People with actual higher scores don’t need it to be explained, and people with lower scores don’t want it to be explained.
How could It be more clear? It literally says in a room of 1000 you’re smarter than 345.
The funniest part is that only counts if the thousand people are representative of the full spectrum of intelligence.
Depending on where you are, you may not even be smarter than 345 people. Trump rally? Smarter than 1000 people.
The irony of the whole thing is actually pretty funny
I’ve seen this on Reddit some years ago
I remember doing the Mensa free test for shits and giggles in high school. Basically just gave you a “129+” estimated score and told you they couldnt “estimate higher” due to it not being a “complete test” and then wanted your to book an in-person IQ test for +100€. I just found it so funny how much snob copium Mensa is, like theres no way I have 129+ IQ. If I would care enough to find out i wouldnt pay 100€ either. At best IQ is an irrelevant metric at worst its used by terrible people who think IQ is an all-encompassing intelligence metric to boast about how allegedly smart they are.
Paying for an IQ test is a test in itself. If you pay that much to get a number you can’t be that smart.
Also the actual “bell curve” is a lot more top heavy, and IQ is for peasants cosplaying as snobs.
everyone has something that they are absolutely brilliant about. that they understand and know. IQ tests just test for your ability in taking tests.
Ignoring that IQ is a grift and a lie: Sitting within a standard deviation of average intelligence is NOT a bad thing. If intelligence really could be measured it would mean you’re capable of doing anything about as well as anyone else.
“People who boast about their IQ are losers” Stephen Hawking
I’m sorry to report that in order to see the results, you basically fail the IQ test:
It’s a very dark pattern, they ask the $2 only after 40 minutes of questions and after getting your email for spam. Then they show that classic fake loading and fake elaborating screens. At that point you’re exhausted and just pay
Aha, the Intuit trick of making you fill out your “free” tax return for 3 hours before demanding $300
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.
Above average that has to count for something right?
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.
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.
That’s a shitpost
its an ad disguised as a shitpost
IQ is, for the most part, a stupid measure. Or at least, it measures one specific thing, which is basically how quickly you can learn. That is to say, in theory, if you put someone with a 120 IQ and someone with an 80 IQ into a class, the first one should theoretically outperform the second if they put equal effort in.
I will say this frankly: I have a very high IQ - I was tested first when I was 6 and have been tested a couple of times since. I do have a learning disability - ADHD - and mine is severe, at that. So while I do generally pick up on things faster than some others on average, I certainly don’t pick up on everything quickly. There are subjects I absolutely do not get. And furthermore, thanks to circumstances and the stupid ADHD, here I am at 50, neve having had steady jobs (I did work 5 years one place), in shitty health (six heart attacks, below-knee amputation, congestive heart failure, on dialysis because my kidneys failed), with my wife and I surviving because while we both had ADHD and struggled, she’s been more consistent about keeping work, and definitely contributes more to the household budget.
So a high IQ basically means extremely little. You don’t have to have IQ to find success in life, or even to be highly degreed and an intellectual. It just means that you probably have to work a bit more at it. That one specific aspect of life. And there are many many aspects of life.
Yeah IQ is bullshit, and the people who use it either as an insult, or a way to boast about their own intelligence, are idiots
By defintion they are NOT idiots!
;-)
(sorry, couldn’t resist)
(also, not sorry) :)
That is the medical definition, the word has existed long before.
As long as you do realize you’re replying to a silly joke…
Besides all the health issues you’re me. High IQ but the ADHD fucks it all up. I too kept one job 6 years. But that was mostly because it was easy and long as I got my work done my boss let sit and read books. If it hadn’t been for my relaxed boss I would have not stay so long. Hell probably still be there if it hadn’t gone out of business.
But goddamn I can pick up and learn quickly, but not able to stick to anything and can’t focus to accomplish the things I know I could or want to do.
Executive function is the bane of my existence. I’m doing the worst possible work right now - contract work that exists at any time I want to work on it. There’s no deadline, I just pick up a piece of the work and do it. Should take 30-60 minutes per piece. And the pay is decent.
But getting myself to log in and sit down and work on that is absolute torture.
But with my health and circumstances, it’s not a bad opportunity. heh.
