>Learn IQ test
>Score 144
>Take IQ test with no training
>Score 110
If your score can fluctuate so wildly, how is it a valid measure of problem solving ability?
I know people say "You're only supposed to go off of the first score", but life doesn't work like that.
People build skills, and if 110 IQ man can problem solve like 144 IQ man, what's the difference here in reality?
What are mathematicians if not men who are interested in mathematics?
Does anyone have the answer to this?
I, honestly, believe this test is only good for detecting mental retardation.
Some people say "Mathematicians only like mathematics because they're geniuses", but I disagree.
There are people in this world that actually like to do carpentry, so I doubt juggling numbers is far-fetched.
Being an avatar fag is also good for detecting mental retardation
You had the opportunity to do a sick-burn, but you just couldn't put two and two together for some reason.
I believe this entire thing just boils down to weenie jacking.
you figured out the secret of why STEM majors, particularly Maths students, score so high on them
denying that the coursework in Maths aligns with the skills tested for in IQ tests, is simply being delusional. the fact is, you are training for IQ tests if you're a Maths/hard STEM major.
>I, honestly, believe this test is only good for detecting mental retardation.
That's kinda what the tool is for, from my experience talking to people who use it, the higher up you are (or perhaps the further from the norm you are) the more variance you get. My dad's dyslexic but he claims that as a kid they'd make him take them and he'd bounce between 100 and 150 himself. I had a neighbor who had some similar issue that claimed the same thing. I get over 130 every time sci posts a link to one and never break 140 or anything, but I have no idea if some internet IQ test is credible. Either way though, I just get the impression that some people are more lopsided than others.
>People build skills, and if 110 IQ man can problem solve like 144 IQ man, what's the difference here in reality?
I mean going off of how the questions are designed, it's supposed to be measuring your ability to recognize patterns. It's more like efficiency than capability. Until you're too slow to remember the last word you just read, you shouldn't really be "locked out of" any knowledge. It should only require more time investment if anything.
How did you train for them?
You pretty much just take a couple of IQ tests, and you learn how they work. (NAND, XOR, etc)
It blows a hole through the part where you're supposed to be thinking.
This is correct.
Your hypothetical doesn't ring true at all. There have been numerous studies on this and training only gets you an increase in half a standard deviation at best on that specific subtest. And the more g-loaded the subtest, the harder it is to practise to the test. Also, the gains are not permanent.
IQ is good for detecting melanin deficiency.
but it's a personal anecdote
I say you're full of shit, with very high confidence. An increase that's over 2 standard deviations is extremely unlikely.
are you troubled that a person with a legitimate 144 IQ is devaluing your precious IQ score?
are you going to deny that my SAT score increasing from a 1730 to a 2290, after a year of study, is impossible, too?
that it isn't impossible, rather
I don't know what my IQ is. I'm just calling you out on your shit. There is no way you got 144 at it once and 110 the other time. There have been numerous studies on IQ reliability, including test-retest constancy of scores and the efficaciousness of practice, including studies with months of practice for the takers.
>are you going to deny that my SAT score
Since the revision in the 1990, the SAT is no longer a good proxy for intelligence/g.
In short, you're a retarded ignoramus.
>Since the revision in the 1990, the SAT is no longer a good proxy for intelligence/g.
okay brainlet
>hurr durr
The SAT was changed in 1994 to test the level of acquired knowledge during education. Before that it was almost a pure aptitude test which tested your problem solving skills. Before 1994, none of the questions on the SAT required knowledge beyond simple arithmetic and knowing how to read.
You can't hack an IQ test by rote memorisation. You couldn't hack the old SAT by rote memorisation either.
You can hack the current SAT doing just that.
>got and IQ test at age 9 and scored 138
>got an IQ test again at age 12 and scored 122
What is going on here?
>There is no way you got 144 at it once and 110 the other time
its possible he was taking different tests
It's clear he didn't take any IQ test. He based that off his SAT.
That must be why the autistics on this board fervently defend the validity of IQ tests
>t. brainlet
oh, I skimmed
Building homes isn't bad user
>t. Jesus
What do nand and xor have to do with pattern detection in pictures?
141, actually
Try again
IQ doesn't stabilize until about puberty. that, or your parents kept beating you.
With kids, my understanding is that IQ is measured relative to other children of the same age.
Which makes sense because it's not very useful to do a test on kids that'll just always tell you they're on the level of a retarded adult.
Meh there's no one test that can test everybody fairly and acquire a solid enough number to be able to find out who is smarter than who. But in general if you test very high in every single test you are way more likely to be smart than someone who fails everything.
yikes
I've been telling people that my IQ is 138...
HOWEVER, for the second test I refused to do the math part IRRC, so maybe that is the reason.
Interesting, i´ve done Mensa IQ test when i was about 14 and it came out to be 125.
When i turned 19 I´ve done another one and i had 138.
I always thought it had to do with my experience with puzzles and abstractions.
underrated.
ITT: SJW faggots desperate to nitpick the most robust psychometric construct ever devised.
If I used my first score it would mean I am smart as fuck, I got around 170 first time then 145 now its some thing like 138