Conclusions and Inquiries

[SEVERUSMAX]

Well, in order to think clearly, one must BELIEVE in at least one thing: the scientific method. Reject that, and all reason is out the window. Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater, amicus, at the risk of quoting an old saying.

 

[AppleBiter]

Actually, the average IQ is 100.

The average IQ is by definition 100; scores above 100 indicate a higher than average IQ and scores below 100 indicate a lower that [sic] average IQ. Theoretically, scores can range any amount below or above 100, but in practice they do not meaningfully go much below 50 or above 150.

[. . .] Half of the population have IQ’s of between 90 and 110, while 25% have higher IQ’s and 25% have lower IQ’s:


Descriptive Classifications of Intelligence Quotients

IQ Description % of Population
130+ Very superior 2.2%
120-129 Superior 6.7%
110-119 High average 16.1%
90-109 Average 50%
80-89 Low average 16.1%
70-79 Borderline 6.7%
Below 70 Extremely low 2.2%

 

[FallingToFly]

Amicus:

I actually understood that. I disagree, but I did understand that whole damn essay.

You remind me of someone from MSN... *smiles* But that's probably just a coincidence.

 

[BlackShanglan]

Now, now, my darling ones and best beloveds. There's no need for offense. Surely this is merely Amicus showing us that he has got a sense of humor after all. Look at the date posted - April the the first.

I mean, surely it must be a joke. Otherwise he couldn't possibly have included these phrases:

Average IQ is about 115 ...

Below the average IQ, 115 and under, is not educable in the broad sense ...

After all, even a tiny amount of research will reveal, as Applebiter notes, that the range defined as central "average" is generally 90-110, and pressing a little further will reveal that "normal" is commonly taken to include the ranges from 80 to 130.

Obviously, no one of the slightest sense would begin a serious argument on the nature of reason, intelligence, and social duty with an assumption so hastily made and so shoddily researched as to be utterly laughable. Amicus must simply have wished to amuse us by heartily embodying the spirit of April Fools' Day.

Shanglan

 

[elsol]

Obviously, no one of the slightest sense would begin a serious argument on the nature of reason, intelligence, and social duty with an assumption so hastily made and so shoddily researched as to be utterly laughable. Amicus must simply have wished to amuse us by heartily embodying the spirit of April Fools' Day.

Shanglan

Amicus... not be rigorous in his research before espousing relativisitic opinion as absolute logical truth.

Say it isn't so...

THE INHUMANITY!!!

Sincerely,
ElSol

 

[JamesSD]

Below the average IQ, 115 and under, is not educable in the broad sense, University and all that, you know; the finer things of life.

I project that about ten percent, one in ten, of the females, are capable of rational thought. Problems there? (I may be generous with ten percent)

Of the males, I suggest that perhaps twenty percent are capable of rational thought, merely from biological considerations, hysteria and all that…(I may be benerous there, also.)

Writing off the 30th-50th percentile is faulty logic. Intelligence is one predictor of academic success. Work ethic is another. To say that anyone below IQ 115 is not educable is a flawed statement. Admittedly there's a point it becomes much more difficult (my friend's mentally handicapped sister, for example, will not be attending college).

"Capable of rational thought"? I'm curious what you mean there. I feel almost everyone is capable of rational thought. The amount of effort it takes on their part and how often they choose to do so naturally varies. But this is not a yes/no proposition.

There has been "IQ creep" in the past 50-odd years, so that average is no longer 100. As a whole, people have just gotten better at IQ tests. One possible cause (assuming we haven't just gotten smarter, gosh darn it) are more exposure to standardized testing and logic puzzle type questions as children.

 

[BlackShanglan]

There has been "IQ creep" in the past 50-odd years, so that average is no longer 100. As a whole, people have just gotten better at IQ tests. One possible cause (assuming we haven't just gotten smarter, gosh darn it) are more exposure to standardized testing and logic puzzle type questions as children.

That IQ's do not, as a whole, always perfectly fit the "100-as-average" theory may also be a sign of changes in testing procedures. Some of the earliest IQ tests were poorly constructed and heavily culturally biased. It may also challenge the theory of the bell-shaped curve as applied to intelligence. Some influences upon the development of individual intelligence, notably prenatal and neonatal nutrition, socialization, and intellectual stimulation are understood much more clearly now. There's a real possibility that more people are fulfilling their intellectual potential to a higher degree.

That said, there are two ways to approach intelligence testing. One is to assume that it is or should be a static measure of intellectual level; a person with an IQ of 100 is defined as a person capable of specific tasks. The other is to regard it as a relative measure of functionality within the bell-shaped curve. Under that model, a person of 100 IQ is by definition average, regardless of what the parameters of "average" are that year. Tests constructed under that model norm themselves in reference to performance rather than specific tasks or levels of intellect; 100 IQ is defined as the center of the bell-shaped curve across all known samples.

