Do you think that iq scores could be artificially inflated (or deflated) so as to influence the population?
Cuz either I'm a dummy or everyone else is.
Anything can. It's called Falsifying Statistics.
Quote from: rong on September 16, 2011, 10:30:15 PM
Do you think that iq scores could be artificially inflated (or deflated) so as to influence the population?
Cuz either I'm a dummy or everyone else is.
By an individual? Or averages?
The average iq in any population is 100 with a standard deviation of, if i can recall, 16 points. So a person with an iq of 84 has a normal iq as does someone with a 116 iq. But people normally don't think of it like that and since people often inflate their own iqs (this is easily done by fudging you age a little) 100 doesnt sound particularly good anyway.
It sould also be noted that iq is nothing more than intellectual age compared to physical age by measuring ability to problem solve- something that can be skewed by taking an iq test multiple times.
Right, and since average is 100 no matter how intelligent the average population is, no, you cannot skew averages, but you can skew individual results.
Exactly. Iq test results have to be recalibrated every some odd years because the new average will increase compared to the old one. But the test's average must always be 100. Get stephen hawking to build you a time machine go back 50 years get scored as a genius. :p
I know this guy, big fat guy.
He's got an IQ of 147, 20 points over mine.
I get along with him because he's funny and gets a lot of jokes that a lot of most of my co-workers do not. He's a Christian, but that's doesn't keep me from enjoying his company.
He's got a kid on the way, little boy.
Did i mention he's fat? That's not accurate, this man is obese. He goes through a medium bottle of ketchup in about 3 days. That is the limit of his vegetable intake. I've watched him pour more maple syrup on his pancakes than he had pancakes. He consumes so much sugar and fat and greasy filth that there is no doubt that he will die of a heart attack if allowed to progress along his set path. People around him, including his poor wife, have tried to reason with him. I've tried to get him to at least go to the gym with me, for free, since I know he won't change his food habits.
My point is: IQ is for shit. It's a verifiable fact that his application of fats will clog his arteries. For chrissake his father is a doctor. Yet this man with an IQ of 147 will not concede to this fact, not even with a son on the way.
IQ, in the most practical, everyday living kind of way, is useless.
Oh, as to the OP: I dunno. Yeah? If you take the tests over and over and study the types of problems that are common, sure.
Right. What I was getting at is that maybe "average" is actaully 90 or 110. Depending on which figure makes you want to pay more taxes
Quote from: rong on September 17, 2011, 12:24:13 AM
Right. What I was getting at is that maybe "average" is actaully 90 or 110. Depending on which figure makes you want to pay more taxes
I don't follow. If memory serves, they alter the charts so that 100 remains the "average" even if the current average was 90 or 110 on the previous chart. I cannot for the life of me remember where I got that idea, though, so correct me if I'm wrong.
It's just a number. They claim 100 is average. Maybe its snot
Cram mentioned it as a rebuttal to yatto in spring.
The test is designed so that the average score is 100. I think youre going to have to clarify more rong.
Quote from: rong on September 17, 2011, 12:36:04 AM
It's just a number. They claim 100 is average. Maybe its snot
Umm. what? I'm still not following what you are saying.
I mean, theoretically, yes, it could be something else, but I don't see any advantage in misleading people about such things. Misleading people about their individual score, certainly, but... an overall average... no.
Quote from: Nph. Twid. on September 17, 2011, 12:36:31 AM
Cram mentioned it as a rebuttal to yatto in spring.
Is that where I heard that? I seem to recall reading it elsewhere as well/instead of.... whatever, the idea is in my head, and it obviously came from somewhere. :lulz:
Im surprised i remembered it off the top of my head but cram did mention it after yatto posted a link to korn,s video evolution and cram also posted external links backing him up.
How they do it is they take whatever the average score is, and assign that a value of 100 points. Then they take whatever the standard deviation is, and assign that a value of 15 points. So if there's 100 questions on the test, the average score was 70, and the standard deviation was 5, then if you got 80 questions right your IQ would be 130.
Quote from: Nph. Twid. on September 17, 2011, 12:37:36 AM
The test is designed so that the average score is 100. I think youre going to have to clarify more rong.
Only in humans....
not in FREAKS...
so what do you want to be a freak or a petty human?
