I don't know about you, but I am curious about the law of correspondence. "Like attracts Like" etc.

This may be flamed,deleted etc. but hey, we will see!

Question to viewers of this forum:

What is your I.Q. (mine-143) Not Emotional Quotient!

Just curious!! Boy if this gets posted--can't wait to see the responses!

-- Dave Butts (dciinc@aol.com), September 05, 1999

Answers

Dave:

I don't pay much attention to these numbers, but the testers I've had to work with say that is an ivalid number. This is not meant to be a flame or an insult. I apologize if it sounds that way...

Best wishes,

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), September 05, 1999.

Dave:

I don't pay much attention to these numbers, but the testers I've had to work with say that is an invalid number. This is not meant to be a flame or an insult. I apologize if it sounds that way...

Best wishes,

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), September 05, 1999.

Oh, Davy, are you just asking for it!

This has already been settled here. All GI's are slender, attractive people with naturally curly hair (definately not bald). We are all incredably intellegent, well-read, and imaginably conversant. Some of us, like me, can even make that little whistling noise with our noses that only dogs can hear!

The Pollys, on the other hand are quite a different story. :

-- Lon Frank (lgal@exp.net), September 05, 1999.

? ! :) . .( ) . . . . !

(a post that only dog's can read)

-- Same as B4 (NWphotog@Foxcomm.net), September 05, 1999.

Dave:

By the way, officially, mine was higher and also now considered invalid. Even so, it didn't make me smart enough to not double post...

Best,,,

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), September 05, 1999.

Dave,

Sorry, I haven't a clue nor even the slightest desire to ever get one.

Mike

===================================================================

-- Michael Taylor (mtdesign3@aol.com), September 05, 1999.

On my most arrogant days, I'm at least 170+

On my most humble and realistic days, I beat Troll Maria and Paul Davis, so that must be around 91.

-- Chris (%$^&^@pond.com), September 05, 1999.

There was a test on excite or aol a few weeks ago cant remember the site, I scored 144 after pulling an allnighter.Seems kind of low,but im only a high school grad,and that was the late 80s.

-- G Bailey (GBa6872290@aol.com), September 05, 1999.

B4:

When my dogs see a post, reading isn't the first thing on their minds.

Best,,,

Z

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), September 05, 1999.

Sorry, what does I.Q. stand for? And where's Dorothy?

Willy

-- W.J.Clinten (gee@willy.suck), September 05, 1999.

I don't think having a high tested IQ means nearly as much as having the right set of attitudes. I'm sure our fool in the White House has a high tested IQ, but what has been the benefit to him (and us). It just has allowed him to rationalize more cleverly. Swell!

-- Peter Errington (petere@ricochet.net), September 05, 1999.

Grasping for understanding as to the links that connect the GIs is so frustrating.

Please forgive my waste of thread space!

Always analytical!

Don't know what I was thinking!

Just waiting,anticipating,contemplating,prognosticating,formulating,this wild and crazy Calm before the storm.

-- Dave Butts (dciinc@aol.com), September 05, 1999.

Dave,

No apologies necessary. It was a reasonable question to ask, even though, as you've seen, there is no lack of "big brains" on either this forum or the Debunker's forum (much as some hate to admit it). IQ points prove to be no indicator of where on the 1 - 10 Y2K spectrum one is likely to be.

There have been several threads in the history of this forum that have, in one way or another, asked the question "What psychological factors make someone a GI?" I don't think there can be an answer to this question, but it doesn't keep me from wondering.

-- RUOK (RUOK@yesiam.com), September 05, 1999.

Hey,

Where are all the OT thread police today?? Anyway, since all the women on this board are as Lon said, who's up for a shuttle ride around the first of the year? Please refer to prior thread (New Diversion). Chris in Texas, NO offense taken but you should reconsider as all of the posters can't fit, and it is MY SHUTTLE rental for the weekend!!!! Kristen hasn't called yet and the centerfold is out on a shoot somewhere in Montana.

I.Q. by the way, has NOTHING,ZIPPO,NADA to do with common sense or success (personal/business/economic) or survival skills. This country has more overeducated idiots than we'll ever need or use and just look where we all are!!!! However in this country, size does matter ( especially if you live in Texas) as well as how high your I.Q. is. That all will be changin' soon.

-- rob (rgt350@aol.com), September 05, 1999.

It's not how high your IQ is, it's what you DO with what you've got.

-- Mr. Mike (mikeabn@aol.com), September 05, 1999.

I'd say that GIs tend to be open to ideas that society at large would reject solely because they're outside the prevailing paradigm. Not that GIs will accept anything that's off the beaten track, but rather that they'll give it a fair hearing.

-- David L (bumpkin@dnet.net), September 05, 1999.

Sometimes a Doctor dies.Does that make us smarter??

-- still alive @ 85 (What's@thepoint.com), September 05, 1999.

Dave,

I tested at 138, way back in high school, but that was before my late adolescence/early adulthood, in the early seventies, when I did...ummm...you know...STUFF! The kinda stuff everybody was doing in the early seventies.

For all I know, I may be on par with the average carrot, these days...What was the question again?

-- Bokonon (bok0non@my-Deja.com), September 06, 1999.

Without instinct, pure IQ could be a risk. My experience has been that while good IQ is enjoyable, having or developing good instincts is deeply rewarding.

-- Will (sibola@hotmail.com), September 06, 1999.

David L. --

I agree with your comment. All through my life, I've felt that the "accepted", normal ways in which most people discussed things were typically limited to the values/themes expressed in the popular culture of the moment, which usually left out a huge chunk of reality and history. I also wonder if GI's share some of the "outsider to my generation" kind of experience described in THE FOURTH TURNING (page 68). I'm just starting to read it, but this really struck a note with me when I came across it. No matter what age we are, I suspect that GI's feel very out of step with their age/generational peers on the subject of Y2K. Is this a new experience for most of us, or a pattern that keeps recurring, from one decade of our lives to the next? Have we spent most of our lives hearing a different drummer than most of our age peers? Have we spent most of our lives drawing far different interpretations and conclusions on one subject after another, but perhaps learning to keep it to ourselves most of the time? Do we need to feed our brains new ideas and information regularly, to feel alive?

For me, the world's interconnectedness is so obvious, that it takes about 15 minutes TOPS to realize that the power gird is key to everything else working; even a compliant computer can't run without it. Even so, some really smart people seem willing to stake our national security upon unaudited, self-reports by the utilities as to their actual status. Lots of smart people are willing to stake their families' welfare on the assurances of people whom they distrust or about whom they are usually cynical or skeptical. I don't get it. It can't only be about being smart. IMHO, the crucial component has to be in HOW we process information and ideas, and test them against what we already have in our heads.

BTW, that's why I so value this forum. I feel free here to speak what I really think, AND I keep discovering other people who are thinking the same things and/or offering other new food for my thoughts to chew upon. Thanks for another provocative "conversation", everyone.

-- Kristi (KsaintA@aol.com), September 06, 1999.

Speaking as one overeducated idiot, The breadth matters as much as the depth. Intelligence is now known to be modular. No single number will decribe it with any meaning. Characterizing unitary "intelligence", and representing it as a single number, is not very useful in predicting success in any field of endeavor.

Prediction: A lot of "intelligent" people are going to be very surprised in a few months.

-- Spindoc' (spindoc_99_2000@yahoo.com), September 06, 1999.

I don't understand what spindoc just stated, but just like Bokonon, my idiot quotient was tested at 138 in my teens. All that did was let me leverage my way out of high school in three years. Never did finish university, but I got one of dem "working men's PhDs." As they say: B.S. - Bull sh*t M.S. - More sh*t Ph.D. - Piled higher and deeper

-- anon (anon@anon.com), September 06, 1999.

I think that IQ doesn't mean what people think it means. If it meant "intelligence," then you shouldn't be able to raise it by studying or putting effort into learning. It's probably more a general predictor of how well your effort will pay off in academics, like the SAT test, etc.

