Originally posted by JusuhYou gay people? You should try it sometime. Smiling and being all jolly is
ahh...yet another swede gone nuts. Happy day for any non-swede.
Tell me, whats wrong with you ga...oops, i mean...guys?
not that bad really. Of course, being a fin you wouldn't know about that,
would you? Grumpy-face. 😛
Originally posted by stockenlol.
You gay people? You should try it sometime. Smiling and being all jolly is
not that bad really. Of course, being a fin you wouldn't know about that,
would you? Grumpy-face. 😛
I think its well-known fact that in Sweden only women are good-looking. In Finland thats naturally vice versa.
Originally posted by wormwoodAnyone with an average IQ [or above] knows that it is no help in playing chess at a decent standard.
if I remember right, buddy2 said his IQ has been tested to be around 82. I can't see any difference comparing his posts to the '130-150' crowd here. he also outplays most players on rhp. is he "one of the good ones"?
I know someone at this site who has probably one of the highest IQs but their chess rating is in the 1200s.
Originally posted by wormwoodMr. Wormwood: I have read all 2603 of your posts, and I believe I have a good feel for your your IQ.
you were the one claiming, or at least insinuating, that talking to low IQ people would make your stance perfectly clear. I provided you with the possibility to prove your point in practice, which you failed miserably (btw, there's 173*15+8 = 2603 posts for you to make that evaluation, not 3-4). I gave you a counter example, which you declared an exception. it doesn't look like you have more than hot air.
You are reeeeeeeeealy stupid. I would bet that you have an IQ in the low 80's.
I am an atomic scientist, so I know what I'm talking about about. You're a high grade moron.
Originally posted by LennyBruceindeed, my amazing retardo powers rule supreme.
Mr. Wormwood: I have read all 2603 of your posts, and I believe I have a good feel for your your IQ.
You are reeeeeeeeealy stupid. I would bet that you have an IQ in the low 80's.
I am an atomic scientist, so I know what I'm talking about about. You're a high grade moron.
2 edits
Originally posted by LennyBruceThe fact that you have read all of Wormys posts puts your IQ somewhere between an ameba and a rhesus monkey. And that was before reading Wormy's stuff. 😕
Mr. Wormwood: I have read all 2603 of your posts, and I believe I have a good feel for your your IQ.
You are reeeeeeeeealy stupid. I would bet that you have an IQ in the low 80's.
I am an atomic scientist, so I know what I'm talking about about. You're a high grade moron.
Edit: I meant a Reese's Peanut Butter Cup. 😞
Originally posted by Ice ColdEeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeew! I like eating Reese's Peanut Butter Cups! Now I won't be able to look at them the same!
The fact that you have read all of Wormys posts puts your IQ somewhere between an ameba and a rhesus monkey. And that was before reading Wormy's stuff. 😕
Edit: I meant a Reese's Peanut Butter Cup. 😞
- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12477
Originally posted by Dr StrangeloveHeh. Wrong, at least for me. I do pretty damn well on IQ tests - that's why I believe they're bunkum. I'm not stupid, but I'm not nearly as intelligent as I would be if IQ tests said anything about intelligence.
Many people refuse to believe in IQ tests and their use - they are often [not surprisingly] the ones who do not do well at the tests.
IQ tests used for the purposes for which IQ was originally devised - monitoring the progress of an individual child, monitoring the efficacy of a specific educational measure, doing statistics over one entire population over time - is a different matter. For those kinds of purposes, it works. For indicating the intelligence of an individual, as compared to other individuals? No. It's too often wildly inaccurate for that.
Richard
Originally posted by Shallow BlueThe original purpose in the US involved seeing which "common" young men would benefit from a college education, which had been an avenue reserved for the "elite." My understanding is that it also was used to determine where in the military to feed in new recruits, i.e. tank mechanics, etc. Testing children came much later, at least here, and had nothing to do with progress since the belief is that one's IQ would remain stable. However if a child had an IQ of a higher level than their standardized testing scores, then one possible interpretation was the presence of a learning disability. Here, standardized tests such as the Iowa Tests of Basic Skills perform the tasks that in your nation apparently IQ tests perform. IQ tests are also cultural (in addition to their applications being cultural).
Heh. Wrong, at least for me. I do pretty damn well on IQ tests - that's why I believe they're bunkum. I'm not stupid, but I'm not nearly as intelligent as I would be if IQ tests said anything about intelligence.
IQ tests used for the purposes for which IQ was originally devised - monitoring the progress of an individual child, monitoring the e ...[text shortened]... as compared to other individuals? No. It's too often wildly inaccurate for that.
Richard
Originally posted by Shallow BlueI use IQ tests when assessing pupils.
Heh. Wrong, at least for me. I do pretty damn well on IQ tests - that's why I believe they're bunkum. I'm not stupid, but I'm not nearly as intelligent as I would be if IQ tests said anything about intelligence.
IQ tests used for the purposes for which IQ was originally devised - monitoring the progress of an individual child, monitoring the e ...[text shortened]... as compared to other individuals? No. It's too often wildly inaccurate for that.
Richard
They are only a part of the picture and you are a fool is you are going to make major decisions based solely on them.
I find them VERY useful.
In particular I look for poorly performing pupils with high IQ's. VERY often it will highlight pupils with a specific learning needs. It is the best source of data I have for this. Pupils with high IQ's in lower sets often are much more likely to be frustrated (and bored) by certain aspects of mathematics.
I strongly suspect that if you were in the same environment as me you would not have such a negative view of IQ's.
- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12477
Originally posted by petrosianpupilI have no negative view of IQ as a tool in education. I do have a negative view of IQ as a measure of real intelligence, which is how it is often abused. If you use IQ in the way Binet intended it to be used (and AFAICT you do), it's no surprise that it works well for you. But that's not how any of the freely available IQ tests are commonly used.
I use IQ tests when assessing pupils.
They are only a part of the picture and you are a fool is you are going to make major decisions based solely on them.
I find them VERY useful.
In particular I look for poorly performing pupils with high IQ's. VERY often it will highlight pupils with a specific learning needs. It is the best source of data ...[text shortened]... at if you were in the same environment as me you would not have such a negative view of IQ's.
Richard
- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12477
Originally posted by reader1107The IQ was not invented in the USA, though, and it was definitely not meant to categorise draft soldiers. Nor, TTBOMK, was it originally presumed to remain stable. The original tests were devised in France, and monitoring school children (in particular struggling students) was their original purpose. For that, modern tests still work. For pigeon-holing draft soldiers, job candidates, or random people, they never did.
The original purpose in the US involved seeing which "common" young men would benefit from a college education, which had been an avenue reserved for the "elite." My understanding is that it also was used to determine where in the military to feed in new recruits, i.e. tank mechanics, etc. Testing children came much later, at least here, and had nothing ...[text shortened]... ts perform. IQ tests are also cultural (in addition to their applications being cultural).
Richard
1 edit
Originally posted by Shallow BlueSorry, Shallow, but you're wrong, wrong, wrong.
The IQ was not invented in the USA, though, and it was definitely not meant to categorise draft soldiers. Nor, TTBOMK, was it originally presumed to remain stable. The original tests were devised in France, and monitoring school children (in particular struggling students) was their original purpose. For that, modern tests still work. For pigeon-holing draft soldiers, job candidates, or random people, they never did.
Richard
The US military started using IQ tests to categorize entrants back in WW1, have done so ever since. Certain jobs require a minimum category, etc. They even refer to the levels of IQ as categories 1 through 5.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/889xcncf.asp
You are right about the French coming up with the idea, though.