Irate Visitors Rage Here, If You Must.

[honez 79]

PS As you appear so interested in semantics, I feel I should point out that as "double digit" implies a number within the range 10 to 99, so "triple digit" implies a number within the range 100 to 999. Leading zeroes are never implied in this instance. If the concept of implication is so hard for you to grasp I would suggest starting off more gently with a word game from the television or perhaps "The Sun" newspaper.

Dear Disgusted,

as has been pointed out by Terminator, and seeing how much of a semantic twat I am, I shall re-iterate -- neither of us referred to "triple digits." You, however, did use the term "triple figures."

007 can be referred to as triple figures, as could something like, say, an IQ score of 075.

Sorry if I touched a raw nerve there.

 

Please feel free to drop on in and fire off another powder puff broadside.

[Monoclinic 39]

As we're mincing words anyway, I'd like to add that high intelligence in a person, whichever way expressed in numbers, doesn't mean that person isn't an ignoramus.

 

regards,

Hein

 

Carole Vordeman has a large one, apparently, however she only got a Douglas Hurd, allegedly. Then there's Banshees who'd have us believe he has a large one too.

 

Is the IQ test in fact all just a crock of sh*te? I noticed the ones on Fuckfacebook are far easier to score higher in. There are far too many rogue testers out there, perhaps disgusted has fallen foul of one?

I think it's no more than a measure of confidence for those who feel they need to know their IQ. Howard Gardner suggests that there are many types of intelligence. For example David Bekcham might be said to have a high footballing IQ.

 

Yes, like Fred West had a good DIY IQ and Hitler had a good road building IQ. It all depends on where you're concentrating your efforts. Idiot.

 

Do you have a high w'anking IQ then?

[Magere Hein 1,400]

As we're mincing words anyway, I'd like to add that high intelligence in a person, whichever way expressed in numbers, doesn't mean that person isn't an ignoramus

Is the IQ test in fact all just a crock of sh*te? I noticed the ones on Fuckfacebook are far easier to score higher in. There are far too many rogue testers out there, perhaps disgusted has fallen foul of one?

When I was at uni (I think Christiaan Huygens was still with us) I did a comparison of some 20 different IQ tests on the same sample of students. The results made clear that:

• Results correlate strongly
  
• Nevertheless, the same student often scores a difference of 10 to 20 IQ points between different tests
  
• Tests almost always have a strong cultural bias
  
• Most tests are testing language skills rather than intelligence
  
• Many tests are testing knowledge rather than intelligence
  

Another observation was that students tended to score better in tests taken later, which implies that the results of IQ tests can be improved by training. Since I took the lot, I now have an Official IQ in the uppermost percentile.

 

There's no such thing as general intelligence. As a matter of fact, if you ask a psychologist what intelligence actually is, chances are that he'll start with something like: "Ehrm, that's a good question.", which is scientific for: "I haven't the foggiest." Intelligence, like al human talents, is multidimensional and modular. Trying to express intelligence in a single number is meaningless.

 

That said, IQ is a reasonably good predictor of learning ability.

 

 

regards,

Hein

[Guest Disgusted]

PS As you appear so interested in semantics, I feel I should point out that as "double digit" implies a number within the range 10 to 99, so "triple digit" implies a number within the range 100 to 999. Leading zeroes are never implied in this instance. If the concept of implication is so hard for you to grasp I would suggest starting off more gently with a word game from the television or perhaps "The Sun" newspaper.

Dear Disgusted,

as has been pointed out by Terminator, and seeing how much of a semantic twat I am, I shall re-iterate -- neither of us referred to "triple digits." You, however, did use the term "triple figures."

007 can be referred to as triple figures, as could something like, say, an IQ score of 075.

Sorry if I touched a raw nerve there.

 

Please feel free to drop on in and fire off another powder puff broadside.

 

I'm not sure why you should have touched a raw nerve as I was explaining that triple digits/figures (the two terms are interchangeble in this context) and double digits/figures are term normally applied to numbers without leading zeroes. Simple as that

[Guest Disgusted]

As we're mincing words anyway, I'd like to add that high intelligence in a person, whichever way expressed in numbers, doesn't mean that person isn't an ignoramus.

