I just found out I'm a brainlet. Veeky Forums please help me

What about the tests that purely test pattern recognition with objects, no numbers, no words, no letters.

Just objects rotating or shifting or moving etc.

I doubt you'd be able to complete the IQ test and get a 48 - and still be able to type.

Lest maybe there was some behavioral issue involved, and you attacked the test giver before completion.

>Lest

That's just part of the test - that goes under "puzzle solving" - visual processing. A full IQ test should also involve reciting unsequenced numbers. Still, doesn't tell you much of anything.

As an experiment (or perhaps to prove a point) IQ tests were conducted on a few hundred phone switchboards operators in the 70's. All resulted in in MENSA level IQ scores, the average being 142 (yes, even among the black females of impoverished backgrounds). Switchboard operation back then involved doing nothing but number memorization and pattern recognition, all day erry day.

Yet I somehow doubt even all of them together would get you any closer to Grand Unification Theory or even resolving caster supremacy in table top RPGs.

>resolving caster supremacy in table top RPGs.

But why is this experiment never mentioned by people? Why isn't it known?

It's fairly widely known that IQ tests are inherently flawed, incomplete, and inconsistent. There's been debates about that since there's been IQ tests. Much like lie detectors, they've simply become a popular authority, save that, at least with IQ tests, if you average out a population they at least give you somewhat predictable results.

I suppose they are also a fair gauge of actual learning difficulties, when you start scoring 60 or below, but for the most part, on an individual basis, they mean next to nothing. (Though my semi-significant other administers them regularly to separate SED from learning disabled students.)

...and sometimes they're simply a child psychology tool, to help encourage emotionally distressed children not doing well in school.

Sadly, a real intelligence test would have to involve something neurological, and even then, it wouldn't be certain, just more consistent and closer to objective. There's evidence to suggest that the number of interneuronal connections you have affects intellectual performance and creativity - but, in addition to the fact that I think the only way you could measure that thoroughly would probably kill you, it could just as well indicate you're insane.

Much like sapience, or consciousness, the definition of intelligence is currently too amorphous. All we can do is tell you how well you perform at certain tasks.

>15 yearolds on my Veeky Forums

I've never taken an actual I.Q. test, and though I don't think I'll score high, I do believe I.Q. tests still matter to some extent in regards to measuring general intelligence.

So far I think it's done a great job at determining a civilization's success.

Though individual cases might skew it's effectiveness at determining how important I.Q. tests fit into determining intelligence, generally speaking, it seems to be spot on.

We do know intelligence is genetic.

Holy fuck, you actually paid for an IQ test? That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Hope you enjoyed throwing your money in the trash.

There is nothing to be gained from taking an IQ test.