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.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: cnyndwllr who wrote (193885)	1/23/2007 6:15:31 PM
From: SirWalterRalegh	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793964

Disclaimer, I think my IQ is in the low 70s so you might not want to put much stock in this post. Ed Agreed

To: cnyndwllr who wrote (193885)	1/23/2007 6:29:40 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793964

Ed, your 70 IQ has obviously led you astray. Google has no IQ but is super fantastic at learning, remembering and recall. Hooked up to my brain, which is supersonic fantastic at thinking but is dumb as a post for remembering [compared with Google anyway], we could blow through school and most of university in a blink. You are quite right though that brains do more than just passing exams. There are dyxlexic people who do really well at things intellectual. Yes, school is not representative of real life, but it's quite good at getting production line cannon fodder lined up. Yes, learning and thinking are quite different, but thinking can't be done in the absence of information. Lots can be deduced. For example, I found one could fail to learn a lot of stuff, but start from first principles of F = ma and the like and invent stuff during the exam and fill in substantial gaps in knowledge. Inference and deduction work wonders. But information is still needed. <IQ has been shown to measure one's ability to learn very well but the correlation between learning well and thinking well is not clear.> I think it's the opposite. High IQ measures thinking better than learning. Otherwise, Google would be considered highly intelligent. The main point is that education is a vast waste of lives and money during the development phase of children when it's too late to recover from the damage done. Fortunately, during the most important years, school is relatively brief - only 5 hours a day of actual classroom time, leaving 19 other hours for playing and sleeping. <How many times have you found that the person who was first in the class was as dumb as a post when it came to actually finding a solution to a real problem?> I can't recall that at all. I don't think it's true. I'm sure you don't really think that if you just study a lot, you can boost your IQ towards 100. 70 is pretty low. You probably wouldn't make it to 85. There was a boy [at school with me] in the 5th form [about age 16] Noel Orams [who I haven't seen since then] and he sat school certificate THREE times in three successive years. I felt sorry for him. He worked hard but simply couldn't do it. It was cruel to torture him at school, year after year, when he wasn't going to succeed anyway. He should have quit school at age 15 [the earliest it was possible to leave, which itself is stupid] and got some job where he could learn alongside somebody doing something useful, acting as helper. The point about IQ and g measuring is that it's trying to determine really important stuff. Of course it would be better to have better measuring methods. Maybe you are low enough in IQ to figure something out for us all. Nobody seems to have really nailed it yet. You should take an IQ test. You might find you are only at 60 and the perfect candidate to create a perfect test of creative intelligence [or whatever we call it]. As a guess, I think the test would need to include a non-conforming eccentricity component, which by itself would indicate nothing more than a weirdo, who should be caged, but in conjunction with other attributes is an essential ingredient of the right stuff. Don't be confused by a bit of superficial oddball clothing and tattoos [which can indicate conformity more than a straight-laced suit wearer]. Eccentricity/non-conforming is NOT necessarily worn on the sleeve. It can be well-concealed and very conformist clothing used as a disguise. An example of using conformist clothing and normality in general is hideously insanely eccentric serial murderers who seem so normal to people. There's a Nobel Prize waiting for you if you can crack it. Not to mention a vastly well-paid employment agency business. Keep your testing methods secret and offer a double your money back guarantee to employers with huge stock option profits to the employees who produce the goods. Mqurice