In message
"DAB sounds worse than FM" wrote:

Tim S Kemp wrote:
- I didn't go to uni,

Ah, that'll be why you don't like people judging intelligence by
qualifications then. FFS.....

The Swiss Federal Railways (on the Italian side) seem to be
making a good many appearances in DSWTFM's posts at the moment.
No doubt they are grateful for all this publicity.

--
Richard L.

In article , DAB sounds worse
than FM wrote:
Nick Gorham wrote:

There will be a very high correlation between very good exam results and
intelligence. There'll be statistical anomalies, just like there are in
many things.

My experience with academic and professional mathematicians, and maths
grads, is that there are some many of what you call "anomolies" as to make
your assumption about a "high correlation" fairly unreliable. Your implied
definition of "intelligence" also seems rather abstracted to me... :-)



http://dictionary.cambridge.org/defi...1301&dict=CALD

"the ability to learn, understand and make judgments or have opinions
that are based on reason"

Er, an exact match for doing well in exams, I'd say. I'm sure you'll
disagree, but you'd be wrong.

Speaking as someone who has been setting and marking degree and MSc
exams for 20+ years I'm afraid that you have pre-described my view above as
"wrong". :-) I've seen many students who do well in exams mainly on the
basis of having a good memory and decent handwriting. OTOH I've seen some
students who were spectacularly poor at exams who did excellent, innovative
and insightful work when given an R&D project to work on that interested
them. I must be imagining all this, though, as you say I'm "wrong". Still,
I'll comfort myself by telling myself that my colleagues were "wrong" as
well... :-)



I've shown my exam results, so obviously intelligent. How about you?


Alternative thesis: It is a sign of lack of intelligence to assume that
exam success means someone is intelligent. :-)

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html
Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:



if instead you just want to play the management ladder game, then thats
a hell of a lot simplier, but eventually less rewarding (though maybe
not financially).


Yup, been there, done that, didn't like the bull****, got out.

Isn't it funny how you gallop up to the top of the engineering ladder
after say ten to fifteen years of continuous education, training, and
work experience, and then to get more money you have to go into
management, a 'profession' for which you are not trained, may have no
natural aptitude, and probably don't have much interest?

Hmm yes, there are a few companies (IBM for example) that have realised
that, and provide equivilant paths without throwing the eng background away.

--
Nick

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 07:11:51 +0000, Nick Gorham
wrote:

DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
Nick Gorham wrote:

DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:

WTF has success got to do with
intelligence??????????????????????????

WTF, has the ability to pass exams to do with intelligence either ?

There will be a very high correlation between very good exam
results and intelligence. There'll be statistical anomalies, just
like there are in many things.

Maybe, I don't know, and I suspect you don't either, do you have a
reference to research that shows that ?

Since my first degree was in psychology, I suggest that you look up
any number of such stats in psy textbooks.


You really are going senile, aren't you? This is the 2nd time you've
replied to Nick Gorham thinking I'd wrote it. I feel sorry for your
wife. I can just imagine what you'd be like when fully senile. "I'm a
design engineer, you know. Yes, one of the best in the business in my
time. I ruled the world at one point, then decided to delegate to those
nice munchkin men. Ah, those were the days."


IIRC,


Remembering correctly is not something you're very good at, though, is
it?


you'll find that exam
success peaks at Stanford-Binet IQs around the 115-125 mark, and tails
off on either side, the ultra-intelligent possibly having better
things to do than pass exams................


I'm afraid I think you've just made that up. And anyway, my IQ isn't
between 115 - 125 according to the Mensa test I did a few years ago.


Seriously, ultra-high IQ tends to correlate with social problems, all
the way from 'school swat' isolationism to full-blown autism.


My God, you can't even remember what you wrote in the previous
sentence!!!!!!! Your memory is seriously fked-up!

Which is it: do those with ultra-high IQ have social problems, or do
they have better things to do than pass exams? Or are you now going to
tell us that the better things they have to do rather than exams are all
related to having social problems?


Exam
success does not correlate at all well with intelligence, although it
does with memory.


Really?


That's just the definition of the word 'intelligent':

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/defi...1301&dict=CALD

"the ability to learn, understand and make judgments or have
opinions that are based on reason"

Er, an exact match for doing well in exams, I'd say. I'm sure you'll
disagree, but you'd be wrong.

No, it's not an exact match for doing well in exams, far from it.


I think you'll find that it is, actually.


What
*does* correlate well with exam success is memory, those with an
eidetic memory tending to do extremely well. Indeed, any medical
school will confirm that it is *much* more important to have a good
memory than to be highly intelligent, if you wish to qualify as a
medical doctor. Explains quite a lot about some doctors.... :-)


No, you thick fk, it explains that a medicine degree requires students
to remember ****loads of difficult to remember names.


Simple way (in general) of passing
exams, find who has set the paper, find what books they have written
on the subject, read said books, repeat their views in the exam
answer, but slightly paraphrased.

Quite so - none of which needs high intelligence, although a good
memory is obviously useful. Note also that such an approach will
degrade the exam, the result of which will no longer correlate with
actual knowledge of the subject. It's not exactly cheating, but it
certainly doesn't demonstrate that you have good knowledge of the
subject, only of the examiner.


You should bear in mind that about 95% of all questions in engineering
exams are maths problems. Some such exams are very easy, some are far
more difficult, and the ones that are the most difficult are the ones
where you do need a good understanding of the subject.

Simply repeating facts from memory is very rare in engineering exams.


I guess it depends what you think
education is for - gathering knowledge or passing exams. I guess we
know the answer in your case.


It looks like you've had one of your senile moments, yet again, because
you've responded to Nick Gorham's text thinking I wrote it.


Funnily enough we've had a similar discussion on alt.radio.digital
a bit ago when someone said that a good measure of intelligence is
how successful you are/have been, and it should be mainly measured
on the amount of dollar you've got to flash. 'Fraid that's just
******** though, innit.

That's a typically American equation - if you're so smart, why ain't
you rich?


Some people are far more motivated by money than others, and I'm not
particularly motivated by it.


I've shown my exam results, so obviously intelligent.

Nope, nothing obvious about it. Some of the most intelligent people I
know (MENSA members all) didn't even go to uni.


I think you'll find that will have changed by now, given that some
absurdly high percentage of school leavers now go to uni.



--
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info

Find the cheapest Freeview, DAB & MP3 Player Prices:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/fr..._receivers.htm
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/da...tal_radios.htm
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/mp...rs_1GB-5GB.htm
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/mp...e_capacity.htm

Nick Gorham wrote:
DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
Nick Gorham wrote:

DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:


A bird in the hand is worth 2 in the bush.
Many hands make light work.
Tim seems to have lost control of his thought processes.

WTF has success got to do with
intelligence??????????????????????????

WTF, has the ability to pass exams to do with intelligence either ?



There will be a very high correlation between very good exam results
and intelligence. There'll be statistical anomalies, just like there
are in many things.



Maybe, I don't know, and I suspect you don't either, do you have a
reference to research that shows that ?


I don't bother with giving references to things that are so obvious.


Example: David Beckham, rich as fk, highly successful football
player, thick as pig****.



But very very good at what he does.



No argument there. But intelligent? Not in a million years. Sorry.
That's just the definition of the word 'intelligent':

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/defi...1301&dict=CALD

"the ability to learn, understand and make judgments or have opinions
that are based on reason"

Er, an exact match for doing well in exams, I'd say. I'm sure you'll
disagree, but you'd be wrong.


And you would be right, I have noithing against exams, good luck to
you on that, my point though, is IMHO, that if the above description
was
"The ability to remember, repeat and select the correct response based
on selective learning"

Then yes I would say that it correlated directly to passing exams,
but I just don't see how your description has any bearing on exam
passing. What part does understanding play ?


BTW, why do you always put a space before a question-mark?


, what part opinion ? The
last thing you want to do when answering a exam question is express
your own opinion.


If you look at the definition, it says

"make judgments *OR* have opinions that are based on reason"


I learnt that years ago. Simple way (in general) of
passing exams, find who has set the paper, find what books they have
written on the subject, read said books, repeat their views in the
exam answer, but slightly paraphrased.


Repeat their views in the exam? I take it you didn't study engineering.
Engineering exams are 95% maths problems. Repeating the views of
lecturers isn't involved.


Funnily enough we've had a similar discussion on alt.radio.digital a
bit ago when someone said that a good measure of intelligence is how
successful you are/have been, and it should be mainly measured on the
amount of dollar you've got to flash. 'Fraid that's just ********
though, innit.



I think so as well, but it does have a certain darwinian truth about
it in the current way of things.


How about you ?



I've shown my exam results, so obviously intelligent. How about you?



I get by, thanks. however, remember I don't accept your logic that
makes the above "obvious", obvious or true, so its a bit of a false
to facts statement.

Again, my point is not to diminish your success at exams, but just to
say, the next part of the game is just as hard.


Did I ever say it wouldn't be just as hard? The problem with you people
is that you've written me off before I've even started. But, by
definition, I've got a 50% chance of being above average!


If you intend to
spend a working life getting paid to solve problems, which I think is
what we are talking about, then you will find that there is much more
to learn.


Don't deny that whatsoever.


if instead you just want to play the management ladder
game,


No, I'd be bored rigid.


then thats a hell of a lot simplier, but eventually less
rewarding (though maybe not financially).

--
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info

Find the cheapest Freeview, DAB & MP3 Player Prices:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/fr..._receivers.htm
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/da...tal_radios.htm
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/mp...rs_1GB-5GB.htm
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/mp...e_capacity.htm

Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , DAB sounds worse
than FM wrote:
Nick Gorham wrote:


Well, this isn't a dig at you, as I don't know you or your actual
abilities, but IMHO, ability is very often != qualifications


Personally I think that's a bit of a myth. It's like the one that
people said at uni where people that get a 2.1 degree are more
employable than those with a 1st class degree. But the only people
that would say it were people on for a 2.1, and come graduation
those with a 1st class degree got all the best job offers, thus
disproving the myth.

Well, over the years I took on a mix of 1, 2.1, and 2.2 graduates as
postgrads. Also observed those of colleagues.

My experience is that the correlation between first degree class and
how well they can do R&D is weak. I've also on more than one
(frustrating) occasion had to *not* be able to get a postgrad
position for someone with a 3rd who I was sure would be an excellent
R&D worker. Fortunately, in those cases they generally got good R&D
jobs outwith Uni and did well at it.

For 'academic' and the bookwork/theory side, I'd say there was a
modest correlation. But for the more practical side, and for insight
and innovation I would have said there was little.


But is being good practically a sign of intelligence? Insight maybe, but
innovation? Why is innovation to do with intelligence? To me, that seems
more that someone who is innovative has the ability to think laterally


I always found how the student did on something like a 'summer
project' or placement to be a *much* better indicator than degree
class.


Much better indicator of what? That they're better at the practical side
than theoretical side? Does that make them more intelligent?


--
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info

Find the cheapest Freeview, DAB & MP3 Player Prices:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/fr..._receivers.htm
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/da...tal_radios.htm
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/mp...rs_1GB-5GB.htm
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/mp...e_capacity.htm

In article ,
DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
Jim Lesurf wrote:


My experience is that the correlation between first degree class and
how well they can do R&D is weak. I've also on more than one
(frustrating) occasion had to *not* be able to get a postgrad
position for someone with a 3rd who I was sure would be an excellent
R&D worker. Fortunately, in those cases they generally got good R&D
jobs outwith Uni and did well at it.

For 'academic' and the bookwork/theory side, I'd say there was a
modest correlation. But for the more practical side, and for insight
and innovation I would have said there was little.


But is being good practically a sign of intelligence?

I'd say It certainly can be if it shows in ways like innovation , and
insight which produces new understanding or newer, better results. Here
'practically' doesn't mean the ability to build neat looking circuits in
boxes that don't cut your fingers - although such skills are useful. It
means having the insight to get better results by exploiting the real-world
behaviour of things, even if the prototype slides around inside its
shoe-box... :-)

Sometimes from people who find it almost impossible to explain clearly what
they have done in a written report or by verbal explanations. The problem
here, though, is that they may understand something, but have trouble
explaining it to someone they'd find 'less intelligent' - i.e. us. :-)

More generally, the vital point I'd say is that 'intelligence' isn't just
one thing for which we have a single measure or value. It seems to involve
things for which we have vaguer terms like insight, judgement, originality,
etc.


Insight maybe, but innovation? Why is innovation to do with
intelligence? To me, that seems more that someone who is innovative has
the ability to think laterally

So far as I'm concerned 'intelligence' is one of those words which people
use for all kinds of things, but which you can recognise in action even
when you can't give a formal definition.

I always found how the student did on something like a 'summer
project' or placement to be a *much* better indicator than degree
class.


Much better indicator of what? That they're better at the practical side
than theoretical side? Does that make them more intelligent?

See above. :-)

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html
Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

Seriously, ultra-high IQ tends to correlate with social problems, all
the way from 'school swat' isolationism to full-blown autism. Exam
success does not correlate at all well with intelligence, although it
does with memory.

Dammit I knew I had a real excuse.

--
We are the keepers of the sacred words: Ni, Pang,
and Ni-wom!

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:


When I was a senior design engineer at Marconi Space and Defence, we
*never* hired 1sts, because they invariably couldn't find the hot end
of a soldering iron with both hands......................

