Forum Settings
Forums
#1
Sep 14, 12:42 PM

Offline
Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 5438
The IQ scale is not flawed—you are the problem. I'll skim through the subject because let's fact it, nobody really scours formalities in this shitty forum anymore. The anti-IQ scale morons tend to have 2 major albeit basic impromptu arguments that tend to be regurgitated and inherited through their own sub-par, saturated and coagulate set of genes. The arguments are given as follows:

1- I have an IQ of --- and I discredit the IQ scale. This is an example of an emotionally charged argument leading to contradicting premises.

2- IQ tests don't measure intelligence because the properties of intelligence are not defined, and are arbitrarily dependent on n number of variables that can/cannot be altered externally. This is an example of a pseudo-intellectual-esque type argument.

Those two attempts at refuting the IQ scale screams "I have no academic capabilities which is why I despise academia and anything which proves that there are objectively better functioning persons than I am". The first argument is logically inconsistent—the person centers the whole validity of his argument on his certified intelligence, and at the same time invalidates this certification. The second argument is non-sequitur; intelligence is closely connected to how knowledge is arranged in the brain, thus by equivalence: an Engineering examination doesn't measure the student's skill because it only examines his knowledge. If you go through this rabbit hole, you start being consumed by the retarded belief that nothing can be known about humans because we can't pin-point where something abstract originates, or aggregates, bar the quotidian epistemology. But of-course no sensible person would concede to inferring that, even if his conclusion followed my demonstration closely. This is why we can't have good things in life like standardized IQ tests for high-schoolers. Notwithstanding, that is a pledge for another era of progressiveness in thought.
 
#2
Sep 14, 12:58 PM

Offline
Joined: Jun 2013
Posts: 110
In case it's not just bait, you can see people like Nassim Taleb make other arguments https://medium.com/incerto/iq-is-largely-a-pseudoscientific-swindle-f131c101ba39
 
#3
Sep 14, 1:20 PM
Offline
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 47785
IQ is affected by nature (biology/genes) and nurture (environment/upbringing/culture) but which has greater effect if you do not have an intellectual handicap/disability and i think this is where the skepticism for its reliabity is rooted especially that Flynn Effect shows better (learning) environment leads to better IQ scores
 
#4
Sep 14, 2:14 PM

Offline
Joined: Apr 2012
Posts: 1418
I have a first class degree from Oxford, and I can tell you that 'IQ' is bullshit.
 
#5
Sep 14, 2:33 PM
Meme Master

Offline
Joined: Aug 2014
Posts: 1442
logopolis said:
I have a first class degree from Oxford, and I can tell you that 'IQ' is bullshit.

Exactly. IQ is not intelligence. (To the oblivious, this is a hyperlink with proof.) The fact that so many believe it is just shows how unintelligent they are.
 
#6
Sep 14, 2:34 PM

Offline
Joined: Oct 2015
Posts: 2038
The first isn't even an argument, the same way "I'm black and I don't agree with Black Lives Matter movement" isn't an argument. An argument has to explain why something is true or not, those two just state that the person with X trait agrees/disagrees with it.

Personally I don't know much about the intelligence quoitent thingy so I just go with what the scientific consensus is. Many people way more credible than me (those involved in the study of psychometrics) think it's reliable so I'm not going to dissent.
 
#7
Sep 14, 2:53 PM

Offline
Joined: Nov 2013
Posts: 2614
It is bait, but I'll throw a thought in for the sake of it.
One thing I'll bring up is that from what I've seen of the puzzles they present you with, prior knowledge of the types of problems, recognition of patern types, and some strategies will be able to aid you in these tests, which defeats a good deal of the genetic point of it.
At best, they are effective at testing very low intelligence, and very high skills of a particular type, maybe.
At worst, it's some shallow outdated science used by mutts arguing eugenics.
Modified by MasterGlyth, Sep 14, 2:57 PM

I can see you


 
#8
Sep 14, 3:14 PM

Offline
Joined: Feb 2016
Posts: 388
My IQ is extremely, almost embarrassingly, high. I've never actually taken an IQ test, mind you, but my educated guess is that, if I did, my score would be whatever is the highest possible. No doubt your IQ is lower than mine, but please don't feel stupid or insecure about this, it's not your fault. You're probably just born that way. And you know what? Thank your lucky stars and subpar genetic makeup that you don't have to bear the burden of brilliance like I have to. Being incredibly intelligent is a curse. This is not just one of the many astute observations I have every day, by the way, it is a fact recently confirmed by science.

You do realise this is just a copypasta, right? Of course you do. What am I saying? Nobody's IQ is that low!
--- + ---
"Random quotes in signatures are like friends. Everyone seems to have them, except me."
ManicMayo, Grand Master of the Most Disreputable Order of Social Hermits

 
#9
Sep 14, 3:19 PM

Offline
Joined: Dec 2015
Posts: 6201
I dids the IQ thing and it gave me a score of 84.
That's pretty good right? I mean...84 is almost 100 right?

logopolis said:
I have a first class degree from Oxford, and I can tell you that 'IQ' is bullshit.

Yeah, I totally went there too. (too Ocxfrods)
It's not what you know, it's where you know, or how you know...or maybe "is" you know...whatever, it's one of the "knows"

And you know what? I don't think you eve are an Ocxfrod ulumy I think you are make fake to look smart.
I am on to what you do.
Modified by Bobby2Hands, Sep 14, 3:27 PM
 
Sep 14, 3:29 PM

Offline
Joined: Mar 2019
Posts: 1486
ManicMayo said:
My IQ is extremely, almost embarrassingly, high. I've never actually taken an IQ test, mind you, but my educated guess is that, if I did, my score would be whatever is the highest possible. No doubt your IQ is lower than mine, but please don't feel stupid or insecure about this, it's not your fault. You're probably just born that way. And you know what? Thank your lucky stars and subpar genetic makeup that you don't have to bear the burden of brilliance like I have to. Being incredibly intelligent is a curse. This is not just one of the many astute observations I have every day, by the way, it is a fact recently confirmed by science.

You do realise this is just a copypasta, right? Of course you do. What am I saying? Nobody's IQ is that low!


It can't be whatever the highest possible is because IQ can always be higher. Even assuming your IQ is as high as Einstein's (about 160) you could still theoretically be 180 instead.
 
Sep 14, 9:35 PM

Offline
Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 5438
Forced said:
In case it's not just bait, you can see people like Nassim Taleb make other arguments https://medium.com/incerto/iq-is-largely-a-pseudoscientific-swindle-f131c101ba39


In the same situation that this is not just bait; your article only shows statistics on how "inaccurate" the IQ scale can be, which is not my inquiry. If you don't have problems with my post other than the lack of different technical arguments shows that you acknowledge, even at a basic level, that the IQ scale can only measure what is known as intelligence. For it is only humans that defined intelligence and humans also constructed IQ.

heg said:
IQ is affected by nature (biology/genes) and nurture (environment/upbringing/culture) but which has greater effect if you do not have an intellectual handicap/disability and i think this is where the skepticism for its reliabity is rooted especially that Flynn Effect shows better (learning) environment leads to better IQ scores


Yes.

SadMadoka said:
logopolis said:
I have a first class degree from Oxford, and I can tell you that 'IQ' is bullshit.

Exactly. IQ is not intelligence. (To the oblivious, this is a hyperlink with proof.) The fact that so many believe it is just shows how unintelligent they are.


