Over IQ Testing, The Bell Curve and the Future

I have updated the message to you so that it now looks like this: For political reasons and having entered the US registry first(?), I bring some point of view if you want it:
It should now be noted that the question of intelligence has remained largely/wholly undecided over whether IQ could be connected with humanistic values or not! Now that I've written about insanity and other and achieved reputation more, also for other efforts, I, for one, call for decision IN FAVOUR PRO-humanistic values in connection with the IQ scale that better reflect the actual performance of intelligence with the intellectuals of the World, scientists, engineers, and writers alike, all included!

My latest before the above, "having been involved since the 80s": In responding to these new "contextual-intelligence" idiots, I just want to say right away that I support the testing standards of intelligence (Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale and Raven's Progressive Matrices, predominantly, also by the usual Mensa notions or conventions) and not these "contextual-intelligence" idiots. That to refer to contextual intelligence is to me a way to disguise a kind of stupidity, and the "contextual-intelligence" stories are all too easy to mock, as much as the story goes with "Magic-Moment-at-Drinking-Beer-at-the-Local-Pub" in saving the World from nuclear holocaust and acquiring this utmost /highest/ "contextual-intelligence" because at this special moment, and having trained for beer-drinking a very long time, and seeing this moment coming too, Beer-Drinking Jack from the local factory scores the "ultimate point" again!!!
Be this the "John G." spot of Jochum's Pub in Fars(-e)und "kommune" or not!!! I also happen to support the notion that intelligence testing is to happen neutrally, in the absolute sense, and that intelligence is NOT a social phenomenon, but a measure to rate the functioning of a (healthy) brain in order to predict who is the most successful, and that, even by the psychologists, that the scale is meant to, as Adjustment-updated, reflect the direct performance in science and ALL f*cking else!

(Not because you ask for permission for taking a test, under the torture -clinic, being socially "allowed" to score this or that! Also, by tech-eyes, that are invalidating, not because of the victim, but because of this implant-administering retard who has rejected ethics and Helsinki-declaration altogether and "plays" this very important GAM(I)E!!!)

Also, I find this insistence on the Bell's Curve insulting because it has roots in a (racist-)USA (to Palestinians or poor Africans, because USA is so intelligent is actually scores so high that it moves the "quota" from Africa to its(god-d*mn)self! I also hold it to the Bell Curve people themselves in that they are academically demanded to say "peaceful circumstances for testing or be thrown out of the good society!!! "Also scoring 151/200 _not_ under the torture clinic!"

So a new approach to testing on a more *precise* and *real* basis /can/ be this: 1. The test as before. 2. An additional test array involving a kind of strongly limited personality testing, determining a kind of self-confidence 3. The testing management (as people, three perhaps) then gives an additional "aesthetic" value for "police code as requirement of corrupt personality"/"monkey-business" Final: These 3 steps may be/should be necessary in order to spark a new debate over future progress of human kind and that subversion against this kind of (voluntary) research falls (strictly) outside academic standards. Personality is investigated in line with Jungian traditions. I think there's also good reason to say that US intelligence by fx. CIA and McCarthyism may have been more interested in the personality issues than hitherto known! A slight point on the pre-WW2 suspicions as history writing.

[For the "worried": THIS IS ABOUT THE VERY RESEARCH. NOT THE CINEMA NEAR YOU.]

The "...additional "aesthetic" value..." may be considered set as a kind of "clairvoyance/"seeing the band-track" or other (see Bem of the Cornell University).

The Encumbrance Theory of Intelligence - ETI

The Encumbrance Theory of Intelligence (ETI) - Philosophy of Psychology?

I'm not against operationalism of intelligence expressed as I.Q. I think it can be very useful and I also like the fact that the systems are continually reviewed and improved.

This theory assumes that the mind continuously considers objects of interest, both necessary and optional. When one puts the mind to something this process runs until the mind deems it finished, temporarily or finally.

The ETI is the notion that people who are caught in struggles in life scores lower on I.Q.-tests than their non-trifled counterparts. The premise is that those who are caught in difficult struggles have to devote resources of their consciousness to the problem so when these are tested, their mind is simultaneously considering other issues as well on some level. In a sense they are not truly free, enjoying freedom.

Unencumbered people are free to be as aggressive on intellectual challenges as much as their hearts can pump blood through the brain. They have no serious worries occupying their minds.

Besides, in this, I assume that people are made up of "souls" and are initially equally perfect. It's the environment that hooks up their processes of consc. to the level of their current picture of intelligence, say I.Q. That is, reality is detriment to the ideal, "soul" condition. Obviously, I don't argue from the premise of souls which I find rather distasteful at the present moment. Nurture can do a lot to people, I find. I say this so that you may get a clue from where I'm coming from. In a sense, people are perfect as reactions from the factors of life. Edit: "That is, reality is detriment to the ideal, "soul" condition." Don't get me wrong! It's apparent that you build your intelligence through the course of life and that death, of what we know for sure, extinguishes both life and intelligence.

Alright! This is the start. There will be more.

I look forward to your opinions! Feel free to throw in what you think is appropriate! There is a book on the other side of "The Bell Curve" that I'm looking for, but it's not "The Bell Curve Discussion". Any suggestions?

I agree that my theory doesn't account for physical (genetic) defects or brain diseases. It's the case that I don't intend to make it that way. I can however interpret you to mean also the physical structure that is supposed to make the impression of qualia or whatever and in this respect also, my theory is flat. I hold that if the brain is relatively healthy, my theory says something despite relatively small differences. Two people who score 170 in IQ are analogous to two people who bench 150 kg. I see no important differences between those two sets. I agree that intelligence is a complex issue (therefore operationalism), but I also have the impression that smart people in science are quite open to talk about intelligence and what makes them good. Access to data is plentiful in other words.
On ETI further as clarification:
Clarification: My intelligence theory comes on top of these other three factors, the basic foundation:
1. Diet issues as in staying healthy, eating (accepting some deviation, perhaps) relevant food.
2. Physical exercise, as in having a good pulse band to move in, both for calm and for intensity, during harder working periods when inspiration is peeking or when impportant work is being completed.
3. Mental exercise, being pro-active, toward information, solving puzzles, riddles, having control on "IQ-tests-patterns-for-testing" (not knowing exactly what they are, though) and the sort, i.e., knowing what intelligence is and how the science goes!
Alright, sum is, all in all, 3 groups to care for before my ETI enters as described!

Note: the time stamps from the forum put proper, Posted 07/24/09 - 04:17 PM; forums.philosophyforums.com and Posted 07/23/09 - 10:13 PM; forums.philosophyforums.com.