The Instigator
dairygirl4u2c
Pro (for)
Losing
34 Points
The Contender
Kleptin
Con (against)
Winning
73 Points

i'm probably one of top ten smartest persons in terms of iq on this site

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/26/2008 Category: Health
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,559 times Debate No: 2938
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (42)
Votes (27)

 

dairygirl4u2c

Pro

i'm probably one of the top ten smartest persons in terms of iq on this site

http://www.highiqsociety.org...
http://www.testriffic.com...

i got a 142 on the first test, and a 147 on the second test

statistically, whichever iq test you compare to, that means i'm probably in the top 99.9 and given that there's a few over 3000 members, i'm at least probably in the top ten. probably the top five.
http://www.assessmentpsychology.com...
Kleptin

Con

Your statistical conclusions are faulty. There are several variables that you must take into consideration.

First of all, this is not a poll at a subway station where intelligence is not a factor. The people who would take free time to debate are probably intellectual types, meaning the average bell curve would not apply here. The average IQ would definitely be higher than 100.

Second of all, the issue of debate correlates how smart you are with your IQ. Scientifically, there is little to no direct correlation between how smart a person is versus IQ scores.

Thus, your argument is a two pronged failure.
Debate Round No. 1
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

to say that there is no correlation between how smart a person is and their IQ is ludicras. no scientific person would suggest that. true, one can be an intellectual and not do high on an IQ test, but if you line up all the IQ's with all the smart people, there would be a correlation. even if all smart's didn't have high IQs and all high IQs weren't smart. if you define smart in any way related to intelligence, there's no dispute here. IQ = intelligence quotient. it's unfounded to say there;s no correclation since intelligence essentially mneas smart etc.

i took into account that this is a debate forum. two things you didn't take into account... first of all, there are some pretty stupid people here, just read many of the debates, and many dumb people post a few times and leave, leaving themselves still members. second of all, statistically, my scores would put me literally within the top five or so people.... but since my claim was only the top ten, i have a cushion factor of twice that.
Kleptin

Con

"to say that there is no correlation between how smart a person is and their IQ is ludicras."

Straw man. I never said there was no correlation. I said there was no direct correlation.

"no scientific person would suggest that."

Complete untruth. Please see below.

"Some scientists dispute psychometrics entirely. In The Mismeasure of Man professor Stephen Jay Gould argued that intelligence tests were based on faulty assumptions...He spent much of the book criticizing the concept of IQ, including a historical discussion of how the IQ tests were created and a technical discussion of why g is simply a mathematical artifact. Later editions of the book included criticism of The Bell Curve..."

Gould agreed that there was some level of stability in test scores and that there was some correlation between IQ and intelligence, but no DIRECT correlation. HOw smart a person is cannot be objectively measured by IQ alone, and the belief that it can, would be "ludicras" as you have put it.

"true, one can be an intellectual and not do high on an IQ test, but if you line up all the IQ's with all the smart people, there would be a correlation."

Again, straw man fallacy. See above.

"even if all smart's didn't have high IQs and all high IQs weren't smart. if you define smart in any way related to intelligence, there's no dispute here. IQ = intelligence quotient. it's unfounded to say there;s no correclation since intelligence essentially mneas smart etc."

Argument by semantics. Definitions are arbitrary. The people who developed the concept of IQ wopuldn't call it the "pink llama test". That there are inherent flaws came *after wards*

"i took into account that this is a debate forum. two things you didn't take into account... first of all, there are some pretty stupid people here, just read many of the debates, and many dumb people post a few times and leave, leaving themselves still members."

I did take that into account. Compared to your claims, however, the number of "stupid people" is negligible.

"second of all, statistically, my scores would put me literally within the top five or so people.... but since my claim was only the top ten, i have a cushion factor of twice that."

Incorrect. As I have stated before, the statistics do not correlate with the proper bell curve. The entire atmosphere of this debate shifts everything over to the right, even given the "stupid people" who post.

Even if we assume that half of those people are dumber than you are, your claim is that you are in the top ten. It would definitely not be hard to find 10 if not 20 people on this site who are more intelligent than you are.

Since I have more than proven that your mathematical deductions, as well as the premises upon which your deductions are made, are flawed, this debate is decided in my favor unless you can fulfill the burden of proof, which falls on you, who are making the claim.
Debate Round No. 2
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

"to say that there is no correlation between how smart a person is and their IQ is ludicras."

Straw man. I never said there was no correlation. I said there was no direct correlation.

it's not a strawman... your claim is only you understanding what a strawman is. if general trend exists amongst "smart" and "IQ" then there's a direct correlation. you might not understand "direct correclation" and might be suggesting that causation isn't correlation, or that some smart people don't have high IQs..... but i don't dispute this, and it's not what you argued.
direct correlation simply means positive correlation. it's distinguishing the vague word "correlation" as a way to mean there's a positive. it's not, as you seem to be suggesting, a way of saying that it's similar to causation or the same as following exactly the same. (you might have assumed that "correlation" means that a correlation existed and so wouldn't need the qualifier positive... but that would be mistake for the reasons i said) please look this up.

so your evidence that IQ isn't the same as "smart" is just evidence that you don't have to have a high IQ to be smart. i never disputed this, but in fact said i blieved this in my last post.

--Argument by semantics. Definitions are arbitrary. The people who developed the concept of IQ wopuldn't call it the "pink llama test". That there are inherent flaws came *after wards*

actually we're just talking past each other because of your misunderstanding of "direct correlation". if we assume that you're saying smart can exist without high IQ then you're right. if we assume you said there's no direct correlation, then you're wrong as i said, and to assume there's a difference between smart and intelligent is flawed.

--I did take that into account. Compared to your claims, however, the number of "stupid people" is negligible.

we'd have to do a study on this, cause i believe there are more than you think. and i point out stronger that a lot of stupider people post a few times and leave, making it more like the normal population.

i never disputed that the bell curve is a normal curve. in fact, the fact that i mentioned that there's a cushion factor indicates that i acknowledged that. i acknowledged it in the initial writing of the poll too, fyi, even if it was not explicit.

--It would definitely not be hard to find 10 if not 20 people on this site who are more intelligent than you are.

well my humility might say i agree with you. but, then again, i've got some pretty profound novel original etc ideas whereas most else posts the same old rhetoric. my sloppy writing and lack of capitalizations etc doesn't mean i'm not smart... it usually just means my from experiece that there's poser wanna be's who think they're great cause they capitalize and put a lot of effort into their posts when other's don't. i'd argue the smartest position is to find the right balance. but anyway, a tangent cause there's no way to assume given my some of my prolific ideas that i don't give a run for the money.

i've shown your assumptions are one sighted, and proven your grasph of mathematical concepts inadequate. i've posted facts that indicate what i said is true, so really the presumption is on everyone else to show why it shouldn't be the case. you can't just say "this is a debate forum where people would be smarter" and expect that to be a rebuttal of my presumptive facts. all i would have to do is say what i said, returning speculation for speculation. we'd both have to agree a study would need done as this is in no way objective ideas we're talking about. the only obejctive things right now is the scores that i got.
Kleptin

Con

"if general trend exists amongst "smart" and "IQ" then there's a direct correlation. you might not understand "direct correclation""

Fine. I retract the term "direct correlation" and substitute "exclusive correlation". My argument still stands and you've wasted your last response attacking a useless point.

"so your evidence that IQ isn't the same as "smart" is just evidence that you don't have to have a high IQ to be smart. i never disputed this, but in fact said i blieved this in my last post."

The problem is mainly that you did not dispute this, as this is the crux of the debate. Your claim is that you are one of the top ten smartest in terms of IQ on this site. I have separated having a high IQ from being smart. This means you currently have no valid evidence saying that you are smart *at all*

"actually we're just talking past each other because of your misunderstanding of "direct correlation". if we assume that you're saying smart can exist without high IQ then you're right. if we assume you said there's no direct correlation, then you're wrong as i said, and to assume there's a difference between smart and intelligent is flawed."

This argument has nothing to do with the other. Your argument was that intelligence could be measured purely because the test is called an "intelligence quotient" test. Please do not randomly string things together and pretend you know what you are talking about. This has nothing to do with the prior discussion on the definition of direct correlation.

"we'd have to do a study on this, cause i believe there are more than you think. and i point out stronger that a lot of stupider people post a few times and leave, making it more like the normal population."

The reason why I state it is negligible is that in comparison to your statistical measure of 99.9%, or rather, being in the top ten, the number of stupid people would have little to no bearing. Your argument is that out of 3000 people, you are among the 3 smartest (percentage wise). You give yourself a cushion factor of 10.

If the number people dumber than you is anywhere from 0 to 2990 (or rather, 3738 by precise calculation), then you have lost this debate. If the number of people dumber than you is above that, then you will have won. The probability of this occurring is extraordinarily slim.

