Alan vs. KJ

[Mission146]

That algorithm is obviously junk, but why use a sample of me being silly to have it score me?

I picked a few different samples and got anywhere from 95-116; that's much too low. I guess it has been awhile since I've been formally IQ tested, but if it has slipped that much, I might as well just put a bullet in my head right now because I'll be full MR by the age of 41, at this rate.

Also, what Redietz said. Even in my articles, I try to keep my writing to an 8th-12th grade range and I should think that the people reading me are more intelligent than average.

Let's try this from the thread in which Mickey and I were discussing the Civil War:

If the point is that most were guilty to some extent, sure, point granted. I don't see how any of this supports the notion of there being an all-loving God. I don't see how any of this is a defense of organized religion. It seems that religious leaders and churches were frequently on the front lines defending horrible policies and acts, in the name of God, anytime that horrible social events took place---from the Inquisition to Slavery and even beyond that. Whether the question be social policy, or science, the religious institutions almost always come down on the wrong side of it.

More recently, you have the Catholic Church covering up for widespread child molestation. The Baptists have a tendency of being moral stalwarts, at least in what they say, on just about any subject you can think of...but also seem to be the ones most likely to protect their own and cover up for one another at the first sign of trouble.

The religious teachings on marriage are such that wives might as well be slaves, depending on the denomination. Some churches, again as a formal entity, would excommunicate a woman for divorcing her husband when he has been unfaithful to her.

With that said, everything is a tradeoff. If you want me to allow that the traditional family unit seems to yield the best economic results, on average, for children---sure, I'll grant that.

That being said, at some point, you have to pick your priorities. I tend to think that one of my main priorities is personal freedom, regardless of the consequences. If there's one thing that the more extreme denominations/churches seem not to be able to accept, it is that not everyone is going to believe in God, much less follow the word of God and they should have sufficient faith that God will sort out the wicked from the good, so the laws of the land need not do try to do that for God as long as nobody is being harmed by the unholy act in question.

Obviously, it also depends on how individual churches, and perhaps ministers, want to teach the Bible. It's a matter of interpretation, of course, but it's also something of a matter of what passages the churches want to focus on and how the message is delivered. 1 Timothy almost totally contradicts 2 Timothy, in this regard, but you don't seem inclined to get into much of a discussion as to the various verses...as I have cited a few.

Estimated IQ: 106 (Above Average)

Damn, took another one from that thread and I got 110. (I cheated; the 116 sample didn't come from here.)

I'm still quite confident that I'm smarter than the algorithm is giving me credit for (also pursuant to the one formal IQ test I took), but on the other hand, I've never been as smart as I think I am---so who knows?

Honestly, it wouldn't shock me if word length was half of the basis of the algorithm. It probably also wants a low ratio of articles and pronouns compared to other words, which would also influence word length.