 

regards,

Hein

 

Carole Vordeman has a large one, apparently, however she only got a Douglas Hurd, allegedly. Then there's Banshees who'd have us believe he has a large one too.

 

Is the IQ test in fact all just a crock of sh*te? I noticed the ones on Fuckfacebook are far easier to score higher in. There are far too many rogue testers out there, perhaps disgusted has fallen foul of one?

I think it's no more than a measure of confidence for those who feel they need to know their IQ. Howard Gardner suggests that there are many types of intelligence. For example David Bekcham might be said to have a high footballing IQ.

 

Yes, like Fred West had a good DIY IQ and Hitler had a good road building IQ. It all depends on where you're concentrating your efforts. Idiot.

 

Do you have a high w'anking IQ then?

 

I don't know. You tell me.

[Guest Disgusted]

As we're mincing words anyway, I'd like to add that high intelligence in a person, whichever way expressed in numbers, doesn't mean that person isn't an ignoramus

Is the IQ test in fact all just a crock of sh*te? I noticed the ones on Fuckfacebook are far easier to score higher in. There are far too many rogue testers out there, perhaps disgusted has fallen foul of one?

When I was at uni (I think Christiaan Huygens was still with us) I did a comparison of some 20 different IQ tests on the same sample of students. The results made clear that:

• Results correlate strongly
  
• Nevertheless, the same student often scores a difference of 10 to 20 IQ points between different tests
  
• Tests almost always have a strong cultural bias
  
• Most tests are testing language skills rather than intelligence
  
• Many tests are testing knowledge rather than intelligence
  

Another observation was that students tended to score better in tests taken later, which implies that the results of IQ tests can be improved by training. Since I took the lot, I now have an Official IQ in the uppermost percentile.

 

There's no such thing as general intelligence. As a matter of fact, if you ask a psychologist what intelligence actually is, chances are that he'll start with something like: "Ehrm, that's a good question.", which is scientific for: "I haven't the foggiest." Intelligence, like al human talents, is multidimensional and modular. Trying to express intelligence in a single number is meaningless.

 

That said, IQ is a reasonably good predictor of learning ability.

 

 

regards,

Hein

 

Interesting point about many tests testing knowledge rather than intelligence. Always considered knowledge to be 99% of intelligence. Anyway nice to see someone on this forum so expensively and usefully eductaed as yourself .

[Monoclinic 39]

As we're mincing words anyway, I'd like to add that high intelligence in a person, whichever way expressed in numbers, doesn't mean that person isn't an ignoramus

Is the IQ test in fact all just a crock of sh*te? I noticed the ones on Fuckfacebook are far easier to score higher in. There are far too many rogue testers out there, perhaps disgusted has fallen foul of one?

When I was at uni (I think Christiaan Huygens was still with us) I did a comparison of some 20 different IQ tests on the same sample of students. The results made clear that:

• Results correlate strongly
  
• Nevertheless, the same student often scores a difference of 10 to 20 IQ points between different tests
  
• Tests almost always have a strong cultural bias
  
• Most tests are testing language skills rather than intelligence
  
• Many tests are testing knowledge rather than intelligence
  

Another observation was that students tended to score better in tests taken later, which implies that the results of IQ tests can be improved by training. Since I took the lot, I now have an Official IQ in the uppermost percentile.

 

There's no such thing as general intelligence. As a matter of fact, if you ask a psychologist what intelligence actually is, chances are that he'll start with something like: "Ehrm, that's a good question.", which is scientific for: "I haven't the foggiest." Intelligence, like al human talents, is multidimensional and modular. Trying to express intelligence in a single number is meaningless.

 

That said, IQ is a reasonably good predictor of learning ability.

 

 

regards,

Hein

 

Interesting point about many tests testing knowledge rather than intelligence. Always considered knowledge to be 99% of intelligence. Anyway nice to see someone on this forum so expensively and usefully eductaed as yourself .

 

Knowledge (viz. being a smartarse) can be trivially memorised; understanding, reasoning, problem solving, abstract thinking etc. is a whole different kettle of fish IMHO. A kettle which doesn't constitute 1%. This is probably why we have a generaration of school leavers with the highest attainment grades possible (parrot fashion learning) yet are unable to apply themselves.

[Guest Disgusted]

As we're mincing words anyway, I'd like to add that high intelligence in a person, whichever way expressed in numbers, doesn't mean that person isn't an ignoramus

Is the IQ test in fact all just a crock of sh*te? I noticed the ones on Fuckfacebook are far easier to score higher in. There are far too many rogue testers out there, perhaps disgusted has fallen foul of one?

When I was at uni (I think Christiaan Huygens was still with us) I did a comparison of some 20 different IQ tests on the same sample of students. The results made clear that:

• Results correlate strongly
  
• Nevertheless, the same student often scores a difference of 10 to 20 IQ points between different tests
  
• Tests almost always have a strong cultural bias
  
• Most tests are testing language skills rather than intelligence
  
• Many tests are testing knowledge rather than intelligence
  

Another observation was that students tended to score better in tests taken later, which implies that the results of IQ tests can be improved by training. Since I took the lot, I now have an Official IQ in the uppermost percentile.

 

There's no such thing as general intelligence. As a matter of fact, if you ask a psychologist what intelligence actually is, chances are that he'll start with something like: "Ehrm, that's a good question.", which is scientific for: "I haven't the foggiest." Intelligence, like al human talents, is multidimensional and modular. Trying to express intelligence in a single number is meaningless.

 

That said, IQ is a reasonably good predictor of learning ability.

 

 

regards,

Hein

 

Interesting point about many tests testing knowledge rather than intelligence. Always considered knowledge to be 99% of intelligence. Anyway nice to see someone on this forum so expensively and usefully eductaed as yourself .

 

Knowledge (viz. being a smartarse) can be trivially memorised; understanding, reasoning, problem solving, abstract thinking etc. is a whole different kettle of fish IMHO. A kettle which doesn't constitute 1%. This is probably why we have a generaration of school leavers with the highest attainment grades possible (parrot fashion learning) yet are unable to apply themselves.

 

Ahhh... the knee-jerk reaction I was expecting from someone. I would define knowledge as things that I have learned. Now think carefully and try to think of some "intelligent" thing that you have done which does not rely 99% on things that you have already learned. Not easy is it. All those things you mention are important of course but things learned are the most important. And by the way I don't consider those things learned at school to be the most important. Intelligence is a qualiy that is learned, strengthened and refined much earlier in life.

[Monoclinic 39]

As we're mincing words anyway, I'd like to add that high intelligence in a person, whichever way expressed in numbers, doesn't mean that person isn't an ignoramus

Is the IQ test in fact all just a crock of sh*te? I noticed the ones on Fuckfacebook are far easier to score higher in. There are far too many rogue testers out there, perhaps disgusted has fallen foul of one?

When I was at uni (I think Christiaan Huygens was still with us) I did a comparison of some 20 different IQ tests on the same sample of students. The results made clear that:

• Results correlate strongly
  
• Nevertheless, the same student often scores a difference of 10 to 20 IQ points between different tests
  
• Tests almost always have a strong cultural bias
  
• Most tests are testing language skills rather than intelligence
  
• Many tests are testing knowledge rather than intelligence
  

Another observation was that students tended to score better in tests taken later, which implies that the results of IQ tests can be improved by training. Since I took the lot, I now have an Official IQ in the uppermost percentile.

 

There's no such thing as general intelligence. As a matter of fact, if you ask a psychologist what intelligence actually is, chances are that he'll start with something like: "Ehrm, that's a good question.", which is scientific for: "I haven't the foggiest." Intelligence, like al human talents, is multidimensional and modular. Trying to express intelligence in a single number is meaningless.

 

That said, IQ is a reasonably good predictor of learning ability.

 

 

regards,

Hein

 

Interesting point about many tests testing knowledge rather than intelligence. Always considered knowledge to be 99% of intelligence. Anyway nice to see someone on this forum so expensively and usefully eductaed as yourself .

 

Knowledge (viz. being a smartarse) can be trivially memorised; understanding, reasoning, problem solving, abstract thinking etc. is a whole different kettle of fish IMHO. A kettle which doesn't constitute 1%. This is probably why we have a generaration of school leavers with the highest attainment grades possible (parrot fashion learning) yet are unable to apply themselves.

 

Ahhh... the knee-jerk reaction I was expecting from someone. I would define knowledge as things that I have learned. Now think carefully and try to think of some "intelligent" thing that you have done which does not rely 99% on things that you have already learned. Not easy is it. All those things you mention are important of course but things learned are the most important. And by the way I don't consider those things learned at school to be the most important. Intelligence is a qualiy that is learned, strengthened and refined much earlier in life.

 

I think this stems back to MH's comment about asking someone to define intelligence. As something can only ever be proven wrong you are entitled to your view as I am mine. The fact that you say

 

Always considered knowledge to be 99% of intelligence

and

And by the way I don't consider those things learned at school to be the most important. Intelligence is a qualiy that is learned, strengthened and refined much earlier in life.

 

I put it to you that either you knew all about algebra, evolution, Shakespeare, oh and of course LIFE by the time you were 4 or that in fact you know f'uck all now.

 

Oh and by the way, I get the point of your question but unfortunately for you you've picked the wrong person to ask. I am a research chemist so more than 1% of the things we do are out of curiosity. (So that set-up/reaction etc. works as per what I have learnt but what if I did x,y or z what would happen then, would the outcome be an improvement?). If you don't experiment you'll never know

 

Risk is another element. In certain professions people take risks regulary and achieve "intelligent" things.

[Guest Disgusted]

As we're mincing words anyway, I'd like to add that high intelligence in a person, whichever way expressed in numbers, doesn't mean that person isn't an ignoramus

Is the IQ test in fact all just a crock of sh*te? I noticed the ones on Fuckfacebook are far easier to score higher in. There are far too many rogue testers out there, perhaps disgusted has fallen foul of one?

When I was at uni (I think Christiaan Huygens was still with us) I did a comparison of some 20 different IQ tests on the same sample of students. The results made clear that:

• Results correlate strongly
  
• Nevertheless, the same student often scores a difference of 10 to 20 IQ points between different tests
  
• Tests almost always have a strong cultural bias
  
• Most tests are testing language skills rather than intelligence
  
• Many tests are testing knowledge rather than intelligence
  

Another observation was that students tended to score better in tests taken later, which implies that the results of IQ tests can be improved by training. Since I took the lot, I now have an Official IQ in the uppermost percentile.

 

There's no such thing as general intelligence. As a matter of fact, if you ask a psychologist what intelligence actually is, chances are that he'll start with something like: "Ehrm, that's a good question.", which is scientific for: "I haven't the foggiest." Intelligence, like al human talents, is multidimensional and modular. Trying to express intelligence in a single number is meaningless.

 

That said, IQ is a reasonably good predictor of learning ability.

 

 

regards,

Hein

 

Interesting point about many tests testing knowledge rather than intelligence. Always considered knowledge to be 99% of intelligence. Anyway nice to see someone on this forum so expensively and usefully eductaed as yourself .

 

Knowledge (viz. being a smartarse) can be trivially memorised; understanding, reasoning, problem solving, abstract thinking etc. is a whole different kettle of fish IMHO. A kettle which doesn't constitute 1%. This is probably why we have a generaration of school leavers with the highest attainment grades possible (parrot fashion learning) yet are unable to apply themselves.

 

Ahhh... the knee-jerk reaction I was expecting from someone. I would define knowledge as things that I have learned. Now think carefully and try to think of some "intelligent" thing that you have done which does not rely 99% on things that you have already learned. Not easy is it. All those things you mention are important of course but things learned are the most important. And by the way I don't consider those things learned at school to be the most important. Intelligence is a qualiy that is learned, strengthened and refined much earlier in life.

