charlottegelin said:

I don't mean to take anything away from TMPletz - I'm sure he's a sharp little bugger - but those tests are usually not very reliable. I've scored around 160 on a couple of them which is just ridiculous and completely inaccurate. Like most companies, the organizations responsible for the tests just seem to want to keep their customers happy... At least the ones you find online.

Also, they mostly just measure a certain type of intelligence (the logical/spatial kind). A lot of people I know who have gotten high IQ scores get caught up in details, rigorous logic that just keeps them going in circles and meta discussions and are unable to see the big picture and pinpoint what is important in a given situation. So my advice would be to take the whole IQ measurement with a grain of salt.

GaryTheNoTrashCougar said:

That can't be true at all. Because if you're IQ is 65 or lower, you're clinically retarded. And I know I'm not retarded.

charlottegelin said:

Let me put it this way; if there are two people in a room where one of them is a 1, one is a 2 one is a 4 and one is a 5, then what is the average person in that room? Well, the answer is of course a 3, but is there such a person in the room? No, he just exists as a narrow and abstract concept that is the mid point between the real people. A better way of describing the average person in this case could therefore be maybe 2 - 4, so if you transfer that line of reasoning to the IQ scale, the average would be 80 - 120 (or something) rather than 100 sharp.

DynamicSavior said:

DAMN! Lots of you really took that statement as fact

See that proves the point

GaryTheNoTrashCougar said:

I only pointed that out for the retards on here.

GaryTheNoTrashCougar said:

LMAO!!! i've been over here shaking my head the whole time.

DynamicSavior said:

i hate being american. Stupid flag wavers, get a grip.

GaryTheNoTrashCougar said:

thesexofit said:

Better being a flag waver than a flag burner, check out this smart cookie --->

















dumbass

retina said:

It was a joke. My dad's lame joke.

charlottegelin said:

Sorry, I guess I was too dumb to realize that.

A lot of people actually get worried when they hear they're "below average" in whatever it happens to be though. It just sounds so dramatic and hurtful although in many cases it just means someone has calculated a specific average and not taken into account that what should be considered average/normal actually stretches quite far in both directions. I'm honestly suspicious of all systems that try to rate human performance on a numbered scale (unless it's a sports competition or something). The emotional backlash and overdependence/interpretation on/of the results they create usually outweigh the benefits by far. It's a tricky thing to deal with, that age old human ambition to make things concrete and tangible, which has served us so well but also blinded us so much throughout history.

retina said:

they use percentile growth charts here for infant/child health. I've seen so many mums worried sick because their kid is below average in weight. There should just be a shaded area called normal and if you fall into it, you're just normal - no need to worry.

charlottegelin said:

Exactly.

retina said:

Ok, I must really be a dumb American cuz I'm trying to figure out how those two people turned into four...lol

sinisterpentatonic said:

I just took a free on-line IQ test and despite a 56bps connection and a baby screaming through the last half, I still managed 126!

Byron said:

They had kids?

LleeLlee said:

They were really amoeba??...

charlottegelin said:

Y'know, when I was five years old, the school asked my parents' permission to test me....(I don't remember any of this, by the way).....I tested at 148.

Then I discovered alcohol and marijuana in my teens and early twenties...

Now it's only 138.

gemini13 said:

So were the questions like "how many sides does a hexagon have?"

I had no idea u could test a 5 year old? Well, my iq must be low.

Byron said:

I started out writing an example with two people but then felt it would be more illustrative to use four and forgot to edit the first part of the sentence. You are actually a perfect example of the type of person I described in a post above; one who gets caught up in the details and doesn't see the big picture - only you probably wouldn't get a high IQ score either.

retina said:

Hmm...Lleena got the humor in my post...you failed to get the humor in mine but skipped over hers completely. Me thinks you're taking this personally because it's me instead of just simply saying "Whoops"...lol

Byron said:

That's correct. If it had been somebody else I would have assumed it was just a joke, but knowing you're the poster and remembering your constant and lightly disguised jabs put things in a different light.

retina said:

More an issue with your perception of me than the reality of me, then...You assume I responded to your post because it was you who wrote it. Nope. Just thought it was a funny mistake...especially on a thread about the dumbing down of America...lol Didn't matter to me who wrote it, never does.

Byron said:

So I guess you just love to make fun of other people's mistakes in general then? How lovely.

And by the way, my mistake had nothing to do with the dumbing down of anything. It was an edit I forgot about, as simple as that.

thesexofit said:

I couldn't even tell ya.

retina said:

Yes, you have me figured out... I scan the threads, looking for any and all mistakes, typos and grammatical errors, ready to pounce, solely for the enjoyment of making fun of the people who caused them. You were my latest victim, sir.

Not to take anything away from your intelligence - I'm sure you're a sharp little bugger.

Byron said:

You know what? Yes, I do have you figured out. Now I'm off to bed. Good night.

retina said:

You stayed up just to respond to me??... ...I'm flattered.

Sweet dreams...

DynamicSavior said:

So if one is flamboyantly gay with an I.Q. of 60,
would that person be labeled a ' flame retardant '?