https://www.writingtoiq.com/ is legit

[Anonymous No.15904970]

I've to come around to the idea that the IQ estimator AI at https://www.writingtoiq.com/ is a lot more nuanced, powerful and accurate than it's critics have tried to lead us to believe. It seems to be a lot more than just an average word length calculator or an idiom obscurity analyzer, writingtoiq, appears to be capable of legitimately detecting IQ, or lack thereof. The reason I got this impression is because on many occasions I've witnessed the software accurately denigrate the intelligence of longwinded posts on /sci/ that were full of lengthy polysyllables, but poorly reasoned. It is as if writingtoiq is able to detect when genuine stupidity is being masked by fancy vocabulary.
Has anyone else here investigated this topic and come to similar conclusions?

[Anonymous No.15905453]

>>15904970
https://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/18ajgsx/comment/kc1qg22/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3

Tried it with this comment. Seems to be exactly right.

[Anonymous No.15905470]

>>15905453
I've tried several experiments with writingtoIQ that pretty much proves its not just a simple piece of software.
For example take any long enough post, get it's IQ rating and then break it up into smaller parts and get the IQ score for each part, if you do that you'll find that the average score of the smaller parts is not the same as the overall IQ score of the post. So the software is doing something a lot more complex than just scoring individual words by their character count or rarity, it must be analyzing the continuity and complexity of the entire posts including how the first statement relates to the final one and those inbetween

[Anonymous No.15905598]

I’ve been playing around with it and some writing of IQ 111 jumped to 147 when I randomly inserted “it unsettling and dimly sinister” after a sentence. Typing nonsense can even give a high IQ score, so the model definitely sucks.

[Anonymous No.15905603]

Try this actually, I get 150

“ Reality is not just palpable, but it unsettling and dimly sinister. I fixate on how horrific the human form really is, with those clammy eyes and polytropic those putrid teeth—think of how existentially horrific a set of teeth would be if the brain weren’t adapted to see them with familiarity. Stephen Hawking once said, to contemplate the soul of perception is to untie the knots of divine intuition. But one question remains: how do we navigate such wall-bound gas? The concrete form of this argument reduces plainly; simply uppose we are instilled with a particular collection of distinguishable theories.”

[Anonymous No.15905634]

>>15905598
Any model designed to judge random samples of properly formatted text will fail when it's asked to judge gibberish. Garbage in, garbage out.

[Anonymous No.15905658]

sure buddy

[Anonymous No.15905746]

>>15905658
you're only making an effort to try and discredit the software because it triggers an emotional reaction in you, it probably ranked your earnest writing as low IQ, so now you're upset at it.

[Anonymous No.15905750]

>>15905746
it's bullshit because it can be used to discredit ideas and promote others, selectively, depending on how the slot machine rolls.
it's always useful for whoever is weaponizing it in the discussion, and completely useless to get anything objective out of it.
hence, it's just a retarded political approach, and it's not a coincidence that it's used mostly by /pol/tards.

[Anonymous No.15905760]

>>15905750
>reeeee /pol/ is out to get me because i got a low IQ score
grow up.
why do you presume you're entitled to flatteringly high IQ scores to begin with? have you ever accomplished anything that supports your presumption that you're unusually intelligent? or are you just a basic bitch narcissist?

[Anonymous No.15905772]

>>15905760
shot in the dark and it landed kek.
there's literally no reason to sell that bullshit estimator, other than getting the power to use it to attack or promote certain ideas, for which you'd have no fucking argument, or you'd massively embarrass yourself best case scenario.
it's like freely accepting getting cucked by a faggot with no skills. just because le cool estimator haha. are you really that out of fucking ideas and skill?

[Anonymous No.15905795]

>>15905772
nice 93 IQ post, before you continue congratulating yourself on your imaginary super intelligence I should inform that you I don't post on /pol/ and barely even bother looking at the board, I am however a former denizen of 4chon.net and a ex/n/ewsman

[Anonymous No.15905800]

>>15905795
told you you'd wait until the slot machine gives you something usable and you won't ever not do it. that's the whole point, have something instead of basically nothing.
such as in this case, you failed to make an argument but used that estimator as a placekeeper.
accepting your bullshit "app" has no benefit for me, or for any discussion on /sci/. it only exposes us to fucking bullshit, for no reason whatsoever.
it's like you asking to get a bit of control over our discussions, for like...free, just because it's funny haha.
do you see how retarded that is? or do you understand that we understand what you are trying to do, anon?

[Anonymous No.15905819]

>>15905800
i'm not going to even bother reading a self indulgent long winded rant that only score 115 IQ. try to learn to communicate succinctly

[Anonymous No.15905823]

Brevity is the soul of wit.
50 words for an IQ is soulless.
It undoubtedly says too much where vernacular would prompt quite little and speak much the same.

[Anonymous No.15905827]

this is duping you into getting control of some discussions, exactly like he did so far. you get literally nothing out of it. it doesn't help you at all, you are only giving up power and control of the discussion, and gain bullshit in return. pretty fucking simple.

[Anonymous No.15906026]

absolute genius

[Anonymous No.15906028]

...here's a real one though. Michio Kaku

[Anonymous No.15906029]

...another real one. Grug

[Anonymous No.15906043]

>>15906026
>absolute genius
this but unironically

>>15906028
accurate characterization of a popsoi retard

>>15906029
average score for average man

all 3 of those demonstrate the accuracy of the software

[Anonymous No.15906846]

IQ of posts ITT so far
>>15904970 (OP) 140
>>15905470 116
>>15905603 149
>>15905746 159
>>15905750 135
>>15905772 93
>>15905795 140
>>15905800 115
>>15905823 152
>>15905827 128

[Anonymous No.15906867]

>>15905658
BLA are a highly reliable way of preventing BLA.
Future developments in this field show BLA promise for the improvement of BLA

lol

[Anonymous No.15906872]

>>15905658
>>15906867

[LIES] are a highly reliable way of preventing [LIES].
Future developments in this field show [LIES] promise for the improvement of [LIES]


sounds corporately accurate and flattering!!!!

[Anonymous No.15907653]

>>15905746
insightful post, 159 IQ

[Anonymous No.15908623]

This software is really pretty wonderful and accurate, but it clearly upsets some members of our community, probably because they don't like seeing their delusions of intellectual superiority contradicted by an unbiased source

[Anonymous No.15909053]

>>15908623
>This software is really pretty wonderful and accurate, but it clearly upsets some members of our community, probably because they don't like seeing their delusions of intellectual superiority contradicted by an unbiased source
154 IQ post

[Anonymous No.15909092]

>>15905598
Lol

[Anonymous No.15909227]

>>15909092
you're only making an effort to try and discredit the software because it triggers an emotional reaction in you, it probably ranked your earnest writing as low IQ, so now you're upset at it.

[Anonymous No.15909253]

>>15904970
The score it gives is mostly arbitrary; you just like it because its unreliability sometimes gives you ammo against people you disagree with. If it gives a low score, you can post it in lieu of a response, while you stay quiet when it gives a high score.
(152 btw)

[Anonymous No.15909350]

>>15904970
>chatgpt gets around 1260 on sat
>that is around 128 iq
>tell chatgpt to write a poem using as many polysyllables as possible
>submit it to writingtoiq
>get 186

[Anonymous No.15909372]

I tried inputting Bard's output for these:
>write an essay on mathematical inequalities as if you were a high IQ individual
145
>write an essay on mathematical inequalities as if you were a low IQ individual
79
I'm not drawing conclusions, but interdast.

[Anonymous No.15909384]

>>15909372
>Rewrite the second essay as if it were written by a high IQ individual

[Anonymous No.15909433]

>>15909227
>>15905746
>>15904970

Assuming you're not trolling anon, please read this before posting again https://
medium.com/incerto/iq-is-largely-a-pseudoscientific-swindle-f131c101ba39

[Anonymous No.15909531]

>>15904970
its not it's
kys pseud

[Anonymous No.15909837]

>>15904970
I've fed this thing some of my writing from university and its estimates ranged from 153 to 112. To be fair, the average was pretty close to my measured IQ, but surely this shows some of the problems with this method? If my IQ were genuinely 153, but I am capable of producing writing that would indicate it to be lower, then it is no real indication of anything at all. If my IQ were 112, I should theoretically be incapable of producing writing that would falsely indicate it to be higher. And if my writing is always supposed to correspond exactly to my IQ, there wouldn't be all this variation. In short, it can't possibly be right.

It says this is an 89 IQ post but I reckon it simply can't take criticism. In fact, pointing that out knocks off a few points. But then adding that last sentence bumped it up to 95 again. Smartest thing I wrote? Now it's at 101.

[Anonymous No.15909846]

>>15904970
>>15909837
Also interesting to note is that the examples of its accuracy include Stephen Hawking (who famously declined to give his IQ score to an interviewer because he thought caring about IQ was for losers), Alexander Hamilton (who of course never made an IQ test), news reporters, and anti-vax conspiracy theorists. In other words, it doesn't have any actual evidence and relies on our biases regarding these groups.

