How come just getting a good night's of sleep and practicing to solve similar logical/pattern recognition tests than those IQ tests use can make the difference between an average and an above average result, yet "IQ tests can't be cheated"? And if practicing similar problems is considered cheating, why would it? Intelligence is transferable across different learning contexts after all, and we need to be familiar with a certain type of thinking to solve similar problems
I get that developing your own strategies is part of the assessment, but people who get high results are generally familiar with analytical thinking and deductive logic and have practiced it plenty
>>16975080How come "people" who talk like this never score higher than a 90 no matter what?
>>16975133How did you know?
>>16975080>"IQ tests can't be cheated"If a dumb guy can spend his time practicing and retaking an IQ test until he achieves a perfect score, then was he really a dumb guy? Because that's not something dumb people do. It's great for filtering retards.
>>16975149I was thinking more of understanding and (sometimes unconsciously) recognizing strategies instead of memorizing the solutions, but I believe IQ tests are flawed from the start because they assume a "blank slate", when faced with a new problem, which simply doesn't exist. The focus on processing speed doesn't seem right to me either
>>16975151What kind of specialized knowledge did you lack when you failed all those Raven matrices? Clearly, your mind was blanker and slatier than that of high IQ people. And how much time do you need to solve the advanced ones?
>>16975160Spiteful anonI can't really remember anymore, but the last time I was tested, I was a teenager. Back then, there was a discrepancy of more than 30 points between different areas which I believe stemmed from severe memory issues I had and still have to some extentMy lowest score was still above average, but I also remember having such difficulty concentrating I ended up only answering half the questions or so
>>16975168Something that I can still remember was that I had an easier time solving the more advanced ones because they were able to catch my drifting attention better. I kind of did a speedrun
>>16975168>>16975169>low IQ narcissist making up irrelevant stories while getting filtered
>>16975171>But enough about myself
>>16975174The dumb cretin wrote that without a hint of irony after shitting out not one but two posts of personal anecdotes about him being smart but lazy or something.
>>16975178Chill brah, I was answering your disingenuous questions honestly because I was more interested in an actual conversation than getting baited by someone with a more obvious inferiority complex than mine
>>16975180There's nothing wrong with IQ tests. You're just dumb. There's no real conversation to be had about this, especially not with low-IQ people.
>>16975187You're obsessed, when will the marriage be?
>>16975190>You're obsessedRight. That's why I keep starting such threads and not (You).
>>16975191Battle of the midwits (full color, ca. 2026)
im curious about how standardized tests proxy for IQ. I did pretty well while barely studying for SAT math, but the GRE math kicked my ass.
>>16975151Of course. However, the question remains: what exactly is being quantified?The Dimwit:>it only quantifies your ability to take IQ tests!The Midwit:>it quantifies your ability to take IQ tests, which are the imperfect but consensus-arrived answer to compare intelligenceThe Maxwit/Enlightened One (me):>it quantifies your ability to take IQ tests.
>>16975275SAT correlates with IQ at .86. https://www.emilkirkegaard.com/p/harvard-sat-and-iq-how-much-regression-towards-the-mean?utm_source=publication-search
>>16975168fellow traumatized floppa
>>16975751
