high IQ dating...?
D.@home.co.uk Mr D.
Anyone know of a good place to search for women with high IQs (i.e. 144 and
above)...?
Is there a dating site of that kind somewhere online...?
Ta.
M.
foolsrushout
They all lie.
Phil Holman
"Mr D." <Mr D.@home.co.uk> wrote in message
news:CuZvj.6734$d62....@newsfe6-gui.ntli.net...
To me, that's just as bad as wanting to date women with big knockers.
There are many, many more characteristics that are important so I don't
see a reason to limit oneself to 0.1% of the female population. Good
luck with that.
Phil H
Paul Hovnanian P.E.
>
> "Mr D." <Mr D.@home.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:CuZvj.6734$d62....@newsfe6-gui.ntli.net...
> > Hi folks.
> >
> > Anyone know of a good place to search for women with high IQs (i.e.
> > 144 and above)...?
> > Is there a dating site of that kind somewhere online...?
> >
> > Ta.
> >
> > M.
>
> To me, that's just as bad as wanting to date women with big knockers.
I don't understand the concept: Big knockers ... bad.
--
Paul Hovnanian mailto:Pa...@Hovnanian.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
Time is the best teacher; Unfortunately it kills all its students.
Phil Holman
"Paul Hovnanian P.E." <pa...@hovnanian.com> wrote in message
news:47C0D99A...@hovnanian.com...
> Phil Holman wrote:
>>
>> "Mr D." <Mr D.@home.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:CuZvj.6734$d62....@newsfe6-gui.ntli.net...
>> > Hi folks.
>> >
>> > Anyone know of a good place to search for women with high IQs (i.e.
>> > 144 and above)...?
>> > Is there a dating site of that kind somewhere online...?
>> >
>> > Ta.
>> >
>> > M.
>>
>> To me, that's just as bad as wanting to date women with big knockers.
>
> I don't understand the concept: Big knockers ... bad.
>
Big knockers, the only consideration............bad.
Phil H
Paul Hovnanian P.E.
Big knockers is a necessary condition, not a sufficient one.
--
Paul Hovnanian mailto:Pa...@Hovnanian.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
You can discover what your enemy fears most by observing the
means he uses to frighten you. -- Eric Hoffer
Geopelia
> Phil Holman wrote:
>>
>> "Paul Hovnanian P.E." <pa...@hovnanian.com> wrote in message
>> news:47C0D99A...@hovnanian.com...
>> > Phil Holman wrote:
>> >>
>> >> "Mr D." <Mr D.@home.co.uk> wrote in message
>> >> news:CuZvj.6734$d62....@newsfe6-gui.ntli.net...
>> >> > Hi folks.
>> >> >
>> >> > Anyone know of a good place to search for women with high IQs (i.e.
>> >> > 144 and above)...?
>> >> > Is there a dating site of that kind somewhere online...?
>> >> >
>> >> > Ta.
>> >> >
>> >> > M.
>> >>
>> >> To me, that's just as bad as wanting to date women with big knockers.
>> >
>> > I don't understand the concept: Big knockers ... bad.
>> >
>>
>> Big knockers, the only consideration............bad.
>>
>> Phil H
>
> Big knockers is a necessary condition, not a sufficient one.
>
> --
> Paul Hovnanian mailto:Pa...@Hovnanian.com
Thank goodness some women are still too intelligent to get themselves big
silicone knockers at great expense.
I would rather have my average (for this group) IQ of around 125 and a C
cup than be a dumb blonde with a huge bust.
It doesn't worry Hubby or me. I'm the brains and he's the practical
handyman.
Good luck in finding a very intelligent woman. But unless you are also super
intelligent, will she want to date you?
What can you offer her?
Geopelia
Phil Holman
"Geopelia" <phil...@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:fq015a$3q8$1...@aioe.org...
What would she be looking for?
Phil H
Geopelia
"Phil Holman" <piholmanc@yourservice> wrote in message
news:Q7idnV_8POi-AV7a...@comcast.com...
Probably a companion as intelligent as herself, but she might just want a
good looking toyboy.
It doesn't really matter which partner has the high IQ or which takes the
lead, as long as it suits them both. The days when women had to act "dumb"
to get a husband are long gone.
Geopelia
D.@home.co.uk Mr D.
>> >> news:CuZvj.6734$d62....@newsfe6-gui.ntli.net...
>> >> > Hi folks.
>> >> >
>> >> > Anyone know of a good place to search for women with high IQs (i.e.
>> >> > 144 and above)...?
>> >> > Is there a dating site of that kind somewhere online...?
Perhaps MENSA has a 'dating personals' page that I've not seen...?
Anyone know...??
Ta.
M.
Brian Watson
I'd be happy to accept any who fall below the required standard.
--
Brian
"Fight like the Devil, die like a gentleman."
The Natural Philosopher
One would have thought that someone with a high enough IQ could have
sorted this one out themselves..
> Ta.
>
> M.
>
>
foolsrushin.
> Mr D. wrote:
> >>>>>news:CuZvj.6734$d62....@newsfe6-gui.ntli.net...
> >>>>>> Hi folks.
> >>>>>> Anyone know of a good place to search for women with high IQs (i.e.
> >>>>>> 144 and above)...?
> >>>>>> Is there a dating site of that kind somewhere online...?
> > Perhaps MENSA has a 'dating personals' page that I've not seen...?
> > Anyone know...??
> sorted this one out themselves..
> > Ta.
> > M.
Indeed!
'And it really doesn't matter if I'm wrong or right;
Where I belong is right.'
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5anA4ZIdVQk&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eXFoOYxMnvg&feature=related
Nobody will convince me that he was not permanently pissed!
Great guy, though!
--
'foolsrushin.'
foolsrushin.
> >>>>> "Mr D." <Mr D...@home.co.uk> wrote in message
Indeed!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DbDnfc759E&feature=related
--
'foolsrushin.'
foolsrushout
High IQ and social skills are generally thought to be
mutually exclusive.
foolsrushin.
> The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> > Mr D. wrote:
> >>>>>>news:CuZvj.6734$d62....@newsfe6-gui.ntli.net...
> >>>>>>> Hi folks.
> >>>>>>> Anyone know of a good place to search for women with high IQs (i.e.
> >>>>>>> 144 and above)...?
> >>>>>>> Is there a dating site of that kind somewhere online...?
> >> Perhaps MENSA has a 'dating personals' page that I've not seen...?
> >> Anyone know...??
> > One would have thought that someone with a high enough IQ could have
> > sorted this one out themselves..
> High IQ and social skills are generally thought to be
> mutually exclusive.
[You know it's crap! Chemistry, often 'literally', is the connect.
Yeah, buy a house together, have and love kids together - but don't
try to run a home on who puzzles The Times faster! It don't work!]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RwNNDg2I8A
Thinking about boader issues is not bad either - if you really want to
stay together.
--
'foolsrushin.'
Mary Ann
> >> >> "Mr D." <Mr D...@home.co.uk> wrote in message
I understand that happy couples have similar IQs so the first thing
the OP should confirm is that he has an IQ of 144 or above.
Mary Ann
foolsrushout
> On 26 Feb, 18:57, "Mr D." <Mr D...@home.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>>>>>"Mr D." <Mr D...@home.co.uk> wrote in message
>>>>>>news:CuZvj.6734$d62....@newsfe6-gui.ntli.net...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Hi folks.
>>
>>>>>>>Anyone know of a good place to search for women with high IQs (i.e.
>>>>>>>144 and above)...?
>>>>>>>Is there a dating site of that kind somewhere online...?
>>
>>Perhaps MENSA has a 'dating personals' page that I've not seen...?
>>
>>Anyone know...??
>>
>>Ta.
>>
>>M.
>
>
> I understand that happy couples have similar IQs
Unprovable premise.
Brian Watson
"foolsrushout" <6...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:fq3956$kd5$1...@aioe.org...
Or that the less mentally-gifted person has some phenomenally redeeming
feature(s).
;-)
Francis Turton
>>
>>
>> I understand that happy couples have similar IQs
>
> Unprovable premise.
>
Yes, but common sense. In the long term, rewarding companionship is what
keeps couples together, and to state the obvious, most people enjoy the
company of people with a similar intelligence level to their own.
--- www.dogsticks.org ---
sjb@dfv3rjgn34
news:aabb3a0c-7060-4c3e...@8g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> On 26 Feb, 18:57, "Mr D." <Mr D...@home.co.uk> wrote:
>
> I understand that happy couples have similar IQs
No, that's not true. I'm much more intelligent than my partner. He is
however socially blessed. Maybe everyone feels intimidated by me, but we're
not in debt. I control ALL of the money, God I wouldn't let him do it!
Mary Ann
> "Mary Ann" <tuliwoma...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
OK, I should have said that there is a general correlation. Of course
I know that it won't be true for all couples.
Mary Ann
D.@home.co.uk Mr D.
Something I have seen touted as a 'scientific' finding is that it isn't
really possible for a person to have a properly meaningful relationship with
someone more than 20 IQ points away from them.
