George Bush's IQ is 110, 93, 105, and 129
$Zero
apparently, it fluctuates quite a bit.
and quite often, too.
either that OR all of those web advertisers out there are testing
various ad configurations to see which IQ claim gets the best sales
conversions per click.
or they're compiling valuable IQ-related data for cookie marketing
firms.
i'm guessing that the Paris Hilton's IQ is 90 generates the highest
revenue, conversion-wise.
from middle-class working women between the ages of 21 and 29 who
somehow still have credit left on their credit cards.
and they're probably paying astronomical interest rates on those web
purchases as well.
...
whatever the case may be, my IQ never fluctuates at all.
nor does my net worth.
so what does it matter what George Bush's IQ is?
it doesn't matter at all, obviously.
i'm just saying.
-$Zero...
you know you've failed as a parent when...
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/f862edb23d5ec63c
If you're not reading MRB, you're not alone!
http://MustReadBloggers.com
Sylvia
> George Bush's IQ is 110, 93, 105, and 129
>
> apparently, it fluctuates quite a bit.
>
> and quite often, too.
<...>
That would explain a lot.
--
Sylvia
Bill Penrose
> George Bush's IQ is 110, 93, 105, and 129
They forgot the decimal point.
What does IQ mean, anyway? I though it had already been demonstrated
that IQ didn't predict performance in school or in life (sorry, no
citation here). It predicted mainly the ability to bluff through
intelligence tests.
DB
boots
>What does IQ mean, anyway?
If your IQ number is sufficiently large, Mensa will deign to take your
money. Pretty neat, huh?
--
Don't read this crap... oops, too late!
[superstitious heathen grade 8]
Bill Penrose
> Bill Penrose <dangerousb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >What does IQ mean, anyway?
>
> If your IQ number is sufficiently large, Mensa will deign to take your
> money. Pretty neat, huh?
Which proves what about high IQ, I wonder? Sounds like a 'kick me'
sign.
DB
boots
Exactly. I knew you'd get it. Bright lad. Smart for your age. High
IQ innit? Har, what a goofy bunch lives on this planet, thinks it's
useful to be smart enough to get hooked by the big cons. I'll sell
you the top hundred points of my IQ number, leave me a right moron
keeping just my good sense and your money. Talk price? <g>
ing
High intelligence doesn't necessarily signal great success -- in
anything.
There's a neat section in Malcolm Gladwell's latest book "Outliers"
that talks about
IQ tests and IQ in general. The sections are called "The Trouble with
Geniuses", parts one and two.
Among other things, Gladwell compares and contrasts the fates of
Robert Oppenheimer (IQ around 195) with
Chris Langan (IQ also around 195). Brain smarts versus practical
intelligence versus upbringing.
Well worth the read, if you get a chance to pick it up. I'm really
enjoying the book. Lots of food for thought.
ing
$Zero
> On Jan 5, 11:27 am, Bill Penrose <dangerousb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 4, 10:53 pm, "$Zero" <zeroi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > George Bush's IQ is 110, 93, 105, and 129
>
> > They forgot the decimal point.
>
> > What does IQ mean, anyway? I though it had already been
> > demonstrated that IQ didn't predict performance in school
> > or in life (sorry, no citation here). It predicted mainly the
> > ability to bluff through intelligence tests.
>
> High intelligence doesn't necessarily signal great success --
> in anything.
What we can learn from spaghetti sauce
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iIiAAhUeR6Y
> There's a neat section in Malcolm Gladwell's latest book
> "Outliers" that talks about IQ tests and IQ in general. The
> sections are called "The Trouble with Geniuses", parts one
> and two.
broken down into parts one and two.
that's hilarious.
> Among other things, Gladwell compares and contrasts the fates
> of Robert Oppenheimer (IQ around 195) with Chris Langan
> (IQ also around 195). Brain smarts versus practical
> intelligence versus upbringing.
now there's a mouthful.
> Well worth the read, if you get a chance to pick it up.
how much does the book weigh?
> I'm really enjoying the book. Lots of food for thought.
What we can learn from spaghetti sauce
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iIiAAhUeR6Y
stop looking for the perfect Pepsi.
