You're favourite author

Leonidas
300

Patrick Rothfuss
162

Jordan B Peterson
99

kek

Donald Trump (Art of the Deal)
Huge

Jordan Peterson
114

Attached: 1520539768035.jpg (388x445, 78K)

I have an IQ of 127 apparently. This is pretty average for a college graduate yeah?

Pynchon
142

Underrated post.

Terry Pratchett
Enough IQ

Yeah pretty much. They say required for college is around 115, tho idk who came up with it.

Borges
113

Bolaño
2666

>160

Op pls gib me sum IQ.

Will Durant. 131.

>You're
Is this a meme?

>Murakami
>1Q84

Borges
Tested as 135

IQ is meaningless though. We still haven't discovered an accurate way to measure human intelligence yet.

this is Veeky Forums. Do you have to ask?

>IQ is meaningless though. We still haven't discovered an accurate way to measure human intelligence yet.
>Tested as 135
Man are you sure that this is your IQ? Didn't you just swap your IQ with your weight by accident?

t. IQ in 120

IQ correlates very strongly to a large suite of desirable mental traits though, even if it doesn’t test them directly. The things IQ does test directly are extremely important to any demanding pursuit, so much so that we’ve found pretty firm IQ cutoffs to succeed at various professions.

Of course you wouldn’t use IQ to determine someone’s value as a person but it’s far from meaningless just because it’s possible to waste potential.

>thinking that putting shapes in order means you're a genius and even remotely near the level of intellect as people like Da Vinci and Werner von Braun

Sure, this might measure some level of problem solving, logical thinking and cognitive ability.
But what about all of the outliers?
What if there some retard Rain Man guy out there who couldn't count past 5, but what was able to compose the most powerful moving music ever written, on the same level as Beethoven? Would you consider this man to not be a genius, just because he doesn't fit your arbitrary model of what a genius should be?

>outliers exist so the data is worthless!
You clearly have no idea about the state of psychometrics specifically or rudimentary experimental methods generally.

that stupid shit isn’t real

Well I am not saying that my friend, I was just trying to make a joke. Also how many people like Rain Man are there? Almost all the time the results of IQ tests are very accurate, you cannot dissmis them just because they can't be applied to certain individuals, can you?

Cao Xueqin
Don't know

Céline
130

>PKD
>why would I remember my IQ when it’s not in the top 5% of score results

This is what I hate about people who put this much trust in psychology, you consider correlation to be something much greater than it is

>you consider correlation to be something much greater than it is
Except if high vs low IQ's correlate enough with outcomes you can predict ad infinitum then it is a sound way to predict outcomes of individuals. That doesn't mean IQ is completely sound , but it does matter.

Tolkien
121

kafka
130

I think you’re way too simplistic a thinker to deal with the kind of data we have and instead have staked our a position you think is safe because it refuses to inspect challenging information but is instead just ignorant and dated.

Tolkien or Homer
145

It's not meaningless

>correlate enough
That's where it falls apart. Every study I've been linked to doesn't show anything more than a vague correlation. It's never proportional or anything along those lines which is why I still don't think IQ is anything more than a test designed to determine if a child is retarded (and loosely determine intelligence in adults).

>the kind of dota we have
The data psychologists exaggerate the importance of so they can pretend their field is actually meaningful

>loosely determine intelligence in adults
That is the entire point of the IQ scale you fucking idiot. This whole argument is just you erroneously claiming that psychologists use IQ in some other way and getting mad about it.

If you admit that it only loosely determines intelligence then why are you defending it all? The ability to solve sudokus also loosely determines intelligence but I don't think anyone believes it should be considered as the standard way of doing so.

Attached: dfw_good_sir.png (475x430, 266K)

because the avg iq of people majoring in the most cognitively strennuous fields is always higher than slightly less rigorous fields and this holds all the way down to early childhood education majors who have an avg iq of like 98.

Math and Physics are the hardest subjects humans study besides philosophy, CS and Eng. The 3 highest iq’s per manor are Math, Physics and Philosophy who would have fucking thought? People with higher iq have higher edu attainment, higher test scores, higher information retention, faster reflex response, faster eye movement, more accurate vision and color discernment, they do well across all their subjects and tend to be physiognomically distinguishable from stupid people as well. you can hide but an AI will probably soon predict your IQ from reading your face, eyes, proportions, scanning your dna

Judging by your post your IQ is no higher than 80, /pol/tard.

dumb nigger cattle

verified

And the case is likely true for their ability to solve sudokus, it doesn't actually tell us anything meaningful about intelligence.

do you have long abstract discourse with your cat regularly user?
physics and mathematics are the two most important, least accessible fields of human knowledge. any fucking midwit can become an expert at completing sudoku puzzles, and i guarantee the highest iq humans would beat most would-be masters of that skill. you’re missing the point, there is an extremely strong correlation between higher iq and higher cognitive function. someone who scores 100 will not write a single useful paper in theoretical physics, a person with 160 iq is almost guaranteed to be a chess player, physicist or mathematician. why? can you explain this for me user?

>mathematics
>not accessible
I'll bet you think vectors are complicated.

>any fucking midwit can become an expert ay completing sudoku puzzles
Same goes for IQ tests
For someone who fantasises about the purer forms of knowledge I'm surprised you put your faith into a shoehorned intelligence test that wasn't even supposed to be one when it was first conceived.

laughable go back to fawning over your social programs and higher moral plateaus
then why do people who score below ~120 iq show significantly less aptitude for the hardest subjects like nuclear physics and theoretical maths? are sudoku masters as intelligent as the top 3 physics students at Stanford who all score above 130 on their iq tests? why are business majors not interested in math very much? why do women go into biology but not so much physics?

Contain your autism. Psychometrics doesn't even have a proper definition of intelligence yet pretends to be able to measure it. Can you really still believe IQ is a proper way of measuring intelligence despite this?

Send the studies!

145
Sigmund Freud

What would you suggest as replacement of IQ user?

Bang bang

Accepting that we don't understand enough about the brain and mind yet to
Psychometrics is like the modern day alchemy.

Faulkner
I don't know my IQ

But why do you need any psychometrics to begin with? To show off your calculated intelligence? But that's the definition of being a pseud. Instead of measuring you own intelligence you could actually do something that will illustrate your wit to others, like writing a good book.

Well I am interested in potential ability. But yeah we can just go with how succesful of a thinker I am that smart I am.

Kek

Potentiality doesn't matter until it is actualized.
Natural oil is useless until it is turned to gasoline.

And I am not that interested in individual cognitive ability, I am more interested in ability of certain collectives.

130
kafka

same like the other user above

And to make some racist conclusions, amirite?

One adjusting for historical oppression and economic standard of living.

Yeah man I am totally rayciiiist, all I do my free time is that I look at skull shape of black guy and determine that he is a natural rapist.

cewl
I hope you'll find out one day that psychometrics inherits the same emthodologic fallacy as statistics. They are just numbers that have little in common with reality.

>Some random user and his "studies" debunked entire field of psychometrics.

Pfft, that's not just me. IQ tests have been a target of criticism since they appeared.

What do you think intelligence is other than the ability to solve problems? You seem to be defining it as the ability to do literally anything and pronouncing the ability to solve problems as meaningless because there are things one can do besides solve problems.

Yeah criticisms not total denial of their validity.

>separating statistics from any field of science
If you think “statistics” is fundamentally worthless then it’s not just psychometrics you’d have to dismiss.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient#Criticism_and_views
Statistics isn't entirely worthless but it's applicability is sufficiently limited. Statistic data is never enough to make vaild conclusions.

Whose problems?

>Stephen Jay Gould
>Legit criticism

>statistical data
>validity as a Boolean
Yikes. Please get educated

>Stephen J Gould
Oh come on now , don't do this. This is like someone citing Rushtom

Verne
80
20000 when I'm on Adderall

Kanye West (Glow in the Dark)
300 (like the Romans)

James Joyce
A lot

>160
Aren't people with such high IQS put onto a list or record? I understand it's clear bait, but I'm just curious.

Author Ernest Hemingway
IQ: 115
Testosterone: 923

What? The average IQ is 100 at most, and colleges don't test for IQ scores.

It is estimated IQ needed to succesfully finish a college.

And 100 is not average of college student its average of society.

Jk rolling

52

Douglas adams
42

I am horrified that this probably isn't ironic.
Thinking niggers have any value should lower IQ score significantly

Assuming that user typing this isnt nigger himself.

>but it is applicability
>making a 3rd grade mistake in a discussion about intelligence
pretty much an auto-loss tbhfam

patrick rhotfuss
92

Read IQ in the Meritocracy