Comments on Wow, I've read some nonsense on this site

Go to Religion in the Modern WorldAdd a commentGo to Wow, I've read some nonsense on this site

Nautikos - thank you - French was my first language, I did not speak

English when I entered school but I have lost most of my French over the years.

Truth be known, one of the main reasons that I have hung around Blogit for so long was to gain a better command of the English language.

posted by gomedome on January 27, 2007 at 9:37 PM | link to this | reply

Gome,
excellent post, and since arGee has already dealt with the issue I was going to raise, all that's left for me is to express my surprise that one of the most articulate writers in this forum was not brought up speaking English, something you mentioned in passing... 

posted by Nautikos on January 27, 2007 at 8:30 PM | link to this | reply

arGee - I have a younger brother like that, they let him graduate from high

school at 15 years of age.

He was two years younger and he passed me like a bullet in primary school grades. We graduated together. That deserved more than a few beatings which I liberally sprinkled over the ensuing years. Funny thing is, when he entered kindergarten we thought he was retarded. No self preservation skills whatsoever. We didn't realize it was just because he was bored.

posted by gomedome on January 26, 2007 at 7:36 PM | link to this | reply

cpklapper - I'm beginning to realize that I should revise this post

I mentioned this in an earlier comment: "Of course the 20%, 75% and 5% numbers I used are simply illustrative approximations."

"illustrative approximations" being doublespeak for dumb guessing. Human intelligence testing serves limited positive purposes but undeniably has some merit. Making dumb guesses about how collective human intellect divides itself serves extremely limited purposes. The only use for it that I can think of and where these types of wild stab guesses belong... is in cursing diatribes.....they can't be beat for that purpose.  

posted by gomedome on January 26, 2007 at 7:27 PM | link to this | reply

Ever notice how these sort of statistics always seem to come out...
in percentages evenly divided by 5?

posted by cpklapper on January 26, 2007 at 7:14 PM | link to this | reply

Don't you just love a know-it-all wise-ass, Gome?

Incidentally, my son seemed a bit too smart for his britches as a youngster, so we had several IQ tests run. Basically, he ran away with them, because the normal IQ test is designed to give some meaningful measure around the middle with a bit of a skew to the right. Finally, we used a test that was specifically designed to differentiate between very high IQ levels. The little guy scored about 165 on this test!

I've been running to keep up ever since.

posted by arGee on January 26, 2007 at 4:03 PM | link to this | reply

That aside, there sure are a lot of morons out there!!

posted by Antonionioni on January 26, 2007 at 12:48 PM | link to this | reply

arGee - I know, I know - I'm guilty of using common vernacular again
For brevity I didn't bother getting into the details but probably should have mentioned the relationship between the obscure "75% factor" and IQ. The point being that most human beings fall into the range of human intellect above that of a moron and and below that of a genius which is referred to erroneously as "average" intelligence. Despite how many people we meet in our lives that claim to have high IQ's, the number of those with IQ's above 120 is a lot smaller than people think it is. Of course the 20%, 75% and 5% numbers I used are simply illustrative approximations.

posted by gomedome on January 26, 2007 at 12:26 PM | link to this | reply

Sorry, Gome, but I've got to do this!

Human intelligence is measured on a bell-shaped curve that has its apex at exactly 100 (IQ). That means that on this curve 50% are above 100, and 50% are below. In most studies, 120 includes at least two and maybe three standard deviations. Same for 80.

The point is that you simply cannot have 5% above average and 20% below average. That's just not how the scale works. You may mean that 5% lie above, say 120 or 135. This could be true; and 75% lie between, say 90 and 120 (135 or whatever), leaving the remaining 20% down there somewhere.

But, by definition, 50% lie above average and 50% lie below.  Sorry...

posted by arGee on January 26, 2007 at 11:59 AM | link to this | reply