User Controls
am i a genius?
-
2017-05-18 at 7:40 AM UTC>the studies prove i'm right
this is not valid
malice: IQ 85 -
2017-05-18 at 7:41 AM UTCThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2017-05-18 at 7:42 AM UTC
Originally posted by Malice The data's pretty damn clear, people who score low almost never do particularly well in life.
There's actually good evidence of psychometric (the study and quantification of human mental ability) thresholds. Ah, here it is: http://infoproc.blogspot.com/2010/05/psychometric-thresholds-for-physics-and.html
SAT scores strongly correlate with IQ, btw, and it's particularly important in the hard sciences. So, basically, if you're below a certain level there's literally no chance in hell, no matter how hard you try, whatever you do, that you're ever going to achieve certain things.
It is incredibly damning evidence of your capabilities, and it's also a very strong predictor of what you may be able to contribute to the world.
There's an asymmetry. There are definitely people with high IQs, who, for whatever reason, never really go anywhere in life, but the inverse generally isn't true.
I mean, I guess they could go into entertainment, like sports or something, but I wouldn't say that really contributes to the advancement of mankind. It just helps people pass the time. That doesn't come close to being as valuable as developing a vaccine that literally saves millions of lives.
Post last edited by Malice at 2017-05-18T07:31:53.375819+00:00
my sat score was 1790 -
2017-05-18 at 7:42 AM UTCThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2017-05-18 at 7:45 AM UTC
-
2017-05-18 at 7:47 AM UTCthis is my best score out of something like 100 tests. its a good hobby. still, this is hard to get. most of my scores are over 130 though, real iq is something like 135-145, depending on which statistical data trick i use to calculate the mean (discarding tests where i scored 50 something points below my max, we can all have a good day or find something that causes mindfuck)
before someone says "practice effect", almost all of them were normed on a mensa+ population with a lot of previous experience in puzzles and testing, so someone with an iq of 100 could take one of these and score like 70
Post last edited by Oasis at 2017-05-18T07:51:25.163673+00:00 -
2017-05-18 at 7:47 AM UTChow little of a difference will history see
-
2017-05-18 at 7:50 AM UTCAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHHAH
-
2017-05-18 at 7:51 AM UTC
-
2017-05-18 at 7:54 AM UTC
Originally posted by Oasis this is my best score out of something like 100 tests. its a good hobby. still, this is hard to get. most of my scores are over 130 though, real iq is something like 135-145, depending on which statistical data trick i use to calculate the mean (discarding tests where i scored 50 something points below my max, we can all have a good day or find something that causes mindfuck)
before someone says "practice effect", almost all of them were normed on a mensa+ population with a lot of previous experience in puzzles and testing, so someone with an iq of 100 could take one of these and score like 70
Post last edited by Oasis at 2017-05-18T07:51:25.163673+00:00
then again, even though my real IQ isn't 160, it proves that my maximum capacity for complexity processing under the right conditions is 1/30,000, while my usual capacity is 1/50-1/1000 -
2017-05-18 at 7:55 AM UTC
-
2017-05-18 at 7:56 AM UTCcoime to tinychat SNAB AND DEBATE ME
-
2017-05-18 at 7:56 AM UTCthat's what I thought
-
2017-05-18 at 7:57 AM UTCOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOHGGHHGG
-
2017-05-18 at 8:01 AM UTC
Originally posted by Oasis science is the religion (belief system) of replicable results
Right, and having faith that the results are replicable just because scriptu-... a study tells you so is just as stupid as having faith in god for the same reason. Unless you have personally tested the things you believe, you don't have empirical evidence for their truth - citing a study means you have faith that the study is empirical; you don't have any empirical evidence to suggest that's actually the case. Just a willingness to believe because it sounds plausible. -
2017-05-18 at 8:02 AM UTC
-
2017-05-18 at 8:04 AM UTCwho wants to see my F U L L S C O R E L I S T????
-
2017-05-18 at 8:05 AM UTC
Originally posted by Phoenix Right, and having faith that the results are replicable just because scriptu-… a study tells you so is just as stupid as having faith in god for the same reason. Unless you have personally tested the things you believe, you don't have empirical evidence for their truth - citing a study means you have faith that the study is empirical; you don't have any empirical evidence to suggest that's actually the case. Just a willingness to believe because it sounds plausible.
it means when you do replicate the study you're likely to get the same results, and if you dont the study can be contested. its constantly evolving and we are still in primitive ages of technology and science -
2017-05-18 at 8:06 AM UTC
Originally posted by Phoenix Right, and having faith that the results are replicable just because scriptu-… a study tells you so is just as stupid as having faith in god for the same reason. Unless you have personally tested the things you believe, you don't have empirical evidence for their truth - citing a study means you have faith that the study is empirical; you don't have any empirical evidence to suggest that's actually the case. Just a willingness to believe because it sounds plausible.
The important consideration here is trust. Before being considered for publishing in a (respected) peer-reviewed journal, a researcher needs to have a reputation or references to vouch for them - they then need to submit their report, which the journal themselves verify is sensible at meets scientific standards and whatever else. Being peer-reviewed, it's expected that other scientists will test and expand upon published research.
If it were found that a journal was publishing nonsense reports, their reputation would rapidly fall apart and they'd go out of business... Same goes for the scientists that conducted the tests and anyone else who vouched for them. -
2017-05-18 at 8:07 AM UTC
