Political IQ: Old News

[Digital Limit]

Discuss and enjoy.

http://www.sandstorming.com/dump/usiq.png

[cr3am]

113 and 85 are way too extreme to be any sort of average. And nobody cares about IQs anymore. And how the hell were these averages obtained by the book?

It's fake. It's been posted. And it's in the wrong forum.

[Silence]

prolly fake. cauz without a statement everyone knows that bush is the reincarnation of that horned guy with a pitchfork.

[StormyPeak]

I live in Idaho, and I really doubt those IQ levels are correct....I know a lot of people here and I know that on average their IQ's are far above 89....unless the rest of my state is so stupid as to drag down those numbers. : P Myself, I have taken the MENSA Tests and have a high enough IQ to join them, although I must admit I squeeked in by only few points. I never did join them, because I always though myself to smart of pay monitary fees to a group who's purpose it is, is to pat theirselves on the back about how smart they are...lol.

BTW, I didn't want either one of those s.o.b.'s in office. Kerry is a puppet and couldn't take a stand on an issue if it had hand rails. Bush is just a flat out liar and a religious zealot who has done more to cancel the basic rights of the USA Citizen than any other leader we have had.

Stormy

[Digital Limit]

I agree, wholeheartedly.

[dante.hk]

I have a 131 I.Q.

Who knew?

[Downfall]

virginia had the smartest dumb people..yay!

[cr3am]

I have a 131 I.Q.

Who knew?
Well I know that you don't. Rocket scientists are lucky to get into the 130 area. Real IQ tests take a lot longer than ones on the internets.

[JerraMaya]

i think that IQ stats is all bullshit (fake) , but people who voted for bush to elect him again are dickheads

[Silence]

i think that IQ stats is all bullshit (fake) , but people who voted for bush to elect him again are dickheads
well put chap.

[Smapdey]

Yeah, remember when we were all taking them and I scored a 161.

Personally, I don't care what someone's IQ is, and I damn sure don't care what mine is. Are they an interesting person to talk to? That's probably more important. Are they a complete dick? That one fits in there too.

Dante, START END START.

[Bigolli]

What makes everyone say that IQ tests are bullshit? Were your results really that low? :p
If you think about it, an IQ test really does put a person intelligence on a scale. It does this by asking a vast amount of very differently natured questions, thus addressing all types of knowledges a person can have (ie. general knowledge, artistic knowledge, etc.).

[BitterHealer]

Bigolli, a friend of mine, who knows a lot about IQs and is honest to the point of bluntness and would never lie to keep me from hurting, said I'm probably in the range of 108 to 110, but that doesn't mean I give a damn about mine or anyone else's. I have to agree with Smapdey. If the person's a total ass, I'm not talking to them. If they're boring as Hell, I will begin singing in my head, half listening so I know when to nod and 'hmmn', then I'm gone and they'll never see me again. Also, intelligence has no meaning if you don't use it, and a test can't cover everything: religion, all the poisonous snakes in Africa and Asia, etcetera. It doesn't matter if a person only knows of a single, simple subject; if they can make it interesting, people will listen to them.

Now, about Bush and Kerry? Personally, I liked Edwards. He was the least corrupted (yet) of the politicians. Voting is like choosing the lesser of two evils for me, and believe this if nothing else: I'd rather go for the lesser evil than the evil I know. I hated all of the little shitheads, but I hated Edwards the least. Also, I have to agree with JerraMaya on "people who voted for bush to elect him again are dickheads" and StormyPeak on "Kerry is a puppet and couldn't take a stand on an issue if it had hand rails. Bush is just a flat out liar and a religious zealot who has done more to cancel the basic rights of the USA Citizen than any other leader we have had."

Oh, and Downfall, please, keep up the comments. I quite enjoy them.

Ava, Leader of the Randomness Movement

"Purple: The Randomness Movement. Supporting the use of un-logic in any given situation." - Recruiting Until My Family and I Are Long Burried and No One Can Remember About Un-Logic

To find out more about un-logic, e-mail me at LadyAvaHealing@aol.com and make sure to lable it as Un-Logic. If you don't get the basic jist of it on the third try, you're either beyond my help, or I'm not explaining it in a way you can understand (in which case, tell me and I'll use real logic). If you just want to talk, lable your e-mail Talk.

[King Speedy]

put away the god damn shovel

[wmgreer]

Which is more important, how smart you are (book smarts) or common sense?

[TopSecretBoy]

Ahahz! I are teh 150 IQ! Internets has told me!!!


Devil backwars is Lived! I smart! AAHAHHZ!

[sushi128]

Which is more important, how smart you are (book smarts) or common sense?

a real IQ test provides results for logic as well. in fact, if i recall it is more logic, mental stamina, and mental quickness than it is factual knowledge. it tells nothing of your personality of course, but it never claimed to.

and i also wonder why ppl believe IQ tests are bullshit? i think it's those internet results that have kinda led to misguided intrepretations.

remember the average IQ is 100, and a score of 100 is the IQ equivelant of "acting your age".

i haven't found whether these results are fake or not, but i know IQ research can be a bit sketchy. testers and organizations that administer them have a habit of basing the results on assumptions, what they think a person WOULD score given a proper test, rather than taking a test score directly. it's like.....estimating Thomas Jefferson's score, which i've seen quite a lot.

[Vlad]

Approved IQ tests in my view are valid.
I think that there is general concensus also on the idea that there are 2 types of intelligence. The kind you are tested for in an IQ test, and emotional intelligence. Or basically how deeply or thoroughly you can 'feel' an emotion etc.