I was at college with one chap who asked me during a practical session
which way round to insert a resistor (I told him to put the end with
tolerance band nearest to the edge of the PCB :-)).

AIUI he went on to get a 1st, (I didn't).

--
Mark
Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply

On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 11:05:07 GMT, "DAB sounds worse than FM"
wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 07:11:51 +0000, Nick Gorham
wrote:

DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
Nick Gorham wrote:

DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:

WTF has success got to do with
intelligence??????????????????????????

WTF, has the ability to pass exams to do with intelligence either ?

There will be a very high correlation between very good exam
results and intelligence. There'll be statistical anomalies, just
like there are in many things.

Maybe, I don't know, and I suspect you don't either, do you have a
reference to research that shows that ?

Since my first degree was in psychology, I suggest that you look up
any number of such stats in psy textbooks.

You really are going senile, aren't you? This is the 2nd time you've
replied to Nick Gorham thinking I'd wrote it.

What makes you think I'm replying to *you*? I'm simply replying to the
comment. Please try to realise that the world is not centred on *you*.

I feel sorry for your
wife. I can just imagine what you'd be like when fully senile. "I'm a
design engineer, you know. Yes, one of the best in the business in my
time. I ruled the world at one point, then decided to delegate to those
nice munchkin men. Ah, those were the days."

I don't need to feel sorry for your wife, as it's unlikely that you
have any social contacts whatever..................

IIRC,

Remembering correctly is not something you're very good at, though, is
it?

Logical thinking ain't your long suit, sonny.

you'll find that exam
success peaks at Stanford-Binet IQs around the 115-125 mark, and tails
off on either side, the ultra-intelligent possibly having better
things to do than pass exams................

I'm afraid I think you've just made that up.

Nope, you should be able to look it up if you're interested.

And anyway, my IQ isn't
between 115 - 125 according to the Mensa test I did a few years ago.

So what? Statistics is the science of probabilities, not absolutes.

Seriously, ultra-high IQ tends to correlate with social problems, all
the way from 'school swat' isolationism to full-blown autism.

My God, you can't even remember what you wrote in the previous
sentence!!!!!!! Your memory is seriously fked-up!

So, English is not your first language?

Which is it: do those with ultra-high IQ have social problems, or do
they have better things to do than pass exams?

These are not mutually exclusive.

Or are you now going to
tell us that the better things they have to do rather than exams are all
related to having social problems?

They may be, they may not. They may also have to do with practical
matters such as earning a living, rather than than hiding in education
for ever. Presumably mummy is still keeping the nest warm for you....

Exam
success does not correlate at all well with intelligence, although it
does with memory.

Really?

Yes, really.

That's just the definition of the word 'intelligent':

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/defi...1301&dict=CALD

"the ability to learn, understand and make judgments or have
opinions that are based on reason"

Er, an exact match for doing well in exams, I'd say. I'm sure you'll
disagree, but you'd be wrong.

No, it's not an exact match for doing well in exams, far from it.

I think you'll find that it is, actually.

I know you'll find that it's not.

What
*does* correlate well with exam success is memory, those with an
eidetic memory tending to do extremely well. Indeed, any medical
school will confirm that it is *much* more important to have a good
memory than to be highly intelligent, if you wish to qualify as a
medical doctor. Explains quite a lot about some doctors.... :-)

No, you thick fk, it explains that a medicine degree requires students
to remember ****loads of difficult to remember names.

Indeed, but they don't need to be too bright. Come to think of it,
you're not showing much sign of intelligence either...........

Simple way (in general) of passing
exams, find who has set the paper, find what books they have written
on the subject, read said books, repeat their views in the exam
answer, but slightly paraphrased.

Quite so - none of which needs high intelligence, although a good
memory is obviously useful. Note also that such an approach will
degrade the exam, the result of which will no longer correlate with
actual knowledge of the subject. It's not exactly cheating, but it
certainly doesn't demonstrate that you have good knowledge of the
subject, only of the examiner.

You should bear in mind that about 95% of all questions in engineering
exams are maths problems. Some such exams are very easy, some are far
more difficult, and the ones that are the most difficult are the ones
where you do need a good understanding of the subject.

Simply repeating facts from memory is very rare in engineering exams.

If that were true, then what you originally wrote above is garbage,
isn't it?

BTW, didn't you already say that you would no longer reply to me? So,
you're an over-qualified geek with no work experience, whose word
can't be trusted. Good luck getting a job.................
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering