Re: The Promise of Forth

In article <0001HW.C417138600125C00F02845B0@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
Charlie Springer  <RAM@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>On Sun, 23 Mar 2008 19:02:31 -0700, Albert van der Horst wrote
>(in article <jy7po7.ndq@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>):
>
>>> Exactly 50% of any generation will have an IQ below 100 :-)
>>
>> And with each new generation IQ-tests have to be adapted to accomplish
>> this. (People get smarter all the time.)
>
>Do they get smarter? I think IQ is the ratio of what you know and the
>problems you can solve compared to the average (or median from the above
>description. I don't know the definition like I should.) person your age.

Your age, your culture, and the date of the test.
This is the pitfall in e.g. comparing between whites and blacks in the US.
(Sorry, Africal Americans and Caucasuan Americans or some such).
The tests have to be adapted all the time to keep the average at 100.
Some effort is being done to keep down the effect of cultural differences.

>
>I suspect an American high school kid today would be completely lost in
an IQ
>test written for the same age in 1880. They would look very stupid and
>ignorant. Heck, they probably don't even know why a horse would need
steel
>shoes or how to store ice till summer. And their grasp of Euclidean
Geometry
>sucks.

What you describe don't look like intelligence tests.
The IQ-test I took at age 10, would be mostly understood by an 1880 US kid
1),
even being in Dutch. I would have scored very badly if domain knowledge
of any kind had been involved.

1) Of sufficient intelligence. :-)

>-- Charlie Springer

Groetjes Albert

--
-- 
Albert van der Horst, UTRECHT,THE NETHERLANDS
Economic growth -- like all pyramid schemes -- ultimately falters.
albert@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 &=n http://home.hccnet.nl/a.w.m.van.der.horst