if you can solve this you are 115+ iq

[Harold O'brien]

 

[PsychoDsk]

I solved it, do you believe me?

 

[Deleted member 51465]

around 83

 

[Tai Lung]

Did you solve it?

 

[Harold O'brien]

I solved it, do you believe me?

no

 

[Harold O'brien]

Did you solve it?

i made it

 

[arab_chink]

This wont get you bitches

 

[Harold O'brien]

This wont get you bitches

will all the bitches in the world help you solve problems? getting laid is such a cope

 

[arab_chink]

will all the bitches in the world help you solve problems? getting laid is such a cope

Solveing puzzles doesnt garuntee you have high iq, if so then its pointless

 

[Deleted member 51781]

Fuck do I know

 

[Harold O'brien]

Solveing puzzles doesnt garuntee you have high iq, if so then its pointless

iq is fake, it's a load of bs

but solving puzzles means you have it (not iq: it). impossible to be mogged harder than when you cant solve something that someone else can

 

[Tai Lung]

Solveing puzzles doesnt garuntee you have high iq, if so then its pointless

u are defo below avarage, ignored.

 

[arab_chink]

iq is fake, it's a load of bs

but solving puzzles means you have 'it'. impossible to be mogged harder than when you cant solve something that someone else can

This doesnt even make sense, so it pointless. This shit wont make me a billionaire

 

[NoReedemingFeature]

I don't see any pattern in it

 

[arab_chink]

u are defo below avarage, ignored.

Ok smarty pants make me a millionaire

 

[Harold O'brien]

This doesnt even make sense, so it pointless. This shit wont make me a billionaire

ok? so leave the thread, nobody is forcing you to attempt this, lmao

 

[cube]

iq is fake, it's a load of bs

but solving puzzles means you have it (not iq: it). impossible to be mogged harder than when you cant solve something that someone else can

People who don’t “believe” in IQ are low IQ.

 

[Harold O'brien]

People who don’t “believe” in IQ are low IQ.

why would i believe in iq? i bet you cant even define what iq is jfl

 

[Tai Lung]

Did u meant to draw the black line?

 

[Harold O'brien]

Did u meant to draw the black line?

the color choices are intentional

 

[arab_chink]

ok? so leave the thread, nobody is forcing you to attempt this, lmao

Honestly your right, let idiot beileve that theyre smart

 

[scrunchables]

idk bc my iq has went down over time

 

[cube]

why would i believe in iq? i bet you cant even define what iq is jfl

Intelligence quotient, its a number that measures for g, general intelligence, it is the most valid psychometric examination every created. Saying you don’t believe in IQ is like saying you don’t believe distance exists. I’m guessing you got a low score on an examination and now try to cope with having low IQ by making your own definition of intelligence.

 

[scrunchables]

I solved it, do you believe me?

what's the answer (don't give me any "find it out yourself" bullshit tell me)

 

[scrunchables]

tbh I'm utterly hopeless if I'm not given multiple choice on these like normal jfl

 

[_MVP_]

There isno pAttern in it

 

[ascension]

 

[scrunchables]

There isno pAttern in it

wtf MVP himself doesn't know, we're so fucked

 

[ascension]

There isno pAttern in it

wtf MVP himself doesn't know, we're so fucked

It's a fake troll post, there's no pattern, he's probably sat there laughing his ass off

 

[Harold O'brien]

Intelligence quotient, its a number that measures for g, general intelligence, it is the most valid psychometric examination every created. Saying you don’t believe in IQ is like saying you don’t believe distance exists. I’m guessing you got a low score on an examination and now try to cope with having low IQ by making your own definition of intelligence.

surface level response.

what is general intelligence? it's the prinicipal component of the results of a battery of tests. i.e. correlations that 'psychometrists' (jfl) reify and pretend are meaningfully descriptive of the world around us

 

[chadintraining]

I did see a pattern in the first empty box, but not the second

 

[Harold O'brien]

It's a fake troll post, there's no pattern, he's probably sat there laughing his ass off

there is a genuine pattern, whether you believe me or not

 

[chadintraining]

It's a fake troll post, there's no pattern, he's probably sat there laughing his ass off

There is a pattern in the first box

Idk about the second

 

[scrunchables]

There is a pattern in the first box

Idk about the second

maybe the second is just empty? that tends to happen

but then it makes no sense

 

[scrunchables]

@LooksThinker what are your thots on dis one

 

[PsychoDsk]

what's the answer (don't give me any "find it out yourself" bullshit tell me)

find it out yourself

 

[Deleted member 14693]

There is a pattern in the first box

Idk about the second

What do you mean first box.

The patters is in all boxes thats how this shit works

 

[Tai Lung]

@LooksThinker what are your thots on dis one

@LooksThinker still learning multiplication at school

 

[Tai Lung]

What do you mean first box.

The patters is in all boxes thats how this shit works

he meant first empty box

 

[Deleted member 14693]

he meant first empty box

Oh I thought thats is supposed to be empty.

 

[Tai Lung]

maybe the second is just empty? that tends to happen

but then it makes no sense

no it means his pattern is wrong

 

[Tai Lung]

Oh I thought thats is supposed to be empty.

so what are you even solving then?

 

[Deleted member 14693]

so what are you even solving then?

the one on the bottom right.

