ZOMBIE FORUMS

It's a stinking, shambling corpse grotesquely parodying life.
It is currently Sun Nov 18, 2018 8:49 pm

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]




Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 16 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 19, 2002 9:26 pm 
Offline
Local

Joined: Sat Oct 19, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 458
Alright - here's the deal. Apparently, IQ scores and SAT scores are directly coorelated (A 1600 means you have roughly a 152+ IQ, A 1080 Means your IQ is about 100, the formula to convert from SAT Scores to IQ scores is (SAT Score - 80)/ 100 = IQ Score. The SAT was originally designed to BE another form of IQ test, but the P.C. brigade got on its case and they had to back down, and now say that it only measures "Your ability to take the SAT." Dumbasses.

Anyway, here's the dilemma I've run into - The school I go to has an average SAT score of 1210. This implies that the average IQ score in the school is 114 - Which is an accurate number because the school actually GAVE IQ test a while back without telling us what they were and have our scores recorded in our permanent record, which I found out when I tried to transfer out of our high school. It even had three digits, which personally amazed me.
Now, because our school uses Microsoft networking and keeps the stats of our entire school online, and thanks to the help of the school psychologist's account :wink:, I found these stats to be accurate. This is amazing - we are talking about a public school here. Now, having a public school where the average IQ is 115 struck me as ... odd. That's an entire standard deviation above the mean. 68% of the population should be between 85 and 115 - but if the average student has a 115, and our school has about 2000 students... It makes me wonder what the hell is going on.

When I went away to CTY on the whole CTY thing there were ten kids from Wilton, and virtually everyone I met in school qualified to go to CTY, which seriously struck fear into my heart. (CTY is this program for "talented" youth that uses SAT scores to determine eligibility.)

The only thing special about our school is money. I live in an incredibly rich, preppy town. 17 year old kids drive Corvettes and Ferraris to school. Since the tests were administered without parental knowledge, the students could not have been coached. Are SAT and IQ scores so worthless that just having your parents be fucking rich is enough to make you a candidate for mensa? I was under the impression that intelligence was innate...

(BTW, please don't post your scores. I'd rather not have this turn into a pissing contest.)

_________________
"You know, I'm a sociology major, so I get a lot of this stuff. Thing is, I don't want to reevaluate our gender paradigms or end racial discrimination. I want to play Nintendo." -a friend of Pyromancer's

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: veritron on 2002-11-19 20:30 ]</font>


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 19, 2002 10:12 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 11, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3730
Location: DELETED FOR SECURITY REASONS
There you have it. Rich children have proportionately less problems than lower and middle class children. The money factor is also a big thing- I doubt you'd see a 15 year old book in there, which was the NORM in my school.

Money put into schools and the economic situation of the students are major factors in how the people turn out. If you take a look at my highschool (Norwalk) you'll see grades went up noticably when we got NASA funding. Smaller classrooms, better books, better computers (we have Dells now, when before we had stuff that ran at 33mhz) all contribute to higher grades.

In essence, you're a rich bastard and are thus naturally advantaged. The lower classes have to work harder- but thats how its been for a long time, and thats how it will be.

-Kills Commies
“Our sons, pride of our nation, this day have set upon a mighty endeavor, a struggle to preserve our Republic, our religion and our civilization, and to set free a suffering humanity . . .” (General Dwight D. Eisenhower, June 7, 1944)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 19, 2002 10:12 pm 
Offline
Local

Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 399
Location: Sacramento, California
Personally I don't like tests in general, and I think the IQ test is BS.

In my opion, intelliegnce can never truely be measured. First of all, your measuring your intelligence on the opion of the creator of the test.

Example: I could make my own IQ test with my very own questions. There would be geniuses of course, but then there would be others that would do horrbile on the test. But, if they took another IQ test made by a different person, then might score very well.

This example is going to the extreme of course, but hopefully I explained the basic argument I'm trying to make. Intelligence can't be measured because your always going by what other people think of intelligence.

Also, some people are simply absolutly horrible at taking tests. Does this mean that just because they can't take an IQ test they are unintelligent? NO. Others might have a mental issue, one of my teachers has a mental disorder where he can't visualize math equations in his head (If you know the name or the actual definition of this disorder PLEASE tell)

Welp, that's my two cents *steps off soap box*

_________________
"Enough chatter, send my regards to oblivion!" - Eternion

"Genius is one of the many forms of insanity" - Cesare L. Lombroso

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Invader Rez on 2002-11-19 21:18 ]</font>


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Nov 20, 2002 12:14 pm 
Offline
Native
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 26, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 912
Location: Velvet Sea of San Angelo
I don't like the concept of the comprehensive intelligence quotient as it seems to be far too grounded in the analytical. I prefer the multiple intelligence theory:

• VERBAL & LINGUISTIC
• LOGICAL & MATHEMATICAL
• VISUAL & SPACIAL
• BODILY & KINESTHETIC
• MUSICAL & RHYMTHMIC
• INTRAPERSONAL
• INTERPERSONAL
• NATURALIST

I just prefer how it sets up more specialization and actually acknowledges that people can be "geniuses" in fields other than logic

*edit: Yep fuck up the spelling of "that" in a post about IQ...how ironic"
_________________
"The harder I push the further I fall.
Well you don't mind me being headstrong.
But you don't want to sing along.
Maybe it's trite but I can always be wrong
Try not to be wrong"

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: The Electric Pope on 2002-11-20 11:15 ]</font>


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Nov 21, 2002 4:57 pm 
Offline
Local

Joined: Wed May 15, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 210
Quote:
On 2002-11-19 20:26, veritron wrote:
Alright - here's the deal. Apparently, IQ scores and SAT scores are directly coorelated (A 1600 means you have roughly a 152+ IQ, A 1080 Means your IQ is about 100, the formula to convert from SAT Scores to IQ scores is (SAT Score - 80)/ 100 = IQ Score. The SAT was originally designed to BE another form of IQ test, but the P.C. brigade got on its case and they had to back down, and now say that it only measures "Your ability to take the SAT." Dumbasses.


I thought the SAT was designed to be used as an indicator of one's probable average GPA in college. The SATs ask knowledge-based questions, whearas an IQ test asks questions which measure comparative and relative mental abilities. When I took the SATs, I got a 1290. (I never took any prep/study courses) According to the SATs, my IQ should be 121. However, an IQ test says my IQ is 134. That's a pretty wide margin of error. It seems as though the SATs didn't do an accurate job of determining my IQ. But that's irrelevent, because with the advent of SAT study courses, a 1600 is no longer as rare as it once was. Like KC said, the rich kids can afford better materials, health care, and such, which puts them at a natural advantage over those with less to spare. Those SAT study courses are pretty pricey, so naturally poor people can't afford them and thus are not as well prepared for the SATs and therefore score lower than those who took prep courses. I believe UC Berkely stopped using the SAT for this very reason.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Nov 21, 2002 5:38 pm 
Offline
Local

Joined: Sat Oct 19, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 458
It depends on the IQ test you're talking about. All of the different tests are scaled differently. You could have been taking one with a std-deriv of 20 as opposed to 15 and had your result thrown off. And don't go by internet tests - the pencil and paper ones administered by actual psychiatrists are much more reliable. Hell, thespark.com said I had an IQ of 180, which is bullshit, considering I've accidentally set my hair on fire twice - once in a cathedral, to boot!

_________________
All power corrupts. Absolute power is even more fun!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Nov 21, 2002 8:56 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 26, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3236
Location: Allentown, PA
::Gives veri a high-five::

You're a CTYer too? Cool.

So, you're a nevermore, right? Too bad . . .

Nice to know my g/f and I aren;t the only ones . . .

And I'd agree with you on the SAT thing, if I hadn't gotten a higher IQ rating than an SAT score . . .


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Nov 21, 2002 10:15 pm 
Offline
Local

Joined: Sat Oct 19, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 458
Practically everyone in my town qualified for CTY, and an amazing number of people went. My lab group in Physics has FOUR CTYers (out of a total of 5 people in the group). That's pretty sick for a public high school, don't you think?)

There were ten of us at the Lancaster site in 2000 I think. It was pretty damn spiffy - but I actually found the work easier there than the work I did in my regular classes. Even though I finished Algebra-1 in baby-CTY and Algebra-2 when I was going into my freshman year (both times in under 3 weeks, too - got 90's on the Finals), my damn school mainstreamed me. I'd be done with our school's math courses by now had they been taken into account, but I'm only in first year calculus now - which really sucks. The one major complaint about CTY I had was that it BANNED VIDEO GAMES FOR THREE WEEKS. I swear, every time I went I had the shakes by the end...

(For everyone else in the forum who doesn't know what the hell Kitsune and I are talking about, CTY's a program run by Johns Hopkins that offers classes over the summer to kids who do well on the SAT and other equivalent tests, when you're at a very young age. It attracts some really, really bright kids - I met a 12-year old College Sophomore at CTY, and my roommate could solve randomly scrambled Rubix Cubes in under ten minutes)

_________________
All power corrupts. Absolute power is even more fun!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Nov 21, 2002 11:02 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 1558
Location: Santa Cruz
Ten minutes? An old friend of mine can do it in under two.

There's several tricks to it, or so I'm told. Never learned any of them myself, though.

P-M

-><-

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Pyromancer on 2002-11-22 16:19 ]</font>


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Nov 22, 2002 12:09 pm 
Offline
Local

Joined: Wed May 15, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 210
Quote:
On 2002-11-21 16:38, veritron wrote:
It depends on the IQ test you're talking about. All of the different tests are scaled differently. You could have been taking one with a std-deriv of 20 as opposed to 15 and had your result thrown off.


This is true, but as I said before I don't see how the SAT could possibly measure IQ when it only asks knowledge questions. But that doesn't matter. Let's assume that the SATs do in fact measure IQ. SAT prep courses completely remove the test's ability to accurately measure anything.

