What Is Your IQ?

[auxien]

21 minutes ago, Zephyr_Nova said:

Here's an interview I did with News 4, St. Louis, 7 years ago - that's 47 years in dog years (if it's a medium sized dog) - if that answers your question:

 

3:40

'he met Jeanie online through a high IQ group'

....WATMM???!?!?!???!?!?

[chenGOD]

8 hours ago, Alcofribas said:

you see, when they looked at my results they simply said "ok look, we've constructed some answers, some scenarios and such that when responded to in a specific way a kind of intellect is indicated. an intelligence if you will. and we put a Q there to really drive home how serious this is. how...shall we say 'scientific.' we submitted this guy's results to sam harris. he was dumbstruck. he clicked 'forward this email' and typed in douglas murray's email address. murray concluded i was definitively caucasian. richard dawkins, upon examining the results decided this was proof of no god whatsoever. steven pinker? well he protested he had never really been into jeffrey epstein when they hung out and plugged his new version of the same book he's always writing. my test was sent to american universities where it passed all the woke tests and i was shown to be cis-het but an ally and both a defender of free speech as well as showing no evidence of any bad tweets from my pre-woke period. the democrats got hold of it and they found no evidence of russian conspiracy, even after a 17 year on air investigation by maddow. the republicans were stunned that my brain was not low energy and they promoted me to ceo of business and economy/finances. i visited the occupied territories where i found israel indeed had the right to defend itself and i convinced palestinian leadership to recognize israel's right to exist. so everything is fine there now. in the congo i personally, just with my brain, mined all the precious minerals and with them i was able to make a really cool phone and used it to send remarkable texts about the wonders of technology. i went on to have a problematic relationship with a woman a certain amount of years younger than i and as a result i found my iq was no longer revered and actually substantially went down in significance altogether. our relationship was short-lived and i made a semi-recovery in the form of a nyt op-ed and a suitable acceptance of public flogging by roxanne gay et al. in short, i have a degree in intelligence 101.

 

[Alcofribas]

please take down this video of me

[ambermonk]

I am a dumb-dumb. I freely admit it.

[Zephyr_Nova]

Socrates once said that only people who admit they're dumb-dumbs are wise, and everyone else is a dumb-dumb.

[Braintree]

Pineapple.

[BCM]

that's the highest there is!

[jaderpansen]

he shoudlnt eb posting ewatmms he shoudl amke cure for coronancer nm shit!1

[xox]

On 3/18/2020 at 3:49 AM, Zephyr_Nova said:

Here's an interview I did with News 4, St. Louis, 7 years ago - that's 47 years in dog years (if it's a medium sized dog) - if that answers your question:

 

Oh cmon! Iq of 200?! Ammm... no way!

I’ve had the opportunity to meet or work with ultra-intelligent ppl and once they cross the 150 mark you can easily feel that and see that in anything they say or do. This guy seems like an intelligent person but not THAT intelligent. There’s a huge gap between an iq_of_100 guy and iq_of_150 guy. Huge! The gap between 150 and 200 is even greater! His wife should be extremely intelligent too bc an average difference in iq between spouses is 15 points (sd 15), but where would he find such an intelligent women? That would be iq of 1 in a million or greater. Certainly not the farm! Online? Testing herself with the same fake test? Welll... But ok let’s say his wife is highly intelligent,  like 140 high... (1:10.000) but that’s an average iq of the best students at MIT. Imagine if her iq is 160... (1:100.000) would she still be a poor farmer? Maybe he likes the life but would both of them?! No chance! Also, why is he still not a millionaire? Bc he doesn’t have a college degree?! Right! With the iq > 160 you need nothing!

It’s almost impossible to reliably test and score intelligence of highly intelligent adults bc we don’t have such tests, yet. You can only reliably test up to the iq of 145, standard deviation of 15, which is high enough for a Nobel prize in any field, no prob!

That high above you can reliably only test children.

Iq is not the only factor for a successful life (yes, u know what I mean by successful)! If we’re talking about other important traits then there’s creativity and conscientiousness. With the iq of above 160 you’d had be the laziest guy in the world and creative as a plastic chair to not be very VERY successful in any field.  I can’t even imagine for the 200 level!

[dr lopez]

yeah chris langan is a dumb racist alt-right guy. the ur "im so much smarter than you" myth

[jaderpansen]

3 hours ago, xox said:

Oh cmon! Iq of 200?! Ammm... no way!

I’ve had the opportunity to meet or work with ultra-intelligent ppl and once they cross the 150 mark you can easily feel that and see that in anything they say or do. This guy seems like an intelligent person but not THAT intelligent. There’s a huge gap between an iq_of_100 guy and iq_of_150 guy. Huge! The gap between 150 and 200 is even greater! His wife should be extremely intelligent too bc an average difference in iq between spouses is 15 points (sd 15), but where would he find such an intelligent women? That would be iq of 1 in a million or greater. Certainly not the farm! Online? Testing herself with the same fake test? Welll... But ok let’s say his wife is highly intelligent,  like 140 high... (1:10.000) but that’s an average iq of the best students at MIT. Imagine if her iq is 160... (1:100.000) would she still be a poor farmer? Maybe he likes the life but would both of them?! No chance! Also, why is he still not a millionaire? Bc he doesn’t have a college degree?! Right! With the iq > 160 you need nothing!