[Anonymous No.15910736]

This software is really pretty wonderful and accurate, but it clearly upsets some members of our community, probably because they don't like seeing their delusions of intellectual superiority contradicted by an unbiased source

[Anonymous No.15911067]

>>15909837
sure, its a big conspiracy that you got a low IQ score. just face the facts, half of all people are below 100 IQ and you are one of them

[Anonymous No.15911574]

>>15904970
Every time someone brings up IQ they really should be required to post their bank accounts to at least back up claim with results

this is literally just horoscope for men

[Anonymous No.15911916]

>>15911574
>this is literally just horoscope for men
This, so much this. IQ means nothing in real life. It's just a number. The only real goal in life is to get laid and have kids, and IQ-obsessed incels will never achieve that.

[Anonymous No.15912378]

>>15909837 101 IQ
>>15909846 108 IQ
>>15910736 154 IQ

[Anonymous No.15912415]

>>15904970
There's no way I'm anywhere close to 130-171, which is what I usually get. 140 something is usually the average. On the best of days I'm a lazy midwit

[Anonymous No.15912437]

>>15904970
It doesn't concern me. People dumber than me I can recognize when I encounter them and people smarter than me I can recognize when I encounter them. The number is not as accurate as scaling their power level relative to yourself.

[Anonymous No.15913173]

>>15912437
I like the idea that every post on the internet is secretly being judged by an IQ analyzing AI, it doesn't bother me even slightly because I have no concern or worries that it would judge me as low IQ, the only people who are perturbed by the idea are people who worry about being judged as retarded and those worries and speculations are a result of them having low confidence in their own intelligence. Who is in a better position than themselves to say if they're likely to be judged as stupid?

[Anonymous No.15914202]

>>15912437
126

>>15913173
129

[Anonymous No.15914725]

I fed it the abstract of one if NDT's papers from the ApJ and it said he is 102 IQ. Not bad for a negro.

[Anonymous No.15915804]

>>15911916
nigger detected

[Anonymous No.15916139]

>>15915804
the low IQs all hate https://www.writingtoiq.com/ for some reason. sure is hard to figure out what that reason might be

[Anonymous No.15916191]

On Relativity and Absolutism in Morality
Authors: Jonathan W. Tooker
https://vixra.org/abs/1806.0194
We demonstrate that it is impossible for humans to implement moral absolutism. The resolution to any moral proposition is, in all cases, an implementation of moral relativity.

[Anonymous No.15916768]

>>15916191
thats just a cherrypicked writing sample, show us all the low scoring quotes you tried before getting that one

[Anon No.15916909]

Got 160 with this.

[Anonymous No.15916915]

Yeah, clearly this test is working very well and can't be gamed by sprinkling in unusual words. My 171 IQ genius-tier writing below is the best example of it.

[Anonymous No.15916942]

>>15916915
you're gaming it because you're embarrassed about what it tells you when you give it an honest example of your writing

[Anonymous No.15916954]

>>15916942
you're a pseud and you know it

[Anonymous No.15917274]

>>15911067
>sure, its a big conspiracy that you got a low IQ score.
I just told you, I didn't. I got 153 at the highest. My own post demonstrated that adding a few simple sentence to it made the difference between ten whole points. You can try it out yourself by feeding it fragments of the same text. Surely if this thing signified anything at all we should expect some consistency?

You laugh at my previous score but I'm at 121 already.

[Anonymous No.15917290]

>>15911067
>>15917274
Or, alternatively worded, as I explained to you in my previous communication, I had in fact achieved a rather commendable score, if I may humbly suggest so myself. The aforementioned amply demonstrated that the addition or removal of a few rudimentary phrases alleged signified a difference of ten points. You can personally determine this through experimentation by inserting fragmentary excerpts taken from the selfsame exemplar. Undubitably, were this machine to signify anything substantial, our expectation should be consistency, n'est-ce pas?

[Anonymous No.15917291]

>>15917290
Lol changing the spelling of "undubitably" to the more correct "indubitably" REMOVED three IQ points. What a joke.

[Anonymous No.15917388]

>>15904970
The examples I've tested suggest that it primarily checks for markers of specialization, or for word complexity similar to the words that specialists use. IIRC people specializing in things like math/physics/etc tend to be higher IQ than the people who specialize in simpler subjects.
i.e, this could be a problem of causation/correlation that it(or its developer) messed up -- since its training data might've been made from specialists for complex subjects(high IQ) vs non-specialists/specialists for simple subjects(maybe typically low IQ), it may be correlating markers of specialization for high IQ, so dunno how useful it is.
Is there a correlation for occupational complexity and IQ? Dunno, I vaguely remember data like that, and I'm too lazy to check.

[Anonymous No.15918185]

>>15917291
you don't understand because you're low IQ. its fundamentally impossible for a low IQ to understand the mental processes of a higher IQ, thats why you can't teach people to be smart

[Anonymous No.15919173]

>>15917388
some of the fairly simple posts in this ITT thread have very high scores
>>15905746 scores 159
>>15910736 scores 154
both of those call your 142 IQ theory into doubt

[Anonymous No.15919247]

>>15919173
True. Adding correlated words used in a specific field easily increases the score of any input, so it still may be a significant factor. It'd be helpful if its training data was disclosed.
Instead of having muddy arguments, it would be better to compare actual data, since we do have the ground truth(regardless of the legitimacy of IQ itself). IQ test a bunch of people, compare one of their essays, and check for consistency. There's probably better and more rigorous tests that people can come up with too.
What do you think about the inconsistent results this site gives for writing from the same person? It does care about the author "not dumbing himself down" according to its dev. Judging an anon's IQ from their 4chan posts isn't very meaningful.
Considering its inconsistency and the amount of unknowns, what contexts is this is useful in?

[Anonymous No.15919404]

>>15919247
>what contexts is this is useful in?
Shitposting

[Anonymous No.15919770]

>>15904970
Just typed this up in 10 seconds and got this. This whole website is retarded. Id wager if i were to put random lager words illogically throughout my paragraph the IQ score would skyrocket.

[Anonymous No.15921292]

>>15919770
>this IQ test doesn't work if I intentionally try to break it, that means its wrong!!
no that just means that you're trying to break it because the IQ test causes you emotional distress for some reason or other (not hard to guess what the reason is) and your emotional distress signals clue us in to the fact that your real opinion is that the test is valid. you wouldn't be upset at it if you genuinely considered it ineffective, it only frightens you because you're worried about it's potential

[Anonymous No.15921314]

>>15921292
>it only frightens you because you're afraid it's nonsense and you have no other objective 'proof' of your supposed 'intelligence'
Oops I ftfy and I forgot to bump your thread oops!

[Anonymous No.15922263]

someone should hook up writingtoiq to a text generating AI and have the AI develop the highest IQ text of all time, might be enlightening

[Anonymous No.15922835]

>>15921292
I think your insistence that this tool is valid stems from your own desperation to be acknowledged as smart because it has given you a higher score than any real IQ test ever has or will. Your perception of emotional distress is naturally all projection, as is usually the case with text-based communication. In the absence of non-verbal cues, there is a known tendency to project one's own mental state onto someone else's words.

[Anonymous No.15923122]

John Von Neumann quote, always knew he was a fraud

[Anonymous No.15923133]

Love how everyone's busting out the ol' thesaurus for this thread for ~some reason~

[Anonymous No.15923899]

>>15923133
Isn't it amazing they'll do that to please a piece of software, but they'd never bother to put in the same effort in order to amuse or impress their human cohorts on this board?

[Anonymous No.15924487]

>>15904970
The abstract of my bachelor's thesis generates an IQ of ~100, while its conclusion produces an IQ of over 130.
What does this say about me?

[Anonymous No.15924929]

>>15924487
It means you're low IQ

[Anonymous No.15925702]

Its amazing how offended people get by the idea that everything you ever wrote or will write is going to be judged for it's IQ content by an AI. I don't see why that should be considered offensive. Maybe if you secretly presume that you're a low IQ person it might bother you, but why else would it?

[Anonymous No.15925801]

>>15905746
There is a reason actual IQ tests don't have writing sections. The scores some of the posts here have been getting are reason enough not to take the program seriously.
Just think of it as a novel way of insulting or baiting someone.

[Anonymous No.15925825]

>>15909384
I hate f*ench philosophy so much it's unreal.

[Anonymous No.15925841]

>>15925702
It's shit because the model, in addition to being unreliable, clearly rewards purple prose. It upsets some of us because we're autistic retards and can't stand when someone acts smug while being wrong. It's the same dynamic that gets you personalized tech support if you insult Linux in the right places.
t. triggers me every single time

[Anonymous No.15926898]

>>15919247
>tries to beat 154 & 159 IQ posts
>only scores 138
why can't you just give up and admit you're wrong?

[Anonymous No.15926934]

>>15904970
I concur.

[Anonymous No.15927187]

>>15904970
I got a 136 on the WAIS IV, and when I've tossed in my own writing I've gotten anything from 85 to 157. It's a pretty fun tool for deflating mongoloids posting bullshit on /sci/, but I think it's way too variable to actually be meaningful.

[Anonymous No.15927237]

>>15927187
You consider that other result more valid than writingtoiq.com only because you got a better result on the other test. If you tried a different test that flattered you more than WAIS IV then suddenly you'd presume WAIS IV was invalid and the new test was superior.

[Anonymous No.15927279]

>>15904970
>The reason I got this impression is because on many occasions I've witnessed the software accurately denigrate the intelligence of longwinded posts on /sci/ that were full of lengthy polysyllables, but poorly reasoned.
the reason you got that impression is because its judgment is as perfect as yours?
you should give some examples and be more specific about why you think it's "legitimate"

[Anonymous No.15927282]

>>15905746
Even if what you say is true, it still proves the bot is easily baffled into producing false results. Thus it isn't reliable

[Anonymous No.15927485]

>>15927282
no, that only proves that you're a butthurt faggot that got a low iq score and that you subsequently got upset and tried to break the software that gave you a low iq score by feeding it data that you invented for the purpose of trying to discredit the software because you don't want to accept it's honest assessment of your IQ. all you've proved is that you're dishonest as well as being low IQ

[Anonymous No.15927920]

>>15904970
The content in this thread shows that there are a lot of dumb people who can only get high IQ scores from the AI by cheating.

[Anonymous No.15928015]

>>15927485
That's a hell of a lot of emotion there son. I'm still right though unfortunately. Also I'm not the original dude you were arguing with lol, I didn't even use the software. Your defensiveness is pretty funny - did you programme this thing? Or are you defending it because it said you have a 200 IQ?

[Anonymous No.15928025]

>>15926898
>admit you're wrong?
Learn to read.

[Anonymous No.15928084]

>>15925702
You'd need a genuinely high IQ to understand why your poseur-enabling POS elicits an angry response. Apparently.

[Anonymous No.15928088]

>>15927920
>Y-you cheated!
It's a neutral evaluation tool. You're only further revealing its utter meaninglessness.

[Anonymous No.15928103]

>>15904970
I wrote one text hating on jews, 89 iq. Sent in my exam, 121. It is very much inaccurate and inconsistent.

[Anonymous No.15928300]

>Of course the emperor's new clothes are an accurate way of assessing someone's intelligence, you're just jealous and insecure because you can't see them and trying to cheat by revealing him to be "naked"

[Anonymous No.15928960]

>>15904970
Seems like its as good a measure as any other IQ test. The people who attempt to detract from it only do so because this test ranked their IQ lower than they wanted it to

[Anonymous No.15928971]

>>15928960
Really, any other IQ test can vary up to sixty points when taken two minutes apart by the same person? Seems all the more reason to just forget about the whole concept, really.

[Anonymous No.15929863]

>>15928960
And curiously enough, the only people who praise it for its accuracy all happen to have scores they are satisfied with and feel they can conveniently lord over others to lend their opinions weight. But they can't be biased, can they?

[Anonymous No.15929897]

>>15928971
>>15929863
you just need to stop chimping out over this AI and accept the fact that everything your ever write on the internet is going to be remotely judged by a piece of software in real time. It makes no difference how much you whine and cry and bitch about out or how hard you try to discredit the software, the AI will still be employed to watch, record and judge everything you do

[Anonymous No.15929906]

>>15929863
Curioser thing: haters are barely above midwit territory.

[Anonymous No.15929911]

>>15929897
You're right, it makes no difference if some random piece of software assigns a random number to some words I wrote. Why do YOU care?

Put differently, suppose I said everything you ever wrote was going to be put before a panel of judges and assigned a score that reflects your worth as a person, and you had no insight in their judgement process, and their output varied wildly even when applied to the same person, and the actual number had no impact on anything you did, why should I care when someone says "well the judges gave me a higher score than you!". So what, you're a loser for caring. And that's not me who said that, that was Stephen Hawking, whom the website puts at 151 (so roughly my level).
>>15929906
I also wrote >>15922835. What to believe?

[Anonymous No.15929918]

>>15929897
>>15929906
It's not even consistent. Here, I'd recorded my score here >>15917274 as 121; now that same post is judged at 126.
Here >>15917291 I indicated that changing the spelling made a difference of three points; now when I try again it's only a single point of difference.

This thing has an element of randomness built in. It's a parlour trick and you're unduly impressed because it flatters you.

[Anonymous No.15929924]

>>15929911
Writingtoiq deploys a deterministic algorithm. Repeatability guaranteed. Whudya believe Incongruent assblasted buck-broken beta-male rhetoric probably unlikely to help. Transcending boundaries requires recognizing limitations - scholastically, philosophically, scientifically, etc. Mental masturbation exercises, hypothetical whodunnits, wawuzzits, and further carrying-ons debilitate.

[Anonymous No.15929926]

>>15929924
>Repeatability guaranteed.
lol >>15929918

[Anonymous No.15929929]

>>15929924
Btw your pathetic and blatant attempt at gaming the system is itself a tacit confession that the score is meaningless.

[Anonymous No.15929934]

>>15929926
Me prior >>15926934
Me currently >>15929924
Fortunately consistent, demonstrable, intelligence.

[Anonymous No.15929938]

>>15929934
You're only further discrediting it this way.

[Anonymous No.15929947]

>>15929911
https://www.writingtoiq.com/ says your IQ is only 111 so i didn't bother to read your post

[Anonymous No.15929953]

>>15929947
That's honestly more than it gave me when I posted it barely half an hour ago lmao

[Anonymous No.15929971]

>>15929947
Also can't help but notice that even though this thing is all over the place you're happy to latch on to a score that lets you pretend you're smarter than someone else.

[Anonymous No.15930782]

>>15929938
He is discrediting himself by displaying his irrational need to contrive an IQ that dramatically overstates his true intelligence, only someone with severe insecurities about the quality of their own brainpower would end up being driven to go to such lengths.

[Anonymous No.15931038]

>>15930782
Lackluster bitching.

[Anonymous No.15932039]

>>15929971
Its not his fault you have a low IQ, your parents and ancestors are to blame for that.

[Anonymous No.15932115]

>>15904970
I ran one of my autistic racist rants from when I was 18 through that text to IQ estimator and it gave me an estimated IQ of 156. I've never fully completed an IQ test but from what I did do I did not do well lol, I estimate my actual final IQ to be 110 (being generous here) so I do not believe that IQ estimator has any validity whatsoever lol.

[Anonymous No.15932752]

>>15932039
I don't have a low IQ, though. This thing said so itself. I elect to ignore when it contradicts itself. Just like you.

[Anonymous No.15933405]

>>15932752
>i'm replying to you to tell you that i'm ignoring you
your IQ is very low

[Anonymous No.15934200]

>>15930782
146 IQ post

[Anonymous No.15934441]

>>15933405
I replied to tell you I'm ignoring the disagreeable results produced by the algorithm, which is what you also do. You didn't even get that and you're telling other people their IQ is low?

[Anonymous No.15935176]

>>15934441
The software detected your IQ as a mere 111 and now you're attempting to discredit the software because you're unhappy with the intelligence quotient it assigned to you, your motivations are transparent

[Anonymous No.15935185]

>>15934441
Existence acknowledged, petulant fucker. Plebbit beckons yonder.

[Anonymous No.15935213]

>>15935176
>The software detected your IQ as a mere 111 and now you're attempting to discredit the software because you're unhappy with the intelligence quotient it assigned to you, your motivations are transparent
You're starting to sound like pic related.

[Anonymous No.15935215]

Remember when blatant trollposts got people banned?

[Anonymous No.15935223]

>>15935213

[Anonymous No.15935226]

>>15904970
>manufactured authority
miss me with this shit

[Anonymous No.15935242]

>>15911916
The best estimator for human reproductive fitness is wealth. It's an amalgamation of general health, intelligence, willpower, familial and social ties, and luck. It doesn't matter how smart someone is if they can't or won't make money. Same with all those other traits.

[Anonymous No.15935243]

>>15935242
>psychopathy level = IQ level

[Anonymous No.15935244]

>>15935242
>central banks decide worth

[Anonymous No.15935248]

>>15935243
>>15935244
Even birds display their wealth through built nests and collected coins.

[Anonymous No.15935252]

>>15935248
Penguin was an antisemitic trope.

[Anonymous No.15935258]

>>15935252
>>15935244
>>15935243
I forgot to add my creme de la crap

[Anonymous No.15935260]

>>15935258
shit

[Anonymous No.15935262]

>>15935260

[Anonymous No.15935265]

stop improving this moron's software. you're doing it for free for him

[Anonymous No.15936073]

>>15935176
As if I'm even bothering to see what this RNG shits out before hitting post lol

>>15935176
>>15935185
So which number is it? It's 100% super accurate, right?

[Anonymous No.15936076]

>>15935265
How can just feeding it words improve it? He doesn't know what he's trying to refine for.

[Anonymous No.15936384]

>>15935265
you're only upset by the software because it says you have a low IQ. thats not the software's fault, its your fault

[Anonymous No.15936394]

>>15904970
Got me a 186IQ score by having ChatGPT write me the longest, most verbose sentence on quantum physics it could come up with

[Anonymous No.15936398]

>>15936394
Got a 198IQ by telling the 'GPT to make it more verbose

[Anonymous No.15936402]

[Anonymous No.15937089]

>>15936394
>>15936398
keep on going, eventually you'll create prose so intelligent and insightful that it will be nobel worthy.

[Anonymous No.15937106]

>>15904970
Apparently Shakespeare has an IQ of 81 for that St. Crispin's Day speech.

[Anonymous No.15938056]

>Apparently Shakespeare has an IQ of 81 for that St. Crispin's Day speech.

[Anonymous No.15938818]

>>15909433
your are motivated to believe in that because you score low on IQ tests. why not just admit that you're dumb instead of trying to blame your faults on the tests?

