I don't think IQ tests truthfully test intelligence(pure skill), they moreover test certain skill-sets. To test pure skill of someone requires a natural 'not', to be made a natural 'is', such as life which has a intelligence test associated with it called survival, a not, which requires a certain answer to make an 'is'. I don't think IQ tests resemble a 'not', but rather contain an 'is' to be confirmed as is. To create an IQ test, it needs to be a legitimate 'not'.
Dualism is low IQ.
>the shit low-IQs will come up with to deny the implications of their low IQs
>>16980864You're fucking dumb.
IQ measures the most standard form of intelligence, one based on memorization and speed of assessment. Comprehension. That’s it. It won’t favor the more ponderous or those prone to adhd.
>>16980905>the shit low-IQs will come up with to deny the implications of their low IQs
>>16980905What the fuck are you even saying you nutjob?How is speed of answering to pattern recognition question 'pure skill'? How isn't pure skill addressed by a literal 'not'?
You have no mind. No understanding of it.This sentence has a frame where it can be treated as a 'not'.Pure skill related 'not', feeds the mind.You don't know what intelligence is, clearly. I know it's pure skill. If an intelligence test only tests one or two skills, usually solely pattern recognition, it's not legitimate. You need to choose things like, do I climb this fence? Should I trust this outlet? Is this a fitting pattern? What should I take, this or that? There's a lot more skills required to truthfully test intelligence, and that's done simply by creating a legitimate 'not'.
You can create a legitimate test if you knew of a brain tracking, and brain reactive technology. Your techs too simple to test brains.
Look at you.You purport testing brains, with 100 or so quiz questions.
>>16980907>>16980910Do you even know what an IQ test looks like? I don’t think you do.
>>16980789>>16980902>>16980910>>16980912>>16980915>>16980917Why are you having a mental breakdown
>>16980918What intellectual feats have low-IQ people with your "non-standard" form of intelligence accomplished?
>>16980921You still think risky rocket flight is the proper way to send people to space, haven't thought of anything new. That's the top of your intelligence. Risking life every time you do a manned missionAll these people in history, such as people who developed flight, is solely human-kinds 'original' discovery, it's probably not at all new. It was not brand new to nature. So, with their borrowed idea, how did they do something crazily intellectual that it deserves immediate recognition? You seem to purport this sort of amazing mind. I think there's too much baggage with them to be fair, you have to think it's their idea, you have to embellish them in history, and all this other stuff. Where survivals concerned you think, in fairness, weak manner, that we need another planet, rather than making work on Earth. Earth was sturdy enough, but the same people who you think deserve recognition made it spiral out of control. Looks like late-humanity was stupid after all.Nah, you're dumb. Highest intelligence has us stumped at rocket flight.
Because you think IQ tests as they presently are, test intelligence, I automatically lose all respect for you, and believe you are the worst kind of dunce(with some element of power).
>>16980789You are right in the sense that IQ and real life success are two different things and also that real life success implies real life skills which then obviously is something different (but with probably some overlaps) than IQ. Thats why cats are pretty adapted even if they arent the smartest to give one example. World average IQ currently falls so clearly high IQ people struggle in the current environment.
New ideas scare your mind. You think human tech is true scarcity. Hence rocket flight, still.
>>16980935What sort of mind only revels in other past successes? A failing mind.
>>16980933You Hella Dumb.Didn't take note of what you said.It will all become clear one day.
>>16980939wtf u talking about
>>16980939btw Im high IQ and I have strong legs so you better watch what you say next Garon
>>16980789This is mostly gibberish. Probably AI.
You're honestly shit. Please let go of mind. Try rock life next.
>>16980948I suppose you think highly of your tech, and think, literally, you have created an intelligence test using it. It's a step in the right direction, but you definitely have no thought it through, it's time to think again.
>>16980950Your right on that at least.
>>16980921Just admit that Einstein’s iq would be a lot higher than what an actual iq test would have shown. The man couldn’t focus for shit. His iq would be higher than any iq test could show. Some processing is just a chaotic mess. This is why he forgot where he was going when he went in trains. He could not stop thinking about physics.
>>16980964Ok. But what intellectual feats have low-IQ people with your "non-standard" form of intelligence accomplished?
>>16980789It's a great measurement of aptitude for logical problem-solving. But as soon as most high-IQ STEM people start discussing spiritual matters or what to do with their facts and measurements or the various nuances of human experience they sound even more retarded than the low-IQ; there's some former MIT neurosurgeon with a large YouTube following who can't discuss ethics, politics, psychology, or metaphysics for two minutes without contradicting himself
>>16981118Name the spiritual and philosophical accomplishments of low IQs.
>>16981124Living more humbly and sustainably
>>16982155Monkeys, chimpanzees, and apes do this
>>16980789>such as life which has a intelligence test associated with it called survival, aIQ tests strongly correlate with capacity to do labor in organizations. Content taught in schools does too.Is it knowing the next geometrical figure in the sequence pure intelligence? It gets you good grades.
>>16982251-farts on you-
>>16982199Exactly. The high-IQ are truly barbaric
>>16980964>Einstein’s iq would be a lot higher than what an actual iq test would have shownIQ isn't good at gauging genius and no one pretends otherwise. When you get in the freaky extremes of intelligence, IQ loses accuracy.
>>16982695>accuracy.Accuracy of what dumbass. Like you have some secret ultra-accurate test to measure this man-made fake object and you can use it to test how good normie tests are?
