and yet he couldn't put a pair of pants on
einstein was a genius this is universal knowledge, are you seriously trying to dispute this? dude was splitting the atom to release energy before you could even split your butt cheeks to release the energy out of your butt.and yet he couldn't put a pair of pants on
sure he was "intelligent" still doesn't change the fact the dumb mother er could not feed hisself.
the poor motherfuccker's wife was as ugly as sin and he had a ty life. Sure he changed the destiny of humanity but did he get to enjoy anything? no
don't mean . like I said IQ is just a number someone made up in a lab. Sure it can make lab rats do , but the lab rat won't even be able to dress themselves.
if you wanna have a race of poor idiots that can split the atom but not dress themselves and get all the ugly chicks, then go right ahead
Once again, Nazi celery for brains, what is intelligence? Aspergers kids are intelligent?
In what way are they intelligent, define it head.
Is it recognizing patterns of numbers? And then writing a mathematical statement that describes the pattern?
Is it being able to take a 2-d object on a piece of paper and turn it in 3-d based on shading and other cues?
Is it recognizing word patterns or seeing the same relationships among words (analogies)? Old SAT crap?
WTF is it? People make these tests you GD piece of , God did not write the book.
This is not some GD blood test assessing the amount of some hormone per volume of blood.
IQ tests were meant to measure the deficiencies in very specific tasks and abilities, not how SMART you are (or in your case, are not). So they are perfect for a clown like yourself.
People who are capable of concentrating for very long periods of time are more than just hard working, they don't will themselves to do it. Hard working as in studying has been shown to produce diminishing returns, which is why most people need breaks, instead of staring blankly at a page. Some people actually don't need breaks. It's a very difficult thing to do for most people. Why do most college classes NOT last over 1:30 minutes? You think classes should go on for six hours? It's a gift. So is this unique ability intelligence? Is a photographic memory intelligence? Being able to recite word for word a particular statute from some big fat law book means more than not remembering it, but when given the statute, having the ability to dissect it and turn the statute on its head or look at it from a unique perspective? What?
Maybe intelligence is the ability to recognize that intelligence is not at all well defined. Therefore, by my definition, you are an idiot.
And you are telling me the ability to read people and manipulate them is NOT a type of intelligence? I think it is. So now your task is how to measure it. Maybe stupid is the ability to BE easily manipulated by concrete, false ideas. Non discerning people that go along with simplistic ideas because it makes them comfortable. This would also make you an idiot, Heil Hitler... Ya dumb follower.
Last edited by pgardn; 09-05-2014 at 12:46 AM.
Actually everything given so far is valid but it's not what the writer was looking for.
As you invariably will notice when you analyze your thoughts as you put yourself through this, things are not as obvious as it seems. Both puzzles seem silly and simple.
However, are they really simple? And what are they about?
Start with the easy one and work your way up. So you look at puzzle 2 on the right: select the square and you are done with the second question. But the first puzzle, puzzle 1, this question with the dots, is mean and ugly.
First of all, you will notice that there are five dots on this test sheet (one dot as part of the exclamation mark, two big dots, and two small dots following the numbers under the big dots) - yet, there are two numbers that imply that you may direct your attention to the two large dots. You are asked to connect 'the dots', yet this specification does not detail 'the big dots', or 'the small dots', or the 'dots outside the le text', and not 'the two dots' (which 'two dots' anyway?).
Maybe you understand that this is not straightforward at all, and so maybe this question is more interesting than you thought when you just sneered at the simplicity of the graphical puzzle (because you sneered, didn't you?).
Even though the setup of this test makes it appear as a spoof, as a take on a test, it is, in reality, contorted and difficult.
First of all, the picture above represents the type of question you would typically encounter in an IQ test. Admittedly, not *as* simple... but with a similarly simple underpinning logic and sometimes with a similar twist to it.
Mostly, IQ test questions try to check whether you can find a hidden linear or mathematical progression, symmetry or correlation. As if things always progressed, as if there was symmetry, and if correlation was so important - and as if there were no erratic jumps! An IQ test question may test your recognition of a supposed underlying principle which you may or may not be interested in, and which you may or may not have encountered in your education so far, and or which you may or may not have studied.
There is a wicked twist, though, as your ability to detect such patterns may overshoot the range intended by the test maker. At the point where you can detect and justify more than one 'correct' symmetry, progression or correlation or other 'inherent match' in such a question, you are simply in trouble. Then, you may use your judgement about any a-priori weights implied by the context to guess your way out of such a situation, but you're clearly at a disadvantage.
The above puzzle shows this twist clearly: if you were only given the dot-puzzle, and if you were given it by me - knowing there'd be a catch - you would seek more than the obvious solution, and you'd easily find more than 'two' dots. If you encounter the dot puzzle in context with some really mindbogglingly simple questions like the topological problem above, you'd be less concerned about misinterpreting the number of dots.
