Unfortunately the IQ test means absolutely nothing...
You may be 4,578,887,223x smarter than Paris Hilton.... but she still has more money and is better than you.
...279502884191769399375...
anyone else have Pi out to 100+ places? :hmm:
..1058..
just joining in the party
also, didn't you mean ...27950288419[71]69399375... or am i remembering wrong?
bullshit SAT conversion... got a 1450 back in the day and that means im 99.7% I don't think so! LOL
Also apparently if you break 1150 on the SAT you're in the top 10%... none of the people I talked to in high school got UNDER 1150. The equivalency is inaccurate.
Also, wanted to say that I know a few really smart people. Who do absolutely nothing with their lives. It's kind of sad to see such potential wasted. So if you're ecstatic about having a high potential, remember that power is equal to current times potential, so if your current is ~0 because you post online and play videogames all day (talking about my smart friends, not anyone on ATOT of course), the intelligence doesn't really matter.
If you use it to develop new forms of planned obsolescence to feed consumerism, or more efficient ways to transfer wealth to the 1%, all it makes you is more efficiently evil - not accomplished and not anything to look up to.
Because in much wisdom there is much grief, and increasing knowledge results in increasing pain.
Why is Paris Hilton better than us?
"Better" means more successful to me... Which is generally a combination of intelligence, execution and starting point. Paris trumps anyone in this forum.
IQ is meaningless, it doesnt even accurately measure the intlelligence piece of the equasion.
Unfortunately the IQ test means absolutely nothing...
And I believe the opposite to be true...that 'success' as you measure it is generally a negative thing and usually correlated to being a bad human being.
So now we have two polar opposite views by two people with equal right to hold them. So where are we?
Oh, and to determine if the available tests are accurate in measuring 'g' we would have to first agree on the definition thereof. If we don't, then the disagreement is really in our warrants, not the effectiveness of the tests. The tests are extremely accurate (for the middle 8 sd's at least) in obtaining what they attempt to, it's just that some people don't like or care about their purpose.
Finally, I try not to pick on people too much for spelling, punctuation, or grammar issues because I think it's quite often just typos but having four separate errors in a sentence about the pitfalls of intelligence is just some delicious irony.
I know dixy has a high IQ by how much his head is in the clouds.
28.4m are smarter than me.
You are off here.So now we have two polar opposite views by two people with equal right to hold them.
Unfortunately while posting via smartphone whilst wrestling with a 19 mo old, grammar and spelling fall by the wayside.
As to the point in question, we do indeed have different opinions. Not just about what better means but also about what constitutes a 'good' human.
Having a high IQ has no correlation to morality either.
Like I said, I don't think posting trivials really reveal anything about somebody...it's usually typos. It was just amusing enough to merit pointing out.
I completely agree about the IQ/morality equation, as I clearly laid out in other posts in this thread. I wasn't trying to convince you (or anyone else) that 'im right and you're wrong' but merely that we hold opposing views based on differing warrants and perception/experience bias, and not because of any specific fact regarding IQ or tests.
"Better" means more successful to me... Which is generally a combination of intelligence, execution and starting point. Paris trumps anyone in this forum.
Well here's the thing. IMHO practical intelligence isn't accurately measured on the IQ test, instead you measure some subset of generalized intelligence potential. Which to me, means no more than measuring someone's aptitude to do something like play World of Warcraft.
There are many forms of intelligence NOT measured by the test.
Beyond that even the forms of intelligence that actually are measured don't correlate to practical intelligence. Sure you may measure that person's ability to perform pattern recognition, or solve boxed logic problems, but that doesn't mean they can translate that capability into anything useful. Without execution skill, you can only apply the intelligence to problems you are presented, and you probably need someone to translate your results to other human beings in an effective manner.
In simpler terms... Being able to solve an incredibly complex mathematical equation is utterly useless if the equation serves no purpose and you can't explain the solution to anyone.
Then we have Paris Hilton. We are all human beings with a set lifetime of somewhere in the neighborhood of 70-100 years give or take unexpected death. I personally believe there are three measures of human quality. That is to say what determines whether a person is "better" than another.
1. The impact of that individual on the whole population of humanity. For example Albert Einstein has had significant lasting impact on humanity as a whole. This makes him on some level a higher quality human being.
2. The quality of life an individual is able to sustain. For example Paris Hilton has an excellent quality of life with everything she could possibly need and then some.
3. The impact of an individual on the quality of life of those people surrounding him. For Example Paris Hilton's father.
So based on this you can see where my statement Paris Hilton is "better" than you comes into play. It doesn't matter that you or I are more "intelligent" than Paris, she has other attributes and means that make her "better" than us. Our intelligence is not sufficient to power us past her quality level.
Of course all of this is completely subjective... perhaps you would see an exceptionally intelligent, but illiterate homeless man as equal or better as a human being than Paris Hilton. But I think you would be wrong.
-Max
2,124,704.71