I'm with you. But if that would be the general thinking then science would be forced to work harder... so, to keep the inner peace at least, let's pretend science knows everything, science can measure intelligence, the arrogant people getting 140+ are the most beatiful minds in the universe...

I've done an IQ test once but they never told me the score... must have been embarrasingly low.

Anyway I'm old enough to know to get anywhere in life a big ego gets you further than a high IQ.

Yep, like this one with some abstract images , pick the following one. I dont get how that would get anyone's intelligence , maybe pattern recognition , but that's all.

Hmm it could be useful for finding mentally ill people or get some info whats wrong with them.
Exactly, ego and connections matter the most.
No it is not.
Maybe you are just not smart enough to comprehend it. Already wrote I just want others opinion on these tests.
I'm just curious as always.
Yeah, there could be a correlation, but I haven't seen any evidence for this.

There's a correlation between IQ scores and general life success, many studies have shown it, just google it. So IQ tests do seem to measure something important (the serious ones, probably not the ones you can take on any dubious website).
And you're still dodging the question about your score. Obviously you've got something to hide!

There is zero relation between so-called "IQ tests" and actual intelligence.

The alleged measures they use to supposedly test for "intelligence" are completely man-made and arbitrary.

For example, they say that someone who answers questions quickly is more "intelligent" than someone who takes their time and answers more slowly. But that is not necessarily true at all. Some random humans just decided to ordain themselves 'gods' to determine that answering quickly equals high intelligence. Yet really, that's not a fact; it's just a completely subjective opinion, masquerading & misrepresented to be a "fact."

Ditto for the "IQ tests" in general and also the very concept of "IQ."

No, not mentally ill people, though they can be synonymous. I was referring to mentally disabled people with respect to mental retardation. For example, those requiring a special education (< 70 IQ) to better integrate into society as a consequence of previous head trauma, birth complications, fetal alcohol syndrome, genetic defects, etc. And it's just one of many tools to diagnose these issues by psychiatrists.

People who score well on these tests can also be [perceived] idiots too. Case example: all those 'smart' people who pay test fees and annual memberships to join high IQ societies to stroke their ego when they could've paid a prostitute to stroke something else for them that feels way better. If you have high credentials through education, experience, and accomplishments under your belt, you don't need to join a high IQ society. They speak for themselves.

Arent those mentally ill? I mean they have so bad thinking they cant live normally and need constant surveillance. That seems like an illness.
Well maybe they enjoy the credentials more than sex, but yeah paying for this doesn't seem a smart thing to do.

This is what I think about these tests, they are bogus.
It wants to measure something, but it is not physical and isn't defined well what it is anyway.

And while IQ has some correlation with life success, it does not guarantee that high iq => good life success . Plenty of smart(high IQ) people failed in life. And life success needs defining also. Is it most money earned?

So these tests measure something ,but we can use it for very little.

No, though I might've been using the wrong terms. Everyone is susceptible to mental illness. Addiction and depression are good examples.

Mentally / intellectual disabled people are what you're thinking of. It takes significantly more effort and expertise than a few months of therapy and ongoing medication to [re-]integrate them into society compared to others with mental disabilities do.

I agree, but than again you are talking about early psychologist's, even now most of psychology is garbage. Like 70 percent of it isn't even empirically proven, or peer proven. It's is just garbage used by self appointed people to make them selves more powerful. It is more like a religion than a science, especially when you start talking to its followers. Some of it that can be backed up with science is real, but most of that is neuroscience not psychology.

The same people who think a IQ test has meaning, also think spelling in a chat room equals a measure of intelligence. The people that live on that untainted isle that is protected by the government, would score 0 on those tests, but they are 100 percent just intelligent as we are, they just lack the combined knowledge of the last 6000 + years, like we do. Also it gives the wrong impression on what intelligence is, another example is if a alien race with equal to our intelligence took it, they would also score 0 on it.

The only way to have a gauge of intelligence, would be with brain scans and un tainted by human garbage testing, that cant be altered by human bias. If you cant prove it with actual science to me its garbage, and most of psychology is garbage, and yes they know it is garbage. Especially when you bring in how most of them used it to make them selves extremely wealthy and powerful, just like a church does. The only science of the human mind that is real is neuro science, if it isnt backed by brain scans, or can be proven with a physical testing it prolly isnt true. So a test created by a bias Frenchman 100 years ago isnt worth anything, or anything after it based on the same concepts.

A easier way to put it is this, a doctor does not just ask you question if you have a broken leg, they use physical tests to prove it. If actual doctors practiced medicine like pseudo science psychology people, you could be diagnosed with a broken leg by talking to the doctor.

You probably meant intelligence, rather than knowledge.

The measurement of the IQ is a test of how well one fares at the newly created situation that has not experienced before. Because repeatedly doing something is a matter of experience and intelligence, while doing it for the first time is a true test.

Yes, thanks for the correction.

That's the whole idea though, these tests must be neutral towards knowledge and experience thus problems are abstract. Idea is that you could take 12 years old child, scientist from Silicon Valley, an Indian from Amazon jungle, stockbroker from Wall Street, grocery store clerk, college student, factory worker and a bum and none of them should have better chances for high score than others. That's the theory at least.

History knows geniuses with extremely high IQ solving complex mathematical problems in blink of an eye while having issues with simple everyday tasks. IQ is not everything, it refers only to very specific type of intelligence, not even necessarily that useful.