How did you learn that your intelligrnce was actually pretty average or slightly above average?

I did the same and concluded I must be one of the greats on this Earth

When I didn't finish top of my class

University, mostly. Maybe maturity had something to do with it.

In school, when I was an autistic faux-humble know-nothing-know-it-all, several tests of dubious accuracy put me in the "of every 100 person, you are smarter than 98" category. Some logic later, that means that on an average busy street there's several persons lots smarter than me. On an average city, there's thousands.

University taugh me that outside solving interesting problems, intelligence is just a tool, and there are many tools in a toolset. What is intelligence worth, if you don't know what you are doing? What good is being able to learn fast and good, when teaching you would cost dearly to any company?

So that's how I learned that my intelligence is average. Not because the value itself is average, but because the skill is one of many.

You would be overfitting. Don't do that.

Bros but I've done several IQ tests throughout my life (not the Mensa one though, but I could guess that they're all similar). Will this affect my score when I take that Mensa test?

When did you learn the IQ tests were based on a child classification system and Goddard was a hack

They say you can't change your IQ so I don't see how previous tests would affect your score (as long as it isn't the same test, obviously.)

>How did you learn that your intelligrnce was actually pretty average
High school teachers kept telling me I was a genius, got 90's without studying. Parents kept telling me to become a doctor. I go to university for biology, win a scholarship from the school for having such a high average. Take my first test. 60%. Second test. 60%. Study my ass off, 75%. Lost my scholarship. 4 years of that and I graduated with a 70% average overall.

Worst part? Everyone still thinks I'm a genius when I tell them I got a biology degree.

When I learnt that these test doesn't worth anything

>slightly above average
Scored 86 and 93rd percentile on the GRE, which is competing against math phds in math and lit phds in reading comprehension so I feel fine desu

Back until middle school I was top of my class. Then depression hit me pretty hard.
Since high school, now in college I'm pretty mediocre. Here I see people people score 130+ on online IQ tests while I'm barely past 120.
Fucking hurts sometimes desu, specially because I'm a failure in everything in life.

they say ... but most iq tests are about the same style of questions or tasks. while doing iq tests u will practice for this style of tasks and your iq will rise. but iq isnt inteligence in my opinion. its just a way to classify people in our schoolsystem where inteligence is something like you can learn stuff somebody else thought to you.
and maybe a bit of logic-thinking

literally

This so much. Used to pride myself on not listening in class or doing homework but cram in the last week or so and would still get top of grade/school. Then I got into this school for gifted kids and realised I was average or even below average among them. Had to work harder for less results. Come university and everything amplified, now feeling like the biggest brainlet in my class. It sucks because holding onto my intelligence was the only thing I had going for me. Now I see people with bigger brains who are also happy, attractive, social and have their shit together.

When I left engineering to do pure mathematics.

>iq will rise
The scientific consensus is that it won't. IQ is considered an immutable trait once you reach adulthood. If they've reached this conclusion they have certainly conducted experiments like what you're describing.

> while doing iq tests u will practice for this style of tasks and your iq will rise

If it was that simple everybody would have a 140+ IQ.

That was "consensus" 70 years ago

I'm 135 but I don't believe it because I'm pretty feckless

Source?

135 IQ BRAINCHAD here, get on my level plebs.

Ah, but can you think while you talk or hear another person talking??

?

normalfags cant?

is this serious or what

>not understanding that you actually are a genius, but only relative to them

I think deep down I always knew

t. 120 brainlet

Where was this screenshot taken? I would like to know how I can watch television from my computer or phone....judging by the fact it has the time is it Japanese television? How can I watch it on my computer

There's a common theme here of
>Kick ass in high school, get top of class
>Go to uni, study hard only for mediocre grades

I'm the reverse. Anyone else have this experience?
>Sub-3.0 GPA in high school, actually didn't pay attention in class, didn't hand in most assignments. Do ok on tests (85-90ish for most of em) but everything else tanks grades. Cs and Ds for courses that are assignment-heavy
>Apply to meh institutions, get rejected from most, get into a few
>Decide that now that outrageous debt and my future is on the line, I have to try
>With less effort than my peers I get top 5-10% grades on exams
I don't want to take an IQ test because my IQ is probably in the 105-110 range from my guesses. If there is a genetic limit, I don't want to know about it. It'd fuck with my motivation.

Your motivation is already fucked and you're emotionally weak, take a real IQ test and you'd likely be surprised.
Just walk into it knowing that IQ is a measure of general critical analysis aptitude and does not apply to every facet of rational thought.

Same. Engineers are complete retards when compared to math undergrads. Luckily I'm still above average.

When Veeky Forums told me that a 130 IQ is average for a college student.

when I learned that my intelligence is actually below average because im so far behind everyon else

>130 IQ average college student
lel

Just do it. I took the test (and like an idiot didn't realise the rules properly and rushed it.) But came out with an 111. Sure, I'm not a genius, but I'm not a fucking moron.
And in life, it's more about being good enough, and having other good traits, than being an autistic savant that no one wants to be around.

Just took an iq test on Psychology Today, although I've gotten anywhere from 130-150 on various IQ tests.

Some stupid iq test told me that and i believed it.

If your IQ or other test scores are above 90th percentile, you're welcome here:
discord.gg/hfGsmdz

We'll make it some day, user. Just focus. Unbelieveable stuff can be achieved through sheer focus and willpower if you are average or above.

>doesn't study his whole life
>suddenly gets into a situation where he has to study
>doesn't know how to study
>flunks out
>blames his intelligence
God this meme.
It's funny, if I handed you a violin and told you to play a solo even if you'd never played it once in your entire life, you wouldn't see it as a reflection on your innate abilities after you failed. You'd say "well of COURSE i can't play it retard, I've never held a violin in my life!"
Yet you never had to try to memorize anything, gain insight into anything, study anything, ever. But you thought you'd just pick it up and perform like a virtuoso just because of your "giftedness"?

I was tested by a psychiatrist when I was 7 (1996); results said I had an IQ of 107.

People say that generally a child's IQ result is not well correlated with their mature adult IQ results,
In my case I was given the WISC-III at age 10 and had an IQ of 132. A WAIS-IV at 18 returned 129, the Stanford-Binet at age 22 gave 133. A variety of the more accurate online tests range me from 124-140, with the median result at 130.
I'm 28 now and my relative IQ doesn't seem to have begun dropping due to age factors.

Am I that much of an outlier? Or is the claim that children's IQ potential is not indicative of their mature brain potential unfounded?

When I got to college and realized that I couldn't high school my way through university despite having an IQ of 132. Then again I'm bi-polar as fuck so that probably put a dampener on things

I was first in my university group, learned how to study (a skill I had not needed beforehand) in just a couple months, enjoyed myself in the programming and math classes (I was one of 2 who did that) and can count on the palm of my hand the tests I've failed at.

And yet, university taugh me that intelligence is overrated, and that mine in particular is not all that notable, great or useful.

So no, the stereotype of pampered babies is not necessarily universal, and it's not the only reason people realize they are not as smart as they mothers insist they are.

Or maybe I went to a dumb university, probably a mix of both.

same boat user. study buddy.

>If it was that simple everybody would have a 140+ IQ.
but that's not true. unless you're already at a certain level of intelligence you won't put in the effort to better yourself, but rather screw around and amuse themselves.

>If it was that simple everybody would have a 140+ IQ.

Yeah, and if memorizing the first 5 decimals of [math]\pi[/math] was simple, then everyone on the planet would know the first 5 decimals of [math]\pi[/math]. Hence memorizing the first 5 decimals of [math]\pi[/math] is impossible.

I didn't. 151 here.

By scoring above 135 at middle school (and being placed in a gifted group) and average during a bipolar depressive episode with psychotic features.

Also, Barnett has a high academic achievement quotient score. His "IQ" is not known, nor does IQ mea
n anything if one has a disorder like autism, which prevents them from properly taking the test due to their sensory modalities.
One of the tenants of IQ testing is not to administer it to people with sensory disorders, and autism is one of such disorders.

For one, I had great variations in my "IQ" from test to test, and from time to time. I also have a shit score on social cognition, which is at the level of a 7 year old. However, I'm very good at things which I find interesting (can do very long mental calculations, memorize hundreds to thousands digits of Pi, be ok at market analysis, and so on).

The reason why people don't bother memorizing the first five decimals of pi is that they know that it doesn't have any advantage to it.

>Is it really as good as the real thing?
Basically yes. The actual test scenario is of course more stressful, and I think it has a few more questions. But in my case I got 137 online and 139 in the actual test, and a friend of mine had a similar variance. So yeah, while this is hardly a big test group it's been inferred in other conversations as well that the online test is surprisingly accurate.

139, took Mensa's test.

But they don't really do anything interesting at all, just have a meet or two a year I don't even bother going to, so it's hardly worth joining. I don't know about the US where you seem to be rather obsessed with this stupid number, but in the EU the membership or proof of your IQ is good for nothing. And that's the way it should be.

A single fucking number is completely useless in determining what actually makes someone a productive, useful member of any academic or working community. Granted, if your IQ was under 100 I doubt you could be much good in anything intellectually challenging, but your abilities, interview and CV alone are enough to tell much more than your IQ ever could.

Tbh I realized I was well above average far before then. In school everything was easy if I just tried it, and literally every person I met was a complete idiot, basic animals that through some miracle were able to read at most. Since then however, after finding my bubble in academia and work after that, everyone around me is more or less on the same level as I am. We all tend to end up in a bubble of people similar to ourselves in abilities and interests, in the end.

Don't listen to people suggesting that online IQ tests are good, they need to be administered by a real psychologist to have any merit.

>We all tend to end up in a bubble of people similar to ourselves in abilities and interests, in the end

What are the evolutionary implications of this?

>But you thought you'd just pick it up and perform like a virtuoso just because of your "giftedness"?
Yes? There are people who can actually do this. I've seen them myself in real life. They don't immediately pick up on stuff (they are geniuses, not wizards), but they do need to study less than I do. I wish I was one of those people. I wish I could score in the 140s even on online IQ tests through sheer intelligence, not having to study for them.

Self preservation through societal organization. Team work was the single most important factor that led mankind to thrive, as opposed to the neanderthal man.

If somebody tries studying for IQ tests, either they have a scenario in which success in those is a relevant step, or they are doing something terribly wrong somewhere in life.

It is like cheating, only you are cheating yourself, which may be even worse.

That's wrong. If IQ is actually a intelligence-meter then doing some stupid tests before wouldn't "raise" your intelligence.

Reverse dunning kruger
I naturally underestimate my ability. I think I'm an incompetent fuckup when prior evidence proves the opposite.

IQ test are not an intelligence-meter, they are an IQ-test solver ability meter.

That's it, they test your ability to solve IQ tests, which is heavily linked to intelligence, but also linked to training, wakefullness, and other factors.

The key is, you can actually increase training beyond what the IQ tests is designed for. It is not designed to test intelligence on people who perform one test a week, it is calibrated assuming people have little training in the specific exercises. By training, you are altering the results.

To put 2 examples, if you solve a medium-complexity integral, you are demonstrating intelligence. If you practice the same integral that will be put on the test, you will actually be using memory, even if the test indicates intelligence.

A thermometer indicates core temperature, by measuring the temperature below your tongue. But if you cool down your mouth (by drinking icy water), the result of the thermometer no longer reflex the core temperature, since you increased an externa factor beyond the thermometer's calibrations.

>I naturally underestimate my ability. I think I'm an incompetent fuckup when prior evidence proves the opposite.

Self-steem is overrated. If you expect nothing from yourself, you cannot dissapoint anybody, and each sucess will be a victory against expectations. (joking, joking)

>To put 2 examples, if you solve a medium-complexity integral, you are demonstrating intelligence. If you practice the same integral that will be put on the test, you will actually be using memory, even if the test indicates intelligence.
But intelligent people are used to analyze and compile all kinds of information. Isn't the pattern memory they keep using, the same as the pattern they are using to solve the IQ tests?

I pressume there's a difference between a general ability (math solving) and a specific ability (IQ test solving), and that the former is more closely related to intelligence than the latter.

It migh be that solving math problems increases your IQ by some amount, it might be that it only attunes your already-existing potential, it might be that you enter dimishing returns after a few "points".

What I am certain of, is that solving IQ tests is a very poor way of training general-solving abilities, too little variation for it to be an effective data set.

*training data set.

And as I comment before, what you would end up doing would likely count as overfitting, which is a problem that occurs in neural networks when they are trained too much in too small a dataset.

Veeky Forums is awfully critical of IQ testing

I took Mensa's test and it said 131. I'm highly skeptical because their cutoff is 130 and I'm just assuming they buffed my score a bit because they want my money.

That's interesting. I just wanted to mention, the fact that I always used to analyze everything and got curious about shit. So I used the "ways" and "methods" of analyzing until the adults debunked them over and over until I found out a more generalized way of solving matters.

I think that impulse of pattern-solving also contributes to the IQ solving test. If "intelligent" people stopped to solve problems for a period of time, it would greatly affect the way they get their scores.

I'm not trying to deny the innate intelligence though, I think there are a lot of ways to determine and change the intelligence of a person.

I also think that the alimentation of the pregnant mother and the stress homeostasis system of the mother can affect the influx of hormones of xeno-strogens and cortisol, which can lead to problems with babies. I remember that my mother had a calm pregnancy, listened to classical music and ate a lot of cheese, meat and vegetables.

I think the near future brain research would reveal such questions.

Everyone is.

It works. It is one of the first actually decent things to come out of psychology, but its extent and importance are often overrated.

I'd like to go a step beyond. Intelligence is understimated, and wildly overrated. It. is. just. a. TOOL. There's far more smart people in the world than the average Veeky Forumsguy realizes, intelligence cannot pre-empt stupidity and in fact ENHANCES stupidity, the average joe is not a dumb zombie going through life like a badly-programmed automaton, social intelligence gets ignored most of the time, and 90% of the value of intelligence in modern society consist on problem-solving.

That's it, that's the grand power of astro-climax-double-superior-cognitive-ultra-intelligence. Problem. Solving. A freaking calculator is as useful as intelligence is, if far more narrow in scope. There's a bit of more themes of discussion, but with google everyone can know a bit of everything, and without actual studies that knowledge is actually less than useless. There's people specialized in so many fields that the only value of the renaissance man is saving on some bills, and bragging rights. Today and barring an extreme case, there's no functional difference between hight intelligence and an university degree, unless you have mental retardation. But then you won't notice the problem for long, would you?

Oh, and intelligence might actually let you "look" into the future, but that's a crapshoot more often than no.

>What I am certain of, is that solving IQ tests is a very poor way of training general-solving abilities, too little variation for it to be an effective data set.

do you have a better idea? or are you one of those "intelligence cannot be measured" people?

I’ve always been in the 90th percentile in academic performance so unless I got lucky and always competed with dummies I must at least be of slightly above average intelligence. I haven’t done anything extraordinary so I don’t have any evidence of my intelligence being more than slightly above average.

>its extent and importance are often overrated.

overrated how and by whom?

I believe intelligence can be measured.

I believe IQ test are good at that, if a little rough at the far ends.

I believe IQ tests are less accurate if you specifically train to solve them.

Also, I do have a better idea, if increasing IQ is actually possible: More variety of problem solving. Math problems, decent debates, studying new things, cooking, etc etc.

At the end of the day, intelligence is relevant to solve the problems you actually have in your life. So train for those, watch other people's solutions, study the theory behind whatever science deals with those, experiment (within reason and safety), and even if your IQ does not increase, your ability at dealing with problems will.

Once again, the problem with using IQ test for training is the same problem as writting the word "mommy" as caligraphy training: Not enough variety. It is not designed for that.

No, it's importance is overrated. By this board, and many people in general.

Intelligence is damn useful, and it is quite hard for people to be very smart at something, and not at the very least somewhat smart at other areas (unless your brain is horribly wired).

However, intelligence is not knowledge. Intelligence is not anti-stupidity. Intelligence is not experience, wisdom, or an excuse for being lazy.

IQ test are overrated not because they are wrong, but because they are right. So everything I said about intelligence? It applies to those tests as well. That's how well done they are.

>Once again, the problem with using IQ test for training

nobody does this

>I believe IQ tests are less accurate if you specifically train to solve them.
nobody does this

Never say nobody, humanity can be as... creative as it is prudent.

>No, it's importance is overrated. By this board, and many people in general.

who cares how much stock a few anons put in IQ testing?

I care enough to talk about it, and try to convince some random guy at the other side of a screen of my worldviews. No big deal, this is just a conversation.

Aaaand you care enough to ask somebody about it, which may not be much but conversations are cheap.

Okay, I should be sleeping right now. Cheers.

If this wasn't your experience with college can you even call yourself human?

What is your job? What are your interests? What is your net worth? Are you healthy?

That's what I'm saying. I want to score high on IQ tests because I'm actually intelligent, not because I have studied for them.

128 IQ, I'm smarter than Richard Feynman but haven't published anything yet. ;_;

How do we stop Florida man?

How was the conclusion that IQ can't be increased past adulthood reached then?

IQ has been shown to be able to rise before with proper education

pg 242:
www1.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/30years/Rushton-Jensen30years.pdf

>
At the University of the Witwatersrand in Johannesburg, South Africa, Rushton, Skuy, and colleagues gave the Raven’s Progressive Matrices in four separate studies under optimal testing conditions. Rushton and Skuy (2000) found 173 African 1st-year psychology students averaged an IQ equivalent of 84. Skuy et al. (2002) tested another 70 psychology students who averaged an IQ equivalent of 83. After receiving training on how to solve Matrices-type items, their mean score rose to an IQ equivalent of 96. Rushton, Skuy, and Fridjhon (2002, 2003) gave nearly 200 African 1st-year engineering students both the Standard and the Advanced version of the Raven’s test and found they averaged an IQ of 97 on the Standard and 103 on the Advanced, making them the highest scoring African sample on record. (The White university students in these four studies had IQs from 105 to 117; East Indian students had intermediate IQs, from 102 to 106.)

I'm 150 and I still feel dumb. Anyone who says they're smart because 150 tell em I told ya to tell em to suck a dick

My IQ ain't so bad, OP.

On a completely shit day, with shit sleep, and a shit diet, I've scored around 117 on a professionally administered IQ test.

On a normal day, with proper rest, I scored 134.

IQ helps, but grinding is more important to how much you achieve. I can speak multiple languages, and perform graduate-level physics and maths, but I know a TON of fellow friends who got classified as genius in high school that dropped out of society and accomplished nothing.

Is the GRE not for anyone applying to Masters or PhD programs.

>If you practice the same integral that will be put on the test, you will actually be using memory, even if the test indicates intelligence.
I understand you're point that IQ is an imperfect measure of intelligence, but this example isn't really analogous because it's not the exact same questions that will be put on an IQ test.

Your score will rise if you repeatedly take the tests. Looking for patterns (which is what most of them are about) will make you better at finding patterns

>They say you can't change your IQ
I never heard that, and even if it was true, scores are not IQ

>yfw
literally me
to make it worse I'm only barely smarter than average so I can't fall back on my natural genius either....

Had to take one when I was in middle school. Got a 120. I'm ok with it.

ok but why do they associate big brains with Veeky Forums and not Veeky Forums?

>I can speak multiple languages
which and fluently?

no but prodigies are known to pick up and learn instruments within a few days to 2-3 weeks, otherwise they won't be much of prodigy if they took 10 years to master an instrument like an average normie

>scores are not IQ
They literally are.

Why, what this real psychologist does that would be so crucial while "administering" it?
They give you a paper test and take the time, after that check the results.
How is that different?