Several years ago, but well after the book came out, I read the Bell
Curve from beginning to end. My copy had a addendum with a rebuttal to
some of the criticism that Herrnstein and Murray received which I had
been ignorant of. I read their defense of what they said and I tended
to agree, they were not advocating elitism, only proposing that this
was what was happening. A couple of unfortunate statements included in
the book gave the impression that they thought this was a good thing
to have happen and people ignored the parts where they warned of the
many problems.

The controversy also overshadowed the other information the book
provided. Since my reading of the book, I have been surprised that
ever mention of it or IQ has produced someone cursing and spitting at
me. Hmm.

Today I came across this site by chance.
http://www.thrivenet.com/articles/iqidiocy.shtml

Looking back on this now, I see that science would have been better
off if the Bell Curve had been a couple of hundred pages shorter and
stayed with only publishing the statistical results and avoiding so
many conclusions and pondering's on the state of society. I'm sure
that this is cold soup to everyone here. Sorry. I got involved because
of a question recently about IQ involving how it is scaled. Someone
gave a definition I had not heard which turned out to be the original
Alfred Binet one.

Mental Age divided by Chronological Age times 100 equaled Intelligence
Quotient (M.A. / C.A. x 100 = IQ.) A ten year old child who scored the
same as other ten year olds received a quotient of 100. A ten year old
child who scored the same as the average eleven year old received a
quotient of 110. A ten year old child who scored the same as the
average eight year old received a quotient of 80.

I am still not for sure what the modern adult scoring is based on. I
think it is based on percentiles. Anyone have a link to save me some
time finding this?

Matarrazo's Measurement of Adult Intelligence (I think I got the title
correct) is a wonderful source.

But as you said, it is not longer based on age, but rather on normalized
standard distribution.

A score that is one standard deviation above the norm is IQ=115, and one
standard deviation below the norm is IQ=85. Two standard deviations above
the mean is IQ=130, and so on.

With that sort of definition, many things become more standard and
computations become more meaningful.

Also, it becomes clear, at least to me, how silly it is when people claim to
have astronomically high IQ's. They become meaningless statistically.
(Note: IQ's over 145-150 cannot be obtained with the major, well-validated
tests.)

Of course, you and I, and the other regulars on this group, are exceptions:
with IQ's over 250, we can validate each other's scores. ;-}

card xii

card xii wrote:
Matarrazo's Measurement of Adult Intelligence (I think I got the title
correct) is a wonderful source.

But as you said, it is not longer based on age, but rather on normalized
standard distribution.

A score that is one standard deviation above the norm is IQ=115, and one
standard deviation below the norm is IQ=85. Two standard deviations above
the mean is IQ=130, and so on.

With that sort of definition, many things become more standard and
computations become more meaningful.

Also, it becomes clear, at least to me, how silly it is when people claim to
have astronomically high IQ's. They become meaningless statistically.
(Note: IQ's over 145-150 cannot be obtained with the major, well-validated
tests.)

Of course, you and I, and the other regulars on this group, are exceptions:
with IQ's over 250, we can validate each other's scores. ;-}

card xii


I'm not sure I really want to know the answer, but what factors (other
than stroke, senility, etc.) could cause a person's IQ to drop 15% over
20 years time?

Is speed of processing taken into account in computing the score? IOW,
could a person be penalized for answering correctly, but taking longer
to arrive at the answer than he or she or I used to?

Is a 15% decline in IQ cause for alarm? Is the downward trend likely to
continue (realizing there may be no answer to this)? Should I apply for
a spot in a nursing home NOW?

card xii wrote:
Matarrazo's Measurement of Adult Intelligence (I think I got the title
correct) is a wonderful source.

But as you said, it is not longer based on age, but rather on normalized
standard distribution.

A score that is one standard deviation above the norm is IQ=115, and one
standard deviation below the norm is IQ=85. Two standard deviations
above
the mean is IQ=130, and so on.

With that sort of definition, many things become more standard and
computations become more meaningful.

Also, it becomes clear, at least to me, how silly it is when people claim
to
have astronomically high IQ's. They become meaningless statistically.
(Note: IQ's over 145-150 cannot be obtained with the major,
well-validated
tests.)

Of course, you and I, and the other regulars on this group, are
exceptions:
with IQ's over 250, we can validate each other's scores. ;-}

card xii


I'm not sure I really want to know the answer, but what factors (other
than stroke, senility, etc.) could cause a person's IQ to drop 15% over
20 years time?

