Does IQ really mean anything?

I'm too scared to take an IQ test.
If I am not at least one standard deviation above average I'll have to kill myself
If I am not at least two standard deviations above average I'll be fairly depressed
I think I'd only be happy at three standard deviations above average

Yeah it does sadly. You need an IQ of at least 125 to have the potential for "genius."

It serves to distinguish rational people from brainlets (who deny the validity of IQ).

200+ IQ here; basically I break IQ tests.
I don't sleep, I tune my brainwaves reach samadhi for a few minutes if I ever feel tired.
Filthy rich.
Not interested in mathematics.

A person with an IQ of 100 wouldn't think your IQ score matters, but a person with an IQ of 150 would be more likely to be more efficient in everyday life and would be more likely to think outside the box and find different solutions to problems.

not to the people who lack IQ ;)))

It's basically the SAT. Unless you get stupid high or stupid low it doesn't matter.

If you want IQ to represent intelligence, yes. the consequences of the differences in genes between people can and usually does result in differences in mental capability.

2k+ IQ vegetable here; people think im not able to move, when infact i simply break if i put any sort of attention to the real world.

I spend most of my time running a full simulation of a similar reality to our, which now have advanced 42 887 323 431 years. The creatures in my simulation have begun creating their own simulations in their minds.

Not interested in science.

140 IQ European fag here

I guess it's nothing special. There are obviously people better at math than me in college, I can compare but I have to put in work.

I can't obviously put myself in somebody's shoes, but the main difference I see between me and people is that I'm feeling unwell if I don't know enough about topic I operate in. I'm interested in so much genres of life that all that is left is bitter realisation that I won't have time to read and experience enough in my life. I constantly have 10+ books I want to read, while reading few at once. I know about art, physics, math, biology, chemistry, hell, even physical excercise. I haven't yet found a branch that I would be exceptional at. I guess it all just boils down to realisation what you can and can not do and a bit of luck in finding what you are supreme at; if Euler became a theologist like he was meant to he would likely be forgotten.

Sure, it was invented to quantify machine intelligence, like pattern recognition, simple logic.. that kind of stuff. Empty children often use it to test how machine-like they already have become.

yes, how fast you can recognize patterns.

Theologian*

It is a specific social construct for a very narrow section of modern society used to greatly divide certain types of thinking from others.

Intelligence itself can't be quantified.

I feel the same way you do. I constantly find new interesting subjects I want to learn everything about, but I simply don't have the time for them all. I however have the quite average IQ of 112.

Was actually invented to be biased against black people so employers could go "See, dem niggers are stupid so I don't have to hire them!"

As someone with an IQ in the upper half of the 120's, I'm perfectly willing to say that IQ isn't the best metric for measuring intelligence.

Brainlet here. Is iq just how much information you're able to sponge into your head and/or recognize connections easily?

Legit 150 IQ here--been assessed on three different occasions (Stanford-Binet, Weschler, Woodcock-Johnson).

I can tell you that having a high IQ lets me do certain things better than anyone I know, such as processing most kinds of information really quickly, such as scanning for information on a page or reacting in twitch shooters. Obviously I'm good at arithmetic and logical thinking.

But it's also sort of alienated me (along with social anxiety) in that I don't feel I relate to most of the things people want to concern themselves with. And not everything in my mind is superior; my memory is shit and I suck at long-term strategizing.

On the other hand, I've worked with several kids with cognitive disabilities (IQ < 70) and I can tell you that low IQ will fuck you up and cripple your ability to do anything as an adult beyond bag groceries and watch TV.

>tldr: you're probably best off with an IQ between 100 and 130 so you're smart enough to do normal things but not so smart you feel like an outsider

>t. Asperger's

Not really.

It's ironic that a board that hates soft sciences uses something that's typically thrown out by psychologists.

It's even more ironic that the guy that came up the with IQ test was terrified that people would judged by their IQ and that's all people would see.

It's just pattern recognition. Shows you a bunch of pictures, then asks you which picture should go in the pattern, and where.

I used to think I had autism but now I realize it's just social anxiety. Actually, I think it makes sense that a lot of smart and/or high-achieving people would develop social anxiety because they begin to identify as "that person who's always right/smart", and they start becoming overly stressed about making mistakes or looking stupid.

>Typically thrown out by psychologists.
>Has many applications in the real-world, including employment.
That moment when someone on Veeky Forums spits out a platitude without a fucking clue. :^)

Yes, that's is clinically known as either Asperger's syndrome or high-functioning autism.

That's only one small part of a standardized IQ test. For example the Woodcock-Johnson test covers "Comprehension-Knowledge, Long-Term Retrieval, Visual-Spatial Thinking, Auditory Processing, Fluid Reasoning, Processing Speed, Short-Term Memory, Quantitative Knowledge and Reading-Writing".

It's more accurate to say "IQ tests measure a variety of cognitive abilities" with the understanding that there are many other aspects to a person's mind beyond their cognitive faculties. e.g. emotional response/regulation, executive functioning, social skills...all of which play a huge role in a person's ability to function.

In your humble opinion, what is objectively the 'best' IQ test?

I started writing a reply but I realize you're trolling me, so I'll instead give you a 115 standard bait score and give you a polite nod.

Thank you, sir, what a delightful (you).

What are you studying?

I don't know enough about them to say if any are necessarily better than the others. As long as they're conducted and interpreted by a competent practitioner then you'll probably get similar results with any of them.

The important thing is to go into it with a purpose in mind. I teach kids with disabilities, and the cognitive testing is done as part of an overall evaluation of the students' disabilities, which can have a huge impact in terms of the supports they receive. Someone paying a psychologist to give them an IQ test for curiosity's sake is not likely to end with a particularly meaningful result regardless of the circumstances or particular test administered.

I'm a middle-aged special education teacher.

why do you do it? you enjoy it?

Yes, although I don't intend to do it forever. I enjoy working with kids in general; special education sort of fell into my lap and I've simply been going with it ever since. I'm glad it did because eventually when I work with fewer disabled kids I'll have a much better understanding of looking at kids as completely separate individuals with different needs instead of lumping them into groups (high kids, medium kids, low kids type of categorizing).

Thanks for answering.

Actually, no!

In the modern intelligence tests there are generally four sub scores factored into your IQ. That is 1) Working memory, 2) Verbal, 3) Problem solving, and 4) processing speed.

When i had mine tested i scored 142 on verbal, 138 on working memory, 127 on problem solving, and 95 on processing speed. They are not uniformly weighted, so overall all I scored 133.

The people who design these tests know that intelligence can't really be properly quantified with a single number, so these sub scores work as a really nice way to pin down exactly what you're good at.

82, dropping out of university soon. Lack ability to recognize patterns, to learn, whatsoever.

>tfw in the simulation of the simulation inside iq 2k head

Sure. It was originally developed by early childhood educators to determine which children in their classrooms need more attention and help in catching up with the others. In that limited capacity it has use.

As an actual measure of intelligence in adults, no it's fucking useless, that was never the purpose.

upper 120s here and ive failed every grade since 7th. that's why i had my iq tested by a psychologist

Maybe I'll go back to school soon but it's so much bullshit when you can just make them dolla bills, yo

>he's upset he didn't solve EVERY spatial reasoning puzzle
you only have to do genius level on one area to get a high iq, brainlet
;^)

>tfw tested in high 130s in childhood and ended up as dumbfuck manual labour jockey at 26, going back to school for CS/math but think it might be too late to learn any of this stuff to the point where it'll be second nature
IQ is a pretty useless psychometric

>labour
That's because the UK sucks, m8

oi oi oi oi oi oi oi oi oi

if u can't do everything on your own ur not smart.

You should be able to network and learn most of whatever you want with that iq

I'm Canadian m8. We like Timmy's, not tea.

Why did you fail? Lack of ambition?

You do realize that this the kind of job that people with lowest IQ get, on par with kindergarten teacher?

Pretty sure iq is your potential. Emotions and shit can cloud it.

It's not entirely useless, but it's not very good either.

IQ is based around two primary constraints:
1) the bell-curve distribution of scores, and
2) equal averages for men and women.
(the third, original one which the name is based on is for children: the score should be based on "mental age", so a 6-year-old boy with the intelligence of an 8-year-old boy should have a score of 100*8/6 = ~133)

How helpful do you think a single-score physical fitness test with these constraints would be? Bear in mind that the differences in size and energy consumption between men's and women's brains is comparable to that of their musculoskeletal apparatus. Everyday experience shows the marked superiority of men's minds in dealing with mechanical matters.

It's very unfair to average men when comparing them to women, but reflects sex differences more fairly at exceptionally high scores, which are achieved by few women. In short, it reflects the biases and political leanings of the academic class, which was male-dominated when IQ testing matured. They turned it into a "like-usness" score that correlated well with academic achievement. If it had been produced today, the female representation would likely have demanded equal distributions for men and women, not just equal averages.

How do they do this? Well, the questions involving spacial reasoning take a big leap in difficulty. Ones in the range that the average man can answer but the average woman can't are given low weight in the final score. Ones above that range are weighted higher.

Usually also IQ tests use questions that have no logically definite correct answer, but only a mushy "seems to fit best" answer. This tests willingness to spend effort on giving a *pleasing* answer, or obsession with apparent patterns. These traits can be quite counterproductive in many circumstances, and are certainly not part of intelligence, but women and career academics tend to have them. Woman bias + like-usness.

I assume you're an American because of your disdain for teachers. Ironically, you probably also lament the state of teaching and yearn for a return to decades past...when our society respected teachers more.

I don't deny that getting into teaching is easy, and many people who should be screened out or further trained are not. But I absolutely believe doing the job WELL is extremely difficult and requires a huge amount of effort, ongoing self reflection and dedication to improvement. I consider myself to be pretty good at this point and it took a shitload of work to get to this point.

You didn't land a single projection m8.

It has nothing to do with my implied disdain for teachers, it's just a fact that degrees in special ed and whatever requiring work with children are filled with people with low IQ. I stated that since we are discussing IQ in general. My college professors, even some in high school, were one of the smartest people I've ever met up to this point in my life.

I'm European by the way.

I believe there is also somewhat of a stigma around being "that person who is always right". Kind of like a know it all. I imagine social anxiety arising from situations where you are constantly correcting your peers. Despite the fact that you may be right, it can get awkward for both parties if you feel the need to constantly correct somebody.

IQ won't accurately depict your career choice, grades, level of success, etc., but you won't really ever find a math phd with an IQ less than 115.

Also keep in mind IQ was developed as a way to examine those who fell below the average, not above. The difference between an IQ of 130 and 120 on some tests can be under two questions.

I feel the same way...

>tfw today's society considers intelligence completely worthless

this truly is the worst possible timeline

Well, it was originally about development in children. The main focus was to catch correctable defects, like malnutrition or isolation, but they did hope to find common threads in advanced children to improve child-rearing techniques.

That's not a thing. That's just a personal problem. That's assuming you're even like me at all.

Personalities are pretty much the drivers of mental issues when it comes to reacting to stimuli (ex. propensity for addiction, creation of anxiety), and IQ has no bearing on that. Some people are simply more sensitive. You are weak-willed; embrace it. Your intelligence will provide you some buffer, but it is only I -- the overman -- who will truly succeed.

IQ DIFFERENCES BETWEEN RACES DISAPPEAR AFTER ADJUSTING FOR ECONOMIC CIRCUMSTANCES

WE ARE ALL THE SAME

It depends on what you really want to do with your life. In fields related to social sciences it means very little, as you don't have to follow specific rigorous logical patterns in order to interpret or produce any work. In fields related to engineering it determines how much you will have to work hard to learn the stuff you need to and produce some work or invention, but you can still do it without a high IQ. In fields such as science and physics it can actually limit you, as you won't be able to fully comprehend and research certain areas without a sufficient IQ.

actually they don't.

Have you ever think that economic cumircumstance correlates strongly with IQ

This is awesome, I only today realized that exaggerating these claims to the conclusions the media implies leads to people seeing through them entirely.

I'm never going to try attack a problem head on again. Post-post modern irony is our new mode of pedagogy

Environmental factors and lack of mentorship

I know how you feel, I was just lucky to notice myself throwing away my future before it was too late. I'm in the 130s though.

By any chance are you from a single mother home?

Yes, just look at the IQ per country and its level of development in all aspects.

seeRacist scumbag

I think an IQ above 90 should be mandatory to live in a civilized society without any problems.
In fact I support bombing inferior countries in order to technologically advance a lot faster.

user. That's true. Most humans tend to have the same concerns. But the fact that you have been isolated from the mainstream society, made possible so you find it hard to interact intuitively to normal individuals and relate to their thoughts and worries.

I've got a 135 IQ and I have found most of this shit through practice and social practice.

You can have the same concerns as them, but it might be difficult.

Everyone got a different level of social anxiety. The problem is that you need to interact daily to people so your level decreases over time and you finally get comfortable around people at the end.

Good Luck.

EPC.

Me too, guys. I think the single mother home families tend to have lack of discipline and behavior problems in general.

kill yourself nigger

Still not an argument against
Try again stormcuck

>Everyone is the same even though we had different evolutionary pressures when we evolved, some requiring more ingenuity to survive
really made me think

So whites are dumber because they lived in areas that required less ingenuity to survive. Neat.

True nigger logic
>warm climate
>huge variety of foods
>no need to plan long term or to learn to work in groups to prosper
This is why there is a huge IQ gap that doesn't disappear when adjusted for economic circumstances

I don't think you realize that that argument is on his side.
Blacks are poor
They're poor because they're stupid

>warm climate
>huge variety of foods
>no need to plan long term or to learn to work in groups to prosper

So you're referring to the Mediterranean? Where whites built their civilization?

No, I'm referring to the African continent.

If you study the Meditteranean and Greece in particular (and you obviously have no insight into history because you seriously expect the races to be the same which implies you are brainwashed into cultural relativism and post-modern nihilism) you see that civilization appeared in Greece after a period of struggle when the land was tough to cultivate and barren. Look into Toynbee for several examples of this trend of hardship facilitating long-term planning and group solidarity. Why Africa never had any such progress is surprising and is one theory as to why the IQ gap persists even after several generations of education

where is the scientific proof?

Next.

>Evolve to procreate
>die as a virgin
Genes aren't fate, brainlet.

When will stormcucks stop treating non-scientific branchs of the community as axiomatic mathematical rules?

>If you study
If you actually study ancient civilizations you will find out that those pioneers and advanced civilization were born from cultura-trade economical basis. Greeks were a mix of a lot of tribes which traded and developed the colonization way of living for centuries. The north african and iberian tribes made possible the later military and artistic apoteosis you see today as mere ruins.

Go back to /9gag/ stormcuck.

That graph looks like Patrick laying on his back and pushing out his belly.

>Maybe if I keep saying stormcuck I'll be right

>Genes aren't fate, brainlet.
And yet no significant African contributors to any field beyond a handful of petty achievements if you look very hard. What an odd anomaly of history

>If you actually study ancient civilizations you will find out that those pioneers and advanced civilization were born from cultura-trade economical basis
Yes, let's jump straight ahead into "cultura-trade economical basis" instead of examining where these things came from and what made them possible among certain people instead of others. You have no idea what you are talking about. You are passing over vast tracts of evolutionary history in order to preseve your equalitarian assumptions.

Anyway, let's end with the observation that Europe achieved everything of note in the world thus far, and Africans achieved nothing. Africans (and general low IQ populations) destabilize and undermine social cohesion when they immigrate in large numbers. These are trends worth thinking about.
Moreover, what is your argument? Are you arguing that Africans have the same potential as whites for achievement? Is it that IQ doesn't matter? Is European achievement reducible to 'cultura-trade basis'? You're grasping at straws

>And yet...
Behavior doesn't determine genes, brainlet. It's actually the opposite.
>where these things came from
Trade-basis culture were found in the middle east long before greeks and romans. Early civilizations such as babylonians, mesopotamians, and unknown developed ones hittites.
>You are passing over
Nope. Ancient history comfirms over and over that those conqueror and technological advanced tribe unions have made civilizations.

>let's end with the observation that Europe achieved
Wrong. Actually the relatively most greatest advanced civilizations are the middle-eastern ones.

