----------------------------------- Martin Tue Jul 27, 2004 6:24 pm IQ Test ----------------------------------- I took an IQ test today... http://www.compsci.ca/martin/untitled.JPG ----------------------------------- Raugrist Tue Jul 27, 2004 6:28 pm ----------------------------------- If I'm not mistaken... isn't 73 rather low? ----------------------------------- Paul Tue Jul 27, 2004 6:45 pm ----------------------------------- oh that one, I got 138 on it, that one isn't that accurate though, you gotta use the other one. ----------------------------------- greenapplesodaex Tue Jul 27, 2004 7:04 pm reply ----------------------------------- another one which is...? ----------------------------------- Paul Tue Jul 27, 2004 7:13 pm ----------------------------------- forgot where I found it, but it has like graphs and shit for your IQ and it was REALLY REALLY hard... but accurate. ----------------------------------- templest Tue Jul 27, 2004 8:00 pm ----------------------------------- lol, I just did it for shits and got a 168, that thing is seriously flawed. I know this one, It's mostly geometry and mathematics, this one gave me a 102. :-| Which I think is an alright score, at least not exagerated like "168" :P Apperantly if you get a high score on this you can become a memeber of the "International High IQ Society" http://www.highiqsociety.org/ Have fun. Tell us your scores. :) I personally feel that IQ in general is really flawed, your general knowledge of the world and mathematics has nothing to do with intelligence in my opinion. What if you had the potential, working habbits, interest, and skill to be a nuclear physisist but weren't granted the opportunity to go to university? Then everyone would say: "Look, he's smarter than you.. He's a nuclear physisist". Even though you would have done a better job had you been able to go, ect. This is a simple example of what I mean. But I won't get into it, I think I'm getting slight carpel tunnel so I'll stop typing now. ----------------------------------- Paul Tue Jul 27, 2004 8:19 pm ----------------------------------- yep the international high IQ society one is what I was talking about, I got 136 on that one also. which is close to the 138 tickle gave me. ----------------------------------- Amailer Tue Jul 27, 2004 9:07 pm ----------------------------------- um ya i got 103 and looking at these stats.. Average: 85 - 115 Above average: 115 - 125 Gifted Borderline Genius: 125 - 135 Highly gifted and appearing to be a Genius to most others: 135 - 145 Genius: 145 - 165 High genius: 166 - 180 Highest genius: 181 - 200 Beyond being measurable genius: Over 200 im avg :( ----------------------------------- Martin Tue Jul 27, 2004 9:14 pm ----------------------------------- I'm almost average. :D ----------------------------------- Martin Tue Jul 27, 2004 9:59 pm ----------------------------------- 146 on the High IQ Society. I doubled my score! w00t. ----------------------------------- Martin Tue Jul 27, 2004 10:08 pm ----------------------------------- This test is retarded. The lowest I can get is 87. I chose what I thought was the wrong answer for everything, and for the fill in the blank part, I answered with phrases such as "penis lol!" and "346864938463.36463" I guess maybe there are points for good typing? ----------------------------------- Paul Tue Jul 27, 2004 10:33 pm ----------------------------------- IE: if you knew enough to get into the test ... you're probably not retarded... very ----------------------------------- Martin Tue Jul 27, 2004 10:56 pm ----------------------------------- Yeah, but what fun is that? ----------------------------------- Genesis Tue Jul 27, 2004 11:38 pm ----------------------------------- I got 127. So apparently I'm gifted. :D And you gotta pay to be a member! What's the point in that. ----------------------------------- Martin Tue Jul 27, 2004 11:53 pm ----------------------------------- Yeah really. ----------------------------------- Tony Tue Jul 27, 2004 11:57 pm ----------------------------------- And you gotta pay to be a member! What's the point in that. scamming supposedly smart people out of money :lol: wouldn't you pay to say you're smarter than an average person? :lol: ----------------------------------- Martin Wed Jul 28, 2004 1:36 am ----------------------------------- They wanted lots too. 500 bucks for the biggest package. 