Okay guys, spending time arguing about a dead game is far from our desires on Christmas. Let's all take a step back!

This post was edited by coLstory on Dec 26 2013 07:55am

I like those gifs.

you are right about him being an idiot but iq does matter alot. The likes of gauss wasn't about them being tryhards but born geniuses

This post was edited by ownyaah on Dec 26 2013 12:04pm

I.Q. is not a good measure of intelligence. I will never deny that intelligence matters.

Ur hurting ownyaahs feels doh

except it is, sure it isn't perfect but it is a good form of measurement. The studies that usually say it isn't so necessarily are based of statistics between academic achievement, economic success, even greater health, and longevity and the coleration of I.Q. in which case it isn't surprising that it can be a bit flawed. Look at any great mathematician gauss, archimedes, euler, lagrange, abel, fermat they all had i.qs above 160 (look at gauss, although there is no source im pretty sure his iq is one of the highest that ever existed (many estimate it to be above 200) since some of these guys are quite a bit old sources for their exact iq are a bit sketchy but you can always check the topend mathemathicians of today

just look at the iq bell curve for the both sexes and see how well it fits society despite other factors being important (motivation bla bla)

This post was edited by ownyaah on Dec 26 2013 01:47pm

I'm a fuckin' idiot.

The I.Q. test is a highly subjective and Western-biased metric. The way the questions are phrased and the types of questions asked ignore a lot of different learning types and alternative cognitive processes (which can cause low scores in highly intelligent children).

Also, the Binet-Simpson test didn't exist until 1905, well after Gauss, Archimedes, Euler, Lagrange, Abel and Fermat died. So none of these guys have an I.Q. score as they have never been tested.

Testing the fundamentals in which intelligence derives from is what an I.Q test tries to do surely it won't be perfect. Just look at any test, everything conceivable isn't asked. As you said the way questions are phrased and the types of questions do matter, but that doesn't make it useless there still is alot of merit to it. It is no surprise that someone mentally retarded scores below 70, are you saying if the questions asked differently the retard would suddenly score as high as a genious? It might be a score some points incorrect but not that much. What I mean is you are correct in saying it isn't perfect but to dismiss it entirely is bs.

Yea the bionet test didn't exist most of their iq's are estimations and speculations, but have a look at some decent mathematicians of today it won't surprise you that they are all well above 140iq+ (1%)

This post was edited by ownyaah on Dec 26 2013 02:28pm

I.Q. is correlated with intelligence. It would be a worthless test if it wasn't. It has some merit but using it as a standard for intelligence is out-dated by 15 or so years. That doesn't stop us from using it, of course, but saying you have a high I.Q. indicates nothing more than that you performed well on an I.Q. test.