Martin wrote in
:

On Fri, 17 Aug 2007 12:26:41 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip
wrote:

Martin wrote in
m:

On Fri, 17 Aug 2007 10:58:02 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip
wrote:

Mxsmanic wrote in
m:

Doug Semler writes:

How the **** would you demonstrate that you have the "valuable
predictor" of intelligence without a group, such as Mensa, that
filters applicants based on intelligence, dip****?

An IQ test would suffice. However, intelligence is usually fairly
obvious.


And yet, even people of moderate intelligence can understand
bernoulli

The average IQ of US enlisted men tested during WW1 was that of a12
year old.

IQ isn't really age related. though it is true that capacity increases
with age, the measurement is usually like/like otherwise it's kind of
pointless. So it would be fairer to say that they had a sub-normal IQ
of say ,less than 85 than to say they had the IQ of a 12 year old.
It'd be a bit like comparing the horsepower of a modern airplane to
the horsepower of a airplane from 75 years ago. In general, airplanes
of 75 years ago had smaller engines, but you could b talking about a
mustang. IOW, you're not neccesarily comparing like with like.

OK I dug around and Alfred Binet’s intelligence, or IQ, test used on
enlisted men also included an assessment of mental age. I guess it
should have been "The average mental age of US enlisted men tested
during WW1 was that of a 12 year old".

That doesn't make a lot of sense either but ...


Well, it makes sense to me. Pretty much what I was trying to say
earlier.