Another one of your mental gymnastics that is easy to untangle: Look at my response to the second argument. If IQ does not measure intelligence, then by the same logic, examinations don't measure skill. At the end of the day you ask yourself: "What the fuck am I even saying?" because that doesn't make sense.

Orhunaa said:
The first isn't even an argument, the same way "I'm black and I don't agree with Black Lives Matter movement" isn't an argument. An argument has to explain why something is true or not, those two just state that the person with X trait agrees/disagrees with it.

Personally I don't know much about the intelligence quoitent thingy so I just go with what the scientific consensus is. Many people way more credible than me (those involved in the study of psychometrics) think it's reliable so I'm not going to dissent.


It is a fallacious argument (because it lacks the supporting premises) and reaches a conclusion.

MasterGlyth said:
It is bait, but I'll throw a thought in for the sake of it.
One thing I'll bring up is that from what I've seen of the puzzles they present you with, prior knowledge of the types of problems, recognition of patern types, and some strategies will be able to aid you in these tests, which defeats a good deal of the genetic point of it.
At best, they are effective at testing very low intelligence, and very high skills of a particular type, maybe.
At worst, it's some shallow outdated science used by mutts arguing eugenics.


If it was bait, you would have failed the test. The Actual IQ test, but I digress.
I never said that people having low IQ is purely a genetic phenomenon. If a test can affirm very low intelligence, then it can measure the high ones too.

ManicMayo said:
My IQ is extremely, almost embarrassingly, high. I've never actually taken an IQ test, mind you, but my educated guess is that, if I did, my score would be whatever is the highest possible. No doubt your IQ is lower than mine, but please don't feel stupid or insecure about this, it's not your fault. You're probably just born that way. And you know what? Thank your lucky stars and subpar genetic makeup that you don't have to bear the burden of brilliance like I have to. Being incredibly intelligent is a curse. This is not just one of the many astute observations I have every day, by the way, it is a fact recently confirmed by science.

You do realise this is just a copypasta, right? Of course you do. What am I saying? Nobody's IQ is that low!


I called the people who hate on IQ tests with these arguments as having sub-par genetics.

Ryuk9428 said:
It can't be whatever the highest possible is because IQ can always be higher. Even assuming your IQ is as high as Einstein's (about 160) you could still theoretically be 180 instead.
The highest IQ could be the highest recorded instance of one. Since the exam has virtually no ceiling, it is therefore relative to the general population i.e the public results.
 
Sep 14, 10:09 PM
Meme Master

Offline
Joined: Aug 2014
Posts: 1442
Yarub said:
Another one of your mental gymnastics that is easy to untangle: Look at my response to the second argument. If IQ does not measure intelligence, then by the same logic, examinations don't measure skill. At the end of the day you ask yourself: "What the fuck am I even saying?" because that doesn't make sense.

The information I linked proves you wrong. I suggest reading it. It's not as simple as you think. IQ tests only appraise aptitude for a few things. Intelligence is far more broad than that. Supercomputers have IQ in the thousands, but do not possess actual intelligence. You can learn certain things to get higher scores on IQ tests without becoming any more intelligent than you already were. Basically what I'm saying is that, while it can measure aspects of intelligence in a limited way, it does not measure the full scale of a person's intelligence. There are various types of intelligence as well. These facts are well-known.
 
Sep 15, 12:19 AM

Offline
Joined: Mar 2019
Posts: 1486
Yarub said:
Forced said:
In case it's not just bait, you can see people like Nassim Taleb make other arguments https://medium.com/incerto/iq-is-largely-a-pseudoscientific-swindle-f131c101ba39


In the same situation that this is not just bait; your article only shows statistics on how "inaccurate" the IQ scale can be, which is not my inquiry. If you don't have problems with my post other than the lack of different technical arguments shows that you acknowledge, even at a basic level, that the IQ scale can only measure what is known as intelligence. For it is only humans that defined intelligence and humans also constructed IQ.

heg said:
IQ is affected by nature (biology/genes) and nurture (environment/upbringing/culture) but which has greater effect if you do not have an intellectual handicap/disability and i think this is where the skepticism for its reliabity is rooted especially that Flynn Effect shows better (learning) environment leads to better IQ scores


Yes.

SadMadoka said:

Exactly. IQ is not intelligence. (To the oblivious, this is a hyperlink with proof.) The fact that so many believe it is just shows how unintelligent they are.


Another one of your mental gymnastics that is easy to untangle: Look at my response to the second argument. If IQ does not measure intelligence, then by the same logic, examinations don't measure skill. At the end of the day you ask yourself: "What the fuck am I even saying?" because that doesn't make sense.

Orhunaa said:
The first isn't even an argument, the same way "I'm black and I don't agree with Black Lives Matter movement" isn't an argument. An argument has to explain why something is true or not, those two just state that the person with X trait agrees/disagrees with it.

Personally I don't know much about the intelligence quoitent thingy so I just go with what the scientific consensus is. Many people way more credible than me (those involved in the study of psychometrics) think it's reliable so I'm not going to dissent.


It is a fallacious argument (because it lacks the supporting premises) and reaches a conclusion.

MasterGlyth said:
It is bait, but I'll throw a thought in for the sake of it.
One thing I'll bring up is that from what I've seen of the puzzles they present you with, prior knowledge of the types of problems, recognition of patern types, and some strategies will be able to aid you in these tests, which defeats a good deal of the genetic point of it.
At best, they are effective at testing very low intelligence, and very high skills of a particular type, maybe.
At worst, it's some shallow outdated science used by mutts arguing eugenics.


If it was bait, you would have failed the test. The Actual IQ test, but I digress.
I never said that people having low IQ is purely a genetic phenomenon. If a test can affirm very low intelligence, then it can measure the high ones too.

ManicMayo said:
My IQ is extremely, almost embarrassingly, high. I've never actually taken an IQ test, mind you, but my educated guess is that, if I did, my score would be whatever is the highest possible. No doubt your IQ is lower than mine, but please don't feel stupid or insecure about this, it's not your fault. You're probably just born that way. And you know what? Thank your lucky stars and subpar genetic makeup that you don't have to bear the burden of brilliance like I have to. Being incredibly intelligent is a curse. This is not just one of the many astute observations I have every day, by the way, it is a fact recently confirmed by science.

You do realise this is just a copypasta, right? Of course you do. What am I saying? Nobody's IQ is that low!


I called the people who hate on IQ tests with these arguments as having sub-par genetics.

Ryuk9428 said:
It can't be whatever the highest possible is because IQ can always be higher. Even assuming your IQ is as high as Einstein's (about 160) you could still theoretically be 180 instead.
The highest IQ could be the highest recorded instance of one. Since the exam has virtually no ceiling, it is therefore relative to the general population i.e the public results.


I have trouble believing that a random guy on MAL has the highest IQ ever recorded. Just saying. I can definitely believe somebody has a high IQ, but not the highest ever.
 
Sep 15, 12:42 AM

Offline
Joined: Sep 2018
Posts: 1310
I did mine at 14 and it was 144 and then the genius level was 140. I have never done another one since because I'd probably slip below the cut-off.

I was not good at exams because exams are just memory recall, you do not have to be intelligent to pass them. They didn't have multiple choice when I did them but if they did, my results would have improved massively.

I think the IQ tests are a good indication of intelligent in all areas, maths and English skills, puzzle solving, lateral thinking and 3d imagery. Of course the people who get under 100 are going to say they are not a good indication of intelligence because everyone thinks they are above average intelligence and no one wants to admit they are stupid.
 
Sep 15, 1:00 AM

Offline
Joined: Jun 2016
Posts: 4784
IQ measures the education level in a country more than everything else. Some African and Asian countries measure an IQ 60-80, which is impossible. That's idiot level.

I also experienced a variety in test results. I had an IQ of ~ 105, when I had a migraine this day and I felt like shit. Another day, I felt much better and well, you could see that.
Also for a third test for university I trained numerical series etc... and I scored more than 30 % better in these tasks after training.
To some degree, you can train yourself to score high in such tests. They may differ, but most of them follow similar patterns.

Of course, intelligence is a complex term and construct, which is dependent on biological and social factors, but I'm sure that IQ tests aren't the ultimate way to measure it.
 
Sep 15, 1:15 AM

Offline
Joined: Jun 2016
Posts: 3171
Real dame da ne moment when my boi Yarub can't find 900 IQ friends on the internet.

I don't hate IQ tests, I just doubt there's a realiable one online, and I sure as shit ain't paying for some MENSA test, I'm not that curious about my IQ and it would probably be an underwhelming result anywho.
 
Sep 15, 1:55 AM

Offline
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 4640
Yarub said:
But of-course no sensible person would concede to inferring that


appeal to common sense

nice argument bro
 
Sep 15, 2:23 AM

Offline
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 3955
Imagine being so dumb your intelligence is able to be measured.
 
Sep 15, 7:36 AM

Offline
Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 5438
SadMadoka said:
Yarub said:
Another one of your mental gymnastics that is easy to untangle: Look at my response to the second argument. If IQ does not measure intelligence, then by the same logic, examinations don't measure skill. At the end of the day you ask yourself: "What the fuck am I even saying?" because that doesn't make sense.

The information I linked proves you wrong. I suggest reading it. It's not as simple as you think. IQ tests only appraise aptitude for a few things. Intelligence is far more broad than that. Supercomputers have IQ in the thousands, but do not possess actual intelligence. You can learn certain things to get higher scores on IQ tests without becoming any more intelligent than you already were. Basically what I'm saying is that, while it can measure aspects of intelligence in a limited way, it does not measure the full scale of a person's intelligence. There are various types of intelligence as well. These facts are well-known.


It is the same type of measurement that measures your knowledge in my example around an Engineering exam. If IQ doesn't measure intelligence, then the engineering exam doesn't measure skill. Therefore you shouldn't employ newly graduated engineers because: Insert your post but with Engineering exam instead of IQ/Intelligence. Again, non-sequitur. Doesn't matter how many links you try to shove up my ass. The accuracy isn't my inquiry.

Ryuk9428 said:
I have trouble believing that a random guy on MAL has the highest IQ ever recorded. Just saying. I can definitely believe somebody has a high IQ, but not the highest ever.


Shoot me in the leg and suck me off if I ever mentioned my IQ or the fact that I had the highest IQ of all.


QPR said:
I did mine at 14 and it was 144 and then the genius level was 140. I have never done another one since because I'd probably slip below the cut-off.

I was not good at exams because exams are just memory recall, you do not have to be intelligent to pass them. They didn't have multiple choice when I did them but if they did, my results would have improved massively.

I think the IQ tests are a good indication of intelligent in all areas, maths and English skills, puzzle solving, lateral thinking and 3d imagery. Of course the people who get under 100 are going to say they are not a good indication of intelligence because everyone thinks they are above average intelligence and no one wants to admit they are stupid.


Preach.

Maneki-Mew said:
Also for a third test for university I trained numerical series etc... and I scored more than 30 % better in these tasks after training.


Well no shit Sherlock. It is a standardized test afterall so the questions will eventually be recycled in batches. Even top-class universities do that.

Erg_Orgy said:
Real dame da ne moment when my boi Yarub can't find 900 IQ friends on the internet.

I don't hate IQ tests, I just doubt there's a realiable one online, and I sure as shit ain't paying for some MENSA test, I'm not that curious about my IQ and it would probably be an underwhelming result anywho.


You insecure piece of shit stop hating in my threads.

RandomChampion said:
Yarub said:
But of-course no sensible person would concede to inferring that


appeal to common sense

nice argument bro


Wait, what? Do you even know what you're saying? Maybe you just can't read at all.
 
Sep 15, 7:53 AM

Offline
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 4640
Yarub said:
Wait, what? Do you even know what you're saying? Maybe you just can't read at all.


I can read.

It's not difficult to read and understand when someone builds a couple of strawmen, and knocks them down - one with a fallacious argument.
 
Sep 15, 7:55 AM
Meme Master

Offline
Joined: Aug 2014
Posts: 1442
Yarub said:
It is the same type of measurement that measures your knowledge in my example around an Engineering exam. If IQ doesn't measure intelligence, then the engineering exam doesn't measure skill. Therefore you shouldn't employ newly graduated engineers because: Insert your post but with Engineering exam instead of IQ/Intelligence. Again, non-sequitur. Doesn't matter how many links you try to shove up my ass. The accuracy isn't my inquiry.

Knowledge: "facts, information, and skills acquired by a person through experience or education"
Intelligence: "the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills"

Knowledge is not intelligence. You can increase your knowledge without becoming any more intelligent.

Think of knowledge as data on a storage drive and intelligence as the hardware making the computer work. A more capable computer can have less data to work with, so testing its capability with the sole criterion being the data it's worked with doesn't make much sense.

As @Maneki-Mew covered, IQ is largely dependent upon the education system in a country. Some nations have an average IQ far below 100, but all those people aren't stupid; they simply did not receive the education required to score well on IQ tests.

You can go outside, extend your arm, and proclaim, "Hey, the sun is smaller than my hand!" Sure, in a sense, you measured the sun...but the result is nowhere near accurate. If your measurement is inaccurate, it is misleading to state you have measured something. The fact that IQ tests "measure" intelligence isn't very meaningful when put into proper context.

To claim the IQ scale is not flawed is tantamount to saying it is accurate. The burden of proof is on those who make that claim.

I don't believe it's possible to accurately quantify such a diverse phenomenon, especially with so many types of intelligence.

Modified by SadMadoka, Sep 15, 8:25 AM
 
Sep 15, 8:09 AM

Offline
Joined: Feb 2017
Posts: 2561
The IQ scale is absolutely flawless. Here are my unbeatable arguments.

According to the IQ scale itself the probability of someone here being smarter than me is 1/30 considering that there are only 380 active users browsing the forums at the moment. Think about that for a second before trying to argue with me please.

The human brain always functions at 100%, it doesn't matter if you feel sleepy, stressed, depressed, have some chemical imbalance or know that your girlfriend is having sex with the guy next door while you are taking a test that nobody cares about. Don't use any of these as an excuse for your low IQ please.

The IQ is permanent, taking the test in your 40s won't change the final result.

Your common sense is determined entirely by your IQ. As I said I have super high IQ so my judgement is always correct or at least less wrong than yours. I don't care if you have knowledge or experience in a certain area. I have the IQ! Do you care about my IQ?? Here, give me that medal please.


 
Sep 15, 8:32 AM

Offline
Joined: Mar 2018
Posts: 647
IQ scale is flawed. The reason why is that intelligence isn't something you can put on a "scale and measure".
MasterGlyth said:
One thing I'll bring up is that from what I've seen of the puzzles they present you with, prior knowledge of the types of problems, recognition of patern types, and some strategies will be able to aid you in these tests, which defeats a good deal of the genetic point of it.
At best, they are effective at testing very low intelligence, and very high skills of a particular type, maybe.
At worst, it's some shallow outdated science used by mutts arguing eugenics.


