When did you realize IQ and the rest of psychology was pseudoscience?

most psychology students are bimbos

i dont talk to the girls they give me social anxiety
but the ones im referring to are hispanic and black
the white ones in here seemed kinda cuckish/beta/softspoken so i didnt befriend them

>lol all the psychology students Ive met swear that IQ doesnt matter
Psychology majors with Low IQ from Low tier universities

Psychology majors with High IQ from top tier universities agree that IQ matter.

>So does not being poor
which we know about due to sociology or psychology...

youtre confounding the idea of a science with the results it garners. are verifiable results the product of science?

When I was 13 and heard about Sigmund "Fraud". Then I actually took a class in college and realized how close-minded that rationale is

The Modern Psychology is PseudoScience because It tries to deny IQ.

IQ is the most accurate thing Psychology ever produced.
IQ is the only thing Psychology got right ever.

Psychology students from Low Tier Universities are Retarded who try to Deny IQ.
Go to Ivy League, all high IQ students there will agree that IQ matter.

when my poster presentation on a potential cancer drug was placed next to a psychology kid's poster, and his poster was about whether or not repeated concussions led to cognitive problems, with his "data" having been obtained from a survey, which i promptly read since i was next to him. The questions were subjective garbage, had spelling/grammar mistakes, ect.
There was also a kinesiology major with a poster titled "Does the armspan of a batter (baseball) influence the speed the ball leaves the bat". god we laughed so hard at that. But how are you going to put those posters with math cryptocurrency shit, cancer research projects, and material science. Fuck psychology and fuck kinesiology. Really fuck athletes who just get pushed through undergrad.

when i realized most their "data" wasnt measurable data at all

>IQ is pseudoscience?

IS MBTI Horoscope Science?

>Psychology majors with Low IQ from Low tier universities
>Psychology majors with High IQ from top tier universities agree that IQ matter.

>Psychology students from Low Tier Universities are Retarded who try to Deny IQ.
>Go to Ivy League, all high IQ students there will agree that IQ matter.

The fuck?

is psychology the same as the bad students that study it and probably like alot of other students, lack a deep interest in it?

When I was determined low IQ

you're gonna have to reword that user, i dont know what you're asking really.

Psychology was doomed from the start.

The left sjw dogma that permeates the progression and application of "modern psychology" is simply the path of least resistance in the absence of real discovery or breakthrough.
Babying people and manipulating society to allow these people a more peaceful coexistence is the best "psychology" can do until there is a rigorous and tangible description of any psychological problem(excluding """"organic"""" brain disorders). Once that happens, psychology will be just as much a science as any other, and imo it will be more important and useful than any other.

How or even IF that can happen within human capacity remains to be seen.

I for one think psychological revolution is a long time away. Either neurobiology will work its way up to explaining an emergent phenomenon, or someone will divine it, which is the opposite of what people do when they try.

That wasn't a triggering, that was him mocking and trolling. Jesus you're dumb.

when I was told my score after 3 tests was 145-152 and that I'm a literal genius.

>all humans have exactly the same intelligence
>intelligence can't be measured
>whatever IQ tests measure isn't intelligence
this what intelligence egalitarians actually believe

Psychology's problem is it'd take literally decades to run a single experiment on humans and you'd never get ethics approval anyway. Got to do what you can with survey data from subjects in an uncontrolled environment.

>Got to do what you can with survey data from subjects in an uncontrolled environment.
that's the point though. There is no objective measurements. If it were, it would be a subject of biology, probably neurology.

IQ is still an empiric metric which can correlate to subjective observation. If I meet a person who is subjectively stupid I can be fairly certain that their IQ metric would also be low.

im not arguing against IQ as a metric. Im arguing against psychology as a concrete science. That's without bringing repeatability into the equation too, which as some user said, the majority cannot be.

IQ is definitely a metric, but it is not the end-all metric. IQ doesnt strictly define your intelligence, but it very strongly correlates with it.

but IQ is the only sound concept within psychology.

the moment I took a psy 101 class and the first assignment was a video insisting psychology isn't a pseudoscience lol

152 isn't that high. My IQ is 148 and I'm still a brainlet by Veeky Forums standards.

Irony.

Most of Psychology Studies are not Replicable. Except IQ.

Studies confirming IQ have a huge number of replicable results.

when i realized I could score much higher on an IQ test if I studied

>by Veeky Forums standards
knowledge != intelligence, idiot.

No you idiot he didnt mention knowledge at all
My IQ is 152 and even I'm still a brainlet by Veeky Forums standards

Replication Crisis in Psychology
>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis#Psychology
1) False positive from author's own confirmation bias, are an inherent hazard in the field
>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
2) Several scandals involving outright fraudulent research, most notably the admitted data fabrication by Diederik Stapel
>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diederik_Stapel

Psychologists from University of Virginia tried to replicate 100 studies from Top Psychology Journals.

Only 36 of the studies replicated.

ONLY 36% of REPLICABILITY!!!!
Sources
>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproducibility_Project
>ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26315443
>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis#Psychology

nobaproject.com/modules/the-replication-crisis-in-psychology
>In modern times, the science of psychology is facing a crisis.
>It turns out that many studies in psychology—including many highly cited studies—do not replicate.
>The non-reproducibility of findings is disturbing because it suggests the possibility that the original research was done sloppily.
>Even worse is the suspicion that the research may have been falsified.
>In science, faking results is the biggest of sins, the unforgivable sin, and for this reason the field of psychology has been thrown into an uproar.

On Average Only 36% of Psychology Studies are replicable.

Source:
nobaproject.com/modules/the-replication-crisis-in-psychology

Low IQ brainlet detected.

well constructed argument

IQ is basically the one thing in psychology that is actually well grounded

you get this problem to some degree in all science. larger in biology in general.

nature.com/news/1-500-scientists-lift-the-lid-on-reproducibility-1.19970

the question is though; can this survey be replicated.

When you study sciences in University. You learn to know what science is and what is scientific method.

3 points :

- There are only 3 sciences : Biology Physics Chemistry.

- Math is not a science, it's a tool. (Veeky Forums -Science AND Math, proves that even on Veeky Forums, they know that math and science are 2 different things).

- Everything that involve human as a subject is not science : medicine, psychology, politics, economics, etc. but they can use science (medicine uses biology for example).

IQ and the big 5 personally traits are the most well supported and tested ideas in psychology.

If you call that pseudoscience you might as well throw away psychology entirely.

As soon I started reading most major psychology theories and IQ studies I noticed it's all based on fucking thin air after all

No, but function theory gives you some introspective and generally a way to categorize things

>hmm... that guy is using his Te now
For instance

World isn't black-or-white

I found out (((Psychology))) is pseudoscience when i got diagnosed with ADHD, Borderline syndrome and Autism instead of accepting that my problems are based on being traumatized and IQ>130

Math is science of what calculation does.
Once you know what math actually is, you know that it is actual science (where the expermiental part is cheap and trivial)

Not understanding math is science is generally the failure to realize that the termination of the reduction of the reduction an untyped lambda-term is an experimental fact.

When you stop being 20 years old, you realize that in most serous field, no one gives a shit about your IQ, only achievement in the specific field count.
Mathematicians get credit for the theorems they have proven, not for their IQ.
Physicists, Biologists get credit for their discoveries, not IQ score. Who gives a fuck about Feynman, Heisenberg, Schrodinger etc IQ score? They propably never even passed the test (which was designed at the time to spot handicapped and retarded children)
Chess players get credit from tournament scores and ELO rating , not IQ scores.
IQ is basically pattern recognition on a set of sequences whose content is highly highly cultural in spite of the massive propaganda which say the opposite.

When you studied math, 2/3 of the IQ questions about number sequences come for free.

IQ is dumb, useless, and (the worst part ) incitate people to stay away from real studying (which is what will get you respectable, real achievement in intellectual activities)

>whose content is highly highly cultural in spite of the massive propaganda which say the opposite
do you have a single fact to back that up?

pick any iq test at random on the internet:
You have questions about
--> words (100% cultural)
--->numbers sequence (they're always the same: cultural, it is about spotting successive powers-lol, or sequence like a,a+b, a+b-2c, a+b-2c+3b, a+b-2c+3b-4c etc )

drawings where basically a picture rotates and shit

Mental calculation --> cultural (asians are better because their training methods are smarter and they are tremenndously more dedicated at it-> white are lazy)

Any IQ test that isn't administered in person by a psychometrician or a psychologist is not a real IQ test.

Psychology can certainly be scientific. Nowadays, most of it isn't but that's due to the poor methodology in most studies and the complexity any social phenomena implies.

Keep in mind it's a relatively very young field. Lately, it has been looking up to medicine more than ever and I think it's going the right way.

That said, IQ is one of the most accurate constructs measured (if not the most) psychology has accomplished. Although, I believe intelligence actually means adapting your behavior to your environment in the broad sense and not just complex cognitive skills such as logic or use of language, but that's just my personal opinion from a biological determinist pov.

T. +130 IQ psychology graduate who has actually worked in a clinic administering various tests, including IQ, to patients of all ages.

Biology is not a science by your standards either, despite it using chemistry and physics more often than not.

I have taken plenty of IQ tests online(free and paid) and I have consistently score between 120 and 125. My friend who is a phd student consistently score between 130 and 135 from the same IQ tests. So I think the online IQ test are quite accurate and indicative of your intelligence.

You're still a dumb nigger if you expect me to believe in an online IQ test.

Seriously, how web IQ tests and "psychometrician" IQ test differ.

Because your psychometrician test needs to be dramatically different from all those sequence based tests I've seen, otherwise they are massively cultural.

>I paid money to take an online IQ test
>I have an IQ in the 3 digits

pick only one

think its just that iq tests by psychometricians will take far longer.

They also time you on tasks and do far more in depth stuff than just multiple choice Ravens matrix bullshit and the other typical questions on online """IQ tests""

>When the people making the tests are dumber than the people taking them.

Exactly - people get marked down on the WAIS all the time for making connections that aren't "allowed"

this is so fake:
Claiming that IQ is almost locked up since birh and that a person who learn at school "cheats" the test is exactly the same as if there existed a sort of "sport quotient", suggesting that at 3 all the physical ability of a person is locked for life and that a competitor cheat whenever he trains because when he wins, it is not his "true self".

>exactly the same as if there existed a sort of "sport quotient", suggesting that at 3 all the physical ability of a person is locked for life
umm

>the majority of this board believes that a test containing basic reasoning and critical thinking puzzles is an accurate indicator of potential success
>the majority of this board thinks that intelligence is the direct cause of all success in life
>The majority of this board is probably middle class kids who are smart but not successful
>The majority of this board wastes time debating a system of measurement for intelligence as if it changes the fact they're "smart" but useless

damn dirty apes!

it's more like height determining your potential to be a basketball player at conception

According to Dunedin Study (Nature v. Nurture): a lifelong study from birth to adulthood, a person is locked for life with the genes he/she gets.

IQ measure intelligence, but not necessarily wealth.

TFW some Retarded Pop Star, Rapper, Sportsman or Singers like Katy Perry will earn many times more money than most of people in Veeky Forums in our entire lives.

TFW I'm a smart STEM student but also poor. With a High GPA but with debts & underpaid internship, low income, struggling to pay my expenses.

Pop stars, actors, and other celebrities are just tools being used by actual smart people to make money.

Most singers make pennies on the dollar compared to what their managing companies make.

people who use these arguments dont understand how the statistics behind those relationships actually works or what it actually means.

This litterally says that self actualization doesn't exist.
Do you actually believe this?

this is quite true, in any case said pop stars are a sad reflection of what society values

citation.

high IQ societies are a scam

practicing IQ tests so you can larp as being the most intelligent man in the world is a scam

people having measurably different levels of intellectual abilities is not a scam

when I got 95 in a test

Self-improvement is capped, speed of self-improvement is also capped, even desire for self-improvement is capped.

At the end of the day, you are a consequence of your genes interacting with your enviroment. Nothing can help but be direct consequence of its past lightcone.

not an argument

manlets are finally learning, but now the brainlets never learn

Statistically, you are more likely to win a lottery to become very rich than getting rich by being Pop stars, actors, and other celebrities.
Being smart will at the minimum let you have a comfortable middle income life.