Her real IQ is now known to be between 167 and 186. Yet she keeps throwing around the fictional 228 which she scored one time long ago during the early and unsophisticated days of IQ testing.
Another curiousity: Why did the Guinness Book of Records list her iq (186) as the highest when everyone knows there are child prodigies who have scored much higher than that? I wonder if it wasn't some kind of feminist thing.
By the way, I once sent similar questions to her underserved column and, as I expected, there was no reply. Go figure.
2007-04-12 15:40:44 · 3 answers · asked by Herbert O 1 in Arts & Humanities ➔ History
No it's not a matter of 'brain envy'. THAT'S THE POINT. I don't envy true geniuses. (I'm pretty smart myself). I'm just irritated by the bullshit.
2007-04-12 15:54:21 · update #1
By the way, I expected exactly that kind of answer from a moron like you.
2007-04-12 15:57:08 · update #2
While all IQ tests are suspect, because of cultural bias, children's are even more so, because they tend to measure how advanced a child is compared to others his age, rather than compared to the population as a whole, so I assume that is why Guinness doesn't bother to list the child prodigies. If these kids reach adulthood and still out score her, I'm sure Guinness would replace her.
2007-04-12 18:38:12 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Sounds like a case of "brain-envy" to me. Perhaps you should just give it a rest and let her be her brainy self.
2007-04-12 15:49:51 · answer #2 · answered by It's Kippah, Kippah the dawg 5 · 0⤊ 3⤋
Right, it's a feminist thing. *Nobody* is interested in smart men.
2007-04-12 16:06:14 · answer #3 · answered by Erik Van Thienen 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