Over 60 people have taken the new version of the Pairs and of these, nine reported scores on the cubes test. The mean Pairs score of this sub-group was 7.6 (SD = 1.74) and the mean cubes IQ was 129 (SD = 16); U.S. norms. By equating the mean and SD, I was able to create a rough equivalency between between Pairs raw score and IQ (see chart below).
A random sample of all people who got valid scores on the new version of the Pairs test (excluding those who clearly misunderstood the instructions or quit after less than about a minute) showed their scores to be slightly lower and more variable than the subset who reported cubes scores. By assuming they had the same IQ distribution as all who took the defunct version of the Pairs test, I was able to create an equivalency between both versions which allowed me to equate the old version to IQ too.
The old version has a lower floor and much higher ceiling but this came at the cost of having invalid items (hard to hit the ceiling when certain questions don’t have a valid answer). But even after revising the invalid items, the ceiling remains ridiculously high.
While I’d like to think this test can discriminate above the one in 30 million level, realistically the high ceiling is likely an artifact of low reliability. When test items are flawed, they tend to correlate weakly making it freakishly rare for anyone to hit the ceiling.
Another red flag is the test only correlated 0.24 with self-reported scores on the cubes test though given the small sample size (n = 9) it isn’t quite panic time. On the bright side, the old version of the Pairs correlated perfectly with self-reported PATMA scores (n = 4).
| Pairs raw score | Old version (taken before 6 PM Eastern Time, on April 10, 2024); IQ equivalent (U.S. norms) | New version (taken after 6 PM Eastern Time, April 10, 2024); IQ equivalent (U.S. norms) |
| 0 | 50 | 59 |
| 1 | 61 | 68 |
| 2 | 73 | 77 |
| 3 | 84 | 87 |
| 4 | 96 | 96 |
| 5 | 107 | 105 |
| 6 | 118 | 114 |
| 7 | 130 | 123 |
| 8 | 141 | 133 |
| 9 | 152 | 142 |
| 10 | 164 | 151 |
| 11 | 175 | 160 |
| 12 | 187 | 169 |
| 13 | 187+ | 178 |
| 14 | 187+ | 188 |
| 15 | 187+ | 188+ |
| 16 | 187+ | 188+ |
Pumpkin Person 
it makes sense my verbal is two standard deviations which equates 2 my score of seven on the test!
So far, I did 8/10 tests you made pp.
When are you going to factor analyse all the tests?
Several other demographics information is there as well.
PP, so what did you learn from your Comprehension test, if I can ask you that?Do items taken from outside and the new ones behave the same way?
oh, that makes 11 tests.
I forgot my core but it was low.
Not sure I understand the question
I keep consistently getting in the 130’s. That proves these tests are bunk. Since I just converted to Judaism my IQ should have increased by 6 SDs.
Obviously the tests are flawed if youre getting anything over 110 IMO.
Social intelligence Q:
The you-know-who put blacks in all the ads and movies for a reason. Is it: (a) social manipulation or (b) free market principlies.
Choose a or b Puppy.
Mostly A but also B because blacks are loyal movie fans and want to see light skinned versions of themselves on screen and woke whites want to buy from companies that are not racist so advertisers need to virtue signal, especially post George Floyd.
Jesus christ. You even got this wrong. Wow. What a dumbass. The answer is clearly A. Period.
They know making Snow White black or Romeo and Juliet with an ugly black woman would send the audience out the door. The point of putting blacks in insurance ads is propganda plain and simple. No black person in American history ever bought house insurance. You are the dumbest lowest social IQ person here.
No my social IQ is MUCH higher than yours. While you’re correct that it’s MOSTLY social engineering, part of it is virtue signaling. You don’t understand how spooked many companies were during the George Floyd riots when any business could be accused of racism and smeared all over social media and beyond. One white gentile CEO screamed hysterically at his staff “GET ME BLACKS!!!!!!!!!!!! GET ME BLACKS!!!!!!” and they all raced to hire as many blacks as possible as quickly as possible. Because you were born with severe autism, you don’t understand the social pressures to virtue signal which is why you’re so open about your racism. You’re the only person I know who flat out admits you’re racist.
But despite being born with severe genetic autism, your autistic obsession with Jews allowed you to understand they are using adds to manipulate us, but your autism still prevents you from understanding how these adds advance Jewish interests.
PP what motivates you 2 ask and answer certain questions and not others!
in other words what personality correlations make the most sense 4 you.
I wager you’re an agreeable extroverted medium openness and high conscientiousness type of guy!
but also very neurotic
Average time spent on the test?
Not sure because the time also includes demographic info they volunteered but most people spent less than 12 minutes overall
a lot of your tests centralize on crystallized intelligence where are the fluid intelligence tests that measure real world qualities like novelty seeking etc
The Pairs test was intended to measure fluid verbal ability. Novelty seeking is a personality trait and not appropriate for an IQ scale.
The pairs test could be fluid although its reliance on culturally acquired information is a factor in crystallized application.
novelty seeking is a personality trait that allows exploration of a deeper and new function of intelligence.
Basically anime and I discovered that intelligence tests have a limitation on real world novel situations and perception.
because of this I think there’s a lot of struggles with IQ testing!
Loaded is correct.
my sister can draw as well as chris langan yet her iq is 92 on official test.
working memory basically is IQ (spatial and verbal)
yet novelty is more important, is higher cognition than calculations.
novelty is having an idea that a calculator cannot have
novelty is higher order thought such as “what is a color?
in relation to theory of mind people can understand motion too. social is emotion recognition of motions.
so many ideas people with high iq cannot understand
my mom’s iq is 80 but she has the self awareness to get things done. she had three kids and they are smart
smart being the intensity of thought and ideas apart from working memory, my brother knows how chemistry works. I understand calculus and programming. my sister can draw.
we learn these from scifi movies:
Stargate SG-1 Season 1 Intro
intuition > calculation
Explain why you don’t like me criticising libertarianism.
Because it’s just your way of trying to act like you’re not autistic which is dishonest since you are autistic.
Just thinking about Puppy getting dumber every year. I’ve never seen this except in older people with conditions like dementia or alcoholism. I remember 7 years ago Puppy would have maybe gotten my social IQ question correct.
LOL! That’s actually possible since I think I have a sleeping disorder. And of course everyone gets dumber by about 2 IQ points a decade after 25.
not me I get smarter
President Nikki Haley will be a reality within a year.
They need someone who can galvanize conservative Americans to support the globalist war efforts but who also isn’t as hated by liberal elites as Trump, so perhaps you’re right…
bring back George Jr
poorly constructed test.
Got an 8/16 on the PAIRs test so I guess that equates to a 141 in the verbal IQ department. I don’t know, have you done the norms properly for this one?
Seems a bit sketch but tbh it could be plausible because I think my verbal skills are fine while my logical reasoning/logical IQ should be much much lower LOL. I held my own against the gifted kids during debates back in high school so my verbal should be decent enough
ok damn so I checked the second column forgot to at the start but yeah 8 equates to 133 which is definitely quite believable and possible so I think it’s fairly reasonable
Your tests are idiotic.
Score 9/16 (56%)
Duration 03m:33s
Not too shabby. I’ve heard people say this is more culturally biased so maybe this is less indicative of actual IQ.
142 IQ in the new version of the pairs test, 135 IQ in the cubes test (second norming). If I had to guess, my actual phenotypic IQ is broadly in the 130 to 145 range (similar to PP but lower than Ganzir) so the results are in line with my expectations.