I know - I wondered if someone might object. :-) But Iseem to remember that
there comes a point where the sample is large enough that there is no point in
increasing it as there difference between the sample and the total population
is below normal error.
Of course they are biased in all sorts of ways - that explains why I don't do
better.
I supervised an exam last week, a three hour in which final year high school
students write a couple of 30min essays and then a 2 hour IQ test. One of those
odfartteacher retirement beer money jobs. They use it to moderate their final
results across very different subject choices so that they can rank them.
Strewth that was HARD. Multiple choice questions on the style and intent of
Dufy, no worries but the one about patterns of lights flashing based on
different algorithms - bloody hell! My brane 'erts.
Andrew Fildes
afildes@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Author/Publisher:
The SLR Compendium,The TLR Compendium
http://www.soultheft.com/storehouse_photopublish/
On 15/06/2014, at 7:02 PM, Moose wrote:
> Huh? 100% of those tested, but not of all humans.
>
> IQ tests are, I believe, pretty good, but still culturally and educationally
> biased.
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|