Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

IQ

Re: IQ
November 22, 2007, 11:31:33 AM
Quote
What has changed is not a greater percentage of idiots/mediocrities, but rather, the social position to which idiots and mediocrities can now aspire.  As a practical matter, it makes far more sense to alter our social institutions to put mediocrities in positions where they can do much good, but no harm - digging ditches, harvesting crops, writing code and other activities that are productive, but require no special ability - than it does to eliminate 'stupid people' and put people with high IQ's to work doing things that can be done just as well by serfs.  Any 'solution' that posits holocausting 80% of the human race is an internet fantasy in any event (see also Power, White): you might as well wish for a unicorn in every garage to combat greenhouse gas emissions.


The problem is their continued tendency to revolt and to demand attention for their issues.

Any "solution" that posits changing social roles for 80% of humanity is an internet fantasy in any event, so we should just lie down and die, even though climate change and political instability will sooner than later exterminate much of humanity anyway.

Synopsis of thread: few uebermenschen, many people feeling "powerful" for negativity, which makes their bitching hollow.

Re: IQ
November 22, 2007, 03:37:05 PM
Quote

The problem is their continued tendency to revolt and to demand attention for their issues.


Stupid people (and smart, selfish ones) will always be thus.  In healthy societies such objections are marginalized by a combination of effective institutions and public misfortunes for overly vocal malcontents.

Quote
Any "solution" that posits changing social roles for 80% of humanity is an internet fantasy in any event,


Not at all true - history is replete with examples of the genie of 'freedom' being stuffed back in its bottle.  One of the wonderful things about stupid people is that they are, well, stupid.  It has always been fairly easy to get them to exchange personal autonomy and power for other benefits (real or imagined), the customary ones being 'security' and 'prosperity.'  The terrorists, the Chinese and climate change could prove very useful in this respect.


Re: IQ
November 22, 2007, 04:08:42 PM
Quote
In healthy societies such objections are marginalized by a combination of effective institutions and public misfortunes for overly vocal malcontents.


The idea is to find a way to better maintain a healthy society so that it does not frequently return to an unhealthy state where it begins to marjinalize the wrong people. The problem isn't a lack of  tools available to the rulers because these instruments and institutions never really went away. The heart of the problem always lies with the quality of persons composing the society.

Re: IQ
November 22, 2007, 04:39:30 PM
Quote

The idea is to find a way to better maintain a healthy society so that it does not frequently return to an unhealthy state where it begins to marjinalize the wrong people. The problem isn't a lack of  tools available to the rulers because these instruments and institutions never really went away. The heart of the problem always lies with the quality of persons composing the society.


In absolute terms, the people of today are smarter than they were 100 years ago, and, given what we know about the environmental effect on expressed intelligence, certainly smarter on the whole than the mass of the people in the pre-modern societies most of us here revere.  There's a value to weeding out the real genetic defectives, but there's far more value in weeding out the much smaller number of people of high intellectual but limited moral capacity, each one of whom does more damage to society and the world than a million morons (not to mention that this is a goal far easier to accomplish than the wholesale extermination of billions).

Re: IQ
November 22, 2007, 09:35:44 PM
i get this from a web page  (i didnt understand some questions, since i dont really speak english):

Congratulations, Japel!
Your IQ score is 122

This number is based on a scientific formula that compares how many questions you answered correctly on the Classic IQ Test relative to others.

Your Intellectual Type is Insightful Linguist. This means you are highly intelligent and have the natural fluency of a writer and the visual and spatial strengths of an artist. Those skills contribute to your creative and expressive mind. And that's just some of what we know about you from your test results

it cant be more wrong....  ::)

chrstphrbnntt

Re: IQ
November 22, 2007, 11:14:28 PM
Quote
i get this from a web page  (i didnt understand some questions, since i dont really speak english):

 Congratulations, Japel!
Your IQ score is 122

This number is based on a scientific formula that compares how many questions you answered correctly on the Classic IQ Test relative to others.

Your Intellectual Type is Insightful Linguist. This means you are highly intelligent and have the natural fluency of a writer and the visual and spatial strengths of an artist. Those skills contribute to your creative and expressive mind. And that's just some of what we know about you from your test results

it cant be more wrong....  ::)


Yes, it's already been established that online tests are worthless, especially if you aren't a native speaker. It was a waste of time to take that test at all.

shadowmystic

Re: IQ
November 23, 2007, 12:51:31 AM
Quote

Yes, it's already been established that online tests are worthless, especially if you aren't a native speaker. It was a waste of time to take that test at all.


Any IQ test that includes general knowledge questions is not accurate.

Re: IQ
November 23, 2007, 01:02:34 AM
my IQ was 141 3 years ago. i wonder if it has changed at all.

Re: IQ
November 23, 2007, 01:06:32 AM
Quote

Yes, it's already been established that online tests are worthless, especially if you aren't a native speaker. It was a waste of time to take that test at all.


Internet tests are not worthless. Many of the PHD certified tests can give a brief insight into the kind of mind you have, the kinds of problems best solved by that particular mind. While it is obvious IQ tests are not complete objective tools for determining intelligence even online tests do shed some level of light on such matters.

They should however not be taken as an actual indication of your intelligence, at best you should only be looking at your percentile rather then the actual IQ since an IQ point can be easier to gain in certain reconsigned tests then others.

STS

Re: IQ
November 23, 2007, 01:22:23 AM
Quote
Creativity can be assessed through an IQ test


Not necessarily. Standardized IQ tests test for objective strengths that can be reproduced during the testing itself; while the ability to create is not subjective in itself the extent to which it is “creative” is, therefore composing music or art (for example) or creative writing are not part of this test- and so therefore cannot be readily assessed by the IQ exam alone.

Quote
Thus it can be assumed a person with a massive IQ could very well do well in a creative field.


High IQ and the ability to create something complex usually go hand in hand, but someone with a “massive IQ” isn’t guaranteed to be a “creative genius”. Intellectual strengths are not always in strict balance, so not all geniuses will fulfill the same potential.

Re: IQ
November 23, 2007, 02:26:40 AM
Quote

Not necessarily. Standardized IQ tests test for objective strengths that can be reproduced during the testing itself; while the ability to create is not subjective in itself the extent to which it is “creative” is, therefore composing music or art (for example) or creative writing are not part of this test- and so therefore cannot be readily assessed by the IQ exam alone.


High IQ and the ability to create something complex usually go hand in hand, but someone with a “massive IQ” isn’t guaranteed to be a “creative genius”. Intellectual strengths are not always in strict balance, so not all geniuses will fulfill the same potential.


While that may be true you can rule out the fact that those called musical geniuses (outside of the rock sense of the world and more in line of those that can recall amazing musical feats) almost always have high IQ's. Therefore it can be concluded that many of the things that the IQ test looks for are controlled by the same parts of the brain that are used with musical activities. So while it is not a measure of how musical somebody is it is an indication that this person is likely to have a high capacity for music even if music is not their chosen field.




Re: IQ
November 23, 2007, 11:18:52 AM
I took one a while ago and 136 was the result, not sure if it was reliable though.

Re: IQ
November 23, 2007, 11:39:37 AM
Quote
High IQ and the ability to create something complex usually go hand in hand, but someone with a “massive IQ” isn’t guaranteed to be a “creative genius”.


This summarizes the IQ question.

Dumb people never do anything important.

With smart people, you have a chance that the good among them might do something good.

Then the task becomes:

1. Kill off the stupid.
2. Stress the remaining individuals so the best rise.

Capitalism ain't gonna do that, niggaz.

Re: IQ
November 23, 2007, 04:13:35 PM
Then here we part ways, as I tend to think that we can get slightly more productive use of stupid people than fertilizer.  Nonetheless, the basic point here stands: it's the stupidity, stupid.

Re: IQ
November 23, 2007, 04:44:14 PM
Quote
Then here we part ways, as I tend to think that we can get slightly more productive use of stupid people than fertilizer.  Nonetheless, the basic point here stands: it's the stupidity, stupid.




Interesting. I met a person with severe down syndrome once that was very polite and kept the cafeteria clean as a whistle. "Stupid" people might just be made for different tasks me thinks.

However, I think the bottom line is that no one should be forced to live if they hate their life. If an autistic kid is sent to work on a farm but he has no joy in life doing it, then what's the point? This is why I think suicide should be legal.

So I guess the new question is how much mental capacity does it take to find something worth living for? Is there such a cutoff? If there is, then I think killing people below this line would make sense.

"Death to the life that is only suffering!"-Nietzsche