·Theme
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- **** your autistic kid, I'm tired of hearing about him.
**** your autistic kid, I'm tired of hearing about him.Follow
That's what happens when you push it down a flight of stairs.
Could be worse, at least it hasn't *** to terrible puns yet.
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
Smasharoo wrote:
That's what happens when you push it down a flight of stairs.
Could be worse, at least it hasn't *** to terrible puns yet.
When it all turns to puns it's time to pull out.
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
At least it'll abort similar threads appearing.
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
Smasharoo wrote:
First of all, allegory's right, self reported data is allays fairly useless. Going by self reported data, lots of people have never *********** or even considered it, and women who are conservative politically ****** every time they have sex.
Secondly, if I can post the answers, and the test has been around with non randomized questions and answers for greater than...say an hour....the answers are somewhere else on the web. I didn't look for them, but I imagine it would be fairly trivial to find them.
Secondly, if I can post the answers, and the test has been around with non randomized questions and answers for greater than...say an hour....the answers are somewhere else on the web. I didn't look for them, but I imagine it would be fairly trivial to find them.
Thirdly, it has the same problem that all (most? every one I've run into) IQ tests have: They don't really test how smart you are, but how experienced you are at taking these kinds of tests. Even on top of the whole "it's the same test every time, so you can take it until you get a perfect score" bit, it's still basically testing a (small) subset of brain skills. Ever met someone who's a complete idiot, but is a whiz at picture puzzles, or block puzzles, or whatever? Same concept.
I suspect that since no one can really put their finger on what actually makes someone "smart", but lots of people put great weight in some kind of measurement, they create these tests, call them IQ tests, and let people feel good (or bad) about themselves based on them. I just don't have much faith in being able to measure in any sort of broad test the ability for someone to be exposed to something for the first time, intuitively understand it, and within minutes realize that the person teaching the subject doesn't actually understand it at all. I'm positive that it has little or nothing to do with pattern puzzles.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Quote:
Ever met someone who's a complete idiot, but is a whiz at picture puzzles, or block puzzles, or whatever?
I don't know, how good are you at rubix cubes?
Kavekk wrote:
Quote:
Ever met someone who's a complete idiot, but is a whiz at picture puzzles, or block puzzles, or whatever?
I don't know, how good are you at rubix cubes?
I'm ... Wait! It's a trap!!!
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
I suspect that since no one can really put their finger on what actually makes someone "smart", but lots of people put great weight in some kind of measurement, they create these tests, call them IQ tests, and let people feel good (or bad) about themselves based on them. I just don't have much faith in being able to measure in any sort of broad test the ability for someone to be exposed to something for the first time, intuitively understand it, and within minutes realize that the person teaching the subject doesn't actually understand it at all. I'm positive that it has little or nothing to do with pattern puzzles.
Firstly, we should note that this isn't happening to you. You're not immediately grasping something and realizing the person explaining it doesn't understand. You're having a delusion and missing something. TRUST ME on this one.
Secondly, you're wrong. Happens a lot, you shouldn't feel badly. There are many forms of intelligence, sure, but IQ tests are pretty good at measuring general intelligence and general intelligence is predictive of a great many things. It's not at all meaningless or useless. It'd be great if that were the case, because it's obviously fairly fascist, but sadly, that's not how it works.
I don't want to get into a whole discussion about the value of IQ tests or other standardized tests. Yes, there can be bias, yes people can be coached to score higher, etc. The idea, though, that because there are flaws they are useless is one based on sentiment. DOD has tried for a long long time to come up with a better standard than general intelligence for assigning roles and hasn't found one. If I gave you 10000 18 year olds and told you to pick 20 to do intelligence analysis, you probably aren't going to recommend the ones with "emotional intelligence" when you're through screening them.
Firstly, we should note that this isn't happening to you. You're not immediately grasping something and realizing the person explaining it doesn't understand. You're having a delusion and missing something. TRUST ME on this one.
Secondly, you're wrong. Happens a lot, you shouldn't feel badly. There are many forms of intelligence, sure, but IQ tests are pretty good at measuring general intelligence and general intelligence is predictive of a great many things. It's not at all meaningless or useless. It'd be great if that were the case, because it's obviously fairly fascist, but sadly, that's not how it works.
I don't want to get into a whole discussion about the value of IQ tests or other standardized tests. Yes, there can be bias, yes people can be coached to score higher, etc. The idea, though, that because there are flaws they are useless is one based on sentiment. DOD has tried for a long long time to come up with a better standard than general intelligence for assigning roles and hasn't found one. If I gave you 10000 18 year olds and told you to pick 20 to do intelligence analysis, you probably aren't going to recommend the ones with "emotional intelligence" when you're through screening them.
