Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

@#%^ your autistic kid, I'm tired of hearing about him.Follow

#302 Mar 25 2013 at 8:19 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
30,870 posts
Dread Lörd Kaolian wrote:
That thing is broken. I only got 135.


I got about 2/3rds the way through, then my phone started ringing off the hook with various computer problems, and I didn't finish. Guess I shouldn't have done it from work.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#303 Mar 25 2013 at 10:04 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
******
29,709 posts
I was patching servers, so my brain wasn't really there anyways heh.
____________________________
Arch Duke Kaolian Drachensborn, lvl 95 Ranger, Unrest Server
Tech support forum | FAQ (Support) | Mobile Zam: http://m.zam.com (Premium only)
Forum Rules
#304 Mar 25 2013 at 10:32 PM Rating: Decent
******
21,715 posts
I took that thing 3 times and my score got progressively worse from 130 down to 110. I'm therefore convinced that attempting to test one's intelligence by their ability to discern patterns in such a way is mind numbing.

____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#305 Mar 25 2013 at 11:37 PM Rating: Good
Everyone's Oiran
Avatar
*****
15,886 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
This isn't a court of law. There is no reason to have an implicit assumption of truth in others statements. Putting the burden of disproving anything said by anyone on everyone except the person making the statement unfairly lowers the valuation of truth in the conversation. You've been fairly persistent in this notion, over the years and I thought it might be wise to reassess your method of evaluating these sorts of constructs. I can't quite tell whether or not this will be fundamentally better for you, but I do think it would be valuable to you.

There's an important distinction in novel writing between the author telling the reader something about a character, and showing/demonstrating to the reader something about a character. Telling instead of showing is usually an Author Fail. In life, telling instead of demonstrating is also suspect. However, often in time constraints, telling is all you have. It takes time to demonstrate who you are. Just because I accept a "Tell" doesn't mean I'm not reserving judgment pending demonstration. I have a LOT of time to fill. My condition is steadily worsening over time. I literally can barely move. It's not an insulin problem, it's a Mitochondrial ATP Krebb's cycle problem where my ATP breaks instead of being recycled, and then that cell is out of commission for four days, or dies. No ATP, no sugar burn for energy. And thinking or emoting hits my energy deficit worse than physical movement. Mental jobs requiring speed and accuracy are just as out as physical jobs. So I have a lot of time on my hands to waste or find a meaningful life to live with, with not enough energy resources, and all my money going on medicals and their consequences. I have SO much time for demonstration. But I'm not going to get a demonstration if I alienate a person in the first two minutes of interaction.

Edited, Mar 26th 2013 3:45am by Aripyanfar
____________________________
<3

http://www.reddit.com/r/Forum4/
#306 Mar 25 2013 at 11:43 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I spent my time playing video games rather than taking online intelligence tests which I'm pretty sure means I'm smarter than all of you.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#307 Mar 25 2013 at 11:59 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
Avatar
*****
10,403 posts
Debalic wrote:
Meh. 112, I rushed through it with a five year old harassing me. Does the mere existence, or presence of children affect your IQ?

Just add an extra 50 or 60 onto your score for good measure.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#308 Mar 26 2013 at 5:33 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
28,585 posts
D, F, B, G, A, H, B, E, H, A, C, F, B, D, H, E, F, C, E, D, G, A, B, H, B, A, H, G, E, A, D, E, G, G, C, F, H, F, B

18 minutes including typing the answers here, which probably took longer than solving.

Not a great test from a psychometric standpoint. No idea if answers are randomized or not, but given it's a bullsh*t online test, I'd assume no. Feel free to impress your friends, assuming this sort of thing would impress them.

