thanks toe, i love doing dumb shit too. i think people who can often pull stuff off that most fail at tends to be overconfident versus someone accustomed to working within limits. usually the fuckups are pretty spectacular. for example, i'm not so good at passing the piss-test to play lacrosse as a senior or finding a girlfriend who likes food. somehow harvard's taken me twice and i managed a 1560 and 177 lsat.i feel dirty mentioning this stuff, i avoided the "what college" thread because of it. my father's probably smarter than i am and he reported his car stolen when he forgot he moved it during the day on two seperate occasions. just because you're good with the g side of things doesn't always translate into the a and b.(spearman's g(general intelligence,highly hereditary) + a(sub-factor) + b(specific factor)=how good you are at something)

i'm convinced sometime in the 70's after jensen's shit came out, most of the iq tests are ridiculously inflated. for instance, if you look at what the gaussian distribution curves based on what jensen was using for tests or the stanford-binet, chickenmaster and rob are close to 1 out of 100,000,000. there aren't 300,000,000 people in the US for a reference point. there are almost a dozen widely-used tests out there, many more you cna take for money and almost all of them seem to fall way higher than what stevie gould, murray, etc. use as reference. so much so that there's a widely-used deviation iq formula(s) that adjusts 20 or so points downward for most scores over 140. for example, according to the conversion chart i found based on the weschler test from 1974, the my sat score puts me at 155, a 1600 is 159. ets designs the sats as a general measure of iq, hence the move away from them.

the fun fact of the day is about 70% of mensa members have consistent employment, have a household income of less than 60k and are divorced at 3x the national rate while only 10% have phds and 30% have an ma. "people" is listed as a favorite magazine and they love sci-fi books.