A correct answer may - or may not - measure intelligence, and seeing as if different test questions seem to highlight different abilities, some people thought it'd be good to come up with a uniform representative of what intelligence may be. Interestingly enough, there does not seem to be too much creative thought around on this - so the presence of a strong covariance in school test results (yawn) has been elevated to be an indicator for a uniform type of intelligence. In a sense, the creators of this covariance analysis were after a common denominator of how fast we all think. The people that seem to believe in such a uniform type of representative of intelligence have termed this factor 'g-factor'. Arthur Jensen published about this extensively.
But is this g-factor not a hype?
Does the labelling of covarying test results not overrate school as such? I mean, how much uncontested belief in authority do we really need if we believe that a 'covariance in school tests' says something about the pupils? Since when does school test us in 'various' skills?
Did you ever look at the different types of bread at the bakery and wonder why all crusts are somewhat gray-brown? Did it occur to you that this is just because they don't care to change it? Because they simply don't apply food coloring? - Did you ever go to the army and did you ever find that you do the 'same stuff' 'all the time'? Would you be surprised if test results of some people were better than others, and if that was simply a reflection of the army being what it is?
As long as your particular areas of interest are not tested in school, you are simply out of luck. You can cooperate out of insight, boredom, coercion or necessity - but what does that prove? Is it not, that a strong covariance in certain school tests also indicates that school only challenges one or two, maybe three aspects of a mind, and that none of them really could signify intelligence at all?
At which point we'd wonder what 'intelligence' means. Surely, intelligence can be helpful in solving school tests if you presuppose that 'wanting and being able to solve school tests' is 'intelligence'. This may be rather dangerous terrain: a cooperation with an untested authority seems to be averbally underlying the very outset of the definition of 'intelligence'. This is probably why the typical homepage of a regional Mensa organisation mentions scholarships and research, they mention honorable members of our society such as Victor Serebriakoff and Isaac Asimov - but typical proponents the IQ fail to mention people like the highly successful sex movie actress Asia Carrera - who is also able to solve tests at Mensa level and who ranks just there, with the other high IQ persons.
Of course, if you are intelligent AND you want to have a good grade AND you happen to have a good day AND you are not asleep yet AND you do not at the same time have important matters to discuss with your bench neighbor AND you happen to have found a good explanation of the subject matter (not all of these correlate positively, either) ... then you MAY pass a particular test with a really good grade. Out of lack of other good reasons, you just may. But even that is not a given.
Is it not outright dangerous to take some ins utions - such as industrialized nations' schools - and assume that their tasks are in any way stimulating or diverse? Did you ever find school utterly boring, and did you ever wonder why? Did you also pass some training tests with the strong feeling that intelligence is not what was tested - only compliance?
To me, a strong covariance in school test results among, say, mathematics and physics indicates strongly that one basically deals with similarities among both fields. To me, a set of covarying parameters indicates the option to throw some of them out as their physiological underpinning may converge - in terms of what the person gets as input, and in terms of what the person may have to produce as output. In other words, the presence of many covarying school test results shows that efficient teaching should start by rotating the subject matter list until you got rid of the repeating estimated 60-70%.
You may learn historical facts, or pharmaceutical drug descriptions, or anatomical terms by heart: same difference! Each time you'd be doing a corollary of 'learning a telephone book by heart'. You may be able to beat them all by adopting some mnemonic technique - now, this is interesting to do once or twice, but more often? You could try to beat them even more by learning how to efficiently using on-line databases and how to coin useful search terms. I always found context and meaning much more interesting to learn than raw facts - and luckily, this is possible given the right angle and amount of time.
Technically, I doubt that IQ tests really test intelligence in the sense as intelligence signifies context sensitive, rapid and educated decision making that results in output that should be rated highly. Such results may loosely correlate with whatever anyone may define as intelligence and supportive cooperation of the individual, but in any specific instance, they may just not. There is a significant pre-test bias in voluntary IQ tests, as people who are intelligent feel that this should be something they would like to try. Sure, test results may discern some test-takers for some particular analytical tasks - particularly and for example, if coding program code involves similar abstractions - but in any general way, IQ testing does not deliver, particularly if underlying common ground - interest in test patterns, interest in getting the test right the way the teacher may have meant it - is absent.
Until proven otherwise, I would guess it is safe to assume that IQ tests build on class- and society-specific assumptions, and that strong covariance of school test results could point to the lack of imagination of the creators of the content being tested. In other words, the presence of a 'g-factor created by psychologists' probably proves what I always knew: some scholars and some teachers seem to believe that school is diversely stimulating and challenging - which is not supported by my own experience: in reality, all the real people still have to simply drink coffee and play practical jokes in order to stay awake - in school, and wherever else people use reverse covariance to generate 'multiple subjects' from 'one idea' before they unload them all unto you, upon which you find the common denominator and fall asleep again. You have to do simple counting, you have to learn lots of things by heart, you have to shut up when others speak, and you have to be orderly and write legibly. You have to follow orders, and you have to be dressed properly and neatly. You are not supposed to do more homework than asked, and surely not read schoolbooks ahead of time. Eventually, you're invited to offer a regurgitation of the 1, 2, 3, 4, .. (5, maybe?) test in various versions. Not that there's anything wrong with sitting down and doing really repe ive and simple tasks under different headlines or subjects - just don't overrate them, and if you tell people it'd be exciting and testing "intelligence" - don't expect everybody to just believe it face value.