At any rate, the 100-is-average theory is constructed within the broader parameter of an 80-to-130-is-"normal" assumption - i.e. 80-130 represents a range of intelligence capable of functioning in modern society. As you point out, dropping out the 30th to 50th percentiles is a flawed assumption from the start.

Shanglan

 

[Colleen Thomas]

That IQ's do not, as a whole, always perfectly fit the "100-as-average" theory may also be a sign of changes in testing procedures. Some of the earliest IQ tests were poorly constructed and heavily culturally biased. It may also challenge the theory of the bell-shaped curve as applied to intelligence. Some influences upon the development of individual intelligence, notably prenatal and neonatal nutrition, socialization, and intellectual stimulation are understood much more clearly now. There's a real possibility that more people are fulfilling their intellectual potential to a higher degree.

That said, there are two ways to approach intelligence testing. One is to assume that it is or should be a static measure of intellectual level; a person with an IQ of 100 is defined as a person capable of specific tasks. The other is to regard it as a relative measure of functionality within the bell-shaped curve. Under that model, a person of 100 IQ is by definition average, regardless of what the parameters of "average" are that year. Tests constructed under that model norm themselves in reference to performance rather than specific tasks or levels of intellect; 100 IQ is defined as the center of the bell-shaped curve across all known samples.

At any rate, the 100-is-average theory is constructed within the broader parameter of an 80-to-130-is-"normal" assumption - i.e. 80-130 represents a range of intelligence capable of functioning in modern society. As you point out, dropping out the 30th to 50th percentiles is a flawed assumption from the start.

Shanglan

Intelligence tests also suffer from an inability to test for specific apptitudes and just plain ole, pardon the Phrase, Horse sense

I have a cousin who scores, almost rediculously low on IQ tests. Yet he can tear an engine down blindfolded, rebuild it and do it all without ever consulting a book or diagnostic machine. He can generally tell what's wrong simply by sound. He lives a good life, hunts and fishes, has a darling daughter and a lovely wife. His salary is comperable to his brother's who has a law degree. His IQ test scores are completly unrelated to his ability to support himself and his family. Or to his horse sense, as he's an extremely practical guy.

Similarly, I know a lot of book smart girls who I went to school with who are helpless. They can't even balance their checkbooks, but they have "high" Iqs. they routinely make the most inanely stupid decision in their lives. Wisdom isn't measureable on an IQ test either.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

I think the median IQ is by definition 100, right? The convention is to make 100 the figure above which is located one half the population, and below which is the other half, unrelated to any external benchmark. If I have that right, then the average IQ could easily be above 100, skewed upwards by the fact that there is (theoretically) no upper limit on the high end, while the lowest one can go on the bottom is zero (probably a lot higher, actually).

Wikipedia shows 50% of the American population between 90 and 110, 20% between 110 and 125, 20% between 75 and 90, and five percent each above 125 and below 75.

I think it is always very dicey to associate intelligence with political ideology or party. Liberals and conservatives both play that game sometimes, and always end up looking silly when they do.

 

[Selena_Kitt]

Amicus is back?



At a party, Albert Einstein introduces himself to the first person he sees and immediately asks, "What is your IQ?"

"241," the woman replies.

"Wonderful!" Albert says. "We will talk about the Grand Unification Theory and the mysteries of the universe. We will have much to discuss!"

Albert then introduces himself to a man nearby, asking, "And what is your IQ?"

The man answers, "144."

"Great!" says Albert. "We can discuss politics and current affairs. We will have much to discuss!"

Moving around the room, Albert pulls aside another man and asks, "What is your IQ?" to which the man answers, "51."

Albert lets go of his arm and takes his hand to shake it, saying, "Hello Mr. President!"

 

[amicus]

gauchecritic]Amico, it seems to me that you are attempting to apply a religious conotation of the word (belief) upon every day living. This isn't possible.

Even though you refuse to give them the title, you do indeed have a great many beliefs. Observation of consistant phenoma do not in themselves constitute factual verifiable evidence. Ipso facto, you believe that the sun will rise tomorrow.

You express quite often that you believe anarchy is (the most) viable form of society without any evidence whatsoever, empirical, verifiable or undisputable.

And you also believe (as per your first) that only right thinking people are capable of running the world. As is often the case you build in a denial of your arguement in your own convolution, implied in the recognition of the aberrations of narcissistic behavior, psychotic self involvement, about gender equal I propose. < > also the fixations on addictions, drug and sexual and of course the usual one to three percent of the criminally inclined to whom ethics and morality do not exist… In effect saying that those who do rule inevitably include some or all of that group.
Perhaps not nailed but surely pinned by the shoulders onto the green baize where you can wriggle to your hearts content.

[/I]

~~~~~~~~~~~

Hello Gauche...


Just because you say the words or postulate that one 'must' believe in something, does not make it so.

So, neither nailed or pinned, you just avoided the assertion as usual.

Can you not even imagine an individual who has exorcised every 'belief' from his mind and permits only rational, objectifiable and provable theorems to exist?

It is not a matter of 'belief' to comprehend solar physics and 'know' why the sun appears to rise each day.

Not only have I never expressed that 'anarchy' is the preferred form of goverment, I never presented any facet of any argument as a 'belief', but rather as a conclusion of rational conceptual formulation.

"...]…[/i] In effect saying that those who do rule inevitably include some or all of that group.[/B]..."

No, that does not follow, I meant to exclude that percentage from those who could function and I think I never included the concept 'rule' in my original post.

Thus in your headlong rush to challenge and disagree, you got it all wrong.

amicus....

 

[amicus]

Roxanne, SelenaKittyn...

I purposely couched my post in ambiguous terms as I do not fully accept either the impact or the validity of the Stanford-Binet definition on Intelligence Quotient as a workable theory.

However, one can use at least some means of measuring potential intellectual ability and it serves that purpose.

I also think the percentage of very high test scores, 150 and above, are somewhat tilted to the feminine side, if memory serves, e.g. more smarter women than men as a general rule.

So it was not and is not 'IQ' in general that I presented as an issue, merely how it appears to me that the important tasks of moving the cutting edge of knowledge forward has always rested in the minds of the few, not the many.

I am following th ongoing discussion between Colleen Thomas and Roxanne Appleby concerning the economic ideas of 'Murray' and something similar crossed my mind.

Two individuals, both very bright, mired and confined in a discussion of practicalities with very few if any references to the underlying human nature that colors all things.

Like Colleen's distrust of the basic nature of the individual and Roxanne's almost tabula rasa approach.

In other words, the ability to rise above the fray and with a clear and unbiased vision, approach the perceived problem.

It just seems that so few can do that and many will assert it is impossible to be fully objective and detached.


amicus....

 

[gauchecritic]

~~~~~~~~~~~

Hello Gauche...

Can you not even imagine an individual who has exorcised every 'belief' from his mind and permits only rational, objectifiable and provable theorems to exist?

It is not a matter of 'belief' to comprehend solar physics and 'know' why the sun appears to rise each day.

...and as in the best tradition of pantomime the audience joins in with "Oh no it isn't."

Not only have I never expressed that 'anarchy' is the preferred form of goverment, I never presented any facet of any argument as a 'belief', but rather as a conclusion of rational conceptual formulation.

In everything but name.
And equally there are others that espouse from an equally idealistic and unquestionable logic that the opposite is true.

(psst Ami, I avoided the use of the word government in the same sentence as anarchy because [as you know] anarchy means 'without government')

…[/i] In effect saying that those who do rule inevitably include some or all of that group.[/B]..."

No, that does not follow, I meant to exclude that percentage from those who could function and I think I never included the concept 'rule' in my original post.

Rule, drive forward, hold the power, own the money, whatever you wish.

Thus in your headlong rush to challenge and disagree, you got it all wrong.

amicus....

Not wrong exactly, and hardly ever in a rush, merely opposite a postulate. a proofing tool if you will. What is theory without proof?

(probably wrong again because I am bereft of clear thinking rather than opposite thinking)

 

[Selena_Kitt]

In other words, the ability to rise above the fray and with a clear and unbiased vision, approach the perceived problem.

please deliver me from such an approach... I've been ground to bits underneath the "clear and unbiased" wheels of that vision, and don't care to get under them again if I can avoid it...

I would rather live in a society where those around me were able to feel hearts and act from love...

it isn't rational discourse or intelligence that moves the world, Ami... the few or the many... that is perhaps where I find fault with all of your arguments most poignantly.

 

[gauchecritic]

Not only have I never expressed that 'anarchy' is the preferred form of goverment, .

From the 'Welfare State' thread:

There is only one system, only one approach that offers both success and dignity and that is freedom. Freedom to work, freedom to earn, freedom to spend or invest, free from coersion, free from taxation, free from control and regulation.

amicus...

My bold, your words.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

please deliver me from such an approach... I've been ground to bits underneath the "clear and unbiased" wheels of that vision, and don't care to get under them again if I can avoid it...

