The trick is killing the mind with whiskey until only CARNAL LUST remains

He's lickable?

sweet, I'm halfway there.

Boobies!

Godddddd this thread is so badddddddddddddddddd.

oh, 'til this guy before me did his thing

The Boobies thing?

Boobies!

Boobies!

Because aptitude tests are about testing a wide variety of skills. An IQ test doesn't determine if you're a good writer, for example.


Why is educators in quotes? I've talked to a lot of teachers and professors in high school and college. None of them like aptitude tests but acknowledge that they are the best anyone has come up with. My mom is a middle school teacher, so I hear a lot about the waves of aptitude tests that are thrown at children these days.

I get a strong sense that you've never talked to anyone ever. You looked at your test score and said, "wow, I'm smart!"

I think this is Joncy:

THE CLAW.

"Alpha children wear grey. They work much harder than we do, because they're so frightfully clever. I'm really awfuly glad I'm a Beta, because I don't work so hard. And then we are much better than the Gammas and Deltas. Gammas are stupid. They all wear green, and Delta children wear khaki. Oh no, I don't want to play with Delta children. And Epsilons are still worse. They're too stupid to be able …"

An IQ test doesn't determine if you're intelligent, either. It determines if you're good at IQ tests.

It measures intelligence so much as what's on the test. But at least they're reliable, taking it over and over again isn't likely to improve your score much. I'll certainly defer to your expertise but as far as I know, there isn't much of a better option.

Edit: My point wasn't to take a test to determine intelligence, it was to not to rely on something easy at hand like aptitude test scores.

I score well on aptitude tests. Well above-average!! This proves I'm smart and can definitely not be used to imply that I only take aptitude tests with people who are even more stupid, desperate and uneducated than I am.

*mentions the navy mop and bucket aptitude test*
*does not mention IQ, SAT or GRE general*

I see you don't deny that you are THE CLAW.

Clearly I have unmasked you.

Martyn what is it with you and the claw

I'm not quite sure. I just really think Joncy has metal hands.

Joncy types well for having metal hand-claws.

Now you know darn well Brave New World doesn't appear on an aptitude test, how would you expect him to get this?

This I have no issues with. But what you actually said was "atpitude tests are worthless". Perhaps they're not the best judge, but they're hardly worthless.

Jon`C, I'm not referring exclusively to the ASVAB (which by the way is not just taken by "navy mop" pushers, but by any interested in any branch of military, and is often taken by officers (though it's not necessary) as well as enlisted, and which I scored in the 97%). I used to take tests every year which were required by the government, to show that I was getting an education, since I was home schooled.

That said, I've never taken an IQ test, and I've never taken an SAT (the latter because by the time I was 18, I already had an Associates of Arts degree, and was told by my school counselor it was unnecessary since I wasn't applying to college as a freshman).

also,

That's great. Have you ever conducted any polls or surveys? I bet you've probably ever talked to less than 1% of all teachers and college professors in the US. I've talked to "lots" of people in the Navy, but I wouldn't try and argue anything on their behalf.

Also, the fact that you mention your mother being a teacher (kudos to her btw) damages your credibility even more, because now it just looks like you're parroting her (probably) exasperated opinions of the methods the government uses to critique her work. I would expect she feels somewhat under-appreciated and doesn't like that her "performance" is being measured by an imperfect test system, and so has probably projected that on you, influencing your view of standardized tests.

No, they aren't worthless. I use hyperbole too much, sorry. But they are a very poor indicator of intelligence. They measure specific applicable skills. Writing, mathematics, etc., at a given level. There may be a correlation between high test scores and intelligence, but it's not meaningful to infer intelligence from test scores.

Fair enough, but I think it's not irresponsible to use standardized test scores to aid in determining ones overall intelligence, if it's used as a guide line, in the same way that you could use the size of someone's muscles to aid you in determining his level of strength, especially considering that good study skills, and good test-taking skills probably indicate intelligence in and of themselves.

A relevant example might well be someone who scores very well academically, but due to autism/asperger's or similar condition may not come across as anything but awkward in conversation.

Intelligence is extremely difficult to pin down, vague by definition, and relative rather than absolute.

No way, not at all. They indicate dedication, discipline, desire to succeed academically. Some of the most brilliant people I've known had poor test scores because they were either bad at taking standardized tests or just didn't care.

[center][/center]



[center][/center]


I know I'm late in this thread, but this is one of the worst things I've read on Massassi in a long time. This has to be some elaborate parody, because I can't fathom how you can follow such a broken train of logic while being serious. You even provided (and misused) a graph to support what you wrote. It boggles the mind. I came into this thread expecting the usual Jon'C circle-jerking, which delivered in that regard, but you really surprised me, Sarn. More than usual. "Aptitude tests = Alpha male?" Come on. I'm being trolled but I don't see Wookie06 in sight.

I don't argue that that's sometimes the case, but I wouldn't go so far as to say there's no correlation. Let me ask you then, these "brilliant people" you know/have known, what criteria did you use to judge their brilliance? This may or may not be the case, but consider whether you may have perceived them as brilliant because their thought processes mirrored your own. I know I've made that mistake in the past. I also know that I've done the opposite, where I've failed to recognize someone's intelligence because their opinions differed from mine. (An example of this would be how I feel about Jon`C. At first, I thought he was just an idiot, but I've come to actually respect his vast amount of academic knowledge, despite the fact that I still believe a lot of what I say goes over his head (and many others here) simply because we think very differently.)

I will also go on to say that I am the sort of person that you describe, but in a slightly different way. I do well in life; I have friends, I do well at my job, I'm happily married, I have a child, and I'm happy. But I don't "do well" at Massassi. I'm not very well liked, and people tend to not appreciate my humor (which, btw 90% of what I say is in jest, whether it's backed my my beliefs/opinions or not). Why? Because Massassi is a hobby. I just don't care about it enough to do a bunch of research on a subject I don't really care much about before I post. In the same way that a brilliant person may do poorly on a test because they don't care to study or pay attention to it, I do poorly at Massassi because I don't care to research or say things diplomatically. 95% of my posts are made between fights on World of Warcraft, not between articles on Wikipedia (or any other source of online knowledge). I bet though, that if we ever were to meet in person, without knowing each other, we'd probably get along, and we'd probably enjoy each other's company, even if you thought my sense of humor a bit odd, as most people do.

Of course. I did not mean to imply that it was a definitive representation. I meant to suggest that I have some perspective of people who know what they're talking about. I mean, you listen to your doctor, right? Do you talk to all doctors in the country before diagnosing an ailment?

I was basically saying, "I've talked to quite a few people that are good at their jobs, and they don't like these tests for a variety of reasons, which I happen to agree with." While you've been saying "everyone uses them so they must be good," which is appeal to the masses.


Actually she doesn't have that strong opinions of them. She talks about them but not whether or not she likes them. In our conversations I'm usually the one driving the point that too many tests are a bad thing. In fact, it's sometimes a point of disagreement. She doesn't feel judged by them, she sees them as necessary.

And, congratulations, you're the first person to consider that my entire participation in this thread has been an elaborate joke, (even if you haven't decided for sure that it was). (and not counting the last 3 or 4 posts where we were discussing aptitude tests, which were not in jest). I mean for pete's sake, I as much said "Jon`C's really smart but has a small wiener!" and every single one of you thought that I was being 100% serious in a thread created for the purpose of satirical comedy. God, I even made a freakin GRAPH!

*sigh* yes, ECHOMAN. It was a joke, though I admit, I'm still inclined to believe that my "theory" is overall correct, just not nearly so cut and dry.

I thought the first post was funny. I remember wondering how Joncy knew so much about hydrogenated oil and the laws concerning trans fat in prepackaged food.

Hey Jon how old are you, if I can ask?


I have this prediction that Jon lives up to his online legend. But I suspect he is somewhat more personable when face to face.

But this prediction I have, it's based on nothing.

Do you know what the word correlation MEANS? I stated flat out that there IS a correlation. However, correlation does not imply CAUSATION, which is what you're talking about.


Not at all, in fact they are often people I disagree with on many fundamental levels.


That's no excuse. If you aren't going to put the time in, don't do it. Further, don't expect us to not call you out on bull**** if you aren't willing to back up your statements.


It's entirely possible. I'll at least apologize for insulting you, it wasn't necessary.

It better be a joke.

ahahahahahaha.

Did you? Perhaps I missed it, but I thought when you said "No way, not at all," it was pretty clear that you didn't think there was any relation, (particularly the "not at all" part. :p)


Fair enough. So in that cause, could you do me a favor and answer my original question? What criteria do you use to judge these people (or anyone really) brilliant? It's entirely possible we see the concept of brilliance differently. (Which reminds me of the joke I made about Stephen Hawking being brilliant because of LED's on his wheelchair, but I don't think anyone got the humor of that one either.)


But I DO expect you to call me on my bull****. or at least what you perceive as my bull****. I enjoy arguing difficult positions. I'm not trying to cop-out here and say I don't believe them, because I never post anything I don't believe to some degree or another, but I often post my half-thought-out musings just to see how people respond (see the human capability theory).


Apology accepted. I also apologize if I insulted you. I can't remember if I did or not, but it's entirely possible. (for the record, I don't remember you insulting me either. :P)

Ability to understand, adapt, create, etc. Metacognition, ability to understand oneself on a variety of levels (i.e. you have to be smart to know you're stupid). It's hard to quantify. A lot of it has just been knowing them well and learning to understand how they think.

Well, by comparison, sure.

Sorry, couldn't resist.



Which you always call what?



"Backpedal". But, wow, nice to see the attitude change.



I believe he told me a number in the low 20s.

I'm a little perplexed by Jon`C right now. I believe the one area he absolutely excels at is English proficiency. He really appears to have an extensive vocabulary. He also has a curious sense of humor and it's quite possible that many of his posts are designed simply to elicit responses but for what purpose I do not yet know. What I mean by this was I observed in the chat that he strangely brought up a political topic and presented it in a partisan manner. He had one particular member literally eating all his words. I had previously researched the issue and had to refresh myself on the matter. I came back and explained the opposing view but there was no response. Later I asked him about it and he said something to the effect of "I knew the [proponent party] was playing politics". It's almost as if he devises strange tests for us. Guess I passed that one.