Tweet
I was definitely an outlier in the study. Also they kept drug testing me and I'd somehow "pass".
-
John Brown did nothing wrong. -
Did he sell blood on the side too.
Always a good moneymaker when in college.
It's almost as if all his overconfident, absolutist assertions were spoonfed to him by a trusted website or subreddit. Sheeple
RIP Tony Bogey & Baron OComment
-
I donate blood for free, rah. Or rather, I get paid in cookies and juice.
John Brown did nothing wrong.Comment
-
Back in the 70's we used to do it for a few bucks and would then quickly buy a few beers and get a real cheap drunk.
It's almost as if all his overconfident, absolutist assertions were spoonfed to him by a trusted website or subreddit. Sheeple
RIP Tony Bogey & Baron OComment
-
The 70s were awesome. In the 00s we'd just sit in front of the computer posting on this silly forum called "Apolyton."John Brown did nothing wrong.Comment
-
Actually being a student vs having to work to support a family.............
The choice is easy.
It's almost as if all his overconfident, absolutist assertions were spoonfed to him by a trusted website or subreddit. Sheeple
RIP Tony Bogey & Baron OComment
-
Which demonstrates that you've not made very good choices and high IQ doesn't correlate with doing so.
Click here if you're having trouble sleeping.
"We confess our little faults to persuade people that we have no large ones." - François de La RochefoucauldComment
-
-
The hypothetical "general intelligence".Comment
-
Really.
I've never heard this.Comment
-
Never done a proper IQ test, but I have done other psychometric tests for my employers, like Watson-Glaser tests.One day Canada will rule the world, and then we'll all be sorry.Comment
-
Yeah, I googled it after your last post to see if you were bluffingOriginally posted by Kuciwalker View Post
I had never heard of "g" or even of "general intelligence" in this context.Comment
-
Asher's comments in #130 and #131 give examples of what I meant by multi-dimensional.
Some people may be adept at manipulating certain symbol-systems (eg: maths, languages) but fail at executing the simple, logical steps to diagnose the fault in other systems (logical, mechanical). Some people are very competent technicians or programmers but struggle to assemble a coherent sentence. Others are accomplished at grasping and wielding power to put themselves in positions of high income and authority but are completely ****ing clueless as to what is actually going on in the empire beneath them and make desperately stupid decisions.
When I was a kid I found an old book of IQ tests, probably from the 60's if not earlier. As I did a few, I got better at them, as I learned the kind of patterns that the puzzle-setters were using. I wasn't getting more intelligent, I was just getting used to what they were looking for. They're like cryptic crosswords. Yes, you need a certain type of intelligence to be any good at spotting the patterns, but no way did they cover all the things the brain is capable of doing well or badly.Comment
-
Contrary to what you wrote CH, performance in one field that requires intelligence seems to be related to performance in other fields requiring intelligence. That is, those that are good at making coherent sentences are usually good at math, or at least they don't absolutely suck at math. This is what is meant by the concept of "g" or general intelligence.
I think that the ideas of "multiple intelligences" and such are just teachers' tools to make kids feel good. When I was in school those that were good students were good or at least tolerable in pretty much everything. Those that were bad students were usually bad across the board. However, you don't just teach kids the syllabus, you also teach them how to live with each other.
One thing is true, though. There definitely seems to be a trade-off between intelligence and social skills. The phenomenon is easily explained.Comment
Comment