On Feb 13, 12:29 am, Martin wrote:
"Tom" wrote in message
...
"'Mike'" wrote in message
.. .
What does an IQ of 33 mean?

http://iq-test.learninginfo.org/iq04.htm

"90 Laborers; Gardeners; ... ".

Seeing as that was preceded by;

"Apparently, the IQ gives a good indication of the occupational group
that a person will end up in, though not of course the specific
occupation.

Which would imply that "Gardener" is not a specific occupation.
Which would further imply that it is (e.g.) a hobby.
Which in turn implies that none of those within the higher category
can possibly be "Gardeners".

Which suggests that "90" is the appropriate measure for those who
produce such rubbish!


--

Martin

aquachimp wrote:
On Feb 13, 12:29 am, Martin wrote:
"Tom" wrote in message
...
"'Mike'" wrote in message
...
What does an IQ of 33 mean?

http://iq-test.learninginfo.org/iq04.htm

"90 Laborers; Gardeners; ... ".

Seeing as that was preceded by;

"Apparently, the IQ gives a good indication of the occupational group
that a person will end up in, though not of course the specific
occupation.

Which would imply that "Gardener" is not a specific occupation.
Which would further imply that it is (e.g.) a hobby.
Which in turn implies that none of those within the higher category
can possibly be "Gardeners".

Which suggests that "90" is the appropriate measure for those who
produce such rubbish!

Well, no. It means "not the specific occupation for the person
concerned". Where I _would_ quarrel with it is in its apparent
unawareness of how many different levels are represented by the term
"gardener": you don't need a huge IQ to drive lawnmowers and hedge
trimmers for the council, but I wouldn't call that gardening. And why
upholsterers, I wonder? Not the largest occupational category I can
think of. A slightly odd world-view.

--
Mike.



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

On Feb 14, 7:33 pm, "Mike Lyle"
wrote:
aquachimp wrote:
On Feb 13, 12:29 am, Martin wrote:
"Tom" wrote in message
. ..
"'Mike'" wrote in message
.. .
What does an IQ of 33 mean?

http://iq-test.learninginfo.org/iq04.htm

"90 Laborers; Gardeners; ... ".

Seeing as that was preceded by;

"Apparently, the IQ gives a good indication of the occupational group
that a person will end up in, though not of course the specific
occupation.

Which would imply that "Gardener" is not a specific occupation.
Which would further imply that it is (e.g.) a hobby.
Which in turn implies that none of those within the higher category
can possibly be "Gardeners".

Which suggests that "90" is the appropriate measure for those who
produce such rubbish!

Well, no. It means "not the specific occupation for the person
concerned". Where I _would_ quarrel with it is in its apparent
unawareness of how many different levels are represented by the term
"gardener": you don't need a huge IQ to drive lawnmowers and hedge
trimmers for the council, but I wouldn't call that gardening. And why
upholsterers, I wonder? Not the largest occupational category I can
think of. A slightly odd world-view.


You're right off course. I was just taking the ****. I though it might
amuse.
Though I still feel my last point is relevant regarding the authors of
that bit of information.

In the context given, Gardeners are listed next to labourers, to
provide it with the relevant context. Which should cover the different
levels you mention.

But the occupational group; Gardeners can include the specific
occupation of Gardener e.g. Head Gardener at ....(where ever)
A group of Head Gardeners would belong to the Gardeners group category
They would belong to that group AND the specific occupation.


--
Mike.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Feb 14, 7:59 pm, "aquachimp"
wrote:
On Feb 14, 7:33 pm, "Mike Lyle"
wrote:





aquachimp wrote:
On Feb 13, 12:29 am, Martin wrote:
"Tom" wrote in message
. ..
"'Mike'" wrote in message
.. .
What does an IQ of 33 mean?

http://iq-test.learninginfo.org/iq04.htm

"90 Laborers; Gardeners; ... ".

Seeing as that was preceded by;

"Apparently, the IQ gives a good indication of the occupational group
that a person will end up in, though not of course the specific
occupation.

Which would imply that "Gardener" is not a specific occupation.
Which would further imply that it is (e.g.) a hobby.
Which in turn implies that none of those within the higher category
can possibly be "Gardeners".

Which suggests that "90" is the appropriate measure for those who
produce such rubbish!

