 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> That's precisely the PC-ideology speaking: "It's not a valid test of
> *anything*". That's BS. Of course it's a valid test of *something*, and
> more precisely, something related to people's brains. You might not like
> the implications, but that doesn't change the fact. Simply wishing the
> tests were completely irrelevant doesn't make it so.
I think the argument goes something like "there are exceptions that
prevent using this xyz as a convenient, over-generalised measure to
which we can refer without having to actually think about it (read: use
in sensationalistic news stories), THEREFORE it must be incorrect in
EVERY case!".
Yes, an IQ test is not perfect, nor do we fully understand every
intricate detail of how the brain works or all the qualitative factors
of 'intelligence'. This doesn't mean we should look the other way
instead of using the most efficient tool for getting a reasonably
accurate comparison of individuals, so those who genuinely need
assistance due to mental disability can get it.
--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.freesitespace.net
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tim Cook <z99### [at] gmail com> wrote:
> I think the argument goes something like "there are exceptions that
> prevent using this xyz as a convenient, over-generalised measure to
> which we can refer without having to actually think about it (read: use
> in sensationalistic news stories), THEREFORE it must be incorrect in
> EVERY case!".
I liked the analogy someone used:
In average women have bigger breasts than men. Just because *some* men
have bigger breasts than *some* women doesn't change the fact.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] npgcablecom> wrote:
>> Warp wrote:
>>> Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] npgcablecom> wrote:
>>>> If anything, McCain could be considered a better case, since we "do"
>>>> know he wasn't "physically" even on the same continent, at the time.
>>> I hate to be a grammar nazi, but those quotation marks take most of the
>>> seriousness of your writing away. I really think you should avoid misusing
>>> them.
>>>
>> Then don't be. I typed the bloody thing five minutes before leaving for
>> work, so didn't notice the problem.
>
> I am going to sound like a jerk again, but I have always wondered if
> some people just type their message as fast and carelessly as they can,
> and only *then* they go through it and correct all the spelling and
> grammatical mistakes. That feels a bit counter-productive to me. Why not
> write it properly right away? That would save time and effort.
>
Sounds good, but.. Well, frankly, as I said, in this case I was in a
rush to go out the door. If I took that sort of time, I wouldn't have
made it to work on time, or would have had to come back later, and hope
the power didn't go out, etc., losing the message. :p And, just because
I don't stutter any more, doesn't mean I don't think, never mind type,
the same as I used to. lol
>>> In these types of sentences putting a single word in quotes usually means
>>> that you are using euphemisms or irony, that you are not literally meaning
>>> what the word is saying.
>>>
>> Been, there, been told that, trying to stop doing it, but also tired of
>> people whining about misused quotes, instead of the content of the post.
>
> But since I'm not whining about the content of your post that means that
> I have nothing to object to it. Isn't that a good thing?-)
>
> Besides, this is exactly the second time I object about someone here
> misusing quotes in the history of the server. Hardly seems constant whining.
>
I am probably the same someone. lol
--
void main () {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tim Cook wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> Until/unless someone finds a valid means to separate measures of
>> mental development from the social memes and mores of the culture they
>> are being tested in, its not a valid test of anything, other than
>> general forms of conformity to arbitrary definitions of "intelligence".
>
> IQ tests do include sections such as repeating ever-lengthening strings
> of numbers which is pretty unrelated to conforming to social norms and
> measures nothing but short-term memory capacity, a bit like playing
> Simon. And sections with pattern-based problem-solving with no
> additional data. At some point, *all* definitions are arbitrary, and if
> (assuming that "if", there) the measures of mental development are used
> entirely within the culture of which the subject is a member, why does
> it need to be separated?
>
> --
> Tim Cook
> http://empyrean.freesitespace.net
Yeah. Seen those. I almost always consistently fail at them. lol Problem
with those is that they are the *same* issue. If you know the *correct*
solutions, fine, you use them, and its simple. If you don't, then your
smart, thinking, mind, tries to work out the solution, and even can't
figure it out, since you don't hit on the one *correct* method, or you
come up with some solution that seems to work, but is actually *wrong*.
Such tests are not capable of deciphering *why*, or *how* you concluded
that you had a valid solution, so can't accurately determine if it was
because you a)failed to guess the right one, b) didn't learn to see that
*common* solution, for that common problem, or c) over thought the
problem. All it can say is, "you got it, or you failed to get it". That
is, less than worthless. Least favorite is some twit telling me, "Oh,
well, that is just the Fibonacci sequence... Well, great, if I used the
it for anything, I might remember what that was. But, a) I don't, and b)
someone that has no clue what the sequence looks like in the first place
isn't stupid, they just don't know what the sequence is, so can't figure
it out.
But, yeah. To some extent you are correct. The problem is, imho, the
*valid* parts of that test shouldn't be all that useful for anyone over
the age of 9, and even then, it doesn't say why the person isn't
advanced to that point, whether or not its innate, or fixable, nor
whether they will, by age 11, manage to overcome the gap, and render the
test worthless, if you see what I mean. And, most importantly, none of
it tells you if they can really think things through critically enough
that they won't be basing their policies are 45 on their daily
horoscope, visits to a guru, or conversations with an imaginary friend,
or that they will actually understand even the "general" concepts of
most things well enough to not end up believing the exact opposite of
what the evidence points to, instead of respecting the opinions of
people that have made it their life's work to have a bloody clue what
they are talking about.
--
void main () {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tim Cook wrote:
> Warp wrote:
>> That's precisely the PC-ideology speaking: "It's not a valid test of
>> *anything*". That's BS. Of course it's a valid test of *something*, and
>> more precisely, something related to people's brains. You might not like
>> the implications, but that doesn't change the fact. Simply wishing the
>> tests were completely irrelevant doesn't make it so.
>
> I think the argument goes something like "there are exceptions that
> prevent using this xyz as a convenient, over-generalised measure to
> which we can refer without having to actually think about it (read: use
> in sensationalistic news stories), THEREFORE it must be incorrect in
> EVERY case!".
>
> Yes, an IQ test is not perfect, nor do we fully understand every
> intricate detail of how the brain works or all the qualitative factors
> of 'intelligence'. This doesn't mean we should look the other way
> instead of using the most efficient tool for getting a reasonably
> accurate comparison of individuals, so those who genuinely need
> assistance due to mental disability can get it.
>
> --
> Tim Cook
> http://empyrean.freesitespace.net
No, it means we need to use it for what it is useful for, and not
exaggerate that, and when we find a disparity in development, we figure
out *why*, not just pigeon hole the person in the "they are genius", or
"they are special ed", category. This isn't what happens though.
--
void main () {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> No, it means we need to use it for what it is useful for, and not
> exaggerate that, and when we find a disparity in development, we figure
> out *why*, not just pigeon hole the person in the "they are genius", or
> "they are special ed", category. This isn't what happens though.
Point, but <whine>that costs money!</whine>
*Taxpayer* money, most often, being the sticking point there.
Plus you need a whole gaggle of qualified people for each individual
case, at this point in our knowledge of "why" brain things happen, to
get a decent understanding of how to not just stuff them in a proverbial
little box. And nobody wants to pay for that.
--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.freesitespace.net
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
John VanSickle wrote:
> Aside from a handful of people who think that our federal government is
> always up to something evil, no matter who is in office, a small number
> of people were afflicted with Bush Derangement Syndrome to such a degree
> that they believe him capable of anything evil. In all fairness,
> conspiracy theories about Clinton abounded during his time in office as
> well.
Never plead malice where incompetence will do.
--
Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Uh, no. Living here, I can guarantee you there's frequent "defeat obama
> even at the cost of the rest of america" going on pretty frequently.
I don't see why. In my opinion, the Beer Summit was one of the smartest
things I've ever heard of a President doing.
--
Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Sounds good, but.. Well, frankly, as I said, in this case I was in a
> rush to go out the door. If I took that sort of time, I wouldn't have
> made it to work on time, or would have had to come back later, and hope
> the power didn't go out, etc., losing the message. :p And, just because
> I don't stutter any more, doesn't mean I don't think, never mind type,
> the same as I used to. lol
That's why I had to give up checking this group before work ;)
--
Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Uh, no. Living here, I can guarantee you there's frequent "defeat obama
> even at the cost of the rest of america" going on pretty frequently.
Actually, they say "Defeat Obama for the good of America." They do
honestly believe that Obama's policies will do far more harm than good.
The anti-Bush people said the same about Bush and his policies, as well.
Regards,
John
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
