The masturbatory "we're smart" threads

[Wolfian]

No, I mean we went to school (on a Saturday, I think) and took a multiple choice Stanford-Binet test.
Multiple choice Stanford-Binet? I've never heard of a thing. All of the intelligence tests I know of are administered orally on a one-on-one basis. Are you sure it was a Stanford-Binet? Do you recall any of the questions? How many sections there were? I'm not picking on you--I'm just genuinely interested.

-Wolfian, M.Ed school psychology (not that I'm using it)

[lobotomyboy63]

IQ inflation posts are hilarious and common all over the net, not just on the SDMB (though they're clearly here, too).

Perhaps IQ inflation posts are the way to keep cosmic balance on the Internet. Something has to balance out weight description deflation in personal ads, where "average" really means chubby, "a little extra" means flat out fat, "curvy" means obese and "more to love" means huuuuuge.

I know a guy who is a mark for every snake oil salesman in the world. He told me his IQ, according to an online test. Turns out his result makes him a genius.

The "standard error of measurement" for some of these online tests must be huge. It isn't necessarily that people are outright lying...they just repeat what they've been told.

I wonder where the profit is for some of these on-line charlatans.

[Voyager]

Well, to be honest, I don't think so. Just by sheer random chance you would assume a group of 5000 people will have a few super high IQs, but selecting for slightly above average IQs not not necessarily mean it selects for very high IQs. This kind of place selects for a certain subset of Internet users who are intellectually curious, but why isn't it equally reasonable to hypothesize that people who are extremely smart spend too much time on other things to kill time here? Surely, top neurosurgeons, rocket scientists and literary giants are spending their time fixing brains, building spacecraft and writing great novels?

It's perfectly within the bounds of reason - and in fact I suspect it to be the case - that this board would select for people with IQs not lower than average but not so high they they would be likely to be employed in other pursuits - in other words, that it would select for people who lie between 100 and 130. That would be a very smart crowd indeed, but wouldn't necessarily have very many super-smart people.

I went to MIT, and we spent our time on as many worthless pursuits as anyone.

But I thought of a way to estimate Doper intelligence - at least to some extent. I mentioned Jeopardy. I forget how many Doper Jeopardy players we have, but it is at least 25, which is 0.5% of the total. Now, if there are 150 million Americans who might be on Jeopardy, 0.5% of that is 750,000. How many people have actually been on? I'd estimate 2 a day (the champion comes back) or 10 a week or about 500 a year. Over 20 years, that is 10,000, or about .007%. If we considered Dopers a random sample of the population, we'd expect fewer than one Jeopardy contestant. Instead we get 80 times more than chance. I need to get to my statistical software to know for sure, but I think the hypothesis that our population resembles the population as a whole is refuted.

Now this doesn't prove anything, but it strongly suggests that there are lots of Dopers to the far right of the intelligence curve, however you count intelligence. I don't think we have many if any on the far left, no matter how it seems sometime.

Assuming you have a representative sample when you do not is probably the biggest mistake people make in sampling (viz. the Literary Digest poll) and I think a lot of you are making it.

[olivesmarch4th]

Part of the problem, I think, is that I misunderstood your original post. I saw the question ''Who decides?'' as a rhetorical attack on KoS' positon instead of a genuine question, so I didn't respond to the question so much as try to explain I thought his position had merit. Sorry for muddying the waters.

First, how do we decide what contributing to the world means? Did the scientists who created the atom bomb contribute to the world under your definition? Do the panhandlers on the street?
This is one of the reasons I believe there's inherent danger in imposing one's moral obligations on others. Who can say?

Second, from my understanding, if the individual in question gets to decide what they want to do with their lives, that is indeed a subjective moral standard
Yes. I never mean to imply otherwise.

If you allow other people to decide on what they want to do but then judge them for not meeting your standards that are not explicit, that's something else, I think.
Social consciousness of judgmental asshattery? Maybe a bit of both.



Let's say you have a friend who is totally gifted at housecleaning--she can clean anything, does it wonderfully and loves doing it. But because housecleaning only pays 1/3 of what bookkeeping does, she decides to do the bookkeeping. She is not good at bookkeeping and certainly doesn't enjoy it, but she's able to put food on the table and clothe her kids. Is she morally deficient and a self-centered asshole that she's not using her housecleaning skills?

Another example.

There's a guy that's really smart and breezed through medical school and was really great at helping patients. He was a very competent and skilled doctor for a few years, but after a few years, he got overwhelmed with the stress of having people's lives depend on his decisions. So he decides to stop doing that and takes up carving tree sculptures for very rich people, who use these sculptures for their fancy parties. Does this man get your moral censure and your labeling? And if so, are you advocating that we all do the same?

With both these examples, I would say that attitude makes all the difference in the world. There are plenty of ways to be a loving person--''productivity'' being just one of them. For example, how good of a parent is my friend? She might be bookkeeping for a living, but what is she doing in her spare time? Re: the doctor example, I would never suggest anyone sacrifice their personal happiness for the world's good. Even from a strictly utilitarian viewpoint, the little good one person might be able to disseminate to many individuals probably wouldn't cover for the sheer misery of the person contributing. But there is a difference between pushing yourself too hard/being genuinely stressed and miserable and being a lazy self-centered jerk.

And no, I don't advocate that everyone have the same moral standards. They are just mine. I try to shy away from moral imperatives, but the one I've always had a hard time shaking is ''love.'' At the core, KoS seemed to be saying that being an active loving person is more important than being smart. I agree with that.

You really have challenged my thoughts on this matter, though, so thanks.

[Marley23]

Multiple choice Stanford-Binet? I've never heard of a thing. All of the intelligence tests I know of are administered orally on a one-on-one basis. Are you sure it was a Stanford-Binet? Do you recall any of the questions? How many sections there were? I'm not picking on you--I'm just genuinely interested.
I have a pretty clear memory of a seal reading "Stanford-Binet" on the test, for whatever that's worth. I don't recall any particular questions, other than a memory that some of them involved geometric patterns. Basically I remember just enough about the whole experience - one of the guys sitting next to me, asking a guidance counselor about my score, the number she gave me - to be sure that I did take a test at that time.

[msmith537]

What are you brainiacs arguing about anyway? That the SDMB is on average brighter than the general population? Of course it is. The simple fact that you need a) a computer b) $15 to join and c) an interest in discussing such intellectual topics as 'Batman vs whoever' and 'I hate my $6.50 an hour call center job' means that this board will skew towards the cream of the intellectual crop.

Unfortunately, the only thing I was able to do with my intellect was mostly channel it into smartass comments. :(



With both these examples, I would say that attitude makes all the difference in the world. There are plenty of ways to be a loving person--''productivity'' being just one of them. For example, how good of a parent is my friend? She might be bookkeeping for a living, but what is she doing in her spare time? Re: the doctor example, I would never suggest anyone sacrifice their personal happiness for the world's good. Even from a strictly utilitarian viewpoint, the little good one person might be able to disseminate to many individuals probably wouldn't cover for the sheer misery of the person contributing. But there is a difference between pushing yourself too hard/being genuinely stressed and miserable and being a lazy self-centered jerk.


Scoring high on an IQ test is nice, however the whole point of being smart, getting good grades and getting a good education is so that you can choose tthe kind of living you want to make for yourself working with people who will interest and challenge you. The alternative is that it will be decided for you and there's a good chance it will be a tedious, monotonous, possibly dangerous job working with people who never had the ability to do anything else.

[The King of Soup]

I must have expressed myself badly, or I'm misreading others. Insofar as we're talking about the ordinary world and not some hypothetical situation in which we're debating a duty to aid, I have nothing whatever to say about what talents, abilities and skills a person chooses to develop, or use, or how and when s/he does so. There is also an important obligation to one's own happiness, after all, and while I might be able to summon the arrogance to direct others to ignore it in favor of my view of what they can and should do, I'd need some time to work it up, and probably some beer too. A person's mind and body and abilities belong to him or her alone. Step too far away from that principle and you reinvent totalitarianism; another inch, and you've got slavery.

What I was trying to discuss was not social engineering, but simply the praiseworthiness of attributes vs. actions. The world record in the clean-and-jerk, and an IQ of 160 -- okay, a hundred fifty-nine and a half -- are both examples of vast amounts of individual human power employed in the service of generating a number on a clipboard. I can be impressed by either one, but they're both really just expressions of potential. My capacity for admiration gets involved only when the potential gets employed, and I do care a little bit about what for. I find the use of modest talents for good purposes much more impressive than the mere existence, displayed for my applause, of greater talents.

The point of it all (Aha! I found it!) being that while I like hearing about how smart everybody is (no sarcasm -- I do), I like it best when it comes in the form of a story about a difficult problem and how the poster managed to solve it, especially if they can also tell it without condescension but so I can mostly understand it. I'm less fond of a microscopically-accurate rendering of their position on the clipboard followed up by a lament about the dullards all around them.

[Voyager]

Scoring high on an IQ test is nice, however the whole point of being smart, getting good grades and getting a good education is so that you can choose tthe kind of living you want to make for yourself working with people who will interest and challenge you. The alternative is that it will be decided for you and there's a good chance it will be a tedious, monotonous, possibly dangerous job working with people who never had the ability to do anything else.
Amen. I know plenty of people smarter than me who've never done anything really exciting intellectually in their lives. The push and desire to be challenged come from a totally different part of the brain than pure intelligence. If power was allocated based on order of IQ we'd be in an even bigger mess than we are today.

[Heffalump and Roo]

This is one of the reasons I believe there's inherent danger in imposing one's moral obligations on others. Who can say?
Exactly. But it seems to me that when one makes judgments about other people's choices, they are imposing their moral obligation on others.

For example, if someone decides that sex before marriage is unacceptable and keeps that vow themselves, that's not imposing one's moral obligations on others. But if they hold others in contempt for not holding the same standard, it seems to me that that's imposing their moral obligation on others.

Social consciousness of judgmental asshattery? Maybe a bit of both.
You lost me. In the example, there's only you and someone who hasn't met your moral standard.
Whose social consciousness?
Who is judgmental?
Who is displaying asshattery?
And both of what?

With both these examples, I would say that attitude makes all the difference in the world. . . . But there is a difference between pushing yourself too hard/being genuinely stressed and miserable and being a lazy self-centered jerk.
We've come full circle back to the original question I asked.

Where is the line drawn and who gets to draw it?

Please note that attitude, intention, and the feeling of being genuinely stressed are really hard to determine from the outside. . .sometimes even from the inside.

Just wondering, under your moral standard of loving, is it loving to proclaim someone to be a "lazy self-centered jerk"?

Under Buddhism (which I've seen you reference elsewhere), my understanding is whatever your answer to the last question, the "someone" applies to you as well.

And no, I don't advocate that everyone have the same moral standards. They are just mine. I try to shy away from moral imperatives, but the one I've always had a hard time shaking is ''love.'' At the core, KoS seemed to be saying that being an active loving person is more important than being smart. I agree with that.
From my point of view, having a moral imperative of love is a contradiction in terms. One can have a moral standard of love which they apply only to themselves, but once it's applied to others, it becomes an oxymoron. If the other person complies with the standard, they do so, not out of love, which involves choice, but out of fear. It would only be coincidental if they complied out of their own desire simultaneously with the command.

You really have challenged my thoughts on this matter, though, so thanks.
Great! Glad to hear it. You're welcome.

I hope that the questions you're asking have far-reaching ramifications in a positive direction.

[Queen Bruin]

I don't think we have many if any on the far left, no matter how it seems sometime.

It's usually just one on the far left, but they're very loud.

[j666]

Welcome to white girl world (really just girl world circa 1972).
...
Strangely enough, I get the "goofy" analogy, what I don't get is why someone would get a look of horror at the sight of my private office. :confused:
Oh, sorry, that's my office.

As one who passed high school chemistry only by the grace of a very nice instructor, I know where you have been. I do know that aptitude tests are being used better these days; the next generation in my family has benefited from them.

I haven't found that high school science classes are any better; the kids are interested, the teachers are motivated, there's plenty of rhetoric about how important it is ... but kids aren't getting it. (I have a theory about this ...)

I could probably explain the Periodic Table, Avogadro's Number, and even trig to you; it would take about an hour of your time and a month or two for me to prepare.

But ... why? You're doing fine without tangents and cosines. You even got over Tommy K. (Didn't you even suspect he reversed your scores?)

(And balancing a checkbook is a highly over-rated skill.)

[Necros]

The teacher, once the results were in, told us that she could not tell us our scores... This is similar to my experience, and wonder why it is. I was given an IQ test when I was pretty young (six? seven?) by an aunt who was in school for something or other, probably psychology. Regardless, I was also told that I was not allowed to know my scores. So I have no idea what I got.

Is this normal? It definitely colors my views, whenever I hear someone spouting off about their IQ scores. "How do you even know?" I think to myself...

[elfkin477]

This is similar to my experience, and wonder why it is. I was given an IQ test when I was pretty young (six? seven?) by an aunt who was in school for something or other, probably psychology. Regardless, I was also told that I was not allowed to know my scores. So I have no idea what I got.

Is this normal? It definitely colors my views, whenever I hear someone spouting off about their IQ scores. "How do you even know?" I think to myself...
Were your parents barred from knowing, too? My parents got the results and showed me. I assume a lot of parents would do the same ::shrugs::

[begbert2]

Were your parents barred from knowing, too? My parents got the results and showed me. I assume a lot of parents would do the same ::shrugs::My mom refused to tell me, because she didn't want me getting a big head. No, really.

I feel free to brag now, since I hit my peak in about the sixth grade and have been in decline ever since; nowadays I barely hold on to "above average" by the skin of my closely-bitten fingernails. I used to be really smart for a twelve-year old, though. (Still am, I suppose.)

[ultrafilter]

Is this normal? It definitely colors my views, whenever I hear someone spouting off about their IQ scores. "How do you even know?" I think to myself...

I think the most common reason for someone getting an IQ test when young is that they're not doing well in school, and the test will help to determine whether the curriculum is too challenging or not challenging enough. In that case, the parents would be told and might tell the kid. That's how I found out my score.

[eleanorigby]

Oh, sorry, that's my office.

I don't even have an office! I have the nurse's station....

As one who passed high school chemistry only by the grace of a very nice instructor, I know where you have been. I do know that aptitude tests are being used better these days; the next generation in my family has benefited from them.

I have no issue with the aptitude tests I took--every one of them rang "true" for me--stellar verbal/language skills, sucky math ones. I am nothing if not consistent.


I could probably explain the Periodic Table, Avogadro's Number, and even trig to you; it would take about an hour of your time and a month or two for me to prepare.

It is to laugh. No, you couldn't. Trust me. I also no longer have any patience with any of it to care.

But ... why? You're doing fine without tangents and cosines. You even got over Tommy K. (Didn't you even suspect he reversed your scores?)

(And balancing a checkbook is a highly over-rated skill.)

Tommy K. wouldn't do that to me. He saw his score, I saw mine. He WAS the most brilliant student in our reading group. He was a lovely person and a good elementary school friend. We lost touch and I think he passed away some time ago (after he made a film, see link):

Hmmmm... never mind the link. I think I may have found Tommy K again. How odd Google is. Now I'm on a quest to see if I can contact him, If this is the same guy--he is not dead. He may be teaching at Columbia! :eek:

[BlueKangaroo]

Hmmmm... never mind the link. I think I may have found Tommy K again. How odd Google is. Now I'm on a quest to see if I can contact him, If this is the same guy--he is not dead. He may be teaching at Columbia! :eek:

Oh how odd and cool that would be!

[j666]

Oh how odd and cool that would be!
Very and very. Let us know, Eleanor.

[eleanorigby]

My mom refused to tell me, because she didn't want me getting a big head. No, really.

I feel free to brag now, since I hit my peak in about the sixth grade and have been in decline ever since; nowadays I barely hold on to "above average" by the skin of my closely-bitten fingernails. I used to be really smart for a twelve-year old, though. (Still am, I suppose.)


My mother refused to even show me my report cards! It wasn't until HS that I opened my own test scores. Thank god my teacher did leave those scores out--it gave me a clue (well, the quizzes etc did too....)

I had to search for his email, but I have sent it off. I'm kind of excited, IF it is him. On his bio, the year of birth is right, as are the dates of graduation from college....<crosses fingers>

I just hope my email makes it past the spam filters etc. Sorry to hijack. Back to the thread.

[lobotomyboy63]

This is similar to my experience, and wonder why it is. I was given an IQ test when I was pretty young (six? seven?) by an aunt who was in school for something or other, probably psychology. Regardless, I was also told that I was not allowed to know my scores. So I have no idea what I got.

Is this normal? It definitely colors my views, whenever I hear someone spouting off about their IQ scores. "How do you even know?" I think to myself...

I was studying clinical psych for awhile and had to learn to administer the WISC (for children) and WAIS (for adults). We students practiced on our own, then recruited volunteers. We had to tape record the administration so our professor could listen to whether we did it properly (yeah, right!) or not, to elicit feedback, etc.

The understanding in this class was that first time around, even with practice on our own, our results could be off a lot in either direction. Just as giving someone a scalpel doesn't make him a surgeon, we weren't allowed to delude ourselves that giving one actual administration could allow us to think we really knew what we were doing. Standardizing tests means that there's a strict script, appropriate procedures, correct interpretation and so on, and there are just too many ways to mess it up.

So in case I haven't already driven the point deep into the ground, the default assumption was that we would screw up. But that's all part of the learning curve and master surgeons probably mess up their first frog in dissection class. Supposing we students continued into a field where this sort of testing were done regularly, we would become more consistent as we used it repeatedly, so our results would become increasingly more accurate and useful.

I suspect mental health facilities have a "go to" guy for each of their various tests---WISC, WAIS, Bender-Gestalt, MMPI, Rorschach, etc. They find the staff member who has a flair for it, who understands it best intuitively, who has a lot of experience with it, and so on.

But back to your situation. Perhaps your aunt did like us: we told our volunteers (or their parents) up front that we wouldn't tell them their scores. The test is a tool that is worthless if not used with skill. We wouldn't want someone to go away feeling they're borderline retarded or geniuses based on results that were way off...even telling them they're average could be inaccurate and damaging. No, this was purely to help us learn how to administer the test and we destroyed the results once we'd completed the learning activity.

Anyway, just by reading this board you know that adults have widely varying reactions to IQ scores...so why would they tell you, a child who has virtually no ability to comprehend what the (dubious) results meant?

One general comment to the board (and something many posters already have firmly in mind because they're familiar with these issues): being tested for your IQ isn't like stepping on a weight scale and reading the number. If you think you want to know your IQ, then a one-on-one testing session is most likely to give you the best accuracy. An internet test might get it right with a balls-on-dead-accurate assessment, but you can probably find a disclaimer in the fine print that says, essentially, "Your mileage may vary." By a lot...in either direction.

[olivesmarch4th]

Exactly. But it seems to me that when one makes judgments about other people's choices, they are imposing their moral obligation on others.
Well, I see your point, but does that mean we should never judge people, ever? I should welcome white supremacists and child abusers into my home because it's not correct for me to judge them for their choices? If I can't judge someone for having sex before marriage (and in this case, I really don't care), then where do we draw the line?

You lost me. In the example, there's only you and someone who hasn't met your moral standard.
Whose social consciousness?
Who is judgmental?
Who is displaying asshattery?
And both of what?
I apologize for the typo. This was supposed to say ''Social consciousness OR judgmental asshattery? Maybe a bit of both?'' And I was specifically referring to myself -- if I judge others for not contributing to this world, is it out of social consciousness or my own judgmental asshattery? Perhaps both.

We've come full circle back to the original question I asked.

Where is the line drawn and who gets to draw it?
I'm not sure if there is an answer. ''Live and let live'' is a fabulous life philosophy but there are always examples where almost anyone would feel it acceptable to pass judgment.

Please note that attitude, intention, and the feeling of being genuinely stressed are really hard to determine from the outside. . .sometimes even from the inside.
Absolutely. I know that from experience.

Just wondering, under your moral standard of loving, is it loving to proclaim someone to be a "lazy self-centered jerk"?
Damn. No, I suppose not.

Under Buddhism (which I've seen you reference elsewhere), my understanding is whatever your answer to the last question, the "someone" applies to you as well.
There's really no room for judgment under Buddhist philosophy, that is correct. I am you, you are me, you are Bill Clinton and I am the serial killer two towns over. There is no evil in Buddhist thought, just deluded thinking based on the inability to understand the impermanent and interconnected nature of all phenomenon. Very easy to cognitively grasp, very difficult to live. If you must know, I think as a Buddhist I'm pretty shitty. But at least, unlike when I was a shitty Christian, I don't have to flagellate myself every time I fall short of the ideal.

This thread has been riveting for me because I've been battling an internal war since it first popped up. A part of me believes I am smart and smart does matter--that's the part of me who got my academic ego stroked on a regular basis growing up--that is the only way I ever felt powerful, as an academic. Another part of me has had to cope with diminished returns over the last few years regarding feeling smart and being rewarded for being smart. I had to withdraw from college for a couple of years for personal reasons. My grades did suffer -- not terribly, not like they would end my career -- but enough to hurt. I have a ton of regret about my performance in college. Right now I have a bachelor's degree. I want to go to graduate school but I still have no idea for what. I took a job in a call center so I can use my Spanish and save money for an internship abroad to make me a stronger grad school candidate. The longer I wait for grad school, though, the less qualified I feel. It completely flies in the face of everything I THOUGHT I'd be doing by this point in my life. This has required a mental adjustment, a restructuring of priorities, a new understanding of what life is and what's important.

I'm not a better person than anyone else, I'm not more intelligent, more enlightened, or having my shit together any more than the next guy. I'm not trying to imply otherwise. But I'm not a complete fucking mess either. I've spent a lot of time feeling like I should justify my reason for being here... I know I lack formal debate skills, and I know, hardy har, I really belong on LJ. But this thread has helped me come to terms with how well I fit in here.

I just find it so lovely that on a message board full of judgmental assholes, I can still manage to be a judgmental asshole in my attempt to decry judgmental assholishness. That is the miracle of human nature. Sometimes I tell myself that if I can manage to be morally perfect it will make up for all the other deficiencies in my personality. I used to do the same with academics. I don't think I am alone in this. But obviously, I cannot be morally perfect, or academically perfect, or physically perfect, or anything perfect. The self-posturing is empty and meaningless, which was my whole point when I entered this thread. Maybe someday I will have that Ph.D, and then, superficially, I will have ''proven'' to the world how smart I am. But there is always going to be someone smarter than me. Some of us deal with that reality a little better than others. Obviously today I'm not dealing with it so well.

[Necros]

Thanks for the responses! It makes more sense now. I have no idea if my parents were told or not. I guess I could ask, but I'm just not sure I care what number I got. I did the SAT-to-IQ converter tool thing, and am pretty skeptical as to the score. Plus, I feel way dumber now that I am older than I did in high school. :)

[lobstermobster]

whoaaaa this has gotten to be so many pages. I skipped a big chunk in the middle. Why does anyone test themselves or their children anyways? I mean what are going to do with your IQ score? Put it on your resume? Put it on a t-shirt? Put it in an informational brochure to hand out to dates?

I was never tested as a child, but my school was gathering statistics and offered parents to test their kids. They strongly discouraged the parents from telling their kids no matter what the results. I was a weirdo kid that tested false positive for a lethal disease that causes severe mental retardation when they screened me at birth. My parents just assumed I was mentally retarded. I didn't read for a while and I didn't speak for a long time but then I just grew into a kid that obviously wasn't severely retarded and the doctor said "jk, LOL" So when people bragging about reading Crime and Punishment at age 2 I just recall the stories of me not talking, just sitting and staring and laughing like the dumb dumb that I am. It was probably more fun anyways.

This thing about this message board is you can only really brag about what people have deemed it okay to brag about. It's about whatever people here are least sensitive about. No one is really self conscious about their intelligence here so it's okay to brag away. On the other hand, many people are uncomfortable about the way they look so if I start a thread about when I realized I was pretty, I would be named the wicked bitch of the west. And I do think I'm pretty. Maybe I want to talk about it. Did anyone ever consider that? I think it's a lot less important than intelligence. I mean why should anyone mind how my parents put my face together with play-doh? (i'm kinda dumb so i'm assuming that's how our parents make us) Maybe I want to start a thread congratulating myself for not having restless leg syndrome. I would get slammed for being insensitive towards the jimmy legged dopers.

It should be all or nothing. Brag and be arrogant or everyone just settle down and be humble.

[Omegaman]

whoaaaa this has gotten to be so many pages. I skipped a big chunk in the middle. Why does anyone test themselves or their children anyways? I mean what are going to do with your IQ score? Put it on your resume? Put it on a t-shirt? Put it in an informational brochure to hand out to dates?

I was never tested as a child, but my school was gathering statistics and offered parents to test their kids. They strongly discouraged the parents from telling their kids no matter what the results. I was a weirdo kid that tested false positive for a lethal disease that causes severe mental retardation when they screened me at birth. My parents just assumed I was mentally retarded. I didn't read for a while and I didn't speak for a long time but then I just grew into a kid that obviously wasn't severely retarded and the doctor said "jk, LOL" So when people bragging about reading Crime and Punishment at age 2 I just recall the stories of me not talking, just sitting and staring and laughing like the dumb dumb that I am. It was probably more fun anyways.

This thing about this message board is you can only really brag about what people have deemed it okay to brag about. It's about whatever people here are least sensitive about. No one is really self conscious about their intelligence here so it's okay to brag away. On the other hand, many people are uncomfortable about the way they look so if I start a thread about when I realized I was pretty, I would be named the wicked bitch of the west. And I do think I'm pretty. Maybe I want to talk about it. Did anyone ever consider that? I think it's a lot less important than intelligence. I mean why should anyone mind how my parents put my face together with play-doh? (i'm kinda dumb so i'm assuming that's how our parents make us) Maybe I want to start a thread congratulating myself for not having restless leg syndrome. I would get slammed for being insensitive towards the jimmy legged dopers.

It should be all or nothing. Brag and be arrogant or everyone just settle down and be humble.

I knew you were pretty. On the inside too. ;)

[Shagnasty]

I was a weirdo kid that tested false positive for a lethal disease that causes severe mental retardation when they screened me at birth. My parents just assumed I was mentally retarded. I didn't read for a while and I didn't speak for a long time but then I just grew into a kid that obviously wasn't severely retarded.

lobstermobster, I would have never guessed that you of all people are severely mentally retarded. You seemed to have adapted quite well and I think you even went to my alma mater for college. You are an inspiration to us all.

[Omegaman]

lobstermobster, I would have never guessed that you of all people are severely mentally retarded. You seemed to have adapted quite well and I think you even went to my alma mater for college. You are an inspiration to us all.

I guess at least your a smart asshole. You should give yourself a pat on the back.

[Shagnasty]

I guess at least your a smart asshole. You should give yourself a pat on the back.

It's a joke son, you know, a joke? There were no mean implications there. In fact, I just meant to imply that it is ridiculous anyone thought she was anything other than brilliant since it should be obvious.

[Omegaman]

It's a joke son, you know, a joke? There were no mean implications there. In fact, I just meant to imply that it is ridiculous anyone thought she was anything other than brilliant since it should be obvious.

Well no I don't. I can tell you're a smart guy. Me, not so much. People trash each other here all day long for nothing more than a difference of opinion. I am not so used to dealing with others on the internet as in real life. If I could have seen you're face in RL to see that you were smiling it would be different. Yeah, I'm the old in "old school". So no offense intended, none offered to you in return. I do hope you'll accept my apology, sir.

[lobstermobster]

I know I am not the first severely mentally retarded person to go to Tulane. Basically everyone living in Monroe with me freshman year was severely mentally retarded. We got through the pain with Franzia and potato cannons.

[Shagnasty]

I know I am not the first severely mentally retarded person to go to Tulane. Basically everyone living in Monroe with me freshman year was severely mentally retarded. We got through the pain with Franzia and potato cannons.

I think I went a little earlier than you but I noticed a lot of severely mentally retarded people as well. Most of them were high functioning and gifted in a few areas but that can't mask the truth.

[brazil84]

You are correct on all of that. I never said those super-high scores are impossible but they are so unlikely that they require some type of evidence, anything, to make them more believable. This is just a message board and neither you nor I can actually affect what an individual person's real IQ score is. The only way to know for sure is to review their psychologist's report and that obviously is not going to happen.

My main point is that general skepticism for IQ scores needs to follow the same bell curve that they are based on. It simply gets old hearing the same obviously inflated scores both here and elsewhere on the web. Just like the tests themselves, this criticism does not apply to any one person but to groups as a whole that are reporting average IQ scores that are simply unfeasible. I would be happy if people just learned a little about normal curves and the IQ scores themselves before they start tacking on 10 or 15 points here or there without understanding what they are saying.

It's really a simple matter of Bayesian reasoning. Roughly 1 in 30,000 people have an IQ of 160 or higher. What proportion of people (1) tend to exaggerate; and (2) are willing to exaggerate their IQ? I don't know, but based on my general experience, I would say it's a lot more than 1 in 30,000. So if you meet a random person who claims to have a 160+ IQ, there's an excellent chance that they come from the subset of the population that exaggerates their IQ. As opposed to the subset of the population that really does have a 160+ IQ.

[j666]

Has anyone been inspired to start a 'Pretty People' thread?

[TroubleAgain]

Has anyone been inspired to start a 'Pretty People' thread?

Well, hell, every picture thread is an invitation to others to compliment us on how pretty/handsome/stylish we are. I'm as guilty as anyone.

[brazil84]

I recall reading once about a support group for extremely good looking people. Which makes a little sense, since they no doubt face certain special problems. Still, it would be interesting to see who shows up for meetings.

[Voyager]

I recall reading once about a support group for extremely good looking people. Which makes a little sense, since they no doubt face certain special problems. Still, it would be interesting to see who shows up for meetings.
The women in this thread (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=457499) no doubt.

[Voyager]

It's really a simple matter of Bayesian reasoning. Roughly 1 in 30,000 people have an IQ of 160 or higher. What proportion of people (1) tend to exaggerate; and (2) are willing to exaggerate their IQ? I don't know, but based on my general experience, I would say it's a lot more than 1 in 30,000. So if you meet a random person who claims to have a 160+ IQ, there's an excellent chance that they come from the subset of the population that exaggerates their IQ. As opposed to the subset of the population that really does have a 160+ IQ.
However, if you go to a convention of 40 year old McDonalds counterpeople, the chances of 160+ IQ will be considerably less than 1 in 30k. If you go to an MIT reunion, considerably more. Unless you think that MIT only had one undergrad with a 160+ IQ in the last 30 years, of course.

[begbert2]

However, if you go to a convention of 40 year old McDonalds counterpeople, the chances of 160+ IQ will be considerably less than 1 in 30k. If you go to an MIT reunion, considerably more. Unless you think that MIT only had one undergrad with a 160+ IQ in the last 30 years, of course.Don't the *really* smart ones usually drop out?

[brazil84]

However, if you go to a convention of 40 year old McDonalds counterpeople, the chances of 160+ IQ will be considerably less than 1 in 30k. If you go to an MIT reunion, considerably more.

That's probably true. If we focus on this board, my best guesstimate is that 160+ IQ people are still pretty rare. And exaggerators are pretty common everywhere.

[Voyager]

Don't the *really* smart ones usually drop out?
I wish. :D I knew someone who double majored in math and physics, and had plenty of time for playing poker. He got all As best I can tell, and is a professor somewhere now. If he didn't have a 160 IQ, at least, I'll eat my diploma.

[Voyager]

That's probably true. If we focus on this board, my best guesstimate is that 160+ IQ people are still pretty rare. And exaggerators are pretty common everywhere.
Pretty rare, definitely. But see post 238 for an analysis that shows that the Doper population doesn't look like the normal population. I have no idea what the distribution of IQ is here, but using the distribution of the population as a whole to make predictions about what you'll find here is fallacious, and as I said above (and I certainly don't blame you for not reading the whole thread) the number one mistake in doing sampling. It makes the baby Gauss cry. :p

[Zambini57]

Everybody should just post how much money they make in a year. Then we'll see how smart you really are.

[Maeglin]

Everybody should just post how much money they make in a year. Then we'll see how smart you really are.

The smart people will exaggerate.

[Heffalump and Roo]

Well, I see your point, but does that mean we should never judge people, ever? I should welcome white supremacists and child abusers into my home because it's not correct for me to judge them for their choices? If I can't judge someone for having sex before marriage (and in this case, I really don't care), then where do we draw the line?
olivesmarch4th, I started a new thread in MPSIMS to continue this discussion since I think we've hijacked this one enough.

The thread is here (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=9523324#post9523324)

[brazil84]

using the distribution of the population as a whole to make predictions about what you'll find here is fallacious,

:confused: Did I do that somewhere?

