I. Q.

[ishmael]

Ever have yours measured? I think I did, circa five years old. Some damnable test that sticks with you till you die. I got shuffled into the middle strange of classes because of it. Yep, not a genius, let's put 'im 'ear.

Oh but holy Jesus, how did I end up with this?

Later, a some such test, the Miller's analogy, I got invitations to join Mensa. A bit of practice and 93 out of a hundred! Ya don't find that language skill much.

Happy horse****e, but the point is that we do get classified. By faceless idiots!

Rebel!

[ 10-29-2005, 10:45 AM: Message edited by: ishmael ]

[Phillip Allen]

A very high IQ and working as a mason speaks volumes...but to whom and what does it say?

An indictment...(rebel)

[ 10-29-2005, 10:50 AM: Message edited by: Phillip Allen ]

[Victor]

Don't put yourself down, Philip. I've been driving mixers longer than I care to admit and I have nothing but respect for masons. Hard work, no doubt about it, but it also takes some brains. I couldn't drive a bullfloat if you held a gun to my head.

BTW I have a BA from the most selective college in the country, which is precisely why I refused to see that mixer as God's gift to me when I first got that job. No way, I'm a college boy, I've gotta go sit in some goddamn cubicle and kiss ass all day. FTS!

I bought into the myth that a degree from there would open doors which would otherwise remain closed. Did too, but unfortuntely they all led to jobs I didn't want. We're all supposed to be poets and philosophers, I guess. I would've gotten a better education at the local county college, no joke, but I wouldn't have had that fancy-schmancy diploma. What it's really about is connections.

To this day I'm truly astonished how lousy the curriculum was at that school, and undoubtedly still is. The only profession worth going to school for, for me, was civil engineering, something they've never heard of there. Lafayette has a big engineering department - one of the professors is running for Easton city council. Apparently the water system is disintegrating - might not be a bad idea to have an engineer on the council, even if he is a Republican.

The woman God wished me to marry is now the second-highest ranking attorney in the Treasury Department. If I had gone to her in the 70s and said, this is the right job for me, marry me, she would've said, what were you waiting for? She finally got tired of waiting for me and married another guy years ago.

My point is, maybe you're a mason for a reason. Maybe the real problem is you don't respect your own profession. I didn't respect mine, and it cost me a lot.

[ 10-29-2005, 12:20 PM: Message edited by: Victor ]

[Phillip Allen]

The only resume I know to have been read to the point of commentary...I was turned down because I didn't show a steady rise within my company...?!

laborer to apprentice to mason to foreman...to mason to mason to foreman to mason and so on through many different projects (jobs)...there is no place else to rise to and the guy didn't know it...one wonders what these college boys learned in class...so much for mortar board intelligence...

Edited to point out: that foreman job is a ****ty job and there is no increase in pay...maybe fifty cents an hour...the benefit is much longer hours and blame for every thing that goes wrong. In the end the foreman job is passed back and forth among top masons like a hot potato(e)

[ 10-29-2005, 11:07 AM: Message edited by: Phillip Allen ]

[Joe ( Cold Spring on Hudson )]

148

[Phillip Allen]

You're a genius Joe...so why ain't you got Einstein’s hair?

[Victor]

What's that mean, Joe? If I were a mason I'd do little homeowner jobs like sidewalks and steps.

[ishmael]

148. Proving once again that it doesn't prove anything.

No offense, Joe, you seem a pretty good egg, if a bit obstreperous at times.

But really, what does it mean? I think, at five, I was measured at 129. But the tests were awful, I remember them. Weird sylogisms of objects. It measured linear, as did the Miller Analogy. Genius was only a point away, sigh.

Rebel.

[Phillip Allen]

I say it's in the hair... smile.gif

[LeeG]

the hair in my ears is getting longer

[Phillip Allen]

wonder what it'd look like braded?

[Joe ( Cold Spring on Hudson )]

Originally posted by ishmael:
148. Proving once again that it doesn't prove anything.
Rebel.Exactly.

It only proves that I test well. I have always tested well, did well on my S.A.T's. Even typical high school mid term and final exams that I would show up late to take and then be absent the rest of the class. This helped me in school but always had the added comment: he's smart but he needs to apply himself better. Whew :rolleyes: OK so I should have done poorly on tests and then they would have felt sorry for me :D

[Phillip Allen]

Originally posted by Joe ( Cold Spring on Hudson ):
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by ishmael:
148. Proving once again that it doesn't prove anything.
Rebel.Exactly.

It only proves that I test well. I have always tested well, did well on my S.A.T's. Even typical high school mid term and final exams that I would show up late to take and then be absent the rest of the class. This helped me in school but always had the added comment: he's smart but he needs to apply himself better. Whew :rolleyes: OK so I should have done poorly on tests and then they would have felt sorry for me :D </font>[/QUOTE]sounds awfully familiar to me...

[Joe ( Cold Spring on Hudson )]

Yup ;) even this topic was coved before, with a different group of WBF member - hmmmmmmm or were they different ;)

http://www.woodenboat-ubb.com/cgi-bin/UBB/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=5;t=012269

[ishmael]

I'm growing to hate the new search capacity.

[Rick Tyler]

Originally posted by LeeG:
the hair in my ears is getting longer"There comes a point in most men's lives when they have to either remove ear hair or choose to look like a hobbit."

[ishmael]

I've got one word for you, hemostat.

[Wild Wassa]

The thing about IQ tests that is a real problem, is ... they aren't stimulating enough.

Warren.

[botebum]

149 and Joe's remark about "he just needs to apply himself better" sounds very familiar. The other comment I remember hearing was "he needs to be challenged more and his behaviour will improve". Boy, did I prove them wrong! They challenged me more so I started smoking pot and drinking beer at the ripe old age of 13 and only managed to save myself from a third trip through 9th grade by quitting the party life and ignoring the "he needs to" people and following my own ideas. Graduated high school with honors just to spite them. tongue.gif

[LeeG]

substance abuse works well for an intellect that isn't at peace.

[brad9798]

Originally poste by, well ... me two years ago! Stills pretty much covers my thoughts on the subject!!!

"152 on one test ... 148 on the other, since we are bragging. ;)
120 an above is pretty damned smart.
Any points above 120 are only good for taking IQ tests, and solving sequences of numbers, pictures, or whatever that 99.9% of the time is a USELESS skill--not real life.
I have refused to join MENSA on grounds that the folks I've talked to would rather design fully-functional scale industries and cities with erector sets, or argue about the true velocity of the universe ... or build self-sustaining buildings out of Lincoln Logs ...
I prefer to putz around on the boat, or cut the grass, or wrestle with the kids, or watch The Simpsons on TV!
Yea, what a wast of a mind I am ...
One thing, on a positive note, that it did allow me to do, was get through high school and college with (no exaggeration) no more than a hour of homework a week ... and make straight A's! (Heck, I didn't even buy books my last two years of college). That's the only benefit, to date, I've found concerning a high IQ ... except for the cool Matchbox Car cities I can make!!
That's what I am proud of ... but no one else seems to care!! :rolleyes: "

[Phillip Allen]

Nailed it!

[ljb5]

I was part of an on-going study, tested five or six times from early childhood through college.

Since we're bragging, I'll just say I got Brad beat by 26 points on the last test, which wasn't the higest. My little brother tested ten points higher than me.

I'll be among the first to say that I.Q. isn't everything -- but neither is it anything to be ashamed of.

(Victor, I'm curious. What's the "most selective college in the country"? I thought it was Deep Springs.)

[Joe ( Cold Spring on Hudson )]

Originally posted by ishmael:
I'm growing to hate the new search capacity.Try being original, or at the least stop repeating yourself ;)

[John B]

I didn't know they used numbers in IQ tests.
I got 'Fick' and 'palank' in mine.

It might have been 'fick as a palank' actually.

thats good ,right?

anyway, I must be off Chaps, I have a mast to climb, varnish to apply. I'm thinking I might do the varnish from the bottom up today.... varnish my way up the mast.Haven't done that before. One must try new things from time to time.

[ 10-29-2005, 02:54 PM: Message edited by: John B ]

[David W Pratt]

He's smart but doesn't apply himself really means, I'm too lazy/incompetant to bother really teaching him, after all, I've got tenure.

[Bruce Hooke]

I've spent time at some high-quality academic institutions and in my experience, even at the best colleges and universities a lot of what a student gets out of going to school comes down to what they put into it. At the smaller, more elite schools there will usually be more one-on-one guidance to help make sure that students don't "fall through the cracks," but there is only so much even the best professors can do to motivate a student who is not interested in applying themself.

It should also be remembered that college (and your IQ score for that matter) are only a couple of small pieces in the puzzle of life. Picking the wrong college is hardly the college's fault, and success in college does not automatically lead to success in life, but picking the right college, and working hard while you are there can certainly give a person a leg up, and also simply lead to a richer life.

[Bruce Hooke]

Originally posted by David W Pratt:
He's smart but doesn't apply himself really means, I'm too lazy/incompetant to bother really teaching him, after all, I've got tenure.I've known a lot of college professors in my life and I've met damn few who were not very committed to their job and their students. It is very hard to get a tenured college-level teaching position so lazy and incompetant people are generally weeded out early in the process. If there is an issue in this area I would say that it is with the fact that the system frequently rewards professors much more heavily for doing good research than for being good teachers.

[brad9798]

Please note, ljb5, that was a copy of my post from two years ago.

I don't brag anymore ...

178? JC! Boy you are intelligent!

(edited for spelling ... OBVIOSULY has not a lot to do with memorization!)

[ 10-29-2005, 06:12 PM: Message edited by: brad9798 ]

[Chris Coose]

Tell me where in the world an IQ measurement has an relevence, except in the mind of the person who thinks it is an important measurement.

My mother had a boyfriend who talked on and on about IQ and "class". He reported he had lots of both. He was dumber than the coppertone refrigerator and a little ugly on the side. He ended up in jail for molesting the neighbor's children and some sort of associated arson charge.

[Paul Pless]

LMAO!!!! What a waste of money. You still act like you are four years old. You scream and kick for hours on end, on the internet, till most folks ignore you, except for a good laugh. for a minute there I thought you were speaking of JCSOH ;)

[Victor]

Boy, now I REALLY feel dumb, hangin out with a buncha frickin pointyheads!

[ 10-30-2005, 10:54 AM: Message edited by: Victor ]

[George Roberts]

ishmael ---

I took an IQ test once. I sat there and picked apart all of the problems.

We all know that the next number in the sequence 1, 2, 3, 4 can be any number but that is never an answer.

Selecting the right problems to solve is more important than getting the right answers. IQ is worthless without insight.

[ishmael]

As the Christian sage once remarked, it be useless without love.

I agree with Paul on this, think this is a school we're placed in to learn how to love. That may be the only purpose, metaphysically. Though to paraphrase Sophie Tucker, I think, I've been dumb and I've been smart, and smart is better. Going to the moon was pretty interesting, and not run by average IQs. :D

And Joe, repeating oneself, trying to get it right, is part of the class. Where would we be if only the first original was spoken? Pretty damn mute, and lacking poetry of the moment. In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God.

P.S. Chris, re relevance. The numbers tend to leave you once you leave school. But my god they follow you till then. And any formal advanced degree takes a test to once again sit you in so those in charge get a look at you. Don't believe me, apply for a Phd.

Don't take me wrong, I'm not bitter at all, but it is a strange measure. I've known people with 80 IQs who had things to teach me about love.

[ 10-29-2005, 07:31 PM: Message edited by: ishmael ]

[Memphis Mike]

Originally posted by MIke:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />I was part of an on-going study, tested five or six times from early childhood through college.
LMAO!!!! What a waste of money. You still act like you are four years old. You scream and kick for hours on end, on the internet, till most folks ignore you, except for a good laugh. :D :D .</font>[/QUOTE]What's the I.Q. of the average Oyster?

[uncas]

Mem-Mike...okay you gotta know that a chincoteague oyster has a higher IQ than an asian oyster....Its gotta be at least an 80.... :D
then again...the chincs are out and there is a good possibility we will have the asians in thge bay by 2007...
Big time mistake....bummer...problem.
jamj

[ljb5]

Originally posted by MIke:
LMAO!!!! What a waste of money. You still act like you are four years old. You scream and kick for hours on end, on the internet, till most folks ignore you, except for a good laugh. :D :D .Actually, they paid me. Twenty bucks per session, if I remember correctly.

When I was six or seven, that was a whole lotta money, especially for doing something as silly as putting colored tiles in order. I think I used it to take my mom out for an ice cream cone.

I haven't thought about this in years, but I still keep in touch with some of my old friends from preschool who were also in the study. Ran into a couple of them at a wedding recently. Ah, good times.

[PatCox]

IQ measures a selected set of skills, but not all the skills, that make for success.

