Silk Road forums
Discussion => Off topic => Topic started by: kmfkewm on June 19, 2013, 12:45 pm
-
I have had a professional IQ evaluation in the past, and the GIQ I obtained from this test is exactly the same as I obtained from my professional evaluation, so it is apparently pretty accurate. It asks for information at the end of the test, I just put fake shit, they ask for your E-mail address but then it takes you to results without needing to answer any messages. You can take the test via Tor, and definitely should imo. It does require javascript though, yuuck.
www.funeducation.com/Tests/IQTest/TakeTest.aspx
-
The last IQ test I did was about 10 years ago, and caused me more drama than good, as the results suggested I was capable of almost anything
This is not true, My brain seems to be 'wired' differently to some, and I'm 'partially' dyslexic, not literally with words but I sometimes get things back to front
At school we were tested every 4 years from year 4! The first test I was never told about but the second got me Mensa membership and a LOT of jealousy and jibes
I think I turned to drugs coz most people either chastised me for not "performing well enough" and I had NO idea what I wanted to do, as was "expected" and was always getting into trouble for being "the kid who's smart enough to get away with it" whatever "it" might have been. I spent a LOT of time in detention!
I'm going to try this test and see just how dumb I have become
nice one kmfkewm ... should be interesting!
-
The last IQ test I did was about 10 years ago, and caused me more drama than good, as the results suggested I was capable of almost anything
This is not true, My brain seems to be 'wired' differently to some, and I'm 'partially' dyslexic, not literally with words but I sometimes get things back to front
At school we were tested every 4 years from year 4! The first test I was never told about but the second got me Mensa membership and a LOT of jealousy and jibes
I think I turned to drugs coz most people either chastised me for not "performing well enough" and I had NO idea what I wanted to do, as was "expected" and was always getting into trouble for being "the kid who's smart enough to get away with it" whatever "it" might have been. I spent a LOT of time in detention!
I'm going to try this test and see just how dumb I have become
nice one kmfkewm ... should be interesting!
My brain is also wired differently than most peoples. On the professional test I took (and even this one to some extent) my subscores varied by a good deal. On the verbal parts of the test I did exceptionally well with very superior scores (142+), but on the visuospatial parts I scored below average (80-90). When all of my subscores are averaged out my GIQ is in the above average range (111-121), but looking at any individual subscore would paint me as either a genius or an idiot.
-
LOL yeah I know what you mean ... it seems to vary, hypoglycemia from forgetting to eat can really cause me to go brain dead!
I'll let you know how I go
thanks for the fun bro
-
My IQ is 151 (but not on this test you proposed, I did one some years ago).
It is more an hassle than anything else. Life is much simpler if you have a normal IQ, much less problems all around. Half the times you sound like a lunatic and the other half you are just wondering why didn't you sound like one to begin with.
-
My brain is also wired differently than most peoples. On the professional test I took (and even this one to some extent) my subscores varied by a good deal. On the verbal parts of the test I did exceptionally well with very superior scores (142+), but on the visuospatial parts I scored below average (80-90). When all of my subscores are averaged out my GIQ is in the above average range (111-121), but looking at any individual subscore would paint me as either a genius or an idiot.
Ezra Pound said that the hallmark of a genius is the fact that he can make connections where others cannot make them.
However the connections are not necessarily "diffused"; actually many very high IQ individuals are very intelligent for some particular things and very commonly almost the total opposite in some others. I guess this has to do with a sort of "selective filtering" intelligent people do, sort of unconsciously. Meaning that the things they think will never serve them (or at a profound level doesn't minimally interest them) they refuse practically to acknowledge, and this works out in practice in a seemingly ineptitude at understanding certain things while being very intelligent for the others.
This is the thing Conan Doyle talk about in the famous Sherlock Holmes stories, btw: Sherlock Holmes refuted to learn things that didn't interest him and was a genius in those that did. He also explained this thing fully in a story (but now I don't remember the name).
-
My brain is also wired differently than most peoples. On the professional test I took (and even this one to some extent) my subscores varied by a good deal. On the verbal parts of the test I did exceptionally well with very superior scores (142+), but on the visuospatial parts I scored below average (80-90). When all of my subscores are averaged out my GIQ is in the above average range (111-121), but looking at any individual subscore would paint me as either a genius or an idiot.
Ezra Pound said that the hallmark of a genius is the fact that he can make connections where others cannot make them.
However the connections are not necessarily "diffused"; actually many very high IQ individuals are very intelligent for some particular things and very commonly almost the total opposite in some others. I guess this has to do with a sort of "selective filtering" intelligent people do, sort of unconsciously. Meaning that the things they think will never serve them (or at a profound level doesn't minimally interest them) they refuse practically to acknowledge, and this works out in practice in a seemingly ineptitude at understanding certain things while being very intelligent for the others.
This is the thing Conan Doyle talk about in the famous Sherlock Holmes stories, btw: Sherlock Holmes refuted to learn things that didn't interest him and was a genius in those that did. He also explained this thing fully in a story (but now I don't remember the name).
I do think that, at least to an extent, somebody who is particularly good at thinking in one way may be perceived as thinking poorly in another way due to thinking too good in the way they are good at thinking in. They might see patterns that are correct but obscure, in that a person who is good at thinking in the other way would immediately see a simpler pattern.
For example, on one IQ test I took I was presented with the following problem:
O[] is to []O as OO[] is to what? In symbols only:
O[] | []O
OO[] | ?
Now the answer that immediately comes to my mind is
O[] | []O
OO[] |[][]O
but the correct answer given was
O[] | []O
OO[] | []OO
The pattern that I see is one of binary inversion, where there is a circle in the first half there is a rectangle in the second half, where there is a rectangle in the first half there is a circle in the second half. Apparently most people are much more likely to see reflection than inversion, but does that mean that inversion is less valid of a pattern? I believe it is possible that the reason I see inversion rather than reflection is because I solve this problem verbally:
circle, square | (circle?) square, (square?) circle
[okay, circle in the left half maps to square in the right half, and square in the left half maps to circle in the right half]
whereas most people solve it visuospatially.
-
I had the same exact trouble with an IQ test for a work many years ago.
Many answers have simply more than a solution because it can depend completely on how the individual approaches the question in his personal modus operandi. The way many of these IQ tests are implemented, however, clearly see as "right" a way of approaching the test and "wrong" others (your example is a good evidence of this because both answers were correct, only the "filter" used - so to speak- was different).
I had a diatribe with the examiners then on just this point about 2 or 3 questions in that test and after I explained them my point they understood why the answer was not unique. I consider this (the fact that you can see more answers in a question) a way of making more connections than usual in the same exact way (so a way in definitive to demonstrate intelligence). I sincerely think that these tests should be: A) made by a vast range of IQs, not only those of high IQ (in fact many of them, as I have said, sort of "specialize" in a way of approach), B) tested to the most people as possible and the answers (especially those wrong) looked closely to see different views on the questions.
I am of the firm opinion that many of these IQ tests, just for this, are faulty and depending on the test and the approach of the same you can have very different results depending on your nature. If you consider the thing well, then, every sentence contains in itself a contradiction, so a written test will always intrinsically have different interpretations just for the fact of the use of language that you have to adopt. There is no way outside of that.
-
I tried your test and scored 109 but I scored 131-141 on an IQ test made by a professional a couple of years ago. I don't know if it's very accurate.. I hope it's not or else it'd mean that I became a lot dumber.
Good point on the circle square question! I hate when that sort of thing happens because even though you reason correctly, your answer is not seen as right.