Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Gold and Silver Juniors, Mid-tiers and Producers -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LoneClone who wrote (7182)	2/26/2006 6:56:29 PM
From: E. Charters	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 78412

Well my IQ was 17 in fact, but I did brain-strengthening exercises, (squinting real hard, furrowing brow til sweat ran off eyebrows, clasping pencil tightly, wearing thick glasses, trying to read without moving lips or pointing with finger, use of a pocket protector, counting without fingers ...) and in a matter of only ten years I was able to raise my IQ to 35!! I can spel gud cause I use a spelling and grammar checkar, which you have to admit is a reel smart thing to due. There are apparently 128 known human abilities that reflect to analytical cognition. IQ test examine three in depth that early studies showed correlated with the other 125. These 128 however do not include the known abilities that relate to art, music and athletics and they only poorly correlate with the logic ability such as is needed to program computers, and certain kinds of pattern association. Whereas mere movement may not seem to relate to what we think of as intelligence, it is obvious it requires some brain process that is facile and forward looking. Artistic ability, which is very heuristic, defies testing except in a practical sense, while music correlates to certain mathematical ability. Visual spatial organizational intelligence and pattern recognition is not always tested on conventional verbal intelligence tests. Indeed the necessity of symbol recognition and verbal skills is an overlooked handicap of the Stanford Binet and Wexler Bellevue standard tests. Series inferential ability is a form of pattern recognition in numerics and is stressed in British tests, as well as is form and pattern fit tests, but series inference is a mathematical fallacy and counter logical! It is analytical but only weakly so. In fact the ability to form analytical systems is only weakly tested by standard tests! The Stanford Binet was fallacious in logic and mathematics for over 40 years. Pascal could have proved this but he predated the psyche tests by 200 years. If you test an Eskimo with a Stanford Binet test they will perform so poorly on average that in fact they appear mildly retarded. But if you test them with a non-symbol, associative pattern test, they appear to be near genius in capability. Blacks also because of very differently symmetrical structured brains will tend to the more logical abilities than the verbal-symbol-structure associated ones. Women also have symmetrical brains and their abilities are very differently distributed. Some human abilities may be NP complex in their structure, and we may not be able to design tests which correlate the ability very well by analytical means. Indeed the very fact that they are not analytic or can easily reduce to systemization-algorithmicity may defy the test process except by a broader standard that encompasses the real world. There is no analytic algorithm for chess, game theory notwithstanding. Marylin Vos Savant's ability to see the Monty Hall problem probability solution clearly is strategic ability which combines heuristics with analysis. It is counterintuitive that the chance once the first is already picked and unkown, and the second is picked as known, is in fact a 2/3s chance to the not picked, rather than 50-50. Good mathematicians were only able to see she was right once they simulated the problem. math.ucsd.edu BTW, Marylin Vos Savant is very good looking and brilliant. That is not fair. EC<:-}

To: LoneClone who wrote (7182)	2/26/2006 9:02:59 PM
From: LLCF	Respond to of 78412

<And no, I'm not boasting, because based on my research and experience my judgment is that what IQ tests measure best is how well you do on IQ tests. > Yea, I thought it was pretty well established you CAN study (prepare) for an IQ test as well as all those other entrance exams. It's interesting that various measures of the left brain (intellect) are sliced and diced and revered... but the right brain seems to hold no such interest.... although there was a pretty good book out not long ago talking about "EQ". dAK