Very modest 137 IQ (and I mean it)...

originally posted by: DBCowboy
If I may pontificate or a moment on this subject. . . . . . .

In my long years on this planet, I have found that the greatest teacher on this planet, the greatest determination to one's intelligence, is in making mistakes.

We only learn by making mistakes.

The more that one does, the more mistakes we are apt to make, thus the more we will learn.

Experience is nothing more than a long history of making errors and learning from them. You can't quantify experience, you can't measure the knowledge gained by making mistakes.

Intelligence is great. But intelligence without experience is like having the fastest auto kept safely in the garage. It serves no purpose. It has the potential, but until it is actually "road tested" then it is nothing compared to any number of slower vehicles.

I will always trust experience over intelligence.

So....what you're saying is...'We make mistakes, so mistakes can make us".
...That there's a 137 IQ at work, right there...yessir!

a reply to: IAMTAT

137 IQ?

If you think so, then I'm okay with that.

a reply to: DBCowboy

I came up with that while I was toastin' hot pockets with my mind.

a reply to: TheElectricPriest

Yaaaawn.
The standard intelligence quotient measuring system is antiquated and outdated.
Do you even know it's history?

a reply to: TheElectricPriest

I'd rather know someone with a high EQ range instead.

IQ without EQ is too single focused, that's the balancing act.

The push pull, and it can be faked...not over a time.

So you got a high IQ? Maybe use it for something better than bragging on a forum.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: TheElectricPriest

Do we really need a 'whose d*** is bigger' thread?

We don't, but for the record mine is soooooo much bigger.

This is all self-reporting and all honor-system right? No recounts?

Soooooo much bigger.

I work on this principle, my brother is the brainy one, in MENSA, letters after his name and all round clever bloke BUT he has the people skills of a planks and the common sense to match that plank. Me, I'm self taught, left school with one O'Level in art and pretty awful scores in the rest of core subjects. I decided to improve myself by learning Assembly language on computers, that improved my maths etc etc.

Since I left school I managed to learn many skills, ran a branch of one of the UK most successfully electronics chains for 10yrs and earned good money while learning about life all the way.

I'd still rather be ME than my brother.......Brains are only part of the skill set...

a reply to: DBCowboy

That's pretty twisted.

originally posted by: teapot
Psychometric testing, including ordinary IQ tests, is quite common practice in recruitment for management or executive type jobs.

Modern psychometrics are not exactly the same as historical IQ tests.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Broad church and mostly a load of old bollocks anyway. Post modern digging about in peoples' heads, trying to measure their aptitudes would most probably be even more bollocks.

As a child and in common with an earlier poster, I was annually tested by both church and state. This was when 'streaming' was still standard practice in British schools. Scores were not revealed to the children nor their parents but you knew how well you did by which stream you were placed in.

For most of my early education, I was placed in B stream but had to go to A stream class for English, History and Religious Education (at the time, known as religious instruction) lessons. A couple of the other kids in the B stream went to A stream for maths and there were A stream kids in the B stream maths lessons. When I progressed to A stream, I still had to go to B for maths.

In many respects I agree with such testing in schools because I think it beneficial to children to learn in groups of similar aptitude kids. Mixed ability classes being aimed at the lowest common denominator are probably not too helpful to the development of the brighter kids.

But it was all just about basic IQ testing, no Briggs Meyers or Game Theory etc.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: teapot
Psychometric testing, including ordinary IQ tests, is quite common practice in recruitment for management or executive type jobs.

Modern psychometrics are not exactly the same as historical IQ tests.

And totally easy to score / push the outcome as you wish if you have the notion of how they work.

We did them at the company I ran a branch of (Maplin Electronics UK), myself and another manager from Southampton called Mike were utterly sceptical of these tests and decided between us to influence them after speaking to the so called expert there to apply the tests (at great cost to Maplin).

We both knew that how you answered the questions gave pointers to your mental approach to life and we did indeed get the Turtle question from Blade Runner (seriously, we did) and depending on how you answered indicated either weakness or strength etc so we answered the questions accordingly, we both were given excellent managerial outcomes describing us as perfect for the job.

Afterwards we approached the expert, said what we had done and told him "well done, money for old rope, keep taking their cash"...

Psychometric testing is nonsense, the only true way to see a persons aptitude is to watch them unseen as they do the job on a daily basis, anything else is totally controllable by the person being tested.

Everything I've said happened as I say and if Mike is on here he could confirm it..I'm not saying it makes me more intelligent, in fact if anything it dumbs down the actual intelligence of the tests...