I think that they can be a good way of finding the general area of the intelligence spectrum that a person lies...I think that most people would agree with that statement if you're talking about reputable IQ tests, not the bullshit ones that you can take on the internet. Do I think that it's a terribly important thing that all people get IQ tests? certainly not...but I do believe that when it comes to advanced placement and things of that nature for academia, that they are invaluable....a person can fake it in an interview if they know the right things to say...that doesn't really make them intelligent though. You can't really fool a Stanford-Binet test because it's supervised and timed...everything that you do is taken into account (and the test is administered by a trained professional)...and with such a broad spectrum of things that could be tested, it's very difficult to fake it.
How exactly does the Stanford-Binet test measure intelligence? Why don't any universities use IQ tests for placement of students?
Well...it's pretty much the standard for IQ testing in the American education system so there is probably SOMETHING to it...It was developed to be the most accurate and comprehensive way of testing intelligence in a meaningful way...I think that it's more effective because it is both timed and supervised by a licensed professional, unlike these titan and mega tests.
And I would assume that schools don't use them because there is indeed a margin for error and because testing every person who applies for a college with a Stanford-Binet test would be a whole hell of a lot more difficult than simply looking at their test scores and grades...since we're talking about academic achievement here anyway which is a COMPLETELY separate issue from outright intelligence...anyone who argues otherwise can go look at Einstein's grades.
Academic achievement and intelligence are two completely different things, if you want to argue otherwise then there's no point in continuing this discussion, because it means that you believe men like Einstein to be unintelligent.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
Well...it's pretty much the standard for IQ testing in the American education system so there is probably SOMETHING to it...It was developed to be the most accurate and comprehensive way of testing intelligence in a meaningful way...I think that it's more effective because it is both timed and supervised by a licensed professional, unlike these titan and mega tests.
And I would assume that schools don't use them because there is indeed a margin for error and because testing every person who applies for a college with a Stanford-Binet test would be a whole hell of a lot more difficult than simply looking at their test scores and grades...since we're talking about academic achievement here anyway which is a COMPLETELY separate issue from outright intelligence...anyone who argues otherwise can go look at Einstein's grades.
Academic achievement and intelligence are two completely different things, if you want to argue otherwise then there's no point in continuing this discussion, because it means that you believe men like Einstein to be unintelligent.
Once Einstein got to the university level he performed quite well, so I'm not sure what you mean by there being no correlation between higher academic achievement and IQ scores. The original Stanford-Binet test was conceived around 1916 and it's original creator, Binet, did not intend it to directly measure intelligence but to determine if children would need extra help in school.
The irony is that the people who revised the Binet test and used it to gauge intelligence were the same people who advocated eugenics; the Nazis used a similar tactic to weed out immigrants.
All of the above is still far away from the issue at hand, however: How exactly do IQ tests measure intelligence? If you can't answer that, then you might as well let IQ score be determined by performance on Jeopardy.
This is a sequence of characters intended to produce some profound mental effect, but it has failed.
Well...it's pretty much the standard for IQ testing in the American education system so there is probably SOMETHING to it...It was developed to be the most accurate and comprehensive way of testing intelligence in a meaningful way...I think that it's more effective because it is both timed and supervised by a licensed professional, unlike these titan and mega tests.
And I would assume that schools don't use them because there is indeed a margin for error and because testing every person who applies for a college with a Stanford-Binet test would be a whole hell of a lot more difficult than simply looking at their test scores and grades...since we're talking about academic achievement here anyway which is a COMPLETELY separate issue from outright intelligence...anyone who argues otherwise can go look at Einstein's grades.
Academic achievement and intelligence are two completely different things, if you want to argue otherwise then there's no point in continuing this discussion, because it means that you believe men like Einstein to be unintelligent.
Once Einstein got to the university level he performed quite well, so I'm not sure what you mean by there being no correlation between higher academic achievement and IQ scores. The original Stanford-Binet test was conceived around 1916 and it's original creator, Binet, did not intend it to directly measure intelligence but to determine if children would need extra help in school.
The irony is that the people who revised the Binet test and used it to gauge intelligence were the same people who advocated eugenics; the Nazis used a similar tactic to weed out immigrants.