Is speed of processing taken into account in computing the score? IOW,
could a person be penalized for answering correctly, but taking longer
to arrive at the answer than he or she or I used to?

Is a 15% decline in IQ cause for alarm? Is the downward trend likely to
continue (realizing there may be no answer to this)? Should I apply for
a spot in a nursing home NOW?

marcia wrote:
card xii wrote:
Matarrazo's Measurement of Adult Intelligence (I think I got the title
correct) is a wonderful source.

But as you said, it is not longer based on age, but rather on
normalized
standard distribution.

A score that is one standard deviation above the norm is IQ=115, and
one
standard deviation below the norm is IQ=85. Two standard deviations
above
the mean is IQ=130, and so on.

With that sort of definition, many things become more standard and
computations become more meaningful.

Also, it becomes clear, at least to me, how silly it is when people
claim to
have astronomically high IQ's. They become meaningless statistically.
(Note: IQ's over 145-150 cannot be obtained with the major,
well-validated
tests.)

Of course, you and I, and the other regulars on this group, are
exceptions:
with IQ's over 250, we can validate each other's scores. ;-}

card xii


I'm not sure I really want to know the answer, but what factors (other
than stroke, senility, etc.) could cause a person's IQ to drop 15% over
20 years time?

Is speed of processing taken into account in computing the score? IOW,
could a person be penalized for answering correctly, but taking longer
to arrive at the answer than he or she or I used to?

Is a 15% decline in IQ cause for alarm? Is the downward trend likely to
continue (realizing there may be no answer to this)? Should I apply for
a spot in a nursing home NOW? :)

Oh, good news... only 11.6%

I'm not sure I really want to know the answer, but what factors (other
than stroke, senility, etc.) could cause a person's IQ to drop 15% over
20 years time?

Is speed of processing taken into account in computing the score? IOW,
could a person be penalized for answering correctly, but taking longer
to arrive at the answer than he or she or I used to?

On 2 Jan 2007 16:53:19 -0800, "marcia" <design1@insight.rr.com
proclaimed to the world:

I'm not sure I really want to know the answer, but what factors (other
than stroke, senility, etc.) could cause a person's IQ to drop 15% over
20 years time?

I most times now suffer attention and memory problems which affect my
ability to take the test at all, much less in the time limit required.

Is speed of processing taken into account in computing the score? IOW,
could a person be penalized for answering correctly, but taking longer
to arrive at the answer than he or she or I used to?

Many of the tests are broken down in timed sections. Most would say
these were aptitude tests more than an IQ test, but IQ is more
accurately measure with these tests, it is just a matter or taking the
average of the score in each section. Many people have exceptional
aptitude in one or more areas, while being normal or below in other
areas.

I think IQ/aptitude tests are very good at uncovering raw talent but
there are other factors that effect whether anything comes of that
talent. Interest is just about as important. Being good at
astrophysics means little if all you want to do is plant corn and
watch the cows grow.

Several years ago, but well after the book came out, I read the Bell
Curve from beginning to end. My copy had a addendum with a rebuttal to
some of the criticism that Herrnstein and Murray received which I had
been ignorant of. I read their defense of what they said and I tended
to agree, they were not advocating elitism, only proposing that this
was what was happening. A couple of unfortunate statements included in
the book gave the impression that they thought this was a good thing
to have happen and people ignored the parts where they warned of the
many problems.

The controversy also overshadowed the other information the book
provided. Since my reading of the book, I have been surprised that
ever mention of it or IQ has produced someone cursing and spitting at
me. Hmm.

Today I came across this site by chance.
http://www.thrivenet.com/articles/iqidiocy.shtml

Looking back on this now, I see that science would have been better
off if the Bell Curve had been a couple of hundred pages shorter and
stayed with only publishing the statistical results and avoiding so
many conclusions and pondering's on the state of society. I'm sure
that this is cold soup to everyone here. Sorry. I got involved because
of a question recently about IQ involving how it is scaled. Someone
gave a definition I had not heard which turned out to be the original
Alfred Binet one.

Mental Age divided by Chronological Age times 100 equaled Intelligence
Quotient (M.A. / C.A. x 100 = IQ.) A ten year old child who scored the
same as other ten year olds received a quotient of 100. A ten year old
child who scored the same as the average eleven year old received a
quotient of 110. A ten year old child who scored the same as the
average eight year old received a quotient of 80.

I am still not for sure what the modern adult scoring is based on. I
think it is based on percentiles. Anyone have a link to save me some
time finding this?

On 2 Jan 2007 16:53:19 -0800, "marcia" <design1@insight.rr.com
proclaimed to the world:

I'm not sure I really want to know the answer, but what factors (other
than stroke, senility, etc.) could cause a person's IQ to drop 15% over
20 years time?

I most times now suffer attention and memory problems which affect my
ability to take the test at all, much less in the time limit required.

Is speed of processing taken into account in computing the score? IOW,
could a person be penalized for answering correctly, but taking longer
to arrive at the answer than he or she or I used to?

Many of the tests are broken down in timed sections. Most would say
these were aptitude tests more than an IQ test, but IQ is more
accurately measure with these tests, it is just a matter or taking the
average of the score in each section. Many people have exceptional
aptitude in one or more areas, while being normal or below in other
areas.

I think IQ/aptitude tests are very good at uncovering raw talent but
there are other factors that effect whether anything comes of that
talent. Interest is just about as important. Being good at
astrophysics means little if all you want to do is plant corn and
watch the cows grow.

"marcia" <design1@insight.rr.com> wrote in message
news:1167785598.987623.323480@h40g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

I'm not sure I really want to know the answer, but what factors (other
than stroke, senility, etc.) could cause a person's IQ to drop 15% over
20 years time?

No easy answer, but it would be worth seeing a neuropsychologist to find
out.


Is speed of processing taken into account in computing the score? IOW,
could a person be penalized for answering correctly, but taking longer
to arrive at the answer than he or she or I used to?

IQ score really isn't something that psychologists use the way laypeople use
it. Usually, in fact, they use a number of indices, and (answering your
question) processing speed is one of them. Intellectual efficiency is a
multi-faceted collection of abilities, and they all add together.
Differences between them can be important.

Is a 15% decline in IQ cause for alarm? Is the downward trend likely to
continue (realizing there may be no answer to this)? Should I apply for
a spot in a nursing home NOW? :)

IQ indices are computed according to age norms, so the IQ scores do not
normally decline much with age. Some abilities improve with age, some get
worse, but the age-adjusted norms change little for most people. Some
variability is to be expected, but only some.

Again,. I would contact a neuropsychologist if you are concerned. But if
you feel that you do as well as other, barring expected changes with age,
then I wouldn't worry about it.

card xii

"Socky the Puppet" <Socky@lalaland.spew> wrote in message
news:iopjp2ds7aucldne1b0evdquv3nin81plp@4ax.com...
Several years ago, but well after the book came out, I read the Bell
Curve from beginning to end. My copy had a addendum with a rebuttal to
some of the criticism that Herrnstein and Murray received which I had
been ignorant of. I read their defense of what they said and I tended
to agree, they were not advocating elitism, only proposing that this
was what was happening. A couple of unfortunate statements included in
the book gave the impression that they thought this was a good thing
to have happen and people ignored the parts where they warned of the
many problems.

The controversy also overshadowed the other information the book
provided. Since my reading of the book, I have been surprised that
ever mention of it or IQ has produced someone cursing and spitting at
me. Hmm.

Today I came across this site by chance.
http://www.thrivenet.com/articles/iqidiocy.shtml

Looking back on this now, I see that science would have been better
off if the Bell Curve had been a couple of hundred pages shorter and
stayed with only publishing the statistical results and avoiding so
many conclusions and pondering's on the state of society. I'm sure
that this is cold soup to everyone here. Sorry. I got involved because
of a question recently about IQ involving how it is scaled. Someone
gave a definition I had not heard which turned out to be the original
Alfred Binet one.

Mental Age divided by Chronological Age times 100 equaled Intelligence
Quotient (M.A. / C.A. x 100 = IQ.) A ten year old child who scored the
same as other ten year olds received a quotient of 100. A ten year old
child who scored the same as the average eleven year old received a
quotient of 110. A ten year old child who scored the same as the
average eight year old received a quotient of 80.

I am still not for sure what the modern adult scoring is based on. I
think it is based on percentiles. Anyone have a link to save me some
time finding this?

Matarrazo's Measurement of Adult Intelligence (I think I got the title
correct) is a wonderful source.

But as you said, it is not longer based on age, but rather on normalized
standard distribution.

A score that is one standard deviation above the norm is IQ=115, and one
standard deviation below the norm is IQ=85. Two standard deviations above
the mean is IQ=130, and so on.

With that sort of definition, many things become more standard and
computations become more meaningful.

Also, it becomes clear, at least to me, how silly it is when people claim to
have astronomically high IQ's. They become meaningless statistically.
(Note: IQ's over 145-150 cannot be obtained with the major, well-validated
tests.)

Of course, you and I, and the other regulars on this group, are exceptions:
with IQ's over 250, we can validate each other's scores. ;-}

card xii

"marcia" <design1@insight.rr.com> wrote in message
news:1167786113.797373.154780@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...

marcia wrote:
card xii wrote:
Matarrazo's Measurement of Adult Intelligence (I think I got the
title correct) is a wonderful source.

But as you said, it is not longer based on age, but rather on
normalized
standard distribution.

A score that is one standard deviation above the norm is IQ=115,
and one
standard deviation below the norm is IQ=85. Two standard
deviations above
the mean is IQ=130, and so on.

With that sort of definition, many things become more standard and
computations become more meaningful.

Also, it becomes clear, at least to me, how silly it is when
people claim to
have astronomically high IQ's. They become meaningless
statistically. (Note: IQ's over 145-150 cannot be obtained with
the major, well-validated
tests.)

Of course, you and I, and the other regulars on this group, are
exceptions:
with IQ's over 250, we can validate each other's scores. ;-}

card xii


I'm not sure I really want to know the answer, but what factors
(other than stroke, senility, etc.) could cause a person's IQ to
drop 15% over 20 years time?

Is speed of processing taken into account in computing the score?
IOW, could a person be penalized for answering correctly, but taking
longer to arrive at the answer than he or she or I used to?

Is a 15% decline in IQ cause for alarm? Is the downward trend likely
to continue (realizing there may be no answer to this)? Should I
apply for a spot in a nursing home NOW? :)

Oh, good news... only 11.6%


Probably not a meaningful drop.

card xii

Socky the Puppet wrote:

Several years ago, but well after the book came out, I read the Bell
Curve from beginning to end. My copy had a addendum with a rebuttal to
some of the criticism that Herrnstein and Murray received which I had
been ignorant of. I read their defense of what they said and I tended
to agree, they were not advocating elitism, only proposing that this
was what was happening. A couple of unfortunate statements included in
the book gave the impression that they thought this was a good thing
to have happen and people ignored the parts where they warned of the
many problems.

The controversy also overshadowed the other information the book
provided. Since my reading of the book, I have been surprised that
ever mention of it or IQ has produced someone cursing and spitting at
me. Hmm.

Today I came across this site by chance.
http://www.thrivenet.com/articles/iqidiocy.shtml

Looking back on this now, I see that science would have been better
off if the Bell Curve had been a couple of hundred pages shorter and
stayed with only publishing the statistical results and avoiding so
many conclusions and pondering's on the state of society. I'm sure
that this is cold soup to everyone here. Sorry. I got involved because
of a question recently about IQ involving how it is scaled. Someone
gave a definition I had not heard which turned out to be the original
Alfred Binet one.

Mental Age divided by Chronological Age times 100 equaled Intelligence
Quotient (M.A. / C.A. x 100 = IQ.) A ten year old child who scored the
same as other ten year olds received a quotient of 100. A ten year old
child who scored the same as the average eleven year old received a
quotient of 110. A ten year old child who scored the same as the
average eight year old received a quotient of 80.

I am still not for sure what the modern adult scoring is based on. I
think it is based on percentiles. Anyone have a link to save me some
time finding this?

Is it not typical that a scientist will try to make confused concepts
appear certain and accurate by presenting them as numbers? And is it
not equally certain that we will be fooled by this presentation into
thinking that we do indeed have certainty where before there was
confusion?

On 02 Jan 2007 I stormed the castle called sci.psychology.psychotherapy
and heard card xii cry out in news:qoFmh.8513$Ka1.3544@news01.roc.ny...


"marcia" <design1@insight.rr.com> wrote in message
news:1167786113.797373.154780@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
Oh, good news... only 11.6%


Probably not a meaningful drop.

card xii




I would say not. I have a 14 point fluctuation in my scores (although
that's certainly not 11.6% lol.. my scores aren't THAT high .. but I
wouldn't worry about an 11.6% drop between 2 tests taken 20 years apart..