Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 16:49:53 UTC No. 16222285
IQ 180+ here. Don't even bother to ask for a proof.
Let me deboonk the most common midwit misconceptions about IQ.
>but intelligence is multifaceted
IQ tests numerical and symbolic pattern recognition, verbal comprehension, short term memory, spatial visualization and logical reasoning. Wanna add something? Then present a rigorous test and justify why it should be included in the definition of intelligence.
>but what about emotional intelligence, social intelligence, twerking skills, number of followers on tiktok/onlyfans
Sorry sweaty, we're measuring intelligence here, not your ability to copy NPC behaviour.
>why didn't you win a Nobel prize/Fields medal? IQ means nothing when you're a loser
Intelligence comes with no obligation to contribute anything to the industrial-technological system. Acadummic success is mainly determined by obedience and social networking. A shitload of midwits (and in social "sciences" even actual brainlets) have a PhD nowadays.
>but what is your IQ good for then?
IQ enables you to quickly learn, understand, connect and creatively play with abstract concepts and to analyze, question and improve theories. Unlike a midwit whose highest achievement is superficially regurgitating what he's told.
>but IQ is racist
No, IQ is a factual statement. It doesn't tell you morally how to treat others.
>if you're so smart why aren't you rich?
Because I wasn't born rich and our economy wants obedient workers, not smart workers. You don't get rich by being smart, you get rich by being popular and sociopathic.
>if you're so smart why don't you get laid?
Attractiveness is determined by looks and status. Women are generally anti-intellectual and think of an intelligent man as a nerd in the negative sense, unless he's a gigachad. I say this as a married man btw.
>isn't this just cope?
The only ones coping here are the IQ denialists. If they didn't need to cope they'd just accept that there are people who are rightfully proud of scoring high on the IQ test
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 16:52:36 UTC No. 16222290
>>16222281
IQ tests not accurate whatsoever. I'm a teacher. Many of my students which would likely score "low" on a IQ test are some of the most talented and creative kids I've ever met. These are kids that are outgoing, love to have fun, brighten up everyone's day, have more emotional expression, and are often great at sports.
Conversely, many of the students that would probably score "high" on an IQ test are often very plain and boring. They get high grades in school but aren't very social, are often scared of the "low IQ" students, often aren't good at sports, and don't really have anything interesting to say.
I think creativity is highly underrepresented in IQ tests. A lot of my "low IQ" students are fantastic artists. Almost all of them are great dancers.
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 17:08:58 UTC No. 16222314
>>16222281
Yes. We can't even define "intelligence" much less quantify it.
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 18:44:28 UTC No. 16222505
>>16222314
>>16222290
good bait nigger. However this thread is dead from NOW
🗑️ Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 19:07:42 UTC No. 16222553
>>16222281
>>16222285
IQ is nonsense. The purpose of the neocortex is dimensionality reduction, when it fails, even the simplest thing seems complex, you think you're a genius who is trying to solve a massively complicated problem that will employ scientists for generations to come, while in reality it's something obvious, or something clearly makes no difference.
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 19:09:45 UTC No. 16222555
>>16222281
>>16222285
IQ is nonsense. The purpose of the neocortex is dimensionality reduction, when it fails, even the simplest thing seems complex, you think you're a genius who is trying to solve a massively complicated problem that will employ scientists for generations to come, while in reality it's something obvious, or something that clearly makes no difference.
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 19:18:37 UTC No. 16222577
>>16222281
intelligence testing and IQ is a harder science with more reliable replicability than chemistry.
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 20:05:48 UTC No. 16222678
>>16222281
Only the most retarded stupid morons try to cope pretending IQ is not the most important factor for success right after conscientiousness and being fucking rich.
🗑️ B4RK0N (300 IQ) 'kneel' at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 20:07:44 UTC No. 16222682
>>16222678
Mouf.
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 23:18:11 UTC No. 16223072
>>16222281
IQ itself is not pseudoscience. The way autistic retards on the internet use it, is.
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 00:28:28 UTC No. 16223278
>>16222285
So if you can't have sex with high iq and you can't get a good job with high iq then it's actually an undesirable trait
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 00:34:06 UTC No. 16223290
>>16223278
Wait until you learn about IQ induced depression. Smart people literally cannot be happy.
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 00:34:31 UTC No. 16223291
>>16222285
>IQ 180+ here
>frogposter
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 02:52:30 UTC No. 16223564
>>16222577
mfs will say anything on this board.
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 02:55:26 UTC No. 16223574
>>16223290
when will this board get tired of iq threads
https://www.cambridge.org/core/jour
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 02:56:43 UTC No. 16223578
>>16222281
Yes, unless something comes along that directly derives some sort of intelligence metric from brain scans, they're all useless pseudo-science. Your brain is what makes you intelligent, not a standardised test.
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 07:57:16 UTC No. 16223994
>>16223574
They classified midwits as "high IQ". Methodological error. Bullshit study. Into the trash.
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 09:38:18 UTC No. 16224107
>>16222285
if IQ is real why can I max out an IQ test after spending a week studying for it like I would for any other exam?
Doesn't it defeat the point if you can "cheat" by preparing? And isn't that in itself a major flaw, that people's experiences up until that point can be considered to be "preparation" in themselves?
IQ is bad because it requires you to take the test as a blank slate to work.
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 09:50:39 UTC No. 16224119
>>16224107
If you can maxx out an IQ test by studying then you are highly intelligent. A brainlet or a midwit certainly can't do that, no matter how many resources spent on his training. Yes, IQ can be trained within a possible range of maybe one standard deviation. Just like running or weight lifting can be trained. But a normal guy never becomes a world class athlete only by training. In the end it's genetics that determines the higher ranks of talent.
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 10:46:11 UTC No. 16224188
>>16222281
>is IQ pseudo-science?
meh, maybe
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 18:58:55 UTC No. 16225128
>>16222281
Yes, it is.
No, I will not elaborate.
I don't want you low IQ troglodytes trying to argue with me.
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 19:07:40 UTC No. 16225147
>>16222281
Seems like a good psyop.
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 19:29:17 UTC No. 16225193
>>16223072
Exactly. Just because you score high on a test doesn't mean your whole mind is vivid since it only tests a certain part of your thinking. The opposite is also true, in that someone who scores low isn't dull minded but just doesn't have the qualities of scoring high on that test.
Also, it's annoying when someone goes
>oooh look at me, I have 3000iq therefore I can say any retarded thing I want and you can't say I'm wrong hur durr.
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 19:33:00 UTC No. 16225199
>>16222281
It's still important, just not THAT important.
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 20:58:21 UTC No. 16225351
>>16222281
Yes, its only purpose is to filter the number of poors that make it into positions of power. No one is actually cultivating human capital.
Anonymous at Mon, 10 Jun 2024 00:22:44 UTC No. 16225851
>>16224119
>If you can maxx out an IQ test by studying then you are highly intelligent. A brainlet or a midwit certainly can't do that, no matter how many resources spent on his training.
This is a lie.
Anonymous at Mon, 10 Jun 2024 01:09:10 UTC No. 16225911
yes
>t. 128 iq
Anonymous at Mon, 10 Jun 2024 01:16:23 UTC No. 16225921
>>16224119
It doesn't reliably test memory if you can study for it, autist.
Anonymous at Mon, 10 Jun 2024 03:32:42 UTC No. 16226120
>>16223994
>>16224107
>>16224119
>If you can maxx out an IQ test by studying then you are highly intelligent.
I think to the contrary - all genuinely high IQ people are the stupid "midwits". Anybody who scored high, but isn't a midwit only filled the test according to what they want, regardless of what makes sense.
The neocortex is an autoencoder. It was the same evolutionary breakthrough as in AI. It has two effects - first, everything us simpler, as you deal with much more meaningful labels, instead of the raw inputs. But what is more important is that it restricts your thinking to what corresponds to the world that the autoencoder knows. So not only its failure makes everything seems complicated, but also allows you to think aboit nonsense. (which may be why healthy people "fail" at some of the more informal "tests of intelligence")
Anonymous at Mon, 10 Jun 2024 03:43:57 UTC No. 16226132
>>16222290
>the teacher doesn't know that people who try get better results than people who don't
ngmi
Anonymous at Mon, 10 Jun 2024 05:40:41 UTC No. 16226228
>>16224188
What kind of test is that? Do Mensa Denmar or Norway and then post.
Anonymous at Mon, 10 Jun 2024 07:59:42 UTC No. 16226394
>>16222285
Great post
Thank you Anon
Anonymous at Mon, 10 Jun 2024 08:02:39 UTC No. 16226398
>>16223291
Applause btw
One of the greatest frogposters of all time has dressed us with his grace and I am in my boxers not even in my tuxedo
Anonymous at Mon, 10 Jun 2024 08:04:39 UTC No. 16226399
>>16222290
I was hired as math faculty by a man. He was then replaced by a woman. She came on to me. I rejected her. She then got the ick one day and fired me.
I did nothing wrong.
Anonymous at Mon, 10 Jun 2024 08:14:31 UTC No. 16226405
>>16222505
I wish I could bait that masterfully. I bet you it's legit boomer woman cope 100% and 0% bait. Or copypasta.
You are truly skilled in tard mimesis if you can off the dome spout sentimental bullshit like that.
On that note: higher IQ means higher emotional depth and moral reasoning and ethical sensibilities. It literally makes you a better more valuable person yet the more society notices the worse they react.
Anonymous at Mon, 10 Jun 2024 08:28:40 UTC No. 16226421
>eat a diner
>waitress makes small talk
>"what do you do for a living?"
>"math teacher"
>"oh what level? I bet you'd be a great math teacher you totally give math teacher vibes like all the kids would pay attention"
>her face is warm, smiling, you can almost smell the roses on the hearts radiating emotion from her gaze
>"university"
>her gaze drops and she walks off
Reminded me of pic rel
Anonymous at Mon, 10 Jun 2024 08:33:51 UTC No. 16226427
Imagine we had glass skulls with brains like bulbs and could just see how smart you are in a glance.
Neurophysiology is where the conversation should go from IQ. It is more specialized but worthy of the ostracized high IQ tail to specialize in.
Anonymous at Mon, 10 Jun 2024 08:52:01 UTC No. 16226447
>>16226405
>On that note: higher IQ means higher emotional depth and moral reasoning and ethical sensibilities. It literally makes you a better more valuable person yet the more society notices the worse they react.
It means the exact opposite.
Anonymous at Mon, 10 Jun 2024 09:03:24 UTC No. 16226458
>>16226447
>more brain means less...
Less what exactly?
>response not found
>argument not found
>feelings retort
Baseless and ephemeral
See the halo on the depicted sage.
Do you know of any culture that would prefer dullness to sagacity and blatantly depict this?
Maybe a donut halo or a butthole halo.
Anonymous at Mon, 10 Jun 2024 09:06:15 UTC No. 16226460
>>16226447
>it means the exact opposite
Seethe, woman
Anonymous at Mon, 10 Jun 2024 09:07:58 UTC No. 16226461
>>16226447
Exhibit A
Anonymous at Mon, 10 Jun 2024 09:09:04 UTC No. 16226462
>>16226461
Exhibit B (Philosopher poet, best friend of Beethoven)
Anonymous at Mon, 10 Jun 2024 09:14:38 UTC No. 16226473
>>16226462
Exhibit C (Counter example)
Anonymous at Mon, 10 Jun 2024 09:17:20 UTC No. 16226477
>>16226458
High IQ = less brain.
>Do you know of any culture that would prefer dullness to sagacity and blatantly depict this?
Yes. It's our culture. It turned all ideas of intelligence on its head. Previously stupid behaviors are now taken as signs of a great intellect, and intelligence is stupid, even dangerous. Dullness is the new intellect.
Anonymous at Mon, 10 Jun 2024 09:19:56 UTC No. 16226486
>>16222281
Statistical communication becomes a pseudoscience in the shortest weakest game of telephone. Our gaysciety says secondary literature is just as good as primary sources. Our gaysciety says EXPERTS know best. Opponents of IQ research and discussion never propose counter arguments any other model any other falsifiable measure of competence.
Their hostility is a sign of its truth and its power that we are ruffling the feathers of the dark powers in the righteous light.
Anonymous at Mon, 10 Jun 2024 09:24:55 UTC No. 16226495
>>16226477
>High IQ = less brain
Replace IQ with "smart score" and fill in the blank with ANY objective measure of deeds done and vouched for.
Do you see how "IQ ™" is not "IQ" the concept?
If I am concerned with ANY litmus of cognitive performance then I can then BTFO all of academia in a blink and a snap and a high five moving forward with 0 regrets...
Or would you prefer paying 10 Jews and homos transcript fees for Advanced Employable Sensitivity Training?
B00T at Mon, 10 Jun 2024 09:26:48 UTC No. 16226500
>>16226495
But you are less real than you think to me the pressures on my injured head are enormous and with losing grasp and a high kind of tiredness there may be a blackout
Anonymous at Mon, 10 Jun 2024 09:31:11 UTC No. 16226510
>>16226500
Get fukt
Anonymous at Mon, 10 Jun 2024 10:00:54 UTC No. 16226530
>>16222285
>The only ones coping here are the IQ denialists
but youre a total loser? 'le coping' with what exactly?
Anonymous at Mon, 10 Jun 2024 10:34:01 UTC No. 16226561
>>16226530
>but youre a total loser?
He is by what? Because posting on 4chan makes you a loser? Oh
Like you?
Anonymous at Mon, 10 Jun 2024 12:30:01 UTC No. 16226674
>>16223290
Well when you hear crap about tards who can dance being smarter than smart people and that you’re boring and stuff it’s really dumb, all of everything that is. People are competitive and sometimes you win so others have to act evil. Like oh you are smart, well uhhh you have no common sense! haha! So then everyone loses because nobody listens to the smart person.
So then we live in a whole clown world and people in general are not that funny or good of dancers. Smart kids are usually funnier but don’t say shit bc their teacher is some sort of sociopath
Anonymous at Mon, 10 Jun 2024 13:11:04 UTC No. 16226729
>>16226674
>Like oh you are smart, well uhhh you have no common sense! haha! So then everyone loses because nobody listens to the smart person.
Common sense is an aspect of intelligence. It's unlikely that somebody with no common sense could come up with good advice.
Anonymous at Mon, 10 Jun 2024 13:14:31 UTC No. 16226735
>>16222285
Exceptionally high IQ take
Anonymous at Mon, 10 Jun 2024 13:15:59 UTC No. 16226739
>>16222285
>emotional intelligence, social intelligence, twerking skills, number of followers on tiktok/onlyfans
If these have a measurable and testable correlation to intelligence should they not be included?
Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 00:30:33 UTC No. 16227708
>>16226120
pseud
🗑️ Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 03:00:13 UTC No. 16227854
>>16227708
Explain their persistent failure, file related.
Note that the only difference between the silly "brilliant" professor, and the blatantly wrong social reformer is the inability of the latter to shield himself from reality, and that 'instinct' is actually the neocortex.
Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 03:01:15 UTC No. 16227855
>>16227708
Explain their persistent failure, file related.
Note that the only difference between the silly "brilliant" professor, and the blatantly wrong social reformer is the inability of the latter to shield himself from reality, and that 'instinct' is actually the neocortex.
Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 04:03:17 UTC No. 16227914
>>16227855
> this editorial from 2009 supports what i have to say therefore i must be correct!
oh, i'm sorry, i forgot. you possess an exceptionally high IQ and thus lack the common sense required to discern useful evidence from masturbatory nonsense.
Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 04:36:05 UTC No. 16227950
>>16222290
aka
>Intelligence measurements are not accurate because they don't measure these list of things which are not intelligence.
Also how do you know they wouldn't score well on IQ tests if IQ doesn't measure anything? You saying that implies you yourself think they are dumb (despite being 'smart' in the other ways, caveat being, these other ways are not intelligence) in a way that an IQ test could pick up on.
The next cope I hear is define 'intelligence'. Pointless semantics, However general intelligence, (or g factor, or simply g) isn't a matter of coping boomers subjective definition, it is a statistical construct that can be objectively measured with accuracy, and its effects easily measured as well. And for the most part, people intuitively equate intelligence to general intelligence anyway. The only people that believe in "everyone is intelligent, just in their own way" are people that are coping hard that some people are much smarter then other people.
Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 04:47:29 UTC No. 16227965
>>16227914
I only use it as an example, I disagree with its reasoning.
It claims that high IQ helps people to succeed in novel situations, but is inferior in situations that we are well evolved to handle, or in other words that dumb people succeed because of their instincts serve them well.
I claim that it isn't true that high IQ ever succeeed in anything: they are only capable of shielding themselves from outside criticism, but their failure is consistent and they are brain damaged.
What is claimed to be 'instinct' is actually the reduction provided by the neocortex as explained in >>16222555, and there is probably no instinct at all, in any mammal. It's an entirely new approach to intelligence, where the dimensionality reduction both makes the problem easier to handle by condensing thousand of datapoints into much more meaningful features, and restrict tge solutions to what the condensed features can represent. It's similar in AI or data processing where you only keep the few most meaningful dimensions and discard the rest, and only monitor for outliers, that can't be represented well. That way you can tell that something doesn't fit, and test if the model, your understanding is wrong, or the data is, instead of having to rely on some authority and hope that it's telling the truth.
Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 07:14:00 UTC No. 16228076
>>16222285
being proud of measuring your own intelligence with a single number is peak brainlet thinking. i say this as a man much smarter than you
Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 08:13:40 UTC No. 16228118
>>16222281
maybe it is, just like using the amounts of push ups and how long it takes you to run a mile, as an index to measure how good you are at football. it might be not scientific but if you cant even do 10 push ups its very unlikely that you are able to compete in football