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.
Originally posted by chr0naut
Originally posted by jiggerj
Originally posted by HomoSapiensSapiens
OK, so the Mensa sites says that an adult can only score a maximum of 161 on the Cattell III B test.
But what if the person were much cleverer than that? Is there no other test to measure beyond 161? Or will it just be so off the charts and away from the norm (i.e. no scale) that it would be irrelevant?
What we need is a 'Stupid' test to make the stupid people wake the hell up to the fact that they're really stupid.
What would it mean then if you failed the stupid test?
Even stupider?
Originally posted by chr0naut
What we need is a 'Stupid' test to make the stupid people wake the hell up to the fact that they're really stupid.
What would it mean then if you failed the stupid test?
Yes it IS a rather meaningless concept if it is looked at as by using those stereotypical tests.
There seems to be a concept what makes intelligence (respective IQ)..and if you look at those tests you will see they are always a combination of certain sub-tests, like ability to visualize shapes, math/numbers, "logic", language and whatever other stuff there is. Who *decides* the relevancy of this?
Someone could be a genius in some other field, like a painter
does it make him "less intelligent"
While..on the other hand there might be super-"intelligent" people with an IQ of 160 in the Mensa test which are too stupid to put a nail in a wall with a hammer.
That way of measuring "intelligence" is outdated as others pointed out.
Since ones IQ does not determine how well one can apply that intelligence
And I wish to God I had the opportunity to trade whatever surplus IQ I have to be dumb, happy, and productive.
And I wish to God I had the opportunity to trade whatever surplus IQ I have to be dumb, happy, and productive.
trying to explain to people that eugenics through social engineering is occurring here in the US is something that has been met with so much skepticism.
On one hand, we have media and societal portrayal of the highly intelligent and educated as being either grossly socially inept to being so arrogant in their own intelligence that everything that they say is suspect.
On an educational front, you have programs that isolate the highly intelligent from their former peer group. This occurred at a much earlier age with my eldest and I and, oddly enough and without even being totally aware of it
It was pretty disturbing to see just how many of my friends were in the same type of program I was as a kid and we never knew that fact about each other.
These programs divide the children and basically create nearly closed gene pools that, through social engineering and isolation from each other, create a massive divide through which genetic admixture between the two groups rarely occurs.
Toss in media and god forbid if you tell somebody how smart you were measured out to be or worse--tell them that you were identified as being unique and highly intelligent by the educational system and the government. "Oh you must think you're so special...."
I could go on at length about this.
Thing is, every time I try to share this information, it doesn't seem like anybody ever really listens and that the resentments are just too deep.
Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
The faux resentment implanted in the populous regarding intelligent people serves as a self-reinforcing social control for the eugenics program, where it is effectively policed by the target population without any further effort on behalf of the controllers, sans constant bombardment/reinforcement of the meme in the media.
Unless they happen to be puppet mouthpieces for the Establishment, in which case they are called Intellectuals without all of the "normal" negative connotations that the media usually associates with being intelligent.
Every youth will thus be subjected to a threefold training: in intelligence,in self-command, and in command over others.If he should fail in any one of these three, he will suffer the terrible penalty of degradation to the ranks of common workers, and will be condemned for the rest of his life to associate with men and women vastly inferior to himself in education and probably in intelligence. The spur of this fear will suffice to produce industry in all but a very small minority of boys and girls of the governing class...There will, however, be limits to intellectual freedom, even among the children of the governing class. They will not be allowed to question the value of science, or the division of the population into manual workers and experts. The Scientific Outlook, Bertrand Russell
Yeah, it happened to me as well, And interestingly enough, I was further isolated from the Isolated "Gifted" group.
Well, it stands to reason that if the plan is to use social engineering, behavioral controls, and whatnot to weed intelligent people out of the gene pool, that there would be some mechanism in place that Identified them En Mass for the purposes of following their activity, and applying "Leverage" of a social nature throughout their life to prevent their Reproduction(especially with other intelligent people)/Extended Social Networking/Power of any kind.
Yes, Precisely.... we can't have any intelligent strains getting into the next crop, can we?
In other words, we're drastically outnumbered and if one of us says something that actually addresses one of these issues, there will be at least 10 who will gang up to blast against it out of what I would say is media driven and school aged resentments.
You noted that, too?
There's a quote from Bertrand Russel that always comes to mind when I think of these issues:
You feeling it? I feel it.
And for any that would mistake that Russell has anything to do with what goes on educationally, I'd like to point out that the gifted program educational theme directly follows Russell's own autobiographical path. My kid is learning Euclid and perfect numbers at the same age as Russell himself.
I, too, had significant amounts of one v. one time in the program away from the rest of the program.
Quite possibly the latter of the two because I never have known when to keep my big mouth shut. Lifelong issues with that.
I've been trying to discover what this subconscious identifier might be with little luck.
reluctant to discuss our own feelings with a penchant for watching just about everything and an aversion towards attention (possibly because we came under too much attention as children).
We were guinea pigs.
Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
Furthermore, by separating the intelligent children from the rest, you can give them specifically targeted propaganda for their demographic. (i.e. what works best on intelligent children)
Agreed, however they are generally moving towards the tactic of labelling intelligent children as "Genetically Damaged" or "Crazy" these days.
One of the more interesting and hopeful aspects of the active type of schizophrenia described by Boisen is that remissions are more likely to occur. This dramatic change which we have called "Developmental Forcing" (Gowan 1974:187), Dabrowski (1964:xiv) calls "positive disintegration." He feels that development does not take place without previous disintegration.Trance, Art, and Creativity John C. Gowan
Hence, the massive pharmacological assault on children with methlyphenidate
I would say that relates somewhat to geometry...
I reserve the right to *NOT* keep my big mouth shut.
No... it's the Gifted testing and paper trail that it creates...You have a pre made categorical list of all of the intelligent children in the target population.With which to use as "targeting information"
That is because of the aforementioned conditioning of the normal population for the purposes of poisoning them against intelligent individuals. We do not seek social attention because to US, social attention is painful, and filled with knee jerk ridicule and outright attacks. Social interaction for intelligent people is rarely pleasant, unless it is likewise with someone who received the same treatment from the general population as we do. They have been programmed to attack us.... and they blame us for not wanting to associate with them, and they tell us that we are genetically deficient because we don't associate with them.
No, we are "Enemy Combatants."
This is not a test, it is an attack.
Finally, there is the Genius who, as founder of religion, prophet, reformer, or artist, is able to build up a vast personal authority and sway the multitude at pleasure "Social Control: The Radiant Points of Social Control", Edward Alsworth Ross.
Not referencing the "tagging and bagging", as one neighbor put it in regards to her son, but in reference to how we still manage to identify each other without access to any database. That, I find interesting and ponder whether it's preconditioned or not.
So publicly, we're somehow broken but privately, they want to be able to deliberately create us.
Good point but that would most likely be because we are one of the spokes on the wheel of social control. We represent chaos in their eyes.
That's why we're the enemy. Ironic, no? Then again, some might say "ah-ha!! see! you want to be special!" with that quote but I'll just point out that they picked on us first when we were little. Not us on them. We didn't make that decision. They did.
It's hilarious to me that the average person here seems to have an I.Q. of 145 plus. Kinda like measuring ones penis.