David Wilcock
08-08-2005, 08:14 AM
from: asc2k@yahoogroups.com (/group/asc2k/post?postid=bwrznnpq1mcx6yjlwndim9n7ia6umbbicquw9q fubysmozsqs7-jfotck6virexpywy0gdf3jle-6ib73q) [mailto:asc2k@yahoogroups.com (/group/asc2k/post?postid=bwrznnpq1mcx6yjlwndim9n7ia6umbbicquw9q fubysmozsqs7-jfotck6virexpywy0gdf3jle-6ib73q)] on behalf of
bjorn nitmou
>in a way though, if it takes "chops" to create the
scientific material, then it almost creates a
limitation for those of us who dont have "chops,"
because you could likely make a strong argument that
it must also take "chops" or a high iq just to read
and understand such material. which is something we
are all trying to do.
dw: no, see, there's the point! it is much harder to cast a wide mental net
over the huge body of possible data that could be drawn off of for this
film, and then pick the best material that will actually make a credible
case. this is also political, because each point needs to have a reputable,
unsinkable scientist behind it that we can get on camera. many valid data
points have to be left behind due to these limitations.
in the end, if i do this right, i have taken something almost mindlessly
complex and turned it into something simple - a film that even an advanced
child could track fairly well and figure out what's going on. that's the
whole challenge.
if you read part three of "reincarnation of edgar cayce?", i believe you
will see an evolution in my writing style towards greater comprehensibility
than in the convergence series.
i do believe that "tickle" is primarily a business (duh) and that their
objective is to consistently give people a lower score than what they
actually would get. that way people are shocked, since they know it should
be higher than that, and they'll be inspired to pay the money to "learn how
to raise their iq," which is ridiculous. all their "training" will really do
is introduce "subject sophistication bias" into the testing procedure, by
teaching you little tricks like pattern recognition. i did have that
powerful synchronicity- the 1:35 on the clock- that strongly suggested to me
that no one is going to score higher than 135 on their test, ever.
their skewed results are probably due, in part, to the fact that a 100 is
supposed to be the average score and every 10 points above or below it is
one standard deviation away from that average. there may not even have been
enough people taking the test for there to be any relevance to four standard
deviations above the mean, (i.e. 140), because the subject pool is too
small. already by then you're dealing with a very small number - something
like four decimal places after 99%.
so i wouldn't at all be surprised if they recalibrated their 100 to be the
average of everyone who has actually taken the test online. and think about
it- only smarter people are even going to have the patience to click through
the whole burdensome test, all four screens of it. if they start thinking
it's difficult they probably just wouldn't complete it.
on the more sinister side i have seen some who accuse tickle of being a
front corporation for certain insider groups to try to find the most
intelligent people for possible recruitment. well, they can't have me if
that is the case.
the only reason why i posted this in the first place was that it seemed
quite strange that i would score 44 points lower on an iq test today, even
though i feel more well-balanced in the intellectual body than i was back in
1996. again, had i thought through more about how it might make others take
things personally i would never have even mentioned it. i did tell you all
that it was transient... remember that!
i personally have enjoyed billy bob's witty commentary and would feel it a
great travesty if it were to dry up on account of some ridiculous
stamford-binet results. the type of things they look for in those tests show
the distortions of the people who think this is what intelligence is. i
happen to have these qualities, but in my opinion this is not intelligence.
and you can't ascend with it either.
we're not here to try to be more "intelligent," we're here to discover and
fully activate the genius that is within each of us. this process occurs
when you balance your emotional body enough to make a reliable connection to
your higher self, which is the ultimate source of all genius. i have seen
people with very high iqs and no genius whatsoever.
peace be with you -
- david
bjorn nitmou
>in a way though, if it takes "chops" to create the
scientific material, then it almost creates a
limitation for those of us who dont have "chops,"
because you could likely make a strong argument that
it must also take "chops" or a high iq just to read
and understand such material. which is something we
are all trying to do.
dw: no, see, there's the point! it is much harder to cast a wide mental net
over the huge body of possible data that could be drawn off of for this
film, and then pick the best material that will actually make a credible
case. this is also political, because each point needs to have a reputable,
unsinkable scientist behind it that we can get on camera. many valid data
points have to be left behind due to these limitations.
in the end, if i do this right, i have taken something almost mindlessly
complex and turned it into something simple - a film that even an advanced
child could track fairly well and figure out what's going on. that's the
whole challenge.
if you read part three of "reincarnation of edgar cayce?", i believe you
will see an evolution in my writing style towards greater comprehensibility
than in the convergence series.
i do believe that "tickle" is primarily a business (duh) and that their
objective is to consistently give people a lower score than what they
actually would get. that way people are shocked, since they know it should
be higher than that, and they'll be inspired to pay the money to "learn how
to raise their iq," which is ridiculous. all their "training" will really do
is introduce "subject sophistication bias" into the testing procedure, by
teaching you little tricks like pattern recognition. i did have that
powerful synchronicity- the 1:35 on the clock- that strongly suggested to me
that no one is going to score higher than 135 on their test, ever.
their skewed results are probably due, in part, to the fact that a 100 is
supposed to be the average score and every 10 points above or below it is
one standard deviation away from that average. there may not even have been
enough people taking the test for there to be any relevance to four standard
deviations above the mean, (i.e. 140), because the subject pool is too
small. already by then you're dealing with a very small number - something
like four decimal places after 99%.
so i wouldn't at all be surprised if they recalibrated their 100 to be the
average of everyone who has actually taken the test online. and think about
it- only smarter people are even going to have the patience to click through
the whole burdensome test, all four screens of it. if they start thinking
it's difficult they probably just wouldn't complete it.
on the more sinister side i have seen some who accuse tickle of being a
front corporation for certain insider groups to try to find the most
intelligent people for possible recruitment. well, they can't have me if
that is the case.
the only reason why i posted this in the first place was that it seemed
quite strange that i would score 44 points lower on an iq test today, even
though i feel more well-balanced in the intellectual body than i was back in
1996. again, had i thought through more about how it might make others take
things personally i would never have even mentioned it. i did tell you all
that it was transient... remember that!
i personally have enjoyed billy bob's witty commentary and would feel it a
great travesty if it were to dry up on account of some ridiculous
stamford-binet results. the type of things they look for in those tests show
the distortions of the people who think this is what intelligence is. i
happen to have these qualities, but in my opinion this is not intelligence.
and you can't ascend with it either.
we're not here to try to be more "intelligent," we're here to discover and
fully activate the genius that is within each of us. this process occurs
when you balance your emotional body enough to make a reliable connection to
your higher self, which is the ultimate source of all genius. i have seen
people with very high iqs and no genius whatsoever.
peace be with you -
- david