Deep2
30-07-2006, 08:57 PM
Are they all too thick to realise that these tests are full of factors that do not make the results effective. There are many aspects drawing the results into question. Yet they all took the results as a sealed and final result. Are they all too thick to even question the validity of stastistics?
eg: What mood the person is in effects their responses.
e.g: How interested they are in the test
e.g: How is 'intelligence' measured. To this day, there are varying responses to this question
e.g: How is the test givem...visually, audio, kinasethetically...this can effect the responses
e.g: How to measure 'emotional stability' is purely a subjective thing, as we can all be emotionally unstable at times, but a state of 'emotional instability' is purely subjective.
Look how they all assume that BB has results that cannot even be questioned.
eg: What mood the person is in effects their responses.
e.g: How interested they are in the test
e.g: How is 'intelligence' measured. To this day, there are varying responses to this question
e.g: How is the test givem...visually, audio, kinasethetically...this can effect the responses
e.g: How to measure 'emotional stability' is purely a subjective thing, as we can all be emotionally unstable at times, but a state of 'emotional instability' is purely subjective.
Look how they all assume that BB has results that cannot even be questioned.