____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a whore. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. @#%^ off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#309 Mar 26 2013 at 7:19 AM Rating: Good
Everyone's Oiran
Avatar
*****
15,886 posts
Duuuude. I'm not surprised you can, but couldn't you spoiler it so everyone else's subsequent scores aren't suspect?
____________________________
<3

http://www.reddit.com/r/Forum4/
#310 Mar 26 2013 at 7:27 AM Rating: Good
Repressed Memories
******
20,540 posts
Self reported datum tends to be suspect regardless.
#311 Mar 26 2013 at 7:52 AM Rating: Excellent
8 million.
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#312 Mar 26 2013 at 7:59 AM Rating: Good
******
41,289 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
Feel free to impress your friends, assuming this sort of thing would impress them.
Pass. It was mind numbingly boring the first time.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#313 Mar 26 2013 at 7:59 AM Rating: Good
Everyone's Oiran
Avatar
*****
15,886 posts
Allegory wrote:
Self reported datum tends to be suspect regardless.

It topped out at 145 IQ anyway. What use is that? Oh hey, you made scholar. Grats ^-^
____________________________
<3

http://www.reddit.com/r/Forum4/
#314 Mar 26 2013 at 8:15 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
28,585 posts
Duuuude. I'm not surprised you can, but couldn't you spoiler it so everyone else's subsequent scores aren't suspect?

First of all, allegory's right, self reported data is allays fairly useless. Going by self reported data, lots of people have never masturbated or even considered it, and women who are conservative politically orgasm every time they have sex.

Secondly, if I can post the answers, and the test has been around with non randomized questions and answers for greater than...say an hour....the answers are somewhere else on the web. I didn't look for them, but I imagine it would be fairly trivial to find them.

There's a reason online tests aren't taken very seriously.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a whore. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. @#%^ off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#315 Mar 26 2013 at 8:27 AM Rating: Good
Unforkgettable
*****
12,970 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
D, F, B, G, A, H, B, E, H, A, C, F, B, D, H, E, F, C, E, D, G, A, B, H, B, A, H, G, E, A, D, E, G, G, C, F, H, F, B

18 minutes including typing the answers here, which probably took longer than solving.

Not a great test from a psychometric standpoint. No idea if answers are randomized or not, but given it's a bullsh*t online test, I'd assume no. Feel free to impress your friends, assuming this sort of thing would impress them.



Aripyanfar wrote:
Allegory wrote:
Self reported datum tends to be suspect regardless.

It topped out at 145 IQ anyway. What use is that? Oh hey, you made scholar. Grats ^-^

Too bad you guys posted this. It would have been slightly amusing when some posters came back with results above 150.
____________________________
Banh
#316 Mar 26 2013 at 8:34 AM Rating: Good
Sage
****
4,041 posts
I took an online IQ test once in high school on the projector while sitting at my desk just as an exhibit to the class. I got 139. I also orgasm usually at least 5 but up to 15 times every time I have sex.
#317 Mar 26 2013 at 8:37 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I orgasm 15 times every time I take an IQ test.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#318 Mar 26 2013 at 9:15 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
Avatar
*****
10,403 posts
I usually orgasm 14 times in the first half of the test, then get bored and quit.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#319 Mar 26 2013 at 9:21 AM Rating: Good
******
41,289 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
I usually orgasm 14 times in the first half of the test, then get bored and quit pull out.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#320 Mar 26 2013 at 9:57 AM Rating: Decent
******
21,715 posts
I usually take a test 15 tests every time I orgasm.




Come on now, do your best with that one...
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#321 Mar 26 2013 at 10:04 AM Rating: Excellent
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
14,829 posts
I'm a high achieving orgasmer.

It was hard growing up surrounded by peeps of lower orgasm status, but I learned strategies to cope.

Now I'm comfortable with my gift.



____________________________
LOOK here.
#322 Mar 26 2013 at 10:07 AM Rating: Good
****
6,470 posts
Elinda wrote:
I'm a high achieving orgasmer.

It was hard growing up surrounded by peeps of lower orgasm status, but I learned strategies to cope.

Now I'm comfortable with my gift.


