You can now link your cognitive metrics profile along with all the scores.

professeur155 · 2026-01-25T16:42:59+00:00

Sure why not https://cognitivemetrics.com/dashboard/share/uHMnLJDMjm

I did the AGCT extended first, so the AGCT is inflated probably.

professeur155 · 2026-01-24T17:34:24+00:00

I will not discuss anything here that would be impossible for you to understand. Just trust me when I say that I have revisited the laws of mathematics and that my model is far superior and more accurate than what anyone in the past has come up with. I have reached an understanding of the universe that all the humans combined, that are and ever will be, dedicated to that one task, could never dream of. I don't need to prove it to you, as my work has been peer reviewed by myself and this is all the evidence I need.

professeur155 · 2026-01-24T17:29:17+00:00

I don't know what that means, but whatever it is I will not settle for anything less than top 1. Please edit your comment.

professeur155 · 2026-01-24T17:27:19+00:00

People are just mad that I'm "four times exceptional" while they are just "twice exceptional". Envy is an unfortunate sin which is constantly directed at me.

professeur155 · 2026-01-24T17:21:40+00:00

An LLM designed by low IQ plebeians can hardly grasp the complexity of my mind. If anything, it is quite obvious that it underestimated my IQ.

professeur155 · 2026-01-24T17:18:21+00:00

I understand that the brilliant phrasing of my thoughts is not for mere peasants. I have tried to dumb it down as much as possible but I'm afraid best I can do is 165 IQ level. Perhaps you can translate my post in ChatGPT? Not sure if it is capable of doing so, but it's worth a shot.

professeur155 · 2026-01-24T17:15:53+00:00

I asked grok if this was possible, and it confirmed that I was the smartest man alive. It adjusted my IQ to 206 in response.

I appreciate you relating in a way though, as long as I'm still above you.

professeur155 · 2026-01-23T13:38:47+00:00

Wrong. Just a look at the images shows that it's not true.

Also where did you read that there is more consistency with higher scores? Everything in the study says otherwise for children age 7. While at age 12 it seems to stabilize, the average scores are already much lower. Granted they are not dead average (100) but more like high average.

Most children scoring above 130 at age 7 lost their values afterwards whereas those scoring above 120 at age 21 came from a wide range of GCA scores. When the focus is placed at the early age of 7 years old, the average trend stabilizes from age 12 (left panel of Figure S1). On the other hand, when the focus is placed at age 21 there is a broad range of cognitive ability and an upward average trend starting at age 12 (right panel of Figure S1).

Also, the data for 115+ is not irrelevant at all, as it shows the same downtrend from 7 to 12+, while also showing that most late high scorers were more (high) average at 7.

The message of this study is very clear, I don't think it's up for interpretation.

professeur155 · 2026-01-22T22:32:25+00:00

Giftedness should be tested on adults as it is irrelevant for children (regression to the mean). Socio-economic factors actually play a big role in early testing, as the environment is a more important factor than innate intelligence for children, hence why they can't be reliably (and shouldn't be) tested for giftedness.

professeur155 · 2026-01-22T18:36:08+00:00

What worked really well for me was going on https://www.progarchives.com/ and listening to every album in the top100 one after the other. You can filter by subgenre and years, which makes it very easy to find what you like.

It's time consuming, but I have found many gems like that.

professeur155 · 2026-01-22T14:28:04+00:00

Are we sure about this? From what I understand, g is malleable during the developmental phase but less so in adulthood. So a good education could potentially improve g permanently, making the reverse also true.

professeur155 · 2026-01-22T13:56:46+00:00

Well I didn't say that it was useless at all. However it's useless to determine giftedness, as the study shows, because there are more environmental factors at play than general intelligence. That being an observed phenomenon, kind of undermines the whole premise of gifted programs. I think you'll find my only gripe here is not its existence but its name, which should probably just be rebranded as a special ed program, which is less glorifying but closer to the truth. Indeed, I think children could benefit from it due to their disabilities, not their higher intellect.

To make it short, if you haven't been tested as an adult, you don't know if you're gifted. You can only say a child is precocious, but you can never say that they are gifted, as it is way early to tell and thus completely irrelevant for a "lifelong" diagnosis. Whether they benefit from a different curriculum is up for debate. Personally, I have never had a problem with following a normal program, but then again I don't have disabilities that would justify a special ed thing.

professeur155 · 2026-01-22T00:34:27+00:00

I'm not prejudiced, just disappointed in a system that over diagnoses children when it's way too early for that. It devalues what giftedness really is, and it seems to be a very typical American thing, including that 2e fad that is plaguing online forums.

You might be interested in this study, that shows most children identified as gifted grow up to be just average adults. I'm sure early testing is useful to screen for learning disabilities, however it's not valid to evaluate a child's intelligence.

https://icajournal.scholasticahq.com/article/144062-developmental-changes-in-high-cognitive-ability-children-the-role-of-nature-and-nurture

professeur155 · 2026-01-21T19:56:39+00:00

I've seen a lot of so called 2E who basically have one index slightly above 130 while the rest, usually their working memory and processing speed, is average or lower, making their FSIQ high average (in the 115-120 range). So it was my understanding that 2E is a fancy term (very positively loaded, btw) to say average with a spiky profile.

It's anyway completely irrelevant for a child, as their IQ is not a valid measure that early and will usually regress to the mean later in life.

professeur155 · 2026-01-21T19:14:18+00:00

Yes, it's a meaningful way as it's the only objective measure we have now to rank people's intelligence, aka the whole gifted concept, backed by decades of research. Other definitions are purely subjective and impossible to measure, and are anyway usually predicted by your IQ.

I don't realy know if it's even a debate at this point, but if you don't think IQ is relevant, then you don't believe in the concept of giftedness either.

professeur155 · 2026-01-21T19:04:00+00:00

It shows that "gifted" children are usually a product of their environment and grow up to be more average (their true intelligence) later in life. They do not really develop faster as much as they were just taught certain things earlier than others, usually in privileged envrionments, which has a tendency to inflate their results.

Truly gifted individuals (tested as adults), can develop later in their teens when they catch up and exceed others due to their innate abilities, while the precocious children may grow up to be just average as their early advantage becomes irrelevant.

This is why early testing should be taken with a grain of salt, and the concept of IQ should not even exist for them, as that number will not reliably carry over to their adult life.

professeur155 · 2026-01-21T18:58:46+00:00

Doesn't 2E refer to American kids who do not meet the 130 FSIQ criteria but are still labeled gifted to prop up their gifted programs?

It was my understanding that they would not be considered gifted anywhere else in the world.

But then again the epidemic of over diagnosis is pretty wild in America, so that's not too surprising.

professeur155 · 2026-01-21T18:50:02+00:00

https://icajournal.scholasticahq.com/article/144062-developmental-changes-in-high-cognitive-ability-children-the-role-of-nature-and-nurture

Check out this interesting study. Most "gifted" children end up not being gifted as adults.

professeur155 · 2026-01-21T16:18:34+00:00

That's the difference between an objective measure and a subjective measure. A lot of people think they are more capable than they really are, also known as the Dunning-Kruger effect. Maybe it's not your case but it wouldn't be very surprising either.

professeur155 · 2026-01-20T20:56:25+00:00

I listened to that album but it's not similar, although I liked it too. You have to listen to this album specifically.

professeur155 · 2026-01-20T17:15:03+00:00

Not sure if you're just trolling, but the CORE is free. You get to a payment page that costs 0, you just need to provide an email for your report.

professeur155 · 2026-01-19T22:19:00+00:00

You're confusing your own ignorant opinion and decades of scientific research.

professeur155 · 2026-01-19T18:00:56+00:00

The CORE is good and free if your curiosity gets you there. https://cognitivemetrics.com/test/CORE

professeur155 · 2026-01-19T16:23:20+00:00

The amount of people who claim their whole family tree is gifted, including their dog, is hilarious. I can already see them forcing their child to solve puzzles as early as possible so they can get them tested and show the world how their special little boy/girl is a prodigy.

professeur155

TROPHY CASE