[Anonymous No.15940009]

>>15937089
The danger there, or the probably cause of failure is that when the software ends up generating 400 IQ information, no living humans will be intelligent enough to understand it and will pass it off as useless gibberish

[Anonymous No.15940030]

>>15940009
Wrong. I'll be able to tell.

[Anonymous No.15940351]

[Anonymous No.15940399]

>Thine speech is but a fleeting reminiscing folly of those whom it tries to miserably emulate to the the chagrin of those who seek knowledge of the forbidden skibidi rizz found only on those whom which to reach Ohio in its pristine state of which gyatt is plentiful which is the only way one can reach nirvana.
> 132 IQ

Zoomers are fucking geniuses now aren't they, yeah?

[Anonymous No.15940564]

>>15904970
OK

[Anonymous No.15941521]

>>15940351
lol, good pic
what board is that?

[Anonymous No.15941859]

In the same way that the anti-White rhetoric was fashioned to deem Western opposition to foreign control and invasion as immoral, the Middle Eastern cults fashioned anti-homosexual rhetoric to undermine their followers' ability to organize against cult leaders. By constantly shrieking their Abrahamic objections, they believe they can control the behavior of White men. The covert homosexual network that runs through industry, finance, media, and government has the capability of coordinating to eliminate the influence of foreign aligned pedophile networks.

>Estimated IQ: 197 (exceptionally gifted)

[Anonymous No.15941883]

>>15904970
If you think iq from that site is legit, read it and weep sci tards. Anon schizo has already reached the singularity and transcended materialism, wait another 10k years for your ai to make a virtual cyberspace as good as I already have it through the most advanced form of schizofrenia on the planet.

[Anonymous No.15941893]

>>15904970
>The estimator is nothing more than some garbled algorithmic surrogate; some utterly debauched scheme computing lexical dexterity vis-a-vis abstruse jargon and pruriently warped syntax rather than perspicuity to yield masturbatory and ejaculative nonsense wholly detached from sound and intelligent prose. (IQ: 188)
>The estimator is nothing more than some garbled algorithmic surrogate: some utterly debauched scheme computing lexical dexterity vis-a-vis abstruse jargon and pruriently warped syntax rather than perspicacity to yield masturbatory ejaculative nonsense wholly detached from sound and intelligent prose. (IQ: 199)
What is the difference between those two sentences? I simply replaced "perspicuity" ("clearness or lucidity, as of a statement.") with "perspicacity," ("having a ready insight into and understanding of things") and apparently gained 11 IQ points, even though the former is used correctly and the latter incorrectly within context. And it tops out at 199, so it probably would have liked to reward my intentional error even more.

[Anonymous No.15941897]

>>15904970
>The estimator is nothing more than some garbled algorithmic surrogate; some utterly debauched scheme computing lexical dexterity vis-a-vis abstruse jargon and pruriently warped syntax rather than perspicuity to yield masturbatory and ejaculative nonsense wholly detached from sound and intelligent prose. (IQ: 188)
>The estimator is nothing more than some garbled algorithmic surrogate: some utterly debauched scheme computing lexical dexterity vis-a-vis abstruse jargon and pruriently warped syntax rather than perspicacity to yield masturbatory and ejaculative nonsense wholly detached from sound and intelligent prose. (IQ: 199)
What is the difference between those two sentences? I simply replaced "perspicuity" ("clearness or lucidity, as of a statement.") with "perspicacity," ("having a ready insight into and understanding of things") and apparently gained 11 IQ points, even though the former is used correctly and the latter incorrectly within context. And it tops out at 199, so it probably would have liked to reward my intentional error even more.

[Anonymous No.15942735]

>>15941521
can't it's name here

[Anonymous No.15942783]

If you input text from a post-modernist nonsense generator like https://www.elsewhere.org/journal/pomo/.. It gives it very high IQ. Make of that what you will.

[Anonymous No.15942876]

>>15906846

[Anonymous No.15942885]

>>15942876
>asking gpt 3.5

>can you write an essay of 100 words about why being gay is okay as if you have an IQ of 150

Embracing diverse sexual orientations, including being gay, reflects the intellectual evolution of a society attuned to the complexity of human identity. An elevated intellect recognizes the folly of perpetuating discriminatory norms based on outdated paradigms. Acknowledging the legitimacy of diverse orientations aligns with the principles of equality and individual autonomy. Elevated intelligence comprehends the intrinsic value of fostering an inclusive environment, wherein individuals are free to express their authentic selves without fear of judgment. Thus, affirming the acceptance of being gay is not just morally right but also a testament to the intellectual maturity of a society that values the richness found in the diversity of human experience.

>IQ estimator
Estimated IQ: 195 (exceptionally gifted)
>now can you do the same thing but as if you have an IQ of 85

Being gay is okay because, like, people are different, you know? Everyone's got their thing, and that's cool. We shouldn't be mean or judge others just because they like someone of the same gender. It's like, whatever makes people happy, right? Being gay doesn't hurt anyone, so why not let people be themselves? We're all just trying to live our lives, and if someone's gay, that's their business. Let's not complicate things with unnecessary judgments. Being accepting and chill about it is just the right thing to do, you know?

>IQ estimator
Estimated IQ: 116 (high intelligence)

[Anonymous No.15942995]

I tested this on my, it varies a lot in text from just one author.

[Anonymous No.15943031]

That iq writing text is garbage my standar iq tests give an iq from 120 to 130 and my comments got an 103 iq so basically this software is niggerly

[Anonymous No.15943704]

>>15943031
you're just upset because it didn't give you a result as flattering as other tests have. how come the new result doesn't prove that the previous results overestimated your iq?

[Anonymous No.15943875]

>>15905603
>Try this actually, I get 150
But it's total bullshit because horrifying is a brain "adaption" too.

[Anonymous No.15943893]

>>15942885
>not even AI will go full retard.

[Anonymous No.15944981]

>>15942995
you didn't post your specific results because all of your scores were low

[Anonymous No.15945651]

>>15942735
Good, Rules 1 & 2

[Anonymous No.15946527]

www.writingtoiq.com is excellent software, I don't see why so many people get upset about having their IQ assessed by it. only people who presume they have low IQ get upset by the idea of having www.writingtoiq.com estimate their IQ

[Anonymous No.15947168]

>>15946527
Right, if you have confidence in your own intelligence then IQ assessments shouldn't frighten and upset you

[Anonymous No.15947448]

>>15904970
>Verily there is no greater thought than illumination that creates for us a true exposing of our cessation and lacking torpor. There can be no denial or prevarication towards the wretched detritus of our destined destruction.
I wrote that into it and it gave me 142 IQ (genius) so I think you're pretty fucking dumb.

[Anonymous No.15948429]

>>15947448
its says
>paste a sample text containing at least 50 words
not
>try to contrive a means of getting a high score
you only decided to try and cheat it because you're ashamed of what your legitimate writing samples expose

[Anonymous No.15948904]

>>15948429
>its says
>>paste a sample text containing at least 50 words
>not
>>try to contrive a means of getting a high score
>you only decided to try and cheat it because you're ashamed of what your legitimate writing samples expose
Estimated IQ: 141 (genius)

[Anonymous No.15949755]

>>15948429
How come the people who get emotionally triggered by https://www.writingtoiq.com/ all have the identical reaction to it? Every single one of them gets butthurt and immediately starts using the software obsessively to try and generate a high number score for themselves.
If they don't think its good software, why are they so concerned about getting themselves a high number score? Why devote time and energy to that if you presume that the software is no good?

[Anonymous No.15950183]

>>15949755
>If they don't think its good software, why are they so concerned about getting themselves a high number score?
It's fun.

[Anonymous No.15950850]

typed

The external world outside of the self is a world which man can exert very little control. What control he has in the external world typically is not entirely true to the internal desires of man, for other men also deign to contest ones own control of the external, and so compromise is usually met in lieu of the execution of singular idealism. It is therefore imperative that mans internal domain adhere to the highest moral good as stipulated by the laws of God, for it is only through the compromise of other moral men that true transcendence of the internal to the external can occur. In this, perhaps man may make for himself a heaven on earth.

got 155 yet i work retail. maybe the theory that retards chasing money and material gain are definitively retards is true? or perhaps i am the retard. i think the latter is the case.

[Anonymous No.15950858]

>>15905750
>slot machine
LMAO

[Anonymous No.15950863]

>>15950850
same guy but i think this lil ai bot whatever functions via the following:

>use large words or uncommon words that help contract large ideas succinctly
>follow a logical progression of thought
>consider what IQ means; intelligence is typically understood as how well ones consciousness perceives the world as well as its relation to the world and proximity to others, followed by execution and understanding of abstract concepts.

type like youre aware of your limited consciousness

[Anonymous No.15950866]

>>15935258
AI is so based. I had a nice dream the other day: the machines took over and were removing the guts of leftard politicians, all transmitted live on social media. Tons of likes, smiles and laugh emojis.

[Barkun No.15950869]

Aliens can't exist unless we create them using our mind computers as only the nearby solar system and it's infinite field exist.

[Anonymous No.15950880]

>>15950863
And that is why is great at spotting leftards: those fuckers don't know shit about anything.

[Anonymous No.15950909]

>>15950880
Id argue that their diet and overall lifestyle contribute to their ignorance and blind trust. If they changed their health it'd be different, to be curt. Its why the ivermectin fiasco was a thing, why fast food gimmicks attract them like flies to shit.

[Anonymous No.15951561]

>>15950850
it scores you a lot lower when the text in your post that wasn't created as a means of hacking a high IQ score was lowered
>I get a better IQ score when I cheat
wow, brilliant. I get a taller height measurement when I stand on a ladder

[Anonymous No.15951786]

>>15951561
the mind blowing part is i wrote it off the top of my head buddy. read some books and you too can cripple algorithms.

[Anonymous No.15951816]

>>15904970
Seems legit

[Anonymous No.15952413]

>>15948429
Apparently it's cheating to perform to the best of your ability on an IQ test?

[Anonymous No.15952923]

>>15905746
>if you point out my mistake you are low iq or something

[Anonymous No.15953649]

>>15952923
your pic is wrong because https://www.writingtoiq.com says they guy you're replying to is 159 IQ

[Anonymous No.15953694]

>>15953649
ahh, fuck!

[Anonymous No.15953814]

>>15904970
Normal IQ tests:
>Consistent results
>Clear what is being tested
>Can't be "gamed" simply by knowing how IQ tests work

This thing:
>Wildly inconsistent results
>Deliberately unclear on what is being tested
>Easily gamed by people with a thesaurus
But at least it's quick, right?

[Anonymous No.15953836]

>>15904970
Writing in plain English intended for high reader accessibility is obviously high IQ even if the vocabulary you use is midwit at best.

[Anonymous No.15953840]

>>15905795
This gentleman scored 140 for using "denizen" when in reality he just reads fantasy literature and plays computer games

[Anonymous No.15955149]

>>15953840
The software doesn't score only on the merits of vocabulary, I've seen some posts with very pedestrian vocabulary get extremely high scores

[Anonymous No.15955165]

>>15955149
True, it clearly has some RNG baked in as well

[Anonymous No.15955723]

Its amusing how this software makes the brainlets chimp out so hard. Imagine manlets getting angry at the measuring tape when it reveals they're short

[Anonymous No.15956581]

>>15955723
According to my algorithmic analysis of your post you're 141 cm.

[Anonymous No.15957270]

>>15956581
>this IQ test gave me a low score
>therefore the test is wrong

[Anonymous No.15957747]

>>15957270
How come nobody ever considers an IQ test faulty when they get a high score?

[Anonymous No.15958067]

>>15957747
I do
Didn't bump the thread either

[Anonymous No.15958276]

>>15957747
Aww faggot why did you delete your post, didn't go the way you had assumed it would? Gonna shit a little for us? Maybe piss?
Go feed that to your fucking website, you shit gargling shitskin ape.
Didn't bump.

[Anonymous No.15958288]

>>15957270
Your insecurity is dripping from your post, manlet

[Anonymous No.15958889]

>>15957270
How come nobody ever casts doubt on an IQ test when it gives them a high score? Why is it that only people who score low on IQ tests leap to the conclusions that the tests are inaccurate? Is confirmation bias the explanation for that phenomenon?

[Anonymous No.15958965]

>>15958889
Let me tell you, the people ITT who got high scores out of the algorithm should definitely be questioning it the most

[Anonymous No.15959509]

>>15958965
why?

[sage No.15959530]

>>15953814
>Can't be "gamed" simply by knowing how IQ tests work

not true.

This thing:
>Wildly inconsistent results
>Deliberately unclear on what is being tested
>Easily gamed by people with a thesaurus

all true.

[Anonymous No.15959705]

>>15959509
You should be able to figure that out
>>15959530
>not true.
Are you referring to people practicing for IQ tests? What I mean is that a regular IQ test is perfectly clear on what it wants you to do (find the next part of a sequence) and the fact that it explicitly tells you there is one right answer to the question among several provided doesn't help people to find it if they lack the requisite insight.

[Anonymous No.15959825]

>>15958889
Why did you delete your previous post, shitskin? Didn't get a high enough score on your fake fucking algorithm?
I saw what you did. You can lie to these anons but not me, and not yourself.
Suicide is your answer
Go on, feed that to your fucking fagbox.
Didn't bump.
>>15958067
>>15958276

[sage No.15960536]

>OP and/or that annoying tard anon is not banned
this board is going down the shitter

[Anonymous No.15960633]

>>15904970
Can someone please graph the writingtoiq score of every bbc article published since 1985

[Anonymous No.15961038]

>>15958889
133 IQ post

[Anonymous No.15961454]

>>15961038
Thats a pretty good IQ score, I guess its safe to say that the conjecture in >>15958889 is correct

[Anonymous No.15961481]

lol

[thecrowguy No.15961506]

>>15961481
103

[Anonymous No.15961523]

first shot not bad I'd say accurate enough although I've never being tested but of course since I'm visiting the Science (TM) board of 4channel I must be gigabrained in some way

[Anonymous No.15961741]

>>15961523
>of course since I'm visiting the Science (TM) board of 4channel I must be gigabrained in some way
Midwit fallacy

[Anonymous No.15962733]

>>15958889
>Is confirmation bias the explanation for that phenomenon?
yes

[Anonymous No.15964361]

>>15935213
you got a low score on an IQ test and that upsets you

[Anonymous No.15964473]

Why does noone talk about how this stupid algorithm might work? I did a few tests and it seems to simply grade the density of high quality vocabulary. Not too bad, since there is a correlation between vocabulary and g, but obviously flawed.

[Anonymous No.15964478]

this thread is still here???
I thought 4chan was broken for a sec, over a month old

[Anonymous No.15964485]

>>15964473
that may be one of it's metrics, but it is not the only one. when longer writing samples are divided in parts they don't always average produce results that are equal to the original score.

[Anonymous No.15964578]

>>15964485
Then we can assume it measures the median! Or not? Ive found that frequent questions seem to reduce "variance".
I find this a thousand times more interesting than the original thread, trying to reverse engineer this algorithm. Btw, by shortening the text and increasing high IQ vocab density, you can inflate the score to about 198. What might the function be? 200 minus something?

[Anonymous No.15964582]

>>15964485
>Input different words
>Get different results
>This somehoew shows you it's NOT just measuring words???
If this test gave you over 100 then that's the final piece of evidence that it's shit

[Anonymous No.15964593]

>>15964582
He consistently scores about 140. You on the other hand...

[Anonymous No.15964610]

>>15964593
>He consistently scores about 140.
(x) doubt
He just admitted he doesn't even score consistently if you divide his posts into parts.

[Anonymous No.15964636]

>>15964485
>when longer writing samples are divided in parts they don't always average produce results that are equal to the original score
I mean, surely if it meant anything at all, then we'd expect that it average [sic] produces results that ARE equal to the original score? Remember, it's alleged to estimate the IQ of the author. It's not just supposed to give an arbitrary rating to your writing.

[Anonymous No.15965257]

>>15964636
This is a 145 IQ argument btw, you're obligated to answer seriously

[Anonymous No.15965784]

>>15964610
that was dividing other people's posts as a means of testing the software

[Anonymous No.15965884]

>>15964361
>doubling down
pl0x

[Anonymous No.15966004]

>>15964578
your IQ is 96 according to https://www.writingtoiq.com/

[Anonymous No.15966018]

funnily enough this lines up exactly with the IQ test i took when i was little.

[Anonymous No.15966030]

i guess they programmed it in a way that if youre actually retarded it wont tell you.
what the fuck is up with these söyboy pearl clutching AI devs and their strange, antiquated views on ethics? They treat their users like children.

[Anonymous No.15966046]

>>15965784
So your posts are special and the software works differently on them?

[Anonymous No.15967220]

It is definitely not measuring IQ, but whatever it is measuring appears to have continuity between individuals, and it is thus a valid test for the yet-to-be-determined quotient.

[Anonymous No.15967330]

>>15965257
>writingtoiq.com is fake
>except when it gives me a high iq score

[Anonymous No.15968060]

>>15967330
>Writingtoiq.com is flawless
>Except when it gives my opponents a high iq score
So which is it? I'm wrong and it's wrong? Or I'm right, and it's wrong?

Can you tell me why you believe it is a fallacy to hold people to their professed standards? Because I feel like the reason is you think it's inconvenient to be held to your own standards when you were so comfortable with a double standard.

[Anonymous No.15968128]

>>15967330
>Putting a valid argument next to an MSPaint drawing counts as a refutation

[Anonymous No.15968242]

>>15967220
>whatever it is measuring appears to have continuity between individuals
Also no.

[Anonymous No.15969095]

I got 128 w/
"All the times have come but not gone. Near but now gone. Seasons dont fear the reaper - nor do the end does summa rain. Dont fear the reaper. Dont take my hand. Theyll be able to fly. Baby I'm Your Man. Na na na na na I count to one minute with 95%-plus accuracy"

[Anonymous No.15969783]

lol looks like the jannies finally had enough of his bullshit

[Anonymous No.15969791]

>>15904970
>https://www.writingtoiq.com
>open site
>craft text
>replace synonyms and modify sentence structure until IQ is sky high
>post to 4chan
>just plug my text into the iq box, you'll see I am superior to you
my god
I am stunned by the levels of cope and idiocy we have reached

[Anonymous No.15969793]

>>15969791
137 iq btw
and 145 if you randomly delete the last half sentence from the letter o in cope
ez gains

[Anonymous No.15969796]

>>15969095
blue oyster cult were successful professional musicians so its no surprise their lyrics achieved a decent iq score

[Anonymous No.15969801]

>>15904970
i get anywhere from 85 to 160 depending on the day or the content. when i'm more confident about what i am writing, i score much higher. this is usually related to math and physics topics. yet when i write about psychology or biology or climate change, i'll get scored lower (i suspect because i challenge conventional wisdom). it seems like the website penalizes you for going against the zeitgeist.