I think high IQ and SAT scores show that a person is very good at making appropriate analogies. High IQ people can, but not necessarily, be good at seeing the similarities in apparently different circumstances, of taking the knowledge they have learned in one context and applying it to advantage in a new context. Its a great skill to have in times of crisis, when presented with new problems requiring a leap in logic or creative thinking.

Unfortunately, thats only about 1% of life. Most of life requires simply mastering the day to day and having the patience and continuing enthusiasm to do it over and over even though its the same thing again and again. Thats where I think high IQ is a hindrance. When achieving competence comes too easily, boredom can be a hindrance to ever achieving mastery. That which is achieved too easily seems, to the high IQ person, to have little value, and thus the repitition of the mastery holds little reward for the high IQ person.

The person who scores lower on the arbitrary measurement we call IQ may achieve far higher mastery of even a very difficult subject. But at the same time, they may be rigid and respond less well to the new and strange situations.

It seems to me that high IQ is a really positive thing only for those who possess something more. There are some people who attack life, who live life in such a way as to make sure that they are always facing crisis and change, situations in which their high IQ does have an advantage. Entrepenuerialism, for example. Its a bad example because of the political baggage associated with it, but Bill Clinton is an example, he seemed to have a death wish, he had what could be described as self-destructive tendencies, but then his incredible intellect allowed him to overcome the crises he created. This describes much more than just the MOnica situation.

Other people, who have the high IQ but lack that risk-taking tendency, that drive to take the world by the balls, instead take their high IQ into the basement and exercise their intellect with trivialities, crossword puzzles, following and arguing about the minutiae of politics or sports or history or the civil war or whatever. But they don't engage that intelligence in an active attack on life and the world around them.

Thats my exerience of it, anyway. I don't have that thing that comnbines with the high IQ that makes for the dramatic success or spectacular failure thing. I do crosswords and argue politics and I know a lot of **** . For whatever thats worth. Not much, probably.

[Peter Malcolm Jardine]

I remember one time I went to hit a guy while standing on a wooden boardwalk in the winter. I slipped (coboi boots :D )and fell and the guy started puttin the boots to me. I finally grabbed his leg and toppled him, then grabbed him by the hair and wailed his head off the side of the building till he didn't want to fight anymore. He broke a couple of my ribs tho.

I just wanted to add some similiar smart type anecdotes to this discussion. ;)

[ 10-29-2005, 10:11 PM: Message edited by: Peter Malcolm Jardine ]

[Paul Pless]

When I was six or seven, that was a whole lotta money, especially for doing something as silly as putting colored tiles in order. I think I used it to take my mom out for an ice cream cone.
Finally, I've cracked the code. I know who ljb5 really is.

His true identity: Little Man Tate

[ 10-29-2005, 10:24 PM: Message edited by: Paul Pless ]

[Paul Pless]

PMJ that was very funny :D

[Ross M]

Jeez, Pat - that was a great disquisition. Thanks!

Ross

[Rick Tyler]

Originally posted by PatCox:
Other people, who have the high IQ but lack that risk-taking tendency, (...) instead take their high IQ into the basement and exercise their intellect with... ... wooden boats?

[PatCox]

Sure, even wooden boats.

[Joe ( Cold Spring on Hudson )]

WOW Dang ol' Bubba Oyster Boomhauer. You sure do have a lot of pent up aggression towards, smart wealthy people don't ya? One might even say you have a arrogance about being dumb & poor. Lot's of venom in a lil Oyster eh? You tell em it sure is better being humble and moral and God fearing stupid dirt poor ayup sho is. ;)

Me personally I have met smart people who are poor. Matter of fact some of the smartest people I know work in universities and government agencies, like the Goddard Space Institute. They work hard raise families and read quantum unified physics for bedtime reading ;) I have met rich, stupid people who just by there birth made money the old fashioned way inheritance. I have met rich smart people who have made a fortune using there mind. And of course we have all met stupid poor people. What I do in my life is I try not to judge people until I get to know them. I try not to judge whole groups of social classes. But it's kinda easy to do that on an internet forum aint it. Boomhauer

[Phillip Allen]

Thanks Pat for the post. I have made similar observations over the years (often about myself) but never said it so well. To me, a high IQ allows me to learn "stuff" easier than others...the result is that I am lazy and no not bother to learn well because I can start over again and again and not fall behind (apparently).

Like someone else said above; I have learned a lot from folks who struggle to ad single diget numbers...WQ is wisdom quotent

I now put effort into such things as introspection because I’m my own enemy and I compete with that enemy to get on…

Trivia: I know a lot of things about a lot of things but that don’t stab (kill) the tiger…

[Memphis Mike]

Yeah that's something alright. When one agrees with and condones the actions of a wealthy group of people who are destroying our country and then secretly despises them.

There's a word for that.

[ljb5]

.

[ 10-30-2005, 10:30 AM: Message edited by: ljb5 ]

[ljb5]

Originally posted by MIke:
What I have found over the years with testing young kids has been for several main reasons...I'm curious, Mlke....

What experience do you have with testing young kids?

Sometimes it seems like you talk about things which you know nothing about -- and expect us to take your word for it.

[PatCox]

Lets stay away from the politics on this issue. Its just a distraction from the real topic. I think this issue was raised because the implicit question is whether "smart" high IQ people have any grounds to be arrogant or to think they are better. I do not think that they do. High IQ people have certain skills that aree valuable in certain situations. But I beleive IQ tests only test an arbitrary set of skills which are not the skills which make for a healthy, well balanced person, and I don't think those skills are even particularly worthwhile in business or any other endeavor, except in rare cirsumstances.

It does not take high IQ to be a great parent, it takes love and patience. It does not take high IQ to be a master at any given craft, or to be a gifted artist.

I think all people ahould be valued equally, whether their particular contribution is in that arbitrary and narrow area where high IQ is of value, or in the many other areas where it is not of great value.

[coelacanth]

When I was a kid, our school system I.Q. 'd us in 4th or 5th grade, iffn i remember aright. When you were graduating high school, you were allowed to look at the results, if you wished to. my guidance councillor tried to dissuade me but I just HAD to look. I forget the number, but on the grand scale of things, I am "dull normal". Damn, that's my problem :D

[L.W. Baxter]

I once did an online IQ test that was offered in a pop-up with the "msn" logo on it. After spending 20 minutes or so on the test, I got to the end, and was informed that, in order to get my results, I would have to register with a lot of personal information and my e-mail address.