Sometimes in these puzzles one box is empty as part of the puzzle

 

[LooksThinker]

@LooksThinker what are your thots on dis one

i´m not sure

two blue lines up+one red line horizontally= 1 blue line which makes mix between vertical and horizontal black line.
first horizontal line: 2blue lines up + one red horizontally= one black mix line
in the second line it's probably: 2blue mix lines= one vertical line. Vertical line + small red mix line= some fucking black mix line which exact pattern i can't for sure know.
Last line is just impossible to count up because there is too little amount of patterns to use
@Tai Lung

 

[Shkreliii]

i´m not sure
View attachment 2772226
two blue lines up+one red line horizontally= 1 blue line which makes mix between vertical and horizontal black line.
first horizontal line: 2blue lines up + one red horizontally= one black mix line
in the second line it's probably: 2blue mix lines= one vertical line. Vertical line + small red mix line= some fucking black mix line which exact pattern i can't for sure know.
Last line is just impossible to count up because there is too little amount of patterns to use
@Tai Lung

inb4 op making random lines in boxes

 

[LooksThinker]

@Phillybeard1996 try to solve this

 

[scrunchables]

I hate that these threads don't come with multiple choice answers because we would've gotten it eons ago

 

[cube]

surface level response.

what is general intelligence? it's the prinicipal component of the results of a battery of tests. i.e. correlations that 'psychometrists' (jfl) reify and pretend are meaningfully descriptive of the world around us

Ill help explain it to you.


First you need to recognize that there is such a thing as intelligence, that is, is everybody equally intelligent? Or are some people more intelligent than others? If you deny the existence of intelligence alltogether, you're probably retarded. Anyways. Ok now that we've established the existence of intelligence, we can assign an abstract theoretical value to it, lets call this value g, or general intelligence.

Then the question arises of how many sub-components there are to general intelligence. In psychometry, you can derive subcomponents by running a large number of participants through a set of long tests that include random questions that can objectively be graded as correct and incorrect based on participant response, then you can group questions together by how often participants consistently failed or succeeded in this cluster of questions (adjusted for difficulty). These would then be the subcomponents of g or general intelligence.

I don't remember off the top of my head what these ended up being but I believe they were something like, verbal intelligence, linguistic intelligence, spatial reasoning, etc (no emotional intelligence was not on this that shits a meme JFL). Now as it turns out, the components of intelligence are incredibly correlate to eachother, (>95%), that is if you're at the 70th percentile of verbal intelligence, odds are you're around the 70th percentile in all other intelligences, so you can very accurately use a single figure to encompass all of these, the figure most commonly used is IQ, which is graded on a standard distribution with mean of 100 SD of 15.

As for its validity as a psychometric examination, you're right in that a psychometric exam is valid insofar as it measures some real world quality. For example an exam on extraversion would have to monitor the social lives of participants to see if the test was valid as a measure of their extraversion. For IQ however, intelligence can be broadly conceived as an ability to solve problems, and it just so happens IQ tests-- valid ones at least-- test solely for abstract pattern recognition. Studying for a valid IQ test has been shown to have negligible effects on the result.

So the IQ test in a way validates itself, in that it directly measures general intelligence in the problems that it gives you, but if you wanted to take it a step further and measure the predictiveness of IQ on academic/carreer success, it has also been found to be the #1 most reliable predictor.

TL;DR, you're retarded and probably have sub100iq

 

[Veganist]

Id say that i prolly can but too lazy but that might be cope.

 

[Harold O'brien]

Ill help explain it to you.


First you need to recognize that there is such a thing as intelligence, that is, is everybody equally intelligent? Or are some people more intelligent than others? If you deny the existence of intelligence alltogether, you're probably retarded. Anyways. Ok now that we've established the existence of intelligence, we can assign an abstract theoretical value to it, lets call this value g, or general intelligence.

Then the question arises of how many sub-components there are to general intelligence. In psychometry, you can derive subcomponents by running a large number of participants through a set of long tests that include random questions that can objectively be graded as correct and incorrect based on participant response, then you can group questions together by how often participants consistently failed or succeeded in this cluster of questions (adjusted for difficulty). These would then be the subcomponents of g or general intelligence.

I don't remember off the top of my head what these ended up being but I believe they were something like, verbal intelligence, linguistic intelligence, spatial reasoning, etc (no emotional intelligence was not on this that shits a meme JFL). Now as it turns out, the components of intelligence are incredibly correlate to eachother, (>95%), that is if you're at the 70th percentile of verbal intelligence, odds are you're around the 70th percentile in all other intelligences, so you can very accurately use a single figure to encompass all of these, the figure most commonly used is IQ, which is graded on a standard distribution with mean of 100 SD of 15.

As for its validity as a psychometric examination, you're right in that a psychometric exam is valid insofar as it measures some real world quality. For example an exam on extraversion would have to monitor the social lives of participants to see if the test was valid as a measure of their extraversion. For IQ however, intelligence can be broadly conceived as an ability to solve problems, and it just so happens IQ tests-- valid ones at least-- test solely for abstract pattern recognition. Studying for a valid IQ test has been shown to have negligible effects on the result.

So the IQ test in a way validates itself, in that it directly measures general intelligence in the problems that it gives you, but if you wanted to take it a step further and measure the predictiveness of IQ on academic/carreer success, it has also been found to be the #1 most reliable predictor.

TL;DR, you're retarded and probably have sub100iq

your #1 argument is that an iq test validates itself. jfl at going to the length to write this essay when the central premise is plainly circular logic

regarding predictive capabilities of iq, it's been demonstrated the main ones (educational attainment, job occupation, job complexity) are weak + self-fulfilling + ambiguous + engineered