Id be out in the first round, I am a terrable speller. Yet I was able to overcome that. There is a reason you will not find spelling or grammer on an IQ test.
Sarah to contribute at FOX
- Thread starter Canceled2
- Start date
Id be out in the first round, I am a terrable speller. Yet I was able to overcome that. There is a reason you will not find spelling or grammer on an IQ test.
Grammar is a portion of IQ tests that I have taken. There were portions, "Would you say <insert phrase> or <insert phrase2>"...
Only one of them was grammatically correct.
NOT an IQ test, maybe a knoledge test, but not IQ. Look into the tests designed specifically by psychologist to determine IQ, not knoledge.
Again, in the past tests I have taken to determine my IQ included portions on Grammar.
IQ is measured both in your capacity to think (puzzle questions) and in your knowledge level to age comparison. Grammar was included in all of the IQ tests I took as well as some questions about Shakespeare and other subjects that measured my level of knowledge.
Now, some tests do not include those particular portions because of known issues, such as dyslexia, but most tests do. Sometimes, especially nowadays, they take out portions on Shakespeare and knowledge areas because it was said to be "culturally" weighted.
I do not belive they were valid IQ tests if they included grammer. Generally to test someone's IQ they give a set of facts then ask a question that requires basic problem solving skills... All of the knoledge one needs is given to them, what is needed is intelegence.
They may have included grammer if they gave the gramatical rule then asked you to apply that rule.
Everyone's education is different, and we all grow up in different families. You may be very intelegent yet grew up in a community that followed different gramatical rules and may never overcome that to perform well on a knoledge test yet you may still perform very well on an intelegence test.
This spills over into the discussion about Reid's comments.
Socrtease
Verified User
She has 1.1 million followers on facebook. While that may not be an indicator of mainstream followers, it shows one hell of a popular base.
The base adores her. She gets the 30% crowd.
I don't see any evidence whatsoever that she gets much support outside of that base...
Socrtease
Verified User
And it is the "30% crowd" that votes in primaries. I think I may register a republican just to vote for her. I want something to kill the social conservative base so that I can vote Republican more often.
Hence my last sentence, "Sometimes, especially nowadays, they take out portions on Shakespeare and knowledge areas because it was said to be "culturally" weighted."
Thankyewverymuch.
I know what you are talking about, but those are not IQ tests, they are standardized achievement tests. There is a big difference...
Thankyewverymuch!
Most people do not take IQ tests unless there is a specific reason... Standardized achievement tests, like the Iowa or the California or the FCAT are often given to school children to see how there "education" not there IQ stacks up to other schools.
No, they weren't. They were IQ tests.
You believe that everything needs to fit within your experience, but you are incorrect.
Again, IQ is measured in different ways by different tests. In some of the tests I took in the past portions included Grammar as well as culturally significant knowledge that people who live in the culture should pick up over time. They measure that type of knowledge on an real age to the average age that people know it...
Your mistake is in believing that current tests that remove cultural information such as that (as I said, especially now) mean that no other kind of test exists.
Culture is different across state lines, and language is part of that. Culture is different across racial lines and economic lines and many other lines. Any test that uses grammer or history or the such is not testing IQ. They may call it an IQ test but its not testing IQ.
IQ is intelegence not knoledge. A guy who grew up in China should score the same on an IQ test as a guy who grew up in Texas, assuming they had the same IQ.
Yeah it would demonstrate how inept the people who score high on the "feel good" test really are.
Stupid people pass the bar in the thousands every year around this country.
And the tests are written differently for different areas.
Part of intelligence is the capacity to learn, which knowledge to average age ratios can tell you. Problem solving is not the sole measure of intelligence, nor is the capacity to learn. Different areas of knowledge and intelligence can be tested through different tests. The most complete tests I took always included grammar and knowledge as well as art recognition and other things I found to be interesting. (I took these often, we were almost always included into test groups because of family connections into psychology.)
Thorn
Member
One of the greatest criticisms (and completely justified) of the Stanford-Binet test was that it was culturally biased. In large measure the WAIS-R has overcome that, but it's impossible to test raw intelligence with the tools that exist at the present time. That's why it's so difficult to test creativity, for instance. The purpose of those tests is to predict academic success, and they rely upon, and are constructed considering the stage in life that the testee will be. Tests are different, for example, for children and adults.
When I took a testing course at the urging of my academic mentor, who felt that we should have at least one clinical course in our repertoire, we were required to administer tests to adult and child volunteers (the latter with parental permission!). We also were taught to use the tests not so much as predictors of intelligence, but as diagnostic tools: that is, to attend to the manner in which the person answered the questions, and not simply what they answered. It was an interesting experience, and taught me above all to be extremely skeptical about canned testing devices.
I don't know what IQ test you've taken, but I can assure you that grammar is indeed part of the one I took.
It's hard to take your "hard line authority" seriously when you can't even take the time or possess the wherewithal to spell at third grade level.
You might be a gifted orater, but when writing it does not come across. Your atrocious spelling makes you look a phony.
What I learned most is that there are portions of intelligence that can never be tested, and how to take tests real well. Later I learned how to fake results in psychological tests. It was always fun to see the results of those afterward and see if I got the "results were consistent and valid" part right.One of the greatest criticisms (and completely justified) of the Stanford-Binet test was that it was culturally biased. In large measure the WAIS-R has overcome that, but it's impossible to test raw intelligence with the tools that exist at the present time. That's why it's so difficult to test creativity, for instance. The purpose of those tests is to predict academic success, and they rely upon, and are constructed considering the stage in life that the testee will be. Tests are different, for example, for children and adults.
When I took a testing course at the urging of my academic mentor, who felt that we should have at least one clinical course in our repertoire, we were required to administer tests to adult and child volunteers (the latter with parental permission!). We also were taught to use the tests not so much as predictors of intelligence, but as diagnostic tools: that is, to attend to the manner in which the person answered the questions, and not simply what they answered. It was an interesting experience, and taught me above all to be extremely skeptical about canned testing devices.
Thorn
Member
Exactly! A "test-wise" testee is a real fly in the ointment, so to speak. At the same time, if we simply rely on the original purpose, i.e. to predict academic success, it can be a useful tool, provided that it isn't given an inordinate amount of weight and is considered as only part of a whole.
zappasguitar
Well-known member
So disloyal can spell better than you...so what?
She can travel the board playing "grammar cop" till the day is done. Most still consider her one of the more ignorant posters hanging out here.
Has she EVER tried to discuss anything with you with even a modicum of civility? Or anyone she disagrees with for that matter?
Nope...all she's ever had are her spell check and her insults.
That's why she call me fat and spews all those other petty little put-downs. She KNOWS she can't win a head to head debate, so she has to take the low road.