|
Post by JayUtah on Jul 6, 2010 12:21:00 GMT -4
Online IQ "tests" are almost always marketing fronts for some other product or service. They score you artificially high in order to flatter you and pull you into their pitch.
These days no one really relies upon a single-dimensional number as a measure of "intelligence." To measure intelligence requires a lot more than just 10 multiple choice questions on a web site.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Jul 6, 2010 14:33:37 GMT -4
My experience with those tests is that they score people way too high. Many years ago as a grad student I took an IQ test and got a score commensurate with my strong GPA. Recently I took one an online tests and made approximately the same score. I'd attributed the similarity to the accuracy of the testing. However if your hypothesis is right Bob, I'm in trouble. Now what were we talking about? How about those soccer players!
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jul 6, 2010 19:20:39 GMT -4
Online IQ "tests" are almost always marketing fronts for some other product or service. They score you artificially high in order to flatter you and pull you into their pitch. These days no one really relies upon a single-dimensional number as a measure of "intelligence." To measure intelligence requires a lot more than just 10 multiple choice questions on a web site. You mean that paying $59.99 for that certificate and report that proves I have an IQ or 210 was a waste of money ... drat!
|
|
|
Post by randombloke on Jul 7, 2010 5:15:11 GMT -4
The fun part is that even "normalised" scores are, relatively speaking, meaningless. What really matters is the number of people taking the test and your percentile place within that group; the more people that take the same test, the more accurate the results become. But even then, no two tests can ever be properly compared unless the same people do each test, in which case, what was the point of having two tests? Also, no-one really knows what an "IQ Score" means in terms of actual reasoning capability, because no-one has ever successfully quantised "reason."
(Full declaration here, before you guys think I'm ragging on IQ tests because I keep failing them: I've never scored below 95th percentile on any IQ test with more than 100K participants. My actual scores vary between 138 and 176, depending on the exact test.)
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jul 7, 2010 13:47:21 GMT -4
I have a tendency to use the number as a shorthand--"I think so-and-so is bright normal, maybe about 120 or so." But despite accusations of it, I don't think the number is the all-important thing. I certainly don't use the number to indicate that I know more about something than the other person or in place of actual research.
|
|
|
Post by theteacher on Jul 7, 2010 18:46:51 GMT -4
I have never had that request addressed at all, and certainly not by jarrah, who has an unhealthy obsession with jay to the exclusion of all others, it seems. Maybe he considers Jay the most threatening individual with respect to his worldview.
|
|
|
Post by theteacher on Jul 7, 2010 18:49:59 GMT -4
And IQ is like the graduations on a measuring jug. Tells you the quantity but says nothing about the contents..... Yes. I noted your use of that expression and agree. Plus maybe it tells how far (out) you can get, when you set out in the wrong direction.
|
|
|
Post by theteacher on Jul 7, 2010 19:11:14 GMT -4
Now what were we talking about? How about those soccer players! Ha ha :-) Well, gentlemen/-women - to be exact: I didn't care so much about the IQ-thing in itself, although Ralph Rene was a former member of Mensa (and he got far out). I am wondering if Jarrah White believes what he claims to believe. He seems to have studied a lot and seems to know a lot of detailed facts, although his knowledge and understanding of basic science is poor. He can't be doing much else than studying and making Youtube videos. What do you think? Does he believe what he claims to believe, or has he reached a point, where there's no way back, so he is sort of trapped in his own web - or Kaysing's maybe? I'm curious about what kind of personality he might be psychologically speaking.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jul 8, 2010 0:20:10 GMT -4
I don't want to analyze his psychology too much. I'm not a professional, and I've never actually spoken to the man. However, I do believe that he believes what he's saying. All of it. No matter how paranoid and delusional it seems to not-Jarrah. Take from that what you will.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jul 9, 2010 17:38:41 GMT -4
I didn't care so much about the IQ-thing in itself, although Ralph Rene was a former member of Mensa (and he got far out).If my information is accurate, he was expelled. I left Mensa voluntarily. As I told someone when I left, "I don't want to be a part of an organization of people who jabber for hours about hyperspatial manifolds and then go out and pour oil in their radiators." I am wondering if Jarrah White believes what he claims to believe.You can drive yourself crazy wondering if hoax advocates are really sincere. It's an interesting psychological exercise, but in the end you're simply trying to guess what's going on in some individual's mind, and that's unproductive at best and offensive at worst. He seems to have studied a lot and seems to know a lot of detailed facts, although his knowledge and understanding of basic science is poor.That's because while you can Google facts, you can't Google understanding. He may have a smattering of the former, but it takes both in order to be right and to know that you're right. Jarrah seems to take a deluge of Googled-up tidbits and fit them as best he can to some narrative or framework of his own devising. As long as nothing materially challenges that framework, it makes sense to him and that can support a form of sincerity. Does he believe what he claims to believe...I think he does, to the extent supported by his sycophantic network. He limits his forays outside that network, hence he protects the construct that makes his beliefs seem plausible to him. But his reluctance to engage the hoax theory in the real world suggests a certain insincerity, either conscious or unconscious. He will not respond to invitations to debate his claims openly among recognized experts. More specifically, although he relies on the opinions of experts regarding tidbits that he ties together with his ill-informed and tortured logic, he doesn't think to ask any of them whether they believe in the Moon landings and thus "close the loop" with his reasoning. He supposes that the endorsement of the tidbit extends through his personal interpretation to an endorsement of the final answer. For example, he tried to argue that some expert from NOAA assured him that the CFI data proved that solar flare activity during Apollo would have been hazardous to the astronauts. Of course Jarrah doesn't have any clue that things like H-alpha emissions, while measurable, have no biological effect. He just sees big scary numbers. And while Jarrah, in his correspondence, is using words like "hazardous," his expert is using proper words like "significance." "Significance" has a special meaning in solar physics, and it does not equate to what Jarrah believes it does. For weeks Jarrah evaded the logical question: so does the expert also doubt the Moon landings? Finally, after having the question pressed to him repeatedly by several people, he admitted he hadn't asked but speculated that if he had, the expert would simply have toed the party line and not agreed with Jarrah out of fear of losing his job or some other appropriately conspiratorial calamity. Unfortunately when you imply that experts agree with you but don't actually ask whether they do, and you suggest that they would lie rather than agree with you, it makes it hard to accept that the claims are being made sincerely. ...so he is sort of trapped in his own web - or Kaysing's maybe?He has clearly sought publicity. I think he stylizes himself as the "grandson of the Moon hoax," or words to that effect; and he has clearly idolized Bill Kaysing. But to say he'll do or say anything to be famous (or notorious) would be presumptuous. His behavior is just as easily explained by a sincere belief that what he's doing is the right thing, and that the fame is simply a consequence of his success at pursuing what he believes to be the truth. If I had to characterize Jarrah, I'd say he more closely resembles the other White -- Jack White. Jack White, as you know, spends all of his time in a walled garden surrounded by sycophants, from which he shouts invective at those who oppose him. I see Jarrah very much the same way. One can be very sincere, in a certain sense, as long as one controls what elements of the world get let into the garden. I'm curious about what kind of personality he might be psychologically speaking.Sure, that's a natural curiosity. We all want to know what makes people "tick." But it's a two-edged sword. You don't want to make or refute arguments on the basis of someone else's perceived mental state. That's clearly ad hominem. Jarrah's claims stand or fall according to the facts, not what you or I or anyone else thinks of Jarrah himself.
|
|
|
Post by abaddon on Jul 9, 2010 18:19:16 GMT -4
I have never had that request addressed at all, and certainly not by jarrah, who has an unhealthy obsession with jay to the exclusion of all others, it seems. Second the motion there. It is almost as if he believes that if he defeats Jay on a personal level, it will somehow add weight to his arguments. edit for spelling, darned laptop.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Jul 9, 2010 19:47:02 GMT -4
Sure, that's a natural curiosity. We all want to know what makes people "tick." In my observation, speculation over others personality reveals far more about speculator that the other target of the discussion. You can learn a lot about people by getting a conversation like that started in a group then watching how others handle it.
|
|
|
Post by photobuster919 on Jan 6, 2011 19:11:59 GMT -4
Now what were we talking about? How about those soccer players! Ha ha :-) Well, gentlemen/-women - to be exact: I didn't care so much about the IQ-thing in itself, although Ralph Rene was a former member of Mensa (and he got far out). I am wondering if Jarrah White believes what he claims to believe. He seems to have studied a lot and seems to know a lot of detailed facts, although his knowledge and understanding of basic science is poor. He can't be doing much else than studying and making Youtube videos. What do you think? Does he believe what he claims to believe, or has he reached a point, where there's no way back, so he is sort of trapped in his own web - or Kaysing's maybe? I'm curious about what kind of personality he might be psychologically speaking. I think there is always that possibility that deep down Jarrah believes men have landed on the moon. He might be just doing this to put an end to any forms of "character assasination" as he calls what Windley and Plait have done to Kaysing and others over the years, while presenting their hoax beliefs. I think Jarrah could have presented himself only as the defender of all the hoax proponents. Either way people would just assume he doubts Apollo, so there's really no two ways to go about it. Bill Kaysing actually was a really intelligent man. But he may have claimed that the moon landings were faked because he wanted to start a movement of people that question the US government rather than get caught up in the "rat race".
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Jan 6, 2011 22:00:02 GMT -4
Bill Kaysing actually was a really intelligent man. But he may have claimed that the moon landings were faked because he wanted to start a movement of people that question the US government rather than get caught up in the "rat race". Kaysing admitted in an interview that he wrote his book to get back at the government for actions during the Vietnam War. It's questionable whether Kaysing actually believed in the hoax or not.
|
|
|
Post by photobuster919 on Jan 7, 2011 6:45:51 GMT -4
Bill Kaysing actually was a really intelligent man. But he may have claimed that the moon landings were faked because he wanted to start a movement of people that question the US government rather than get caught up in the "rat race". Kaysing admitted in an interview that he wrote his book to get back at the government for actions during the Vietnam War. It's questionable whether Kaysing actually believed in the hoax or not. I'm not exactly sure whether the John Grant incident really proves Kaysing didn't believe his own claims. What Nardwuar was asking Kaysing was why didn't he spill the beans while he was still working at Rocketdyne. That meant confessing what he believed was going on at the time, which was NASA simulating flights to the moon and purpetrating them to be the real thing. When he met Grant, Kaysing realised he had all he could take of the US government so it was then that he admitted what he thought was going on. Don't get me wrong I do believe the moon landings happened, I'm just not a supporter of the claim that Kaysing believed them too. If he did he wouldn't have spent the last 31 years of his life trying to prove the landings were hoaxed, he wouldn't have wanted to suffer all that humiliation. Anyone remember the Jim Lovell incident? Kaysing was wrong about his claims, but not everyone knows the truth about everything anyway.
|
|