I agree with this. You can practice for IQ tests like for any other and with that score a higher mark.


“Dream - The first thing people abandon when they come to understand how this world works.”
 
Sep 15, 8:55 AM

Offline
Joined: Nov 2016
Posts: 792
Yarub said:
This is why we can't have good things in life like standardized IQ tests for high-schoolers.


I'd rather not have that. Like, I've debated about the validity of IQ multiple times on this forum and others but it doesn't change the fact that IQ is still a useless metric. I don't know a single good use of it. If there is, there's probably a different, more specialized, and better metric for that use but it won't be IQ.
 
Sep 15, 8:56 AM

Offline
Joined: Sep 2015
Posts: 1330
@QPR
QPR said:
"I was not good at exams because exams are just memory recall, you do not have to be intelligent to pass them. They didn't have multiple choice when I did them but if they did, my results would have improved massively."


I disagree. You can't really memorize your way out of exams. Math doesn't give a problem and answers to memorize. You have to apply the correct formula to the right kind of problem and then work out the problem using the knowledge that you learned. Solving a math problem inherently makes it so you have to apply what you know. English exams also don't really do that since oftentimes you'll have the text right in front of you. Common questions would be stuff like "What's the central theme of this poem?" or "Based on the context clues, where does this story take place?" aka not easy, memory questions. Same can be said for science(though there's more memorization with it than Math and English). Hypothesizing is a huge part of science, so the questions would reflect that. For instance, in my last lab, the teacher asked "why was it warmer in the cooler with a fan than outside?" the correct answer is because the fan being on produced energy which created heat and the cooler(which only had the thermometer and fan) kept the heat inside. History is pretty much the only subject I would say is pure memorization, though even then you could get questions like "Based on this image alone, was the newspaper written by the north or south?"
Modified by Peaceful_Critic, Sep 15, 9:04 AM

 
Sep 15, 10:35 AM

Offline
Joined: Mar 2019
Posts: 1486
Yarub said:
SadMadoka said:

The information I linked proves you wrong. I suggest reading it. It's not as simple as you think. IQ tests only appraise aptitude for a few things. Intelligence is far more broad than that. Supercomputers have IQ in the thousands, but do not possess actual intelligence. You can learn certain things to get higher scores on IQ tests without becoming any more intelligent than you already were. Basically what I'm saying is that, while it can measure aspects of intelligence in a limited way, it does not measure the full scale of a person's intelligence. There are various types of intelligence as well. These facts are well-known.


It is the same type of measurement that measures your knowledge in my example around an Engineering exam. If IQ doesn't measure intelligence, then the engineering exam doesn't measure skill. Therefore you shouldn't employ newly graduated engineers because: Insert your post but with Engineering exam instead of IQ/Intelligence. Again, non-sequitur. Doesn't matter how many links you try to shove up my ass. The accuracy isn't my inquiry.

Ryuk9428 said:
I have trouble believing that a random guy on MAL has the highest IQ ever recorded. Just saying. I can definitely believe somebody has a high IQ, but not the highest ever.


Shoot me in the leg and suck me off if I ever mentioned my IQ or the fact that I had the highest IQ of all.


QPR said:
I did mine at 14 and it was 144 and then the genius level was 140. I have never done another one since because I'd probably slip below the cut-off.

I was not good at exams because exams are just memory recall, you do not have to be intelligent to pass them. They didn't have multiple choice when I did them but if they did, my results would have improved massively.

I think the IQ tests are a good indication of intelligent in all areas, maths and English skills, puzzle solving, lateral thinking and 3d imagery. Of course the people who get under 100 are going to say they are not a good indication of intelligence because everyone thinks they are above average intelligence and no one wants to admit they are stupid.


Preach.

Maneki-Mew said:
Also for a third test for university I trained numerical series etc... and I scored more than 30 % better in these tasks after training.


Well no shit Sherlock. It is a standardized test afterall so the questions will eventually be recycled in batches. Even top-class universities do that.

Erg_Orgy said:
Real dame da ne moment when my boi Yarub can't find 900 IQ friends on the internet.

I don't hate IQ tests, I just doubt there's a realiable one online, and I sure as shit ain't paying for some MENSA test, I'm not that curious about my IQ and it would probably be an underwhelming result anywho.


You insecure piece of shit stop hating in my threads.

RandomChampion said:


appeal to common sense

nice argument bro


Wait, what? Do you even know what you're saying? Maybe you just can't read at all.


I think I was referring to the person you quoted.

I was also a pretty tipsy last night when I posted that.
 
Sep 15, 10:39 AM

Online
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 2879
Yeah, a test created in the early 1900s is accurate, even if the creator didn't incorporate current neurological facts...sure
 
Sep 15, 10:43 AM

Offline
Joined: Jun 2016
Posts: 4784
@SadMadoka and @Yarub
Western and East Asian kids are trained to think in a certain way, so it's much easier for them to solve it. Even in the primary school books, there are similar tasks made for kids, quite many parents and schools (in comparison to poor countries) support their kids' education a lot and we start very early to play video games with puzzles in it etc.
Kids from poor countries, who are barely literate and read receptively, won't understand many of the questions to begin with.
 
Sep 15, 10:51 AM

Offline
Joined: Mar 2019
Posts: 1486
Peaceful_Critic said:
@QPR
QPR said:
"I was not good at exams because exams are just memory recall, you do not have to be intelligent to pass them. They didn't have multiple choice when I did them but if they did, my results would have improved massively."


I disagree. You can't really memorize your way out of exams. Math doesn't give a problem and answers to memorize. You have to apply the correct formula to the right kind of problem and then work out the problem using the knowledge that you learned. Solving a math problem inherently makes it so you have to apply what you know. English exams also don't really do that since oftentimes you'll have the text right in front of you. Common questions would be stuff like "What's the central theme of this poem?" or "Based on the context clues, where does this story take place?" aka not easy, memory questions. Same can be said for science(though there's more memorization with it than Math and English). Hypothesizing is a huge part of science, so the questions would reflect that. For instance, in my last lab, the teacher asked "why was it warmer in the cooler with a fan than outside?" the correct answer is because the fan being on produced energy which created heat and the cooler(which only had the thermometer and fan) kept the heat inside. History is pretty much the only subject I would say is pure memorization, though even then you could get questions like "Based on this image alone, was the newspaper written by the north or south?"


I would say at the higher schooling levels, it is more than just memorization in every subject, but in the lower schooling levels a lot of things are just memorize and then later dump the information. A high school history class for example is just memorization which is why a lot of people think high school history is boring.

Its kind of that way in freshman and sophomore year of college too. Or the 100 and 200 level classes so to speak. At the 300 and 400 levels though, it becomes more about drawing connections between events, attempting to understand the motivations of people in the past, and may even involve doing original research on relatively unexplored topics. I actually published a paper along with a podcast last year creating a new historical theory.

Similarly, science in the high school levels is often memorization too. Memorizing the anatomy of the human body, memorizing sub-atomic particles and how they work with molecule bonding. In math, you could say that its memorizing the formula. In English, memorizing grammar structures is a big part of it in the lower schooling levels.

An intelligent person will have a much easier time with memorization than a non-intelligent person though.

In the higher levels though, memorization will not carry you in any of these subjects.
 
Sep 15, 11:00 AM

Offline
Joined: Mar 2019
Posts: 1486
Maneki-Mew said:
@SadMadoka and @Yarub
Western and East Asian kids are trained to think in a certain way, so it's much easier for them to solve it. Even in the primary school books, there are similar tasks made for kids, quite many parents and schools (in comparison to poor countries) support their kids' education a lot and we start very early to play video games with puzzles in it etc.
Kids from poor countries, who are barely literate and read receptively, won't understand many of the questions to begin with.


That doesn't explain why East Asian countries and Jewish people have higher IQs than we do though? Are white people simply not educated enough?

There's a scientific reason why poorer countries have much lower IQs and its malnutrition. Malnutrition generally results in a body that doesn't function properly and that extends to your brain. Children who experienced severe malnourishment often have IQs normally associated with retardation.

Genetically, however, higher IQ countries may have also had mating practices which resulted in high IQs individuals having more children or a higher percentage of high IQ individuals achieving reproductive success. IQ is strongly genetic no matter what people want to say. If your parents were smart then there is a good chance you are going to be smart as well.

In low IQ nations, it could easily be that the high IQ individuals are not achieving reproductive success or they may simply be leaving the country.
 
Sep 15, 11:19 AM

Online
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 1097
Certain is:

Intelligence is objectively higher or lower for different creatures and for different people.

Also certain is:

Intelligence has facets. So even though you can clearly tell apart if someone is a retard or not, a person with higher intelligence won't necessarily be correct on statements more often than a clearly less intelligent person.


What you would want to do with a unit like the IQ is beyond me.
Trying to measure intelligence is a waste of time.
 
Sep 15, 11:29 AM

Offline
Joined: Sep 2015
Posts: 1330
Ryuk9428 said:
Peaceful_Critic said:
@QPR


I disagree. You can't really memorize your way out of exams. Math doesn't give a problem and answers to memorize. You have to apply the correct formula to the right kind of problem and then work out the problem using the knowledge that you learned. Solving a math problem inherently makes it so you have to apply what you know. English exams also don't really do that since oftentimes you'll have the text right in front of you. Common questions would be stuff like "What's the central theme of this poem?" or "Based on the context clues, where does this story take place?" aka not easy, memory questions. Same can be said for science(though there's more memorization with it than Math and English). Hypothesizing is a huge part of science, so the questions would reflect that. For instance, in my last lab, the teacher asked "why was it warmer in the cooler with a fan than outside?" the correct answer is because the fan being on produced energy which created heat and the cooler(which only had the thermometer and fan) kept the heat inside. History is pretty much the only subject I would say is pure memorization, though even then you could get questions like "Based on this image alone, was the newspaper written by the north or south?"


I would say at the higher schooling levels, it is more than just memorization in every subject, but in the lower schooling levels a lot of things are just memorize and then later dump the information. A high school history class for example is just memorization which is why a lot of people think high school history is boring.

Its kind of that way in freshman and sophomore year of college too. Or the 100 and 200 level classes so to speak. At the 300 and 400 levels though, it becomes more about drawing connections between events, attempting to understand the motivations of people in the past, and may even involve doing original research on relatively unexplored topics. I actually published a paper along with a podcast last year creating a new historical theory.

Similarly, science in the high school levels is often memorization too. Memorizing the anatomy of the human body, memorizing sub-atomic particles and how they work with molecule bonding. In math, you could say that its memorizing the formula. In English, memorizing grammar structures is a big part of it in the lower schooling levels.

An intelligent person will have a much easier time with memorization than a non-intelligent person though.

In the higher levels though, memorization will not carry you in any of these subjects.
I believe what I said is true for all high school level classes. I actually didn't have a 9th-grade year(I went to a specialized school during that time), so I've been playing catch with my credits. I did take 9th grade English last year online and very little of the grade had to do with grammar. By highschool age they expect you to already know those rules. After all, you analyze Shakespeare's works during those times. At my school specifically, 9th grade is when you read Romeo and Juliet. Biology(which is a 10th-grade class I took last year) had a 50% fail rate and I would still end up with 70% or 80% on tests despite memorizing everything I could. Biology is a lot harder than the current 11th grade-level physical science I'm taking this year and the grade had even less to do with memorization.

Formulas need to be applied. If you memorize a formula but have no idea when to use it, you failed the class likewise, if you used the formula incorrectly. Knowing the formula by itself isn't enough, you have to apply it correctly as well.

 
Sep 15, 11:41 AM

Offline
Joined: Mar 2018
Posts: 767
the only thing about IQ that matters is if it's above or below 180 (which dictates whether or not you can follow along with and understand rick and morty)
 
Sep 15, 11:51 AM

Offline
Joined: Jun 2016
Posts: 4784
Ryuk9428 said:
Maneki-Mew said:
@SadMadoka and @Yarub
Western and East Asian kids are trained to think in a certain way, so it's much easier for them to solve it. Even in the primary school books, there are similar tasks made for kids, quite many parents and schools (in comparison to poor countries) support their kids' education a lot and we start very early to play video games with puzzles in it etc.
Kids from poor countries, who are barely literate and read receptively, won't understand many of the questions to begin with.


That doesn't explain why East Asian countries and Jewish people have higher IQs than we do though? Are white people simply not educated enough?

There's a scientific reason why poorer countries have much lower IQs and its malnutrition. Malnutrition generally results in a body that doesn't function properly and that extends to your brain. Children who experienced severe malnourishment often have IQs normally associated with retardation.

Genetically, however, higher IQ countries may have also had mating practices which resulted in high IQs individuals having more children or a higher percentage of high IQ individuals achieving reproductive success. IQ is strongly genetic no matter what people want to say. If your parents were smart then there is a good chance you are going to be smart as well.

In low IQ nations, it could easily be that the high IQ individuals are not achieving reproductive success or they may simply be leaving the country.

Their parents and the society drill them, that's the reason. East Asian countries also have the highest suicidal rates of kids and teenagers.

That's another reason, but children, who get basic education normally get more food and have better lives than those, who are illiterate.
Also, it sounds strange, but more and more western kids suffer from malnutrition as well. They might be obese, but they eat so many "empty calories" and get so little fibers, mineral nutrients and vitamins that they also suffer from malnutrition.
 
Sep 15, 11:52 AM

Offline
Joined: Mar 2019
Posts: 1486
Peaceful_Critic said:
Ryuk9428 said:


I would say at the higher schooling levels, it is more than just memorization in every subject, but in the lower schooling levels a lot of things are just memorize and then later dump the information. A high school history class for example is just memorization which is why a lot of people think high school history is boring.

Its kind of that way in freshman and sophomore year of college too. Or the 100 and 200 level classes so to speak. At the 300 and 400 levels though, it becomes more about drawing connections between events, attempting to understand the motivations of people in the past, and may even involve doing original research on relatively unexplored topics. I actually published a paper along with a podcast last year creating a new historical theory.

Similarly, science in the high school levels is often memorization too. Memorizing the anatomy of the human body, memorizing sub-atomic particles and how they work with molecule bonding. In math, you could say that its memorizing the formula. In English, memorizing grammar structures is a big part of it in the lower schooling levels.

An intelligent person will have a much easier time with memorization than a non-intelligent person though.

In the higher levels though, memorization will not carry you in any of these subjects.
I believe what I said is true for all high school level classes. I actually didn't have a 9th-grade year(I went to a specialized school during that time), so I've been playing catch with my credits. I did take 9th grade English last year online and very little of the grade had to do with grammar. By highschool age they expect you to already know those rules. After all, you analyze Shakespeare's works during those times. At my school specifically, 9th grade is when you read Romeo and Juliet. Biology(which is a 10th-grade class I took last year) had a 50% fail rate and I would still end up with 70% or 80% on tests despite memorizing everything I could. Biology is a lot harder than the current 11th grade-level physical science I'm taking this year and the grade had even less to do with memorization.

