![]() |
In article . net,
Maxprop wrote: "Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message Maxprop wrote: Blue eyes and a full, beautiful head of hair. How about you, Jon? Same, but not as ugly. g Then you must be one great looking dude. :-) Talk to Horass. He likes guys. -- Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m) http://www.sailnow.com "If there's no wind, row." |
|
"Horvath" wrote in message
... Same, but not as ugly. g Then you must be one great looking dude. :-) Talk to Horass. He likes guys. I have to gay-up everything! Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now! |
Post some of my dogmatic views that are substantially "left of center"
Max. Your bluff is being called... not for the first time either. You haven't answered this, because you can't. Maxprop wrote: Okay, Douggie. I'm not going to drag exact quotes from Google That's just as well. ...1) When I was disputing the way welfare has traditionally been used as a selling point for the dems during campaigns, you accused me of Neaderthalic illogic, antihumanitarianism, lacking in compassion, etc. Opposing inhumanity is "substantially left of center?" ... Conservatives, while recognizing that some individuals simply cannot help themselves, also subscribe to the belief that too many use welfare as a reason to avoid becoming productive. I would somewhat agree, bu you must have missed out on the welfare reform acts of the 1990s. And you can't seem to point to a quote where I am in favor of increasing welfare. Once again you attempt to proclaim some great ideological principle and stub your toe on your own ignorance. ... 2) You've constantly decried the "tax cuts for only the very wealthy," seemingly ignoring the fact that the very wealthy constitute roughly 10% of the population but pay roughly 30% of the nations revenue. I don't ignore that fact at all. The richest 10% of the country owns 50% of the wealth and well over 50% of the income... so that makes paying 30% of the tax burden rather a free ride, doesn't it? Aside from the sound economics, it is immoral to decrease the tax burden on a group well able to bear it, in order to increase the tax burden on those further down the ladder. Next I suppose you are going to angrily denounce me for failing to contribute the "Buy Chateaubriand For a Millionaire" charity drive. ... 3) You've resorted to name-calling when I advocated semi-privatization of Social Security. Not really, I just call you names like "stupid" and "caveman fascist" because they are the closest fit. Privatization of Social Security is a stupid scheme that will benefit the politically well-connected brokers handling gov't retiremnet accounts. You're in favor of that? And you think it's "conservative?" ... Most conservatives believe that SS won't endure at its current status Actually, figures show that SS will be solvent 'till 2040AD or thereabouts. Most "conservatives" have at least a passing familiarity with basic accounting. I'd be in favor of rolling back Social Security, but not handing it over for yet another rob-the-taxpayer scheme to redistribute the wealth. Don't hold your breath for quotes. You've gotten all I care to provide, the operative word being "care." Thanks, you've shown how much you care, Maxxie. And how disconnected from reality you are. I suggest unplugging the Fascist Whacko Fantasy Channel once in a while and watching/reading some real actual news... you know, from planet Earth... DSK |
OzOne wrote in message ... On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 05:53:56 GMT, "Maxprop" scribbled thusly: OzOne wrote in message On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 05:08:00 GMT, "Maxprop" scribbled thusly: OzOne wrote in message On 10 Nov 2004 11:05:26 -0600, Dave scribbled thusly: To take an anecdotal example, my daughter attended an elementary school where the minimum criterion for admission was a very high IQ score, regardless of the parents' wealth. She then attended a private prep school where the parents' money was at least a significant admission factor for many students and the average IQ was much lower. The two groups were just about on a par in their college records of both admissions and performance. Yep, one group had brains, the other a work ethic passed from their successful parents. So how does this support your contention that SAT/ACT scores correlate with IQ????? Two groups with disparate IQ averages, and both scored roughly the same on the tests. Did the significance of this escape you? Max Has it escaped you that you don't need a high IQ to do well at school? It's all about application. I don't believe this. No, it has not escaped my notice, but that's not what this discussion is about. We're discussing the relationship between IQ and SAT/ACT scores, not extraneous factors that can mean success in school or on the tests. Jeez, let's start from the beginning: The website you provided has contended a direct correlation between IQ and SAT/ACT scores. But the anecdote related by Dave would indicate that IQ may have little or nothing to do with success on the exams. Two groups, one with a higher average IQ, the other with a lower average IQ, both scoring equally well on the entrance exams. That could conceivably be used as an example of why the Kerry states really might not have higher IQs, rather other extraneous factors leading to high SAT/ACT scores. Thus my contention is correct: the website purporting to show the relative IQs of the various states is bogus, if using college entrance exam scores as the basis of those state IQ ratings. (whew) Got it? Max You probably should read this http://www.sq.4mg.com/IQ-SAT.htm "Claude Steele: Chair of the Department of Psychology at Stanford University since 1997 But is this SAT an IQ test? "It is in a sense an IQ test. The SAT and IQ test correlate very highly. Between the SAT and the IQ, they correlate almost as much as the SAT correlates with a second administration of the SAT, as much as it correlates with itself. So they're very similar tests in content." from http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/sats/test/views.html" and this http://www.scienceblog.com/community...e=article&sid= 2297 "Meredith C. Frey and Douglas K. Detterman, researchers at Case Western Reserve University, have shown that students' SAT test scores correlate as highly as, and sometimes higher than, IQ tests correlate with each other. This is strong evidence that the SAT is a de facto intelligence test. Their findings will be published in the June issue of Psychological Science, a journal of the American Psychological Society. While this finding may be surprising to many who take the test, it was no surprise to the researchers. The origins of the SAT can be traced back to intelligence tests that were originally given to screen entrants into the armed forces. Many who study intelligence had suspected that the SAT was an intelligence test though it seems no one had ever investigated the relationship." and this http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releas...-smm021104.php SAT measures more than student performance, research shows it is also a reliable measure of IQ Each year thousands of high school students take the Scholastic Assessment Test, or SAT, hoping to gain admission to the college of their choice. Colleges and universities use SAT scores to help project a prospective student's performance. But research shows there is more to the SAT, that it is really an intelligence test. Interesting reading. I skimmed two of them, but I shall avail myself of them more thoroughly when time permits. However I think the relationship, as stated in these treatises, between SAT scores and IQ is a theoretical one at best, and a casual one at worst. As Dave has pointed out several times, there are myriad other factors that can affect success or failure on such exams. Given a small, well-defined population of similarly raised, similarly-educated individuals, I think that the SAT scores may correlate well with IQ. But the demographics of the total population of students taking such exams is not so narrow, rather widely varied throughout the country and throughout the socio-economic spectra. Reality seldom emulates theory where humans are concerned. Max |
"Dave" wrote in message On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 05:45:41 GMT, "Maxprop" said: Perhaps I'm not seeing something here. Your anecdote implies that two groups of disparate average IQ scored equally well on the entrance exams. That would seem to support the notion that IQ and SAT scores do not necessarily correlate, regardless of the underlying reasons. Not quite. I'm saying that the correlation that would otherwise exist can be reduced. I suspect that if you had two groups with the same IQs and the same schooling and test preparation, you'd get a high correlation. Problem is that between regions of the country you seldom have the same schooling and test preparation. Okay, I get your message, and am in agreement on all points. I made this same point to Oz a few minutes ago in another thread. Max |
On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 09:53:11 -0800, "Jonathan Ganz"
wrote this crap: I have to gay-up everything! We know. We know. Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now! |
"Horvath" wrote in message
... I have to gay-up everything! We know. We know. Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now! |
"Dave" wrote in message On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 23:27:12 GMT, "Maxprop" said: Whatever you are, you oppose and hate anything coming from conservative republicans these days. THAT alone would lead any rational individual to conclude that your are anything but a conservative. Have the last word, but count on me to remind you of your true leanings from time to time. :-p I think you've tarred Doug unfairly, Max. I often differ with him, but he's reasonably well-informed, often bringing interesting information and perspective to the discussion. And when he avoids the name-calling he can carry on a perfectly rational dialog. I find his views eclectic, though often a little left of center from my perspective. Doug is bright and well-informed, or at least well-read. Like you, I find his perspective somewhat left of my own, but then he believes me to be a right-wing extremist, a perception I've made no attempt to dispel, mostly for his benefit. He's young enough to become easily irritated with anyone who attempts to classify, or contradict, his political leanings, thus the name-calling and vitriol. I really should abstain from that sort of thing, but I've enjoyed yanking his chain. It's a bad Usenet habit, but so compelling. And fun. Had he responded with more equanimity I probably would have ignored him. Max |
"Dave" wrote in message ... Since we're bragging, let's just say mine did well enough to be asked to teach the SAT course. Bragging?? Your kid is a teacher??? Teachers must be very well paid where you live. If one of my kids decided to become a teacher I would be very dissappointed. Regards Donal -- |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:45 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com