Law School Discussion

LSAT 163 = IQ 132

Re: LSAT 163 = IQ 132
« Reply #70 on: June 11, 2004, 07:11:55 PM »
Quote
[...] they do not say in vain "Lawyers cant think straight" so what they are doing via these tests and the law school *&^% is @#!* your brain!

All this is done so that you become a "pathological liar". In fact, the best lawyers are those who can't really tell the difference between the truth and a lie.

Re: LSAT 163 = IQ 132
« Reply #71 on: November 10, 2004, 10:31:46 PM »
Quote
Then, what we are doing via these tests is perpetrating the "white class of professionals" while denying the minorities the opportunity to measure up even when the latter do have the ability to do so. Most people, though, find all this so "natural," that they may not even understand why one would scream so high about it -- that's the way it has always been for them and it's quite natural that minorities have been and continue to be discriminated against! After all, is it not the bias embedded in the test development process and built into the structure of these tests?! And while some of us may find this outrageous, they may simply add, "Well, that's why we have in place affirmative action programs!" Excuuuuuuuse meeeee, why don't you abolish these unconstitutional, racist and sexist tests altogether and let minorities compete freely with their fellow students, so that the former would not have to rely at all on piecemeal shitluck "affirmative action admissions"?

Here it is the LSAC response to all this:

Quote
Much has been written lately about the impact of standardized testing on the opportunities for minority students in higher education. Many critics point out that these tests are culturally biased and therefore penalize students from racial minorities. The rise in anti-affirmative action litigation leaves some admission offices relying unrealistically on standardized testing in admissions. In the face of this criticism, you need to become knowledgeable about what standardized testing is and how you need to prepare to do well on such tests. Not only can you expect to face standardized tests in the law school admissions process, but also when you apply for bar admission and for a host of other professional certifications.

http://www.lsac.org/LSAC.asp?url=/lsac/minorities-in-legal-education-selected-articles.asp


Seriously, LSAC is literally out of its @ # ! * i n g mind! But what I am talking about? Is it not all this country @ # ! * e d out of its mind when repeatedly elects to the office morons like Bush?!

shiveringjenny

Re: LSAT 163 = IQ 132
« Reply #72 on: November 10, 2004, 10:42:28 PM »
I said this on xoxohth, and i'll say it again here: if you were truly smart, you wouldn't join mensa. it's a ridiculous waste of money on the order of who's who in american high school students.
i speak from experience.

Re: LSAT 163 = IQ 132
« Reply #73 on: November 10, 2004, 10:46:05 PM »
I said this on xoxohth, and i'll say it again here: if you were truly smart, you wouldn't join mensa. it's a ridiculous waste of money on the order of who's who in american high school students.
i speak from experience.

180

Re: LSAT 163 = IQ 132
« Reply #74 on: November 11, 2004, 10:05:54 AM »
I said this on xoxohth, and i'll say it again here: if you were truly smart, you wouldn't join mensa. it's a ridiculous waste of money on the order of who's who in american high school students.
i speak from experience.

The students at any selective college will have an IQ at about the Mensa level. If you end up in a field like law or medicine, a lot of your colleagues will too. Smart and successful people naturally find themselves in groups of other smart people.

Re: LSAT 163 = IQ 132
« Reply #75 on: November 11, 2004, 12:33:39 PM »
I said this on xoxohth, and i'll say it again here: if you were truly smart, you wouldn't join mensa. it's a ridiculous waste of money on the order of who's who in american high school students.
i speak from experience.

The students at any selective college will have an IQ at about the Mensa level. If you end up in a field like law or medicine, a lot of your colleagues will too. Smart and successful people naturally find themselves in groups of other smart people.

I wish people stopped thinking their high IQ made them 'smart.'  It makes them sound very stupid, actually.

zeroaffinity

  • ***
  • 97
  • would I ask you a rhetorical question?
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: LSAT 163 = IQ 132
« Reply #76 on: November 11, 2004, 01:11:21 PM »
I wish people stopped thinking their high IQ made them 'smart.'  It makes them sound very stupid, actually.

IQ, Mensa, and similar are all just qualifications and clubs. A means to some cliquish popularity. And here's what ol' John Tyler had to say about popularity:

"Popularity, I have always thought, may aptly be compared to a coquette - the more you woo her, the more apt is she to elude your embrace."

So you're right. It would be better if the I'm-so-awesome crowd would stop, or at least limit their preaching to the choir, so to speak.

Then again, I'm not in Mensa and my IQ probably isn't extraordinary.

Re: LSAT 163 = IQ 132
« Reply #77 on: November 11, 2004, 02:12:07 PM »
I said this on xoxohth, and i'll say it again here: if you were truly smart, you wouldn't join mensa. it's a ridiculous waste of money on the order of who's who in american high school students.
i speak from experience.

The students at any selective college will have an IQ at about the Mensa level. If you end up in a field like law or medicine, a lot of your colleagues will too. Smart and successful people naturally find themselves in groups of other smart people.

I wish people stopped thinking their high IQ made them 'smart.'  It makes them sound very stupid, actually.

IQ predicts performance on a huge range of mental tasks, from vocabulary to tone recognition to short term memory to reaction time. In fact, there isn't a single component of our everyday notion of "smartness" with which it doesn't correlate strongly. There are reams of studies that attest to its relevance, and virtually none that support the popular but naive notion that "IQ is meaningless." It's simply not the case that there are lots of high IQ people who are otherwise "stupid," or low IQ people who are manifestly "smart." A high IQ doesn't make someone smart -- a high IQ essentially *is* being smart.

I'd love it if people, for once, could explain just what they mean when they say stuff like "IQ is meaningless." Unless you also think intelligence itself is meaningless, it's a very facile thing to say. It flies in the face of all available research to date on the subject, and shows that you care less about factual correctness than about political correctness.


Re: LSAT 163 = IQ 132
« Reply #78 on: November 11, 2004, 03:38:32 PM »
I said this on xoxohth, and i'll say it again here: if you were truly smart, you wouldn't join mensa. it's a ridiculous waste of money on the order of who's who in american high school students.
i speak from experience.

The students at any selective college will have an IQ at about the Mensa level. If you end up in a field like law or medicine, a lot of your colleagues will too. Smart and successful people naturally find themselves in groups of other smart people.

I wish people stopped thinking their high IQ made them 'smart.'  It makes them sound very stupid, actually.

IQ predicts performance on a huge range of mental tasks, from vocabulary to tone recognition to short term memory to reaction time. In fact, there isn't a single component of our everyday notion of "smartness" with which it doesn't correlate strongly. There are reams of studies that attest to its relevance, and virtually none that support the popular but naive notion that "IQ is meaningless." It's simply not the case that there are lots of high IQ people who are otherwise "stupid," or low IQ people who are manifestly "smart." A high IQ doesn't make someone smart -- a high IQ essentially *is* being smart.

I'd love it if people, for once, could explain just what they mean when they say stuff like "IQ is meaningless." Unless you also think intelligence itself is meaningless, it's a very facile thing to say. It flies in the face of all available research to date on the subject, and shows that you care less about factual correctness than about political correctness.



Let's say I go out and take you into the woods with no advanced equipment.  You starve and you die with your 150 IQ-whatever.  A hunter gatherer is on the other hand fine, but would probably score as a mental reject on an IQ test.  The testing of what qualifies as 'smart' is perfectly arbitrary and if you really ever took a psychology class, even a 101, you really should know better.  Certainly, it seems widely accepted now that you may test intelligence on 6 or 7 widely different levels.  Me, my arbitrary definition is creativity as the best analysis of intelligence. 

I call your presumptuous post bullsh*t.     

Re: LSAT 163 = IQ 132
« Reply #79 on: November 11, 2004, 03:53:17 PM »
I said this on xoxohth, and i'll say it again here: if you were truly smart, you wouldn't join mensa. it's a ridiculous waste of money on the order of who's who in american high school students.
i speak from experience.

The students at any selective college will have an IQ at about the Mensa level. If you end up in a field like law or medicine, a lot of your colleagues will too. Smart and successful people naturally find themselves in groups of other smart people.

I wish people stopped thinking their high IQ made them 'smart.'  It makes them sound very stupid, actually.

IQ predicts performance on a huge range of mental tasks, from vocabulary to tone recognition to short term memory to reaction time. In fact, there isn't a single component of our everyday notion of "smartness" with which it doesn't correlate strongly. There are reams of studies that attest to its relevance, and virtually none that support the popular but naive notion that "IQ is meaningless." It's simply not the case that there are lots of high IQ people who are otherwise "stupid," or low IQ people who are manifestly "smart." A high IQ doesn't make someone smart -- a high IQ essentially *is* being smart.

I'd love it if people, for once, could explain just what they mean when they say stuff like "IQ is meaningless." Unless you also think intelligence itself is meaningless, it's a very facile thing to say. It flies in the face of all available research to date on the subject, and shows that you care less about factual correctness than about political correctness.



Let's say I go out and take you into the woods with no advanced equipment.  You starve and you die with your 150 IQ-whatever.  A hunter gatherer is on the other hand fine, but would probably score as a mental reject on an IQ test.  The testing of what qualifies as 'smart' is perfectly arbitrary and if you really ever took a psychology class, even a 101, you really should know better.  Certainly, it seems widely accepted now that you may test intelligence on 6 or 7 widely different levels.  Me, my arbitrary definition is creativity as the best analysis of intelligence. 

I call your presumptuous post bullsh*t.     

Big f-ing deal. IQ indicates one's ability to learn, not one's ability to be thrown into any random situation and outperform someone whose skills are highly adapted to that very task. You couldn't take the average astrophysicist and expect him to fix a toilet better than an experienced plumber. Nobody but the biggest idiot would use that as evidence that the plumber is smarter than the astrophysicist though. Same principle. Take the 150 IQ person and the hunter-gatherer and put them on a level playing field and see which one adapts the fastest and consequently thrives in the new environment. Is there really any question about it?

You say creativity is the best measure of intelligence. How many creative geniuses have there been who were morons in all other areas? Not many. Leonardo da Vinci would've tested as a strotospheric genius. And Shakespeare? He would've destroyed an IQ test. Nobody who's studied any of the great creative geniuses of history would seriously try to claim that they weren't also exceptional in the traditional "IQ intelligence."