I didn't get my score, but I concluded that I may not be the sharpest knife in the drawer.

[ljb5]

Originally posted by PatCox:
It does not take high IQ to be a great parent, it takes love and patience. It does not take high IQ to be a master at any given craft, or to be a gifted artist.Agreed. Absolutely.

But it doesn't hurt, either.

Whenever the subject of I.Q. comes up, someone immediately points out that I.Q. isn't everything. That's true, but also irrelevant.

When talking about Tiger Woods, do you immediately mention that it doesn't mean he's good at tennis?

When you watch Lance Armstrong win the Tour de France, do you immediately say, "He probably sucks at baseball"?

Being smart doesn't necessarily make you happy -- but then again, neither does being dumb.

A high I.Q. doesn't give you the right to be arrogant --- but having a low I.Q. sure doesn't either. On that issue, none of us is perfect -- but I'd much rather be right and arrogant than wrong and arrogant.

[ 10-30-2005, 11:03 PM: Message edited by: ljb5 ]

[JimD]

Originally posted by PatCox:
... the implicit question is whether "smart" high IQ people have any grounds to be arrogant or to think they are better. I do not think that they do...Yes, but when you lump all the high test score kids in a separate class and the teachers tell them they are better they start to believe it.

[L.W. Baxter]

But then again, someone claiming to have an IQ much higher than mine might waste much more than 20 minutes every day making humorless, inane, anonymous posts on an internet forum, and I feel a little smarter by comparison.

... ;)

[Katherine]

"but I'd much rather be right and arrogant than wrong and arrogant."

either way you still look like an Ass.

[Bob Smalser]

Originally posted by L.W. Baxter:
But then again, someone claiming to have an IQ much higher than mine might waste much more than 20 minutes every day making humorless, inane, anonymous posts on an internet forum, and I feel a little smarter by comparison.

... ;)
Originally posted by Katherine:
"but I'd much rather be right and arrogant than wrong and arrogant."

either way you still look like an Ass.Good'uns.

My mother was Albert Einstein's housekeeper during his Princeton days....does that count?

Just thought I'd add another bald-faced lie to the many in this thread.

Such insecurity.

[ 10-30-2005, 11:17 PM: Message edited by: Bob Smalser ]

[L.W. Baxter]

I've always thought that the biggest problem with this forum is too many genuises !

[Rick Tyler]

An IQ score of 145 is three standard deviations above the mean. Only about 1 in 1,000 people will have an IQ at least that high. Only about 1 in 5,000 will have an IQ of 170 or higher. Theories about WBF:

1. This forum attracts a really unlikely accumulation of folks with high IQ scores.

2. IQ scores are being wilfully misrepresented.

3. IQ scores are being reported incorrectly for other reasons.

You choose. smile.gif

[George Roberts]

Two years ago I spent several weeks getting an engineering result.

Last night in 30 minutes I proved that result wrong and arrived at a "correct" result.

Rick Tyler ---

I expect 10-12 people here have IQs above 145. And perhaps 1-2 above 170.

My work as an engineer/scientist does not take a high IQ. I simply read work others have done, make small refinements to it, and then feed numbers into the result. I expect most of us do that.

I often have understanding. I seldom have insight.

[ljb5]

Originally posted by Katherine:
either way you still look like an Ass.On this forum, that's hardly a distinguishing characteristic.

[TomF]

I'm a few points sharper than a cactus. My mom reputedly scored 178, though I don't believe it. Smarter than my Dad, except in the places that she wasn't.

As others have said, t'ain't the most important thing. Were this a discussion in my living room rather than open for the world to see, I could give chapter and verse on a few desperately intelligent and professionally successful folks, who've entirely f#cked up their personal relationships.

They're well beyond me in megawattage, but my kids aren't suicidal. I'll happily take that trade.

t.

[Popeye]

are we talk'n standard or metric

[Garrett Lowell]

I think my IQ is right up there with Forrest Gump. If only my luck were the same........ :D

[Bob Smalser]

Originally posted by George Roberts:

I expect 10-12 people here have IQs above 145. And perhaps 1-2 above 170.

Make those numbers 130 and 145 and I'll agree.

Above 170? Never heard so much nonsense in me life.

http://i.emode.com/tests/uiq/images/iq.gif

[ 10-31-2005, 09:38 AM: Message edited by: Bob Smalser ]

[Phillip Allen]

Bob, the onlyest person I ever personally knew that scored above 170 (I think) was a total f*** up, drug abuser, drug dealer (I think) and much more. The overall effect was to allow her to screw up repeatedly and still stay alive...Darwin says maybe...

edited to point out the I think part...

[ 10-31-2005, 09:45 AM: Message edited by: Phillip Allen ]

[George.]

10-12 people out of 10,000 WBF members might have exceptionally high IQs.

Out of the 100 or so that regularly post in the bilge... ;)

[uncas]

I have a few friends who have extremely high I.Q's...at least test scores...( they also know how to take tests... :D AND do well... :D :D )
And yet, it took them five times to pass the driving aspect of New York State's driving test...
Common sense vs. high I.Q???? :confused:

[Bob Smalser]

Originally posted by uncas:
I have a few friends who have extremely high I.Q's...at least test scores...An extremely high IQ is over 130. 2% of the population.

Many claiming higher than that for themselves are either lying or fooling around with on-line vanity tests that have little to do with the real test they took as a young child.

[Phillip Allen]

"An extremely high IQ is over 130. 2% of the population."

That would explain the shrink's being thunderstruck after he scored the test...still I'm a general f*** up and have never gotten very far toward those cloistered halls of credential heaven...it don’t mean much except like my friend I mentioned above...I've been able to screw up and not get killed for it...

[TomF]

170+ IQs do exist. Though I doubt my Mom's claim, her uncle did win the Nobel in economics in 2001 (relevant Nobel lecture) (http://nobelprize.org/economics/laureates/2001/spence-lecture.html), so who knows?

I've a near acquaintance who staggered officials with his childhood test score, and was subsequently spoken about by his schools and universities in hushed tones. He's since had a literally world-class professional career, received some major Canadian national honours, and as a result moves in our recent Governor General's social circle.

Suffice it to say that such a bright light casts a dark shadow - I'll perhaps share info by p.m., but not here.

T.

[ 10-31-2005, 10:12 AM: Message edited by: TomF ]

[George Roberts]

Bob Smalser ---

I was using the numbers that were posted above by Rick Tyler. Perhaps he made a mistake in computing the numbers 145 and 170. Perhaps you made a mistake in computing the numbers 130 and 145. (Some appears to be off by a standard deviation.)

In any case I expect we as a group mirror the entire population.

[ 10-31-2005, 10:23 AM: Message edited by: George Roberts ]

[Bob Smalser]

Originally posted by George Roberts:
Bob Smalser ---

In any case I expect we as a group mirror the entire population.Oh, I think the fact that this is all written communication ups the ante on scores a bit.

But I was also being generous to the liars on scores. 125 and 140 might well be closer.....130 and over being exceptional at 2 out of 100.

[Popeye]

the bilge, in no way, shape or form mirrors the general population

[TomF]

Originally posted by Bob Smalser:
But I was also being generous to the liars on scores. 125 and 140 might well be closer.....130 and over being exceptional at 2 out of 100.That's a fine troll, Bob. There's really no way to counter that accusation, is there?

[Dan McCosh]

FWIW--IQ scores were invented as a test that should have correlated with school performance. In other words, it is a test of how well you take academic tests. The correlation was validated, and is actually pretty strong.

[ljb5]

Originally posted by Bob Smalser:
An extremely high IQ is over 130. 2% of the population.The population of the U.S. is nearly 300,000,000 people -- so 2% of the population is 6 million people. That's a fairly large city.

From the graph Bob posted, it appears one standard deviation is about 20 points.

Therefore, 50% of the population is higher than 100, 15% is higher than 120, 6.6% is higher than 130, 2.28% higher than 140, 0.62% higher than 150...

That assumes, of course, that the popluation has a standard distribution, which we know is not true -- because while an I.Q. of 201 is possible (at least in theory), an I.Q. of -1 is not possible under any circumstance.

Moreover, a person with an exceptionally low I.Q. is unlikely to participate in society. An I.Q. below 70 is considered mentally retarded and often occurs with other developmental disabilities. Below some level, the physical disabilities are so severe that the person is unlikely to survive infancy (such as a genetic condition called trisomy 18).

It's very likely you will encounter a person with an I.Q. above 140 in your day-to-day activities -- yet unlikely you will meet someone with an I.Q. below 60. -- even though they're both the same distance from the mean.

Therefore, it's not a symmetrical distribution -- and you can't use a bell-shaped curve to describe it.

[ljb5]

Originally posted by Bob Smalser:
Above 170? Never heard so much nonsense in me life.Finally, we should remember that the Guinness Book lists the record at 228.

While there's surely a lot of controversy about that, a mark 50 points lower is certainly well within the range of possibility.

[ishmael]

Dan,

It was also used when I was a kid to segregate. There were four classifications through my middle and high school years: Honors, High Achievers, Normal, and, well they never came up with a word for the fourth that I recall, but the kids called them the Dummys, or the Retards.

Now it's gone in a kind of guilty opposite direction in many school systems, with everyone together in the same classes. Especially at lower grade levels. Now I'm all for not hurting people's feelings unecessarily, but it makes no sense to take kids who are hungry for calculus and lump them with kids who haven't quite mastered fractions, or worse, are simply unable to.

I confess, I'm not much tapped into local school systems, but I knew some teachers in secondary schools in MA, and classes had kids who had above normal IQs lumped with kids who couldn't tie their shoes without an aid. It was called, "mainstreaming". I wonder if the powers that be have gotten over it. I kinda doubt it. It, frankly seems cruel and stupid to me. As with many good intentions, the idea was that people shouldn't be segregated by intelligence. But sometimes they should be. Not all the time, and some forced mingling is probably a good idea. But not in everything. There needs to be segregation. It should be based on merit in a particular area, along with, perhaps, test scores.

[Dan McCosh]

Therefore, it's not a symmetrical distribution -- and you can't use a bell-shaped curve to describe it. The IQ score is normalized to achieve a standard distribution with a mean of 100 and a deviation of 15. This distribution is used to validate an individual test procedure. If it isn't a standard distribution (bell-shaped curve) it isn't considered a valid test. For this reason, the test doesn't measure reliably beyond 150, or below 50, or at least it would be impossible to validate such scores. The IQ test is not an acheivement test, or a test of any specific knowlege--it's an effort to rank an individual against the general population, with the key assumption that the test scores will have a normal distribution in the general population.

[ljb5]

Yes, the test can be normalized to approximate a bell-curve, but this normalization is only valid near the mean.

If it were a true bell-shaped curve, there would be equal probability of scoring 201 and -1, because they are both the same distance from the mean.

However, it is impossible (not just improbable, but actually impossible) to score -1.

That would be like measuring a person's height or weight to be less than zero. It's not going to happen. Even if the bell-shaped curve said it were statistically likely, it can't happen -- as a matter of definition, not probability.

[ 10-31-2005, 12:00 PM: Message edited by: ljb5 ]

[Dan McCosh]

How would you score 201 with 25 questions in the test?

[Rick Tyler]

The IQ distribution is nearly normal -- but it does tend to be a little one-tailed since there are more high scores than low ones. The standard deviation is 15 -- but 20 was a pretty close guess.

The tests are famous for being repeatable and "accurate" between 70 and 130. They were never meant to be able to handle the difference between 150 and 160. I've always wondered about the over-200 scores I've heard. Maybe there is some sort of "super-IQ" test that they use.

Some friends of ours have a son who is scary-smart (and something of an amoral social misfit). The psychologist who did his testing said that his IQ score is around 160, but that didn't mean much since this boy perfectly completed several sections of the test. If a perfect result gives a score of 160 (or whatever) the test loses its ability to differentiate. In boat terms ( smile.gif ) is a Whitehall more perfect than a Banks dory?

My best friend as a youth had an IQ test result that was off the charts (my mom told me that his mom said it was 180). The poor guy was a wreck. He started drugs and alcohol in high school and the last I heard of him he was driving a forklift in a warehouse. There's nothing wrong with driving a forklift, of course, but that's not the sort of job you would expect a "super-genius" to end up with.

I remember a teacher who was an expert in mathematics AND childhood psychological development. He told us that IQ scores measure what IQ scores measure -- and that he wasn't quite sure what that was. He said the tests work well -- and don't particularly demonstrate a cultural bias, by the way -- but that it was difficult to assign meaning to the test results.

As a father of two boys with IQ scores over two standard deviations above the mean, the biggest single difference I see is that they don't need much repetition to learn. They undestand new concepts almost immediately, and they are brilliant at applying these lessons to new situations. They also leave my tools out in the rain, forget to do the dishes, don't turn homework in when it is in their bookbags, and generally act in nearly every way like "normal" adolescent boys. If they survive to adulthood I suppose they will both do OK. They are both pretty good at boatbuilding, too.

[ 10-31-2005, 01:30 PM: Message edited by: Rick Tyler ]

[ljb5]

Originally posted by Dan McCosh:
How would you score 201 with 25 questions in the test?I don't know what test you took.

The tests I took were conducted one-on-one in a small interview room on the University campus. It was an all-day event with lots of different tasks like memorization, organization, pattern recognition, inductive reasoning etc.

I doubt a test with 25 questions could tell you very much. Especially if they were multiple choice.

[ 10-31-2005, 12:06 PM: Message edited by: ljb5 ]

[Joe ( Cold Spring on Hudson )]

Originally posted by Bob Smalser:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by uncas:
I have a few friends who have extremely high I.Q's...at least test scores...An extremely high IQ is over 130. 2% of the population.

Many claiming higher than that for themselves are either lying or fooling around with on-line vanity tests that have little to do with the real test they took as a young child.</font>[/QUOTE]Use that stat of 2% and out of the population divide the amount by the % of population with internet access. Take the 2% and I think you find a correlation between informational literacy and high IQ. So a core sample of the WBF might YEILD a higher overall I.Q score than the GENERAL population.

Just an idea. ;)

[Dan McCosh]

I was using a hypothetical example to point out the problem with the arithmetic. How could you distinguish between a normalized score of 180 and 201 with 25 questions in a test? It's similar to the problem of having a -1 score--neither is possible. The IQ "score" is an expression of a normalized bell-curve. It is not the number of questions answered correctly. The existence of a 201 score implies that the mean is not 100, hence the score is meaningless.

[ 10-31-2005, 12:58 PM: Message edited by: Dan McCosh ]

[John E Hardiman]

Human intelligence, like some other physical processes, is not a bell curve (i.e. random) it is a Rayleigh distribution. The mean is abritrarly set at 100. This means that half the area under the distribution curve is less than 100 and never less than 0, and half is above. The "tail" of the curve can be effectively infinite. The distribution of some y*sigma would them be y= sqrt(2*ln N) where N is the number of samples and sigma is over the total population.

So.. in 100 people, assuming that sigma is ~15, the expected maximum IQ is 100+ 3.03*15 = 145+
In 1000: 155+...10,000: 164+...1,000,000: 178+...1,000,000,000: 196+

But anyway, I agree with Pat Cox that just being "intelligent" is not enough; that it requires that creative spark of insight to be a true "genius". Hell I've work with many "dense as a box of rocks" engineers that could solve any problem that someone had laid out the solution path to, but could never have got there themselves.

[Alan D. Hyde]

"True genius resides in the capacity for evaluation of uncertain, hazardous, and conflicting information."

Sir Winston Churchill

***

Alan

[ljb5]

Originally posted by Dan McCosh:
How could you distinguish between a normalized score of 180 and 201 with 25 questions in a test?I dunno.... maybe you use a more complete test?

Don't argue with me... I didn't write the test. If you've a problem with the methodology, take it up with someone else.

Why don't you call the Guinness Book and tell them you dispute the results? Tell us how it goes.

[Rick Tyler]

As long as we are talking about smarts, I read an interesting nugget a few years ago. I cannot remember where read this, so forgive the lack of a citation. (Did you notice that I wrote "where read" instead of "where I read"? I do this all the time. I drop words when I write. This happens a lot more when I handwrite than when I type. Is this a common disease, or is just me?)

Some researcher had correlated results on a spelling test with IQ. The results were strange -- up to an IQ or 115 or 120, the spelling test results went up. Over that, they started down. So, being a little "smarter" than average predicted good spelling skills, but over that, it didn't.

Being a good psychometrician, the researcher did interviews with the test subjects and looked into how they went about spelling. The only result I remember is the researcher's investigation of those with high IQs. The best spellers (as a group) were the 115-120 folks, who applied spelling rules taught in grammar school, with rote memorization of commonly misspelled words. The 130+ group actually split into two groups -- those with pretty abysmal scores and those with near-perfect scores. The 130+ group that spelled poorly just didn't care -- they hadn't learned the rules and hadn't bothered to memorize the exceptions.

The researcher found that the best spellers at all levels -- and especially in the 130+ group -- were those that didn't bother with rules or memorization, but seemed to learn words visually. They could write a word and instantly "see" that it was spelled incorrectly. By trying a couple of test spellings they could usually find the one that "looked right."

My point, and I do have one, is that the researcher found that the interesting thing was not that IQ was not correlated to spelling throughout the range in the test, but that the way people learn information varies a lot with the individual. A visual speller would fail any test that covered "rules for spelling" but might still be able to do well on a test of "spell these words correctly."

IQ tests do seem to analyze something that most of us would recognize as a "intelligence" but that does not inform how it works, or whether it applies in all areas. Anyway, I like the "visual speleler" vs. "rules-based spelerer" story, even if it doesn't mean anything. Thanks for reading.

[ 10-31-2005, 01:43 PM: Message edited by: Rick Tyler ]

[Dan McCosh]

I don't quite see how the data fits a rayleigh distrubition, as it is usually called a normal distribution--but I'm not that up to speed on statistical methodology anyway. Still, the projections prove the point--by the time you get to a so-called IQ in the 200 range, a valid test would have to have something like a million questions. The high and low end of the projections are just that--projections of the actual test data into an area not actually validated. Much of the abuse of IQ test scores comes from such projections, which is why I would argue that it is important to understand at least the basics of the methodology. It's become a bit more important lately due to some court rulings against executing people with scores below a certain point. At the high end, most achievement is a lot more specialized than any IQ test, hence the IQ numbers don't have much real-world application.

[ 10-31-2005, 02:15 PM: Message edited by: Dan McCosh ]

[John E Hardiman]

Dan, the reason it is a rayleigh distribution in a population is because while the tests are designed to provide a normal distribution, it is a know correlation that the ability to perform the tests is a function of age and education. I.e. a test for 10 year olds would produce a mean of 100 for that group , the same test for 25 year college grads would produce a much narrower distribution on the higher end (or so it is assumed). Assuming that the effects of age and education also have normal distributions, we have a population comprised of of two (or more) independent normal distributions, which is a rayleigh form. I.e. the whole population of the world is not composed of high school students.

[ 10-31-2005, 02:22 PM: Message edited by: John E Hardiman ]

[ljb5]

Originally posted by John E Hardiman:
Dan, the reason it is a rayleigh distribution....Actually, it's neither Normal nor Rayleigh. It's it's own unique distribution, which you could call the I.Q. distribution.

It can be approximated by a Normal curve, or a Rayleigh curve or any of a a couple dozen types of continuous distributions. (http://mathworld.wolfram.com/topics/ContinuousDistributions.html) But those are only approximations and not valid over the entire range.

I doubt it could be well approximated by a Rayleigh distribution, because a Rayleigh distribution is concave down near zero...

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/images/eps-gif/RayleighDistribution_1000.gif

...and I have enough faith in the I.Q. of my fellow humans to hope that the distribtion tails off much thinner than that at low values.

Gibrat's Distribution, which come to us from the study of economics has the same problem of lacking a tail:
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/images/eps-gif/GibratsDistribution_700.gif

Likewise, I'm certain it cannot be a Normal distribution because a Normal Distribution never actually trails off to zero -- even at negative values, which are impossible by the nature of the I.Q. test.

My guess would be something like a Maxwell distribution, which (unlike Rayleigh) has a thin tail going towards zero and (unlike Normal) excludes all negative values:

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/images/eps-gif/MaxwellDistribution_651.gif

The Maxwell distribution was developed to describe the thermal energy of a gas, so it seems a little odd to apply it to I.Q. -- but if the curve fits...

That Maxwell distribution is very similar to the Rayleigh distribution, differing only by a constant and a factor of x in the pre-eponential. The constant doesn't matter, but the extra x changes the sign of the second derivative, resulting in a thin tail at low values.

[ 10-31-2005, 04:04 PM: Message edited by: ljb5 ]

[johnw]

Distribution curves are fine if you've got a random sample. There is selection bias among the people reading this thread. First, it's a population that likes doing things on a computer. That probably gets you a population over 100 right there. Second, it's a population that is interested in reading a thread on IQ scores -- probably because they once scored high on one. So yeah, I bet most of the people on this thread claiming high IQ scores actually scored them.

Talk about skewed populations, I own a bookstore, and I've got one employee who is about to do graduate work in linguistics, another who had a chance to go to college when she was 12 (she declined) and a third that probably scores about 160 on an IQ test. I like to hire smart people, and don't mind if they are smarter than me. It's fun to pick their brains, and they usually know things that help the business.

I've had a shrink tell me my IQ was 140. I do well on tests. My brother doesn't. His SAT and GRE scores were awful. He had to go to China to do his graduate work, taking classes in Mandarin, doing field work on the Dai people, who speak a language related to Thai, and writing his PH.D. in Mandarin. He also learned Thai as a bridge language to Dai. I couldn't have done that, but I got great scores on the GRE and had no trouble getting into grad school.

I'm not sure what IQ tests measure. In my brother's case, it certainly wasn't academic performance. I did well in school, hampered by a lifelong habit of annoying teachers, but who knows, I might have done just as well with less ability at testmanship and more respect for educators.

I knew a guy in college who scored 170. Last I heard we was a welder.

One thing I have to say, when I was in school they didn't separate the smart kids. I think they started doing that because they noticed some of them were getting pretty screwed up. I doubt they solved the problem. Being different is a burden regardless of which tail of the bell curve your're on. I know managing smart people is different from managing others. Some of my best employees have been fired from their previous jobs.

[George Roberts]

I think most of you are ignoring the fact that the IQ scale may or may not be linear.

Perhaps the scores are designed to achieve a desired distribution instead.

From John E Hardiman:

"So.. in 100 people, assuming that sigma is ~15, the expected maximum IQ is 100+ 3.03*15 = 145+
In 1000: 155+...10,000: 164+...1,000,000: 178+...1,000,000,000: 196+"

Continuing on in this manner in 10 million: 211, in 100 million: 226, in 300 million: 230-235.

We achieve these numbers by testing everyone, ordering the test results and then assigning a number based on the distribuion we wish to obtain.

I prefer a linear distribution, integers 1 to 300,000,000 for the US would be good enough. I don't think I am above 270,000,000, but I would feel bad to know I am not.

[Ellis Rowe]

"When I think back on all the crap I learned in high school, it's a wonder I can think at all" Paul Simon 1973. :D :D

[Rick Tyler]

The WoodenBoat forum, where the women are strong, the men are good-looking, and all the boatbuilders have above-average IQs.

[John E Hardiman]

Hey, George Roberts, check your numbers, your math was way off.

Notice I said 178+ in a Million....196+ in a Billion.

Also notice that this is not an upper limit, but rather a lower limit, i.e. statistically you should have at least one person above this IQ in the sample group (excluding Maxwell's demon). To guarantee that at least one person in the sample has an IQ of over 200 (assuming a sigma of 15) you would need a sample size of 4,477,014,884, which is about the population of the world right now.

[Alan D. Hyde]

"Nothing in the world can take the place of persistence. Talent will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent. Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education will not; the world is full of educated derelicts. Persistence and determination are omnipotent. The slogan 'press on' has solved and always will solve the problems of the human race."

Calvin Coolidge

***

Alan

[John E Hardiman]

Originally posted by Alan D. Hyde:
"Nothing in the world can take the place of persistence. ....snip...."

Calvin Coolidge

***

AlanSpoken like a true plugger...Napoleon said he liked his generals smart and lazy, thereby they got the most done with the least effort. He also said the most dangerous ones to the country were the stupid ambitious ones.

[Alan D. Hyde]

And, what was the name of that workhorse who BEAT Napolean, and who served England for many more years while Napolean's corpse rotted?

Could it be Arthur Wellesley, Duke of Wellington?

With a timely assist from the nothing if not persistent Blucher... BTW, there's a good recent biography of Blucher, well worth reading some time, John.

Alan

[ 11-01-2005, 11:42 AM: Message edited by: Alan D. Hyde ]

[John E Hardiman]

Alan, IMHO Wellington didn't win at Waterloo, Ney, Grouchy, and to a lesser extent, Napoleon lost it.

But that's another thread.... ;)

[PatCox]

Cal Coolidge being a great example of persistent mediocrity.

But you got to dance with who brung you; Alan is a Bush supporter, its hopeless (to anyone other than that crazy Meiers woman, remember her quote "he's the most brilliant man I've ever met?") to argue that Bush is anything but mediocre, so now Alan is forced to spew aphorisms in praise of mediocrity. Its highly amusing.

