Average LinkedIn user

I feel like this is satire, right?
Edit: looked up the guy, can't find his post. If anyone can find anything about this being real, they'll be awarded some very real Lemmy silver!
- Old ass image. Theory is it was made by the company selling the iq tests to make people talk about it and take a test themselves
- Sadly, probably not
  
  I mean, that score supposedingly means you struggle to put together normal sentences... So I'd assume it's satire
- This should be a link to LinkedIn post, but it is deleted along with Medium post. It was 112 not 86 if that makes it better. Or maybe 112 is second attempt after realizing what first result means.
  I cannot post a screenshot, but you can see some cached info if you search for ″Ricardo Gabriel David IQ test″ in Bing (Bing shows an image for Medium article).
  
  !lemmysilver
  Good call using Bing cache! I can see the same post but with different numbers like you mention. So perhaps this is simply an altered image to make it more funny, instead of satire.
- You and I are just fools, thinking “this has gotta be a troll”, but deep down, we know it ain’t.

Just a friendly reminder that IQ is BS.
- A great tool for making broad diagnostics with regard to childhood-to-adult brain development. Also useful for identifying disabilities and neurodivergence.
  But useless as a means of stack ranking already demonstrably intelligent people or sifting for "genius" intelligence in a pool with variation in education and experience. Getting a "good IQ score" is like bragging about acing your "Do you have Alzheimers?" cognitive exam. "Oh! He can draw clocks twice as fast as any of his peers! Incredible!"
  
  Sure. Just remember there's a strong correlation between high IQ results and frequency of taking IQ tests, meaning that IQ tests can absolutely be trained. Yet so many treat it as a "general intelligence" measure, when it's more accurate to say it just measures practice at things the IQ test tests, and at some level some ability in the areas it tests.
  Example article about limitations, and the this one mentions its roots in eugenics (i.e. racism).
  IQ tests can be useful, e.g. for the reasons you specified, but the general public misinterprets them far too often.
- Its conception and first uses were tailored to have data backing up the concept poor people, disabled people, and black people were dumber, thereby justifying forced sterilisation and human rights abuses of those groups.
  In fact, the Nazis used a modified version inspired by the american concept of IQ tests to justify their genocide of disabled people.
  
  Well, that's just not true, but the creator was horrified when that's how it got used anyways.
  
  And even today it's a bit problematic, because it doesn't measure what a lot of people assume it measures. Leave it to the professionals for the areas it's still useful for.
- You need to have low IQ to believe IQ is real.

That distribution chart is fucky. It says that the IQ is 86, and that's 15th percentile, but the line at the bottom clearly shows that the number is a little under 70. So something is not right here, and I suspect it's because this is a shitpost.

Pfff, that's nothing. I can easily make it to the top 95% without even trying.
- There has literally not been a test where I didn't score in the top 100%. I'm like seriously smart.

not sure but that description reads like it was written by a LLM
- Knowing LinkedIn, it's not unlikely that it was

To be somewhat fair, that is a very confusing way to present a score worse than 50%.
Who are precisely the people we need to simplify things for.
- I mean... He didn't even read the percentile number correctly. How do you get an off by one error reading a number
- That's a great system, keeps everyone happy.
- The concept of IQ tests is always under fire (for good and bad reasons) so showing results in this way might keep the people in the bottom 50% from getting mad.

How many people think IQ is scored out of 100?
- It's a dead giveaway if they say they got a perfect score
  
  Well, they'd be perfectly average then, right? 😁
  
  Or over 200.

How the fuck does that graph even works?! Shows the very left of the graph, then says you're in the top? Doesn't make any sense. Edit : clearly I belong in the top 85% too. I guess I confused % and percentile!
- It says top 85%. In a room with 100 people the 85th smartest person would be in the top 85% but they'd also be in the bottom 15%.
- I am going to believe this is comedy gold.
- 85% of people have that IQ or higher. Maybe they do it this way so those that don't get it don't feel sad about the results?
  
  i hate how IQ tests use both percentages and percentiles for the results
- Top 85% could mean bottom 15% (+-1%)