• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Skepticism and IQ

calebprime said:
D'oh!

Guess I tend to think a little too rigidly -- I'm suspect you're right, but...but...

Something in me just balks or shuts down, because, for example, so much is suggested by "pundit" : "wordplay" -- which seems like a much more complicated relationship than "censor" : "censorship".

Explain further if you feel inclined, Casebro.

You're probably right but I still don't get those.

A pundit, being a (presumably serious) authority or scholar, wouldn't be indulging in wordplay unless...unless what?
Click to expand...

My logic:
wordplay is the result, pundit is the one who does it. censorship is the result, who would do it but a censor?

Isn't glossolalia verbal diarhea? word salad? caused by the tongue? so I don't really know what repitition causes, ditto was wise a ass comment on my part.

Hair grows from a capillary doesn't it? Not wait, girl was wrong. A capillary supplies the hair via the follicle. So what supplies a female servant? the cook?

But you may be overanalyzing, or I may be underanalyzing, and we don't' know what HE thinks is correct.

Though I think IQ is a measure of thinking ability, not knowledge. Maybe they are using vocabulary size as a proxy? "Smart" people have larger vocabularies, so successfully deciphering seldom used words must mean the subject is smarter?

But I didn't take this test.
 
calebprime said:
I tried the verbal analogies.

Here are a few that I don't understand.

Anybody?

tongues : glossanolia as repetition : ?

hair : capillary as female servant : ?

wordplay : pundit as censorship : ?
Click to expand...

How about:

Tongues is to glossanolia as repetition is to alalia syllabaris (stuttering).
Hair is to capillary as a female servant is to housekeeping.
Wordplay is to a pundit as censorship is to a censor.
 
Jeff Corey said:
Complexity said:
I suggest you review some of the threads on IQ on this forum.

Many of us question whether a single metric is reflective of intelligence.

Some of us overflow with disdain at the thought.

As for me, I won't encourage this by either taking another IQ test or reporting any scores.
Click to expand...

Just out of curiosity, to whom was this post addressed?
Click to expand...
To all that don't have him on Ignore?
 
one thing, i'm consistant. 3 times in my life i've done various iq tests, 3 times I've gotten the exact same score.

go figure

As to the previous question, I have a friend with a high IQ whom beleives all sort of conspiracy theories (9/11 , NWO etc) as well as lower IQ whom are very skeptical. So although the may be some correlation to skepticism and IQ, I would not hold it as anywhere near definative.
 
Last edited:
akama1 said:
As to the previous question, I have a friend with a high IQ whom beleives all sort of conspiracy theories (9/11 , NWO etc) as well as lower IQ whom are very skeptical. So although the may be some correlation to skepticism and IQ, I would not hold it as anywhere near definative.
Click to expand...
I'd be actually surprised if I learned that there is a strong correlation between intelligence/IQ and skepticism. I was merely testing if there was a weak correlation plus an additional hypothesis I had (I won't share it, though).

Also, I know that IQ isn't the only thing that determines the quality of our thinking. I'm not arguing about what IQ is and what isn't, I was merely curious about the average IQ of the people who report their scores.

Concerning the validity of IQ: it'd be probably better if this remains unresolved. With the average IQ being 100, I'd imagine it would be quite painful for anyone to learn that his IQ is below 115 SD15 (1 out of 6 people gets as high as 115), especially if he knows the full implications of IQ. And especially if he's perfectionist - then, that could make him lose his will to live.
 
Wow that was tedious! 130.

I wonder if your score gets better if you sign up for a membership of the site's club? :D
 
I'd be more inclined to think that there are two more fundamental relationships at play, one in which people with higher intelligence tend to seek more education and one in which people who seek more education tend to be more skeptical. That would need to be demonstrated, of course...
 
I'm not sure IQ has any real meaning beyond a certain point. Sure, you can test specific "types" of intelligence, but I think there is a limit to it's usefulness. Surely 'mood' is going to be a factor? And General Knowledge? That's quite a big umbrella. Einstein was a genius, but how would he do on questions about geography? or biology?

Please, don't misunderstand me, I am not saying that an IQ test is completely pointless, I'm just questioning their validity beyond a certain point, let's say the first SD either way for the sake of argument. That's a range of 85 to 115. If someone is consistently scoring in that range over a number of tests, then it might be reasonable to describe their IQ as average. If someone is scoring higher than 115 consistently then they are above average, but I'm not sure how useful the actual "score" is.

What I'm trying to say is that IQ tests may be statistically valid in "bands" but actual numerical scores may not be meaningful.

Apologies if this is confusing, it's about 4.30 in the morning and I've got a few days off. This equals beer.
 
137. I got bored toward the end. I suspect I could push further in the test if I had the motivation to spend time with the later patterns.
 
arthwollipot said:
I've yet to see any evidence that IQ is a valid or useful measure of anything.
Click to expand...

Any of the correlated predictions thereof which exists up the yin yang are what, freakish coincidences? (the batting-average on its behalf is not to be discarded with the dumb "yeah, nah still don't see it"-remark) Or... maybe it does measure something that is somehow important, at average, in general, as medium?
 
Last edited:
Jono said:
Any of the correlated predictions thereof which exists up the yin yang are what, freakish coincidences? (the batting-average on its behalf is not to be discarded with the dumb "yeah, nah still don't see it"-remark) Or... maybe it does measure something that is somehow important, at average, in general, as medium?
Click to expand...
I'd like to see someone to explain the correlations. But I won't push this, because as I said, they should keep their right to deny IQ, it's perhaps even better that it's not widely accepted.
 
Blackened said:
I'd like to see someone to explain the correlations. But I won't push this, because as I said, they should keep their right to deny IQ, it's perhaps even better that it's not widely accepted.
Click to expand...

The causation is one thing. The fact that it is very easily a predicator of a lot of things in general, "things" that we all here know are important, is another matter (the one I was more specifically referring to). Acting as if it doesn't really indicate anything about anybody is, imo, nothing short of idiocy. Or I might have misunderstood what the previously quoted poster ment.
 
Last edited:
calebprime said:
Gawd, that JCTI was torture. Couldn't even figure out what was being asked some of the time. Never want to do that again!!
Click to expand...
Agree with all three statements. Got bored after almost 50 questions and started clicking random answers. Still managed to score 132 for some reason.
 
I got 121. Not sure if I learned something new, as I already knew I could such a test easily, but that does not make a smart person sadly. *shrug*.
 
I randomly clicked everything and finished this test in like 1 minute.

I got 104

Since this is a skeptical site, I'll provide a pic and link to my latest post showing how little time I spent on this yet I still got an average score.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=231755


Edit:

And now a demonstration of why science demands retests. Maybe I got lucky.

Someone else want to randomly punch in answers and see if they get a higher than average IQ? Would really speak against the validity of this test.
 

Attachments

  • IQWTF.png
    IQWTF.png
    19.3 KB · Views: 2
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom