Elizabeth said:Do you think men are generally more intelligent than women?
Depends on which head men use to do their thinking.
Elizabeth said:Do you think men are generally more intelligent than women?
Love big tits said:Actually your "measly" IQ of 142 is in the upper percentile. Was this a disguised way of bragging?
traveller_76 said:Yes you can learn to be better at IQ tests. Just like you can learn a2+b2=c2 and then learn how to figure more complex algabraical expressions, or learn 1+1= 2, and then go on to multiplication, and then to how to figure out the x of a quantity expressed as the root of another, not withstanding the fact that Pythagoras was inspired to come up with his theorems without math 101.
traveller_76 said:You're right. I've never seen an IQ-type question in a gradeschool or highschool exam. That doesn't mean school doesn't prepare me to answer IQ test questions by training my logical ability. But no, your ability to reason was always 'innate' (like you didn't need to take math classes to understand complex mathematical expression; how about bullshitting, does that come naturally to you too?).
traveller_76 said:Where did you learn how to spell? Or was that innate too (like being a 'writer')?
traveller_76 said:Why don't you graduate with your BA and then we'll compare.
traveller_76 said:I come from a middle class family too. I never suggested intelligence was linked to social-economic background. I suggested educational acheivement was. I was top of my class in math till I ran away from home and landed in an escort agency at 17.
traveller_76 said:I'm not about hugging concepts or saying 'aww, poor anyone'. I'm about looking at things macro, not just the particular micro aspects of reality that confirm my view of the world (things like 'intelligence is genetic', but that's a whole other discussion)
traveller_76 said:If you inferred that from what I wrote, the situation is sad indeed.
traveller_76 said:I wish I could be so credulous. I wouldn't spend so much time breaking my head on things that make no sense. So why do they only test IQ starting at a certain age in children? Logical abilities are developped throughout childhood. The ability to reason logically may be innate, but the ability to reason logically through tougher problems is developped through practice (in this country, also referred to as 'education').
traveller_76 said:She's a 'she'. You might have inferred that from reading my posts whole. I did mention the escort agency thing.
traveller_76 said:Logic doesn't 'back things up'. You keep employing the word as if it was a living thing. Maybe you should look the word up in the dictionary so you can learn to stop using it in an imaginary plural form.
traveller_76 said:What does the word drivel mean?
t76
spiderman05 said:As for IQ, I think that intelligence is much more complex to be described by a set of tests. I would have liked to believe in the effectiveness of IQ tests as I scored 138 on one of those internet tests (again untimed) which classifies me as a very smart person and means than less than 2% of the people in my age range are smarter than me. Though, many of these questions were very simple questions about relations and propositional logic. So, I don't know how much did my academic background help me in acquring such score. I saw managers who were dumber than their feet (to adapt a french expression), but they were still considered to be succeful people. What about the EQ (Emotional Qutient)? I think that it plays a very important role too. I still have that Daniel Goleman's book on my bookshelf since year 2000 and never had a chance to read it. I am pretty sure that my EQ is below 20 though.
Elizabeth said:I'm waiting for the answer...
"her"btyger said:You deftly accuse Traveller of discrediting those who don't agree with him
Superiority of what over what else?Elizabeth said:It's clearly a need to prove some kind of superiority.
Are we ontologically what we are? Does intelligence have an ontological value?John_Cage said:However, being poor is a REASON. It doesn't change who they are.
Where's the disguise? (oh, relax!)Love big tits said:Was this a disguised way of bragging?
Conciseveness is the overwritten version of conciseness.traveller_76 said:What if we know the word in French? ('conciseveness' looked perfectly fine to me--i think it's a French thing ) And what about 'conciseness'
t76
John_Cage said:[...] However, there's a problem with F = m * v. Because it does not take into account that a force can be applied for different amount of time for different results. The velocity of the object CHANGES when the time period is extended. EX: You push a toy cart for 2 second with a set amount of force, it will cause the object to go twice as fast as if you pushed it for 1 second with the same amount of force. Thus it can't be just F causing mv; it's F * t causing m * v (where t is time). Since we have to make a clean equation, we will move the t to the other side. F = m * (v/t). Since v/t in plain language means change in velocity in relation to time (acceleration), we can denote it 'a' for acceleration. Now we have the famous F = ma. Force = Mass * Acceleration. [...]
Ziggy Montana said:[...]L'une des belles histoires d'universalité, sans guerre et sans domination, soulignait Michel Serres, a justement été celle des mathématiques. L'Égypte régna des millénaires, Rome des siècles, l'Angleterre quelques décennies et, depuis l'après seconde guerre, les États Unis, bientôt la Chine... Alors que chacune de ces puissances étendait, en son temps, son hégémonie, et que, ce faisant, le monde bigarré, coloré, divers, se diluait, sous le joug des Grands, dans l'uniformité blanche du dominant, la mathématique, elle, outrepassait les différences linguistiques , religieuses, économiques et militaires. [...]
Je repose alors ma question en adaptant les termes: est-ce que la mathématique a une valeur ontologique?
I do!JustBob said:Personally, I don't really give a damn.