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
Smasharoo wrote:
Firstly, we should note that this isn't happening to you. You're not immediately grasping something and realizing the person explaining it doesn't understand. You're having a delusion and missing something. TRUST ME on this one.
I think you're having a delusion and missing something.
Quote:
There are many forms of intelligence, sure, but IQ tests are pretty good at measuring general intelligence and general intelligence is predictive of a great many things. It's not at all meaningless or useless.
Not completely meaningless or useless. They can often weed out the truly dumb, or relatively unteachable people. I suppose you could argue that they do measure potential, but only in the negative direction. A high score indicates that the person must be at least above average intelligence. But how high doesn't necessarily indicate how intelligent. Also a low score on a single test doesn't mean low intelligence. Smart people can score poorly, but dumb people generally can't score well. So useful, but not in the iPeen way some people tend to try to apply them.
Quote:
I don't want to get into a whole discussion about the value of IQ tests or other standardized tests. Yes, there can be bias, yes people can be coached to score higher, etc.
Yes. I've met a lot of them. Typically, they are slightly above average intelligence, but their parents wanted a genius, so they pushed them to take IQ tests their entire lives and constantly told them how smart they are. Now, they're really good at taking those tests, but most of them can't think their way out of the equivalent of an intellectual paper bag. The tests don't go the other way. Learning to be good at taking them doesn't make you smart. It makes you good at taking them. Smart people take them and score well without a lifetime of practice. But the test doesn't tell you which is which.
Quote:
The idea, though, that because there are flaws they are useless is one based on sentiment.
I didn't say they were useless. They're actually a decent starting point in terms of weeding out people.
Quote:
DOD has tried for a long long time to come up with a better standard than general intelligence for assigning roles and hasn't found one. If I gave you 10000 18 year olds and told you to pick 20 to do intelligence analysis, you probably aren't going to recommend the ones with "emotional intelligence" when you're through screening them.
Yes. Because you're not actually testing intelligence. My issue isn't with the test themselves, but with what most people think they mean.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Smasharoo wrote:
There are many forms of intelligence, sure, but IQ tests are pretty good at measuring general intelligence and general intelligence is predictive of a great many things. It's not at all meaningless or useless. It'd be great if that were the case, because it's obviously fairly fascist, but sadly, that's not how it works.
Something like this.
Every test I've taken seems to put me somewhere in the same "above average but not remarkable" category. Which pretty seemed to be the case in school, and in most facets of life so far for that matter.
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
I'm guessing you (Gbaji) did badly on an IQ test at some point.
Edited, Mar 26th 2013 1:23pm by Xsarus
Edited, Mar 26th 2013 1:23pm by Xsarus
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
Well hasn't this thread taken a truly ironic twist...
Not really.
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
Sir Xsarus wrote:
I'm guessing you did badly on an IQ test at some point.
No. Of the handful I've taken, I typically score in the 130-150 range, sometimes higher (sometimes much higher). But I've noticed that the score variation between those tests isn't because one day I was just more on my game than another, but because the structure of one test was something I was more familiar with doing regularly, and another was not. At a certain point, it's not about how smart you are, but how familiar you are with the kinds of questions being asked that determines how high your score is.
If you consistently score below 120 on IQ tests, then you're not a genius. You're average. Maybe below average if you're regularly scoring below 100 (or have some kind of disability). Above that point though, the tests usually fail to tell us how smart someone actually is relative to someone else. They tell us more about how often the person has taken IQ tests than anything else. Which was the point I was making. As I said, my scores are never low or even average, but they vary wildly based entirely on the structure of the questions themselves and nothing else.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
BrownDuck wrote:
Well hasn't this thread taken a truly ironic twist...
I think one way to measure intelligence is to see if a person knows how to use the word "irony" correctly.
Above that point though, the tests usually fail to tell us how smart someone actually is relative to someone else.
Depends entirely on the test. There are tests that do well at differentiating between outliers, that have higher ceilings, etc. They tend to be more complex to administer and it's not usually a part of results that people care about much.
I typically score in the 130-150 range,
Sounds entirely plausible to me based on my limited knowledge of you. The idea that is indistinguishable from someone with an IQ of 180 isn't plausible. I'm sure you could do most jobs if trained, and that's great. In many, many, many ways a person is far better off with results in the range you're talking about. It's great being bright, it's miserable being exceptionally so.
Depends entirely on the test. There are tests that do well at differentiating between outliers, that have higher ceilings, etc. They tend to be more complex to administer and it's not usually a part of results that people care about much.
I typically score in the 130-150 range,
Sounds entirely plausible to me based on my limited knowledge of you. The idea that is indistinguishable from someone with an IQ of 180 isn't plausible. I'm sure you could do most jobs if trained, and that's great. In many, many, many ways a person is far better off with results in the range you're talking about. It's great being bright, it's miserable being exceptionally so.