I would rather live in a society where those around me were able to feel hearts and act from love...

it isn't rational discourse or intelligence that moves the world, Ami... the few or the many... that is perhaps where I find fault with all of your arguments most poignantly.

The problem with government by feeling is best demonstrated by ancient Athens: ostracism and execution of political dissent. Not all emotionalism is good. Mass hysteria can lead to statesmen being exiled and alienated, and philosophers forced to drink hemlock.

 

[amicus]

[QUOTE=SelenaKittyn]please deliver me from such an approach... I've been ground to bits underneath the "clear and unbiased" wheels of that vision, and don't care to get under them again if I can avoid it...

I would rather live in a society where those around me were able to feel hearts and act from love...

it isn't rational discourse or intelligence that moves the world, Ami... the few or the many... that is perhaps where I find fault with all of your arguments most poignantly.[/QUOTE]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Rather a stark and telling admission, Selena, I wonder if you really mean it?

I do not doubt, not in the least, the efficacy of reason and rationality as 'the' moving force in the world. But saying that, I do not discount the necessity of 'hearts and love', that you reference.

The animal world functions from instinct, (as it were) and emotion, animals act in their own self interest to survive and procreate. Homo Sapiens, 'the rational animal', slip into another category, we have the ability to 'choose' by exercising free will, our course in life.

It is that 'choice' made with focused objectivity, that determines the success or failure of any given course of action.

Again, I do not discount the 'heart and love' portion of humanity; I do however consider it the 'feminine' side and while I embrace it, I do not encompass it.

I rather suspect that both are necessary, not just in personal relationships, but in the give and take, ebb and flow of human events.

amicus...

 

[amicus]

"...Originally Posted by amico
Not only have I never expressed that 'anarchy' is the preferred form of goverment, .



From the 'Welfare State' thread:
Quote:
There is only one system, only one approach that offers both success and dignity and that is freedom. Freedom to work, freedom to earn, freedom to spend or invest, free from coersion, free from taxation, free from control and regulation.

amicus...
My bold, your words....."

Ah, okay, I understand. I have said so many times in other threads that I consider the Constitutional authority to tax for Military, Courts and Police protection, to be legitimate functions of government. I just assumed you would take that into consideration when I wrote the 'free from taxation' bit...

Human rights are not granted by government, but protected by government and for that one needs protectors and you do have to pay them.

amicus...

 

[FallingToFly]

"Things you do, come back to you, as if they knew the way."

That's from your sigline, Amicus. (you already knew that, but I enjoy pointing out the obvious.) And maybe I'm just.. naive? But I take that one little statement as a good sign that there's nothing more to your callous and sometimes cruel exterior than what the word implies - a shell.

So, I'm going to give you a big smile and a big hug and tell you somethiing horrible.

I love you, grouchy one.

 

[Selena_Kitt]

Rather a stark and telling admission, Selena, I wonder if you really mean it?

I do... but I have trusted riverbanks in which to flow... I don't need to worry about the rational, most of the time, if I don't want to... it's a gift, and I am deeply grateful for it...

I do have a bias, that there isn't ENOUGH feminine valued in the world, while I know you see it as the opposite... but what you see, I think is not the real feminine, but rather the shell in which she lives... *shrug*

enough cryptic mystery...

And maybe I'm just.. naive? But I take that one little statement as a good sign that there's nothing more to your callous and sometimes cruel exterior than what the word implies - a shell.

*giggle*
Someone found you out, ya ole codger <grin>

 

[amicus]

[QUOTE=FallingToFly]"Things you do, come back to you, as if they knew the way."

That's from your sigline, Amicus. (you already knew that, but I enjoy pointing out the obvious.) And maybe I'm just.. naive? But I take that one little statement as a good sign that there's nothing more to your callous and sometimes cruel exterior than what the word implies - a shell.

So, I'm going to give you a big smile and a big hug and tell you somethiing horrible.

I love you, grouchy one.[/QUOTE]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Egads! I may blush. Welcome to the forum!


amicus...

 

[amicus]

SelenaKittyn]I do... but I have trusted riverbanks in which to flow... I don't need to worry about the rational, most of the time, if I don't want to... it's a gift, and I am deeply grateful for it...

I do have a bias, that there isn't ENOUGH feminine valued in the world, while I know you see it as the opposite... but what you see, I think is not the real feminine, but rather the shell in which she lives... *shrug*

enough cryptic mystery...



*giggle*
Someone found you out, ya ole codger <grin>

[/B]

~~~~~~~~~~~

Sighs....just don't tell anyone that I choke up at sappy Hallmark movies too, I could never live that down.

amicus...

 

[FallingToFly]

[/B]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Egads! I may blush. Welcome to the forum!


amicus...

No blushing. *grins* And thank you.