Sham 69 wrote:
Alan is pretty smart
No he's not, and it's now quite apparent that you aren't either.
Sham 69 wrote:
Alan is pretty smart
No he's not, and it's now quite apparent that you aren't either.
Sham 69 wrote:
Alan is pretty smart
Yes, he is. I may not agree with everything he says, but his posts (over a decade or more?) have made his intelligence pretty clear.
This post was removed.
These tests don't mean much.
P U wrote:
These tests don't mean much.
I'm well aware of that. It's Alan and the others who are bragging about nothing.
This post was removed.
haha you took the words right away from my keyboard!
P U wrote:
These tests don't mean much.
Unfortunately, they do. They have a strong correlation to real world achievements. It's like saying your Vo2 max doesn't mean much in the context of a 5K runner's ability.
It's the pea brains with no humility who have IQs in the 110-115 range who can't admit to themselves that their opinions about anything are absolutely meaningless.
I'd be surprised if there are more than 1 or 2 people on this forum more intelligent than me. Malcom Gladwell (I assume he does post here occasionally), and maybe Bad Wiggins and Jamin.
This post was removed.
Coevett wrote:
P U wrote:
These tests don't mean much.
Unfortunately, they do. They have a strong correlation to real world achievements. It's like saying your Vo2 max doesn't mean much in the context of a 5K runner's ability.
It's the pea brains with no humility who have IQs in the 110-115 range who can't admit to themselves that their opinions about anything are absolutely meaningless.
I'd be surprised if there are more than 1 or 2 people on this forum more intelligent than me. Malcom Gladwell (I assume he does post here occasionally), and maybe Bad Wiggins and Jamin.
Covett you sound incredibly arrogant and foolish.
110-115 is actually above average IQ.
Second, IQ tests measure specific areas. One could be exceptional in a certain field and this wouldn't be picked up on the test.
Third, your IQ of 160 is doubtful. I'm not saying it's impossible but I just don't buy it.
Finally, why do you think someone who's IQ is less than yours has an opinion that is meaningless?
In democracy, it doesn't matter if you are intellectually disabled, you still have an opinion and can register a vote.
For someone claiming such a high IQ you seem to lack awareness. You talk about humility too yet exhibit none.
You don't sound 1/2 as intelligent as you claim to be!
Greg wrote:
Coevett wrote:
Unfortunately, they do. They have a strong correlation to real world achievements. It's like saying your Vo2 max doesn't mean much in the context of a 5K runner's ability.
It's the pea brains with no humility who have IQs in the 110-115 range who can't admit to themselves that their opinions about anything are absolutely meaningless.
I'd be surprised if there are more than 1 or 2 people on this forum more intelligent than me. Malcom Gladwell (I assume he does post here occasionally), and maybe Bad Wiggins and Jamin.
Covett you sound incredibly arrogant and foolish.
110-115 is actually above average IQ.
Second, IQ tests measure specific areas. One could be exceptional in a certain field and this wouldn't be picked up on the test.
Third, your IQ of 160 is doubtful. I'm not saying it's impossible but I just don't buy it.
Finally, why do you think someone who's IQ is less than yours has an opinion that is meaningless?
In democracy, it doesn't matter if you are intellectually disabled, you still have an opinion and can register a vote.
For someone claiming such a high IQ you seem to lack awareness. You talk about humility too yet exhibit none.
You don't sound 1/2 as intelligent as you claim to be!
But you see, you're just proving my point. I have a superior IQ of over 40 points (at least) to yours. Yet you believe your logic and reasoning is superior to mine. This is like a 27 minute 5K runner believing he is faster than a 15 minute 5K runner.
I have a right to be arrogant. If I had a measured IQ of 157 and done nothing else with my life, I agree I would be a d*** to have any arrogance over an IQ test. I'm just saying that my measured IQ (twice) accords well with more important 'proofs' of inellectual superiority that I've demonstrated in my life.
No disrespect, but if I had an IQ of 110, I'm not sure I would ever even express an opinion on a message board, or at least not engage in debates and believe that my opinion was 'right'.
Who has less humility? The guy who is in the top 1% for IQ, who is earning in the top 1% (by UK/USA standards), who got to top 1% university, thinking his opinions are more important than others on a running forum, or a guy with an IQ of 110 thinking he is right about everything and is going to be a successful Hollywood script writer?
As far as democracy is concerned, as Churchill said - it's the worst form of government apart from all the others'. In any case, a vote represents an individual will rather than an opinion, and in a representative democracy we have intelligent (hopefully) people representing the general will of the majority. And even there, we don't allow children to vote.
It's really of no interest if you don't 'buy' that I have an IQ of 157. I probably earn at least 20 times more than you and my income is doubling every year, I probably went to a university 200 places above yours on the global league tables, despite attending a school probably 100 times worse than yours and having a father who left school at 14 and who couldn't speak English when I was growing up.
Don't worry, perhaps you do have a genius for script writing. It's possible, but unlikely. Just as it's possible perhaps, but unlikely, that somebody with a Vo2 max of 50 could run a sub 14 minute 5K.
Coevett, I didn't read your whole post and i am not going to, but i do tend to check the last lines of longwinded posts, and in yours you sited my reference to VO2 max test and its significance as an analogy to to IQ score and its significance to real world applications of intelligence,
And I feel compelled to say, for someone claiming intelligence, you seem to have done a surprising job at misconstruing the original comment and the context in which it was clearly intended.