All in all, I am not denying that there must be something like 'intelligence', but by my definition, what is intelligent primarily depends on the context. So, if I was to test intelligence, I would start by introducing vastly different contexts some of which may be unknown to the test subject. By my perception, intelligence really involves the concept of "null", "not applicable". So the next thing I'd test is to see whether someone can delineate various boundaries between en ies and "null" values. After that, I'd be interested in the degree of tunnel vision that can be inflicted on a person; by offering a range of, say, four wrong answers and by saying, "you have to mark one of these answers" or, of course, by being more subtle about it.
I also believe that using specific tests for specific tasks can be very sensible - if a specific test really tests what a specific task really requires. So, if a task involves coding algorithms, the ability to recognise mathematical sequences matters to some degree, and then a test that tests for the recognition of such sequences, appears to be useful.
Support this with some evidence.
I would be willing to bet you won't or can't. You have no idea what welfare is or isn't.
Most people who think that the poor are poor because of some personal failing, such as vy, tend not to have the foggiest idea about the evidence concerning the causes of poverty, and what federal programs do, are, and are not.
"Too many hard workers supporting lazy ass peoples who would rather sit around and about how they ain't getting enough free money."
Can'tThink been swallowing Fox/Limbaugh/1% talking points.
Military Families’ Reliance On Food Stamps Hit A Record High Last Year
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/201...amps-military/
I bet Can'tThink is also against raising the minimum wage to move people off taxpayer assistance, or maybe even against minimum wage entirely
If you witness it first-hand, as I have and continue to watch it unfold with ridiculous ease, then cantthink's assumption is an easy one to make....doesn't make it correct but does make it understandable.
but you right wingers have NOTHING TO SAY about 1000s of US corporations, esp the extremely profitable ones, sucking down $Ts in tax expenditures (subsidies, write offs, etc).
Seems like all y'all racist bubbas only about the poor BLACKS (not the poor whites, who are much more numerous) on public assistance, and always forgetting how tons of the people on public assistance have full time jobs, and/or working more than one job for the very corporations on public assistance.
I can blow this re ed piece up even having to try.
Is base housing accounted for in CNN's analysis?
Of course not.
"There ought to be some context here: 2,000 active-duty military get food stamps out of 1.4 million personnel. That's LESS than the percentage of people in the general public who get food stamps: 44 million out of roughly 317 million people. The reason some military personnel are on food stamps is because they are typically young, have many children and/or an unemployed spouse."
But keep on posting takes from the lying ers at TP while ranting about faux news. It makes me giggle.
Seems like you only hear and read what you want to.
Laughable.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triarch...f_intelligence
Steinberg has roundly debunked IQ as being a raw intelligence test by showing how adaptive the brain is.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_..._intelligences
Gardner has also shown that intelligence conforms where and how it is necessary and is not reflective of an IQ test.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect
Lastly and perhaps most importantly, the Flynn Effect has demonstrated beyond almost any doubt that IQ is a completely subjective, biased test that has far more to do with environment than raw intelligence.
link to you Spurs talkers here posting against, eg subsidies to BigOil, etc, etc.Seems like you only hear and read what you want to.
I'm not sure what the ultimate point of any of this is.
Is it that we shouldn't bother to try to educate certain groups within our society? Is it that we need to try harder to educate certain groups?
m>s is a racist who believes in cultural purity, whatever he thinks that means.
(nods)
I do agree.
I also have no doubt it happens, and happens more often than it should.
There is a saying that sticks in my mind about this kind of thing though. "The plural of anecdote is not "data"".
Anecdotal evidence can and should be considered, as it is often indicative of real issues that can be supported by good reliable data.
The danger is in making broad generalizations based on personal experience that can be quite localized, human memory that is very selective and often lazy (our brains take a lot of short cuts).
If all one ever meets is the lazy s and remembers that, but you never meet the ones who really do need a temporary support to get back on their feet, or just are incapable of work (i.e. elderly stroke victims), then anecdotal evidence can lead you to make bad conclusions, and throw out the baby with the bathwater.
The question that has to be answered in considering it, as you have probably heard(ok, read) me say, is how much are you willing to tolerate the people taking advantage of it in order to help the majority that anyone would think really do deserve help by just about any reasonable person's definition of "need"?
If you're worried about poor people taking advantage of the scraps from a welfare system rather than businessmen extorting and robbing hundreds of billions from John Q. Public, you've been duped.
ing idiot.
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...73&viewfull=1#
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...25&viewfull=1#
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...=1#post6061937
Now ignore these again and post some weak ass from
Thanks. I was short on Strawman today.
yes yes but you're forgetting about the Cry got effect which basically states that your posts on the subject are biased because you're a traitor to your race and date a skin.
Totally agree and you've highlighted the subjectivity of the vetting process.
BigCarbon fellator TB and his weak assing idiot.
www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=211059&p=6424873&viewfull=1#
www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=211942&page=2&p=7241925&viewfull= 1#
www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=134292&page=3&p=6061937&viewfull= 1#post6061937
Now ignore these again and post some weak ass from
Go sit at the kids table, UTA.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote