Whats your I.Q.

[THEUNIT(XXL)]

I payed for a few tests last year and they were both around ~167. I don't put any value in those tests though. I know I'm not that smart.

HEJ THAT MIGHT JUST BE DIVINE INTERVENTION

 

[buildingup]

fat old man thats all you say, i fucked your wife/gf this and that! it leads me to believe we may have a 80 yr old virgin in the forum!

 

[Tough Old Man]

Buildingblocks before and after picture.

 

[buildingup]

well your pics speak for themselves, listen to what people say you old fool, your fat and ugly! this is where you say not ugly enough for your gf!

 

[THEUNIT(XXL)]

fat old man thats all you say, i fucked your wife/gf this and that! it leads me to believe we may have a 80 yr old virgin in the forum!

 

[buildingup]

not you unit!

 

[Tough Old Man]

whats happening Unit. You were gone for a few days bro.

Tough

 

[Eggs]

Well old man... that goes to prove a high intelligence quotient doesn't necessarily dictate that one is decent in spelling or grammar

Ah well, we like you all the same. Though lately I think you've gotten a little sand on your clitoris, whats the deal?

 

[Chain Link]

Well If You're Thinking Of The Same Sex Then It's Probably A Lot Lower!

At 69 if he was thinking of the same sex he'd blow a rod.



Wait.. Thats only funny in the car joke.. oh well

 

[Tough Old Man]

Per your PM, I'll lay off this guy and tone it down.

Thanks Eggs

Tough Old Man

Well old man... that goes to prove a high intelligence quotient doesn't necessarily dictate that one is decent in spelling or grammar

Ah well, we like you all the same. Though lately I think you've gotten a little sand on your clitoris, whats the deal?

 

[rburton]

Intelligence is undefinable and therefore untestable. any IQ tests are riddled with cultural biases and highly unreliable.

IQ tests are useless and a waste of time!

Explain with supporting data

 

[rburton]

It is amazing that so many responding to this thread have such a high IQ. (Yes, I am being sarcastic.)

 

[Vieope]

It is amazing that so many responding to this thread have such a high IQ. (Yes, I am being sarcastic.)

What do you mean when you say sarcastic?

 

[MyK]

What do you mean when you say sarcastic?

sarcastic means that you are being very very serious!

 

[MyK]

Explain with supporting data

bend over and grab your ankles!

 

[myCATpowerlifts]

really? i thought it was a lot higher than that...

Thanks but that was in 1991. I don't no if it's higher now that I'm older or lower as I seem to forget a lot of things. As long as I can continue to fuck with a few on this site like buildingblocks or whatever the name of that british asshole is, I feel great.

Tough

He was being sarcastic you dumbass!!!!

 

[jde05001]

Intelligence is undefinable and therefore untestable. any IQ tests are riddled with cultural biases and highly unreliable.

IQ tests are useless and a waste of time!

I.Q. is a measure of the capacity to learn, not actual knowledge, therefore never grows or decreases with age, and is relatively reliable.

 

[MyK]

Intelligence is undefinable and therefore untestable. any IQ tests are riddled with cultural biases and highly unreliable.

IQ tests are useless and a waste of time!

I.Q. is a measure of the capacity to learn, not actual knowledge, therefore never grows or decreases with age, and is relatively reliable.

I.Q. stands for Intelligence quotient. what it is, is a measure of an individuals intelligence relevant to a population of their peers (usually people of the same age).

however, the leading experts in the field have yet to settle on a definition of what intelligence actually is. is it math, grammer, social skills, growing flowers, building a perfect body, being able to dance really well.

because their is no agreed upon definition of what intelligence is, any so called intelligence test will test what that culture dictates is the appropriate measure of intelligence. usually in our case math grammer and problem solving/pattern solving questions. therefore they are biased to the culture that creates the test.

I.Q. does vary with age, the more stimulus the brain receives the more neuron activity the stronger and more efficient the brain becomes. the brain can also be destroyed from physical damage and toxins. these such circumstances will strengthen and weaken the brain respectively.

I.Q. is reliable??? thats so stupid. I.Q. is a construct to measure. reliability is a function of a test not a construct.

 

[bio-chem]

im forrest gump.

 

[Eggs]

I.Q. is reliable??? thats so stupid. I.Q. is a construct to measure. reliability is a function of a test not a construct.

I don't think IQ testing is the end all for intelligence related matters. That said, being that each of these person tested generally functions within the given parameters of that society in which they were tested, the IQ test is still somewhat relevant.

In other words, if you have somebody that scores a 160 on an IQ test, they are generally going to appear more intelligent to their peers (society around them), than say, a person that scores an 85.

The limitations of testing do need to be understood and applied though.

Oh, and the ol' IQ testing of the Jews pre WW2 sure gave Hitler a boner. So, as said before, we need to be somewhat wary of its applications.

 

[CANIBALISTIC]

So I will put you down at 85

LMFAO

 

[MyK]

I don't think IQ testing is the end all for intelligence related matters. That said, being that each of these person tested generally functions within the given parameters of that society in which they were tested, the IQ test is still somewhat relevant.

In other words, if you have somebody that scores a 160 on an IQ test, they are generally going to appear more intelligent to their peers (society around them), than say, a person that scores an 85.

The limitations of testing do need to be understood and applied though.

Oh, and the ol' IQ testing of the Jews pre WW2 sure gave Hitler a boner. So, as said before, we need to be somewhat wary of its applications.

Im not realy sure what your point is, and i agree that the current tests are relevant simply because their the best we have!

but what I am saying is that their bullshit. the questions they choose to ask on them are usually math, grammer, problem solving type. Human being are so much more dynamic and I cant think of the word..

basically these test don't capture the essence of being human. there symply used as a justification to oppress people. for example the LSAT SAT GRE GMAT scores, have 0 correlation with success in school and life. but if a school doesn't want a student they can just say, well u didnt score well enough on this meaninglless test! and the student cant say shit!

 

[Eggs]

Im not realy sure what your point is, and i agree that the current tests are relevant simply because their the best we have!

If you agreed with me you must have known I was making some point

but what I am saying is that their bullshit. the questions they choose to ask on them are usually math, grammer, problem solving type. Human being are so much more dynamic and I cant think of the word.. [/QUOT]

Yes and no. You don't have to test every portion of the intelligence to know that somebody is good at Math. Or test math to know that someone is good at English. Yes the tests are limited... but only in as much as people expecting them to be an end-all in determining intelligence. They arent, they just say that you can learn, and that you could be good at the subjects tested

basically these test don't capture the essence of being human. there symply used as a justification to oppress people. for example the LSAT SAT GRE GMAT scores, have 0 correlation with success in school and life. but if a school doesn't want a student they can just say, well u didnt score well enough on this meaninglless test! and the student cant say shit!

The tests dont capture the essence of the human being? Well, neither does intelligence in itself. We are far more than that. Or at least I like to think so As to there not being a positive correlation between IQ and intelligence. Perhaps. I think the best estimator of future performance is looking at previous performance. But along with that, its good to see how people respond on a given test against one another.

The main problems that come about in IQ testing is language differences, cultural differences, etc. That said, you dont generally see extremely intelligent people performing poorly on an intelligence test when it is keyed to their language and culture.

Take for instance the military ASVAB. It is an aptitude battery, to see what field you perform best in. I scored a 99 on it, which is decent... and my scores throughout the testing showed that I could be capable of working in any field. But dont expect it to tell you how good of a dancer I am

Anyways, I'm going to go study some philosophy and drink some beers. That will put an end to any intelligence I have left

 

[MyK]

If you agreed with me you must have known I was making some point

but what I am saying is that their bullshit. the questions they choose to ask on them are usually math, grammer, problem solving type. Human being are so much more dynamic and I cant think of the word.. [/QUOT]

Yes and no. You don't have to test every portion of the intelligence to know that somebody is good at Math. Or test math to know that someone is good at English. Yes the tests are limited... but only in as much as people expecting them to be an end-all in determining intelligence. They arent, they just say that you can learn, and that you could be good at the subjects tested



The tests dont capture the essence of the human being? Well, neither does intelligence in itself. We are far more than that. Or at least I like to think so As to there not being a positive correlation between IQ and intelligence. Perhaps. I think the best estimator of future performance is looking at previous performance. But along with that, its good to see how people respond on a given test against one another.

The main problems that come about in IQ testing is language differences, cultural differences, etc. That said, you dont generally see extremely intelligent people performing poorly on an intelligence test when it is keyed to their language and culture.

Take for instance the military ASVAB. It is an aptitude battery, to see what field you perform best in. I scored a 99 on it, which is decent... and my scores throughout the testing showed that I could be capable of working in any field. But dont expect it to tell you how good of a dancer I am

Anyways, I'm going to go study some philosophy and drink some beers. That will put an end to any intelligence I have left

your missing my initail point!
Intelligence cannot be tested because it cannot be defined!

the aptitude test you took look for specific intelligence types. what they do is test people who had performed well in say field "X" and once they find a common trait, say "Y", they test the rest of the populationj to see who else has the same trait concluding that people who score high in trait Y will be good at X. and obviously dont waste their time with people who score low in Y.

in essence they knew what they were looking for, mechanical ability, visual spatial apptitude, low affiliation needs etc etc

But in an intelligence test, they dont know what their testing for because there is no definition for intelligence. if you cant define something, how can you test it???

 

[Eggs]

But we arent testing everything Sherlock. Who cares how good someone is at straw hat making, doing the macarina, or drinking jose cuervo? The things we need... the things that will benefit us most as a society, are those things that are tested for. Such as math, science, english, history, etc. If they werent, why are those the main things we teach in school?

Anyways, my point is that while the overall umbrella of intelligence might not be currently definable, those things that matter most to us are. So IQ tests in some ways are still valid. The problem is that you can have a high IQ and be a lazy fucker and never accomplish anything... and of course those problems mentioned previously.

But you get my point. We dont need to test for every single aspect of intelligence. Who cares about the stuff that wont benefit us the most?

 

[GFR]

I deduct that another I.M. poll has gone into the toilet.....lying just like they did about their endowments and their womans breast size.

 

[MyK]

But we arent testing everything Sherlock. Who cares how good someone is at straw hat making, doing the macarina, or drinking jose cuervo? The things we need... the things that will benefit us most as a society, are those things that are tested for. Such as math, science, english, history, etc. If they werent, why are those the main things we teach in school?

Anyways, my point is that while the overall umbrella of intelligence might not be currently definable, those things that matter most to us are. So IQ tests in some ways are still valid. The problem is that you can have a high IQ and be a lazy fucker and never accomplish anything... and of course those problems mentioned previously.

But you get my point. We dont need to test for every single aspect of intelligence. Who cares about the stuff that wont benefit us the most?

thats what I said like three times already, elementary my dear Watson!! haha.

intelligence tests are culturally biased. and there not exhaustive in their testing. im just being illustrative when i was talking about dancing. but if you want me to spell it out for you, what the current tests measure is verbal comprehension (BIAS) word fluency(BIAS) number/math, rote memory, perceptual speed, and reasoning skills(BIAS). although these will be a good measure and as you said some what valid.

what Im saying is these tests miss out on such abillities as fluid intelligence, crystallized intelligence, general memory, auditory perception, retrival ability, cognitive speedeness, emotional intelligence, memory span, spatial relations, sound discrimination, perceptual speed, the list goes on and on. Therefore while the test do measure some things they miss 99% of intelligence and are therfore not valid. they lack whats called "construct validity".

and if you want to test for aptitude in math, science, english, history, etc then you create math, science, english, and history tests. although I don't know how you can have apptitude in history

do you understand what Im saying now?

 

[Eggs]

thats what I said like three times already, elementary my dear Watson!! haha.

intelligence tests are culturally biased. and there not exhaustive in their testing. im just being illustrative when i was talking about dancing. but if you want me to spell it out for you, what the current tests measure is verbal comprehension (BIAS) word fluency(BIAS) number/math, rote memory, perceptual speed, and reasoning skills(BIAS). although these will be a good measure and as you said some what valid.

what Im saying is these tests miss out on such abillities as fluid intelligence, crystallized intelligence, general memory, auditory perception, retrival ability, cognitive speedeness, emotional intelligence, memory span, spatial relations, sound discrimination, perceptual speed, the list goes on and on. Therefore while the test do measure some things they miss 99% of intelligence and are therfore not valid. they lack whats called "construct validity".

and if you want to test for aptitude in math, science, english, history, etc then you create math, science, english, and history tests. although I don't know how you can have apptitude in history

do you understand what Im saying now?

How did you come across the 99% figure? Do you have data to back that up?

Certainly the tests do not cover all the bases, which is what both of us have been saying. But what I've been saying is that a person with a 145 IQ on the the tests and a person with a 75 IQ on the test will live substantially different lives.

So tell me, if the tests are so inable to predict intelligence accurately, then why is a person with a low IQ score generally a stupid person? And you know what I mean. They dont do well in school, they are boring to talk to, and they generally function as an excellent grocery bagger.

Or are they really hidden geniusses? Just in some intelligence that we don't currently comprehend

Note: lol, genius... I mispelled it guinnesses, which is what I was drinking earlier But I think something was off, it didn't taste quite right

 

[DOMS]

where did you buy the iq tests from? and old man i guess there's no teaching an old dog new tricks o in your case a very fat old mexican pig!

The only way that one IM member has to judge the intelligence of another member is by what that person has written and how they've written it.

After having read your posts, I'll ask a mod to open up a remedial forum for you.

"buildingup's Special Forum" - Now with no sharp objects.

 

[GFR]

im forrest gump.