tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1117433809983410591.post6277930468444046712..comments2023-08-26T20:46:05.406+05:30Comments on Neglected Serendipity: Rambling, as if in dreams!Ketanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02622410643454108685noreply@blogger.comBlogger45125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1117433809983410591.post-68325115101572199132009-10-19T03:01:53.095+05:302009-10-19T03:01:53.095+05:30TUIB,
I thought Basic Instinct was a somewhat int...<b>TUIB,</b><br /><br />I thought Basic Instinct was a somewhat intelligent movie, yes sure, there were distractions that would make it seem otherwise! ;) But those distractions also had an intelligent symbolism in their own way!<br /><br />I'd recommended the High IQ society site only because their questions were more challenging and interesting than others!<br /><br />How did you find those short term memory questions with 16 squares in yellow, white, blue? Somehow, I'm never able to do those. :(<br /><br />The results of (good) IQ tests are to be taken with a pinch of salt, but not totally disregarded in my opinion. It'd be pointless to try to compare potential to contribute intelligently of two people with measured IQs of 160 and 180, simply 'cuz IQ-measurement in <b>that</b> range is unreliable, and also as for practical purposes how their minds would work would not be very different.<br /><br />But I'm very sure, you could make out perceptible difference between approaches to various situations of persons with IQs, say 90 and 160.<br /><br />Those with higher IQ, because they can understand cause-and-effect-relationships better, can more likely work out solutions to many problems, and that to faster. And again because of better understanding, and comfort with concepts involved, they are more likely to innovate. But whether actually do all that or not, would largely depend upon what social feedback do they get--reward or penalty?<br /><br />There is one post where I've always wanted you to comment, but somehow always fail to get you to do so! :)<br /><br />It's a really short post, would take 7-8 min to read at most. In light of what I've written, what accomplishment in my life would qualify as realization of my potential? That is a very genuine, and most significant doubt I have about my own life.<br /><br /><a href="http://ketanpanchal.blogspot.com/2009/03/every-one-has-dreams-ambitions.html" rel="nofollow"><b>The post (click)</b></a><br /><br />And the most important thing, did you read that list of ten interesting things about dreams? ;) Most of the readers missed the point that this post was primarily to share those links. :( This is what happens when I ramble. The point is lost!<br /><br />And a very special thanks to you for so many well-thought and insightful comments on this post. It's after going through your comments again I realized, not just my blog, but even I was missing your comments! :)<br /><br />I really value sincere comments. I'd honestly not thought this post, which I've also tagged as 'trivia' would invoke such discussion/debate :)<br /><br />TC.Ketanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02622410643454108685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1117433809983410591.post-74481590244451671242009-10-18T19:41:16.038+05:302009-10-18T19:41:16.038+05:30Haha! I was just having a little fun with Sharon S...Haha! I was just having a little fun with Sharon Stone there..its kinda cool to think the woman who got famous for Basic Instinct knows about Reimann surfaces and grunions and such.. :D<br /><br />I thought that IQ wasnt all that high since they told me 1 out of 450 random people wud have the same score. And since there's like 6 billion of us, that doesnt make me very unique..<br /><br />The Stanford-Binet test has sample-size limitations..but then thats coz the sample size of people at the higher end of the scale is really tiny.. <br /><br />You see, I'm making the same point you are. Thats precisely why intelligence quotient is hardly an indicator of potential. You dont even need to be intelligent to be good at a lot of things. By intelligent, I mean the kind of intelligence these silly tests measure..<br /><br />This turned out to be a fun post with all that came up for discussion..you shud really do more of these spur-of-the-moment ones! :)Tangled up in blue...https://www.blogger.com/profile/09863311350462955038noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1117433809983410591.post-20584716504854258072009-10-18T06:24:26.113+05:302009-10-18T06:24:26.113+05:30Arrey TUIB, I did not expect at least you to take ...Arrey <b>TUIB</b>, I did not expect at least you to take those quoted figures for celebrities seriously. I've clearly stated in my post that those figures are entirely unreliable.<br /><br />And do you know, 151 is <b>extremely</b> high IQ!<br /><br />If you get time, please do go through the Wikipedia article on Stanford-Binet test. It's into its fourth edition. Their sample size was <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford-Binet_test#Present_use" rel="nofollow">4,800 (click)</a>, and standard deviation was 15. Let's see what this entails:<br /><br />The most intelligent person in the sample would be 99.979 <b>[</b>100 - (100/4800)<b>]</b> percentile. This corresponds to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_deviation#Rules_for_normally_distributed_data" rel="nofollow">3.5 standards deviations (see the table in the linked section)</a>. What is 3.5 times 15? <b>152.5!</b> You know no, what that means? That's the ceiling of that test! It is incapable of measuring a higher IQ! TUIB, you literally broke the IQ-scale!<br /><br />That's why I'd stressed in the post that the quoted IQs of those celebrities were too high. I'm not implying that someone cannot have an IQ greater than that of 152, but Stanford-Binet would be incapable of doing that.<br /><br />With that score you could qualify for triple 9 society! What more do you want?<br /><br />And do you understand what it means to be best in some parameter among 5k people? Are you the tallest, heaviest, or fastest (runner) among random 5k people?<br /><br />A lot in what you say depends on how you define 'realizing' of potential. Is it winning the Nobel Prize, alone? Or getting famous? What if people around serve as impediments of growth precisely because of your intelligence? In how many spheres of life is intelligence the only factor or even required? ;)<br /><br />TC.Ketanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02622410643454108685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1117433809983410591.post-68029991760904700182009-10-18T04:50:20.078+05:302009-10-18T04:50:20.078+05:30Again this is somewhat a low ceiling for higher en...Again this is somewhat a low ceiling for higher end IQs--falls below that of most of the high-IQ people given in that link in the post! My original score in it was 147.<br /><br />For the <b>first</b> linked test (with 38 questions), I'm reproducing my responses here. Do let me know if yours differ from mine. That way we can reach the answer key for the test:<br /><br />1. T<br />2. T<br />3. F<br />4. T<br />5. T<br />6. T<br />7. T<br />8. T; but here I have a doubt, too. Like, if the second instance of <i>quane</i> in the sentence, makes it sound 'bad', but not sure if it amounts to grammatically 'wrong'. Okay, I think it is to be marked <b>false</b>.<br />9. T<br />10. T<br />11. T<br />12. T<br />13. F; it is <i>e</i><br />14. F<br />15. T<br />16. F<br />17. T<br />18. F<br />19. F<br />20. F; hand and finger cannot be connected together<br />21. F; saturday is 6th day<br />22. F<br />23. F; he would be 3 blocks away<br />24. F; but not sure if 'road' would be taken as opposite of or synonymous with 'street'. If opposite, then answer would be true.<br />25. T<br />26. T<br />27. T<br />28. F<br />29. T<br />30. F; 32<br />31. T<br />32. F<br />33. F; 62<br />34. T<br />35. T; 8 even numbers in all, so their sum would be even<br />36. F; 21 handshakes<br />37. F; at the most 7 areas; but haven't actually tried drawing on paper!<br />38. F; only 4 doors can be crossed.<br /><br />Okay, as I type this I attempted the first test yet again with the above marking scheme (F as answer for question 8). And the score I got was 151. So, absolute ceilings for the first and second tests are 155 and 165. Can we consider such tests reliable? <b>Absolutely not!</b> At least not for the somewhat higher range.<br /><br />And I could not get what you meant by your closing sentence--<i>"And I guess you know what I mean by referring them."</i><br /><br />TC.Ketanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02622410643454108685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1117433809983410591.post-13292701543513556692009-10-18T04:47:10.105+05:302009-10-18T04:47:10.105+05:30...Second time, I altered 2 out of 38 questions, b......Second time, I altered 2 out of 38 questions, but marked all of them very fast out of memory, like within 2 min, and I got 126! I mean I got less despite solving the questions much faster. And the fact that a difference of only 2 questions made such a huge difference to the final score! A good test should not be so sensitive to a difference of few questions. It should make allowances for silly mistakes.<br />The third time, I marked all the questions same as on first instance, except the last one, which I realized I'd got wrong the first time around--again all out of memory. The score was 141! The fourth time taking a bit more time I got 138. These are <b>very low scores</b>! Simply because I must have got almost all questions correct, and marked them all within 2 min (out of memory). The most intelligent person in entire history of mankind would take at least 4 min to do that without knowing the answers priorly (even simply reading the questions would take at least 3 min, forget, calculating!). Even if I were to assume I got a couple of questions wrong, that should be compensated for by my talking simply two min to mark all answers! So basically, the ceiling of this test was at the most 145! It is suitable for average range of IQ, but not higher. A ceiling of 145 is very low, indeed!<br />I took <a href="http://www.testcafe.com/iqtest/?affil=" rel="nofollow">another test (click)</a>. I suspect its ceiling is 162, or maybe 165.<br /><br />Again this is somewhat a low ceiling for higher end IQs--falls below that of most of the high-IQ people given in that link in the post! My original score in it was 147.<br /><br />For the <b>first</b> linked test (with 38 questions), I'm reproducing my responses here. Do let me know if yours differ from mine. That way we can reach the answer key for the test:<br /><br />1. T<br />2. T<br />3. F<br />4. T<br />5. T<br />6. T<br />7. T<br />8. T; but here I have a doubt, too. Like, if the second instance of <i>quane</i> in the sentence, makes it sound 'bad', but not sure if it amounts to grammatically 'wrong'. Okay, I think it is to be marked <b>false</b>.<br />9. T<br />10. T<br />11. T<br />12. T<br />13. F; it is <i>e</i><br />14. F<br />15. T<br />16. F<br />17. T<br />18. F<br />19. F<br />20. F; hand and finger cannot be connected together<br />21. F; saturday is 6th day<br />22. F<br />23. F; he would be 3 blocks away<br />24. F; but not sure if 'road' would be taken as opposite of or synonymous with 'street'. If opposite, then answer would be true.<br />25. T<br />26. T<br />27. T<br />28. F<br />29. T<br />30. F; 32<br />31. T<br />32. F<br />33. F; 62<br />34. T...Ketanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02622410643454108685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1117433809983410591.post-73251371336359076522009-10-18T04:45:12.104+05:302009-10-18T04:45:12.104+05:30Sai,
To be honest, I know I type comments that are...<b>Sai,</b><br />To be honest, I know I type comments that are too lengthy! :) But maybe, I enjoy that. I hope, I do make some points also in those comments. :) And when I know it's you reading those comments at the other end, it's too difficult to resist! ;)<br />Regarding IQ tests, I'd only like to state that just like how it's inappropriate to 'communalize' people, it is wrong to club together all IQ tests! By which I mean, one should distinguish between a well designed test, <b>and</b> crappy ones that abound the net. I'd come across only one well designed IQ-test on the net, but that too didn't give me a result as I was required to pay for it!<br />I think I've laid out the criteria for a good IQ test, too. And they're very few. :)<br />Also I did not indicate that IQ tests guarantee a person's success. Someone who takes to narcotics or crime, would not be seen as successful in the conventional sense. Also those with very high IQ are bound to be less motivated to put in hardwork (at least in India) as the daily mundane affairs, and education system would not challenge their intellect enough.<br />Is there something you intended to indicate through your measured IQ of 139? Believe me, it is a very, very good IQ, though I personally suspect it should be around 145 for you (at least). Some of the famous personalities' scores are inflated to sensationalize.<br />You can do one thing. I know it would be silly, but select two people you know well, such that one is definitely less intelligent than you, and the other definitely more so. Now, get your IQs tested <b>professionally</b>, say by a psychologist. Then compare the results. In all likelihood, the IQs will be in the same order as you'd have guessed the intelligence! And don't get angry at me for giving such ideas! Do that only when you have sufficient time! My obsession with IQ tests partly stems from the fact that they're entertaining!<br />Also, repeatedly solving the same set of questions is not the way to go about IQ tests! Obviously, you'll score higher with each subsequent attempt! Good IQ tests also eliminate this flaw of favoring those who'd have solved a certain type of questions priorly.<br />I repeat most of the online tests are crappy! I'll give you a prime example of one such test. Will take you just over 10 min.<br /><a href="http://www.iqtest.com/prep.html" rel="nofollow"><b>Here (click)</b></a><br />I attempted it four times in all (thrice--in a span of an hour). First time I got 132....Ketanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02622410643454108685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1117433809983410591.post-70837332750466461962009-10-17T18:25:18.444+05:302009-10-17T18:25:18.444+05:30Well, it was measured three years ago by the Stanf...Well, it was measured three years ago by the Stanford-Binet test..it had some 11 subtests related to verbal, cognitive, factual, memory, spatial thinking and such like..my dad's a psychiatrist so he thought it'd be cool for me to take it..this psychologist felly administered it..I remember she didnt think very highly of me till she saw the results shaping up..:D<br /><br />anyways, it came out 151 then, but thats not absolute it'll prolly change by around 10 points now and then..<br /><br />remarkably the facebook and the google iq tests give me 149 and 153..so that averages out again..<br /><br />havent taken any others online till u told me about the highiqsociety test..apparently they dont think very highly of me either..i scored just 146..<br /><br />but then i had no clue what a complex manifold surface was, or who'd gotten to world cup soccer finals, or what anti-symmetrisation of tensor product meant! :D I think I must admit my defeat to Sharon Stone..hahaaa..<br /><br />Wow, ur own IQ history indicates u're pretty up there with the big guys! ;)<br /><br />Not really such a good indicator of potential either..unless we admit that most ppl are incapable of realising their full potentials anyway..Tangled up in blue...https://www.blogger.com/profile/09863311350462955038noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1117433809983410591.post-21748882261820224732009-10-17T14:58:05.608+05:302009-10-17T14:58:05.608+05:30Tried testing. It shows 148. with a few more tries...Tried testing. It shows 148. with a few more tries, it will reach 165+. And I guess you know what I mean by referring them.<br /><br />CheersG Saimukundhanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12563947383434958769noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1117433809983410591.post-17129610586609929832009-10-17T14:45:42.319+05:302009-10-17T14:45:42.319+05:30Man,
That response was rambling! But made more se...Man,<br /><br />That response was rambling! But made more sense than the post (obviously). On Freud, I was just posting something from my memory. And I have always been skeptical of the IQ test, though I am not able to put any reasons for that (due to lack of IQ?) One of the online test I took gave me a score of around 138 or 139.<br /><br />CheersG Saimukundhanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12563947383434958769noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1117433809983410591.post-80838118060988052752009-10-16T21:02:58.114+05:302009-10-16T21:02:58.114+05:30Hello TUIB!
I too had stopped at the point where ...Hello <b>TUIB</b>!<br /><br />I too had stopped at the point where he had started discussing actual case studies. I too was overwhelmed, in the sense, some of his correlations had seemed bizarre. And also 'cuz I felt I was not in a position to predict the interpretations simply 'cuz I wouldn't know the complete history of the subject! But most important, I stopped precisely because the book was too engaging. Ah, the ironies of life! :(<br /><br />Well I did know that it was Anna Freud who actually came up with the term 'ego defense', and classified them into three levels, also adding a few (especially, the more 'normal' and nature ones). But, it was Sigmund who came out with the concept of ego that needed to be defended from environmental stressors. And that subconscious stresses countered by inappropriate-to-the situation-defences lead to psychiatric manifestations. :)<br /><br />I think in that link in the post, Sharon Stone's IQ has been quoted to be 154! As such, I can partly guess but when and how did you get your IQ tested? Was it an online test or an interview in person?<br /><br />You might find my history with IQ tests interesting! That's in my initial responses to Vishwas above. ;)<br /><br />I would definitely say that IQ is a very good indicator of 'potential' of a person, but not whether that potential would be realized or not! I would at this point have to recommend <i>Atlas Shrugged</i> to you, to give you an indication of 'why?'<br /><br />Also, a large portion of my response to GS addresses this issue only.<br /><br />And please do read the link I've provided of my response to Vishwas where I've compared Neils Bohr's approach to life with Einstein's. :)<br /><br />To your point of IQ of 150, I'd also like to point out that there are many 'great' people who had much lower IQs! Pun on 'great' is simply because my belief that perceived greatness has largely been about propaganda recently got further reinforced!<br /><br />Thanks for your ideas!<br /><br />TC.Ketanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02622410643454108685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1117433809983410591.post-14176204484966897942009-10-16T20:40:00.249+05:302009-10-16T20:40:00.249+05:30...I think this much explanation should be suffici......I think this much explanation should be sufficient, why Freud's theories are considered to be largely incorrect now! :)<br /><br />BTW, level 2 here is psychology, and level 3 is neurology. With greater advancement in science few more levels would be added. :)<br /><br /><b>IQ:</b><br /><br />I don't know what you meant by 'intelligence'. If you meant wisdom or presence of mind, then I would agree that these tests are very indicative.