[stratos]

Brenda wrote:

Just a quick google search gave me this, pasting the first that came up:
http://www.iqtest-center.com/iq-scores.php

Apparently, 70% scores between 85 and 114%. So average is 100.

Nice linky:
http://wilderdom.com/intelligence/IQWhatScoresMean.html

I can't realy explain but man those numbers worry me more then anything else thats been posted here.

[Brenda]

stratos wrote:

Brenda wrote:

Just a quick google search gave me this, pasting the first that came up:
http://www.iqtest-center.com/iq-scores.php

Apparently, 70% scores between 85 and 114%. So average is 100.

Nice linky:
http://wilderdom.com/intelligence/IQWhatScoresMean.html

I can't realy explain but man those numbers worry me more then anything else thats been posted here.

Actually... they did me too. Although a lot seems to make sense all of a sudden

[stratos]

I remember when the kids that wore their hats backwards did not tuck in their shirts and had the pants hanging below their butts rode the short bus to the special schools. Now they walk the halls of collages and no one blinks an eye.

[desertdude]

stratos wrote:

desertdude wrote:

EyeBrock wrote:

I'm not accusing you of being a wife-beater DD. I was just suprised on how you spoke about 'allowing' your wife to do stuff.

If you are thinking of living in Canada, you may find that most women do what they want and don't rely on their husbands, fathers or brothers 'allowing' them to do anything.

Please give it a fucking rest mate, now I am startig to get irritated. So your up in arms about a single word blown out of context. I'm not ALLOWED to do a lot of things either. Does not mean both of us standing with whips at each other throats.

Jeez man get overself

The qoute was not out of context, you're reuse in your rebuttle places it out of the original context in your explination. No real problem there, just finding it odd that you rise up in righteous anger when anyone questions your words then tell them to get over it when you have done the exact same thing with others.

Are we still going on about this ? Out of context because you have the mental image that it means I pull out a bull whip and flog her everytime I see her do that, and only because I am a muslim or live out here in the middle east. So its out of context in that sense

If someone else had said the same exact thing, it would be taken for what he was trying to say with out any stereotypical imposition.

[EyeBrock]

You are still going on about it DD.

Dis-engage, chill. You are making this bigger than it was. Let's move on shall we?

[Lemmy]

desertdude wrote:

If someone else had said the same exact thing, it would be taken for what he was trying to say with out any stereotypical imposition.

That's not true at all. I know Brenda (or someone else) would have called anyone for saying what you did. What you said was either: a) a faux pas in your choice of words; or b) you really do "allow" your wife 5 minutes of FB time. If it was "a", then you should have just said "I made a poor choice of words. I don't REALLY make rules for my wife. What I meant was that we've agreed to try and cut down on our time-wasting." But seeing you get your back up about being called on this makes me wonder whether it really was "b".

[raydan]

desertdude wrote:

Why don't you throw in all the other stuff aswell. I keep the Mrs tied to a chain in my dark basement, she can't wear anything other than a potato sack, I open cans of whoop ass on a regular basis.

Why a potato sack?

I'd keep her in a sexy little bra and panties, or better yet, nude.
It makes it a lot easier when you open that can of whoop ass.

[stratos]

Quote:

If someone else had said the same exact thing, it would be taken for what he was trying to say with out any stereotypical imposition.

Please point out exactly where I have stereotyped you.

[Brenda]

stratos wrote:

Quote:

If someone else had said the same exact thing, it would be taken for what he was trying to say with out any stereotypical imposition.

Please point out exactly where I have stereotypt you.

I take it he thinks I did, by asking him if she was wearing a burqa too. I recall I have asked the same thing here before, of a non-muslim. Funny thing is that he takes offense
Anyone who tells their partner what to do, instead of making up rules being a mutual agreement, will get the same question from me, regardless of race, religion, sexual preference or gender. If that makes me a hypocrite or a feminist, I will be wearing that tag with pride.

[stratos]

Quote:

Out of context because you have the mental image that it means I pull out a bull whip and flog her everytime I see her do that, and only because I am a muslim or live out here in the middle east. So its out of context in that sense

When and where did I ever say I imagened you bull whiping your wife let alone spoke of your religon or location within this current topic. You are now accusing me of things I have not done. You are trying to divert attention from your own words by putting words in mouth that I have not said. Nice try but utter failure on your part.

[stratos]

Brenda wrote:

stratos wrote:

Quote:

If someone else had said the same exact thing, it would be taken for what he was trying to say with out any stereotypical imposition.

Please point out exactly where I have stereotypt you.

I take it he thinks I did, by asking him if she was wearing a burqa too. I recall I have asked the same thing here before, of a non-muslim. Funny thing is that he takes offense
Anyone who tells their partner what to do, instead of making up rules being a mutual agreement, will get the same question from me, regardless of race, religion, sexual preference or gender. If that makes me a hypocrite or a feminist, I will be wearing that tag with pride.

Ok so DD is Confusing me and you Ok first of DD Brenda is Female I am Male . Brenda has a duck for her avitar I have Tazz. She lives in Canada I live in the USA. She is married I am not. I'm Guessing here but she probably cooks better then me also.

[desertdude]

Stratos I've read your posts eleswhere in the forum and yes I still say thats what you were implying. This is the end of my conversation with you in this matter.

Brenda you have such a problem if a man says something, but yet nothing when a woman does. If you read the following posts I'm not allowed to do a lot of shit either. Oh buts thats ok women can even kill their own babies, its all good they are hormonal creatures. Feminist, yes I think so

Allowed is exactly that, we have come to mutual decision that I will not being doing XYZ and she wont be doing ABC or atleast try to cut down on it. I know many wives who won't ALLOW their husband to get a bike or stay out late at night hanging with his buds. So what does this say ?

Like I said making a mountain out of a mole hill, any ways enough.

[andyt]

Brenda wrote:

stratos wrote:

Brenda wrote:

Just a quick google search gave me this, pasting the first that came up:
http://www.iqtest-center.com/iq-scores.php

Apparently, 70% scores between 85 and 114%. So average is 100.

Nice linky:
http://wilderdom.com/intelligence/IQWhatScoresMean.html

I can't realy explain but man those numbers worry me more then anything else thats been posted here.

Actually... they did me too. Although a lot seems to make sense all of a sudden

What is it that worries you about IQ figures? By agreement it has a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15. Japanese score a mean of 105, Jews score among the highest in the world, Germans score the highest in Europe (not sure what the means are for those groups). But a diff between 100 and 105 isn't huge. American Blacks score lower than 100, so drag the American average down. But, it has been said that the IQ tests usually used in the US are culturally biased. There are various tests that are meant to be culture fair.

Lots of people who score at the upper end of the curve do very stupid things. All the IQ test really tells you is how good somebody is at writing IQ tests. And give you some prediction of how well they'll do in school, tho some people who do well in school do very stupid things.

For Employers, EQ (emotional intelligence) has been found to be more relevant for many jobs, assuming people have the technical skills to do the job. OTOH, autistics outperform normals in certain jobs, and their EQ is not going to be very high.

George Bush's IQ is supposedly in the 120's, ie above average. Nuff said.

[Brenda]

I think you missed my point on that one (the baby killing one) COMPLETELY.

Just fyi, I don't do "hunni-do lists", I don't do "dog-house", and as long as the finances are ok, he can do whatever the hell he pleases, as can I.

The moment you "allow" your partner something, you are having a "power"-thing going on. Now you say it's a mutual agreement. That's not not-allowing anyone anything, that's a partnership. So yes, you used the wrong words.

[Khar]

Brenda wrote:

stratos wrote:

Brenda wrote:

Just a quick google search gave me this, pasting the first that came up:
http://www.iqtest-center.com/iq-scores.php

Apparently, 70% scores between 85 and 114%. So average is 100.

Nice linky:
http://wilderdom.com/intelligence/IQWhatScoresMean.html

I can't realy explain but man those numbers worry me more then anything else thats been posted here.

Actually... they did me too. Although a lot seems to make sense all of a sudden

I flinched a bit when I saw IQ enter this conversation. I have several problems with the basis of IQ, a lot of them I first learned and decided to read up on after a Neuroscience researcher basically laughed about the topic to me and said that a far better measure of intelligence is a g-factor test (administered by a psychiatrist or psychologist), even though it falls short as well.

IQ tests have undergone many methodology changes over the years, and the different type of tests, changed several times over a decade, provide different scores. My favourite example comes from Dr. Kaufman (PhD of Psychology), who shows some scores with a spread of 30 points over the different tests. I've done a few IQ tests over my life time and have had spreads between 110 and 132. Reading the information attached at the end of the test, I've been everywhere from the top 2% to the top 50%. While generally tests can provide an idea of where someone is in relation to others with a degree of error, there is an error band which cannot be forgotten for each test result. There is also the argument about the Flynn effect (Warning: PDF) (not the original paper, but it discusses the effect in detail), a theory that general IQ was increasing by about 3 points for each successive generation. This theory, too, has been discussed, with a feeling that the lower end is diminishing whereas the higher end has generally reached a plateau. The Flynn Effect has the general agreement of the expert community, with some effort going into finding out why and how much the effect is being reflected in successive generations.

While the area of research trudges ever on, IQ tests and how they are administers remains startlingly behind the curve. Even though the field has made a few advancements, IQ tests are still provided and constructed in a very similar way to how they were constructed in the 1950s (Warning: PDF). It does not help since then we've found that IQ tests are not immutable -- these days, the brain is known to be neuroplastic. Other new theories in the field, such as working memory training, is not taken into account. Likewise, potential bias in past and current studies routinely come up in the literature, ranging from old methodology approaching the tests incorrectly to current tests not taking into account various social conditions, where groups like Mexican-Americans get lower scores because of bias in testing.

There is also the ongoing debate of defining intelligence, which is commonly broken down into various sections. Current criticisms of IQ tests is that they only measure a portion of these, and fail to take into account other forms of intelligence. Some argue that the quantification of such a malleable variable to a single number is ludicrous considering current knowledge in the field. Indeed, there was a paper in the American Psychological Association in the late nineties where a group argued about the IQ tests, with one side claiming that the papers on IQ generally had results which matched political or present leanings/implications rather than on a scientific basis (Warning: PDF). It also found no correlation between various factors with the exception of extreme circumstances (such as extreme malnutrition). This paper would later be debated in the same journal.

This means that in general, IQ tests work more like a bell curve for a university class. Often, there is an average which is automatically set to a certain amount (the basis of the Flynn effect came from the constant need to reset the average to 100, indicating a "change in intelligence" from their perspective) like 100, and people are ranked in comparison to each other. While it is an indicator to see who is exceptionally bright and who are special needs, which is the general use of the test on a wide scale from what I remember, using it for anything other than the comparison between members of the same group (class in university) is likely going to be a more tenable connection. While this all comes from what I've read on experts in the field, I'm not one so the possibility I've misread or misinterpreted is always there.