Spiritual or science

[DieChecker]

12 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

Why assume this?  Why not recognise that you  are good at doing IQ tests and thus at the skills tested by those tests 

Because the various online tests are contrived to give people high results. To inflate their intelligence level. To get more "clicks".

Online IQ tests are just crap. Might as well take a test on what "Harry Potter" character you match up with.

[Aquila King]

1 hour ago, joc said:

• Naturalist (nature smart) Yep! 
• Musical (sound smart)  Uh huh!
• Logical-mathematical (number/reasoning smart) So far so good!
• Existential (life smart)  Absolutely!
• Interpersonal (people smart)  Yep!
• Bodily-kinesthetic (body smart)  Mmm hmmm!
• Linguistic (word smart)  A's all the way so far!
• Intra-personal (self smart) Yep, I know me like a book!
• Spatial (picture smart)  Wow...I'm scoring 100% here!  Never took an IQ test but from this...looks like I'm a freaking genius!  Oh wait...I am...I forgot!

Watch out @Mr Walker, Joc here's gunning for your spot of biggest gloater of the forum. 

[+Sherapy]

3 hours ago, Hammerclaw said:If you're talking about faculty academia, that's just an intellectually elevated microcosm of life at large, consisting of people of lesser and greater social skills. Student academia consists of individuals in their socially formative stages, in a controlled sandbox environment, insulated from real world social cause and effect. It is there where false social paradigms often arise.

No, not ivory tower or academia in the institutionalized sense,I am talking about the awkwardness that some can create from being around a group of people who are versed in their given subjects. For them, it could be intimidating so they mask with arrogance and bravado as opposed to understanding that just being yourself is enough, the person is judging themselves for their perceived lacks, yet seeing it as others judging them, so they defend against perceived attacks. 

What I am saying is I think there is value in all posters, we are all good at some things and not good at at others. 

I love to learn, for me my failures and my ignorance is the room for growth and the fun part.

I love this stage more than mastery. 

 

[+Hammerclaw]

23 minutes ago, Sherapy said:

No, not ivory tower or academia in the institutionalized sense,I am talking about the awkwardness that some can create from being around a group of people who are versed in their given subjects. For them, it could be intimidating so they mask with arrogance and bravado as opposed to understanding that just being yourself is enough, the person is judging themselves for their perceived lacks, yet seeing it as others judging them, so they defend against perceived attacks. 

What I am saying is I think there is value in all posters, we are all good at some things and not good at at others. 

I love to learn, for me my failures and my ignorance is the room for growth and the fun part.

I love this stage more than mastery. 

 

There is no mastery. To stop learning is to stop living and vegetate. There's always something new and wonderful and exciting to learn and experience--one need only seek it. That's a seemingly secular observation, yet it is part of the original philosophy of Yeshuah Bar Yosef of Galilee. "In life you must ask for something for it to be given you.. To find something, you must first seek it.  If you wish a door to open to you, knock on it." Good fortune doesn't just happen, usually, unless we manipulate the odds. Neither does love just happen unless we seek it. Often we find it in the most curious and unexpected places. If you wish to enter something, a philosophy, a friendship, a profession you must--metaphorically at least--knock on it's door. We make our own luck and good fortune by actively seeking it, not passively waiting for it.

I wasn't talking about ivory towers. You experienced college from both sides of the lectern and know it's anything but.  Real life problem solving isn't much like what you learn in such an insulated environment. The general difference between faculty and students is acquisition of real life experience at it. Little wonder so many students, on exiting college, are so devastated by their loan debt. College didn't prepare them deal with it.

Edited September 10, 2019 by Hammerclaw

[Mr Walker]

2 hours ago, DieChecker said:

Because the various online tests are contrived to give people high results. To inflate their intelligence level. To get more "clicks".

Online IQ tests are just crap. Might as well take a test on what "Harry Potter" character you match up with.

The y certainly had many flaws historically, but ive never read that the y were designed to inflate intelligence. Maybe modern online ones are, but the "old school"  tests were serious business. 

[Mr Walker]

12 hours ago, Desertrat56 said:

I disagree that the IQ tests measure intelligence, they measure a lot of things but intelligence entails more than how well you take a test or how well you understand what you read in what ever language the test is given in, or how well you understand or remember how numbers are used, or how whether or not you have the ability to determine 3 dimensional shapes from 2 dimensional pictures, etc.  How well can you get along with others, how do you resolve conflict, how do you come up with solutions to physical problems (like can you make a pulley with random materials and a rope), etc.  Some of those things are not on IQ tests but are vital indicators of intelligence.  You can be book smart and extermely stupid at survival, which includes getting along with others.

 

Good point My point was this That nominally IQ tests establish your relative intelligence across a cohort Ie the y asses what was defined as intelligence.

However in the last 50 years or so our understanding of the nature of intelligence has grown  and the old types of tests are seen as  very flawed.

Most places still do standardised tests (for diagnostic purposes of teaching and learning )  often online, to establish both base line and individual scores, but the y are very different to the old IQ tests 

Your last point was very true  For a long time native Australians were considered less intelligent than Europeans because they consistently scored lower on IQ tests However this was a cultural bias of the tests, which never included aboriginal referents or culture.  

[Mr Walker]

10 hours ago, Aquila King said:

 

There is no point in lying it just falsifies any further argument or discussion  I've explained how i achieved those scores and how i dont believe such tests are a true measure of a persons "intelligence"  

Have you ever heard me claim to be able to run a 4 minute mile ? Now that would be lying 

[Mr Walker]

10 hours ago, Aquila King said:

I find it genuinely hilarious that you actually expect anyone to take you seriously making such completely outlandishly bogus claims like this. 

What's next? When people start dismissing your 190 IQ score, you gonna up the number to 200? 210? 220? Etc.

How pathetically insecure you must be to continue arguing such a blatantly obvious BS narrative dude...

Nup Ive given the background and the scores. They remain the same ones i gave the first time this came up on UM ,over a decade ago 

Why do you find it hard to believe ?

I had  the time, opportunity, and interest to do many of these tests, and to study how the y worked. I was personally interested in the human mind and had studied human cognition at university 

Probably anyone with a good base intelligence could achieve similar scores if they bothered to spend a decade learning how to.

Partly it was because i could see from  my teaching that high Iq did not always make a good student, although it did help.  i taught some of my learned skills to my younger classes (around 12 to 13 year olds ) and this pushed up their yearly intelligence tests by around 10 -20 points. But i also taught them how to learn and  to have confidence in them selves. This helped just as much.

[Mr Walker]

10 hours ago, XenoFish said:

A 180 IQ is that supposed to be impressive? 

Its meaningless. as i said  

[Mr Walker]

10 hours ago, XenoFish said:

Here we go.

https://www.inc.com/scott-mautz/9-signs-youre-more-intelligent-than-you-think-according-to-science.html

Ah well. 8 out of 9 aint bad.  

[Aquila King]

39 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

They remain the same ones i gave the first time this came up on UM, over a decade ago 

I seriously deeply question the sanity of a person who spends over a decade on an obscure site like this, spam posting walls of text every night, quoting any and all users in an effort to "educate" them, reading every single post in the spirituality sections, making nonstop outrageous unjustified claims (often completely anecdotal in nature), and constantly bragging about himself how unbelievably great he is and how he's basically a mega-genius with unparalleled insight who's essentially God's gift to mankind...

[+Sherapy]

8 hours ago, Sherapy said:

Ha ha ha ha ha 

 

Dan congrats on your new baby, your so blessed, what I wouldn’t give to have another little one (at this point) I am hoping for grandkids. 

My middle son is my great hope. 

Edited September 10, 2019 by Sherapy

[+Sherapy]

3 hours ago, Hammerclaw said:

There is no mastery. To stop learning is to stop living and vegetate. There's always something new and wonderful and exciting to learn and experience--one need only seek it. That's a seemingly secular observation, yet it is part of the original philosophy of Yeshuah Bar Yosef of Galilee. "In life you must ask for something for it to be given you.. To find something, you must first seek it.  If you wish a door to open to you, knock on it." Good fortune doesn't just happen, usually, unless we manipulate the odds. Neither does love just happen unless we seek it. Often we find it in the most curious and unexpected places. If you wish to enter something, a philosophy, a friendship, a profession you must--metaphorically at least--knock on it's door. We make our own luck and good fortune by actively seeking it, not passively waiting for it.

I wasn't talking about ivory towers. You experienced college from both sides of the lectern and know it's anything but.  Real life problem solving isn't much like what you learn in such an insulated environment. The general difference between faculty and students is acquisition of real life experience at it. Little wonder so many students, on exiting college, are so devastated by their loan debt. College didn't prepare them deal with it.

What an awesome post, very good point. 

[Mr Walker]

2 hours ago, Aquila King said:

I seriously deeply question the sanity of a person who spends over a decade on an obscure site like this, spam posting walls of text every night, quoting any and all users in an effort to "educate" them, reading every single post in the spirituality sections, making nonstop outrageous unjustified claims (often completely anecdotal in nature), and constantly bragging about himself how unbelievably great he is and how he's basically a mega-genius with unparalleled insight who's essentially God's gift to mankind...

lol  Its only a small fraction of my time.

I find the debates interesting and I bring some unusual experiences to the site. It only takes a few minutes to read every new  post in the two sections i post in and i only respond  to those where i have an interest  

The claims are not outrageous or unjustified, given that they are all true and real (where they pertain  to my life)

ive never claimed to be great or better than others. Thats  a perception you have.

I have certain gifts skills and abilities, and lack others, BUT I've spent a lifetime enhancing  the skills and abilities i do have,  because its so much fun and so empowering.  i haven't wasted any time on the things so many spend their hours and days doing.     

Each one of us is a gift to mankind.

How valuable a gift we are depends on how we develop, and use, our skills and talents to help others, and the world. 

Edited September 10, 2019 by Mr Walker

[Mr Walker]

5 hours ago, Aquila King said:

Watch out @Mr Walker, Joc here's gunning for your spot of biggest gloater of the forum. 

I just checked the website. I can believe joc would score highly in most,if not all, those areas of intelligence. I am a bit handicapped in the last area but would also score highly on the rest .

[Mr Walker]

7 hours ago, cormac mac airt said:

In some schools in the 70s it was mandatory. 

cormac

All students in Australia did a t least one, IQ test each year, up until the late 60s   After that it was reduced to one in junior school and one entering high school  The practice was replaced by better testing methods by the 1980s 

[Alchopwn]

16 hours ago, Hammerclaw said:

It's also subject to atrophy, if unused. Einstein was a genius, yes, but he was, also, a very poor pupil. It was when in a boring mediocre job when he started applying his intelligence to thought problems that he began to achieve.

Einstein also stood on the shoulders of giants, and his wife was never properly credited for her contribution, which was surprisingly large. In fact Einstein proceeded to cheat on her unmercifully.  That's gratitude for you...

[SHaYap]

Albert got the Nobel Prize, the missus got the money as Albert promised... 

~