Quote from: Precious Moments Zalgo on September 17, 2011, 12:45:43 AM
How they do it is they take whatever the average score is, and assign that a value of 100 points. Then they take whatever the standard deviation is, and assign that a value of 15 points. So if there's 100 questions on the test, the average score was 70, and the standard deviation was 5, then if you got 80 questions right your IQ would be 130.
Ah, right. I remember reading an article about the trend of increasingly higher scores on IQ tests. Right, that's what it was.
Picture this:
I am expert
Average is 100
You are number
I am expert
Please understand
Quote from: rong on September 17, 2011, 12:53:41 AM
Picture this:
I am expert
Average is 100
You are number
I am expert
Please understand
Ok. How about this, you mentioned that either you're stupid or everyone else is. What sparked that thought and caused you to post the OP? That might help me figure out what you're talking about.
Oh Nevermind
I can think of a way it may be possible to game the IQ tests. They have multiple tests and the scores are computed per test, so if you could somehow arrange it so that you take the same test as a bunch of people who would do worse on the test than you, or arrange it so that your mark takes the same test as a bunch of people who would do better on the test than him, you might see some skewed results. I have no idea if that could actually be pulled off, though.
@Alty, yeah, IQ only measures a certain aspect of intelligence, the kind most closely related to school performance.
I think he means that everyone taking making and/or judging IQ tests is working together to make every individual feel either stupider or smarter than they are with some specific goal in mind, like putting the stupid people in charge of decision making and destroying the selfesteem of those smart enough to actually make the world a better place.
I think rong stopped taking his anti-paranoia medication.
This theory of his (or mine if i was wrong about what he meant) requires a level of coordination and planning and secrecy that makes it highly unlikely, especially when compared with my nul hypothesis: nobody knows what they are doing and the only driving forces behind the state of the world are incompetence, stupidity and shortsightedness. Every single good thing that has happened ever was either someone accidentally doing something right and retrospectively convincing themselves that they meant to do that all along, was a bad idea from the beginning but surprisingly came out good, or has caused more harm in the long run than it ever did good.
There is more to success than having a high IQ; being smarter than others merely sets you up so that you will never have to learn discipline, try hard or develop a good work-ethic.
i.e. If everything is easy you become lazy.
Thanks for listening,regret. I will reread when I sober up
Quote from: rong on September 17, 2011, 01:29:15 AM
Thanks for listening,regret. I will reread when I sober up
That explains it. It's all good, but it's kinda hard to decipher what you were getting at. It seemed like you were being indirect at whatever you were intending to express.
Quote from: rong on September 17, 2011, 01:12:35 AM
Oh Nevermind
I was initially mad about this, but, not sober as you said, so I've taken that into consideration.
What I was going to say, now in new diplomatic format, is:
Hey dude, I'm just trying to figure out specifically what you're thinking so I can give a response that is conducive to this conversation.
Quote from: Precious Moments Zalgo on September 17, 2011, 01:15:19 AM
I can think of a way it may be possible to game the IQ tests. They have multiple tests and the scores are computed per test, so if you could somehow arrange it so that you take the same test as a bunch of people who would do worse on the test than you, or arrange it so that your mark takes the same test as a bunch of people who would do better on the test than him, you might see some skewed results. I have no idea if that could actually be pulled off, though.
@Alty, yeah, IQ only measures a certain aspect of intelligence, the kind most closely related to school performance.
Specifically, it measures pattern recognition, a key element in puzzle-solving and certain types of critical/comparative analysis.
Quote from: Nigel on September 17, 2011, 02:30:25 AM
Quote from: Precious Moments Zalgo on September 17, 2011, 01:15:19 AM
I can think of a way it may be possible to game the IQ tests. They have multiple tests and the scores are computed per test, so if you could somehow arrange it so that you take the same test as a bunch of people who would do worse on the test than you, or arrange it so that your mark takes the same test as a bunch of people who would do better on the test than him, you might see some skewed results. I have no idea if that could actually be pulled off, though.
@Alty, yeah, IQ only measures a certain aspect of intelligence, the kind most closely related to school performance.
Specifically, it measures pattern recognition, a key element in puzzle-solving and certain types of critical/comparative analysis.
And the more often you see a particular pattern, the better you are at recognizing it. The more IQ tests you take within a certain period of time, the more your score goes up.
Quote from: Nph. Twid. on September 17, 2011, 12:09:44 AM
Exactly. Iq test results have to be recalibrated every some odd years because the new average will increase compared to the old one. But the test's average must always be 100. Get stephen hawking to build you a time machine go back 50 years get scored as a genius. :p
I heard this doesn't happen as often as you'd think it should, hence the increasing trend--as long as education gets better.
Either way, before anyone can say something sensible about "it's calibrated so the average is 100", you really need to find out the average of WHAT. It could be 10 years ago.
In fact, I suppose there is a stronger urge to recalibrate when the scores have gone down than when they go up. So that's a bias for higher numbers right there.
It's well-known that you can simply train for IQ tests. Just do a couple of online ones and you're going to score higher already.
Similarly as to how you can (and should) train for aptitude tests when applying for certain kinds of jobs.
Quote from: Triple Zero on September 17, 2011, 03:21:40 AM
Quote from: Nph. Twid. on September 17, 2011, 12:09:44 AM
Exactly. Iq test results have to be recalibrated every some odd years because the new average will increase compared to the old one. But the test's average must always be 100. Get stephen hawking to build you a time machine go back 50 years get scored as a genius. :p
I heard this doesn't happen as often as you'd think it should, hence the increasing trend--as long as education gets better.
That's why I said "some odd." I didn't want to give a fixed amount of time, since progress and regress in thinking ability isn't a constant.
Quote
Either way, before anyone can say something sensible about "it's calibrated so the average is 100", you really need to find out the average of WHAT. It could be 10 years ago.
In fact, I suppose there is a stronger urge to recalibrate when the scores have gone down than when they go up. So that's a bias for higher numbers right there.
The average is constant. 100 is chosen because it essentally means "one" as in 100/100. There is no urge to recalibrate unless the average score changes. Like I said before, it's a measure of intellectual age vs. physical age. Your average person should be at 100% but there will be outliers. There will be people who fall in the 137% range and others who fall in the 58% range.
Quote
It's well-known that you can simply train for IQ tests. Just do a couple of online ones and you're going to score higher already.
Similarly as to how you can (and should) train for aptitude tests when applying for certain kinds of jobs.
I agree with this statement. you can't really test for how smart someone is. Sometimes you just know. And I have no problem with saying "this dude/chick is smarter than me." I think that is a healthy reaction, unless they are really good bullshit artists.
I'm reminded of the SATs actually. I scored a 1300 even. Not bad. Not genius. The only thing that was good for was a sliding scale: "ok, this guy hates homework. But he understands his native language and mathematics to this degree. What colleges is he elligible for?" Also note, that in my day, top score for SAT was 1600. Now, with my youngest sister's generation (I was born in 1981, she in 1996), it is 2400, or someting like that. They test for scientific rational ability now. Which offers me hope. Because any motherfucker can be a well spoken tool who can add and subtract.
When you exercise your pattern-recognition skills, they are sharper and better. This is why, for many years, the prevailing belief was that intelligence peaks in the early 20's and declines thereafter. It turned out that more people are more intelligent toward the end of their college years than they will ever be again, because they stop exercising their brains after they graduate.
Both hopeful and depressing, wrapped into one.
Quote from: Nigel on September 17, 2011, 03:40:06 AM
When you exercise your pattern-recognition skills, they are sharper and better. This is why, for many years, the prevailing belief was that intelligence peaks in the early 20's and declines thereafter. It turned out that more people are more intelligent toward the end of their college years than they will ever be again, because they stop exercising their brains after they graduate.
Both hopeful and depressing, wrapped into one.
Brain plasticity may decline at a certain age, but if you maintain it from the get go, it's not a big deal.
Honestly, playing the crossword and the sudoku grid when you go to work and playing guitar or piano when you get home after work, along with light exercise, will keep your mind mostly sharp throughout your existence.
Twid,
reminding you that he personally knows scientists who research this.
Also:
MODERATE
alcohol consumption is protective against late age cognitive decline.
Twid,
Extremist
Quote from: Nph. Twid. on September 17, 2011, 03:39:26 AM
Quote from: Triple Zero on September 17, 2011, 03:21:40 AM
Quote from: Nph. Twid. on September 17, 2011, 12:09:44 AM
Exactly. Iq test results have to be recalibrated every some odd years because the new average will increase compared to the old one. But the test's average must always be 100. Get stephen hawking to build you a time machine go back 50 years get scored as a genius. :p
I heard this doesn't happen as often as you'd think it should, hence the increasing trend--as long as education gets better.
That's why I said "some odd." I didn't want to give a fixed amount of time, since progress and regress in thinking ability isn't a constant.
Quote
Either way, before anyone can say something sensible about "it's calibrated so the average is 100", you really need to find out the average of WHAT. It could be 10 years ago.
In fact, I suppose there is a stronger urge to recalibrate when the scores have gone down than when they go up. So that's a bias for higher numbers right there.
The average is constant. 100 is chosen because it essentally means "one" as in 100/100. There is no urge to recalibrate unless the average score changes. Like I said before, it's a measure of intellectual age vs. physical age. Your average person should be at 100% but there will be outliers. There will be people who fall in the 137% range and others who fall in the 58% range.
Quote
It's well-known that you can simply train for IQ tests. Just do a couple of online ones and you're going to score higher already.
Similarly as to how you can (and should) train for aptitude tests when applying for certain kinds of jobs.
I agree with this statement. you can't really test for how smart someone is. Sometimes you just know. And I have no problem with saying "this dude/chick is smarter than me." I think that is a healthy reaction, unless they are really good bullshit artists.
I'm reminded of the SATs actually. I scored a 1300 even. Not bad. Not genius. The only thing that was good for was a sliding scale: "ok, this guy hates homework. But he understands his native language and mathematics to this degree. What colleges is he elligible for?" Also note, that in my day, top score for SAT was 1600. Now, with my youngest sister's generation (I was born in 1981, she in 1996), it is 2400, or someting like that. They test for scientific rational ability now. Which offers me hope. Because any motherfucker can be a well spoken tool who can add and subtract.
Weird! I remember when it was a BIG deal that my friend scored 1600 on his SAT... the highest score in Oregon, ever. And then a few years later his schizophrenia set in.
IQ is, by far, no kind of accurate measurement of real intelligence, or potential for success. People with extraordinarily high IQ scores are rarely highly successful... in fact, they are far less likely to be highly successful than people with average IQ scores. I think that's because IQ measures a specific kind of logical puzzle-solving, exclusively, and frankly, IME, most people who score very high on that type of logic are soaring frightfully near autism. The most successful, brilliant people I know fall into the "subgenius" category; enough puzzle-solving ability to possess acute critical analysis skills, and enough human acuity to apply that knowledge in a useful and accurate manner.
Quote from: Nph. Twid. on September 17, 2011, 03:39:26 AM
Quote from: Triple Zero on September 17, 2011, 03:21:40 AM
Either way, before anyone can say something sensible about "it's calibrated so the average is 100", you really need to find out the average of WHAT. It could be 10 years ago.
In fact, I suppose there is a stronger urge to recalibrate when the scores have gone down than when they go up. So that's a bias for higher numbers right there.
The average is constant. 100 is chosen because it essentally means "one" as in 100/100. There is no urge to recalibrate unless the average score changes. Like I said before, it's a measure of intellectual age vs. physical age. Your average person should be at 100% but there will be outliers. There will be people who fall in the 137% range and others who fall in the 58% range.
You say that very confidently, but how do you know, is there a standards body? And still, the average of
what ?
I checked Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iq#Mental_age_vs._modern_method
"When an IQ test is constructed, a standardization sample representative of the general population takes the test. The median result is defined to be equivalent to 100 IQ points. In almost all modern tests, a standard deviation of the results is defined to equivalent to 15 IQ points. When a subject takes an IQ test, the result is ranked compared to the results of normalization sample and the subject is given an IQ score equal to those with the same test result in the normalization sample."
Which is all very nice and all, but there's so many IQ tests floating about (not just online), I can't remember ever having seen any credits or sources about how it was created. How do I know I didnt take a test that was standardized for Americans? Or for the 1980s? Or by some psychometrist that just didn't know his shit? How do they standardize the rectal examination part of it anyway and what does it matter for how smart I am?
