Based off my IQ scores, should I kms? Unironically
even in canada they don't prescribe maid for these average values
>>17003457no, why would you?
>>17003502because he's average
>>17003457I can already tell this profile is fake look at the MR it is supposed to be the highest sub test as it is g retard fucking fraud your FSIQ is prob 50 gtfo
>>17003553I can tell you are dumber than me with that reply.
>>17003457high verbal IQ means you are smart.The otherrs are low because the schooling system has not taught you to apply yourself.You can improve them with actual work, especially because of the high score on verbal IQ
>>17003457Kek classic effeminate wordcel
>>17003542Most people are.
If you need a number to quantify your intelligence, you failed at demonstrating intelligence. It's entirely masturbatory mental dick measuring.
>>17003609I'm smarter than everyone on this board you fucking retarded shitfag fuck tard ass hat
>>17003457What's your FSIQ and confidence-interval? Are your scores regressed to the mean (lower error, more similar to your true score)? What breeding-group (population or mix) are you from?>>17003553Verbal IQ is usually more g-loaded.>>17003638Yes, high IQ (and autistic) people are more environmentally sensitive.Also, higher-IQ people are less reliant on g, because g allows them to acquire domain specific knowledge.>>17003952Verbal-tilt is correlated with left-wing beliefs.>>17003967No, they aren't. If the average is scoring 100, then 5.32% will score between 99 and 101 (this assumes scores are rounded to the nearest integer). That's quite exceptional, though not excellent.
>>17003970/threadIQ tests were first made to filter out retards, and it turns out it still does(yes I do have a high IQ)
>>17003970While most normies do understand a simple number, they don't understand demonstrations of intelligence.Ironically, they do not understand the meaning of a statistical distribution any more.Doubly so, as IQ only confirms they stand right in the norm, which should make them relieved it fits their own identity.Yet they get irate every time IQ is mentioned.
>>17003457Is your FSIQ ~104.8?>>17003970>If you need a number to quantify your intelligence, you failed at demonstrating intelligence.So you're anti-quanification of variables? Or is this just an inconsistent principle that you only hold for IQ? Did you score poorly in a random online test? Are you just a radical egalitarian?>>17004402>yes I do have a high IQYou're disproving yourself by being unable to resist the temptation of calling yourself smart. It seems like every radical egalitarian does this (not that I'm accusing you of being one. You very well could just have autism about IQ in particular).
>>17003457i basically got the same results as you on the test i did when i was 12 except i got 143 verbal IQ and 126 perceptual reasoning indexwhat means?
