Piloting is the second most dangerous occupation

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 don't tell me "standardized tests." I've
interviewed too many dumb****s that couldn't tell me the difference between
a pointer and a reference even though they had a "computer science' degree.

Given that Mensa requires results from a standardized test to qualify for
membership, I find your comment rather odd.

Like I said. The *ONLY* qualifier of membership in Mensa is a demonstration
of the upper 2 percentile. Nothing more, nothing less.

Yes, and Mensa has a list of standardized tests, just like the ones you
disdain, that it will accept as proof of being in the upper two percent.

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

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



Bertie

Martin wrote in
:

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.

Bertie the Bunyip writes:

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.

Capacity does not increase or decrease significantly with age. Someone who is
smart in childhood will be smart in old age as well. Someone who is stupid as
an adult was also stupid as a child (excluding pathology).

Extremely poor living conditions very early in life can prevent a person from
coming close to his genetically-determined IQ limit. Likewise, some types of
illness (especially CVAs) can diminish IQ scores temporarily or permanently.
But healthy people in normal environments tend to reach IQs close to their
genetic programming and these tend to remain fairly constant over their
lifetimes.

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

Bertie the Bunyip writes:

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.

Capacity does not increase or decrease significantly with age.


IOW you were as big an idiot then as now.

Bertie

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.

I quoted a recent book by an expert ( MX/Mixi incognito?) on IQ tests.
It didn't make much sense to me either. It went on to say that ever
since WW1 US advertising has been aimed at 12 year olds.


That I an believe. But it would be pitched towards a 12 year old
education/maturity level, not IQ, I would imagine.

Bertie the Bunyip writes:

That I an believe. But it would be pitched towards a 12 year old
education/maturity level, not IQ, I would imagine.

Actually, there are good reasons for developing materials for lower IQs.

The average IQ is 100. Half the population is above that ... and half of it
is below. If you develop material that requires an average IQ to understand,
half of the population will not understand it. For this reason, it makes more
sense to develop material for a lower target IQ, so that a much larger
percentage of the population can handle it. If you target an IQ of 70, for
example, about 98% of the population will be able to understand it. This is
the reason for "dumbing down" materials to the lowest common denominator
(within reason).

In commercial endeavors, you dumb down your advertising and other materials
until everyone with the money to buy your product or service can understand
it. In politics, you dumb down your rhetoric and policy until everyone with
the ability to vote can understand it.

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

Bertie the Bunyip writes:

That I an believe. But it would be pitched towards a 12 year old
education/maturity level, not IQ, I would imagine.

Actually, there are good reasons for developing materials for lower
IQs.

The average IQ is 100. Half the population is above that ... and half
of it is below. If you develop material that requires an average IQ
to understand, half of the population will not understand it. For
this reason, it makes more sense to develop material for a lower
target IQ, so that a much larger percentage of the population can
handle it. If you target an IQ of 70, for example, about 98% of the
population will be able to understand it. This is the reason for
"dumbing down" materials to the lowest common denominator (within
reason).

In commercial endeavors, you dumb down your advertising and other
materials until everyone with the money to buy your product or service
can understand it. In politics, you dumb down your rhetoric and
policy until everyone with the ability to vote can understand it.



Wow, you really are a geniius. I have a six month old puppy who could
figure that out. And he's house broken! More than we could say for you.


Bertie

Martin writes:

I quoted a recent book by an expert ( MX/Mixi incognito?) on IQ tests. It didn't
make much sense to me either. It went on to say that ever since WW1 US
advertising has been aimed at 12 year olds.

IQ tests are widely misunderstood, and many "experts" misrepresent them in
order to further their own personal agendas.

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

Martin writes:

I quoted a recent book by an expert ( MX/Mixi incognito?) on IQ
tests. It didn't make much sense to me either. It went on to say that
ever since WW1 US advertising has been aimed at 12 year olds.

IQ tests are widely misunderstood, and many "experts" misrepresent
them in order to further their own personal agendas.



Like you do her, you mean.

Bertie