T.B.D.

[Eodnhoj7]

A "finding" and a "test" can be interpretted as two seperate things.

I think the same principle applies though, something doesn't need to be made or discovered by the most intelligent person in the field for it to be accurate or the best approximation we have. That's an unreasonably high standard.

And yet the "truth" of that discovery is determined by people of "higher intelligence" so that while the discovery may or may not be true, it's truth value is determined by men of intelligence...but the discoveries truth determines whether or not the men are intelligent...it is a circular regress.

In regards to the second point, the IQ test is bullshit...half the people heard me brag about my IQ and I can say from personal experience it is a bullshit number that means nothing.

Oh I'm sure, you brag about everything.

So what exactly is your IQ?

160 range.

[commonsense]

Yet my instructors at military training commands and professors at university said there is no such thing as a stupid question. So I guess you believe yourself more wise than they are? Sorry, but I know they have a point that is so obviously above your head. Try again!

There are no stupid questions—only stupid answers.
But the real question is, "are they really stupid or simply misunderstood? And how would one necessarily know which is in fact the case?"

OK, said the psychologist, now we're getting somewhere, tell me about your childhood...

Yes!

Would you care to expound? Some sort of sarcasm I presume?

Any unintelligent, senseless or irrational statement, when given in response to a question, qualifies as a stupid answer.

[Sir-Sister-of-Suck]

And yet the "truth" of that discovery is determined by people of "higher intelligence" so that while the discovery may or may not be true, it's truth value is determined by men of intelligence.

You haven't shown why that's necessarily true, though.

Even under your standard, being good at 'taking' a test, doesn't mean you're good at 'making' a test. Someone like evangelos katsioulis might be good within the parameters of taking an IQ test, but he doesn't actually have the knowledge or training needed to devise new scientific structures, like something trying to approximate intelligence.

..but the discoveries truth determines whether or not the men are intelligent...it is a circular regress

The one who's giving that criteria, is you; You're the one using circular reasoning, and yet you assert that the IQ test is inaccurate because it involves 'circular reasoning'; This seems to be quite the mess you've devised for yourself.

160 range.

Okay.

So, we have a few different options, here. Online IQ tests tend to be wildly inaccurate to the ones that psychologists and schools actually give you, however there are still a few decent ones readily available to the public. These two give you about 30 minutes to finish - which might sound like a moderate request, however someone in the 'genius' range should be able to finish either test in much less than half that time. If reddit is any constellation, some of the 'verified' genius' over there were apparently able to complete the mensa test in about 3-5 minutes.

http://test.mensa.no/

https://testyourself.psychtests.com/staticid/975

When you're done, take out your 'snipping tool' and go ahead and upload it here onto the site, for us to look over.

[SpheresOfBalance]

There are no stupid questions—only stupid answers.
But the real question is, "are they really stupid or simply misunderstood? And how would one necessarily know which is in fact the case?"



Yes!

Would you care to expound? Some sort of sarcasm I presume?

Any unintelligent, senseless or irrational statement, when given in response to a question, qualifies as a stupid answer.

Again, not if one is too ignorant to understand it's significance. Whether you like it or not, it cuts both ways!

[Eodnhoj7]

And yet the "truth" of that discovery is determined by people of "higher intelligence" so that while the discovery may or may not be true, it's truth value is determined by men of intelligence.

You haven't shown why that's necessarily true, though.

Even under your standard, being good at 'taking' a test, doesn't mean you're good at 'making' a test. Someone like evangelos katsioulis might be good within the parameters of taking an IQ test, but he doesn't actually have the knowledge or training needed to devise new scientific structures, like something trying to approximate intelligence.




1) Those developing the test must understand the nature of intelligence.

2) As part of the that understanding of intelligence, they must themselves be intelligent.

3) The IQ test as a measure of intelligence, from those who claim intelligence (understanding) about intelligence, is an extension of the perceptions of those who claim to know what intelligence is. This nature of intelligence, as an extension of those who believe they are intelligent, effectually is just a set of axioms agreed upon by a group of people with the means of definition acting as the base of intelligence itself considering the test provides definition over the nature of intelligence as a means of intelligence.

4) Point 3 implies, if not necessitates, that intelligence is the observation of definition with this definition being the observation of relations between various variables as evidenced by the questions on the test being variables in themselves.

5) This observation of definition, embodied through the structure of the test itself, is an extension of the test maker's understanding of definition in the respect the test and test-maker's are inherently connected as one is an extension of the other. In these respects the test observes one's ability to observe the relations of certain variables as an act of definition itself which extends to the participants.

6) The test taker's understanding of definition, extends through the test to the participant's, hence what we observe is fundamentally a connection between certain groups in society rather than an observation of intelligence itself.

7) The IQ test's are a form of cultural structuring through established variables, chosen on a system of belief and categorized as true by the preceding arguments on why these variables are true or false. The axioms are determined as true by the degree of definition that extends from them.

..but the discoveries truth determines whether or not the men are intelligent...it is a circular regress

The one who's giving that criteria, is you; You're the one using circular reasoning, and yet you assert that the IQ test is inaccurate because it involves 'circular reasoning'; This seems to be quite the mess you've devised for yourself.

But I did not develop the test...the circular reason applies to the test makers, I am just pointing out that those who test better in the tests are argue better against the test.

160 range.

Okay.

So, we have a few different options, here. Online IQ tests tend to be wildly inaccurate to the ones that psychologists and schools actually give you, however there are still a few decent ones readily available to the public. These two give you about 30 minutes to finish - which might sound like a moderate request, however someone in the 'genius' range should be able to finish either test in much less than half that time. If reddit is any constellation, some of the 'verified' genius' over there were apparently able to complete the mensa test in about 3-5 minutes.

http://test.mensa.no/

https://testyourself.psychtests.com/staticid/975

When you're done, take out your 'snipping tool' and go ahead and upload it here onto the site, for us to look over.

So, I argue that test does not work...and you say I should take the test?

[commonsense]

Would you care to expound? Some sort of sarcasm I presume?

Any unintelligent, senseless or irrational statement, when given in response to a question, qualifies as a stupid answer.

Again, not if one is too ignorant to understand it's significance. Whether you like it or not, it cuts both ways!

Please clarify:
Are you saying that ignorance and lack of intelligence are unrelated?
Are you implying that a statement is not a behavior?
Are you proposing that there are degrees of unintelligence?
Are you positing that what the asker deems to be stupid is something that isn’t stupid at all but just something that the asker doesn’t understand?
Are you alleging that there is no stupid, but rather there is only misunderstanding?

[SpheresOfBalance]

Any unintelligent, senseless or irrational statement, when given in response to a question, qualifies as a stupid answer.

Again, not if one is too ignorant to understand it's significance. Whether you like it or not, it cuts both ways!

Please clarify:
Are you saying that ignorance and lack of intelligence are unrelated?
Not at all! But they are not synonyms! 'Ignorance' is all about ones exposure, where a 'lack of intelligence' is about ones capacity.

Are you implying that a statement is not a behavior?
Not at all! Though I would say that a statement is more of an act than a behavior.

Are you proposing that there are degrees of unintelligence?
Not at all! But I would say that there are degrees of intelligence, most often due to environmental variables (epigenetics) either during gestation, childhood or any stage of life for that matter.

Are you positing that what the asker deems to be stupid is something that isn’t stupid at all but just something that the asker doesn’t understand?
Possibly! It Depends upon any particular situation. But just because one believes something is stupid doesn't necessarily mean that it is, it could be that it's over ones head, which is why they believe it's stupid. And of course they wouldn't know it.

Are you alleging that there is no stupid, but rather there is only misunderstanding?
Not at all! But I think that it's better to use the word ignorant. Because the answer in and of itself does not necessitate either stupidity or ignorance. Even after repeated instance, one could not be sure.

The word stupid is most often used by immature people so as to belittle, especially in a text based forum such as this, while they are hiding behind their keyboard. Idiot and moron, to name but a few, are other such words. While in fact it's simply ignorance (a lack of exposure).

Either way it's not the kind of verbiage that a truly intelligent/secure person would use. It's usually childishly vindictive!

Look, if you don't like peoples responses you can either man up and roll with the punches, ignore them, or place them on your "Foe" list. In the past I've found that it's sometimes hard for me to roll with the punches that, I've known, are common disingenuous ploys. Of course time moves on and hopefully we grow.

[commonsense]

This business has just gotten out of hand! I hold no animus, though I suspect SOB, & not SOS, has some for me.

I think I have lead you to misunderstand what I was saying. Gently, I would suggest you research the denotations of "stupid" and "ignorant" in a dictionary, and their connotations in a thesaurus.