M.
Patrick Byrne
> really possible for a person to have a properly meaningful relationship with
> someone more than 20 IQ points away from them.
are there any meaningful measurements of animal IQ?
foolsrushout
Still unprovable.
Given the response to this particular it appears that
opinion is the trump card.
I know that's not provable either.
foolsrushout
Unprovable.
But then "properly meaningful relationship" is undefined.
foolsrushout
> "Mr D." <Mr D.@home.co.uk> writes:
>
>>Something I have seen touted as a 'scientific' finding is that it
>>isn't really possible for a person to have a properly meaningful
>>relationship with someone more than 20 IQ points away from them.
>
>
> ...but the sex can be great.
As in, a stupid moaner won't talk your ear off?
The Natural Philosopher
Good grief. A genius can shag a mental defective and have kids.and a
surprising number do,...just how 'meaningless' is that?
The real problem is people who THINK they are 'more intelligent' than
other people, or than they actually are. Unless you are a masochist, it
isn't possible to have a relationship with someone like that at all.
The best reason to avoid Mensa like the plague...
> M.
>
>
The Natural Philosopher
holds it, than about the Real World (TM).
foolsrushout
Actually, one of many.
foolsrushout
Well said.
foolsrushout
> Mr D. wrote:
>
>> "Mary Ann" <tuliw...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:b27ed8a5-12a1-4347...@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>> On 27 Feb, 14:26, "Aly" <slfjh;sjb@DFv3rjgn34,..fv> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Mary Ann" <tuliwoma...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>>>>
>>>> news:aabb3a0c-7060-4c3e...@8g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>>>>
>>>>> On 26 Feb, 18:57, "Mr D." <Mr D...@home.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> I understand that happy couples have similar IQs
>>>>
>>>> No, that's not true. I'm much more intelligent than my partner. He is
>>>> however socially blessed. Maybe everyone feels intimidated by me,
>>>> but we're
>>>> not in debt. I control ALL of the money, God I wouldn't let him do it!
>>>
>>> OK, I should have said that there is a general correlation. Of course
>>> I know that it won't be true for all couples.
>>>
>>
>> Something I have seen touted as a 'scientific' finding is that it
>> isn't really possible for a person to have a properly meaningful
>> relationship with someone more than 20 IQ points away from them.
>>
>
> Good grief. A genius can shag a mental defective and have kids.and a
> surprising number do,...just how 'meaningless' is that?
Some years ago we had a discussion about whether or not
shagging someone of "normal intelligence" (probably
less than 1 standard deviation above average) constitutes
bestiality for someone who qualifies for one of the
high IQ societies.
What I got out of that conversation is that the practice
is so common that the participants preferred to avoid
significant discussion.
Any relationship is only as meaningful as the party you're
asking/observing makes it.
Big Bill
<WACC...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>"foolsrushout" <6...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:fq3956$kd5$1...@aioe.org...
>> Mary Ann wrote:
>>> On 26 Feb, 18:57, "Mr D." <Mr D...@home.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>> I understand that happy couples have similar IQs
>>
>> Unprovable premise.
>>
>>> so the first thing
>>> the OP should confirm is that he has an IQ of 144 or above.
>
>Or that the less mentally-gifted person has some phenomenally redeeming
>feature(s).
>
>;-)
Which brings us back to big knockers again :-)
BB
--
http://www.kruse.co.uk/
http://www.fat-odin.com/
http://www.here-be-posters.co.uk/
Big Bill
wrote:
Sez who?
Big Bill
Why 144?
Big Bill
How would you define a properly meaniungful relationship?
Scientifically, of course?
Fevric J Glandules
> "Mary Ann" <tuliw...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:aabb3a0c-7060-4c3e...@8g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>> On 26 Feb, 18:57, "Mr D." <Mr D...@home.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> I understand that happy couples have similar IQs
>
> No, that's not true. I'm much more intelligent than my partner.
But stupid enough to write the above.
--
One way ticket from Mornington Crescent to Tannhauser Gate please.
foolsrushout
> On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 14:26:42 +0000, Aly wrote:
>
>
>>"Mary Ann" <tuliw...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>>news:aabb3a0c-7060-4c3e...@8g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>>On 26 Feb, 18:57, "Mr D." <Mr D...@home.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>I understand that happy couples have similar IQs
>>
>>No, that's not true. I'm much more intelligent than my partner.
>
>
> But stupid enough to write the above.
Pot. Kettle. Black.
sjb@dfv3rjgn34
news:120412580...@proxy01.news.clara.net...