Yeah, you always come in here, lording this supposedly great orgasm ability over everyone, but whenever I propose that we test it out firsthand, you're all "Nah, I'd get bored."
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#323 Mar 26 2013 at 10:09 AM Rating: Excellent
Everyone's Oiran
Avatar
*****
15,886 posts
BrownDuck wrote:
I usually take a test 15 tests every time I orgasm.




Come on now, do your best with that one...

Sweety, if you go for monogamy you won't have to get tested so often.
____________________________
<3

http://www.reddit.com/r/Forum4/
#324 Mar 26 2013 at 10:13 AM Rating: Good
Sage
****
4,041 posts
I'm glad I've found a place where I can experience my orgasmic equals. Suddenly I'm not such a unique snowflake anymore and the world accepts me!
#325 Mar 26 2013 at 10:18 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
14,829 posts
Aripyanfar wrote:
BrownDuck wrote:
I usually take a test 15 tests every time I orgasm.




Come on now, do your best with that one...

Sweety, if you go for monogamy you won't have to get tested so often.
Au contraire, palm-sex presents hardly no risk to STD's.

This thread is finally starting to go places......
____________________________
LOOK here.
#326 Mar 26 2013 at 10:41 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
Avatar
*****
10,403 posts
Elinda wrote:
This thread is finally starting to go places......

That's what happens when you push it down a flight of stairs.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#327 Mar 26 2013 at 10:44 AM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
28,585 posts

That's what happens when you push it down a flight of stairs.


Could be worse, at least it hasn't cum to terrible puns yet.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a whore. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. @#%^ off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#328 Mar 26 2013 at 10:53 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
14,829 posts
Smasharoo wrote:

That's what happens when you push it down a flight of stairs.


Could be worse, at least it hasn't cum to terrible puns yet.

When it all turns to puns it's time to pull out.
____________________________
LOOK here.
#329 Mar 26 2013 at 11:16 AM Rating: Good
******
41,289 posts
At least it'll abort similar threads appearing.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#330 Mar 26 2013 at 11:40 AM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
30,870 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
First of all, allegory's right, self reported data is allays fairly useless. Going by self reported data, lots of people have never masturbated or even considered it, and women who are conservative politically orgasm every time they have sex.

Secondly, if I can post the answers, and the test has been around with non randomized questions and answers for greater than...say an hour....the answers are somewhere else on the web. I didn't look for them, but I imagine it would be fairly trivial to find them.


Thirdly, it has the same problem that all (most? every one I've run into) IQ tests have: They don't really test how smart you are, but how experienced you are at taking these kinds of tests. Even on top of the whole "it's the same test every time, so you can take it until you get a perfect score" bit, it's still basically testing a (small) subset of brain skills. Ever met someone who's a complete idiot, but is a whiz at picture puzzles, or block puzzles, or whatever? Same concept.


I suspect that since no one can really put their finger on what actually makes someone "smart", but lots of people put great weight in some kind of measurement, they create these tests, call them IQ tests, and let people feel good (or bad) about themselves based on them. I just don't have much faith in being able to measure in any sort of broad test the ability for someone to be exposed to something for the first time, intuitively understand it, and within minutes realize that the person teaching the subject doesn't actually understand it at all. I'm positive that it has little or nothing to do with pattern puzzles.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#331 Mar 26 2013 at 11:43 AM Rating: Excellent
Supreme Lionator
*****
13,909 posts
Quote:
Ever met someone who's a complete idiot, but is a whiz at picture puzzles, or block puzzles, or whatever?

I don't know, how good are you at rubix cubes?
____________________________
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
#332 Mar 26 2013 at 11:47 AM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
30,870 posts
Kavekk wrote:
Quote:
Ever met someone who's a complete idiot, but is a whiz at picture puzzles, or block puzzles, or whatever?

I don't know, how good are you at rubix cubes?