60 for the smallest. Fucking eggheads. ----------------------------------- Genesis Wed Jul 28, 2004 3:02 am ----------------------------------- Haha, I know eh. $500 US for your name on their site, a certificate, a t-shirt, a golf shirt, some information sheets, and access to their website. Somehow doesn't seem worth it. I can think of quite a few more useful things to drop $500 US on. ----------------------------------- Martin Wed Jul 28, 2004 11:51 am ----------------------------------- Maybe it's a second part of the test... Like, you sign up and it says..."Haha, you are an idiot. Clearly, our test didn't work. Subtract 30 points from your score." ----------------------------------- apomb Wed Jul 28, 2004 1:45 pm ----------------------------------- Hey ... i got 129 and those stupid "what would this NOT make if folded" ones threw me right off! Your score is: 129 i qualify for a membership! ----------------------------------- Genesis Wed Jul 28, 2004 3:13 pm ----------------------------------- Hahaha Darkness. Ya, it certainly does show who's actually smart. And ya, I don't see how those "What will this not make folded?" questions have anything to do with your intelligence. ----------------------------------- Tony Wed Jul 28, 2004 3:44 pm ----------------------------------- does it matter? they need to hold your attention with questions for long enough while they scroll per-view banner ads somewhere on the page :lol: ----------------------------------- Genesis Wed Jul 28, 2004 4:17 pm ----------------------------------- True. ----------------------------------- Maverick Wed Jul 28, 2004 5:31 pm ----------------------------------- i got 138, but those tests re retarded and innacurate, as is all IQ tests. They mean nothing. ----------------------------------- Martin Wed Jul 28, 2004 5:33 pm ----------------------------------- it's about raw intelligence, not what you know. Anyone can learn how to do Ph.D level calculus. Most people can't get those folding ones though ----------------------------------- Dan Fri Jul 30, 2004 10:46 pm ----------------------------------- I most aggery with Maverick, IQ test are very unacruit and i do not blevile in any real way show true intealgnce. There are many reason why i think this, one mainly being that IQ tests have a high leaning on math skills and smilerar skills and are not truly testing your abliltys. There are many many many factors that IQ tests do not acount for. Also the effects IQ tests have on poleop are allmost all ways negitve, esaply with poleop who think thess tests mean alot. Also the online IQ tests are a joke, i have rnadomly awasered the questions and goten sorces in the 130s on online ones. ----------------------------------- Martin Sun Aug 01, 2004 2:42 pm ----------------------------------- Most online tests are innacurate. Someone with 160 IQ isn't necessarily as 'smart' as someone with 120, but, in theory, the person with 160 IQ has more room for advancement than the person with 120 IQ. IQ alone means very little, and I think that only the extremes of the IQ test measure anything with great accuracy. Stephen Hawking's IQ is just over 200 (I have nothing to back this up). According to the Simpsons, it's 280. There's deviation in it though. Take the folding questions. I'm alright at doing them, but the ones I couldn't get, I guessed. 1 in 25 people will get two right just by guessing, 1 in 125 will get 3. I imagine that those questions are fairly heavily rated. So whatever. Don't kill yourself over your score. Unless your name is George Walker Bush (with a nice score of 92), in which case I think you should seriously consider it. Go play in traffic. ----------------------------------- templest Sun Aug 01, 2004 5:42 pm ----------------------------------- I don't consider myself average. The thing is, this test focuses hevily in geometry and, physics, and math. You also have to take into account what people are good at. If you know how to speak every language in the world, have read 1000's of books on almost everything, ect... you know what I mean, but don't know how to multiply 6x12? Chances are you're going to get an extreamly shitty score in that test, not taking into account your knowledge of everything else. Fuck, you could be given a gift by God that you are to know absolutely everything there is to know in the entire known existance, except for math, you'll still do shitty in that test. All I'm saying is that these tests don't do anyone justice. Here's my theory: Everyone has the ability to be 300x as learned as Einstein, but it's a matter of finding the right motivation for one to really achieve this. I could be extreamly gifted, but never be motivated to do well in school, then I won't know math, even though I have potential, I never used it, so I'll be deemed "Average" even though if motivated could write out the meaning of life in a small algorythm. If you notice, we're all brought up the same. We all watch the same stuff, we all have the ability to be exposed to the same material. Give one child an extreamly poor life, but the