In a message dated 23/05/00 23:45:40 GMT Standard Time,
> Emlyn and the Rocket Plumber are right here, of course. This has been the
> vexing problem of IQ tests: how to measure raw intelligence versus
> achievement. The latter is, obviously, a mix of raw intelligence and
> experience. Someone who has gone to the best schools, had good parenting,
> etc. might score much higher than someone who did not go to the best
> schools, etc. regardless of intelligence.
I'm living proof of that. I didn't go to the best schools and came from a
single parent family. Ive always had problems with the "what of these is the
opposite of this word ?" type of questions. My vocablary isn't exceptional
and if I dont know what the word means, how am I supposed to say what the
opposite is !!!. Right now I have a dictionary next to the PC so I can
desipher half of your e-mails. :o)
> But within those limits, I think we can make measures -- even if the
> measures are rough. If one asks for absolute certainly -- or, here,
> absolute separate between factors, I think one is, for now, raising the bar
> too high.
> But, again, the problem is people link IQ test results too closely with
> self-esteem and think an average score means they are doomed to a less
> satisfactory life. Perhaps if people linked self-esteem more with what
> limitations they could overcome than with perceived limits, then things
> would be different. ("Perceived" here because tests can be wrong for a
> number of reasons, including mundane things like a bad night's sleep before
> the test.)
The day I sat the entrance test for Mensa I was ill, I hadn't slept, it
was about the hottest day of the year, I had to travel by train and
underground just to find out the test had been moved to a different building.
I could feel the IQ point dropping by the second.
Its a mirical I passed !
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:11:36 MDT