Anonymous at Wed, 26 Mar 2025 23:16:15 UTC No. 16629435

being a kid is idolizing iq
being an adult is realizing dick size always made more sense

Anonymous at Wed, 26 Mar 2025 23:20:48 UTC No. 16629436

>>16629429
IQ literally has a vocabulary test and it's supposed to not measure any learned skill

Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 00:57:28 UTC No. 16629485

>>16629429
You need to realize that IQ tests are made for measuring raw ability, its your fault if you praffe them to the max and think you are high IQ
you should only take a FSIQ test once and be content

Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 04:54:28 UTC No. 16629595

>>16629485
>t. CTzen

Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 05:09:34 UTC No. 16629598

>>16629435
KEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEK

Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 06:37:35 UTC No. 16629628

>>16629429
We gotta implement gambling on standardized testing scores. To raise literacy

Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 12:20:55 UTC No. 16629783

>>16629429
The problem is that IQ Tests don't JUST measure IQ.
They measure IQ but a lot of other factors come into play.
Motivation is a big factor for example.
It's proven that if you offer a monetary reward for completing IQ Tests, then that tends to raise people's scores, as they are more motivated to take the test that someone who isn't being paid.

If you actually want to learn in detail how IQ Tests work, and what they actually measure, Veritasium made a pretty good video on the topic.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FkKPsLxgpuY

Highly recommend if you're interested in IQ measurements and IQ testing.

Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 16:54:11 UTC No. 16629941

>>16629435
Are you implying your dick should be reading Aristotle and dabbling in minor physics

Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 17:04:26 UTC No. 16629949

>>16629435
I have a 7.25” dick and 150iq

Face is more important than both.

Eyedol at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 18:14:26 UTC No. 16629993

This, I always thought measuring intelligence on a linear scale was simple minded

Eyedol at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 18:16:24 UTC No. 16629995

>>16629485
>you should only take a FSIQ test once and be content

So are you saying taking it once raises your I.Q? Or does it make the test useless if you have already taken it?

Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 21:54:15 UTC No. 16630207

>>16629429
>t. raised his IQ from 90 to 95 by taking the same test 50 times

Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 21:57:37 UTC No. 16630211

How much does it cost to have the WAIS-V professionally administered?

I want to feel smart

Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 22:45:04 UTC No. 16630261

>>16629429
>>16630207
there's now an anal swab for your IQ
heard it's pretty accurate

Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 07:45:39 UTC No. 16630660

>>16629429
IQ tests were designed for humans.

Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 08:57:12 UTC No. 16630708

>>16629429
>it's not cheating if I refuse to acknowledge my cheating as cheating
Gee, I wonder what could be behind...

Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 23:03:08 UTC No. 16631370

>>16629436
the uncomfortable truth is that vocabulary is highly g-loaded. in other words, if you know a lot of uncommon words you probably have a high verbal iq, and if your vocabulary is limited only to commonplace everyday words you probably don't have a high verbal iq

Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 13:38:34 UTC No. 16631771

>>16629429
Apparently they are more accurate for younger children. It's because test makers have to be able to beat test takers with experience.

I would be more interested in a test that generates random questions and doesn't score them per-se but looks for life outcome associations on a per question basis and then compiles the most salient questions into a test without any human judgement involved.
Except human intelligence is becoming obsolete as we speak so that will tend to throw a monkey wrench in there

Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 13:40:36 UTC No. 16631773

>>16629429
>You can raise your IQ by taking multiple IQ tests and getting better at them

Did it never occur to you that by becoming better at the IQ tests you ARE becoming smarter?

Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 13:52:46 UTC No. 16631781

>>16631773
>suspicious levels of talking shit at OP while agreeing with him
That's odd. Very strange.
Oh, and if that has ever occurred to you, rather than being something you suggest only as bait, you should reexamine the definition of "intelligence."
To be clear:
Intelligence, knowledge, and skill are NOT synonyms.

Anonymous at Mon, 31 Mar 2025 16:11:16 UTC No. 16633942

>>16630207
>play chess for the first time
>absolute dogshit
>play chess 10,000 times
>god tier level
>your logic: nuh uh that's cheating!!!!

Anonymous at Mon, 31 Mar 2025 18:07:01 UTC No. 16634046

>>16633942
>chess
>intelligence
Tell me you're a brianlet without explicitly saying you're a brainlet.

Anonymous at Mon, 31 Mar 2025 19:10:38 UTC No. 16634111

>>16631370

Moreso, people with higher I.Q.s are better at understanding the relationships between words. Hence the 'A' is to 'B' as 'C' is to 'D' tests being so strongly 'g' loaded. Given that someone with an I.Q. of 100 has a vocabulary of about thirty-thousand words, there's tens of millions of questions you can ask them without even needing to resort to the 'antidisestablishmentarianisms' of English vocab. That's far too many combinations to study for, so all you can do to do well is to rely on your wits.

Anonymous at Mon, 31 Mar 2025 19:23:38 UTC No. 16634123

O.P. is a retard who doesn't understand that I.Q. tests are supposed to be largely immune to study. This is why the likes of Ravens and vocabulary matching are so strongly g-loaded. The rules are simple, but there's too many possible different questions that can be asked, so studying is borderline useless.

Not that education makes no difference. Literal illiterates have noticeably lower I.Q.s, as it's harder to learn new words when you can't just read them, and this impedes both precision in description and thinking. But this is a third-world shithole problem, not a problem in real countries. And it's also not an illusory problem. An illiterate man with an I.Q. of sixty will have just as tough of a time living functionally and productively in the modern world regardless of his potential I.Q. being higher had he not grown up to be illiterate.

I.Q. is as real as Fahrenheit. Get used to it, and learn to live with it.

Anonymous at Wed, 2 Apr 2025 06:39:02 UTC No. 16634801

>>16629429
You are right but there is a maximum one can reach depending on their ability even with training

Anonymous at Wed, 2 Apr 2025 08:08:55 UTC No. 16634823

>>16634801
>there is a maximum one can reach depending on their ability even with training

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-Ur71ZnNVk

Anonymous at Wed, 2 Apr 2025 10:35:29 UTC No. 16634890

>>16629429
IQ is a relative scale. for a fair result, when you take the test for the third time, you should only be assessed against other people taking the test for the third time

Anonymous at Wed, 2 Apr 2025 17:07:56 UTC No. 16635231

>>16634890
IQ is generalized problem solving ability, it improves with practice, like anything else.