Why most of the great chess players are jews? - Chess Forums - Page 9

Sangwin

Jan 1, 2014

0

#161

waffllemaster wrote:

I saw the sign, and it opened up my eyes, I saw the sign.

Life is demanding, without understanding.

Dearest creature in creation
Studying English pronunciation,
I will teach you in my verse

Sounds like corpse, corps, horse and worse.

I will keep you, Susy, busy,
Make your head with heat grow dizzy;
Tear in eye, your dress you'll tear;

Queer, fair seer, hear my prayer.

Pray, console your loving poet,
Make my coat look new, dear, sew it!
Just compare heart, hear and heard,

Dies and diet, lord and word.

nameno1had

Jan 1, 2014

0

#162

Rainuchka wrote:

ivandh hat geschrieben:

I think the better question is what segments of the Chinese population were tested. I wouldn't be surprised if they over-represented high-performing students and under-represented other areas, either because of lack of resources or because of an intentional effort to boost the nation's scores.

The numbers do not make it to international journals if the sample would not be representative. School education in Eastern Asia is not less well equipped than in most European countries and US (the latter country really lacks ressources for that).

Many young Chinese people come to the US and become successful scientists.

---------------------

It is the quality of the education system that is responsible for a high average IQ.

So you think IQ is learned and not raw learning ability ? now I see why we have been having communication problems...

nameno1had

Jan 1, 2014

0

#163

Rainuchka wrote:

You did not say what your communication problem constitutet. Needless to add that the IQs used are the same in all countries.

IQs are not much related to talent, brain capacity or brain ability (things that are herited), they are very dominantly related to knowledge, to tools of thought (analysis, synthesis, abstraction, intuition) that you have obtained through learning.

If you don't believe me, look at the very poor average IQs that are reported from many African countries, the IQs there range often from 70 to 90, while in Eastern Asia they range around 100 to 105, and they are between 85 and 100 in many European and American countries.

If you were convinced that the numbers would tell you something about herited abilities, talent, then you would have difficulties to convince racists that they were wrong about Africans.

The basis for the tests is the problem... I have worked with plenty of African and Asians, neither are dumb...

Africa is pretty harsh place, you don't survive there by being dumb...

DrFrank124c

Jan 1, 2014

0

#164

Can somebody tell me what it is that IQ actually measures?

nameno1had

Jan 1, 2014

0

#165

DrFrank124c wrote:

Can somebody tell me what it is that IQ actually measures?

It is suppossed to measure one's raw intelligence, the problem is that, the individual being studied would be required to learn under a particular system to even be able to express it, so in reality, it is only capable of measuring what some have learned.

A 50 year old man is almost always going to appear to have a higher IQ according to those tests than a 2 year old who hasn't learned to communicate the fullness of his intellectual potential...so in essence the results state that those who dedicate themselves to getting high marks on such tests are automatically smarter than those who would take the same test at that time and get a worse score...

waffllemaster

Jan 1, 2014

0

#166

nameno1had wrote:

A 50 year old man is almost always going to appear to have a higher IQ according to those tests than a 2 year old

Actually every average person, regardless of age, will appear to have the same IQ score.

A 2 year old's IQ is 100 if they score as well as an average 2 year old.

A 50 year old's IQ is 100 if they score as well as the average for whatever age range they throw 50 year olds into.

nameno1had

Jan 1, 2014

0

#167

waffllemaster wrote:

nameno1had wrote:

A 50 year old man is almost always going to appear to have a higher IQ according to those tests than a 2 year old

Actually every average person, regardless of age, will appear to have the same IQ score.

A 2 year old's IQ is 100 if they score as well as an average 2 year old.

A 50 year old's IQ is 100 if they score as well as the average for whatever age range they throw 50 year olds into.

So they have tests for people who can't talk and communicate their intentions... ? this is laughable...so we have isolated who the smartest kids are by their willingness to participate...

waffllemaster

Jan 1, 2014

0

#168

No, they're just being compared to other kids who took the test.

What a test would be for a 2 year old would be some basic stuff. I would guess nothing close to pencil and paper. Stuff like where they take dolls and doll 1 puts an object in a box while doll 2 is looking away. Then they ask the kid where doll 2 thinks the object is. Stuff like that.

goldendog

Jan 1, 2014

0

#169

waffllemaster wrote:

No, they're just being compared to other kids who took the test.

What a test would be for a 2 year old would be some basic stuff. I would guess nothing close to pencil and paper. Stuff like where they take dolls and doll 1 puts an object in a box while doll 2 is looking away. Then they ask the kid where doll 2 thinks the object is. Stuff like that.

I took that doll test once. Then our priest got sent to jail.

nameno1had

Jan 1, 2014

0

#170

waffllemaster wrote:

No, they're just being compared to other kids who took the test.

What a test would be for a 2 year old would be some basic stuff. I would guess nothing close to pencil and paper. Stuff like where they take dolls and doll 1 puts an object in a box while doll 2 is looking away. Then they ask the kid where doll 2 thinks the object is. Stuff like that.

So without a baseline for the absolute smartest kids, due to the lack participation and being a late bloomer perhaps, you are going to trust the accurracy ? That is really foolish considering the flaws in the aldults test that it was patterned after....

waffllemaster

Jan 1, 2014

0

#171

Yeah, without a baseline there is no IQ test for anyone. It was originally just meant as a developmental thing (only kids had IQs). Late bloomers were, as expected by definition, lagging behind in development.

nameno1had

Jan 1, 2014

0

#172

waffllemaster wrote:

Yeah, without a baseline there is no IQ test for anyone. It was originally just meant as a developmental thing (only kids had IQs). Late bloomers were, as expected by definition, lagging behind in development.

So you are saying that because someone never wasted their time proving themselves for the idiots looking for test monkeys to begin with, that makes them slow ? I used the term late bloomer so you'd better understand where I was coming from...

waffllemaster

Jan 1, 2014

0

#173

goldendog wrote:

waffllemaster wrote:

No, they're just being compared to other kids who took the test.

What a test would be for a 2 year old would be some basic stuff. I would guess nothing close to pencil and paper. Stuff like where they take dolls and doll 1 puts an object in a box while doll 2 is looking away. Then they ask the kid where doll 2 thinks the object is. Stuff like that.

I took that doll test once. Then our priest got sent to jail.

In chess it's all about good knights and bad bishops.

waffllemaster

Jan 1, 2014

0

#174

nameno1had wrote:

waffllemaster wrote:

Yeah, without a baseline there is no IQ test for anyone. It was originally just meant as a developmental thing (only kids had IQs). Late bloomers were, as expected by definition, lagging behind in development.

So you are saying that because someone never wasted their time proving themselves for the idiots looking for test monkeys to begin with, that makes them slow ?

Someone who never took an IQ test (like me for example) I wouldn't call them anything. It's just a diagnostic tool used by psychologists. Intelligence isn't well defined anywhere. IQ measures IQ not intelligence.

nameno1had

Jan 1, 2014

0

#175

waffllemaster wrote:

nameno1had wrote:

waffllemaster wrote:

Yeah, without a baseline there is no IQ test for anyone. It was originally just meant as a developmental thing (only kids had IQs). Late bloomers were, as expected by definition, lagging behind in development.

So you are saying that because someone never wasted their time proving themselves for the idiots looking for test monkeys to begin with, that makes them slow ?

Someone who never took an IQ test (like me for example) I wouldn't call them anything. It's just a diagnostic tool used by psychologists. Intelligence isn't well defined anywhere. IQ measures IQ not intelligence.

So if you take more than one and your score goes up after successive tests, does that mean you got more intelligent ?

waffllemaster

Jan 1, 2014

0

#176

nameno1had wrote:

waffllemaster wrote:

nameno1had wrote:

waffllemaster wrote:

Yeah, without a baseline there is no IQ test for anyone. It was originally just meant as a developmental thing (only kids had IQs). Late bloomers were, as expected by definition, lagging behind in development.

So you are saying that because someone never wasted their time proving themselves for the idiots looking for test monkeys to begin with, that makes them slow ?

Someone who never took an IQ test (like me for example) I wouldn't call them anything. It's just a diagnostic tool used by psychologists. Intelligence isn't well defined anywhere. IQ measures IQ not intelligence.

So if you take more than one and your score goes up after successive tests, does that mean you got more intelligent ?

nameno1had

Jan 1, 2014

0

#177

I guess we can argue over whether your intelligence quotient or your intelligence is the same thing...

To me it is like using an inch on a ruler to measure an inch, while there is a slight difference between the two, only to distinguish the two, they are basically the same...

your intelligence either measures up to a predetermined standard of intelligence or it doesn't...

AlCzervik

Jan 1, 2014

0

#178

Rainuchka wrote:

waffllemaster hat geschrieben:

Rainuchka wrote:

waffllemaster hat geschrieben:

Rainuchka wrote:

It is a common misconception that the people of Israel have higher IQ than other nations. They have not. The nations with highest IQ are all in Eastern Asia: China, Japan, South Korea.

Highest average IQ? What percentage of Chinese were tested?

In such statistics, sufficiently big samples are taken to achieve significance. I think it goes without saying that the percentage (compared to total population) of such samples is rather small, and not smaller for China than for Europe or the US.

Ok, so it would be a small percentage for any country. I guess what I'm wondering is how many dumb kids they don't let in their schools heh. In the United States, even if the child is very dumb or doing very poorly they usually get to graduate.

In China, all kids go to school. Few only finish before the tenth year. IF, then it is not because of lack of money (school education is free) but because the child is problematic.

BZZZ. Wrong answer.

-----------------

ivandh

I think the better question is what segments of the Chinese population were tested. I wouldn't be surprised if they over-represented high-performing students and under-represented other areas, either because of lack of resources or because of an intentional effort to boost the nation's scores.

^This is more like it, Rainuchka.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_world_/2013/12/03/we_need_to_stop_letting_china_cheat_on_international_education_rankings.html

Of course, I haven't spent 30 years looking into this, and I'm not sure if it was a Jew that did all the research, or, even one with a penis.

Sangwin

Jan 1, 2014

0

#179

[COMMENT DELETED]

denner

Jan 1, 2014

0

#180

nameno1had-- I can't really figure out where you stand on all this (and don't really care)

You call me a racist because I say we are are all basically the same under the skin? I find that truly amusing and a telling indicator of your comprehensive ability.

You deny scientific fact in favor of ...what?

I was going to go on but you have discredited yourself enough and done a better job than I ever could have by arguing from an indefensible perspective.