What do you think the average IQ of this board is, huh?

Pretty much this. Rust learns to accept what he doesn't know and Marty about sometimes stuff just goes by unpunished.

I wonder why people quoted Rust a lot but ignore his character development in the last episode.

Mine is ~160. Just got tested last week. Probably brings the average up a tad.

It's a test to determinate that a child is not retarded, nothing more. But then faggots like this:

get proud to get a higher score in an online test.

that's a big number

Mad IQlet detected. Don't worry mongo, one day when I start my own company I might consider accepting your application as the office's garbage man/bathroom attendant/personal ass wiper.

why did you get tested? are you a faggot that wanted recognition? 160 is low for that. my predicted score is 180+

but only literal faggots spend a saturday at a testing facility and pay money for an iw test.

guessing by that score you are a faggot, because the only other people who get them are retards.

how does it feel that you paid money to learn that 10% of the population of smarter than you?

every tenth person you meet is smarter than you.

I would kill myself.

>He's not an atheist anymore
Could still be

That was my base without the time multiplier. My adjusted score was just over 210. 180 is still decent though.

Plus I earn plenty of money (especially for my age). The amount I paid is a small fraction of my overall income.

a graph for ants

you still took the test but didn't answer why.

180 is my predicted score. from my sat. in 1998. that I got a 1480 on.

I am sure you are super sucessful. I am not calling you unsucesesfull. I am calling you a faggot.

why did you take an iq test?

He is a spiritualist/agnostic. He accepts there's something out there bigger than everything. He learns to let it go.

Updating my resume. You'll understand when you get a bigboy job.

well put user

>You’re looking at it wrong, the plane thing
>How’s that?
>Well, once there was only CIA. You ask me, the Big Guy’s winning

probably around 120
i honestly doubt people of average iq browse Cred Forums
and yes world-wide average is 100

What did he mean by that?

there are no jobs that require an iq test. it is quite literallly against american law.

how can you be so fucking stupid pretending to be so smart.

I knew this as a 18 year old janitor. you cannot discriminate for iq tests.

>it is quite literallly against american law.
Citation needed.

I cant use google. can you?

my iq is pretty low, feels bad man

youtube.com/watch?v=QEzhxP-pdos

It's not exactly against the law, but the courts have ruled aptitude tests, whether physical or intellectual, are not grounds to exclude under-represented minorities from employment or education. If an employer or educator were found to be using an aptitude test as the sole basis for hiring or acceptance, he'd likely get the shit sued out of him. Fisher v. UoT is a pretty good recent example of this.

iq, like all tests, are a test about how well you take tests.

I got 99th percentile in every standardized test I took. I am dumb as a rock.

just try your best while I drink myself to death.

we all have problems

The burden of proof falls on you.

See I'm like the opposite. I'm super smart but never do well with standardized sheeple exams.

I'm not sure. I know mine is pretty high. I often look at quotes by famous philosophers and scientists and think to myself 'yeah, I would of said that'. I think most people on Cred Forums are probably smart like me.

You're not only a moron, but a pretty poor liar as well.

IQ is the single most significant predictor of social outcome, vastly more accurate in prognosis than socio-economic status or any other factor.

>drowns in mountain dew because he's too heavy for his fedora to serve as an effective flotation device

Rust was butthurt so he played the emotionless nihilist card. We all know how that ended.

Sometimes I will look at famous math formulas or equations and think "yeah i would've prolly came up with that if it wasn't already discovered". Can't say I assume most Cred Forums users are as smart as I.

If you can't successfully manage a system as simple as standardised testing then you're not smart. It's like people who say 'I'm smart, but lazy, so therefore unaccomplished.' If you're lazy you're not smart. Being lazy is not a smart thing to do. Failing tests is not a smart thing to do.

Test scores measure obedience, not intelligence.

A dog is obedient. Never seen a cocker spaniel ace the SAT though.

but that is stupid why do I have to prove your ignorance?

I could care less if you had a heart attack tomorrow and sent all your kids to rape addict foster parents. I have no duty to care.

doctors have a legal duty to care.

100

Those are large doubles

I'm not so sure you understand what burden of proof is. Not so sure you understand what duty is either. And no, it isn't what you and your other mentally ill friends call fecal matter.

Amen

He's just not good at debating. Probably has never studied law at the college level.

you don't _have_ to prove anything, however if you do _claim_ something and then fail to back it up when prompted then you become a little bitch, philosophically speaking that is. the easiest way to avoid the burden of proof is to speak little.

> brainlet over here thinks 210 is a good score

I would be embarrassed to post anything less than 270. My raw score is 310, but I was feeling under the weather on the day of the test. When you include the penile circumference bonus, I'm more like a 330.

You're a fucking moron, and a rather good example of Dunning-Kruger writ large.

>i'm smart
>the tests that say i'm stupid are wrong

true, but tests are a measure of knowledge not intelligence

in one universe a person studies for a test and gets 100%
in another universe the same person doesn't study and gets 50%
this person is still at the same intelligence level, their ability to acquire and apply knowledge is still at the same degree, only their knowledge has changed

obviously overall people with a higher intelligence will do better, but i personally believe intelligence is unquantifiable and there are too many mitigating circumstances in play to use 'if you fail at standardized testing you're dumb' as an argument ;)

>penile circumference bonus

u got a giggle

ayep. your law degree outways obvious truth.

do you even understand why every mortal being hates lawyers?

I am smarter than you. I didn't want to memorize laws or diagnoses.

you faggots are insufferable. I know 20 of you.

you quite literally get paid because the insurance system keeps allowing it.

truckers will keep their jobs into 3050. doctors and lawyers will be the first ones replaced.

