-=> Quoting Keith Knapp to Andrew Cummins <=-
 KK> That is incorrect.  IQ tests have been shown to be accurate predictors
 KK> of success in school, but they are not much use as predictors of
 KK> success in the real world.
Success in school is a useful predictor of success in the
"real world."  You're really not going to try to tell me
that success in school has little to do with success in life?
Therefor IQ tests are accurate predictors of success in the
real world.
 KK> Tests have been developed that measure Practical Intelligence --
 KK> Tests have been developed that measure Creativity.
The alternative IQ tests I have seen have been rather silly
products of Liberal bigotry.
 KK> What this means is that IQ tests are measuring some aspects of
 KK> human intelligence, but they are limited and qualified by the
 KK> fact that they are also measuring nothing more than the educational
 KK> level you have progressed to.
Predominantly black schools receive more public funding than do
predominantly white schools, and at any given grade level, white
kids stomp black kids into the dirt on IQ tests.  How does your
claimed correlation between educational level and IQ explain
that?
_The Bell Curve_ reports that, according to one study, "the
main determiner by far of IQ at the age of 20 was the IQ at the
age of 10, by a factor of more than five times as important as
years of schooling."
 KK> 26.  Obsequious is to obstreporous as littoral is to _____________.
 KK> Tell me this: what if you have never seen any of those words in your
 KK> whole life?  Are you going to get that question right?  Nope.
 KK> So what is being tested here: your raw mental computing power or
 KK> your educational level?
Do you know many PhDs who could answer that question correctly?
The bulk of any real IQ test I have ever seen had very little to
do with exceptional vocabulary.
___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12
--- QScan/PCB v1.19b / 01-0066
---------------