User Controls
The Retardest Thread: Fashionably Late Edition.
-
2018-04-02 at 1:34 AM UTC
Originally posted by Malice Oh, right, I bot the shaded area wrong.
That relates to test practice. There are only so many patterns that they will tend to use. After enough practice, like you've autistically focused on, it's very possible to increase your performance to a far higher level than normal.
yeah it has nothing to do with maybe you're not smart, even though like 3 other people on this site got the right answer -
2018-04-02 at 2:04 AM UTCMalice has a point though. The retest reliability of a normal IQ test goes down if you take it too often. And the statistical validity of g is largely based on analysis of normal, infrequent test takers within a couple SD of the mean. Even if these shape tests are supposedly normed on a sample of autistically focused test takers, individual scores could be inflated by a lot. They would be more convincing if they had multiple g correlated components like block design, reverse digit span, verbal reasoning, etcThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2018-04-02 at 2:08 AM UTCSpoo why don't you take acid and then make IQ tests based on the visuals
You can call it a "spiritual IQ" test -
2018-04-02 at 2:11 AM UTCI have a co-worker who has a massive crush on me and it is now at the stage of her cooking meals for me to bring to work.
This is really fucking weird. Maybe if I'm lucky she'll just poison me instead. -
2018-04-02 at 2:12 AM UTCunrelated
-
2018-04-02 at 2:14 AM UTC
Originally posted by 杀死所有的白魔鬼 I have a co-worker who has a massive crush on me and it is now at the stage of her cooking meals for me to bring to work.
This is really fucking weird. Maybe if I'm lucky she'll just poison me instead.
Is she fat? Can't imagine a decent looking girl being attracted to an ugly spic like you. -
2018-04-02 at 2:18 AM UTC
Originally posted by inb4l0pht Malice has a point though. The retest reliability of a normal IQ test goes down if you take it too often. And the statistical validity of g is largely based on analysis of normal, infrequent test takers within a couple SD of the mean. Even if these shape tests are supposedly normed on a sample of autistically focused test takers, individual scores could be inflated by a lot. They would be more convincing if they had multiple g correlated components like block design, reverse digit span, verbal reasoning, etc
correlation is with autistically focused test takers who have already taken the stanford binet or WAIS a long time before that
untimed tests aren't going to have a practice effect especially because you can just stare at it as long as you want until it clicks. malice still failed even that.
why overestimate the practice effect for these tests, the more training and knowledge i.e. "practice effect", the lower the correlation and statistics. a test that is based on a learning curve wont have a bell curve and wont correlate well with IQ
for this to happen the patterns have to be different enough between tests that doing one test wont give you a real advantage on another. also the IQ scores that are given by these tests are actually deflated to account for practice effect and keep the correlation to professional tests
also the item wasnt even an IQ 130 item, more like IQ 120. failing the item means there's almost no chance a person, in this case malice, even has an IQ over 130 -
2018-04-02 at 2:19 AM UTC
-
2018-04-02 at 2:20 AM UTC
Originally posted by 杀死所有的白魔鬼 I have a co-worker who has a massive crush on me and it is now at the stage of her cooking meals for me to bring to work.
This is really fucking weird. Maybe if I'm lucky she'll just poison me instead.
Women are naturally attracted to men in superior positions of power who are in their environments. It's quite revolting, really. -
2018-04-02 at 2:22 AM UTC
-
2018-04-02 at 2:24 AM UTCthe shape logic type tests have the highest correlation to the g factor out of any mental process
-
2018-04-02 at 2:24 AM UTC
Originally posted by Malice Women are naturally attracted to men in superior positions of power who are in their environments. It's quite revolting, really.
We were on level ground when it started, so I don't think that's it. Might've helped, dunno. Maybe I should dye my hair grey and see if she doesn't just tell me to fuck her in the stockroom. -
2018-04-02 at 2:31 AM UTCNext week there's a huge Ice storm coming in...
Pablo just called and confirmed it.... -
2018-04-02 at 2:35 AM UTC
Originally posted by lempoid loompus correlation is with autistically focused test takers who have already taken the stanford binet or WAIS a long time before that
untimed tests aren't going to have a practice effect especially because you can just stare at it as long as you want until it clicks. malice still failed even that.
why overestimate the practice effect for these tests, the more training and knowledge i.e. "practice effect", the lower the correlation and statistics. a test that is based on a learning curve wont have a bell curve and wont correlate well with IQ
for this to happen the patterns have to be different enough between tests that doing one test wont give you a real advantage on another. also the IQ scores that are given by these tests are actually deflated to account for practice effect and keep the correlation to professional tests
also the item wasnt even an IQ 130 item, more like IQ 120. failing the item means there's almost no chance a person, in this case malice, even has an IQ over 130
Do you publish any of the data you use to norm your tests or have links to data from other tests? I'm slightly interested in looking through it but not enough to go searching -
2018-04-02 at 2:40 AM UTC
-
2018-04-02 at 2:42 AM UTC
-
2018-04-02 at 2:58 AM UTCHow depressing it must be to care this much about a worthless test.
-
2018-04-02 at 2:59 AM UTC
-
2018-04-02 at 3:01 AM UTCI wonder if §m£ÂgØL's IQ is even 110. I doubt it
-
2018-04-02 at 3:02 AM UTC