That CTY program sounds like something in which I'd rather not participate. No video games? Even child geniuses need to unwind sometimes.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Nov 22, 2002 1:10 pm 
Offline
PostWhorePornStar
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 13, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 10547
Location: Bris-Vegas Australia
At the school that my mum used to teach at this mother wanted her child to collect a disability pension for mental problems so she got him to take an IQ test.
He 'passed' that is to say they did not find him unintellegent enough to get a pension.
The school was in a pretty crappy area (Oxley State School for anyone from Brisbane, its where they sent people expelled from the even worse schools) most of the students were perfectly normal it was the parents that were insane, anyway this mother gets it into her head that her son was lucky(or unlucky if you will) so she got him to take another test, and another and antoher.
By the end of them (I think the kid took the test about 6 times) he was registered with an IQ of about 135.
I think she was the only parent in history to be angry that her child passed a test.

What does this have to do with anything?
Nothing, its just a funny story.

In all seriousness I've only taken one IQ test and that was to piss off a scientologist. She claimed I was a genius, I asked her if she knew what Bukkake was.

Personally I went to a private school, it was the cheapest of the GPS school in my city that guys could go to and we had a really high OP score(1-25, 1 begin the best, 25 the worst) on average and about 80% of us were in the top 8 marks(1-8) in schools with less funding, people who I know are smarter than me got really low marks, its not fair I guess, however now we are in university most of the people from my school are dropping back and slowing down, the others have sped up and are applying themselves.
While they didn't have the breaks that we did they have not taken what they got as a given and are putting in an effort.
So I ahve to agree with KC there, more money means you don't have to work as hard, but it also means you don't always get the drive to succeed.

Actor.

_________________
"Are you implying that Satan runs Blizzard? And why aren't there any plans for a Starcraft 2?
"Your first question answered your second."

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: actor_au on 2002-11-22 12:30 ]</font>


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Nov 22, 2002 5:12 pm 
Offline
Local

Joined: Sat Oct 19, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 458
I think the SAT is a better baseline than the IQ tests if only because it's standardized - no one remembers the name of the test they took so it's useless for comparison purposes, because there are SO MANY that claim to measure your IQ on the same scale.

And solving Rubix cubes in under two minutes consistently is amazing, considering that the world record (in competition) for solving a scrambled Rubix Cube is something like 1 minute 20 seconds...) :wink:

_________________
All power corrupts. Absolute power is even more fun!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Nov 22, 2002 5:21 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 1558
Location: Santa Cruz
The degree of scrambling is probably an issue; I doubt bored high school kids' standards for randomness are nearly as high as those used when attempting to set a new record.

P-M

-><-


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Dec 19, 2002 5:58 am 
Offline
Expatriate

Joined: Wed Aug 28, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 82
Location: Ft Polk, LA
Quote:
On 2002-11-19 21:12, Kills Commies wrote:
There you have it. Rich children have proportionately less problems than lower and middle class children. The money factor is also a big thing- I doubt you'd see a 15 year old book in there, which was the NORM in my school.


Post hoc ergo propter hoc. It's equally likely that smart people live together and make more money.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Dec 23, 2002 10:19 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 15, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 1771
Location: The butt of the joke Powers:Levitation, yeah.
(pro hoc, ergo propter hoc) but who really spends any time on latin quotes anymore...

I'm in an 'enriched' class, and we have a range of economical backgrounds, from wellfare co-op dwellers, to mid-class people such as myself, to upper-class shirnk spawn such as my best friend. I dislike this 'multiple intelegence' junk... simply because the tests I took for it, were deseigned to make everyone score about equally, and therefore cannot be used for peeing contests. However, multiple intelegence is a good concept, classical knowledge, there is little doubt, money makes a huge difference. Knowledge of the classics, literature, art, these things are all tought, I score highly on anything like that, because my intrest of it was nurtured by my parents, who could afford to have knowledge of it themselves. However, spatial co-ordination IS inate, some people are born with it, some arn't. Take for instance the ability to code. A (lower-class) friend of mine is a natural born coder, far surpassing me, he just sees code. If I have enough sugar, and mood music, I can zonk into code mode.. but that is alot of guess and check. My shirnk-spawn friend cannot code for the life of him, he just doesn't see things in code. No matter how much time any of us spends on it, these things will always be true. So the moral of my post is:

Classical intelegence, (Id Est: Knowledge of art, apreciation of literature, history, mythology) all come from social upbringing. Rich families often educate their children in these things, as do middle class families. Lowwer class families often do not. Since our class structure IS fairly rigid, this information is seldom passed between the two.

Abstract Intelegence: E.G. Affinities for math, engineering, etc.
Are all inborn, or conditioned from a young age regardless of social status.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Dec 28, 2002 9:00 pm 
Offline
Tourist

Joined: Wed Nov 20, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 31
Location: Evansville, IN
I would like to also comment that the "proper" way to administer an IQ test is given mostly verbally on a one-to-one basis and involves little to no fill-in-the-bubble factual regurgitation. I know this because I was accurately tested when I was in first grade for some reason or another (probably had something to do with putting me in a gifted class) and the results were considered 100% acceptable when I submitted them to another source perhaps three years ago. Given that I am currently on my third year of a college education, that's quite a while for a test score to remain "fresh."

Synopsis: if it's not testing how smart you are, but what you know, it's not an accurate test. This is my opinion.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 16 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group