In Mensa!

Now now guys, calm down, I'm sure we've all posted a pic of our todger online and linking our facebook and then claiming we are culturally and generally superior to everyone else.

A quiet alcohol induced Saturday night for me I say.
 
PMKeates said:
What about my post makes you think I don't know or understand that? :p

It's the whole reason I posted it. The typical IQ is 100 almost by definition. There is no "IQ creep", as such. It's a system of differentiation.
Click to expand...

you seemed to be implying that the actually results where naturally 100 (ie it was the average) rather than the average being artificially made to be 100.


If there's no adjustment to the entry requirements someone who just scrapped in by say 2 points 30 years ago would be allowed in but someone of equal intelligence applying today would fail as he had been "marked down" relative to the other.
 
PMKeates said:
Haha owned. Everybody knows you only post a wang pic on the Internet if it's impressive :D
Click to expand...

It looked decidedly odd to me, but i suppose you've err seen more to compare it against as it were :o


Davies_M said:
Now now guys, calm down, I'm sure we've all posted a pic of our todger online and linking our facebook and then claiming we are culturally and generally superior to everyone else.

A quiet alcohol induced Saturday night for me I say.
Click to expand...

Having seen your wang I must say it is glorious. :o
 
Tefal said:
you seemed to be implying that the actually results where naturally 100 (ie it was the average) rather than the average being artificially made to be 100.


If there's no adjustment to the entry requirements someone who just scrapped in by say 2 points 30 years ago would be allowed in but someone of equal intelligence applying today would fail as he had been "marked down" relative to the other.
Click to expand...

Not really because the tests are weighted for age anyway, so that person would be 30 years older and so his test score would be weighted to reflect that.
 
Castiel said:
Not really because the tests are weighted for age anyway, so that person would be 30 years older and so his test score would be weighted to reflect that.
Click to expand...

Not if they both too kit at the same age :p


ie one when he was 20, 30 years ago and one 20 year old today :p

unless there's a continuing reassessment of members?
 
Tefal said:
Not if they both too kit at the same age :p


ie one when he was 20, 30 years ago and one 20 year old today :p

unless there's a continuing reassessment of members?
Click to expand...

The relative scores are meaningless when compared in that way. You would need to compare the percentiles rather than the raw scores and even then I'm not convinced it would mean too much. The 30 year old Raw score would be weighted to a modern one to justify the comparison.

I can see what you are saying, but it is just not relevant. He would have taken a different test 30 years ago in any case.
 
Only in OCUK do you get a thread which has sub-divided itself into two almost entirely separate topics of conversation - wang, and IQ scoring technicalities.

Chapeau gentlemen. I knew there was a reason I spent so much time on the big blue!
 
sara said:
Only in OCUK do you get a thread which has sub-divided itself into two almost entirely separate topics of conversation - wang, and IQ scoring technicalities.

Chapeau gentlemen. I knew there was a reason I spent so much time on the big blue!
Click to expand...

So which topic have you taken more interest in? :eek:
 
every time I do a test I always get high 140 mid 150s.

Then followed by the message saying I'm one of the 1% smartest people in the world.

Then followed by the message asking me to join for x a month/membership.

Benefits:

Lots of brain puzzles
a crappy magazine
email spam
a shiny card to say that I'm smart which I can pull out if I ever enter an arguement with someone.

:rolleyes: yeah.... well worth it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom