IQ tests are bullshit

online test argument aside...

yes, you can train for iq tests. you also train for your drivers license but that does not make you the next schumacher. the standardised iq test is not made for people who train for it extensively. but stupid people who train for it extensively will never score high.

I know, every intelligent person knows. Retards on Veeky Forums will aggressively deny this because they need something to use to believe they're better than other people.

There are many other reasons IQ is bullshit. They'll also be denied. However, I'll admit CHANCES ARE a physics professor would have a higher score than a random janitor, in MOST cases. But nonetheless its a fucking retard test people use to believe they're better than other people.

Also definitely not 100% genetic, holy fuck the retards who believe this are the worst. What OP just wrote is an obvious example of this.

So you took the same test with the same questions again in a very short period of time and are surprised you scored higher each time?
I think your first result was very accurate.

>takes a long time

Like... 30-45 minutes, then your tester doesn’t realize that the test has a trick question:

Sail:ship::_____:car

Engine, or drive?

highest score comes from saying it's a trick question

Guess I would expect nothing less from someone of a genuine IQ of 90. Great analysis.

Most of the oldfags in Veeky Forums know that it has been proven trough series of debates and threads that IQ is just a big fucking meme

She didn’t understand how it was a trick question. To her the answer was “obvious”.

>itt people who test high on an iq test will defend it while people who test low on an iq test will say its bullcrap

>Being so stupid you think an online IQ test is anything like a REAL one.

what is the differnce ?

Online IQ tests focus too much on pattern recognition. Ofthen that's the only thing they focus on. For example I had to do a real IQ test in the military and it wen't like this:
>doing math in your head
>pattern recognition
>"verbal iq" (questions like )
>"switches"(drawings of switch systems and the question would be (what happens to switch z when you push switch a down)
>mechanics(you're on a boat. the wind is blowing right, and you turn the rudder to the left? where does the boat turn. Which tank fills up first? etc
Online IQ tests aren't extensive enough, they're usually not designed by psychologists and your results aren't handled by psychologists.

I assume they meant sail as a noun. That's kinda ironic tho

I will never understand how brainlets can deny entire fields of scientific research, without even glancing at the wikipedia page on the subject.

The g factor of intelligence is undeniable and real science. See pic related. All cognitive abilities we can test correlate highly with each other. A single statistical factor called g is enough to explain the vast majority of the variance in cognitive ability.

Whether some specific IQ test correlates with g well enough is up for debate. Certainly many of the online ones are questionable. Even the good online tests aren't properly normalized.

But the IQ tests used in scientific research have been generally accepted and correlate VERY WELL with lots of things. Much better than almost any other measure in social science.
"A physics professor would have a slightly higher IQ than a janitor" is massively understating it. Physics majors have like 1 to 2 standard deviations higher average IQs than average.

>Also definitely not 100% genetic, holy fuck the retards who believe this are the worst.
IQ is more heritable than almost any other trait including breast cancer, obesity, and mental illness. Identical twins will have very similar IQs.

You can't quantify intelligence. The biggest failing of every IQ test I've seen is the fact you must have prior knowledge taught to you before taking the test. The tests don't rely exclusively on base instinctual tasks and problems which teach you a fundamental system the test will be using to test you. Going into the test, not knowing how to take the test or how to answer the questions then learning from the test how to take the test, is essential. Otherwise, it may as well be a pop quiz for popular culture. If you don't have the "culture" knowledge you end up having problems with the test.

I had a question about almost every question when I had to take an IQ test. Only, I wasn't allowed to speak during the test. Some of it was quite absurd.

Wait did you actually get a 90?

is this bait?

>Take online IQ test
>online
here's your problem OP

this
if you decline validity of IQ tests you might as well throw away all of psychology

The raven lrogressive matrices ones are pretty accurate. I was tested at 18 professionally to see why i had behavioral issues and got 128. A year later i wanted to try to get into mensa and so i practiced online with a bunch of different tests and got an average of 132. Only one test gave me 165 which was inflated so i didnt even count it. I got a 129 on the mensa test and didnt get in lol.

So many online tests are accurate, maybe inflating scores by 2-6 points or so at most

I've heard of intelligence being fairly heritable, but never to such a strong degree. Got any particularly good links to check out?

Its only becuase you gradually saw more and more patterns becuase you spent several hours taking the fucking thing. Thats why they are timed you dbag. By the third try you blew through the first 3/4ths of the test, and then you had a bunch of time to ponder the hardest questions.

Fuck you and leave this board manlet

Gwern has done a ton of research on this gwern.net/Embryo-selection#polygenic-scores-for-iq

1. Online IQ tests aren't real IQ tests.
2. Nonetheless, that's how real IQ tests work as well.

IQ tests are only supposed to be taken once a year. Any IQ test administered within that annual interval is invalid.

Yes, practicing the same problem solving task over and over again does indeed make your brain better at that task - who knew.

>trying to quantify a neural network

I hope the chains rest lightly on your ankles

Thanks! I'm curious to check this out

It's a strange thought to me.

If the brain can function and problem solve at a higher level, what's the purpose in measuring it without that experience if it can easily strike a higher score?

If Bach could free-style a fugue due to experience (which is essentially playing 32 games of chess, blind, and winning), shouldn't we adjust our measurement of intelligence for real life?

It's nonsensical in a way.

It's kind of like how Christopher Langan got an IQ score of 200, but he has done nothing of import or worth with his life.

I bet you could train your IQ to 200 if you kept taking the test over and over.

It's supposed to be normalized, if everyone practised the people who scored higher initially would still score higher.

But wouldn't there be a ceiling that most human-beings can strike given enough time and experience?

Nobody says you cant train for an IQ test. Its that training for the test defeats the purpose. The first score is the only one that counts; you are a 90 IQ brainlet. Deal with it.

prove it faggot.

But the training is everything as training is every where in real life.

If there's a ceiling and both parties hit it via experience, what's the purpose behind measuring the initial score of intelligence?

How does it not fall apart when it's something that can be trained?

It should be that no amount of training can increase your score, but it's not that way.

I think that working memory accounts for more than IQ ever can.

At the same time,

The only way for a score to not increase is for mental retardation to be part of it.

This essentially renders IQ testing a tool to detect mental retardation and nothing more.

Its supposed to test how your brain recognizes patterns and adapts to unfamiliar patterns. If the patterns and the test become familiar to you its just testing your ability to memorize, which is entirely not the point. I could write a program that scores in the 200s on an IQ test if its given many attempts at said test. It doesnt mean that program is smart, its just trying answers and seeing which ones work, then remembering them for next time. Goodbye forever brainlet, i hope for your sake they figure out how to vaccinate for stupid in the future.

wtf, which did she say was the answer?

At the same time, it's irrelevant.

You can become experienced at solving unfamiliar patterns, and you can inflate your score by doing so.

Those that deal in mental novelty on a daily basis will score higher than those don't, and it gives way, once more, to training.

I think a good example of this is Garry Kasparov.

His IQ is actually measured to be 135, but he's a chess grand-master.

People like to think in a concrete manner to try and sort and make sense of reality and say others are their genetic betters, but it's not true.

IQ doesn't fucking matter and never did.

Keep telling yourself whatever you need to make yourself feel better about having an IQ of 90. It doesnt make it true, but it should help prevent you from committing suicide for at least a few years.

I'm not the OP, but you put too much value into crude intelligence testing when life isn't that simple.

John von Neumann was a brilliant mathematician, but his jokes aren't the funniest in the world.

Im not saying you cant be successful without a high IQ; hard work goes a long way. However, if you are saying there isnt a strong correlation between high IQ and success, you might actually be retarded.

Correlation is not causation

It may very well be those that have a desire for mental novelty will excel in fields that demand it, and it coincides with a high IQ score due to such a desire.

You can train for a specific kind of task on a specific kind of IQ test. You won't get better at any other kinds of tasks. You won't get a higher score on other kinds of IQ tests.
IQ measures GENERAL intelligence. It correlates well with many different kinds of tasks. From memory to puzzle solving to reaction time.

For example, there are people that memorize the exact algorithm to solving a Rubicks cube. Or the tower of hanoi puzzle. Or any other puzzle with a solution that can be memorized.
The same is true for Raven's matrices used on IQ tests. Many of them have very similar and. You can memorize the common patterns that appear on them, and get a higher test score.
But memorizing the solution to a problem isn't intelligence. Intelligence is the ability to solve a problem you've never seen before.

Give a Rubicks cube to two people who have never seen one before. And the one that figures it out first will _probably_ have a higher intelligence. Do this for many different tasks and puzzles, and you will get a more precise answer.
That's what IQ/g is. The ability to LEARN a new task quicker, see new patterns quicker.

No one said high IQ automatically makes you successful. You still need to apply your intelligence.

What are you talking about. 135 is over 2 standard deviations above average! He's in the top 1% of the population. Most IQ tests aren't even that accurate at that range, because there are so few people to calibrate them on.

Brainlet detected.

Von Neuman knew 5 languages and could multiply and divide 8 digit numbers in his head. By the age of 10.
Please tell me how he was only able to do this because his "desire for mental novelty". Tell me how any low IQ person could accomplish everything he did if they really tried.

Yet there are millions of children that are bilingual by force before the age of 6.

Multiplication and division can be taught to children, and if a child loves it enough to try 8 digit multiplication, they can do it. This is especially true with the right guidance.

135 is a very impressive score if you take IQ for everything, but it's nothing in the world of chess champions.

Yet the issue with branding all score inflation down to memorization is the simple fact that a mind that doesn't engage in mental novelty is likely a mind that can't handle mental novelty.

A genius child in a barrel will be an invalid of an adult.

I feel like I should just stop.

I'm falling into shit by denying that there are genetic differences in working memory.

Not many adults can multiply 8 digit numbers IN THEIR HEAD. I think you missed that part. He also knew integral and differential calculus by that age.

>135 IQ isn't impressive for chess champions.
What's your point? 35 IQ points is the difference between a mentally retarded person and normal. Don't say "IQ doesn't matter" and then use an example of a person with a top 1% IQ score.

>A genius child in a barrel will be an invalid of an adult.
Yeah? So?

scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=3473
Some little reading for brainlets like you.

You can teach yourself to multiply and divide 8 digit numbers in your head through practice.

People just don't do it because there's no need to do it.

It's something a child would pick-up, learn, and boast about.

It's obvious Von Neumann had good parents that fostered his natural curiosity.

>135 IQ is impressive in a chess world of people with IQ's of 180

You're completely rejecting desire and the will to exercise, train, and build-upon mental novelty.

A 100 IQ man that wants to have an IQ of 115 can do mental gymnastics and get there.

This is why the entire thing is garbage.

Garry Kasparov's IQ of 135 could easily turn into an IQ of 160 if he put a week into it.

The writer basically agrees that IQ is a valid and useful scientific concept and is only concerned about how reliable the tests are. Doesn't contradict anything I wrote.
Also the only data he provides are 2 anecdotes about childhood IQ tests. One of which was done in the 1920s before IQ tests had been standardized, and another which was done on a four year old.

There's basically zero scientific evidence to support anything you are saying. Countless studies have been done to try to find methods to increase IQ (other than just practicing the specific test) and nothing works. Not drugs or education or time spent playing stimulating puzzles.

Adults can not be trained to multiply and divide 8 digit numbers just in their head. Let alone children. They just do not have enough working memory. Von Neumann didn't even need to practice!

youtube.com/watch?v=L2w3nqWpL0s

Who knows what he learned in his childhood home.

>Formal schooling did not start in Hungary until the age of ten. Instead, governesses taught von Neumann, his brothers and his cousins. Max believed that knowledge of languages other than Hungarian was essential, so the children were tutored in English, French, German and Italian

Combine this with the natural plasticity of a child's brain, and you've a prodigy learning things no-one else could learn because no one else cared.

youtube.com/watch?v=omuYi2Vhgjo

This doesn't apply to 8-digit numbers. For two 8-digit numbers you'd have to juggle maybe 12 - 15 pieces of information in your head, and that's just beyond the ability of the majority of people. 5 - 9 is the typical range, there's no way your average 10 year old could be trained to do this.

This is not a real gain in intelligence.

If you scored higher in math tests because you practiced a lot for math, but scored no higher for other tests (vocab, digit span, RPM etc) then although your calculated IQ is higher, you have made no real gains in g, which is GENERAL intelligence.

If your g really increased then you should see an increase across ALL cognitive tests, which is not what happens when you practice for IQ tests. You only get improvements in the specific tests that you practiced for.

Incidentally this is why IQ tests are secret - because people practicing for them would invalidate them, making them useless for the purposes of measuring g.

I might also mention that IQ is pretty useless as a predictor of achievement. See Terman's study for example.

