From: Smigrodzki, Rafal (SmigrodzkiR@msx.upmc.edu)
Date: Sat Jun 22 2002 - 16:01:53 MDT
Brian Phillips [mailto:deepbluehalo@earthlink.net] wrote:
This is something I have never understood. How can people who wish
to use their test score claims as a intellectual bludgeon not read enough
about psychometry to make their claims plausible?
### Maybe those not smart enough to understand the meaning of normal
distribution scores feel the greatest need to make up for their perceived
deficiency by bluster and bravado.
------
Mr. Broderick has made a statement to the effect (pardons if
I misrepresent him) that the downside of "high-IQ gunslinging"
is the realization that there is basically nobody who is a very
great deal more intelligent than you are....that this is somewhat
depressing. Must it be so?
### I don't know - I am no more than 2 SD from the mean. But yes, I could
imagine feeling lonely, if all those in my environment were unable to follow
my thoughts.
---------
While I do not question the efficacy of psychometric instruments
in the lower 99 centiles is it especially relevant, in your opinion,
at the far right tail?
### I understand that there is a reasonably good correlation between IQ and
school/college success up to about 140 (on WAIS). Above that we have
insufficient data. There is anecdotal evidence of a discrepancy between IQ
score and conventionally defined success in life at higher scores. Of course
one can interpret this in many ways.
--------
Do you see nootropics and mental strategies
as increasing mental effectiveness in ways not measured by "g"
by these sorts of people? (heehee wishful thinking by moi alert!!)
### I am not aware of any reliable and safe nootropics but I wouldn't be
surprised if they existed.
Rafal
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:14:58 MST