Why is IQ so difficult to measure accurately?

...

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=uGSSHiILbVM
blogs.discovermagazine.com/neuroskeptic/2015/11/10/reproducibility-crisis-the-plot-thickens/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Because it's an arbitrary way to measure pattern recognition.

No, that can't be it.

Because knowing the answer to

KNIFE IS TO DULL AS SPOON IS TO ____

Does not accurately measure someone's intelligence.

Nor is answering GRE/SAT level math questions.

I'd venture to say it can vary with the circadian rhythm, blood sugar, and other factors that affect cellular metabolism in the brain.

Depends on your mood and on your personality type? If you're feeling anxious or distracted you'll do vastly worse on an IQ test than on a day where you're feeling calm and collected.

>iq
Not science.

Because IQ tests are not standardized.
Some IQ tests bring in things that are based on education, others rely solely on pattern identification, some patterns may an inherent relationship in some cultures and not others and so on.

Any links to a decent free online test site

Here, this covers the different forms of intelligence one dude came up with, it also revolves around goku

youtube.com/watch?v=uGSSHiILbVM

Off the top of my head a proper IQ test would only revolve around shapes for problems and figuring out answers? That way there can't be any lack of reading comprehension involved?

Even pattern recognition can potentially be a bad way to test for intelligence. Since as long as the tester chose their answer based on logic and reason. That answer should be just as viable as the expected "correct" answer.

Damn Keoku, step your game up.

If you consider recognizing a pattern the only measure of intelligence then that's the problem.

For example, regression isn't the only thing that AIs do...

Also, everyone likes to brag about their IQ.

I got an IQ of 120 in a random online test one time, does that make me smart?

I'm a brainlet and a i need to pass an iq test can someone post the answers of the Cambridge IQ test

It's always people with names loaded with weird letters like Ks, Zs, Xs, etc that are the most stupid

becuase people are desperate for their own valdiation.
but can't be arse to look within themselves.

tons of people know this. the more business minded will come up with tests where people will essentially pay money just to take said test in the hope of getting a gold star.

>only 120 on a random online test
Brainlet.

>tfw only got 104

I completed a SAT test in high school for shits (was an IGCSE student) with 0 preparation, and my score correlated to 135 IQ.

Recently, I finished two online IQ tests. One gave me 130, and the other gave me 120. There are confounding reasons that can drag down or push up your score that don't correlate to intelligence; such as not having a good enough vocabulary due to English not being your first language. Also, a lot of tests are not standardized (see ). A reason why IQ tests are so popular is because it gives NEETs a sense of accomplishment with minimal effort.

Instead of taking meme online tests, I suggest looking up the average IQ of people with similar accomplishments as you, and then rating yourself among them. First; what is your degree and your level of education. Then: are you more intelligent than x% of your class? That will give you a better ballpark of your IQ than any test will in my opinion. It will also make you more accomplishment oriented (you'll accomplish significant things to satisfy your narcissistic tendencies). Going throughout university, I've seen that people are incapable of passing hard courses because they are not intelligent enough. There's a reason eng has a 80% drop rate in my university and there's a reason people drop out of honors to majors.

flat.
Right?

>Instead of taking meme online tests, I suggest looking up the average IQ of people with similar accomplishments as you

>claim IQ tests are shit
>propose a 100x more inaccurate and retarded method to estimate your IQ
top fucking kek

spotted the non philosophy major

because it takes only small subset of all possible tests of pattern recognition and then collapses even that to one single number.

way more accusate would be something like SAT/GRE, answering hundreds/thousands of different questions related to different patterns, measurement error would be much smaller and also you could look at different aspects of intelligence, and then maybe even work on specific areas you're lacking in

>0.999... != 1 came and went
>Wildeberger came and went
>1+2+3+... = -1/12 came and went
One day the IQ meme too will die. I suspect its persistence is the consequence of a number of factors:
1. Edgy teens in /pol/ looking to base their rascism in scientific research by taking studies that show black IQ to be less than white and asian IQ.
2. Psychologists or wannabe psychologists who have yet to become disillusioned with their "science" and find talking about the methods and studies interesting.
3. The accessibility of free online IQ tests, making participation possible for any posters.
4. Those with self-esteem issues (either too much or too little) who derive some feeling of superiority from their results and enjoy lauding their high scores while having no actual accomplishments (MENSA membership doesn't count).

No; the answer is "exciting" -- the opposite of "dull".

You fucking brainlet.

IQ tests can have a test-retest reliability of about 0.9 (in adults). It's lower in children, probably because of a greater influence of environment at earlier ages.
Different IQ tests will correlate with each other depending on how g-loaded they are.

Psychology is pseudoscience

>Psychology is pseudoscience

this

The burden of proof lies squarely on your shoulders.

IQ exists insofar as any psychological measure does. Just use the fucking Raven's.

Most of the bullshit that has been disproved is shit like priming, which has been used previously as an explanation for why black people are so shit at exams and IQ tests.
blogs.discovermagazine.com/neuroskeptic/2015/11/10/reproducibility-crisis-the-plot-thickens/
IQ and g is one the most solid areas of psychology. Which is ironic because most psychologists are ideologically biased against it.

S H A R P
H
A
R
P

...

This

i guess it's a good thing that's not what modern IQ tests are like then, huh

the other answers for these kinds of questions are designed to have a flaw in the reasoning associated with getting them, they're not random.

really pitiful post. do you have nothing better to do than posture on Veeky Forums ?

>the image also applies to most of science

>posture on Veeky Forums
If you think I was trying to impress people, I wasn't. I was insulting people.

Nice bait

Looks like their scores are more consistent than not, though.

On top of that, the third test (the test with the least alignment with the other two) is a reading test. The first two tests are tests of general cognitive ability.

Only about 15 points difference, no biggie. It's just a test.

To further emphasize why this table is a crap example of the faults of IQ tests, they were testing kids.

Partly because its bullshit, partly because retards who worship the IQ test turn it into insane bullshit.

0.999... = 1 threads are still the BEST Veeky Forums threads around

Wildberger threads are still around

"absence of evidence is/is not evidence of absence" will be the next meme

IQ doesn't even rate, which you would know if you were high-IQ.

I didn't mean to say they weren't still around, I meant to say the number of threads and posts concerning those topics are no longer overwhelming the board. And they aren't. Of course, if you were high-IQ, you would be able to see what I was getting at. I think you've correlated high ratings on the autism spectrum with high IQs, but it turns out you're just autistic.
But try adding a couple more newlines to your post, maybe that will improve its quality.

>he thinks the redditspacing meme was serious and not instead the way to detect gullible low-IQ redditors
you seriously have to go back

>Ted Kaczynski was probably retarded but an IQ test let him think he was genius man
>Never even kissed a girl even though he knew it would be a nice thing to do
>The entire thing is bullshit, and people get good at what they put effort into
>He literally and unironically ruined his life to warn people about technology for no good reason

Ain't that some shit

Many people wants to discredit IQ because it correctly predict missbehaviour and criminality imagine if people start to ask IQ test for politicians in order to stop corruption. Nobody could ever disprove IQ predictive power and then started to made up bullshit to discredit it. Of course it is not free of critcism in part because it is a very old stadistical tool and due to it is nature suffers of certain stadistical problems but those problems are not different for lots of stadistal measures and test used everyday and they work. One thing that is very disturbing and causes rejection is that the IQ adds a number to a person, and once you do that people start to fight for the highest number and feel it is discirminatory. But the important, the ice under the surface, is that IQ proves we could create biometrical test to predic unwanted behaviour in the society and avoid loss lives and money. That is the scary thing.

Except iq is not science. iq is pseudoscience.

Doesn't matter keoku is a brainlet non the less

Unless a test is administered by a human being, all 'paper' or 'electronic' tests are simply something constructed by another human saying, "I'm too smart to even be in your presence, so try and beat these arbitrary questions I'm posing."

It's no different than every time these Veeky Forums threads get posted. I'm just hoping you guys all decide on working together rather than shitposting in extremis.

give any denomination of an intelligence test and its distribution will look the same

Physics/math/engineering majors will be beyond the average, generally

there are other characteristics that coincide beyond average scores -- health being one

that's the only interesting thing about IQ

IQ is easy to measure: you give a test. Intelligence itself is harder to measure. The entirety of biological mechanisms involved is near-impossible.

Just like BMI is easy to measure, health is harder, and entirety of biological mechanisms near-impossible.