Well, no. It means "not the specific occupation for the person
concerned". Where I _would_ quarrel with it is in its apparent
unawareness of how many different levels are represented by the term
"gardener": you don't need a huge IQ to drive lawnmowers and hedge
trimmers for the council, but I wouldn't call that gardening. And why
upholsterers, I wonder? Not the largest occupational category I can
think of. A slightly odd world-view.

You're right off course. I was just taking the ****. I though it might
amuse.
Though I still feel my last point is relevant regarding the authors of
that bit of information.

In the context given, Gardeners are listed next to labourers, to
provide it with the relevant context. Which should cover the different
levels you mention.

But the occupational group; Gardeners can include the specific
occupation of Gardener e.g. Head Gardener at ....(where ever)
A group of Head Gardeners would belong to the Gardeners group category
They would belong to that group AND the specific occupation.





--
Mike.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com-Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Aherm... I had spelt their "Laborers" as labourers

aquachimp wrote:
On Feb 14, 7:59 pm, "aquachimp"
wrote:
On Feb 14, 7:33 pm, "Mike Lyle"
wrote:





aquachimp wrote:
On Feb 13, 12:29 am, Martin wrote:
"Tom" wrote in message
...
"'Mike'" wrote in message
...
What does an IQ of 33 mean?

http://iq-test.learninginfo.org/iq04.htm

"90 Laborers; Gardeners; ... ".

Seeing as that was preceded by;

"Apparently, the IQ gives a good indication of the occupational
group that a person will end up in, though not of course the
specific occupation.

Which would imply that "Gardener" is not a specific occupation.
Which would further imply that it is (e.g.) a hobby.
Which in turn implies that none of those within the higher category
can possibly be "Gardeners".

Which suggests that "90" is the appropriate measure for those who
produce such rubbish!

Well, no. It means "not the specific occupation for the person
concerned". Where I _would_ quarrel with it is in its apparent
unawareness of how many different levels are represented by the term
"gardener": you don't need a huge IQ to drive lawnmowers and hedge
trimmers for the council, but I wouldn't call that gardening. And
why upholsterers, I wonder? Not the largest occupational category I
can
think of. A slightly odd world-view.

You're right off course. I was just taking the ****. I though it
might amuse.

Ah, right. Sorry.

Though I still feel my last point is relevant regarding the authors
of that bit of information.

I think we're agreed on that.


In the context given, Gardeners are listed next to labourers, to
provide it with the relevant context. Which should cover the
different levels you mention.

What worried me about that was the suggestion that a 90 IQ was good
enough for a gardener. That _didn't_ seem to cover different levels.

But the occupational group; Gardeners can include the specific
occupation of Gardener e.g. Head Gardener at ....(where ever)
A group of Head Gardeners would belong to the Gardeners group
category They would belong to that group AND the specific occupation.

Well, we probably agree, as I'm sure you don't mean that head gardeners
are at the "labourer" intellectual level. It all adds to my scepticism
about the general value of IQ tests: with their use for narrowly defined
specific purposes, no problem.

--
Mike.



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

On Feb 14, 8:32 pm, "Mike Lyle"
wrote:
aquachimp wrote:
On Feb 14, 7:59 pm, "aquachimp"
wrote:
On Feb 14, 7:33 pm, "Mike Lyle"
wrote:

aquachimp wrote:
On Feb 13, 12:29 am, Martin wrote:
"Tom" wrote in message
...
"'Mike'" wrote in message
m...
What does an IQ of 33 mean?

http://iq-test.learninginfo.org/iq04.htm

"90 Laborers; Gardeners; ... ".

Seeing as that was preceded by;

"Apparently, the IQ gives a good indication of the occupational
group that a person will end up in, though not of course the
specific occupation.

Which would imply that "Gardener" is not a specific occupation.
Which would further imply that it is (e.g.) a hobby.
Which in turn implies that none of those within the higher category
can possibly be "Gardeners".

Which suggests that "90" is the appropriate measure for those who
produce such rubbish!

Well, no. It means "not the specific occupation for the person
concerned". Where I _would_ quarrel with it is in its apparent
unawareness of how many different levels are represented by the term
"gardener": you don't need a huge IQ to drive lawnmowers and hedge
trimmers for the council, but I wouldn't call that gardening. And
why upholsterers, I wonder? Not the largest occupational category I
can
think of. A slightly odd world-view.