It’s almost impossible to reliably test and score intelligence of highly intelligent adults bc we don’t have such tests, yet. You can only reliably test up to the iq of 145, standard deviation of 15, which is high enough for a Nobel prize in any field, no prob!

That high above you can reliably only test children.

Iq is not the only factor for a successful life (yes, u know what I mean by successful)! If we’re talking about other important traits then there’s creativity and conscientiousness. With the iq of above 160 you’d had be the laziest guy in the world and creative as a plastic chair to not be very VERY successful in any field.  I can’t even imagine for the 200 level!

so what kinda nobel prizes were you working towards lately?

[xox]

14 minutes ago, jaderpansen said:

so what kinda nobel prizes were you working towards lately?

A that’s a logical question because...?

i said “enough for...” not “it’s the only thing that’s required for...“, right?

im not a native English speaker but still I believe i was clear about that

[jaderpansen]

you're right. i guess it was the "no prob" that made it seem somwhat of a bold claim.

[xox]

59 minutes ago, jaderpansen said:

you're right. i guess it was the "no prob" that made it seem somwhat of a bold claim.

Oh i see! I just wanted to make the point with connecting the iq score with the highest achievements in academia (that claim is scientifically proven btw)

One small point... richard feynman had an iq score of 125, estimated in high school. Can you imagine that? One of the greatest minds of the 20st?! Hard to believe! Iq tests are the best studied and the most reliable psychometric tools in psychology in the last 100 yrs but this result feynman got makes me doubt in the method. but he had that other thing... creativity! 

I just remembered something, must have read about it 20 years ago... according to one big research, iq matters the most up to the score of 125 (standard deviation 15), another says upto 130, another 140, that above that point creativity becomes more important trait.

[jaderpansen]

i guess there's quite a bit of discipline and a considerable dash of serendipity in the mix, too. whatevs, not really my concern as normie scum.

@feyman: dunno, he probably just rly loved what he did... maybe he was just über at analytical thinking and rather mediocre otherwise? who knows... but there's probably a reason the learning technique named after him involves explaining shit on tard-level.

[jaderpansen]

2 hours ago, dr lopez said:

yeah chris langan is a dumb racist alt-right guy. the ur "im so much smarter than you" myth

apparently several nazi leaders achieved genius-level scores at the nuremberg trials... i think it just shows there's actually no discrepancy between being highly intelligent and a moron, much less an asshole.

[goDel]

xox, there's correlation between academic performance and iq. that's it.

A high IQ doesn't guarantee anything. In practice, high IQ people (>2%) show that roughly  1/3 of those don't reach their expected performance level at all (the total loss kind of people who run into all kinds of shit), another 1/3 live a mostly average life and a last 1/3 who actually reach those academic levels you'd expect with those high IQ's. 

And other research shows that in education, kids on both extremes of the IQ bell-curve need equal attention. High IQ doesn't necessarily imply that you're good to go. For one thing, kids learn faster, but are also able to learn wrong things simply because of a lack of a good point of reference. I'm explaining this like a dog, but the example is that even kids with high IQ's may learn stuff that's actually wrong if they're in an environment where that "wrong"  is presented as "right".

This may sound obvious, but in practice people often assume the smart kids will figure it out themselves without help. (that's why they're smart...) The reality is it just doesn't work that way. (which might explain that only 1/3 reach their expected academic level)

[splbt]

On 3/18/2020 at 3:49 AM, Zephyr_Nova said:

Here's an interview I did with News 4, St. Louis, 7 years ago - that's 47 years in dog years (if it's a medium sized dog) - if that answers your question:

 

retroactively estimating IQ is a really dumb thing to do.

[splbt]

also there's a correlation between IQ and workplace performance. iirc correlates regardless of workplace and tasks. but then again 1) correlations only tell you there's covariance, not how much one variable affects the other, and 2) i'd rather have a well-adjusted coworker than an exceptionally well-performing one

[goDel]

yeah. in other words, correlation is not causation.

often not clear whether people actually understand the difference, because there's a lot of confusion about this.

and in practice, high IQ is often overkill. It's kinda like driving a Formula 1 car in normal traffic. Frustrating as F. And impractical. 

[splbt]

true. not what i meant though. i was referring to the difference between measures of covariance and correlation where the former says how much X affects Y (i.e. how steep the curve is) whereas the latter only tells you how tightly aligned with said curve each data point is

[goDel]

hmmm, i'd personally interpret "affect" to imply a causal relation though. but this is semantics. english is not my native language, so lets leave it at that.

[splbt]

oh right lol i made a mistake there

-10 IQ points

[Muflontillah]

My parents told me that they took me to some institution when I was around 10-12 and that my IQ after tests was around 120 ...I don´t know if that´s truth or they just love me so much... but I think I remember doing the tests...

[xox]

4 minutes ago, Muflontillah said:

My parents told me that they took me to some institution when I was around 10-12 and that my IQ after tests was around 120 ...I don´t know if that´s truth or they just love me so much... but I think I remember doing the tests...

surely above average!