ability to go to free to university, that kid'll graduate with insane honours as a PhD in quantum physics if he has to, he has a motivation, to not be poor. Give another child an extreamly rich life, guaranteed to remain rich for the rest of his life, send him to university, why? He doesn't have to go, He'll be rich forever! No motivation, won't bother doing well. ----------------------------------- Martin Sun Aug 01, 2004 6:52 pm ----------------------------------- I think that the High IQ Society test was fairly accuracte. I got 142 on a real IQ test that I did once. ----------------------------------- Paul Sun Aug 01, 2004 8:27 pm ----------------------------------- Most online tests are innacurate. Someone with 160 IQ isn't necessarily as 'smart' as someone with 120, but, in theory, the person with 160 IQ has more room for advancement than the person with 120 IQ. IQ alone means very little, and I think that only the extremes of the IQ test measure anything with great accuracy. Stephen Hawking's IQ is just over 200 (I have nothing to back this up). According to the Simpsons, it's 280. There's deviation in it though. Take the folding questions. I'm alright at doing them, but the ones I couldn't get, I guessed. 1 in 25 people will get two right just by guessing, 1 in 125 will get 3. I imagine that those questions are fairly heavily rated. So whatever. Don't kill yourself over your score. Unless your name is George Walker Bush (with a nice score of 92), in which case I think you should seriously consider it. Go play in traffic. OMG!!!111!!! WILL NE1 PLZZZZZ SUXZOR MY PENZ0R???///?!?!!??/ well... we see a great mind at work here... full of contrasting ideas... ----------------------------------- Dan Mon Aug 02, 2004 12:59 am ----------------------------------- I think templest is complet right with what he was saying in the above post. I think even one has the poltiteal to do admazing things almost in equal degerares just that it is not the same thing they can be good at. IQ test realy are pointless and i realy think they should stop using them for anything and that aucaly is starting to hapen alot. For edualtion uses the IQ test is not being used much any more but newer test that acount for alot more and can indenfiy spifick strgnths and weakness are. (Allthougth i still think thess test are not that good and are still over looking many things). It seems IQ tests are becoming more of a thing for poleop to brag about and are just being used as a means to exculide poleop for things so a slective group of poleop can feal good about them sevales by puting down the magority. Also i find IQ test to be foundmenty wrong b/c they are rating your abitys in maths, ect agested the world and not agested your self. Dose it realy matter how you compaer to the rest of the world? seems prity vain to me. Another intresting things is that alot of the poleop all ways asocitated with being smart have/had disablitys that whould get them sub 100 sorces on an IQ tests if they where not acounted for. Like templest was saying you could be the an extreamly smart indivaudal but lets say you are slow at awsering IQ test questions for some reason (being disablity, taking time to fully think things out, ect) and your IQ test sorce whould probly be avg or lower. Also you could be the dumested person in the world and just get lucky awser questions fast or just be lucky and know thos questions off by heart and get an extreamly high IQ. One of the tests that i have seen that i found very intresting was somting called MIQ or somting like that where it kind of tested you in many areas and then gave you a sorce in them. But the sorce whould all ways add up to the same thing when u added thess areas together. This whould mean that every one whould have the smae over all MIQ but it whould try to show you what you are good at in a spifeick area, not so you could go runing around yell "look at me i got a 140 MIQ" or somting but so it whould give you an idea of what you could constriat on to adacave your true pteantcahl. Someone with 160 IQ isn't necessarily as 'smart' as someone with 120, but, in theory, the person with 160 IQ has more room for advancement than the person with 120 IQ. I could not disarage more. For the most part every one has the same poteal to advaced the same amount just not in the same areas. The only excpetions to this whould be with poleop who have extram disabiltys but even then some poleop with masive disabiltys still can be extramly adavced in one or more areas. In fact many of the poleop that i knew who where in erciment progamers for along time (from the elemernty grades) b/c they sorced high on such tests are worse off now then most avg poleop. (Alougth i do not think this