>
> The real problem is people who THINK they are 'more intelligent' than
Hey, I was being silly :-)
sjb@dfv3rjgn34
>>
>>
>> But stupid enough to write the above.
>
>
> Pot. Kettle. Black.
>
You got it ;-)
LOL. It's at times like these...
Brian Watson
"Mr D." <Mr D.@home.co.uk> wrote in message
news:fKexj.143$oW...@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net...
> Something I have seen touted as a 'scientific' finding is that it isn't
> really possible for a person to have a properly meaningful relationship
> with someone more than 20 IQ points away from them.
Possibly because "IQ" itself is a particularly intolerant characteristic.
Brian Watson
"The Natural Philosopher" <a@b.c> wrote in message
news:120412580...@proxy01.news.clara.net...
>>
>> Something I have seen touted as a 'scientific' finding is that it isn't
>> really possible for a person to have a properly meaningful relationship
>> with someone more than 20 IQ points away from them.
>>
>
> Good grief. A genius can shag a mental defective and have kids.and a
> surprising number do,...just how 'meaningless' is that?
But is that "a properly meaningful relationship"?
I think not.
Brian Watson
> Some years ago we had a discussion about whether or not
> shagging someone of "normal intelligence" (probably
> less than 1 standard deviation above average) constitutes
> bestiality for someone who qualifies for one of the
> high IQ societies.
As someone who qualifies but chooses the Groucho defence, I'd say the
converse is nearer the truth.
Brian Watson
"Big Bill" <bi...@kruse.co.uk> wrote in message
news:df4bs391s9caiilt4...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 12:00:51 -0000, "Brian Watson"
> <WACC...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"foolsrushout" <6...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:fq3956$kd5$1...@aioe.org...
>>> Mary Ann wrote:
>>>> On 26 Feb, 18:57, "Mr D." <Mr D...@home.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>> I understand that happy couples have similar IQs
>>>
>>> Unprovable premise.
>>>
>>>> so the first thing
>>>> the OP should confirm is that he has an IQ of 144 or above.
>>
>>Or that the less mentally-gifted person has some phenomenally redeeming
>>feature(s).
>>
>>;-)
>
> Which brings us back to big knockers again :-)
My point, exactly.
:-)
Fevric J Glandules
> "foolsrushout" <6...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:fq45t4$ref$2...@aioe.org...
>>>
>>> But stupid enough to write the above.
>>
>> Pot. Kettle. Black.
>
> You got it ;-)
Did I make any claims about my own intelligence?
No.
If you think I'm stupid - fine. I don't give a shit.
sjb@dfv3rjgn34
news:D9ixj.1515$oW4...@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net...
>
> If you think I'm stupid - fine. I don't give a shit.
>
Well we don't think you're stupid.
Fevric J Glandules
Well you've lost me now. I thought you agreed with foolrushout.
foolsrushout
> "The Natural Philosopher" <a@b.c> wrote in message
> news:120412580...@proxy01.news.clara.net...
>
>
>>>Something I have seen touted as a 'scientific' finding is that it isn't
>>>really possible for a person to have a properly meaningful relationship
>>>with someone more than 20 IQ points away from them.
>>>
>>
>>Good grief. A genius can shag a mental defective and have kids.and a
>>surprising number do,...just how 'meaningless' is that?
>
>
> But is that "a properly meaningful relationship"?
>
> I think not.
One man's trash is another man's treasure.
foolsrushout
> "foolsrushout" <6...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:fq42ua$g2r$1...@aioe.org...
>
>
>>Some years ago we had a discussion about whether or not
>>shagging someone of "normal intelligence" (probably
>>less than 1 standard deviation above average) constitutes
>>bestiality for someone who qualifies for one of the
>>high IQ societies.
>
>
> As someone who qualifies but chooses the Groucho defence, I'd say the
> converse is nearer the truth.
>
Your yardstick has scales in both direction then? :-)
foolsrushout
When I talk to big knockers if the person objects
I mention I thought that was indicative of big
brains. It is surprising how many are happy with
that.
foolsrushout
Really?
foolsrushout
> On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 18:45:36 +0000, Aly wrote:
>
>
>>"Fevric J Glandules" <fev...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
>>news:D9ixj.1515$oW4...@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net...
>>
>>>If you think I'm stupid - fine. I don't give a shit.
>>>
>>
>>Well we don't think you're stupid.
>
>
> Well you've lost me now. I thought you agreed with foolrushout.
>
Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition.
sjb@dfv3rjgn34
sjb@dfv3rjgn34
>
> Well you've lost me now. I thought you agreed with foolrushout.
>
Oh come on, it's only light hearted banter. :-)
(((((((((((((((((hugs)))))))))))))))))
No offence intended.
Linda Fox
wrote:
>August West wrote:
>
>> "Mr D." <Mr D.@home.co.uk> writes:
>>
>>>Something I have seen touted as a 'scientific' finding is that it
>>>isn't really possible for a person to have a properly meaningful
>>>relationship with someone more than 20 IQ points away from them.
>>
>>
>> ...but the sex can be great.
>
>As in, a stupid moaner won't talk your ear off?
Are you into aural sex, then?
Linda ff
Linda Fox
wrote:
Just constipated, from the sound of it.
Linda ff
foolsrushout
foolsrushout
Music to my ears.
foolsrushout
Mumble, mumble, mumble.
All right then.
Brian Watson
I'm content if SHE doesn't.
;-)
The Natural Philosopher
> On Tue, 26 Feb 2008 23:34:06 +0000, The Natural Philosopher <a@b.c>
> wrote:
>
>> Mr D. wrote:
>>>>>>> "Mr D." <Mr D.@home.co.uk> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:CuZvj.6734$d62....@newsfe6-gui.ntli.net...
>>>>>>>> Hi folks.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Anyone know of a good place to search for women with high IQs (i.e.
>>>>>>>> 144 and above)...?
>>>>>>>> Is there a dating site of that kind somewhere online...?
>>>
>>> Perhaps MENSA has a 'dating personals' page that I've not seen...?
>>>
>>> Anyone know...??
>>>
>> One would have thought that someone with a high enough IQ could have
>> sorted this one out themselves..
>
> Sez who?
>
> BB
Moi.
Quoi?
The Natural Philosopher
> "The Natural Philosopher" <a@b.c> wrote in message
> news:120412580...@proxy01.news.clara.net...
>
>>> Something I have seen touted as a 'scientific' finding is that it isn't
>>> really possible for a person to have a properly meaningful relationship
>>> with someone more than 20 IQ points away from them.
>>>
>> Good grief. A genius can shag a mental defective and have kids.and a
>> surprising number do,...just how 'meaningless' is that?
>
> But is that "a properly meaningful relationship"?
>
> I think not.
Anyone who spend their life looking for a 'properly meaningful
relationship' (whatever that is) is likely to only find it at the end of
a heroin needle.
The Natural Philosopher
> On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 14:26:42 +0000, Aly wrote:
>
>> "Mary Ann" <tuliw...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:aabb3a0c-7060-4c3e...@8g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>> I understand that happy couples have similar IQs
>
>
relationship with them. I growl and they roll on their backs and spread
their legs...
Jon Green
>
> Anyone who spend their life looking for a 'properly meaningful
> relationship' (whatever that is) is likely to only find it at the end of
> a heroin needle.
That's funny: I'd describe my marriage as a "properly meaningful
relationship". Perhaps your mileage varies.
Jon
--
SPAM BLOCK IN USE! To reply in email, replace 'deadspam'
with 'green-lines'.
Jon Green
>>
> I am much more intelligent than our dogs. I have a very meaningful
> relationship with them. I growl and they roll on their backs and spread
> their legs...
*choke* Good job I had a spare keyboard...
Jon
(desperately trying to avoid making the obvious rejoinders!)
Jon Green
> That's funny: I'd describe my marriage as a "properly meaningful
> relationship". Perhaps your mileage varies.
(Incidentally, in the context of previous comments in this thread, my
wife is _not_ significantly more or less intelligent than me; I didn't
intend to imply otherwise.)
The Natural Philosopher
> Jon Green wrote:
>> That's funny: I'd describe my marriage as a "properly meaningful
>> relationship". Perhaps your mileage varies.
>
> (Incidentally, in the context of previous comments in this thread, my
> wife is _not_ significantly more or less intelligent than me; I didn't
> intend to imply otherwise.)
>
> Jon
I wouldn't even dare ask the question of myself, let alone voice an
opinion ;-)
People are a whole package, not a score on a test chart, and comparisons
with oneself leads to endless complications.
Jon Green
> People are a whole package, not a score on a test chart, and comparisons
> with oneself leads to endless complications.
Couldn't agree more.
At the risk of causing offence (none meant), I pleaded Groucho at Uni,
where too many of the Mensans I knew were more obsessed with comparing
the lengths of their dicks^WIQs than in using them for anything
constructive, or in being social creatures. I'm sure that's not the
general case, but it was rather off-putting, and at the root of it is
this strange and arbitrary "intelligence quotient" that seeks to
summarise one's capacities in a single number. A super-bright alien,
lacking knowledge of human languages and cultures, would have the IQ of
pumice!
