Re: No Genius Left Behind

MIB529 wrote:
> 
> "R. Steve Walz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> > > I should hope not. I've seen the early IQ tests. Five of the eight
> > > sections required knowledge of numbers. (This was a century ago.)
> > >
> > > Also, there's no way to test the creative part of the brain.
> > --------------
> > Garbage.
> 
> No way to objectively test it, Steve.
----------------------
Sure there are. 
But "objectively" means different things to reasonable people versus
idiots.

There's no way to test ANYTHING or develop ANY science outside the
group of Scientists and among the IDIOTS! So you simply don't let
any of the idiots IN when you're testing it! Why? Because idiots
won't agree with reason and research. And that's what proves the
validity of research, namely when it works and the idiots still 
have nothing. And that's what proves what idiocy is, as well.

 
> > > But
> > > well...Niels Bohr would be fairly right-brained. At least compared to
> > > Einstein. What about Erwin Schrodinger? Yet subatomic particles still
> > > exist, and they still behave so unpredictably.
> > >
> > > An interesting thing ignored by Yerkes's tests in the Army: Northern
> > > blacks beat Southern whites.
> > ------------
> > Now why don't I doubt that??
> 
> But it's nice to throw makemyday's whole perspective out of whack.
> 
> Naturally, it was one of the few sections ignored entirely by the majority.
------------------------------
Hahahahah!

 
> > > Perhaps better than 'generic intelligence' (i.e., a genius), we should
> > > focus on specific parts of the brain.
> > --------------
> > Now if we only understood what they did.
> 
> I guess I meant we should focus on specialties.
-------------------
Sure. There are things we can say, but understanding is going to
still take a while!
Steve