Looksmaxxing Forum Logo

Join 49,000+ Looksmaxxing Members!

Register a FREE account today to become a member. Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox.

Register Log in
  • DISCLAIMER: DO NOT ATTEMPT TREATMENT WITHOUT LICENCED MEDICAL CONSULTATION AND SUPERVISION

    This is a public discussion forum. The owners, staff, and users of this website ARE NOT engaged in rendering professional services to the individual reader. DO NOT use the content of this website as an alternative to personal examination and advice from licenced healthcare providers. DO NOT begin, delay, or discontinue treatments and/or exercises without licenced medical supervision. Learn more

iq test

Darkeningstar said:
How boring you are
Everything above 130 is fake and blah blah

Genius range is 150+ and that’s just entry level genius
Click to expand...
being smart is hitting a target accurately, while genius is hitting a target no one can see (fourier, mozart, ramanujan), with this in mind 135 is nothing, shit even amongst 150-170 it takes a really rare kind of person to be a genius, for example for all the potential 170s in the world right now theres 1 person who's well regarded being the best mathematician of our generation (terry tao), and maybe a handful of others who have contributed greatly to science/art, but still those geniuses are a small minority compared to the 7000 people with an iq of 170 (based on standard distribution)
 
sjnny404 said:
being smart is hitting a target accurately, while genius is hitting a target no one can see (fourier, mozart, ramanujan), with this in mind 135 is nothing, shit even amongst 150-170 it takes a really rare kind of person to be a genius, for example for all the potential 170s in the world right now theres 1 person who's well regarded being the best mathematician of our generation (terry tao), and maybe a handful of others who have contributed greatly to science/art, but still those geniuses are a small minority compared to the 7000 people with an iq of 170 (based on standard distribution)
Click to expand...
True, but don't consider distribution when you talk about extremely high iqs, it doesn't really work that way
 
Darkeningstar said:
True, but don't consider distribution when you talk about extremely high iqs, it doesn't really work that way
Click to expand...
yeah i know that a. theres lower accuracy the higher the score is and b. theres actually a fat tail at the higher end meaning theres more people who are high iq than someone with a low iq of an equal variance away from the mean, idk what else would be a reason it wouldnt work tho
 
shredded4summer said:
Considering we got the highest score it would be a disservice to the gene pool for us NOT to reproduce
Click to expand...
the odds are stacked against us brudda
1749654064395.png
Satoshi Kanazawa, Social Science Research – National Child Development Study (U.K.), 2014
 
this gives me a 42-50% less chance of reproducing compared to the average woman, i am also an only child, aka burnt to a sizzle in the lowest depths of jahanam
 
sjnny404 said:
this gives me a 42-50% less chance of reproducing compared to the average woman, i am also an only child, aka burnt to a sizzle in the lowest depths of jahanam
Click to expand...
That’s a shame, having lots of kids is the most important thing by far
 
iq is fake and gay

So youre telling me that doing well at a contrived test predicts that I will perform better at... contrived tests

Jfl at this abomination of a "science"
 
n***a, don't read too much into free online iq tests. This one was way easier than the others I have done.
1000045824.jpg
 
DiscontinuousFunction said:
i dont need to waste 10 minutes of my life autistically squinting at shapes to validate my intelligence because i have irl results

iq tests are for retarded neets desperately looking for some sense of self-worth to cling to
Click to expand...
bro got 95
 
DiscontinuousFunction said:
Everything just requires practice bro...

Jfl at iqtards thinking that experience with previous iq tests doesnt help you with future ones
Click to expand...
Lol no. 1980s SAT problems can't be practiced for, unless you've already seen the same problem before (which is just memorization). A study showed a 20 point increase after 100 hours of tutoring. It's meant to measure more of raw cognitive ability than mere practice effecta and education.
 
Also - if you want to disprove something, you should first research what youre disproving beforehand.
 
IMG_4649.png

Did this after a double shift and 4 hours slept total :sniffa:
 
sjnny404 said:
Lol no. 1980s SAT problems can't be practiced for, unless you've already seen the same problem before (which is just memorization). A study showed a 20 point increase after 100 hours of tutoring. It's meant to measure more of raw cognitive ability than mere practice effecta and education.
Click to expand...
practice and memorisation are both prior experience, midwit. stop pretending they are distinct concepts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (Looksmaxxers: 0, Guests: 1)
Back
Top