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
gbaji wrote:
I just don't have much faith in being able to measure in any sort of broad test the ability for someone to be exposed to something for the first time, intuitively understand it, and within minutes realize that the person teaching the subject doesn't actually understand it at all.
gbaji wrote:
But I've noticed that the score variation between those tests isn't because one day I was just more on my game than another, but because the structure of one test was something I was more familiar with doing regularly, and another was not.
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
I have a mean IQ of 195.78373654 on the Stanford-Binet-Quetzalcoatl scale, making me eligible for a free calendar and plastic toy with my happy meal. Sometimes it's lower, and other days, well, they just hand me a card with a lemniscate on it.
I have come to realise that these variations follow the ebb and flow of Tetzcatlipcoa's machinations - and no other thing.
I have come to realise that these variations follow the ebb and flow of Tetzcatlipcoa's machinations - and no other thing.
Quote:
No. Of the handful I've taken, I typically score in the 130-150 range, sometimes higher (sometimes much higher). But I've noticed that the score variation between those tests isn't because one day I was just more on my game than another, but because the structure of one test was something I was more familiar with doing regularly, and another was not. At a certain point, it's not about how smart you are, but how familiar you are with the kinds of questions being asked that determines how high your score is.
Can we go back to orgasms now? Or maybe just other bodily functions. Anything but lolonline IQ tests.
Don't you like reading fanfiction written by thirteen year olds?
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
Very much so. I especially love them with obvious Mormon overtones. That's why I can't wait for Stephanie Meyer's new movie coming out about an alien love triangle or something. I'm not sure, but I'm sure it'll be good!
I got a 108. And I totally know that it's no reflection on my intelligence, and that online IQ tests are bull, and that the very notion of an IQ test is flawed at conception.
**** you guys.
Edited, Mar 26th 2013 3:20pm by Eske
**** you guys.
Edited, Mar 26th 2013 3:20pm by Eske
Smasharoo wrote:
Above that point though, the tests usually fail to tell us how smart someone actually is relative to someone else.
Depends entirely on the test. There are tests that do well at differentiating between outliers, that have higher ceilings, etc. They tend to be more complex to administer and it's not usually a part of results that people care about much.
Depends entirely on the test. There are tests that do well at differentiating between outliers, that have higher ceilings, etc. They tend to be more complex to administer and it's not usually a part of results that people care about much.
Which is why I don't put much stock in the standard "IQ tests" that folks take along the way over their education and career (and absolutely not the online ones for obvious reasons). Measuring actual intelligence level at the high end is much more complex and requires a degree of interaction and observation which isn't present in the standard tests, and often gives very different results (and they're also focused on specifics as well, so it's honestly hard to correlate them anyway).
Quote:
I typically score in the 130-150 range,
Sounds entirely plausible to me based on my limited knowledge of you. The idea that is indistinguishable from someone with an IQ of 180 isn't plausible.
Sounds entirely plausible to me based on my limited knowledge of you. The idea that is indistinguishable from someone with an IQ of 180 isn't plausible.
Uh huh. Some of us can be brilliant without being neurotic though. I know that's hard for the smart but neurotic crowd to accept though. A funny side note from my own observations is that really high scores on the broader tests tend to precisely test for neurotic/obsessive minds. Hence my point that we're not really testing intelligence.
Quote:
I'm sure you could do most jobs if trained, and that's great. In many, many, many ways a person is far better off with results in the range you're talking about. It's great being bright, it's miserable being exceptionally so.
Yeah. Keep telling yourself that.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Rachel9 wrote:
Quote:
No. Of the handful I've taken, I typically score in the 130-150 range, sometimes higher (sometimes much higher). But I've noticed that the score variation between those tests isn't because one day I was just more on my game than another, but because the structure of one test was something I was more familiar with doing regularly, and another was not. At a certain point, it's not about how smart you are, but how familiar you are with the kinds of questions being asked that determines how high your score is.
Any online test that scores that high is designed just to make people feel good about themselves.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Uh huh. Some of us can be brilliant without being neurotic though. I know that's hard for the smart but neurotic crowd to accept though. A funny side note from my own observations is that really high scores on the broader tests tend to precisely test for neurotic/obsessive minds. Hence my point that we're not really testing intelligence.
Really, you came to the conclusion that you are as smart as it's possible to be without any downside and that people who are smarter are flawed in some other way that lowers their overall ability to achieve things?
Who could have guessed? Oh, everyone? Right.
Really, you came to the conclusion that you are as smart as it's possible to be without any downside and that people who are smarter are flawed in some other way that lowers their overall ability to achieve things?
Who could have guessed? Oh, everyone? Right.
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
Recent Visitors: 241
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (241)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- **** your autistic kid, I'm tired of hearing about him.
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC