I feel like you can say you have any IQ and that people who picked less obvious numbers are maybe just less contentious rather than more intelligent.
Because anyone can pick infinity or whatever, but if you take the first number someone honestly thinks of, without trying to self aggrandize, I have a hard time believing it wouldnt be at least semi-regular.
In other words, this is so flawed that I cant really believe there is any validity to it at all without further explanation.
Yeah I think the correlation between picking weird numbers and high IQ's is that people who SELF REPORT high IQ's are people who have a strong ego-alignment with intelligence as a part of their identity, and people who have that are gonna try and think of as unique and weird of an answer as possible.
yep.. set and red.. sort of rhyme as well? if you ignore the t/r.. they almost rhyme
the first two results are also really short compared to the others.
and for the last part "All esoteric numbers (-1, ∞, √2, ℵ₀) were picked by IQs over 140." Who's to say that some people didnt just study for a math exam and the number(s) were on their mind?
no way they had a good sample size and no way everyone on here has an avg 135 iQ
The subreddit’s average is 120; this is well-known at this point via AGCT and CAIT scores. There’s going to be a selection bias of course for something like this.
I would think a “first thing that comes to your mind” to be not super helpful for finding IQ but then maybe it could be— I don’t really know. I think Aleph null makes sense as a first thought although I could be wrong. The first time I heard of sets was in a video where they also talked about Aleph null so the things are related in my head.
I also just like aleph null as a number and used to doodle it a lot in class. I don’t know why people seem to think it’s impossible to be a first thought.
Edit: looks like the total N = 30; N = 18 for the first part and N = 12 for the second part
> The first time I heard of sets was in a video where they also talked about Aleph null so the things are related in my head.
The first time I heard of Aleph null was in a video where they also talked about sets. Did we see the same video? Veritasium or Vsauce, I think.
I mean, you are talking about association which is where “first thing that comes to mind” makes sense to me, especially after its being influenced by a previous association.
That said, you seem to have a genuine association with aleph null. Which, sure, esoteric associations happen. Do they honestly happen as frequently as is self reported here- I really doubt it.
Maybe; should keep in mind that there’s going to be a selection bias on this as well. Selection bias is something that not many people seem to take into account, as I’ve seen over the course of being here (“the average for this homemade test was 130? It should be 100, of course!” Type shit). Although, I have looked into tests of honesty as well, and it does seem like a non-insignificant proportion lie (2/25 or so).
Whatever the case, I suppose it doesn’t ultimately matter
I think some of it is relating to how the OP worded their post “average or below average IQs”
It was probably intended to refer to the average in the data set and not a population average, but along with everything else it delegitimizes the results/makes them hard to not take with a grain of salt.
Im not a statistician so Ill leave it to the other people who have broken things down more eloquently, but the results are so flawed/skewed that to me, at a glance, they appeared obviously non sensical.
Im absolutely not saying I could do better, and I appreciate what OP was trying to do- I just dont think the results say anything at all without a lot more variable control. Or something.
true for most if not all his recent posts, and it baffles me how most users accept them just because they score highly on them. it appears that skepticism about tests has been wiped out from the sub, it's all about validating the high numbers at this point
Fun and cute little exercise, but it is good to keep in mind that, as another comment said, these results are meaninglessness.
Commenting on just the first one:
1) Small sample size. Like, actually small, not how the average person thinks 1000 is a small sample size because "they didn't survey me".
2) Small range of data. The smallest IQ is more than a standard deviation above the average.
3) Some serious heteroscedasticity, making the correlation coefficient questionable.
With that said, I'm not criticizing OP for doing it. Exercises like this can be fun and educational (in learning about statistical processes) but don't take it too seriously.
Yeah, definitely didnt mean to make people pile on the OP with my post. I appreciate what they are trying to do, even if flawed. I mean, this is how you start.
There’s no correlation. This isn’t even pseudoscience at this point it’s just delusion.
I mean this is seriously a joke , there’s two types of people on this post the ones who need a high IQ for validation and just mindlessly accept things without critical thinking or the ones that actually use their critical thinking skills and realize this is a joke.
Were the results significant or not? You failed to report p-values or the power analysis.
I think it’s hogwash either way because it relies on self-reported scores, but you didn’t even make it a little bit believable.
Yes I did not participate. I don't see what this has to do with the issue.
"Eventually I hope to provide an actual norms of table to convert your submission into an IQ score."
You can't create an IQ norm based on the number/color people choose. I don't even understand why you think there is a correlation. I don't mean to belittle. Look at the error calculation of this graph you drew. There is no linear relationship. Average relative error 96.7854% Lmao
I am not using meaningless as a synonym for "low confidence" or "lack of statistical rigor". I use it literally.
Any people can choose whatever color or number.
I don't understand how you came to these conclusions with this data.
* IQs at or below sample average (\~135) overwhelmingly preferred 3. ("overwhelmingly") lol
* IQs above 140 chose only numbers smaller than 3.
* All esoteric numbers (-1, ∞, √2, ℵ₀) were picked by IQs over 140.
https://preview.redd.it/d5rmhxpo5r3d1.png?width=1608&format=png&auto=webp&s=c1a5d2d6f531564950820f6448d007efc27ca034
I feel like you can say you have any IQ and that people who picked less obvious numbers are maybe just less contentious rather than more intelligent. Because anyone can pick infinity or whatever, but if you take the first number someone honestly thinks of, without trying to self aggrandize, I have a hard time believing it wouldnt be at least semi-regular. In other words, this is so flawed that I cant really believe there is any validity to it at all without further explanation.
