<p>The SAT used to correspond with IQ about 10-15 years ago but they changed it. Then, it briefly did a little. Now, with the writing and dumbed down math and verbals(they test education now, not aptitude-- why did they take out analogies? because people had to think about patterns on them and create patterns, something dumb people can't do well), appeasing to women and minorities. Believe it or don't, IQ does correlate largely with genetics, and 80 percent is the "pc" figure. It's way more in actuality.</p>
<p>I already posted about why I think the SAT correlates with intelligence, but this infatuation with "IQ" baffles me. It seems that once the word "intelligence" was mentioned, "IQ" immediately came up, as if it is somehow the ultimate measure of intelligence, and comparing it with the SAT will show the SAT's value. This is ridiculous. IQ has no standardized measurement, and unlike the SAT (but apparently in line with many opinions here of the SAT), IQ tests <em>are</em> dreamt up by arrogant, borderline-eugenics supporting psychometricians</p>
<p>haha id like to think it measures intelligence im a 1550 lollll</p>
<p>mrognlie, the SAT tests are dreamt up by arrogant, borderline-eugenics supporting psychometricians.</p>
<p>people are genetically superior to others, you can see it in math classes and science classes when u work your ass off while best buddy doesn't even do his hw or even takes notes.</p>
<p>not anymore :( the SATs hardly measure iq anymore :( just as people are superior in intelligence to animals, diversity exists between humans and so some humans are genetically superior to some other humans. a person with asthma (like me) is genetically inferior in that aspect to someone without it. genetic differences don't stop at the physical level, they also permeate into the mental. if intelligence had nothing to do with genetics, we wouldn't be all that smarter than lower animals, now would we? </p>
<ul>
<li>i have to add: what's wrong with eugenics? at it's core, it just makes the vast majority of humans super beings; a brighter future for humanity-- honestly, how many average people today with iqs bearing at a retarded 100 will be able to function in a society in the future in which humans are traveling to the stars?</li>
</ul>
<p>Ummm...ignoring that comment about eugenics and super beings, I'd just like to say that saying an IQ of 100 indicates that someone is "retarded" is seriously neglecting one of the basic principles of the IQ test.</p>
<p>Also, the theory about innate intellectual superiority in some humans is largely unsupported. The nature vs nurture debate goes on.</p>
<p>no, some people are genetically superior to others. its a fact of nature. </p>
<p>and the average people with iqs of 100 we need because they're the building blocks of a society (lowest jobs w/e).</p>
<p>"some people are genetically superior to others. its a fact of nature."</p>
<p>For physical abilities, this may be an empirical observation. But for intellectual abilities, this is an intuitive conjecture at best. This sort of a posteriori reasoning that seeks to abstract the pattern of one field and applies to another analogous but dissimilar field is hardly scientifically justified.</p>
<p>so do you deny that intelligence has any hereditary value?
if not, then what do you think makes us more intelligent than lower animals?
and, people with iqs of ~100 can barely function in modern society. they hold mostly low level jobs, like mailman, clerk, etc. while that's fine now, they won't be able to function in a futuristic society, and i doubt that many of today's geniuses could either. we will all need mechanical and biological enhancements.</p>
<p>ritalin sounds like a primordial development in genetic enhancement in a sense.</p>
<p>to all you stupid sat vocab studyers, don't look up primordial it really isnt that big. i mean come on haven't you heard the word primordial gooze? figure it out like that jeez.</p>
<p>captain acid... isn't their an Aryan brotherhood meeting you should be attending?</p>
<p>blindc1rca isn't there a stupid person below 100 iq club meeting you should be meeting?</p>
<p>I love how I was stupid the other day (1180 psat score), and now I'm a genius (1580 sat score)</p>
<p>Who knew i would be able to become so smart in the shortest time? This is like the guinness world of records.</p>
<p>no because im only 1/2 white and an aryan "brotherhood" would want me dead, ive already checked into it</p>
<p>and like i said, the OLD SAT scores correlate with IQ, i dont mean just old old, i mean i think its from a date like 1994 and before.</p>
<p>The New SAT is the triumph of the white upper middle class. Ironically, they triumphed by fooling witless, patronizing do-gooders for minorities. The old SAT had items like analogies and antonyms (from pre 1990; still on the GRE verbal) were true IQ items on which truly intelligent minority students could kick ass. Guess what. The upper class whites were miffed when Johnny didn't get 1500's. So by pretending the test hurt minorities and getting witless minority leaders to go along , they got ETS to make a totally coachable test that any rich kid with $1,200 for an SAT prep course can go up 200 points. It serves the abrasive PC types right that they got what they so richly deserved. The real victims are truly worthy minority students, and I feel very bad about that.</p>
<p>btw any legit statistician or psychologist knows that the 80% statistic you previously put up first came about in a study by Arthur Jensen that has long been discredited because it was based on fraudulent information. All studies that have included variables such as socioeconomic factors, location, (South vs. North) and the race of the IQ test proctor show that race has nothing to do with IQ. Oh and "Iamstupid", I'm going to need a band-aid for that cut, youre harsh. So harsh.</p>
<p>blindcirca, skater, bring up some links to support yaself, no one has mentioned race yet (except for the guy suggesting i join an aryan brotherhood, and you) prove now that sat doesnt correlate with iq and that iq does not correlate with race (cultural bias is bs, there unculturally biased iq tests that use pictures only)</p>
<p>and though the thing about breast sizes was humorous, i think sat scores could correlate with it because iq correlates with body curves in woman (more curves= higher iq usually) and curvature of the body might correlate with breast size</p>
<p>no less curves means higher iq becuase they're Fuglier</p>
<p>therefore concluding...this test is biased...biased biased biased.</p>
<p>but what test isnt?</p>
<p>my chem tests are biased against people like me who dont study :(</p>