Obtaining IQ test database

[Chriss]

What other ideas have been posted here on the forum ?

[John Cuthber]

What other ideas have been posted here on the forum ?

The entire "speculation" section

[Chriss]

How can you be my witnesses when I'm posting anonymously? How could I prove it's me ?

[Chriss]

The Cycle of Intelligence is a cycle of nature that marks people at birth. The peak of the cycle coresponds with an IQ of 151-152.

[Strange]

11 minutes ago, Chriss said:

The Cycle of Intelligence is a cycle of nature that marks people at birth. The peak of the cycle coresponds with an IQ of 151-152.

Any evidence for this claim? (And, no, a made-up graph doesn't count as evidence.)

[Chriss]

I observed peoples intelligence (junior high school coleagues,) I can't have evidence because I don't have access to a database. There are more cycles. For example the cycle of memory which coincides with rotation of the moon (the moon cycle). If you want to know your memory and physical energy level watch how moon was when you were born. If someone is born on a full moon day, he has maximum of memory here is a link with moon phases for 1901-2000 http://astropixels.com/ephemeris/phasescat/phases1901.html

Check how the moon was when you were born and you will see a confirmation of your memory level.

[Lord Antares]

There is so little content here that it's not possible to call it a hypothesis. You actually need the data you're looking for to make a hypothesis, which is ironic, because you wanted to present them your speculation as a hypothesis in order to get the data.

And no, ''I observed people's intelligence'' doesn't count as data. How is one supposed to judge your ''hypothesis'' if its validity is entirely dependent on the data you're trying to obtain? Depending on the data, we can say ''yes, this seems legitimate so far'' or ''no, this seems completely wrong''. I doubt something like this wouldn't be noticed.

Also, did you happen to be born on march 1?

[John Cuthber]

Well, maybe the 9 points on that graph are real data. He knows the birthdays and IQs of 9 people  and plotted them.
It's cleanly not enough data to show any useful pattern.
But maybe someone has done some research on the idea.

It seems they did

http://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/7/2/e012406

 

[Lord Antares]

54 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

It seems they did

I mean, not only does it not show a difference much higher than 1 IQ point, it says the opposite of what he says. It says IQ is at its lowest in spring (1+ point lower than in summer), whereas his graph shows it's the highest in spring, when it's presumably his birthday (obviously, because he put it as a highest value).

I mean, is he talking about averages or what? Average IQ in march being 150 is laughably ridiculous. Since 150 makes less than 0.01% of the population and march-born people make about 1/12 of the population, I think it's safe to conclude that this is rubbish.

EDIT: Sorry, it's not throughout the whole month of march, but the averages he proposes for the prolongued lengths of time are ridiculous. And it is implied by the cutoff of the graph that the pattern repeats every 3 month which leads to the conclusion that most people have an above average IQ; which is obviously wrong by default.

Edited September 29, 2017 by Lord Antares

[John Cuthber]

It seems to be a neat demo of how not to extrapolate from  very limited data.

[Chriss]

11 hours ago, Lord Antares said:

Also, did you happen to be born on march 1?

No. I am born on 15 february. Another peak of the cycle is in 29 april. I have fragments of the cycle in other years but not enough to find the formula of it.

10 hours ago, Lord Antares said:

I mean, not only does it not show a difference much higher than 1 IQ point, it says the opposite of what he says. It says IQ is at its lowest in spring (1+ point lower than in summer), whereas his graph shows it's the highest in spring, when it's presumably his birthday (obviously, because he put it as a highest value).

I mean, is he talking about averages or what? Average IQ in march being 150 is laughably ridiculous. Since 150 makes less than 0.01% of the population and march-born people make about 1/12 of the population, I think it's safe to conclude that this is rubbish.

EDIT: Sorry, it's not throughout the whole month of march, but the averages he proposes for the prolongued lengths of time are ridiculous. And it is implied by the cutoff of the graph that the pattern repeats every 3 month which leads to the conclusion that most people have an above average IQ; which is obviously wrong by default.

I am not saying that in every year on 1 march people are intelligent. For example on 1 march 1984 could be not intelligent.

Edited September 30, 2017 by Chriss

[Strange]

1 hour ago, Chriss said:

I have fragments of the cycle in other years

Why not just make up the missing data as well?

[Chriss]

33 minutes ago, Strange said:

Why not just make up the missing data as well?

I didn't made up the data.

[Strange]

1 minute ago, Chriss said:

I didn't made up the data.

Really? Where did it come from then? What was the experimental methodology? 

[Chriss]

10 minutes ago, Strange said:

Really? Where did it come from then? What was the experimental methodology? 

I am not a psychologist. I observed people i know since junior high school, college. That's why I need data or o study to be done. There are also other cycles if you are interested to know.

[Strange]

4 minutes ago, Chriss said:

I observed people i know since junior high school, college.

And how did you measure their IQ? And what is the sample size?

[Chriss]

2 minutes ago, Strange said:

And how did you measure their IQ? And what is the sample size?

I compared with my intelligence "he has a higher intelligence then me, he has a lower intelligence than me"

[Strange]

12 minutes ago, Chriss said:

I compared with my intelligence "he has a higher intelligence then me, he has a lower intelligence than me"

OK. So you made up the data. The same size seems pretty irrelevant in that case. 

Why not just go round town looking at people, guessing their IQ and guessing the birthdates and then you can have as many data points as you need.

Note: if you had started with this with something like "I have spotted an apparent trend; could there be any evidence for this" then I (and others) might have been more sympathetic. But you have said "THIS EFFECT EXISTS" based on totally bogus data. 

[Chriss]

1 minute ago, Strange said:

OK. So you made up the data. The same size seems pretty irrelevant in that case. 

Why not just go round town looking at people, guessing their IQ and guessing the birthdates and then you can have as many data points as you need.

Note: if you had started with this with something like "I have spotted an apparent trend; could there be any evidence for this" then I (and others) might have been more sympathetic. But you have said "THIS EFFECT EXISTS" based on totally bogus data. 

I am interested in birthdays since I understood what a birthday is at about 10 years old. And I asked their birthdays when we were colleagues  or check on hi5 before I discovered the cycle. I didn't knew why I'm interested.

[Lord Antares]

2 hours ago, Chriss said:

I am interested in birthdays since I understood what a birthday is at about 10 years old. And I asked their birthdays when we were colleagues  or check on hi5 before I discovered the cycle. I didn't knew why I'm interested.

And? The point is, even if your sample size of people was large enough (and it isn't), how did you know their IQ? What's the margin of error in your ''estimation''? How does it work? You say ''alright, this person seems to be more intelligent than me. Let's say he has an IQ of 151. Alright, this person is less intelligent than me (not that you would know for sure), he definitely sounds like he has an IQ of 107.''?

Obviously, this is going to be called bogus data by anyone remotely within your IQ chart.

4 hours ago, Chriss said:

I am not saying that in every year on 1 march people are intelligent. For example on 1 march 1984 could be not intelligent.

Really? Where is the evidence for that? I thought you were making up intelligence averages, but it's even worse; you're making up intelligence absolutes. You're saying a person born on a particular date must have an IQ prescribed to that date. That's rubbish. I mean, it's very easily disproved. Find the date Einstein or Hubble or Planck or Feynman or anyone really was born and compare with other people born on those dates. You'll find huge disparities.

The most unreasonable thing you're doing here is you're doing this completely upside down. You're supposed to have the data and conclude a result from the data, which is then supported. Let's say you have data with a large enough sample size, you notice that the average IQ on a particular date is much higher than other dates. Then it is reasonable to hypothesize that your speculation is true. You can't make up the data and try to obtain it to see if it is true.

It's like if I were a police detective and I tried to figure out the murderer of the next crime case before it happened.

[Strange]

4 hours ago, Chriss said:

For example on 1 march 1984 could be not intelligent.

What is special about 1984?

[Chriss]

50 minutes ago, Lord Antares said:

And? The point is, even if your sample size of people was large enough (and it isn't), how did you know their IQ? What's the margin of error in your ''estimation''? How does it work? You say ''alright, this person seems to be more intelligent than me. Let's say he has an IQ of 151. Alright, this person is less intelligent than me (not that you would know for sure), he definitely sounds like he has an IQ of 107.''?

 

I did an intelligence test myself and I have 131  someone in 5 february has 117 on an IQ test and I calculated.

Edited September 30, 2017 by Chriss

[Lord Antares]

That's an incredibly shitty test. Have you seen how other people born on those dates did? I was born on November 15 and a serial killer was born on November 14. Wheew, dodged a bullet there. I was almost born as a serial killer.

 

[Chriss]

51 minutes ago, Lord Antares said:

Really? Where is the evidence for that? I thought you were making up intelligence averages, but it's even worse; you're making up intelligence absolutes. You're saying a person born on a particular date must have an IQ prescribed to that date. That's rubbish. I mean, it's very easily disproved. Find the date Einstein or Hubble or Planck or Feynman or anyone really was born and compare with other people born on those dates. You'll find huge disparities.

I expressed myself wrong. On 1 march 1984 I think it's a lower IQ. Einstein is at 3 days from the peak of the cycle, Plank at two days, Feynman lower. On the peak of the cycle is Galileo and Paul Dirac.

[Strange]

3 minutes ago, Chriss said:

I did an intelligence test myself and I have 131  someone in 5 february has 117 on an IQ test and I calculated.

You can't conclude anything from a sample size of 2.

You need to learn a little bit about how statistics are used to draw conclusions about the correlation between data sets. And also, that correlation is not the same as causation. For example, there may be a relationship between when people are born and how well they do at school because the people around them may be up to a year older or up to a year younger depending on their date of birth (and therefore which school year they are in).

As IQ tests are notoriously poor at measuring something innate, this could be a factor if the relationship you claim exists. However, there is, so far, zero evidence for any such relationship. Your made up numbers don't count.