Formulas need to be applied. If you memorize a formula but have no idea when to use it, you failed the class likewise, if you used the formula incorrectly. Knowing the formula by itself isn't enough, you have to apply it correctly as well.


Well something being memorization based doesn't necessarily make it easy, it just means a different set of skills are being utilized. A lot of people consider high school math to be pretty difficult, I was one of them. One of the reasons why is because a lot of people simply have no interest in math. If you have no interest in the subject, then no matter how intelligent you may be, your brain will not consider it to be important information.

An example I will give is that I took Spanish for three years in high school. I know basically nothing today. I know, maybe 5-10 words in Spanish. I also took Italian for two years in college. I know pretty much no Italian. I skated by in Spanish by being really good at the cultural information and somewhat sucking at the actual language part. In college Italian, I simply made do with C grades.

As I've mentioned in some of our messages though, I recently started trying to learn Japanese and I've been much more successful at it than Spanish and Italian. I know 161 words now and although I won't say I'm adequately prepared to use the language to visit Tokyo yet, I am far more confident in my ability to get by in Japanese if I needed to talk to someone using it than I ever was in my ability to use Spanish or Italian.

One thing I will say, is that I think speaking Japanese (emphasis on speaking) is objectively easier than Spanish or Italian. The Japanese don't use gendered words. The Japanese also use surprisingly large amount of words that are pronounced almost exactly like English words such as "konpyuta," "Kanada," The easiest part though is that there are no verb conjugations. You don't have to specify whether I'm going somewhere, you are going somewhere, or if we are. People just infer based on context or you simply say boku wa or kimi wa if its truly unclear. For these reasons, Japanese is a much less "busy" language than Spanish or Italian.

The entire reason why Japanese is objectively difficult overall is the writing system. And I will admit that my grasp on hiragana and katakana is not nearly as good as my vocabulary and I'm still struggling with it. I also have not put as much of my time towards trying to learn hiragana as I have towards vocabulary words though.
 
Sep 15, 12:05 PM

Offline
Joined: May 2016
Posts: 2359
The true questionis why does any of that matter?
Thinking of sending me a friend request?

Before you do it, please check the 'Friend request' section of my profile.
 
Sep 15, 12:05 PM

Offline
Joined: Mar 2019
Posts: 1486
Maneki-Mew said:
Ryuk9428 said:


That doesn't explain why East Asian countries and Jewish people have higher IQs than we do though? Are white people simply not educated enough?

There's a scientific reason why poorer countries have much lower IQs and its malnutrition. Malnutrition generally results in a body that doesn't function properly and that extends to your brain. Children who experienced severe malnourishment often have IQs normally associated with retardation.

Genetically, however, higher IQ countries may have also had mating practices which resulted in high IQs individuals having more children or a higher percentage of high IQ individuals achieving reproductive success. IQ is strongly genetic no matter what people want to say. If your parents were smart then there is a good chance you are going to be smart as well.

In low IQ nations, it could easily be that the high IQ individuals are not achieving reproductive success or they may simply be leaving the country.

Their parents and the society drill them, that's the reason. East Asian countries also have the highest suicidal rates of kids and teenagers.

That's another reason, but children, who get basic education normally get more food and have better lives than those, who are illiterate.
Also, it sounds strange, but more and more western kids suffer from malnutrition as well. They might be obese, but they eat so many "empty calories" and get so little fibers, mineral nutrients and vitamins that they also suffer from malnutrition.


I don't think you can force someone to be intelligent. Trying to push someone beyond their limits will result in them crashing and burning. Its worth mentioning, however, that although Japan's overall suicide rate is worse than America or European countries are. The teen suicide rate in Western countries is actually worse than in Japan. Although it is not worse than South Korea's. In Western countries, the suicide rate peaks in the 18-24 age range while in East Asia, it steadily goes up the older people get and becomes significantly higher in the 75+ age group, which indicates to me that it might not necessarily be the school culture but the pressures of adulthood. This could be the reason why Asian countries love and idealize youth so much.

People in the West may have a mild form of malnutrition but its not going to have anywhere near the effect that malnutrition does to somebody in Pakistan.
 
Sep 15, 12:45 PM

Offline
Joined: Sep 2015
Posts: 1330
Ryuk9428 said:
Peaceful_Critic said:
I believe what I said is true for all high school level classes. I actually didn't have a 9th-grade year(I went to a specialized school during that time), so I've been playing catch with my credits. I did take 9th grade English last year online and very little of the grade had to do with grammar. By highschool age they expect you to already know those rules. After all, you analyze Shakespeare's works during those times. At my school specifically, 9th grade is when you read Romeo and Juliet. Biology(which is a 10th-grade class I took last year) had a 50% fail rate and I would still end up with 70% or 80% on tests despite memorizing everything I could. Biology is a lot harder than the current 11th grade-level physical science I'm taking this year and the grade had even less to do with memorization.

Formulas need to be applied. If you memorize a formula but have no idea when to use it, you failed the class likewise, if you used the formula incorrectly. Knowing the formula by itself isn't enough, you have to apply it correctly as well.


Well something being memorization based doesn't necessarily make it easy, it just means a different set of skills are being utilized. A lot of people consider high school math to be pretty difficult, I was one of them. One of the reasons why is because a lot of people simply have no interest in math. If you have no interest in the subject, then no matter how intelligent you may be, your brain will not consider it to be important information.

An example I will give is that I took Spanish for three years in high school. I know basically nothing today. I know, maybe 5-10 words in Spanish. I also took Italian for two years in college. I know pretty much no Italian. I skated by in Spanish by being really good at the cultural information and somewhat sucking at the actual language part. In college Italian, I simply made do with C grades.

As I've mentioned in some of our messages though, I recently started trying to learn Japanese and I've been much more successful at it than Spanish and Italian. I know 161 words now and although I won't say I'm adequately prepared to use the language to visit Tokyo yet, I am far more confident in my ability to get by in Japanese if I needed to talk to someone using it than I ever was in my ability to use Spanish or Italian.

One thing I will say, is that I think speaking Japanese (emphasis on speaking) is objectively easier than Spanish or Italian. The Japanese don't use gendered words. The Japanese also use surprisingly large amount of words that are pronounced almost exactly like English words such as "konpyuta," "Kanada," The easiest part though is that there are no verb conjugations. You don't have to specify whether I'm going somewhere, you are going somewhere, or if we are. People just infer based on context or you simply say boku wa or kimi wa if its truly unclear. For these reasons, Japanese is a much less "busy" language than Spanish or Italian.

The entire reason why Japanese is objectively difficult overall is the writing system. And I will admit that my grasp on hiragana and katakana is not nearly as good as my vocabulary and I'm still struggling with it. I also have not put as much of my time towards trying to learn hiragana as I have towards vocabulary words though.
You say that, but math is one of the lesser memory-based subjects second to English in that regard. Getting good at math meant a lot of practicing in my case to fix up small mistakes and getting better at applying the formula to problems. The formulas themselves took little time to master, the Pythagorean theorem is just 2 letters squared added up to equal the third letter squared(in ABC order). That said, I do believe you're right about your main point, that some things are harder due to simple lack of interest.

I can relate to your Spanish example, but more so with History. A lot of historical figures in highschool are represented purely by their achievements which makes them not so memorable in the long term. It's the main reason why I believe the musical of Hamilton works so well. Hamilton, himself, being characterized as a passionate workaholic makes it a lot easier to remember that he wrote 51 of the federalist papers which defended the US Constitution. Keep in mind that before discovering the musical I had no idea who he was and I didn't look up or even checked what I just said about him.

 
Sep 15, 12:46 PM

Offline
Joined: Jun 2016
Posts: 4784
Ryuk9428 said:
Maneki-Mew said:

Their parents and the society drill them, that's the reason. East Asian countries also have the highest suicidal rates of kids and teenagers.

That's another reason, but children, who get basic education normally get more food and have better lives than those, who are illiterate.
Also, it sounds strange, but more and more western kids suffer from malnutrition as well. They might be obese, but they eat so many "empty calories" and get so little fibers, mineral nutrients and vitamins that they also suffer from malnutrition.


I don't think you can force someone to be intelligent. Trying to push someone beyond their limits will result in them crashing and burning. Its worth mentioning, however, that although Japan's overall suicide rate is worse than America or European countries are. The teen suicide rate in Western countries is actually worse than in Japan. Although it is not worse than South Korea's. In Western countries, the suicide rate peaks in the 18-24 age range while in East Asia, it steadily goes up the older people get and becomes significantly higher in the 75+ age group, which indicates to me that it might not necessarily be the school culture but the pressures of adulthood. This could be the reason why Asian countries love and idealize youth so much.

People in the West may have a mild form of malnutrition but its not going to have anywhere near the effect that malnutrition does to somebody in Pakistan.

Well yes? As I said: I trained numerical series for the university entrance test and within days and a week I scored much better than at the first attempt.
Before that I had official tests and the results varied. I made one for a semi-private high school and because I scored over 120, they offered me financial aid, but it was still was too expensive for my mom, so I visited another high school.
At the second test I had migraine earlier that day and didn't sleep well, there I got 105 and later they gave me a new chance. I got similar results to the first one, just higher, because I trained myself.

You just have to learn how to do these tasks. Normal to above average intelligent people are able to learn new patterns and then you can recognize them in similar tasks.
Back then, when you learned your mother tongue as a toddler, kids automatically learn to recognize patterns in their own language. When they learn a second language, they already understand how basic rules for languages work, especially similar languages. It's a similar principle for everything that follows a pattern.

And if you are able to train yourself to score higher there, then parents are able to pressure their children into getting higher scores at IQ tests.
 
Sep 15, 1:16 PM

Offline
Joined: Mar 2019
Posts: 1486
Peaceful_Critic said:
Ryuk9428 said:


Well something being memorization based doesn't necessarily make it easy, it just means a different set of skills are being utilized. A lot of people consider high school math to be pretty difficult, I was one of them. One of the reasons why is because a lot of people simply have no interest in math. If you have no interest in the subject, then no matter how intelligent you may be, your brain will not consider it to be important information.

An example I will give is that I took Spanish for three years in high school. I know basically nothing today. I know, maybe 5-10 words in Spanish. I also took Italian for two years in college. I know pretty much no Italian. I skated by in Spanish by being really good at the cultural information and somewhat sucking at the actual language part. In college Italian, I simply made do with C grades.

As I've mentioned in some of our messages though, I recently started trying to learn Japanese and I've been much more successful at it than Spanish and Italian. I know 161 words now and although I won't say I'm adequately prepared to use the language to visit Tokyo yet, I am far more confident in my ability to get by in Japanese if I needed to talk to someone using it than I ever was in my ability to use Spanish or Italian.

One thing I will say, is that I think speaking Japanese (emphasis on speaking) is objectively easier than Spanish or Italian. The Japanese don't use gendered words. The Japanese also use surprisingly large amount of words that are pronounced almost exactly like English words such as "konpyuta," "Kanada," The easiest part though is that there are no verb conjugations. You don't have to specify whether I'm going somewhere, you are going somewhere, or if we are. People just infer based on context or you simply say boku wa or kimi wa if its truly unclear. For these reasons, Japanese is a much less "busy" language than Spanish or Italian.

The entire reason why Japanese is objectively difficult overall is the writing system. And I will admit that my grasp on hiragana and katakana is not nearly as good as my vocabulary and I'm still struggling with it. I also have not put as much of my time towards trying to learn hiragana as I have towards vocabulary words though.
You say that, but math is one of the lesser memory-based subjects second to English in that regard. Getting good at math meant a lot of practicing in my case to fix up small mistakes and getting better at applying the formula to problems. The formulas themselves took little time to master, the Pythagorean theorem is just 2 letters squared added up to equal the third letter squared(in ABC order). That said, I do believe you're right about your main point, that some things are harder due to simple lack of interest.

I can relate to your Spanish example, but more so with History. A lot of historical figures in highschool are represented purely by their achievements which makes them not so memorable in the long term. It's the main reason why I believe the musical of Hamilton works so well. Hamilton, himself, being characterized as a passionate workaholic makes it a lot easier to remember that he wrote 51 of the federalist papers which defended the US Constitution. Keep in mind that before discovering the musical I had no idea who he was and I didn't look up or even checked what I just said about him.


To me, I'd say English is less memory based than math is because some English classes, such as creative writing, involve essentially no memorization whatsoever.

History is not taught very well in school. The main reason I developed an interest in the first place was from playing historical based video games. Interestingly enough, while psychology and sociology is a lot more girls than guys. History is one of the few social sciences that is definitely majority guys. I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of guys develop an interest in history from video games as well whereas history based video games don't usually appeal to girls as much.
 
Sep 15, 1:19 PM

Offline
Joined: Mar 2019
Posts: 1486
Maneki-Mew said:
Ryuk9428 said:


I don't think you can force someone to be intelligent. Trying to push someone beyond their limits will result in them crashing and burning. Its worth mentioning, however, that although Japan's overall suicide rate is worse than America or European countries are. The teen suicide rate in Western countries is actually worse than in Japan. Although it is not worse than South Korea's. In Western countries, the suicide rate peaks in the 18-24 age range while in East Asia, it steadily goes up the older people get and becomes significantly higher in the 75+ age group, which indicates to me that it might not necessarily be the school culture but the pressures of adulthood. This could be the reason why Asian countries love and idealize youth so much.

People in the West may have a mild form of malnutrition but its not going to have anywhere near the effect that malnutrition does to somebody in Pakistan.

Well yes? As I said: I trained numerical series for the university entrance test and within days and a week I scored much better than at the first attempt.
Before that I had official tests and the results varied. I made one for a semi-private high school and because I scored over 120, they offered me financial aid, but it was still was too expensive for my mom, so I visited another high school.
At the second test I had migraine earlier that day and didn't sleep well, there I got 105 and later they gave me a new chance. I got similar results to the first one, just higher, because I trained myself.

You just have to learn how to do these tasks. Normal to above average intelligent people are able to learn new patterns and then you can recognize them in similar tasks.
Back then, when you learned your mother tongue as a toddler, kids automatically learn to recognize patterns in their own language. When they learn a second language, they already understand how basic rules for languages work, especially similar languages. It's a similar principle for everything that follows a pattern.

And if you are able to train yourself to score higher there, then parents are able to pressure their children into getting higher scores at IQ tests.


I'm not sure if you can really train for IQ tests. Tests done for university entrance aren't done the same way as IQ tests are. IQ test questions are usually more based on "what is similar in these images" rather than asking academic based questions.
 