>Africans
Which ones?

> IQ
Stormcuck, if you don't start putting actual scientific evidence on what you spout, who do you think is going to take you seriously?

>Moreover, what is your argument?
>You're grasping at straws
How surprising that universal commom circumstances happen just before a great event takes place, and brainlets aren't able to find out nor understand its implications.

Go back to /9gag/ stormcuck.

>the relatively most greatest advanced civilizations are the middle-eastern ones.

Not an argument.

When will you for once put scientific evidence on the table?

>>>/9gag/

You can't be argued with because you are redefining terms and strawmanning in order to be snarky and ignore the argument: IQ is determined through evolutionary biology.
The longest stage of human development was the tribal stage where people in more difficult climates and conditions had to cultivate traits such as long-term and group planning. This is why the European civilizations were much more generative of art, philosophy and science.
What you are doing is saying: 'trade-basis culture dismisses the argument', 'because the middle-east had civilization, this dismisses the argument', 'there is no mathematical proof of this argument, so I can call you a stormcuck and ignore it because it doesn't suit my assumptions'.
Like I said, you jump ahead in order to say 'we're all the same'

Obligatory:
iq-research.info/en/page/average-iq-by-country

IQ tests are meant to test for mental retardation, anything above 100 doesn't mean anything.

Given that people are bragging about their IQs I can say that there are a lot of mentally retarded people on Veeky Forums

>IQ is determined through evolutionary biology.
Still no genotype based correlation. Cry me a river, stormcuck.

>European civilizations
-are a product of a branch of early ancient civilizations. Which have been found to be pretty much advanced relatively compared to their contemporary individuals.

What I'm saying is that economical strong cultures have dominated in some way the others. "Commom place tribes" have had such different cultures even though their near ancestry is exactly the same.

There are tons of history facts that define how prosperous strong economical cultures have dominated and absorbed all kinds of culture and thus, this knowledge was manifestated in technology, society and ultimately, art.

If you affirm that genes determine your fate, at least tell me HOW does it happen. HOW does your genes produces those proteins that make that tragic magic "destiny" happen.

Go back to /9gag/, stormcuck.

I don't know my IQ.

>Still no genotype based correlation.
We're still waiting on the data faggot, we can draw no conclusions on any of this for a long time; our current model of the brain is entirely unsatisfactory also, the data does not exist to either confirm my assumptions or yours. They are only hypotheses that are more satisfactory than your tragic 'we can't say anything until science gives us the answers, but until then we are all the same; group behaviour and trends be damned'. Quite a lot can be drawn from observation and certain things are more likely than others. For example, culture can tell us a huge amount; but where would one begin to conduct research into something like this? Can we say, 'this doesn't tell us anything because we need the scientfic conclusion on culture.' What you want to do is say I'm wrong because you have an assumption based on very recent history, my assumption of this phenomenon of IQ distinction between broad races (e.g. whites, blacks, hispanics) is centred on a more likely explanation. If you want to say 'we can't say anthing until the science tells us what to think' that's fine. But let's not pretend that all hypothesis is equaly futile if it hurts feelings.

>If you affirm that genes determine your fate, at least tell me HOW does it happen. HOW does your genes produces those proteins that make that tragic magic "destiny" happen.
Yes, because I propounded a deterministic view. I believe genes are responsible for traits of temperament and that these will create a culture. The culture in turn will define the age, but exceptions - or Toynbee's 'creative minorities' - will always be outside the culture and determining its future.

I'm just baffled that there is such an IQ disparity that persists no matter what and that correlates with economic wealth, criminality and intellectual achievement. In your terms we need to wait another few decades or centuries for the data to come in to make a judgement. But enough correlation can lead to a likely hypothesis; and I can comfortably assume that these trends and behavioural tendencies are so consistent that the science will not tell us we are all the same.
More than this, I am very interested that blacks never had a civilization or culture beyond the primitive; no amount of circumlocution and 'we don't have the data' will make that fact disappear. Even to this day criminality and low achievement persists. Why is that? Again, there is no determinism in an individual sense, but not every member of a group will be exceptional, so the rank and file determine the culture of the people. And so we generalize based on the mean behaviour.