<br /><br />But a lot also depends on the design of tests. Ironically, the test administered by the Pune chapter of Mensa was really crappy. [Disclaimer: I had given the test and was placed at 90 percentile of the population, not getting selected by a HUGE margin. That comes to an IQ of around 115.] It was a written test, and the 'consultant' psychologist who had come to greet us did not know of what was standard deviation! That was a WTF-moment for me! How could someone administer an IQ test without knowing about STANDARD DEVIATION?!!! Whereas, when I was tested individually in an interview in class fourth, mostly my IQ was above 160. And no one gets demented to that extreme degree!<br /><br />Among all my friends that I know, I've always been correct in predicting whose IQ would be greater between any of the two!<br /><br />Unfortunately, many IQ tests are crappy business strategies. A well-designed IQ test would test at least 6 aspects of intelligence. And scoring would be based not only on how many questions are answered correctly, but also on how much time is taken and also considering their 'relative difficulty'. If all those criteria are fulfilled, then the test does serve as a pretty good indicator of basic intelligence. But I would like to clarify here that intelligence does not have complete correlation with worldly success. Kindly see my response to Vishwas with regard to comparison with Einstein and Neils Bohr <a href="http://ketanpanchal.blogspot.com/2009/10/rambling-as-if-in-dreams.html?showComment=1255261700084#c3540187157838847829" rel="nofollow">here (click)</a>.<br /><br />Also, a lot of factors go into determining what one does with that intelligence. There are a few who write Uncyclopedia articles, remaining totally obscure, but none with an IQ of less than 140! And a few go 'full throttle' for worldly fame. :)<br /><br />Sorry for such long replies, but both the issues you'd raised could not have been dealt with only in a few sentences.<br /><br />Thanks a lot for taking time for commenting!<br /><br />TC.Ketanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02622410643454108685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1117433809983410591.post-84934501812349523062009-10-16T20:37:47.136+05:302009-10-16T20:37:47.136+05:30...And since they wouldn't impart much energy ......And since they wouldn't impart much energy to the atoms, they wouldn't produce heat!<br /><br />I would say that Freud carried our understanding from level 1 to 2.<br /><br />Now see what would a person with respective levels of knowledge do:<br /><br />Level 1--throw the light bulb! Get a new one! This corresponds to neglect of those suffering from psychiatric diseases, and torturing them. Thinking of them as waste and burden to the society.<br /><br />Level 2--Trying to make better light bulbs. This is what Freud had attempted. He provided qualitative concepts ego and superego, but not how they come about. These correspond to concepts like electrical current, which is purely qualitative unless and until one recognizes that current is a flow of electrons! So Freud did not explain how our mind is 'wired', as in, the nerve cells (neurons) and the gaps between them, called synapses across which they communicate. But his greatness lies in the fact that he could come up with such qualitative concepts. Obviously since his understanding was quite superficial he had made sweeping generalizations, applicable to a vast majority. What gives the impression of his going wrong is his theories not working in a few exceptions. Also, with our understanding at level 3 now (neuronal connections and chemicals acting as mediators--neurotransmitters), Freud's concepts seem to simplistic and abstract.<br /><br />Level 3--An entirely new technology could be developed--fluorescent light source! But then this takes time and immense resources!<br /><br />And just because we today have fluorescent light, it does not mean we can forget the greatness of Edison! So this idea that chemicals are responsible for our precious emotions and can alter them was quite revolutionary. It also required to breach another mental barrier. But the basic problem is that we cannot yet make drugs (chemicals) reach the 'right' neurons in the brain. Whenever we would be able to accomplish that, majority of brain disorder would be permanently treated, and Freud would become totally redundant (and wrong!)<br /><br />But the strongest reason you'll find criticism level against Freud is not of academic nature, but is owing to cultural conditioning. He had implied that there's no difference between the nature of attraction felt by a baby towards its mother and sexual attraction felt by grown up people! So these ideas were culturally unacceptable! <i>Since, baby's love is 'pure', but sexual attraction required to produce such babies is 'impure'!</i>...Ketanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02622410643454108685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1117433809983410591.post-36043076809608367172009-10-16T20:35:12.272+05:302009-10-16T20:35:12.272+05:30Hello, Saimukundhan!
I'm not an authority on ...Hello, Saimukundhan!<br /><br />I'm not an authority on psychology (or anything, for that matter!), but the basic ideas of Sigmund Freud have stood the test of time. His idea of id, ego and superego are the cornerstone of psychology.<br /><br />Actually psychiatric diseases can be understood at at least three levels. It would be difficult for me to give you an analogy. But let me try:<br /><br />You see that one of your light bulbs has stopped working. The most general idea of how light bulb works for a lay person is this:<br /><br /><b>Level 1</b>: <i>I put on a light switch. Electric current makes the light bulb glow! If I see a broken coiled thing (filament), then it's to replace the bulb!</i><br /><br /><b>Level 2:</b> <i>I put on the light switch, electric current passes through the coiled filament. Heat is generated as current encounters electrical resistance (analogous to mechanical friction). Heated filament produces light. If the filament is broken circuit would not be completed, there would be no heat generation, and there would be no light.</i><br /><br /><b>Level 3:</b> <i>Electrical current passes through the filament. The individual atoms start vibrating, but remaining at <b>the same place</b>. Their cumulative kinetic energy is what is heat. And the greater it, greater is the temperature. At higher temperature electrons jump to much more outer orbitals, and on returning back, emit electromagnetic radiation, which if of wavelength between 400 to 700 nanometer, would be visible to our eye. This is what we call 'light'.<br /><br />If the atoms acquire further energy, they'll start moving from their location. This would externally be seen as 'softening' of something that was solid (very hard). But when the degree of freedom increases too much, many tungsten atoms would leave their positions, and they'd assume a new state--liquid! The circuit will now 'break'!</i><br /><br />You may or may not understand everything that I've written above, but would definitely be able to make out that with each higher level the depth of understanding was greater. Depending upon the resources available, with greater understanding we can provide better solutions from problems. For instance, by knowing that to produce light all that is needed is to push the electrons out to higher energy levels, we could produce sources that did that by transferring more energy to individual electrons rather than the atoms that contained them! This is what our fluorescent tubes are!...Ketanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02622410643454108685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1117433809983410591.post-88277773709340288722009-10-16T19:42:35.050+05:302009-10-16T19:42:35.050+05:30*in life*in lifeTangled up in blue...https://www.blogger.com/profile/09863311350462955038noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1117433809983410591.post-9858800366616661962009-10-16T19:42:09.534+05:302009-10-16T19:42:09.534+05:30But you know, GS is right..IQ is hardly ever a pre...But you know, GS is right..IQ is hardly ever a predictor of real potential, success or happiness is life..<br /><br />in fact, an IQ of greater than 150 is found in as many as 1 in 450 people..but you see, we only ever learn retrospectively about people who accomplished so much..Tangled up in blue...https://www.blogger.com/profile/09863311350462955038noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1117433809983410591.post-60745252238068823892009-10-16T19:40:18.050+05:302009-10-16T19:40:18.050+05:30Y'know, I've read bits of The Interpretati...Y'know, I've read bits of The Interpretation of Dreams, too! And I was quite overwhelmed, so I stopped, and read Freud's biography The Passions of the Mind (which I totally recommend btw, altho it takes many months to read!), instead. Both the books left quite an impression on me..Freud was pretty incredibly brilliant!! <br /><br />And ego-defense mechanisms were kinda Anna Freud's contribution! Not many know that..<br /><br />And yay yay yay! I'm smarter than Sharon Stone atleast, my IQ is 151! Hahaaa..what happiness!<br /><br />:DTangled up in blue...https://www.blogger.com/profile/09863311350462955038noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1117433809983410591.post-60133712227062030752009-10-16T17:12:03.247+05:302009-10-16T17:12:03.247+05:30Ketan,
I remember reading somewhere on Freud that...Ketan,<br /><br />I remember reading somewhere on Freud that most of his ideas have been held to be scientifically incorrect. Is it true?<br /><br />On to this IQ, I believe it has very little significance practically. My personal view has been that true intelligence is rarely reflected in these tests.<br /><br />CheersG Saimukundhanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12563947383434958769noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1117433809983410591.post-5411755942438020202009-10-15T16:54:13.118+05:302009-10-15T16:54:13.118+05:30@ Ambi:
Yes, I certainly remember. But it's n...<b>@ Ambi:</b><br /><br />Yes, I certainly remember. But it's not odd, precisely because we were discussing only those issues that very few people do in their daily lives, and certainly the bases, impl and origins of dreams are certainly one of those. :) Did you go through the links? How did you find them? Thanks! TC.<br /><br /><b>@ Rakesh:</b><br /><br />133 is a very good IQ. And didn't come as a surprise considering your great sense of humor, which BTW, is a very good indicator of someone's intelligence, ('cuz the brain requires to do a lot of parallel processing of thoughts) and your meticulous analysis of issues (which you unfortunately do exceedingly rarely in your posts :( ). I've got to say you've got a very right combination of intelligence and optimally chilled attitude to enjoy life to the fullest! :) So, go enjoy to the fullest your heavy workload! :P<br /><br />Actually, the links on dreams and IQ of celebrities, I thought were much more interesting than my post itself!<br /><br />LOL@ oral care! ;)<br /><br />Thanks! TC.Ketanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02622410643454108685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1117433809983410591.post-71590737827751180872009-10-15T16:51:21.087+05:302009-10-15T16:51:21.087+05:30...What's his profession if you don't mind......What's his profession if you don't mind?<br /><br />But you know actually, at such higher ranges, IQs turn out to be very unreliable simply because both 'mental age' and 'percentile' are statistical terms, and the sample size at that extreme is very little to make comparisons and to calibrate! :)<br /><br />I won't say I know neurology well, but it's like solar opposite of psychology. Also don't know if you've had the opportunity to go through Freud's ideas. But I'd highly recomment <i>The interpretation of dreams</i>. Or at least going through articles related to him on Wikipedia. His ideas would give you answers to many questions we ask in life, and at least a bit about dreams. I'd read somewhere that intelligence is 80% heritable, so *that* should explain your 7 year-old's extraordinary intelligence! :P<br /><br />That was an interesting occurrence of the horse race! Sadly, almost all the respondents either forgot to go through the links in the post, or did not find them that fascinating! And very honestly, I did not realize this would turn out to be such a thought-provoking post for everyone! This was quite an impulsive post on my part largely to share some trivia with the readers! I think readers like trivia more than my ideas! :P<br /><br />Thanks for reading and commenting! BTW, I'd responded to your comment on 'Residua'.<br /><br />TC.Ketanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02622410643454108685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1117433809983410591.post-87239185577245185482009-10-15T16:49:36.107+05:302009-10-15T16:49:36.107+05:30..."percepting" was a typo intended to b......"percepting" was a typo intended to be <i>perceiving</i>, and I'd pointed that out immediately in the next comment, fearing your backlash and pink chaddis! :P<br /><br />LOL @ your <i>spermentation</i>. Actually I just read, if sperm stay for long time in the 'tubes', then the older ones start secreting chemicals that kill the newer ones. But that's actually a good thing unless you're planning to procreate to its illogical end, i.e., making a human female produce a child! :P<br /><br /><i>"Grow horns"</i>? So that would make them feel <i>horn</i>-y? Imagine the beauty of alliteration, the rhyme, the magic, when you'd call your chick 'horny honey'! LOL! I know my flirting skills have got outdated. Will have to ho(r)ne them with the next open source upgrade available! :P<br /><br />Arrey the contributors of uncyclopedia are normal people like you and me. Oh sorry, not 'normal' :P okay, I mean, they write only out of pleasure; you too can contribute. :)<br /><br />And don't bother about the things I asked you to read, till you complete at least FH or AS, and do a post on it! :P But I'd very highly recommend your going through the uncyclopedia links in my left sidebar. They're good and fun!<br /><br />TC.<br /><br /><b>@Sioneve:</b><br /><br />99.997 percentile!!!!!!!!!!!!! <--I rarely deliberately indulge in grammatical blasphemy, but then this once it was absolutely called for!<br /><br />I checked, it 4 standard deviations above the mean, which would mean an IQ of at least 148 and a max. of 180!! Well that's very, very, very, very high!...Ketanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02622410643454108685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1117433809983410591.post-47991294623975301042009-10-15T16:46:23.133+05:302009-10-15T16:46:23.133+05:30@ Wise Donkey:
Thanks a lot, ma'am! Despite b...<b>@ Wise Donkey:</b><br /><br />Thanks a lot, ma'am! Despite being a vegetarian, I might have been 'fish'ing for a compliment by asking you! ;) Actually, have been keeping very busy. Am sure to visit your blog in some time. Had gone through the first link. It's nice, but it just made me fear that the girl's parents should not impose too much unrequired learning on her trying to 'tap' her potential. When this is done, the child, figuratively speaking, 'loses' childhood, and also everything they do starts revolving around praise from others, thus, somewhat losing their independent thinking.<br /><br />Thanks for your tip on how to avoid frightening dreams. And though, I don't have that problem, it might work, too, basically if we are to resolve a tangible problem, that might be there. Thanks, again!<br /><br />TC.<br /><br /><b>@ Vishwas:</b><br /><br />I'm not sure if there is a standard procedure or not, but in the "old" book I'd mentioned, I'd read that just like GRE, each new question that is ever asked in a test, should be given to a very large sample size whose IQ is <b>already</b> known. Then its difficulty level is determined by <i>how many</i> people could solve it, and <i>what</i> were the lowest and median IQs that enabled the subjects to answer it. So, I don't think those web site people do any of that. Plus, for native English speakers, those questions on verbal analogy would be much simpler than for nonEnglish-speaking. Thus, Indians' IQ would be shown to be lower than actual!...Ketanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02622410643454108685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1117433809983410591.post-34382487673492378412009-10-15T13:50:33.296+05:302009-10-15T13:50:33.296+05:30Sorry am flooded with work so can't go through...Sorry am flooded with work so can't go through the links... <br /><br />Just wanted to point out that as per a test, my IQ stood at 133 :) It's at least in the league of Bill Clinton ;-) Maybe that explains my obsession with oral care :)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1117433809983410591.post-60973868546893941872009-10-15T08:55:06.176+05:302009-10-15T08:55:06.176+05:30Interesting.
And it is odd that we discussed this...Interesting.<br /><br />And it is odd that we discussed this very same topic in my blog just a couple of weeks ago during our interaction in the post on meditation mania.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1117433809983410591.post-61993191364975155902009-10-15T08:15:16.533+05:302009-10-15T08:15:16.533+05:30Hi Ketan
My husband is one of those very clever pe...Hi Ketan<br />My husband is one of those very clever people with a very high IQ - I believe he was in the 99.997th percentile when tested (I'm not sure which test though). But just hanging out with him daily, you would not have a clue about it (except when he does one of his very detailed analyses on a given topic - when the sharpness of his observation and analysis takes my breath away).<br />Dreams are so fascinating. Having 2 young children means that we spend a lot of time discussing good / bad dreams, what they could mean and why we have them. I try to explain it terms of the brain 'flexing' at the end of the day and dealing with any outstanding issues. i tried to explain the concept of synaptic pruning...but that was a bit too much, too early for my babies! <br />I used to have the most violent and vivid dreams in my early-adulthood. I was always being shot or beaten or attacked in some way. That only stopped after my children were born and I found some peace in life. <br />But the best dream I ever had was close to the Melbourne Cup (a well-known horse race in Australia). In my dream, I heard a voice say, "An Indian curry will win the Melbourne Cup!" Strange right? Especially since I am not a big racing fan. Anyway, a week later when I saw the field for the Melbourne Cup, I was thrilled to see a horse named 'Rogan Josh' in the race. I put some money on him and he actually won!! Sadly, that never happened again.<br />Thanks for a thought provoking post yet again! SSionevehttp://sioneve.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1117433809983410591.post-10838186371830318992009-10-14T22:15:06.153+05:302009-10-14T22:15:06.153+05:30According to me I think this one is the most wicke...According to me I think this one is the most wicked thing in the entire list! Or perhaps that's the only I could instantly identify with! Lol :P<br /><br />1982 Taj Mahal for being the biggest dick ever erectioned for a woman.!!!<br /><br />LolVishwashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08935779598858991579noreply@blogger.com