I feel ya completely.
which is basically how quickly you can learn
Not even that! IQ measures how well one performs in a barrage of simple abstract tasks. That alone can never be the stuff of intelligence, let alone learning speed. It doesn’t hold a candle past grade four and outside of diagnosing certain cognitive issues.
I generally agree with your sentiments, I have met people whose IQs I don’t know but would be considered conventionally highly intelligent just from the level of knowledge they broadcast and quick wit. Many of them self-ascribed “failures”. Suffice it to say, it’s been a mission of mine to deconstruct what intelligence is. Collective smarts seem to matter much more than those of any individual.
High IQ scores mean you’re good at IQ tests, and that’s it.
Eons ago, when I joined the army as a conscript, the officer said I scored higher than 90% of anyone taking the test.
The test results imply that I’m smart. My life experiences prove otherwise.
The site didn’t make clear that’s not a good thing
Hahahahahaha ha, omg, the irony
That’s comedic brilliance right there.
Not to poke extra fun, but they even give examples to better visualize it. 😅 I have to think this post is just a bit of trolling anyway, though.
50% of the people is more stupid than average
In a quota that uses integers and puts 100 as the average, a lot of people will be exactly average. Therefore it is incorrect to say that 50% is below average. It’s probably somewhere between 48% and 49%.
Actually, 50% of people are less intelligent than the median. 99% of people could be smarter than average with just 1 extra stupid dumbfuck. In today’s day and age, there are a few prominent contenders for that position.
IQ test results follow a normal distribution by design (i.e. they are calibrated so 50% of the people are on each side of 100, and most people land on the middle of the range).
If we are talking about intelligence in general, it’s a very fuzzy social construct that encompasses a wide range of innate and learned skills, so we will never be able to boil it down to an objective number.
And that’s why IQ tests are fucking useless. They test a few key areas of what we consider intelligence - pattern recognition and continuation, logic - but entirely fail at the actual intelligence. You can be amazing at recognising patterns in a standardized test and utterly fail at recognising patterns in real life.
Not to mention emotional/social intelligence, which is a much larger aspect of our entire life, is not part of the test, nor is general knowledge. You could be super up to date on historical events, recite entire presentations about specific topics, write amazing poems, and still score an IQ that puts you firmly between a rock and a slightly rotten orange.
They aren’t ‘useless’. There’s a reason despite it’s flaws that it is still used today: It is a very good predictor of academic outcome.
That said, way too many assume it can do far more than it’s supposed to.
it should also be noted that modern “IQ” tests are much more detailed than just identifying patterns, it includes stuff like testing how well you can recount numbers forwards and backwards and whatnot.
You get scores for multiple different areas of cognition, like verbal comprehension, perceptual reasoning, working memory, and processing Speed.For example i test highly in everything but working memory, where i got a hilariously low score of 80 which rather reflects how i feel when i forget food in the microwave oven…
Recount numbers forward and backwards?
WTF does that have to do with intelligence? That’s just memorization.
As someone with zero short term (working) memory, I’d fail that part, yet people are always astounded at what I remember (and I work with crazy complex systems).
What a crock.
(I typically test just over 100 on IQ tests - not a brag, just more to show how useless they are).
WTF does that have to do with intelligence? That’s just memorization.
“IQ” is best summarized in the fewest possible words as basically “a measure of how quickly people learn”. Thus it is an important aspect - one of many aspects - of IQ (which, by the way, has very limited scope in what it is attempting to measure).
People think IQ = smart, or IQ = intelligence[1], but really it’s really not. I went on a rant about this in a separate comment, using my own life as an example (I have a high IQ, which has helped me in ways, but is largely useless for my success and happiness in life)/
It’s right there in the name! ↩︎
And since IQ is a statistical measurement, about 65% of people are within 1 standard deviation of average, and hence are identical under casual observation. So, for all practical purposes, most of the people you meet are average, and the rest are split between above and below.
Which is why most comedians aren’t known for being mathematically inclined.
We had an IQ test as part of the performance review process in a company I worked in. It did not have any effect on the review, it was just there. The dudes with IQ above 120 were insufferable to work with. The dudes with IQ below 85 were insufferable to work with. Both managed to do about the same amount of work. The dudes who scored between 100-110 were a pleasure to work with, and practically carried the other two groups.
Like an actual general intelligence test or a cognitive ability test? Neither should be used in a performance context though so that’s wild. Cognitive ability testing should only be used for selection not for performance the fuck.
