101 Things that get on our tits but don't actually matter in the slightest.
-
The "average wage for a nurse" that the Tories recently quoted was higher than the max salary band for a nurse that doesn't run a team.
Smells like unaccountable bullshit. -
My pop was a cranedriver in Harland & Wolff shipyard. He did nightshift for about 8 years. He worked 4 nights a week and was slightly better paid than the daytime workers who worked Mon-Fri.
That was probably fair pay-wise. However it screwed up his body clock. He always found it hard to sleep at night for the rest of his life.Holding the wrong end of the stick since 2009. -
acemuzzy wrote:The "average wage for a nurse" that the Tories recently quoted was higher than the max salary band for a nurse that doesn't run a team.
Smells like unaccountable bullshit.
What was the figure?
This is from an article on Full Fact in April.
Doctors earned an average of £76,000, ambulance staff £36,000, and nurses, midwives and health visitors £31,000. -
I think it was £36k figure my boss was telling me about, his wife being a nurse though would suggest £31k, so not completely sure.
-
Stupidity, especially from people who you'd expect to be clever. Just listening to a podcast and some girl (Carol brain of Cambridge University) just said that IQ was going up over time, that's impossible, it's an average"I spent years thinking Yorke was legit Downs-ish disabled and could only achieve lucidity through song" - Mr B -
cockbeard wrote:Stupidity, especially from people who you'd expect to be clever. Just listening to a podcast and some girl (Carol brain of Cambridge University) just said that IQ was going up over time, that's impossible, it's an average
The average iq could go up over time. I don't see the problem with that statement. -
I don't think it is an average. I believe that averages were used for setting the levels when it was invented, but they aren't taken into account when you take a test. -
cockbeard wrote:Stupidity, especially from people who you'd expect to be clever. Just listening to a podcast and some girl (Carol brain of Cambridge University) just said that IQ was going up over time, that's impossible, it's an average
They are actually going up over time, if directly compared to previous tests - the standard today to reach a certain IQ is higher than in previous decades so someone who scored X on a test from modern times would likely score X+a certain amount if they took a 1950s or 60s test.
I didn't know that until recently - there's a podcast I listened to a couple of weeks ago that went through it.
I think it was the Sam Harris Waking Up Podcast, the episode titled Forbidden Knowledge where he talks to Charles Murray - the author of The Bell Curve. They go into IQ on that one, but I can't be sure that's the exact one where they discussed how IQ was rising over time. I'll have a look. -
All I know is if someone tells me their IQ, or has it in their email or forum sig or the like, that person isn't very intelligent.
-
Nah, they're incredibly intelligent.
Always reminds me of Total Biscuits infamous SA post:
"Let's get this out here right now. I'm a 23 year old law graduate with an IQ of 155." -
People can get more intelligent, but by definition IQ can't increase over time, 100 is average, if everyone gets more intelligent then the old 120 becomes 100"I spent years thinking Yorke was legit Downs-ish disabled and could only achieve lucidity through song" - Mr B
-
Yes that's how it works, but they don't just immediately revise it, so there is a period where IQs will be on the rise before the test is re-calibrated and 100 becomes the average again.
You'd have to assume that the rise is the thing that notifies the test makers of the the need to re-calibrate it. It isn't fixed in real time. -
I did a test years ago and was given a range, not an exact number. -
They just told me I was dead clever like.
It's a stupid test anyway because you can train yourself to be better at it, so it's not a real test of pure intelligence. -
The only true test of intelligence is the Next Gen thread
-
Mine had a memory round, featuring memorisation of number strings and the like, so there was a limit to how much I could've improved. General knowledge about countries and languages... But yeah, it's possible to jump ten or so points with practice.
-
I think it's a ridiculous construct, I got pulled into a room in infants school (year 2 or 3 for youngsters or parents) and asked a bunch of questions. I'd already been moved up a year for being a little bit clever, then they go and tell a six year old that he's supposedly a genius, any derive or motivation I had up until then suddenly left me, I was destined for greatness, it was pre ordained, stupid thing to tell a kid, genuinely think that it along with the junior school not accepting me a year early so repeating a year proper held me back"I spent years thinking Yorke was legit Downs-ish disabled and could only achieve lucidity through song" - Mr B
-
Escape wrote:Mine had a memory round, featuring memorisation of number strings and the like, so there was a limit to how much I could've improved. General knowledge about countries and languages... But yeah, it's possible to jump ten or so points with practice.
I did that number string memorisation thing, there were two rounds, one where they gave you a string and you repeated it back, another where they gave you a string and you had to repeat it back in reverse. Apparently I did better at the second one, which seems bizarre. -
I bossed the memory, it was other stuff that let me down. Krypton Factor puzzle shite.
-
The 100m sprint is stupid because you can train yourself to be better at it, so it's not a real test of pure speed.GooberTheHat wrote:It's a stupid test anyway because you can train yourself to be better at it, so it's not a real test of pure intelligence. -
Andy wrote:
The 100m sprint is stupid because you can train yourself to be better at it, so it's not a real test of pure speed.GooberTheHat wrote:It's a stupid test anyway because you can train yourself to be better at it, so it's not a real test of pure intelligence.
Well that's a stupid analogy. If you train to be faster, you become faster. If you train to pass an IQ test, you become better at passing IQ tests, you don't become more intelligent. -
If you train to become better at IQ tests, you become better at more than just passing IQ tests. The more you challenge your brain, the more capable it is. Intelligence isn't just a constant over time; like any other human attribute, it can vary over time. It's within certain brackets, sure, just as no amount of training will mean I could challenge Usain Bolt.
-
Don't IQ tests tell how good you are at doing IQ tests?Holding the wrong end of the stick since 2009.
-
Well, they didn't help my sprinting any.
-
Apparently not.davyK wrote:Don't IQ tests tell how good you are at doing IQ tests?
(yes, that's absolutely all they do)
-
Ah, well, Goober says so, so it must be so. We'll ignore the fact that IQ tests are made up of a number of different styles of questions and that, while people rarely score equally across the different styles, an aptitude in one or more is usually reflected by above average performance in the others. We'll also ignore the fact that, although they only test certain types of intelligence, they tend to give a reliable indicator of other, less measurable aspects of intelligence.
Do they give a hard, fast, absolute measure of the full spectrum of intelligence? No, but it's a long time since anyone has claimed that. Should they be dismissed as only indicating how good someone is at the test? No, but it won't stop some people claiming that.
Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- All Discussions2,715
- Games1,879
- Off topic836