Monday, April 21, 2008 | Reason : Wingnut News | print version

Resentment Over Darwin Evolves Into a Documentary

by NY Times

Thanks to TheSwede for the link.

http://movies.nytimes.com/2008/04/18/movies/18expe.html

Resentment Over Darwin Evolves Into a Documentary
By JEANNETTE CATSOULIS

One of the sleaziest documentaries to arrive in a very long time, "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" is a conspiracy-theory rant masquerading as investigative inquiry.

Positing the theory of intelligent design as a valid scientific hypothesis, the film frames the refusal of "big science" to agree as nothing less than an assault on free speech. Interviewees, including the scientist Richard Sternberg, claim that questioning Darwinism led to their expulsion from the scientific fold (the film relies extensively on the post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy — after this, therefore because of this), while our genial audience surrogate, the actor and multihyphenate Ben Stein, nods sympathetically. (Mr. Stein is also a freelance columnist who writes Everybody's Business for The New York Times.)

Prominent evolutionary biologists, like the author and Oxford professor Richard Dawkins — accurately identified on screen as an "atheist" — are provided solely to construct, in cleverly edited slices, an inevitable connection between Darwinism and godlessness. Blithely ignoring the vital distinction between social and scientific Darwinism, the film links evolution theory to fascism (as well as abortion, euthanasia and eugenics), shamelessly invoking the Holocaust with black-and-white film of Nazi gas chambers and mass graves.

Every few minutes familiar — and ideologically unrelated — images interrupt the talking heads: a fist-shaking Nikita S. Khrushchev; Charlton Heston being subdued by a water hose in "Planet of the Apes." This is not argument, it's circus, a distraction from the film's contempt for precision and intellectual rigor. This goes further than a willful misunderstanding of the scientific method. The film suggests, for example, that Dr. Sternberg lost his job at the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History because of intellectual discrimination but neglects to inform us that he was actually not an employee but rather an unpaid research associate who had completed his three-year term.

Mixing physical apples and metaphysical oranges at every turn "Expelled" is an unprincipled propaganda piece that insults believers and nonbelievers alike. In its fudging, eliding and refusal to define terms, the movie proves that the only expulsion here is of reason itself.

"Expelled" is rated PG (Parental guidance suggested). It has smoking guns and drunken logic.

EXPELLED

No Intelligence Allowed

Opens on Friday nationwide.

Directed by Nathan Frankowski; written by Kevin Miller and Ben Stein; narrated by Mr. Stein; director of photography, Mr. Frankowski; edited by Simon Tondeur; music by Andy Hunter and Robbie Bronnimann; produced by Logan Craft, Walt Ruloff and John Sullivan; released by Premise Media. Running time: 1 hour 30 minutes.

Add to del.icio.us Posted: Monday, April 21, 2008 | Permalink

Comments 1 - 50 of 53 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #165234 by Geoff on April 21, 2008 at 8:39 am

One of the sleaziest documentaries to arrive in a very long time, "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" is a conspiracy-theory rant masquerading as investigative inquiry.

Nicely done.

Other Comments by Geoff

2. Comment #165236 by STLstrike3 on April 21, 2008 at 8:43 am

Perhaps the Times should rethink it's relationship with Stein? I'm sure if they decline to publish his freelance work in the future, he'll cry foul, even though they'd be perfectly justified in wanting to keep the words of a dishonest propogandist off their pages.

Other Comments by STLstrike3

3. Comment #165237 by Cwazy Cat Lady on April 21, 2008 at 8:43 am

I'm glad to see the NY Times devoting very little space to this film and using this short piece to expose this 'documentary' for what it is: pure ideological propaganda.

"the only expulsion here is of reason itself"

Other Comments by Cwazy Cat Lady

4. Comment #165242 by A heron at night on April 21, 2008 at 8:49 am

Ben Stein ranks as a leading luminary in the field of stupidity and a champion of deceit and deception. I wonder how he lives with himself. How can he be so wilfully ignorant?

Other Comments by A heron at night

5. Comment #165263 by wotan on April 21, 2008 at 9:16 am

"Expelled" is rated PG (Parental guidance suggested). It has smoking guns and drunken logic.

:)

Other Comments by wotan

6. Comment #165267 by irate_atheist on April 21, 2008 at 9:22 am

May I suggest that the Smithsonian issues a lawsuit for corporate defamation on these fuckers.

Other Comments by irate_atheist

7. Comment #165289 by Lammie on April 21, 2008 at 9:50 am

1) Each of the failed academics who were featured in the movie should be investigated and the real reasons behind their "Expulsions" made public. I would be happy to bet that they were all underachievers in their jobs.
2) I agree with irate_atheist (#6) - the Smithsonian's image has been dented and therefore they should start a legal claim
3) Well done to Jeannette Catsoulis who wrote this piece. She has a way of cutting and slicing with words which makes for good reading.

Other Comments by Lammie

8. Comment #165305 by QuickEye on April 21, 2008 at 10:10 am

Lammie,

I think your wish in point 1 has already been granted:
http://www.expelledexposed.com/index.php/the-truth

:)

Other Comments by QuickEye

9. Comment #165331 by Lammie on April 21, 2008 at 10:58 am

Thanks for pointing this out QuickEye. I am sure that link is going to become popular when people find out about it. I hope the movie critics read it before they write their mass media reports as it certainly exposes the movie for what it is.

Other Comments by Lammie

10. Comment #165338 by mikethebike on April 21, 2008 at 11:08 am

Well, maybe the NY Times doesn't like the movie, maybe we all think it's a piece of trash. BUTâ€¦.look at the USER REVIEWS in the movie section on Yahoo.

http://movies.yahoo.com/movie/1809995068/user

Â· Rated #9 this weekend at the box office.
Â· Average user rating grade of B
Â· Many, many user rants about how great the movie is.

Headlines for some of the reviews:
"blew my mind , and made me laugh. Amazing"
"Why are they so scared of this?"
"Very Important Movie to See"
"Big Science Should Be Scared"
"An Insightful, Articulate, Well-Delivered Movie"

Never have I seen such a big spread between critical reviews and User Reviews. Although the average rating is B, a quick perusal through the posted reviews shows a deep split: A's or F's. Are we Americans really that lacking in critical thinking skill? Or could it be that the Yahoo user ratings are the result of a deliberate campaign to "stuff the ballot box"?

Other Comments by mikethebike

11. Comment #165344 by phil rimmer on April 21, 2008 at 11:27 am

Can I encourage anyone who's seen the film to also log their comments on it here?

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1091617/#comment

Current IMDB score 3.6 out of ten.

Other Comments by phil rimmer

12. Comment #165358 by Pattern Seeker on April 21, 2008 at 11:45 am

One thing is for sure...this film did not evolve.

Blank film stock did not 'naturally select' an image. It was created by a designer. The designer was a retard. The result is a mess. A monster was created. That monster makes Frankenstein look like Angelina Jolie. Time to gather the pitchforks and torches.

Other Comments by Pattern Seeker

13. Comment #165375 by black wolf on April 21, 2008 at 12:13 pm

Current IMDB score 3.6 out of ten.

Basically, almost every movie that scores lower than about 6.2 on IMDb is a waste of time at the very least. A 3.6 rating usually denotes a film that is utterly painful to watch in the range of bleeding eyes.
The demographic breakdown of voters is very interesting:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1091617/ratings
The ones who liked the movie best (or rated it highest without seeing it) are females aged up to 29 years and females over 45. Apparently males in general like the movie only half as much as the females do. Interestingly, females aged 30-44 liked the movie significantly below average. Now what the hell do these numbers mean?
I think that females in general are less interested in internet debates and controversies on message boards. Therefore I assume that more females than males have not been exposed to the evidence that speaks against the ID people and this film specifically. As most church groups have a higher percentage of female members, that too explains part of the disparity.
I conclude that the ID movement is doing a great job of disinformation on women and young males.
What we need are books about atheism and science specifically aimed at a female audience and at pre-college aged men. I assume that means more appeal to emotion. I'm not saying women only ever think emotionally charged, but I think it's correct to say that a majority of women prefers somewhat emotionalized arguments over cold facts (simplified: compassion for the women, powerful language for the young men). Isn't this what Christian apologists and tract authors employ very methodically? Perhaps Paula could comment on this aspect. I think if 'we' want the public to become more interested in science and the value of rational thinking, we can't afford to ignore this method.

Other Comments by black wolf

14. Comment #165422 by jshuey on April 21, 2008 at 1:03 pm

We should be surprised neither at the appeal nor the success of Expelled, just as we should not be shocked that half of all Americans do no accept evolution.

After all, 50% of the population is of below average intelligence.

Other Comments by jshuey

15. Comment #165436 by Garnok on April 21, 2008 at 1:19 pm

I wouldn't call the movie a success. Over at Ed Brayton's blog is a link to what the movie did on its opening weekend and it isn't too pretty for them.

As for the User reviews on Yahoo, just looking at the titles makes me think that the only people that went and saw this movie are those already predisposed to agree with it.

Other Comments by Garnok

16. Comment #165438 by epeeist on April 21, 2008 at 1:21 pm

Comment #165375 by black wolf

Current IMDB score 3.6 out of ten.

Current score on Rotten Tomatoes is 13% - http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/expelled_no_intelligence_allowed/

Other Comments by epeeist

17. Comment #165461 by logicalbasedreality on April 21, 2008 at 1:45 pm

Comment #165358 by Pattern Seeker on April 21, 2008 at 11:45 am

One thing is for sure...this film did not evolve.

Blank film stock did not 'naturally select' an image. It was created by a designer. The designer was a retard. The result is a mess. A monster was created. That monster makes Frankenstein look like Angelina Jolie. Time to gather the pitchforks and torches.

Other Comments by Pattern Seeker

Angelina Jolie in "Pushing Tin" or Angelina Jolie in "Beowulf" ? ;-)

Other Comments by logicalbasedreality

18. Comment #165465 by Lucas on April 21, 2008 at 1:47 pm

Let me reiterate what someone else pointed out before: Ben Stein also was/is a supporter of Nixon and Kissinger. He really considers Kissinger to be a hero. He is bat-shit crazy. Does he actually believe all this crap? Yes. He is bat-shit crazy.

And I, for one, am done with this subject. It's over. We've beat it to death here. They've already managed to get far more attention than they deserve from us. They are pathetic and have no hope of winning this debate, so one final chuckle, and we should drop it. I won't be clicking on any more articles on this site that tell me more stupid shit about these morons. We've made a mountain out of a mole hill, and I'm prepared to bury it.

Other Comments by Lucas

19. Comment #165508 by robotaholic on April 21, 2008 at 2:33 pm

Lucas, I couldn't agree more.

Other Comments by robotaholic

20. Comment #165512 by Johnny O on April 21, 2008 at 2:38 pm

"Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" is a conspiracy-theory rant masquerading as investigative inquiry.

Amen

Other Comments by Johnny O

21. Comment #165539 by Phadrus on April 21, 2008 at 3:58 pm

50% of the population is below average intelligence.

As sad as it is, most of the U.S. population does not think critically. Most people in the U.S. does not know what we mean by "thinking critically.

I have seen voters time and time again vote AGAINST their best interest. This puzzled me something fierce. I must admit that this phenomena still bothers me from time to time.

I don't like calling 2/3 of the population "idiots", but I don't know any kind way to put it. It sounds elitest, it sounds non-pc, it sounds terrible, but that is the only thing that I can make out of this and all the other weird things people in the U.S. do.

Other than public education. I don't know how to fix the problem.

Anyone else want to comment?

Other Comments by Phadrus

22. Comment #165552 by Border Collie on April 21, 2008 at 4:35 pm

Don't support it finalcially. Don't go see it. Let it die a natural death as soon as possible.

Other Comments by Border Collie

23. Comment #165586 by Dane on April 21, 2008 at 6:22 pm

Phadrus, I think you pretty much nailed it on the head. I'm far from "smart" but damn... some people... wow...

Other Comments by Dane

24. Comment #165605 by Spinoza on April 21, 2008 at 8:34 pm

98% of the world is just getting by.

Also interesting to note: IQ is an artificial bell-curve of any given population, so 50% of richarddawkins.net posters are also below average intelligence. :)

Other Comments by Spinoza

25. Comment #165624 by FightingFalcon on April 22, 2008 at 12:00 am

Comment #165539 by Phadrus

As sad as it is, most of the U.S. population does not think critically. Most people in the U.S. does not know what we mean by "thinking critically.

Just a suggestion, but perhaps before ridiculing Americans you should get a handle on basic grammar yourself.

Sorry, I'm just tired of the constant insinuations on this board that Americans are ignorant religious morons.

Other Comments by FightingFalcon

26. Comment #165632 by pwuk on April 22, 2008 at 12:58 am

Excellent headline!

Other Comments by pwuk

27. Comment #165638 by Teratornis on April 22, 2008 at 1:02 am

Comment #165624 by FightingFalcon:

Just a suggestion, but perhaps before ridiculing Americans you should get a handle on basic grammar yourself.

Always good advice. I also suggest learning the different implications of the terms "Americans" and "most of the U.S. population." The term "Americans" is ambiguous about the proportion; it might suggest "all Americans." The term "most of the U.S. population" seems to exclude some Americans.

Also, how does a statement of fact constitute ridicule? We know most of the U.S. population does not think critically, because most of the U.S. population believes lots of propositions unsupported by conclusive evidence, while simultaneously disbelieving lots of other propositions equally unsupported by conclusive evidence. Most of the U.S. population would probably score even lower on a test of recognizing and naming logical fallacies than they would score on, say, a test of geography.

I heard somewhere that an amazingly large percentage of Americans cannot name three countries in Africa. Etc. These sorts of observations hardly shock us.

Sorry, I'm just tired of the constant insinuations on this board that Americans are ignorant religious morons.

So persuade most Americans to stop being ignorant religious morons. I don't see any other strategy which will stop people on this board from recognizing the obvious - that most (but not all!) Americans are, in fact, igorant religious morons, and commenting on that fact.

Thought question: what percentage of Americans would have to stop being ignorant religious morons to change the perception other people have of Americans?

Americans are also stereotyped as being obese, even though obese people live in almost every country (with the possible exception of Somalia). A larger (heh) percentage of Americans are obese than in most other countries, so while not every American is obese, I'm not personally threatened if someone from another country notices we have a hell of a lot of fat slobs waddling around here. It would be amazing if someone from another country failed to notice.

Other Comments by Teratornis

28. Comment #165648 by babrock on April 22, 2008 at 1:24 am

I am sure all t shameful behavior on t part of t moviemakers is all for t best in t long run, and whatever faux paus they have comited will be forgiven. They do have god on their side after all.

Other Comments by babrock

29. Comment #165651 by Steve Zara on April 22, 2008 at 1:32 am

Comment #165648 by babrock

I realise I am probably having a Lynne Truss moment here, but if you could please add a 'he' to your 't's, it would make your posts somewhat less irritating to read. In fact, they may well be a pleasure to read because of the content.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

30. Comment #165654 by j.mills on April 22, 2008 at 1:41 am

Directed by Nathan Frankowski

How come we never hear this guy defending his movie anyway? In the Scientific American interview, producer Mark Mathis kept hiding behind the 'fact' that he didn't make the editorial decisions. So why don't we hear about the guy who did giving an account of himself?

Other Comments by j.mills

31. Comment #165674 by Goldy on April 22, 2008 at 2:58 am

No one I know has even heard of this movie. If it comes to NZ, I dare say those that went to see Mr Hinn might be stupid enough to pay money to see it. No one else will.
I'm with Lucas - too much typing has been done on this site about it. The Mecca Meridien Time story is much more interesting.
Babrock, love your comments but I'm with Steve. Just say "the". Please!
Let's let this movie bomb quietly. Why give any credibility to it by even discussing it?

Other Comments by Goldy

32. Comment #165685 by Ian (South Africa) on April 22, 2008 at 3:32 am

Patently and obviously a goodly number of them are and there is empirical data to back up the claim. Nationalism is the bane of the world after religion.

Oh and taking a cheap shot at someone who is quite likely to be posting in what for them is a second language is quite arrogant especially as most Americans have arguably not convincingly mastered one.

Cheers,
Ian.

Other Comments by Ian (South Africa)

33. Comment #165690 by irate_atheist on April 22, 2008 at 3:43 am

32. Comment #165685 by Ian (South Africa) -

Quality, quality...

Superb.

Other Comments by irate_atheist

34. Comment #165708 by FightingFalcon on April 22, 2008 at 4:30 am

Teratornis and Ian:

And people wonder why the Atlantic Alliance is dying.

I won't resort to typical American responses to such European arrogance because I know that not every European is as big an asshole as you two are. Or, South African in Ian's case.

Other Comments by FightingFalcon

35. Comment #165713 by Sargeist on April 22, 2008 at 5:07 am

Steve,

I'm so glad you said tha, because I've been waning for so long o say i myself, and I wasn' sure if I would be able o wihou rying to make some ill-advised sarcasic remark.

hanks!

Other Comments by Sargeist

36. Comment #165714 by Ian (South Africa) on April 22, 2008 at 5:14 am

Comment #165708 by FightingFalcon

Or, South African in Ian's case.

Actually I'm Australian.

As for the Atlantic Alliance; that may have some worth once the Western side of the alliance recognise that reciprocity is an essential requirement of mutual trust and respect that can work together to produce a desirable outcome.

I have to say that I find Nationalism tedious and dangerous and I hope that you wont mind me pointing out to you that substituting patriotism for religion is not less objectionable to the rational mind.

I have noticed that your posts tend to focus on your nationality and your patriotism and to me at least stick in the throat.

Cheers,
Ian

Other Comments by Ian (South Africa)

37. Comment #165768 by Pilot22A on April 22, 2008 at 9:21 am

Quoting the article: "the film links evolution theory to fascism (as well as abortion, euthanasia and eugenics), shamelessly invoking the Holocaust with black-and-white film of Nazi gas chambers and mass graves."

Belief in a god is the ultimate fascist machinery

- babies are aborted by this omnipotent god
- disease is rampant in the world, caused by this god's creation of pests
- people slaughter each other in the name of religion religiously
- the Abrahamic god(s) murder and commit all sorts of atrocities in the Bible
- and yet the creationists compare us/atheists with Nazi's?

- The Christian's god is the most horrific Nazi of all.

Other Comments by Pilot22A

38. Comment #165787 by FightingFalcon on April 22, 2008 at 10:24 am

As for the Atlantic Alliance; that may have some worth once the Western side of the alliance recognise that reciprocity is an essential requirement of mutual trust and respect that can work together to produce a desirable outcome.

I highly doubt any successful alliances have been built upon insinuations of ignorance as you displayed in your post. Unlike yourself, I won't judge your entire country based on the actions of the few that I've come across, just as I'm fairly certain that you've only met a significant minority of Americans.

I have to say that I find Nationalism tedious and dangerous and I hope that you wont mind me pointing out to you that substituting patriotism for religion is not less objectionable to the rational mind.

Forgive me for taking pride in my country, which I consider the greatest in the history of man. There are those of us who still think that individual freedom and liberty are worth fighting for. How foolish of us.

