The REAL purpose of I.Q. Testing

reply to post by ShadellacZumbrum

The Upkeep to Manage and Maintain such a Debacle would be Extremely Economically Unfeasible.

You mean that you know how much something like this would cost?

Oh... DO TELL.

I think they separate the intelligent top % of the kids and try to indoctrinate them at some poin...those that take
get educated in the secret sciences they dont allow us to know exist till they are forced to...
These are the kids they train for the NWO

reply to post by stirling

I think they separate the intelligent top % of the kids and try to indoctrinate them at some poin...those that take
get educated in the secret sciences they dont allow us to know exist till they are forced to...
These are the kids they train for the NWO

And those that have a solid moral core, are tracked, and psychologically harassed to diminish their potential.

reply to post by ErtaiNaGia


If a child is bullied for having an IQ higher or lower than the rest of the class, do you believe it is also a conspiracy? People are often envious and try to attack or harass those who are different. You don't need a conspiracy to explain that. Also, your task here is to survive, not to complain. If you see real danger for yourself or your offspring, you should act accordingly to protect yourself. But I never saw any indication that people with high IQ are persecuted besides what I said above about bullying. There are many of them among chess grandmasters, for example. And many of them are married and have children. Basically, they have more chances to survive and procreate than people with a lower IQ, just because they are more inventive.

reply to post by ErtaiNaGia


In fact I do.

I did my thesis on Managing Man and How Much it Will Cost.

Well, not really, but thought it would be funny to add.

Anyways, If you look at it historically, Control does NOT come without a price.

There are those who will spare No Expense to get what they want. Even if it Breaks their "Banks".

Please keep in mind that there are literally 100's of Millions of People who would hide from the Control.
Regardless of that groups level of "Retardation", it is going to be a Major expense to Hunt those people down and Make them Conform to Control.

reply to post by mrkeen

If a child is bullied for having an IQ higher or lower than the rest of the class, do you believe it is also a conspiracy?

Your question is meaningless.... IT either could, or could not be a conspiracy, and the likelihood of it being a conspiracy or not can not be calculated by people who are not in possession of all of the facts.

Furthermore, your question belies your fundamental assertion that bullying someone who has a higher IQ could NOT be a conspiracy, despite you having the exact same amount of evidence that I do.

Therefore, your question is meaningless... Q.E.D.

People are often envious and try to attack or harass those who are different.

This is true, but this is hardly proof AGAINST conspiracy.

And considering the time scales involved in the theory that I am positing, might also be proof OF conspiracy.

Also, your task here is to survive, not to complain.

Don't tell me what my task is.

I shall do precisely as I see fit, thank you very much.

And as an addendum, I am having a discussion, not complaining.

But I never saw any indication that people with high IQ are persecuted besides what I said above about bullying.

Then your own experiences give credence to my theory.

reply to post by ShadellacZumbrum

In fact I do.

I did my thesis on Managing Man and How Much it Will Cost.

Well, not really, but thought it would be funny to add.

Well then, thanks for contributing to the discussion...

Anyways, If you look at it historically, Control does NOT come without a price.

No-one is debating this.

There are those who will spare No Expense to get what they want. Even if it Breaks their "Banks".

Yes.... i'm glad you agree with me.

Regardless of that groups level of "Retardation", it is going to be a Major expense to Hunt those people down and Make them Conform to Control.

A major expense compared to what?

Waging a war?

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
reply to post by mrkeen

 

Don't tell me what my task is.

I shall do precisely as I see fit, thank you very much

You are part of that Non Conformist Group I just spoke of.

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
reply to post by smyleegrl

 

IQ tests measure potential in a certain area and that is all.

Yes, that is correct.... That "Certain Area" is called INTELLIGENCE.

There's no IQ test for many things, such as the creative arts, literature, etc.

This is a specious argument, that belies your misunderstanding of the definition of intelligence.

Intelligence is not artistic creativity.... that is called artistic creativity.

Intelligence is not musical aptitude... that is called musical aptitude.

Intelligence is not Emotional Understanding.... that is called emotional understanding.

Intelligence is not social skill.... that is called social skill.


Intelligence is the ability to think critically, the speed at which you comprehend new knowledge, and apply it to situations.

You have unfortunately misunderstood the PURPOSE of intelligence tests.... as being something OTHER than testing for INTELLIGENCE.


Again... Musical aptitude and Artistic creativity are not INTELLIGENCE.

Intelligence: capacity for learning, reasoning, understanding, and similar forms of mental activity; aptitude in grasping truths, relationships, facts, meanings, etc.

This is the definition of intelligence....

Why would you believe that a test which measures ones ability to learn, reason, understand, and similar forms of mental activity....

Doesn't actually measure ones ability to learn, reason, understand, and similar forms of mental ability.....


Because there are no Music or Artistic questions on the test?



What we are dealing with here, is a Semantic Failure to comprehend just WHAT intelligence *IS*, and instead thinking that Intelligence is anything we happen to have some skill at.

Not at all. Look up multiple intelligence theory.

Also, I've taught students with high IQs who were severely learning disabled in reading or math. Likewise, I've taught students with low to average IQs who worked their butts off and excelled in their work.

Intelligence is far more complicated than an IQ test can measure.

reply to post by ErtaiNaGia


Let's Keep Apples and Oranges separate in this conversation.

Waging War cannot be compared to the expense of Control.

While the expense of waging war encompasses so many variables to include Money and Life, Control is merely limited to Money.

There is Nothing like a man whose loyalty can be bought with Cold Hard Cash.


Insert Facetious Comment here, ... . .----> Always Glad to Contribute.

reply to post by smyleegrl

Not at all. Look up multiple intelligence theory.

Multiple intelligence theory has not been tested, peer reviewed, accepted by intelligence researchers (either genetic or psychometric), and has been denounced by the vast majority of the Intelligence-Research scientific community.

The Theory of multiple intelligences is a semantic misrepresentation of the term "Intelligence" to mean "Any skill that an individual could posses" which is not what intelligence means.

en.wikipedia.org...

Gardner's work on "Multiple Intelligences" is a poorly written sham:

A critical review of MI theory argues that there is little empirical evidence to support it:

To date there have been no published studies that offer evidence of the validity of the multiple intelligences. In 1994 Sternberg reported finding no empirical studies. In 2000 Allix reported finding no empirical validating studies, and at that time Gardner and Connell conceded that there was "little hard evidence for MI theory" (2000, p. 292). In 2004 Sternberg and Grigerenko stated that there were no validating studies for multiple intelligences, and in 2004 Gardner asserted that he would be "delighted were such evidence to accrue",[30] and admitted that "MI theory has few enthusiasts among psychometricians or others of a traditional psychological background" because they require "psychometric or experimental evidence that allows one to prove the existence of the several intelligences."[30][31]

The same review presents evidence to demonstrate that cognitive neuroscience research does not support the theory of multiple intelligences:

... the human brain is unlikely to function via Gardner’s multiple intelligences. Taken together the evidence for the intercorrelations of subskills of IQ measures, the evidence for a shared set of genes associated with mathematics, reading, and g, and the evidence for shared and overlapping "what is it?" and "where is it?" neural processing pathways, and shared neural pathways for language, music, motor skills, and emotions suggest that it is unlikely that each of Gardner’s intelligences could operate "via a different set of neural mechanisms" (1999, p. 99). Equally important, the evidence for the "what is it?" and "where is it?" processing pathways, for Kahneman’s two decision-making systems, and for adapted cognition modules suggests that these cognitive brain specializations have evolved to address very specific problems in our environment. Because Gardner claimed that the intelligences are innate potentialities related to a general content area, MI theory lacks a rationale for the phylogenetic emergence of the intelligences.[31]

Several articles have surveyed the use of Gardner's ideas and conclude that there is little to no academically substantiated evidence that his ideas work in practice. Steven A. Stahl found that most of the previous studies which claimed to show positive results had major flaws:

Among others, Marie Carbo claims that her learning styles work is based on research. (I discuss Carbo because she publishes extensively on her model and is very prominent in the workshop circuit ...) But given the overwhelmingly negative findings in the published research, I wondered what she was citing, and about a decade ago, I thought it would be interesting to take a look. Reviewing her articles, I found that out of 17 studies she had cited, only one was published. Fifteen were doctoral dissertations and 13 of these came out of one university—St. John’s University in New York, Carbo’s alma mater. None of these had been in a peer-refereed journal. When I looked closely at the dissertations and other materials, I found that 13 of the 17 studies that supposedly support her claim had to do with learning styles based on something other than modality.[32]

The theory of multiple intelligences has been widely used as an example of pseudoscience, because it lacks empirical evidence or falsifiability.

