I.Q. is bunkus and has been proven so many...
on
The Prodigy Puzzle
·
· Score: 2, Informative
times to be a totally unreliable predictor of intellectual acheivement that it should be banned as a means of determining elidgability for Govt. funded programs.
The main problem with I.Q. is that it seems to be more of a measure of education and diet than intelligence (see The Milwaukee Project). Secondly it was developed to discover mental deficiency, not identify super bright people.
It is also interesting to note the popular misconception about I.Q. scores. I.Q. values between 80 and 130 comprise about 90% of the population, so if you are within these values you are defintely simply 'normal' - note I didn't say 'average', in I.Q. terms that's a score between 90 and 110. You are not anything special until you have a score significantly above 130 (130 is still a surprising - to some - large segment (2.5%) of the population - in the U.S. there are about 7.5 million people with a score of 130 or above, so 130 is hardly exceptional !), perhaps 150 or above and you are starting to be a real stand-out.
Of course, the opposite side of the coin is true too, you would need to have a score below 70 to be considered 'extremeley low' intelligence..
There are many other problems with I.Q. tests, namely that they rely upon linguistic abilities that many people do not posses, or acquire until later in life - since in order to answer a question correctly you must not only understand what is being asked, but also communicate your answer. It has been shown that females acquire linguistic prowess more rapdily in life than males, yet no-one would suggest that it makes sense to say that females have higher I.Q.s than males at the same age - or if they do, they fail to grasp the purpose of I.Q. tests.
Let's see, that would presumably cut out most forms of domesticated animals (cattle, sheep, pig, chicken), many forms of grains (maize (aka 'corn'), wheat, barley), fruits (any seedless fruit, many hybrids like nectarene), and a huge percentage of the vegetables, especially beans, and the cabbage family.
Somehow I think you are grossly over-simplifying, or perhaps are simply ignorant.
Not only is this post marked as a troll, but I have to read idiocy from people who somehow equate paying for the developement of the 'internet' with WWII.Go figure
when our Biology teacher mentioned the notion that Creationism might possibly be a required topic within Biology. I wasn't the only one, the whole class laughed, along with the teacher. Thank God that each individual is able to think for himself. My guess is that any attempt to teach ID will be met with similar guffaws, and looks of complete incredulity. H.S. kids didn't suddenly get dumber. It's actually quite funny that people can believe in such idiocy. Why is it always the goobers in the mid-west though ?
I have been reading these posts for about an hour now and am largely disppointed by the widespread misunderstanding that abound "in both camps".
Interesting statement, considering your own glaring misunderstanding of genetic variability so unashamedly admitted.
For myself, I have many other pieces of evidence that provide me with a 'preponderance of the evidence' indicating the fallability of evolution
Please share them so that I can laugh my ass off.
...thoughtful criticism of evolution is a good thing and should be supported
Actually, it is precisely because thoughtful criticism of evolution is supported (encouraged would be a better word), that evolution is such a well respected theory.
Unless you're afraid of what you might find, that there actually is a God of universe
I would love to have the existance of God proven, but am not willing to accept the notion on faith alone - which is what you seem prepared to do.
Yep, I see a whole lotta fear out there
Yep, me too and it is coming from your camp, not mine. Science does not fear the truth, it seeks it.
P.S. I wish you all would stop using the phrase 'Intelligent Design' the correct term is Creationism. Calling it anything else only helps to hide the fallacy.
for quite a while now, at least since the version that shipped with NT3.51. Although they weren't fully implemented (cross volume support) until quite recently at which time they yklept 'junction'.
SymLinks are psuedo supported in Windows (although not by the file system) in the guise of shortcuts, although I'll admit a shortcut is a far cry from a symlink
I agree completely. I am forced to use two Rational products in my job here. Clearcase is an abomination. The server seems half-way decent, but the GUI is absolutely attrocious. The only app I use that is worse is Lotus Notes.
The other Rational product is 'Rose', which as far as I can tell is little more than a collection of graphics. The reverse engineering tool is all but useless. The types of projects you really need to reverse engineer are far too complex for Rose to handle, it dies after chewing up all available memory, and CPU on a quad processor Opteron. The code generation tool is OK, but that's about the only good thing I can say for it.
I wrote a system that allows uneducated, lazy stock market traders make money despite their own incompetance.
They get paid on a commission basis for trades they make on other peoples behalf.
I designed and implemented the system which allows them to click about three buttons and type in about ten characters in order to do their 'job'. They make several hundreds of thousands of dollars, I barely break 100K.
They get their jobs through the good old boy network, I have to apply for mine.
Tell me again how I have an over-inflated view of my importance.
Slashdot Mirror
And what comes next, hey bust a myth So don't just stand there, bust a myth Now you know what to do g, bust a myth
That's quite an accomplishment
Never underestimate the collective wisdom of the masses.
Slaughterhouse-Five
Cat's Cradle
Besides, where is "The Story of 'O'" ?
The main problem with I.Q. is that it seems to be more of a measure of education and diet than intelligence (see The Milwaukee Project). Secondly it was developed to discover mental deficiency, not identify super bright people.
It is also interesting to note the popular misconception about I.Q. scores. I.Q. values between 80 and 130 comprise about 90% of the population, so if you are within these values you are defintely simply 'normal' - note I didn't say 'average', in I.Q. terms that's a score between 90 and 110. You are not anything special until you have a score significantly above 130 (130 is still a surprising - to some - large segment (2.5%) of the population - in the U.S. there are about 7.5 million people with a score of 130 or above, so 130 is hardly exceptional !), perhaps 150 or above and you are starting to be a real stand-out.
Of course, the opposite side of the coin is true too, you would need to have a score below 70 to be considered 'extremeley low' intelligence..
There are many other problems with I.Q. tests, namely that they rely upon linguistic abilities that many people do not posses, or acquire until later in life - since in order to answer a question correctly you must not only understand what is being asked, but also communicate your answer. It has been shown that females acquire linguistic prowess more rapdily in life than males, yet no-one would suggest that it makes sense to say that females have higher I.Q.s than males at the same age - or if they do, they fail to grasp the purpose of I.Q. tests.
Somehow I think you are grossly over-simplifying, or perhaps are simply ignorant.
Not only is this post marked as a troll, but I have to read idiocy from people who somehow equate paying for the developement of the 'internet' with WWII.Go figure
How typical of so many African and European countries, sit idle and watch the US pay for it, then demand a part of it.
My guess is that you could power one of those suckers for several years way and use less energy than building one.
please pass the maple syrup.
Promethea: Volume 1 "Bringing Down The Temple", Sept 2000 by Alan Moore
when our Biology teacher mentioned the notion that Creationism might possibly be a required topic within Biology. I wasn't the only one, the whole class laughed, along with the teacher. Thank God that each individual is able to think for himself. My guess is that any attempt to teach ID will be met with similar guffaws, and looks of complete incredulity. H.S. kids didn't suddenly get dumber. It's actually quite funny that people can believe in such idiocy. Why is it always the goobers in the mid-west though ?
Interesting statement, considering your own glaring misunderstanding of genetic variability so unashamedly admitted.
For myself, I have many other pieces of evidence that provide me with a 'preponderance of the evidence' indicating the fallability of evolution
Please share them so that I can laugh my ass off.
Actually, it is precisely because thoughtful criticism of evolution is supported (encouraged would be a better word), that evolution is such a well respected theory.
Unless you're afraid of what you might find, that there actually is a God of universe
I would love to have the existance of God proven, but am not willing to accept the notion on faith alone - which is what you seem prepared to do.
Yep, I see a whole lotta fear out there
Yep, me too and it is coming from your camp, not mine. Science does not fear the truth, it seeks it.
P.S. I wish you all would stop using the phrase 'Intelligent Design' the correct term is Creationism. Calling it anything else only helps to hide the fallacy.
sorry 'yclept'
SymLinks are psuedo supported in Windows (although not by the file system) in the guise of shortcuts, although I'll admit a shortcut is a far cry from a symlink
"In Soviet Russia..." type comments ?
The other Rational product is 'Rose', which as far as I can tell is little more than a collection of graphics. The reverse engineering tool is all but useless. The types of projects you really need to reverse engineer are far too complex for Rose to handle, it dies after chewing up all available memory, and CPU on a quad processor Opteron. The code generation tool is OK, but that's about the only good thing I can say for it.
No wonder I spent so much time engaged in ompheloskepsis !
EOM
It's Rice Bowl, not Rice Basket, get your literary illusions in one shoe !
I wrote a system that allows uneducated, lazy stock market traders make money despite their own incompetance.
They get paid on a commission basis for trades they make on other peoples behalf.
I designed and implemented the system which allows them to click about three buttons and type in about ten characters in order to do their 'job'. They make several hundreds of thousands of dollars, I barely break 100K.
They get their jobs through the good old boy network, I have to apply for mine.
Tell me again how I have an over-inflated view of my importance.
Therein lies your problem. Perhaps if you wouldn't bother the doctor with such trivial symptoms, he would trreat you like an idiot.
And if we go to the sun at night time, we won't get burned !
Sorry, had to be done
Have you ever intentially made a mistake ?