Desideraht
(?)Community Member
- Report Post
- Posted: Thu, 12 Apr 2012 23:54:00 +0000
Biblical Unicorn
Dandrogyny
Biblical Unicorn
Dandrogyny
Biblical Unicorn
Dandrogyny
Lol, you're not explaining anything to me I don't understand. I still find it fallible.
Yeah...it accounts for its fallibility is that it does not provide proof or truths. Merely indications.
I'm done with this conversation. Your personal situation is driving your objection to this specific indicator, rather than legitimate argument or fact.
I'm done with this conversation. Your personal situation is driving your objection to this specific indicator, rather than legitimate argument or fact.
Basically I feel the "indications" are negligible if you have a chance that that person might be a ********' moron. Why not base what their intelligence could be on something a bit more reliable than something that is "merely" an "indicator". Such as direct proof/experience. Yes, I would consider that a lot more reliable, and I will never "guess" at someone's intelligence level due to their education level. Because I know that intelligence is not the primary factor there. The primary factors are money and effort. A person of moderately average intelligence can get there without being a genius. Having fancy degrees is no reason to call yourself smart. The immodesty in my opinion is also stupid.
It's not 'basing intelligence' on that. It's indicating. Indicators are used in conjunction with each other. They are also not used based on personal knowledge of a person, but rather based on broad sociological studies of groups of people which have produced the indicators and are used in impersonal sociological settings. If you ever do anything to do with anthropology, social service, or welfare, ALL the policies are based on these indicators. Why are they based on them? Because for 90% of cases, they are the truth.
In that case you think all psychological and sociological studies, outcomes and protocols are total bullshit and the study of anthropology, psychology or sociology totally worthless, because all use indicators, and all of those indicators have exceptions.
BTW: the way IQ tests were formed was to do studies on what set intelligent people away from dumb people, and use those indicators to build tests built around those indicators and assess whether a person had those indicators of intelligence.
BTW: the way IQ tests were formed was to do studies on what set intelligent people away from dumb people, and use those indicators to build tests built around those indicators and assess whether a person had those indicators of intelligence.
Honestly I don't see how a test is as "vague" as this indicator think you're talking about but ok. It sees a lot more specific to me honestly.