Quote from: Buffer Overflow on December 03, 2013, 05:33:40 AM

Quote from: AnonyMint on December 03, 2013, 04:38:58 AM

Perhaps it is because none of you took a real IQ test:

http://unheresy.com/Essence%20of%20Genius.html

http://www.sigmasociety.com/sigma_teste/sigma_teste_eng.asp

Many IQ tests only test for example how fast your brain can process some limited pattern matching algorithms. E.g. raven's matrices. I won't be the fastest at any particular prewired algorithm (although I am fast enough to make it to Mensa level), yet what I am very good at is new algorithms. The above test is going to measure my IQ more accurately.

As demonstrated in this thread, on creativity and algorithms my IQ may even exceed the 160 IQ genius I am thinking of: Eric S Raymond. He is clearly superior to me in the language arts. That is not hard to do, I never tried to develop my language arts and even mostly ignored it by choice.

My language processing engine can not keep up with my "visual mathematics" (creativity, logic, and algorithms) brain which is why you will dropped words, numerous typos, and grammatical errors. I simply don't want to slow down for that linear output stream. Boring.

"People who boast about their IQ's are losers" - Stephen Hawking

I wasn't boasting. You quoted me out-of-context. Rassah first boasted that he had 160 IQ and then that spawned a discussion about what 160 IQ would really entail.

The lack of reading comprehension here is stifling.

Even further upthread I corrected someone who said I claimed to have 160 IQ and said I never claimed that and that my IQ was probably some where between 125 and 150 and that IQ measurements don't capture all aspect of intelligence.

So you have just proven that either you didn't read the thread entirely or that you are not capable to always remember everything you read.