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 Psychologists' Insistence on Social Scheming and Murder (of Old)!

One voice says, telepathic or not, to its followers, that former pres. "de Gaulle" [a name relevant to France in this matter] is to die inside the next 10 years. The psychologists follow up with the usual "gaming" of carnivore nature, vowing and displaying "much feelings", drama! Then the former pres. of France actually dies within the next 10 years, but nobody can say whether it has occured naturally or whether it has been a murder, the circumstances are indeed obscured. Not only this, but some time after, another "head in the clouds" take on the blame for what he says is murder and that he now holds this great man's murder in his soul, that he is THIS BIG! Now what does this mean, that if I say it's my nature to kill people and to present myself as an insult to the public at the same time, what is the significance of this? And as this must be said to be self-confirming prophesis, then what? Aren't they insults all in all if they are to say this in FULL seriousness, in full academic honesty? What if one is managing to present another case "on the other side", that people are by and large law-abiding, what is the meaning of this to the above? And finally, why do we then have something that we call "the legal system" and consider this to be a brand-mark of civilisation, the meter we measure civilisation by? So I just keep questioning these "carnivore-notions of old fashioned psychology"! Let's see where this goes! Cheers! PS: Unnecessary to say perhaps that this places it with the demanded, of mine at least, Quality Revision of Psychology incl. the Erich Fromm dispositions and fascinations with diseases and the Scientism-Scientists debate against Resp.towardMysteries-Scientists, ethics in hand, soundly! PS2: You may add some hidden assumptions by the police, the tacit "hate-management" assumptions of the old tradition, the "material" presented and the mSomatism of mine, relating to the cognition of right from wrong in describing Schizophrenia, a not-yet-dead-concept, to say it mildly!