User Controls
Deleted posts for: Zploo
-
2017-07-09 at 8:48 AM UTC
Originally posted by Malice I clearly beat cerakote and sploo in debate yesterday.
So my question is: Given how extremely autis*tic I am in so many ways, very important ways that strongly impact your life
lol, i've explained it in basic math and logic various times. you're really grasping for straws here.
one: practice effects in all forms of intelligence testing are negligible, and this can be proved by the only 30 point score gain on the SAT out of 2400 even after extensive training. how exactly does a person "train" for an intelligence test. thats like saying "you developed the ability to deal with extremely high complexity by drawing puzzles when bored". if items are varied, it takes (you dont seem to understand this) INTELLIGENCE to solve them. its not like solving one pattern gives you the explanation to a pattern far more complicated over time.
two: the practice effects could be significant if tests weren't normed on a representative sample. for example, a person with training who takes a test normed on people with no training. if it is normed on a sample of people who have the preparation and understanding of the basic tenets of puzzle solving, then your whole argument for inflated scores is invalid. and that is the case, since the tests are normed on people who have taken all of the other tests available, and it STILL produces valid results, which is proven mathematically by a near perfect correlation to standardized intelligence tests (my test had a correlation of 1.0, perfect), and very high reliability which proves the test is only measuring the general ability factor, and no other factors.
you could spend 50 years trying to do what i do and still never have my degree of ability as represented by IQ tests. why? because you aren't that intelligent. i genuinely find you to be a stupid person, and you equate extremely long useless walls of text to superiority, when really the concepts discussed are things i understood in middle school. you're at least 30 points away from my ability level, which is the difference between an average person and a mildly retarded person. you think because i dont rant endlessly about uninteresting, trivial bullshit most of the time means i'm not learning or doing anything. the "research" you attempt is for babies. Scrawny is more intelligent than you and you call him an idiot, he has an in depth understanding of chemistry, you have an in depth understanding of....reading articles OMG!! you just dont want to admit there are people inherently superior to you, including me. you're like a mosquito to me, nothing you say has ever made me learn something i haven't heard before. you are stupid compared to about half of the userbase, and your a*utism prevents you from understanding this.
malice: lol i'm severely a*utistic and mentally disabled/retarded
sploo: you're wrong and an idiot loser
malice: *says something a*utistic and retarded*
sploo: you're fucking stupid
malice: hahahaha i won! i am superior
malice: my a*utism is so severe i cant leave my house and i dont know how to say hi to someone or do math
sploo: this explains why you're fucking retarded
malice: *says something a*utistic and retarded*
repeat ad infinitum -
2017-07-09 at 8:52 AM UTCIf you realized how insignificant your degree of ability really is, would you finally kill yourself? Would you realize "wow, I really am worthless after all, I don't have a single positive quality, I'm worse than a nigger" and OD on carbon monoxide? I think that's why you're getting so defensive over my intelligence. Yes Malice, most people are smarter than you. Yes Malice, you have no redeeming qualities. Yes, you should probably commit suicide. It must suck to have to constantly battle with objective reality in your ego. People with downs syndrome are more rational than you.
-
2017-07-09 at 8:55 AM UTCexcept i've proven my cognitive value numerous times. naturally, everyone wants to self-delude and make up a reason to call it invalid. i have legitimately good genetics, or at least some of them. malice has none, and you're not much better.
-
2017-07-09 at 8:56 AM UTC>statistical analysis and mathematics proves its valid
THE MATH MUST BE WRONG!!!!!! - -
2017-07-09 at 9:09 AM UTCmfw everyones busy being a fucking plebian while im solving universe problems
-
2017-07-09 at 9:10 AM UTC
-
2017-07-09 at 9:20 AM UTCi mean i've created a logic based religion system and have extensive knowledge of various topics but i guess that isn't an achievement because i dont flip burgers and get a paycheck.
-
2017-07-09 at 9:51 AM UTC
-
2017-07-09 at 9:55 AM UTC
-
2017-07-09 at 9:57 AM UTC
-
2017-07-09 at 9:58 AM UTCwhy would i ask groups of people with no knowledge of the science behind it?
-
2017-07-09 at 10 AM UTC
Originally posted by Malice
Sploo, here's a simple request: Find a quality relevant subreddit or message board and write an outline/overview of your history with IQ tests, basically what you've been doing and what your goals are.
"i score really high on iq tests and ive taken a lot of them"
there isn't really a counterpoint -
2017-07-09 at 10:04 AM UTCbasically you're saying i score high because of practice effect
then i provide evidence that a degree of practice effect may exist but is relatively minimal, and not to the extent of giving scores outside a reasonable range of a person's true abilities.
case closed -
2017-07-09 at 10:07 AM UTCthink of it like this
there are two individuals: one with an IQ of 80 and one with an IQ of 160, who are given a test of vocabulary skills
the guy with an IQ of 80 is instructed to read the whole dictionary before the test, and he does so
the guy with an IQ of 160 is given no instruction or preparation
the guy with 80 IQ is still going to score around 80, probably slightly higher but still within the range of 80, and the guy with an IQ of 160 is still going to score 160. the baseline verbal ability will not change. -
2017-07-09 at 10:23 AM UTC
Originally posted by Malice Ponder this: What percentage of the population would you estimate have studied IQ tests and psychometrics, devoted this amount of time over the period of time you have?
literally every single person who takes tests on that website. and the norms are still statistically valid. what this means is that people without training would score lower than their real iq score, and people with training would score similar to how they score on psychologist administered tests. this means that the tests are extremely hard and it is actually an imperative to have taken a lot of iq tests before. this is how the site is able to eliminate the practice effect. it has a tendency to DEFLATE rather than INFLATE scores, so for a person to get a non-deflated score, they would have to take many tests. the reason this is still valid is because many of the people who provided correlations to psychologist-administered tests did so before any intelligence testing whatsoever. so their original test scores are correlated to their trained test scores, leading to a deflated norm that can provide unrealistically low iq scores but cannot provide unrealistically high scores, which is much better. -
2017-07-09 at 10:34 AM UTCmy point is, even if a person practiced indefinitely, there is a maximum performance level attainable by that individual. more intelligent people will have a higher maximum performance. because my maximum score is 160 doesn't mean my true IQ is 160, it means it's within a maximum of 15-20 points of 160, because a person can only train so much before reaching a bottleneck, meaning a "real" IQ of at least 140 or 145, which is still probably higher than yours