Flareon

That's a whole another can of worms I'm not going to open today. Besides, I don't think the French 'hate' America as much as they disagree with many US policies and are at times disgusted and disturbed by our actions. And I will say that I think the French have a vaid reason for disagreeing with us regarding the Iraq war.

You do have a point. But even if you consider BBC a source for propaganda comparable to that of FOX (!), let me emphasize that Americans need a dose of foreign news every now and then and that in general, foreign propaganda is less harmful to one than that of one's home country. Why? Because one, we tend to believe less what other countries say, and two, homeland propaganda is aimed primarily at its people, the voters (as if voters really determine the election nowadays anyway ).

I disagree..perhaps not so much with the IQ tests, but for the Big Five, and other 'personality' tests. Big Five is a 'theory,' just like Jung's 4 functions, Erikson's 8 stages of growth, and even Freud's ideas of the id, ego, and superego. The only truly scientific psychological tests lie within in the disciplinary likes of behavioral psychology and neuropsychology. The reason that personality test are not scientific, is because traits are not able to be manipulated, therfore not condusive to experimentation. Perhaps in the future when human understanding of the mind and its role in personality have reached beyond our current 'blind-men-studying-an-elephant' status, we can devise tests of personality that will be more scientific. Back to the original argument, I can see how one can argue that such tests are necessary as an aiding tool for assessing future employees, but to call them scientific? Not really.

I do agree with you and believe that our right to voice our opinion is a priceless freedom we enjoy in this country and those who wish to exercise it, should. However, on a personal note, if I was ever wrongly-accused of a heinous crime (and this of thing does happen more often than one would think), I would want the general public to at least give me some benefit of doubt and not stamp me as guilty even before my trial was over. I'm not a saint, and I don't think people will look at me and automatically think, 'aww, what a sweet-looking person, she's probably innocent,' so restraint of such prejudgment would be important to me. Even though I would recognize that it is everyone's right to place whatever kind of personal verdict on me, I would be very demoralized if people thought I was a criminal based on their assumptions without undoubtable proof.

Sayonara: sorry, I didn't intend to stray from topic. Galaxygirl: Thanks for the info.

Radio: BBC Paper: Washington Post (I considered NY Times, but wanted the Post's local news) Net: MSNBC, CNN, Slashdot

Actually, we have separate tubes; we ingest with our esophagus, we breathe through our trachea.

Yes I agree. After a certain age, having a nice home, a fat bank account, a fabulous spouse, a satisfying job, and good health becomes the sure mark of intelligence, and IQ becomes meaningless.

You're kidding, right? That'd be so gross! I would run around wearing a raincoat in order to keep people's mist away from me. I think storing waste until one can properly dispose it is a fabulous system, although it might be even cooler if we converted waste to a usuable substance, like Koolaid. First you want sweat, then you don't. Evolutionarily, the arm pit sweat served a social purpose, to hold our smell signature. That's why we have hair there, to capture the smell better. And likewise that's why we also have hair down in the nether regions. I think it's nature's reminder to us highbrow humans that we are still primitive, hairy and stinky animals.

I see what you are saying. Here's my take on complacency: I make a habit of listening to the BBC and other news sources outside the U.S. I wish more Americans would do the same, instead of watching Fox, or some other propaganda-machine. Our media keeps the people believing in crap, sheltering them from real dangers and real information while keeping them in fear of the things according to the political agenda. I mean even the Terri Shiavo (let her RIP) story was basically raped and pillaged by the media and a poor family's tragedy became sensationalistic brouhaha. The media does not have it's priorities straight, and neither do many of our politicians. Yes, complacency is dangerous, especially when the information the Americans feed on is flawed. Knowledge is power, and we are powerless when we are uninformed. If we want to change the complacency that could make us feeble, we should start there.

5614, that's mean... Don't you know that 'common sense' supercedes all?

Please elaborate for me, what you mean by "complacent," specifically, to whom/what?

LOL! Dak, you are exactly on the point.

I like your "Modest Proposal." However, one problem. Unless you want to "farm" them, less intelligent people are not a practically renewable food source. If we wanted to contain them by some means, it would take more resource to do so than to do the same to cattle. Why? Because even as "inferior in intelligence" as they are, they are still smarter than cattle, and will escape our method of modern bovine containment. I suppose we can go into some "Matrix-esque" system of a "human farm," but that would be another topic altogether.

Wow, I didn't think about that. Great insight.

Sorry to be stickler, but we did not evolve from monkeys! Otherwise, we would have had a good chance of retaining our tails. Monkeys and humans both share common ancestry; we are like two twigs coming off the same branch. It would be a bit more correct to call our ancestors "ape-like creatures." I have to admit, anthropology is not my strong suit. Anyone else have a better term to call our "foreparents?"

This is why it is better for scientific texts to stick to scientific (and consistent) diction. Personally, I would feel confident in assuming the two are synonymous.

133-137, depending on test. I wish it were higher so I could be in Mensa. Then I could mingle with the elites and bask in my own glow of IQ vanity. To me, IQ is to intelligence as phi (golden mean) is to beauty. Each relationship does bear a moderately high correlation, but that doesn't explain it all entirely. Intelligence, like beauty, can not be quantified, only estimated based on preexisting assumptions which by their own nature are not complete, nor static. IQ tests also do not test a whole variety of other types of intelligences that factor into one's success and happiness in life. Social consciousness, leadership skills, meticulousness, punctuality, sense of humor and comedic timing, creativity, fine motor skills, etc are not tested well using traditional IQ tests, but I would argue factor greatly into one's success.

I appreciate the question. First, I'm sorry that I don't wish to divulge my life circumstances that lead me to feel in such a way, but I'll just say yes, I have lived overseas--as a matter of fact, I'm not even a US citizen. And I don't believe in blind patriotism, but I recognize that I have benefitted greatly by living here.

Those statistics may sadly be true, but I'd still rather live in this good ol' country than anywhere else. Besides, the only statistics that I'll accept are numerical graphs, read VERY carefully at that. Describing statistics in words can warp information in every which way a manipulator intends. Statistics + anything.ORG = I don't buy it. Yes, America needs to get her act together on many fronts (healthcare, economics, etc...) and we are on too many countries' sh*tlist, but I'm optimistic that our future leaders will begin to remedy many of the ills and strengthen our global position and reputation.

Are you a disillusioned former fan or something?

Phi, you crack me up. I don't know, I think the better to question to ask would be, "will he be convicted?" I know MJ less than I would a stranger because he is a mega-celebrity and so much crap has been and is written about him that it's impossible to decipher truth from fiction. If he gets off, people may still have doubts about his innocence; conversely, if he is convicted, there will be undoubtely many people (fans) who will continue to claim his innocence. Either way, the world may never stop arguing about it.

Administering such tests, while understandably viewed as unfair or unnecessary, are well within emplyers' rights. No one is forcing people to apply, after all. As for the benefits, Coral, may I ask you to elaborate on this? I fail to see what's wrong with testing a prospective employee's honesty, especially when the motivation to lie in favor of oneself is so great. When I took such a test years ago, I answered completely honestly and felt no worries. I figured, if my personality wasn't a fit for the job, I would suffer as much as the business would. With these said, I have to admit that many tests out there are seriously flawed, and that many jobs contain aspects that cannot be tested easily.