All of the above is still far away from the issue at hand, however: How exactly do IQ tests measure intelligence? If you can't answer that, then you might as well let IQ score be determined by performance on Jeopardy.
Did you not ask why universities don't use IQ tests for entrance qualifications? I was addressing that.
If you are arguing that IQ tests don't test intelligence then you are arguing against the vast majority of the psychology community, where the general consensus is that IQ tests like the Stanford-Binet do indeed serve as reasonably accurate gauges of a person's ability to reason and think rationally. If you don't understand HOW they measure intelligence, then you've probably never taken one...basically the test is a battery of timed questions and puzzles designed to test all aspects of a person's mind. The test ranges from trivia questions to block replication to logical reasoning problems, all of which are given by a supervising professional who records both answers and times for those answers...if you don't think that such a test can differentiate people of varying intelligence levels, then there's no point in talking to you.
I'm not saying that a person who took one IQ test and got a result of 100 is always going to appear more intelligent than the person who got 99...what I'm saying is that IQ tests can accurately gauge where a person falls within the tiers of intelligence (average, above average, superior, very superior/genius, as defined by the test guidelines) give or take a few points either way.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
I think that they can be a good way of finding the general area of the intelligence spectrum that a person lies...I think that most people would agree with that statement if you're talking about reputable IQ tests, not the bullshit ones that you can take on the internet. Do I think that it's a terribly important thing that all people get IQ tests? certainly not...but I do believe that when it comes to advanced placement and things of that nature for academia, that they are invaluable....a person can fake it in an interview if they know the right things to say...that doesn't really make them intelligent though. You can't really fool a Stanford-Binet test because it's supervised and timed...everything that you do is taken into account (and the test is administered by a trained professional)...and with such a broad spectrum of things that could be tested, it's very difficult to fake it.
How exactly does the Stanford-Binet test measure intelligence? Why don't any universities use IQ tests for placement of students?
That's the question that you asked, that's why Einstein is relevant...Besides, IQ tests ARE used in the various levels of academia to determine placement in advanced studies...students who participate in advanced classes in elementary school are more likely to participate in advanced placement courses in high school and are thus more appealing as applicants for universities...so in an indirect way, IQ tests are used for University applicants
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
If you are arguing that IQ tests don't test intelligence then you are arguing against the vast majority of the psychology community, where the general consensus is that IQ tests like the Stanford-Binet do indeed serve as reasonably accurate gauges of a person's ability to reason and think rationally. If you don't understand HOW they measure intelligence, then you've probably never taken one...basically the test is a battery of timed questions and puzzles designed to test all aspects of a person's mind. The test ranges from trivia questions to block replication to logical reasoning problems, all of which are given by a supervising professional who records both answers and times for those answers...if you don't think that such a test can differentiate people of varying intelligence levels, then there's no point in talking to you. There are verbal portions of the test that require knowledge of vocabulary and not raw logical reasoning; so how do you reconcile that with the test being a strict gauge of intelligence? Again, even if there "logical problems" how can you show that you're not only testing one kind of reasoning ability and not all of them? Since the test is timed, that seems to exclude people with text anxiety, or ADHD. SAT scores and GRE scores are highly correlated, so why isn't an IQ test just another measure for basic academic ability?
I'm not saying that a person who took one IQ test and got a result of 100 is always going to appear more intelligent than the person who got 99...what I'm saying is that IQ tests can accurately gauge where a person falls within the tiers of intelligence (average, above average, superior, very superior/genius, as defined by the test guidelines) give or take a few points either way. You are saying, however, that an IQ test measures intelligence infallibly. Why is it that there have been people with lower IQ scores than you would probably expect, but great achievements in difficult fields (e.g. Feynman)? Unless you can constructively show for every question on the IQ test that each correct answer within the allotted time implies greater intelligence, IQ tests are nothing more than statistical measures that correlate with academic and financial success.
This is a sequence of characters intended to produce some profound mental effect, but it has failed.
That's the question that you asked, that's why Einstein is relevant...Besides, IQ tests ARE used in the various levels of academia to determine placement in advanced studies...students who participate in advanced classes in elementary school are more likely to participate in advanced placement courses in high school and are thus more appealing as applicants for universities...so in an indirect way, IQ tests are used for University applicants
Actually IQ tests are mostly used to determine early on if a child has learning disabilities; they are almost never used seriously at an elementary school level. While it might be true that children performing well on IQ tests are given advanced placement, i.e. more opportunity than children with lower IQ scores, in some school districts, universities still do not consider them at all. You seem to have a habit of taking correlation directly to causation.
This is a sequence of characters intended to produce some profound mental effect, but it has failed.
That's the question that you asked, that's why Einstein is relevant...Besides, IQ tests ARE used in the various levels of academia to determine placement in advanced studies...students who participate in advanced classes in elementary school are more likely to participate in advanced placement courses in high school and are thus more appealing as applicants for universities...so in an indirect way, IQ tests are used for University applicants
Actually IQ tests are mostly used to determine early on if a child has learning disabilities; they are almost never used seriously at an elementary school level. While it might be true that children performing well on IQ tests are given advanced placement, i.e. more opportunity than children with lower IQ scores, in some school districts, universities still do not consider them at all. You seem to have a habit of taking correlation directly to causation.
This is categorically false. Every single child that enters into G.A.T.E in the state of California takes an IQ test to determine placement. You don't know what you're talking about.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
If you are arguing that IQ tests don't test intelligence then you are arguing against the vast majority of the psychology community, where the general consensus is that IQ tests like the Stanford-Binet do indeed serve as reasonably accurate gauges of a person's ability to reason and think rationally. If you don't understand HOW they measure intelligence, then you've probably never taken one...basically the test is a battery of timed questions and puzzles designed to test all aspects of a person's mind. The test ranges from trivia questions to block replication to logical reasoning problems, all of which are given by a supervising professional who records both answers and times for those answers...if you don't think that such a test can differentiate people of varying intelligence levels, then there's no point in talking to you. There are verbal portions of the test that require knowledge of vocabulary and not raw logical reasoning; so how do you reconcile that with the test being a strict gauge of intelligence? Again, even if there "logical problems" how can you show that you're not only testing one kind of reasoning ability and not all of them? Since the test is timed, that seems to exclude people with text anxiety, or ADHD. SAT scores and GRE scores are highly correlated, so why isn't an IQ test just another measure for basic academic ability?
I'm not saying that a person who took one IQ test and got a result of 100 is always going to appear more intelligent than the person who got 99...what I'm saying is that IQ tests can accurately gauge where a person falls within the tiers of intelligence (average, above average, superior, very superior/genius, as defined by the test guidelines) give or take a few points either way. You are saying, however, that an IQ test measures intelligence infallibly. Why is it that there have been people with lower IQ scores than you would probably expect, but great achievements in difficult fields (e.g. Feynman)? Unless you can constructively show for every question on the IQ test that each correct answer within the allotted time implies greater intelligence, IQ tests are nothing more than statistical measures that correlate with academic and financial success.
You are taking so many things out of context that I am led only to believe that you are doing it intentionally to try and piss me off...sorry but you're not going to troll a troll. I refuse to believe that anybody fails at logical reasoning and reading comprehension THIS much.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
You are taking so many things out of context that I am led only to believe that you are doing it intentionally to try and piss me off...sorry but you're not going to troll a troll. I refuse to believe that anybody fails at logical reasoning and reading comprehension THIS much.
I really don't think you have anything to bring to the table other than the G.A.T.E in California; you simply lack the precise knowledge of the exam to tell me how it works. I can imagine that the policymakers in California probably understand as little as you do, which is why kids are relegated to poor instruction because of performance on a questionable test contrived by psychologists.
It's all water over the dam, however, since you have obviously given up trying to debate and have already used the expected ad hominem to weasel yourself out of appearing ignorant. I'm guessing that you are emotionally invested in the exam itself, since you performed well on it (you took the time to tell all of us here at off-topic about your high IQ score... more than once over the years); it is no wonder that you feel threatened by anybody who questions the integrity of the test itself.
I find it ironic that you're willing to dig so deeply to refute false claims about your religious beliefs, but will not even go to the trouble of figuring out how the test on which you base your own intellect works.
This is a sequence of characters intended to produce some profound mental effect, but it has failed.
Actually IQ tests are mostly used to determine early on if a child has learning disabilities; they are almost never used seriously at an elementary school level. While it might be true that children performing well on IQ tests are given advanced placement, i.e. more opportunity than children with lower IQ scores, in some school districts, universities still do not consider them at all. You seem to have a habit of taking correlation directly to causation.
This is categorically false. Every single child that enters into G.A.T.E in the state of California takes an IQ test to determine placement. You don't know what you're talking about.
I admit that I'm wrong about the US. Most of my elementary school years were spent abroad, so please forgive my ignorance.
This is a sequence of characters intended to produce some profound mental effect, but it has failed.
You are taking so many things out of context that I am led only to believe that you are doing it intentionally to try and piss me off...sorry but you're not going to troll a troll. I refuse to believe that anybody fails at logical reasoning and reading comprehension THIS much.
I really don't think you have anything to bring to the table other than the G.A.T.E in California; you simply lack the precise knowledge of the exam to tell me how it works. I can imagine that the policymakers in California probably understand as little as you do, which is why kids are relegated to poor instruction because of performance on a questionable test contrived by psychologists.
It's all water over the dam, however, since you have obviously given up trying to debate and have already used the expected ad hominem to weasel yourself out of appearing ignorant. I'm guessing that you are emotionally invested in the exam itself, since you performed well on it (you took the time to tell all of us here at off-topic about your high IQ score... more than once over the years); it is no wonder that you feel threatened by anybody who questions the integrity of the test itself.
I find it ironic that you're willing to dig so deeply to refute false claims about your religious beliefs, but will not even go to the trouble of figuring out how the test on which you base your own intellect works.
mmhmm, yeah buddy...ad hominem...yup, that's me.
You might want to look up "ad hominem" and then look over your own posts though, just in case you are indeed serious.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
You might want to look up "ad hominem" and then look over your own posts though, just in case you are indeed serious.
Hurr durrr
"You are taking so many things out of context that I am led only to believe that you are doing it intentionally to try and piss me off...sorry but you're not going to troll a troll. I refuse to believe that anybody fails at logical reasoning and reading comprehension THIS much"
For a person with a high IQ you're awfully dumb.
This is a sequence of characters intended to produce some profound mental effect, but it has failed.
Comments
I'm not sure what you mean by faith.
I think that they can be a good way of finding the general area of the intelligence spectrum that a person lies...I think that most people would agree with that statement if you're talking about reputable IQ tests, not the bullshit ones that you can take on the internet. Do I think that it's a terribly important thing that all people get IQ tests? certainly not...but I do believe that when it comes to advanced placement and things of that nature for academia, that they are invaluable....a person can fake it in an interview if they know the right things to say...that doesn't really make them intelligent though. You can't really fool a Stanford-Binet test because it's supervised and timed...everything that you do is taken into account (and the test is administered by a trained professional)...and with such a broad spectrum of things that could be tested, it's very difficult to fake it.
How exactly does the Stanford-Binet test measure intelligence? Why don't any universities use IQ tests for placement of students?
Well...it's pretty much the standard for IQ testing in the American education system so there is probably SOMETHING to it...It was developed to be the most accurate and comprehensive way of testing intelligence in a meaningful way...I think that it's more effective because it is both timed and supervised by a licensed professional, unlike these titan and mega tests.
And I would assume that schools don't use them because there is indeed a margin for error and because testing every person who applies for a college with a Stanford-Binet test would be a whole hell of a lot more difficult than simply looking at their test scores and grades...since we're talking about academic achievement here anyway which is a COMPLETELY separate issue from outright intelligence...anyone who argues otherwise can go look at Einstein's grades.
Academic achievement and intelligence are two completely different things, if you want to argue otherwise then there's no point in continuing this discussion, because it means that you believe men like Einstein to be unintelligent.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
Once Einstein got to the university level he performed quite well, so I'm not sure what you mean by there being no correlation between higher academic achievement and IQ scores. The original Stanford-Binet test was conceived around 1916 and it's original creator, Binet, did not intend it to directly measure intelligence but to determine if children would need extra help in school.
Here is a link: iq-test.learninginfo.org/iq01.htm
The irony is that the people who revised the Binet test and used it to gauge intelligence were the same people who advocated eugenics; the Nazis used a similar tactic to weed out immigrants.
All of the above is still far away from the issue at hand, however: How exactly do IQ tests measure intelligence? If you can't answer that, then you might as well let IQ score be determined by performance on Jeopardy.
This is a sequence of characters intended to produce some profound mental effect, but it has failed.
Interesting stuff.
Once Einstein got to the university level he performed quite well, so I'm not sure what you mean by there being no correlation between higher academic achievement and IQ scores. The original Stanford-Binet test was conceived around 1916 and it's original creator, Binet, did not intend it to directly measure intelligence but to determine if children would need extra help in school.
Here is a link: iq-test.learninginfo.org/iq01.htm
The irony is that the people who revised the Binet test and used it to gauge intelligence were the same people who advocated eugenics; the Nazis used a similar tactic to weed out immigrants.
All of the above is still far away from the issue at hand, however: How exactly do IQ tests measure intelligence? If you can't answer that, then you might as well let IQ score be determined by performance on Jeopardy.
Did you not ask why universities don't use IQ tests for entrance qualifications? I was addressing that.
If you are arguing that IQ tests don't test intelligence then you are arguing against the vast majority of the psychology community, where the general consensus is that IQ tests like the Stanford-Binet do indeed serve as reasonably accurate gauges of a person's ability to reason and think rationally. If you don't understand HOW they measure intelligence, then you've probably never taken one...basically the test is a battery of timed questions and puzzles designed to test all aspects of a person's mind. The test ranges from trivia questions to block replication to logical reasoning problems, all of which are given by a supervising professional who records both answers and times for those answers...if you don't think that such a test can differentiate people of varying intelligence levels, then there's no point in talking to you.
I'm not saying that a person who took one IQ test and got a result of 100 is always going to appear more intelligent than the person who got 99...what I'm saying is that IQ tests can accurately gauge where a person falls within the tiers of intelligence (average, above average, superior, very superior/genius, as defined by the test guidelines) give or take a few points either way.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
I'm not sure what you mean by faith.
I think that they can be a good way of finding the general area of the intelligence spectrum that a person lies...I think that most people would agree with that statement if you're talking about reputable IQ tests, not the bullshit ones that you can take on the internet. Do I think that it's a terribly important thing that all people get IQ tests? certainly not...but I do believe that when it comes to advanced placement and things of that nature for academia, that they are invaluable....a person can fake it in an interview if they know the right things to say...that doesn't really make them intelligent though. You can't really fool a Stanford-Binet test because it's supervised and timed...everything that you do is taken into account (and the test is administered by a trained professional)...and with such a broad spectrum of things that could be tested, it's very difficult to fake it.
How exactly does the Stanford-Binet test measure intelligence? Why don't any universities use IQ tests for placement of students?
That's the question that you asked, that's why Einstein is relevant...Besides, IQ tests ARE used in the various levels of academia to determine placement in advanced studies...students who participate in advanced classes in elementary school are more likely to participate in advanced placement courses in high school and are thus more appealing as applicants for universities...so in an indirect way, IQ tests are used for University applicants
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
This is a sequence of characters intended to produce some profound mental effect, but it has failed.
That's the question that you asked, that's why Einstein is relevant...Besides, IQ tests ARE used in the various levels of academia to determine placement in advanced studies...students who participate in advanced classes in elementary school are more likely to participate in advanced placement courses in high school and are thus more appealing as applicants for universities...so in an indirect way, IQ tests are used for University applicants
Actually IQ tests are mostly used to determine early on if a child has learning disabilities; they are almost never used seriously at an elementary school level. While it might be true that children performing well on IQ tests are given advanced placement, i.e. more opportunity than children with lower IQ scores, in some school districts, universities still do not consider them at all. You seem to have a habit of taking correlation directly to causation.
This is a sequence of characters intended to produce some profound mental effect, but it has failed.
That's the question that you asked, that's why Einstein is relevant...Besides, IQ tests ARE used in the various levels of academia to determine placement in advanced studies...students who participate in advanced classes in elementary school are more likely to participate in advanced placement courses in high school and are thus more appealing as applicants for universities...so in an indirect way, IQ tests are used for University applicants
Actually IQ tests are mostly used to determine early on if a child has learning disabilities; they are almost never used seriously at an elementary school level. While it might be true that children performing well on IQ tests are given advanced placement, i.e. more opportunity than children with lower IQ scores, in some school districts, universities still do not consider them at all. You seem to have a habit of taking correlation directly to causation.
This is categorically false. Every single child that enters into G.A.T.E in the state of California takes an IQ test to determine placement. You don't know what you're talking about.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
You are taking so many things out of context that I am led only to believe that you are doing it intentionally to try and piss me off...sorry but you're not going to troll a troll. I refuse to believe that anybody fails at logical reasoning and reading comprehension THIS much.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
You are taking so many things out of context that I am led only to believe that you are doing it intentionally to try and piss me off...sorry but you're not going to troll a troll. I refuse to believe that anybody fails at logical reasoning and reading comprehension THIS much.
I really don't think you have anything to bring to the table other than the G.A.T.E in California; you simply lack the precise knowledge of the exam to tell me how it works. I can imagine that the policymakers in California probably understand as little as you do, which is why kids are relegated to poor instruction because of performance on a questionable test contrived by psychologists.
It's all water over the dam, however, since you have obviously given up trying to debate and have already used the expected ad hominem to weasel yourself out of appearing ignorant. I'm guessing that you are emotionally invested in the exam itself, since you performed well on it (you took the time to tell all of us here at off-topic about your high IQ score... more than once over the years); it is no wonder that you feel threatened by anybody who questions the integrity of the test itself.
I find it ironic that you're willing to dig so deeply to refute false claims about your religious beliefs, but will not even go to the trouble of figuring out how the test on which you base your own intellect works.
This is a sequence of characters intended to produce some profound mental effect, but it has failed.
This is categorically false. Every single child that enters into G.A.T.E in the state of California takes an IQ test to determine placement. You don't know what you're talking about.
I admit that I'm wrong about the US. Most of my elementary school years were spent abroad, so please forgive my ignorance.
This is a sequence of characters intended to produce some profound mental effect, but it has failed.
https://easynulled.com/
Free porn videos, xxx porn videos
Onlyfans nudes
Onlyfans leaked
You are taking so many things out of context that I am led only to believe that you are doing it intentionally to try and piss me off...sorry but you're not going to troll a troll. I refuse to believe that anybody fails at logical reasoning and reading comprehension THIS much.
I really don't think you have anything to bring to the table other than the G.A.T.E in California; you simply lack the precise knowledge of the exam to tell me how it works. I can imagine that the policymakers in California probably understand as little as you do, which is why kids are relegated to poor instruction because of performance on a questionable test contrived by psychologists.
It's all water over the dam, however, since you have obviously given up trying to debate and have already used the expected ad hominem to weasel yourself out of appearing ignorant. I'm guessing that you are emotionally invested in the exam itself, since you performed well on it (you took the time to tell all of us here at off-topic about your high IQ score... more than once over the years); it is no wonder that you feel threatened by anybody who questions the integrity of the test itself.
I find it ironic that you're willing to dig so deeply to refute false claims about your religious beliefs, but will not even go to the trouble of figuring out how the test on which you base your own intellect works.
mmhmm, yeah buddy...ad hominem...yup, that's me.
You might want to look up "ad hominem" and then look over your own posts though, just in case you are indeed serious.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
mmhmm, yeah buddy...ad hominem...yup, that's me.
You might want to look up "ad hominem" and then look over your own posts though, just in case you are indeed serious.
Hurr durrr
"You are taking so many things out of context that I am led only to believe that you are doing it intentionally to try and piss me off...sorry but you're not going to troll a troll. I refuse to believe that anybody fails at logical reasoning and reading comprehension THIS much"
For a person with a high IQ you're awfully dumb.
This is a sequence of characters intended to produce some profound mental effect, but it has failed.
langan sounds like a dumb ass
freetalklive.com
tsim fuckis aka chicken little