Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Mensa
Options
Comments
-
-
-
-
You're correct there, of course you're entitled to an opinion. The crucial mistake you won't acknowledge is that you're placing your uninformed individual opinion above and beyond a century of scientific evidence
please show me where? Do you remeber what my points were.
1. The concept of an overall "intelligence quotient" is flawed because many intellectual skills are not covered under iq tests even though they are included in many definitions of intelligence.
2. The concept of an overall "intelligence quotient" is flawed because there are too many intellectual skils to weigh up in determining this single number, and different people will have different opinions on how to weigh up these factors.
3. A high IQ doesn't correspond with being a genius, as someone could have amazing abilities in a certain set of skills, but be not so good in other skills which would drag their iq down. Also factors such as knowledge wisdom and creativity that go towards making a genius are not accounted for under iq tests. However many definitions of genius include references to intelligence.
4. The right enviroment has a massive impact on a childs intellectual capacities, and can overcome any slight genetic disadvantage small enough to not give a noticeable disability.
5. People are not just born gifted, it is something they have to work to achieve.
6.Given the right opportunities most children could achieve a level of intelligence considered today to be "gifted".
I don't see any of these points as going against scientific knowledge. All of this information i have picked up from mainstream media, so it obviously isn't blatantly wrong like you suggest.
Also;
7. All children should be given equal opportunities. This is a matter of opinion.and that's why no one has actually agreed with you on any of your points.
I would see all these posts as agreeing with me on certain points. If one person is throwing their weight around a thread due to a formal qualification and being really agressive with the person they are debating with, you can understand why someone would chose not to post.I would say that your parents' influence on you would be a huge factor in that. Not necessarily that they gave you extra help, but things like encouragement, the nature of their relationship, day to day conversations etc. I suspect someone moving to Malaysia from Ireland to work would be in an important position, highly educated and an extremely positive intellectual influence on their child
Re: CTYI, from an external point of view, I don't think it's for every gifted child, though perhaps I've only met a certain type of former CTYIer. I think it gives many people who've gone there an over inflated sense of their abilities compared to their non-CTYIer peers. They won't be necessarily very vocal about it, but you always sense it from them. I've also seen a good few who just can't seem to relate to their "normal" peers at all.
However, probably the most negative aspect of it I've seen is that with some it seems to foster sporadic, independent learning to the point where the person will lose interest in learning what's taught to them in school/college, which means they might have learned an incredibly impressive amount of stuff, but it's not what they're being examined on, and as a result, score poorly. It's quite a phenomenon, and is almost like a lack of discipline.
That said, I'm sure it's very positive for many kids who go there, and I wouldn't think it has such extreme effects on the majority of attendees.The idea being, there's no actual proof whether your 'good looking' at all, you merely have fulfilled this little quota, and is sufficient enough for your club to revere you as a handsome devil.
Its not a matter of jealousy, so please leave your bias out of this. Its a matter of labelling people as 'superior' because they may have a particular set of skills that may be of little to no use at all, and in no way represent superior intelligence.
People bash mensa for the same reason that people bash any association that claim things without sufficient evidence or justification.. Imho, for Mensa to claim that their members are above average in intelligence is pretty similar to religious people claiming they have a more developed sense of morality, an equally rediculous claim.IQ tests measure a certain type of intelligence. There's no disputing that IMO.Why lol?
I personally would lean towards the thinking that how intelligent one is in later life is heavily based on one's upbringing. I don't see what's "lol" about that...Considering you have so many posts in this thread with so many basic logical errors with ridiculous assumptions underlying your arguments, it would take far too long for anyone, including myself to go through them all. Especially considering you have shown yourself to be possibly the worst ever arguer in the history of AH and to be completely impervious to reason.
Impervious to reason?
Being learned in psychology i am sure you are familliar with the concept of projection.
Let me direct you to this post;
I've posted it below for added effect.
Instead of using reason, you just kept alluding to the fact that you have a qualification and are therefore right without ever needing to go any deeper.
Now. I didn't post all my points there as during such a long debate i'm sure i made a few. Please quote one of my points and tell me how it goes against 100 years of research?
Untill then, i'll make one more post and then i'm out. And unlike yourself, An File or Overheal (what with the video for dramatic effect, and then just joining back in as if nothing happened) my word actually means something.0 -
The whole concept of putting an objective number to intelligence is extremely flawed imo. It's like trying to put a number on coolness (the average mensa member has a C.Q of 65, well within the "retard" category
). Yes, you can get a rough idea of it, but you can't put a number on it. There's too many different factors involved. How do you weigh up each factor? Is verbal reasoning more or less important than spatial ability? If musical ability and maths use much of the same areas of the brain and a high score in one usually accompanies a higher than average score in the other, should we really count them as two fully seperate categories.No, it really isn't. Intelligence tests can be and are objective, to an extent of course, it's not perfect. For example, the latest edition of the Stanford Binet intelligence scale was based on a normative sample of 4800 people stratified to represent the population of the United States. So if you take the test, then the chances are that there is a huge group of people of similar race and socioeconomic background with which your result can be compared.
You obviously have no idea about psychometrics or have never read even a wikipedia article on the subject. If you are interested I'd recommend this [URL="[URL]http://www.amazon.com/Intelligence-Psychometric-View-Paul-Kline/dp/0415055121"]one[/URL]
[/URL]. Throughout the history of intelligence testing there has been plenty of research into the area of what factors make up intelligence and as of 2009 there is considerable professional convergence on what these factors are. Again, rather than start arguing with me, I suggest you actually read up on the subject. If you read wikipedia you will see that the WAIS intelligence scale is equally balanced for both verbal and spatial intelligence.aha! and how do we know they're equally important? That's my point. While you can put objective numbers on various types of intelligence, if you try and lump them all together in a single category the result is going to be a matter of opinion.
Is the ability to tell two sounds apart a factor in overall intelligence (some would argue it's a part of musical intelligence), what about the ability to tell two smells apart? is that equally important? obviously not! Does musical ability deserve to get the same weight as verbal ability? obviously not! If you're a retard at music who cares? if you can't understand sentences you're ****ed! Although, at higher levels it may work differently (e.g verbal intelligence is only way more imporatant up to a point, after which it's relative importance drops off to a lower level).aha, equally important to what? You're not being very specific here. Let me explain why they are equally balanced. If an individual were to score below 60 on the verbal scale, this would imply mental retardation. Now, the non-verbal scale is there to account for bias in terms of language, cultural, and educational factors that would adversely affect the measure of verbal I.Q.
So if the comparison reveals that an individuals non-verbal score is 100 compared to the 60 for verbal, it is then unlikely that the person is mentally retarded. This is simplified but gets the point across. See, if you had even read up the slightest bit on this before throwing around your opinions you would know this.
Again, your inchoate opinions of I.Q are leading you to completely ignore 100 years of scientific research and development into intelligence, what it is, and how to measure it. So it most definitely is not a matter of opinion. If you read my previous post about normative data you would see this. Now there are other accounts of intelligence, such as those proposed by [URL="[URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_intelligences"]Howard[/URL] Gardner[/URL], but these don't offer us any viable means of assessment.
Let's pretend there's only two types of intelligence. a person scores 60 and 100. What should their overall intelligence quotient be given as? Different people will see them as having a different importances. So while the individual tests may be objective and accurate, the overall IQ given will be a subjective opinion.That's it, make up a pretend, fallacious situation in order to support your already debunked point. Different people? Who? Provide evidence to back these points up please.
Test designers? Have you read the manual for the WAIS? Have you read the Mental Measurements Yearbooks reviews of the Stanford Binet? No. Then don't refer to what you think the test designers opinion is.I've been trying to make the same common sense argument all along.I really shouldn't have to provide any evidence.
But here ya go;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_and_intelligence#BackgroundFrom Wikipedia wrote:Determining whether men and women differ in average IQ has been difficult. It is easy to design an IQ test in which either males or females score higher on average, by selecting different tests or giving them different weights, so the question boils down to which weights the different tests should have for the g factor. For example, when the [URL="[URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford-Binet_test"]Stanford-Binet[/URL] test[/URL] was revised in the 1940s, preliminary tests yielded a slightly higher average IQ for women, a discrepancy attributed to a greater than usual emphasis on [URL="[URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Verbal_ability&action=edit&redlink=1"]verbal[/URL] ability[/URL]. The test was subsequently adjusted to give identical averages for men and women.[URL="[URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_and_intelligence#cite_note-0"][1][/URL[/URL]]
Clearly someone attatches differing weights to each aspect of intelligence. How much weight each aspect of intelligence should get is a subjective opinion. Therefore an overall Intelligence Quotient can only be subjective.
If you cannot follow this logic then sorry, all hope is lost....
Good day.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement