you mean your brain?

Post #137,873 by deSitter 1/26/04 3:34:21 PM Reply	you mean your brain? -drl
Post #137,876 by a6l6e6x 1/26/04 3:38:15 PM Reply	ROFL! No, I took the test. Screwed up the email address with "#" vs. "@", fixed it and resubmitted. After long wait, got the message. Alex The mind is not a vessel to be filled but a fire to be kindled. -- Plutarch
Post #137,887 by broomberg 1/26/04 3:54:45 PM Reply	Standard problem with these tests They have cultural bias. So when I said put anything in the email address, you took that at face value. I should have specified anything within a standard email address syntax. My fault.
Post #137,890 by deSitter 1/26/04 4:00:30 PM Reply	Re: Standard problem with these tests Press any key. I don't think it's cultural bias - it's just that all they measure is how well you do at this kind of test. Some people get anxious, some are sloppy, some simply think slowly. You can't measure "intelligence" (whatever that is) with a number. Beethoven couldn't add, but he could make a piece of music with a complex 9/16 rhythym off the beat. He was so bad at math his metronome marks are meaningless. This is one of the great geniuses of the entire race, and he'd fail miserably a test like this. In any case, even if you believe in something like this, it 1) has to be timed 2) has to have enough questions to make a valid statistical sample. And why isn't the answer like "100 + or - 10"? -drl
Post #137,892 by admin 1/26/04 4:02:47 PM Reply	Some cultural bias. The idiomatic phrases (a cynic is someone who knows the cost of everything and the value of nothing) were a dead giveaway. You have to have someone give the test for it to have any meaning at all. Stock multiple choice is insufficient, because if the person taking the test is smarter than the person who wrote the test, they can come up with something off the wall that the author didn't even consider. Regards, -scott anderson "Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
Post #137,903 by broomberg 1/26/04 4:15:21 PM Reply	Top high end never test well But then they probably aren't going to do well in life either, unless they have a caretaker. But the next level down, the level who can read into the test the meaning of what the test writer intended, these people will go far because they can think at multiple levels and apply it. Which occasionally means dumbing down for the audience. Which really is the truest test of intelligence, isn't it? At least in the ability to survive in a society of people who don't like other people who are too smart.
Post #137,906 by deSitter 1/26/04 4:20:46 PM Reply	Survival skill = intelligence? Kepler was battered from pillar to post his entire life, narrowly avoiding starvation at times. So it's not self-evident, but I mostly agree. For sheer mental agility, nothing comes close to great chess players. Most of the ones I've met were total losers. The greatest player ever, Bobby Fischer, was totally tunes. The second, Alekhine, was a drunkard, a philaderer, and a cheat. I think I'd define intelligence in the broadest sense as adaptability. After all, that is OUR human animal skill. Too bad you can't make a test that depended on scenario-making. -drl
Post #137,940 by Ashton 1/26/04 5:09:31 PM Reply	KISS I believe that the objection to "IQ" tests can be seen with just a reminder of the idea of "scale". IQ is a Purple Herring. ie it is utterly Absurd! - to imagine reducing a human package to ANY fucking NUMBER; that this kultur believes you can, and also makes many life-affecting decisions (about a one and her chances) based on such idiocy, tells us all we need to know about "digital-think".. the realm of Billy n'Bally, white/black and "faith based science". Now.. were there a category of "BIQ" .. Bizness IQ, then Dilbert's little vignettes could be numbered. It would be more meaningful since [I posit] dumbth is ever more immediately apparent to the observer than is brilliance. rest case

Welcome to IWETHEY!