Also, I've taught students with high IQs who were severely learning disabled in reading or math. Likewise, I've taught students with low to average IQs who worked their butts off and excelled in their work.

What kind of work?

Was their work a test for reasoning ability?

Or was it not?

You should probably distance yourself from your presumptions that Intelligence means "Good at everything", because this is not what intelligence means.

Intelligence IS:

capacity for learning, reasoning, understanding, and similar forms of mental activity; aptitude in grasping truths, relationships, facts, meanings, etc.

dictionary.reference.com...

Your continued insistence that The definition of intelligence is not an adequate measure of Intelligence, is baffling.

We do not test intelligence, by seeing how well someone paints.

Intelligence is far more complicated than an IQ test can measure.

No, it is not.

And we routinely DO measure Intelligence..... as a Quotient of the overall population.....

Three guesses as to what this test is called....

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
reply to post by mrkeen

Also, your task here is to survive, not to complain.

Don't tell me what my task is.

I shall do precisely as I see fit, thank you very much.

I was not talking about your specific task as you see it. I was talking about the fundamental task of any living being on this planet. Nobody can fulfil any specific goals if they are dead. Somewhere deep inside us there is a preconception that there should be dangers in this world, and we even have instincts to cope with some of them. Depending of where you live and what surrounds you, these dangers fall into groups according to their severeness. Immediate physical dangers are the most severe. The possible danger of being secretly persecuted for your higher IQ cannot be exactly estimated. But at least if you have a higher IQ (which btw is not a well-defined measure), then you probably have a higher chance of survival, because mother nature gave you more brain power. And I did not mean that there is zero chance that a conspiracy which you descibed may exist at some point in history. This is just one of the many dangers this world poses. But it is certainly not the primary danger, because you can always fake a lower IQ score when you are tested, if you believe it will increase your chances of survival.

reply to post by ShadellacZumbrum

Let's Keep Apples and Oranges separate in this conversation.

Then why bring them up?

Waging War cannot be compared to the expense of Control.

War is Control.

While the expense of waging war encompasses so many variables to include Money and Life, Control is merely limited to Money.

Or gaining Value..... of which money is merely an abstraction of.

There is Nothing like a man whose loyalty can be bought with Cold Hard Cash.

The same can be said for almost everything in the entire universe.

Insert Facetious Comment here, ... . .----> Always Glad to Contribute.

Oh, HERE is where you were being facetious... thank you so much for narrowing that down...

reply to post by mrkeen

I was not talking about your specific task as you see it. I was talking about the fundamental task of any living being on this planet.

Fair enough.

in·tel·li·gence
/ɪnˈtɛlɪdʒəns/ [in-tel-i-juhns]
noun
1.
capacity for learning, reasoning, understanding, and similar forms of mental activity; aptitude in grasping truths, relationships, facts, meanings, etc.

dictionary.reference.com...

THIS is what Intelligence Tests Measure.


The presumption that Intelligence tests are supposed to measure anything EXCEPT what intelligence is DEFINED AS.... is a DEEPLY FLAWED perspective.


What Intelligence *IS*

the capacity for learning, reasoning, understanding, and similar forms of mental activity; aptitude in grasping truths, relationships, facts, meanings, etc.

What Intelligence is NOT

1. The light in a childs eyes
2. A well played game of football
3. An oil canvas painting
4. A composed Symphony
5. A wide range of emotions
6. Farming Skill
7. How much money you earn
8. How special you think your child is
9. How much love you have in your heart
10. how social you are
11. how many friends you have
12. whether or not you can kick someone's [snip]
13. Specific knowledge of any kind
14. Why Plants Crave Brawndo


Why, for the love of god WHY, would you say that Intelligence tests are "Flawed" because they only measure what intelligence IS, as opposed to what intelligence is *NOT*?


