While some of us post for information or humor, many posts have been well thought out by the member. We all believe those posts are clever, insightful, and often profound. Those who have about the same level of intelligence or are not quite as swift, also evaluate them positively, and those who are brighter smile or sneer at them depending on their level of charitablity. Whether we post often or seldom probably depends less on our capabilities than on our ego.
While some of us post for information or humor, many posts have been well thought out by the member. We all believe those posts are clever, insightful, and often profound. Those who have about the same level of intelligence or are not quite as swift, also evaluate them positively, and those who are brighter smile or sneer at them depending on their level of charitablity. Whether we post often or seldom probably depends less on our capabilities than on our ego.
Occam
Of course I’m not talking about myself.
You may be on to something. I post quite a bit, despite recognizing that there are many others on this forum who are intellectually superior. I prefer to think that I simply have a healthy ego, but then again, it could be that my id is sometimes over-active and/or my superego is sometimes under-active.
One thing I didn’t take into consideration is that we have different areas of expertise so someone may post something not too swift on one topic but do billiantly on another.
While some of us post for information or humor, many posts have been well thought out by the member. We all believe those posts are clever, insightful, and often profound. Those who have about the same level of intelligence or are not quite as swift, also evaluate them positively, and those who are brighter smile or sneer at them depending on their level of charitablity. Whether we post often or seldom probably depends less on our capabilities than on our ego.
Occam
Of course I’m not talking about myself.
You may be on to something. I post quite a bit, despite recognizing that there are many others on this forum who are intellectually superior. I prefer to think that I simply have a healthy ego, but then again, it could be that my id is sometimes over-active and/or my superego is sometimes under-active.
Ya know… I’d much rather ‘hang out’ with educated intelligent folk than uneducated folks. (There are intelligent uneducated folks, IMO, but they rarely seem to be interested in the same topics that I am.)
While some of us post for information or humor, many posts have been well thought out by the member. We all believe those posts are clever, insightful, and often profound. Those who have about the same level of intelligence or are not quite as swift, also evaluate them positively, and those who are brighter smile or sneer at them depending on their level of charitablity. Whether we post often or seldom probably depends less on our capabilities than on our ego.
Occam
Of course I’m not talking about myself.
You may be on to something. I post quite a bit, despite recognizing that there are many others on this forum who are intellectually superior. I prefer to think that I simply have a healthy ego, but then again, it could be that my id is sometimes over-active and/or my superego is sometimes under-active.
As one of the less educated but hopefully above average intelligence I have often wondered why I so eagerly try to participate in subjects of which I know very little. Perhaps it is due to my unbridled enthusiasm, perhaps I seek confirmation about my intuitive responses. In any case I can honestly say that since joining CFI, I have learned much and revised my initial impressions on many subjects.
While some of us post for information or humor, many posts have been well thought out by the member. We all believe those posts are clever, insightful, and often profound. Those who have about the same level of intelligence or are not quite as swift, also evaluate them positively, and those who are brighter smile or sneer at them depending on their level of charitablity. Whether we post often or seldom probably depends less on our capabilities than on our ego.
Occam
Nah, being smarter or dumber has very little to do with it.
edit:
Geez, I don’t think I’ve used that smiley before. It sure has a relatively long tongue.
As one of the less educated but hopefully above average intelligence I have often wondered why I so eagerly try to participate in subjects of which I know very little. Perhaps it is due to my unbridled enthusiasm, perhaps I seek confirmation about my intuitive responses. In any case I can honestly say that since joining CFI, I have learned much and revised my initial impressions on many subjects.
I have the same impression Write. After monitoring the site for several months I threw my hat in the ring so to speak and tried responding to a few posts, and one thing I have learned is to develop a thicker skin. What I hoped to do was to learn how to better respond to arguments, or in short how to debate. didn’t get that course in college and is a hinderence on occasion, especially when diving into religious topics or defending evolution which is a no- no in our area. There are even billboards condemning it. It has helped in face to face confrontations in the past and I have increased my reading load just to keep up here! All in all, this is a great place to learn.
Out of curiosity, this is an odd phrase. I wonder where it came from. Old boxing reference, maybe?
Right. In the early 1800’s boxing took place in the center of a ring of on-lookers. Throwing one’s hat into the center area became a way of announcing one’s intention to take part in a match.
A major part of what IQ tests measure is speed of response. Almost all test are timed. I find that quite a few people who may not have done too well when tested have lower opinions of themselves when it doesn’t mean they don’t think as well as others, but merely that they take longer to come to a conclusion. Since all of us here are not time limited in answering posts we don’t have that problem.
Right. In the early 1800’s boxing took place in the center of a ring of on-lookers. Throwing one’s hat into the center area became a way of announcing one’s intention to take part in a match.
That’s right Tim. It meant I’m up for a scrap win or lose! That’s why our World War I pilots used this as the symbol for the 94th pursuit squadron called the “hat in the ring” squadron. America’s ace of aces Eddie Rickenbacker flew a Spad with that marking.
A major part of what IQ tests measure is speed of response. Almost all test are timed. I find that quite a few people who may not have done too well when tested have lower opinions of themselves when it doesn’t mean they don’t think as well as others, but merely that they take longer to come to a conclusion. Since all of us here are not time limited in answering posts we don’t have that problem.
Occam
Exactly! Most of you guys can shoot from the hip with ready facts and quick retorts that send me scurrying to wiki and other sites to keep up and I’m glad for the interlude. It gives me time to formulate an answer with the facts to back it up instead of anecdotal evidence.
Right. In the early 1800’s boxing took place in the center of a ring of on-lookers. Throwing one’s hat into the center area became a way of announcing one’s intention to take part in a match.
That’s right Tim. It meant I’m up for a scrap win or lose! That’s why our World War I pilots used this as the symbol for the 94th pursuit squadron called the “hat in the ring” squadron. America’s ace of aces Eddie Rickenbacker flew a Spad with that marking.
Cap’t Jack
Sweet! I didn’t know that. I still have a 35’ish year old ‘kids’ book titled Flying Aces of WWI where I first read about him and others.
A bit of a non-sequitur, do you like board games? If so, see if you can find a copy of Blue Max, a WW I aerial combat game. It can be played one off or as a campaign (pilots increase skills, different aircraft are available for each country depending on year, et al.)
A major part of what IQ tests measure is speed of response. Almost all test are timed. I find that quite a few people who may not have done too well when tested have lower opinions of themselves when it doesn’t mean they don’t think as well as others, but merely that they take longer to come to a conclusion. Since all of us here are not time limited in answering posts we don’t have that problem.
Occam
James Lawler in his book IQ Heredity and Racism points out that IQ scores are more related to reading ability and cultural bias than and type of innate intelligence. From personal experience many of the men I worked with in the foundry were at least and some times more intelligent as some of the professors I was talking courses from at UB, when it came to practical matters. At least none of them filled their in-ground pool with tires to aggravate the neighbors as one full professor of Sociology did.
From personal experience many of the men I worked with in the foundry were at least and some times more intelligent as some of the professors I was talking courses from at UB, when it came to practical matters.
Why stop at the “practical matter”? Professor James Lawler, for example, doesn’t seem all that intelligent even at “cognitive matter.”
Come on Occam. Humans don’t have egos. Humans are egos. 
