Mensa iq test(how smart are you)

[Crusile]

Physiological correlations https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/016028969290010O

Reaction time correlation was p-hacked by test selection

Spoiler

As mentioned earlier, Galton viewed human mental ability differences in terms of mental speed. He included reaction time (RT) items in his tests, as did some of his followers. Although they yielded nothing of interest (people from different social classes performed much the same on average), the idea has been recently revived. This time the aim has been to see whether RT correlates with IQ, thus supporting the conclusion that IQ is really a measure of some physiological or neural efficiency. For example, in the 1990s, Arthur Jensen (a well-known supporter of Galton) spoke of “individual differences in speed or efficiency of the various elementary processes,” and how “those differences account for the differences in performance on psychometric tests.”20 The hope engendered was that of discovering the mother lode in a psychological gold mine.

Initially, some excitement was created in two ways. First a small correlation (0.2–0.3) was found between IQ and a modified RT test: the appropriate reaction had to be quickly chosen from up to four alternatives (e.g., different buttons for different light signals). Variability of individual performance in this so-called choice-reaction time was also weakly correlated with IQ.

The problem is what to make of it. As always, we must not accept such correlations as causally meaningful without controlled experiments. Such small correlations indicate, anyway, that there are a lot of other things causing differences in performance. And they may not even be cognitive in origin. Douglas Detterman showed how RT involves a lot other than simple response efficiency.21 Individual differences can stem from misunderstanding instructions, familiarity with the equipment, motivation to do the task, sensory acuity, learned response strategies, time spent on sensory processing and motor action rather than decision time, attention, arousal, task orientation, confidence, and anxiety. Such research appears to be up another cul de sac. But, like frustrated yet hopeful prospectors, IQ devotees keep returning to RT.

The selected "reaction time test" is a measure of attentiveness- obtained through educational attainment, not magic "cognitive processing power"

Spoiler

https://www.swisswuff.ch/files/richardson2002whatiqteststest.pdf

On the other hand, many studies have now demonstrated the role of ‘topdown’, cognitive processes—influencing what Bub (2000) calls ‘state ofpreparedness’—in all ECT responses. An optimum state of readiness forperforming ECTs involves many factors like selective attention, the monitoring of expectancies, response preparation, filtering of extraneous thoughtsand sensory distractions, modulation of internal states, and so forth (Bub,2000). In concurrence with this view, Nettlebeck and Vita (1992) foundlarge practice effects on an IT task, with corresponding diminution of IQ–ITcorrelation to ‘negligible proportions’. Bors, Stokes, Forrin and Hodder(1999) report similar findings, and say that ‘attentiveness is at least in partresponsible for the IQ–IT correlation’ (p. 111). Using a slightly differenttask, Burns, Nettlebeck and Cooper (2000) report little association betweenIT and ‘fluid ability’. In addition, even individual ITs are not stable from onesituation to another (Deary & Stough, 1996).

it is consistently found that the largest correlations with IQ are for intraindividual variation in RT (usually measured by individuals’ standard deviations, or SDs, over numerous trials). As Jensen (1998) explains, ‘It is a rare study indeed in which RTSD does not have a larger (negative)correlation with IQ than does RT itself. In other words, higher-IQ persons have more consistent RT’s from trial to trial when performing an ECT’(p. 225). In other words, low-IQ subjects regularly produce RTs equal to those ofhigh-IQ subjects, but with less consistency over trials. This lack of consistency may well reflect poor self-confidence and high test anxiety and their effects on information processing, incursions of extraneous cognitions,sensory distractions and so on. This interpretation is reinforced by Jensen’s1998 (p. 224) report that RT significantly correlates (–.45) with Extraversionscores on the Eysenck Personality Inventory. Ratings on the EPI are relatedto high self-efficacy beliefs, self-confidence, freedom-from-anxiety andother aspects of ‘emotional well-being’ (Peterson, Maier, & Seligman,1993). Again it seems reasonable to suggest that any common source of variance in IQ and ECTs originates in the sociocognitive-affective nexusdescribed above.

https://sci-hub.se/10.1016/j.intell.2004.07.004

In males, three such correlations reach nominal significance but not Bonferroni significance. In females, no correlations reach nominal significance. These results contrast with those of R & J, who found a correlation of +.256 ( p=.0017) between the NCV for the 16-square test condition and IQ derived from the Raven Progressive Matrices (therefore, performing only one significance test) intheir 147 male participants. The correlation for our 16-square NCV and Raven in males is +.121; in the32- and 64-square conditions, it is +.154 and +.132, respectively. All correlations are nonsignificant nominally

0.132 kek

Tiny/funny correlations with physical traits can be explained by indirect causes. like height correlates at .20 but obviously doesnt directly influence cognitive ability

 

[Crusile]

Exactly you can’t measure g. Only it’s correlates. I agree it’s definition is nebulous. But you could say what makes a Russian jet worse or better than an American jet at dogfighting. Is it more likely a jet with a higher speed/acceleration is a better fighter or turn time, climb rate, weaponry e..t.c but when all of these factors compounded If they were to go to war you would have one jet better than the other. This is an metaphor of G factor.

That doesnt validate the existence of g. thoughts on this?:

<em>g</em>, a Statistical Myth

g must correlate with something that measures intelligence, but "intelligence" is a result of educational attainment, not *magic brain processing power* which doesnt exist. If IQ is a result of EA, and its predictive power exists within other predictors (mentioned ITT), IQ lacks both utility and construct validity = IQ is false

 

[Crusile]

It suggests the nerves are different/better.

Even if this were true, it wouldn't validate g

I'm talking about reaction speeds as in hitting a baseball or playing an fps, not reacting to a novel question. I would think those are two different concepts entirely. although what studies show is that there is a corellation between these things, suggesting a trend in physiologies?

lol they p-hacked their reaction time correlation, it likely doesnt exist in video games or sports.

Bad arguement… wasting my time

Its legit "if you were asked measure the king's table with his ruler, you might as well be measuring the ruler with the table".

suggesting you need a special essence, lets call it g factor for sake of arguement to know how to study the right stuff...

whats the proof/evidence of this? IQ doesnt predict learning speed

 

[Halonyx]

That doesnt validate the existence of g. thoughts on this?:

<em>g</em>, a Statistical Myth

g must correlate with something that measures intelligence, but "intelligence" is a result of educational attainment, not *magic brain processing power* which doesnt exist. If IQ is a result of EA, and its predictive power exists within other predictors (mentioned ITT), IQ lacks both utility and construct validity = IQ is false

pretty sure highly intelligent people have more developed prefrontal cortex as well as more dense and efficient network between several different brain regions. suggesting there is no such thing as brain processing power is ridiculous as there are structural differences between the brains of highly intelligent and less intelligent people which means there are also functional differences.

AI is modelled after human brain itself, do you also suggest there is no such thing as more intelligent AI?

 

[Crusile]

pretty sure highly intelligent people have more developed prefrontal cortex as well as more dense and efficient network between several different brain regions. suggesting there is no such thing as brain processing power is ridiculous as there are structural differences between the brains of highly intelligent and less intelligent people which means there are also functional differences.

AI is modelled after human brain itself, do you also suggest there is no such thing as more intelligent AI?

ie the cause of obtained the required IQ test proxy knowledge isnt the result of innate brain processing power.

Environment can cause differences in brain development, but since g doesnt reduce to anything in the brain (g cant be found/exist in the brain), you cant claim that these correlates directly influence intelligence. They could be non-direct indicators

https://publications.aap.org/pediat...ty-and-the-Developing?redirectedFrom=fulltext

 

[Crusile]

AI is modelled after human brain itself, do you also suggest there is no such thing as more intelligent AI?

Differences in intelligence exist in humans, iq just isnt a valid measure, again, it fails in construct validity + utility there4 not valid

*(?)if youre talking about brain processing power, no that doesnt exist or explain differences in intelligence. AIs are different from human brains idk how to answer

 

[wollet2]

O

only the online tests are proctored iq tests are legit. Lol keep coping you low iq animal can’t even read. This iq test is bullshit it’s just fun if you have free time. If I were high iq I wouldn’t be on this forum

the mensa denmark/nowary tests are about as bs as the paid mensa tests, if you look at reddit most people report getting about similar results, so its definitely a indicator of how you would do in the paid one . so its not about this being muh bullshit online iq test.

you probably say its fun because u believe there is some validity in it

 

[Crusile]

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0361476X20300679

Teacher judgement is a better predictor than IQ

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0160289608000603#bib16

SAT and ACT predict college GPA after removing g​

IQ being the "the best predictor ever" is the biggest lie ever, btw. IQ's predictive power exists within other predictors that are 'predictive' after removing g. Without evidence of g causality(g construct validity), there is no utility

 

[incel194012940]

AI is modelled after human brain itself, do you also suggest there is no such thing as more intelligent AI?

ai is modeled after "computer" models of the brain made during computer popularization, its just a model to help make technology, saying this is proof of anything in the human brain is insane low iq

you dont need to know anything to take a take an iq test

the argument is whether iq matters, youre answering the question of whether looks or iq is more important. 2 completely different discussions. you failed to answer the question of whether you would be high iq chad or low iq chad because you know being high iq chad mogs.

there is a classic story of the "0 iq villager". In ~1940s, scientists went to africa to assess the locals on their "pure logic" skills (they didn't have the language section for the villagers language). They asked an old man: How much would an eskimo pay in taxes if they had x amount, and had to pay half?

"I don't know I'm not an eskimo. I've never seen snow, I can't give you an answer on something I have no experience on"

Ok, what if you had x amount, and had to pay half

"I would pay 0 because I would hide everything underground before the tax collector comes"

they concluded they did not have the ability to think logically, under the construct of IQ, their score would have to be an IQ of 0 points.

If this logical thinking (IQ) capacity was innate, not teachable, was the man just total retard, somehow flynn effect + nutrition increased his great grandsons iq 70 points?

in 1900 or so when the iq test was invented, the language section (an acquired skill) would remove if you associated dogs with animals humans eat (because you use a dog to hunt), add points if you associated based on being a "mammal"

What is a "mammal". How likely would a high intelligence civilization independently come up with the concept of a "mammal" exactly? Why are the "high iq" children smarter because they don't go outside and memorize mental constructs for association tests instead?

middle and new money upper classes circa 1960s have been shown to use the "high iq vocabulary words" as opposed to working classes and aristocracy (barely exist 2023. How many barons do u know?)

 

[incel194012940]

You are judging me by the stereotype of people that deny the validity of IQ tests.

I am familiar with The Bell Curve, IQ in the Meritocracy, The Neuroscience of Intelligence, The g Factor, The Abilities of Man, IQ and The Wealth of Nations, and other books about intelligence testing and its predictive power.

I am saying IQ is close to meaningless if you are physically and socially unattractive. It may be a bonus if you meet the criteria, but if not, there is no point in bragging about your high IQ when you are a basement-dwelling loser whose only accomplishment in life is a STEM degree.

How useful is IQ when you have no friends? How come you brag about your high IQ when no girl is interested in you? How much do your mental abilities matter when you go home to an empty apartment everyday? Tell me IQ is super important under those circumstances.

Solving Irodov is the actual test of iq
View attachment 2217131

why do iq theorists rely on a long DNR list of outside authorities, western canon, statistical studies, ect if it's innate intelligence/rationality/logic? religion tier

Wouldn't you be able to deduce it from pure thinking and high IQ if it was true?

no one does this for height, race, ect other things believed to be as equally innate.

 

[Halonyx]

ie the cause of obtained the required IQ test proxy knowledge isnt the result of innate brain processing power.

Environment can cause differences in brain development, but since g doesnt reduce to anything in the brain (g cant be found/exist in the brain), you cant claim that these correlates directly influence intelligence. They could be non-direct indicators

https://publications.aap.org/pediat...ty-and-the-Developing?redirectedFrom=fulltext

Psychologists differ on the issue of IQ's predictive power and some notable ones do say it has sufficient predictive power

IQ, explained in 9 charts

Intelligence can predict your risk of death, and 8 other smart facts about IQ.

www.vox.com

To just dismiss the concept of IQ as a whole by citing few studies is deeply misleading. Also g doesn't need to be found anywhere as it is an abstract concept, not a physical entity. You're not going to find it with microscopes.

IQ predicts life outcomes better than personalities

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0160289622000125

Personality is also a nebulous concept and you can't pinpoint personality in someone's brain. And yet people have no problem with saying personalities actually exist.

 

[incel194012940]

so you know that general cognitive practise like reading will give you a strengthened peripheral nervous system overall thereby resulting in faster reaction times and higher IQ?

i have FPS expierence. its all about state of mind. slow reaction speed = high stress, needs to chill. Fast reactions = in the zone.

its possible theres major variation but you'd need to equalize internal variables, take similar jobs/skills participants at variable iqs, look at their brain to corelates of heightened focus and attention - impossible in the early studies and not done by lazy researchers who just spam tests for "p value = 0.0000000000"

 

[Halonyx]

ai is modeled after "computer" models of the brain made during computer popularization, its just a model to help make technology, saying this is proof of anything in the human brain is insane low iq

ANN and deep learning was literally inspired by neuroscientific research and most of initial works in AI was based on human brain simulation.

 

[incel194012940]

ANN and deep learning was literally inspired by neuroscientific research and most of initial works in AI was based on human brain simulation.

it doesn't mean it was correct, it just means it was good enough to make technology based on. look into history book to see similar logics

 

[Crusile]

Psychologists differ on the issue of IQ's predictive power and some notable ones do say it has sufficient predictive power

IQ, explained in 9 charts

Intelligence can predict your risk of death, and 8 other smart facts about IQ.

www.vox.com

To just dismiss the concept of IQ as a whole by citing few studies is deeply misleading. Also g doesn't need to be found anywhere as it is an abstract concept, not a physical entity. You're not going to find it with microscopes.

IQ predicts life outcomes better than personalities

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0160289622000125

Personality is also a nebulous concept and you can't pinpoint personality in someone's brain. And yet people have no problem with saying personalities actually exist.

personality measurements are random survey questions that were made up, lol. Yes, IQ is a measure of obtained proxy knowledge based on proximity to low-mid-high class knowledge basis. If you properly control for social class, its predictive power goes away.

"social class is a better predictor than random survey questions"

g is a mathematical concept that cant be interpreted by psychologists (zero knowledge of mathematics)

http://bactra.org/weblog/523.html (written with knowledge of mathematics) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosma_Shalizi https://www.cmu.edu/dietrich/statistics-datascience/people/faculty/cosma-shalizi.html )

 

[Crusile]

Exploratory factor analysis vs. causal inference​

Read this section

also these

 

[Deleted member 30606]

ie the cause of obtained the required IQ test proxy knowledge isnt the result of innate brain processing power.

Environment can cause differences in brain development, but since g doesnt reduce to anything in the brain (g cant be found/exist in the brain), you cant claim that these correlates directly influence intelligence. They could be non-direct indicators

https://publications.aap.org/pediat...ty-and-the-Developing?redirectedFrom=fulltext

'non direct indicators'... wtf is this doublespeak

 

[Deleted member 30606]

i have FPS expierence. its all about state of mind. slow reaction speed = high stress, needs to chill. Fast reactions = in the zone.

its possible theres major variation but you'd need to equalize internal variables, take similar jobs/skills participants at variable iqs, look at their brain to corelates of heightened focus and attention - impossible in the early studies and not done by lazy researchers who just spam tests for "p value = 0.0000000000"

yeah i agree, i was just making sure that mogger was talking about reaction times and not brain processing speed, as in figuring out a problem vs auditory/visual reaction time

 

[Deleted member 30606]

If you properly control for social class, its predictive power goes away.

can you explain exactly what you mean by this?

 

[Crusile]

'non direct indicators'... wtf is this doublespeak

probably like brain size and height, indicators that dont directly influence intelligence

 

[Crusile]

can you explain exactly what you mean by this?

 

[Deleted member 30606]

personality measurements are random survey questions that were made up, lol. Yes, IQ is a measure of obtained proxy knowledge based on proximity to low-mid-high class knowledge basis. If you properly control for social class, its predictive power goes away.

"social class is a better predictor than random survey questions"

g is a mathematical concept that cant be interpreted by psychologists (zero knowledge of mathematics)

http://bactra.org/weblog/523.html (written with knowledge of mathematics) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosma_Shalizi https://www.cmu.edu/dietrich/statistics-datascience/people/faculty/cosma-shalizi.html )

The fact of the matter, there are physiological differences in all parts of the body proven, which correlates with a test which correlates with a manifold which predicts many important life outcomes. All of these debunks are very impractical although they may be technically right, of course G is a construct, its really just a best guess, but so are many things that for all intents and purposes may as well be fact.

still not a convincing argument. although it may be true