User Controls
am i a genius?
-
2017-05-18 at 8:12 AM UTC
Originally posted by Oasis 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
Right, but you don't replicate the study 99% of the time. You just have faith that someone else will, and that the findings they report are the truth. How many studies have you replicated to support the things you believe? Or are you just relying on other people's words and having faith in their veracity?
This is what I mean: the average person who believes in science is not a scientist. The average scientist is so specialized that they can't attest to the validity of anything outside their field with any real credibility. The average person who values science does so on a basis constructed almost entirely of faith in findings they will never personally verify.
If I told you the sun revolved around the Earth how would you know I was wrong? Is it because you've done the calculations yourself? Or because you read somewhere once that the calculations had been done and everyone agreed? What empirical evidence do you have to suggest that anyone has ever done the calculations or that anyone ever agreed? And yet you believe anyway. And if you deigned to correct me with "evidence" that the sun revolves around the earth, it would most likely not be with things you have observed personally and proven to be true. You'd be quoting scripture at me. -
2017-05-18 at 8:14 AM UTC10% of scores => 150
30% of scores => 140
25% of scores => 130
15% of scores => 120
5% of scores => 110
15% of scores => 100
0 % of scores less than 100 -
2017-05-18 at 8:17 AM UTC
Originally posted by Phoenix Right, but you don't replicate the study 99% of the time. You just have faith that someone else will, and that the findings they report are the truth. How many studies have you replicated to support the things you believe? Or are you just relying on other people's words and having faith in their veracity?
This is what I mean: the average person who believes in science is not a scientist. The average scientist is so specialized that they can't attest to the validity of anything outside their field with any real credibility. The average person who values science does so on a basis constructed almost entirely of faith in findings they will never personally verify.
If I told you the sun revolved around the Earth how would you know I was wrong? Is it because you've done the calculations yourself? Or because you read somewhere once that the calculations had been done and everyone agreed? What empirical evidence do you have to suggest that anyone has ever done the calculations or that anyone ever agreed? And yet you believe anyway. And if you deigned to correct me with "evidence" that the sun revolves around the earth, it would most likely not be with things you have observed personally and proven to be true. You'd be quoting scripture at me.
ive tested my own findings (test results) dozens of times and they've stayed relatively consistent, and when i've made my own the results were consistent with the results other people had. if you're saying "you should never believe anything that you havent proved yourself" that would massively stunt the growth of society. theres always someone making a study and someone contesting the study and someone contesting the person who contested the study and if you dont disbelieve everything anyone has ever said, you can come to valid conclusions. maybe one day 1 + 1 will be proven wrong is some really weird way but for now we use it and it seems to work, even though most of us have never formed a mathematical proof for its truth/ -
2017-05-18 at 8:23 AM UTC
Originally posted by Phoenix Essentially: hypothetically, you could be excellent at everything IQ tests test for in an applied setting except for the ability to think abstractly in the academic context required by an IQ test - you can be astoundingly adaptable but unable to adapt to IQ tests, and you can be astoundingly inept at adapting to natural problems but very capable of adapting to IQ tests.
I feel like you cling to IQ tests because you have literally nothing to impress people with other than that, and accepting that compelling correlations are not the same ironclad evidence will rob you of literally the only thing about you that you feel isn't flawed.
No, that absolutely is not true and you missed my point.
Research psychometrics if you're really interested. I'm not going to baby you through it.
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
Sploo, I swear to god, I berated you so many times in the past for doing this, rationalizing what you're doing, and you still cling to it. Fine, believe whatever you want. -
2017-05-18 at 8:24 AM UTC
Originally posted by Oasis ive tested my own findings (test results) dozens of times and they've stayed relatively consistent, and when i've made my own the results were consistent with the results other people had. if you're saying "you should never believe anything that you havent proved yourself" that would massively stunt the growth of society. theres always someone making a study and someone contesting the study and someone contesting the person who contested the study and if you dont disbelieve everything anyone has ever said, you can come to valid conclusions. maybe one day 1 + 1 will be proven wrong is some really weird way but for now we use it and it seems to work, even though most of us have never formed a mathematical proof for its truth/
I'm saying you should never believe anything you haven't proven yourself, and even then it's probably not wise, yes. But you're free to treat things as true to your hearts content. You're free to have faith. You can pretend you know the truth about anything you want, and hopefully the things you choose to pretend are true are actually of benefit to people.
But don't trick yourself into thinking you're living your life on the basis of anything other than faith, whether you believe in god or science or both or neither.
Basically all this to make the point (in regard to malice) that, yes, quoting studies at people is asinine. Neither you or the person you're quoting them to have any real way of verifying they're true. Stop quoting scripture at people. It's fucking annoying and doesn't prove anything other than that it's something you've chosen to have faith in. -
2017-05-18 at 8:30 AM UTC
Originally posted by Phoenix I'm saying you should never believe anything you haven't proven yourself, and even then it's probably not wise, yes. But you're free to treat things as true to your hearts content. You're free to have faith. You can pretend you know the truth about anything you want, and hopefully the things you choose to pretend are true are actually of benefit to people.
But don't trick yourself into thinking you're living your life on the basis of anything other than faith, whether you believe in god or science or both or neither.
Basically all this to make the point (in regard to malice) that, yes, quoting studies at people is asinine. Neither you or the person you're quoting them to have any real way of verifying they're true. Stop quoting scripture at people. It's fucking annoying and doesn't prove anything other than that it's something you've chosen to have faith in.
Tort and I will verify your tits if you finally put on those boobie tasselsThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2017-05-18 at 8:34 AM UTCYes yes Sploo, you are basically the smartest person on the planet.
-
2017-05-18 at 8:35 AM UTCbut if you really need to ask if you're a genius, then prolly not.
. -
2017-05-18 at 8:44 AM UTC
-
2017-05-18 at 8:48 AM UTC
Originally posted by Malice Sploo, I swear to god, I berated you so many times in the past for doing this, rationalizing what you're doing, and you still cling to it. Fine, believe whatever you want.
you state statistics as truth and fact, but when someone uses statistics out of a controlled setting you can't accept it
realistically my iq is above 2SD and below 3SD and ive read enough into statistical analysis as well as others opinions to draw my conclusions
Post last edited by Oasis at 2017-05-18T08:50:21.915113+00:00 -
2017-05-18 at 8:48 AM UTC>science isnt real
>using a computer
pick 1 -
2017-05-18 at 8:50 AM UTC
Originally posted by Oasis you state statistics as truth and fact, but when someone uses statistics out of a controlled setting you can't accept it
While on the surface a good point. To play the devil's advocate, what makes you qualified in statistics? Any nigger can open Excel and make a spreadsheet. -
2017-05-18 at 8:51 AM UTC
Originally posted by Sophie While on the surface a good point. To play the devil's advocate, what makes you qualified in statistics? Any nigger can open Excel and make a spreadsheet.
using formulas. heres an item analysis for the last-of logics test (not mine)
Paul Christian's new short 24 items (45 minutes ) LoL test is looking good: Cronbach beta 0.88 at N=24. Give it a try!
Item 16 is weakest, if removed, we will get Cronbach beta 0.89.