I'm ... Wait! It's a trap!!!
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#333 Mar 26 2013 at 12:00 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
28,585 posts
I suspect that since no one can really put their finger on what actually makes someone "smart", but lots of people put great weight in some kind of measurement, they create these tests, call them IQ tests, and let people feel good (or bad) about themselves based on them. I just don't have much faith in being able to measure in any sort of broad test the ability for someone to be exposed to something for the first time, intuitively understand it, and within minutes realize that the person teaching the subject doesn't actually understand it at all. I'm positive that it has little or nothing to do with pattern puzzles.

Firstly, we should note that this isn't happening to you. You're not immediately grasping something and realizing the person explaining it doesn't understand. You're having a delusion and missing something. TRUST ME on this one.

Secondly, you're wrong. Happens a lot, you shouldn't feel badly. There are many forms of intelligence, sure, but IQ tests are pretty good at measuring general intelligence and general intelligence is predictive of a great many things. It's not at all meaningless or useless. It'd be great if that were the case, because it's obviously fairly fascist, but sadly, that's not how it works.

I don't want to get into a whole discussion about the value of IQ tests or other standardized tests. Yes, there can be bias, yes people can be coached to score higher, etc. The idea, though, that because there are flaws they are useless is one based on sentiment. DOD has tried for a long long time to come up with a better standard than general intelligence for assigning roles and hasn't found one. If I gave you 10000 18 year olds and told you to pick 20 to do intelligence analysis, you probably aren't going to recommend the ones with "emotional intelligence" when you're through screening them.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a whore. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. @#%^ off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#334 Mar 26 2013 at 12:19 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
30,870 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
Firstly, we should note that this isn't happening to you. You're not immediately grasping something and realizing the person explaining it doesn't understand. You're having a delusion and missing something. TRUST ME on this one.


I think you're having a delusion and missing something.

Quote:
There are many forms of intelligence, sure, but IQ tests are pretty good at measuring general intelligence and general intelligence is predictive of a great many things. It's not at all meaningless or useless.


Not completely meaningless or useless. They can often weed out the truly dumb, or relatively unteachable people. I suppose you could argue that they do measure potential, but only in the negative direction. A high score indicates that the person must be at least above average intelligence. But how high doesn't necessarily indicate how intelligent. Also a low score on a single test doesn't mean low intelligence. Smart people can score poorly, but dumb people generally can't score well. So useful, but not in the iPeen way some people tend to try to apply them.

Quote:
I don't want to get into a whole discussion about the value of IQ tests or other standardized tests. Yes, there can be bias, yes people can be coached to score higher, etc.


Yes. I've met a lot of them. Typically, they are slightly above average intelligence, but their parents wanted a genius, so they pushed them to take IQ tests their entire lives and constantly told them how smart they are. Now, they're really good at taking those tests, but most of them can't think their way out of the equivalent of an intellectual paper bag. The tests don't go the other way. Learning to be good at taking them doesn't make you smart. It makes you good at taking them. Smart people take them and score well without a lifetime of practice. But the test doesn't tell you which is which.

Quote:
The idea, though, that because there are flaws they are useless is one based on sentiment.


I didn't say they were useless. They're actually a decent starting point in terms of weeding out people.


Quote:
DOD has tried for a long long time to come up with a better standard than general intelligence for assigning roles and hasn't found one. If I gave you 10000 18 year olds and told you to pick 20 to do intelligence analysis, you probably aren't going to recommend the ones with "emotional intelligence" when you're through screening them.


Yes. Because you're not actually testing intelligence. My issue isn't with the test themselves, but with what most people think they mean.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#335 Mar 26 2013 at 12:20 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
Avatar
*****
10,403 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
There are many forms of intelligence, sure, but IQ tests are pretty good at measuring general intelligence and general intelligence is predictive of a great many things. It's not at all meaningless or useless. It'd be great if that were the case, because it's obviously fairly fascist, but sadly, that's not how it works.

Something like this.

