07-1-2009, 03:42 PM | #221 |
AKA Yotipo
|
Re: IQ
So when's Omnipwn Tricore?
|
07-1-2009, 03:43 PM | #222 |
Zageron E. Tazaterra
RRR Developer & DevOps Support
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: BC
Age: 32
Posts: 6,587
|
Re: IQ
First time I took the test I got 134.
I took this test again and got 126. The last 4 questions are REALLY confusing. x.x
__________________
|
07-1-2009, 04:49 PM | #223 | |
FFR Player
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The 10th Dimension
Posts: 852
|
Re: IQ
Quote:
We should probably start talking about IQ again anyway, so here are some more tests from Reach: http://webs.ono.com/iqtests/
__________________
Reverse for life!
^Way better than 25thhour's link. You know you want to sign up. The best noteskin ever: Skittles Are you having trouble syncing your files? Use DDReamStudio. |
|
07-1-2009, 05:27 PM | #224 | |
FFR Player
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 788
|
Re: IQ
Quote:
You are probably considering the theist conception of God. Well, I am a deist. God doesn't have to "do" anything, if the physical laws are the way they are, they are supposed to work by themselves. The human problems are supposed to be solved by the humans. I believe in god simply because I think everything is too intelligent, and because I have logical proof that my mind is not going to disappear, but it would be insanely frustrating to try to show it in this forum. Anyway, I don't believe in any dogmas, I just believe in an intelligence.
__________________
jnbidevniuhyb scores: Nomina Nuda Tenemus 1-0-0-0, Anti-Ares 1-0-0-0 Best AAA: Frictional Nevada (Done while FFR was out, so it doesn't show in my level stats) Resting. I might restart playing FFR seriously someday. |
|
07-1-2009, 05:34 PM | #225 | |
FFR Player
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: New York City, New York
Posts: 8,340
|
Re: IQ
Quote:
In my opinion I feel like we do not need a God to explain anything.
__________________
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0es0Mip1jWY |
|
07-1-2009, 06:03 PM | #226 | |||
FFR Simfile Author
|
Re: IQ
Quote:
Obviously I still recommend the Mensa Denmark test I posted on the first page, and the TRI52 for those that scored high on the first test. Alternatively, for those that cracked the TRI52 or simply want to try an excruciatingly hard test they're guaranteed not to hit the ceiling of, try : http://www.eskimo.com/~miyaguch/titan.html Such tests are fairly experimental, as measuring IQ above the range of 160 is very hard to do, but at least this one is normalized properly. Quote:
Quote:
The statistics that I provide are from reports from people anonymously in private, not in public. Asking someone to report how they feel about themselves intellectually in private will yield different results from asking in public, as public displays are subject to social pressures. People are much less likely to tell you what they really think under public scrutiny - rather, they're more likely to tell you what you want to hear.
__________________
Last edited by Reach; 07-1-2009 at 06:06 PM.. |
|||
07-1-2009, 09:12 PM | #227 |
FFR Player
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The 10th Dimension
Posts: 852
|
Re: IQ
I just took the TRI52 and got a score of 940. I guess I might have gotten over a thousand, but I wanted to finish it reasonably quickly after I got in the forties.
I don't know if I'm doing the equation right though... 940 - 518 = 442/114 = 3.7 x 15 = 55.5 + 100 = 155.5?
__________________
Reverse for life!
^Way better than 25thhour's link. You know you want to sign up. The best noteskin ever: Skittles Are you having trouble syncing your files? Use DDReamStudio. |
07-1-2009, 09:20 PM | #228 |
Forum User
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Houston
Age: 19
Posts: 2,965
|
Re: IQ
128.
|
07-1-2009, 09:21 PM | #229 |
FFR Player
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The 10th Dimension
Posts: 852
|
Re: IQ
That sounds much more reasonable. Will you show me how to calculate it? I just copied what Reach did.
__________________
Reverse for life!
^Way better than 25thhour's link. You know you want to sign up. The best noteskin ever: Skittles Are you having trouble syncing your files? Use DDReamStudio. |
07-1-2009, 09:24 PM | #230 | |
Forum User
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Houston
Age: 19
Posts: 2,965
|
Re: IQ
Quote:
No calculation. Just bawls. |
|
07-1-2009, 09:28 PM | #231 |
FFR Player
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The 10th Dimension
Posts: 852
|
Re: IQ
Oh, sorry for the misunderstanding.
__________________
Reverse for life!