had to do with the test being wrong persay, i blive it had to do more with the sociogaly effects of every telling them they are so smart from a early age). IQ alone means very little, and I think that only the extremes of the IQ test measure anything with great accuracy. I bilve this may be true for the very (and i mean very) low sorces but i do not think it is the case for the high ones. Also i whould never say an IQ test even comes close to accuracy never mind great accuracy. A very low IQ could be an inducation of some disbality but this dose not mean they are not intealgent or do not have the same potencale as any one eltes. It whould just mean they may need more help in a cerant areas. On the other side a very high IQ is gr8 and all to show off to your frends and online apreantly but it dose not realy help you in any postive way. From what i have seen in alot of cases it whould have been more helpfull to them if they never toke the test. If you realy are that smart then do you realy need a test to tell u that? And whould u realy need help to use that intealgcen? In my option ture integlance is only realy like 10% knowalge (what school gives you and marks you on) and 5% given skills (like some that the IQ tests meusers). And is 85% appliaction of of the combination of the knowalge and skill. And no one can realy tell you how well you have used what you have but you. If you can make it trow life staying ture to what you blive in and standing up for it and doing what you are truly good at then in my option that is true intelagce. P.S. i got lots more but this was runing on long enogth. ----------------------------------- Martin Mon Aug 02, 2004 12:55 pm ----------------------------------- Comparing to everyone else is the whole point of IQ. IQ was designed to be something that never changed during your life. If you wrote a test now, and then wrote a test 10 years from now, in theory, your scores should have been the same. This obviously isn't the case. I think that most people can achieve academic greatness, regardless of their IQ. I'm sure that most of our 'great minds' didn't have astronomical IQ scores. But what you say about everyone having the same range for advancement is wrong. Like I said before, IQ is meant to measure raw intelligence, not how much a person knows. Sure, one can cheat on an IQ test, but most people don't. I like to think of myself as being intelligent. I would be wrong to think of myself as otherwise. Now, I wouldn't call myself brilliant, but I do like to think that if I work hard enough, I can achieve anything that I want. I also imagine that this is the case with most people. The smartest person that I know is Bugzpodder, by far. He knows a lot more than I do, but that is not what I base this on. It is his ability to learn that makes me think that he is so smart. If I wanted to, I could keep up with him academically, I think. It would take a hell of a lot of work, but I could do it. I could even probably surpass him in my knowledge. But now here is the dillemma. Suppose that we both started at ground zero, that is, we were both equal in our knowledge of the world in every respect. I would have to work 10 times as hard just to keep up with him. That is what intelligence is. That is what IQ measures. Your ability to learn. ----------------------------------- Dan Mon Aug 02, 2004 1:15 pm ----------------------------------- That is what intelligence is. That is what IQ measures. Your ability to learn. ROFL, how the hell dose the stuff they test you on in an IQ test even apply to 1/2 your life? I do not see the things on an IQ test even coming close to deptriming your ability to lrean things and that is probly why most schools have stoped using it as an asment of students potechal. But what you say about everyone having the same range for advancement is wrong. Now that is debating for you, just plain out saying you are wrong with no points to back up your agrments waht so ever. Shure everyone dose just not in the same areas. Just becouse you do not cosider thos areas to be import dose not mean they not advacening in them or that they are not import to them. Like I said before, IQ is meant to measure raw intelligence, not how much a person knows. It's to bad that it dose not do that tho. IQ tests only mesuer curent ablitys (not realy pointeachl ones) in mostly math realted skills and then factor in how fast you can do muplial choic questions and your age. The truth is that the skills tested on an IQ test do not realy come up in every day life and whould be hard to apply to realty. As i have side befor IQ tests have just tured in to another way for poleop to put others down and make them sevels feal good. Hostly i think it whould be better if the hole test was trow out and poleop tryed to constrat on making tests that aucaly work in real life and are not so incredably bisased to one skill. IQ tests are more of a math test then an intealgacne test and even if you say intelgance is the abilty to lrean (witch is wrong on so many levels) then the IQ test is still not realy testing this. How could it? It gives you a sorce of things you all ready know not what you will know.