Actions
(25.47 KB, 567x488)
>>/2989/ I absolutely believe this, you guys told us about Bearsian math skills before. So I wonder how a complete math dunce like host can score 130+ meaning 98% of people are worse than him. How retarded do you have to be for 100 then? I think a lot of people score low on IQ tests because they go 'whatever' at some point and result to guessing where host will be painfully slow but never give up until he finds the damn algorithm behind some number squence by trial and error. We'd really like to know how host's father approaching 90s would score but we'll never know because he refuses to answer dumb questions withour real world background and would resort to a 7h monologue on how the test sucks before even answering the first question. Angry boomer tier. Too bad I'm sure he's absolutely top-tier at shape rotation and pattern recognition stuff. Champ at Sudoku too though he swears a lot while doing the harder ones. Anyway I think IQ is normalized to age so while it does decline in absolute skills, this should not be evident in age-adjusted IQ tests. Also decline varies greatly between individuals and also between different skills. Host had one uncle with dementia who couldn't recognize people anyore and didn't know where he was but solved high-school level equations without problems. Both fascinating and scary. Well tulpamancy told us the mind isn't a monolithic thing but it's always interesting to see this in action.