^Way better than 25thhour's link. You know you want to sign up. The best noteskin ever: Skittles Are you having trouble syncing your files? Use DDReamStudio. |
07-1-2009, 09:29 PM | #232 |
Forum User
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Houston
Age: 19
Posts: 2,965
|
Re: IQ
No problem, bro. I'll read the entire thread next time to keep up with the - uh - what is this?
|
07-1-2009, 09:44 PM | #233 |
FFR Player
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The 10th Dimension
Posts: 852
|
Re: IQ
IQ scores, of course. I just needed someone who knew how to calculate my score.
__________________
Reverse for life!
^Way better than 25thhour's link. You know you want to sign up. The best noteskin ever: Skittles Are you having trouble syncing your files? Use DDReamStudio. |
07-1-2009, 09:54 PM | #234 |
Forum User
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Houston
Age: 19
Posts: 2,965
|
Re: IQ
IQ =mental age x 100/ actual age.
|
07-1-2009, 11:12 PM | #235 | |
FFR Simfile Author
|
Re: IQ
Quote:
But yeah, that's correct. Explanation: Your score - Mean score = Difference from the mean / Standard Deviation = # of standard deviations above the mean x Standard deviation of IQ = Points above mean IQ + Mean IQ = IQ This is how all deviation IQ scores are calculated, i.e. IQs of individuals over the age of 16. (Mental Age / Chronological age) x 100 -> applies only to 'children', or people under the age of 16. The reason two difference scales are used is because up until around the age of 16, intelligence increases with age. By figuring out a childs mental age, you can know how smart the child is for his/her age. However, after the age of 16 intelligence begins to plateau and doesn't get higher, so it's fair to compare the individual to the whole of the population and say how much smarter the person is compared to the average person. (After the age of 16, IQ goes up slightly with age on tests of crystallized intelligence, but not fluid...i.e. scores on vocabulary or general knowledge would increase very slowly over time, but not scores on the TRI52. Actually, scores tend to decrease on fluid tasks with old age.)
__________________
Last edited by Reach; 07-1-2009 at 11:20 PM.. |
|
07-2-2009, 01:16 AM | #236 | |
FFR Player
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: it's a mystery oooo
Posts: 3,221
|
Re: IQ
Quote:
|
|
07-2-2009, 02:30 AM | #237 |
FFR Player
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 177
|
Re: IQ
quick question.. That test is a bit off compared to the real I.Q right Reach?
I scored 134 on that test but I scored a 123 on the real one last year.
__________________
D3 Round 1 - {Red Alert} - (1-0-0-0) Round 2 - Wrath - (AAA) Round 3 - Radius ~Hacker No Yabou~ (AAA) Round 4 Round 5 - Round 6 - Round 7 - Round 8 - |
07-2-2009, 06:36 AM | #238 | |
FFR Player
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 788
|
Re: IQ
Quote:
Like I said, the "intelligent design" is not the only reason why I believe in an intelligence. Well, I do believe in natural selection, but I really don't think it explains everything. There are things that I would consider too much of a coincidence to exist, and natural selection explains only the fact that they will continue existing, but not the fact that they appeared. Forcing natural selection to explain everything is plausible, but it's like saying that a song or a complex machine would appear randomly in a world. It's just easier to assume that an intelligent being, like a human, did it. The way organs interact, with hormones, always with exactly what they need. The way muscles, bones, nerves and veins are connected. The fact that you have chlorhydric acid in your stomach, and is, luckily, protected against it, and also use it for digestion. The fact that the only chromosome that is different in both sexes is responsible for making those two sexes a perfect match, and how luckily nature makes these two sexes attract each other(most of times), and the only organs in both sexes that make cells with meiosis is connected to genital organs. Also, did you know that the complexity of the eye even made Darwin question some of his studies? Of course, natural selection is more acceptable than the conception of god he was used to. I know that doesn't prove anything, but I do consider it intelligent. Forcing randomness to explain everything is just too much, in my opinion. The question is: why do you think it's more plausible than God? Do you require a material proof to believe in God? Well, that's impossible. If God created physical laws, he is not subjected to them.
__________________
jnbidevniuhyb scores: Nomina Nuda Tenemus 1-0-0-0, Anti-Ares 1-0-0-0 Best AAA: Frictional Nevada (Done while FFR was out, so it doesn't show in my level stats) Resting. I might restart playing FFR seriously someday. Last edited by mhss1992; 07-2-2009 at 06:45 AM.. |
|
07-2-2009, 06:54 AM | #239 |
FFR Player
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: New York City, New York
Posts: 8,340
|
Re: IQ
Disclaimer: Just my opinion
I can fire the same question back: Who made God, then? Atheists may not know where the universe came from, but technically, we'd argue that religious types technically have no better answer. Some do believe the universe came out of nothing, and asking what came before it is nonsensical, as it was the beginning of time (I believe it was Hawking who said "It's like asking what's south of the South Pole"). I am personally very uncertain about the origins of time since it ties into so many different theories that are, at this point, still just theories. Regardless, though: Complex systems can still come about naturally. Contrary to popular belief, it's all a very NON-random process. For example, consider this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lEKyqIJkuDQ This as well: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rUOpa...eature=related Besides, you'll notice that there are TONS of different creatures that all have different types of sensory input methods / eyes that function very differently from our own. I can write a genetic algorithm to achieve an optimal solution given enough time merely by *doing nothing else* but selecting for slight changes in various individuals of that population over time based on fitness metrics. I can create complex solutions naturally. It's easier to assume, in my opinion, that a being "just made it," but I personally find it very implausible when we have so much evidence for complex systems being possible without the need for a creator. It's easier to say "God makes lightning when he's angry" too, but that doesn't mean the truth can't be understood with a little more observation. It may seem "like a coincidence" that all these things exist in us and work in perfect harmony, but really that should be an indicator, if anything, that we're the result of necessary conditions. If those things did not work together in perfect harmony, you would not be here. In our universe we have countless planets and systems, and only a few are suitable for life like ours, and so just because we happen to be a successful case doesn't mean we had to be designed.
__________________
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0es0Mip1jWY Last edited by MrRubix; 07-2-2009 at 07:04 AM.. |
07-2-2009, 07:41 AM | #240 |
FFR Player
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: New York City, New York
Posts: 8,340
|
Re: IQ
Sorry, forgot to address your last points there.
"I know that doesn't prove anything, but I do consider it intelligent. Forcing randomness to explain everything is just too much, in my opinion. The question is: why do you think it's more plausible than God? Do you require a material proof to believe in God? Well, that's impossible. If God created physical laws, he is not subjected to them." I believe we do not need a God because, again, we can explain everything without the need for one. Why add in a variable we don't need? Instead of just throwing up our arms and saying "God did it," I believe it is better to say "We don't know yet." And perhaps we may never know the explanation for something. That doesn't mean I can't respect another's belief in a God, because the possibility is always there. I just don't think we can know for sure either way, but what I do know is that science continues to pile on heaps and heaps of evidence indicating that there probably isn't one. Also, it's important to note that many religions are indeed soothing. They can be good for leading a good life. But, I think it's a function of a human need to attach meaning to things. I personally believe there is no objective "meaning" or purpose to life, and any meaning we derive is a result of our physical ability to interpret and feel utility by finding significance and insignificance in various things (to what extent does a dog create meaning? A cockroach? A bacterium?). It would be nice to think that we have a soul, an afterlife, or even a chance at reincarnation. However soothing these thoughts may be, I can't find them to be plausible. We're still physical creatures. It would be like me believing my computer has a soul. If I break Computer A into pieces, there's no reason for me to believe that it has some kind of "essence" that transfers into a newly-built Computer B. Computer B is Computer B merely because Computer B is a result of the components that compose it! I may be a sentient being with a brain, personality, and thought process, but it doesn't mean I am exempt from this basic physical constraint. I believe when we die, we die. We return to the same kind of "nonmemory-nonexistence" we "experienced" before we were born. Death, in my opinion, is the same as that period -- feeling nothing, thinking nothing, doing nothing, experiencing nothing. It's really depressing, but I have many reasons to believe that this is the case. I have a massive fear of death. Even though I know I won't care (since I'll be unable to) once I die, I'm able to think and feel NOW. And I love life too much to leave it. It's one of the reasons I believe we really need to make this life count. Only one shot -- it's a really marvelous gift. The luxuries of looking at your computer screen right now... or simply turning your head to look out a window and see a bird flapping against a blue sky... are not things I think you can enjoy forever. I still "talk" to my father sometimes even though he has passed, although I think it's more of a comfort mechanism to simply get my thoughts out into words, since I really do believe he cannot hear me. Anyways, getting offtrack there -- addressing your last question about God, I think that's just another form of "easy out." It's easy to say, for instance, "God made everything and isn't subjected to his own laws." What if I have evidence against a God? "Oh, well God works in mysterious ways." Who made God? "Oh, God doesn't need a creator." If he didn't need a creator, then when did time begin? "Oh, God is outside of time." None of these common responses actually explain anything and are just filler. Evidence is meant to help make or break a hypothesis -- you don't insist the hypothesis is true and continue to bend the evidence around until you get something you want. This is also a very dangerous practice in statistics :P Anyways, I know this is way off topic for a subject of IQ, but it's always fun to discuss.
__________________
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0es0Mip1jWY Last edited by MrRubix; 07-2-2009 at 07:46 AM.. |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|