It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Alan S. Kaufman, a psychology professor and an author of IQ tests, writes in IQ Testing 101 that "Miss Savant was given an old version of the Stanford-Binet (Terman & Merrill 1937), which did, indeed, use the antiquated formula of MA/CA × 100. But in the test manual's norms, the Binet does not permit IQs to rise above 170 at any age, child or adult. And the authors of the old Binet stated: 'Beyond fifteen the mental ages are entirely artificial and are to be thought of as simply numerical scores.' (Terman & Merrill 1937).... the psychologist who came up with an IQ of 228 committed an extrapolation of a misconception, thereby violating almost every rule imaginable concerning the meaning of IQs."[9]
Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
reply to post by PurpleChiten
if it's as you say, that your identity isn't dependent on such things, then why do you hold your opinions no matter the evidence presented?
Alan S. Kaufman, a psychology professor and an author of IQ tests, writes in IQ Testing 101 that "Miss Savant was given an old version of the Stanford-Binet (Terman & Merrill 1937), which did, indeed, use the antiquated formula of MA/CA × 100. But in the test manual's norms, the Binet does not permit IQs to rise above 170 at any age, child or adult. And the authors of the old Binet stated: 'Beyond fifteen the mental ages are entirely artificial and are to be thought of as simply numerical scores.' (Terman & Merrill 1937).... the psychologist who came up with an IQ of 228 committed an extrapolation of a misconception, thereby violating almost every rule imaginable concerning the meaning of IQs."[9]
en.wikipedia.org...
Originally posted by Paschar0
I think it's great. However the exception to the rule does't negate all the other data does it?
Originally posted by Erectus
I am a firm believer in sterilization based on intelligence scores. In an already over-populated world we cannot afford to allow the infantile of mind to propagate. Now, crucify me as an evil or ignorant person.
Originally posted by EasyPleaseMe
Originally posted by Erectus
I am a firm believer in sterilization based on intelligence scores. In an already over-populated world we cannot afford to allow the infantile of mind to propagate. Now, crucify me as an evil or ignorant person.
I totally agree. And the level should be set at 1 + your IQ.
Originally posted by Xaphan
Originally posted by EasyPleaseMe
Originally posted by Erectus
I am a firm believer in sterilization based on intelligence scores. In an already over-populated world we cannot afford to allow the infantile of mind to propagate. Now, crucify me as an evil or ignorant person.
I totally agree. And the level should be set at 1 + your IQ.
Oh boy! Eugenics supporters! I was wondering when you people would pile into the thread.
Originally posted by EasyPleaseMe
I'm only in favour of Eugenics as far as getting rid of people in favour of Eugenics. I thought that was clear.
I used to be a member of Mensa but the magazine was littered with opinions the same as Erectus'.
edit on 22-5-2012 by EasyPleaseMe because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by bluemirage5
The reason why women have not feared well over the centuries is because she was not allowed to obtain an education and universities refused female applicants. Now that is changing, expectations of women is higher than that of man.....thankfully, that's not a difficult task to do!
Originally posted by Carseller4
About 20 years ago there was a controversial book about this called "The Bell Curve" that totally goes against what current science (under pressure) is saying.
Originally posted by Dark Ghost
Originally posted by bluemirage5
The reason why women have not feared well over the centuries is because she was not allowed to obtain an education and universities refused female applicants. Now that is changing, expectations of women is higher than that of man.....thankfully, that's not a difficult task to do!
The "oppression" card is starting to wear thin despite the best efforts of feminists to preserve it as the shining beacon as to why women have not achieved as greatly as men in certain areas of life.
The point at hand is not that there is a difference in intelligence between the sexes, rather that there are areas of life where men tend to excel better than women, and where women tend to excel better than men.
Originally posted by mbkennel
Generally the raw size of the brain isn't considered to be that important as compared to the complexity of the connections.
A sperm whale has a far larger brain than homo sapiens but isn't considered to be more intelligent and doesn't appear to be, though obviously whales and dolphins are much more intelligent than sharks.
Aside:
Not only that but dolphins recognize that humans are also intelligent like them---dolphins play with humans and whales. In the aquatic world, nearly all animals other than cetaceans are really dumb. The dolphins must be awfully bored.
On land, there are more levels of intelligent animals, but many of them are dangerous to other species (e.g. lions, elephants, etc).edit on 22-5-2012 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)edit on 22-5-2012 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Xaphan
However, I wouldn't object to rounding people like him up and putting them all on a remote island somewhere. They could start their own "superior" civilization and act out their Darwinistic wet dreams and leave non-elitist humble people alone once and for all. It would be a win-win situation.