DIGIT SPAN TEST

I really don't want to have an argument about IQ again, but it's a statistical indicator not a score on a character sheet in D&D.
The only thing that determines your success in life is your grit, an actual psychometric measurement of how determined you are to get things done.
One person may be smarter but even if they both try their hardest, there is no guarantee for individual cases that the higher IQ person will come out on top.

This test isn't even about iq so derp

>Working memory is irrelevant

Tell that to John Von Neumann

>memory = IQ
oh, sweetie

>This test isn't even about iq so derp
Well one of the fundamental theories behind IQ is that there are simpler working memory tasks that can be done for more complex ones.

Also.
>Realize it's probably the best way to measure IQ
~OP 2018

Spending less time trying to make yourself smarter, and more time outside your room doing the things you dream of could help you exponentially.

It's been proven that with practice basically anyone can develop the capacity for a higher working memory.
However, it's only for one working memory task.
So a person who is insecure enough to practice doing the digit span test to get "smarter" will probably not have those skills be transferable.
Doing what you want to get better at with a positive attitude is the best way to achieve this.
If you want math as a career, then do math a lot.
Don't enjoy it after a month?
Then quit.

It's not forward digits. It's backwards.

Backward digit span started hurting my brain after 6 or so.

Same.
It's some fucked-up shit, man.

Apparently 170 IQ man can run 11 numbers backward easy.

How fast did they say it?
Does this text to speech hit the nail on the head?

ttsreader.com/

Um... I just see it in my mind and then count the numbers from right to left? Is this supposed to actually be hard?

I did it with audio, and it's way easier than without noise.

I had this test done with a psychologist when diagnosing dysgraphia. She only said the number sequence though, so audio only and I turned out really good (she was like "woah, that really nice"). I am not sure it tells you anything generally usefull though

I took this test. I didn't do well on it because I wasn't paying close attention when the guy was reading the digits on it. He wrote, "Since SUBJECT did not perform well on this he is not super man," but actually I am very good at that specific form of intelligence and would be happy to redo the test where I make more of an effort

That's true for IQ tests too.
Possibly even more so, since learning to memorise numbers takes longer than learning how to efficiently solve all the most common puzzles in IQ tests.

I was taking this intelligence test in jail when I was 15. It was really long and in some nasty room with those jail painted cinder block walls. It was the last part of the test. Since I had already been to like 5 other headshrinks I thought was comparing the guys technique to them and he seemed off, maybe that was because they were used to AZ children and this guy was used to GA children. My mind was definitely wandering by the time we got to that part.

The problem is that it all kind of falls apart.
There's no real way to calculate anything other than mental retardation.

i did two of the 10-digit ones but i had to go slow, if I go fast i'll occasionally mistakenly reverse the order of a digit here or there. unfortunately im not anywhere near 170-iq.

>>Realize it's probably the best way to measure IQ
No it's not you dumb cunt.

Because test is implying result, there is no way it's even good test.

> start with the four digit numbers
Jesus you are the most stupid person i have ever seen post here.

Given the presupposed rule that you can only read it once then immediately close your eyes and recall it, i got to the first longest sequence then failed.

they were only sayig that because of that one document. It's edge sorting like everyting else they do.

>notorious liar?
>ok, will engage in good fath!

What you (and Angela Lee Duckworth) are calling grit has been subjected to a meta analysis by Crede, et al. They found it was only responsible for .5% of grades (outcome) after accounting for IQ and Conscientiousness, both of which are "actual psychometrics" which can be used to determine how likely you are to get a particular task done. I believe Conscientiousness is mainly the factor Duckworth may have been measuring.

Seeing that you've already had this debate before, then you may already understand that while not the whole picture, IQ may act as a limit on what one can obtain through the conscientious pursuit of a goal. For example, a 100 IQ (across all measures) individual would most (since we are dealing with averages here) likely be able to do science, but will not be doing it at the most abstract and theoretical level.

I suggest you read the whole Wikipedia page after you watch a Ted Talk.

You are only out it you fail both sequences. But if your inability to read is any indicator you are probably retarded anyways

Yes that tts was good.
Separate lines per number though.

1
2
3
4

not
1 2 3 4

normal speed was fine, fast was good too

ippanetwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/MuchAdoAboutGrit.pdf
>grit as it is currently measured does not appear to be particularly predictive
of success and performance and also does not appear to be all that different to conscientiousness.

>I suggest you read the whole Wikipedia page after you watch a Ted Talk.
Ouch.

If it were measured accurately, I feel like it would be a major predictor of success.
Nothing to back that up, though.
It makes a lot of sense to me that the more things you expose yourself to the more likely you would develop the skills needed for a high IQ.
While there is a physiological limit to how smart a person can be, I see no reason why people couldn't be fostered to have a higher g in adulthood.

You are absolutely correct that g can be fostered, but only to a certain extent. I believe the perfect example of your case and point would be an assumption from the fact that Nobel Prize winners on average come from lower middle class homes. These people are given the environment to reach their full potential, but also have the genetic gift that was nurtured. This is supported and emphasized by the fact that while underrepresented in the population, Jews are heavily overrepresented amongst Nobel Prize winners.

These two statistics are the embodiment of today's attitudes on intelligence and its impact on one's achievements. IQ sets the stage, Conscientiousness executes the show.

I do this shit all the time at work. I have to call people from memory daily, and most times I get one look at the number on an invoice before it gets passed on to be filled and shipped.
I also work with a guy who has an eidetic memory who can memorize an entire page of digits in about ten seconds.

This is a poor test for measuring IQ. It's a memory test. Dogs can do this given enough training.

Go back to he thread you shamelessly self-bumped.