Exactly.Frankster said:Simple:
Correlation is stating a relationship between any two things without implying anything.
But that isn't what he said.You are right about the wording though, so allow me to rephrase it as I understood it:
"Being a gamer means you will do better at IQ tests".
That quantum mechanics stuff is so wrong, it's from the 1950s. Which puts it on par with shock therapy.Sneaklemming said:yep. Also it uses 1950s methodology... which puts in on par with shock-therapyRadeonx said:High enough to know that IQ doesn't mean anything.
IQ simply shows how good you are at IQ tests.
He took two correlations we know, and wondered if those together implied a third correlation. In a very similar way to my explanation in my previous post.Frankster said:Then tell me in your own words how you understood it ¬¬ Or OP could enlighten us.
ROFL. No joke.Captain_Caveman said:LMAO
anyone who believes an IQ test on the internet, deduct 50 points from your IQ score.
You didn't do what I asked of you: Take what he said and say them again in your own words as you understood them.Maze1125 said:He took two correlations we know, and wondered if those together implied a third correlation. In a very similar way to my explanation in my previous post.Frankster said:Then tell me in your own words how you understood it ¬¬ Or OP could enlighten us.
The answer is no, in this case they don't. But nevertheless, he was only talking about correlations.
Yes, he could have had an underlying meaning of causation in mind, but I see no reason to assume he did.
Or she lied to make you feel better? I wouldn't trust a person with an agenda any more than an unverified site.axia777 said:My grandmother is a Child Developmental Psychologist that used to teach at UC Stanford. When I was a kid she tested me for IQ and determined that I am around 140. I trust her more than some on-line test.
The words he used explicitly meant he was wondering about a correlation.Frankster said:You didn't do what I asked of you: Take what he said and say them again in your own words as you understood them.Maze1125 said:He took two correlations we know, and wondered if those together implied a third correlation. In a very similar way to my explanation in my previous post.Frankster said:Then tell me in your own words how you understood it ¬¬ Or OP could enlighten us.
The answer is no, in this case they don't. But nevertheless, he was only talking about correlations.
Yes, he could have had an underlying meaning of causation in mind, but I see no reason to assume he did.
You are trying to force your own interpretation, but not make any effort whatsoever to think "why is this guy thinking differently from me?".
"Yes, he could have had an underlying meaning of correlation in mind, but I see no reason to assume he did" to spoof your own logic.
IQ is ones ability to rationalize. Basically, it's your ability to use logic. It's very important for math, important for science, and useful for other subjects. It's real. It exist. It may not define your entire intelligence, but it does define your ability to rationalize. It also has been linked with general intelligence, but that's less conclusive. To deny the evidence supporting IQ simply because the results don't match your desires is not logic. It's like saying if X = Y, and Y = Z, X =/= Z because you don't want it to.Naturalized said:That's a pretty good way of looking at it. You'd have to change a perceived value of high and low for differing IQ's though.sasquatch99 said:When compared to low IQ, high.
When compared to high IQ, low.
When compared with myself, average.
But the last test I did said about 110. I think.
OT: From official testing I have an IQ of 139. However, IQ doesn't mean anything. You should know that.