(May 6, 2013 at 3:05 pm)catfish Wrote:(May 6, 2013 at 11:44 am)A_Nony_Mouse Wrote: One must live in an odd sort of place where where the village idiot scores higher than the village wise man.
It is a thing we can observe in people. It is a characteristic of their personalities. The idea of trying to measure it was in fact a 20th c. idea but was a subset of the idea of trying to measure the intangibles, the stick a number to everything idea.
Seriously, look into the history of the IQ test (I never said your strawman up there, what's your IQ again?)...
.
In the monitored "puzzle" test it came out in the 190s. I don't think that much of the tests myself rather only that they serve as a general measure. I presume your opinion of me will cause you to share my skepticism at that score.
As to the history of IQ tests, I have. In the late 19th/early 20th century the idea of psychometrics and biometrics arose as an imitation of the progress the sciences were making by attaching numbers to things. Phrenology sort of came out of it too.
One of the earliest tests was used for WWI draftees. I doubt anyone could pass it today as it was way skewed to practical, accumulated knowledge of farmers using horses. It is on the web several places.
As for modern, general usage if a child does not score over 120 he should not consider a career in law or science for example. There are only a couple other such things for example if I recall correctly at least 130 for a career as a historian or archivist. Over that there is not much correlation with anything in particular. However from sports to entertainment to chef to science there is a general correlation with career success and IQ.
Other than annoy the politically correct egalitarians among us it has never been in a particularly abusive manner and I consider annoying them a good thing.
There are a few more details I can recall with time before reading to refresh my memory. What specifically is your interest?
