Test your Verbal-Linguistic Intelligence

I'm an ESL btw.
I must be better in Italian an spanish than this.

Attached: IMG_1675.png (640x1136, 112K)

I got 132. There’s no way it’s that high. This test seems kind of bullshit.

>implying it doesn’t take an unmatched level of serious concentration effort to understand Ulysses that

Like all IQ tests It's indicative not descriptive.

It's because most of it asks for vocabulary, which is the result of educational attainment and social habitus. Calling it an IQ test is VERY much a stretch.

>unmatched level of serious concentration effort
yes it does but i want to know what makes Ulysses so great when compared to Moby Dick or Brothers Karamazov. I mean it's a great new invention craft wise and it has astounding erudition in it but i don't think it offers anything new in terms of human nature...

of course i am wrong and that's why i asked you how to analyse it.

Thanks for your help. I am going to be reading it again soon.

Interesting. And here I'm sitting, feeling like I've got a clump of cement in my skull at the time being.

Attached: test.jpg (769x399, 30K)

hehehe

Attached: Screen Shot 2019-09-10 at 2.16.18 PM.png (1544x796, 172K)

I forgot a word in there by the way
>unmatched level of serious concentration AND effort
But anyways, I can’t even say I enjoyed reading Ulysses for the exact reason above. You seriously have to strain yourself to understand what you’re reading (in my opinion).
I just meant strictly in terms of what one would think IQ is with things like pattern recognition. Joyce was basically laying a trail of breadcrumbs with that book that don’t really lead anywhere but the reward is the effort it takes to follow.
I will also be reading it again soon because I only understood about 10% of it, since, like I said, if you aren’t straining your brain and 110% focused while reading it, it’s going to be nonsense

Congrats!

This test is pure garbage. Verbal intelligence has nothing to do with pedantic knowledge of english language (though it's usually a good measure how well you are read), yet 3/4 of that test are just about that.

Real world testing for verbal IQ involves reading few sentences with complex context/subtext and ambiguity, and test for interpreting it correctly by asking few questions which forces one to resolve that ambiguity. This is 101 of IQ testing - test for skill, not encyclopedic knowledge. Such tests are also far quicker to execute.

ty ty

What was your result, user?

Not as high as I would have thought, oh well

Attached: 20190910_095057.jpg (957x1500, 272K)

Am I a confirmed brainlet?

Attached: AD7AD0A9-D9D7-433B-A330-B121FB5FD4DF.png (750x1334, 202K)

It's still very high, you did good

I consider myself pretty stupid and I got a 148, so I'd say in this field, yes.

My IQ is usually around the 120-125 region on most tests. I would subtract almost a standard deviation from your score on this.
I really did enjoy this type of test, though. My enthusiasm wavers on those visual pattern ones.

Attached: Screenshot 2019-09-10 at 15.16.10.png (1105x1023, 223K)

Pretty decent

Attached: 395BBD81-0696-42FB-AEF9-238D3EE3A2CF.jpg (1125x1954, 593K)

>120
Well, considering that english is not my primary language and that pretty much all of my knowledge about it was self-taught, I guess I'm doing pretty good.

Thank you. I've taken the mensa test, and it put me around 134, but I had hoped I'd at least do better with vocabulary than pattern recognition. At least I'm consistent

I like the visual pattern ones

Attached: Sad cat.jpg (750x750, 67K)

Do you score higher on them than you did in this?

As an ESL with mediocre 10k vocab, it'd rank me half retarded as I found myself answering 'i dont know' for two pages.

remember us when your novel is published

Nobody is going to read verbose shit.

who do you think inspired it heheheh

I wasn't reading the instructions for every page, so I hope that the antonym section started on question 23

I re-checked the test and the antonym section does, thankfully start at question 23.
>IQ score = 116
>Percentile score = 86
>You appear to have a good vocabulary. You know the meanings of most of the given terms, some of which are extremely advanced. Your excellent vocabulary can help you communicate and understand the written word.

I agree with your original criticism of the test, but the introduction does specify that the test is created for first-language English speakers.

I'm i dont think it was too hard desu

Do you read primarily in English? If you are able to read canonical literature in English you're already better than at least 90% of Americans. Or did you use a dictionary throughout the test?

No didn't use a dictionary. I guess I read about 50% of everything that I read in english, Since I often read scientific articles for work. I've read some classic in their original language and some poetry (like Blake) on those Editions which have both the original text and the translation... I dont even have that much time to read recreationally anymore to be honest.

I half-assed it but here are my results

Attached: muh score.png (817x447, 40K)

Attached: pee pee.png (766x388, 36K)

Imagine actually trusting science

Attached: Historian-Thomas-Kuhn-008.jpg (460x276, 25K)

this dey only say my IQ is 83 because they don't understand my unique style of genious

you will you pseudo-intellectual fuck

jk i love you and cherish your soul

>doesn't know who Thomas Kuhn is
Based retard

Are you the user with the shitty theory about those 3 books?

Nope, but i'd be interested if you've got any theories ..i love retarded theories.

>mfw all the trisomic plebs post their sub-150 results

Attached: IMG_1201.png (640x1136, 114K)

what is toothsome? i bet you didn't know that

Got 117. ESL.
Got 155 at the analogies section. Dunno about the rest, since I don't wanna pay for it.

archaic words like that are tricky, but none of the other words made sense and it doesn't take a genius to figure out TOOTHsome is a possible synonym for palatable in that situation. Let me guess, you didn't do too well on the SAT

Out of my way brainlets

Attached: C2EFD810-121D-44D8-BD80-D496F9019DC9.jpg (750x1081, 265K)

I'm an ESL and i scored 142 but i am still disappointed because i've been speaking English for the last 20 years now.

Read up enough on etymology and you can honestly just work out 95% of archaic/olde English words like that. Toothsome for example probably has the some roots as mettlesome where medieval fucks would just tack on the -some/sum suffix to shit to make it an adjective pertaining to something becoming of the stem word. So probably literally "something becoming of the tooth/teeth" or "pleasing to the teeth" ie palatable

i thought toothsome was something grating ...

Nah tooth used to be figurative languages for palate or taste, think sweet tooth. Add the -some suffix and it's pretty cut and clear as meaning something pleasant to the taste

when I was like 16 and reading through a bunch of Wikipedia articles, I read that Timothy mcveigh an IQ of 128. I figured that I was just a little bit smarter than he was. I hadn't and still haven't ever taken a proper I test, but I estimated myself to be In the high 120s to low 130s.

Attached: Screenshot_2019-09-11-11-18-47.png (1080x1920, 198K)