[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vm / vmg / vr / vrpg / vst / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / pw / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / vt / wsg / wsr / x / xs] [Settings] [Search] [Mobile] [Home]
Board
Settings Mobile Home
/sci/ - Science & Math

Name
Options
Comment
Verification
4chan Pass users can bypass this verification. [Learn More] [Login]
File
  • Please read the Rules and FAQ before posting.
  • Additional supported file types are: PDF
  • Use with [math] tags for inline and [eqn] tags for block equations.
  • Right-click equations to view the source.

08/21/20New boards added: /vrpg/, /vmg/, /vst/ and /vm/
05/04/17New trial board added: /bant/ - International/Random
10/04/16New board for 4chan Pass users: /vip/ - Very Important Posts
[Hide] [Show All]


Janitor application acceptance emails are being sent out. Please remember to check your spam box!


[Advertise on 4chan]


File: 1723751845594.jpg (66 KB, 490x489)
66 KB
66 KB JPG
i think that IQ estimations past 125 and below 75 is unreliable and IQ estimations past 130 and below 70 are complete bullshit. any objections?
>>
>>16831039
Very low IQ results are in fact quite useful. IQs above 130 are essentially just "yeah this person is pretty smart",
>>
I'm slightly skeptical of iq scores as a measure of intellect for a few different reasons, though I do indeed view anything past 130 as simply "smart" and anything below 70 as "dumb". People who worship them need to get a life.
>>
>>16831039
>IQ estimation
Bruh. Iqtards try really hard to pretend to be scientists don't they.
>>
>>16831043
Once got into an argument with a biodetermafag over the influence of socioeconomic factors and he showed me evidence that the iq score of 93 given to the Chinese during Mao's reign was invalid because the test was biased against them. Made me lol.
>>
>>16831039
IDK about complete bullshit, I feel like there will be a noticeable difference between someone who scrapes in 130-140 and someone who consistently gets 150+ on every test, but I agree the specific number isn't really accurate or worth focusing on.
>>
>>16831039
you strike me as a 105-110 guy
>>
>>16831039
No objection.



[Advertise on 4chan]

Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.