"i never disputed that the bell curve is a normal curve. in fact, the fact that i mentioned that there's a cushion factor indicates that i acknowledged that. i acknowledged it in the initial writing of the poll too, fyi, even if it was not explicit."

The cushion factor is irrelevant. Being in the top 3 is being in the top 99.9% so being in the top 10 would be roughly being in the top 99.6%. Your statistical conclusion is outrageously flawed and has absolutely no semblance to anything that would be categorized as probable.

"well my humility might say i agree with you. but, then again, i've got some pretty profound novel original etc ideas whereas most else posts the same old rhetoric. my sloppy writing and lack of capitalizations etc doesn't mean i'm not smart... it usually just means my from experiece that there's poser wanna be's who think they're great cause they capitalize and put a lot of effort into their posts when other's don't. i'd argue the smartest position is to find the right balance. but anyway, a tangent cause there's no way to assume given my some of my prolific ideas that i don't give a run for the money."

Good. You concede that point, meaning you concede the debate. If you're going to base your intelligence on your writing skills, it should undoubtedly cover the massive amount of grammatical errors. I would argue that your point is void because you run under the assumption that proper spelling and grammar causes others to spend massive amounts of time proof-reading their responses. I've been typing essays before Instant Messaging came about so I instinctively type correctly.

I can also critique your debate style. I can tell that the ideas are in your head, but you have sufficient trouble getting them out. Your arguments are disjointed, unorganized, and often incomprehensible. I cite the debates on the Bare minimum for salvation debates. Many of your opponents cannot even understand your arguments because they lack the grammatical structure found in English.

In addition, you stated that you were prolific. Agreed. However, whether or not you are novel in the debates you churn out is another story. Starting 7 debates on one topic and 5 debates on another is not novel. It's repetitive, redundant, and irritating.

"i've shown your assumptions are one sighted, and proven your grasph of mathematical concepts inadequate."

Incorrect. I myself had to point out all the flaws in your numbers.

"i've posted facts that indicate what i said is true, so really the presumption is on everyone else to show why it shouldn't be the case."

I have done so by categorically dismissing and pointing out the inherent flaws in each proof you provide.

"you can't just say "this is a debate forum where people would be smarter" and expect that to be a rebuttal of my presumptive facts."

Actually, yes I can. Especially when your presented information hinges on the assumption that the normal curve for intelligence is situated at the same average as it would be nationwide. This is obviously not the case for a debate forum.

"all i would have to do is say what i said, returning speculation for speculation. we'd both have to agree a study would need done as this is in no way objective ideas we're talking about. the only obejctive things right now is the scores that i got."

And this was the first thing I attacked. You have casually danced around and ignored my assertion and citation saying that IQ cannot be the only deciding factor for intelligence. This invalidates your IQ scores (which may I say, are twenty points lower than the standardized class average for my high school)

************

My opponent started this debate to brag. First and foremost, an IQ of 140 is not something to be proud of. I'm sure we've all taken an IQ test or two in our lifetimes and scored well over that. Having attended a magnet high school respected throughout the country, I can honestly say that those of us on this site who dedicate a good amount of time to intellectual pursuits can unhesitatingly say that our IQ is greater than 140.

However, I have already shown that IQ cannot be the only deciding factor, so my opponent's IQ scores are set to the side. My opponent then cites her novelty and prolificity, which I have also responded to. My opponent's self-defense on how terrible her spelling/grammar are hinged on the notion that she spends her time on content, not presentation. I emphasize that only "dumb" people would even have to THINK about balancing the two because writing well and writing correctly should go hand in hand. It shouldn't take you hours to do both. That makes you either a foreigner or an idiot.

To bring things back full circle, my opponent cites flawed statistics. She says she is among the top 10 intelligent people on this entire site. Off the top of my head, I can name 10 people.

LogicalMaster. Brittwaller. Beem0r. Yraelz. Myself. DarthGrievous. Justcallmetarzan. Tatarize. Logos. Handsoff.

This is just off the top of my head. If any of you wish to add yourselves, please comment with a statement and vote for me.
Debate Round No. 3
42 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by scissorhands7 8 years ago
scissorhands7
If your so intelligent as you claim, you'd be winning more debates
Posted by Kleptin 9 years ago
Kleptin
Claypigeon's right.

I have the straight numbers but I can't completely correlate all the little changes since that's the extent to which my knowledge of statistics goes.

Moondragon has the capability but probably can't provide anything to counter this without using up unnecessary amounts of brainpower.

We can all play "fudge the numbers" until the cows go home, but I'm just going to go on to another debate.
Posted by claypigeon 9 years ago
claypigeon
Yeah let's put this to rest. We all made our points. I don't think its reasonable to say the average IQ here is that high, other do.

