|
Re 'The Test'
What does an IQ of 33 mean?
Mike -- .................................................. ......... Royal Naval Electrical Branch Association www.rnshipmates.co.uk www.nsrafa.com |
Re 'The Test'
"'Mike'" wrote in message ... What does an IQ of 33 mean? Mike that you are George Bush Jenny |
Re 'The Test'
"'Mike'" wrote in message
... What does an IQ of 33 mean? http://iq-test.learninginfo.org/iq04.htm Tom |
Re 'The Test'
"Tom" wrote in message
... "'Mike'" wrote in message ... What does an IQ of 33 mean? http://iq-test.learninginfo.org/iq04.htm Tom IQ Description % of Population 130+ Very superior 2.2% 120-129 Superior 6.7% 6.7%, that will do nicely :-)) Mike .................................................. ......... Royal Naval Electrical Branch Association www.rnshipmates.co.uk www.nsrafa.com |
Re 'The Test'
In message , Tom
writes "'Mike'" wrote in message ... What does an IQ of 33 mean? http://iq-test.learninginfo.org/iq04.htm Dead chuffed. Must have been having a good day. -- June Hughes |
Re 'The Test'
"'Mike'" wrote in message ... What does an IQ of 33 mean? That you are more clever than me! Alan |
Re 'The Test'
In article , 'Mike'
writes IQ Description % of Population 130+ Very superior 2.2% 120-129 Superior 6.7% 6.7%, that will do nicely :-)) Mike Of course this only applies to IF you have subscribed to the UK gardening group, IF you have had the link, IF you have the time, IF you take the entire test, IF you can understand it, read it. So the range of people taking it I guess is going to be confined to a fairly small percentage of the population? Might be interesting to know (from a female POV) whether we score less than the (apparently) male examinees on the visual or spatial awareness. We are always being told that women are hopeless at those type of questions, so perhaps gardeners buck the trend? -- Janet Tweedy Dalmatian Telegraph http://www.lancedal.demon.co.uk |
Re 'The Test'
In article , Martin
writes On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 18:12:18 -0000, "Tom" wrote: "'Mike'" wrote in message .. . What does an IQ of 33 mean? http://iq-test.learninginfo.org/iq04.htm A high score could also mean that you have done the same test before. Or are good at the tests? One thing Mike's son could do is to write a short program to note the machine addresses of the participants. Tom can do this for people playing on his Diplomacy gaming site and the software has been developed to automatically flag up those people who are trying to join under pseudonyms but using the same computer:) -- Janet Tweedy Dalmatian Telegraph http://www.lancedal.demon.co.uk |
Re 'The Test'
In message , Janet Tweedy
writes In article , 'Mike' writes IQ Description % of Population 130+ Very superior 2.2% 120-129 Superior 6.7% 6.7%, that will do nicely :-)) Mike Of course this only applies to IF you have subscribed to the UK gardening group, IF you have had the link, IF you have the time, IF you take the entire test, IF you can understand it, read it. So the range of people taking it I guess is going to be confined to a fairly small percentage of the population? Might be interesting to know (from a female POV) whether we score less than the (apparently) male examinees on the visual or spatial awareness. We are always being told that women are hopeless at those type of questions, Certainly not. That's what men want us believe and what we want them to believe but is isn't so:) so perhaps gardeners buck the trend? -- June Hughes |
Re 'The Test'
In message , Janet Tweedy
writes In article , Martin writes On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 18:12:18 -0000, "Tom" wrote: "'Mike'" wrote in message . .. What does an IQ of 33 mean? http://iq-test.learninginfo.org/iq04.htm A high score could also mean that you have done the same test before. Or are good at the tests? One thing Mike's son could do is to write a short program to note the machine addresses of the participants. Tom can do this for people playing on his Diplomacy gaming site and the software has been developed to automatically flag up those people who are trying to join under pseudonyms but using the same computer:) Bas did the test just after me on my computer, using his own email address (completely different from mine) and he hasn't received a reply, so perhaps they already pick that up. -- June Hughes |
Re 'The Test'
"June Hughes" wrote in message ... In message , Janet Tweedy writes [...] One thing Mike's son could do is to write a short program to note the machine addresses of the participants. Tom can do this for people playing on his Diplomacy gaming site and the software has been developed to automatically flag up those people who are trying to join under pseudonyms but using the same computer:) Bas did the test just after me on my computer, using his own email address (completely different from mine) and he hasn't received a reply, so perhaps they already pick that up. Ah, of course! That would explain it. I mentioned the non-returns by email yesterday, but I rather doubt that he has the facility to see individual computers' identities in his automatically generated list of emails. He will, by the way, of course delete all emails collected after the experiment: that and other data protection matters should have been mentioned in the introduction. -- Mike. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com |
Re 'The Test'
"Martin" wrote Real gardeners only score about 90 apparently. -- Martin Oh good - makes my paltry 113 sound good hen :~) Jenny |
Re 'The Test'
On 13/2/07 18:12, in article ,
"Mike Lyle" wrote: snip He will, by the way, of course delete all emails collected after the experiment: that and other data protection matters should have been mentioned in the introduction. Mike I can never do these things because once I get to the number questions, I'm a goner! But when I tried, I couldn't get it to load past (I think) page 11. Is that a Mac user problem, perhaps? -- Sacha http://www.hillhousenursery.co.uk South Devon http://www.discoverdartmoor.co.uk/ (remove weeds from address) |
Re 'The Test'
"Sacha" wrote in message . uk... On 13/2/07 18:12, in article , "Mike Lyle" wrote: snip He will, by the way, of course delete all emails collected after the experiment: that and other data protection matters should have been mentioned in the introduction. Mike I can never do these things because once I get to the number questions, I'm a goner! But when I tried, I couldn't get it to load past (I think) page 11. Is that a Mac user problem, perhaps? I think it must be. I'm sorry, but I suspect it's probably too late to fix it -- but of course I'll report it to him. (Funny how some people are naturally less at home with numbers: one of my daughters and one of my nieces have the same gonerness, though way above average at language and other things.) -- Mike. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com |
Re 'The Test'
On 13/2/07 20:25, in article ,
"Mike Lyle" wrote: "Sacha" wrote in message . uk... On 13/2/07 18:12, in article , "Mike Lyle" wrote: snip He will, by the way, of course delete all emails collected after the experiment: that and other data protection matters should have been mentioned in the introduction. Mike I can never do these things because once I get to the number questions, I'm a goner! But when I tried, I couldn't get it to load past (I think) page 11. Is that a Mac user problem, perhaps? I think it must be. I'm sorry, but I suspect it's probably too late to fix it -- but of course I'll report it to him. (Funny how some people are naturally less at home with numbers: one of my daughters and one of my nieces have the same gonerness, though way above average at language and other things.) Please don't be sorry because I don't think anyone is likely to set up such a quiz and take into account all the programming required for e.g. a Mac user. There must be a good deal going on in his life besides worrying about that! You cheer me up on both counts. ;-) I'm quick on basic mental arithmetic because I was taught it very well at my first school when I was 4 or 5. We did times tables and mental arithmetic every morning, first lesson. But later teachers were awful and my convent school 'maths Nun' quite literally drove me close to a nervous breakdown at 12. I had such terrible nightmares that I used to fight to keep myself awake. To this day a sort of haze comes over my brain the minute someone talks figures or money or tax matters or whatever to me and it annoys me very much about myself because in other areas I'm not stupid. Words and letters are a breeze - love them! I think I'm a walking example of the results of good and bad teaching. -- Sacha http://www.hillhousenursery.co.uk South Devon http://www.discoverdartmoor.co.uk/ (remove weeds from address) |
Re 'The Test'
On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 18:22:54 +0000, Sacha wrote
(in article ) : On 13/2/07 18:12, in article , "Mike Lyle" wrote: snip He will, by the way, of course delete all emails collected after the experiment: that and other data protection matters should have been mentioned in the introduction. Mike I can never do these things because once I get to the number questions, I'm a goner! But when I tried, I couldn't get it to load past (I think) page 11. Is that a Mac user problem, perhaps? No, it isn't :-) -- Sally in Shropshire, UK bed and breakfast near Ludlow: http://www.stonybrook-ludlow.co.uk Burne-Jones/William Morris window in Shropshire church: http://www.whitton-stmarys.org.uk |
Re 'The Test'
On 13/2/07 23:33, in article