If you practice math all day, you will have a more developed mind that is able to see patterns faster, no matter what subject you try to tackle.
You will be able to apply learned knowledge to completely alien subjects. A person that does not have this knowledge would not be able to do the same.

That study contradicts what you say. At best it shows that intellect and achievement isn't perfectly correlated on the higher end of the IQ scale.

nice post

Drive, eg. a warp drive is an engine

Has anyone in history ever referred to a car's engine as a drive?

>That study contradicts what you say. At best it shows that intellect and achievement isn't perfectly correlated on the higher end of the IQ scale.

None of the kids with >135 IQ had ANY SIGNIFICANT ACHIEVEMENTS AT ALL. No Nobel prizes, no Fields medals, no nothing. Not even a fucking Putnam competition winner. Are you fucking kidding me?

This isn't just "not perfectly correlated". It's "IQ is fucking useless for predicting achievement".

>online tests
I bet you also think you multiple personality disorder or anxiety or sociopathic personality because an online psychological test told you so. Fuck off brainlet

>no Fields medals

i bet everyone with a fields metal would get at least in the upper 98th percentile if they tried

>You can't quantify intelligence.
We can, and IQ has at least some correlation to what we generally call intelligence. When we're talking about differences in IQ, we're talking about differences in intelligence of people who generally have some level of shared environment, i.e. life in a civilized, so the fact that IQ testing is contingent upon some basic knowledge is irrelevant. We're already talking about differences between people who do have the basic knowledge required to grasp the tasks in IQ tests.

You don't really seem to grasp the most basic part of IQ. It's for all intents and purposes cognitive speed, and it correlates closely to what we would colloquially call intelligence. And it's highly variable between people. And it's heritable. And there's little we can do to change it. People seem to know this on a basic level, but have the need to deny it outright because of a fear of admitting that everyone is not equal and the world is not a fair place. If you think about a close friend of yours, whether you consider him dumber, smarter, or lesser or greater in any other cognitive ability, I think you know deep down that the culture between you and him is not radically different enough to cause all those differences. The problem of trying to explain differences in those terms becomes even worse if your friend has a brother/sister who shares some dissimilarities with them, which leaves you with trying to explain everything using the cultural differences within a single family unit.

>it may as well be a pop quiz for popular culture.
Memorisation is a part of learning, so a pop quiz that's following a lecture will also be positively correlated with an IQ score.

The 90 score was probably accurate if you can't work out that taking the test in short succession is going to mess up what it's intended to do.
You're supposed to take it once at different stages in your life (I can't remember the year estimation), but essentially, early childhood, preteen, teen, early adult, middle age, etc. The only preparation you should be doing is making sure you have plenty of sleep, eaten decent breakfast and perhaps done slight exercise that day.

Is not a 100% accurate measurement of YOUR capability to perform in a field or day-to-day activities. However when results are collected over large populations and comparisons can be made, it can show correlations between IQ and different occupations, lifestyle, cultures or education level.
IQ is not static, it does change over your lifetime.

>Adults can not be trained to multiply and divide 8 digit numbers just in their head. Let alone children.
It's easier to train children, dummy. Children learn much easier than adults. How do you think so many "prodigy" children are coming out these days and talk about how they "dream in code" and shit? Their parents train them.
Also sorry but I don't believe drugs don't work. Source it or let it go.
Here's a basic example: I am a brainlet in the mornings. I barely manage to stay sentient. So if I take an IQ test in the morning (or any hour of the day while having "mental fog") I'll measure as good as an ape. In a better hour of the day, without any of that "mental fog", I'll score closer to my "true" score.
So on a day with "mental fog", if I take caffeine before taking the IQ test I'll score objectively better.
Hence drugs are a factor. You aren't always in your cognitive peak. Drugs help you achieve that.

Unrelated question: are you German? It feels like it's always the German who use the exclamation marks unironically (which isn't a bad or a good thing)

Don"t have the source anymore, but as a child neuman was baffled by his granddad mental calculation ability and learned it from him

Okay but you scored 90 the first time.

Do you feel aggrivated by someone who scored 130 their first time?

*aggravated

IQ is a meme

Wow. So this is what its like to have an IQ of 90. Get the fuck off this board, brainlet.

>Muh correlation is not causation

No shit. Now explain why stupid people don't have a proclivity for acquiring wealth.