The reason I take the Y2K threat seriously is that I've been in situations where the infrastructure failed before. I've also been in many many situations where the authorities lied or (benefit of the doubt) were ignorant about what was going on. For example: Desert Shield & Storm--Bush said on VOA at one point that no American soldiers were inside Iraq, and I listened to that from inside Iraq. You wouldn't believe the cover-up during the AAR when the war ended, either (Company level).

I only know, on Y2K, that although nobody knows, governments and businesses are "acting" like something's up, thougth they're keeping it "behind the scenes" as much as they can--they know more than me, and they're making plans like I've never seen before. Maybe someone's planning a coup, maybe they have reason to believe Y2K is going to be bad, maybe they're planning a nuclear war. Doesn't matter-actions speak louder than words.

Something is obviously up.

-- S. Kohl (kohl@hcpd.com), September 06, 1999.

Kristi, My personal door to nonconformity opened during high school, when I regularly heard Carleton Fredericks' radio program where he spoke of nutrition, alternative therapies and their suppression by mainstream medicine. Several years later, I discovered several books that shaped my perspective on government, industry, the media and technology. Two that merit special mention are The Media Monopoly by Ben Bagdikian and Four Arguments for the Elimination of Television by Jerry Mander.

So at least in my case, a nonconformist was made, not born.

David L

-- David L (bumpkin@dnet.net), September 06, 1999.

Mine is supposedly changing over the new year, to 5.62 X 39 Nato.

Happy New Years.

PS-Get on with yourself superbrain. You won't last 5 minutes on your fabulous intellect should TSHTF.

-- Gordon (g_gecko_69@hotmail.com), September 06, 1999.

Is it a coincidence though, that on the population intelligence bell-curve only 2% is above 130, and according to Yourdon and other sources, only from 1 to 2% of the population is "GI"?

Would anyone argue that the higher the IQ in a person, the more inquisitive and aware is that person?

-- (not@now.com), September 06, 1999.

Gordo-.... its 7.62X39 and 5.56X45.... my own... .50cal....

-- Billy-Boy (Rakkasn@Yahoo.com), September 06, 1999.

Well, here's an anomaly- recently read a local newspaper interview with a GI. Quotes from said interviewee revealed IQ of a yellow squash. Now where does he fit in? Looking at the accompanying photo of him in his basement stand next to his extra cases of Bud Light and ammo, I had the discomforting feeling that many "intelligent" citizens will die for their arrogance and the world will be left populated with the likes of this lot. Gives one pause.

-- April (Alwzapril@home.com), September 06, 1999.

A yellow squash filled with Bud Light. So you based his IQ on his looks and one interview.

So then, according to your logic from this post above, you have the IQ of a green pea?

I deduce that green peas don't like to associate with yellow squashes.

-- (not@now.com), September 06, 1999.

And I deduce from your post that perhaps you have a basement full of Bud Light and ammo. Was this an interview of you?

-- April (Alwzapril@home.com), September 06, 1999.

Dear Dave- I don't think IQ is relevant here. I don't know mine- never was tested- but I did graduate college the first time at 19- can't be too dumb I figure. My partner is in the 140 something range- and I have a brain damaged kid with an IQ of 68. And we all GET IT!! So- I think just having an open mind is the issue here.......

-- farmer (hillsidefarm@drbs.net), September 06, 1999.

Dropped out of high school at 17, joined up, at 20 took a comissiom Finished Airborne,Rangers,Pathfinder,Special Forces.At 17 I tested 118, at 20 tested 158, At 26 I rode the deans list for 4 years and never ,well almost never cracked a book, Discovered I could learn by sleeping with the book open on my chest, BA,MA, Asian studies,And friends I still don't know s***. My experience in life has demonstrated that practical and peak intellegience is not often found in the same body--give me a couple of practical friends anytime-those who feel they are smarter than the average bear are usually insufferable and looking to get over on someone--Are the bankers high IQ'd? How about criminals? I'll place my life on the great average, those who know work, planting.fishing,survival'ect. the most intellegient NEVER play vocabulary games and are able to fit comfortably in all social strata. And they never reveal their great gift. nor do they try to impress,But I'll bet you we are ready!

-- Real rambo (bankers@inbodybags.com), September 06, 1999.

If anyone reads this far. . .

My observation on a common trait: The GI's can SPELL! (Not type, necessarily.) 8^) And express a thought in a complete sentence. It is a pleasure to hang out here.

-- Gypsy (GypsiGold@aol.com), September 07, 1999.

No idea what it is now. Don't you lose ten points a year after 30?

The only time it was officially tested was in Grade school. I don't recall exactly what it was, 140 something.

The question DOES bring back a memory or two though. When they did that testing and delivered results mine weren't there. Kinda ticked me off. Then I got called to the office with maybe four other kids. There aint NO good reason to a kid for being called to the office and ushered into the principals ofice. I can recall cataloging alibi's at the time so I would have one ready. In the office they sat us down and said OUR scores were being given to us privately because they didn't want us telling everyone else. Seems these early breed liberals didn't want to demoralize the other kids.

Somehow my science teacher got wind of it. After that he would stop me in the hall and see what books I had in my backpack to check up on my reading. I finished his course with a few weeks of coming in early. I thought that meant I could move up to another class. Yea, right. It meant I got to help him with the other kids. Big deal.

Maybe there was something to it. I also remember a teacher taking an entire class period to explain map directions. I mean North, South, East and West. Some of those kids NEVER got it and I could never understand why it even had to be explained. That had nothing to do with IQ. It had to do with common sense.

I really don't think IQ is a valid way of measuring anything but the test itself. It's entirely artificial and arbitrary.

Personally, I think intelligence is something that defies measurement. You might be able to point at someone and say "Dey is Shmart!" but how do you know? How do you quantify it? Isn't it all relevant?

Myself, I vary from day to day if not minute by minute. For that matter I showed the smartest woman I ever met how to properly open a single serving coffee creamer so as not to spill it and she was 52 at the time.

-- Art Welling (artw@lancnews.infi.net), September 07, 1999.

Anon,

Said a bit differently, most researchers who study the nature of "intelligence" don't subscribe to the notion of a *single* number (I.Q) as having any real meaning. You would have to relate an outcome to the number. Does someone who scores high on a Stanford- Binet IQ test necessarily do well later, overall? The correlation is not very good. Many other factors contribute or prevent *success*. And you have to define *success*. What are the criteria?

There are many ways to measure/predict intelligent behavior. Survival in difficult situations may be the best (I'm speculating). Reliance on an IQ test score is not a good bet. We're just not that good at understanding what "intelligence" is, as yet.

One thing we do know: intelligence is modular. Trivial example: one can be a genius in verbal communication, but not be able to do differential calculus for love or money. These differential abilities correlate with different functional areas of the brain. Brain science is only now exploring these differential functions, and how they relate to meaningful behavior.

We assume: the more high-function modules one has, the better the chance for survival. Especially if the modules are integrated.

Bottom line: an Intelligence Quotient (IQ) is/was an attempt to assign an overall number to how well these modules are integrated. So far, the results are questionable, except in the extreme tails of the Bell curve. Even then, the "predictiveness" of "success" can be iffy.

Food for thought.

-- Spindoc' (spindoc_99_2000@yahoo.com), September 08, 1999.

Sorry,

That "differential" paragragh above is a bit ugly. Substitute: vector calculus for differential calulus, if you like.

Differentially challenged,

-- Spindoc' (spindoc_99_2000@yahoo.com), September 08, 1999.

Even better food for though:

Assigning a single number to measure how smart you are is bullshit.

There. I finally said it.

-- Spindoc' (spindoc_99_2000@yahoo.com), September 08, 1999.

Well, for somebody who was told over and over in school how bright I was, why am I not rich? Of course, I was also told how I was wasting my potential because I cared more about chasing girls than grades. Sue me.

IQ is not a good judge of anything other than how well you do on IQ tests. To am extent at least.

"Press on: nothing in the world can take the place of perseverance. Talent will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent. Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education will not; the world is full of educated derelicts. Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent."

--Calvin Coolidge:

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), September 08, 1999.

PS, Cal's right. I did get laid.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), September 08, 1999.