I have the average IQ of a PHD computer science student and the average IQ of a non beginer linux distro user (which...

I have the average IQ of a PHD computer science student and the average IQ of a non beginer linux distro user (which both correlates because is the same people).

Average IQ in colombia is 84.

Attached: Cta3a_OXgAEOroQ.jpg (1920x1540, 213.94K)

I have the average IQ of a duck
life is ok

>IQ
imagine believing in this bullshit

Attached: dog-iq.png (450x449, 36.31K)

if youre so smart then how come you and your family still live in a corrugated steel shack with exposed red brick walls in your room?

is the most reliable fact on psychology with 100 years of research and predictive value in the entire field.

May as well throw the rest of psychology into the dust because everything else in psychology is more made up than IQ.

my mother has neptune in her money zodiac house, look up what that means.

If you believe in online IQ tests, you're way bellow your national average

IQ is defined specifically for humans based on human averages for a given age, such that an individual's IQ stays roughly fixed over their lifetime.

To apply it to another species (or anything around which the test was not originally normalized) is ridiculous. For dogs, you need a version of the test that they can actually do, so the version that is for infants, say, but then a dog's brain matures much earlier than a human's so they would score higher on that test earlier than a human infant, then their mental age wouldn't change, whereas for humans the infant test would quickly be unsuitable.

Or you could simply devise an IQ test just for dogs, but then the average score by definition is 100 (or whatever you set it to be, but whatever the number is it just means "average").

I did an IQ test at a psychologist when i was doing my aspergers testing, the test were with a bunch of blocks, and traditional pattern things, and word symmetry question, some head mathematics, symbol matching etc and got a total score of 121

Can i trust that do you think?

IQ is based on pattern recognition, a literal monkey can do that, kys.

You don't know what you're talking about. IQ isn't real science. Not one piece of it as has changed since its inception, despite the revolutions we've had in neuroscience and cognitive neurosciene. Psychometrics is based on social science data and correlations. It's literally no different than any other psychology study that's released, or any other social science.

>Mfw the IQ of a "cien años de soledad" reader

>a PHD computer science student
What's your favorite programming socks?

Attached: 56a.jpg (510x278, 35.87K)

IQ is one of the longest-endured tools in psychometrics, but it has gone through significant changes in its history. I don't know how you can call it the "most reliable" or "predictive" in the field since there are so many other psychometrics used that actually have predictive power in terms of therapeutics, etiology, or even just more consistency. You could just start with the basic clinical neurophysical exam (or any individual test within), which gives immediate differential diagnosis for multiple illnesses. Measuring IQ takes much longer and gives very little useful clinical information.

so you have the iq of an average columbian

Which one should i get to get better at software engineering, data science and cloud computing?

Amazing how you seemed to contradict yourself with every single sentence.

my iq depends on caffeine saturation in my blood

Attached: 1648544612535.gif (755x708, 1.04M)

And surely a high IQ individual like you could explain where.

Not a programmer but afaik pink-white is the golden standard.

Attached: fdd.jpg (1013x753, 132.77K)

In reality IQ is not intelligence on it's scientific definition.

It also doesn't matter what test you make.
most IQ test are simply standarized now after 100 years.

But take any cognitive task, it doesn't matter what task is, then take a bunch of random people from the population, and assign some score based on the performance of the test (again, the subject of the test is irrelevant, any cognitive task is good enough).

Then simply rank people based on this score.

That's pretty much scientifically what IQ is.
IQ is not your inteligence levels.

It simply happens that all people with higher IQ will score the same and be at the top on any cognitive test you can imagine, and they simply be higher than any dumber person.

It simply happens that your IQ score will basically predict what rank will you be on a random sample of the population that took the test.

Doesn't matter what test you use.

Hell, you could use something as basic as your wealth and income by the age you're 40, group people into income tiers, and that will also be a valid form of IQ test.

Most people will also tend to have the same IQ level of their own economic class, so homeless and poor people will score less than 85 points and millionaires will be around 130 and billionaires be around 140 IQ.

You could basically by now predict a kid in school his levels of education and income and wealth by the time he's 40 by looking at his IQ levels.
Because jobs and income brackets tend to have stable IQ ranges of their populations.

Also, you could use something as basic as your level of vocabulary and fluency and longitude and what range of words you use on a frequency ranking, and that will also equally and easily correlate to your IQ levels.
Dumber people speaks in shorter, easier, simpler and more childlike.
Smarter people tend to build more complex sentences and use more niche and obscure words.

Again, feel free to debate me with scientific arguments.

Attached: _91408619_55df76d5-2245-41c1-8031-07a4da3f313f.jpg (976x850, 57.91K)

>IQ isn't real science.
>Not one piece of it as has changed since its inception, despite the revolutions we've had in neuroscience and cognitive neurosciene.
>Psychometrics is based on social science data and correlations.
So IQ, a psychometric, is scientific? And since it's based on (current) data it must have changed since its inception.
>It's literally no different than any other psychology study that's released, or any other social science.
So again, you're saying it's no different than current science?

Yes, you can correlate one metric to another metric. You can do this with any two metrics, and find a correlation. What makes a metric useful or descriptive is how good that correlation is, whether it is consistent, and how predictive it is.

So for example A can correlate very highly to B but be only weakly predictive, therefore A may not be a good metric to describe B.