So we are left to form our own conclusions, be that as it may.
yes yes yes yes wrote:
Never had my IQ tested. But I used to argue a few years ago with this guy who tested 142, and I always beat him in our arguments. Clearly, I was smarter than him.
So, I'd say that I am about 148-150.
And furthermore, anyone less than 140 does not impress me.
So...you're speculating about your own IQ, but anyone below 140 does not impress you? That's pretty funny dude.
I wouldn't count the ASVAB in almost any degree to be a measure of intelligence.
@Coevett congratulations on your Mensa test results, a high IQ definitely does stack things in your favour career wise, although perhaps not as much as having wealthy parents.
As a fellow Mensan I can’t help feel that you have let the emotions of this argument get the better of you, as it is certainly not appropriate to look down on people with lower IQs, no more than a fast runner is entitled to belittle slower runners.
Also, whilst we are faster at processing information and pattern matching than most other people, having a valid opinion still requires evidence and logic to support it. We can still be naive about things, the same as anyone, and people with lower IQs can have better opinions than us - it just probably took them longer to construct.
cecevans wrote:
yes yes yes yes wrote:
Never had my IQ tested. But I used to argue a few years ago with this guy who tested 142, and I always beat him in our arguments. Clearly, I was smarter than him.
So, I'd say that I am about 148-150.
And furthermore, anyone less than 140 does not impress me.
So...you're speculating about your own IQ, but anyone below 140 does not impress you? That's pretty funny dude.
I wouldn't count the ASVAB in almost any degree to be a measure of intelligence.
sorry, the post was meant to satirize another thread a short while ago about something else. You are completely correct in calling out the absurdity of it, which is a key part to the satire.
Coevett wrote:
Greg wrote:
Covett you sound incredibly arrogant and foolish.
110-115 is actually above average IQ.
Second, IQ tests measure specific areas. One could be exceptional in a certain field and this wouldn't be picked up on the test.
Third, your IQ of 160 is doubtful. I'm not saying it's impossible but I just don't buy it.
Finally, why do you think someone who's IQ is less than yours has an opinion that is meaningless?
In democracy, it doesn't matter if you are intellectually disabled, you still have an opinion and can register a vote.
For someone claiming such a high IQ you seem to lack awareness. You talk about humility too yet exhibit none.
You don't sound 1/2 as intelligent as you claim to be!
But you see, you're just proving my point. I have a superior IQ of over 40 points (at least) to yours. Yet you believe your logic and reasoning is superior to mine. This is like a 27 minute 5K runner believing he is faster than a 15 minute 5K runner.
I have a right to be arrogant. If I had a measured IQ of 157 and done nothing else with my life, I agree I would be a d*** to have any arrogance over an IQ test. I'm just saying that my measured IQ (twice) accords well with more important 'proofs' of inellectual superiority that I've demonstrated in my life.
No disrespect, but if I had an IQ of 110, I'm not sure I would ever even express an opinion on a message board, or at least not engage in debates and believe that my opinion was 'right'.
Who has less humility? The guy who is in the top 1% for IQ, who is earning in the top 1% (by UK/USA standards), who got to top 1% university, thinking his opinions are more important than others on a running forum, or a guy with an IQ of 110 thinking he is right about everything and is going to be a successful Hollywood script writer?
As far as democracy is concerned, as Churchill said - it's the worst form of government apart from all the others'. In any case, a vote represents an individual will rather than an opinion, and in a representative democracy we have intelligent (hopefully) people representing the general will of the majority. And even there, we don't allow children to vote.
It's really of no interest if you don't 'buy' that I have an IQ of 157. I probably earn at least 20 times more than you and my income is doubling every year, I probably went to a university 200 places above yours on the global league tables, despite attending a school probably 100 times worse than yours and having a father who left school at 14 and who couldn't speak English when I was growing up.
Don't worry, perhaps you do have a genius for script writing. It's possible, but unlikely. Just as it's possible perhaps, but unlikely, that somebody with a Vo2 max of 50 could run a sub 14 minute 5K.
I didn't prove any point of yours. Actually, I prove you to be incorrect. You said:
It's the pea brains with no humility who have IQs in the 110-115 range who can't admit to themselves that their opinions about anything are absolutely meaningless.
I gave an example of democracy and how people can express their opinions. In an election opinions are meaningful, not meaningless.
Does that make sense?
So Mr. High IQ, I proved you to be incorrect AND had to re-state it because you missed it.
If I have the lower IQ, how come I am correct in this instance?
You claim voting is a matter of will and not opinion in elections.. It represents both.
There, I proved you to be incorrect and have a lower IQ.
No offence, but if I had such a high IQ I wouldn't ramble on about points which were clearly incorrect.
And, if my opinion is meaningless, you obviously took the time to read it, indicating you value my time.
Many faults in your arguments.
My Psycologist's have made me take it several times usually decades apart the highest score was 137 the lowest was 122, they always say basically the same thing, that I score extremely high in some areas, but borderline retarded in others.
To quote the late Prof Stephen Hawking: “People who boast about their I.Q. are losers.”
Nuff said
Coevett, all the IQ in the world won’t change the fact that your wife likes to gobble gobble on my balls.
