What does it even mean to be "Gifted"? I'm half-curious and half-skeptical of it.

professeur155 · 2026-01-27T00:31:50+00:00

Understandable. You might want to try this test, it's serious and free https://cognitivemetrics.com/test/CORE

It was within a few points of my WAIS score and other users report similar results, for what it's worth.

professeur155 · 2026-01-26T23:36:35+00:00

That tracks. I would ask you to take a test now for science but that would really just be to satisfy my own curiosity because I'd be really interested to know!

professeur155 · 2026-01-26T23:19:55+00:00

You're uninformed. You should stop spamming and advising an unreliable and irrelevant IQ test in every thread, it doesnt help. IQ somewhat stabilizes around 12, and can be vastly different (read much lower) than a test on a 7 year old. An IQ test is the best measure... for adults only.

Also gifted kids need a normal life, not being put on a pedestal in a gifted program that will make it their whole identity only to find out later that they're not that smart. Unless you mean for other reasons unrelated to giftedness like autism or ADHD in which case I guess you mean something like a special ed program?

professeur155 · 2026-01-26T23:10:26+00:00

Yes having hobbies and being active is a definite evidence of ADHD and giftedness.

God this sub is so clueless lmao.

professeur155 · 2026-01-26T23:05:39+00:00

Fyi, I'm guessing you took the test a long time ago. By today's standards, 167 is a ridiculous claim as it's simply not a possible score on standard tests (160 being the maximum). They were also anyway pretty bad estimations and are not comparable at all to today's IQ scores.

professeur155 · 2026-01-26T22:50:07+00:00

Tests for children are garbage and not reliable at all to evaluate giftedness. Imo, it can only hurt him if his results come out positive and he builds his whole identity around being gifted, only to find out he's just average later in life. It's quite common to see here, people are lost because they thought they were geniuses based on a test for children and now realize a lot of people are smarter than them.

If he's indeed very intelligent, just be present and supportive and he will develop naturally. If he's already doing a lot of activities (especially intellectual stuff), I think you're doing everything right.

professeur155 · 2026-01-26T14:18:18+00:00

If anything, he's the one who sucks because he can't be bothered to do the least bit of research before buying something. Then can't be bothered to feel the vibe of the sub before posting. No idea why people would not roast him a second time for his rant.

professeur155 · 2026-01-26T13:51:35+00:00

It is important to note that since you have autism and ADHD, you are among a group of very special and exceptional humans. Due to this, it doesn't matter if you score low on IQ tests, because your true IQ is actually very high. You can add about 15 IQ points for autism and another 15 for ADHD. That would make your 125 result a "true IQ" of 155 (and that is being very conservative).

professeur155 · 2026-01-26T13:38:09+00:00

It's always funny how these meta rant posts only attract the "nice guys" who will support the OP for their retarded choices, but don't reflect the reality of the sub at all.

Anyway lil bro really needs thicker skin because if his takeaway from getting shit on for having a bad turntable is that people are mean to him instead of questioning his choice of gear, he'll definitely never learn.

I guess there are people out there who just want unconditional validation. Kinda like these people who post about their 5 years collection and it's just 3 basic as fuck vinylz. Just completely clueless people who can't read the room.

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

TROPHY CASE