A place to post ridiculous posts from linkedIn.com
(Full transparency.. a mod for this sub happens to work there.. but that doesn't influence his moderation or laughter at a lot of posts.)
If he was rational, he would understand that companies like this have a huge incentive to inflate the score of anyone participating.
If he had got an 87, do you think that he would have posted his score?
Absolutely not, then the company would not get free advertising, costing them business.
I don't believe it is fully fake, but I would not be surprised to see them rounding up any edge cases, this goes for the entire industry
The first time I took an online IQ test was when I was about 12 years old, around 2001. Even then, when I got back high results, I thought, “They probably make everyone’s score high, to encourage them to share the test. I’m going to take this result with a grain of salt.”
I never shared it, because I didn’t trust it. I soon learned that IQ tests are culturally biased anyway, and later on learned about the more up-to-date multiple-intelligence tests.
Seeing a grown adult taking and sharing an online IQ test in this day and age, my inner 12-year-old is rolling her eyes. It seems like someone is desperate for validation.
2001 is a really high IQ..
IQ tests are only useful for comparing population groups with the same shared culture. Think two Midwest towns, but the one that has a chemical plant is 20 points lower. You can't use it to compare different groups that have different skill sets for survival. You can not use it for individuals at all.
I tried some free test once and got something like 90 lol
I’m pretty sure being of average intelligence (as far a test with its own flaws and limitations can tell) is nothing to be ashamed of, just like being of average height is nothing to be ashamed of.
I took one when I was a kid and got a 136, and I feel like an idiot fairly regularly. I don’t think these tests a definitive measures of intellectual “superiority”
It what you do with what you've got that counts.
I have taken free tests when I have been bored, I have got results within the range of 80 to 120, safe to say, I don't have a lot of trust in them...
I took a test as a kid and 30 years later and they both said 114. Honestly did not expect that.
For all the posturing some people you meet in daily life do about "being smart", I think most of us are pretty damn average. Most people still have the capacity to accomplish anything they want (within reason) if they're willing to put in enough time and effort on a consistent basis.
I think most of us are pretty damn average.
That's true. Like, by definition.
Has more to do with the distribution than the definition. If everyone were either a moron or genius, nobody would be average without changing the definition.
I got 135 once as a kid, and then as an older kid, younger adult, studied up on and learned many of the flaws with IQ testing, one of many being that... you can study for them, and perform better.
That's not supposed to be possible if it is measuring some kind of fundamental, inherent quality about you that cannot meaningfully change.
Good point. Ultimately this leads me to question the existence of some fixed quality of intelligence. People are growing, adapting, and learning through their lives, so a fixed number defining general intelligence is likely a moot concept.
On top of the prior point lies another major issue with any sort of "general intelligence" test: defining "general intelligence". Intelligence comes in many forms: linguistic, logical-mathematical, musical, visual-spatial, bodily-kinesthetic, interpersonal, intrapersonal, naturalistic, existential intelligence, and more. The IQ test does not test all forms of intelligence.
This being said, It is likely impossible to test all forms of intelligence in one test; and even if we could create this test, how would this test handle differently abled people. For example, a completely blind person would fail the visual intelligence portion every time (for obvious reasons).
On top of the prior point lies another major issue with any sort of "general intelligence" test: defining "general intelligence". Intelligence comes in many forms: linguistic, logical-mathematical, musical, visual-spatial, bodily-kinesthetic, interpersonal, intrapersonal, naturalistic, existential intelligence, and more. The IQ test does not test all forms of intelligence.
This, a million times this.
Intelligence is not simply a thing like an INT stat in an rpg game that just generally makes you more cognitively capable and/or knowledgeable with just consistently broad applicability.
Theres a ton of research that's gone into how to actually teach children and people things that suggests... sure, there is to some extent a broad cognitive ability, but there is also a huge multidimensional component, more domain specific element to different levels of aptitude with different kinds of thinking.
...
Like, me, I'm autistic.... innately good at clear cut and logical things, innately terrible at anything approaching fuzzy logic, like socializing.
I had to put a massive amount of effort into learning that... people often don't literally mean what they literally say, how intonation works, how context works in social situations...
... whereas I excelled at learning how to read and write and do math, how to do logic and critical thinking, apply frameworks of thinking across different fields of knowledge, memorize knowledge sets from books or what not.
Kinesis intelligence? Eh, I'd say I'm decent at it naturally, but that's been greatly augmented by 10+ years of Karate, a bit of shooting range practice, learning the basics of a few instruments... but I'm no where near as 'body' or 'dexterity' intelligent as many others I've met.
...
Anyway, yeah, theres a lot of interesting empirical research nowadays that shows different areas of the brain being more or less engaged in certain kinds of activities, and then trying to basically reverse engineer how all that works, but its enormously complicated.
Also: Epigenetics is a thing.
Nature gives you your DNA... but Nurture changes which parts of it are more used, more activated.
Its all enormously more complex than reducing a person down to a single number.
Oh right and the other big one: implicit cultural bias in the IQ tests themselves. I think this is (somewhat?) less of a problem in actual legit IQ tests these days, but for a very, very long time, it was a huge problem that just resulted in basically scientific racism.
...
tl:dr;
anyone who is boasting about their IQ without a gazillion caveats is doing the dunning-krueger thing, overestimating their actual cognitive abilities.
IQ is highly correlated with life outcomes like income, life expectancy, employment, and crime. Maybe it doesn’t measure “intelligence,” but it measures something which appears to be very important for modern society. There are undoubtedly different forms of intelligence which are not measured by an IQ test.
Studying to ace an IQ test shows you’re not debilitatingly mentally challenged, though. I think that’s all the test is really good for.
I think most intelligence tests are flawed to that degree. Memorizing facts is far from true intelligence. For one, they never consider emotional intelligence in the equation. Which to me should be one of the highest standards. Empathy, for example, should be considered in intelligence tests.
It is actually worse.
it is known that areas which got access to a formal education (schools), would get quickly much better average IQ score than before.
If just visiting school increases your IQ (some measurements suggest 14 points), then it is clearly not a fundamentale quality.
So even without specifically learning for the test, you can learn for the test.
I've taken several thoughout my life and as a kid I always got >130. At 14 I did one and got 127 so I did exactly what you described and trained for the parts I hadn't succeeded at. Next test was >130 again. I'm not sure if I got smarter through studying or just better at taking the test though. Especially since the difference between the results is pretty small honestly.
I did an online one in the early days of the Internet, and scored a 137. I have zero faith it has any accuracy. My buddy also did it and got a 145, I believe his is above mine but still, no faith that the numbers are correct.
IQ tests are deeply and inherently flawed, usually based on the fact that you can both quickly read, understand the intent of the question, and respond with whatever the writer of the test feels is correct in a timely fashion.
And if you don't realize how much of what I just wrote is subjective based on lived experience, and specific parameters about you that have nothing to do with how intelligent you are, then congratulations, you're probably above average.
"Answer sheet for all 29 questions."
So for only $45 you can have a certified 200 iq I guess.
39 questions, that must be very serious IQ testing going on there ... /s
Being charitable I assume this is after you complete the test, but you can just look up the answers for free!
The extra $20 is for taking the test again with the answer sheet next to you
The real part of the test that determines whether or not you’re an idiot
By posting this to boast, it demonstrates that his IQ is much lower as he is unable to read the room.
By taking a paid IQ test he failed the test.
That's QE though right?
The room is LinkedIn, though, they love this shit
Rookie. I'm on a wholly different intelligence power level, as this completely factual certificate certifies!
I never did understand why so-called smart people pay money to be told they're smart.
Edit: Probably the reverse of the reason people are paid to tell others, people like you, that you're a no-good waste of space and you don't deserve me even addressing lifeforms as low as you; you disgusting piece of human excrement. That'll be £50, maggot.
Absolutely.
As a genuinely smart person I can do that for myself for free. 😏
I think I'm going to start a testing company with a big-titty mummy milf making a video for each person with a "high iq" instead of a paper certificate. I'll make a bazillion!
Why would she need a bazillion, unless she's going to be naked?
“That’ll be $50. Ok here it is. Thank you. You’re welcome.”
-Me
I worked for 40 years at a company that made most of NASA's rocket engines, and a host of other impressive technology. There were many, many geniuses there - lots of literal rocket scientists, and leaders in fields like materials science and chemical engineering. One thing I learned early on was that most of the true geniuses looked down on people who mentioned being members of Mensa. It was like a red flag that the person cares too much about being perceived as smart. People who care so much about that put more energy into fostering the image than actually contributing.
as someone who likes the puzzles of iq tests:
IQ tests are all bullshit.
I was tested as a child, as part of a battery of other tests.
According to that, I'm a genius.
Its obvious its bullshit.
Hah, Superior! I'm on Huron level, babie!
Well done! I'm still Eerie :/
Ya, well I'm Huron/Michigan/Georgian Bay!
Hilarious