Every test I've taken seems to put me somewhere in the same "above average but not remarkable" category. Which pretty seemed to be the case in school, and in most facets of life so far for that matter.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#336 Mar 26 2013 at 12:20 PM Rating: Excellent
I'm guessing you (Gbaji) did badly on an IQ test at some point.

Edited, Mar 26th 2013 1:23pm by Xsarus
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#337 Mar 26 2013 at 12:21 PM Rating: Good
******
21,715 posts
Well hasn't this thread taken a truly ironic twist...
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#338 Mar 26 2013 at 12:23 PM Rating: Excellent
******
41,289 posts
Not really.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#339 Mar 26 2013 at 12:29 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
30,870 posts
Sir Xsarus wrote:
I'm guessing you did badly on an IQ test at some point.


No. Of the handful I've taken, I typically score in the 130-150 range, sometimes higher (sometimes much higher). But I've noticed that the score variation between those tests isn't because one day I was just more on my game than another, but because the structure of one test was something I was more familiar with doing regularly, and another was not. At a certain point, it's not about how smart you are, but how familiar you are with the kinds of questions being asked that determines how high your score is.

If you consistently score below 120 on IQ tests, then you're not a genius. You're average. Maybe below average if you're regularly scoring below 100 (or have some kind of disability). Above that point though, the tests usually fail to tell us how smart someone actually is relative to someone else. They tell us more about how often the person has taken IQ tests than anything else. Which was the point I was making. As I said, my scores are never low or even average, but they vary wildly based entirely on the structure of the questions themselves and nothing else.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#340 Mar 26 2013 at 12:32 PM Rating: Good
Sage
****
4,041 posts
BrownDuck wrote:
Well hasn't this thread taken a truly ironic twist...


I think one way to measure intelligence is to see if a person knows how to use the word "irony" correctly.
#341 Mar 26 2013 at 12:38 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
28,585 posts
Above that point though, the tests usually fail to tell us how smart someone actually is relative to someone else.

Depends entirely on the test. There are tests that do well at differentiating between outliers, that have higher ceilings, etc. They tend to be more complex to administer and it's not usually a part of results that people care about much.

I typically score in the 130-150 range,

Sounds entirely plausible to me based on my limited knowledge of you. The idea that is indistinguishable from someone with an IQ of 180 isn't plausible. I'm sure you could do most jobs if trained, and that's great. In many, many, many ways a person is far better off with results in the range you're talking about. It's great being bright, it's miserable being exceptionally so.

____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a whore. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. @#%^ off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#342 Mar 26 2013 at 12:42 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
Avatar
*****
10,403 posts
gbaji wrote:
I just don't have much faith in being able to measure in any sort of broad test the ability for someone to be exposed to something for the first time, intuitively understand it, and within minutes realize that the person teaching the subject doesn't actually understand it at all.


gbaji wrote:
But I've noticed that the score variation between those tests isn't because one day I was just more on my game than another, but because the structure of one test was something I was more familiar with doing regularly, and another was not.


Smiley: dubious
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#343 Mar 26 2013 at 12:43 PM Rating: Good
Supreme Lionator
*****
13,909 posts
I have a mean IQ of 195.78373654 on the Stanford-Binet-Quetzalcoatl scale, making me eligible for a free calendar and plastic toy with my happy meal. Sometimes it's lower, and other days, well, they just hand me a card with a lemniscate on it.

I have come to realise that these variations follow the ebb and flow of Tetzcatlipcoa's machinations - and no other thing.
____________________________
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
#344 Mar 26 2013 at 1:07 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
457 posts
Quote:
No. Of the handful I've taken, I typically score in the 130-150 range, sometimes higher (sometimes much higher). But I've noticed that the score variation between those tests isn't because one day I was just more on my game than another, but because the structure of one test was something I was more familiar with doing regularly, and another was not. At a certain point, it's not about how smart you are, but how familiar you are with the kinds of questions being asked that determines how high your score is.
I think a lot of online iq tests are just really bad. I've got over 170 on one before, and 150+ on a few. And while i am reasonable intelligent, it's obvious to me that they were just bad tests.
____________________________
#345 Mar 26 2013 at 1:10 PM Rating: Good
Sage
****
4,041 posts
Can we go back to orgasms now? Or maybe just other bodily functions. Anything but lolonline IQ tests.
#346 Mar 26 2013 at 1:12 PM Rating: Excellent
******
41,289 posts
Don't you like reading fanfiction written by thirteen year olds?
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#347 Mar 26 2013 at 1:16 PM Rating: Good
Sage
****
4,041 posts
Very much so. I especially love them with obvious Mormon overtones. That's why I can't wait for Stephanie Meyer's new movie coming out about an alien love triangle or something. I'm not sure, but I'm sure it'll be good!
#348 Mar 26 2013 at 1:20 PM Rating: Excellent
****
6,470 posts
I got a 108. And I totally know that it's no reflection on my intelligence, and that online IQ tests are bull, and that the very notion of an IQ test is flawed at conception.








@#%^ you guys. Smiley: glare

Edited, Mar 26th 2013 3:20pm by Eske
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#349 Mar 26 2013 at 1:25 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
30,870 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
Above that point though, the tests usually fail to tell us how smart someone actually is relative to someone else.

Depends entirely on the test. There are tests that do well at differentiating between outliers, that have higher ceilings, etc. They tend to be more complex to administer and it's not usually a part of results that people care about much.


Which is why I don't put much stock in the standard "IQ tests" that folks take along the way over their education and career (and absolutely not the online ones for obvious reasons). Measuring actual intelligence level at the high end is much more complex and requires a degree of interaction and observation which isn't present in the standard tests, and often gives very different results (and they're also focused on specifics as well, so it's honestly hard to correlate them anyway).

Quote:
I typically score in the 130-150 range,

Sounds entirely plausible to me based on my limited knowledge of you. The idea that is indistinguishable from someone with an IQ of 180 isn't plausible.


Uh huh. Some of us can be brilliant without being neurotic though. I know that's hard for the smart but neurotic crowd to accept though. A funny side note from my own observations is that really high scores on the broader tests tend to precisely test for neurotic/obsessive minds. Hence my point that we're not really testing intelligence.

Quote:
I'm sure you could do most jobs if trained, and that's great. In many, many, many ways a person is far better off with results in the range you're talking about. It's great being bright, it's miserable being exceptionally so.


Yeah. Keep telling yourself that. Smiley: tongue
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#350 Mar 26 2013 at 1:28 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
30,870 posts
Rachel9 wrote:
Quote:
No. Of the handful I've taken, I typically score in the 130-150 range, sometimes higher (sometimes much higher). But I've noticed that the score variation between those tests isn't because one day I was just more on my game than another, but because the structure of one test was something I was more familiar with doing regularly, and another was not. At a certain point, it's not about how smart you are, but how familiar you are with the kinds of questions being asked that determines how high your score is.
I think a lot of online iq tests are just really bad. I've got over 170 on one before, and 150+ on a few. And while i am reasonable intelligent, it's obvious to me that they were just bad tests.


Any online test that scores that high is designed just to make people feel good about themselves.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#351 Mar 26 2013 at 1:36 PM Rating: Excellent
Lunatic
******
28,585 posts
Uh huh. Some of us can be brilliant without being neurotic though. I know that's hard for the smart but neurotic crowd to accept though. A funny side note from my own observations is that really high scores on the broader tests tend to precisely test for neurotic/obsessive minds. Hence my point that we're not really testing intelligence.

Really, you came to the conclusion that you are as smart as it's possible to be without any downside and that people who are smarter are flawed in some other way that lowers their overall ability to achieve things?

Who could have guessed? Oh, everyone? Right.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a whore. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. @#%^ off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 46 All times are in CDT
Aethien, Almalieque, Kuwoobie, xPriestessx, Anonymous Guests (42)