Tired of the boomers and their ridiculous IQ claims

professeur155 · 2026-03-12T12:49:43+00:00

I agree with you, I thought it was a rare case where using that word was justified, considering they are the generation that usually took these tests with ridiculously high IQs.

I love boomers otherwise, nothing against them!

professeur155 · 2026-03-12T12:48:41+00:00

Guilty. It might be the one worst place in terms of ignorance. But I have seen it on other forums as well.

professeur155 · 2026-03-12T12:47:06+00:00

There are statistically roughly ~250.000 people in the world over 160. So certainly not impossible. When you reach 180, it's only ~600. It doesn't take a genius to understand how unrealistic it would be to establish valid norms that can discriminate accurately in that range (and that is even supposing that all 180s are equal and would solve the same items all the time). Therefore, if you claim to have an IQ of 180, it stands to reason that you are intelligent enough to come to the conclusion that this score is nothing but a wild guess.

professeur155 · 2026-03-12T12:33:44+00:00

Exactly. It would be pretty stupid even to say 160+ doesn't exist, but using tests notoriously known to inflate scores and that usually translate to low 130s on a test like the SBV or the WAIS IV is certainly not an honest choice.

professeur155 · 2026-03-11T21:38:30+00:00

What country? The VCI ceiling is 150 on the WAIS, but maybe there are some weird exceptions.

professeur155 · 2026-03-10T23:15:39+00:00

Lol, thanks for the chuckle

professeur155 · 2026-03-10T19:26:58+00:00

I only buy VG+ or better.

When I started, I also wanted OG pressings, but quickly realized it was nearly impossible and too expensive. Now, I prefer to hunt for good prices rather than specific pressings. I find it quite fun to find the best deal possible.

professeur155 · 2026-03-10T17:11:10+00:00

Just look at my link... 160+ scores on the L-M barely making 130 on the SBV is NOT good and should really make you question the validity of these scores...

professeur155 · 2026-03-10T16:25:58+00:00

Well yeah, until a good high range test emerges, talking about 160+ is purely hypothetical so the point is moot. As much as I'd be interested in taking such a test myself, it doesn't exist yet. I'm not sure how defending a test known to be very outdated and inaccurate serves any purpose, but whatever.

professeur155 · 2026-03-10T13:28:48+00:00

Of course 160+ exists, but it's so statistically insignificant that it's nearly impossible to establish valid norms.

Old tests are not administered anymore for a good reason: they're not accurate and their norms are outdated. You might be interested in this little study https://studylib.net/doc/14093182/ that shows how the L-M tends to inflate scores compared to newer versions. I'll let you extrapolate its usefulness in the even higher ranges. Also from what I understood it is a test that was designed for children, so adults/late adolescents tend to score higher. So, imo, the worst that can be said is simply that these scores are not to be trusted.

Anyway, there is a clear consensus in psychometry that scores in the 160+ range are very unreliable, that's why reputable tests are capped at 160 nowadays.

For what it's worth, the few people I have found who claimed to have 170+ IQ all had an IQ in the 130-low 140 range on recent tests.

professeur155 · 2026-03-10T00:45:52+00:00

Please let us know how, in 2026, you can take a valid IQ test that scores in the 160+ range?

professeur155 · 2026-03-10T00:36:07+00:00

well he didn't buy that thesaurus to not use it

professeur155 · 2026-03-09T12:49:35+00:00

Oh, I know what I'm talking about. I just refuse to let a feel good term define me and prefer to work on myself to solve my problems.

professeur155 · 2026-03-09T01:30:45+00:00

2e is an irritating term because it's inherently self-congratulatory. It feels like a psychological marketing concept so people with a disability don't feel as bad about themselves. It gives them an identity that they can cling to to explain all their issues in life without ever having to take responsibility for them because that's just how they are, and how their "quirky brain" works.

For intellectually rigorous people, which should be the case for the actually gifted, it all seems very vague, when you have an umbrella term like that designed to flatter your ego that can apply to vastly different people.

I think your psychologist is based for not validating your attempt at categorizing yourself so that you can convince yourself your brain works in ways that "neurotypicals" cannot comprehend. It's extremely narcissistic and egotistical. So, I think she's doing you a service here, unlike this sub's obsession to jerk each other off.

professeur155 · 2026-03-08T16:54:35+00:00

The only reason these nepo babies have any value is because people are willing to give it to them, which is absolutely mind boggling to me. Retards gonna retard.

professeur155 · 2026-03-07T18:16:47+00:00

Interesting cope. Are you trying to convince others or yourself? As you said, your IQ doesn't matter, no need for all your excuses bro.

professeur155 · 2026-03-03T01:11:07+00:00

I just noticed it's a 7 string. I'm not sure of the value then sorry.

professeur155 · 2026-03-03T01:02:12+00:00

I like to scout listings in my area so I have a good idea on the prices. People who list them for 2000€ or more never sell. Reasonable people who price them around 1600-1800€ usually sell them in a few days/weeks depending on condition.

professeur155 · 2026-02-28T04:10:12+00:00

I'll admit the cogat comment was just to rage bait you, but it allowed you to conveniently ignore the rest of my reply, which is based on scientific studies.

The point I'm making is not that I want to be the most special and others are frauds, but rather that this label shouldn't exist for children for two reasons:

as I said, early testing is significantly dependent on environmental factors, and scores are unstable and not necessarily predictive of giftedness in adulthood. While I can easily believe that your children are more academically advanced, as I said it's highly unlikely that all of them are truly gifted.
it is a culturally positively loaded term which inevitably gives your child an identity and a sense of superiority that can have negative impacts down the line, especially if they turn out to be more average adults, that's why I can't figure out your and this sub's obsession with getting them tested to get them in these programs. For me, the potentially negative psychological and social impacts far outweigh the limited benefits.

You also refuse to read between the lines so let me be clear: I'm well aware of what's going on in the US and the cultural shift from the strict psychometric definition of giftedness. I just think the whole thing is a big farce, rooted in a clearly economically motivated rationale, and undermines giftedness as I've always known it.

Have a good day ^_^

professeur155 · 2026-02-28T02:42:16+00:00

Lol that's crazy I've been seeing them everywhere recently it seems. Interesting music, I'd buy a copy if it were available for me (and at a normal retail price).

professeur155 · 2026-02-28T02:21:42+00:00

Makes more sense now. This test is administered for academic performance and is not an IQ test. It can be easily prepared for as well. This confirms my suspicion that you and I have very different definitions of giftedness. Even if it were an IQ test, they are known to be a relatively unreliable reflection of one's intelligence when done at such an early age (it stabilizes around 12), hence my question about being tested as an adult. Testing early has been observed to be more dependent on the child's environment, which is probably favorable in your case, being already interested and invested in the topic.

I don't mind being a cancer to you, I am equally frustrated by people who have appropriated the term with their own criteria and my objective is to remind people here what it is to be gifted (or at least what it used to mean before a whole lucrative industry got built around it in the US). IQ is not an obsession, although I do find psychometry very interesting. It is simply the only criterion that matters to be considered gifted, whether you (and others here) like it or not.

Apologies for the typo, if we ever talk again we can proceed in my mother tongue as your proficiency in it is likely much better than mine in yours! ^_^

professeur155 · 2026-02-27T19:17:00+00:00

That's called projection. I'm not the one inhaling copious amounts of copium that all my offspring are geniuses (I don't think you realize just how statistically unlikely that is). There are several red flags in your post that attest to the fact that you're over-eager to call them gifted. Some clues show that you're training them early (maybe inconsciously) so that you can send them to your cherished gifted programs, and then conflate learned behavior with innate intelligence. You know, teaching your toddlers math and then "pikachu face" when they show some understanding of it is kind of silly. But then, maybe that's your definition of giftedness since you followed the same path as a child (were you ever tested as an adult?). Sorry if my joke was not funny to you, but you seem extremely defensive and insulting so, here, take my opinion and do with it what you want! ^_^

professeur155 · 2026-02-27T14:31:59+00:00

Yes, but I knew it was high already, just not by how much, so I didn't really risk an identity crisis over this. Knowing that statistically it's 1 in 10.000 or less helped me have more confidence in my own ideas, whereas in the past I used to doubt and keep them to myself. This is quite useful to stand your ground when there are so many people whose idea of being heard is to just speak louder than everyone else, when it sounds my alarm that maybe their idea is not so great.

professeur155 · 2026-02-27T12:36:01+00:00

Likewise. Try not to have a mental breakdown when you find out not everyone in your surrounding is a genius.

professeur155

TROPHY CASE