-$Zero...
is that what you did as a teen-ager?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/aa286008641b7d41
Pies de Arcilla
> What we can learn from spaghetti sauce
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iIiAAhUeR6Y
>
There was once a very clever time-travel science fiction short story,
called "The Men Who Murdered Mohammed"
or something like that.
The time travelers found out that time is not like a flowing stream,
or a branching tree, but like spaghetti. Everyone has their own
strand.
And in interfering with the past (eventually shooting lots of famous
people) they did not succeed in altering
history, but only in making themselves into ghostlike creatures.
They became, in effect, the sauce.
Daniel T.
http://www.lrainc.com/swtaboo/taboos/wsj_main.html
Quotes from the page above:
Practical Importance
1. IQ is strongly related, probably more so than any other single
measurable human trait, to many important educational, occupational,
economic, and social outcomes. Its relation to the welfare and
performance of individuals is very strong in some arenas in life
(education, military training), moderate but robust in others (social
competence), and modest but consistent in others (law-abidingness).
Whatever IQ tests measure, it is of great practical and social
importance.
2. A high IQ is an advantage in life because virtually all activities
require some reasoning and decision-making...
3. The practical advantages of having a higher IQ increase as life
settings become more complex (novel, ambiguous, changing, unpredictable,
or multi-faceted)...
4. Differences in intelligence certainly are not the only factor
affecting performance in education, training, and highly complex jobs
(no one claims they are), but intelligence is often the most important.
When individuals have already been selected for high (or low)
intelligence and so do not differ as much in IQ, as in graduate school
(or special education), other influences on performance loom larger in
comparison.
--
Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing more to add,
but when there is nothing left to take away.
-- Antoine de Saint-Exupery
boots
Welcome to the planet of self-foolers, where you may confuse yourself
with details until, eventually, intellectual orgasm is not reached.
Sylvia
> "$Zero" <wrote:
.
> > George Bush's IQ is 110, 93, 105, and 129
>
> They forgot the decimal point.
<petite, lady-pike snort of laughter>
> What does IQ mean, anyway?
Insubstantial Quark.
> I though it had already been demonstrated
> that IQ didn't predict performance in school or in life
Cite?
> (sorry, no citation here).
'K. I let ya go this time.
<tossing citation book>
> It predicted mainly the ability to bluff through intelligence tests.
You can't bluff yer way through a full battery of legitimate IQ testing. The
peep wot tests ya looks at the *way* ya think, how far yer mind stretches,
kinda sorta.
And, yeah, it can't predict performance. Potential, just potential.
See, it's so teachers can have sumpthin' guilt-free to stamp on report cards
when they don't know how to engage the minds of some of their brighter pupils:
"Does not live up to potential."
--
Sylvia
Bill Penrose
> http://www.lrainc.com/swtaboo/taboos/wsj_main.html
>
> Quotes from the page above:
In part, it's a self-fulfilling prophecy.
When I was in elementary school, we were given IQ tests, which went
into our record. Students were streamed according to unknown criteria,
but IQ was certainly one of them. I came out to about 143 (I found
later) and ended up getting special classes and special treatment that
shot me ahead by a full grade. With two other smart students, I was
coddled all the way through high school, and the three of us won the
three top scholarships in the Hamilton, Ontario, area for 1961.
There's no question to me that this 'success' had more to do with
expectations than actual performance. I got the breaks because people
expected it of me.
Once in college, I had to make it on my own steam, which I did. But
you could hard say my career was a brilliant star shooting across the
heavens. Interesting and diverse, perhaps, but I don't think it was a
great step forward for Mankind. I produced a few obscure scientific
papers and a couple of out of print texts, and designed a few
instruments, some of which are not quite obsolete. My lifetime output
could fit into a file box.
And what's all this about different kinds of intelligence? That makes
more sense to me.
DB
$Zero
> On Jan 6, 5:29 am, "Daniel T." <danie...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >http://www.lrainc.com/swtaboo/taboos/wsj_main.html
>
> > Quotes from the page above:
>
> In part, it's a self-fulfilling prophecy.
http://zerorants.com/pics/bush-iq-118.jpg
from:
http://zerorants.blogspot.com/2009/01/george-bushs-iq.html
-$Zero...
the problem with the truth is...
most people can't handle the truth.
so there's virtually no market for it.
which is precisely how i know that
the new web publication (which i've
been developing for several years)
will be a huge fucking success:
i mean, talk about an enormously large
existing market for a product, huh?
whoa.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/4bb5ea232c1ed602
Bill Penrose
> http://PureBullshit.com
>
I like the phrase 'Your Ad Here' right under the 'Pure Bullshit'
banner. Clever exercise in irony.
DB
$Zero
you should have seen the 2006 version:
http://PureBullshit.com/2006-advertisers/
just imagine the possibilities for all those links, huh?
my favorite essay at the time was the "Get Paid to BS" page.
i had the Talking Heads song "Found a Job" playing when visitors
arrived to check out that particular part of the publication.
-$Zero...
pop quiz. in relation to truth and property, when
i say that food grows on trees, what do i mean?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/4ba850521df0a954
Because you don't know what you're missing.
http://MustReadBloggers.com
Sylvia
<...>
> And what's all this about different kinds of intelligence? That makes
> more sense to me.
Depends on whose theory you look at. A peep named Howard Gardner proposed a
"theory of multiple intelligences" that found a lot of fans in the general
public. It makes sense in part (but that part is nothing new), but, IMO, the
rest of it is a useless PC "Everybody Is A Winner" idea.
That's where Gardner includes talents and personal skills and calls them
"intelligences". Some people eat this up, especially parents. If they have a
child who is by any account not particularly intelligent but he has a green
thumb in his little garden and can carry a tune, then he's got "multiple
intelligences". If he appears to be strong in interpersonal skills, then he
has "interpersonal intelligence". My favorite is:
"Intrapersonal Intelligence: These children may be shy. They
are very aware of their own feelings and are self-motivated." [1]
The Nothing New part: not that there are "multiple intelligences", but that
intelligence presents in different ways. Albert Einstein is an unqualified
genius, but an Einstein-type of peep might not be able to figure his way out
of a paper bag. You get stuck on a deserted island and you prolly want a
MacGyver-type instead. He's got an incredible memory for scientific facts,
which is *not* high intelligence in itself, but, being very aware of his
environment, he can quickly access a situation, draw on his stored facts,
*extrapolate* and apply a quick and dirty solution. (Granted, he's fiction,
but take it down a notch and you've got a real person).
Give them both the same general science factoid-based tests and a MacGyver, if
you could get him to sit still long enough, would outshine an Einstein 'cause
an Einstein's great brain would be off elsewhere, solving a physics problem
where no one else even understands the question--he'd more than likely forget
where to go for the testing. BUT, he can focus his brain on a single, long
range problem like nobody's bidness. He's the one ya want on yer serious
research team.
They would prolly both have over-all sucky school records (and the
MacGyver-type would live in the detention hall), unless their potential got
flagged in decent IQ testing (or because a sharp teacher could see their
potential) *and* they got the special treatment that you did due to your IQ
test scores.
Peeps learn and test differently, but schools are mostly oriented towards One
Style Fits All. Think about how dyslexic children, including potential
geniuses, used to commonly end up branded as slow or trouble kids just because
people didn't realize that they couldn't absorb written information in the
same way as most other people. There are similar problems with learning
styles. One person needs to be able to read about how to do something, another
needs to see how it is done to do it, another needs to actually do it, etc. An
Auditory Learner may get distracted by written words or by action, but if he
closes his eyes and just listens, he gets it.
A student may be able to easily and correctly demonstrate complex shifting
molecular arrangements using a 3-D model kit with an understanding that
surpasses her teacher's, but test her understanding of the subject with
written tests alone and she fails.
Your IQ is your potential, but your intelligence isn't worth much if it isn't
properly fed (knowledge acquisition) and given an outlet (for application)
compatible (if not perfect) with the way you think. AND, ya gotta use it.
--
Sylvia
Bill Penrose
> Depends on whose theory you look at. A peep named Howard Gardner proposed a
> "theory of multiple intelligences" that found a lot of fans in the general
> public. It makes sense in part (but that part is nothing new), but, IMO, the
> rest of it is a useless PC "Everybody Is A Winner" idea.
The fact that we can measure these things doesn't necessarily mean we
should.
The notion of measuring IQ isn't much different than doing everyone's
genetic makeup. It creates expectations that are inherently self-
fulfilling. People with low IQs but social functional intelligence
will be persuaded/tracked/forced into lower positions in society. This
happened to some of my contemporaries in the 50s, who seemed no
different in intelligence than myself, but who were tracked into
closed-end vocational training because of test scores that were
concealed at the time it mattered.
In the same way, people who appear normal but have latent or potential
genetic diseases will be turned away by employers and insurers. Even
relatives may cut them off, not wanting to invest emotionally in
someone who might die early or become an embarrassment.
DB
Daniel T.
>
> >http://www.lrainc.com/swtaboo/taboos/wsj_main.html
>
> > Quotes from the page above:
>
> In part, it's a self-fulfilling prophecy.
That's always a problem. I read about a program that could accurately
predict traffic jams in a city in Europe (don't remember which one.)
It worked fantastic until they started advertising its predictions on
the radio. That caused people's behavior to change which moved the
traffic jams. If the subject and/or people who deal closely with the
subject know his IQ, it will affect behavior and reduce the predictive
ability of the quotient.
> When I was in elementary school, we were given IQ tests, which went
> into our record. Students were streamed according to unknown criteria,
> but IQ was certainly one of them. I came out to about 143 (I found
> later) and ended up getting special classes and special treatment that
> shot me ahead by a full grade. With two other smart students, I was
> coddled all the way through high school, and the three of us won the
> three top scholarships in the Hamilton, Ontario, area for 1961.
>
> There's no question to me that this 'success' had more to do with
> expectations than actual performance. I got the breaks because people
> expected it of me.
>
> Once in college, I had to make it on my own steam, which I did. But
> you could hard say my career was a brilliant star shooting across the
> heavens. Interesting and diverse, perhaps, but I don't think it was a
> great step forward for Mankind. I produced a few obscure scientific
> papers and a couple of out of print texts, and designed a few
> instruments, some of which are not quite obsolete. My lifetime output
> could fit into a file box.
Note however that as you got to higher and higher levels (especially
college,) people of lower intelligence were weeded out. You were with
people who were more your peers by then.
> And what's all this about different kinds of intelligence? That makes
> more sense to me.
That is just a way of using a looser definition of the word
"intelligence". The definition of intelligence as used by IQ tests is
very specific.
Sylvia
> Sylvia wrote:
.
> > Depends on whose theory you look at. A peep named Howard Gardner proposed a
> > "theory of multiple intelligences" that found a lot of fans in the general
> > public. It makes sense in part (but that part is nothing new), but, IMO, the
> > rest of it is a useless PC "Everybody Is A Winner" idea.
>
> The fact that we can measure these things doesn't necessarily mean we
> should.
Why would any school system want to measure every student's IQ? It's way too
expensive to do properly, and not worthwhile if done improperly. And, I don't
believe that IQ should be presented simply as a number on a scale--how could
that be useful by itself? Trying to use a number to pigeon-hole someone in a
way that can direct their path in life makes no sense.
IMO, if a child appears to be struggling within the standard learning system,
first ya oughta test him for a physical disability. If that's negative (and
the child seems well-adjusted otherwise), then a learning disability, and
then, regardless of that result, how he learns best. A couple of days of IQ
tests wouldn't be necessary unless the problem persists, and then only to see
if you missed something.
> The notion of measuring IQ isn't much different than doing everyone's
> genetic makeup. It creates expectations that are inherently self-
> fulfilling. People with low IQs but social functional intelligence
> will be persuaded/tracked/forced into lower positions in society. This
> happened to some of my contemporaries in the 50s, who seemed no
> different in intelligence than myself, but who were tracked into
> closed-end vocational training because of test scores that were
> concealed at the time it mattered.
<...>
Yowza! One point could do you in. Not getting enough sleep the night before
could change your life. In my junior high there were three distinct divisions
for each grade. "A Trackers" had the most demanding classes, including
specific science courses. The "B Trackers" took a general science course,
though maybe not every year. I guess the "C Trackers" classes were all basic
knowledge.
They didn't give everyone IQ tests, so I can't say on what the PTB based the
placement of students. If couldn't have been all due to grades because kids
very rarely crossed from one group to the other for their entire three years
there. You stayed with your group for lunch and for gym, too. In retrospect,
it was kinda weird.
In high school we didn't have tracks, but General, College Prep, and
Accelerated classes. There was more cross-over, a much larger student body,
and you didn't have the same people in every one of your classes. You chose to
sign up for the college prep courses (after meeting with your guidance
counselor). If you could keep up, you stayed. You had to get a teacher
recommendation and parent consultation to take any one of the accelerated
classes, but I believe that had to do with whether they thought you were
emotionally capable of handling the pressure and extra work. If you couldn't
keep up or changed your mind, you could drop down to a college prep course
during the same semester. It seems it was all based on ability and interest.
It occurs to me that if a student obviously has at least average intelligence,
I can't see *any* valid reason to ever test his IQ. We need to get away from
IQ labeling stigma ("superior" was an unfortunate choice), unnecessary mass
testing, and dangerous misapplication of IQ scores.
This wave of "multiple intelligences" people insisting society/schools
recognize their or their children's talents and personality strengths as part
of their intelligence quotient is not just ridiculous, but reinforces the IQ
myths that hamper changing the system.
--
Sylvia
Sylvia
> Bill Penrose wrote:
> > "Daniel T." <d wrote:
> >
> > >http://www.lrainc.com/swtaboo/taboos/wsj_main.html
> >
> > > Quotes from the page above:
> >
> > In part, it's a self-fulfilling prophecy.
>
> That's always a problem.
<...>
> If the subject and/or people who deal closely with the subject know
> his IQ, it will affect behavior and reduce the predictive ability of the
> quotient.
>
> > When I was in elementary school, we were given IQ tests, which went into
> > our record. Students were streamed according to unknown criteria, but IQ
> > was certainly one of them. I came out to about 143 (I found later) and
> > ended up getting special classes and special treatment that shot me ahead
> > by a full grade. With two other smart students, I was coddled all the way
> > through high school, and the three of us won the three top scholarships
> > in the Hamilton, Ontario, area for 1961.
> >
> > There's no question to me that this 'success' had more to do with
> > expectations than actual performance. I got the breaks because people
> > expected it of me.
> >
> > Once in college, I had to make it on my own steam, which I did. But you
> > could hard say my career was a brilliant star shooting across the
> > heavens. Interesting and diverse, perhaps, but I don't think it was a
> > great step forward for Mankind. I produced a few obscure scientific
> > papers and a couple of out of print texts, and designed a few
> > instruments, some of which are not quite obsolete. My lifetime output
> > could fit into a file box.
>
> Note however that as you got to higher and higher levels (especially
> college,) people of lower intelligence were weeded out. You were with
> people who were more your peers by then.
Yah--if ya attend a college where *everyone* was in the top 10% of their HS
class, there's gonna be some reshufflin'.
> > And what's all this about different kinds of intelligence? That makes
> > more sense to me.
>
> That is just a way of using a looser definition of the word "intelligence".
<cough!>
Lookit, it's worse than I thought:
"Gardner originally identified seven core intelligences: linguistic,
logical-mathematical, spatial, bodily-kinesthetic, musical,
interpersonal and intrapersonal. In 1997 at the symposium
'MIND 97' (Multiple Intelligences New Directions) he added
an eighth, the "Naturalist" Intelligence, indicating that
investigation continues on whether there are Existentialist
(existential) and Spiritualist (spiritual) Intelligences." [1]
So, besides talents, personal skills, and personality traits, *now* the theory
of "multiple intelligences" includes interests. AND, Garner's workin' on
making a strong belief in existentialism and in communication with the dead
equate with bein' highly intelligent. I'd like to see the scale for those.
"I took a test in Existentialism. I left all the answers blank
and got 100." -- Woody Allen
> The definition of intelligence as used by IQ tests is very specific.
Oh. Does that mean that I *can't* demand that my high "Golden Age of Science
Fiction Intelligence" be recognized? Not fair.
--
Sylvia (How about my superior "Frosty Root Beer Intelligence"?)
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_multiple_intelligences