That's a relief. I was hoping someone would comment saying "yes I've seen it".
Must have had a pager.
Louis Pasteur invented pasteurization, and he named the process after himself. He is also the founder of "Germ" Theory, named after his hated for Germans.
I knew someone who went to europe. He tried some cheese despite being insanely intolerant of dairy, because it was an occasion. he felt fine so he tried more the next day, and within a few days, he was eating ice cream and drinking lattes. He came back to the states and returned to being intolerant. The conclusion being that the milk here is different from the milk there.
The photoshop still doesnt distract from the piece of cheese on a cold, raw burger
Well if they were the same questions youve seen before, than it wouldnt be a proper iq test. When you took the SAT, did you take practice tests beforehand? Were they anything like the actual SAT? Probably not. The point of these kinds of tests is that you are unable to practice for them because they are not trying to find your ability to study, they are testings your ability to understand and implement new patterns of data as they are presented to you.
Also, don't be upset if you test low. I agree with almost all arguments against IQ tests, such as how there are different kinds of intelligence and different kinds of tests that are weighted to different kinds of intelligence or how some tests are bias towards certain mindsets and worldviews. It's almost a useless stat, but its broad enough for most large corporation to use them in determining who they hire (which is what sparked this entire conversation).
Think of it like this, there is talent and there is skill. A talent is something that someone seems to be born with, they are good at something despite not having done it before. A skill is something at requires years of practice. But if you are talented to begin with, that helps a ton and it may take less practice to reach the level of a more skilled person.
Intelligence is like talent but knowledge is like skill. I'm sorry for being offensive earlier.
Having a set standards for people is not heretical. It is necessary for certain careers. That is why the military, all universities and almost every corporation uses some form of IQ test. This indeed limits which people follow those paths but it is for their own benefit to be guided where they would not struggle.
Intelligence is the speed it takes you to understand something. Your intelligence does not increase over the years, rather it gets worse as we age and our brains degenerate. Your IQ was likely HIGHER when you were 13 years old. Intelligence isn't the sum of knowledge that you have acquired over the years, it is your ability to absorb, understand and implement new knowledge. Our neurons die over time and we lose that ability (our speed) as we get older.
That's because you are retarded. No offense, but that's basic algebra and exponentiation which most people learn in middle school. It took you 20 years to grasp it. That doesn't mean that you're any worse of a software engineer than the rest, but the speed at which it took you to understand certain complex concepts could have been predicted by you taking that IQ test when you were 13.
Your main implication is that you would score higher on an IQ test now than if you were to take one 20 years ago; that's not true and if you truly think that than you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what an IQ test is.
The most important skill is the ability to adapt.
Yes, that is intelligence. The ability to adapt is intelligence.
Known information is called knowledge
Your ability to do something is called talent
Your ability to do something well from experience is called skill
If you have both knowledge and skill than you're an expert
But the ability to think, calculate and adapt is called intelligence.
Intelligence is your mental speed, your wit, your capability to understand something new as it is presented to you.
In my view intelligence cannot be measured.
It can be but many argue about the methodology or the different categories of intelligence. But your speed is literally your intelligence. That's why we call unintelligent people "slow" or "retarded" (medical term for "slow").
Ok.. they why don't every large corporation just give people an IQ test.
They all do.
It was a test to see how intelligent you are. Such tests probably aren't necessary in your field, but they'll still have you solve a problem on a whiteboard to see how intelligent you are. Most large corporations will have their potential employees apply online and the application process will usually include some form of an IQ test. I can't think of a single large corporation I worked for that didn't require me to take such a test.
We have IQ tests everywhere and they are (rightfully) barriers to many paths a person can take. 10 U.S. Code § 520 requires them for entering the military. There have been two experiments with lowering the minimum from 85 to 80 but in both cases the men could not master anything well enough to justify their costs.
You mean like the SAT?
Most of them do. Have you never taken a test when applying for a job? Maybe you did but didn't realize it was an IQ test.
I usually agree with James Woods however this is his most liberal post I've seen. America is absolutely divided by race (BLM, Affirmative Action, White Privilege, 2-tier justice system, a literal invasion at our border, FEMA transporting foreign criminals into small towns), gender (feminism, birth control, infanticide, divorce court, mgtow) and lgbtp orientation (Puberty blockers, chemical castrations, public school grooming).
America is also divided by among many other issues such as foreign allegiances, religion and political worldviews. Each facet of the problem requires attention.
Woods is right that America is divided into wise people and fools but it is foolish to to imply race, color, gender and orientation have nothing to do with our current state of degeneration; or that the division we see in America across numerous identity classes is simply an issue with education.
His last breath was recycled air.
It harps back to the age-old question about the morality of "just following orders". The store clerk was probably just doing what he was told to do so that he wouldn't get fired, but he was acting as the hand of tyranny, enforcing tyranny, and therefore being a tyrant. He wasn't just doing his job, he hadn't just pledged his own allegiance to the WHO and WEF; he was actively enforcing that allegiance onto others which is an oppressive, tyrannical and morally despicable act. Even if he thought he was being neutral and trying his best to stay out of the war, he ended up being at the front-lines of the battle and on the wrong side.
kid rock is also a pedo
We won the war, right?
Whenever I see this creature being posted, I cannot read any of the content because I'm too distracted by the SAW demon in front of me. This man, Larry Loomer, has got to be the most disgusting thing I'd ever seen. I can't even call it a man, it's a stretch to consider it human. I need to stop checking this in the morning because seeing this made me shit myself.
This meme implies that there is a similar quantity of corrupt officials that are republican and corrupt officials that are democrat.
I agree.
New Kat album just dropped: "Revelation of the Method"
We should all be supporting this. Imagine if both the winners and the losers demanded an audit. First it'd confuse them, (why would WE want an audit?) but they'd go along with it. Then the results would show corruption among the democrats. Then they would try to rig the audit, creating fake stories of corruption as well as cover-ups for real corruption. In the end, election fraud would become an undeniable fact all that americans believe in. What could result of 350 million americans discovering that the past 4 years of governmental leadership was illegitimate?