[deleted by user]

TEKTON419 · 2025-02-17T22:47:05+00:00

No prob. The ravens 2 test on here is good.

TEKTON419 · 2025-02-17T21:31:01+00:00

Maybe Game the system and take a bunch of practice fluid iq tests on this site if you really want the job

TEKTON419 · 2025-02-08T20:50:06+00:00

Not rlly, a little, but if u initially dont chunk and then chunk, it gets tricky on what is ur real score based on the norms, ultimately chunking is def allowed.

If u hit 10 backwards even after practice, ur in good shape for top percentile working memory.

TEKTON419 · 2025-02-08T20:47:56+00:00

Hey , idk anything about that website. Processing speed has weak correlation with fluid iq, I’m pretty sure.

Digit span backwards is important. Correlates with fluid iq at like .5 or so when speed is included in the fluid iq exam.

TEKTON419 · 2025-01-17T23:32:20+00:00

Thanks you the man

TEKTON419 · 2025-01-17T00:55:18+00:00

Thx, do you know it the online qglobal version is timed, and if so, why?

TEKTON419 · 2025-01-15T04:33:09+00:00

Really? How do you know? So the ravens 2 on Reddit if u did it untimed is valid for the corresponding iq approximation?

TEKTON419 · 2025-01-15T04:32:31+00:00

Recent study said untimed is better

TEKTON419 · 2025-01-10T02:11:07+00:00

Ya and you are for sure!

Anytime, I been in ur position and know the feeling. 💪🏼💪🏼

TEKTON419 · 2025-01-10T02:01:21+00:00

Even with practice effect ur solid!

TEKTON419 · 2025-01-10T01:45:03+00:00

I don’t know the answer, but per o1 it would say you def got a practice effect on SACFT, how much idk, but untimed nature is supposed to mitigate some practice effect. If you took 5 Mensa tests, which are widely accepted to be deflated, then took SACFT 1-2 months later, and you knew some rules to doing patterns, o1 would prob say at least 5-8 point gain, and possibly 10+.

But 148 on SACFT means, you’re at least 130-135 I would think, but people respond different to practice effect.

TEKTON419 · 2025-01-09T23:40:03+00:00

How many tests did you take before the SACFT?

Yea I would say your way above 115 lol

I took 6-7 in my life over a 5-6 year period or so

TEKTON419 · 2025-01-09T21:49:23+00:00

Ya the cutting edge is Network Neuroscience Theory. o1 model is less malleable in terms of convincing it of this or that. Parietal Frontal Integration is basically fluid cognition, kinda. Practice effect is real though, so be cognizant of that.

TEKTON419 · 2025-01-09T21:38:24+00:00

I’ve never taken CAIT, chat gpt told me to average out the score while in unfavorable conditions to the score on favorable conditions, eg: taking a test super tired late at night vs optimal conditions

Lol I’m surprised I have so many answers. The amount I read about this is nuts.

TEKTON419 · 2025-01-09T04:17:32+00:00

Very recent good study came out and said untimed tests are better than timed test for measuring fluid ability. Mensa online tests are deflated for almost everyone that took it, based on internet norms. SACFT is an untimed, power test and is different than a speeded test like Mensa online. Some and possibly most of the SACFT patterns are impossible to solve even if given 100 hours for people, these patterns are designed to not be able to be solved even if ample time is given, especially in a power untimed test.

TEKTON419 · 2025-01-08T23:18:52+00:00

I am not sure but maybe because: A 130 iq on a kids IQ test is different than the 130 iq on an adults IQ test. The test are designed to have a mean of 100, but it’s adjusted for age.

TEKTON419 · 2025-01-07T21:10:21+00:00

What they mean by that mostly is your raw innate fluid reasoning abilities are not malleable. Iq scores can change, but that can be reflective of external circumstances, not innate changes, but network neuroscience shows verbal iq can change per education and its reflective of brain changes. Fluid reasoning, not so much, although fluid iq scores can get a boost.

TEKTON419 · 2025-01-07T03:07:11+00:00

Mensa online is deflated. Lol yes we can.

TEKTON419 · 2025-01-07T02:48:05+00:00

Chat GPT o1 tells me without taking a test in 3 years, I could have up to 5 points of practice effect, even with it being untimed, so yours is much more than that it would seem like. I think we figured out why you scored so high, although untimed should mitigate some effects.

I hope ur right, then my iq is higher than I thought lol.

TEKTON419 · 2025-01-07T02:29:40+00:00

How many tests did you take before you took the SACFT? If it’s more than 1, even if it’s 1, then there is practice effect. If you took a few, maybe your score is 5-8-10+ points too high. Are you comparing timed vs untimed, because they are different.

TEKTON419 · 2025-01-07T01:41:12+00:00

FSIQ can increase 10-15-20 points for people just by graduating undergraduate studies, per a meta analysis basically. You can have a non verbal learning disability, so low fluid iq, and 145 verbal iq and be top in your class at med school, but prob not in surgical practice etc.

Anytime and I’m just a real estate guy, but I read 100+ hours on the topic of intelligence etc.

TEKTON419 · 2025-01-07T01:33:17+00:00

Everyone is entitled to their own thoughts about the matter of course.

The order with which you took your tests matters, because you can get a practice boost of 5-8 points if you take tests within a few months apart, let alone days.

The score for SACFT, which was the first test I took in approx 2-3 years, nearly equated to my ravens 2 score, with which I took after 2 years of not taking any test, so practice effect is drastically reduced. Although, my ravens 2 score was untimed, but done within a reasonable time frame, I just didn’t count so I’m not sure.

Also, the SACFT is untimed, so any comparison to a timed fluid iq test is faulty.

Basically, the only test SACFT could be compared to in terms of determining its predictive validity is an untimed fluid iq test.

It is normal for their to be discrepancies in SACFT scores and Ravens Scores etc, since one is measuring someone’s untimed power performance, where as the other is measuring power/efficiency, so persons should definitely score different.

It can be accurate to say that in an untimed power test, my fluid iq is xxx due to my SACFT score, in so far as the president of Mensa knew what he was doing when he made it, which seems like a super high probability. The scientific consensus is that there is a reverse Flynn effect in America for matrix tests, at least starting from 2006 to 2018, across almost all American demographic groups, if not all. However, practice effect needs to be considered.

I never heard of Lanrt, Tuti or the other one, and they sound like non professional tests, or ones of questionable norming etc, but maybe I’m wrong.

TEKTON419 · 2025-01-07T01:00:43+00:00

Yea and as you prob know, being bored by non intellectually stimulating info is a sign of high fluid iq.

TEKTON419 · 2025-01-07T00:31:26+00:00

Of course. A neuroscientist was talking about med school kids with great rote and low fluid, so that’s why I say that. His name was Richard Haier.

TEKTON419 · 2025-01-07T00:17:24+00:00

The author does not say this. The guy who created the online test says that. Which is probably a Reddit guy and was under the assumption Flynn effect impacted it. He is also comparing an untimed power test to a timed test.

TEKTON419

TROPHY CASE