Friend is studying electrical engineering, 110 IQ

it was MENSA.

>Anecdotal evidence
Yeah I'm sure you got that 121 score on a McDonalds IQ test

I could post a screenshot of my test but that wouldn't mean anything sicne it could be very well be received off the internet or from another person.

>IQ is able to distinguish retard from knowledgeable, therefore IQ is legit.

Can you explain to me why the 122 is brighter than the 112 or even 99 again, because I'm pretty sure a 122, if tested in a "bad" environment would get a lower score and a 105 in a "good" one a higher score.

I didn't give you permission to reply to me. Listen, it was entertaining at first. Hell, it was actually funny. But now I'm getting the feeling that you actually think that you're on my level. From the day was born, I was destined for success. I was brought into this world by a software engineer and and a prominent actuary, both of Norwegian descent. From the moment that the fucking curtains were raised, l was set to dominate the STEM fields. And because had guardians that actually cared about me, I flourished. Pretty soon, I was placed into a special school of correspondence, specifically I.M Gelfand's school for gifted children in New England. I not only reached my parents' expectations, but I passed them with flying colors. I had raw talent. was fucking better. I was surrounded by 6th graders, many from Hong Kong, whom were smarter than half the posters in this thread. And now, where am l? In MIT, getting my double BS in Electrical Engineering and Physics, with a Stanford-Binet tested IQ of 147 at age 17. Get this through your head: I am worth more than your entire goddamn family. I'm smarter than you, better looking than you, taller than you, wealthier than you, and more employable than you. While you type out another comment, I'll be simultaneously working with the brightest minds in the warld and fornicating with my beautiful girlfriend. It gets on my nerves when people pretend to be better than me. Know your place. Never, ever reply to my posts, again.

reeeeeeee fuuuuuccckkkkk truuummpp

IQ in general is a legitimate thing if you're tested properly.
But the way you just stated you and those two other people you know have X IQ like it's some sort of definite fact independent of any specific reference to how you got those numbers makes me think you and they just took some online self-testing bullshit.

what an insecure loser

All you're pointing out is that IQ is a low-resolution measure and could easily have a standard deviation of 3 or 4 points between testings on the same subject.

So what?

This doesn't debunk IQ you cretin.
You've already admitted that IQ is extremely valid for distinguishing between idiots, the average and the gifted.
Your only quibble is that it's often not 100% accurate for distinguishing between a slightly more average or slightly less average person.

To answer your specific example, yes, if you took 1000 or 10000 people with an IQ score of 99, then the same number with an IQ score of 112 and the same number with an IQ score of 122 , you would find that with the higher score would on average do significantly better in terms of work productivity and academic performance than those with from the lower IQ group.

This doesn't mean every single member of one group would be more or less good than every single member of the other group. They'd each have a distribution of results that would overlap somewhat.
But the IQ score would be very relevent information which would help you predict comparative performances of people from each of those groups much better than if you took random guesses in the dark.

So no, obviously it is measuring something valid , you delusional , fucking brainlet.
The fact that your test performance can be changed by whether you didn't get a good night's sleep the night before or whatever doesn't mean that IQ is invalid you retard.

mensa doesn't tell you your score unless you get in, which only means you scored in top 2%

Remember, criticizing and judging others only magnifies your own suffering

The thing is, the top 2% isn't even that smart. I mean yea you're above average, but it isn't anywhere close to special.
You have to start being in the top .3% before you really notice much of a difference

top 2% is ~132 in men for stanford-binet
top 0.3% is ~137
not a big difference

Top 2% is approximately 130
Top .3% is approximately 140

It's a big difference. One is an ordinary PHD Physics student at a regular university, the other is a PHD physics student at Harvard or MIT

Check your sources

stanfordbinet.net/AJFKLDSJLKFJJDSHFHLDKLSKLFKLDFHH
top 2% is 132
top 0.3% is 141
9 point difference is not that much, it can be achieved by upbringing, environment and nutrition easily

could i get some research on that?

Very true, because that judgemental critic inevitably turns inwards with just as much ferocity that is shown outwardly. Give compassion and understanding to others and you will give it to yourself.

You're not seeing the error. There's so thing such as a "point increase". The points reflect the change in standard deviation, not the other way around.

Going from 100 to 105 is doable because its not really too different. Going from 150 to 155 is like going from 1/1000 to 1/10000

There's nothing particularly hard about med school if you know how to memorize. Philosophy requires a higher IQ. As for whether or not IQ is a meaningful metric, let's not be silly - of course it is. But IQ is useless without focus, desire and even a bit of circumstantial luck. It is often not the high-IQ student who achieves.

LOL - look at this guy! He's working with the "brightest minds in the warld". (And yet here he is, acting like a double-doofus on 4chin.)

LOL - yo' friend "Jamaar", eh? He be studyin' da molecoolar tenshun ub da waddamelon membrain? Or da heet transfa cross a kfc drumstik?

IQ TESTS BTOF FOREVER

Conduct an IQ test over the SUBJECT for each person not a ACT meme memorization exam

engineers take a engineering IQ
literature majors take literature IQ

>Going from 150 to 155 is like going from 1/1000 to 1/10000
yes, but only in terms of rarity
going from 7' to 7'2 is like going from 1/1000 to 1/1000 as well but they are still pretty much the same height

I'm I was just pointing out he is a redditor (used reddit space) and implicitly wanted him to fuck off, my comment was ironic and I do not agree with him.

>two thirds of standard deviation is not much
ok

>your EE friend is pulling D for Degree
>you are a B+ student
>your philo friend is a A student
Nope, working as intended

That's what grades are for :^)

jesus are you retarded or what?
not much in actual intelligence difference which is what we were debating in the first place
just because your IQ increases from 160 to 161 it doesn't mean you're suddenly 10000 times smarter retard
7'2 is 100x more rare than 7' but they're still essentially the same height, not fucking 100x taller jesus christ

nice new copypasta, haven't seen it yet

gr8 b8 m8

1 have 133 im i 1,5%?

Dude you are being retarded right now. Just because height has a similar frequency-curve distribution to IQ doesn't mean you can use it to draw comparisons between their meaningfulness. Think about this for a second:

>Mean height = 70 (5'10), SD = 2.5
>Mean IQ = 100, SD = 15

For a normal distribution (which you/we are assuming both IQ and height are), the standard deviations (1,2,3...) is saying the same thing in terms of frequency. Meaning, 1SD means 68% of people are within 1SD (3 inches or 15 IQ points) of the mean.

Go down 1 SD in height; subtract 2.5 inches. So from 5'10 to 5'7.5. Draw your own conclusions as to how much of a significant difference this is, and/or how much a significant difference general society would view it (if they noticed it).

Do the same for IQ. Down 1 SD, which is 15 points. From 100 to 85 points. Now, recognize that the average adult IQ of 100 is, statistically, associated with a highschool graduate and/or tradesman. And that an average adult IQ of 85 is associated with fucking elementary school dropouts.

For the hell of it I'll do the exact same thing as you, but in a way that "supports" the meaningfulness of difference between IQ points. Do the same thing for penis length. The data set I found has a mean length of 5.95" and SD of 0.77". Obviously you will recognize the meaningfulness, regardless of the "small" increments in penis length.

I don't even totally disagree with your sentiment (I do, but somewhere in the grey). You're just using ridiculously stupid logic

I think his original point was that the difference between 100 and 110 IQ (10%) is bigger than between 130 and 140 (7.6%), which is true

Has the same relevancy as health science and the existence of "toxins". The IQ test proves nothing.

>110-128 IQ
too low to post on Veeky Forums
quick the last 3 digits of your roll is now your IQ how fucked are you?

IQ tests are supposed the show your general intelligence and it has a high correlation with g factor so it should in theory be a good proxy for both a engineering test and literature test.

The problem I have with IQ tests is not the test themselves, but the fact that almost all nationalized test results are done not with actual IQ tests but statistical analysis of data sets like PISA. There are many problems with this I won't get into, but I will remain skeptical about the results as long as this remains common practice.