The Irish are reputed to have a saying, "Ah, if you wanted to go
_there_, you shouldn't have started from _here_." There's more wisdom
in that aphorism than gets credit.
foolsrushout
> Jon Green wrote:
>
>> That's funny: I'd describe my marriage as a "properly meaningful
>> relationship". Perhaps your mileage varies.
>
>
> (Incidentally, in the context of previous comments in this thread, my
> wife is _not_ significantly more or less intelligent than me; I didn't
> intend to imply otherwise.)
Of course not.......
News+...@torrens.org.uk
The Natural Philosopher <a@b.c> wrote:
> I am much more intelligent than our dogs.
Stated as a human defining intelligence...
But there's no real definition of intelligence!
> I have a very meaningful relationship with them. I growl and they roll
> on their backs and spread their legs...
And make you do their will no doubt?
--
------------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Torrens. News email address is valid - for a limited time only.
foolsrushout
> "foolsrushout" <6...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:fq4d9c$mjv$2...@aioe.org...
>
>>Brian Watson wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"foolsrushout" <6...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>news:fq42ua$g2r$1...@aioe.org...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Some years ago we had a discussion about whether or not
>>>>shagging someone of "normal intelligence" (probably
>>>>less than 1 standard deviation above average) constitutes
>>>>bestiality for someone who qualifies for one of the
>>>>high IQ societies.
>>>
>>>
>>>As someone who qualifies but chooses the Groucho defence, I'd say the
>>>converse is nearer the truth.
>>>
>>
>>Your yardstick has scales in both direction then? :-)
>
>
> I'm content if SHE doesn't.
>
> ;-)
But of course. The only rational solution.
Jules
Or even stupid enough to not understand it.
The Natural Philosopher
> In article <120419852...@proxy01.news.clara.net>,
> The Natural Philosopher <a@b.c> wrote:
>> I am much more intelligent than our dogs.
>
> Stated as a human defining intelligence...
>
> But there's no real definition of intelligence!
Well, actually there is. It's someone who scores well on an IQ test.
>
>> I have a very meaningful relationship with them. I growl and they roll
>> on their backs and spread their legs...
>
> And make you do their will no doubt?
>
Absolutely. They have their wicked way with me all the time.
Fevric J Glandules
> News+...@Torrens.org.uk wrote:
>> In article <120419852...@proxy01.news.clara.net>,
>
>> But there's no real definition of intelligence!
>
> Well, actually there is. It's someone who scores well on an IQ test.
<sigh>
--
One way ticket from Mornington Crescent to Tannhauser Gate please.
Paul Rudin
> News+...@Torrens.org.uk wrote:
>> In article <120419852...@proxy01.news.clara.net>,
>> The Natural Philosopher <a@b.c> wrote:
>>> I am much more intelligent than our dogs.
>>
>> Stated as a human defining intelligence...
>>
>> But there's no real definition of intelligence!
>
> Well, actually there is. It's someone who scores well on an IQ test.
OK here's another definition: someone who eats bananas. They're both
"definitions" but is either a "real definition"?
Jon Green
>
> Well, actually there is. It's someone who scores well on an IQ test.
Corollary: anyone who doesn't take an IQ test is not intelligent.
Doesnotcomputedoesnotcompute*boom*
The Natural Philosopher
I cannot see what a 'real definition' means.
The point of a definition is to clarify woolly qualitative areas into
precise quantitative things.
What is the real definition of a 'yard'
Once it was how far you could pull a bowstring.
Now its probably some vast number of wavelengths of something or other.
Which definition is 'real'?
All definitions are to a greater or lesser extent consensual. None are
'real'
The Natural Philosopher
> The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> News+...@Torrens.org.uk wrote:
>>> But there's no real definition of intelligence!
>>
>> Well, actually there is. It's someone who scores well on an IQ test.
>
> Corollary: anyone who doesn't take an IQ test is not intelligent.
>
> Doesnotcomputedoesnotcompute*boom*
>
No. Your logic is flawed.
Who was it once said 'it is better to remain silent and be thought
stupid, than to open ones mouth and have it confirmed'
> Jon
foolsrushout
Of course they are.
foolsrushout
> The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
>> News+...@Torrens.org.uk wrote:
>>
>>> But there's no real definition of intelligence!
>>
>>
>> Well, actually there is. It's someone who scores well on an IQ test.
>
>
> Corollary: anyone who doesn't take an IQ test is not intelligent.
Your logic fails, you've failed your personalized IQ test.
