Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #412037

Re: Apple told to warn against charging phone in bath after man's electrocution

Cross-posted to 4 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

On Thu, 20 Apr 2017 16:52:11 +0100, Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> wrote:

> On 2017-04-20 11:05, Snit wrote:
>> On 4/20/17, 6:26 AM, in article op.yyzwyhibjs98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson
>> Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> JWS has a limited range of of perceptions, sensory, emotional, and
>>>>>>> intellectual. He's unaware of how little he knows, but insists that his
>>>>>>> superior intelligence validates all his opinions. I don't believe anything
>>>>>>> he says about his brain power, but even if he has a high IQ, it's useless
>>>>>>> if it has nothing to work with.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> IQ is correlated well with how well you will do on other IQ tests. Not much
>>>>>> else. :)
>>>>>
>>>>> It's a damn good guide.
>>>>
>>>> To what?
>>>
>>> Intelligence - the clue is in the name "intelligence quota".
>
> It's "intelligence quotient", a ratio. It's the ratio of your score to
> the normalised score for your demographic.

"Your demographic"?  It's the same throughout the world, which is why you can look up how well different countries do.

> It has little general validity.

It's a bloody good guide to how much of a moron you are.

>> And what do you think that correlates well with?
>
> IQ tests correlate well with IQ tests: you tend to get the same score
> over time, assuming the test is normalised to your age group.

Not if you do them several times.  You get better at them.

> IQ tests have been renormalised many times. Nowadays, an average US
> adult would score around 120 on a test from 50-60 years ago. Related
> tests (SAT, for example), have even less general validity than IQ scores.

People are becoming more intelligent?  I find that hard to believe.  I think we're becoming stupider.

> BTW, all objective tests correlate very well with themselves, and all
> are confounded by factors the test makers have some trouble compensating
> for. It's one of the reasons that a sizeable proportion of first
> diagnoses of illness are wrong: around 30% in the emergency department,
> and typically around half that at the family doctor's.
>
> One thing nobody seems to pay much attention to is that the meaning of
> the numbers is not objective. A 70% score on an objective test may be
> Good (1st reading test on a text), Pass (2nd reading test on the same
> text some time later), or Fail (3rd and final reading test). Eg, I'd
> want my surgeon to demonstrate 100% knowledge of where my bits and
> pieces are. The Pass on Ontario's written driving test is 80%.
>
> The fixation on numbers as "objective" is a pernicious superstition.
>


-- 
An e-mail computer virus has swept across the globe that automatically opens pornographic websites on the victim's screen.
Authorities intend to track down the hackers responsible for the virus just as soon as somebody complains.

Back to comp.os.linux.advocacy | Previous | Next — Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

Re: Apple told to warn against charging phone in bath after man's electrocution "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-29 19:21 +0100
  Re: Apple told to warn against charging phone in bath after man's electrocution Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-29 12:26 -0700

csiph-web