IQ 108 - 124
Their best work level is that of most teachers, low to middle level management and military officers, substandard to fair professionals and some elected national or provincial politicians. They can learn via the typical university format of lectures and textbooks. At times they might struggle at the university level, but graduation is not difficult. Abstract, what-if hypothetical thinking begins in this group but is still superficial. Some may be aware that their hypotheses could form part of a coherent whole but cannot draw out the whole themselves. Their best reading level is editorials, magazines like Time, The Economist and Scientific American, and classical novels. Principled morality also begins in this group, i.e. they can see there are nonarbitrary principles or laws that should govern ethical behavior and thought. They can also see that these laws are social constructs and have not come down from heaven or other ultimate authority. This group makes up the moral, intellectual and practical leadership assistants of society.

>>4338532
>>4338532
>Principled morality also begins in this group, i.e. they can see there are nonarbitrary principles or laws that should govern ethical behavior and thought. They can also see that these laws are social constructs

stopped reading.

0/10

>>4338532
It was easier for you to describe the second category than the first. Get some perspective.

And then there's the bartender with a tested IQ of (I think it was) ~180.

IQ is nothing more then an indication. In reliability, i'd say it's about the same for counting cards: it's a good indication, and if you use it you probably won't be dissapointed, but it's still JUST an indication.

156 to 172

Genius. Most exceed the average postgraduate in academic competence - even professors - while still in primary school and probably knew more than their teachers from about grade four. They can and do read philosophy for pleasure well before puberty and can read at the university level before the average person can comprehend a primary reader (that is, "I see a cat"). The smarter Nobel Prize winners and most historical geniuses (people such as Einstein, Hawkins, Byron, Milton, Kant, Newton, Bertrand Russell, Ayn Rand) are to be found in this category. They are the source of virtually all of humanity's advances. A common experience with people in this category or higher is that they are not wanted - the masses (including the professional classes) find them an affront of some sort. Fortunately, they are plentiful in absolute numbers - South Africa probably has about 1 500 - so many of them do rise above the envy and hostility.

lol satire

>>4338564
awesome

>>4338564
>Ayn Rand

IQ 92 - 108
This is the average person, able to function at the level of skilled blue-collar, clerical, sales or police work. Learning varies from explicit coaching with hands on experience to study guides and textbook work with some practical experience. They should be able to deal with a high school curriculum and graduate but quite a few, even with hard work, won't do well enough to enter university. Their reasoning is proficient but pretty concrete at the level of non-essential surface details, and their reading level is, at best, news stories (not editorials), popular magazines and novels. Morality is conventional, a matter of serving the social order and tradition or doing your duty as defined by some authority like the church, a teacher, a parent or the state. This large group is the glue of society but given the wrong authority it (and the two groups below it) may do horrible things in the name of morality.
back to top

> didn't include 125-156

why

>mfw I had an IQ of 125
>mfw IQ doesn't mean shit

>mfw so much psychology bullshit

I have a mensa level IQ, tested for fun, but there's so much bullshit in these paragraphs. I found that stating your IQ is a great tool for controlling people who are easily intimidated by big numbers, though.

>Implying IQ is not simply a philosophical configuration of pseudo-meta practicalities that have and may only have a principal effect to the extremities of the Homo sapiens consciousness. Contrasting with subtle markings of human history that forbears with the ever evolving constitutionality made by societies, that are only an influx of homographic tendencies that dictate the varying mantras we call culture within the human's psyche.


Get on my level op, cradling the various levels of IQ is for pretentious schmucks who use their free time to gauge the polyester percentage count of a pair designer pants.

>>4338663
wow, that was like reading non-stop technobabble
except it was, like, psychology and sociology
let's call it psychosociobabble

IQ 124 - 140
This group forms the bulk of the better doctors, lawyers, engineers, accountants and other professionals, U.S. Presidents, CEOs of large companies and academics. This category of people and all those above them don't require assistance to learn. They can find the information and master the methods by themselves. They are capable of postgraduate work, including PhDs, but may struggle with a few subjects such as post-graduate mathematics, physics and philosophy. They usually appreciate that abstract hypotheses can be systematized and often attempt to do so (try to form theories), but for the most part they tend to miss the essentials and build systems out of superficialities. Reading philosophy and legal tracts with comprehension is possible. Morality is decidedly a matter of principles for this group but nevertheless they tend to accept established systems, rarely is the principled system a self-chosen one. These people tend to be the keepers, and transmitters, of knowledge and the higher points of any culture, but can't create it themselves. .
back to top

