Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Musings On I.Q. [split]

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Musings On I.Q. [split]

    Originally posted by Marlow
    ....
    When I was in the Navy, I worked with many 70-80 IQ people and they are perfectly functional. Just as we can be around 130 IQ people (not that IQ really means anything - I'm just using it as a means to point out what we consider general intelligance) and not really notice, it's the same with 70 IQ people. They are 'normal' like the rest of us, except they really don't understand the big picture. It's my opinion that most recidivist criminals are also severely mentally challenged. 70 IQ people can read and write (a bit) and carry on fully functional conversations.

    Do you really think OJ would have done the things he did if he were of even normal intelligence? I don't think he's a psychopathic monster. I think he barely knows better. My proof is the book he wanted to have published about 'if' he had killed his wife.
    I spent a few hours with OJ over the course of a couple of days at the '91 Worlds in Tokyo, where he was working as a color commentator for NBC.

    Nice-nice-nice guy, but I was absolutely stunned at how... hmm.... "infantile" he was. A gee-whiz aw-shucks guy who seemed to me to relate to the world in a very junior-high way.

  • #2
    Originally posted by Marlow
    Originally posted by Law dude
    I cannot imagine that anyone with an IQ of 70 could have done everything he did in his career.
    Originally posted by Pego
    O.J never gave me an impression of being dumb. Au contraire. Articulate, debonair, well informed. As a [email protected] commentator in '84, he was great. It is rather sad that he turned out to be an ordinary hoodlum.
    Apparently you never saw him during his stint on network football television. He had an extremely limited vocabulary and limited his observations to the obvious. He was there for one reason - he was a football star. He was never articulate, debonaire (charming, yes) or well-informed (except about football).

    When I was in the Navy, I worked with many 70-80 IQ people and they are perfectly functional. Just as we can be around 130 IQ people (not that IQ really means anything - I'm just using it as a means to point out what we consider general intelligance) and not really notice, it's the same with 70 IQ people. They are 'normal' like the rest of us, except they really don't understand the big picture. It's my opinion that most recidivist criminals are also severely mentally challenged. 70 IQ people can read and write (a bit) and carry on fully functional conversations.

    Do you really think OJ would have done the things he did if he were of even normal intelligence? I don't think he's a psychopathic monster. I think he barely knows better. My proof is the book he wanted to have published about 'if' he had killed his wife.
    If he was a true 70 to 80 IQ he wouldn't have been such a great athlete. People with such low IQ's have poor motor skills. His were highly advanced. He may test that if a prison doctor administers a test to him. But that is function of schooling or lack of schooling. He was barely literate when he attended USC.

    Comment


    • #3
      I'm not sure if I fully believe the story, but Washington Post columnist Marc Fisher now claims that Johnnie Chochran voiced a rather strong opinion "off the record" about O.J. near the end of his murder trial:
      "There's something wrong with him," Cochran said, and he talked about other clients he'd had who somehow managed to persuade themselves that they hadn't done what they actually had done.

      Simpson was a big star, a hero to some, a talented person. But, said Cochran, "I wouldn't believe him if he told me the sun was coming up again tomorrow morning."
      full column

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Track fan
        If he was a true 70 to 80 IQ he wouldn't have been such a great athlete. People with such low IQ's have poor motor skills.
        Absolutely not true at all. I think you're confusing Down's Syndrome with a simple lack of intelligence. There are tons of superb teen athletes who fall by the wayside every year because of grades (which is not entirely just an intelligence issue, but often is).

        Comment


        • #5
          So it's possible to be as dull as Forrest Gump and to be a great sprinter or baseball player(a sport with a need for better motor skills)? I though that was a myth. I know Mike Tyson was labeled as borderline retarded when he attended high school in upstate NY. But he has such phenomenal athletic ability I didn't think it was possible for him to not be in the 90 to 110 range(or to be marginally below that).

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Track fan
            So it's possible to be as dull as Forrest Gump and to be a great sprinter or baseball player(a sport with better motor skills)? I though that was a myth. I know Mike Tyson was labeled as borderline retarded when he attended high school in upstate NY. But he has such phenomenal athletic ability I didn't think it was possible for him to not be in the 90 to 110 range(or to be marginally below that).
            Mike Tyson's intelligence is indeed on a par with OJ's. Take that as you will.

            Comment


            • #7
              [/quote]If he was a true 70 to 80 IQ he wouldn't have been such a great athlete. People with such low IQ's have poor motor skills. His were highly advanced. He may test that if a prison doctor administers a test to him. But that is function of schooling or lack of schooling. He was barely literate when he attended USC.[/quote]

              I disagree with that completely. Having played only pro golf, which is usually supposed to be on the high end of the intelligence, low end of athletic ability, I am still stunned by how downright stupid some of the guys were. And one nice thing about any pro sport is that you get to meet a lot of players in other sports. There were a lot of them who certainly had only double-digit IQs, and likely did not approach 100. And when I hear some coaches talking (some, not all), I am amazed at the respect and authority we give some of these guys.

              Comment


              • #8
                http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008 ... table=true

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by dakota
                  http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/12/15/081215fa_fact_gladwell?printable=true
                  Aha! I knew it!
                  Effective teachers have a gift for noticing—what one researcher calls “withitness.”
                  I may not be a great teacher, but I am crudely effective in my own way, so y'all better mind them P's and Q's or I'll tell everyone what your WQ (Withitness Quotient) is!

                  As an example of my prodigious talents in this field, I'll give you a free sample by telling you Bad Hammy's WQ (same scale as the IQ): 72 ! See how good I am?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Marlow

                    As an example of my prodigious talents in this field, I'll give you a free sample by telling you Bad Hammy's WQ (same scale as the IQ): 72 ! See how good I am?
                    The way you do more than a year's worth of work in a school year is if the teacher stays the hell out of your way and lets you educate yourself.

                    If the qualifications a teacher holds can't predict a good teacher why would the qualifications the pupils receive predict good teaching either... And if the best screening process of all is used by the financial services then it's good to know the economy is in safe hands. At least football has a clearly defined set of goals - score more points, concede less, win the game in a competitive scenario. This analogy would be like saying scoring more points doesn't necessarily predict a good quarterback because it acknowledges that classrooms are the equivalent of throwing footballs into dustbins. As usual Gladwell's logic is a total mess. His essay on Michael Ventris and Andrew Wiles is especially bad in this regard. But he always draws on interesting anecdotes and does well to popularise social science.

                    There seems to be an element in this that it doesn't matter what kids are taught so long as whatever criteria we use to assert that they have been well taught confirms that they have been taught well. And if it doesn't, then we'll change it so that it does. This would be like the NFL changing the rules to encourage high scoring shoot outs. Then people have to write essays like Gladwell's questioning whether these new qualifications really reflect anything meaningful, as though somehow the answer to this isn't the bleeding obvious. It's a neat tautology he's constructed without noticing.

                    Similarly, the question isn't whether corporations can select people with a talent to make money. It should be whether there is any "added value" to society in having corporations whose only goal is to make money for money's sake. Do we really want to go to the next logical step of Gladwell's argument and measure how successful a teacher is based on how successful his students are at making money as financial services advisors? Could we not somehow have a system of qualifications that assesses knowledge and skills because we believe they are worth having for their own sake? Or is the purpose of education just to service economic transactions?

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Just so this doesn't look like a thread hijack, the article linked to cites research that the Wonderlic test is 100% useless at predicting successful NFL quarterbacks.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Wunderlic

                        Interesting that McNabb scored lowest of the big five in the '99 draft, given that he attended both Chicago Mt. Carmel, and Syracuse.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by dakota
                          Just so this doesn't look like a thread hijack, the article linked to cites research that the Wonderlic test is 100% useless at predicting successful NFL quarterbacks.
                          I've often thought that myself. AIQ (Athletic Intelligence Quotient) is a completely different animal than anything that would predict scholastic success. I always thought that Muhammed Ali showed a rather mundane intellect, but in the boxing ring, he was a freakin' Einstein - smartest fighter I've ever seen. He knew what to do and when to do it to win.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Ali

                            I never felt Muhammad Ali displayed a mundane intellect, despite his finishing 367th in a Louisville Central H.S. class of 391, and his Army IQ test scores of just 100 notwithstanding. He was clever enough to think of nicknames for his opponents, pysch most of them out, trade quips w/ Paar, Cavett and Cosell, market himself as what wrestling fans can "an opponent", and as a mere teen, go to a hotel in his hometown where Angie Dundee was staying for a Willie Pastrano fight, call their room from the house phone, get asked up, and question the veteran trainer as to:

                            what his fighters ate

                            how many hours they slept

                            how much road work do they do?

                            how many rounds do they spar?

                            can I work out w/ Willie
                            (then light heavy champ)

                            Not many teenagers have that much initiative.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Ali

                              Originally posted by bijanc
                              He was clever enough to think of nicknames for his opponents, pysch most of them out, trade quips w/ Paar, Cavett and Cosell, market himself as what wrestling fans can "an opponent", and as a mere teen, go to a hotel in his hometown where Angie Dundee was staying for a Willie Pastrano fight, call their room from the house phone, get asked up, and question the veteran trainer as to:
                              what his fighters ate
                              how many hours they slept
                              how much road work do they do?
                              how many rounds do they spar?
                              can I work out w/ Willie
                              (then light heavy champ)
                              Not many teenagers have that much initiative.
                              You must have a very low opinion of 'normal' intelligence.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X