Respectfully, I challenge you to point out anywhere that I have used "stupid" to describe anyone posting on this thread. If there is such an instance, I assure you I had not intended it to be that way, and I would be loathe to make a correction.

"There are no stupid questions" is a catch phrase, to which I added the whimsical commentary, "only stupid answers". If it is offensive to refer to stupidity with regard to questions, then it makes sense to be offended when the same is referenced with regard to answers. Likewise, if one accepts the former as gentile, the latter must also be received in the same vein.



SOS, please accept my deepest apologies for mis-identifying you as the one who seems to have a beef with me over my usage of "stupid".

[Sir-Sister-of-Suck]

1) Those developing the test must understand the nature of intelligence.

2) As part of the that understanding of intelligence, they must themselves be intelligent.

As cute as responding to a criticism of your argument, with an entirely new argument that makes even less sense, is - it still doesn't warrant the objection that those who invented the IQ test needed to have the highest IQs, themselves. Again, this isn't a standard which we seem to apply anywhere else in science, at least you haven't shown me that we do.

Regardless, you still miss my point that there is a difference between 'making' a test, and 'taking' a test. Having a high IQ might mean you're good at taking the test, but it's a skill with little to do with those that invented the IQ test as an approximation of our intelligence. Teachers don't need to know all the answers on a biology test, in order to give out a test that is a good approximation of your knowledge on a subject in biology. In fact, there are plenty of students smarter than their own teacher. I mean, they do have to have some way of figuring out the answers, but a teacher's own inability doesn't invalidate basic facts which can be backed up with outside sources.

But I did not develop the test

No, but you developed this autistic idea that the 'truth to the IQ test needs to be back up by a person "of a higher intelligence," but that the IQ test is what determines this relevant intelligence.' You complain about the issue of a standard, which you have invented; You're specifically phrasing it in a way that makes it circular.

So, I argue that test does not work...and you say I should take the test?

Well, you bragged about your obviously made-up IQ, and then used that as a way to strengthen your position that the IQ test is 'bullshit.' So no, I don't think it's out of the question to ask for some form of hard evidence to back up a claim you used to catapult your position, in the first place.

Plus, you've given a similar 'challenge' to me in the past, so I figured this was right in line with your MO.

[Eodnhoj7]

1) Those developing the test must understand the nature of intelligence.

2) As part of the that understanding of intelligence, they must themselves be intelligent.

As cute as responding to a criticism of your argument, with an entirely new argument that makes even less sense, is - it still doesn't warrant the objection that those who invented the IQ test needed to have the highest IQs, themselves. Again, this isn't a standard which we seem to apply anywhere else in science, at least you haven't shown me that we do.


Actually the discoveries are verified by those of a greater intelligence in science. However the correlation you make is false considering the test is not a scientific discovery but rather a system of testing.

Regardless, you still miss my point that there is a difference between 'making' a test, and 'taking' a test. Having a high IQ might mean you're good at taking the test, but it's a skill with little to do with those that invented the IQ test as an approximation of our intelligence. Teachers don't need to know all the answers on a biology test, in order to give out a test that is a good approximation of your knowledge on a subject in biology. In fact, there are plenty of students smarter than their own teacher. I mean, they do have to have some way of figuring out the answers, but a teacher's own inability doesn't invalidate basic facts which can be backed up with outside sources.

Those who make the test effectively have to take the test as a proof of their own intelligence in determining intelligence. The test, in these respects is merely an extension of the test takers in one respect. Actually the teacher better know all the answers on the test considering the student is being taught what the teacher knows.

The student's are only as good as the teachers.

But I did not develop the test

No, but you developed this autistic idea that the 'truth to the IQ test needs to be back up by a person "of a higher intelligence," but that the IQ test is what determines this relevant intelligence.' You complain about the issue of a standard, which you have invented; You're specifically phrasing it in a way that makes it circular.

Circularity is self-referentiality....a person making a test about intelligence must be intelligent and this intelligence must be observed through the test. Intelligence is not a scientific discovery, but rather is (but not limited too) a means of definition.

So, I argue that test does not work...and you say I should take the test?

Well, you bragged about your obviously made-up IQ, and then used that as a way to strengthen your position that the IQ test is 'bullshit.' So no, I don't think it's out of the question to ask for some form of hard evidence to back up a claim you used to catapult your position, in the first place.

Standford Binet, also psychological testing proving high spatial awareness.

Plus, you've given a similar 'challenge' to me in the past, so I figured this was right in line with your MO.

[Arising_uk]

...Standford Binet, ...

Here you go then.

https://stanfordbinettest.com/

[Eodnhoj7]

...Standford Binet, ...

Here you go then.

https://stanfordbinettest.com/

You do understand I can just take the test over and over again until I get a score I want...right? If it is 140 or 160 or 180, all I have to do is take the test memorize the answers and click them in until I get 180....I know because I did it before and got a 181.

You do understand, I can just cheat...right? If I do well you will say cheater....If I do poorly you will say liar.

And you do understand I am arguing the test is cultural engineering and according to some developed by Nazis...what are you are racist Nazi supporter?


You do understand the more you push this subject the stupider you look?

[Sir-Sister-of-Suck]

Actually the discoveries are verified by those of a greater intelligence in science.

Well like I said, you haven't shown how that's actually the case. If we specifically define 'being more intelligence' as being able to point out the flaw in another's hypothesis, then sure. However, then you're just re-defining everything to suit your point so that you have one; It still doesn't have any genuine relation to those that made the IQ test.

Any idiot can potentially point out the flaws in something, though. It doesn't necessarily take someone who's more intelligent to be able to do that. The other day, I was having this sort of computer wizard helping me with my computer, and I pointed out that his mouse wasn't working because he didn't put the USB connector in. Does this simple mistake dilute the quality of his information over mine? Absolutely not, I don't know nearly that much about computers.

However the correlation you make is false considering the test is not a scientific discovery but rather a system of testing.

I've been over this with you. I realize it's not a par-to-par comparison, but I believe the principle is the same; Something true doesn't have to be revealed by the most intelligent person in the respective field.

Those who make the test effectively have to take the test as a proof of their own intelligence in determining intelligence.

That's just you asserting what has to be the case, without showing it in anyway.

The student's are only as good as the teachers.

This is something which clearly has counter-examples; Besides the one I've already given which you seem to think is insufficient, something like a basketball coach has never played a game of professional basketball in his life. Acting tutors don't actually know how to act well, either, they just know how to make someone convey emotions in their performance.

It is certainly not unheard of for students to surpass their teachers.

Circularity is self-referentiality....a person making a test about intelligence must be intelligent and this intelligence must be observed through the test.

Well you suggested that they should have had the highest IQ themselves, not just be intelligent to some degree.

[Sir-Sister-of-Suck]

You do understand I can just take the test over and over again until I get a score I want...right? If it is 140 or 160 or 180, all I have to do is take the test memorize the answers and click them in until I get 180....I know because I did it before and got a 181.

You do understand, I can just cheat...right? If I do well you will say cheater....If I do poorly you will say liar.

Why do you say that as though you're asking us if we know this, then assert that we do know this, and say we would have just accused you of 'cheating'?

You could have gotten a snipped image from the reddit subforum as well. This is why I said it was evidence, and not 'proof.' I realize this sounded like a good excuse in your head, but in reality, it's just really dumb; It's transparent you're someone who is trying to damage control a response, but unfortunately, what you actually end up suggesting, is that you had nothing to lose. Because you could have taken the test and be called a liar, or not take it and also be called a liar, for continuing to live in the delusion of your beyond genius-level IQ. The only thing you did, was pull the only thing that would have put some of this doubt to rest - into jeopardy, for everyone looking in. Now, I actually don't even need you to take the test anymore - because here is the real kicker:

The Standford-Binet IQ test does not go up to 180

In fact, most adult IQ tests do not go up that high, in general. Pretty much the only way you can be assigned an IQ that high, is taking a test made for kids, or being estimated to have one that high. Clearly, neither one of those things is the case according to what you have told us, here, so I can confidently conclude that you, sir, are a lying sack of poop. The obvious web of lies you've been maintaining on this forum around your self-infatuated intelligence, has wrapped itself around your neck.

And you do understand I am arguing the test is cultural engineering and according to some developed by Nazis...what are you are racist Nazi supporter?


You do understand the more you push this subject the stupider you look?

Oh yes, in a tangent of desperation, invoke godwin's law in the most ludicrous way imaginable, even make up an argument that you absolutely have not been using anywhere in this discussion, if you have to. You sure are perceptive, and know how people on the internet are going to respond to things.

[Sir-Sister-of-Suck]

SOS, please accept my deepest apologies for mis-identifying you as the one who seems to have a beef with me over my usage of "stupid".

I accept your apology for that. I just absolutely do not forgive you for incorrectly abbreviating my username.