MOAR OP

IQ 44 - 60
Limited support becomes essential and with extended special education a maximum of Grade four could be attained by age 18. Their social and communication skills are fair but there is little self-awareness. They can function vocationally in a sheltered workshop. They need supervision in their living arrangements and cannot live independently. Their thinking does not involve much in the way of logic. Their ethical thinking is pre-moral, i.e. involves conditioning, but there is the beginning of a quid pro quo sort of morality.
back to top

This is stupid. You should feel bad.

(This is coming from someone with 130-140 IQ.)

>>4338725
you're just buttpained about your IQ bracket

(This is coming from someone with 160-170 IQ.)

IQ over 189
In all of human history only about two dozen people have been this smart. William James Sidis is one example. He lectured Harvard mathematicians on four-dimensional mathematics at age 11 and was a professor of mathematics at Rice University at age 14. He easily mastered many more languages than the then 'world record' of around 40. He would do the entire New York Times crossword in his head. Because of his eccentricities, academics and the press mercilessly hounded him. At the age of 22 he published a book discussing black holes a full 15 years before Nobel Laureate Chandrasekhar thought of them. He eventually refused to do anything academic or have anything to do with academic society. Who knows what these people think about or what they think of the rest of humanity.
back to top

>>4338729
>160-170 IQ:
Statistically, exceedingly unlikely.

>>4338723
people with ~60 IQ can get through high school if I'm not mistaken

105 IQ here.
Currently working on my Ph.D in Biochemistry.
Man, I'm so average.

>>4338736
>obvious troll is obvious

I had an IQ of 140+ back when I was in middle-school. I have a somewhat bad case of spatial dysgraphia and they had to check whether I'm "normal", otherwise I would probably never even take the silly test. I had to redo it in high-school and my score actually went down, which in itself was pretty lulz-worthy. I'm fairly positive that the only change that actually occurred was that the answers to open-ended questions differed, the logical puzzles and whatnot were as easy as they were previously.

Also the psychologist that was taking me through the test in both cases didn't seem particularly clever to be honest.

Now who was clever, was my old friend George - we went to the same schools and he had a hard time with most of the courses. Social reject as well (acted strange to most people at times), had trouble communicating with the rest of his peers. But holy shit was that fucker SMART when it came to physics and chemistry. I haven't heard about him in fucking years, but I wouldn't be surprised if he ended up working in some lab making shitloads of money every year. If he'd take an IQ test, they'd probably classify him as a "retard".

Whereas I had a score that would indicate I'd become the goddamn overlord in the future and I ended up becoming a freelance journalists, struggling financially each month.

IQ doesn't account for shit and it's a flawed concept in general. IMHO. Also I'm willing to bet that you could easily prepare pretty much any kid to solve those tests like a boss given enough time, whereas they'd still remain on the same "intelligence level".

All IQ tests availible you can STUDY for. That lumps it into the same category as everything else; a test of a certain aspect, or aspects, of one's intelligence - NOT as a true indication of intelligence. You might not be able to pick out paterns, or imagine objects in your head to manipulate them, or see further then one step ahead in chess. Congrats, according to conventional IQ tests, you should pump gas for life, even though you may have a 3.8 in physics or something.

IQ is bullshit, it was made off a broken set of ideals, and has only ever expanded from those flawed foundations.

Not dissing psychology and whatnot. Psychology, when it actually boils down to it, follows the same rules as every other true science. You find something neat, or boring even, and you propose a hypothesis as to why it works that way. You test it, and examine the evidence. It is either falsified or verified by the evidence, or if neither, is deemed in some varying degree of "inconclusive," usually with the more credible accounts ending up as theory, such as Darwin's theory of evolution. Is it alot easier then doing Vector Calculus? Fuck yes, it's an easy science, but that does not instantly mean it's less creditable. Biology is an easy science (if you can memorize entire multi-volume textbooks in a short time span, at least), but it's word is law... And. Uh.

And I'm horribly off topic now, aren't I?

>>4338739
>not having the 4chan troll-detection and deletion add-on for firefox
>2011

IQ 76 - 92
Life is tough at this level. Anything other than unskilled labor is a trial, though simple semi-skilled work is possible. Learning is slow, simple and needs to be supervised closely to be effective. With application they may graduate from primary school but will nevertheless flounder quite badly in high school. Their reasoning is very superficial and concrete and they cannot see the essential form inherent in many examples of similar things. Most will never be functionally literate and the rest will not understand anything more complex than a popular magazine. It has been estimated that people in this category commit about 75% of all petty and violent crimes. Morality is very much of a primitive conventional sort, i.e. the good is whatever pleases himself or significant others and the bad is anything that displeases them. The vast majority of serious social problems are associated with people in this category because there are so many of them statistically.

>>4338715


IQ 140 - 155
Most professional mathematicians, physicists, philosophers and high court judges or very senior counsel, can be found in this group. They are autodidacts par excellence. Highly regarded original academic work rarely occurs with lower IQs. Some in this group exceed the average university student in academic competence while still in primary school. They garner most academic honors like Phi Beta Kappa election, Rhodes scholarships, math Olympiads, etc. Many Nobel laureates and some historical geniuses, like Sartre, are also to be found here. Their reasoning powers are sufficient to enable them to build intellectual systems (theories) out of the essential features (not superficialities) of a situation. They can read anything and probably read philosophy for pleasure. Morality is now a matter of self-chosen ethical principles held to a standard of logical consistency. People in this category make up the society's intellectual leaders. Most original ideas start with these people, however their contribution tends to be in bits and pieces rather than a whole new system or new way of seeing things.

MOOOOOOOOOOOOAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

Between 12 and 28: profound retardation. Once known as "idiots", this group are without understanding or ordinary mental capacity. Need constant care and supervision. An IQ of 20 is the beginning of a semblance of humanity - cats are at this level.

>>4338747
not cool, man.
my IQ is 95 (although i was tested a while ago, but still right after i got my BS).
I design microprocessors for a living.
think i posted about this before.

So, what exactly is the point of this thread?

>>4338761

lmaoFUCKINGTARD1!!1! detected

>>4338748

Thank you for glorifying my IQ. I feel good now.

no sauce on any of this garbage?
kthx.

>>4338751

that was all.

>>4338748
Logical consistency doesn't count for shit in ethical principles. You're just talking out of your ass.

>>4338762

So that autistic children like >>4338765 can pretend that they're going to be successful in life because a highly subjective number told them so.

Their thinking does not involve much in the way of logic

>>4338776

IQ 44 - 60

thats you motherfucker,.

this is me.
They usually appreciate that abstract hypotheses can be systematized and often attempt to do so (try to form theories),

124- 140

Thread reported.

>>4338759
>12 to 28

that's borderline Lissencephaly...I mean fuck, 70 is considered non-functioning retard.

>>4338793

of course you are going to report this thread.

Their reasoning is very superficial and concrete and they cannot see the essential form inherent in many examples of similar things.

iq 80-90 at work,.

>>4338786

1) He DID point out a serious flaw in that post

2) Your method of determining your own IQ is highly flawed. I'm not wanted, must be in the 156-171 range then.

3) You will either attempt to flame me, or simply ignore my post. I forsee your attempts at neutral, academic debate ending up as thinly veiled attempts to discredit me with ad hominems or blatant insults.

>>4338801
>iq 80-90

First time I took the test, reached a score of 128
Took it routinely and achieved a score of 143
It's stupid bullshit that you can increase with practice, mostly pattern recognition.

>>4338803

will not understand anything more complex than a popular magazine
iq 80-90
you are so predictable.

>>4338811

Bro, he's just a butthurt asspie that hates you because you don't like something he likes.

interesting tidbit:
The average Gorilla has an IQ somewhere between 80 and 90.

>>4338820

That 3) point was proven with minimal effort. He laid a trap, proceded to nail a sign to it saying "THIS IS A TRAP. IT IS GODDAMN OBVIOUS, AND THIS IS A SIGN STATING THE ABOVE," and you took it. You're one of those idiots who will touch a hot pan, say "Ooouuuwwwhhh," wait a minute, and then touch it again to see if it still hurts, aren't you? Oh you're so adorable when you aren't drooling!

44-60, keep trying, you're quite amusing.

>>4338820

3) You will either attempt to flame me,

Holy shit that was easy.

>The smarter Nobel Prize winners and most historical geniuses (people like Einstein, Hawking, Byron, Milton, Kant, Newton, Russell, Rand) are to be found in this category.

More like 125-160.

You aren't well versed upon this topic.

Sage for troll anyways.

>>4338820
EXCUSE ME, SIR, COULD YOU PLEASE EXPLAIN TO ME WHY LOGICAL CONSISTENCY IS SO IMPORTANT WHEN PEOPLE WITH HIGH IQS CONSIDER SYSTEMS OF ETHICAL PRINCIPLES?

>>4338830
>>4338835
But OP is a troll. So... ?

>>4338830

actually this whole thread is the trap-.

>>4338843

Consider the following case:

On Twin Earth, a brain in a vat is at the wheel of a runaway trolley. There are only two options that the brain can take: the right side of the fork in the track or the left side of the fork. There is no way in sight of derailing or stopping the trolley and the brain is aware of this, for the brain knows trolleys. The brain is causally hooked up to the trolley such that the brain can determine the course which the trolley will take.

On the right side of the track there is a single railroad worker, Jones, who will definitely be killed if the brain steers the trolley to the right. If the railman on the right lives, he will go on to kill five men for the sake of killing them, but in doing so will inadvertently save the lives of thirty orphans (one of the five men he will kill is planning to destroy a bridge that the orphans' bus will be crossing later that night). One of the orphans that will be killed would have grown up to become a tyrant who would make good utilitarian men do bad things. Another of the orphans would grow up to become G.E.M. Anscombe, while a third would invent the pop-top can.

>>4338843

you are in troll dance mate. do the troll dance!

If the brain in the vat chooses the left side of the track, the trolley will definitely hit and kill a railman on the left side of the track, "Leftie" and will hit and destroy ten beating hearts on the track that could (and would) have been transplanted into ten patients in the local hospital that will die without donor hearts. These are the only hearts available, and the brain is aware of this, for the brain knows hearts. If the railman on the left side of the track lives, he too will kill five men, in fact the same five that the railman on the right would kill. However, "Leftie" will kill the five as an unintended consequence of saving ten men: he will inadvertently kill the five men rushing the ten hearts to the local hospital for transplantation. A further result of "Leftie's" act would be that the busload of orphans will be spared. Among the five men killed by "Leftie" are both the man responsible for putting the brain at the controls of the trolley, and the author of this example. If the ten hearts and "Leftie" are killed by the trolley, the ten prospective heart-transplant patients will die and their kidneys will be used to save the lives of twenty kidney-transplant patients, one of whom will grow up to cure cancer, and one of whom will grow up to be Hitler. There are other kidneys and dialysis machines available, however the brain does not know kidneys, and this is not a factor.

Assume that the brain's choice, whatever it turns out to be, will serve as an example to other brains-in-vats and so the effects of his decision will be amplified. Also assume that if the brain chooses the right side of the fork, an unjust war free of war crimes will ensue, while if the brain chooses the left fork, a just war fraught with war crimes will result. Furthermore, there is an intermittently active Cartesian demon deceiving the brain in such a manner that the brain is never sure if it is being deceived.

QUESTION: What should the brain do?

[ALTERNATIVE EXAMPLE: Same as above, except the brain has had a commisurotomy, and the left half of the brain is a consequentialist and the right side is an absolutist.]

>>4338527

>(people like Einstein, Hawking, Byron, Milton, Kant, Newton, Russell, Rand) are to be found in this category.

>Einstein

He never took an IQ test. Stopped reading there.

>>4338865
Left. Fucking joos.

>>4338865
It should choose one option at random.
Who the fuck is going to care? It's just a brain in a jar. It has no reason to concern itself over such shit.

>smart
>read philosophy for pleasure
bullshit written by undergrad philosophy major detected

What about Obama

I'm fairly sure half the people in the OP never even took an IQ test , or even were alive when IQ was invented.

>using iq outside of primary school

Fortunately not everyone in the world is the product of the American education system where a number, not related to anything you have actually studied determines your absolute intellectual worth.