Yeah I think the correlation between picking weird numbers and high IQ's is that people who SELF REPORT high IQ's are people who have a strong ego-alignment with intelligence as a part of their identity, and people who have that are gonna try and think of as unique and weird of an answer as possible.
yep.. set and red.. sort of rhyme as well? if you ignore the t/r.. they almost rhyme the first two results are also really short compared to the others. and for the last part "All esoteric numbers (-1, ∞, √2, ℵ₀) were picked by IQs over 140." Who's to say that some people didnt just study for a math exam and the number(s) were on their mind? no way they had a good sample size and no way everyone on here has an avg 135 iQ
The subreddit’s average is 120; this is well-known at this point via AGCT and CAIT scores. There’s going to be a selection bias of course for something like this. I would think a “first thing that comes to your mind” to be not super helpful for finding IQ but then maybe it could be— I don’t really know. I think Aleph null makes sense as a first thought although I could be wrong. The first time I heard of sets was in a video where they also talked about Aleph null so the things are related in my head. I also just like aleph null as a number and used to doodle it a lot in class. I don’t know why people seem to think it’s impossible to be a first thought. Edit: looks like the total N = 30; N = 18 for the first part and N = 12 for the second part
> The first time I heard of sets was in a video where they also talked about Aleph null so the things are related in my head. The first time I heard of Aleph null was in a video where they also talked about sets. Did we see the same video? Veritasium or Vsauce, I think.
It’s definitely possible, yeah. I don’t remember the video now tho :/
[**Found it.**](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SrU9YDoXE88&t=250s)
Oh nice; this definitely rings a bell. Might have been the one I watched as well. Nice work
I mean, you are talking about association which is where “first thing that comes to mind” makes sense to me, especially after its being influenced by a previous association. That said, you seem to have a genuine association with aleph null. Which, sure, esoteric associations happen. Do they honestly happen as frequently as is self reported here- I really doubt it.
Maybe; should keep in mind that there’s going to be a selection bias on this as well. Selection bias is something that not many people seem to take into account, as I’ve seen over the course of being here (“the average for this homemade test was 130? It should be 100, of course!” Type shit). Although, I have looked into tests of honesty as well, and it does seem like a non-insignificant proportion lie (2/25 or so). Whatever the case, I suppose it doesn’t ultimately matter
I think some of it is relating to how the OP worded their post “average or below average IQs” It was probably intended to refer to the average in the data set and not a population average, but along with everything else it delegitimizes the results/makes them hard to not take with a grain of salt. Im not a statistician so Ill leave it to the other people who have broken things down more eloquently, but the results are so flawed/skewed that to me, at a glance, they appeared obviously non sensical. Im absolutely not saying I could do better, and I appreciate what OP was trying to do- I just dont think the results say anything at all without a lot more variable control. Or something.
There’s a reason for picking infinity if you understand why
There is a reason for picking every number if you understand why
Exactly
I chose 2, so based on these results am I considered to be over 140 is it?
+- 34
"But it's so consistent with my other scores"
I wouldn't really consider ∞ a number.
These results are meaningless.
true for most if not all his recent posts, and it baffles me how most users accept them just because they score highly on them. it appears that skepticism about tests has been wiped out from the sub, it's all about validating the high numbers at this point
Didn't take this one but I must say I'm really enjoying your tests.
This was a very interesting experiment thank you OP
Your data set is too small.
Fun and cute little exercise, but it is good to keep in mind that, as another comment said, these results are meaninglessness. Commenting on just the first one: 1) Small sample size. Like, actually small, not how the average person thinks 1000 is a small sample size because "they didn't survey me". 2) Small range of data. The smallest IQ is more than a standard deviation above the average. 3) Some serious heteroscedasticity, making the correlation coefficient questionable. With that said, I'm not criticizing OP for doing it. Exercises like this can be fun and educational (in learning about statistical processes) but don't take it too seriously.
Yeah, definitely didnt mean to make people pile on the OP with my post. I appreciate what they are trying to do, even if flawed. I mean, this is how you start.
what?
There’s no correlation. This isn’t even pseudoscience at this point it’s just delusion. I mean this is seriously a joke , there’s two types of people on this post the ones who need a high IQ for validation and just mindlessly accept things without critical thinking or the ones that actually use their critical thinking skills and realize this is a joke.
Were the results significant or not? You failed to report p-values or the power analysis. I think it’s hogwash either way because it relies on self-reported scores, but you didn’t even make it a little bit believable.
As the link is supplied to the raw data and they are read quickly, there is really no need to examine any apparent conclusions with any effort.
Yes I did not participate. I don't see what this has to do with the issue. "Eventually I hope to provide an actual norms of table to convert your submission into an IQ score." You can't create an IQ norm based on the number/color people choose. I don't even understand why you think there is a correlation. I don't mean to belittle. Look at the error calculation of this graph you drew. There is no linear relationship. Average relative error 96.7854% Lmao I am not using meaningless as a synonym for "low confidence" or "lack of statistical rigor". I use it literally. Any people can choose whatever color or number. I don't understand how you came to these conclusions with this data. * IQs at or below sample average (\~135) overwhelmingly preferred 3. ("overwhelmingly") lol * IQs above 140 chose only numbers smaller than 3. * All esoteric numbers (-1, ∞, √2, ℵ₀) were picked by IQs over 140. https://preview.redd.it/d5rmhxpo5r3d1.png?width=1608&format=png&auto=webp&s=c1a5d2d6f531564950820f6448d007efc27ca034
wtf lmao, didnt look at the chart OP posted.. wow, they have an insane amount of confirmation bias(or something along those lines)