 

I think this stems back to MH's comment about asking someone to define intelligence. As something can only ever be proven wrong you are entitled to your view as I am mine. The fact that you say

 

Always considered knowledge to be 99% of intelligence

and

And by the way I don't consider those things learned at school to be the most important. Intelligence is a qualiy that is learned, strengthened and refined much earlier in life.

 

I put it to you that either you knew all about algebra, evolution, Shakespeare, oh and of course LIFE by the time you were 4 or that in fact you know f'uck all now.

 

Oh and by the way, I get the point of your question but unfortunately for you you've picked the wrong person to ask. I am a research chemist so more than 1% of the things we do are out of curiosity. (So that set-up/reaction etc. works as per what I have learnt but what if I did x,y or z what would happen then, would the outcome be an improvement?). If you don't experiment you'll never know

 

Risk is another element. In certain professions people take risks regulary and achieve "intelligent" things.

 

LOL Thats a great coincidence (or maybe not.) I was an analytical chemist many moons ago.

[Lard Bazaar 3,799]

As we're mincing words anyway, I'd like to add that high intelligence in a person, whichever way expressed in numbers, doesn't mean that person isn't an ignoramus

Is the IQ test in fact all just a crock of sh*te? I noticed the ones on Fuckfacebook are far easier to score higher in. There are far too many rogue testers out there, perhaps disgusted has fallen foul of one?

When I was at uni (I think Christiaan Huygens was still with us) I did a comparison of some 20 different IQ tests on the same sample of students. The results made clear that:

• Results correlate strongly
  
• Nevertheless, the same student often scores a difference of 10 to 20 IQ points between different tests
  
• Tests almost always have a strong cultural bias
  
• Most tests are testing language skills rather than intelligence
  
• Many tests are testing knowledge rather than intelligence
  

Another observation was that students tended to score better in tests taken later, which implies that the results of IQ tests can be improved by training. Since I took the lot, I now have an Official IQ in the uppermost percentile.

 

There's no such thing as general intelligence. As a matter of fact, if you ask a psychologist what intelligence actually is, chances are that he'll start with something like: "Ehrm, that's a good question.", which is scientific for: "I haven't the foggiest." Intelligence, like al human talents, is multidimensional and modular. Trying to express intelligence in a single number is meaningless.

 

That said, IQ is a reasonably good predictor of learning ability.

 

 

regards,

Hein

 

Interesting point about many tests testing knowledge rather than intelligence. Always considered knowledge to be 99% of intelligence. Anyway nice to see someone on this forum so expensively and usefully eductaed as yourself .

 

Knowledge (viz. being a smartarse) can be trivially memorised; understanding, reasoning, problem solving, abstract thinking etc. is a whole different kettle of fish IMHO. A kettle which doesn't constitute 1%. This is probably why we have a generaration of school leavers with the highest attainment grades possible (parrot fashion learning) yet are unable to apply themselves.

 

Ahhh... the knee-jerk reaction I was expecting from someone. I would define knowledge as things that I have learned. Now think carefully and try to think of some "intelligent" thing that you have done which does not rely 99% on things that you have already learned. Not easy is it. All those things you mention are important of course but things learned are the most important. And by the way I don't consider those things learned at school to be the most important. Intelligence is a qualiy that is learned, strengthened and refined much earlier in life.

 

I think this stems back to MH's comment about asking someone to define intelligence. As something can only ever be proven wrong you are entitled to your view as I am mine. The fact that you say

 

Always considered knowledge to be 99% of intelligence

and

And by the way I don't consider those things learned at school to be the most important. Intelligence is a qualiy that is learned, strengthened and refined much earlier in life.

 

I put it to you that either you knew all about algebra, evolution, Shakespeare, oh and of course LIFE by the time you were 4 or that in fact you know f'uck all now.

 

Oh and by the way, I get the point of your question but unfortunately for you you've picked the wrong person to ask. I am a research chemist so more than 1% of the things we do are out of curiosity. (So that set-up/reaction etc. works as per what I have learnt but what if I did x,y or z what would happen then, would the outcome be an improvement?). If you don't experiment you'll never know

 

Risk is another element. In certain professions people take risks regulary and achieve "intelligent" things.

 

LOL Thats a great coincidence (or maybe not.) I was an analytical chemist many moons ago.

 

With that one slip of the keyboard into wanky text-speak you have totally lost any shred of credibility you might have had.

[Lord Fellatio Nelson 6,218]

Im just seriously impressed that you all have had bugger all to do today to allow yourselves the luxury of being on here all f'ucking day!

Yes, with hard graft, we shall all be able to pull ourselves out of this recession!!

By the way, I agree with the belief that IQ testing is seriously flawed.

I too had a difference of around 20 points on the only two ive ever done.

My first one came out at 16 and the second at 33, which, obviously, makes me as thick as sh*t.

I get by.

[Magere Hein 1,400]

My first [iQ test] came out at 16 and the second at 33, which, obviously, makes me as thick as sh*t.

I get by.

If everything fails, you can always become a politician. Or resident ranter on a web forum.

 

regards,

Hein

[Lord Fellatio Nelson 6,218]

My first [iQ test] came out at 16 and the second at 33, which, obviously, makes me as thick as sh*t.

I get by.

If everything fails, you can always become a politician. Or resident ranter on a web forum.

 

regards,

Hein

Many thanks Hein, you are the voice of reason when all around us bollocks is spoken.

[Youth in Asia 1,087]

England is to Germany as a pentagon is to x? What is x?

[Guest Disgusted]

England is to Germany as a pentagon is to x? What is x?

 

dot

[Guest Deebles]

Curse you, deathlist! You've got me wishing that three more-or-less innocent celebrities will die by the end of the year so that you can score a maximum 15! What's wrong with you?

 

(I won't say whom I'd like to die the most, for fear of earning the wrath of their fans; nor will I say whom I'd like to die least, for fear of jinxing their chances of seeing another New Year's).

[Guest Happy Lurker]

Think you need a thread for non-irate visitors to post their complements. A couple of years ago I happened to find the forum when searching about someone who had died. Ever since I can't resist checking it out when someone well known dies to see if they are on the current list.

This is one of the best maintained forums I've come across - the regular posters are articulate and witty.

Great stuff - keep up the good work.

[Lord Fellatio Nelson 6,218]

Think you need a thread for non-irate visitors to post their complements. A couple of years ago I happened to find the forum when searching about someone who had died. Ever since I can't resist checking it out when someone well known dies to see if they are on the current list.

This is one of the best maintained forums I've come across - the regular posters are articulate and witty.

Great stuff - keep up the good work.

 

13/11/2009 LFN: "Are you taking the piss?"

16/11/2009 LFN: "Awww thanks, can you feel the lurve?"

I like being me!!

[deadsox 894]

England is to Germany as a pentagon is to x? What is x?

 

It took me quite a while to figure this out Youth. x=asparagus.

[Monoclinic 39]

England is to Germany as a pentagon is to x? What is x?

 

I'll do an Alan Davies special and opt for the Q.I. trick answer, x =

.

 

 

 

Edit - For those that didn't get it, that was Germany 1 - England 5 )

[Madcow 6]

England is to Germany as a pentagon is to x? What is x?

Springfield, Ohio

 

This is based on London being about 367 miles from Berlin and, if you travel 364 miles from The Pentagon, you will end up in Springfield! That's close enough for me.

[66fiveandahalf 0]

the webstite is about death, who died who might die, and who you think might die, just being morbid, my dear

[Terminator 13]

the webstite is about death, who died who might die, and who you think might die, just being morbid, my dear

 

I can't really see the point of your message (given you've gone to the trouble of creating an account). Are you one of those people who just type out any random thoughts that wander into your head? If so, WELCOME.

[Johanna 0]

I am reader of this site. I have a lifelong curiousity of the macabre and a black and white view of life and death. This site could well become home. Nice to know there are other weirdos out there like moi