Poll: What's your IQ

Recommended Videos

Maze1125

New member
Oct 14, 2008
1,679
0
0
Frankster said:
Simple:
Correlation is stating a relationship between any two things without implying anything.
Exactly.
And if x correlates with y 95% of the time and y correlates with z 95% of the time, you can say with absolute certainty that x correlates with z at least 90% of the time.

You are right about the wording though, so allow me to rephrase it as I understood it:
"Being a gamer means you will do better at IQ tests".
But that isn't what he said.
 

Frankster

Space Ace
Mar 13, 2009
2,507
0
0
Then our definitions are the same, it is our interpretation of OP that differs.

"But that isn't what he said."

Then tell me in your own words how you understood it ¬¬ Or OP could enlighten us.
It doesn't at all look to me that he meant it as a correlation but as a causation.
 

Kubanator

New member
Dec 7, 2008
261
0
0
Sneaklemming said:
Radeonx said:
High enough to know that IQ doesn't mean anything.
IQ simply shows how good you are at IQ tests.
yep. Also it uses 1950s methodology... which puts in on par with shock-therapy
That quantum mechanics stuff is so wrong, it's from the 1950s. Which puts it on par with shock therapy.
 

Maze1125

New member
Oct 14, 2008
1,679
0
0
Frankster said:
Then tell me in your own words how you understood it ¬¬ Or OP could enlighten us.
He took two correlations we know, and wondered if those together implied a third correlation. In a very similar way to my explanation in my previous post.

The answer is no, in this case they don't. But nevertheless, he was only talking about correlations.

Yes, he could have had an underlying meaning of causation in mind, but I see no reason to assume he did.
 

axia777

New member
Oct 10, 2008
2,895
0
0
My grandmother is a Child Developmental Psychologist that used to teach at UC Stanford. When I was a kid she tested me for IQ and determined that I am around 140. I trust her more than some on-line test.
 

axia777

New member
Oct 10, 2008
2,895
0
0
Captain_Caveman said:
LMAO

anyone who believes an IQ test on the internet, deduct 50 points from your IQ score.
ROFL. No joke.

BTW, your name and avatar kick ass.
 

dark-amon

New member
Aug 22, 2009
606
0
0
Iq-tests aren't really reliable. The primary function was (is someplaces still) to separate the "normal" from the mentally handicaped or "retarted."
Acording to this I'm 124 so I guess I'm not retarded by a test I personally thinks is outdated.
 

Ashtovo

New member
Jul 25, 2009
184
0
0
i have taken many iq tests in my life, ad have gotten different answeres. 120 is about the lowest and 145 is about the highest
 

Frankster

Space Ace
Mar 13, 2009
2,507
0
0
Maze1125 said:
Frankster said:
Then tell me in your own words how you understood it ¬¬ Or OP could enlighten us.
He took two correlations we know, and wondered if those together implied a third correlation. In a very similar way to my explanation in my previous post.

The answer is no, in this case they don't. But nevertheless, he was only talking about correlations.

Yes, he could have had an underlying meaning of causation in mind, but I see no reason to assume he did.
You didn't do what I asked of you: Take what he said and say them again in your own words as you understood them.

You are trying to force your own interpretation, but not make any effort whatsoever to think "why is this guy thinking differently from me?".
"Yes, he could have had an underlying meaning of correlation in mind, but I see no reason to assume he did" to spoof your own logic.
 

Kubanator

New member
Dec 7, 2008
261
0
0
axia777 said:
My grandmother is a Child Developmental Psychologist that used to teach at UC Stanford. When I was a kid she tested me for IQ and determined that I am around 140. I trust her more than some on-line test.
Or she lied to make you feel better? I wouldn't trust a person with an agenda any more than an unverified site.
 

Maze1125

New member
Oct 14, 2008
1,679
0
0
Frankster said:
Maze1125 said:
Frankster said:
Then tell me in your own words how you understood it ¬¬ Or OP could enlighten us.
He took two correlations we know, and wondered if those together implied a third correlation. In a very similar way to my explanation in my previous post.

The answer is no, in this case they don't. But nevertheless, he was only talking about correlations.

Yes, he could have had an underlying meaning of causation in mind, but I see no reason to assume he did.
You didn't do what I asked of you: Take what he said and say them again in your own words as you understood them.

You are trying to force your own interpretation, but not make any effort whatsoever to think "why is this guy thinking differently from me?".
"Yes, he could have had an underlying meaning of correlation in mind, but I see no reason to assume he did" to spoof your own logic.
The words he used explicitly meant he was wondering about a correlation.
I'm not assuming he meant anything more than exactly what he said.

Yes, it's possible he was meaning causation, but his words didn't say that.
 

Acier

New member
Nov 5, 2009
1,300
0
0
Seeing these scores is a clear indication that this is fixed.

I also think its amusing that a lot of people don't understand how an IQ test works

Also I tried taking it for funsies and the shher amount of ads deterred me fro finishing. Sorry guys.
 

Kubanator

New member
Dec 7, 2008
261
0
0
Naturalized said:
sasquatch99 said:
When compared to low IQ, high.
When compared to high IQ, low.
When compared with myself, average.

But the last test I did said about 110. I think.
That's a pretty good way of looking at it. You'd have to change a perceived value of high and low for differing IQ's though.

OT: From official testing I have an IQ of 139. However, IQ doesn't mean anything. You should know that.
IQ is ones ability to rationalize. Basically, it's your ability to use logic. It's very important for math, important for science, and useful for other subjects. It's real. It exist. It may not define your entire intelligence, but it does define your ability to rationalize. It also has been linked with general intelligence, but that's less conclusive. To deny the evidence supporting IQ simply because the results don't match your desires is not logic. It's like saying if X = Y, and Y = Z, X =/= Z because you don't want it to.