[XxhopingxX]

thanks, my mistake.

[cuziamthecaptai]

There's new stuff in the culture wars. Anyone want to commet on the pot verdict?


So I'll give the remaining hint and spoiler to the question.



Hint 2: the dots aren't incidental but as a result.



Dead giveaway: Intersections



Answer: B



Why the answer is what it is: All of the boxes have intersections. Lines cross and shapes intersect. Everytime there is an intersection, there is a dot. The lines meet once in box number 3. They don't meet at box number 4. The line crosses the triangle twice in box 4. There is one dot in box 3, none in box 4, 2 in box 5. Now, look at the bottom boxes. Only one box has the same number of dots as intersections. box A has no intersections so it should have no dots (but it has one). Box C has one intersection so it should have one dot (but it has two). Box D and E have a different number of intersectiosn than dots. Box B, however, has two intersections. The line crosses the box twice. And there are two dots.

[Qingu]

Well, I used to think I was pretty smart, but I have been smoking a lot of pot lately and (perhaps consequently) did not solve your question. That ties everything in this thread together, doesn't it?

That said -- sequence?? SEQUENCE? It's not a sequence. It should have asked "Which letter box belongs"? What a bunch of ****.

[JerryLove]

Actually, such relational puzzles were always a weakpoint fo rme on the IQ tests... though not nearly as bad as some of the MENSA stuff which was, fankly, stupid (ever get the "riverboat captian" quesion?)

[Qingu]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Actually, such relational puzzles were always a weakpoint fo rme on the IQ tests... though not nearly as bad as some of the MENSA stuff which was, fankly, stupid (ever get the "riverboat captian" quesion?)

I've never taken an IQ test ... dude, now I don't want to. What if I'm stupid?

I'd rather rest on the fact that I can beat Zelda with 3 hearts and 1 bottle.

["BrooksB"]

Originally Posted by Qingu

I've never taken an IQ test ... dude, now I don't want to. What if I'm stupid?

I'd rather rest on the fact that I can beat Zelda with 3 hearts and 1 bottle.

A decent example of practical knowledge, different from that which is tested by silly psycho IQ tests.

[Qingu]

Originally Posted by BrooksB

A decent example of practical knowledge, different from that which is tested by silly psycho IQ tests.

Uh, weren't you the one bragging about your IQ score, dude?

["BrooksB"]

Originally Posted by Qingu

Uh, weren't you the one bragging about your IQ score, dude?

One paying closer attention might notice that I was initially attacking the validity of IQ tests by the example of my wide range of scores (120-165ish). Mr. Psycho Grad Boy decided to make an ego war out of it. He was the one that made such a big deal about a 140 IQ score.

[+Donny]

I got a pretty good score on some stupid net IQ test, but I personally thought it was stupid while taking it.

[cuziamthecaptai]

Originally Posted by BrooksB

One paying closer attention might notice that I was initially attacking the validity of IQ tests by the example of my wide range of scores (120-165ish). Mr. Psycho Grad Boy decided to make an ego war out of it. He was the one that made such a big deal about a 140 IQ score.

Uh-huh. No, I told you that it was highly unlikely that you would get a 140 or a 160. If you did, it was an mistake on the part of the test giver, not on the actual test itself. The Wais-II has remarkeable test-retest reliability. It's also predictive of future success in general and the job market in particular.

You poo-pooed psychology in general and psychometrics in particular. I have an idea: why not provide some studies that call into question the validity of psychology tests rather than just by going by your own personal experience. In psychology, we prefer large sample sizes rather than just a case study of a boy who claims he once got a 140+ on an IQ test. You are admiting now that your IQ probably isn't 140+, right?

["BrooksB"]

*sigh*

Is it the fault of multiple test-givers? Of multiple scorers? When I scored in that range multiple times? I know you don't want to believe that you could encounter some random person on the internet with a high IQ, but whatever. I made those scores. Multiple times. Period.

My IQ being ~140. You give me good reason to doubt it, but it only goes to further proof of my side that IQ tests aren't as good as you give them credit for. I'm sorry the sample size isn't good enough and that I don't have a scientific journal I can cite, but all I'm saying is that this is proof. Hard proof that people CAN score widely on IQ tests, and possibly have scores not reflecting the "true IQ" of a person. Like I've said before, if there are exceptions to the rule, then what does that say about the rule? It says that it's not really a rule, but a generalization. Maybe rules are meant to be broken, but truth, by its own essence, cannot be broken. What you are speaking of, with your psychology and psychometrics is not truth. Half-truth, probably. Possibly better than that, but not all-out truth by any means.

So to answer your question about what I think my own IQ is... don't know, don't care.

[cuziamthecaptai]

Originally Posted by BrooksB

*sigh*

Is it the fault of multiple test-givers? Of multiple scorers? When I scored in that range multiple times? I know you don't want to believe that you could encounter some random person on the internet with a high IQ, but whatever. I made those scores. Multiple times. Period.

Bull****. It's bull**** that you would have ever scored a 160, and I highly, highly doubt that you have gotten a 140. A 140 sounds and acts a lot more intelligent than you. And you were rather absent and quite when it was time to answer the IQ question I posted. You can't go around claiming you have a 140 IQ anymore than you can go around claming you have a 10 inch.... 'friend.' It's so common it's laughable. Everyone claims to have a 140 IQ but they are very, very rare. And the fact that you claimed to have a 160 just confirms it to me. Believe me, if you got a 160, you'd either:
a. Immediatly given a re-test
b. Sent a letter of apology for a major-screw up
c. Be contacted by either a government think tank or a Fortune 500.

Originally Posted by BrooksB

My IQ being ~140. You give me good reason to doubt it, but it only goes to further proof of my side that IQ tests aren't as good as you give them credit for.

Because you're blowing up your IQ scores isn't proof that they are unreliable. It proves they are so important in society that even red-state fly-over people overstate their IQ scores. Which is kind of sad.

Originally Posted by BrooksB

I'm sorry the sample size isn't good enough and that I don't have a scientific journal I can cite, but all I'm saying is that this is proof. Hard proof that people CAN score widely on IQ tests, and possibly have scores not reflecting the "true IQ" of a person.

No, that's not hard proof, champ. You're right-- the sample size (one person, who's probably lying) isn't a very good sample size to draw a conclusion about a heavily validated and internally reliable assessment. If you don't have a scientific journal you can cite, don't go making wild claims.

Originally Posted by BrooksB

Like I've said before, if there are exceptions to the rule, then what does that say about the rule? It says that it's not really a rule, but a generalization.

Oh lord. What is a rule but a generalization? Newton's laws are generalizations, cheif. For the most part (including your instance), IQ tests have test-retest reliability.

Originally Posted by BrooksB

Maybe rules are meant to be broken, but truth, by its own essence, cannot be broken. What you are speaking of, with your psychology and psychometrics is not truth. Half-truth, probably. Possibly better than that, but not all-out truth by any means.

What the heck are you even talking about?
Oh I'm sorry that psychology doesn't claim to have all truth, and doesn't make rules but generalizations. I'm sure you'd rather have the consistency of organized religion to fall back on. It's all false, but the rules there just aren't made to be broken. Christian.

Originally Posted by BrooksB

So to answer your question about what I think my own IQ is... don't know, don't care.

Uh-huh. You seem pretty insistent it's up there. I really don't care what it is either, except that I'm fairly certain that it's not at 140. Remember, and I will tell you this for the last time:
IQ tests are unlikely to fluctuate more than 5 points the entire life of the person.
Less then 1 out of 250 gets higher than 140
To get into mensa, you only need the top 1% (higher than 134)
To get into the promethius society, you need to get a 160
http://www.prometheussociety.org/mem...ex.html#Scores
of which there are less than 100 members and is restricted to those who have recieved the top highest one thirty-thousandth of the general population in IQ or IQ-esq assessments.

You're not a 160, you were never given a 160. No one who has a 140 would be dumb enough to claim they got a 160 ever unless they clearly chalked it up to an obvious error on behalf of the test giver. Nor would they be typing away on an internet discussion board for christians (you take that anyway you'd like). You're 120-- maybe -- maybe a 130.

["BrooksB"]

Originally Posted by cuziamthecaptai

Bull****. It's bull**** that you would have ever scored a 160, and I highly, highly doubt that you have gotten a 140. A 140 sounds and acts a lot more intelligent than you. And you were rather absent and quite when it was time to answer the IQ question I posted. You can't go around claiming you have a 140 IQ anymore than you can go around claming you have a 10 inch.... 'friend.' It's so common it's laughable. Everyone claims to have a 140 IQ but they are very, very rare. And the fact that you claimed to have a 160 just confirms it to me. Believe me, if you got a 160, you'd either:
a. Immediatly given a re-test
b. Sent a letter of apology for a major-screw up
c. Be contacted by either a government think tank or a Fortune 500.

I'm rather absent for several days at a time quite often. I like how your main argument is "it's bull****". Makes it easy for me to just sit back and let you babble on about how "it's bull****". What is fact, and not bull****, is that I've scored in the 135-140 range multiple times. If you don't believe it, sorry. There's nothing I can do. I didn't keep a file of all the official scorecards to fax to you. You can keep rambling on about my "bull****" or you could just shut the hell up about it. And about the 160... just give it up. It's obvious I'm not a 160 IQ, I agree. I have no such pretttennsions..

Because you're blowing up your IQ scores isn't proof that they are unreliable. It proves they are so important in society that even red-state fly-over people overstate their IQ scores. Which is kind of sad.

Bull****!! That's such bull****!!! See how dumb that argument looks?

No, that's not hard proof, champ. You're right-- the sample size (one person, who's probably lying) isn't a very good sample size to draw a conclusion about a heavily validated and internally reliable assessment. If you don't have a scientific journal you can cite, don't go making wild claims.

Well, since your only argument is that I'm lying and that it's "rare", looks like we may be facing a draw.

What the heck are you even talking about?
Oh I'm sorry that psychology doesn't claim to have all truth, and doesn't make rules but generalizations. I'm sure you'd rather have the consistency of organized religion to fall back on. It's all false, but the rules there just aren't made to be broken. Christian.

Its funny that with all your psycho knowledge, you've pinned me as a liberal, a moral relativist, a red-state flyover person, and a Christian. I don't claim any of those (except maybe the red-state thing, I can't really get out of that one). Great job once again, psycho-boy. You incessantly prove to me how useless all your psycho knowledge is. You try to hit home with me using some biting language, but you can't seem to figure out who the hell I am, so I remain unscathed. I think this is a draw, honestly. Well, at least you admit to psychology's incompleteness and inability to answer many questions. Good enough for me. I've proven my point....

Uh-huh. You seem pretty insistent it's up there. I really don't care what it is either, except that I'm fairly certain that it's not at 140. Remember, and I will tell you this for the last time:
IQ tests are unlikely to fluctuate more than 5 points the entire life of the person.
Less then 1 out of 250 gets higher than 140
To get into mensa, you only need the top 1% (higher than 134)
To get into the promethius society, you need to get a 160
http://www.prometheussociety.org/mem...ex.html#Scores
of which there are less than 100 members and is restricted to those who have recieved the top highest one thirty-thousandth of the general population in IQ or IQ-esq assessments.

That prometheus society looked pretty interesting, however irrelevant. You seem fairly certain about a lot of things that are blatantly untrue, friend. This is a draw.

You're not a 160, you were never given a 160. No one who has a 140 would be dumb enough to claim they got a 160 ever unless they clearly chalked it up to an obvious error on behalf of the test giver. Nor would they be typing away on an internet discussion board for christians (you take that anyway you'd like). You're 120-- maybe -- maybe a 130.

Is your 120, maybe 130, a scientific conclusion? You've been wrong about many things you've assumed about me. What's different about this one? Moreover, how do you think that because we've typed stuff to each other that we may know something about each other? You don't know a damn thing about me that I haven't told you. You can guess... but that would be total speculation. And if it's speculation, to me that means you made it up.


So, is this the culture war we're talking about? If so, how in the hell do you think seculars are going to win? You seculars can't even win over other seculars like me.

[cuziamthecaptai]

Originally Posted by BrooksB

I'm rather absent for several days at a time quite often. I like how your main argument is "it's bull****". Makes it easy for me to just sit back and let you babble on about how "it's bull****". What is fact, and not bull****, is that I've scored in the 135-140 range multiple times. If you don't believe it, sorry. There's nothing I can do. I didn't keep a file of all the official scorecards to fax to you. You can keep rambling on about my "bull****" or you could just shut the hell up about it. And about the 160... just give it up. It's obvious I'm not a 160 IQ, I agree. I have no such pretttennsions..

Well, then, you should be in mensa. Why don't you show us your mensa card? Hmmm... which is more likely, someone is actually qualified to be in Mensa or is just bragging about an IQ score he doesn't have?

Originally Posted by BrooksB

Bull****!! That's such bull****!!! See how dumb that argument looks?

Well, since your only argument is that I'm lying and that it's "rare", looks like we may be facing a draw.

Probably. Returnign to the issue at hand-- don't say the IQ tests have no reliability or external validity. And assert your position on the whole culture war thing.

Originally Posted by BrooksB

Its funny that with all your psycho knowledge, you've pinned me as a liberal, a moral relativist, a red-state flyover person, and a Christian.

What does my psychological knowledge have to do with my pinnying you down as something? If you're on a christain board, you're probably a christian. Most christains are moral relativists. And you already stated you're in Tenn, so you're a red-state flyover person. I don't know if I called you a liberal. But I'm a libertarian, so most people are liberals-- even the conservatives.

Originally Posted by BrooksB

I don't claim any of those (except maybe the red-state thing, I can't really get out of that one). Great job once again, psycho-boy. You incessantly prove to me how useless all your psycho knowledge is.

Again, what does my "psycho knowledge" have to deal with my assessment of some artard on a forum? I love how a preported mensa qualifier is using the term 'psycho-boy.' You do know most professors aren't mensa qualifiers, right?

Originally Posted by BrooksB

You try to hit home with me using some biting language, but you can't seem to figure out who the hell I am, so I remain unscathed.

How does me not knowing who you are preclude my utility of biting language? I'm here mostly for entertainment value. Namely, my entertainment.

Originally Posted by BrooksB

I think this is a draw, honestly. Well, at least you admit to psychology's incompleteness and inability to answer many questions. Good enough for me. I've proven my point....

Nice try, cheif. Care for a debate on the utility of psychology? Either in general or in particular. If no-- drop it already and stick with the culture war theme. Do know that, based upon yoru knowledge of psychology, I'll drop you like a bad habit.

Originally Posted by BrooksB

That prometheus society looked pretty interesting, however irrelevant. You seem fairly certain about a lot of things that are blatantly untrue, friend. This is a draw.

No. I highly doubt anyone on here actually believes you ever got a 160. Anyone who went to that webpage and checked it out woudl ever believe that you ever got a 160. Unless you had your test assessed by someone who isn't a professional.

Originally Posted by BrooksB

Is your 120, maybe 130, a scientific conclusion?

No, it's an inference; an educated guess.

Originally Posted by BrooksB

You've been wrong about many things you've assumed about me. What's different about this one?

Overgeneralization. I don't know much about you. But I can safely assume that you're not among the top 100 fastest runners in the world, right? Just liek I can safely assume that you're not at the IQ level of 160. I know enough about running and IQ scores to know you've never legitatemly gotten a 160. Judging from your style of writing, it's highly unlikely you have gotten a 140. I don't need to knwo your whole life story to draw these conclusiosn, kid.

Originally Posted by BrooksB

Moreover, how do you think that because we've typed stuff to each other that we may know something about each other? You don't know a damn thing about me that I haven't told you. You can guess... but that would be total speculation. And if it's speculation, to me that means you made it up.

that's because you have no idea that speculation per se isn't necessiarly invalid. I don't know anything about you, yet I can speculate that both your parents speak english. Whoa-- how about that? Gee, I guess certainy in speculation is varied, a? You never told me that. You never told me if you're a runner or not, yet I am valid in speculating you're not among the top 10 or top 100 runners in the world.

And I'm certainly valid in speculating that you don't have an IQ of 160 and were never professional measured to produce a score of 160, ever. I'm willing to be a large sum of money that you wouldn't get a 160. I'm also willing to bet a less-than-large-sum but still moderate amount of money that you wouldn't get a 140. How about it? If you score above a 140, I'll pay for the test and donate to CGR? You score less than that you donate some $$ to AU? Hmmm. I'm gonig to speculate you're going to wuss out and not go through with that one. But hey, I dont' know you, so feel free to prove me wrong.

Originally Posted by BrooksB

So, is this the culture war we're talking about? If so, how in the hell do you think seculars are going to win? You seculars can't even win over other seculars like me.

The way we'll win is keep up the high school teaching of evolution and critical thinking. God knows that if you learned the latter you wouldn't be bragging abotu a 140 IQ test to a person who already told you he studied the Wais-III in graduate school.

["BrooksB"]

Originally Posted by cuziamthecaptai

Well, then, you should be in mensa. Why don't you show us your mensa card? Hmmm... which is more likely, someone is actually qualified to be in Mensa or is just bragging about an IQ score he doesn't have?

Why should I be in mensa, for scoring 135-140? I've never even taken the mensa test, nor do I give a damn about being in mensa. I don't even know what mensa is or what they do, and I don't care. I guess a prick like you would run to mensa and get your card if you ever realized that you were smart enough to be in it so you could show it to all your internet friends.

Probably. Returnign to the issue at hand-- don't say the IQ tests have no reliability or external validity. And assert your position on the whole culture war thing.

Whatever. I don't think psychological tests really mean that much. I've taken several different kinds and I'm not to impressed with their respective results.

What does my psychological knowledge have to do with my pinnying you down as something? If you're on a christain board, you're probably a christian. Most christains are moral relativists. And you already stated you're in Tenn, so you're a red-state flyover person. I don't know if I called you a liberal. But I'm a libertarian, so most people are liberals-- even the conservatives.

I don't really know. It's funny how you assume that I'm a christian because I'm on a christian board, but you neglect the several times I have told you specifically that I'm not. I didn't know most christians are moral relativists. Whatever, it doesn't matter- I'm neither one.

And back to the red-state flyover person. It's so weird seeing someone say that to me. I live in freaking Nashville. It's a destination for many people, no matter what your "blue state" pride may lead you to believe. All I know is that the culture I've experienced in the last week probably eclipses your entire year over there in lalaland

Again, what does my "psycho knowledge" have to deal with my assessment of some artard on a forum? I love how a preported mensa qualifier is using the term 'psycho-boy.' You do know most professors aren't mensa qualifiers, right?

Apparently it helps you none at all because your assessment is pretty off. You like "psycho-boy" too? I thought it was a nice touch...

How does me not knowing who you are preclude my utility of biting language? I'm here mostly for entertainment value. Namely, my entertainment.

I guess for your own satisfaction, going around saying dumb **** that pertains not to reality but a piece of your imagination is okay. Whatever floats your boat. As far as the practical utility of it, your not being accurate has all the bearing in the world. If you can't actually "bite me" with your language, then you're just breathing hot air.

Nice try, cheif. Care for a debate on the utility of psychology? Either in general or in particular. If no-- drop it already and stick with the culture war theme. Do know that, based upon yoru knowledge of psychology, I'll drop you like a bad habit.

Well, that was my only point and you conceded. I'm not talking about career utility. I know lots of people with careers in the field.

No. I highly doubt anyone on here actually believes you ever got a 160. Anyone who went to that webpage and checked it out woudl ever believe that you ever got a 160. Unless you had your test assessed by someone who isn't a professional.

Oh just drop it already!

No, it's an inference; an educated guess.

How are you going to go on about the scientific validity of my test scores and then toss out some random "educated guess"? As far as the debate is concerned, your "guess" is moot. Your guess is as about as good as me saying that because I scored 165ish on an IQ score one time that that must be my actual score.

Overgeneralization. I don't know much about you. But I can safely assume that you're not among the top 100 fastest runners in the world, right? Just liek I can safely assume that you're not at the IQ level of 160. I know enough about running and IQ scores to know you've never legitatemly gotten a 160. Judging from your style of writing, it's highly unlikely you have gotten a 140. I don't need to knwo your whole life story to draw these conclusiosn, kid.

I don't claim to have a 160 IQ, nor have I ever claimed it. Maybe you missed the whole point, but I initially made the statement about my IQ scores to show why I don't put any stock in them.

Moreover, you can draw these conclusions all day long but they're still no better than your prior educated guess and my assertion that I have a 160 IQ.

And I don't remember a "writing critique" section of any IQ test I've ever taken. Is it on the WAIS something or other you keep rambling about? Besides, in the first grade I would have scored much lower because my writing style then was pretty weak. However, I scored pretty damn high.

that's because you have no idea that speculation per se isn't necessiarly invalid. I don't know anything about you, yet I can speculate that both your parents speak english. Whoa-- how about that? Gee, I guess certainy in speculation is varied, a? You never told me that. You never told me if you're a runner or not, yet I am valid in speculating you're not among the top 10 or top 100 runners in the world.

Who cares? With that kind of speculation, it's just a numbers game before you get some right. It's not your speculation that makes it valid, it's the antecedent you refer to. The speculation is invalid until confirmed by something that's really going on. If your speculation is just a speculation (like much that is on this thread) then it's just hot air.

And I'm certainly valid in speculating that you don't have an IQ of 160 and were never professional measured to produce a score of 160, ever.

Simply incorrect. Sorry.

I'm willing to be a large sum of money that you wouldn't get a 160.

Can I make the same bet?

I'm also willing to bet a less-than-large-sum but still moderate amount of money that you wouldn't get a 140. How about it? If you score above a 140, I'll pay for the test and donate to CGR? You score less than that you donate some $$ to AU? Hmmm. I'm gonig to speculate you're going to wuss out and not go through with that one. But hey, I dont' know you, so feel free to prove me wrong.

You speculate correctly on that one. I have no interest in placating some prick fvck on the west coast. Beyond that, I'm not a bettin' man. Never have been. Even if I was, I wouldn't even take the chance of having to pay out to any group you support. Not because I have any knowledge of the group, but just because you want money to go there.

The way we'll win is keep up the high school teaching of evolution and critical thinking. God knows that if you learned the latter you wouldn't be bragging abotu a 140 IQ test to a person who already told you he studied the Wais-III in graduate school.

Maybe your just trying to confuse me, but isn't it true that I'm the one in this argument doing the criticizing of thought? I'm critically analyzing psychology and IQ tests while you faithfully defend it. Doesn't sound like I'm the one lacking in critical thinking. Too much, perhaps, but not lacking.

So let me get this straight. You think that because you're a grad student who has studied an IQ test and you've had a few exchanges with me over the internet that you can determine whether or not I am telling the truth about my IQ? The fact is that I've had a lot of different scores on IQ test. The average is somewhere between 135-140.

Another thing about Psychology tests since this is my last post in this thread (sorry, I've got too much to do these days). There was a time in my life when I was going through a pretty rough time, and my parents were worried about me. I ended up being tested by 2 professionals. One was a 300 question deal (or something near 300). On that one I was diagnosed with severe depression. The other wanted to put me in inpatient treatment, but I refused. I was sent to third psychologist who said that nothing was wrong with me and told me to come back in a couple of months if anything was wrong. After a few weeks I was sent to a fourth and he wanted to put me on medication, which I refused, but he still wanted to have therapy sessions with me, so I agreed to that. He said I wasn't depressed and he talked me through it and I was okay a month and a half later. Which one was right? Hell if I know, but they were all drawing from scientific psychological knowledge, allegedly. The only one who could help me was the one who dropped the tests and the "you're a freak" attitude and just talked to me. The only thing that test told me was that I needed help, which was obvious to me and my family. And about IQ tests, I don't know what to think about my own intelligence. I know I can do well in school, but I know some dumb fools that work hard and make good grades. Likewise, some very smart folks get lazy and make terrible grades. I'm past trying to rationalize to you my IQ scores, but I know what happened, and all your little remarks cannot shake the personal experiences I've had. However, you give me good reason to believe that my IQ isn't what the test results say it is.