Just because u accept the aspect of spirituality and an afterlife doesn't mean some dude in the clouds or some spaceman made everything lol that's what children have to tell themselves

> truckers will keep their jobs into 3050. doctors and lawyers will be the first ones replaced

> implying that driving a vehicle on a mostly pre-determined route is more difficult to automate than diagnosing and treating complex diseases or interepreting the subtle nuances of complex laws and dealing with the human element

I'm not sure if you're trolling. We already have autonomous cars that are almost ready to be used on public roads. Yeah, we have expert systems that can help to look for correlations in large medical and legal databases. But we're nowhere near replacing doctors and lawyers.

> inb4 Butlerian Jihad

this is a common fallacy employed as a defense mechanism to escape the humiliation of having to accept your low iq. it usually sounds like >i was too lazy/didn't care about it/ other x variable is at fault. the irony here is that knowing that you're not as smart as you thought is a useful piece of knowledge and obtaining it was the purpose of the test, why did you take the test if you weren't ready to accept the result?

this is a fallacy because the test is just a piece of paper or digital form, it doesn't care how well you can spell or how nervous tests make you or how lazy you are, or if the receptionist gave you a hard on or anything else only your ability to answer the questions. this doesn't make the test invalid, on the contrary it makes it valid. if your "true iq" is 200 but you're too lazy to apply yourself to the test and get a 120 then you'll be too lazy in the real world where intelligence matters, so 120 that is your true level intelligence. if you're too nervous and can't concentrate then you'll be too nervous in the real world. unless you have a specific phobia of iq tests which hinders your ability to get a good score but won't hinder your functionality in the real world, the results of the test will be accurate(as accurate as the test can be, anyway)

if some sky cloud daddy didn't invent right and wrong, then what do laws serve?

do we wuite literaly let the moron public write laws?

if we don't, then explain it to the moron public.

yea .my 148 proves my low iq.

web md.faggot. putting symptoms with a diagnoses isnt hard, database wise.

driving a truck on a highway still is.

maybe you are just fucking stupid. I hope you learn.

it's a good thing we're not communist and we don't subscribe to the labor theory of value, in which the value of something is determined by the amount of labor needed to produce it ;^)

because the labor of a single person would matter?

pls.refute.any.of.my.arguments.jpg

I'm somewhat intrigued by the idea of IQ tests, but what is the "core basis" on which the test is constructed? visual patterns? word processing? relationships?

what is the scaffolding of an IQ test exactly? how are the questions selected and why?

is it possible to improve over time by things like practice/repetition?

what would be the most useful mental skill to develop? in analogy to muscle building, a strong back or core would serve the entire body.

i don't know who writes the questions if that's what you're asking, but the questions test skills such as pattern detection, abstract thinking, memory, spatial thinking and visualization, as well as general trivia. if you're really curious just take a test and see which parts are most difficult.

iq.tests are.mainly developed by the shrink field.

they are mainly rudimentary tests, but the "genious" questions are very hard.

in the united states every smart child takes sat. which is a college entrance of exam.

the only people who take the actual iq test are either orded to by the government, or are actual faggots that want the government to prove them smart.

I have literally never scored below 99th percentile and I am dumb as a rock

if count got fags about 60

If you want to do well on an IQ test (or any test with multiple choice answers), then you have to understand that it's all about the meta-game.

Don't ask yourself "what is the answer to this question?". Instead, ask yourself "what does the person who created this test think the answer is supposed to be?"

You have to put yourself in the shoes of the person who created the test. This is especially useful for questions that have ambiguous interpretations. For instance, questions that present a sequence of numbers and ask what the next number is. Technically, there is no single right answer. Given a finite set of numbers, you can always come up with arbitrary rulesets that would satisfy any of the answers given. That's why these types of questions are generally stupid, and if you're intelligent enough to see multiple possible rulesets, it can actually put you at a disadvantage compared to less intelligent people who only see the "correct" ruleset.

For example. Given the sequence:

2, 5, 11

What is the next number in the sequence?

A) 23
B) 17
C) 20

Well, depending on the particular ruleset you see, ALL of these answers are valid. If you think the sequence represents every other prime, then B would be correct (primes are 2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17. . .). If you use the rule that the sequence is 3*(2^n) - 1, then A is correct (starting at n=0, that sequence would be 2, 5, 11, 23, 47, 95. . .). If instead, you recognize that the sequence follows the polynomial 1.5n^2 + 1.5n + 2, then the correct answer would be C.

So you have to think "I wonder what the guy who wrote this question thinks is the correct answer?". If there were a lot of previous questions about prime numbers, then you know the test creator has a hard-on for primes. So the answer would probably be B. See, even if you're smarter than the person who created the test, you still have to lower yourself to their level if you want to guess the "correct" answer.

something i wrote irritated to see another submoronic "claim your waifu" thread:

what is it about television that brings forth the dunces? is it because it's a cool media where viewers seldom need to use critical thinking skills, thus never developing those skills, or is it that they never had them in the first place and tv shows, in general,provides comfort for that lack, providing mainly stories with simple themes and narratives unchallenging to the viewer?

That's every standardized exam, there's only a few templates of what they're looking for and you can reason an answer knowing the context and not necessarily the content. You'd think developers of IQ tests would attempt to work around such rigid templates of questions to punk the meta cheaters

Pre-reddit invasion - 115
Post-reddit - 95

And remember, the people who create IQ tests are not necessarily geniuses themselves. They might not even have a strong background in mathematics/formal logic/other "hard" field. They're probably just psychologists who maybe only had to take a basic highschool-level calculus I course and a dumbed-down stats course.