[Sleeps With Butterflies]

Are you really so pathetically ridiculously monumentally stupid that you don't realize how stupid this makes you sound? The smart people around here stick out like sore thumbs, until now you have not stuck out sweetheart, and it ain't for being smart. I suspect that you are among to people the OP is directed. Why the fuck would you claim to be smart when it is so fucking apparent whether or not you are? I am sorry you are a fat pathetic loser and I hate to be the one to break the news that you ain't that smart either, but maybe a little humility will make you more likeable...

This comment seems like the spittle flying, keyboard pounding, nasty intentioned rantings of a hateful lunatic. I had to check out your other posts to see if you were like this all the time or just having a bad day. You may seriously want to look into anger management therapy or something.

I can't imagine how exhausting it has to be to sustain such a high level of anger all the time. Fuck IQ, I'd like to see what your EI/EQ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotional_intelligence) is. You took a reasonable comment from another member and went to Defcon 1, asshole edition.

[Vinyl Turnip]

Hey, gang... let's see whose penis is the smallest!

[Boyo Jim]

Hey, gang... let's see whose penis is the smallest! My pinis is pretty small, only 15" long flaccid. I'm kind of ashamed of it.

[zuma]

I think it's natural to want to brag about the size of your penis. But as time went on, I realized that what really matters is what I do with my penis. Also I've realized over time that many people have bigger penises than I do.

I must point out that my penis was measured at 14 inches on the Holmes-Stanford ruler. I thought I was the cock of the walk. Then I met Long Dong Silver, and realized how small I really was, even though I'm constantly complimented on my enormous penis.

[ArizonaTeach]

My pinis is pretty small, only 15" long flaccid. I'm kind of ashamed of it.Sure, but how big's your penis?

[Vinyl Turnip]

I must point out that my penis was measured at 14 inches on the Holmes-Stanford ruler.
Is there a conversion chart somewhere to Berle-Diggler?

[Voyager]

:confused: Did I do that somewhere?
Sorry, not you. I didn't mean to imply that. If you ever get around to reading the thread (only if you're really bored) you'll find that several people did. The argument was: 1 in 30K people have IQs of 160 or over. There are 5K Dopers. Therefore, it is very unlikely that there is even one, let alone 2, people with 160 IQ or over here.

[Boyo Jim]

Sure, but how big's your penis?

DAMN those typos.

[j666]

I have no idea what the distribution of IQ is here, but using the distribution of the population as a whole to make predictions about what you'll find here is fallacious, ..
So ... one can use the distribution of a characteristic in a sample to make predictions about the population, but never the other way around?
That can't be right. Are you just referring to this being a self-selected sample?

This comment seems like the spittle flying, keyboard pounding, nasty intentioned rantings of a hateful lunatic....
You took a reasonable comment from another member and went to Defcon 1,...
I feel obliged to thank you for your defense, and for understanding the intended tone of my post. (And for your opening line; I will honored to inspire a spirited critique from you some day.)

In askeptic's defense I must point out that I am fat.

[ultrafilter]

So ... one can use the distribution of a characteristic in a sample to make predictions about the population, but never the other way around?
That can't be right. Are you just referring to this being a self-selected sample?

If the sample is not randomly selected, you can't draw any inferences either way.

[j666]

If the sample is not randomly selected, you can't draw any inferences either way.
Yes; but can't one make predictions about a random sample from the characteristics of the population? And Voyager is referring to the Board being a non-random sample?

[Voyager]

So ... one can use the distribution of a characteristic in a sample to make predictions about the population, but never the other way around?
That can't be right. Are you just referring to this being a self-selected sample?

Absolutely. That's what polling and other examples of sampling theory are all about.
Yes, the Dope is a self-selected sample, which is why you can't estimate characteristics in the population from it. My example on the last page showed that if we used the distribution of Jeopardy contestants in the Dope to estimate the population of Jeopardy contestants in the country as a whole, we get an absurd result.

The most famous example of this (and I apologize if you've heard of it) was the Literary Digest presidential poll of 1936. It showed Alf Landon winning handily, while FDR won in a landslide. The problem was that it was a telephone poll, and back then telephones were far from common, and those who could afford them skewed Republican.

Presidential poll sample today try to take from all population subgroups, and also try to get likely voters. I think one of the reasons they've messed up so much in the primaries is that lots of unlikely voters voted.

[Sleeps With Butterflies]

I feel obliged to thank you for your defense, and for understanding the intended tone of my post. (And for your opening line; I will honored to inspire a spirited critique from you some day.)

In askeptic's defense I must point out that I am fat.

No thanks are necessary :)

Eh, I don't care if you're 500 pounds, he's akin to a 10 year old to pull the fat jokes out. "You're a fat loser, wah wah wah." Insults are easier to sling than actually composing a valid response to a well thought out comment. Take a look at his posting history and you'll see he's a fan of the low road. People like that have opinions and thoughts which are easy to dismiss.