Thread 16831039

i think that IQ estimations past 125 and below 75 is unreliable and IQ estimations past 130 and below 70 are complete bullshit. any objections?

>>16831039 (OP)
Very low IQ results are in fact quite useful. IQs above 130 are essentially just "yeah this person is pretty smart",

I'm slightly skeptical of iq scores as a measure of intellect for a few different reasons, though I do indeed view anything past 130 as simply "smart" and anything below 70 as "dumb". People who worship them need to get a life.

>>16831039 (OP)
>IQ estimation
Bruh. Iqtards try really hard to pretend to be scientists don't they.

>>16831043
Once got into an argument with a biodetermafag over the influence of socioeconomic factors and he showed me evidence that the iq score of 93 given to the Chinese during Mao's reign was invalid because the test was biased against them. Made me lol.

>>16831039 (OP)
IDK about complete bullshit, I feel like there will be a noticeable difference between someone who scrapes in 130-140 and someone who consistently gets 150+ on every test, but I agree the specific number isn't really accurate or worth focusing on.

>>16831039 (OP)
you strike me as a 105-110 guy

>>16831039 (OP)
No objection.

>>16831039 (OP)
being super low IQ definitely hurts socially, emotionally and even physically b/c you're more likely to do dumb, dangerous stuff, or be forced to by your Dear Leaders.

being super high IQ doesn't help past Doctor level, and arguably starts to do harm, as well. Outside of """Academia""" being able to do high level maths is effectively useless and none of those folks go onto "greatness". At best, they can use their magic math skillz to design death machines for the Feds, or to write computer programs that will make mere billionaires into trillionaires.

Women hate super smart men too.

All of these tests are sus at the extreme ends, and are always being """improved""", which sort of invalidates the previous results, and there really doesn't seem to be a standard test that's used either, so who's to say which evaluation is " best"?

"It's good to be smart, but not too smart ;) " -Proverb

>>16832937
>Outside of """Academia""" being able to do high level maths is effectively useless and none of those folks go onto "greatness".
I have 135 IQ, so not genius level, but a bit above doctor, and I make a little bit of pocket change with options in the finance market.
Abstract algebra is quite useless -- yes.
But the fact that you can handle such math means your BASELINE is much higher. What to you is conceptually very simple math to understand (probability distributions, tail risks, convex vs linear functions, risk profiles/regimes etc.) is a VERY handsome task for non-mathy people.
I was taught none of that. I discovered that stuff myself (of course I don't mean coming up with the equations).
I mean, can you imagine the 103 IQ English major doing that without being taught?

>>16831203
I highly doubt he’s even 100 Iq lmao

>>16831048
All the twin studies so far have completely taken any water out of magic money theory. Socioeconomic conditions have little to no impact on IQ and when you actually test if it does when you control for things all the gaps vanish, and there is no actual evidence to the contrary that isn't just retard apologist posturing and fluff studies with meaningless data. IQ tests are known to be bias in fact the gap between women and men is larger than shown since it is known the tests remove questions that reveal the larger gap and weight sections to lessen it as well. Magic money theory holds as much water as magic dirt theory which in turn holds as much water as the validity of an IQ test to show how smart you are, that is absolutely none.

>>16831039 (OP)
I feel the same way about height

>>16831203
I have not taken any IQ tests in a long time but the last time i took one (WISC-IV) i had an average IQ of 125. I don't like people solely describing the average so i am 128 verbal, 121 perceptual reasoning, 120 working memory, 106 processing speed.