![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 42 to 66 of 66. Go back in thread:
Posted by Dinah on March 23, 2006, at 16:15:38
In reply to Re: Subject close to my heart » special_k, posted by AuntieMel on March 23, 2006, at 14:13:31
I'm not sure how many IQ points I'd trade for artistic ability, because they seem to be dropping off year by year on their own.
But I do wish I had been blessed with artistic abilities. I often long to be creative and am stifled by my total lack of artistic abilities.
And I suppose I should add that I also love the fact that we have a local school designed to nurture the gifts of those with artistic and musical gifts. And that it's not all that hard to find schools and other organizations to nurture gifts of athletic ability.
All gifts should be valued and nurtured.
Posted by AuntieMel on March 24, 2006, at 9:04:59
In reply to Re: Subject close to my heart, posted by special_k on March 23, 2006, at 15:16:56
"i personally think that when you consider the population as a whole... that kind of testing harms more than it helps.
i think it would have a better use as a dx tool for people coming up low...
so that they have more resources thrown at them..."
Well, consider this. Assuming, of course, that a school is silly enough to *only* consider an IQ test for kid grouping.
Those that "come up low" could have *different* resourses thrown at them. If they are different then there wouldn't have to be more of them.
And those who come up high would also have resourses geared towards them.
Then those in the middle? They wouldn't always have to struggle to compete with those who will always do better.
And they wouldn't have to lag behind because they are waiting for those who are slower.
Every child deserves to be in the best group for that child. And every child will do better if he is in the best group for him.
They separate the best from the not so great already in music (different band and orchestra levels according to talent) and for athletics (the best get on the best teams) so why not do it for brains, too?
Kids get picked on just as much for being too smart as they do for - well, not being so smart.
--
But again = my premise here was that a school was silly enough to go by one test. I think that is wrong, too. Many very, very intelligent people don't test well. If a person who doesn't score high is motivated enough to work extra hard to keep up he should be allowed to go to the higher class. And if a person who does score well is lazy he should go down to the middle classroom.
Posted by AuntieMel on March 24, 2006, at 9:12:28
In reply to Re: Please be kind? » AuntieMel, posted by Dinah on March 22, 2006, at 9:49:00
"I've got some specific deficits in my spatial abilities that would make it hard for me to pass the test. "
I cracked up when I read that.
When I took it there was a section for spatial abilities. It had slews of pictures of hands, gloves, shoes, feet all in various positions - upside down, sideways and so on. You had to tell if they were the left one or the right one. And it was timed, so you had to do it quickly.
I just used my hands and feet and rotated them to match the picture. It was quick and they didn't say you couldn't do it. When I got through I looked around and other people *weren't* doing that and I couldn't figure out why.
So - in that way I was smarter than them...
Posted by Dinah on March 24, 2006, at 9:47:02
In reply to Re: Please be kind? » Dinah, posted by AuntieMel on March 24, 2006, at 9:12:28
not such a badly designed test at that. :)
I'd like to think I'd figure that out. Because that's one of my better areas, and my specialty at work, along with quickly figuring out every bad thing that could possibly go wrong with any proposed course of action. Which is a rather depressing specialty. :)
Posted by special_k on March 24, 2006, at 12:27:29
In reply to Re: Subject close to my heart, posted by AuntieMel on March 24, 2006, at 9:04:59
> Then those in the middle? They wouldn't always have to struggle to compete with those who will always do better.is that really what you take from the tests?
that is to disregard everything i have said.
which you are of course free to do...
but it would be nice to think people understood what i was saying before disagreeing.
do you really think that is the message that people who score average should take?
that they will never be able to compete with people who score higher than them on some test because those people are destined to be smarter than them, to outperform them right throughout their lifespan?
do you really think that?
i don't.
that is the point.
but so long as that is the message people take...
it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy.
which of course works out just terrific for those who are well positioned in life to start with especially...
Posted by AuntieMel on March 24, 2006, at 13:39:49
In reply to Re: Subject close to my heart, posted by special_k on March 24, 2006, at 12:27:29
No, that isn't what I'm trying to say. Not at all.
"Those in the middle" contains probably 80% or better of the population. With about 10% on either side. But there are usually one or 2 kids in a class that everyone gives a hard time for being the 'smart' one. And who blow the curve for everyone else. What should they do?
What they often end up doing is not their best - purposely - so they will fit in.
Tests like that can be a tool. One of many. Like I said, they are not indicators of future success - motivation and work are far more important.
And I certainly wouldn't want to label anyone "average" or anything else.
The cases where I've seen testing used to do any kind of separation it was very low-key and subtle. The kids never knew their score and the parents only got it if they asked for it. So, while the school *might* have used it the kids didn't *feel* labeled.
I'm just saying if someone (whoever that invisible 'someone' is) used them as a tool to help design programs it wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing, as long as it isn't the *only* thing taken into consideration.
In my ideal world each kid would be in a class that teaches that kid as much as he can (and is willing to) learn and that brings out all the special talents the kid has.
Unfortunately when it comes to university entrance the test (SAT, GRE) is given too much weight. My youngest, one of the brightest people I know, doesn't test worth a poop. Her SAT scores didn't reflect her ability at all. And it affected the schools she could get into.
But she is doing really well in school.
What I don't understand is why you dislike them so much, and I'd like to understand. It really isn't something I've given a lot of thought to.
Posted by Deneb on March 24, 2006, at 17:45:47
In reply to Re: Subject close to my heart, posted by special_k on March 24, 2006, at 12:27:29
I understand what you are saying special k and I agree with you.
When we start separating people or labelling people, there is going to be discrimination, both good and bad. Does the good really outweigh the bad in this case?
Expectations of ability or lack of ability....
If I'm missing a leg, does that mean I cannot race? Or is it just that we expect that I cannot race because I cannot run? I might need an artificial leg, but would we have gone to all that trouble to give me a leg to race on if we had expected me to not be able to race??
Deneb*
Posted by special_k on March 25, 2006, at 22:54:06
In reply to rofl » AuntieMel, posted by Dinah on March 24, 2006, at 9:47:02
believe it or not many people still debate this.
whether there are genuine intelligence differences between different racial groups
(some say yes others say cultural bias others say socio economic bias)
if there are genuine intelligence differences (race aside) then there is the issue on whether those differences are innate or are more to do with environmental factors. if you are interested in the nature nurture controversy i reccomend "What's within - nativism reconsidered" which is very empirically informed and there is an exellent and very sophisticated analysis of the empirical findings.
because there are implications re eugenics. and also... what is to be done. what is to be done... re whether some children really should be put in accelerated learning classes... re whether some children shouldn't have much resources invested because there isn't any hope in improving their intelligence significantly.
Posted by special_k on March 25, 2006, at 23:15:43
In reply to critique of the bell curve, posted by special_k on March 25, 2006, at 22:54:06
Posted by special_k on March 25, 2006, at 23:35:44
In reply to Re: critique of the bell curve, posted by special_k on March 25, 2006, at 23:15:43
I mean... If a score on an intelligence test is due to innate ability rather than being significantly affected by environmental factors then...
Why have accelerated learning programs for the high scorers? I mean.... If they are in the top 2% then they are likely to remain in the top 2% and given the importance of scoring high on intelligence tests for such things as getting a good job and going to college then the people scoring high are going to do that anyway so why bother giving them accelerated learning programs?
and if people score low then why bother with remedial programs?
i mean... they are destined to remain low scorers to what is the point?
you could say that there are other skills that these groups can be taught.
sure.
but why seperate them to teach em?
i was streamed in high school. there were general tests and they seperated our classes in high school on that basis. i was put in the 2nd top class (my math score pulled me down). i was also a behaviour problem. they moved me to the top class because they thought i was bored. i continued to be a behaviour problem. but it was considered worse becasue i was leading the teachers kids astray (it was kinda funny that teachers kids and the kids of university lecturers and the like tended to do best in these general intelligence tests). so they moved me back to a lower class...
intelligence.
funny because i guess a lot of people in the world would consider you would have to be pretty intelligent to come out with a phd. pretty intelligent. how many people come out with phds?
what measure of intelligence do you want to use?
but why why why?
that is what i don't understand.
identifying problems for remedial action sure. if people come up with cognitive impairment on certain kinds of tasks then remedial help could make a significant difference to their future (i believe).
with the high scorers...
typically social skills training can go a long way (some schools do this). they have found that kids who do well on intelligence tests typically benefit from more phys ed amongst peers who are similarly unconfident.
etc etc
remedial once more.
make sense?
Posted by special_k on March 26, 2006, at 2:59:27
In reply to Re: critique of the bell curve, posted by special_k on March 25, 2006, at 23:35:44
there was a kid in the south island in nz who scored really highly on science / math. not so high on verbal.
she was around 11 years old...
and she was taking a class at university. biology i believe.
in the program they made a big deal of how she had a special talent in biology.
in reading etc she came up above average for her age.
her mother was on welfare. she helped her one hell of a lot. re reading the text books etc. the girl did her own tests etc at university but i noticed the tests were all multi choice.
i also noticed that she was scoring around 75%. that is an A-. That is a very good score don't get me wrong. but if you have an A- average well... that will get you some kinds of scholarships but not entry to the top universities in your field.
not at all.
i don't think her mother was pushing her...
but i think her mother was encouraging her one hell of a lot.
and it was coming at the cost of...
trying to obtain a relatively normal social development. re spending time with her peers. re phys ed. re reading and learning about history and all kinds of other things.
do i think it is a good thing?
her grade will be on her transcript forever.
i don't think her mother is doing her any favours.
she could have studied the material in a directed study at school in her own time if she was interested.
presumably there was mor eshe could have learned to do independently.
an A- on her transcript is something that she is going to be regretting later. it is. doesn't matter that she was 11 when she got it.
apparant to me...
and seemed it was apparant to her profs... that she should have waited...
but...
she was privately funded to do it. and i can understand why that made a huge difference to her life, her mothers life, and her younger sisters life (her mother was on welfare remember). on welfare so she could be at home with her children so she could be the best mother she could be to them.
what a bitch of a situation.
Posted by AuntieMel on March 27, 2006, at 10:44:46
In reply to critique of the bell curve, posted by special_k on March 25, 2006, at 22:54:06
Well, sure if you have people using one thing to "prove" the case for eugenics...
But those who argue for eugenics don't need a test to prove thier case. Reason doesn't really play there, does it?
There is so much more to a person than that one thing.
But it doesn't do anyone any good to deny that for some people there *is* that gift.
Just as it doesn't do anyone any good to deny that some are better looking, more athletic, more musical, kinder, gentler or possessing any other gift they are born with.
Posted by special_k on March 28, 2006, at 11:18:54
In reply to Re: critique of the bell curve, posted by AuntieMel on March 27, 2006, at 10:44:46
> Well, sure if you have people using one thing to "prove" the case for eugenics...
*support* the case for eugenics...
> But those who argue for eugenics don't need a test to prove thier case. Reason doesn't really play there, does it?
sure it does. there are some very sophisticated arguments involved. they typically aren't taught... probably in case people don't understand how they go wrong. but there are some very sophisticated arguments. if i started up with them.... you might have some trouble showing how they are in error... did you know the us and the uk were implementic eugenics policies before hitler took it to the extreme? that is what brought the whole thing in disrepute (as something to be feared). before that... it was fairly much considered to be 'common knowledge'. do you want me to consider some of the arguments? might be interesting... but some people might feel offended. then there is always the very real possibility that there would be a very good argument that nobody could come up with a refutation for...
> But it doesn't do anyone any good to deny that for some people there *is* that gift.
sorry what gift? what is a gift? are we still talking about score on an IQ test of giving us knowledge of ones intelligence? a gift from god i presume...
> Just as it doesn't do anyone any good to deny that some are better looking, more athletic, more musical, kinder, gentler or possessing any other gift they are born with.
>
er... why does it do us good to focus on these things? that is what i'm having trouble with. why does it do us good to focus on these?suppose someone is judged not to be musical.
is she likely to persist... or to give up trying?
how do you know she wouldn't have become a wonderful musician if she had persisted?
is the validity of the tests really the most important thing?
whatever happened to humanity?
Posted by Dinah on March 28, 2006, at 17:00:47
In reply to Re: critique of the bell curve » AuntieMel, posted by special_k on March 28, 2006, at 11:18:54
May I reflect back what I'm hearing from you and see if it's in line with what you wish to convey?
I'm hearing back from you that the idea of a range of IQ's is a fallacy. That everyone is of average IQ except for those people who for environmental reasons have developmental delays. And that environmental factors can also bump up IQ a few points, but not enough that you acknowledge that there is any real difference and certainly not any special needs on the side of purportedly high IQ.
And those psychologists who point out that the differences between someone with a tested IQ of 150 and someone with an IQ of 100 are as significant as the differences between someone with an IQ proportionately lower and a person of average intelligence, and that therefore people on the extreme ends of each spectrum have special needs are incorrect.
And that the major difference between me and Leonardo da Vinci is a lack of effort on my part. That if I received enough encouragement and my drive was great enough, I too could be an intellectual and artistic "genius" of that caliber.
Because IQ and artistic ability don't count for as much as effort and hard work and encouragement?
And everyone has an IQ and artistic ability equal to da Vinci and we just aren't expressing our potential?
If that's not what you're trying to convey, I hope you'll help me with my misunderstanding.
Posted by special_k on March 28, 2006, at 19:52:24
In reply to Re: critique of the bell curve » special_k, posted by Dinah on March 28, 2006, at 17:00:47
> May I reflect back what I'm hearing from you and see if it's in line with what you wish to convey?
Sure.
> I'm hearing back from you that the idea of a range of IQ's is a fallacy.IQ is a score on a test. That is all no more no less. Some people like to think IQ is a measure of intelligence. That is only true after committing some severe abuse on the usual meaning of the word 'intelligence'.
> That everyone is of average IQ
Not at all. Ones IQ score is ones IQ score and I'm sure the facts are available of the range of scores.
> except for those people who for environmental reasons have developmental delays.
I'm saying it doesn't measure ones innate potential in the sense that the IQ score will remain fixed throughout ones lifespan. Learning opportunities and enriched environments can make a big difference in improving ones score. Studying for how to take those kinds of tests can also make a big difference in improving ones score. Some people are born with cognitive deficits (developmentally handicapped etc). I think it is useful to pick up on the nature of those deficits so they have more learning opportunities / enriched environments. To make up for the 'nature' side of things.
> And that environmental factors can also bump up IQ a few points
A fair few points...
But why was IQ score important to us again if it is granted it is not a measure of intelligence (though may work quite well to show up deficits on certain kinds of tasks)?> but not enough that you acknowledge that there is any real difference and certainly not any special needs on the side of purportedly high IQ.
do they have atheletic ability tests?
do they have musical ability tests?
do they have artistic ability tests?
do they have social skills tests?some people have different kinds of needs...
(i don't think there should be tests for those things anymore than IQ. they wouldn't really be testing those things of course anyway. sigh. my point is more that if those things are supposed to be equally important... they why aren't they treated as such? why aren't they taken as seriously?)
> And those psychologists who point out that the differences between someone with a tested IQ of 150 and someone with an IQ of 100 are as significant as the differences between someone with an IQ proportionately lower and a person of average intelligence, and that therefore people on the extreme ends of each spectrum have special needs are incorrect.er sorry... what are the differences? in terms of score maybe... but i thought you were talking about intelligence (in the usual sense of the terms) again. i would have thought that someone who scores very low... that might just show that they are really very severely developmentally disabled... buy maybe... IQ tests really aren't so very useful as a screening tool either...
> And that the major difference between me and Leonardo da Vinci is a lack of effort on my part. That if I received enough encouragement and my drive was great enough, I too could be an intellectual and artistic "genius" of that caliber.?
> Because IQ and artistic ability don't count for as much as effort and hard work and encouragement?
In the majority of cases... Yeah. I really do think so.
> And everyone has an IQ and artistic ability equal to da Vinci and we just aren't expressing our potential?You can go through history and pick out maybe 5 or 10 or 50 or 1,000 cases of that if you like. Now my question to you is...
What was his IQ score?
What was Newtons?
Platos?
Descartes?
Eiensteins?You are assuming these people are high scorers... But maybe they aren't... Sure you will probably get the odd 'lucky' correlation (stats would be in favour of it). That doesn't undermine my case...
Posted by Dinah on March 28, 2006, at 20:03:39
In reply to Re: critique of the bell curve » Dinah, posted by special_k on March 28, 2006, at 19:52:24
Do you have studies showing the lack of correlation between IQ scores and actual intelligence?
"do they have atheletic ability tests?
do they have musical ability tests?
do they have artistic ability tests?
do they have social skills tests?"Sure they do. :) They're just not administered by psychologists. In my experience, social skills and athletic ability are valued far more highly than intelligence, and musical and artistic ability may perhaps not get the emphasis they deserve. Although there are of course exceptions.
Ok, my revised understanding of what you're saying is that there may be differences in native intelligence, but that intelligence testing does not adequately measure them. Would that be a correct understanding?
Posted by verne on March 28, 2006, at 20:43:44
In reply to Re: critique of the bell curve » Dinah » special_k, posted by Dinah on March 28, 2006, at 20:03:39
Dinah,
You're my hero. you give us windworn people - out of spit - voice.
verne
Posted by special_k on March 28, 2006, at 21:02:27
In reply to Re: critique of the bell curve » Dinah » special_k, posted by Dinah on March 28, 2006, at 20:03:39
> Do you have studies showing the lack of correlation between IQ scores and actual intelligence?
What is 'actual intelligence'?
And how much does IQ score at one instant in time predict IQ score at another instant in time as well as it does - from self-fulfilling prophecy?
I think 'actual intelligence' is a very complex multi-fauceted concept...
What do all games have in common?
(There are board games, one person games, ball games, computer games, olympic games etc)What do all intelligent acts have in common?
(There is the same problem. It is a complex concept and I don't think there is a good measure... Then there is the nature / nurture side of it and if nurture comes into it a great deal then unless you score very highly you will probably be harmed more than helped by being given a score...)
> "do they have atheletic ability tests?
> do they have musical ability tests?
> do they have artistic ability tests?
> do they have social skills tests?"> Sure they do. :) They're just not administered by psychologists.
Ah. Heh heh. Shows you where priorities lie I guess. Yeah... I think in general US is more fond of standardised tests etc etc than I am used to...
> Ok, my revised understanding of what you're saying is that there may be differences in native intelligence, but that intelligence testing does not adequately measure them. Would that be a correct understanding?
First you need to decide what intelligence is...
I don't think we have done that adequately. I'm not sure it can be done (what do all games have in common?)
Then you need to consider whether the above mentioned thing (that probably doesn't even exist) is mostly nature / nurture. Though that distinction merges anyway under sustained analysis...
I think that current misconceptions (within professionals and the general public) mean that things such as IQ tests do more harm than good for people.
Posted by Dinah on March 28, 2006, at 23:05:58
In reply to Re: critique of the bell curve » Dinah, posted by special_k on March 28, 2006, at 21:02:27
I'd really have to see the evidence. It would seem likely that there must be a widely accepted clinical definition of intelligence, and that any studies would use that definition.
But if you don't mind my asking, do you feel that you've been wronged by an IQ test?
Because really there's no arguing with a person's personal experience. If an IQ test was harmful to you, then it was, and all the statistics in the world won't change that.
Posted by special_k on March 28, 2006, at 23:37:05
In reply to Re: critique of the bell curve » special_k, posted by Dinah on March 28, 2006, at 23:05:58
> I'd really have to see the evidence. It would seem likely that there must be a widely accepted clinical definition of intelligence, and that any studies would use that definition.
intelligence is typically equated with... a score on an IQ test.
but the way we typically talk of intelligence and people being intelligent and people having done intelligent things...There is a major discrepancy between the way we normally use the term and the construct that the IQ tests measure. There are two different senses, or meanings of 'intelligence' if you like but the trouble is they tend to be run together... Some clinician's do realise that the concepts are discrepant. That is why coming up with new and improved IQ tests is still on the agenda. People still mess around with the technical intelligence concept.
Kind of like how there is a discrepancy between clinical 'depression' and 'depression' as most people in society use the term.
kind of like how we can talk about improvement in therapy which is very different (though somewhat related?) to the tests for improvement that the psychologists administer...
> But if you don't mind my asking, do you feel that you've been wronged by an IQ test?I've never ever had an IQ test.
The closest I've come is looking at studying for the GRE and getting some of the study guides (which teach you tricks) and looking at and trying to do some of the practice questions (mostly).