Reliability Statistics
╔════════════════╦══════════╗
║Cronbach's beta║N of Items║
╠════════════════╬══════════╣
║ .88║ 24║
╚════════════════╩══════════╝
Item-Total Statistics
╔══════╦══════════════╤════════════════╤═══════════════════╤══════════════════╗
║ ║ Scale Mean if│ Scale Variance │ Corrected Item- │ Cronbach's beta ║
║ ║ Item Deleted │ if Item Deleted│ Total Correlation │ if Item Deleted ║
╠══════╬══════════════╪════════════════╪═══════════════════╪══════════════════╣
║VAR001║ 14.75│ 29.67│ NaN│ .88║
║VAR002║ 14.88│ 27.24│ .66│ .87║
║VAR003║ 14.92│ 27.64│ .47│ .87║
║VAR004║ 14.92│ 28.60│ .23│ .88║
║VAR005║ 14.96│ 28.39│ .25│ .88║
║VAR006║ 14.96│ 26.13│ .80│ .86║
║VAR007║ 15.00│ 26.96│ .55│ .87║
║VAR008║ 15.00│ 26.52│ .65│ .87║
║VAR009║ 15.00│ 27.74│ .37│ .87║
║VAR010║ 15.04│ 26.22│ .68│ .87║
║VAR011║ 15.04│ 26.22│ .68│ .87║
║VAR012║ 15.08│ 26.86│ .52│ .87║
║VAR013║ 15.08│ 27.30│ .43│ .87║
║VAR014║ 15.08│ 26.17│ .66│ .87║
║VAR015║ 15.08│ 26.17│ .66│ .87║
║VAR016║ 15.08│ 29.47│ -.01│ .89║
║VAR017║ 15.08│ 27.30│ .43│ .87║
║VAR018║ 15.12│ 27.59│ .35│ .88║
║VAR019║ 15.21│ 25.74│ .71│ .86║
║VAR020║ 15.21│ 27.22│ .41│ .87║
║VAR021║ 15.25│ 27.24│ .41│ .87║
║VAR022║ 15.38│ 27.98│ .28│ .88║
║VAR023║ 15.46│ 28.52│ .19│ .88║
║VAR024║ 15.67│ 28.67│ .31│ .88║
╚══════╩══════════════╧════════════════╧═══════════════════╧══════════════════╝ -
2017-05-18 at 8:55 AM UTC
Originally posted by Oasis using formulas. heres an item analysis for the last-of logics test (not mine)
Paul Christian's new short 24 items (45 minutes ) LoL test is looking good: Cronbach beta 0.88 at N=24. Give it a try!
Item 16 is weakest, if removed, we will get Cronbach beta 0.89.
Reliability Statistics
╔════════════════╦══════════╗
║Cronbach's beta║N of Items║
╠════════════════╬══════════╣
║ .88║ 24║
╚════════════════╩══════════╝
Item-Total Statistics
╔══════╦══════════════╤════════════════╤═══════════════════╤══════════════════╗
║ ║ Scale Mean if│ Scale Variance │ Corrected Item- │ Cronbach's beta ║
║ ║ Item Deleted │ if Item Deleted│ Total Correlation │ if Item Deleted ║
╠══════╬══════════════╪════════════════╪═══════════════════╪══════════════════╣
║VAR001║ 14.75│ 29.67│ NaN│ .88║
║VAR002║ 14.88│ 27.24│ .66│ .87║
║VAR003║ 14.92│ 27.64│ .47│ .87║
║VAR004║ 14.92│ 28.60│ .23│ .88║
║VAR005║ 14.96│ 28.39│ .25│ .88║
║VAR006║ 14.96│ 26.13│ .80│ .86║
║VAR007║ 15.00│ 26.96│ .55│ .87║
║VAR008║ 15.00│ 26.52│ .65│ .87║
║VAR009║ 15.00│ 27.74│ .37│ .87║
║VAR010║ 15.04│ 26.22│ .68│ .87║
║VAR011║ 15.04│ 26.22│ .68│ .87║
║VAR012║ 15.08│ 26.86│ .52│ .87║
║VAR013║ 15.08│ 27.30│ .43│ .87║
║VAR014║ 15.08│ 26.17│ .66│ .87║
║VAR015║ 15.08│ 26.17│ .66│ .87║
║VAR016║ 15.08│ 29.47│ -.01│ .89║
║VAR017║ 15.08│ 27.30│ .43│ .87║
║VAR018║ 15.12│ 27.59│ .35│ .88║
║VAR019║ 15.21│ 25.74│ .71│ .86║
║VAR020║ 15.21│ 27.22│ .41│ .87║
║VAR021║ 15.25│ 27.24│ .41│ .87║
║VAR022║ 15.38│ 27.98│ .28│ .88║
║VAR023║ 15.46│ 28.52│ .19│ .88║
║VAR024║ 15.67│ 28.67│ .31│ .88║
╚══════╩══════════════╧════════════════╧═══════════════════╧══════════════════╝
Now explain it to me as if i were five. -
2017-05-18 at 9:01 AM UTC
Originally posted by Sophie Now explain it to me as if i were five.
cronbach beta is inter-item correlation. if a test has a high cronbach it means all the items correlate well with one another, suggesting it is measuring a real construct (in this case the g factor)
scale mean if deleted indicates the proportion of people that answered the item correctly, if every test taker answers the question correctly the scale mean with be the mean - 1, if no one answers the question correctly it will be scale mean - 0
total inter-item correlation shows how well a particular item correlates with the others, question 16 has -0.01 which means it is a bad item
cronbach beta if deleted suggests what the reliability would be if an item was removed, and since #16 has poor correlations, the reliability would be slightly higher.
reliability + correlation coefficient = absolute proof of a tests validity. the sample size isnt large enough yet but literally every test on that site has a correlation of at least 0.9 to psychologist administered tests.
this suggests both reliability and validity for IQ measurement -
2017-05-18 at 9:10 AM UTC
Originally posted by Oasis cronbach beta is inter-item correlation. if a test has a high cronbach it means all the items correlate well with one another, suggesting it is measuring a real construct (in this case the g factor)
scale mean if deleted indicates the proportion of people that answered the item correctly, if every test taker answers the question correctly the scale mean with be the mean - 1, if no one answers the question correctly it will be scale mean - 0
total inter-item correlation shows how well a particular item correlates with the others, question 16 has -0.01 which means it is a bad item
cronbach beta if deleted suggests what the reliability would be if an item was removed, and since #16 has poor correlations, the reliability would be slightly higher.
reliability + correlation coefficient = absolute proof of a tests validity. the sample size isnt large enough yet but literally every test on that site has a correlation of at least 0.9 to psychologist administered tests.
this suggests both reliability and validity for IQ measurement
That's actually pretty interesting. Also, i wouldn't say it's absolute proof but a strong indicator at least. Also, i am not arguing the validity of the IQ test. -
2017-05-18 at 9:11 AM UTC
Originally posted by Oasis cronbach beta is inter-item correlation. if a test has a high cronbach it means all the items correlate well with one another, suggesting it is measuring a real construct (in this case the g factor)
scale mean if deleted indicates the proportion of people that answered the item correctly, if every test taker answers the question correctly the scale mean with be the mean - 1, if no one answers the question correctly it will be scale mean - 0
total inter-item correlation shows how well a particular item correlates with the others, question 16 has -0.01 which means it is a bad item
cronbach beta if deleted suggests what the reliability would be if an item was removed, and since #16 has poor correlations, the reliability would be slightly higher.
reliability + correlation coefficient = absolute proof of a tests validity. the sample size isnt large enough yet but literally every test on that site has a correlation of at least 0.9 to psychologist administered tests.
this suggests both reliability and validity for IQ measurement
argue with this malice -
2017-05-18 at 9:53 AM UTCI can't, I've never come across that before. TBH, my reading went way down after I went into severe depression and became suicidal 3 years ago. Really wasted a lot of my life, although there's definitely a lot of truth to the idea that you tend to learn far more in a state of intense suffering than when you're happy.
Just being honest. It's not like I know everything in the world. You should understand, we both have massive issues, feel like shit all the time, have problems with ADD etc.
Definitely regret not being more well read due to all the shit that happened in my life, the problems I have. On some level I just want to stop giving a fuck one day and become a pharmacological wirehead and just spend all my time in VR, let Elon Musk and his cohorts be miserable workaholics constantly exhausting themselves and not having real fun.
Post last edited by Malice at 2017-05-18T09:55:04.922623+00:00 -
2017-05-18 at 9:57 AM UTC
-
2017-05-18 at 9:58 AM UTCahaha i love you guys
