Pic related: why humanity is doomed to fail

>take real life IQ test
>they ask me about news and politics that I don't follow
>get average
She even commented on my number memory being good.
ITS
NOT
FAIR

>tfw a 116 IQ brainlet according to an IQ test administered by the military
Not a moron but I can't exactly feel good about this.

IQ literaly means nothing. you can improve your IQ by like 10-15 points by just studying their shit tests. IQ is only good at finding out who is a moron that beats their ego off with useless metrics.

Yeah it can't measure ability since much of it is based on knowledge you acquire during life but you gotta play the meme game senpai.

People are pretty willing to trust smarter people, if not for propaganda. We have a solid and good natural mechanism, it's just cucked.

We've come this far user. Contrary to what Veeky Forums believes there are more smart people alive today than ever before.

Yeah it's not like it's the biggest predictor of academic success or anything

There are also more stupid people than ever before.

>they ask me about news and politics that I don't follow
What the fuck kind of IQ test is that? Isn't it supposed to be all abstract stuff?

>Literally dictates likelihood of future imprisonment, early child-birth, etc
>Not a valid psychometric

>tfw 130
>tfw still stupid

>tfw IQ of 90

Do you ever feel really stupid in the real world?

I got a good score on an IQ test, but the average person is like a genius at solving really basic problems like knowing how to dig a hole, pick-up objects a certain way, etc.

>They're all in Africa and India
not anymore :^)

IQ tests are valid but people need to stop looking at their preciseness with religious fervor.

If you score 130 you're smarter than someone who scores 80 without accounting for some completely unheard of third variable nobody could even conceive of predicting for.

If you score 115 and someone else scores 114, that doesn't mean shit.

They didn't invent those things, they were taught how to do them.

I can't necessarily say that that's true for everyone.

Some things are totally foreign for them to handle, and I see the same adaptability everywhere.

It may be due to the prior bed-rock of common sense though.

I guess that's a good example of a meme.

My mom took me to a psychiatrist when I was young and we got an official IQ tst. Apparently I was in the 140+ iq range, but once you get to a certain point it's hard to measure accurately...

I say all this not to jerk myself off with false bravado, but to cushion the fact that I'm bad at math and struggle with it. Barely passed Calc 2. I have a Double Masters in Biology and History and work as a high school teacher at a rich white high school. Cushy job, just got tapped about potentially becoming a principle.

Fuck,
*double bachelors

How do you know your brain didn't develop and morph and cast your IQ to the 100 range?

Yet you come on here to crow about it like some insecure toddler. We're not here to talk about special snowflakes but to discuss the human condition: a mass of automatons, an elite of manipulators and a subset of innovators.

There is a correlation, but that doesn't mean it's a valid measure of inteligence, becouse it doesn't only correlate with intel.

This tbqf. Well said user

>normal distribution curve
Nice bait, 30 replies not bad.

>There is a correlation

It's certainly efficient at discovering who's stupid.

Why not vice versa?

They directly measure your ability to induct rules from shown examples. They directly measure your ability to reason thorough complicated problems. They directly measure your ability to make an educated guess when presented with vague initial conditions.

Sounds like. A valid test of every important reasoning skill we have. Since we can't directly measure the brains ability to reason, we have to present it with a series of "can you figure out the trick?" Problems that act as a filter, ruling out certain levels of inteligence.

Similarly: since we can't (within reason) directly measure the efficiency of one side lungsheart, muscles... etc, we have to design a proxy test that indirectly measures their efficiency. This is called running.

This is wrong.

Unfortunately, brains are pretty good at learning how to do things. An IQ test is designed to resent the brain with new problems with new information to see how fast it can understand the problem and reason through it. If the IQ test does not present the brain with new problems then it really isn't a real test of inteligence.

> inb4 no true Scotsman

In this case no true Scotsman is not applicable, as the validity of an individual Inteligence test is the exact th in general in question here.

I agree with all that, but it's also true that your IQ can change depending on what you learn and how you live. Similar to running.
You can learn to be better at those sorts of problems. A simple explanation of how the problems work generally means your score will increase. This explanation can come in many forms.

>Woodley and Meisenberg (2012)
noted that gloadings on IQ subtests do not
correlate with temporal gains on subtests
and speculated that the citizens of develop-
ing countries, because of their genetic in-
feriority, will show lower gains on high
g-loaded tests (for which scores are more
heritable) than on low g-loaded tests. Small
gains for highly g-loaded tests seem un-
likely to us. Gains in sub-Saharan African
countries of 0.50 to 0.70 SD in response to
a few months of Western-style education
have been reported for heavily g-loaded
fluid intelligence tests (McFie, 1961). And
a brief training session on Raven’s Progres-
sive Matrices— often regarded as a virtu-
ally pure measure of g—increased the
scores of Black Africans by 14 points while
increasing the scores of Whites by only 4
points (Skuy et al., 2002

Group Differences in IQ Are Best Understood as Environmental in Origin (PDF Download Available). Available from: researchgate.net/publication/230828068_Group_Differences_in_IQ_Are_Best_Understood_as_Environmental_in_Origin [accessed Apr 25, 2017].

>inb4 niggers hurr durr
the post is meant about iQ not the white-african gap

With IQ tests there actually is no true scotsman

qrg.northwestern.edu/papers/Files/QRG_Dist_Files/QRG_2010/Lovett_CogSci10_Ravens_Final.pdf

tldr; a Lisp script designed to classify and reproduce hand-drawn sketches can be repurposed for IQ tests and scores >1SD above the average white male

Furthermore we can intentionally lower the "IQ" of the machine by just altering the amount of practice it gets drawing little cats and dogs. Obviously IQ tests are almost entirely nurture.

Meant for

>>tfw when

I feel this way all of the time. I have a pretty iq, but feel pretty non functional compared to other people when it comes to everyday life.

Isnt that implied by "average intelligence"
Regardless of the IQ there will always be 50% below average

Do you also not stare at pretty women like other men do?

I've never checked a girl out in my life, but I am straight man.

I believe this is true, but it falls apart when it comes to first world nutrition and education between whites and blacks.

I'm not sure how to say this user but I believe that was the joke.

> #
>With IQ tests there actually is no true scotsman
>qrg.northwestern.edu/papers/Files/QRG_Dist_Files/QRG_2010/Lovett_CogSci10_Ravens_Final.pdf

I refute this because the program is just extrordinarily good at educated guessing. When humans do the test, they must use their inteligence to logically deduce the answer via inducted rules. When the machine does the test, it is essentially cheating. If a human had a comparable amount of practice then it will do just as well, if not better. What this is doing is comparing a machine evolved specificly to be able to do these things to a human that ideally has never been exposed to them before.

With humans, you rarely find the pattern recognition ability without similar capacity for other types of abstract problems. When you do find this singular ability it is often paired with the lack of all other abilities (usually known as a savant)

Machines can connect to the internet. QED humans could connect to the internet if they just tried hard enough.
Thanks Science!!

>a drmocratic system that favors the average over the exceptional

But that's wrong. If anything average people are complaining that the exceptional are excelling too much.

Conversely if if you are not exceeding then you are not exceptional.

Humanity is doomed because of statistical normalization?

My IQ was measured throughout my youth without my knowledge, and was consistently around 150.

I dated a girl with an average IQ once and it literally felt like I was talking to a child. Even now I'm dating a girl with about a 120 IQ and I have to pretend not to know things and pretend to lose debates so as not to hurt her ego since I've never lost a debate with her (even when I'm probably coming from an incorrect premise).

It's pretty weird thinking how people can't just intuitively make connections like I can. It's also interesting how I have in fact met people who are more intelligent than I am, so I cannot imagine what their lives must be like, where no one can keep up with you.

It's hard. Often times people come to me with their c programming sssignments for help. I always see them spending a shitload of time with some cumbersome soloution that may or may not work. Then they're impressed when I offer an incredibly simple soloution that anybody should have been able to see in ten seconds. Only not anybody can see it. It pains me to think that I am considered special just because I can do something that Is really easy.

then it's not AVERAGE intelligence.
IQ is a spook

It's kind of strange, but I constantly see people that have out of this world IQs landing on the same things that I see, and I'd say I'm a bit above average.

It feels like it'd be useless to be so intelligent in this world.

>take mensa 3 times
>137
>130
>135
>be the worst student at uni in my group

That test doesn't mean jackshit anons.

if you think blacks get equal nutrition/education on average you're not properly informed desu

If we're doomed to fail, then why have been been making steady progress from untanned hides and knapped flint to rockets, the internet and nuclear power? We continue to achieve, develop our technology, and increase in number. Seems like, despite the morons always having been among us, the 20% or so who do most of the work continue to drag everybody else along with them.

Always been that way, likely always will be that way.

>spergs itt believing they're just so intelligent and that's why their lives suck

No. Your lives suck because you're social retards. That's not because of your IQ.

I forgot to include the word wealthy, sorry.

Wew lad, averaging 130-something really doesn't make any difference compared to scoring ~100. What did you expect? Mensa level is nothing.

Also the people you compare yourself to are most likely to score somewhere around 110-120 so the gap is even smaller. You are the worst because you lack discipline.

>would you have/did you vote for Donald Trump?
>no
>instantly lose 30 iq points
Sorry user, you just can't reason.

>Would you vote for an incestuous, elderly coccaine addict that spends more time at his daughter's side than his wifes?

>I dated a girl with an average IQ once and it literally felt like I was talking to a child
Oh, that's normal user, don't worry.

Only if it would be good for the country..

Hey, look!

>Mensa level is nothing
>98% of people fail the Mensa test

I may have been exaggerating with the "nothing" but you shouldn't expect anything unusual in the 1/50 level. Guys like are the interesting ones.

t. 111 IQ

without reading this thread, I'm going to guess that there's plenty of 120 IQ brainlets who think they're 160+ from meme tests like the WAIS-IV or Stanford-Binet, instead of reliable ones like the RAVEN, and use scores from when they were 10-17

No one in this thread has an IQ higher than 140.

t. 140 IQ

>Have around a 116 IQ
>go to Caltech and consistently get the highest grades in the class (studying EE)

What did my IQ mean by this?

wow u really convinced me with those hot arguments senpai

As long as you're not mentally disabled, you can learn stuff if you try hard enough. You're probably not the best at understanding complex abstract ideas, but there's nothing limiting your ability to learn concrete information.

underrated

I doubt he's telling the truth, or if he is, he probably took meme IQ tests like the WAIS-IV. The only guy I've met with a verified 148 IQ is 16 and is a grad student at Berkeley, got a 2400 on the SAT at 11, and got his Bachelor's in Math at 14. He has amazing processing speeds, like multiplying 9 digit numbers instantly or taking square roots instantly, as well. These people are barely human. 130+, when not going by Veeky Forums meme standards, is pretty great. I'm not even that guy. I have no idea what my IQ is, but I doubt it's higher than 120.

fake.
If you really were intelligent and had an IQ of 150, you'd have done something important already instead of dating girls

SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP YOU WORKED HARD BRAINLET

This user isn't lying. The last official test I took for my IQ said 114. People who I would trust to be more deductive/inductive than I am have told me that I sound like a 130-something. Maybe, but the reality is that I work hard to understand. I get thorough. I don't cheat myself by using my better-than-average memory alone; I go back and re-learn everything there is to know about said topic/s as best as I can. Then I ask questions, no matter how brainlet-tier, so I don't have to remain confused. Then I write it down by hand. Then I actively seek it out when I'm twiddling my thumbs idly, and question it. I observe it in nature, if that's where it is.

But seriously. Either everyone around me has memory problems, or I'm up there on the special snowflake scale.

You're all dumb, I'm the best

My maths teacher used to say that. Needless to say he was a pervert and I got higher studying on my own than studying with him

>discussion devolves into brainlets dick waving over IQ scores and debating whether IQ is actually a valid metric
>confirms OP's premise

Can very much relate to the programming thing. Took a programming class for fun in college and when I would help peers with these week long projects it would take me 30 minutes to do, and it would take multiple hours of explaining things to them for them to get it.

I have met exactly 3 girls who I believe are "smarter" than me (in the sense that they are able to pick up and use information better than I am). Studies haven't pointed out a huge gender IQ gap last I checked so I really don't put much stock into the whole "women have the mentality of children" concept. The true reality is that looks and such advantage women more than men so women of lower intelligence are probably better able to creep into your (likely upper middle class) circle than dumb men. At least that's how I see it.

Couldn't tell ya what I was given, because I don't really care. I've always known I was quite intelligent and others have always told me the same my entire life. I only know that my mother and a few family friends who were involved in my education confirmed the story.

Men and women have similar average IQs almost by coincidence because the female distribution has far fewer geniuses and far fewer retards. As much as people run with "girls are dumb" rhetoric, the

No, it's why vanilla direct democracy is shit.
Voting for people that will choose for you what's supposed to be good for you is even worse and not a solution.

We should have referendums answering specific problems (not voting for politician assholes), and the first page of the ballot should be a short test of your political awerness. The weight of your vote would depend on your score.

The fact there is a test would filter out most morons anyway - they wouldn't want to take it.

Of course creating proper unbiased questions and all that is a big problem (he who makes the questions makes the politics). But it's doable to streamline creating the tests and the referendum questions more or less unbiased. Just a lot of legislative work.

What's not doable is to change anything since 99% of society has actually no saying in the decisionmaking of "democratic" nation. They just think they do. And even if they had - they wouldn't want to give up that right. Not to the rich but to the smart 1%.

So ye, you're probably right.

Am I elitist now?

Cycle will repeat. Cataclysms will happen. We will find spirituality again and take psychedelics to regain high level thinking.

Well if it bugs you so much. Take your high IQ and become an educator. It would be the most generous thing you can do to remedy the situation. What now, bitch? Fite me. REEEEEE

Do you guys know if prolonged periods of stress and isolation could have a negative impact on IQ, permanently?

I remember feeling pretty sharp and manic most of the time 5 years ago, my brain was flashing with information that flowed all by itself. Nowadays my mind is just blank, disassociated and very slow.

>tfw 3 standard deviations below the meme
Who bottom 0.3% here?

Is this real?

>paulcooijmans.com/intelligence/iq_ranges.html
Someone with an IQ of 100 cannot pick up a book on it's own and learn by themselves?

>He didn't read the paper
Cogsketch wasn't built to do this test though. Also the computer has not "seen" the test before. The script is restarted from zero every time. It has no built in training data from previous tests runs, the only training it brings is its practice drawing little sketches.

This is actually showing something meaningful, that civil engineers have good fucking taste.

Yeah, cognitive depression. If you abused substances or are currently suffering a bout of mental illness your intelligence usually decreases in kind.

>doesn't understand the difference between intelligence and education

One can't teach intelligence...

>frogposter

Touche!

Correlation isn't causation, but it's certainly a good hint.

>tfw consistently score 90 on iq tests but am the smartest person in my community college algebra course
heh

I think it might be.
I know a guy that prided himself on his ability to do such a thing.

>Make IQ (100% a human invention) a normal distribution
>Adapt it from time to time to make sure it still is a normal distribution
>"Humanity is doomed to fail because most people are not above the 66th percentile"
Veeky Forums once again not understanding basic statistics

good for you, but keep in mind that being the smartest person in a room stops you from developing further

>perform mental gymnastics to salve fragile ego due to being mid-tier intelligence
>to an intelligent person the pathetic mental gymnastics are equivalent to watching a mongoloid doing somersaults

Thanks for the giggle, dummy.

Are you illiterate?

Because intelligent people took fucking algebra in 7th grade, not goddamned community college, Jesus Christ

God this is so fucking stupid.

We design the IQ test so the mean is 100. Humanity is doomed because most of the population has average intelligence? Oh no.