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.

 

I.Q. Tests: And You Thought You Were So Smart...

page: 1
3
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 09:01 AM
link   
Evidently I.Q. tests are not so much a gauge of your mental capabilities but more of an indicator of the quality of the environment in which you live. Intelligence is relevant to your surroundings and adaptability. It makes sense but it also makes me concerned for a generation of T.V. addicted, video-game playing, celebrity-obsessed and over-consuming American children. What mental skills or useful intelligence is being produced by American culture?

www.newyorker.com...


The psychologist Michael Cole and some colleagues once gave members of the Kpelle tribe, in Liberia, a version of the WISC similarities test: they took a basket of food, tools, containers, and clothing and asked the tribesmen to sort them into appropriate categories. To the frustration of the researchers, the Kpelle chose functional pairings. They put a potato and a knife together because a knife is used to cut a potato. “A wise man could only do such-and-such,” they explained. Finally, the researchers asked, “How would a fool do it?” The tribesmen immediately re-sorted the items into the “right” categories. It can be argued that taxonomical categories are a developmental improvement—that is, that the Kpelle would be more likely to advance, technologically and scientifically, if they started to see the world that way. But to label them less intelligent than Westerners, on the basis of their performance on that test, is merely to state that they have different cognitive preferences and habits. And if I.Q. varies with habits of mind, which can be adopted or discarded in a generation, what, exactly, is all the fuss about?




posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 09:07 AM
link   
I never gave much credence to IQ tests in the first place, because they did not figure in emotional intelligence...and they didnt figure in what you just posted: What we give our eyes to see and ears to hear has an effect on our intelligence.

However, turning on the TV or not is a matter of choice.

Do we turn on the TV too often because of low intelligence, or do we get low intelligence from turning on the TV too often? Both. Its a cycle.

More fundamentally though, its not about intelligence, but about energy. If person X does not have enough energy to do something other than turn on the TV and instead post on ATS, he/she wont.



posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 09:09 AM
link   
Well, given that we live in a society where MOST no longer bother to read, any assertion that the majority of the people are intelligent is absurd to me..

[edit on 11-12-2007 by SpeakerofTruth]



posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 09:13 AM
link   
Another thing that the writer forgets to mention is that the average IQ of the global community is only about 85... So, I really don't know where he gets the idea that people's "IQs are increasing."


[edit on 11-12-2007 by SpeakerofTruth]



posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 09:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
Well, given that we live in a society where MOST no longer bother to read, any assertion that the majority of the people are intelligent is absurd to me..

[edit on 11-12-2007 by SpeakerofTruth]



And lets hope it stays that way, otherwise we couldnt shine in comparison



posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 09:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
Well, given that we live in a society where MOST no longer bother to read, any assertion that the majority of the people are intelligent is absurd to me..

[edit on 11-12-2007 by SpeakerofTruth]



And lets hope it stays that way, otherwise we couldnt shine in comparison


So, you're saying that people who read are "dumber," eh? What exactly do you base this ridiculous assertion on?



posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 09:16 AM
link   
I suppose that one idea would be that all of their above stated habits will serve them well in a fast-paced, fame-seeking, media-driven society such as the one in which we currently exist. However, I don't think this form of culture or society will be effective for very much longer.



posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 09:17 AM
link   
Here´s an entirely different way to see it though:

If we assume that the evolution of intelligence happens in stages, then the TV-generation is an intelligence-advancement compared to someone seeing nothing other than caves and bushes all day and Internet yet another intermediate level above that and so on...



posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 09:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by kosmicjack
I don't think this form of culture or society will be effective for very much longer.


It won't..

If you look at the intelligence level of Joe Shmole out on the street, you have to wonder how to even carry on a serious conversation with such a person. I personally can't... What do I have to talk about to someone who hasn't even bothered to pick up a book to read in their life, and,yes, sixty percent of our "intelligent" population has admitted to never having read a book.


[edit on 11-12-2007 by SpeakerofTruth]



posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 09:21 AM
link   
Sorry, I was replying to your first post, not to your second.

The joke was: Lets hope people stay dumb so that we can shine in comparison.

[edit on 11-12-2007 by Skyfloating]



posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 09:25 AM
link   
reply to post by SpeakerofTruth
 


Taken in an overall context, intelligence IS increasing though...even if at a very slow pace. Imagine your dumb shmoe just emerging from the stages of the stone age DUE to his expoure to Television.

So while people on level 3 frown upon level 2, level 1 people see level 2 as a revelation.

I know this sounds awfully elitist, but there you go.



posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 09:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 


Yes, I see your point. However, it's only an advancement in an environment that places an importance on all things media...

What happens if there is something catastrophic resulting in no media at all. What intelligence has our society produced that will sustain it then? Adaptability? Umm, No. Ingenuity? Maybe. Perseverance? I doubt it. Even social skills have suffered in a world full of Facebook and MySpace self-obsession.

[edit on 11/12/07 by kosmicjack]

[edit on 11/12/07 by kosmicjack]



posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 09:30 AM
link   
reply to post by kosmicjack
 


Given the highly hypothetical loss of all media, we indeed will realize that we have become weak in some aspects of life.

Still, expose the imbecile to TV and his intelligence will grow.



posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 09:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating
Still, expose the imbecile to TV and his intelligence will grow.


What exactly about television would cause that to happen? Unless someone watches the history or discovery channels, I see absolutely nothing on television that could be remotely viewed as being intelligence enhancing...



posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 09:35 AM
link   
I thought this was particularly interesting. It means that some one who is assessed with an I.Q. of 140 today is significantly smarter than someone given the same score 50 years ago.


For instance, Flynn shows what happens when we recognize that I.Q. is not a freestanding number but a value attached to a specific time and a specific test. When an I.Q. test is created, he reminds us, it is calibrated or “normed” so that the test-takers in the fiftieth percentile—those exactly at the median—are assigned a score of 100. But since I.Q.s are always rising, the only way to keep that hundred-point benchmark is periodically to make the tests more difficult—to “renorm” them. The original WISC was normed in the late nineteen-forties. It was then renormed in the early nineteen-seventies, as the WISC-R; renormed a third time in the late eighties, as the WISC III; and renormed again a few years ago, as the WISC IV—with each version just a little harder than its predecessor. The notion that anyone “has” an I.Q. of a certain number, then, is meaningless unless you know which WISC he took, and when he took it, since there’s a substantial difference between getting a 130 on the WISC IV and getting a 130 on the much easier WISC.



...or maybe it doesn't, since it's all contextual!

[edit on 11/12/07 by kosmicjack]



posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 09:36 AM
link   
Reply to Speaker/Seeker of Truth:


As I said, when you are "on level 3,4,5,6" that statement is absolutely true. But it is not true if you are on level 1.

A specific example: I once knew one of those redneck hicks who never owned a TV. Her stupidity was overwhelming. One day she got a TV and began to learn that there are other things in the world besides her little cabin in the woods and her own little viewpoints. Desires for more were sparked. Her intelligence increased.

EDIT: Welcome to a world where something is true or untrue depending upon the place you view it from.

[edit on 11-12-2007 by Skyfloating]

[edit on 11-12-2007 by Skyfloating]

[edit on 11-12-2007 by Skyfloating]



posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 09:42 AM
link   
KosmicJack, I will say this, the amount of information a person has to filter into their mind has increased over the years... I suppose that something could be said in the positive in regards to the "intelligence" of people today when one takes that into account. However, I just have to wonder how people living in that time would measure up to people today had they lived in our day and age...



posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 09:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating
Reply to Speaker/Seeker of Truth:

I once knew one of those redneck hicks who never owned a TV. Her stupidity was overwhelming.


Her knowledge of her own sphere of existance was probably very keen. Her knowledge of the rest of the world was limited. It's all contextual. So how exactly should I.Q. be measured, if at all?



posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 09:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by kosmicjack
So how exactly should I.Q. be measured, if at all?


Maybe it shouldn't be at all...

However, I think if you take a person who only talks about their personal life or gossip, I think it's safe to say that they aren't as intelligent as someone who talks about nuclear physics or what is going on on a broader scale in the world. That is just my opinion, but that's the way I see it.

[edit on 11-12-2007 by SpeakerofTruth]



posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 09:47 AM
link   
Reply to Seeka of da Truth:

You are one that could obviously learn something about "stages of development". It would further your tolerance toward some idiots you battle here on ATS.




top topics



 
3
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join