Re: White House spins "The Commander Guy"

John B. wrote:
On May 12, 12:55 pm, Joe <J...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
William A. T. Clark wrote:



In article <4645db75$0$4860$4c368...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Joe <J...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
John B. wrote:
On May 11, 5:33 pm, Joe <J...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
William A. T. Clark wrote:
In article <1178906797.931598.26...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
"John B." <johnb...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On May 11, 2:01 pm, Joe <J...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
John B. wrote:
On May 11, 12:02 pm, Jack Hollis <xslee...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
On 10 May 2007 13:14:25 -0700, "John B." <johnb...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I've actually been to MIT. My brother used to teach there. And as I
have said before, intelligent but inarticulate people (such as perhaps
some MIT students) express intelligent thoughts inarticulately. Bush
hs never expressed a thought that struck me as intelligent,
inarticulately or not.
Another great straight line opportunity but I'll let it pass since all
you would get would be the swoosh.
Why don't you give it a shot anyway, Joe? Your previous posts have
demonstrated such a gift for rhetorical humor.
In any case, we have a perfectly valid number to estimate Bush's IQ
and it says he's of superior intelligence.
As I've also said before, this number is the only evidence you have
for your claim that Bush's intellect is "superior." You don't know how
many times he took the SAT before scoring his 1206 and you don't know
how much tutoring he got to help prepare for it. Yet you continue to
insist that this one number, in and of itself, proves your thesis
beyond any doubt.
One more time! IQ will place a cap on an individual's ability to learn.
Practice beyond that point is wasted.
What is your point? That you share Jack's bone-headed belief that
Bush's having scored 1206 on an SAT proves beyond any doubt - and
despite any and all evidence to the contrary - that Bush holds
"superior" intelligence?
Please read something and try and understand the concepts of reliability
and validity as they apply here.
OK, Joe, I'll try to live up to your example of scholarly analysis.
Don't hold your breath for an informed reply, though.
William Clark
I certainly aren't expecting Johnnie to actually read and learn
anything. He is an example of the point I am making. IQ limits the
extent of learning or in his case, you can't put 10 lbs of stuff in a 5
pound bag.
Joe
What is it that you would have me read, Joe? If it's a treatise
correlating SAT scores with IQ, I've read it and I don't buy it. The
only point I've made here, and which you have not addressed, is that a
single test score that GWB got when he was 17 does not prove beyind
any doubt that he is of superior intelligence, particularly given that
there is ample evidence to the contrary. Why dont' you respond to
that, rather than posting yet another one of your condescending,
sarcastic remarks.
I specifically suggested that you read and understand somethings about
psychometric instruments and how the concepts of reliability and
validity play. To complete the exercise add in confidence interval.
Joe, you're just spouting technobabble here. Why don't YOU point us to
the specific references, and tell us their import on your position,
because I don't really believe there is more than BS in your statement.
Take a look at the scatter plots John referenced, and then tell us what
you think the confidence limit on stating unequivocally that Dubya has a
129 IQ?
http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/sat_vs_iq.JPG
The point that I have been making is that there is an upper bound on the
amount of increase in SAT scoring as a result of preparation and
practice and that upper bound is determined by g. You can't put two
gallons of water in a one gallon bucket. How this pertains to the Bush
debate should be obvious.
Reference please? Or at least some kind of evidence. The data above
would indicate that there is enormous scatter in one - time tests; this
can only be further distorted by repeat practice tests. So, let's
suppose that we have someone with a 110 IQ. Tell me where I should look
to determine what the upper limit on the improvement in his SAT scores
(and hence correlated IQ) might be.
William Clark
Billy,

You either know exactly what I am talking about or you bought your
degree. You should be able to tell the rest of us what the upper bound
for your 110 IQ question, I don't need to answer you. You posit the
issue, you offer the solution. By the way, I said the upper bound on
score, not improvement. Lets take your wiggle room off the table.

Are you implying that with sufficient practice anyone can score 1600 on
the SAT?

You are a total fraud. I wonder how the folks at your school really see
you.


See, this is what I'm talking about - an inability to engage in civil
discourse. People who disagree with you are stupid (me) or frauds
(William). You should have a radio talk show. You'd be very popular.


Actually John, I don't think you are stupid at all. I would estimate that your IQ, based on all the evidence seen in this newsgroup, to be about 112 +/- 5. Of course the reliability of that assessment is probably fairly low. :)

Billy, is fraud simply because he would rather debate than enter into a true dialog. He is enjoying the game, and he certainly has the mental capacity for either role. (I figure Billy right under the plus third standard deviation +/- a few points.) Unfortunately he elects to put down anyone who would have the temerity to not accept his utterances as gospel.

Joe
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: White House spins "The Commander Guy"
    ... intelligent but inarticulate people (such as perhaps ... Why don't you give it a shot anyway, Joe? ... this number is the only evidence you have ... You should be able to tell the rest of us what the upper bound ...
    (rec.sport.golf)
  • Re: White House spins "The Commander Guy"
    ... intelligent but inarticulate people (such as ... Why don't you give it a shot anyway, Joe? ... this number is the only evidence you ... You should be able to tell the rest of us what the upper bound ...
    (rec.sport.golf)
  • Re: All Evidence is Subjective...
    ... Polycarp knew the Apostle John, ... And you accept the narrative about Jesus because no ancient author disputes ... out the Apostolic Churches. ... What I am doing is giving evidence and so far ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Atheists support evolution because evolution supports their worldview
    ... Harshman would not support Darwinian evolution if it supported ... If the evidence supported theism, ... No one can go back and undo Darwin in order to find ... Yes, you are right John, what I said is backwards from the ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: All Evidence is Subjective...
    ... included in ten of your posts and quoted in five others. ... So the best evidence you've got is no evidence at all? ... Polycarp knew the Apostle John, ...
    (talk.origins)