Discussion in 'Free Thoughts' started by BrianHarwarespecialist, Jan 17, 2017.
If you want to use a different measure than efficiency (or IQ) go for it!
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
Ok you asked spoiler alert!i
Iq is actually measured as the statistical chance of someone scoring 200 in a population density of a certain amount of people. It's improbable to go higher not impossible!i In fact if someone scored 200 hundred there is no way to know if they could have scored higher than 200. Because test was designed for 200, but 200 isn't some magical number of absolute efficiency.
It's like saying because 1 is equal to 100 1 can't be equal to 1000, yes it can it depends on the units being used. What is the value of that 1.
That's why I said which 1...1 is arbituary just like 100% of something 100 percent efficiency based on what units used.
Don't give up your freewill it would be a shame that is the plan of enlslavement on this planet.
Huh. I did not know that.
I'd just always assumed it was an open-ended scale.
Now I know.
Was it an insult? I thought it was merely an observation. But if you recognize yourself in it, then so be it.
No, it's not. 100% is 100%. It is unity. It is a basic concept. You cannot claim "well, I used different units so I got 110% efficiency out of this engine!" (Well, you could, and cranks do so all the time - but they're cranks.)
First of all do not slander me, I said no such thing about over 100 percent efficiency, please pay attention!
1 standard deviation on a general IQ test is 15 points, so 68% of all individuals have an IQ between 85 and 115. Only about 2.5% have an IQ over 130. An IQ of over 150 is higher than about 99.95% of the population.
The 100 % you keep alluding to is 100% of the available brains to measure all of them recorded to create the curve. This number however is not an absolute as population do increase, and iq increases for the general population a few points gradually and continuously over time.
Hopefully you can figure out the rest yourself!i
But I doubt it judging by your know it all attitude is indeed a turn off...but that's the beauty in it as freewill as an exact science you are free to do so. Perhaps you will get what I am saying a decade from today...
Dude, take a pill.
People are allowed to disagree with you on public forums. 'Slandering' is a bit sensationalist.
I did not intend to imply that you did. Cranks claim greater than 100% all the time; it is best to ignore them.
And at that point the curve will change - by definition. An IQ score is a point on a statistical distribution, not an attempt to achieve an absolute measure of intelligence (although in relative terms it comes close, since the distribution of intelligence generally approximates a bell curve.)
This all reminds me of the argument in Spinal Tap.
Nigel: The numbers all go to eleven . .
Interviewer: Oh, I see. And most amps go up to ten?
Interviewer: Does that mean it's louder? Is it any louder?
Nigel: Well, it's one louder, isn't it? It's not ten. You see, most blokes, you know, will be playing at ten. You're on ten here, all the way up, all the way up, all the way up, you're on ten on your guitar. Where can you go from there? Where?
Interviewer: I don't know.
Nigel: Nowhere. Exactly. What we do is, if we need that extra push over the cliff, you know what we do?
Interviewer: Put it up to eleven.
Nigel: Eleven. Exactly. One louder.
Interviewer: Why don't you just make ten louder and make ten be the top number and make that a little louder?
Nigel: [pause] These go to eleven.
Separate names with a comma.