 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 16/01/2014 7:02 PM, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
> On 16/01/2014 06:25 PM, Warp wrote:
>> clipka<ano### [at] anonymous org> wrote:
>>> No, that's pretty well defined: The average person is the one that has a
>>> higher intelligence than 50% of the remaining population, and a lower
>>> one than the other 50%.
>>
>> Is the scoring scaled so that 100 points is assigned to the average
>> or to the median score?
>
> And is that the arithmetic mean or the geometric mean?
>
> And with population are you sampling to get your calibration curve?
>
> And...
>
> ....like I said, each test design probably gives slightly different
> answers.
Does it make any difference?
It is all hogwash, anyway.
If you only have a vague idea of what you are testing for. How can you
have any confidence in the results?
And how do you weight them for cultural, gender and educational bias.
IMO It is more commercial, educationalist and wishful thinking,
gobble-de-gook than anything that approaches a science.
Western world Hoodo.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 16/01/2014 7:07 PM, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>> Not if the separation was a totally different school rather than just
>> different classes.
>
> Didn't the UK try that already? Didn't that lead to a generation of
> people being labelled according to which type of school they got sent
> to, rather than anything they actually achieved while there?
100% Correct.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 16 Jan 2014 03:13:49 +0200, clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> Am 15.01.2014 21:48, schrieb Nekar Xenos:
>> On Wed, 15 Jan 2014 15:50:53 +0200, clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Am 14.01.2014 23:10, schrieb Doctor John:
>>
>>> Interestingly, in Einstein's days there apparently wasn't. He was a
>>> kind of pop icon of his time.
>>>
>> ..even though he stopped in the middle of the road when the "Don't Walk"
>> light lit up :)
>
> Sounds like the witty type of humor I'd expect from him :-)
>
Yeah :)
This one is my favourite:
http://harryneelam.com/photoblog/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Einstein.jpg
=D
--
-Nekar Xenos-
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 16/01/14 19:07, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>
> Didn't the UK try that already? Didn't that lead to a generation of
> people being labelled according to which type of school they got sent
> to, rather than anything they actually achieved while there?
Certainly, that was the case in the state sector up until the late
sixties. There's a good article on it in Wikipedia (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tripartite_System ) In the fee-paying
sector, the situation was and still is that pupils of all abilities
attend the same school but are streamed on entry according to their
perceived potential.
Which system is better is not a question I'm qualified to answer. The
private sector tended to have proportionally more university entrants
than the state sector, but that may have been down to the fact that they
had much smaller class sizes as well as very highly qualified teachers.
At my school ( www.shrewsbury.org.uk/ ) most of the teachers had
Masters degrees and there were a fair few with Doctorates.
Maybe, if more money was thrown at the state sector so that class sizes
could be reduced and the teachers were paid more (so that those who go
to the private sector for the money would have less of an incentive to
make that choice) then perhaps we would see an evening out of the system.
However, having said that, you would still have schoolkids forming their
own little cliques and judging each other's worth by some arbitrary
measurement. Stopping that is a whole other story.
John
--
Protect the Earth
It was not given to you by your parents
You hold it in trust for your children
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen <mca### [at] aolcom> wrote:
> Does it make any difference?
If you use the median, then 50% of the population will have an IQ of less
than 100 and 50% of over 100.
However, if you use the average, then people will not be split into
equal sized groups. It may well be that, for example, 55% of people
have an IQ of less than 100 and 45% over 100.
Both methods may give interesting information.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 16/01/2014 8:36 PM, Warp wrote:
> Stephen <mca### [at] aolcom> wrote:
>> Does it make any difference?
>
> If you use the median, then 50% of the population will have an IQ of less
> than 100 and 50% of over 100.
>
> However, if you use the average, then people will not be split into
> equal sized groups. It may well be that, for example, 55% of people
> have an IQ of less than 100 and 45% over 100.
>
> Both methods may give interesting information.
>
Does it make any difference?
<see above>
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 16/01/2014 21:41, Stephen nous fit lire :
> On 16/01/2014 8:36 PM, Warp wrote:
>> Stephen <mca### [at] aolcom> wrote:
>>> Does it make any difference?
>>
>> If you use the median, then 50% of the population will have an IQ of less
>> than 100 and 50% of over 100.
>>
>> However, if you use the average, then people will not be split into
>> equal sized groups. It may well be that, for example, 55% of people
>> have an IQ of less than 100 and 45% over 100.
>>
>> Both methods may give interesting information.
>>
>
> Does it make any difference?
> <see above>
>
Median or average IQ is not important. IQ is a failed attempt to project
a multidimensional space in a single metric line.
The truly important value would be the KQ. but in most group, that's a
hint for abuse.
KQ: Kindness Quotient.
Quizz of the month: would you agree or not with rule 0 of the three
Asimovian rules of robotics ?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 16/01/2014 9:05 PM, Le_Forgeron wrote:
> Quizz of the month: would you agree or not with rule 0 of the three
> Asimovian rules of robotics ?
Not really. We are destined to be eaten by green scaly lizards from
outer space.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 16/01/2014 22:05, Le_Forgeron a écrit :
> Le 16/01/2014 21:41, Stephen nous fit lire :
>> On 16/01/2014 8:36 PM, Warp wrote:
>>> Stephen <mca### [at] aolcom> wrote:
>>>> Does it make any difference?
>>>
>>> If you use the median, then 50% of the population will have an IQ of less
>>> than 100 and 50% of over 100.
>>>
>>> However, if you use the average, then people will not be split into
>>> equal sized groups. It may well be that, for example, 55% of people
>>> have an IQ of less than 100 and 45% over 100.
>>>
>>> Both methods may give interesting information.
>>>
>>
>> Does it make any difference?
>> <see above>
>>
> Median or average IQ is not important. IQ is a failed attempt to project
> a multidimensional space in a single metric line.
>
> The truly important value would be the KQ. but in most group, that's a
> hint for abuse.
>
> KQ: Kindness Quotient.
>
What about the HQ (human quotient)? The ability to live with others.
---
Ce courrier électronique ne contient aucun virus ou logiciel malveillant parce que la
protection avast! Antivirus est active.
http://www.avast.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 16 Jan 2014 10:03:15 +0000, Stephen wrote:
> On 15/01/2014 11:29 PM, Doctor John wrote:
>> On 15/01/14 19:32, Stephen wrote:
>>> I am all ears.
>>>
>>>
>> Pardon?
>>
>> John
>>
> I heard that!
What?
--
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