I've studied intelligence tests (and other kinds of tests) a little. We got to play (ahem take a look at) a couple varieties of intelligence tests. Mostly what was emphasised... Is how the reason psychologists are so guarded with their tests (and with people needing appropriate quals to administer them etc) is because... the general public tends to put too much faith in them. And clinicians... Are supposed to be taught all about the problems and potential problems etc etc. So unwarranted conclusions are less likely to be drawn. But what I found was that... Even they seemed to have more faith in them than seemed warranted. There really are significant problems... But... It is a whole field. And people get paid good money to develop tests and administer tests and to interpret the results of tests. Especially... When it comes to personel selection etc etc.
> Because really there's no arguing with a person's personal experience. If an IQ test was harmful to you, then it was, and all the statistics in the world won't change that.Not harmful to me (I've never been tested).
Though... I couldn't apply to schools that I would have liked to apply to because I would have needed a very high GRE score to be considered and basically... It would have taken a long time to study for the exam and learn the tricks etc (Would have to have memorised my times tables and learned about angles etc etc high school math but high school math I never went to or did at high school). Also... The US math curriculum is different from our math curriculum... So most people from NZ have to put a bit of work into the math section. For the analytic section passages were taken from Scientific American magazine. I think more American students read (and thus get used to the style and general tone etc) of that particular magazine. It is reccomended that as part of your study you read... Maybe the last four years of that magazine... (yes I'm talking about what is required to get a top score). But some peoples lives... They don't need to study for the math because they DID learn that in High School. They don't need to read back issues of Scientific American because they read that as it came out.Cultural Bias...
People from the US will tend to do better on the test.
So I guess it harmed me in the sense that I couldn't apply to schools I wanted to go to. I guess it harmed me because the honest truth is that... I couldn't afford to get all the proper study guides. And I couldn't afford to get myself to a certain city in the country where the test is administered. And because I couldn't afford to take the damned test anyway (especially once you factor in currency conversion).
Posted by verne on March 29, 2006, at 1:54:31
In reply to Re: critique of the bell curve » special_k, posted by Dinah on March 28, 2006, at 23:05:58
I have always loved tests: IQ, SAT, GT, you name it. I don't do real math, yet I still do well on math tests. I live to take tests. I could pass a test but not the course.
My weakness was spatial relations. Geometry was always a problem for me although I could usually fake it.
I always thought the best shape was woman.
verne
Posted by Dinah on March 29, 2006, at 11:10:00
In reply to Re: critique of the bell curve » Dinah, posted by special_k on March 28, 2006, at 23:37:05
Well there, see...
We have areas of agreement on the subject. I agree that IQ tests are not designed to test the popular notion of intelligence but rather the clinical one whose specifications were used in the design.
And I agree that there are different aspects of intelligence.
Posted by capricorn on April 30, 2006, at 21:23:58
In reply to Re: Mensa and Intelligence Testing » AuntieMel, posted by special_k on March 22, 2006, at 17:51:57
Mensa tests are ok for intelligent people who are good at 'timed tests'. Not much good for equally or more intelligent people that aren't good at 'timed
tests'.
Posted by capricorn on April 30, 2006, at 21:33:36
In reply to Re: critique of the bell curve » special_k, posted by Dinah on March 29, 2006, at 11:10:00
> Well there, see...
>
> We have areas of agreement on the subject. I agree that IQ tests are not designed to test the popular notion of intelligence but rather the clinical one whose specifications were used in the design.
>
> And I agree that there are different aspects of intelligence.
The problem is it tests a clinically one dimensional model of intelligence which kind of says something about the intellectual paucity and shortsightedness of the people who design such tests.
Posted by gardenergirl on April 30, 2006, at 22:32:12
In reply to Re: critique of the bell curve, posted by capricorn on April 30, 2006, at 21:33:36
>
> The problem is it tests a clinically one dimensional model of intelligenceOne dimensional as in only measuring what the construct of intelligence that is represented by IQ tests? Because surely you don't mean one dimensional in that IQ tests only measure one aspect of IQ as in only verbal abilities on timed tests, or perhaps only perceptual abilities when there is no time requirement. Or perhaps attention and concentration? Or abstract non-verbal reasoning? Or perhaps general knowledge?
Just curious as to what you meant.
gg
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Politics | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.