26 Sep 13
Originally posted by MISTER CHESSDid you do the Stanford-Binet one? I have always wondered how I remember things very well. When I was 5, my dad bought me a globe for my birthday. I learned the capitals of every country on that globe in about a week. People ask me how I remember so much random stuff. I just tell them I don't actually know. I think I may have a photographic memory.
[b]According to the Stanford-Binet system, mine is 161. Is this good or bad compared to the average person?
What is the correct meaning? If I were to answer this based on the correct meaning my answer would be yes since the average test taker scores 98.45 and 161 is considered genius level.
I don't know what my score is yet as I just took it b ...[text shortened]... g to do with intelligence and can easily be aced by anybody who has a firm grounding in algebra.[/b]
- Joined
- 14 Mar 04
- Moves
- 176470
26 Sep 13
Originally posted by TygertPerhaps a Savant?
Did you do the Stanford-Binet one? I have always wondered how I remember things very well. When I was 5, my dad bought me a globe for my birthday. I learned the capitals of every country on that globe in about a week. People ask me how I remember so much random stuff. I just tell them I don't actually know. I think I may have a photographic memory.
26 Sep 13
Originally posted by Great Big SteesI wouldn't say so quite yet Stees, but I remember virtually everything I see or read. I read the Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica after learning calculus and was surprised that I can memorise it very easily.
Perhaps a Savant?
26 Sep 13
Originally posted by TygertYou're so awesome, dude.
I wouldn't say so quite yet Stees, but I remember virtually everything I see or read. I read the Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica after learning calculus and was surprised that I can memorise it very easily.
26 Sep 13
Originally posted by TygertI remember everything before I see or read it, beat that.
I wouldn't say so quite yet Stees, but I remember virtually everything I see or read. I read the Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica after learning calculus and was surprised that I can memorise it very easily.
26 Sep 13
2 edits
Originally posted by TygertFirstly, I had not seen your edit. Secondly, your OP read as
That's why there's an EDIT function. To correct badly worded sentences. You are clutching at straws as 1. I edited it after the first comment to clear that up. 2. You continued being rude after you read the edit which explains everything.
"According to the Stanford-Binet system, mine is 161. Is this good or bad compared to the average person?".
What follows is the entire dialogue between yourself and I (along with your response to a response I made to GrampyBobby). You're in italics. Please point out precisely where I continued being rude, and please also point out where you admitted that your OP was incorrectly written and that you will proceed to edit it ...
------------------------------------------------
?! The Stanford-Binet is the most reliable IQ test in the world and I took the one on paper..
If your life depended on it, what would be your best guess as to the average IQ? (and lets suppose you're given the opportunity to use google prior to submitting your answer
What I'm referring to is the average chess player, as they are generally well educated. The average IQ of 100 is not a true reflection of the average person on this site.
You never specified a subset if the worlds population with which to take average, and to infer chess players you could equally well infer IQ test takers.
Further, I don't trust your correlation between eduction and likelyhood of attaining chess competency. Evidence?
My scientific question as to whether there is a correlation between chess players and IQ is not being answered so I am going to abandon the thread in future. Yes, there are many variables but this is a forum and I cannot type them all. Please be helpful, use your common sense and put the information together.
The Polgar sisters. Google them and Laszlo Polgar's education experiment.
I made, arguably, the most reasonable interpretation of your op which was to apply no qualifiers to "average person".
The mistake is entirely your own. As for your unveiled question, I have not yet googled the IQ of the average [chess playing] person.
Please ease off. It's a casual conversation not a university debating society event. Give the guy some air. Thanks.- Grampy Bobby
Having silently acknowledged he is a smart kid given what I've seen in the spirituality forum, the implied (as opposed in to actual) question he posed in the op is discordant with his iq, and hence my first response. He then chose to escalate by shifting all burden of responsibility for the confusion onto my shoulders (I lack common sense apparently)- me
Not a happy bunny!
I escalated it? You were the one having a whole harangue over a simple misinterpretation of the question. A bit of an ignominy, don't you think? You are embarrassing yourself further by refusing to accept the correct meaning of the OP.
By the way Agerg, the common sense thing was the natural response to your insulting and rather sarcastic response to my genuine question!
No embarassment here, one day, when you grow up, you'll realise the virtue in a simple "yeah, I could have worded that better, let me rephrase..." instead of insulting others for your own screw ups
26 Sep 13
Originally posted by TygertIn academia, it's also a disadvantage because you don't need the clutter of irrelevant details like what color the book was, how the font looked on the page, etc.
Well it has its advantages in other things, such as school, as I don't need to study at all and I still have an average in the nineties.
The problem with this thread is that no one likes a braggart. You're a kid, so you have not learned that yet.
26 Sep 13
Originally posted by Agerg1. The comments that I didn't appreciate after you could clearly see I had reworded my original post just for you with proof:What I'm referring to is the average chess player, as they are generally well educated. The average IQ of 100 is not a true reflection of the average person on this site.
Firstly, I had not seen your edit. Secondly, your OP read as
"According to the Stanford-Binet system, mine is 161. Is this good or bad compared to the average person?".
What follows is the entire dialogue between yourself and I (along with your response to a response I made to GrampyBobby). You're in italics. Please point out precisely wh ...[text shortened]... have worded that better, let me rephrase..." instead of insulting others for your own screw ups
Rude comment #1 by Agerg:
If your life depended on it, what would be your best guess as to the average IQ? (Let's suppose you're given the opportunity to use google prior to submitting your answer.)
This was after I have apolgised to Divegeester for my poor sentence construction and after an edit.
Rude comment #2 by Agerg:
No embarassment here, one day, when you grow up, you'll realise the virtue in a simple "Yeah, I could have worded that better, let me rephrase..." instead of insulting others for your own screw ups.
This was written a page after the apology, the correction in a separate post and an edit to the OP. I didn't appreciate your "When you grow up".
Notice that I was never rude to you.
I went to the liberty of correcting your punctuation and grammar in one of the posts if you don't mind.
