Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Max™]

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, but not if Clinton is around, and sometimes hand references are just that, unless Trump.

[Starver]

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, but not if Clinton is around, and sometimes hand references are just that, unless Trump.

Noting that anyone can inadvertently make Freudian Penis. ...Mother! ...Slip!!

[Max™]

Freudian Penis Mother is a decent band name.

[Reelya]

Yeah, as Reelya has said a while back, the IQ tests are really just tests on how well you do tests.

Doing good on the IQ tests also happens to correlate well with a range of cognitive abilities associated with what people commonly think high intelligence means. So if somebody scores significantly higher than you, then it's a good bet you're less of a bright spark in comparison.
Dismissing those tests as worthless is unwarranted, no matter how soothing to one's soul.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/iq-tests-are-fundamentally-flawed-and-using-them-alone-to-measure-intelligence-is-a-fallacy-study-8425911.html
Here, a large study (100,000 participants) showed that there are three components of "short-term memory, reasoning and verbal agility" which are measured by IQ tests. Plus there could be other subsystems they missed in this study. The main point was that performance on each of these tests showed no correlation whatsoever to any of the other tests. There was no single "hidden factor" which has a correlation with raw ability on multiple types of test question. By themselves, each sub-test had zero predictive power outside of testing the exact thing each set of test question covers. So how can you then take a weighted average of these results and say it predicts "intelligence"? Clearly there's a flaw in that logic.

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2011/04/what-does-iq-really-measure

Kids who score higher on IQ tests will, on average, go on to do better in conventional measures of success in life: academic achievement, economic success, even greater health, and longevity. Is that because they are more intelligent? Not necessarily. New research concludes that IQ scores are partly a measure of how motivated a child is to do well on the test. And harnessing that motivation might be as important to later success as so-called native intelligence.

Here's a great overview of the science:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4557354/
Example:

In a study of salespersons, Vinchur, Schippmann, Switzer, and Roth (1998) found that “general cognitive ability” showed a correlation of .40 with supervisor ratings but only .04 with objective sales.

So, having done well on the types of tests that get you into the job (the studies in question often used any old test and just "assume" it measures the same thing as an IQ test does, because of the circular logic assumption that "g factor" makes you good at all possible tests) seem to correlate well without how much your boss likes you, but very little with objective measures of performance.

[Max™]

Basically, yeah, I've always been fantastic at tests, and always been a fucking moron. Test taking ability doesn't prove anything except that you're good at taking tests.

[wierd]

The owner of Hustler Magazine posted an interesting advertisement in the Washington Post today.

[Trekkin]

Yeah, as Reelya has said a while back, the IQ tests are really just tests on how well you do tests.

Doing good on the IQ tests also happens to correlate well with a range of cognitive abilities associated with what people commonly think high intelligence means. So if somebody scores significantly higher than you, then it's a good bet you're less of a bright spark in comparison.
Dismissing those tests as worthless is unwarranted, no matter how soothing to one's soul.

Like I said above, though, they aren't calibrated to accurately measure differences in high scorers. Their value lies in detecting and measuring cognitive impairment, not in giving you an ego boost because you test well. "What people commonly think high intelligence means" is inherently circular. When people hold up their high IQs to describe how smart they are, of course a lot of people are going to think their traits embody high intelligence.

Put bluntly, the type of people with a burning need to prove how smart they are generally aren't all that smart, and having a number that's bigger than the other guy's is an appealingly simple way to turn relative intelligence into a genital-measuring contest. The same is true of MENSA and other people-who-need-to-prove-their-high-IQ societies: they tend to be short on scientists and engineers, but absolutely stuffed to the gills with various kinds of professional wingnut who need to sound impressive to morons and folks you'd never think were smart if they didn't go out of their way to "prove" it. Doctors don't join MENSA. Homeopaths do.

Reelya has done a fine job of finding lay-accessible articles on how poorly high IQ correlates to actual achievement, which is probably the most objective measure of capability we can agree on. It can measure how dumb you are, but not how smart.

Of course, when Trump scores an 80 I'm sure we'll hear all these arguments from Kellyanne Conway.

[MrRoboto75]

I say we skip all this confusing "IQ Test" skullduggery and shenanigans and just go straight to dueling pistols.

Like the founding fathers intended.

[Trekkin]

I say we skip all this confusing "IQ Test" skullduggery and shenanigans and just go straight to dueling pistols.

Like the founding fathers intended.

But then it's only a matter of time before Trump challenges Kim Jong Un to a duel -- and Kim once hit the bullseye 3 times out of 3 with a North Korean-made submachine gun! Armed with a weapon as sophisticated as a muzzle-loading flintlock pistol, there's no telling what he might do. He might shoot Trump's bullet out of the sky while it's still in his gun!

[Reelya]

We actually have the perfect thing to duel with:

[sluissa]

Obligatory Shitpost:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0VtPgIX_Dbk

[MrRoboto75]

We actually have the perfect thing to duel with:

Way to give Trump the home field advantage

[Starver]

How about a version of this form of duel?

(I don't know if I should specify between playing his game with HIM, or playing Gary at Gary's game? Both are funny, at least one of them could be construed as a threat.)

[RedKing]

We actually have the perfect thing to duel with:

Would you believe I actually have that game? Got it sometime in the 80s along with a bunch of other board games when a neighbor moved away. Along with Square Mile, The Land Development Game.

[EnigmaticHat]

Did you get any good use out of it?