You're right off course. I was just taking the ****. I though it
might amuse.

Ah, right. Sorry.

Though I still feel my last point is relevant regarding the authors
of that bit of information.

I think we're agreed on that.



In the context given, Gardeners are listed next to labourers, to
provide it with the relevant context. Which should cover the
different levels you mention.

What worried me about that was the suggestion that a 90 IQ was good
enough for a gardener. That _didn't_ seem to cover different levels.



But the occupational group; Gardeners can include the specific
occupation of Gardener e.g. Head Gardener at ....(where ever)
A group of Head Gardeners would belong to the Gardeners group
category They would belong to that group AND the specific occupation.

Well, we probably agree, as I'm sure you don't mean that head gardeners
are at the "labourer" intellectual level. It all adds to my scepticism
about the general value of IQ tests: with their use for narrowly defined
specific purposes, no problem.

--
Mike.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

(further **** taking follows)

The site clearly says; "IQ stands for intelligence quotient.
Supposedly, it is a score that tells one how "bright" a person is
compared to other people."

Note the word "Supposedly". That suggests their not bright enough to
be really sure what IQ tells us.

I'm not sure anyone does.

I think those involved in that science, or peddling it, need to do a
re-think.
Sometime ago a survey reported on general UK employee unhappiness and
the main gripe was having to wait for the boss to go away before said
employees could get some work done.
Perhaps IQ is like the boss. Perhaps it's a reflection of some-one's
abilities AND inabilities along those lines.

The groups offered on that site are about ability alone. It does not
give specific occupational inadequacies.
It's only half the story.

Perhaps the UK population are just nearly all thick if I,... a ...
aherm... mere... gardener can be within the top 18%. (118)

Of course, that site does make allowances. I could be a Garden
Foreman. In that respect they do cater for the different level you are
concerned about.

I was once, aforeman, sole trader, employer, company founder-owner-
secretary,-employer-accountant-manager-chief bottle washer, but
current employment has no such structures. I am a gardener, full stop,
though in practice, more like a garden labourer. The problem may be
that the authors of that site do not know what a gardener is.
At this stage, you may be wondering do they know much about anything
at all!
But let's face it, "Gardener", is not an easy one.
According to wikipedia;
"A gardener is any person involved in the growing and maintenance of
plants, notably in a garden"
The definition it gives for Head gardener, does not involve much
actual gardening, in the normal sense of the word.
This gives rise to question such as; within that definition of
Gardener, who, amongst those "involved" in "the growing and
maintenance of plants, notably in a garden" is not a gardener?
i.e. what does "involved" mean? The boss, manager, head, accountant,
are they not all "involved"?

In that respect, the site is semi correct because one could be say,
Gardener by means of being; a Research Scientist, a Business Manager,
a Foreman, a machine operator, a truck and van driver, or a labourer
involved in gardening.

What that means, you may conclude, is that they've messed up on their
"Group" definitions.
But not really, because I.Q. is supposed to mean something. It is one
of the benchmarks from which much discrimination and excuse for social
and financial inequalities are supported, so if the group is
Horticulture, but as we know there are different levels, then it
becomes meaningless and that just wont do.
But then, they do categorically state that "...the IQ gives a good
indication of the occupational group that a person will end up in,
though not of course the specific occupation.
Note the word "will" (...end up in)
So, you wont, *might* become, or *could probably become*. No, you
"will" end up as, say, a School Teachers, but they don't speculate
which type.
However, given that such certainty suggests someone with different IQ
"will" *not* end up as a School Teacher, it begs the question, that
though there are various types of school teachers, why bother trying
to deny "specific occupation" if no other IQ level qualifies?

I must confess, that it crossed my mind that someone compiling that
data (in the USA) looked out their window, saw a few Mexicans
labouring in a garden and this has more to do with their meaning of
I.Q.
what if they simply said; the IQ gives a good indication of the
racial group that a person is in, though not of course their specific
occupation.
More than anything, the groups take no account of prejudices as might
affect ones occupational position.

Apolgies if this appears twice. First attempt has not appeared I see.