Explain this IQ fags.
paid for a real IQ test, scored 99 at the age of 22. Didn't know any maths at this point, didn't even know how to add fractions (I fell through the education system).
spent the next 27 months learning maths from little kiddy level to the level of first year undergraduate in Denmark.
Redid the IQ test at the age of 25. Scored 122.
There's a 2 year + interval in between both tests with no testing in between.
I consciously did this to see whether learning maths would make a difference.
Explain this IQ fags
Explain this IQ fags.
I almost bought into IQ tests and genetics for intelligence by race but then I read about how the Jews were retard tier at the turn of the century and now they get good scores.
I think its culture not genetics.
One of the biggest complains about IQ tests is that the patterns that are tested are generally mathematical in nature so practice in mathematics will most likely artificuly boost your score due to familiarity. Though for the general population this isn't a huge problem as most barely remember basic algebra. But comparing certain groups against others could be problematic. Which is why psychologist have other widely used cognitive tests.
explain why any of what you're talking about matters. Unless you do something with your IQ, it's just a useless number
Are you saying that anyone with maths or physics expertise has an inflated IQ score? That's pretty retarded.
I got into an engineering program that is starting soon, hopefully something will come of that.
This smells fake. You consiously failed your way through school just to prove IQ is bullshit? You then spent two years learning math and shit just to take the test again and see the results? Thats quite the scientific mindset you have there despite not paying attention in school, not only that but thats quite a lot of effort and determination to bootyblast some spergs on Veeky Forums. Oh and real IQ tests do not test prior knowledge, you know, things like math. None of this happened did it OP? Well there is one part that I believe.
IQ isn't a real good gauge for individuals nor over time. A point drift like that is fairly typical.
Learning problem solving skills will increase your results. An educated person will invariably do better than an uneducated one. In twin studies, if one twin is a laborer and the other an office worker, the difference is rather drastic. Similarly, if you play puzzle solving games all day, your IQ will go up (if not your actual intelligence.)
It can also vary rather wildly with when you took it, what you ate that day, or who administered it. Among groups who do a lot of IQ tests (and I actually work for one - we assign kids between SED or LD based on IQ test results), some test administrators will consistently gather scores higher or lower than others, even when testing siblings in the same family. (And we see that here.) Generally, the less imposing the tester, the better the average scores.
That said, it's not useless... You can detect specific learning disabilities based on which areas the individual struggles or excels with. It's also somewhat useful for judging large groups of individuals, particularly over time.
To gauge base potential more objectively, you'd really need something more neurological, rather than "how fast can you put these blocks together and how many numbers can you recite correctly." Psychometry is psychology, and thus not really science.
Whether its retarded or not is not the question.
The question is whether its real or not.
Take yourself as an example: You are retarded but you are still real. Well so is that statement that you have a problem with. The only difference is that you are retarded to everyone around you but that statement is retarded only to retarded people such as yourself.
You're acting rather emotional.
I failed in high school because I didn't apply myself. I wasn't interested in school work and I hated being in school. I knew I was going to fail, but I simply didn't care at that time. I didn't even think I'd live up to the age of 20. I was raised by a depressed single mother, who was completely indifferent to what I did in school.
I became interested in education only after leaving high school and working several menial jobs. Over time (thanks to the internet) I became interested in philosophy, psychology, history, and politics. Somewhere in there I became aware of IQ. In addition to that, I gained an interest in studying engineering (purely for practical economic reasons). But I did not know any maths and dreaded the idea of learning it. Luckily I met someone that encouraged me to do it it anyway. And that's what I did.
I even asked for advice on here, though I was met mostly with ridicule.
holy shit man
R E K T
Not an argument.
IQ is bad because things that increase IQ will increase IQ test scores
Conversely this can simply mean that IQ tests correspond to the same region of the brain as the ones used for physics and mathematics. By using and developing those regions by doing msrjs and physics, you're going to create new connections within the brain and consequently make yourself 'smarter'.
Introduces a red herring
user wrecks his shit for it
B-b-but not an argument!
Asking someone to clarify a statement is not a red herring.
Well, people treat it as a fixed maximum potential, that's the problem.
It changes drastically over time, and even moment to moment, simply by how well conditioned you are. Your IQ first thing after waking is going to be lower than your IQ a bit after noon, once you're up in running.
It would be nice if there was a good fixed potential test - but the only theoretical one I'm aware of requires you be dead to take it. The brain itself is pretty malleable, so even neurological models like that are pretty dicey. Might not have a real objective test until we have the scanning and computer tech to simulate an entire brain.
Holy shit, post of the year!
same fagging a mediocre comeback.
You've dismembered the primacy placed on IQ by IQ fags with your own argument, IQ fag. If learning maths prior to taking an IQ test more or less invalidates your score, then any sense of objectivness is thrown out of the window. Unless you're going to argue that scores only prior to education are valid, but that's akin to making someone with no language take a spelling test.
Not him, but has a point. It's measuring your ability to solve puzzles and memorize. Learning math makes you better at that, as does eating the right foods, not being nervous, and simply being fully awake.
I suppose the real problem is that "Intelligent Quotient" is a bad name, "Pattern Recognition Index" might be better... Though I think PRI is trademarked by a radio network.
Well that's really just the same thing I stated but on the neurological level. If the test depends on mathematical patterns then yes it will be roughly the "same area" as used for mathematics and increased synaptic density and selective pruning is associated with learning so it should reflect the level of mathematical background. So we're both saying the same thing really. And the main point would be that the IQ tests are not measuring underlying learning potentional or intelligence for all subjects like how it is generally used in casual conversation since it is disproportionatly dependent on math based pattern solving that can be trained.
CRAPI: Current Recognition and Pattern Index
SHIT: Situational Heuristic Intelligence Test
FUCC: Functional Unilateral Current Cognitive
...I'm sure we can come up with one.
I don't even know how to do fractions and I scored 125 in the Mensa one. I've missed at least 3 years of core education because I was constantly moving countries.
meme arrow rebbutal
It's interesting to think of what this means for the reverse case, people wasting their potential (which they likely do/did have) on anime image boards, vidya or drugs in their early adulthood, often through learned helplessness.
using "IQ" and "IQ test scores" to mean different things
You need to start over from the basics.
but then I read about how the Jews were retard tier at the turn of the century and now they get good scores.
I think its culture not genetics.
post link plz
can you post the books that you used in this quest? thanks
That does not say that the actual quotient is lower, it is due to the psychological effects of lack of motivation and self confidence et.c. when taking the test. You can score lower on any kind of test if you are tired, out of shape distracted or demotivated. That does not mean that you don't have the ability or knowledge the test is supposed to measure.
then I read about how the Jews were retard tier at the turn of the century and now they get good scores.
I think its culture not genetics.
it wasn't because they were marginilized around that same time, therefore living in poverty and never being able to develop a fully functional brain has nothing to do with it
B-BUT MUH WHITE GENOCIDE!
Yes, there were rich jews back then, but they weren't marginalized simply because they were rich.
Fuck off back to /pol/.