Perhaps when your country becomes the leader in scientific advancement, medical research, economic growth and military power (among others) you will find a cause for pride in your nation.

I have noticed that your posts tend to focus on your nationality and your patriotism and to me at least stick in the throat.

Clearly you haven't read them close enough - they focus on my love for individual freedom and the US Constitution. I've stated many times that I have no loyalty to America per se, but rather our Republic. I certainly have no loyalty to our society.

Other Comments by FightingFalcon

39. Comment #165816 by Colwyn Abernathy on April 22, 2008 at 12:12 pm

I wouldn't call the movie a success. Over at Ed Brayton's blog is a link to what the movie did on its opening weekend and it isn't too pretty for them.

Hmm...I see points like this and they keep reminding me of what PZ said this morning: (4/22/08)

"As for all those people who are arguing from box office grosses that the movie is a success or a failure, grow up. We have a large population of miseducated evangelical lackwits in this country who will fork over money for exactly this kind of crap, so we knew ahead of time that the producers were going to get some small pots of cash out of this; worrying over exactly how much they got or will get is a pointless exercise. All it tells us is roughly how many people were motivated enough to see a bad movie because it caters to their prejudices. The issue at hand is dealing with the substance of the movie's claims and the reactions of the viewers. If you're counting dollar signs and using that to opine over the worth of the movie (in either direction), you're being part of the problem.

It's the same problem that we see in press reports on politics right now. Everything is focused on the horse race; "how many votes do they have so far, how much money have they raised?" And next to nothing on what the people actually say. Stop it!

Seriously, it doesn't matter how poorly or well it does in theatres, it's STILL going to reach its target audience, as clearly evidenced by the need for Dawk to write his eloquent open letter. Even Shermer makes the point that the film does what it sets out to do, inflame those who can't, or won't think critically, like Michael Moore demogogues. The only main difference is that Mathis & Co are so EASILY readable as dishonest. Take a bit of time to research and you can find everything Expelled: EXPOSED reports for yourself.

EDIT: Which is something I am assuming NONE (well, mebbe one) of those who rave about this movie are going to do just that.

Other Comments by Colwyn Abernathy

40. Comment #165955 by phil rimmer on April 22, 2008 at 4:09 pm

IMDB score now moving up. 3.7 out of ten,

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1091617/#comment

Recent surge of IDiots posting.

Its a darned nuisance not being able to comment on the movie, because of not wishing to support it financially.

Its just as well there are no torrents around to lead us into temptation......or are there?

Other Comments by phil rimmer

41. Comment #165968 by Mitchell Gilks on April 22, 2008 at 4:22 pm

This is a superbly written artical. It puts it all exactly and eloquently what we are all thinking.

98% of the world is just getting by.

Also interesting to note: IQ is an artificial bell-curve of any given population, so 50% of richarddawkins.net posters are also below average intelligence. :)

Ha! So true Spinoza. I'm in the low end of the average education on the site, though I am confident that I am still in the high end of intelligence. Of course who of us don't think that? Though I'll let others be the judge of that.

To partially quote Bruce Lee "if I told you that I was smart you'd think I was boasting, but if I told you I was stupid, you'd know I was lying."

Other Comments by Mitchell Gilks

42. Comment #166092 by Spinoza on April 22, 2008 at 6:22 pm

I'm in the low end of the average education on the site, though I am confident that I am still in the high end of intelligence. Of course who of us don't think that? Though I'll let others be the judge of that.

Mitchell, you just reminded me of that famous survey where people were asked to rate their intelligence relative to their peers.

I think it was University professors where 90% of the respondents ranked themselves as "above average" with respect to their peers.

... Clearly not just religious people are deluded! ;-)

Other Comments by Spinoza

43. Comment #166157 by Mitchell Gilks on April 22, 2008 at 10:21 pm

Well we are poor judges of ourselves for sure. Everyone thinks they are more intelligent and rational than they really are.

One day I said about my brother when he wasn't there "he thinks he is smarter than what he really is" and my drunk friend said "he's not the only one" and I felt like a tool. He was completely right, it isn't saying much to say that he thinks he smarter than he really is. That is almost certainly true of everyone.

I've had two IQ tests taken while I was in school, once in elementary school and the only high school. I scored 137 in elementary and 131 in high school. I've taken several online IQ tests, the best of which I got 142 on, and the worst I've gotten 121 on. During "test the nation" the IQ test they did on television, I got a poor 124. In school I was told that my IQ was close to being in the two 2% of the world. taking into account all the tests I've taken, they average at around 130.

I was happy with this for some time until about a year ago when I found out that genius IQ was only 136, I thought that it was 160. I don't remember where I got that idea, probably because Einstein or something. I was extremely disappointed. Because that means I am pretty close, and I have no special skills that would wow anyone. As I imagined geniuses did. When I found that out I just though "well then it's useless". If I'm a genius, then humanity is fucked. Now I know why Mensa never worked out. If they are like be, then they don't want to touch the worlds problems with a ten foot poll.

Then again I'm dylexic, which usually does result in a higher IQ, but reduced mental abilities in other areas. For instance my poor command of spelling. My almost inability to remember names, and the fact that I didn't learn to read until I was 13, but I was always good at math (and have an excellent memory for numbers. I like to brag how when I first set down to learn the Japanese numbers, I memorized them to 99 in about 20 minutes, and have zero trouble recalling them. Don't know why it works even when I am calling them something different. The area of my brain were the recollection of numbers are stored just must have some well established connections. While the area whether words and names are stored is a trainwreck). Maybe if your normal and have a high IQ it accounts for something. In any case, I haven't got a lot of braggable attributes, so I am going to never shut up about my one attribute that is exceptional!

My litttle brother scores slightly lower on IQ tests, in the teens above one hundred, to lower twenties, but he isn't dylexic, so perhaps he is arguably smarter. The rest of my huge family are dumb as bricks though. Sadly.

Well that's my life story, and you didn't even have to pay.

Other Comments by Mitchell Gilks

44. Comment #166234 by ZekeCDN on April 23, 2008 at 3:01 am

phil rimmer wrote:

Its just as well there are no torrents around to lead us into temptation......or are there?

I've just done another round of the BT sites and it seems there's been a fresh crop of torrents posted since the film opened ... but upon closer examination they're all still fakes; most being just looped versions of the trailer.

Other Comments by ZekeCDN

45. Comment #166569 by arogop on April 23, 2008 at 10:02 am

43. Comment #166157 by Mitchell Gilks

I think I can help you understand IQ a little bit. The first thing you have to realize that the new IQ scores are not on the same scale as the SBLM standards that we are used to.

180 plus = Profoundly gifted about .3% of the population
160 to 180 = Exceptionaly gifted .3% of the population
140 to 160 = Highly gifted about .4% of the population
125 to 140 = Gifted

These are approximations and are very subjective.

The term Genius was overapplied by many and is not based on any particular numbers that we can point to.

As for yourself you will need to know which test you got the score on. Most tests have a ceiling which causes you to "cap out". If your scores were on the WISC series of exams then you almost definitely hit that ceiling. For instance when I was in Elementary school I got a 136/139 on the WISC-R and its highest score was a 130. But by arranging the subtest like so you can guess as to the level of "g" (giftedness).

You are also likely to be a visual spatial learner. I would suggest looking that term up and it may tell you a lot about yourself and how you learn.

Remember high IQ does not mean you are smarter. It just means you think differently.

I have learned a lot about this lately because my oldest daughter hit the ceiling on the WISC IV and we are now trying to find testing that lets us know what her "g" level is. She has unfortunately been very bored in school and has now disengaged from the academic parts of it.

Andrew

Other Comments by arogop

46. Comment #166598 by huzonfurst on April 23, 2008 at 10:27 am

Come on, you geniuses. 50% of us can be neither below nor above average, because lots of us must be right at 50%, especially in a measurement as imprecise as IQ.

Not only that, there are many different types of intelligence and I doubt that many people get the same score on all of them. The significance of this number fades into insignificance the closer one examines it...

Other Comments by huzonfurst

47. Comment #166722 by arogop on April 23, 2008 at 11:51 am

huzonfurst -

50% of us can be neither below nor above average, because lots of us must be right at 50%

Sharpen your knife a little bit. Don't slice at about 100 but slice at 100.00000. Then yes it can be a 50/50 split. (or with the Flynn effect slice at 101.30000)

When using IQ they talk about ranges like the normal/average is 90 to 110.

We can say that those in the 180 plus range (on average) think significantly different than those in the 90 to 110 range. That is why you test. You are establishing a baseline of knowlege and understanding and then you individualize it from there.

Other Comments by arogop

48. Comment #166732 by D'Arcy on April 23, 2008 at 11:59 am

Personally, I don't give a toss how intelligent a person is. Creationists could all have IQs of 200 for all I care. The point is what people's ideas are. If the creationists are seriously arguing for ... er... er .... belief in the Bible and therefore a 6004 year old universe, which is scientific nonsense, then I have no respect for their views however high the IQ.

A wise man like the late pope, who spoke many languages, still spoke the same nonsense in all of them.

Other Comments by D'Arcy

49. Comment #167170 by Mitchell Gilks on April 23, 2008 at 5:27 pm

Arogop, where did you get that information? From what I've read 95% of the population score between 70-130, 2.5% score below, while 2.5% score above. So clearly 3% can't have 180 IQs. Also, Mensa only lets in people in the top 2%, which they say is 135 or over.

It is true that what is considered a "genius" is opinion, and not a clear thing. Many numbers, as high as 180 have been proposed, but currently 136 is what is considered to be a genius. You can read this on the wiki page. I thought it was 160, then while watching "R.O.D. the T.V." they were running tests to incease people's IQs, and they got someone up to 140, and one of them remarked that it was genius level. I checked on wiki and they were right.

I definitely never implied that there is a static test, or way of determining it exactly. Nor did I mean to imply that I know what my IQ is beyond a guess from all the different tests I've taken.

I also have no idea what you mean by having an higher IQ doesn't make you smarter... how do you define smart? I define it by intelligence, in which has that is exactly what an IQ means. You are free to define it differently if you like. Perhaps you mean it contextually. Like an genius artist, or a genius musician or something like that.

D'Arcy, I don't think that anyone implied that high IQ = right.

Other Comments by Mitchell Gilks

50. Comment #167257 by arogop on April 23, 2008 at 7:29 pm

Mitchell Gilks -

Thats point three. All total the highly gifted range and up is about 1.1% of the population.

The term genius is subjective. The different tiers of intellectual giftedness are a research defenition that came out of the research with the Stanford Binet series of tests. It is one of the few tests that is capable of being used in the 140 range. That is usually why people just say you are a genius if you cap out the normal IQ tests.

Really good researchers on the subject are Marraca Gross (Australia), Linda Silverman (Denver CO), Gary Davis (UW-Madison). Also some good websites are Hoagiesgifted.org, NAGC site, and the gifted institure in Denver.

Different tests test things... well differently. Hogies has a good conversion between the major IQ tests.

With your test result you are certainly intellectually gifted (not superior), and probably think about things alot different than the average Joe. You are also more likely to be an athiest or agnostic and have a higher degree. Does that make you smart... sure I like to think so, but in reality you connections are just different.

Higher IQ probably means your have a denser pack of nerons than normal or more connections between them.

IQ is also highly genetic. Kids tend to fall within 10 points of one of there parents. That is not saying much in the normal range, but when you look at the profoundly gifted range thats saying something.

I also think that having a higher IQ means you have pictures of Lesbians in your avatar. You rock!!!

Other Comments by arogop