Just because someone hasn't done well in a test for lack
of taking the test doesn't mean they won't do well on it.
Anyone who doesn't take the test has unmeasured intelligence.
>
> Doesnotcomputedoesnotcompute*boom*
Paul Rudin
The point was that IQ tests don't really measure intelligence (or do so
only very poorly). Claiming to define intelligence by equating it to an
IQ test score is not a useful definition in this context.
As a kid I took a few IQ tests - they were quite fashionable in those
days - and the range of scores was really large. What exactly is the
test measuring? Does my intelligence change a lot according to the day I
take the test?
Jon Green
> Jon Green wrote:
>> The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>> News+...@Torrens.org.uk wrote:
>>>> But there's no real definition of intelligence!
>>>
>>> Well, actually there is. It's someone who scores well on an IQ test.
>>
>> Corollary: anyone who doesn't take an IQ test is not intelligent.
>>
>> Doesnotcomputedoesnotcompute*boom*
>>
>
> No. Your logic is flawed.
Explain.
Your "real definition of intelligence" is "someone who scores well on an
IQ test".
Ergo, anyone who does not score well on an IQ test, or does not take
one, is not intelligent, because they have failed to satisfy both your
criteria of (1) having taken the test, and (2) scored well on it.
If you had said, "One possible definition is [...]", you'd have some
wriggle-room.
> Who was it once said 'it is better to remain silent and be thought
> stupid, than to open ones mouth and have it confirmed'
Abraham Lincoln. The exact quote is, "It is better to remain silent and
be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt."
I'm surprised you didn't pay more attention.
Fevric J Glandules
> Anyone who doesn't take the test has unmeasured intelligence.
Bzzzt! They have unmeasured IQ.
AFAIAC one way of gauging intelligence is whether someone understands
the difference between IQ and intelligence.
Fevric J Glandules
> Does my intelligence change a lot according to the day I take the test?
Probably.
Right now, for instance, I'm probably ten points under par.
Must drink more tea.
Jon Green
No, you've inferred wording and terms that TNP's phrasing didn't permit.
TNP set out a _definition_, not a description. Let's look at that word.
The OED's entry on "definition" starts:
noun 1 a statement of the exact meaning of a word or the
nature or scope of something.
TNP's _definition_ of intelligence (and s/he doesn't admit of
alternatives) is "someone who scores well on an IQ test".
If it is possible to be intelligent outwith the terms of that
definition, then the definition fails the exactness test, and is
therefore not a definition, but (if valid within its own terms) nothing
more than a partial description.
QED.
The Natural Philosopher
I actually think they measure something very useful, very well.
Whether you want to call it intelligence, or something else, is up to
you and your prejudice.
> As a kid I took a few IQ tests - they were quite fashionable in those
> days - and the range of scores was really large. What exactly is the
> test measuring? Does my intelligence change a lot according to the day I
> take the test?
I very much doubt if they varied from 60 to 190 on a daily basis.
ISTR that mine were all in the +- 10 points range.
Of course its not exact nor utterly repeatable, and yes, you can get
better at them with practice, BUT in terms of what they are devised for
they do a very good job of roughly categorising people according to a
*certain sort of aptitude*.
Now of course among the stupid of the world, that lead to two disastrous
conequences, people who didn't do well thought that test were unfair,
didn't mean anything etc etc, and people who did do well thought that
meant they were god's gift to creation, and started silly little mutual
masturbation societies like MENSA.
Intelligence is real, its there, and measurable by IQ tests, broadly.
HOWEVER its only one aspect of a total persons aptitude and worth, BUT
on the other hand if it could be legislated that every Cabinet member
had to have an IQ of least 140.. along with at least 15 years
experience in a completely apolitical field... and a few other
critreria, we could at least get rid of the mental defectives that
litter it now..
The Natural Philosopher
> The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> Jon Green wrote:
>>> The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>> News+...@Torrens.org.uk wrote:
>>>>> But there's no real definition of intelligence!
>>>>
>>>> Well, actually there is. It's someone who scores well on an IQ test.
>>>
>>> Corollary: anyone who doesn't take an IQ test is not intelligent.
>>>
>>> Doesnotcomputedoesnotcompute*boom*
>>>
>>
>> No. Your logic is flawed.
>
> Explain.
>
> Your "real definition of intelligence" is "someone who scores well on an
> IQ test".
>
> Ergo, anyone who does not score well on an IQ test, or does not take
> one, is not intelligent, because they have failed to satisfy both your
> criteria of (1) having taken the test, and (2) scored well on it.
>
Typical crap logic.
All bananas are yellow
My house is yellow
My house is a banana.
My statement says nothing about anyone who does not take an intelligence
test *at all*.
> If you had said, "One possible definition is [...]", you'd have some
> wriggle-room.
>
>> Who was it once said 'it is better to remain silent and be thought
>> stupid, than to open ones mouth and have it confirmed'
>
> Abraham Lincoln. The exact quote is, "It is better to remain silent and
> be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt."
>
> I'm surprised you didn't pay more attention.
I wasnt there, I must have heard it second hand.
>
> Jon
Jon Green
>
> Typical crap logic.
See my reply to "foolsrushout".
News+...@torrens.org.uk
The Natural Philosopher <a@b.c> wrote:
> News+...@Torrens.org.uk wrote:
> > In article <120419852...@proxy01.news.clara.net>,
> > The Natural Philosopher <a@b.c> wrote:
> >> I am much more intelligent than our dogs.
> >
> > Stated as a human defining intelligence...
> >
> > But there's no real definition of intelligence!
> Well, actually there is. It's someone who scores well on an IQ test.
Doesn't actualy work: tests are too culturally and educationally biased.
There are plenty of dimensions that can only be described as inelligence
that cannot be tested in that way.
News+...@torrens.org.uk
Jon Green <jo...@deadspam.com> wrote:
> The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> > News+...@Torrens.org.uk wrote:
> >> But there's no real definition of intelligence!
> >
> > Well, actually there is. It's someone who scores well on an IQ test.
> Corollary: anyone who doesn't take an IQ test is not intelligent.
It could be argued that it's pretty stupid wasting time on such tests!
I have 3 children. Oldest (20) has downs syndrome, has very little speech
and would score low on any 'test'.
Middle one (16) is borderline asberger's. Has been tested and is 'above
average' intelligence.
Youngest (11) is way more intelligent that the other two, by any judgement
I can make.
Yet the oldest notices things the other two do not, can manipulate people
exceedingly well (almost as well as our siamese cat can!) and certainly
has a liveliness of personality that is quite astonishing in one so
disabled.
It makes me wonder at the whole nature of 'intelligence'. It ain't just
passing tests!
foolsrushout
Most of us only do stupid things occasionally.
foolsrushout
> On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 05:46:05 -0600, foolsrushout wrote:
>
>
>>Anyone who doesn't take the test has unmeasured intelligence.
>
>
> Bzzzt! They have unmeasured IQ.
>
> AFAIAC one way of gauging intelligence is whether someone understands
> the difference between IQ and intelligence.
>
Self aggrandization.
foolsrushout
Try using the word "description" instead of the more narrowly
construed "definition."
foolsrushout
In his case I think it rather depends on whether
he took a dump before or after the test.
foolsrushout
> In article <120428131...@proxy00.news.clara.net>,
> The Natural Philosopher <a@b.c> wrote:
>
>>News+...@Torrens.org.uk wrote:
>>
>>>In article <120419852...@proxy01.news.clara.net>,
>>> The Natural Philosopher <a@b.c> wrote:
>>>
>>>>I am much more intelligent than our dogs.
>>>
>>>Stated as a human defining intelligence...
>>>
>>>But there's no real definition of intelligence!
>
>
>>Well, actually there is. It's someone who scores well on an IQ test.
>
>
> Doesn't actualy work: tests are too culturally and educationally biased.
An individual can be brilliant in the context of
one culture and a complete dolt in the context of
another.
I dare say not many of us would do well on an IQ test
created by a hunter-gatherer culture.
I know a self-professed genius aged ~45 who lives with
his mother and father, only occasionally earning a bit
of additional pocket money. I maintain that genius
is proven by achievement, not by doing well on a test.
foolsrushout
> Ah, the old, "Damn, I've been beaten. Quick, change the rules and hope
> no-one notices!" ploy.
Informal discussions allow things to shift. For example, did
this discussion start out defining "intelligence" or was it
about "IQ" and furthermore, without looking, does it matter
in a social group informal discussion like this one.
"Don't take life so seriously, son, it ain't noways permanent"
I miss Pogo.
Fevric J Glandules
<snip massive quote>
> Most of us only do stupid things occasionally.
Failing to trim - stupid or just inconsiderate?
Paul Rudin
I suppose that's supposed to be an insult, but perhaps I'm
insufficiently intelligent to know for sure :/
foolsrushout
> On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 11:18:38 -0600, foolsrushout wrote:
>
> <snip massive quote>
>
>>Most of us only do stupid things occasionally.
>
>
> Failing to trim - stupid or just inconsiderate?
>
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.