Have any of you read this?

submitted by SoylentCapitalist from self.debatealtright

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]SoylentCapitalist[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

Because your IQ is the one lacking to be asking such retarded questions.

[–]EthnocratArcheofuturist 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

It's not a retarded question. Do you have any idea how high an average IQ of 160 is?

[–]SoylentCapitalist[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

1 in 31,560

https://www.gigacalculator.com/calculators/iq-percentile-calculator.php

At a university you could meet one or several of these people especially because those in university have a higher IQ average to begin with. I have a friend who scored 160 FSIQ on WISC. I have a feeling you think it's much rarer than it is, and that they are supposedly superhumans who can reach Mars already which isn't the case.

[–]EthnocratArcheofuturist 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

average IQ of 160

[–]SoylentCapitalist[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

What does that have to do with anything? These are case studies.

[–]EthnocratArcheofuturist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

I though the study claimed these kids had an average IQ of 160?

[–]Nombre27 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

n = 8

Mental Test Performance.

The IQ's, eight of which were derived by the Stanford-Binet and five by the Merrill-Terman revision (one undetermined), range from 162-200. The Test performance of these children reveals qualitative as well as quantitative excellence.

The really validity of this report would be a follow-up on these allegedly gifted children.

A child, or really anyone, allegedly being that intelligent is meaningless when they have nothing to show for it.

Just look at Rosner, vos Savant, and Langan.

I don't give a shit how smart someone allegedly is from a test (often done as a child, save for Rosner who has an extreme issue of insecurity), when they have not done anything noteworthy with it. You would expect significant breakthroughs from people that are supposedly as intelligent as these people.

It's like those pi-day idiots that remember thousands of digits in order. Ask them to try and memorize The Iliad, The Odyssey, or The Edda and see how well they do.

[–]SoylentCapitalist[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

There are very few in the study for obvious reasons, it isn't a large sample size just case studies.

[–]EthnocratArcheofuturist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Then it's completely irrelevant.

[–]SoylentCapitalist[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Irrelevant in what sense? It's obviously an interesting read for many how high IQ blacks may function differently.