Why is the UK so full of dicks!

[fudgeflaps]

Just ensuring that this is an Equal Opportunity thread.

[Mojo]

Really? I'm sure I read that it was called that in WWII as well? Oh well, I concede to your info. !bow!

[Mojo]

Marty was pressing on the info and my argument was faltering without it. And I hate to lose an argument, 'cause it makes me look weak. !wink! Besides, I know how much info to give without giving too much away.

[mart]

I think someone is going to get booted KR and its not going to be you or me.

Mart

PS Maybe it would be wise to save this thread now before it disappears in its entirety......lol

[Sam Slater]

Thats because you're talking about IQ Mojo. Though 'intelligence' & 'knowledge' can be interchangable, they are two different things. IQ scores are mainly based on questions around problem solving. These 'problems' are usually things your brain can work out without the need to 'learn how' first through schooling. Therefore IQ scores from the age of 12 upwards very rarely increase -if doing so then by marginal amounts- and show how your brain thinks, what it's best at, and a good measure of intelligence.

'Knowledge' of course, is stuff we learn throughout life, whether academically or through experience. Therefore 'A Levels' and 'Degree's' are just markers for what you've learnt. They don't tell people how intelligent you are. If Einstein hadn't bothered with schooling and became a 'farmer', he would have still been one of the most intelligent people ever to have lived, we'd just have never known it!

Einstein's IQ was estimated around 160. However this doesn't mean that if someone else came along with an IQ of 160 that they'd become the next 'Einstein', 'Galileo', 'Newton', or 'Hawkings'. It matters how you think, not just the depth of your thinking power.

Of course you could have a 140 IQ, be very knowledgable, and a photograpic memory so you never forget a single thing you've learnt, but without 'drive' & 'ambition' then it all comes to nothing!

[fudgeflaps]

With the greatest of respect, an IQ of 118 is handy, but the whole concept of IQ is skewed in that it is a man-made outdated test of numeracy and reasoning- it is not representative of intelligence per se. A person of IQ 154 might not be able to open a Pot Noodle, for example.

It also doesn't cover what have been found to be the 'complete intelligences': (the traditional): numeracy, literacy, reasoning, memory; (the social): emotional, spiritual, interpersonal, social, humour, creativity; (the sensual): sexual, spatial awareness, sensory.

I was a member of Mensa with an IQ that was high- 171- but realised it was a crock of shite!! One's intelligence is far more infinite than a mere number!

Not having a go at you Mojo, far from it- it's just I hate people defining their intelligence by a number. And your intelligence, like that of many if not all people, is far more exceptional than you think. You state your ability to see things, have vision: that's worth far more than completing daft wee IQ puzzles?

As for academia, or education, or qualifications: is that intelligence? No! It's hard graft- natural ability is a slight bonus. I'm sure if you had your time over again or if you contemplated further study in a field that you would enjoy, you'd breeze it.

My general point: there are too many misconceptions about intelligence, numbers and qualifications do not define it. Did Plato, Socrates, Aristotle, Newton (?), da Vinci have any? No. And these guys could outclass us all.

[Sam Slater]

I agree with some points, but I think 'intelligence' and 'knowledge' can sometimes get mixed up. Check my post above.