[/quote] ----------------------------------- Martin Mon Aug 02, 2004 1:19 pm ----------------------------------- I backed up all of my arguements in my previous two posts. ----------------------------------- Dan Mon Aug 02, 2004 1:35 pm ----------------------------------- You mean one of thess staments? I think that the High IQ Society test was fairly accuracte. I got 142 on a real IQ test that I did once. Most online tests are innacurate. Someone with 160 IQ isn't necessarily as 'smart' as someone with 120, but, in theory, the person with 160 IQ has more room for advancement than the person with 120 IQ. IQ alone means very little, and I think that only the extremes of the IQ test measure anything with great accuracy. Stephen Hawking's IQ is just over 200 (I have nothing to back this up). According to the Simpsons, it's 280. There's deviation in it though. Take the folding questions. I'm alright at doing them, but the ones I couldn't get, I guessed. 1 in 25 people will get two right just by guessing, 1 in 125 will get 3. I imagine that those questions are fairly heavily rated. None of thos back up anything to do with not every one having advancement abiltys. In fact alot of the staments u make there are also unbacked up and the only thing u mentioned about adavcment dose not make much scecne b/c you says a person with a 120 IQ can be smart then one with 160 but can not adavced as fast/far but then in another post you say smaertness/integanec is ones ablity to adavce. You are conrodicking your self in the last two posts not backing up anything. Unless there is some post i am missing where you gave reason for why every one is not equal when it comes ot adavcaed ment i do not see any reason behind it. I blive every one has equal room for adavcement just not in the same areas b/c it whould seem to hold true for most cases. Almost every one has somting they are good at and can excell at. The problem with IQ is that it is only looking at the one area when there are realy 100000s of areas. If you just juged poleops itegence using one area you are going to get a very inacruit view. For example if you juged my integence on my spelling then i whould seem like the dumested person on the erath but if you did the same for other areas you whould get the excat opsite idea. This is the problem with IQ conspet, just b/c you are bad at math dose not mean you do not have to same room for advacment as every one eltes. The univers seems to have a way of equaling things out witch i think is the same for poleops room for advment, you could have not skills in math and have no hope there but could allso be one of the best authors or arts there are. Dose that mean you are unintelgent? ----------------------------------- Martin Mon Aug 02, 2004 2:29 pm ----------------------------------- Like I said, the extremes are the only things that have true meaning. One day Dan, you will meet someone who is truely beyond belief brilliant, and you will see what I mean. On a side note, here's something funny I noticed: If you look at the writing about a person with degrees in math and physics, and a person with degrees in english and music, most people automatically think that the person with the math/physics degree is smarter. If you were to talk to the same two people however, almost everyone would leave with the impression that the english/music person was the smarter. ----------------------------------- Dan Mon Aug 02, 2004 3:36 pm ----------------------------------- Like I said, the extremes are the only things that have true meaning. Did you even read my posts? :eh: One day Dan, you will meet someone who is truely beyond belief brilliant, and you will see what I mean. I think our defitions of brilliant are very very very very difrent. On a side note, here's something funny I noticed: If you look at the writing about a person with degrees in math and physics, and a person with degrees in english and music, most people automatically think that the person with the math/physics degree is smarter. If you were to talk to the same two people however, almost everyone would leave with the impression that the english/music person was the smarter. Well not me at least. Most of the papers, ect made by poleop with degrees in math and physics are just stating the facts of univers witch is not a bad thing but it dose not realy show much other then they know how stuff about math, ect. (this is not counting the papers on theroirtaly physics and such creative things). But stuff wirten by poleop in the arts is not just recoerding facts and discoversy but it is aucaly creating new worlds and expolring thess new realtiys. Not saying that one is better or more imort then the other but at least to me the arts one shows more intelagcne (dose not mean it has more just that it makes it look like they have more). If you just talking about the aperence of integence between the two over all and not just in writing then i whould agrea that there is deftaly a bias in our socity to say that the math/phz one is more integent witch is not ture at all. ----------------------------------- Martin Mon Aug 02, 2004 6:18 pm ----------------------------------- It's not necessarily true that the math/physics person is smarter. ----------------------------------- Dan Mon Aug 02, 2004 6:59 pm ----------------------------------- It's not necessarily true that the math/physics person is smarter. Thats what i have been saying for every post i made in this topic. ----------------------------------- templest Mon Aug 02, 2004 8:34 pm ----------------------------------- well... we see a great mind at work here... full of contrasting ideas... Even Einstein was a goof off. http://www.phys.uni-paderborn.de/~ziegler/jpeg/einstein.jpg EDIT: ROFFLE! Read Hacker Dan's posts, They're exactly the same thing as anything I'd write. Like, shit... It's as if I would have logged into his account and posted under his name. HAH! Maybe he hacked my computer and stole a copy of my "How to Spam Like a Pro' " book! :shock: Seriously, I couldn't stop laughing, like... Hah. Read any of the arguments that I've been in that've gotten really heated and then read this one. It's awesome. I'm so proud of you Dan! Flame ON! :D ----------------------------------- Martin Tue Aug 03, 2004 12:50 am ----------------------------------- To you Dan, what is someone who is brilliant? Take someone like John Nash. Find me a person with under 150 IQ who can even come close to being as good a mathematician as he is. ----------------------------------- Dan Tue Aug 03, 2004 1:38 am ----------------------------------- Take someone like John Nash. Find me a person with under 150 IQ who can even come close to being as good a mathematician as he is. Ummm, since my hole argument has been that IQ tests test math skills and not intelgecne that whould be pointless. Athougth i would not be srupised if there was some who was with a lower IQ. If that was sposted to be about poleop not having the same room for advacment then you are still missing the point. I think it is like a rpg were u are givne x skill points to put in areas but with 10000s of areas, you could have them spread out and be ok at most things or more focsed in on one area like math. To you Dan, what is someone who is brilliant? To me brillance is the abilty to think out side of the norm (norm being the realty and not other poleop). To be able to think behond what you have been thougths the limits of realty, the world, and socity are and to be able to use that thougth to achave what you set your mind to. Also i tink brilliance is being able to get throw life while sticking to what you turly blive and trying to chage your world on the basises of what you blive in. Also i think that it parlty seeing the big picture when only persented with pices of it (athougth that is a small part). Nothing to do with knowing facts or sovling math problems or even how well you can leran somting. ----------------------------------- Tony Tue Aug 03, 2004 2:48 am ----------------------------------- so dan... what's the difference between being brilliant and psychotic? :lol: ----------------------------------- Martin Tue Aug 03, 2004 2:49 am ----------------------------------- Your skill point idea is entirely valid. Obviously, it is not entirely your choice where to put your skill points (I wish I could move my sleeping in and slacking off skill points to the computer science and calculus categories...), but, through enough practice, you can focus yourself. Sure, there's always going to be the programmer with the nack (sp?) for writing poetry, but, in general, you can focus yourself. And it seems clear that there are a lot of 'wasted' points in anyone. Like the slacking off and sleeping in ones. However, stuff comes much easier to certain people, and you cannot argue that. I know a girl who can get perfect on a math test, play piano better that a lot of people that I know, write an english essay the morning that it's due and still get an insane mark on it, and hand in her chem, physics and biology ISUs and get near perfect on them. Well rounded, and yes, smart. Dan, one day you are going to realize that the sad state of things is that everyone is not created equal. Everyone has a life and can do something with it, but some people just get dealt a better hand of cards than others. ----------------------------------- Martin Tue Aug 03, 2004 2:55 am ----------------------------------- http://carcino.gen.nz/images/image.php/463c5922/arguing.jpg ----------------------------------- templest Tue Aug 03, 2004 2:38 pm ----------------------------------- :D Dan = 1 Darkness = 0 They grow up so quickly. :cry: :) ----------------------------------- templest Tue Aug 03, 2004 2:39 pm ----------------------------------- Dan, one day you are going to realize that the sad state of things is that everyone is not created equal. Everyone has a life and can do something with it, but some people just get dealt a better hand of cards than others. They are delt better hands, that has nothing to do with intelligence. ----------------------------------- Paul Tue Aug 03, 2004 3:22 pm ----------------------------------- neanderthals had 10% more cranial capacity, if they had become self aware, they'd be smarter than us (and if they didn't die out), wouldn't people with bigger heads to contain bigger brains have a higher IQ? or does it have to do with the amount of neural connections you have? ----------------------------------- Martin Tue Aug 03, 2004 3:30 pm ----------------------------------- Wtf are you talking about templest? The cards are a metaphor. ----------------------------------- Dan Tue Aug 03, 2004 5:16 pm ----------------------------------- Wtf are you talking about templest? The cards are a metaphor. The metaphor is ushely used to descibe how poleop are born in to better off famlys and has nothing to do with integence. That is what he ment. neanderthals had 10% more cranial capacity, if they had become self aware, they'd be smarter than us (and if they didn't die out), wouldn't people with bigger heads to contain bigger brains have a higher IQ? or does it have to do with the amount of neural connections you have? I do not think it has to do with size but i do not think we know that much about what makes poleop seem smart then others bilogickly. Most of the discoverys about the brain have been in find what parts when stimumated make what happen but have not been about what part is stiumalting them. So in other words, i have no idea. Dan, one day you are going to realize that the sad state of things is that everyone is not created equal. Everyone has a life and can do something with it, but some people just get dealt a better hand of cards than others. I turly hope not. so dan... what's the difference between being brilliant and psychotic? Not much :P . It is a very fine line between brilliance and insaneity if there is one at all. ----------------------------------- Martin Tue Aug 03, 2004 7:31 pm ----------------------------------- The cards also had nothing to do with being born in better families. It was meant to imply that some people are born with a better mental capacity than others. It can easily be proven that people are born with different physical potential, so I do not see why mental would be any different. ----------------------------------- Dan Tue Aug 03, 2004 8:24 pm ----------------------------------- It can easily be proven that people are born with different physical potential, so I do not see why mental would be any different. B/c there is no good way for mesuering mental potential. ----------------------------------- Paul Tue Aug 03, 2004 8:43 pm ----------------------------------- An example would be trisomy 21... I'll let you figure that one out :wink: (it has to do with genetics) ----------------------------------- Dan Tue Aug 03, 2004 9:16 pm ----------------------------------- An example would be trisomy 21... I'll let you figure that one out :wink: (it has to do with genetics) I side this in one of my last posts, all poleop that do not have mager disbaltys (ie. Down Syndrome) have an equal optionty for metal adavcment. But even poleop with mager disabitys still can adavce in some areas to the same level as every one eltes. Alot of the great minds you hear about had some kind of disability. ----------------------------------- templest Wed Aug 04, 2004 9:55 pm ----------------------------------- Wtf are you talking about templest? The cards are a metaphor. Noooooooooooo shit... this a'int no game of poker. I'm saying, obviously people that are born def/mute/blind, are going to have a very fcuking hard time, and might seem retarded to others, but the potential is still there. Don't you think you're smarted than me, goof.