Everything changes. Shortly after I arrived at Parris Island, we were administered the Army GCT (why not the Navy, I have no idea). We had gotten in about 2 a.m. that morning at the receiving depot at Yemassee (sp?), spent 2-1/2 hours on racks, with mattresses we were forbidden to unroll, and at 8 a.m., we were taking the GCT. After that, things got hectic. My score was 137, and caused me a lot of trouble in boot camp---Self, you're so f++++ing smart, why don't you do things right?--being among the most pleasant questions.
Charlie Self "The test and the use of man's education is that he finds pleasure in the exercise of his mind." Jacques Barzun
Don't feel bad, the Army didn't show much respect for draftee brains either ... except briefly to put the squeeze on you to apply for OCS. Then once you did, and their quota's were filled, you were an even bigger "s*****ad" for the duration.
Actually, and IIRC, an AGCT of 137 back then put you well into the top 2% of the population at the time. That ain't shabby for a Marine.
Some said that enlisting in the Marines was a contradiction of the score. But I got lucky and spent 4 mostly boring years. Great repartee, such as, "Self, get a f+++ing haircut," was a part of my normal week.
Charlie Self "The test and the use of man's education is that he finds pleasure in the exercise of his mind." Jacques Barzun
being a military brat, much of my childhood was spent hearing, "Get a haircut!". I never thought I needed a haircut as I sat each time in the barber's chair. I'd tell them to take "just a little off". Sometimes they'd take me at my word, and then my dad would read me the riot act when he next saw me. sigh...it's a wonder I didn't turn in to a long-haired hippy freak after leaving home. But I did let my hair grow long enough after my 4 years in the service to nearly cover my ears, ala 70's style. :)
I've always done well on tests like the Stanford-Binet, SAT, LSAT, AFQT and the like - but they always bothered me.
I was always concerned with what the testers thought that they were testing.
In particular, I have great reservations about those tests that purport to measure general intelligence. I used to know a guy who helped cobble up some of these tests for the boys in Princeton, where this sort of thing is a real cash cow - and that guy never impressed me as being real smart, himself.
It seems like they are an exercise in trying to find out 'how much like us you are' and I worry about how much like them any of us should want to be.
Too, the reporting of the scores can have an adverse affect on those who don't do well at this kind of thing, and may encourage those who do well, but may have no more common sense than a can of paint, to think too highly of themselves.
I wonder if Michelangelo would have even had the patience to take such a test - and how would he have done if he had - and who would have the balls to test him.
I suspect that Shakespeare would have been marked down in several areas, and if the scores had been reported back to him - I wonder if it would have thrown him off his game - nah - but it might have done, to a slightly lesser soul.
Who would have been qualified to measure the potential of Einstein, or Mozart, or Jefferson?
For my money - there are many different kinds of intelligence - and not all of them can be measured. Hell, not all of them can even be named.
When Psychology sought to break away from Philosophy, it did so on the argument of quantifiability - it was, it said, a Science - because it could measure and predict.
I'm not so sure.
I think it was because its practitioners simply couldn't hack it in the Agora.
Folks like Stephen Gould and his book, "The Mismeasure of Man" (a good read, along with the Bell Curve, for anyone interested in the subject) insist that continuing attempts to quantify human intelligence/cognitive ability the past hundred years or so have resulted in marginally defining the opposing ends of the spectrum, but have not been of much more benefit than craniometry a couple of centuries back.
I am not so sure that I buy that. If for no other reason than measurement and classifying are basic techniques of science which have inarguably made scientific progress possible.
yeah, but human intelligence pretty much defies quantization. what those tests measure is culture; ie, how educated are you by the cultural standards of the folks who wrote the test and how good are you at solving problems that those same folks can think up.
Yeah, me too. In my original post I said not to take it to seriously, I take it as a bit of fun, and that is all.
Clearly a result of the aging population as SAT scores don't reflect it. Age comparison tests would show a normal view.
I don't take any of them seriously, along with palm readings and astrology. I think anyone who has done a number of these tests over the years has had a variety of results.
In this instance, I wondered what a test from the tickle site could be worth, "test tickle" didn't fill me with confidence.
These people usually fail the "Don't touch - wet paint" exam.
Ya think?
We tend to achieve what we are led to believe we can achieve. If we don't listen to our detractors then 'learned helplessness' is not a factor. I think Tom Plamann is a good example, he appears to only accept defeat when, hmm, well, I dunno - perhaps Tom simply doesn't accept defeat. I suspect a Spartan approach is used "don't tell me the number of the enemy, just the location".
Is this a comment on the school system? (leading question)
Thank goodness for variety, we'd be pretty bland if we were the same. 'viva la difference'
Lol, a number of professions have followed that ignominious road.
The test measures the ability to discern pattern and similarity. It is a pretty close approximation of the way our brain is wired, therefore it can predict in a relative way, who will learn more rapidly. You can call that intelligence, motivation, whatever you care to, but the fact remains that our brains integrate new based on analogy with the old.
So keep yourself or someone you trust in constant contact with those young children. The more they hook up early, the more they have to hook to later.
Larry, did you score 158 on the tickle "Classic IQ" test? If so, would you kindly compare your answers with mine at:
formatting link
I "bragged" that I had correctly answered all the questions when I took this test last year, at the behest of my son. However, I scored 144, at the time, I believe. When I ran through the test again yesterday, I scored only 142 (owing to a brain cramp on question 20 -- thanks to Doug Miller for a wake-up call on that one).
The reason I thought I had gotten a perfect score, was that when I first took the test, I scored a few points higher than my son had, so he went over my results, comparing them to his. When he changed his answers (one by one) to match mine, the score increased with each change until it finally matched my score. Then he went through the test, changing the answer for each question one at a time, and noting that each time, the score dropped by two points. When he finished, he explained to me what he had done and informed me that I had correctly answered every single question!
Honestly, I was surprised; I tend to make mistakes, even when I know what I'm doing. And it appears now that I have done just that (again!) since obviously, 144 is not the highest possible score on the test!
When I realized that I had made at least one mistake yesterday afternoon, a new possibility occurred to me. I wondered if perhaps some wrong answers had a higher value than others. If this is the case, then my son Tyler's check, which I doubt was exhaustive, could have missed some answers that were better than mine. If the max score is greater than
144, it seems that this indeed must the case.
If you have the time and inclination, please let me know which of your answers differ from mine. It would put my curiosity to rest.
A more interesting consideration than intelligence for wood workers would be the prevalence of bad spellers and dyslexics. Woodworking doesn't require a lot of reading, and once you understand the principles of it, it doesn't require reading lots of directions.
As for intelligence tests, I usually do very well on them (160+), but I do not believe in them. I do believe that I have a PhD to my name though, and I'm told that means something. (I argue it is like a driver's license, it means more to you if you don't have one!)
(G) I don't think the tickle "IQ test" is anything more than an amusing diversion, though. Entertainment purposes only. I suspect the majority of others who take it feel the same way.
Possibly it's just a reflection of (primarily American) culture as a whole, with its long-diminishing emphasis on grammatical and spelling rigor.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.