- Joined
- 23 Jul 05
- Moves
- 8869
Originally posted by Sam The ShamWhat was the highest IQ in your group?
Yes that's true. But for a 30-40 point difference, it's easy to spot. I work with GATE students, (gifted and talented), who are 120+ IQ, and I also work with below normal classes, IQ 80-90 range. The difference in behaviour, capabilities, and potential is enormous.
Claiming that IQ tests only demonstrate an ability to take tests and mean nothing else ...[text shortened]... r almost 100 years, and they have come a long way at determining a persons ability to succeed.
Originally posted by Sam The ShamThey are simply statisticians and bad ones at that.
You make it sound like they are Astrologists or Palm readers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychometrician
Read it and educate yourself.
I see the actual results everyday. Do you?
The Wiki article on Astrology also tries to wear the mask of respectability. I particularly like the fact that Psychometricians use the definition of measure of social sciences when it is completely inappropriate.
I'm really sorry for your delusions.
Originally posted by Bad wolfThen we're on an equal footing, 135-140 was my IQ range, depending on what agency gave me the test.
Funny. 😛
No, it's 136, last time I checked.
I was in the gifted and talented program myself.
But you sound awful stupid to me.
We're done here, i'm not wasting anymore time on this. Go piss and moan to someone else.
- Joined
- 23 Jul 05
- Moves
- 8869
Originally posted by Sam The ShamI would question the intelligence of anyone who judges the intelligence of others from a few sentences. 😕
Then we're on an equal footing, 135-140 was my IQ range, depending on what agency gave me the test.
But you sound awful stupid to me.
We're done here, i'm not wasting anymore time on this. Go piss and moan to someone else.
- Joined
- 23 Jul 05
- Moves
- 8869
1 edit
As I see it one of the problems that I.Q. tests have created is that people with high I.Q.s are often allocated more resources to them compared to others, to me this is unfair.
Surely if someone were better than another they would be able to do more with the same amount of resources given to them when compared to someone else; they wouldn't need these extra resources to show how they are better.
Indeed these 'smarter' people have been given more resources, at the expense of those are 'dumber', whether they are actually smarter or not is inconsequential, it undermines the principles of meritocracy because a certain group of people have been given preferential treatment.
Originally posted by Bad wolfyou're right, everybody is the same, we are all equal, all people are identical in intelligence.
As I see it one of the problems that I.Q. tests have created is that people with high I.Q.s are often allocated more resources to them compared to others, to me this is unfair.
Surely if someone were better than another they would be able to do more with the same amount of resources given to them when compared to someone else; they wouldn't need these extr ...[text shortened]... es of meritocracy because a certain group of people have been given preferential treatment.
there...you happy?
Originally posted by Bad wolfseems to be what you were trying to claim.....OK, if we're not all the same in the smarts department, then why can't it be measured?
I'm sorry, but if you got that from what I said then you are the stupid one. 😕
Fact is, it is measured, but you dispute that. So what exactly are you saying?
- Joined
- 23 Jul 05
- Moves
- 8869
2 edits
Originally posted by Sam The ShamLet me give you an example.
seems to be what you were trying to claim.....
Person A is quite clever, with X resources, he can make 2X in a year.
Person B is even more clever, with x resources, he can make 3X in a year.
Please explain to me why Person B deserves preferential treatment in the amount of resources he is given to start with at the beginning?
Originally posted by Bad wolfthat's just stupid.no more, I'm done. argue with someone else. what you are saying has nothing to do with anything discussed. goodbye
Let me give you an example.
Person A is quite clever, with X resources, he can make 2X in a year.
Person B is even more clever, with x resources, he can make 3X in a year.
Please explain to me why Person B deserves preferential treatement in the amount of resources he is given to start with at the beginning?