<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
    xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
     xmlns:admin="http://webns.net/mvcb/"
     xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
     xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#">
	<channel>
	<title>MetaFilter posts tagged with intelligencequotient</title>
	<link>http://www.metafilter.com/tags/intelligencequotient</link>
	<description>Posts tagged with 'intelligencequotient' at MetaFilter.</description>
	<pubDate>Thu, 14 Nov 2002 05:45:41 -0800</pubDate> <lastBuildDate>Thu, 14 Nov 2002 05:45:41 -0800</lastBuildDate>

	<language>en-us</language>
	<docs>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss</docs>
	<ttl>60</ttl>
	<item>
		<title>International High IQ Society tests</title>
		<link>http://www.metafilter.com/21612/International%2DHigh%2DIQ%2DSociety%2Dtests</link>
		<description>&lt;a href="http://www.highiqsociety.org/noflash/nonmembers/iqtests.htm"&gt;International High IQ Society tests.&lt;/a&gt; The site gives the impression that these tests are a lot more accurate at judging intelligence (whatever that is) that most of the junk on the web. What do you think? Do we have any &apos;universal geniuses&apos;?  </description>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">tag:metafilter.com,2002:site.21612</guid>
		<pubDate>Thu, 14 Nov 2002 05:45:41 -0800</pubDate>
		<category>genius</category>
		<category>highiq</category>
		<category>intelligencequotient</category>
		<category>iq</category>
		<dc:creator>Pretty_Generic</dc:creator>
	</item>
      
	</channel>
</rss>


