|
|||||||
| View Poll Results: What was (or is presently) your highschool GPA? | |||
| 4.00 |
|
33 | 24.26% |
| 3.51 - 3.99 |
|
51 | 37.50% |
| 3.01 - 3.50 |
|
25 | 18.38% |
| 2.01 - 3.00 |
|
19 | 13.97% |
| 1.01 - 2.00 |
|
0 | 0% |
| Below 1.00 |
|
8 | 5.88% |
| Voters: 136. You may not vote on this poll | |||
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
#81 |
|
Very Grave Indeed
|
Alright, let's see what we can do here.
Bynary: The first article you linked to in support of your claims was not a legitimate source, and the second referred only to there being no support for a claim that many kids make for kids with a lower IQ. It said nothing at all about parents, and nothing at all about anyone having their IQ lower, and thus had nothing to do with your point either. Further, even if there were a correlation, as was pointed out above: post hoc ergo propter hoc is one of the standard logical fallacies, and you need to properly -prove- a causal relationship before you can claim one. Reach: Same deal with the correlation. It can exist and still be coincidental, just because its there doesn't mean the correlation is causal. Also, The ratio system says if your intelligence remains constant, your IQ will drop as your chronological age increases, and saying "Well then you switch to deviation" sounds a little like "So then we switch from one set of numbers that suddenly becomes wrong, to a totally new set of numbers that supports the validity of our process" I'd suggest that any IQ test result you want to cite with reference for yourself ought to only be considered valid for about a year after you take it. I'm of the opinion that the subjective nature of test to test, and the way they interact with respect to mental and chronological age makes it that if you want to justifiably go around telling people about your IQ, you ought to get retested every year. I think that would solve both of our issues with the system yes? gnr: You're perfectly right to ask to see sources cited when someone is claiming facts you disagree with, but there were better ways to ask to see them. No harm no foul, really, but you were a little more confrontational than you perhaps needed to be, though Bynary, you also took it a little harder than you ought to. Civility is the order of the day. Rubin0: If you hate to make generalizations about people's ages, then don't make generalizations about people's ages. Also, while it may be true in large parts of the forum (Especially stuff like TGB) that new users have no credibility with the old users, here credibility comes with intelligent and contributory posting, not just being around a long time. A very well known, even well liked, user from 3 or 4 years of constant forum activity can make their first post in CT, and if it sucks, contributes nothing, is full of fallacy and nonsense, that's where credibility goes away. We've had several people who started posting here who were quite new, and many who pretty much -only- post here, and they have plenty of credibility. And see, I didn't even put all that in red text. We can solve our issues without the iron fist. |
|
|
|
|
#82 |
|
Very Grave Indeed
|
|
|
|
|
|
#83 | |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: New York
Age: 32
Posts: 1,279
|
Quote:
__________________
The weight of what I say depends on how you feel. |
|
|
|
|
|
#84 |
|
Resident One-Hander
|
Poated by devonin:
gnr: You're perfectly right to ask to see sources cited when someone is claiming facts you disagree with, but there were better ways to ask to see them. No harm no foul, really, but you were a little more confrontational than you perhaps needed to be, though Bynary, you also took it a little harder than you ought to. Civility is the order of the day. I understand what you are saying. But since I have been attacked by everybody here, it's hard not to. And as for my second article, you clearly didn't read what I said. I said that it does support much of what I have said in one way or another. The last part does reference how it seems that parents have lower IQ with families/larger ones than parents who have small families or aren't parents at all. Therefore, my statement had some merit to it. There is a correlation, and If I Remember Correctly, Harvard did such a study that proved it (I don't remember exactly, it may have been something else). Please, at least READ what I've posted before making your statements. ~Bynary Fission |
|
|
|
|
#85 | |
|
Very Grave Indeed
|
Quote:
So the correlation is there, but you've fallen afoul of cum hoc ergo propter hoc, by concluding that because low IQ and large families tend to go together, it must be the case that the one (low IQ) is caused by the other (large family) when in fact, the implication is that the reverse is true. |
|
|
|
|
|
#86 | |
|
FFR Simfile Author
|
Quote:
I have no idea what you're talking about in reference to the ratio scale. The reason your IQ remains the same until the age of about 16 is because your intelligence increases with your age (up until about 16), but the tests are normed by age group. The reason the scale switches to deviation is because after about 16 your intelligence will not increase, so we can compare you to the population as a whole, rather than to people of your own age. The scales are slightly different (in terms of what IQ they yield) but in terms of rarity of the score it all means the same. If you took a test at 12 and got a ratio IQ score, and then took a test at 18 you might receive a different IQ score but it would correspond to the same percentile (and just for the record, this only applies to ratio IQs above about 130. Below that they follow a normal distribution. For some reason though after that ratio IQs take off exponentially faster than the normal distribution would predict). Also, only valid a year after you've taken it? This is true for very young children, as the results of IQ testing under the age of about 8 is not reliable, but after that your score will stay relatively stable (within the standard error, as predicted by the confidence interval). The only time this isn't true is if your IQ has been depressed or an inappropriate test was administered (the ridiculous online IQ parade has given IQ tests a pretty bad rep lately. The whole 'I scored 100 on one test and 190 on another online IQ tests are bunk', but on tests that have absolutely no internal or external validity >_>). I suppose by taking several tests the estimate of your IQ would become more accurate as the confidence interval shrinks, but it's not necessary at all with good tests. edit: I think I see what you did there now for the ratio IQ comment. By IQ I was implying strictly your IQ score. The reason this is important is because since it stays stable, it is very predictive of your future ability. People that are smarter at age 10 are smarter as adults.
__________________
Last edited by Reach; 01-12-2008 at 11:01 PM.. |
|
|
|
|
|
#87 | |
|
Resident One-Hander
|
Quote:
~Bynary Fission |
|
|
|
|
|
#88 | |
|
FFR Player
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
#89 | ||||
|
Very Grave Indeed
|
Quote:
You were pressed for sources to back up your claims, and the ones you provided were a spoof site, and one that several people felt didn't back up what you were saying. It is hardly their fault if on that basis, they don't declare you to be correct. Quote:
You'll in fact notice that I've already cautioned both you and someone else for being less than civil in this thread. "I could prove it, but I don't want to" doesn't fly here. If you can back up your claims, do so. If you can't, don't post about how nobody listens to you. Quote:
Quote:
|
||||
|
|
|
|
#90 |
|
FFR Simfile Author
|
The remark about "checking up on your sources" may have come off as confrontational and point taken xD
In all fairness though the comic was just something humorous I thought of when I read Rubin's post containing the link to snopes. It wasn't actually a stab at you ![]()
__________________
squirrel--it's whats for dinner. |
|
|
|
|
#91 |
|
Resident One-Hander
|
I hope so, because right now I'm pissed off....I am new here, at least cut me a little slack. I never knew anybody wanted sources, nor did I know that it was a joke site. And considering how confrontational and aggressive you've been to me in several threads, I have plenty of reason to believe it was just to mock me. However, I thank you for apologizing...
~Bynary Fission |
|
|
|
|
#92 |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: New York
Age: 32
Posts: 1,279
|
To be honest I thought he was taking a stab at me Bynary. Nobody was trying to hurt you. People on this site are really blunt and can come across as rude to new people. In fact...a lot of people are blatantly rude...but they don't really mean it in a malicious way. It is just the tone of this board in general. You'll see what I mean. No biggie.
__________________
The weight of what I say depends on how you feel. |
|
|
|
|
#93 |
|
Very Grave Indeed
|
I'll point out that the directive to be able to source your statements any time someone wants you to is pretty well spelled out in the sticky detailing the rules for the CT forum. But since everyone knows that new users never read stickies, this -was- us cutting you slack *grin*
|
|
|
|
|
#94 |
|
Resident One-Hander
|
@Rubin: Thanks for your kind words. I came here expecting some harshness. But some people here were just plain mean. I will try to be more careful though. I will admit, I did learn the hard way.
![]() @Devonin: I DID read the stickies. Don't generalize me, just saying I'm 'another newb" please. I am more than willing to back up a statement I make. And I will say this because nobody realizes it: Some statements I make that come off as fact are opinions, just said the wrong way. ~Bynary Fission |
|
|
|
|
#95 | |
|
Very Grave Indeed
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
#96 |
|
Resident One-Hander
|
I honestly did, regardless of who believes me. Problem is, I don't have that good of a memory, so I tend to forget what I read....
|
|
|
|
|
#97 | |
|
FFR Player
|
It still doesn't excuse you from your actions. Another person requested your sources and you failed to deliver. By the way, everyone wants sources, just remember that. Whenever you are presenting your information, people do want to know whether or not you made it up or are genuinely taking it from another source. When you get into high school and college, when you write papers, you will always have to cite your sources.
~Tsugomaru
__________________
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
#98 |
|
Resident One-Hander
|
I never said it did. I did, and it turns out the site wasn't reliable. So sue me. I am attempting to give sources if so asked, give me credit for that at least. Sheesh. And in the other thread on homosexuality, I gave plenty of them.
|
|
|
|
|
#99 | |
|
FFR Player
|
But you did try to argue against it. I know you gave it in the end, I'm reading the thread.
~Tsugomaru
__________________
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
#100 |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: it's a mystery oooo
Posts: 3,221
|
To turn the thread back towards the originally intended discussion, I'll add:
The key phrase is 'indirect correlation.' GPA is roughly as reliable as, say, standardized test scores, when it comes to trying to objectively measure what is obviously a subjective set of aptitudes. For example, if some lazy intellectual daydreams during every class, while a diligent student pays attention and studies, and both claim a 4.0, how can one distinguish, from the numbers alone, which is smarter (although you could argue that the intellectual is foolish for spending time in such a manner)? Yes, someone could say, "Oh, the intellectual, without a doubt, since he/she puts forth very little effort and still manages to achieve the same grades." Indeed, it is this observation, -not- the GPA or any other quantity, upon which the assignment of "intelligence" is based. Even then, it is possible that a person is simply incompatible with the education system, or that perhaps the system, itself, does not accurately reflect anything other than the results of what is merely an input/output relationship. There are so many discrepancies when it comes to evaluating intelligence that it can best be given by separate aspects (as has already been implied). A individual's intelligence, then, is defined by only the person assessing it, and therefore applies to that person only. Many, however, use the same metrics, and thus share similar opinions. At this point, though, psychological standpoints must be considered, but that's an entirely different story. tl;dr - GPA represents the acquisition of grades, which in turn may or may not be associated with a corresponding level of intelligence. |
|
|
![]() |
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|