Re: I.Q. s -- Talking Circle Alternative

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, [9], 10 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: Sat, 12/21/02 10:35am
Author: Cherokee Snooze
Subject: Re: I.Q. s
In reply to: tso 's message, "I.Q. s" on Fri, 12/20/02 9:55pm

>does anyone know the i.q. quotient meanings? i.e.,
>what numbers construes a moron, idiot, slow, average,
>mensa?
>i took a test and, while i'm not ABOUT to tell ya what
>it was, i will brag that it WAS higher than my age
>numbers. :)

Below 70 qualifies for lots of Special Education benefits, 70-80 is marginal, 80-120 is considered "normal", with 100 being the mid-range. 120-140 is above normal, while above that is considered genius.

Note that the numbers remain the same while the people's Knowledge changes. If we are getting smarter (as a group), the person in the middle on the next test will be 100, even though he knew more than some of the brighter ones 20 years ago.
At the same time, if we, as a nation, are dumbing down, this test's 100 may have been 85, twenty years ago.
In other words, it's all relative.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Re: I.Q. s -- tso, Sat, 12/21/02 8:19pm
- Re: I.Q. s -- sunny, Sat, 12/21/02 8:52pm
  - Re: I.Q. s -- Steve Russell, Sat, 12/21/02 9:13pm
    - Re: I.Q. s & E.Q.s etc. etc. -- sunny, Sat, 12/21/02 10:40pm
      - Re: I.Q. s & E.Q.s etc. etc. -- tso, Sun, 12/22/02 1:28am
        Re: E.Q.s & OBGYNs etc. etc. -- bow, Sun, 12/22/02 6:38pm
        Re: E.Q.s & OBGYNs etc. etc. -- Cherokee Snooze, Mon, 12/23/02 2:39am
        Re:freaks. -- tso, Tue, 12/24/02 2:30pm
        Re:freaks. -- Cherokee Snooze, Tue, 12/24/02 5:20pm
        Re: E.Q.s & OBGYNs etc. etc. -- tso, Mon, 12/23/02 7:28am
        Re: E.Q.s & OBGYNs etc. etc. -- Bella, Mon, 12/23/02 2:29pm
        Re: teef -- tso, Mon, 12/23/02 3:49pm
        Re: teef -- Bella, Mon, 12/23/02 8:18pm
- Re: I.Q. s -- Bella, Sun, 12/22/02 7:23am
  - Re: I.Q. s -- tso, Sun, 12/22/02 2:32pm
    - Re: I.Q. s -- Bella, Sun, 12/22/02 4:33pm
      - Re: I.Q. s -- bow, Sun, 12/22/02 6:48pm
        Dang, Bow - that ain't fair! -- Bella, Mon, 12/23/02 2:07pm
        Re: Dang, Bella- that ain't fair! -- bow, Mon, 12/23/02 5:34pm
        Re: Hill-William lessons -- Bella, Mon, 12/23/02 7:45pm
        Re: Hill-William lessons -- Cherokee Snooze, Tue, 12/24/02 6:32am
        Re: Hill-William lessons -- Bella, Tue, 12/24/02 11:46am
- Re: I.Q. s -- Cherokee Snooze, Sun, 12/22/02 5:46pm
  - Re: I.Q. s -- tso, Sun, 12/22/02 5:52pm
    - Re: I.Q. s -- Cherokee Snooze, Mon, 12/23/02 2:29am
      - Re: I.Q. s -- tso, Mon, 12/23/02 3:53am
        Re: I.Q. s -- Cherokee Snooze, Mon, 12/23/02 8:13am