Sep 15, 1:24 PM

Offline
Joined: Jun 2016
Posts: 4784
Ryuk9428 said:
Maneki-Mew said:

Well yes? As I said: I trained numerical series for the university entrance test and within days and a week I scored much better than at the first attempt.
Before that I had official tests and the results varied. I made one for a semi-private high school and because I scored over 120, they offered me financial aid, but it was still was too expensive for my mom, so I visited another high school.
At the second test I had migraine earlier that day and didn't sleep well, there I got 105 and later they gave me a new chance. I got similar results to the first one, just higher, because I trained myself.

You just have to learn how to do these tasks. Normal to above average intelligent people are able to learn new patterns and then you can recognize them in similar tasks.
Back then, when you learned your mother tongue as a toddler, kids automatically learn to recognize patterns in their own language. When they learn a second language, they already understand how basic rules for languages work, especially similar languages. It's a similar principle for everything that follows a pattern.

And if you are able to train yourself to score higher there, then parents are able to pressure their children into getting higher scores at IQ tests.


I'm not sure if you can really train for IQ tests. Tests done for university entrance aren't done the same way as IQ tests are. IQ test questions are usually more based on "what is similar in these images" rather than asking academic based questions.

There are parts that aren't academic based questions. There are these "logic parts", which make 1/3 - 1/2 of the score of the test and they are basically build like IQ tests. I mean, I took three, I know how they look like. ;)
 
Sep 15, 1:30 PM

Offline
Joined: Sep 2015
Posts: 1330
Ryuk9428 said:
Peaceful_Critic said:
You say that, but math is one of the lesser memory-based subjects second to English in that regard. Getting good at math meant a lot of practicing in my case to fix up small mistakes and getting better at applying the formula to problems. The formulas themselves took little time to master, the Pythagorean theorem is just 2 letters squared added up to equal the third letter squared(in ABC order). That said, I do believe you're right about your main point, that some things are harder due to simple lack of interest.

I can relate to your Spanish example, but more so with History. A lot of historical figures in highschool are represented purely by their achievements which makes them not so memorable in the long term. It's the main reason why I believe the musical of Hamilton works so well. Hamilton, himself, being characterized as a passionate workaholic makes it a lot easier to remember that he wrote 51 of the federalist papers which defended the US Constitution. Keep in mind that before discovering the musical I had no idea who he was and I didn't look up or even checked what I just said about him.


To me, I'd say English is less memory based than math is because some English classes, such as creative writing, involve essentially no memorization whatsoever.

History is not taught very well in school. The main reason I developed an interest in the first place was from playing historical based video games. Interestingly enough, while psychology and sociology is a lot more girls than guys. History is one of the few social sciences that is definitely majority guys. I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of guys develop an interest in history from video games as well whereas history based video games don't usually appeal to girls as much.
Oh, sorry, how I worded it was confusing. I agreed English is the least memory-based subject. Ranking them from 1(being the least memorization) and 4(being the most) my ranking goes like this:
1.English
2.Math
3.Science
4.History

You know the story of how you got into history reminds me of an anime:
The Ambition of Oda Nobuna
Btw, do you know any fun ways to get into history as a hobby (aside from video games)? I'm embassed by my complete lack of common knowledge in the subject.

 
Sep 15, 1:37 PM

Offline
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 4125
i have the highest IQ in this thread.

Oh maybe, maybe it's the clothes we wear
The tasteless bracelets and the dye in our hair
Or maybe, maybe it's our nowhere towns or our nothing places
But we're trash, you and me
We're the litter on the breeze
We're the lovers on the streets
Just trash, me and you
It's in everything we do
It's in everything we do



 
Sep 15, 1:38 PM

Offline
Joined: Jun 2019
Posts: 496
HyperL said:
The true questionis why does any of that matter?


Because OP is a troll and judging by his intent with this thread, a bad person. It doesn't matter.
 
Sep 15, 4:24 PM

Offline
Joined: Mar 2019
Posts: 1486
Peaceful_Critic said:
Ryuk9428 said:


To me, I'd say English is less memory based than math is because some English classes, such as creative writing, involve essentially no memorization whatsoever.

History is not taught very well in school. The main reason I developed an interest in the first place was from playing historical based video games. Interestingly enough, while psychology and sociology is a lot more girls than guys. History is one of the few social sciences that is definitely majority guys. I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of guys develop an interest in history from video games as well whereas history based video games don't usually appeal to girls as much.
Oh, sorry, how I worded it was confusing. I agreed English is the least memory-based subject. Ranking them from 1(being the least memorization) and 4(being the most) my ranking goes like this:
1.English
2.Math
3.Science
4.History

You know the story of how you got into history reminds me of an anime:
The Ambition of Oda Nobuna
Btw, do you know any fun ways to get into history as a hobby (aside from video games)? I'm embassed by my complete lack of common knowledge in the subject.


My mom reads a lot of historical fiction books if you like reading at all. A lot of authors try to make their books historically accurate although I've read some books where they have blatantly false information.

Hetalia Axis Powers anime actually has a lot of good historical information behind all the jokes. Some stuff even I didn't know. I've heard a lot of girls like Hetalia too because the guys are drawn and act very cute.

TV shows and movies in general I think can be a good way to get into history. I like seeing history come to life on TV. Braveheart and the Patriot are pretty good movies. My parents liked the Borgias a lot although I haven't seen it. You might be interested in a miniseries called "Pillars of the Earth" along with its sequel "World Without End." I watched them both and thought they were pretty good. I loved the anime "Kingdom" which is about Ancient China.
 
Sep 15, 4:44 PM

Offline
Joined: Mar 2014
Posts: 1114
one thing why i can't fully agree with IQ test is because the test is built around a close-environment where every variables and choices are already prepared by the tester. you see, when someone encounter a problem irl, she/he don't always have or given the same choice or variables or tools to solve the problem like in the test. and there's also "the mental state effect on decision-making process" which is ignored by most IQ test. that's why i think IQ test isn't quite reliable to determine one's actual intelligence. the result only applicable on case by case event.




erika is never to fall, because she always hold her tightly
erika is just a doll, and she's just a beautiful memory
 
Sep 15, 5:10 PM

Offline
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 31688
I sure hope you're not in med school for neuroscience since anything to do with psychology and neuroscience your arrogant ignorance shows heavily.

For one thing there is no IQ test. IQ test is just the label for a type of test. There are several IQ tests and you can score different IQ depending which test is used.

For another IQ tests don't measure inteligence they measure potential inteligence.

IQ tests also fail to account for some important factors.
 
Sep 15, 5:18 PM

Offline
Joined: Dec 2016
Posts: 1779
Thank you for validating me, OP. I have an IQ of 19010489894, but I am a useless piece of shit who failed every test in school and contributed nothing to society. I tried to convince myself that it was just because I didn't try, and that if I actually did put in the effort, I would be the smartest person in the whole wide world and would invent the cure for cancer and every other thing you brainlets can only dream of coming up with, and now I know that I was correct for thinking that way.

Bow before me, you plebs. I may be a no-life MAL shitposter and some of you may be successful people with jobs and lives and friends, but I am still superior to you because my IQ is higher than yours :)


What's the difference?
 
Sep 15, 5:27 PM

Offline
Joined: Jul 2015
Posts: 9458
Oof, the level of intellectual wanking and insecurity in that OP is impressive. Yeah, you got the biggest one and everybody cares about your IQ's size, dw.
 
Top
Pages (3) [1] 2 3 »