And then we have people stating that "But we don't even know what intelligence IS"


WE SO TOTALLY DO KNOW WHAT INTELLIGENCE IS:

the capacity for learning, reasoning, understanding, and similar forms of mental activity; aptitude in grasping truths, relationships, facts, meanings, etc.

^^^^^^ THAT IS INTELLIGENCE ^^^^^^^

IT IS WHAT THE WORD "INTELLIGENCE" MEANS!


We measure intelligence by seeing how well the people taking the I.Q. test learn, reason, understand, grasp truths, relationships, facts, and meanings.


We do NOT measure intelligence by judging someone's athletic potential, painting skills, bank account, farm expertise, social ability, emotional range, etcetera... because these things are *NOT* intelligence.


WHY IS THIS VERY SIMPLE CONCEPT SO DIFFICULT FOR SOME PEOPLE TO GRASP?



Do you want to know why there is Such an ABUNDANCE of this kind of thinking in the public perception of intelligence?

DO YOU WANT TO KNOW?

Follow the link: www.abovetopsecret.com...

I scored 134 here .

Fancy a go , just for fun ? Post your score

www.free-iqtest.net...

The REAL purpose of I.Q. Testing...

Is to acquire targeting information to use to weed intelligence out of the gene pool.

WELL, DUH... !

reply to post by AlphaHawk


All 4 of my kids are well within the upper limits of intelligence. The "dumbing down" comes with the education offered kids these days, not with the lowering of intelligence. You are born with whatever capabilities, intelligence wise, that you possess. Your education however, determines what you do with it, along with social factors, environmental factors, etc....

For example...
Kids at the turn of the 1900s were doing work in 6th grade, that the average kid did in the 1970s in high school. Today, in 2013, kids are being educated to about what I did in 8th grade.( I was a 1960s-70s child) Past wars aren't being discussed, controversial topics aren't being discussed, kids aren't being taught to think critically, but to follow the crowd. With physical education programs being cut, along with many after school sports- the kids have no where to vent all the energy they used to, doing those things. So, now we have kids who have nowhere to burn it off, and getting into mischief. It's a no win situation all the way around for today's kids.

@OP;

Great thread and completely believable. Funny how the talented kids that were used as an example to counter your point, all got into mensa, no? If not weeded out, mensa sure is taking care of them. So perhaps the high iq's ARE being weeded out, and what remains gets a proper dose of manipulation at mensa. I dont know, but putting children as young as FOUR YEARS OLD has to have a huge influence on them, and I dont really see how.manipulating young brains with.huge potential is always a positive thing? Id rather give my child as many options as possible rather than allowing group think to affect them, no matter how smart that group may be.

The replies are also very telling, imo. You have a VERY plausible conspiracy here, imo, yet still people flock In to, as you said so well, control damage.

reply to post by Nevertheless



Haha, if you honestly believe that outside factors are not of influence in your choice of partner you're not as smart as you may like to believe. I see myself as a pretty down to earth person, who is aware of his surroundings and aware of how culture dictates most peoples lives, yet even I have to admit that yes, my choice was influenced if not even manipulated by my surroundings. You suggest the obvious influences, like parents etc, but overlook what the op was, I think, getting at; you see skinny beautiful females advertised as the ideal. May I/we inquire what you look(ed) for in a partner? (talking very superficially here I know), I'm guessing you might be attracted to this ideal. That ideal, however, is not yours, its societies, and you most likely comply. If you lived in 1690 you'd dig big women with pale skins, or you ought to, at least.

There are exceptions to every rule, of course,so my apologies if you dont fit what I presumed, but I'm sure on ome levels, you do.

So let me guess this straight? The world is getting dumber right?
There was no dumb people before the internet or TV.
At the same time the brightest people are playing with quantum physics or playing with nano-technology.
Oh but this is about IQ tests, like anyone who takes a test passes a score you go on a list, wasn't that in Catch 22?