical correlation to what is supposed to be measured, is considered fine to include on the test
for example, choosing what you do in repsonse to a small injury on a finger -- a bite response gives a low score. However, there is some evolutionary logic in such a response to some types of injury, such as picking a sliver out with your teeth. Some habits such as nail biting and spitting are retarded and disgusting, but have lame validity as measures of likely scholastic skill, despite correlation to such.
for example, choosing what you do in repsonse to a small injury on a finger -- a bite response gives a low score. However, there is some evolutionary logic in such a response to some types of injury, such as picking a sliver out with your teeth. Some habits such as nail biting and spitting are retarded and disgusting, but have lame validity as measures of likely scholastic skill, despite correlation to such.
!MLHqI35Srs replied with this 10 years ago, 4 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #647,271
@previous (Sheila LaBoof)
I'd often seen nail biting correlated to neurotic behaviour incl. anxiety rather than low scholastic skill.
> some items are completely unrelated to what is supposed to be measured, but because of past high statistical correlation to what is supposed to be measured
That rarely ever happens, except in the really antiquainted behaviouralist measures you've cited, which I'm sure haven't been actively practised since early 20th century France. It smacks of the bullshit on the matter I used to read about the speed and accuracy with which one opens sweet wrappers being used as similar metrics. In my honest view, this says nothing about neocoritcal development, and over-estimates the intellectual skill of those disposed to the cerebellar, who tend to be rapidly-maturing r-selects anyway, bound to plateau intellectually at an earlier point of development.
P.S. More to this, I have my doubts as to aspects of scholastic skill being g-loaded enough to constitute absolute synonymity with general intellectual skills.
I'd often seen nail biting correlated to neurotic behaviour incl. anxiety rather than low scholastic skill.
> some items are completely unrelated to what is supposed to be measured, but because of past high statistical correlation to what is supposed to be measured
That rarely ever happens, except in the really antiquainted behaviouralist measures you've cited, which I'm sure haven't been actively practised since early 20th century France. It smacks of the bullshit on the matter I used to read about the speed and accuracy with which one opens sweet wrappers being used as similar metrics. In my honest view, this says nothing about neocoritcal development, and over-estimates the intellectual skill of those disposed to the cerebellar, who tend to be rapidly-maturing r-selects anyway, bound to plateau intellectually at an earlier point of development.
P.S. More to this, I have my doubts as to aspects of scholastic skill being g-loaded enough to constitute absolute synonymity with general intellectual skills.
(Edited 6 minutes later.)
Sheila LaBoof replied with this 10 years ago, 7 hours later, 13 hours after the original post[^] [v] #647,360
@previous (!MLHqI35Srs)
It was some jerk psychometrists on an afternoon talk show that I became highly disdainful of, that had defended such items, and with a smile, those jerks. It's worth mentioning that psychometry is also in the public as businesses that sell services to companies to evaluate employees or potential employess, so in that context is it especially suspect as there is a service to be sold and so there isn't so much incentive for academic diligence.
It was some jerk psychometrists on an afternoon talk show that I became highly disdainful of, that had defended such items, and with a smile, those jerks. It's worth mentioning that psychometry is also in the public as businesses that sell services to companies to evaluate employees or potential employess, so in that context is it especially suspect as there is a service to be sold and so there isn't so much incentive for academic diligence.
Anonymous N joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 4 minutes later, 13 hours after the original post[^] [v] #647,363
If you doubt how well you'd do on an IQ test, you probably aren't anymore than average. Thanks.
!MLHqI35Srs replied with this 10 years ago, 4 minutes later, 13 hours after the original post[^] [v] #647,366
@previous (N)
The Dunning-Kruger effect was disputed some while back now. Those closest to the mean are actually far more likely to overestimate their abilities in either direction of their respective position on the side of average, yes, even those very slightly above the mean, usually by how far they've scored from it. It doesn't constitute much in the way of overestimation of course, but is a common form of emotional overcompensation by those not terribly distinguished by way either of intelligence or unintelligence (arrogance was shown to be an inverse-parabolic function of intelligence too, go figure).
The Dunning-Kruger effect was disputed some while back now. Those closest to the mean are actually far more likely to overestimate their abilities in either direction of their respective position on the side of average, yes, even those very slightly above the mean, usually by how far they've scored from it. It doesn't constitute much in the way of overestimation of course, but is a common form of emotional overcompensation by those not terribly distinguished by way either of intelligence or unintelligence (arrogance was shown to be an inverse-parabolic function of intelligence too, go figure).
Anonymous N replied with this 10 years ago, 12 minutes later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #647,371
@previous (!MLHqI35Srs)
I think someone I know seems to have this problem where he thinks he's way smarter than everyone else but is actually a fucktard. Honestly, there's a few people like that around me but I think of someone in my family particularly.
I think someone I know seems to have this problem where he thinks he's way smarter than everyone else but is actually a fucktard. Honestly, there's a few people like that around me but I think of someone in my family particularly.
!MLHqI35Srs replied with this 10 years ago, 3 minutes later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #647,374
@previous (N)
Depends in what sense you conceive him to be a fucktard. There are genuinely intelligent individuals who are arrogant but, devoid of social experience, appear idiotic as a consequence of their insularity.
Depends in what sense you conceive him to be a fucktard. There are genuinely intelligent individuals who are arrogant but, devoid of social experience, appear idiotic as a consequence of their insularity.
Anonymous N replied with this 10 years ago, 5 minutes later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #647,376
@previous (!MLHqI35Srs)
At first I thought it was just ignorance, given he just turned 18 last year. There are numerous instances that come to mind, but shit like telling the cop "there's usually nobody on this road" after getting pulled over for blowing the stop sign right in front of him sure doesn't sound like the smartest thing to say. Why the fuck would anyone ever say something like that after blatantly blowing through a stop sign like that? Why would anyone tell the cop that his brother and dad were racing in the rain which is why they crashed and totaled two cars? That nigga was just a passenger! It's not all about cops, but I just thought it was common sense to you know.. maybe shut the fuck up when a cop is tryna fuck you?
Edit: Let me also add that this guy thinks everyone is stupid and he is smarter than most people. Can't even drive like an average intelligence person.
At first I thought it was just ignorance, given he just turned 18 last year. There are numerous instances that come to mind, but shit like telling the cop "there's usually nobody on this road" after getting pulled over for blowing the stop sign right in front of him sure doesn't sound like the smartest thing to say. Why the fuck would anyone ever say something like that after blatantly blowing through a stop sign like that? Why would anyone tell the cop that his brother and dad were racing in the rain which is why they crashed and totaled two cars? That nigga was just a passenger! It's not all about cops, but I just thought it was common sense to you know.. maybe shut the fuck up when a cop is tryna fuck you?
Edit: Let me also add that this guy thinks everyone is stupid and he is smarter than most people. Can't even drive like an average intelligence person.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Sheila LaBoof replied with this 10 years ago, 56 minutes later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #647,391
Anonymous O joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 41 minutes later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #647,419
@647,374 (!MLHqI35Srs)
> Depends in what sense you conceive him to be a fucktard. There are genuinely intelligent individuals who are arrogant but, devoid of social experience, appear idiotic as a consequence of their insularity.
No
You are an actual, real-life, across the board idiot
> Depends in what sense you conceive him to be a fucktard. There are genuinely intelligent individuals who are arrogant but, devoid of social experience, appear idiotic as a consequence of their insularity.
No
You are an actual, real-life, across the board idiot
!MLHqI35Srs replied with this 10 years ago, 46 minutes later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #647,454
Anonymous P joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 11 minutes later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #647,459
!MLHqI35Srs replied with this 10 years ago, 2 minutes later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #647,460
@previous (P)
Syntax, here's the problem with your 'research': remember Walter's Dr. Samsung thread you'd used Google to try and discover its origin only to land on a complete red herring?
Tu quoque, tu quoque, on a chode go and choke!
Syntax, here's the problem with your 'research': remember Walter's Dr. Samsung thread you'd used Google to try and discover its origin only to land on a complete red herring?
Tu quoque, tu quoque, on a chode go and choke!
Anonymous P replied with this 10 years ago, 6 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #647,465
@previous (!MLHqI35Srs)
Where did I say I was perfect in every way? Do not remember your
> Walter's Dr. Samsung thread you'd used Google
Might have been a clone?
Thing is you're a two time loser and admitted that your original research was flawed. To fail twice in a row with all the bs you wrote about what you were going to do and why. And to do it again. It is total proof that your brain does not have the capacity to do other than write word salad.
But doooooon't misunderstand. I want you to fail and fail and fail. No need to see spastics kill selves.
Where did I say I was perfect in every way? Do not remember your
> Walter's Dr. Samsung thread you'd used Google
Might have been a clone?
Thing is you're a two time loser and admitted that your original research was flawed. To fail twice in a row with all the bs you wrote about what you were going to do and why. And to do it again. It is total proof that your brain does not have the capacity to do other than write word salad.
But doooooon't misunderstand. I want you to fail and fail and fail. No need to see spastics kill selves.