>>10908377For being someone who claims to be so intelligent, your replies are extremly dumb, insubstantial, and just... eeeeeh...
No argumentation and just some uuuh nuuu you are wrong and me smart u dum.
im not even asking for pure 100% based on science argument, your comebacks are not even opinions or experience, its just all a "i got a paper that says that i have a big iq" based this started funne but now its pretty boring.
>What does that even meanUnless you are in the borders of the sacales (extremly high iq or extremly low iq) that number dosnt determine nothing truly important in life, due your quality of life is not just determined just by a number that give an idea of how smart you are.
Techinally, yes, is a number that give you some representation, does that number truly affect something in your life? eeeeeeh... unless you are retarded or the new stephen hawking, not really.
You are the proof that having a high iq means nothings in that way.
>There isn't only 1 intelligent way of solving stuffuSo? that dosnt answer the question and it was implied in "im not talking about soemthing with just 1 possible answer"
>I never said thatYou dont, but its implied in your way to think that some tests can measure and stablish a 100% accurate numeric representation of intelligence, and think that that numeric representations implies something too relevant in life, and if you think that, "Like I said the result can vary because of many factors..."
you should know that there are factors that cant be just tested, again, how the brain works and how the human acts its too hard to determine accurately by some tests.
Its just a number, a vague representation of something, a guideline but not all the scheme.
>Maybe you are the monkey who just repeats stuffu...Maybe i wouldnt repeat myself if you putted some effort of that "big iq brain" in trying to understand me instead of just "nu yu wrongu i havu a papur and its says that imu smartu and you dumdum"