Quote from: Nph. Twid. on September 17, 2011, 03:49:58 AM
Quote from: Nigel on September 17, 2011, 03:40:06 AM
When you exercise your pattern-recognition skills, they are sharper and better. This is why, for many years, the prevailing belief was that intelligence peaks in the early 20's and declines thereafter. It turned out that more people are more intelligent toward the end of their college years than they will ever be again, because they stop exercising their brains after they graduate.
Both hopeful and depressing, wrapped into one.
Brain plasticity may decline at a certain age, but if you maintain it from the get go, it's not a big deal.
Honestly, playing the crossword and the sudoku grid when you go to work and playing guitar or piano when you get home after work, along with light exercise, will keep your mind mostly sharp throughout your existence.
Twid,
reminding you that he personally knows scientists who research this.
I have one word for you, dear:
Hirley0.
Game, set, match?
Also:
Quote from: Nph. Twid. on September 17, 2011, 03:53:21 AM
Also:
MODERATE
alcohol consumption is protective against late age cognitive decline.
Twid,
Extremist
Noted, approved. *nods*
Tripzip, there is no standards body that regulates IQ testing. Consider it a form of witch doctory, at the best.
If you want a reasonably standardized comparison, start with the version your local university administers.
Quote from: Regret on September 17, 2011, 01:20:53 AM
I think he means that everyone taking making and/or judging IQ tests is working together to make every individual feel either stupider or smarter than they are with some specific goal in mind, like putting the stupid people in charge of decision making and destroying the selfesteem of those smart enough to actually make the world a better place.
I think rong stopped taking his anti-paranoia medication.
This theory of his (or mine if i was wrong about what he meant) requires a level of coordination and planning and secrecy that makes it highly unlikely, especially when compared with my nul hypothesis: nobody knows what they are doing and the only driving forces behind the state of the world are incompetence, stupidity and shortsightedness. Every single good thing that has happened ever was either someone accidentally doing something right and retrospectively convincing themselves that they meant to do that all along, was a bad idea from the beginning but surprisingly came out good, or has caused more harm in the long run than it ever did good.
There is more to success than having a high IQ; being smarter than others merely sets you up so that you will never have to learn discipline, try hard or develop a good work-ethic.
i.e. If everything is easy you become lazy.
Yes, as I said before, gaming individual scores is quite possible, and probably happens, though the elaborate hypothesis you've detailed is quite unlikely.
However, I do not see the purpose of deliberately fucking with the average, because from the way rong was wording it, (so far as I can tell), it wouldn't be making the dumber people look smart and the smart people feel dumb, but making the average appear higher or lower than it actually is, whatever that entails.
(Again, I could be wrong in my interpretation, but that is what I can gather from rong's comments.)
Quote from: Jenne on September 17, 2011, 03:58:54 AM
Game, set, match?
Also:
Quote from: Nph. Twid. on September 17, 2011, 03:53:21 AM
Also:
MODERATE
alcohol consumption is protective against late age cognitive decline.
Twid,
Extremist
Noted, approved. *nods*
I enjoy the concept extremely, but as with all arenas in the intellectual stimulation game, context and association are indivorcable from effect.
How does all this factor in with things like the GATE exam, is what I'm wondering? I mean, IQ points don't mean fuckall unless it's relatable to real-life shit that goes somewhere. I'm sure there's plenty of folks that hold their dicks in their hands all fucking life long that have some sort of awesome ability to count straws once they fall on the floor directly from the box. Etc.
Measuring mental acuity should also take into account the applicability of the present mental ability as well. I guess. Is what I mean.
I don't mean to bring down the level of conversation ITT, but I get itchy over assessment numbers that are so very fucking controversial at the same time as they're so very plastic in terms of use, manipulability and manufacture.
There's few industry standards that are accepted as to what a fucking IQ even means, let alone is USEFUL for.
I get teh sense that IQ is just a number that people just accept and allow others to brag about.
Last time I took one, I scored 136. I doubt that is an accurate measure, since I only consider myself at the top end of average. My own guess would float in between 110 and 120. This was also several years ago.
I think most standardized tests for intelligence are useless without context.
Quote from: Nph. Twid. on September 17, 2011, 08:37:14 AM
I get teh sense that IQ is just a number that people just accept and allow others to brag about.
Last time I took one, I scored 136. I doubt that is an accurate measure, since I only consider myself at the top end of average. My own guess would float in between 110 and 120. This was also several years ago.
I think most standardized tests for intelligence are useless without context.
The only standardized test that I excelled at was the MCAS (MA state requirement for graduation from high school). Class of 2000 was the test group for it, so it had no bearing on whether we graduated or not.
I remember my results:
Math was abysmal.
English indicated that while I articulated my thoughts very well and had a good grasp of the language, I needed to stay on topic (which I intentionally deviated from)
ETA: Math was abysmal since I opted to fill in the bubbles to spell out "Fuck you"
As I recall, the original design of the IQ test was devised in order to help identify seriously retarded children in the French education system.
I think it would be fair to say the test has been stretched beyond all meaning and far beyond it's original purpose by this point. It's rather akin to doing physics, while doing all your measurements using a 30cm ruler.
What I was getting at is I realized that a persons opinion of how smart (or dumb) they are can have dramatic influence on their decision process and personality. To artificially inflate or deflate iq scores would then be a method of social control. Applied dunning-kruger effect, if you will
Sounds paranoid, I know. But we have supporting evidence that scores are too high.
Even if not deliberately controlled, the score has an influence.
I can't be the only person who has endured a stupid person that thought they were smart.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect
QuoteThe Flynn effect is the name given to a substantial and long-sustained increase in intelligence test scores measured in many parts of the world. When intelligence quotient (IQ) tests are initially standardized using a sample of test-takers, by convention the average of the test results is set to 100 and their standard deviation is set to 15 IQ points. When IQ tests are revised they are again standardized using a new sample of test-takers, usually born more recently than the first. Again, the average result is set to 100. However, when the new test subjects take the older tests, in almost every case their average scores are significantly above 100.
Test score increases have been continuous and approximately linear from the earliest years of testing to the present. For the Raven's Progressive Matrices test, subjects born over a 100 year period were compared in Des Moines, Iowa, and separately in Dumfries, Scotland. Improvements were remarkably consistent across the whole period, in both countries.[1] This effect of an apparent increase in IQ has also been observed in various other parts of the world, though the rates of increase vary.[2]
Also consider the following example:
Take a 5 person subgroup who's iqs are as follows:90,90,90,90,40
The average iq of the group is 80. And 4 out of 5 are above average.
My chicken potatoes all, without fail, score absurdly high in the math portion of standardized tests. By "absurdly" I mean "What the shit, are you fucking shitting me?" They are supposed to be total fucking geniuses, the wet dreams of the "No child left behind" act.
They all dislike math and will do anything to avoid it. Getting them to score a passing grade in math requires a combination of coercion, bribery, and threats of dire harm. Plus, turning in late assignments after the term ends.
These tests don't, in real life terms, mean a fucking thing. They were once probably useful, as Cain was saying, for identifying mentally handicapped children, but my opinion is that in general, they're useless.
Quote from: Nigel on September 17, 2011, 03:21:14 PM
My chicken potatoes all, without fail, score absurdly high in the math portion of standardized tests. By "absurdly" I mean "What the shit, are you fucking shitting me?" They are supposed to be total fucking geniuses, the wet dreams of the "No child left behind" act.
They all dislike math and will do anything to avoid it. Getting them to score a passing grade in math requires a combination of coercion, bribery, and threats of dire harm. Plus, turning in late assignments after the term ends.
These tests don't, in real life terms, mean a fucking thing. They were once probably useful, as Cain was saying, for identifying mentally handicapped children, but my opinion is that in general, they're useless.
It took me a while to realize you were talking about humans, and not potatoes.
I regularly have to endure smart people acting stupid.
Quote from: Nph. Twid. on October 29, 2011, 01:07:15 AM
I regularly have to endure smart people acting stupid.
It's kind of what people do.
Until our impulses catch up with our intelligence, we're essentially self-destructive giant toddlers. Crossed with squirrels.
Maybe they are trying to fit in?
I agree nigel. I figured it put that spin on rongs last sentence. The fact is people are fucking smart. Anyone can learn and make intwresting discoveries regardless of their relative intelligence. I figure rong is a fairly intelligent bloke though he is reminding me of a college freshman tonight.
Quote from: rong on September 16, 2011, 10:30:15 PM
Do you think that iq scores could be artificially inflated (or deflated) so as to influence the population?
Cuz either I'm a dummy or everyone else is.
IQ has precisely jack and shit to do with intelligence. It's a measure of perception at best, but is more commonly used to milk rich parents of their moolah by "testing" their children and then telling them that little Trevor is a borderline genius.
Fact: There are thousands of 25 year old drones in Tucson, and every one of them says they have a 4 digit IQ. If IQ was any measure of intelligence, I'd think at least one of them would have a full time job or more ambition than, say, spending the next 6 years playing Wii bowling.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on October 29, 2011, 05:02:07 AM
Quote from: rong on September 16, 2011, 10:30:15 PM
Do you think that iq scores could be artificially inflated (or deflated) so as to influence the population?
Cuz either I'm a dummy or everyone else is.
IQ has precisely jack and shit to do with intelligence. It's a measure of perception at best, but is more commonly used to milk rich parents of their moolah by "testing" their children and then telling them that little Trevor is a borderline genius.
Fact: There are thousands of 25 year old drones in Tucson, and every one of them says they have a 4 digit IQ. If IQ was any measure of intelligence, I'd think at least one of them would have a full time job or more ambition than, say, spending the next 6 years playing Wii bowling.
It's actually a fairly accurate measure of one thing, and that is pattern-matching. However, it has one huge limitation, which is that it cannot measure the aptitude of people who see patterns that the makers of the test did not predict; therefore it cannot measure creative problem-solving. It is arguable that no test ever designed can measure an unpredictable intelligence.
By "unpredictable" I mean "A type of intelligence which finds previously unorthodox, yet describable, and once described, predictable patterns".
I think that this is one of the reasons that each successive generation of IQ tester tests (on average) higher than average on previous IQ tests. Human intelligence IS evolving by assimilating previously undescribed pattern recognition, and the only thing IQ tests are capable of testing for is recognition of previously described patterns.
I also find it fascinating that over a certain threshold, IQ tests become a negative predictor of material and interpersonal success.
Quote from: Nigel on October 29, 2011, 06:22:39 AM
I also find it fascinating that over a certain threshold, IQ tests become a negative predictor of material and interpersonal success.
It
is fascinating.
One possible explanation is that being too different makes you grow up lonely and that is not good for a developing personality.
Quote from: Nph. Twid. on October 29, 2011, 01:07:15 AM
I regularly have to endure smart people acting stupid.
I find the other way around to be equally insufferable. Of course, in that case, the word "acting" is the critical one.
I consistantly score 145 in IQ tests, from proper ones to shitty "Test the Nation" TV shows.
It has not made my dick any bigger :(
Quote from: Regret on October 29, 2011, 10:02:30 AM
Quote from: Nigel on October 29, 2011, 06:22:39 AM
I also find it fascinating that over a certain threshold, IQ tests become a negative predictor of material and interpersonal success.
It is fascinating.
One possible explanation is that being too different makes you grow up lonely and that is not good for a developing personality.
People with very high IQs are also more prone to depression and overuse of alcohol. It could be loneliness, for sure.
Quote from: Nigel on October 29, 2011, 04:02:04 PM
Quote from: Regret on October 29, 2011, 10:02:30 AM
Quote from: Nigel on October 29, 2011, 06:22:39 AM
I also find it fascinating that over a certain threshold, IQ tests become a negative predictor of material and interpersonal success.
It is fascinating.
One possible explanation is that being too different makes you grow up lonely and that is not good for a developing personality.
People with very high IQs are also more prone to depression and overuse of alcohol. It could be loneliness, for sure.
Or just seeing through the bullshit and knowing what's really there. That can drive a person to drink.
Quote from: Anna Mae Bollocks on October 29, 2011, 04:48:00 PM
Quote from: Nigel on October 29, 2011, 04:02:04 PM
Quote from: Regret on October 29, 2011, 10:02:30 AM
Quote from: Nigel on October 29, 2011, 06:22:39 AM
I also find it fascinating that over a certain threshold, IQ tests become a negative predictor of material and interpersonal success.
It is fascinating.
One possible explanation is that being too different makes you grow up lonely and that is not good for a developing personality.
People with very high IQs are also more prone to depression and overuse of alcohol. It could be loneliness, for sure.
Or just seeing through the bullshit and knowing what's really there. That can drive a person to drink.
That, too.
Correlation does not equal causation.
It could just be that alcohol makes you smarter, but more depressed. Didn't think of that now, did you? I did, because I had two beers before writing this post.
Quote from: Cain on October 29, 2011, 05:44:48 PM
Correlation does not equal causation.
It could just be that alcohol makes you smarter, but more depressed. Didn't think of that now, did you? I did, because I had two beers before writing this post.
ME TOO!
IM GONNA BE SMART LIEK CAIN :D
I am a fan if thinning the herd from time to time (http://www.davidstuff.com/humor/buffalo.htm)
Thats just stupid and rong.
Anyway researchers have discovered that rats and mice that have higher intelligence are more prone to drinking out of the water bottle that has alcohol in it. Its kinda strange since it apparently isnt limited to humanity.
Everything in moderation, including moderation.
Spoken like an irishman
One of my favorite 'tru-isms'.
Quote from: Nph. Twid. on October 30, 2011, 12:55:29 AM
Spoken like an irishman
My wife and I both have some Irish heritage. We even honeymooned in Ireland. It makes me sad there is no craic in America.
My favorite Irish proverb is "you will never plow a field by turning it over in your mind"
The library at trinity college blew my fucking mind. It's hard to describe what looking at books written by Newton and Hamilton is like.
It is a very beautiful country.
Renting a car was a mistake - we should've rented motorcycles. The roads in Ireland are amazing - no wonder Ireland is so well represented at the isle of man mc races.
Sorry to ramble on about Ireland.
Quote from: rong on November 02, 2011, 01:59:59 AM
Quote from: Nph. Twid. on October 30, 2011, 12:55:29 AM
Spoken like an irishman
My wife and I both have some Irish heritage. We even honeymooned in Ireland. It makes me sad there is no craic in America.
My favorite Irish proverb is "you will never plow a field by turning it over in your mind"
The library at trinity college blew my fucking mind. It's hard to describe what looking at books written by Newton and Hamilton is like.
It is a very beautiful country.
Renting a car was a mistake - we should've rented motorcycles. The roads in Ireland are amazing - no wonder Ireland is so well represented at the isle of man mc races.
Sorry to ramble on about Ireland.
There's craic in the US, you just have to go to the right places.
I agree that Ireland is the tits.
Quote from: Nph. Twid. on November 02, 2011, 02:05:27 AM
Quote from: rong on November 02, 2011, 01:59:59 AM
Quote from: Nph. Twid. on October 30, 2011, 12:55:29 AM
Spoken like an irishman
My wife and I both have some Irish heritage. We even honeymooned in Ireland. It makes me sad there is no craic in America.
My favorite Irish proverb is "you will never plow a field by turning it over in your mind"
The library at trinity college blew my fucking mind. It's hard to describe what looking at books written by Newton and Hamilton is like.
It is a very beautiful country.
Renting a car was a mistake - we should've rented motorcycles. The roads in Ireland are amazing - no wonder Ireland is so well represented at the isle of man mc races.
Sorry to ramble on about Ireland.
There's craic in the US, you just have to go to the right places Boston.
I agree that Ireland is the tits.
FTFY
Quote from: Anna Mae Bollocks on November 02, 2011, 04:15:57 AM
Quote from: Nph. Twid. on November 02, 2011, 02:05:27 AM
Quote from: rong on November 02, 2011, 01:59:59 AM
Quote from: Nph. Twid. on October 30, 2011, 12:55:29 AM
Spoken like an irishman
My wife and I both have some Irish heritage. We even honeymooned in Ireland. It makes me sad there is no craic in America.
My favorite Irish proverb is "you will never plow a field by turning it over in your mind"
The library at trinity college blew my fucking mind. It's hard to describe what looking at books written by Newton and Hamilton is like.
It is a very beautiful country.
Renting a car was a mistake - we should've rented motorcycles. The roads in Ireland are amazing - no wonder Ireland is so well represented at the isle of man mc races.
Sorry to ramble on about Ireland.
There's craic in the US, you just have to go to the right places Boston.
I agree that Ireland is the tits.
FTFY
:D
Is true. We got all sorts of craic here.