General Music Chat

The test doesn't measure Intelligence, it measures knowledge.

Actually, it does measure intelligence. Knowledge can help on an IQ tests, but the questions are designed to be answered - to a large degree - without specific knowledge.

Another example: A recent IQ test asked which of four fruits was different. It was the one with more than one seed; but what if you were not familiar with these fruits? Obviously this test is culturally biased. You are assumed to have certain knowledge, yet you are being tested for intelligence, not knowledge.

The question has nothing to do with culture or fruit. It's a pattern-recognition question which is common in IQ tests (the seeds were the key). They could have used anything to create that example. Some IQ tests don't even use recognizable items like fruits - they just utilize symbols without any special meaning. But the purpose of the question is the same - to establish that someone with the ability to reason can figure out which item doesn't match. I've seen IQ tests where the symbols have absolutely no meaning - but the answer is the same: one item doesn't match because it's missing something, or has something extra.

It's not about knowledge. If you have knowledge of a specific item (like the aforementioned fruits) then it can help (or hinder; maybe someone answers it wrong because they figure one of the fruits isn't grown in the northern hemisphere), but if you don't have the knowledge and you're intelligent, then you can FIGURE it out. That's the key to the question - can you figure it out?

Intelligence is measured by the ability of reasoning with logic, and not the ability of storing lots of information in your brain.

And that's what IQ tests measure.

I think ppl made their opinion of G.W based on his actions, during his 8 years of presidency

Thank you.

Exactly right.

Many historians are already calling Bush the worst president in US history. I'm inclined to agree.

That doesn't mean he's stupid, or a bad guy, or that I personally dislike him. It means he did a bad job as president. It's that simple.

We've all known someone who did a bad job. It happens.

Is Bush responsible for 9/11?

OMG... dude. You are so far off the map.

That's not even an important question. What's important is how a president responds to the unforeseen events that crop up during his presidency. Bush was responsible for his RESPONSE to 9/11, and that's what counts. Not whether he caused it, but how he responded it to it. We elect leaders hoping that their good judgment will see us through crisis, and Bush's judgment was about as poor as it gets.

He showed a complete lack of patience as those events unfolded. He didn't let people do their jobs; he cut the inspections short when there was no clear evidence of WMD and no nothing on the horizon that pointed to their existence, and with his sidekick Cheney cooked up a story about a link between Iraq and Al-Qada that simply didn't exist. The Bush administration used false premises to start a WAR. A war based on lies that sent our soldiers to die. And then they continued down that path.

And you're blaming the 'liberal' media for the death counts?

Here's my response to that sentiment: I served 6 years in the Air Force. I have a lot of friends who were in the military, most during the first Desert Storm. Our soldiers are people - human beings - not machines - with families and lives and aspirations and dreams. And yes, we volunteer knowing full well that we might have to sacrifice our lives for the greater good. But that is the promise - that our deaths won't be in vain.

Our volunteering into the military does not give a president license to irresponsibly waste those precious lives. I'm of the belief that if you've got an army of people, you better treat their lives with respect, and only send them war - to their deaths - if you absolutely have to. Bush didn't have to invade Iraq. It wasn't necessary. He showed a lack of respect to his soldiers. I, for one, felt the death counts were necessary. Bush, and all of the people who were so hot to send our troops over to Iraq, needed to be reminded on a daily basis of the cost in lives that his foolishness was costing us.

And yes - I remember exactly how everyone felt right after 9/11. And you know what? We wanted Bush to go to AFGHANISTAN and get Osama Bin Laden, not go into Iraq and chase his father's bogyman. If Bush would have done that, his legacy might have been different.

LOL @ George (Sans)

I think they call themselves "Code Fuschia" now. Following ACORNS name changing ways! LOL


Kramer,

You and I agree pretty much on the character of those three. Although Nader is a little extreme to me, I have NO DOUBT whatsoever how spotless his character is over the issues he champions. He LIVES what he preaches, and seems above pay-offs.

And on your list of evil controlling institutions, how did you leave out the Federal Reserve? A quasi-private/public institution of bankers who charge us fees for their "services" for setting monetary policy for the nation.

ColorsFade,


First of all, thank you for your service to our country. Secondly, however, while I am not in the service, I have dozens of family members who are, or have been, not to mention hundreds of friends who are or have been. Most of the military, believe they are doing something important and valuable in Iraq. Most of them would go back if given a choice. Most of them want to see the job finished, to insure that the country stabilizes under the banner of democracy. Given the history of that region, this may or may not be a reasonable hope. But that is what the service men and women I correspond with believe.

And when we are discussing the validity of Bush's decisions, it is somewhat difficult to assess the situation, because there are varied reference points to work from.

Governments engage in military action for publicly stated reasons, and for secretive reasons. These two are not always synonymous. And the secretive purposes are not always evil or selfish.

Do you believe our involvement in WW2 was good or neccessary?

When FDR began the Lend-Lease program, which provided munitions and resources to the allied forces fighting Hitler, the PUBLIC purpose was stated as being "To further the defense of the United States". Americans wanted nothing to do with this war, and still held an isolationist position in regards to other country's wars. But there should be little doubt, that the real purpose of the program, was to force our involvement, because FDR knew that Hitler would take offense to this, and begin attacking ships in retaliation. Once we were attacked, it would be an easier sell, to the public, to get us involved.

Even though on one hand, this is basically against our principles, as a democratic form of governement, on the other hand, fighting against totalitarianism and dictators, is a principle most Americans find worthy and honorable.

Few would find fault with our involvement, even though it was under false pretenses.

But sometimes it works the other way...

When Columbia would not sign a treaty for us to build a canal through Panama, Teddy Roosevelt simply encouraged a civil war and supported with naval ships, and when Columbia backed down because of our war ships, not surprisingly, the newly created "country" of Panama, was recognized almost immediately by America, and surprise surprise, we got our canal from them. Later we paid Columbia off for our involvement in the fiasco, and Columbia also recognized Panama as part of the terms.


So the question is...

Was Iraq a public or private mission?

And if private, what was the purpose.

To defend his daddy's honor?

Believing that would be as chilishly naive, as claiming that 9/11 was an inside job.

The realistic motives are:

1) Keeping cheap oil flowing

2) Establishing a bulkhead from which we can influence that region of the world, into a more democratic and stable region.


Which do I think it is?

Both

Another example: A recent IQ test asked which of four fruits was different. It was the one with more than one seed; but what if you were not familiar with these fruits? Obviously this test is culturally biased. You are assumed to have certain knowledge, yet you are being tested for intelligence, not knowledge.

The question has nothing to do with culture or fruit. It's a pattern-recognition question which is common in IQ tests (the seeds were the key). They could have used anything to create that example. Some IQ tests don't even use recognizable items like fruits - they just utilize symbols without any special meaning. But the purpose of the question is the same - to establish that someone with the ability to reason can figure out which item doesn't match. I've seen IQ tests where the symbols have absolutely no meaning - but the answer is the same: one item doesn't match because it's missing something, or has something extra.

I get what you are saying, but you are missing the point. Let's make a test together, shall we..lol.

Here's 4 fruits: Orange, Kiwi, Papaya and Apple.

Which one is different and why?

Remember, you are not allow to browse for the answer, you should be able to find the answer with logic only....without having a particular knowledge of the fruits.

I get what you are saying, but you are missing the point.

I don't think so.

I think it's you who are missing the point.

Maybe you've just taken some bad IQ tests.

answer the question, and we shall see if cultural knowledge is relevant, or not, in a I.Q. test.!

Most of them would go back if given a choice.

They go back for their brothers-in-arms, and that's pretty commonly known. There's a brotherhood when you're in the military that is cultivated from the moment you hit the first day of boot camp. And for good reason. The military NEEDS its people to feel that way. If enlisted people did NOT feel that way, the whole thing falls apart.

A fighting unit can only operate when the people in it believe in one another.

But this is common knowledge and old news... It has no bearing on Bush's policies. The military has operated this way long before Bush, and will operate that way long after Bush.

Most of them want to see the job finished, to insure that the country stabilizes under the banner of democracy. Given the history of that region, this may or may not be a reasonable hope. But that is what the service men and women I correspond with believe.

You should talk to a few more. Oh, wait - that might confuse you, because you'd run into people who didn't believe as you do, like me... But you can just ignore those folks, right?

And when we are discussing the validity of Bush's decisions, it is somewhat difficult to assess the situation, because there are varied reference points to work from.

It's not difficult at all. It's pretty simple actually.

answer the question, and we shall see if cultural knowledge is relevant, or not, in a I.Q. test.!

I don't trust you to write an IQ test. Sorry.

My answer doesn't prove anything anyway. I already know where I stand.

answer the question, and we shall see if cultural knowledge is relevant, or not, in a I.Q. test.!

I don't trust you to write an IQ test. Sorry.

My answer doesn't prove anything anyway. I already know where I stand.

pff, excuses!!! I can fetch other questions from I.Q. tests that are in similar fashion to this question, if you don't like this one.

It's not about finding your I.Q., it's about finding out if cultural knowledge is relevant, or not, when taking an I.Q. test.

You said that it is not relevant, so I'm challenging you!

There is ABSOLUTELY cultural bias found in standardized IQ tests. Sociologists are well aware of this, which is why, over the decades, there have been many various attempts at creating one WITHOUT cultural bias, but this has been found to be almost impossible. These attempts at non-biased testing have spanned the gamut from one with only pictures (which would mean blind people are not intelligent) and all the way to the ridiculous, like the "Chitling Test", which while ridiculous, made an important point in showing that urban blacks speak a different language than others.

on the topic of IQ tests- I took one and it stated that I was mentally retarded. Seriously. (memory says my score was below 60)

Yet, I excel at computers, math, music, and philosophy. Why?

Simple.. my dad was a f**k lazy asshole who taught me NOTHING about life, I learned what I knew from either my mistakes or someone elses mistakes. So when, at 17, I took the test, I had NO 'common knowledge' that was expected within the test, I could tell even while I was taking it...

So is it flawed, hell yes. I know for a fact I'm at least as smart as the "average" person, but certainly I'm not drooling all over myself as the test would suggest.

pff, excuses!!! I can fetch other questions from I.Q. tests that are in similar fashion to this question, if you don't like this one.

It's not about finding your I.Q., it's about finding out if cultural knowledge is relevant, or not, when taking an I.Q. test.

You said that it is not relevant, so I'm challenging you!

I just checked my answer, and I didn't see where I said it was irrelevant. Not sure where you got that from. Maybe I misread my own post and missed it.


The point I was making was, it's not the cultural knowledge that is significant to the question - it's the ability to reason things out. Pattern recognition, the ability to solve a puzzle through logic. That's the point of the question. You're getting caught up in the cultural knowledge aspect, but that's not the point of the question.

The point of the fruit question isn't that you have cultural knowledge of fruit. The point is - can you see the pattern?

So is it flawed, hell yes. I know for a fact I'm at least as smart as the "average" person, but certainly I'm not drooling all over myself as the test would suggest.

Just remember - not all IQ tests are created equal.

To condemn all IQ tests would be wrong. Likewise, would be believing they're all accurate.