Above average that has to count for something right? … Until you remember that the literacy rate is only slightly higher than that and the average person is a substance farmer, you just better be proud of selection bias.
Well yeah kind of, except for the caveat that there are some things in those tests a website can’t really check. The tests are standardised and publicly available. There isn’t really any reason to not implement a (half-way) proper test, even if you are just harvesting data.
Above average that has to count for something right? … Until you remember that the literacy rate is only slightly higher than that and the average person is a substance farmer, you just better be proud of selection bias.
A substance farmer?
Like someone who grows weed?
sustenance*
Listen man, I just do what the autocorrect tells me to do, if you have an issue take it up with the boss.
Well they aren’t though, 345/1000 people having a worse score than you means there are 654/1000 people who have a better score.
“IQ 100” is a moving target that gets regularly updated to the new average (which relatively speaking has been mostly climbing for decades).
And you trust this to be an actual IQ test not some knock of data stealing site?
Well yeah kind of, except for the caveat that there are some things in those tests a website can’t really check. The tests are standardised and publicly available. There isn’t really any reason to not implement a (half-way) proper test, even if you are just harvesting data.