[Updated on: Wed, 19 November 2003 02:32]

HKSPete wrote on Wed, 19 November 2003 13:44

I don't believe your statement though. Management positions don't need higher IQs. Technical positions do. You don't need to be smart to sit in meetings.

Neither did I. I said it is all colored by social construct and used management/administration as an example. Administration is well paid, possibly well beyond it is worth. That said it is likely that the best paid administartors probably do have the highest IQs of their group.
We are all aware of the difference between a good and bad manager. A bad one couldn't organize a root in a brothel and is always at meetings, thieves ideas and stifles alternative approaches, yet a good manager is highly organized, inspirational and a visionary. Testing would reveal personality traits that result in the differences in behaviour, and some of this may stem from a perceived (or real) lack of intelligence.

HKSPete wrote on Wed, 19 November 2003 13:44

I thought the picture would've been enough.

The picture could be interpreted to mean what you or I said.

[Updated on: Wed, 19 November 2003 03:12]

Caledwvech wrote on Wed, 19 November 2003 14:40

LOL. Yeah good point man. But how often do we go to war? Like never! But you do have a point. I guess part of the reason I decided not to go through with it. Now I am just going to get my commercial license.

I kinda thought we were at war at the moment with "terrorism" , some of the troops that went to Iraq are coming home now, but wasn't it announced last week that the squadren of FA-18's that is already there was going to be stationed there for another 6 months?

[Updated on: Wed, 19 November 2003 05:29]

ok, I guess I'm designated to make a post on this.

First of all, IQ does not equal intelligence. IQ tests attempt to measure intelligence, but invariably fail to draw upon all facets of what makes a person smart (for example, an autistic child who has an IQ of 150, but is massively deficient in many areas; and also people such as street-side vendors, who typically score 100 or below, but in terms of ability in simple mathematics (giving change for a purchase) are more talented than most people in the world).

Next, the most recognised IQ test (the WAIS), is only able to be administered individually, and takes a LONG time (more than the attention span of your average person to watch a crappy TV show trying to get ratings). The other two highly recognised tests for intelligence are the SAT and the GRE (basically a harder version of the SAT), and these can be administered to groups, but once again the medium of television is a VERY shitty way to present the sort of material that is typically required in an IQ test, and there is buggerall control on the environment.
**for example, if you by chance ate a pack of jelly babies before the IQ test show, then you could expect to score up to 5 points more than if you hadn't!!**

Getting past that - Initially, IQ tests were designed to have a mean score of 100, and a standard deviation of 15. I dont know anything about last night's test(someone said SD of 10, and I'll assume that's correect. Stupid, but correct), but in actual fact average IQ has iincreased from the original 100, to what is now close to 110.

I'd also like to add that people who spent the day at work and were tired at the end of the day would score worse than lazy bums who enjoyed a relaxing day reading the paper. On various "popular" (read: not psychological) and also on valid intelligence tests, I have scored anywhere from 123 to 168.

Finally, remember last night was a good excuse for ratings. Have some fun with the numbers, but dont go gloating just because you got 120 - the test may just be tapping your strengths. Equally, if you did shithouse your abilities may lay elsewhere.


hope that made sense - am pretty exhausted, just tried to make something coherent for people to read

[Updated on: Wed, 19 November 2003 08:04]

ed_ma61 wrote on Wed, 19 November 2003 12:18

i reckon they are a real treat for the ultra competitive types out there (me included), esp when the test administrator says at the beginning of any given paper "now dont rush, and keep in mind no-one has ever completed the whole paper in the given time"... *and the gauntlet was thrown...*

i'm like that too

sat the psych and entry tests for officer entry into the ADF
a couple of my mates had done this before me and had not finished...friend 1 and friend 2 (happy?)it got too hard etc etc

i got an OP 17, they got 8 and 12 respectivley
anyways i finished everything thrown at me, and passed rather convincingly, did not too shabby on the IQ type crap. Too bad my eyesight let me down(forgot to wear contacts to one of the interviews, they figured that i must of circumvented the eye exam by wearing them and made me take off my glasses and do it again )

[Updated on: Wed, 19 November 2003 23:03]