b3ta.com board
You are not logged in. Login or Signup
Home » Messageboard » If advertisments were honest » Message 666822

[challenge entry] apologies if any of you have been on one.

From the If advertisments were honest challenge. See all 785 entries (closed)

(, Tue 14 Jan 2003, 12:41, archived)
# yay
I see what you've done there!

edit - doh, meant to edit this one...
Anyone remember who famously said it was dreadful that half the population has below average intelligence?
(, Tue 14 Jan 2003, 12:41, archived)
# you did
just then.
(, Tue 14 Jan 2003, 12:47, archived)
# wow
does that mean I'm famous? I'll be on telly next!
(, Tue 14 Jan 2003, 12:50, archived)
# I think it was
michael jackson
(, Tue 14 Jan 2003, 12:49, archived)
# And (statistically)
most people have an above average number of legs.
(, Tue 14 Jan 2003, 12:54, archived)
# Dunno. Who was it said
"You know how stupid the average person is? Well, half the population are thicker than that"

apart from me just now, obviously
(, Tue 14 Jan 2003, 13:09, archived)
# How do you find out your IQ level?
I'd love to do a test...I bet I'm thick.

Even worse with a hangover too
(, Tue 14 Jan 2003, 12:42, archived)
# it should be behind your left ear
if you were born before 1976, not sure on later models
(, Tue 14 Jan 2003, 12:44, archived)
# old man
(, Tue 14 Jan 2003, 12:45, archived)
# only as old as my
willy I feel
(, Tue 14 Jan 2003, 12:47, archived)
# I don't have an
answer to that.
(, Tue 14 Jan 2003, 12:50, archived)
# Don't worry
it wasn't a question.
(, Tue 14 Jan 2003, 12:52, archived)
# mines
a hundred and eleventy eleven
(, Tue 14 Jan 2003, 12:51, archived)
# IQ that is
not my willy
(, Tue 14 Jan 2003, 12:51, archived)
# 164
not that I beleive in these things...

;)
(, Tue 14 Jan 2003, 12:53, archived)
# if yours was 164
you'd be thick to believe it!
(, Tue 14 Jan 2003, 12:56, archived)
# that means you are a member
of mensa...with Sir Clive...!
(, Tue 14 Jan 2003, 13:06, archived)
# Membership's not automatic,
the high IQ is just a prerequisite. As is the ability to be a remarkably intelligent arse, it seems.

I was brought up in Cambridge - can't be doing with that sort of fowk now. Living Oop North, where the hills are.
(, Tue 14 Jan 2003, 13:10, archived)
# yup...
my IQ is 3/6d
(, Tue 14 Jan 2003, 12:47, archived)
# do a crappy test
then pull a meaningless number out of a hat. simple.
(, Tue 14 Jan 2003, 12:44, archived)
# Do a search for "IQ test"
/genius
(, Tue 14 Jan 2003, 12:44, archived)
# I wish I'd thought of that
(, Tue 14 Jan 2003, 12:46, archived)
# bear in mind
that you can improve your score on an IQ test with practice. Which to my mind makes them pretty drned useless!
(, Tue 14 Jan 2003, 12:49, archived)
# I did one
by finding a mensa test in the paper which didn't involve maths.

Then they send you a proper full test.
(, Tue 14 Jan 2003, 12:46, archived)
# and if you do that they invite you (if you get more than 132 on that one)
to come and sit in a proper examination style exam. And that one is what they base your IQ score on.
(on that one I got 168)
(, Tue 14 Jan 2003, 12:55, archived)
# Apparently the guy
who came up with the test fiddled the results. So it's all meaningless anyway.
(, Tue 14 Jan 2003, 12:46, archived)
# they are not entirely meaningless
they were designed to help identify children who might have special schooling needs. They don't have much other valid application that i am aware of.
(, Tue 14 Jan 2003, 12:50, archived)
# But if the original experiment was fixed
then how does that help exactly?
(, Tue 14 Jan 2003, 12:54, archived)
# hmm
not sure which 'original experiment' you are thinking of, though intelligence testing has an entirely dodgy history.

Read 'The Mismeasure of Man' by SJ Gould for the story, it's a great book
book here
(, Tue 14 Jan 2003, 12:58, archived)
# yes will do
SJ Gould was an excellent bloke in my opinion. As for the "original experiment" thing well i don't know, it was something that was told to me a long time ago and has stuck in my head. I s'pose it could have been the deciding what is average part of the thing.

Edit: I was just badly trying to say I guess, that if the concept is flawed due to bad practice fromthe start then how can that help? I think I need a new vocabulary
(, Tue 14 Jan 2003, 13:13, archived)
# IQ is relative,
to a supposed average which they get from a large sample of the relevant population, I believe. So it doesn't matter that the first test was flawed.
Whether it tests for anything other then the ability to do IQ tests is up for debate, however.
(, Tue 14 Jan 2003, 13:01, archived)
# or
whether there is even 'a thing' to measure
(, Tue 14 Jan 2003, 13:06, archived)
# Apparently
Bush was going to changed the way they were done in the US, cos his was bellow 100 and therefore below average. Although that could be a lie.
(, Tue 14 Jan 2003, 12:55, archived)
# I found
this, which seems fair. He's not dim, but he's not a genius.
(, Tue 14 Jan 2003, 13:08, archived)
# And they're only good for one standard deviation
ie a normal IQ test will only be valid if you're between 76 and 124, or something. If you're not in that range, you need to take a different test.

Don't know why I know this rubbish, I think IQ tests are daft but I got 160-something on one when I was 13
(, Tue 14 Jan 2003, 13:13, archived)
# I did one on the 'ninternet
once, it said 165. I'm not so shore... ;-)
(, Tue 14 Jan 2003, 12:53, archived)
# its funny
cos its true
(, Tue 14 Jan 2003, 12:43, archived)
# Oh that's shortsighted
it reaches so many more levels than that.
(, Tue 14 Jan 2003, 12:44, archived)
# its funny cos its true and
on another level its pretty
(, Tue 14 Jan 2003, 12:46, archived)
# heh!
i mean: i don't get it!
(, Tue 14 Jan 2003, 12:44, archived)
# i don't get it either..
(, Tue 14 Jan 2003, 12:46, archived)
# ug
drink and shag in sun.
URRRRG. Me want.
(, Tue 14 Jan 2003, 12:52, archived)