 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 04 Aug 2009 20:20:04 +0200, andrel <a_l### [at] hotmail com> wrote:
>
>Yes a mere male. I can do 4D visualization in my head, but I can't
>handle insufficient or conflicting information.
>
Oh! Come on, I bet you can do better than that. I use colour and smell as extra
dimensions when I want to go higher than 4. Just think of something rotting
over time. ;)
>
>Well no, more like 'Jean called...' and I have a cousin called Jean who
>might have called, she has a brother with that name as has of our
>neighbours and a close collaborator or two. All might have called and it
>is up to me to figure out which one. You can only do that if at some
>point she refers to something you already know. In which case there was
>no point in mentioning it (for a male). Luckily she is a woman so there
>is a good change that somewhere she mentions a couple of things she told
>a few times before. Then you only have to hope that it is specific
>enough and you can figure it out before she figures out you don't have a
>clue who she is talking about.
"The way of the world" I'm afraid :)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 05 Aug 2009 07:57:02 -0400, Tim Cook <z99### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>Chambers wrote:
>> Stephen wrote:
>>> I believe that IQ tests are a flawed concept.
>>
>> I agree. Any meaningful test needs to have a much more specific focus.
>
>I, for one, don't agree. What's wrong with the concept of a generalised
>test to determine an individuals approximate level of mental development?
There is a difference between tests to determine a person's level of mental
development and IQ tests.
Funnily enough it is mostly those who get (or report) high scores, who are in
favour of the concept of IQ.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen wrote:
> Funnily enough it is mostly those who get (or report) high scores, who are in
> favour of the concept of IQ.
Why is that funny?
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
back to version 1.0."
"We've done that already. We call it 2.0."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen wrote:
> There is a difference between tests to determine a person's level of mental
> development and IQ tests.
...there shouldn't be. :P (The def. listed in the wiki article said
ratio/difference between user score and average score of their age
group...or something like that)
--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.freesitespace.net
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 06 Aug 2009 08:44:28 -0700, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>Stephen wrote:
>> Funnily enough it is mostly those who get (or report) high scores, who are in
>> favour of the concept of IQ.
>
>Why is that funny?
Funny peculiar not funny ha ha
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 06 Aug 2009 16:01:27 -0400, Tim Cook <z99### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>Stephen wrote:
>> There is a difference between tests to determine a person's level of mental
>> development and IQ tests.
>
>...there shouldn't be. :P (The def. listed in the wiki article said
>ratio/difference between user score and average score of their age
>group...or something like that)
Well, for people who like that sort of thing that's the sort of thing they like.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen wrote:
> On Thu, 06 Aug 2009 08:44:28 -0700, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>
>> Stephen wrote:
>>> Funnily enough it is mostly those who get (or report) high scores, who are in
>>> favour of the concept of IQ.
>> Why is that funny?
>
> Funny peculiar not funny ha ha
I don't find it peculiar at all.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
back to version 1.0."
"We've done that already. We call it 2.0."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 06 Aug 2009 16:15:27 -0700, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>Stephen wrote:
>> On Thu, 06 Aug 2009 08:44:28 -0700, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>>
>>> Stephen wrote:
>>>> Funnily enough it is mostly those who get (or report) high scores, who are in
>>>> favour of the concept of IQ.
>>> Why is that funny?
>>
>> Funny peculiar not funny ha ha
>
>I don't find it peculiar at all.
You must have a high IQ, then.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 08/06/09 19:51, Stephen wrote:
> On Thu, 06 Aug 2009 16:15:27 -0700, Darren New<dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>
>> Stephen wrote:
>>> On Thu, 06 Aug 2009 08:44:28 -0700, Darren New<dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Stephen wrote:
>>>>> Funnily enough it is mostly those who get (or report) high scores, who are in
>>>>> favour of the concept of IQ.
>>>> Why is that funny?
>>> Funny peculiar not funny ha ha
>> I don't find it peculiar at all.
>
> You must have a high IQ, then.
Or a low IQ, depending on your perspective.
--
It's not hard to meet expenses, they're everywhere.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 07 Aug 2009 10:16:17 -0500, Neeum Zawan <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:
>On 08/06/09 19:51, Stephen wrote:
>> On Thu, 06 Aug 2009 16:15:27 -0700, Darren New<dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>>
>>> Stephen wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 06 Aug 2009 08:44:28 -0700, Darren New<dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Stephen wrote:
>>>>>> Funnily enough it is mostly those who get (or report) high scores, who are in
>>>>>> favour of the concept of IQ.
>>>>> Why is that funny?
>>>> Funny peculiar not funny ha ha
>>> I don't find it peculiar at all.
>>
>> You must have a high IQ, then.
>
> Or a low IQ, depending on your perspective.
I wouldn't say that.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