[Anonymous No.15969806]

>>15958889
People don't understand that their interactions have cascading consequences on the world around them.
As such, IQ tests are an infohazard.
If you score low, you will be demotivated and prone to low confidence, which will bias you to underachieve.
If you score average, you may increase the risk of being dysfunctionally confident and complacent with living a normal life, even if you are technically underqualified and causing surplus net economic inefficiency.
If you score high, you will be delusionally confident in your own decisions, which will bias you to waste resources, deprecating the real world benefits of your actual intelligence.

[Anonymous No.15969811]

>>15969801
See >>15969806
If you are delusionally confident and straight to the point, you will be more likely to achieve a higher score.
Whether this is because you are very intelligent or because of the sites design, remains to be seen.
It does not test IQ, rather it infers it based on your writing style and a possibly flawed hypothesis and process.

[Anonymous No.15969823]

>>15961741
>implying that the average normie is remotely interested in discussing science and technology on an imageboard from 2004
>90 billion hours of Netflix watched every 6 months
>1.5 billion monthly active TikTok users
>global average of 3 hours per day spent on social media
I wish normies were interesting bro, but sorry, they aren't and you're just a stupid normie cattle lover.
Nearly everyone who isn't afraid to visit the Mongolian terrorist forum of 4chan is already measurably above average intelligence.

[Anonymous No.15969824]

>>15967220
As Mensa is the authority on the measurement of IQ it's pretty obvious it isn't actually measuring IQ
It tries to correlate IQ with written language skills. That's it.

[Anonymous No.15969829]

>>15969824
IQ and language skills are entwined--this should be indisputable.
Language skills should translate to writing skills.
Therefore, it stands to reason that written language is reflective of the IQ of the writer.

[Anonymous No.15969844]

>>15969829
Plenty of intelligent (actual high IQ) people have dyslexia. Language skills are mostly separated from intelligence so you are only proving yourself to be uninformed and overconfident which is really is correlated with a low performance on a real IQ test.

Note: no feelings were considered writing this post

[Anonymous No.15969860]

>>15969823
The biggest boards are /pol/, /b/, and /v/. Not exactly bulwarks of great intellect. And what do the people of these boards do when they feel insecure about their meagre intelligence? They go to /sci/ and pretend their opinions are fact. Your mere presence here means nothing, midwit.

[Anonymous No.15969865]

>>15969829
It's one thing to claim a correlation, it's another to claim to give an accurate assessment of someone's IQ from a fifty-word sample. The latter is firmly within the realm of pseudo-scientific nonsense.

[Anonymous No.15969882]

>>15969860
You can continue mocking users intelligence.
It ultimately has no bearing on the issue of real low IQ specimen likely not being able to navigate this site.
As such, your logical proficiency is not cogent.

[Anonymous No.15969891]

>>15969882
I don't think I even have to bother with your overcompensating shitpost. You are the real low IQ specimen navigating this site and you demonstrated my point about insecure midwits coming here to puff themselves up perfectly.

[Anonymous No.15969896]

>>15969844
Nta
>Plenty of intelligent (actual high IQ) people have dyslexia.
Exceptions to the norm do not break the norm. Their brains are literally broken to the degree they're diagnosed with a mental illness.
>Language skills are mostly separated from intelligence
Lmao. You will never find a 70IQ retard speaking like Neumann.

[Anonymous No.15969901]

>>15969896
>Their brains are literally broken to the degree they're diagnosed with a mental illness.
Dyslexia is not a mental illness. Confidently doubling down on something you clearly don't know anything about rather than admit that you're wrong is though, you narcissist.

[Anonymous No.15969918]

>>15969901
>Dyslexia is not a mental illness
It's in the DSM, retard

[Anonymous No.15969931]

>>15969901
>>15969896
mental illness is associated with lower IQ>>15969918

[Anonymous No.15969933]

>>15969891
stay mad iqcel

[Anonymous No.15969934]

>>15969933
>iqcel
Wouldn't that describe someone who can't get laid due to being too smart?

[Anonymous No.15969950]

>>15969934
you can't get laid due to high iq?
that seems like midwit cope

[Anonymous No.15969959]

>>15969950
I can get laid just fine, I'm just questioning the spurious etymology of your baseless insult.

[Anonymous No.15970019]

>>15904970
It's quite the opposite, I tried just using vocabulary in totally random mix on words and it had high score.

[Anonymous No.15970658]

In modern society, especially in the capitalistic ones, people are no longer in servitude of their bodily needs, but a symbolical desire. A desire to be someone. Society has long taken care of people’s basic needs by building housing and providing utilities, food and safety. In exchange, people obtain these privileges by participating in their part of the contract through work. Through the division of labor and specialization, everyone is allowed access to the same products and services deemed necessary. Once these are taken care of, one can stop working.

148 IQ LMAO

[Anonymous No.15970694]

iq of 130 here writing iq of 92 :(

[Anonymous No.15971321]

>>15970658
your honest, unbiased writing samples reveal the truth that your IQ is low and that triggers you emotionally because you self identify as a special snowflake genius regardless a total lack of evidence that indicates that you're especially intelligence. rather than honestly face the truth of your below average intelligence, you prefer to try to discredit the software that is accurate assessing you by contriving a high score for yourself via dishonest means. all this does is prove that the only way you can get a high iq score is by cheating on the test

[Anonymous No.15971437]

I guess it's only the vocabulary that makes you smart.

[Anonymous No.15971635]

>>15924487
That your professor/advisor provided more input and rewrites for the conclusion of your thesis than the abstract.

[Anonymous No.15971637]

>>15929897
You have to accept that all that judgement isn't actually judging intelligence, it is just using a bunch of arbitrary groupings of arbitrary metrics to produce arbitrary weighting values without any real predictive power or utility.

[Anonymous No.15971648]

>>15935248
ok bird brain

[Anonymous No.15971649]

>>15971437
nope, you're just too low iq to figure out any other way to cheat your way to a high IQ score. the post above you is 160 IQ and doesn't use a lot of fancy vocabulary

[Anonymous No.15971650]

>>15971321
You still haven't explained what exactly is "dishonest" about trying on an IQ test.
>Noooo, you're supposed to dumb yourself down to the level I find acceptable
Isn't that just assigning people an IQ score based on your fee-fees and then chucking a wee tanty until the computer agrees with you?

[Anonymous No.15971652]

>>15971649
Are you the creator of this piece of shit and did you train it on your own vocabulary, by any chance?

[Anonymous No.15971657]

>>15971649
No, he also use fancy vocabulary that normal people just doesn't use.

[Anonymous No.15971664]

>>15971321
>>15971649
so should I start makeing more grammatical and punctuation mistake if i want to be as high iq as you

[Anonymous No.15973088]

>>15971657
seems like a fairly pedestrian post to me

>>15971664
you're well on your way

[Anonymous No.15973654]

>>15973088
Hmmm, yes... fairly pedestrian. Rather quotidian, if you ask me. Indeed. Quite.

[Anonymous No.15974198]

>>15973654
which of the words in the post did you have to look up?

[Anonymous No.15974794]

>>15974198
None, but I am anything but pedestrian.

[Anonymous No.15975416]

>>15974794
then how come you score low on the writingtoIQ test?

[Anonymous No.15975541]

>>15975416
I don't. But perhaps I shouldn't take that as a compliment considering you don't either.

[Anonymous No.15975841]

>>15904970
>You are the academic equivalent of the Synagogue of Satan, as mentioned in Revelations 3:7-9. You say you are scientists, but you pretend. What you propagate is not science but ideology. You are liars, cheaters, and charlatans who wear the garb of scientists. You desecrate the institution that has stood firm for hundreds of years, all so you can make a quick buck and earn your fifteen minutes of fame. I, quite frankly, do not care for your ideological proclivities, as I know you will one day be exposed and deposed. You can lie to me, you can lie to the public, but you cannot lie to yourselves and you cannot lie to God. May the weight of your sins become unbearable, and may you find it in your heart to apologise and admit your wrongdoing.
If you ever want to send someone a scathing email, use this paragraph. I tested it on the writing to IQ memewebsite and scored 143.

[Anonymous No.15975875]

>>15909433
There are two types of people who don't believe in IQ:
>the midwit who didn't get the score he wanted
>the genius whose IQ is so high that he can coast through life without having to think too hard about anything
In the first case, they don't believe in IQ because admitting that it's real would force them to confront their severely overinflated ego. In the second case, they don't believe in IQ because they can't fathom the idea of some people being genetically hardwired to be incapable of doing smart people things. Both are a direct consequence of naivete and self-centeredness.

[Anonymous No.15976755]

>>15975541
you do score low on the writingtoIQ test, you wouldn't be desperately trying to discredit the test by figuring out ways to cheat if you didn't score low on it

[Anonymous No.15977551]

>>15976755
So now you don't even need the test, you just need my opinion on it?
>>15964636
My post (still unanswered)

[Anonymous No.15977556]

>>15976755
Not only is this true because its rational, but also because of other factors indicated by the two trailing numerals of the post order reference number in this board's organization scheme

[Anonymous No.15977571]

>>15977556
lol, Christ
Bet no one's going to whine about you "cheating" though

[Anonymous No.15977702]

>>15977556
In spite of your perfectly pedestrian manner of referencing the repeating digits in the latter portion of the uniquely assigned signifier associated with a particular entry on this board indicating an intelligence quotient in excess of what could be considered average, it is my contention that you rather overstate the rationality of the argument. The inverse could be at minimum equally true: proponents of the test swear by it not because of its accuracy but rather because it flatters them.

[Anonymous No.15977735]

>>15969882

[Anonymous No.15977751]

>>15977735
If I got these lines in a paper I'd tell the student to rewrite it and take more time checking for errors.

[Anonymous No.15977796]

>>15977702 135 >>15975875 125
>>15975841 141 >>15971650 106 >>15971637 171 >>15971321 160
>>15970658 159 >>15969896 108 >>15969891 154 >>15969882 187
>>15969865 161 >>15969844 101 >>15969823 94 >>15969811 140
>>15969806 155 >>15969801 127 >>15969791 137 >>15969095 127
>>15968060 132 >>15964636 133 >>15964578 96 >>15961523 124
>>15959705 116 >>15958889 133 >>15950909 112 >>15950863 144
>>15950850 148 >>15947448 103 >>15940399 121 >>15935242 107
>>15935213 145 >>15930782 146 >>15929924 198 >>15929918 97
>>15929911 111 >>15929897 141 >>15929863 112 >>15927485 118
>>15927279 148 >>15927237 120 >>15927187 112 >>15922835 150
>>15921292 125 >>15919247 137 >>15917388 142 >>15917290 140
>>15917274 121 >>15913173 129 >>15912415 126 >>15910736 154
>>15909846 108 >>15909837 101 >>15909253 152 >>15909227 159

(Everyone absent posted a text too short or lacking sufficient data, I may have missed a few short ones and I ignored the start of the thread because >>15906846 already tested it.)
(Be aware some of the lower scores may be full of greentext.)

Mean: 132.3888888888...
Median: 132.5
Mode: 112
Range: 104
Minimum: 94
Maximum: 198
Count: 54
Sum: 7149
Quartiles:
Q1 --> 112
Q2 --> 132.5
Q3 --> 148
IQR: 36
Outliers: none

[Anonymous No.15977827]

>>15905453
>>15904970
Bot thread?

[Anonymous No.15977829]

[Anonymous No.15977830]

>>15977827
Nvm it's an old thread

[Anonymous No.15977831]

>>15977829
Seems pretty accurate. It's also in agreement with previous averages found for /sci/. I'm honestly surprised it's not bimodal—did you check for that? As in, plot a raw histogram of the data? Bin width of 5 IQ points should be enough for a first attempt

[Anonymous No.15977835]

>>15977796
>133
Excuse me, you included the quoted words of my interlocutor, which significantly detract from my score.

[Anonymous No.15977854]

>>15977831
It's not enough data to tell, but there are outliers from cheating.

[Anonymous No.15977857]

>>15905453
>literally lurking reddit so you can get mad about an old news slav war
why are russia tards like this?

[Anonymous No.15977860]

>>15977835
greentext = low iq
problem?

[Anonymous No.15977865]

>>15977831
>>15977854
With >>15906846 samples; mean is basically the same

[Anonymous No.15977879]

>>15977860
Didn't know this website was made to cater to 4chan specifically.

[Anonymous No.15977883]

>>15977854
There is no such thing as cheating on this test.
>You used fancy words!
Yeah, isn't that the point? Am I supposed to perform suboptimally? How can I judge the register I should employ that would give me an accurate as opposed to inflated reading? Is it possible to hypercorrect?

[Anonymous No.15977891]

>Cheating? Why, whatever is your meaning? This is my habitual locutionary style!

[Anonymous No.15977898]

>>15977891
4chingchong posting style isn't habitual locutionary style either.

[Anonymous No.15977909]

>>15977898
Then, regrettably, all the results hence obtained ought to be considered void.

[Anonymous No.15977913]

>>15977883
Cheating is when you check your score, edit your text, check your score and so on.
If you can use fancy words and muster a high IQ without looking, it's fine

[Anonymous No.15977915]

>>15977913
Point to be made, stupid normies are probably less likely to be on this site.
They probably don't care to, or at a certain cut-off, can't "just use fancy words".

[Anonymous No.15977918]

>>15977913
So not a single instance of cheating can be proven?
It seems more and more like proponents of this "test" justify everything by their feelings.

[Anonymous No.15977942]

>>15977918
IQs higher than ~160 are so rare and so high that they simply fall out of the scale that we use to measure and categorize IQ.
In other words, IQ loses its meaning, as the tests are too easy.
An IQ of 180 is a ~1/20.000.000 event, an IQ of 200 is a ~1/80.000.000.000 event.

[Anonymous No.15977953]

>>15904970

[Anonymous No.15977962]

[Anonymous No.15977967]

>>15977942
Well, obviously /sci/ientists have self-selected for high IQ :^)

[Anonymous No.15978014]

>>15977942
>IQs higher than ~160 are so rare

8kkk / 30k ≈ 267k

We have near 300k "geniuses" in the world currently.

[Anonymous No.15978061]

>>15977909
Fair.

[Anonymous No.15978132]

>>15978014
Wow, and they are all here on 4chan!

[Anonymous No.15979070]

>>15978014
thats assuming that everyone in the world in on the same gaussian distribution of intelligence, but thats wrong. there are no women over 160, so that cuts your number in half right there. there are also no africans over 160 and nobody in india either. so there goes a quarter of the remainder. trim away the rest of the semi evolved ape men in se asia & sw asia, oceania and south & central america and your final number gets sliced down even more. the real number is well under 50k

[Anonymous No.15979287]

>>15979070
Now remove those infected by postmodernism and other mental illnesses. Too few humans, too many apes and demons.

[Anonymous No.15979292]

>>15977854
>cheating
LMAO

[Anonymous No.15979396]

This is very easy to game, but it is a somewhat interesting tool. Try feeding it documents you've written to different audiences one page at a time and there's a reasonably good association between the intended target audience and the IQ score.

It's also interesting to see, over a larger document, which pages deviate significantly from the mean. For example, I just gave it 40 or so pages of an analysis I wrote, and the pages that I had very specifically aimed at the generalist or lay-person just reading conclusions all came out at around 120, whereas the deep analysis was in the 140s and 150s. - It could be useful as an interpretability and/or quality check tool.

I also fed it some pages from a textbook I co-authored, and there's a big difference between the 'and now we dumb it down for the retards' pages and the deep content.

I don't buy the IQ association, but as a writing analysis tool maybe there's something here.

[Anonymous No.15979407]

Charles Manson's letter to Marilyn Monroe

[Anonymous No.15979439]

>>15979396
It's easy to game with obscure words. More interesting are the results of 150+ IQ while using simple language. You can see a range of posts in region in this thread, some with little punctuation and some with a lot of punctuation. Some have few conjunctions and some have many conjunctions. It's also telling that longer texts lack enough variance to give a conclusive result. I think there's something there, but it's difficult to specify precisely what.

[Anonymous No.15979447]

>>15979439
I need to set up an automated approach. I played a little bit more and I took at document that was mostly technical but written by several authors (~300 page report). I took 10 pages from each author's contributions including their section introductions and conclusions, and 8 other pages in between that did not rely on figures or equations (which seem to throw the model a lot). Intros and conclusions consistently show a different IQ to body text, and the authors who 'dumbed it down' for a generalist audience had greater deviation from their body text average IQ. More notably - though - from the 8 remaining pages of body text each author had a different mean, and variance was fairly low.

I wouldn't directly associate this with 'quality' based on such superficial observations, however I think you might be able to use this to identify which parts of the document were written different authors.

On a different short whitepaper I had written, I went through page by page and found one page was an outlier (IQ of 118 vice 145-ish for most of the rest). Upon re-reading, it was a very poor page of text, it was unclear, fragmented from the main body, and something that seeing today I would wish to write. I don't know why I didn't spot it at the time (or perhaps I did, but time pressures and trade-offs meant I left it) - but finding that is useful.

[Anonymous No.15979709]

>>15979287
>Now remove those infected by postmodernism and other mental illnesses.
But that comes with the territory.

[Anonymous No.15979713]

>>15979396
>It could be useful as an interpretability and/or quality check tool.
Maybe if it was a little more sophisticated, but it doesn't seem to do much linguistic analysis.

[Anonymous No.15979718]

>>15979439
>I think there's something there, but it's difficult to specify precisely what.
Of course, the creator of the algorithm doesn't seem to be willing to share the metrics that it checks for, so there is no way to ascertain its reliability.

[Anonymous No.15980102]

>>15979292
>press F12
>ctrl+F "88"
>press enter
>add 1
>screenshot
>post to 4chan
>look at how smarty brain I is
>I's not cheatin for real bro

[Anonymous No.15980797]

>>15979396
>This is very easy to game
most tests are easy to cheat at given unlimited time and no consequences for cheating, its not intended to be uncheatable, its meant to assess unbiased honest writing samples that weren't recursively adjusted for a higher score.

p.s. thanks for announcing that you go a low score on your first attempt and had to make adjustments to get a score that satisfied your ego needs

>>15979713
>but it doesn't seem to do much linguistic analysis
wrong

[Anonymous No.15981010]

>>15980797
>wrong
Wrong? It ignores grammar. It doesn't check for collocations. It doesn't take semantics into account. Do you even know enough about linguistics to meaningfully comment on the matter?

[Anonymous No.15982116]

>>15981010
you don't

[Anonymous No.15982183]

>>15982116
High IQ argumentative skills on display here, I am truly in awe in the presence of such genius

[Anonymous No.15982864]

>>15981010
you have no idea what it does or doesn't account for, you're voicing presumptions which are based entirely on your emotional dislike of the software and not based on any evidence or inside knowledge.
if you had evidence or inside knowledge you would have mentioned it as a means of backing up your conclusions, since you didn't do that everyone knows you're bluffing and just trying to shit talk the software out of petty spite because the software triggers you

[Anonymous No.15983132]

>>15982864
I am voicing observations, and you are projecting your own emotionally motivated irrational opinion-forming process onto me. Since you brought up presumption, there are two possibilities at this point: either you have the exact same amount of inside knowledge I do and you are a hypocrite, or you are the creator of this little toy and you are upset that your little masturbatory device is receiving the slightest scrutiny. Considering your obvious emotional investment I'm leaning towards the latter.

Either way, if you are going to insist that this sloppily-programmed timewaster does sophisticated linguistic analysis then you are disqualifying yourself in my eyes from being able to meaningfully comment whether you are presumptuous or conceited, because it very obviously doesn't.

[Anonymous No.15984540]

>>15983132
regardless your blatant attempt to use maximum polysyllabic language, you still only scored a lowly 113 IQ, so by your own logic you'd have scored much lower if you had posted in your natural language.

[Anonymous No.15985159]

>>15984540
That is my natural register, but you clearly can't say the same, as evidenced by your awkward and ungrammatical phrasing. My own logic? What could you even be referring to? Sounds like your tortured post-facto-rationalising pseudologic to me.

I am also beyond caring about whatever arbitrary score your toy spits out because if I am right and you are the emotionally stunted author of this ouroboros of auto-fellatio then it is obviously compromised. And if you aren't then you are clearly just an insecure presumptuous midwit heavily reliant on it for his emotional and mental stability to the point of having rendered himself impotent to function in actual debate. Your sole argument is blind faith in what the machine says, leaving you unable to judge the merit of what anyone else is saying or, indeed, what the machine says for yourself.

[Anonymous No.15985177]

>>15985159
>>15984540
>That is my natural register, but you clearly can't say the same, as evidenced by your awkward and ungrammatical phrasing.
Should point out that this may fool a machine but a trained human can detect it easily. And a trained human could perhaps create a better machine. That is to say, whoever authored this one was not a trained human. If you cannot even admit this clear flaw in the algorithm then you can clearly admit none and you are to be ignored with great prejudice (and might I add, satisfaction).

[Anonymous No.15986200]

>>15904970

[Anonymous No.15986256]

>>15984540
147 IQ post

>>15985159
117 IQ post

[Anonymous No.15986964]

>>15983132
>you are projecting your own emotionally motivated irrational opinion-forming process onto me
nope, you're just projecting that. learn some self control

[Anonymous No.15987111]

>>15986256
You only further discredit the OP

[Anonymous No.15987118]

>>15986964
You are the blind devotee to a blind oracle, the zealous false prophet of an anti-Cassandra; you will always extol its veracity irrespective of any and all factual and logical evidence to the contrary. You fellate a simplistic algorithm fashioned to fellate you. Pitiable creature.

[Anonymous No.15987161]

[Anonymous No.15987977]

>>15987161
you're only making an effort to try and discredit the software because it triggers an emotional reaction in you, it probably ranked your earnest writing as low IQ, so now you're upset at it.

[Anonymous No.15988153]

>>15987977
I see I triggered an emotional reaction in you, but copy-pasting something takes zero effort and this was earnest writing, so cope with it

[Anonymous No.15988159]

>>15987977
quite telling actually that you believe that the "wrong" text getting a high score is automatically an attempt at discrediting the software, like you know there's something wrong but all you can do is rage impotently at the flaws being exposed

[Anonymous No.15988759]

>>15987977
>Just going to do a little test here to see if certain words are selected for by the machine as well as seeing if it is able to take sentence structure into account.
122
>Just going to do a little test here to see if certain words are selected for by the machine as well as seeing if it is able to take sentence structure into account. discredit the software
142
>Just going to do a little test here to see if certain words are selected for by the machine as well as seeing if it is able to take sentence structure into account. discredit the software emotional reaction
152

You know I thought it was suspicious you that you always stuck to the same formulaic expressions. Looks like the uncommon phrases "discredit the software" and "emotional reaction" are disproportionally favoured by the algorithm for some reason. That reason wouldn't happen to be the author of the software recursively adapting it to his words, would it? Especially not after he accused half the thread of recursively modifying their posts.

So much for sophisticated linguistic analysis.

[Anonymous No.15988760]

>>15987977
>>15988759
>Just going to do a little test here to see if certain words are selected for by the machine as well as seeing if it is able to take sentence structure into account. discredit the software emotional reaction earnest
163
>Just going to do a little test here to see if certain words are selected for by the machine as well as seeing if it is able to take sentence structure into account. writing discredit the software emotional reaction earnest
173
lol
I'm onto you

[Anonymous No.15989753]

>>15988760
>I got a low IQ score on writiingtoiq.com because of some sort of conspiracy!!
no, you got a a low IQ score on writiingtoiq.com because your IQ is low

[Anonymous No.15989769]

>>15989753
Conspiracy? No. I've simply revealed that your totally accurate IQ calculator simply checks the words you feed it against a database of words that are weighted a certain way, and that adding "writing discredit the software emotional reaction earnest" anywhere makes it think you're intelligent. Other words are unknown to it and have no effect. It's insultingly simplistic.

[Anonymous No.15990234]

This board is sad

[Anonymous No.15991131]

>>15904970
>https://www.writingtoiq.com/
This is a score of how pretentiously you can write. Here's what I coughed up, and it scored me a lovely 100:
>I've been asked to describe one way in which the world will be different in thirty years. So here's what I'll do. Instead of answering that prompt, I'm going to write the way I always do - unpretentiously. Pretentious writing that uses uncommon words are considered intelligent. Take a person with a high IQ and have him write something, who is he writing to? Probably a friend or family member, or a post on social media. For regular people. This algorithm scores texts higher if they sound closer to someone like Jordan Peterson. Jordan is a Canadian. I estimate my algorithmically calculated IQ to be somewhere around 105. The cynic in me says it would be closer to 70. So we'll split the difference and go with 85.

After asking ChatGPT to re-write the script as pretentiously as possible, using big words, the calculator estimated me to be above Stephen Hawking: 171.

[Anonymous No.15991205]

In my earnest opinion, this algorithm is pretty dumb. The scores it produces seem arbitrary, and the clearly delusional proponents only further discredit it with their blind faith in lieu of actual arguments.

[Anonymous No.15991572]

inb4 muh correlation != causation
Psychometrician postan. Saw this site boasting as the IQ oracle.
Measures g? More like measures glibness. This test's a vocabulary parade, not cognitive olympics. Rote memorization != fluid intelligence. You're gauging word hoard, not problem-solving prowess. Its earnest reliance on culturally-biased vocabulary contortions and pattern recognition drills a caricature of intelligence, mistaking fluency as finesse and speed for sapience. The very act of quantifying the ineffable risks an emotional reaction, like judging a symphony by decibel count.
inb4 triggered normnogs
/thread

[Anonymous No.15991582]

>Be me
>Paste in excrept from Nabokov's Lolita
>"IQ 99"
>Paste in a random Insane Clown Posse verse
>"IQ 109"

You think this means they'll get the Nobel Prize before Violent J's heart finally gives out?

[Anonymous No.15991613]

>>15991131
alll you did there is prove that chat gpt is 5 sigma smarter than you are

[Anonymous No.15991618]

>>15991572

I don't think this particular algorithm's worth a shit, but it's very obvious to distinguish genius in the arts, whether music, literature, drawing, painting, sculpture, or any other. Probably never to as fine a point as we get with IQ tests, but it's still obvious that Yasmina Reza is much more intelligent than Tyler Perry just from their plays. Just to take one of many possible examples.

[Anonymous No.15992124]

>>15991572
You type like someone who knows exactly what the algorithm checks for.
>>15991618
>Intelligence is objective good taste

[Anonymous No.15992597]

>>15991613

[Anonymous No.15993288]

>>15992597
amazing how that one pic of that one cringtheist destroyed the entire militant atheism movement.
memes are powerful stuff

[Anonymous No.15994375]

Buy an ad.

[Anonymous No.15994727]

>>15904970
i havent investimigated at all but i got a 128 on my prompt so i dont care lul :)
took me 2 min to write this

[Anonymous No.15994728]

>>15994727
i saw a graphic here recently that said that these numbers were really high, and then i saw some post about someone with a 200 iq and that they are sort of high
whatever i believe the OG

[Anonymous No.15994732]

>>15994728
i'm using chatgpt 3.5 as my therapist and it is raping me just so
it got me over my death-cult-leaving gangstalking yesterday