Ultimately, mental capacity is not a fixed issue pertaining to an individual. In most circumstances a person can achieve a certain score in an IQ test, go home, do some study, mental exercises, memory exercises etc, and go back, do the test, and they will get a significantly higher score.

This is probably the reason teachers and lecturers are in the highest percentile. They are always revising, fine tuning their skills, skills most of us have, but don't use, and thus the rustiness.

Some people however are rather mentally diminished. I know 2 people personally that would score in the 60-70 range.

Although these two people will never become high-paying lawyers or doctors no matter how hard they work at it, there is no reason why they can't live a happy and productive life.

In the end, it doesn't matter who you are or how you think, but what you do.

And as for the issue this thread is about, it truly does tell you something about those people that voted for bush. I don't care to explaing what that is. It wouldn't be 'nice'.

[SuperDavidGT]

IQ isnt how smart you are, but your learning capability, and is calculated by taking your scores, interpreting them into a MENTAL AGE, dividing it by your REAL AGE and then multiplying by 100. Thats:

(mental age / real age) X 100

Hence, a person of mental age 20, and real age 20, has an IQ of 100, which is also the AVERAGE IQ

20 / 20 X 100 = 100

or mental age 30, real age 20

30 / 20 X 100 = 150


Remember, marilyn monroe is said to have an IQ higher than Einstein, except she didnt use it. I have a higher IQ than most people I know but I dont give a shit, because i dont use it. Some are smarter than me, but I can pick something up and learn it far quicker than they can. But i didnt want to do engineering or commerce like they did, im a humble artist, so i go on a completely different mental scale.

IQ isnt something to be proud of, its the emotional maturity you have to use what youve got to the best of your ability that you have to worry about.

... So in the case of america, IQ is ALL you have. :p

[alas alackaday]

I thought they changed it to something more complex....

[Downfall]

September 11th, 2005, 11:58 PM

[Elitez Psycho]

Which is more important, how smart you are (book smarts) or common sense?

Booksmart isn't smart, its called knowledgable (having much knowledge) that's only good for tests which tests you on facts. Common sense however, becoming more rare these days, is actual "smartness" whereas you look at a situation, judge it and using all of your knowledge and past experiences, make the best decisions. Those who are pure knowledgable just run around in circles screaming "OMGOMGOMGOGMOGMOGMGOMG" and those who have common sense will take out a shotgun and shoot the dumb fucks, then solve the problem calmly.

[Yian]

Well, there are indeed a lot of people out there that are very knowledgeable, but doesn't think about the facts they have learned very deeply. But I do believe that any actual smartness need to be backed up by knowledge, just as how a crime reveals itself more differently when more evidences are found. The common sense in this analogy would be the ability to understand the situation: someone has been killed. But to solve the crime (suicide? accident? murder?) you need the knowledge, which means the evidences in this case, and being able to connect the dots.

So, we need common sense, a good analytical ability, and knowledge.

[SuperDavidGT]

Common sense is the dominant way to go. Humanity has survived on common sense, and people are forsaking the common knowledge for either A) science, B) religion (of extreme orientation) or C) because they're lazy and fucking stupid. Now, of course I'm all for A, but science doesn't make the world go round, it just means people spend too much time trying to figure out why it goes round instead of getting on with what they're supposed to do, which common sense dictates as surviving. Healthily.

Classic point: "You never told me McDonalds will make me fat, now I'm morbidly obese and I'm suing."

Common sense dictates that you are what you eat. You eat fat, you are fat. You eat shit, you are shit. You eat stupidly, you are stupid.

The sad thing is, a lot of "book smart" people don't realise this. Why? They spend too much time with their nose in said book and not enough in the outside world. Book smart people are the ones who design toys for children after having read about them in an academic journal.



My ma bought a wok a while back with 2 instruction booklets, one thick one of about 100 pages, and another of ten pages.

The ten page one had listed on it:

AUSTRALIA
NEW ZEALAND
UNITED KINGDOM
FRANCE
GERMANY
SANDLAND
CHINA
CANADA etc

While the hundred page instruction booklet on "how to use a wok" had listed:

UNITED STATES



Americans get a 100 page booklet, while the other nations get one page in a 10 page leaflet. Your country's majority sucks.

[alas alackaday]

September 11th, 2005, 11:58 PM

This part of the forums pretty dead anyway... Thought I'd try and revive this thread and I haven't done a bad job.

For that matter the formula (mental age/actual age)*100 can't work directly as your brain isn't supposed to develop much between age 20-60 (apart from small spikes when you learn a new language or something) thus anyone with an actual age of somthing 20-60 can have a mental age of anything 20-60 leaving an average 20 year old with a possible IQ of (60/20)*100 (for those who can't count) leaving an IQ of 300.
Presumably there is something more so, can someone enlighten the subject.

[SuperDavidGT]

If you want to argue the IQ system, I'll give you my psych professor's number.

I can tell you that nobody will get an IQ of 300, because the system works so that the mean IQ score is 100 - the majority of the population has an mental age roughly equal to their physical age. The normal distribution ranges between 50 and 150, retard and genius respectively. Anything beyond that is extremely rare.

[alas alackaday]

I can tell you that nobody will get an IQ of 300

I realise that, thats why i was suspicious as the ages from 20-60 are similar mentally so whilst the formula seems logical on younger children with which the mental age varies clearer, for an adult it seems logical that there's something more complex involved

[SuperDavidGT]

i was suspicious as the ages from 20-60 are similar mentally

no they're not. they're nothing alike. and the formula doesnt work on anyone under the age of about 12.

[SuperDavidGT]

i fink my iq dropped 50000 pints