Michael Regilio

Yeah, it was actually pretty harsh. And the fact of the matter is the turn of the century was pretty harsh in general. The original Benet-Simon test was particularly severe. It grouped children into four categories. Normality, debility, imbecility, and idiocy.

Yeah, you know, in their defense, these were technical terms at the time. Schoolyard bullies had yet to put the stank on the words imbecile and idiot. But yes, these were the determinations made by the B'nai Simon test.

Yeah, you know, in their defense, these were technical terms at the time. Schoolyard bullies had yet to put the stank on the words imbecile and idiot. But yes, these were the determinations made by the B'nai Simon test.

Yeah, you know, in their defense, these were technical terms at the time. Schoolyard bullies had yet to put the stank on the words imbecile and idiot. But yes, these were the determinations made by the B'nai Simon test.

OK, so the test was divided into four sections. The first section was called basic skills assumed of an idiot.

OK, so the test was divided into four sections. The first section was called basic skills assumed of an idiot.

OK, so the test was divided into four sections. The first section was called basic skills assumed of an idiot.

Yeah, that one was pretty simple stuff like unwrapping a piece of chocolate before eating it. Remember, this is a test for children.

Yeah, that one was pretty simple stuff like unwrapping a piece of chocolate before eating it. Remember, this is a test for children.

Yeah, that one was pretty simple stuff like unwrapping a piece of chocolate before eating it. Remember, this is a test for children.

Again, that would be the schoolyard doing its thing. It's funny comedian Doug Stanhope has a great bit about this He says that it doesn't matter what they switch the technical term to people will just co-opt that word to call friends when they do something stupid he's like Did you just put a metal plate in the microwave? What are you, developmentally challenged?

Again, that would be the schoolyard doing its thing. It's funny comedian Doug Stanhope has a great bit about this He says that it doesn't matter what they switch the technical term to people will just co-opt that word to call friends when they do something stupid he's like Did you just put a metal plate in the microwave? What are you, developmentally challenged?

Again, that would be the schoolyard doing its thing. It's funny comedian Doug Stanhope has a great bit about this He says that it doesn't matter what they switch the technical term to people will just co-opt that word to call friends when they do something stupid he's like Did you just put a metal plate in the microwave? What are you, developmentally challenged?

Testing for idiocy was just an early 20th century way of saying basic.

Testing for idiocy was just an early 20th century way of saying basic.

Testing for idiocy was just an early 20th century way of saying basic.

Yeah, you nailed it. It gets progressively more complicated. But remember, the highest level of the test was normality, so it's not exactly rocket science. For example, one of the later tasks had the tester fold a piece of paper in half twice before cutting out a triangle. Then the child would have to guess what the piece of paper would look like when he unfolded it.

Yeah, you nailed it. It gets progressively more complicated. But remember, the highest level of the test was normality, so it's not exactly rocket science. For example, one of the later tasks had the tester fold a piece of paper in half twice before cutting out a triangle. Then the child would have to guess what the piece of paper would look like when he unfolded it.

Yeah, you nailed it. It gets progressively more complicated. But remember, the highest level of the test was normality, so it's not exactly rocket science. For example, one of the later tasks had the tester fold a piece of paper in half twice before cutting out a triangle. Then the child would have to guess what the piece of paper would look like when he unfolded it.

Yeah, actually, that's a good one. The Binet-Simon test was very limited, as Binet himself pointed out. So work continued on trying to develop more robust IQ tests. A psychologist from Stanford named Lewis Terman took the Binet-Simon test and he adapted it, later publishing what became known as the Stanford-Binet test in 1916.