Re: White House spins "The Commander Guy"

In article <46462906$0$8985$4c368faf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Joe <Joe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

.... snip, snip ..


You know, you might get more of a hearing if you stopped with the
patronizing, childish, names, but you won't, so here goes. Yet again,
you try to substitute answering a question with the insult game - just
like your buddy Jack - in my view because you CAN'T put an answer
together. Must be something they teach at GoP boot camp.

So, I am calling you, answer the question, quit the babyish name
calling, and tell me exactly what the upper limit on an SAT/IQ score is
for someone originally with a 110 IQ? You pose yourself as the expert on
statistics, testing, confidence limits and so on, but I don't believe
you have a clue what you are talking about. So, once again, from your
vast knowledge of psychometric testing, confidence intervals, and the
rest, give us all an answer to this particular example. Just so you
can't weasel out again, I'll repeat it:

"John Smith has an innate IQ of 110. What is the maximum value he can
improve his correlated IQ score to by repeated practice in taking the
SAT test?"

There - how's that?

William Clark

Bill,

You are the individual who started the BS and put downs with anyone who
disagrees with you. So I say again, you raised the question regarding
the hypothetical 110 individual and if you understood how these things
work you know the answer. Are you willing to answer the rebuttal question:

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

No, no, there is no "rebuttal question" - at least certainly not until
you put an answer on the table to rebut. Simply trying to bounce the
question back because you cannot answer it is a cheap trick that won't
work here.

My position is that SAT practice reaches a limit. Do you disagree?

My question is, what is that limit for someone of slightly above average
IQ score. You keep refusing to answer it.


Any stats 101 student can answer this, you won't have to exercise your
"Advanced Degree".

Apparently, then, you never took Stats 101, becuase you have shown
yourself utterly incapable of using even the simplest of its concepts.

Sigh.

William Clark
.

Loading