[Peter Malcolm Jardine]

People with high intelligence quotients are good at taking IQ tests. I would think the cross section of people on this forum would be well above average. Their income would also be well above average, as would their education, and their childhood background.

This is a forum for middle class christian whites.... at least by majority. Oh... and men... almost completely.

[Alan D. Hyde]

Pat, I support principles, practices, ideas, and laws.

I support men and women in public life, insofar as they promote these ideals to which I am devoted.

As we have a two-party system, I often support individuals with whom I am not in entire agreement--- as the lesser of the two evils. This is a practical necessity.

I am happy to support Mr. Bush when he has done something praiseworthy.

In nominating Justice Roberts and now Judge Alito, he has acted to place two highly-qualified jurists on the bench. Only time will tell whether or not their performance meets the great promise suggested by their previous work.

Alan

[Norman Bernstein]

I am happy to support Mr. Bush when he has done something praiseworthy.
I am too, Alan... except apperently there's very little in the Bush presidency that you disagree with enough to be adamant or forceful about.

I don't hate the guy at all.. I'm sure he's very kind to children and small animals. I just disagree with very nearly EVERYTHING the guy has done since he's aquired the office.

Things he's done well? I'd count the initial Afghanistan attacks on Al Queda (totally justified by credible evidence and very effective) and the nomination of John Roberts (admittedly a conservative, but a reasonable thinking one, not a extreme right wing partisan).

That's the end of my list :D

[ljb5]

Originally posted by Norman Bernstein:
I'm sure he's very kind to children and small animals.Kind to small animals?

"We were terrible to animals... we'd put firecrackers in the frogs and throw them and blow them up." (http://partners.nytimes.com/library/politics/camp/052100wh-gop-bush-bio.html)


Originally posted by Alan Hyde:
I support men and women in public life, insofar as they promote these ideals to which I am devoted.Makes sense... but what the heck were you thinking when you supported Libby and Rove, over and over again?

[Alan D. Hyde]

By simply NOT being John F. Kerry, George W. Bush has saved us from many self-inflicted wounds.

And, his tax cuts have done very well for the economy.

Alan

[ 11-01-2005, 04:03 PM: Message edited by: Alan D. Hyde ]

[ljb5]

Originally posted by Alan D. Hyde:
By simply NOT being John F. Kerry, George W. Bush has saved us from many self-inflicted wounds.I suppose we're just supposed to take your word for that?

What do you think your word is worth?

You're wrong about everything!

[John E Hardiman]

And it was such a nice thread too...


Democracy is based on the assumption that a million men are wiser than one man. How's that again? I missed something.

Autocracy is based on the assumption that one man is wiser than a million men. Let's play that over again, too. Who decides?

If you are part of a society that votes, then do so. There may be no candidates and no measures you want to vote for ... but there are certain to be ones you want to vote against. By this rule you will rarely go wrong......If this is too blind for your taste, consult some well-meaning fool (there is always one around) and ask his advice. Then vote the other way. This enables you to be a good citizen (if such is your wish) without spending the enormous amount of time on it that truly intelligent exercise of franchise requires.

Robert A. Heinlein

[George Roberts]

John E Hardiman ---

My math error.

I was thinking about other issues.

It is easy to believe that IQ numbers are linearly related to what ever IQ is supposed to measure.

It is even easy to believe that IQs are totally orderable.

But I think neither is true.

[ 11-02-2005, 09:22 AM: Message edited by: George Roberts ]

[George Roberts]

[ 11-02-2005, 09:22 AM: Message edited by: George Roberts ]

[johnw]

Of course, if we're assuming standard distributions, half the people on this thread must be female. I've only seen one woman's name on the thread, though some postings have sexually ambiguous identities. It seems clear that some of the people on this thread must be wilfully misrepresenting their gender, if Rick is right about distribution and standard deviations.

Just trying to anticipate the next accusation...

[John E Hardiman]

johnW, IQ test are designed to have a normal distribution across the target population, male and female. However it has been noted that females do better in the verbal portion of the tests and males in the physical relationship parts. This confirms other testing that show that males think in terms of space abstracted, where as females think in term of relationship nets.

Not better or worse, just wired different.

[Phillip Allen]

baby girls with blocks build surrounds and baby boys build up

[Katherine]

With work I've noticed that the male engineers are good at getting the parts to fit together, but have little understanding of why things don't look right together.

[johnw]

John Hardiman, that wasn't my point. I maintain that the reason we have so many people reporting high IQs is that this is that we have a self-selected population that, first, likes doing things on their computers, and second, is reading a thread on IQ scores. Comparing this group to a normal distribution curve doesn't make sense.

[Phillip Allen]

I'm sitting here dribbling black gunpowder into little brass containers...there are some who would suggest I'm holding the average down... smile.gif

[Rick Tyler]

Originally posted by John E Hardiman:
Alan, IMHO Wellington didn't win at Waterloo, Ney, Grouchy, and to a lesser extent, Napoleon lost it. But that's another thread..."Here is something interesting to discuss, but you aren't allowed to post anymore because it belongs in another thread." Pretty shabby net-trick, John.

Leave us not forget that Wellington fought and defeated Napoleon's marshalls from Lisbon to France before the Elba exile. Waterloo was only the last battle, not the only one, and perhaps not even the most important.

[John E Hardiman]

Rick, this thread is about IQ, my comment was to lead to another thread, which "George." started, I didn't mean to tease.

JohnW, I agree, but that almost seems like a self-fulfilling prophesy. "We are smart, therefore we are here". I think it is better to say "We wish to be smart in this way, therefor we are here". I know I have picked up things here that I never looked at in a certian way before.

Katherine, ....you mean they can fit the rod into the hole... (insert cute icon here with tounge firmnly planted into cheek).. But yes, a lkot of engineers like to "engineer"... they sometimes need direction. I personally like to make something with as few as part as possible, i.e. "function drives form", but most like complex systems.

[Meerkat]

Originally posted by Alan D. Hyde:
By simply NOT being John F. Kerry, George W. Bush has saved us from many self-inflicted wounds.

AlanThis is simply ludicrous demagoguery! WELL beneath your usual standards, Alan!

George Walker Bush has inflicted a great many wounds on this country - that is fact, based on the public record.

In contrast, Mr. Kerry was denied the opportunity to show his mettle. I consider it less a matter of the will of the people than I do it being a product of dirty underhanding misbehavior on the part of the Bush/Cheney political machine and the Republican Party.

[Phillip Allen]

For those willing to see...Kerry HAS shown his mettle