My main point is that this debate was about IQ scores and not who is smarter, as the masses are thinking it was.
Posted by MoonDragon613 9 years ago
MoonDragon613
(and I only admit I'm wrong because I'm not in the debate. If I was in the debate, I would've said something much more elaborate and interesting)
Posted by MoonDragon613 9 years ago
MoonDragon613
Actually saying 145 is 2 standard deviations with an average of 115 is incorrect. In your new hypothetical distribution, the bell curve is more narrow, or skewed to the right as you hypothesized. Nevertheless, the standard deviation is much smaller than the standard deviation of the IQ of the general population.

I'm figuring out a reasonable standard deviation if we assume the population as a whole (and from what I've seen thats quite an assumption) is one standard deviation above average intelligence. Of course ironically here, if everyone is indeed intelligent as you claim, then the standard deviation would be much smaller. If you accept my hypothesis that we have countless morons here, then the standard deviation would be significantly larger.

Also I realized my mistake. =/ I forgot what the standard deviation for IQ was and assumed it was 10 instead of 15.
Posted by Kleptin 9 years ago
Kleptin
By the way, just to clarify, when you shift the graph over one standard deviation, you have to use 2.5% instead of 0.15%

99.7% of the graph is within 3 standard deviations.
95% of the graph is within 2 standard deviations.

145 is 3 standard deviations with an avg of 100.
145 is 2 standard deviations with an avg of 115.

I don't see any errors here. Can we put this to rest already?
Posted by Kleptin 9 years ago
Kleptin
Hey, it was Moondragon who started using 4000. I just followed suit. If you want to complete and total 100% calculation with no fudged numbers, it would be:

3766 * 0.0015 = 5.65 people smarter than dairy out of 3766.

That's assuming a normal curve situated on a mean of 100 with a standard deviation of 15 points of IQ (as stated on the wikipedia graph)

If you read what I wrote below (which you probably didn't since I was talking to moondragon) you would see that I don't need to fudge the numbers. I assumed the average person on this site had an IQ of 115 (even though you assume 120) and that shifts it over one standard deviation. In that case, the calculation would be:

3766 * 0.025 = 94.15 people smarter than dairy out of 3766.

Judging by the mathematical expert Moondragon's silence and my complete lack of anything besides numbers, There's really nothing left to say.

Probability states that dairy is objectively wrong.

No lies. Just numbers.
Posted by claypigeon 9 years ago
claypigeon
It makes a difference to debate this as the debate WAS NOT ABOUT WHO WAS SMARTER. It was about who had higher IQs. Y'all are idiots who think smartness is whats at issue.

Onto the comments debate. The numbers are hella wrong. We had started assuming 3000 people visit debate.org, not 4000 as the opponent snuck in. We are at 3766 as the writing states. This is the difference between 4.5 and 6 people in a normal distribution with mean at 100.

Even if we use 3766 as our number and we assume the average IQ is a whole standard deviation above the population mean (115), which assumes a lot, then we still get only 9.4 people with an IQ at or higher than 145 on this site. We need it to expect at least 11 people to disprove dairy. This means .292 percent of the curve must be above 145.

I forget how to use my ti-84 but the mean IQ would have to be like 120 I think.

The 3766 numbers was smaller when the debate was started btw. Don't let kleptin get away with changing numbers and trying to cheat his way out :)
Posted by smith76 9 years ago
smith76
In the world, or on this site.
Posted by smith76 9 years ago
smith76
Is there really a point in getting this deep into this pointless debate. You are not the tenth smartest person in the world because of an internet IQ test. It proves nothing. Odds are it is a faulty test anyway.
27 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Mangani 8 years ago
Mangani
dairygirl4u2cKleptinTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
dairygirl4u2cKleptinTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Robert_Santurri 8 years ago
Robert_Santurri
dairygirl4u2cKleptinTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
dairygirl4u2cKleptinTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Kleptin 8 years ago
Kleptin
dairygirl4u2cKleptinTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Crust89 8 years ago
Crust89
dairygirl4u2cKleptinTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:14 
Vote Placed by Tatarize 9 years ago
Tatarize
dairygirl4u2cKleptinTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by jam34 9 years ago
jam34
dairygirl4u2cKleptinTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Longhorn4Life929 9 years ago
Longhorn4Life929
dairygirl4u2cKleptinTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by dxpilot 9 years ago
dxpilot
dairygirl4u2cKleptinTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03