Welcome to Incels.is - Involuntary Celibate Forum

Welcome! This is a forum for involuntary celibates: people who lack a significant other. Are you lonely and wish you had someone in your life? You're not alone! Join our forum and talk to people just like you.

Estimate My IQ

  • Thread starter universallyabhorred
  • Start date
universallyabhorred

universallyabhorred

Banned
-
Joined
Nov 8, 2017
Posts
8,321
Based on my posts and comments where do you think I am on the intelligence scale? I have never taken an IQ test myself so I cannot confirm but I am curious as to what level of intelligence my syntax and ideas in writing convey to others.
 
About average
 
Trying to gauge IQ on only one subjective metric is low IQ.
 
Kek

Now we can see codbo2cel with clarity. His ugly mug always gives me a chuckle.
He looked better when he was blurred, this picture hurts my eyes tbh.
 
If you care about other people thinking you're smart, low IQ
 
Take a real IQ test at a facility if you are curious
 

Re: script.Parent.RTERS.Visible = true
Subjective_Anon
Join Date: 2016-03-08
Post Count: 157

#200250770Monday, October 17, 2016 6:48 PM CDT

"THERE MUST BE TWO EQUAL SIGNS"

Actually, Even That Itself Is Redundant.

All Data Excluding Nil And False Will Return As Logically True. He Can Remove Those Comparison Symbols

Estimated IQ: 147 (exceptionally gifted)
 
Based on my posts and comments where do you think I am on the intelligence scale? I have never taken an IQ test myself so I cannot confirm but I am curious as to what level of intelligence my syntax and ideas in writing convey to others.
It's possible for a person with a below average IQ to have excellent syntax. So we cannot tell by your syntax.
 
Re: [ Content Deleted ]
Subjective_Anon
Png

Join Date: 2016-03-08
Post Count: 157
#200266446Tuesday, October 18, 2016 12:06 AM CDT
Neekeri s ovat cretinish Saharan ihmisille, jotka olisi erotettava sivistyneen White kansalaisten.
 
Re: Somebody clear this up for me...
Subjective_Anon
Join Date: 2016-03-08
Post Count: 157

#200266854Tuesday, October 18, 2016 12:34 AM CDT

You Do Not Understand Sorcery Very Much, I See.

Magic Enhances Your Abilities. "Zombification" Is A Magical Transformation.

Estimated IQ: 118 (high intelligence)


If the button doesn't work, refresh the page or shorten the text and try again.
 
 
I don't seem to be able to find any studies on its accuracy rate they list 3 examples on there which seems rather dubious especially considering they are asking for 50 words and there surely must be a difference between informal and formal writing styles assuming it had any accuracy either wat there is no mention of either.
 
85-115

I don't have a large enough sample size of your posts where I've communicated with you, and the few times I have you were emotional and abrasive, which is why I've included a standard deviation of 2. There's going to be a lot of variance where my estimation is concerned.
 
You’re retarded.
 
probably 95-105imo
 
That was my first range too. Then I changed it to 90-110, and then finally to 85-115.
Without OP taking a solid test and posting his grades it is hard to give a solid estimate.
 
It's possible for a person with a below average IQ to have excellent syntax. So we cannot tell by your syntax.
This is true, however verbal IQ is highly correlated with writing quality.
 
Lower than room temperature
 
Based on my posts and comments where do you think I am on the intelligence scale? I have never taken an IQ test myself so I cannot confirm but I am curious as to what level of intelligence my syntax and ideas in writing convey to others.

if you think we could give you a meaningful estimate of your IQ based on your posts here, you probably have an IQ in the double digits
 
This is a useless tool. I think the algorithm looks at words that are technically and academically oriented, have a very low frequency of usage in everyday conversation but a high frequency of usage within intellectual works, look at the density of the words used within some given parameter (probably number of sentences), and then compare that to written works. It also obviously looks for grammar and punctuation.

It gave me a genius level IQ (true, but that's besides the point) for this old post I made, but in the context of the conversation, it's standard for anyone who is knowledgeable about the subject matter and knows the basic structure of an argument.

Kant's nuomena argues that we cannot fully know the thing in itself. This is valid, but from this you cannot make the inference and logically deny the truth of the thing in question, or that the truth of it exists in the first place, merely because of the gap between it and our perception of it. Yes, the best we can hope for is a close, best approximation, but this natural limitation does not justify disposing the concept of truth altogether in favor of trust, which is by far flimsier. If truth is limited by perception (because our biology won't allow us to cross the subjective-objective chasm), then trust is limited even further by the previous fact as well as an empirical requirement of the history of the object to which trust is assigned, which itself can be changed in the future, meaning that it's less stable (read: reliable) than truth.

High IQ people don't talk like this when they wake up in the morning, take a shit and clean up, then go have breakfast. They might talk like this at a lecture or during a debate, but from a large sample of their written and spoken communication, you won't be able to tell that someone is a genius.

Literally copy and paste everything I've written in this post up to and including this sentence (minus the quote above), and it will give you a sub 100 (98) average score.

I gained 6 points for adding the phrase "up to and including". JFL

Now copy and paste the following excerpt quote from a source I will reveal later. It gives you a laughably average score.

Among the most exciting recent developments in science are Complexity Theory, the theory of self-organizing systems, and the modern incarnation of Intelligent Design Theory, which investigates the deep relationship between self-organization and evolutionary biology in a scientific context not preemptively closed to teleological causation. Bucking the traditional physical reductionism of the hard sciences, complexity theory has given rise to a new trend, informational reductionism, which holds that the basis of reality is not matter and energy, but information. Unfortunately, this new form of reductionism is as problematic as the old one. As mathematician David Berlinski writes regarding the material and informational aspects of DNA: “We quite know what DNA is: it is a macromolecule and so a material object. We quite know what it achieves: apparently everything. Are the two sides of this equation in balance?” More generally, Berlinski observes that since the information embodied in a string of DNA or protein cannot affect the material dynamic of reality without being read by a material transducer, information is meaningless without matter.

This tool is fun to use and is interesting from a project perspective, but you would be absolutely retarded to take it seriously as a tool to measure IQ.
 
Between 20 and 200.
 

Similar threads

tesseract4444
Replies
10
Views
133
tesseract4444
tesseract4444
Verilion
Replies
3
Views
184
PersonalityChad
PersonalityChad
ZaynShahar
Replies
1
Views
128
Moroccancel
Moroccancel
SubhumanGamer
Replies
12
Views
237
SubhumanGamer
SubhumanGamer

Users who are viewing this thread

shape1
shape2
shape3
shape4
shape5
shape6
Back
Top