, "Sally Thompson" wrote: On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 18:22:54 +0000, Sacha wrote (in article ) : On 13/2/07 18:12, in article , "Mike Lyle" wrote: snip He will, by the way, of course delete all emails collected after the experiment: that and other data protection matters should have been mentioned in the introduction. Mike I can never do these things because once I get to the number questions, I'm a goner! But when I tried, I couldn't get it to load past (I think) page 11. Is that a Mac user problem, perhaps? No, it isn't :-) Well, I tried again tonight and no dice. ;-( -- Sacha http://www.hillhousenursery.co.uk South Devon http://www.discoverdartmoor.co.uk/ (remove weeds from address) |
Re 'The Test'
"Mike Lyle" wrote ((snip)) Funny how some people are naturally less at home with numbers: one of my daughters and one of my nieces have the same gonerness, though way above average at language and other things. Quite, my wife won't attempt Sudoku, which I love, because it's numbers but I'm certain if I replaced the numbers with letters ie, a to i (it would work just as well) she would not be put off at all. I wonder what it is about numbers that puts people off? -- Regards Bob H |
Re 'The Test'
"Bob Hobden" wrote in message ... "Mike Lyle" wrote ((snip)) Funny how some people are naturally less at home with numbers: one of my daughters and one of my nieces have the same gonerness, though way above average at language and other things. Quite, my wife won't attempt Sudoku, which I love, because it's numbers but I'm certain if I replaced the numbers with letters ie, a to i (it would work just as well) she would not be put off at all. I wonder what it is about numbers that puts people off? Bob H I wish I knew that too ! They just don't 'speak' to me at all. I blame my math teachers halitosis. I never wanted to ask when I didn't understand because he'd come and lean over to explain .....! Jenny |
Re 'The Test'
On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 23:47:59 +0000, Sacha wrote
(in article ) : On 13/2/07 23:33, in article , "Sally Thompson" wrote: On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 18:22:54 +0000, Sacha wrote (in article ) : On 13/2/07 18:12, in article , "Mike Lyle" wrote: snip He will, by the way, of course delete all emails collected after the experiment: that and other data protection matters should have been mentioned in the introduction. Mike I can never do these things because once I get to the number questions, I'm a goner! But when I tried, I couldn't get it to load past (I think) page 11. Is that a Mac user problem, perhaps? No, it isn't :-) Well, I tried again tonight and no dice. ;-( What browser were you using? Try with another browser perhaps? I was using Firefox (on a Mac as you know), no problems loading any page at all. -- Sally in Shropshire, UK bed and breakfast near Ludlow: http://www.stonybrook-ludlow.co.uk Burne-Jones/William Morris window in Shropshire church: http://www.whitton-stmarys.org.uk |
Re 'The Test'
In article , Sacha
writes On 13/2/07 18:12, in article , "Mike Lyle" wrote: snip He will, by the way, of course delete all emails collected after the experiment: that and other data protection matters should have been mentioned in the introduction. Mike I can never do these things because once I get to the number questions, I'm a goner! But when I tried, I couldn't get it to load past (I think) page 11. Is that a Mac user problem, perhaps? I once did a quiz which was interesting because it gave a string of numbers or initials and you had to figure out the series. So SSMTWT would have F for Friday, next or 31, 28, 31, 30, 31 would have 30 for days in June next. I enjoyed those, found myself waking up in the middle of the night with a solution to the next question :) -- Janet Tweedy Dalmatian Telegraph http://www.lancedal.demon.co.uk |
Re 'The Test'
In article , Sacha
writes Well, I tried again tonight and no dice. ;-( Some of the pages were extremely slow to load Sacha so maybe you just times out? -- Janet Tweedy Dalmatian Telegraph http://www.lancedal.demon.co.uk |
Re 'The Test'
On 13/2/07 23:53, in article , "Bob
Hobden" wrote: "Mike Lyle" wrote ((snip)) Funny how some people are naturally less at home with numbers: one of my daughters and one of my nieces have the same gonerness, though way above average at language and other things. Quite, my wife won't attempt Sudoku, which I love, because it's numbers but I'm certain if I replaced the numbers with letters ie, a to i (it would work just as well) she would not be put off at all. I wonder what it is about numbers that puts people off? In my case, partly bad teaching and partly not natural aptitude. I cannot fathom out what Sudoku is about, let alone do it! But I love doing - or at least, attempting - crosswords. -- Sacha http://www.hillhousenursery.co.uk South Devon http://www.discoverdartmoor.co.uk/ (remove weeds from address) |
Re 'The Test'
On 14/2/07 09:32, in article
, "Sally Thompson" wrote: On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 23:47:59 +0000, Sacha wrote (in article ) : On 13/2/07 23:33, in article , "Sally Thompson" wrote: On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 18:22:54 +0000, Sacha wrote (in article ) : On 13/2/07 18:12, in article , "Mike Lyle" wrote: snip He will, by the way, of course delete all emails collected after the experiment: that and other data protection matters should have been mentioned in the introduction. Mike I can never do these things because once I get to the number questions, I'm a goner! But when I tried, I couldn't get it to load past (I think) page 11. Is that a Mac user problem, perhaps? No, it isn't :-) Well, I tried again tonight and no dice. ;-( What browser were you using? Try with another browser perhaps? I was using Firefox (on a Mac as you know), no problems loading any page at all. Er. You know how good I am at these things. I'm running Safari, using Entourage. -- Sacha http://www.hillhousenursery.co.uk South Devon http://www.discoverdartmoor.co.uk/ (remove weeds from address) |
Re 'The Test'
On 14/2/07 12:11, in article , "Janet Tweedy"
wrote: In article , Sacha writes Well, I tried again tonight and no dice. ;-( Some of the pages were extremely slow to load Sacha so maybe you just times out? Could be. The one my computer stuck on was the example of a name and address you were supposed to remember and then answer questions on. -- Sacha http://www.hillhousenursery.co.uk South Devon http://www.discoverdartmoor.co.uk/ (remove weeds from address) |
Re 'The Test'
"Sacha" wrote after "Bob Hobden"wrote: Quite, my wife won't attempt Sudoku, which I love, because it's numbers but I'm certain if I replaced the numbers with letters ie, a to i (it would work just as well) she would not be put off at all. I wonder what it is about numbers that puts people off? In my case, partly bad teaching and partly not natural aptitude. I cannot fathom out what Sudoku is about, let alone do it! But I love doing - or at least, attempting - crosswords. If you can do a crossword you can do Sudoku, it's easier, you don't have to know anything to do it, it's just logic and reasoning that solves them. The numbers 1 to 9 are simply convenient symbols they have no mathematical significance in this context and could easily be nine different animals or nine different letters or nine different cars...... etc. http://www.sudoku.com/ -- Regards Bob H 17mls W. of London.UK |
Re 'The Test'
"Sacha" wrote in message . uk... On 13/2/07 23:53, in article , "Bob Hobden" wrote: "Mike Lyle" wrote ((snip)) Funny how some people are naturally less at home with numbers: one of my daughters and one of my nieces have the same gonerness, though way above average at language and other things. Quite, my wife won't attempt Sudoku, which I love, because it's numbers but I'm certain if I replaced the numbers with letters ie, a to i (it would work just as well) she would not be put off at all. I wonder what it is about numbers that puts people off? In my case, partly bad teaching and partly not natural aptitude. I cannot fathom out what Sudoku is about, let alone do it! But I love doing - or at least, attempting - crosswords. I can't stand Sudoku either, but I'm hooked on Codewords. Alan |
Re 'The Test'
On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 14:19:33 +0000, Sacha wrote
(in article ) : On 14/2/07 09:32, in article , "Sally Thompson" wrote: On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 23:47:59 +0000, Sacha wrote (in article ) : On 13/2/07 23:33, in article , "Sally Thompson" wrote: On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 18:22:54 +0000, Sacha wrote (in article ) : snip I'm a goner! But when I tried, I couldn't get it to load past (I think) page 11. Is that a Mac user problem, perhaps? No, it isn't :-) Well, I tried again tonight and no dice. ;-( What browser were you using? Try with another browser perhaps? I was using Firefox (on a Mac as you know), no problems loading any page at all. Er. You know how good I am at these things. I'm running Safari, using Entourage. OK, well seriously OT for this group, but I find that if I have a problem with a particular site, it is sometimes helpful to try it in another browser. I happen to use Firefox as my default, but have several loaded for other reasons. You might like to try it (free download) - you may even like it enough to keep it! http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/ (This is the link to the Mac download) -- Sally in Shropshire, UK bed and breakfast near Ludlow: http://www.stonybrook-ludlow.co.uk Burne-Jones/William Morris window in Shropshire church: http://www.whitton-stmarys.org.uk |
Re 'The Test'
On 14/2/07 15:39, in article
, "Sally Thompson" wrote: snip What browser were you using? Try with another browser perhaps? I was using Firefox (on a Mac as you know), no problems loading any page at all. Er. You know how good I am at these things. I'm running Safari, using Entourage. OK, well seriously OT for this group, but I find that if I have a problem with a particular site, it is sometimes helpful to try it in another browser. I happen to use Firefox as my default, but have several loaded for other reasons. You might like to try it (free download) - you may even like it enough to keep it! http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/ (This is the link to the Mac download) Thanks, Sally. You're rapidly turning into my Mac guru! -- Sacha http://www.hillhousenursery.co.uk South Devon http://www.discoverdartmoor.co.uk/ (remove weeds from address) |
Re 'The Test'
On Feb 13, 12:29 am, Martin wrote:
"Tom" wrote in message ... "'Mike'" wrote in message .. . What does an IQ of 33 mean? http://iq-test.learninginfo.org/iq04.htm "90 Laborers; Gardeners; ... ". Seeing as that was preceded by; "Apparently, the IQ gives a good indication of the occupational group that a person will end up in, though not of course the specific occupation. Which would imply that "Gardener" is not a specific occupation. Which would further imply that it is (e.g.) a hobby. Which in turn implies that none of those within the higher category can possibly be "Gardeners". Which suggests that "90" is the appropriate measure for those who produce such rubbish! -- Martin |
Re 'The Test'
aquachimp wrote:
On Feb 13, 12:29 am, Martin wrote: "Tom" wrote in message ... "'Mike'" wrote in message ... What does an IQ of 33 mean? http://iq-test.learninginfo.org/iq04.htm "90 Laborers; Gardeners; ... ". Seeing as that was preceded by; "Apparently, the IQ gives a good indication of the occupational group that a person will end up in, though not of course the specific occupation. Which would imply that "Gardener" is not a specific occupation. Which would further imply that it is (e.g.) a hobby. Which in turn implies that none of those within the higher category can possibly be "Gardeners". Which suggests that "90" is the appropriate measure for those who produce such rubbish! Well, no. It means "not the specific occupation for the person concerned". Where I _would_ quarrel with it is in its apparent unawareness of how many different levels are represented by the term "gardener": you don't need a huge IQ to drive lawnmowers and hedge trimmers for the council, but I wouldn't call that gardening. And why upholsterers, I wonder? Not the largest occupational category I can think of. A slightly odd world-view. -- Mike. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com |
Re 'The Test'
On Feb 14, 7:33 pm, "Mike Lyle"
wrote: aquachimp wrote: On Feb 13, 12:29 am, Martin wrote: "Tom" wrote in message . .. "'Mike'" wrote in message .. . What does an IQ of 33 mean? http://iq-test.learninginfo.org/iq04.htm "90 Laborers; Gardeners; ... ". Seeing as that was preceded by; "Apparently, the IQ gives a good indication of the occupational group that a person will end up in, though not of course the specific occupation. Which would imply that "Gardener" is not a specific occupation. Which would further imply that it is (e.g.) a hobby. Which in turn implies that none of those within the higher category can possibly be "Gardeners". Which suggests that "90" is the appropriate measure for those who produce such rubbish! Well, no. It means "not the specific occupation for the person concerned". Where I _would_ quarrel with it is in its apparent unawareness of how many different levels are represented by the term "gardener": you don't need a huge IQ to drive lawnmowers and hedge trimmers for the council, but I wouldn't call that gardening. And why upholsterers, I wonder? Not the largest occupational category I can think of. A slightly odd world-view. You're right off course. I was just taking the ****. I though it might amuse. Though I still feel my last point is relevant regarding the authors of that bit of information. In the context given, Gardeners are listed next to labourers, to provide it with the relevant context. Which should cover the different levels you mention. But the occupational group; Gardeners can include the specific occupation of Gardener e.g. Head Gardener at ....(where ever) A group of Head Gardeners would belong to the Gardeners group category They would belong to that group AND the specific occupation. -- Mike. -- Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - |
Re 'The Test'
On Feb 14, 7:59 pm, "aquachimp"
wrote: On Feb 14, 7:33 pm, "Mike Lyle" wrote: aquachimp wrote: On Feb 13, 12:29 am, Martin wrote: "Tom" wrote in message . .. "'Mike'" wrote in message .. . What does an IQ of 33 mean? http://iq-test.learninginfo.org/iq04.htm "90 Laborers; Gardeners; ... ". Seeing as that was preceded by; "Apparently, the IQ gives a good indication of the occupational group that a person will end up in, though not of course the specific occupation. Which would imply that "Gardener" is not a specific occupation. Which would further imply that it is (e.g.) a hobby. Which in turn implies that none of those within the higher category can possibly be "Gardeners". Which suggests that "90" is the appropriate measure for those who produce such rubbish! Well, no. It means "not the specific occupation for the person concerned". Where I _would_ quarrel with it is in its apparent unawareness of how many different levels are represented by the term "gardener": you don't need a huge IQ to drive lawnmowers and hedge trimmers for the council, but I wouldn't call that gardening. And why upholsterers, I wonder? Not the largest occupational category I can think of. A slightly odd world-view. You're right off course. I was just taking the ****. I though it might amuse. Though I still feel my last point is relevant regarding the authors of that bit of information. In the context given, Gardeners are listed next to labourers, to provide it with the relevant context. Which should cover the different levels you mention. But the occupational group; Gardeners can include the specific occupation of Gardener e.g. Head Gardener at ....(where ever) A group of Head Gardeners would belong to the Gardeners group category They would belong to that group AND the specific occupation. -- Mike. -- Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com-Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Aherm... I had spelt their "Laborers" as labourers |
Re 'The Test'
aquachimp wrote:
On Feb 14, 7:59 pm, "aquachimp" wrote: On Feb 14, 7:33 pm, "Mike Lyle" wrote: aquachimp wrote: On Feb 13, 12:29 am, Martin wrote: "Tom" wrote in message ... "'Mike'" wrote in message ... What does an IQ of 33 mean? http://iq-test.learninginfo.org/iq04.htm "90 Laborers; Gardeners; ... ". Seeing as that was preceded by; "Apparently, the IQ gives a good indication of the occupational group that a person will end up in, though not of course the specific occupation. Which would imply that "Gardener" is not a specific occupation. Which would further imply that it is (e.g.) a hobby. Which in turn implies that none of those within the higher category can possibly be "Gardeners". Which suggests that "90" is the appropriate measure for those who produce such rubbish! Well, no. It means "not the specific occupation for the person concerned". Where I _would_ quarrel with it is in its apparent unawareness of how many different levels are represented by the term "gardener": you don't need a huge IQ to drive lawnmowers and hedge trimmers for the council, but I wouldn't call that gardening. And why upholsterers, I wonder? Not the largest occupational category I can think of. A slightly odd world-view. You're right off course. I was just taking the ****. I though it might amuse. Ah, right. Sorry. Though I still feel my last point is relevant regarding the authors of that bit of information. I think we're agreed on that. In the context given, Gardeners are listed next to labourers, to provide it with the relevant context. Which should cover the different levels you mention. What worried me about that was the suggestion that a 90 IQ was good enough for a gardener. That _didn't_ seem to cover different levels. But the occupational group; Gardeners can include the specific occupation of Gardener e.g. Head Gardener at ....(where ever) A group of Head Gardeners would belong to the Gardeners group category They would belong to that group AND the specific occupation. Well, we probably agree, as I'm sure you don't mean that head gardeners are at the "labourer" intellectual level. It all adds to my scepticism about the general value of IQ tests: with their use for narrowly defined specific purposes, no problem. -- Mike. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com |
Re 'The Test'
On Feb 14, 8:32 pm, "Mike Lyle"
wrote: aquachimp wrote: On Feb 14, 7:59 pm, "aquachimp" wrote: On Feb 14, 7:33 pm, "Mike Lyle" wrote: aquachimp wrote: On Feb 13, 12:29 am, Martin wrote: "Tom" wrote in message ... "'Mike'" wrote in message m... What does an IQ of 33 mean? http://iq-test.learninginfo.org/iq04.htm "90 Laborers; Gardeners; ... ". Seeing as that was preceded by; "Apparently, the IQ gives a good indication of the occupational group that a person will end up in, though not of course the specific occupation. Which would imply that "Gardener" is not a specific occupation. Which would further imply that it is (e.g.) a hobby. Which in turn implies that none of those within the higher category can possibly be "Gardeners". Which suggests that "90" is the appropriate measure for those who produce such rubbish! Well, no. It means "not the specific occupation for the person concerned". Where I _would_ quarrel with it is in its apparent unawareness of how many different levels are represented by the term "gardener": you don't need a huge IQ to drive lawnmowers and hedge trimmers for the council, but I wouldn't call that gardening. And why upholsterers, I wonder? Not the largest occupational category I can think of. A slightly odd world-view. You're right off course. I was just taking the ****. I though it might amuse. Ah, right. Sorry. Though I still feel my last point is relevant regarding the authors of that bit of information. I think we're agreed on that. In the context given, Gardeners are listed next to labourers, to provide it with the relevant context. Which should cover the different levels you mention. What worried me about that was the suggestion that a 90 IQ was good enough for a gardener. That _didn't_ seem to cover different levels. But the occupational group; Gardeners can include the specific occupation of Gardener e.g. Head Gardener at ....(where ever) A group of Head Gardeners would belong to the Gardeners group category They would belong to that group AND the specific occupation. Well, we probably agree, as I'm sure you don't mean that head gardeners are at the "labourer" intellectual level. It all adds to my scepticism about the general value of IQ tests: with their use for narrowly defined specific purposes, no problem. -- Mike. -- Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - (further **** taking follows) The site clearly says; "IQ stands for intelligence quotient. Supposedly, it is a score that tells one how "bright" a person is compared to other people." Note the word "Supposedly". That suggests their not bright enough to be really sure what IQ tells us. I'm not sure anyone does. I think those involved in that science, or peddling it, need to do a re-think. Sometime ago a survey reported on general UK employee unhappiness and the main gripe was having to wait for the boss to go away before said employees could get some work done. Perhaps IQ is like the boss. Perhaps it's a reflection of some-one's abilities AND inabilities along those lines. The groups offered on that site are about ability alone. It does not give specific occupational inadequacies. It's only half the story. Perhaps the UK population are just nearly all thick if I,... a ... aherm... mere... gardener can be within the top 18%. (118) Of course, that site does make allowances. I could be a Garden Foreman. In that respect they do cater for the different level you are concerned about. I was once, aforeman, sole trader, employer, company founder-owner- secretary,-employer-accountant-manager-chief bottle washer, but current employment has no such structures. I am a gardener, full stop, though in practice, more like a garden labourer. The problem may be that the authors of that site do not know what a gardener is. At this stage, you may be wondering do they know much about anything at all! But let's face it, "Gardener", is not an easy one. According to wikipedia; "A gardener is any person involved in the growing and maintenance of plants, notably in a garden" The definition it gives for Head gardener, does not involve much actual gardening, in the normal sense of the word. This gives rise to question such as; within that definition of Gardener, who, amongst those "involved" in "the growing and maintenance of plants, notably in a garden" is not a gardener? i.e. what does "involved" mean? The boss, manager, head, accountant, are they not all "involved"? In that respect, the site is semi correct because one could be say, Gardener by means of being; a Research Scientist, a Business Manager, a Foreman, a machine operator, a truck and van driver, or a labourer involved in gardening. What that means, you may conclude, is that they've messed up on their "Group" definitions. But not really, because I.Q. is supposed to mean something. It is one of the benchmarks from which much discrimination and excuse for social and financial inequalities are supported, so if the group is Horticulture, but as we know there are different levels, then it becomes meaningless and that just wont do. But then, they do categorically state that "...the IQ gives a good indication of the occupational group that a person will end up in, though not of course the specific occupation. Note the word "will" (...end up in) So, you wont, *might* become, or *could probably become*. No, you "will" end up as, say, a School Teachers, but they don't speculate which type. However, given that such certainty suggests someone with different IQ "will" *not* end up as a School Teacher, it begs the question, that though there are various types of school teachers, why bother trying to deny "specific occupation" if no other IQ level qualifies? I must confess, that it crossed my mind that someone compiling that data (in the USA) looked out their window, saw a few Mexicans labouring in a garden and this has more to do with their meaning of I.Q. what if they simply said; the IQ gives a good indication of the racial group that a person is in, though not of course their specific occupation. More than anything, the groups take no account of prejudices as might affect ones occupational position. Apolgies if this appears twice. First attempt has not appeared I see. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:44 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
GardenBanter