So for the fun of it I did an IQ test yestarday and thought I was doing rather well. I got my results and score and I was shocked, a bit in disbelief. Apparently I scored in the clinical range of 'borderline retarded' as it said :S
My questions is how can this be?? I have passed high school (though barley), can hold job that requires no supervision and can at the very least talk intelligently. However it says I am well, you can re-read the above. How can this be ??
Even assuming the test is legit, IQ tests have only statistical validity. A single test can't be regarded as a definite result.
Well thats relieving. I was just so bummed after it said I was BR. Like, even people i told (a few) didnt beleive it
If it's an online test you shouldn't overly trust it. If you want an accurate score you need to do a real test.
Also, unless you're trying to get a score to join Mensa it is somewhat meaningless.
If you can do the things that you listed then whatever your intelligence is it is sufficient.
If you're still worried about it then there are ways to improve your brain function. But they take a lot of work.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Have a look at these.
http://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/occupations.aspx
http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/09/27/against-individual-iq-worries/
Also, are you sure that it was marked correctly? Many years ago, I did a programming aptitude test and did really well on everything except numeracy. I queried it and it turned out that the tests were marked with a template. The person doing the marking had used the wrong template for my numeracy test. I wonder how many careers have been affected by that kind of thing.
You are most definitely not BR.
There is no such thing as "borderline retarded." There are only standard deviations above and below the mean. Even if you were one standard deviation below the mean (and I'm not convinced that you are), that's still normal. You don't get a diagnosis unless you're two standard deviations below the mean, i.e., have an IQ below 70. The test you took seems to be pathologizing people for no reason. My instinct says it's crap.
Online IQ tests are bupkis. The last one I took said I had a higher IQ than Einstein. I do not. An actual IQ test is done in a classroom setting, and takes a few hours to complete.
No way are you retarded, or BR. My mom works with several BR people socially. They need lots of help! These tests are flawed. Even the Mensa test is flawed. I refuse to take tests like this as no good information can come of it.. My outlook on life is that I can do anything. If a test says I have a limitation, which of course it will, then I will feel like I've got a limitation on what I can do. I'd throw that result away, then think of something you previously thought was impossible or unattainable, and how you overcome it. To me that's way more healthy.
This may sound a little strange but IQ test measure only what they are designed to measure. My IQ is somewhere between 120 and 130. The 120 is off my ACT test in high school and the 130 was taking an online test. Do I believe either of these numbers - no. The reason is I have the ability to think creatively and that's nearly impossibly to measure accurately with any test. On the other side, I have my weaknesses. I stink at artistic activities and believe it or not, I am also weak in english though I may have improved over the years.
It's very possible to have somebody who others consider a genius test poorly on the test. On the other hand, I have been around people where supposedly bright that I wouldn't trust with basic tasks. In my profession, we often used the line, those who can, do. Those who can't, teach. If you are able to do your job well, you are a genius in your profession and you shouldn't worry about a test and especially an online test says about you.
Never trust online tests. Even the aptitude tests seem to be subjective. On everything except "clerical speed and accuracy", I should be considered genius. Looking at some of the posts on this site, I might be considered stupid.
I know I'm kind of just echoing what some people have already said at this point, but that test has to be total bunk. IQ tests are a bit sketchy to begin with, so I'm highly skeptical of some free online quiz. I especially don't think you need to worry about being borderline mentally retarded; plenty of intelligent people don't test well/do well in school.
Don't trust it. Almost every online test is just for fun and results are bogus at best.
I have been through proper IQ testing and each time it was a multi hour session under supervision of a trained professional.
And even there have been differences due to age, tests chosen and even the country I took them in.
I just watched a show about this. They said IQ tests totally are not accurate for measuring IQ. The show was Adam ruins everything. They disprove a lot of popular beliefs about all kinds of stuff. I wouldn't pay any attention to the results of any IQ test.
Even officially sanctioned IQ tests are racist nonsense that only measure a very constrained definition of intelligence. Online tests are basically glorified Buzzfeed quizzes, and should be treated with all the seriousness due that label.
Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
Quote from: Tamika Olivia on October 23, 2017, 06:17:33 PM
Even officially sanctioned IQ tests are racist nonsense that only measure a very constrained definition of intelligence. Online tests are basically glorified Buzzfeed quizzes, and should be treated with all the seriousness due that label.
Yeah, IQ tests are ridiculous examples of cultural bias. Different tests aren't even consistent about what content they cover. Here's a fun tidbit from the creator of the first IQ tests:
"Binet stressed the limitations of the test, suggesting that intelligence is far too broad a concept to quantify with a single number. Instead, he insisted that intelligence is influenced by a number of factors, changes over time, and can only be compared among children with similar backgrounds."
In other words, even the guy who made them wouldn't apply them like we try to today. (Well, in recent history at least. They've fallen out of favor.)
Well we still have to have some way of measuring mental aptitude in today's world. Claiming they are racist isn't going to get the job done is it.
Quote from: Viktor on October 24, 2017, 07:50:39 AM
Well we still have to have some way of measuring mental aptitude in today's world. Claiming they are racist isn't going to get the job done is it.
The problem is bias, not racism. The designer of the test has inherent bias. For example: Someone my be a genius when it comes to math, but terrible with language. If a test were designed that focused on vocabulary and grammar by someone who believes that being well spoken is a sign of intelligence, the math genius fails, nevermind the fact he may have been the one to crack cold fusion. Now of course this is a simplistic purely knowledge based example, but even in a typical test will skew the results as there is a knowledge component.
Quote from: Viktor on October 24, 2017, 07:50:39 AM
Well we still have to have some way of measuring mental aptitude in today's world. Claiming they are racist isn't going to get the job done is it.
Do we? The idea of a single "mental aptitude" is retrograde. I was able to learn the law with very little effort, but I lose my debit card 5 or 6 times a month and ran my car into a shopping cart that I had forgotten behind it. My sister is a fantastic history teacher who can't do math without her fingers. If you want a test that measures the various ways people acquire, process, and utilize information, cool. But this single measure business is unrealistic, and trying to keep it around has only lead to pain and marginalization.
Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
I scored 120 on the last one. All BS
I, like most people, average around 100.
Ignore that silly test and you can always try another ten and take an average
The online tests are a farce. I have taken the online ones, as well as the written IQ tests, and the is NO comparison.
Quote from: Tamika Olivia on October 24, 2017, 10:04:15 AM
Do we? The idea of a single "mental aptitude" is retrograde.
I agree. Even in the best case scenario it only measures potential. Potential means little in the face of achievement.
According to an IQ test I took in middle school, I'm (or was) a super-genius (194). I can say without a shadow of doubt in my mind that I'm not. Don't ever believe IQ tests, even 'professional' ones.
Quote from: Sarah_P on October 24, 2017, 12:03:09 PM
According to an IQ test I took in middle school, I'm (or was) a super-genius (194). I can say without a shadow of doubt in my mind that I'm not. Don't ever believe IQ tests, even 'professional' ones.
I don't know how IQ tests work nowadays, but in the past, scoring something like 194 on a standard IQ test would be interpreted by the professionals as simply having an IQ of over 130. IQ tests were only designed to have reasonable accuracy up to about 130. Even under 130, individuals were expected to have some variation in their scores when doing different tests. As long as your score was under 130, a professional would say that your IQ was probably within some number of standard deviations from what you actually scored.
It is true that in the past, IQ tests were found to have cultural bias. I don't know what, if anything, has been done about it. It is also true that coaching and practice have been found to increase scores.
Quote from: MaryT on October 24, 2017, 01:08:07 PM
I don't know how IQ tests work nowadays, but in the past, scoring something like 194 on a standard IQ test would be interpreted by the professionals as simply having an IQ of over 130. IQ tests were only designed to have reasonable accuracy up to about 130.
Don't tell that to the members of the "genius" societies who set their membership requirements at 150+ and charge a crap load of membership dues. ;D
Never trust an online intelligence test. Most are just clickbait.
The results are never in 100% confidence. Even if administered by a qualified individual and an actual test. The composite score by itself is meaningless. And are mostly only valid for educational placement in special needs settings. You can be in the top percentile in one category and be in the bottom in another. Its about identifying strengths and weakness.
An IQ of 163 doesn't exclude anyone from poor decisions.
Sent from my P00A using Tapatalk
Well, thanks for the input everyone :D
Quote from: SailorMars1994 on October 24, 2017, 02:49:04 PM
Well, thanks for the input everyone :D
haha most welcome! I wouldn't want anyone feeling bad over an IQ test
Quote from: MissKairi on October 24, 2017, 03:08:30 PM
haha most welcome! I wouldn't want anyone feeling bad over an IQ test
Especially a derpy online one.
Quote from: Tamika Olivia on October 24, 2017, 10:04:15 AM
Do we? The idea of a single "mental aptitude" is retrograde. I was able to learn the law with very little effort, but I lose my debit card 5 or 6 times a month and ran my car into a shopping cart that I had forgotten behind it. My sister is a fantastic history teacher who can't do math without her fingers. If you want a test that measures the various ways people acquire, process, and utilize information, cool. But this single measure business is unrealistic, and trying to keep it around has only lead to pain and marginalization.
Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
Yes, we kind of do need them in some situations.
Last time I dealt with an application for GCHQ they gave every one of the candidates a standardized 1.5 hour test of this nature and that was just for round one. There were at least three rounds of tests before you could even get to the first interview stage. That was because that job required the candidate to recognize patterns in data and other things the standard IQ tests usually do. There were about 1,000 people are round one and about a tenth of the number would make it to round two. They were not going to hire someone who could not do these things as it was a position of governmental responsibility for monitoring communications worldwide.
Nobody is forced to take an IQ test. Sailor Mars took one because I assume she was curious, but nobody forced it on her. However the idea that we don't need tests for mental aptitude for certain positions seems improbable. Would you send someone into space who wasn't a qualified astronaut and did not have the ability to solve the various problems that might crop up on a mission? If you are of the mind that we should employ people for certain positions without testing them at all because this will hurt their feelings, I'm afraid that's not very logical and might well put lives and projects at risk. There has to be standardized tests for vetting their general abilities, to send them up
without testing them for an idea of their mental aptitude would be.... unwise.
Obviously these kind of tests are never the be all, they are in addition to a bunch of other qualifications and requirements, nobody will get such a job based just on the results of a general mental aptitude test. They're helpful tools in honing the candidate suitability, that is all. There's no single mental aptitude test that is useful for "life" in general, but for some purposes I'd say we do need them and that they are helpful. But like I said, for everyday life nobody is forced to take one and then punished for not being able to get a "good score". It makes perfect sense for these things to exist for certain purposes. Yes, they're not perfect, nor is the definition of intelligence, but what else do you suggest for efficient and practical sorting of people for such positions.
Where does the pain and marginalization come from? I took a CAT test in school and failed it miserably at the time. Did it affect my self-esteem or my other grades? Not at all. I was one of the top graduates in the top class of the year (we had these due to streaming), but my CAT score was laughable. Taken on its own it was generally meaningless, and had no influence or effect on my grades. Is there some place where people are forced to take a single measure IQ test and if they don't do well are
actually marginalized? Does this happen in America or Canada or somewhere I'm not familiar with? There's a reason nobody is made to take an IQ test for no reason and then branded for it, isn't there. There's a reason people always point out IQ isn't everything. But it still has a place in some circles.
I don't think we are exactly meshing on our definitions. I have no problem with specific types of aptitude tests, which seek to measure relevant skill sets for targeted purposes. What I'm saying is that tests like an IQ test, which purport to measure a platonic ideal of intelligence are not valid. They aren't measuring a platonic ideal of intelligence, because it doesn't exist. We just have a bunch of different skills that people have in varying degrees, a small number of which might be measured by an IQ test and called "intelligence".
As for how to sort people based on their skills, we already have a system that does that. It's the educational system. People self select into educational paths that fit their skills. They're tested to see if they've gained those specific skills, and find jobs based on how well the exhibit those skills. This is, of course, only the ideal. There are a lot of structural concerns that keep it from functioning properly, but layering in invalid generalized intelligence testing doesn't fix that.
Now, the marginalization bit. These tests tend to be racist in both their methods and application. The application is easy to see. To this day you'll see racists holding up differential IQs as evidence of the superiority of their race, and the inferiority of another, usually out of malice or ignorance of what IQ tests do or do not measure. This is bad, but it can become much worse when these racist beliefs become baked into people's brains. Being exposed to beliefs like these can actually lead to lowered performance in those that are stereotyped as being inferior, a result not seen if the subjects are not exposed to the belief or not part of the disadvantaged group.
As for how the methods are racist, that's easier to see on stardized testing like the ACT or SAT. These tests have baked in cultural bias. Numerous studies have shown that these tests are loaded with terminology and cultural baggage that gives a slight advantage to white students over students of color. This slight advantage gives white students a leg up on the test scores, and those scores help determine college acceptance. Take it to broader level. In the US school funding is determined by performance on standardized testing. Schools that perfoem worse are given less funding. These tests are subject to that same cultural bias, and US schools are still largely segaragated. This leads to death spirals, where the cultural bias leads to lower scores for black and brown students, which leads to less money for the schools those students attend, which leads to even lower scores. It's all supremely f'd up.
Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
Many moons ago, back in the UK, one of the founders of MENSA used to turn up regularly on tv. He was a very very strange person as I recall. There was another person in the public eye who used to go about his membership of MENSA a lot - Jimmy Saville.
In my view IQ tests are a very lopsided way of getting somewhat minimal information about a person's ability to do standardised tests. They are not an indication of a person's ability or aptitude.
Quote from: rosinstraya on October 24, 2017, 10:44:07 PM
Many moons ago, back in the UK, one of the founders of MENSA used to turn up regularly on tv. He was a very very strange person as I recall. There was another person in the public eye who used to go about his membership of MENSA a lot - Jimmy Saville.
There are people in Mensa who are weirdos and pedophiles? I mean there are people outside of Mensa who are weirdos and pedophiles. I'm not sure what you're getting at...
Quote
Now, the marginalization bit. These tests tend to be racist in both their methods and application. The application is easy to see. To this day you'll see racists holding up differential IQs as evidence of the superiority of their race, and the inferiority of another, usually out of malice or ignorance of what IQ tests do or do not measure. This is bad, but it can become much worse when these racist beliefs become baked into people's brains. Being exposed to beliefs like these can actually lead to lowered performance in those that are stereotyped as being inferior, a result not seen if the subjects are not exposed to the belief or not part of the disadvantaged group.
Racial differences in IQ as talked about by certain members of the Alt-right - that's what you're talking about here isn't it - are not taken seriously by the establishment. So I'm not sure what your concern is there. The establishment either doesn't buy it or does not like it and any studies on the matter that could actually prove or disprove the link between race and IQ are generally suppressed at this point for those reasons.
Being exposed to beliefs like this causes people to score poorly? Actually I think from marginalized individuals themselves the main problem comes from their own communities. I've spoken to quite a few black people who say that it is individuals within their own community who often discouraged academic excellence, not racists banging on about race and IQ online on 4chan somewhere. So if you're talking about racists within their own communities selling themselves short, that I can believe because I've been told this by marginalized people; and I myself am from a "poor" background where academic merit is not considered important. But without evidence I can't see how a few racists who've only recently been trying to present some case for IQ and race on the internet and not at large and in public before that are responsible for a problem more likely to be a result of poverty and disaffection and that has been going on for longer than the web has existed.
QuoteAs for how the methods are racist, that's easier to see on stardized testing like the ACT or SAT. These tests have baked in cultural bias. Numerous studies have shown that these tests are loaded with terminology and cultural baggage that gives a slight advantage to white students over students of color. This slight advantage gives white students a leg up on the test scores, and those scores help determine college acceptance. Take it to broader level. In the US school funding is determined by performance on standardized testing. Schools that perfoem worse are given less funding. These tests are subject to that same cultural bias, and US schools are still largely segaragated. This leads to death spirals, where the cultural bias leads to lower scores for black and brown students, which leads to less money for the schools those students attend, which leads to even lower scores. It's all supremely f'd up.
Wait. So are these students all from the US, yes? White and black or hispanic, etc. all going through the exact same school system. Because if we're not talking about immigrants with less than fluent English, or students from race-segregated schools with independent curricula, there is no racial excuse whatsoever for students from the same country and same school system and in the same classes to be less familiar with English words. What is the excuse you think they have for that?
If the schools are segregated and happen to be are poorer quality establishments then certainly that is an issue but not one of automatic "racism", unless the funds are being deliberately withheld because there's a school of non-whites needing it. It sounds more like the problem all over where there are good schools and there are bad schools, and some (like the one I went to at age 11 was filled with poor white AND black kids from sink estates and generally an underfunded mess with a horrible reputation). It performed badly and it got the students no other school wanted and it existed in a city that was generally underfunded... and it had nothing to do with racism.
As for "cultural baggage" what would this be? Are you saying that blacks and whites don't mix enough to have developed highly separate cultures to the point black people or other minorities don't understand American culture outside of their own communities enough to do as well on tests? Well that would certainly be a problem wouldn't it. And it sounds like that could be a problem with the community isolating itself as much as anything else.
Quote from: Viktor on October 24, 2017, 10:57:16 PM
So you're saying there are people in Mensa are weirdos and pedophiles? I mean there are people outside of Mensa who are weirdos and pedophiles. I'm not sure what you're getting at...
I think that a good portion of the people who join Mensa and similar organizations do so for validation in the face of their own insecurities. Not everyone, but a reasonable amount. Some do it just to show off. As a result, you do end up with a lot of people who are on the socially awkward side or brag a lot due to those respective reasons. Sometimes both.
I guess that's possible, it's obviously a point of pride for some and I guess Mensa is like an "official" recognition of being a brainbox. Never felt compelled to join it myself. I know someone who did. He was kind of full of himself.
Just to clarify, Sailor Mars, I think any sort of free online intelligence test should be treated with suspicion, or as clickbaity type stuff. I have looked for intelligence tests myself online in the past, the type that would actually be timed and extensive for a more "accurate" sort of insight, but most of those are not easily found. I wouldn't pay much mind to anything that gives "BR" as a result. That doesn't sound the least academic.
Quote from: Viktor on October 24, 2017, 10:57:16 PM
Racial differences in IQ as talked about by certain members of the Alt-right - that's what you're talking about here isn't it - are not taken seriously by the establishment. So I'm not sure what your concern is there. The establishment either doesn't buy it or does not like it and any studies on the matter that could actually prove or disprove the link between race and IQ are generally suppressed at this point for those reasons.
Being exposed to beliefs like this causes people to score poorly? Actually I think from marginalized individuals themselves the main problem comes from their own communities. I've spoken to quite a few black people who say that it is individuals within their own community who often discouraged academic excellence, not racists banging on about race and IQ online on 4chan somewhere. So if you're talking about racists within their own communities selling themselves short, that I can believe because I've been told this by marginalized people; and I myself am from a "poor" background where academic merit is not considered important. But without evidence I can't see how a few racists who've only recently been trying to present some case for IQ and race on the internet and not at large and in public before that are responsible for a problem more likely to be a result of poverty and disaffection and that has been going on for longer than the web has existed.
Wait. So are these students all from the US, yes? White and black or hispanic, etc. all going through the exact same school system. Because if we're not talking about immigrants with less than fluent English, or students from race-segregated schools with independent curricula, there is no racial excuse whatsoever for students from the same country and same school system and in the same classes to be less familiar with English words. What is the excuse you think they have for that?
If the schools are segregated and happen to be are poorer quality establishments then certainly that is an issue but not one of automatic "racism", unless the funds are being deliberately withheld because there's a school of non-whites needing it. It sounds more like the problem all over where there are good schools and there are bad schools, and some (like the one I went to at age 11 was filled with poor white AND black kids from sink estates and generally an underfunded mess with a horrible reputation). It performed badly and it got the students no other school wanted and it existed in a city that was generally underfunded... and it had nothing to do with racism.
As for "cultural baggage" what would this be? Are you saying that blacks and whites don't mix enough to have developed highly separate cultures to the point black people or other minorities don't understand American culture outside of their own communities enough to do as well on tests? Well that would certainly be a problem wouldn't it. And it sounds like that could be a problem with the community isolating itself as much as anything else.
I'm not sure if you are getting all of our news, but the alt right isn't some small thing in the US. It's a major political force, and white nationalists routinely influence elections, commit hate crimes, and have violent meet ups. But more insidiously, these beliefs, while they may not be stated out loud, sink their claws into American policy and discourse. Taking hiring, studies have shown that the same resumes can lead to vastly different callback rates if the resumes have a non-white sounding name vs a white sounding name. These things do not need to be explicitly held be beliefs for the establishment to be influenced by them.
As for these beliefs causing lower performance, I'm saying that being exposed to these beliefs, in a lab setting, can lower performance. A member of X group reads an article about how X group does worse on a test, and then takes the test, will do slightly worse than a member of X that does not read the article, or a member of group Y who reads the article.
On the cultural bias portion, I'm running out of time before work. It's a subject that is a matter of much discussion, and I probably can't do it justice if I'm in a hurry. If you're curious, you can look up the subtle ways that these tests are slightly biased, and how those slight biases can impact scores and future success.
Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
Ok
Lol....only thing that's retarded are those online tests. You're a bright and articulate woman.
Bahahah omg this thread is too entertianing xD. Yes I did do a test that gave me a score of 63, so BR. I did another one and somehow I got 124.. a genius. I also do not beleive that one either. I know I am not borderline retarded but I also know I aint above 120. I would assume in the high 90s..
Quote from: SailorMars1994 on October 25, 2017, 08:49:34 AM
Bahahah omg this thread is too entertianing xD. Yes I did do a test that gave me a score of 63, so BR. I did another one and somehow I got 124.. a genius. I also do not beleive that one either. I know I am not borderline retarded but I also know I aint above 120. I would assume in the high 90s..
I don't know you well enough to know whether you are a genius, but as Jessica Lynne wrote, you are obviously bright and articulate. An actual IQ in the high 90s would imply slightly below average, but even from your posts I am sure that your intelligence is at least above average.
And yes, you have generated an interesting and popular topic.
A lot of people forget that IQ is an anagram of Intelligence Quotient and forget what the term means and how it is defined. The definition of the word intelligence itself is also of importance. IQ is a ratio of your individual score on a standardized test relative to scores by others your own age multiplied by 100, and as such a score of 100 is the average. Intelligence is defined as the ability to acquire knowledge and/or skills and how well they can be applied. AKA how easily and quickly can you both learn new things and how easily and quickly can you apply them once learned. Total knowledge acquired and its application (wisdom/memory) is irrelevant when discussing intelligence. The speed with which one answers questions or solves problems is often an overlooked part of more official tests. Those with a lower intelligence but higher memory can perform just as well in life as the other way around, they just often take longer to learn things, (more time studying) but can often remember them better. Broad spectrum analysis versus focused specialization must also be taken into account. AKA savants that are only good at learning a particular subject versus those that learn all subjects well. Allowances must also be given for those that can learn quickly, but have some disconnect when it is time to use that knowledge, for example those that never test well but can perform related tasks perfectly. Racial and cultural demographics must also be taken into account, which is extremely difficult in "Official" standardized testing. What is common knowledge for one group, may not be for another, such as spacial mechanics or semantics. As someone else alluded to, personal biases of the test creators and proctors also factors in. Many times, though not always, there is a demographic bias. This is why professional organizations, such as Mensa, often encourage those interested in a truer score to take multiple different sanctioned tests and then use the mean average. It is nearly impossible for any specific single test to take all these factors into account.
Online tests are rarely graded on a time quotient, making them useless on this facet alone. They also rarely use an algorithm to compare the age of a test taker to that of all previous test takers so that their "score" is only judged relative to others of equivalent age. The also rarely take demographics of test takers into account. Doing so accurately would require a lot of time and money investment, as well as a starting pool before any scores are possible, due to IQ itself being merely an average ratio. Spacial mechanics skills, such as solving a Rubik's cube, are also nearly impossible to test online. Until we see an all inclusive test that takes all of this into account and from a reliable source, such as Mensa or its affiliates, none of the online tests are anything other than an ego booster or destroyer. Such a test would take numerous hours to complete, and the results would be given in terms of age category and demographics, such as compared to all U.S. born and raised Caucasian test takers from the Midwest that did not grow up in poverty aged between 25 and 30, and other relative distinctions, the tests are meaningless.
To the OP, if you like taking online "IQ" tests, there is nothing wrong with that. Just keep the points I discussed in mind and don't get too ecstatic about a single "great" score or depressed about a single "bad one." If it was a short test that only took a few minutes, the results were processed instantaneously, or there was no or a very short demographics questionnaire, disregard it entirely. If you find that after taking numerous tests that you usually do well above average and are truly that curious, then I would suggest looking into taking official ones. Even so, as stated previously, any one specific test is inconclusive at best regarding being a true representation of how intelligent you may or may not be.
HUGS!
Quote from: MaryT on October 25, 2017, 08:55:42 AM
I don't know you well enough to know whether you are a genius, but as Jessica Lynne wrote, you are obviously bright and articulate. An actual IQ in the high 90s would imply slightly below average, but even from your posts I am sure that your intelligence is at least above average.
And yes, you have generated an interesting and popular topic.
Maybe I had a lobotmy recently and forgot :O .... maybe i need one. jk
Thanks for kind words tho <3
Quote from: Tamika Olivia on October 25, 2017, 06:07:24 AM
I'm not sure if you are getting all of our news, but the alt right isn't some small thing in the US.
I am aware of much of the news concerning these people lately in the US. If you want to avoid strengthening them then please be aware that the current climate in which so many things are deemed racist and the blame being placed perpetually on whites is only empowering them - by proving their point that there are people out to get them. If you're wondering why the right as a whole is rising again, it is precisely because increasing numbers of regular people have found themselves affected by the current trend of divisive identity politics which has been pushed hardest of all by the left. Non-racist people being called intrinsically privileged and racist constantly in the media and progressive circles, when in reality and practicality they are not... non-whites being allowed to make racist statements towards whites online rarely being punished while whites doing the same thing are prosecuted or punished via censure, and double standards in terms of who is allowed to say and do what and get away with it. These are contributing severely to the problem and are needless to say racist and unfair in their own way. Those who encourage this would do well to stop, or they will make the Alt Right into the next series of governments, I fear.
QuoteIt's a major political force, and white nationalists routinely influence elections, commit hate crimes, and have violent meet ups.
Yes they do. And so do their ideological opponents. There are people on the left dressing in black and torching town centers, attacking people and destroying private property, and having meetups that invariably descend into violence, or are organized for the express purpose of preventing others from meeting up and causing violence to them. Both are despicable. Both are a rising force. Both need to be mitigated.
QuoteBut more insidiously, these beliefs, while they may not be stated out loud, sink their claws into American policy and discourse.
Beliefs? Are they just beliefs or are they using actual studies? Because apparently the "trump card" some of these people like to wave is apparent scientific evidence that race and IQ are correlated, which is the basis of their supposed "realism". Ironically enough, these people can be easily chagrined when these same studies reveal the highest IQs to apparently reside in the Jewish and East Asian demographics, not the "white race".
QuoteAs for these beliefs causing lower performance, I'm saying that being exposed to these beliefs, in a lab setting, can lower performance. A member of X group reads an article about how X group does worse on a test, and then takes the test, will do slightly worse than a member of X that does not read the article, or a member of group Y who reads the article.
Yes, I'm aware of the phenomenon. However, what is the cure? Attempt to control every piece of public discourse out there (impossible) so that nobody anywhere will ever read or hear something that might injure their confidence, or attempt to bolster students confidence at the school and home level with better teaching? This isn't racism, this is found in other studies quite apart from race, and it ought to be the person who is vulnerable to suggestion getting the sort of bolstering and teaching that will make them less susceptible to that suggestion. As we have seen already with attempts to rectify this problem with women vs men, the way you fix it isn't to create safe spaces but to train the vulnerable harder in achievement and with better quality mentoring and a better can-do attitude.
QuoteOn the cultural bias portion, I'm running out of time before work. It's a subject that is a matter of much discussion, and I probably can't do it justice if I'm in a hurry. If you're curious, you can look up the subtle ways that these tests are slightly biased, and how those slight biases can impact scores and future success.
I don't doubt subtle biases exist but is it even possible to eliminate all bias at all times that impact performance?
I think we've exhausted all potential from this conversation. Good bye.
Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk