31
Yeah, top 65% = bottom 35%. ๐๐ซ
I really hope this is a shitpost
It costs about USD 1.99 to get a result from this test, so if it is, it was probably more expensive than the typical shitpost.
That's a normal distribution. The average is right in the middle, at the peak. Being in the "top 65%" means 35% of people have a lower score.
couldn't be clearer.
on the bright side, even if this were a really good test, 94 is probably within margin of error from true average.
You think a person with 90โ100 IQ knows this shit? ๐
I'd say statistics knowledge is probably related to wether you've studied it or not, not so much your iq score
And a person with low IQ probably wouldn't study much statistics. Probably.
90-100 isnt low
In a way it is? 94 is below average, and I don't think even the average person is representative of someone who knows about the normal distribution.
Lol, I'm in the top 99% and I rarely brag about it ๐
Except for right now, apparently
Did you not get the joke?
Is this a humiliation kink thing? I can get how you'd mistake "top 65%" as a good thing and send it to your friends (not because it's confusing, but because you're in the top 65%). But then you post your low IQ to multiple communities while making it clear you didn't understand the results page.
I'd be embarrassed just admitting I took an online IQ test.
There is no such thing as an intelligence quotient test, the premise is flawed. They are logic tests, and if you practice logic tests you will get a higher score, despite not being more intelligent than previous you that didn't practice those tests.
This is what people dont get. Of course there is a limit how much you can improve in a short time (due to limits of what learned before), but i bet that if focusing on improving skills related to these tests over a very long time pepple could improve even more. But why let a pointless test dictate what you do with your life or what skills to improve. Let slop solve it!
It's the same thing with the test to get into law school, they've to take a bunch of logic tests, I perused one briefly and it was basically a much bigger version of the Original IQ test I took online a long time ago. People that take the law school test practice obsessively to pass it.
On the original IQ test, one question was a jumble, a game that is easier if you do them regularly, just as a sudoku is. The entire premise is flawed in other areas as well, there are different types of intelligence, even if these tests did measure it accurately, which they don't.
Facts. I'm ND and will generally score well above average on these types of tests, depending on the method, yet I have areas that I'm only capable of if I have consistent practice and coaching. The first week without, and I'm unlikely to solve the most basic of problems in that area. Additionally, I think these tests are harmful for anyone who scores outside the norm, as it will essentially place them in a box of expectations harmful to their individual growth.
What are you talking about? Look how close they are to the top!
(/s)
Rite? I wuz laik "Only 65 porcint? GIT REQT LUSAR!! I gaht a 99 porcent. That's an A++!"
Mahm eevan put it on the frij.
If your friend needs clearer explanation, the result of the test is accurate.
Being normative is absolutely a good thing.
First, that kind of test is bullshit anyway. No accuracy, poor consistency, and dubious entertainment factor. If you aren't taking one of the standard iq tests, all you'll get is entertainment, and I doubt that was fun.
Second, even with a standard test, IQ is damn near useless. All it's really good for is identifying people in need of educational support.
Third, again, being "average" doesn't mean bad. It means you're right in what is normal for the human race. You'll be able to learn effectively, think effectively, and if you put in effort, learn to think well. That's normal, that's average.
You won't have significant, if any, learning disability. You might not be a genius, but if you have a genius IQ and a quarter, you still can't call someone who cares because you can't make a call for a quarter even if you find a pay phone. At best, a great iq might help you turn that quarter into a phone call eventually.
94 is fine. It's healthy. It's going to get a person through life.
I think I've seen people take the "Mensa Norway" IQ test: https://test.mensa.no/ That has an advantage over most other websites in that it provides a result that seems quite specific, and it doesn't require payment in order to see that result.
That test gave me a 125 so I'm inclined to believe it's accurate
Afaik mensa is as bullshitty as IQ itself.
Well admittance to Mensa is based on IQ tests, so it kind of follows.
But as far as IQ tests do go, Mensa will probably offer a better one than some random ass website that milks its victims for money.
I don't think the curve actualy looks like that. There's a shit ton of stupid people. I think it's more like a line starting high on the left with low IQ and trending downward to the right and higher IQ.
the curve is ordinal, meaning that most people (68% of people) will score 85-115, give or take 15 - meaning if you take the test 3 times and get 100, 93.and 107... you can consider them all roughly the same score.
That's because most people wouldn't struggle with:
[xooo] [oxoo] [ooxo] what comes next?
[oxox] [xoxo] [ooox] [xxxo]
It seems that IQ tests are always used with a normal distribution.
I don't know whether IQ/intelligence is actually normally distributed, but it seems that IQ test results are.
To find a graph that better matches what you described, you might be interested in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumulative_distribution_function and/or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skewness
this post was submitted on 12 Apr 2026
31 points (67.4% liked)
Crappy Design
5581 readers
42 users here now
Noticed that theres no equivalent to r/crappydesign here yet so i made one
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS