This is probably a dobie (I think I'm using that word correctly)...
But you people all are just too darn smart.
I'm undescribably jealous.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
I think you may mean a mayfly.
Mayfly refers to a thread the thread-starter intends to delete, and dobie refers to a thread that is a play on words of another active thread title.
Unless I missed the thread you're playing on, in which case you're using it right and I've made a strong argument against all hatrackers being too smart.
Posted by Chungwa (Member # 6421) on :
Well. This thread wasn't intended to be a play on words.
Sheesh. Shows what I know, huh.
Now I'll laugh at myself. Posted by ShadowPuppet (Member # 8239) on :
chungwa
it's easy to act as smart as the rest of them just agree with everything and use words like
antidisestablishmentarianism
every once in a while
(and before anyone says anything I DO know what antidisestablishmentarianism means)
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Yes, but can you use it in a sentence about gay marriage and the war in Iraq?
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Preferably with at least one pun? Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
The antidisestablishmentarian faction in Iraq is hostile to the US because the loss of strict social control by the established clerical laws means gay marriage may one day become a reality in Iraq.
Edit: Dang. I missed ketchupqueen's post.
Posted by Hamson (Member # 7808) on :
antidisestablishmentarianism is too long of a word for smarterchild, it overloads his brain circuts.
Posted by Raia (Member # 4700) on :
Btw, Chungwa, it's indescribably not undescribably.
But I'm just teasing. I'm sure you're very smart, and there's not one genius on this board. Just lots of people who pretend.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Speak for yourself, Raia.. Posted by Chungwa (Member # 6421) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raia: Btw, Chungwa, it's indescribably not undescribably.
Yes, well. Thank you for proving my point
It was nice of you to tell me that I'm smart anyways, though. In spite of my obvious errors my ego is already about as big as it should be.
[ July 17, 2005, 11:27 PM: Message edited by: Chungwa ]
Posted by Raia (Member # 4700) on :
Kwea: I was, actually...
But Chungwa fits right in, IMO!
Posted by Verily the Younger (Member # 6705) on :
quote:and there's not one genius on this board.
That's a rather sweeping claim. Can you prove it?
Posted by Raia (Member # 4700) on :
No! Ok, leave me alone! *sulks in corner*
These are all geniuses! It's something in the water!
Better?
Posted by estavares (Member # 7170) on :
Sometimes something seems smart when, in fact, it's just clever. And sometimes it's just silly painted with big words. For example, use all these words in a single sentence:
Defeat Deduct Defense Detail
My favorite?
"Defeat of Deduct went over Defense before Detail."
P.S. You should read that out loud for full effect.
P.P.S. I'll be going now.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang: Unless I missed the thread you're playing on, in which case you're using it right and I've made a strong argument against all hatrackers being too smart.
Posted by scottneb (Member # 676) on :
quote:Just lots of people who pretend.
Where's Jon Boy?
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
quote:Originally posted by Verily the Younger:
quote:and there's not one genius on this board.
That's a rather sweeping claim. Can you prove it?
I'm willing to bet that the number of geniuses on hatrack is not equal to one.
Proving it would involve either trusting people when they post their IQ and whatnot, or some form of independant testing on our part which would be far more effort than I'm about to put into it.
--Enigmatic (may be a genius, doesn't actually know)
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
In the past, several Hatrackers have discussed IQ tests in a way that strongly suggested that the majority of those of our regulars who know their IQ scores last tested well above 150.
Posted by Kama (Member # 3022) on :
I don't. does it mean nobody will love me anymore?
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
For you, Kama, we'll all lower our extraordinary IQ's!
Seriously, now, have you ever seen a smart boy in front of a beautiful girl? Does he seem smart anymore?! Posted by Kama (Member # 3022) on :
oh, good to know.
Posted by Raia (Member # 4700) on :
Chungwa, you see, I seem to have made rather a fool of myself, but nobody's told me to go away yet. Posted by Kama (Member # 3022) on :
go away.
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
Someone's in a foul mood today... Power fluctuations?!
Posted by scottneb (Member # 676) on :
Menst...
Nevermind.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
The table here which estimates your IQ based on your GRE says I should have around a 141 IQ.
When looking up "genius IQ" my first hit says that "over 140 - Genius or near genius".
I find the thought that I myself am a genius fairly laughable, so obviously something is wrong here .
But, if I am somewhere even close to 140, then I would have no problem believing that there are dozens of hatrackers who have over a 150.
Not that anyone cares really . You can have a 180 IQ, and still not be able to string an argument together. Or make a series of groan-worthy puns .
Posted by Raia (Member # 4700) on :
Kama:
*goes away*
*sniff*
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
*catches Raia and brigs her back*
You're not going anywhere, dear! Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
Hey! I checked that website, and I'm a flanken genius! I should consult with a super-genius to find out why someone with an IQ as astoundingly high as mine can not make heads or tails out of the intructions that came with the furniture from IKEA. Who makes up the clientele of that establishment, anyway?
Seriously, any monkey can talk about being a misunderstood genius, and any monkey can listen to some other monkey bragging about being a misunderstood genius, but a true genius can be recognized by the non-monkey population.
There is no point to that except I feel sorry for the poor underutilized graemlin, and I try to fit it in where I can.
Posted by Kama (Member # 3022) on :
*pats Corwin on the head*
*gives Raia a cookie*
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Seriously, any monkey can talk about being a misunderstood genius, and any monkey can listen to some other monkey bragging about being a misunderstood genius...
Ha! So funny, and so very true. You win the thread. Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
*distributes bananas*
Posted by scottneb (Member # 676) on :
*distributes typewriters*
Get to work!
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
quote:You win the thread.
I win! What's my prize?
<eyes a piece of thread>
<sigh>
Can I get a needle to go with that?
Posted by Zeugma (Member # 6636) on :
Wow, the SAT IQ table is pretty cool, I know my scores on both, and it matched them up within a half a point!
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
*laugh*
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Aja's right. I'm really impressed by that SAT table -- or, rather, amazed by how closely SAT scores correlate to testable IQ. It got within two points of my actual IQ.
Posted by Zeugma (Member # 6636) on :
I had no idea the two tests could be so closely related. I took one when I was 8 years old and the other when I was 17, and from what I remember they tested completely different types of things. :shrug:
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
I'm not sure "impressed" is the word I'd use.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
the monkeys are everywhere!
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
Do I get smart points for linking to a page that impresses people?
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by scottneb:
quote:Just lots of people who pretend.
Where's Jon Boy?
That was just hurtful. Posted by scottneb (Member # 676) on :
You know Jon, it's not really fun to make you cry anymore. You do it way too often. Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
That's cause some girls dig guys that can show strong emotion.
*comforts Jon*
There, there. It'll be ok.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: I'm not sure "impressed" is the word I'd use.
Yeah, it's also dismaying, since it suggests that either the SAT or the IQ test really is a remarkably flawed test of what it's supposed to be testing.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by Megan: That's cause some girls dig guys that can show strong emotion.
*comforts Jon*
There, there. It'll be ok.
Yeah, take that, Scott!
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
I'm smart in all the weird ways, apparently, because my SAT scores didn't touch my IQ. Although I did better on the ACT, so I think it's just that my aptitude lies in different areas.
IQ is way overrated, anyway.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
I, personally, think that any test which relies on multiple choice questions is inherently flawed. The problem is that without multiple choice, objective grading is nearly impossible.
Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: In the past, several Hatrackers have discussed IQ tests in a way that strongly suggested that the majority of those of our regulars who know their IQ scores last tested well above 150.
Damn! 144 was my best result, and it was in a test meant for Israelis - which means I'm probably around 130.
Posted by scottneb (Member # 676) on :
quote:Yeah, take that, Scott!
I'm telling Ruth!
It'll be the couch for you!
Posted by Verily the Younger (Member # 6705) on :
Of course the IQ test is flawed. No intelligence test could be otherwise. It's too difficult to define with absolute certainty, and without bias, what intelligence even is, let alone develop a reliable scale for measuring it and assigning people a certain rating. It's all relative.
Which makes it even harder to prove there are no "geniuses" here. What is a genius? Is it someone who does well on standardized tests? Or is it something more complex than that?
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:In the past, several Hatrackers have discussed IQ tests in a way that strongly suggested that the majority of those of our regulars who know their IQ scores last tested well above 150.
quote:The table here which estimates your IQ based on your GRE says I should have around a 141 IQ
I don't know if I have discussed IQ here, but these two quotes fit an example that I use sometimes when I hear people throw around "IQ" as if it means something.
I was told by one of my elementary school teachers that my IQ was 162. Later I actually took an IQ test, and tested out at 127. The original score could not have come from an IQ test, because I hadn't taken one up to that point. Very few people ever do unless they are learning disabled or under psychiatric treatment.
But my professor on special ed/inclusion explained where the number had come from. I had taken a standardized test, and come out with a "percentile" like 99.7% or a "grade equivalent", like I was reading at the 11.7 grade level in the 4th grade,or something like that. The teacher (or someone else) had compared the standardized grade to a chart and derived the 162 score. You can't do that.
Both tests are normative, meaning that the scores are compared to the scores of the general population and represent how much smarter you are than the rest of the population. But standardized tests don't test for intelligence, they test for skills.
Intelligence tests can't agree on what constitutes intelligence, and the reliability of Stanford-Binet, vs. the various WISC tests are actually very highly questionable. There are a lot of people who claim that any intelligence test administered to an adult is meaningless, and factors such as stress or test anxiety can skew the results, even in the most controlled environment.
This gets to the root of the testing controversy in the US. Even testing experts can't agree on whether a test measures what it's supposed to measure (validity), or whether test results really show what the student is capable of (reliability).
I have no doubt that there are some highly intelligent people here at hatrack, but using a score to validate that is meaningless at best.
Posted by scottneb (Member # 676) on :
I didn't read that post.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
Yeah.
All the IQ scores tell you is your proficiency at remembering long numbers, which shape doesn't fit, and how you solve various logic problems (at least that's how I remember it, I was only in 5th grade).
Those may be skills that correspond to your real life work, and they may not.
A lot of the skills I have as an engineer wouldn't do, say, a chemist a lot of good. Or a writer, for that matter.
And I know a lot of guys who think quickly, and well, but don't test well. They also have other attributes that IQ tests don't measure but that will help determine their success, like work ethic.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by scottneb:
quote:Yeah, take that, Scott!
I'm telling Ruth!
It'll be the couch for you!
Well, fine! See if I care! We recently got a new couch, and man, it's comfortable.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
My SAT score didn't match up at all with my IQ score. Weird.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
quote:Originally posted by mackillian: My SAT score didn't match up at all with my IQ score. Weird.
That's because you are special, Mack. You are an unconventional genius.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
I don't think that chart was supposed to be accurate 100% of the time. More like a "best estimate" based off statistical correlation. I would say results that don't match up are actually quite common.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
I have an IQ listed on my elementary school transcript that was derived from a standardized test I took in kindergarten, like Glenn is talking about. To the best of my knowledge, I've never taken an IQ test.
The SAT chart that Xavier linked gave the same number, but that only makes sense. . . if the IQ was derived from my percentile on a standardized test, it should be roughly the same on another standardized test, even though it was taken 11 years later.
I know, however, that I test well. Standardized test days at school were always among my favorites. I know I'm reasonably smart, but I also know the fact that I do well in test situations has a lot to do with my scores.
Of course, I also know that both of my siblings are smarter than I am, in the traditional measures of intelligence, so that probably has something to do with me not putting too much weight on those numbers as well. Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
A friend of mine got two results for his IQ tests. One was 103, the other was 178. He got many others, but those were highest and lowest. I suspect that is 100 is average and 160 is genius - he's roughly 155-160.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
100 is average, and anything about 135 and up is considered "gifted".
Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
So I'm bordering "gifted"... I guess...
Posted by Zeugma (Member # 6636) on :
Does anyone else remember taking an IQ test around first grade or so? I remember being told that we'd be having a special two days or so at school, and that we were supposed to bring in our favorite stuffed animal to sit on our desks while we were testing. And I remember being taught how to fill in the circles the right way. It all seemed very surreal. I had no idea what it all was until many years later.
I think I took another one in 3rd grade, but that was short and easy. Stuff like "Which of these four things doesn't hold milk? A glass, a gallon jug, a refrigerator, or a stove?" I remember thinking it was very silly. But they gave me a peanut butter cup for taking it, so I was happy. Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
I really dislike the term "gifted."
Also, I test poorly -- at least on engineering exams. In fourth year when exams were deemphasized in favour of actual meaningful work (that is to say, projects), my grades skyrocketed. I tested well on provincial standardized tests in high school, but that's meaningless because the tests were a politically-motivated joke.
My parents declined to have me tested in kindergarden the way Glenn and ElJay were (such tests were offered to me by the kindergarden teachers) because such testing was wholly incompatible with their educaitonal philosophy (both had PhDs in elementary education, so it was important to them). I'm thankful for it. It isn't often that I'm asked my IQ, but I'm always delighted to say that I have no idea.
Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
I did one in second grade, in order to get into the Gifted Programme. I heard that one must pass 140 to get in. I also heard that you need 130 to get in. I also heard it doesn't really matter what your IQ is, and they chck different stuff.
But we never got our results back... I'm just happy I got in.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Actually, the origin of IQ tests was exactly 'mental age / physical age', hence quotient. Which is not to say that modern IQ tests do anything of the sort. I tested at 178, which indicates to me that it's a pretty meaningless number.
Posted by Chungwa (Member # 6421) on :
quote:Originally posted by twinky: I'm always delighted to say that I have no idea.
I like that!
My dad and my sister have been trying to bully me into taking an IQ test for a few years now.
Posted by genius00345 (Member # 8206) on :
quote:Originally posted by Verily the Younger:
quote:and there's not one genius on this board.
That's a rather sweeping claim. Can you prove it?
No, you can't. Just check out my name.
lol...I suppose that was meant not as a name, but as a noun...does a 32 ACT as a 9th grader classify me as a genius?
Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
quote: 32 ACT as a 9th grader classify me as a genius?
If you mean a 32-act play then yes, but that also makes you a tactless genius. Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
My IQ was tested a few times in school, but they always told the results to my parents, not me. I've picked up implications that it's fairly high, but I don't know what it is, hence my "might be a genius, doesn't know" comment. I'm not all that curious, honestly, because I agree with what others have said about standardized testing and definitions of intelligence, and I know I test well. That is, standardized tests show I'm smarter than I think I actually am, because I'm good at figuring out the test itself.
I have a bit of a problem with the SAT to IQ chart, because IQ supposedly doesn't have an upper limit, and the SAT definitely does. I know. I hit it. Did you know you can get a 1600 on the SAT (before they added the 3rd section, of course) without actually getting all the questions right? That's not what I did. I answered them all and had no wrong answers. I also had forgot that you're allowed to bring a calculator, so hadn't brought one and just did everything in my head. </brag> The fact that I got lost on the way to the testing location should tell you something about my practical intelligence at the time, though.
quote: Of course, I also know that both of my siblings are smarter than I am, in the traditional measures of intelligence, so that probably has something to do with me not putting too much weight on those numbers as well.
ElJay's the only one of us who actually finished her degree in four years, on the other hand.
--Enigmatic
Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
I have no degree. Except about 38C in my forhead because I'm writing many posts tonight and am not going to sleep even though it's 3:49 AM.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
While IQ might not have a theoretical upper limit, the test kind of peters out around 200 (the exact number varies slightly with the test) because that's where the total geniuses begin scoring 100%, so you can't tell the difference between them. Kind of like Bean on the Battle School tests.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
quote:Originally posted by Enigmatic: ElJay's the only one of us who actually finished her degree in four years, on the other hand.
--Enigmatic
I'm also considerably more charming than he is. Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
Another problem I have with IQ is that the test works better on the young. Because of the whole 'mental age divided by physical age' thing, if you have a smaller number on bottom you get a bigger number as your quotient.
In other words, it's easy to have a high IQ as a child than as an adult. I don't like the idea of an ever changing IQ. I like when you measure something, then that's what it is. You shouldn't be able to measure it again 2 years later and get a different result.
Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
ETA to ElJay's post:
</brag>
Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
quote: I like when you measure something, then that's what it is. You shouldn't be able to measure it again 2 years later and get a different result.
What about measuring time or space? Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
I have no idea what my IQ is.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:I have a bit of a problem with the SAT to IQ chart, because IQ supposedly doesn't have an upper limit, and the SAT definitely does. I know. I hit it. Did you know you can get a 1600 on the SAT (before they added the 3rd section, of course) without actually getting all the questions right?
That only became true in 1995. Before that, getting one or two wrong brought your score down significantly.
I took the SATs in 1991. Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
"I tested at 178, which indicates to me that it's a pretty meaningless number."
Considering that's over 5 standard deviations above the mean, the signal to noise ratio is ridiculously low. So it's very meaningless. Anywhere above 130 should be reported as a range depending on the Standard Error of Measurement, not as an individual number.
By the way, the norming value for I.Q. tests is a mean of 100 with a standard deviation of 15. Two standard deviations above the mean (130) is called "gifted."
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
quote:the origin of IQ tests was exactly 'mental age / physical age', hence quotient.
That only works up to a certain age. I'm 40, but no one would call me a genius if I claimed to be functioning at the level of an 80 year old. Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Indeed you speak truth, Tante, which is why the IQ test was only applied to children while that was the definition.
Glenn, I don't see what you mean about signal to noise in this instance. With the number of questions in the test I took, I don't see how one or two guessed answers can make much of a difference to the final score. And even five standard deviations cannot be so unusual when you consider the number of IQ tests given every year - remember that a lot of armed forces give one to every recruit. So there should be enough high scores to form a fairly reliable baseline, you don't have to extrapolate a fit to the middle range.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
The real problem here, people, is that we have far too many people in this country who are below average. We need to invest more in education and early intervention until we leave no child behind and have reached our goal of having everyone above average.
(Oh, calm down. It's a joke, get it? Because of statistics, and standard deviations, and the definition of mean, mode and median. Gosh, the joke gets less and less amusing the more I explain it. I'll stop now)
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Well, if the average was taken worldwide, a single country might have all its people above average. In fact, this has happened in most of Europe, Asia, and Africa, due to all those Americans who can't add e and π without a calculator, or indeed count past eleven without taking their boots off, and tend to drag the average down.
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
KoM, it's crap like that that makes you REALLY hard to defend. I'm sure there are just as many idiotic Europeans as there are idiotic Americans. I mean, heck, based on you, I'd guess that all Europeans were jerks.
Good thing I'm not narrow-minded.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
I hate to admit it, but the fact that Americans have still not been able to convert to metric with the rest of the world does not speak well for us.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Well, of course it's difficult for Americans to be narrow-minded, what with the obesity problem and all. Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
Tante, I don't think KoM was referring to the lack of conversion to metric. I think he was just being a jerk.
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
And, we've reached the point where I don't consider you worthy of response.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Not converting to metric isn't a sign that Americans are dumb. It's a sign that we're arrogant and stuck in our ways. Completely different. Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
So in other words, you can't actually think of a response. Don't worry, I'm sure you'll come up with something really devastatingly cutting in a couple of hours.
Posted by Chungwa (Member # 6421) on :
Well hey now.
How 'bout them Yankees?
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
You know, I debated about responding to this, since I said I wasn't going to. Let me just say that no, I won't come up with something really cutting, either in a few hours or ever. The reason for it is this: I find it to be extraordinarily rude to be as much of a jerk as you have been in this thread. I would never, never show as poor manners as you have, both in this thread and in the past on Hatrack. I think you're representing your country fairly poorly; I meant what I said earlier when I said that based on you, I would assume all Europeans to be jerks
Fortunately, I know plenty of nice Europeans, and I am not the snotty jerk you are. I do not make blanket statements insulting people on a forum that I spend large amounts of time on. Put simply, I do not defecate where I live.
To me, it is evidence of the tolerance of this board that you're still around. I can't imagine why you are, since you apparently think the vast majority of the population of this board not worth talking to. Do us all a favor: take your snotty, arrogant, undeserved attitude, and go away.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
quote:Well, of course it's difficult for Americans to be narrow-minded, what with the obesity problem and all.
Now that is just mean. You ought to apologise.
quote:Not converting to metric isn't a sign that Americans are dumb. It's a sign that we're arrogant and stuck in our ways.
Got to admit it, when you're right, you're right.
quote:And, we've reached the point where I don't consider you worthy of response.
Sadly, I'm starting to agree. I do not want to keep dipping from a well that yields such bitter waters.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Sigh. It seems I need to add 'unable to take gentle teasing' to my list of flaws in the American people. Really, why not point out that this constant harping on European superiority can only mask an inferiority complex the size of the Grand Canyon? That would put me in my place right and proper. Do I have to do all the thinking around here?
Posted by Chungwa (Member # 6421) on :
So. I'm trying to think of a reason not to delete this thread. Some mean things have been said. But I don't really like the idea of deleting for that very reason. By deleting the thread it sort of makes it seem like I'm pretending they weren't said... typed, I mean - that's not a good thing, is it?
Anyway, getting back to those Yankees...
Actually, no. I'll make a real attempt to salvage something.
I was talking to my dad the other day (you may have noticed I talk about my dad a lot. Well, the last two months I've spent 6 hours a day, every day with him, so I have a lot to talk about) and he was telling me that standardized testing is the only way to go.
We were discussing why Canda doesn't use the SAT/ACT but the US does. He was suggesting that Canada needs those tests. I told him that, with provincial exams (being, atleast three years ago, worth 50% of your marks in grade 12) Canada needed no such tests.
I don't really like standardized, multi-choice tests. I'd much rather gamble with a subjective test that allows me to actually express my ideas and my knowledge.
Edit: I was considering not typing about differences between the US and other countries, because of previous comments made in this thread. But I'm trusting that we're all mature enough not to turn this into "my country's better than your country."
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Why not test math and physics, where there's a correct answer that doesn't require multiple-choice to grade objectively?
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
quote:due to all those Americans who can't add e and π without a calculator, or indeed count past eleven without taking their boots off, and tend to drag the average down.
quote:Well, of course it's difficult for Americans to be narrow-minded, what with the obesity problem and all.
quote:So in other words, you can't actually think of a response. Don't worry, I'm sure you'll come up with something really devastatingly cutting in a couple of hours.
Sorry, those don't count as "gentle teasing." But, you know, after the first post, when I said, "Hey, you're being a jerk," you could've said, "Oh, hey, sorry, I was just playing, didn't realize it could be taken that way. I apologize."
Hey, presto! Problem solved!
You still haven't issued an apology. As far as I'm concerned, this:
quote:Do I have to do all the thinking around here?
means you're still a jerk.
As for your supposed inferiority complex, I choose to be polite until I'm pushed to the point where anger makes that impossible. Once that happens, I point out to the source of my anger the behavior that's causing that feeling. Then, I end it.
And this is me, ending it. Goodnight.
Posted by Chungwa (Member # 6421) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Why not test math and physics, where there's a correct answer that doesn't require multiple-choice to grade objectively?
Well, that's true. I happen to dislike both math and physics, so I don't like to think about them too much.
I guess the SAT now has a essay section. I think that's probably a good idea - I know that a lot of people don't like it, though.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Nighty-night!
I did not make an apology because, if your feelings are hurt when I say utterly ridiculous things, you have a problem, not me. You might as well be angry if I accused Americans of wearing polka dots after Labour Day or Mormons of eating babies; what I said was so totally over the top that anybody should be able to recognise it as a joke and respond in kind. I even included a smiley in the second one, to guide the hard of thinking. If this makes you angry - oh well. What you basically accomplish here is to prove my jokes not so far from the truth after all.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:Glenn, I don't see what you mean about signal to noise in this instance. With the number of questions in the test I took, I don't see how one or two guessed answers can make much of a difference to the final score. And even five standard deviations cannot be so unusual when you consider the number of IQ tests given every year - remember that a lot of armed forces give one to every recruit. So there should be enough high scores to form a fairly reliable baseline, you don't have to extrapolate a fit to the middle range.
I can't find a z distribution chart that goes above 3, so I don't really know what kind of numbers we're talking about, but just look at the shape of the curve. At 5 sigma, the curve is so close to the asymptote that the range of possible grades is way more than 1. Add to that the standard error of measurement, say you paused 1/10 of a second before giving an answer, even though it came into your mind earlier, or vice versa, because you were having a good day, or if the psychometrist clicked the stopwatch 1/10 of a second faster, it would affect the score by a substantial amount.
This is just an example, but I wouldn't trust any IQ results that didn't give the score as "between 170 and 180" or "between 173 and 183," or some such. Giving a range it would indicate that they knew something about basic assessment.
Posted by scottneb (Member # 676) on :
quote:I did not make an apology because, if your feelings are hurt when I say utterly ridiculous things, you have a problem, not me.
KoM, compassion is something that we are sent here to learn. If you say something that offends another person, you should swallow your pride and issue a proper appology, not a "I-already-appologized-so-screw-you" mentality. I'm rapidly loosing respect for you.
A joke is only a joke as long as people are laughing and the laughing stopped at the top of the second page.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
One of the things you learn when you're really smart and are surrounded by really smart people is how little that really means.
What I do on Hatrack, most of the people here can do, yourself included Chungwa. If you're not as smart as me, it might be harder for you and take you longer, but it's not like it's a whole different order of things.
It's persepctive and motivation more than anything else. The biggest key is seeking out complexity and being willing to look at an issue from a bunch of different sides. From what I've seen, these are not strongly correlated to intelligence, nor is a willingness to put out effort in educating yourself.
Most everyone has the potential in them to say and think interesting and intelligent things. One of the things you can do to sabotage this potential is to think things like "Wow, these people are too smart for me." It's important ot have a good grasp on your limitations, but always have faith in your potential and in your ability to improve. There's no race here and it's not a contest. There's no great punishment for trying and failing.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
scottneb, what the devil makes you think the respect of random Internet strangers is important to me? I care about the respect of my family, girlfriend, co-workers, and friends, in that approximate order.
Also, you apparently did not read my post very closely. I did not say 'I apologised already so screw you', I said 'You're being absurdly over-sensitive and I do not feel an apology is called for.' If you want to read a 'screw you' into that, by all means feel free.
Posted by scottneb (Member # 676) on :
If you read my post clearly, I was talking about your mentality.
And if you only care about those few people, why are you still here?
Also, it's really bad form to let your disputes overflow into other threads.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
KoM, It's only somewhat about the respect of random strangers. You look like a fool here. You often look like a fool. When you say things, they are taken in the context of "Here's what a foolish jerk has to say." If you're okay with that, then there you go. But you're one of the people I'm amazed people still take seriously enough to get offended by.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Glenn Arnold: I can't find a z distribution chart that goes above 3, so I don't really know what kind of numbers we're talking about, but just look at the shape of the curve. At 5 sigma, the curve is so close to the asymptote that the range of possible grades is way more than 1. Add to that the standard error of measurement, say you paused 1/10 of a second before giving an answer, even though it came into your mind earlier, or vice versa, because you were having a good day, or if the psychometrist clicked the stopwatch 1/10 of a second faster, it would affect the score by a substantial amount.
This is just an example, but I wouldn't trust any IQ results that didn't give the score as "between 170 and 180" or "between 173 and 183," or some such. Giving a range it would indicate that they knew something about basic assessment. [/QB]
One-tenth of a second? Are we talking about the same kind of IQ test? I took the standard Mensa one, with (IIRC) two hours to answer a big set of logic and sequence problems, with some vocabulary thrown in, unless I'm thinking of the one I took for the Army. One-tenth of a second isn't even enough to cross out an answer, much less make a difference to the thought process.
Also, the actual number of questions you get right has a fairly small uncertainty, in that there are hundreds of the things. The average, whatever it happens to be in a given year, is fixed at 100, the standard deviation is well defined, and then you just have to figure out how many questions off the average you are, and divide by sigma. The only real uncertainty is in the number of questions got right, which should be on the order of half a percent, which kind of derails my train of thought because it means you are absolutely right. My bad.
Posted by scottneb (Member # 676) on :
Prove yourself right on at least one thing KoM:
GO TO BED!
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I interact with many people I don't really care about. Hatrack can be relied on for an interesting discussion; whether I gain or lose any respect in those discussions is really rather beside the point.
'Mentality'? I do not see where it has any relevance whether you were speaking of my posts or my state of mind; in either case, you were wrong, I was not in 'already-apologised'-mode.
Posted by scottneb (Member # 676) on :
You know what, you need to get some rest so you can form a coherent arguement.
Nighty-night!
Posted by ShadowPuppet (Member # 8239) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: Yes, but can you use it in a sentence about gay marriage and the war in Iraq?
...
um
the war in Iraq...is..against gay marriage...antidisestablishmentarianism
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: scottneb, what the devil makes you think the respect of random Internet strangers is important to me?
Ummm, maybe 1,982 posts??
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:I like when you measure something, then that's what it is. You shouldn't be able to measure it again 2 years later and get a different result.
Are you the same height now as you were five, ten, fifteen, or twenty years ago? Measure it again and see. Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
I can't imagine KoM's shtick is still taken seriously enough for anyone to take offense.
I haven't been active that long, but I know if I come into a thread that he's in, he will inevitably make some disparaging remarks about americans, then sit back and watch the fireworks. When my brother used to do that when we were little, I quickly learned that if I didn't take the bait, he couldn't get any satisfaction out of it.
Why haven't people here learned the same thing?
By the way, KoM, your statement that you don't care about 'random internet strangers' is obvious BS. If you're a jerk here, you're a jerk in real life. The type of person you are can be gauged by how you treat people. Not just how you treat your peers, or your equals, but how you treat everyone you come into contact with. Nothing wrong with bucking the status quo, but you turn most discussions you're in into 'I know you are but what am I?' I would bet good money that your real life relationships closely mirror your hatrack relationships. And it really takes so little effort to think before speaking.
Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
quote: the war in Iraq...is..against gay marriage...antidisestablishmentarianism
Change the tense to make more sense (DAMN! ANOTHER rhyme!)
"Antidisestablishmentarianistically speaking, I believe that the war in Iraq is opposed to gay marriage."
Now, let's make a more correct sentence:
"Antidisestablishmentarianism has little - if anything - to do with gay marriage or the war in Iraq."
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Wups, I missed an order of magnitude in that calculation - make it a few percent. Glenn's still right, in fact even more so.
JT, you are wrong, but I see where you wouldn't take my word for it, so I'll just let it go at that.
Posted by scottneb (Member # 676) on :
Sleep works wonders.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jonathan Howard:
quote: the war in Iraq...is..against gay marriage...antidisestablishmentarianism
Change the tense to make more sense
Um . . . what?
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
"Are we talking about the same kind of IQ test? I took the standard Mensa one,"
Nope, we're not talking about the same test. IQ tests have to be administered by a psychometrist, and processing speed is a definite factor. Also memory, which someone here mentioned, by memorizing strings of numbers or letters spoken verbally, and repeated back to the tester.
The test also changes depending on your answers, so different responses will send you down different branches of a tree diagram, so to speak. The tester has to have pretty good training to recognize some of the changes, so I understand. I'm not trained, by the way, but it comes up in various teaching courses.
I imagine that a computer porgram would increase reliability, especially on timing, but the only one I know of is the tickle one, and it's a farce to get information out of you.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
Yeah, that's the one I took. The only thing I remember is memorizing a string of numbers. I think it went up to like 11 or 13 of them. It was a lot more of putting together timed puzzles than SAT type questions.
And, KoM, US armed forces don't take an IQ test. The military here has a special aptitude exam they give all entrants.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
I took the psychometrist administered one too. I did really well on the string of numbers, I remember, because as soon as she called them out, I mentally grouped them in groups of three, and then just repeated them back, almost in a sing-song pattern. It worked very well, I'm sure that's one reason I got a decent score.
I don't know what my score was, but it was apprently enought to garner me some attention from the school and get me put into all kinds of different programs for gifted students.
Posted by Boon (Member # 4646) on :
ASVAB
Posted by scottneb (Member # 676) on :
I blew the ASVAB out of the water. The recruiters took the book of jobs for the Air Force, gave it to me and said, "pick whatever you want."
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
Yeah, I did too.
I was staggered to find that the test only went up to 99. 99 is the highest score, and I don't get why.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
Are you being serious? Most tests are like that. It's a percentile system.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
Most test I've taken go from 0-100.
100% being you answered every question right.
If you answer every question right on the ASVAB, you get a 99. It just messed with me.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
I believe that standardized tests are always a percentile scale (0–99). A score of 99 does not mean you got 99 percent right; it means you scored in the top 1 percent of everyone who took the test.
I discovered this ugly, ego-shattering truth in first grade. I got a score of 99 on a test, and I complained to my mom that they had made a mistake and that I knew I had gotten them all right. She managed to explain it to me without laughing even once.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
I know what percentile means, I just didn't think the ASVAB was a standardized test.
Plus, usually on a standardized test, you get your score and your percentile, they aren't just combined.
That way you have a hard number that is your score, and you know how you did compared to others who took the same exam at the same time.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
You said that you were staggered by the score cap of 99 and didn't get why it would be that way. I took that to mean that you didn't know about the percentile system.
And are you sure they didn't give you both scores on the ASVAB? It was six or seven years ago that I took it, so I don't remember too accurately. I do remember getting percentile scores for each gender, though. If I had been a girl, I would've had a pretty good score for mechanical aptitude. As a boy, I didn't do so hot in that area.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
The ASVAB was ridiculously easy.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
In a percentile you can't get 100 because you would have to do better than 100% of the test takers, and you are one of them. You can't do better than yourself.
Posted by neo-dragon (Member # 7168) on :
If anyone cares, Here's something about what IQs are "supposed" to mean, ie. What's considered normal, gifted, genius, etc.
Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
I don't sleep much. Mier Tante ist nischt <happy>.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
Jonathan. I will now hypnotize you to sleep. Pay close attention:
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
. ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Monkeys]](graemlins/monkeys.gif)
graemlin, and I try to fit it in where I can.
![[Cry]](graemlins/cry.gif)
![[Sleep]](graemlins/sleep.gif)