User Tag List

First 8910111220 Last

Results 91 to 100 of 259

  1. #91
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    253

    Default

    Some considerations for thinking about IQ:

    (1) From a god's eye view or else from the point of view of the detached archobjectivist, humans are more similar than different when it comes to most things, including intelligence. For example, even William James Sidis, with his alleged IQ of 300, could not think eleven-dimensionally, for he too was reducible to an earthbound mind that only differed in the quantity of information obtainable and processing speed rather than anything qualitatively distinct.

    (2) Since there was nothing qualitatively distinct, one can effectively propose that Sidis is to average intellect as Camaro is to Neon or as body builder is to average build. Each case entails more of the same stuff rather than a qualitatively distinct departure. With cars and bodies this fact is immediately observable, yet with intelligence the tendency is for people to thoughtlessly become mystics and ascribe to it some magical quality rather than applying the same standards we apply to everything else.

    (3) At any rate, IQ tests are designed to test a person's ability to solve abstract puzzles quickly. Solving abstract puzzles requires an ability to reason. Correct reasoning is the business of logic and philosophy. The master of reason is therefore above all a logician and philosopher. It's quite likely then that a logican-philosopher will have a high IQ, since solving IQ puzzles is one form of reasoning; but having a high IQ does not necessitate the ability to think philosophically or to master reason, for their are other systems of reasoning not addressed by IQ tests, but which a person might have a knack for that places the one in question in a superior position to other humans.

    (4) From this follows the perfectly logical possibility for one to have an IQ of 190 but be unable to construct arguments from scratch with the kind of sysematicness, precision, and rigor that a logician-philosopher who has mastered reason is able. For instance, it came as a suprise to one of the members of my university's chess team when, at the Pan American Games in Texas that we competed in, we got into a conversation where I put forth a carefully crafted argument for why traffic congestion misallocates scarce societal resources and how certain strategies could conduce to a more effective optimization of road space during peak hours. He called me a genius at the dinner table; now, despite being indifferent to this claim (due to the implications of an inflated or deflated sense of intellectual worth that may follow one way or the other and prevent me from treating myself as objectively as prior to the comment), what I found most interesting was that he was surprised at my argument, as if only someone who could see one move deeper on the board could be worthy of higher intelligence. The pattern was repeated with some of the other members, including a student who's doing a PhD in mathematics who I beat in the qualifier but who still ended up on the team, who I had an in-depth conversation with on the plane ride home and was likely suprised at the level of depth I computed all things philosophical, purely from raw intellect and intensive thought. The point implicated is that, IQ tests as they are lack the resources to measure a person's logico-philosophical capacity, but that is precisely what makes a person more or less intelligent for, as Descartes has noted, we are above all a thinking thing. Therefore, a person who can think better with less effort is more effective; therefore, more intelligent. For the brilliant person, there may be a lag between the one and the other; for the genius, it is accomplished effortlessly. Since some things still require effort to compute, I cannot effectively be called genius by my own definition; therefore, this is the other reason why I let the prior gentlemen's claim pass in silence, since he necessarily has a different working definition than I, but I prefer mine to his.

    (5) It seems logical that if a person sees only four moves deep, he should design a puzzle that is only three moves deep or less; for if one finds oneself seeing X moves deep, one can freeze the position in mind and search for a deeper move. Since, however, there are always deeper moves, it is dubious to establish a puzzle that requires the same level of depth as yourself to solve; for there is no small chance that the test-taker will see that one move deeper, which may invalidate the proposed answer. On that note, if a person sees 300 moves deep, to test their full intelligence the test should be designed by one (or a computer) who sees at least 301 moves deep. Now, statistics demonstrates that gains in precision follow from closeness to the mean; the further away, the less precise. For example, a test that is designed to measure with precision those who can see 3 moves deep shall be ineffective in measuring a person's ability to see 300 moves deep. Further, IQ tests are typically timed, which means that value is placed on solving puzzles in a timely fashion. As a result, depth is traded off for time. So, if one can see 2 moves deep in 1 minute, this is usually preferred to one who sees 16 moves deep in 32 minutes, even if one who sees faster will not with all the time in the world be able to focus hard enough to see anything beyond 10 moves. It is not difficult to understand why this is the case. Whether capitalist or communist, no sensible agent in a modern state wants to administer IQ tests that will place a higher value on those who see deep enough to reject the system or commands from those who tow the line. The mindless person, therefore, who sees three moves deep but quickly will on average be more lucrative militarily than the neo-Socratic thinker whose depth in reasoning will prompt him to disagree with commands on logical grounds. In short, despite the obvious observation that academia should be detached from politics and the market in order for scholars to pursue research as objectively as possible, it is often the case that, due to funding and various other devices, research is pursued in a way that reflects these economic and political interests. In short, between the lack of ability of test-designers to etablish tests that consider deep patterns with precision, and economic and political interests that usually entail a preference for assigning higher mental values to those with speed over depth, it follows that much of this demonstrates why one can perform well on an IQ test without being a master of reason--of raw intellect, the animation of intelligence.

    (6) If chess is any guide, where visuo-spatial pattern recognition is necessary for success though not sufficient, I have beaten 2300s and lost to 1700s. This is perfectly comparable to IQ tests. If a person is hungry and irritable--perhaps by the ticking of a clock or watch, it is quite likely that a person will not be able to attain peak concentration. If a person is not able to attain peak concentration, then the outcome of the test will not be an accurate indication of one's ability. Now, since IQ is supposed to measure potential it is concerned with peak and not average. What are the odds that you will take the test on a day where your intellect is keenest and sharpest as ever? Certainly, I have noticed that some days my ability to reason dispassionately and lucidly is more effortless than others. Therefore, adding to the imprecision the further away from the mean one is are a host of considerations that may lead one to test at less than peak capacity. Let another example suffice. Some musicians do not like sight reading in front of others, likely because mistakes will be made and thus it will inevitably be done imperfectly. Others do not like when someone is watching them read something for their reaction; for the want of excitation demanded by a feeler to establish connection may stifle one's ability to focus in a sensible and logically coherent way. It follows that if a person installed a camera in the room of such a person sight reading alone or if some device was used to make transparent what the thinker was thinking as he thought about the passage, the outcome would be quite different. For these reasons plus the aformentioned ones, the off-the-shelf approach to IQ testing may not be effectively tailored to a person who requires these conditions to test optimally. On that count, it is also interesting to discover under what conditions a person is most intellectually ripe so that one can replicate these conditions for activities that require peak concentration. For example, during the LSAT I was bothered by little tiny watches ticking at different frequencies that were extruciatingly loud and lacked consonce and were out of synch with my internal rhythm and clockwork. Knowing this, it would seem that ear plugs is a good bet, except that those too distract me in a way tantamount to putting a sea shell to one's ear: there is still noise though in a closed rather than open sense. Therefore, the desirable conditions would be the freedom of empty ears without the ticking of watches and everything else, but this was not possible in the test. In short, testing environment and conditions will almost certainly alter performance. As a self-contained system, I know the precise specifications that are required to attain optimal performance, but test conditions will inevitably run counter to some people's specifications, which means once again that IQ testing will be inaccurate.

    (7) In the end, IQ tests are redundant; for do you need to ask a seven foot tall basketball player what size his shoe is to determine if he has big feet relative to the rest of humans? In short, it is quite likely that those who are the masters of reason know who else is and from this one can put humans in quantitative perspective with 0 being the mathematical entity denoting a completely feckless person who cannot reason and 100 being a perfectly logico-philosophical person. Those who necessarily need the number are inefficient and such inefficiency is antithetical to intelligence as previously defined; therefore, they do not deserve to know the number since knowing this prevents them from engaging in the sort of sober thinking that will give them an approximation of that number, which is all the number is anyways given all the aformentioned imprecisions in testing.

    (8) Still, there will inevitably be some of you who mindlessly romanticize IQ and will labor like little beavers to improve your scores. This is not a task I recommend, for it is treating the symptoms rather than cause of a deeper issue rooted in psychological incoherence, however should this endeavor be pursued then it should at least be pursued effectively. Pursuing this effectively will include the following: (a) Increasing the total volume of intellectual activity and output. (b) Philosophy, logic, math, chess, music, and economics all help discipline thought, which forces the mind to concentrate and think sharply, which can conduce to a keener ability to recognize patterns and solve problems. However, I suspect that most of the top percentiles already do these things by default for the appreciation of the thing itself rather than a means to an end. So, in principle it seems undesirable to have a flood of people into these areas for the purpose of increasing a number so they can wear it fashionably as they do a pair of earings. Such people will invariably bastardize philosophy and cheapen it for the seasoned ones who really put in the time, dedication, and deep thinking. On the other hand, if a little more logic and philosophy means a less thoughtless populace then in that sense it may be considered desirable. At any rate, my default position is to sit on a fence when there is a fence to sit on; for, to firmly be on either side is to be on the wrong side for taking any side stifles one's ability to search deep into the costs and benefits without staking an interest that will undermine the point of view of objectivity. Assign only the direct weight of what was said and nothing more, and do with it only what you will and nothing less.

    P
    Last edited by Provoker; 04-21-2010 at 03:32 PM.

  2. #92
    Senior Member sculpting's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    4,226

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Provoker View Post
    really smart stuff

    P
    So you post a thesis (dont get me wrong, a fascinating read which I actually enjoyed as I like reading your posts) But then you abbreviate your name to "P"?

    Have a chicken:


  3. #93
    Glycerine
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by the state i am in View Post
    a blessing and a curse. i'm learning how to Fe my way through school right now too. it opens up freedom for me to do what i want without feeling worried that i will be exposed for not following the process as it is laid out in the syllabus, but i still have occasional guilt/worry when i've been working at cross-purposes all semester.

    and also, when the people disappear and i have to organize my own discourse, sometimes i'm fucked. i rely on their information and their judgments and the discourse unfolding outside of myself to provide me with the raw material i need to draw connections between things. my skill is navigating and facilitating and connecting more than it is straight building. for that i desperately need the intjs, intps, and entps, who are much much better than me at defining goals, figuring out the logical ends of various approaches, systematizing, etc.
    haha, it's like this:

    months later....
    "Damn did I seriously believe that evolution is all about cooperation or did I just absorb what my teacher said?" It's so easy to be lost in other people's beliefs that I sometime forget how I feel about things until I get out of a class. An ENFP teacher teacher put it succinctly, "You need to form your own opinions."

  4. #94
    Tenured roisterer SolitaryWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sx
    Posts
    3,467

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Provoker View Post
    Some considerations for thinking about IQ:

    (1) From a god's eye view or else from the point of view of the detached archobjectivist, humans are more similar than different when it comes to most things, including intelligence. For example, even William James Sidis, with his alleged IQ of 300, could not think eleven-dimensionally, for he too was reducible to an earthbound mind that only differed in the quantity of information obtainable and processing speed rather than anything qualitatively distinct.

    (2) Since there was nothing qualitatively distinct, one can effectively propose that Sidis is to average intellect as Camaro is to Neon or as body builder is to average build. Each case entails more of the same stuff rather than a qualitatively distinct departure. With cars and bodies this fact is immediately observable, yet with intelligence the tendency is for people to thoughtlessly become mystics and ascribe to it some magical quality rather than applying the same standards we apply to everything else.

    (3) At any rate, IQ tests are designed to test a person's ability to solve abstract puzzles quickly. Solving abstract puzzles requires an ability to reason. Correct reasoning is the business of logic and philosophy. The master of reason is therefore above all a logician and philosopher. It's quite likely then that a logican-philosopher will have a high IQ, since solving IQ puzzles is one form of reasoning; but having a high IQ does not necessitate the ability to think philosophically or to master reason, for their are other systems of reasoning not addressed by IQ tests, but which a person might have a knack for that places the one in question in a superior position to other humans.

    (4) From this follows the perfectly logical possibility for one to have an IQ of 190 but be unable to construct arguments from scratch with the kind of sysematicness, precision, and rigor that a logician-philosopher who has mastered reason is able. For instance, it came as a suprise to one of the members of my university's chess team when, at the Pan American Games in Texas that we competed in, we got into a conversation where I put forth a carefully crafted argument for why traffic congestion misallocates scarce societal resources and how certain strategies could conduce to a more effective optimization of road space during peak hours. He called me a genius at the dinner table; now, despite being indifferent to this claim (due to the implications of an inflated or deflated sense of intellectual worth that may follow one way or the other and prevent me from treating myself as objectively as prior to the comment), what I found most interesting was that he was surprised at my argument, as if only someone who could see one move deeper on the board could be worthy of higher intelligence. The pattern was repeated with some of the other members, including a student who's doing a PhD in mathematics who I beat in the qualifier but who still ended up on the team, who I had an in-depth conversation with on the plane ride home and was likely suprised at the level of depth I computed all things philosophical, purely from raw intellect and intensive thought. The point implicated is that, IQ tests as they are lack the resources to measure a person's logico-philosophical capacity, but that is precisely what makes a person more or less intelligent for, as Descartes has noted, we are above all a thinking thing. Therefore, a person who can think better with less effort is more effective; therefore, more intelligent. For the brilliant person, there may be a lag between the one and the other; for the genius, it is accomplished effortlessly. Since some things still require effort to compute, I cannot effectively be called genius by my own definition; therefore, this is the other reason why I let the prior gentlemen's claim pass in silence, since he necessarily has a different working definition than I, but I prefer mine to his.

    (5) It seems logical that if a person sees only four moves deep, he should design a puzzle that is only three moves deep or less; for if one finds oneself seeing X moves deep, one can freeze the position in mind and search for a deeper move. Since, however, there are always deeper moves, it is dubious to establish a puzzle that requires the same level of depth as yourself to solve; for there is no small chance that the test-taker will see that one move deeper, which may invalidate the proposed answer. On that note, if a person sees 300 moves deep, to test their full intelligence the test should be designed by one (or a computer) who sees at least 301 moves deep. Now, statistics demonstrates that gains in precision follow from closeness to the mean; the further away, the less precise. For example, a test that is designed to measure with precision those who can see 3 moves deep shall be ineffective in measuring a person's ability to see 300 moves deep. Further, IQ tests are typically timed, which means that value is placed on solving puzzles in a timely fashion. As a result, depth is traded off for time. So, if one can see 2 moves deep in 1 minute, this is usually preferred to one who sees 16 moves deep in 32 minutes, even if one who sees faster will not with all the time in the world be able to focus hard enough to see anything beyond 10 moves. It is not difficult to understand why this is the case. Whether capitalist or communist, no sensible agent in a modern state wants to administer IQ tests that will place a higher value on those who see deep enough to reject the system or commands from those who tow the line. The mindless person, therefore, who sees three moves deep but quickly will on average be more lucrative militarily than the neo-Socratic thinker whose depth in reasoning will prompt him to disagree with commands on logical grounds. In short, despite the obvious observation that academia should be detached from politics and the market in order for scholars to pursue research as objectively as possible, it is often the case that, due to funding and various other devices, research is pursued in a way that reflects these economic and political interests. In short, between the lack of ability of test-designers to etablish tests that consider deep patterns with precision, and economic and political interests that usually entail a preference for assigning higher mental values to those with speed over depth, it follows that much of this demonstrates why one can perform well on an IQ test without being a master of reason--of raw intellect, the animation of intelligence.

    (6) If chess is any guide, where visuo-spatial pattern recognition is necessary for success though not sufficient, I have beaten 2300s and lost to 1700s. This is perfectly comparable to IQ tests. If a person is hungry and irritable--perhaps by the ticking of a clock or watch, it is quite likely that a person will not be able to attain peak concentration. If a person is not able to attain peak concentration, then the outcome of the test will not be an accurate indication of one's ability. Now, since IQ is supposed to measure potential it is concerned with peak and not average. What are the odds that you will take the test on a day where your intellect is keenest and sharpest as ever? Certainly, I have noticed that some days my ability to reason dispassionately and lucidly is more effortless than others. Therefore, adding to the imprecision the further away from the mean one is are a host of considerations that may lead one to test at less than peak capacity. Let another example suffice. Some musicians do not like sight reading in front of others, likely because mistakes will be made and thus it will inevitably be done imperfectly. Others do not like when someone is watching them read something for their reaction; for the want of excitation demanded by a feeler to establish connection may stifle one's ability to focus in a sensible and logically coherent way. It follows that if a person installed a camera in the room of such a person sight reading alone or if some device was used to make transparent what the thinker was thinking as he thought about the passage, the outcome would be quite different. For these reasons plus the aformentioned ones, the off-the-shelf approach to IQ testing may not be effectively tailored to a person who requires these conditions to test optimally. On that count, it is also interesting to discover under what conditions a person is most intellectually ripe so that one can replicate these conditions for activities that require peak concentration. For example, during the LSAT I was bothered by little tiny watches ticking at different frequencies that were extruciatingly loud and lacked consonce and were out of synch with my internal rhythm and clockwork. Knowing this, it would seem that ear plugs is a good bet, except that those too distract me in a way tantamount to putting a sea shell to one's ear: there is still noise though in a closed rather than open sense. Therefore, the desirable conditions would be the freedom of empty ears without the ticking of watches and everything else, but this was not possible in the test. In short, testing environment and conditions will almost certainly alter performance. As a self-contained system, I know the precise specifications that are required to attain optimal performance, but test conditions will inevitably run counter to some people's specifications, which means once again that IQ testing will be inaccurate.

    (7) In the end, IQ tests are redundant; for do you need to ask a seven foot tall basketball player what size his shoe is to determine if he has big feet relative to the rest of humans? In short, it is quite likely that those who are the masters of reason know who else is and from this one can put humans in quantitative perspective with 0 being the mathematical entity denoting a completely feckless person who cannot reason and 100 being a perfectly logico-philosophical person. Those who necessarily need the number are inefficient and such inefficiency is antithetical to intelligence as previously defined; therefore, they do not deserve to know the number since knowing this prevents them from engaging in the sort of sober thinking that will give them in approximation of that number, which is all the number is anyways given all the aformentioned imprecisions in testing.

    (8) Still, there will inevitably be some of you who mindlessly romanticize IQ and will labor like little beavers to improve your scores. This is not a task I recommend, for it is treating the symptoms rather than cause of a deeper issue rooted in psychological incoherence, however should this endeavor be pursued then it should at least be pursued effectively. Pursuing this effectively will include the following: (a) Increasing the total volume of intellectual activity and output. (b) Philosophy, logic, math, chess, music, and economics all help discipline thought, which forces the mind to concentrate and think sharply, which can conduce to a keener ability to recognize patterns and solve problems. However, I suspect that most of the top percentiles already do these things by default for the appreciation of the thing itself rather than a means to an end. So, in principle it seems undesirable to have a flood of people into these areas for the purpose of increasing a number so they can wear it fashionably as they do a pair of earings. Such people will invariably bastardize philosophy and cheapen it for the seasoned ones who really put in the time, dedication, and deep thinking. On the other hand, if a little more logic and philosophy means a less thoughtless populace then in that sense it may be considered desirable. At any rate, my default position is to sit on a fence when there is a fence to sit on; for, to firmly be on either side is to be on the wrong side for taking any side stifles one's ability to search deep into the costs and benefits without staking an interest that will undermine the point of view of objectivity. Assign only the direct weight of what was said and nothing more, and do with it only what you will and nothing less.

    P
    Overally this was a thoughtful overview of concepts surrounding intelligence and intelligence testing, however, it has omitted a number of important claims that need to be made.

    1. You seem to have altogether neglected to ask the question regarding what exactly intelligence is. You've framed it broadly as an ability to solve abstract problems, yet failed to define the process in sufficient detail. Does abstract problem solving require deductive reasoning, inductive reasoning, recollection from memory, exercise of imagination, a combination of all of the activities above? Furthermore, which of these cognitive behaviors is more important, or is it possible to say that some are more important than others? In my previous post I have argued that it is not and because it is not, the concept of general intelligence rests on a false premise. Abstract problem solving of a mathematician requires an exercise of cognitive faculties that are different from that of a historian.

    2. Your criticism of IQ testing seems to overlook the fact that the skill it measures is only tangentially relevant to abstract problem solving. As you stated, the tests do have a time limit which means that the problems are simple enough to be solved very quickly and thereby require much less of an abstract reasoning ability than complex problems of philosophy, physics or mathematics the proficiency at solving of which is the hallmark of intelligence.

    3. Your assertion that the highest scorers probably do engage in solving complex academic problems is presumptous. As Stephen Jay Gould's meritorious 1981 book has evinced, IQ testing and the concept of intelligence have long served as a weapon of social influence that affirmed stratification of society and demonstration of superiority of the wealthy over the poor. IQ tests have long suffered from an intense cultural bias on the basis of which the poor and the immigrants were discriminated against. The 20th century psychologist Robert Goddard administered IQ testing to the literally fresh off the boat and managed to deport all who receive low scores. Unsurprisingly, he discovered that most immigrants had a mental age of an average 10 or 11 year old. Other 20th century psychologists such as Cyril Burt have resolutely insisted that the wealthy are by nature smarter than the poor and that this can be supported by infallible IQ tests that display a person's intelligence that never changes. Even recently Herrnstein and Murray (1994) have argued that African Americans have inferior intelligence to the whites and there is a very strong correlation between a person's income and intelligence. They've also maintainted that general intelligence cannot be manipulated and tests accurately indicate the level of a person's intellectual abilities that are essentially immutable. The implication of this is the same as that of the 20th century scientific racists and proponents of social stratification. The American Psychological Association has suggested that there is a high correlation between a person's ability to do well on an IQ test and success in life, however, the degree to which this is the case has been exaggerated by the authors of the Bell Curve.

    It is persuasive that a person's ability to solve simple puzzles is predictive of his financial success. Most workers of high income are not renowned for superb abstract reasoning abilities or what you call logico-philosophical abilities, most of the problems they solve are concrete and require much less deductive reasoning, reliance on imagination and orginal thought than academic research requires. However, lawyers, CEOs, doctors and other lucrative positions do put individuals under a great deal of pressure where they are required to make decisions quickly. As a result, solving simple puzzles quickly is rewarded, yet thoroughly analyzing recondite concepts is not. Furthermore, the simplicity of IQ tests allows for a person to improve his scores by route learning just as truly as he can improve his scores on ACT/GRE/LSAT by such means. Ambitious and industrious individuals of mediocre intelligence have frequently received formiddable grades and outstanding standardized test-scores; there is no reason to believe that they cannot also prevail on the IQ test. Thus, because we can conclude that industriousness and ability to solve simple puzzles quickly are indispensable skills to success in the business world and IQ tests reward such virtues, one can conjecture that there will be a distinct connection between success on IQ tests and wealth.

    Wealth, especially in the United States is deemed as a primary indicator of success and for this reason people who are typically not interested in abstract problem solving will be more motivated to do well on an IQ test than people who are. Deep-thinking individuals tend to give less credence to conventional standards of 'success'. Although it is true that IQ tests measure some intellectual abilities and deep-thinking individuals will have an easier time doing well on this assessment than those of mediocre intellectual abilities, it is a mistake to infer that most high-scorers are intellectuals. MENSA is fraught with members who are by far more concerned with appearing wise rather than with cultivating their intellectual abilities, even most members of the INTPc high IQ sub-forum post messages that display little evidence of their ability to solve abstract problems accurately. In short, because the most common motivation for a person to do well on an IQ test is rooted in an arbitrary social standard rather than in intellectual motivation, many, if not most of the high scorers will not be aficionados of philosophy, mathematics, economics, classical music or any other endeavor that you believe significantly sharpens a person's mind. Because many IQ tests do very little to assess a person's abstract problem solving abilities, route learning and acquisition of skills that are not applicable to problem solving in academic disciplines is often a prerequisite to performing well on many of such tests. Because the motivation for achieving this goal is more social and conventional rather than intellectual, the small-minded and the mediocre will be more likely to put forth the effort to do well on such an assessment.
    "Do not argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." -- Mark Twain

    “No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money.”---Samuel Johnson

    My blog: www.randommeanderings123.blogspot.com/

  5. #95
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    8w7
    Socionics
    lick
    Posts
    80

    Default

    >9000

  6. #96
    Senior Member LeafAndSky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    MBTI
    ISFP
    Posts
    308

    Default

    Adequate.

  7. #97
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    253

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker View Post
    Overally this was a thoughtful overview...however, it has omitted a number of important claims that need to be made.
    The observation here seems to be that my post was incomplete. To meet the condition of completeness, which an assessment of intelligence ought to entail, SW has raised a number of points that will need to be properly addressed. However, before moving on to this task, it is first necessary to clarify any issues with the consistency of what has been already said.

    Quote Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker View Post
    Although it is true that IQ tests measure some intellectual abilities and deep-thinking individuals will have an easier time doing well on this assessment than those of mediocre intellectual abilities, it is a mistake to infer that most high-scorers are intellectuals.
    Quote Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker View Post
    Your assertion that the highest scorers probably do engage in solving complex academic problems is presumptous.
    I agree:

    Quote Originally Posted by Provoker
    It's quite likely then that a logican-philosopher will have a high IQ, since solving IQ puzzles is one form of reasoning; but having a high IQ does not necessitate the ability to think philosophically or to master reason.
    The reason you made this claim, quite logically and by no fault of your own, is likely due to my own ambiguity in this statement:


    Quote Originally Posted by Provoker
    I suspect that most of the top percentiles already do these things by default for the appreciation of the thing itself rather than a means to an end.
    Here, I have used the "top percentiles" to denote the actual masters of reason who walk the earth and not those who merely get high scores. Now, it should be carefully observed that I am not claiming that a master of reason necessitates that one will solve complex academic problems or be intellectual, but that most (though not all) would be doing some of these things by default for the appreciation of it in itself rather than as a means to a higher score.

    Therefore, this:

    Quote Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker View Post
    In short, because the most common motivation for a person to do well on an IQ test is rooted in an arbitrary social standard rather than in intellectual motivation, many, if not most of the high scorers will not be aficionados of philosophy, mathematics, economics, classical music or any other endeavor that you believe significantly sharpens a person's mind.
    is quite likely at any rate, which is why taking up such activities for the purpose of raising one's score:

    Quote Originally Posted by Provoker
    is not a task I recommend, for it is treating the symptoms rather than cause of a deeper issue rooted in psychological incoherence
    ...

    Quote Originally Posted by Orobas View Post
    So you post a thesis (dont get me wrong, a fascinating read which I actually enjoyed as I like reading your posts) But then you abbreviate your name to "P"?
    Aha! It brings me no pleasure to say that this incidental point does not surprise me coming from an ENFP, as extraverted intuition prompts you to register two cognitions that seem incompatible, but in a way that fails to apply logical principles to connect the dots so as to resolve it. And we know this being did not connect the dots for if she did there is no good reason to bring this up in the first instance. Therefore, I will put forth the sequence of reasoning myself as follows. If you are only looking one move deep and thinking in terms of formality and informality, you may take issue with a formal post with an informal signature. But if you compute on a deeper level, then this is readily resolvable. Recall, for instance, a common pattern of reductionism in my posts. Good, bad, or indifferent, you will notice that I usually reduce something if it is reducible. You will remember that Sidis, for instance, was reduced to an earthbound mind. You will recall other examples of this principle being fulfilled in deed. Following this, you will reason that if a full signature can be reduced to an initial, which it can, and if the initial is sufficient, which it is, then I will punctiliously apply such a principle, which I have done. So, Orobas you amazing person please tell me, wherein lay the contradiction?

  8. #98
    Senior Member sculpting's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    4,226

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Provoker View Post
    Aha! It brings me no pleasure to say that this incidental point does not surprise me coming from an ENFP, as extraverted intuition prompts you to register two cognitions that seem incompatible, but in a way that fails to apply logical principles to connect the dots so as to resolve it.
    To be honest Ne mostly was just in the mood to give chickens to INTJs. It happens... *shrug* The mermaid INFJ mentioned chickens, I love chickens, I posted pictures of my favorite chickens, I then gave Victor and the other INTJ chickens, and you became the last in a line of Ne-isms....

    I pointed out the contridiction fully recognizing the NeTe pattern in your posting style, not caring, but really just looking for an idiotic reason to gift you with a chicken.

    The chicken chosen was specific to the INTJ requirement for functional reality as a result of that pesky inferior Se. Your chicken must be productive-unlike Victor's polish flamboyant chicken. Thus a cooked chicken on the grill seemed the ideal choice. Beautifully golden-yet edible. (However notice it appears to be standing. That aspect made me laugh so hard I cried. WTF is the chicken standing? Some things are beyond the minds of mere mortals.)

    Quote Originally Posted by Provoker View Post
    And we know this being did not connect the dots for if she did there is no good reason to bring this up in the first instance. Therefore, I will put forth the sequence of reasoning myself as follows. If you are only looking one move deep and thinking in terms of formality and informality, you may take issue with a formal post with an informal signature. But if you compute on a deeper level, then this is readily resolvable. Recall, for instance, a common pattern of reductionism in my posts. Good, bad, or indifferent, you will notice that I usually reduce something if it is reducible. You will remember that Sidis, for instance, was reduced to an earthbound mind. You will recall other examples of this principle being fulfilled in deed. Following this, you will reason that if a full signature can be reduced to an initial, which it can, and if the initial is sufficient, which it is, then I will punctiliously apply such a principle, which I have done. So, Orobas you amazing person please tell me, wherein lay the contradiction?
    Did you just call me a "being" and an "amazing person"? I will pretend there is no sarcasm, that you really find me amazing and give you a hug. I am happy to be a "being", as well, it's Tuesday and that's better than being some of my other assorted labels.

    (BTW, I love the way you use words-no shit provoker-I very much do enjoy reading your posts. )

  9. #99
    Priestess Of Syrinx Katsuni's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    3w4?
    Posts
    1,238

    Default

    IQ means nothing, especially with how inaccurate most available tests are... I've scored everywheres from 110 to 170 with most landing around 140.

    Problem is, that's WAY too large a range to mean anything... and IQ tests attempt to determine way too much anyway. Noone's excellent at every single type of mental activity... music with rythem/timing/etc, math, abstract reasoning, logic, language, etc... it just keeps going and each person's brain is specialized towards several specific areas but never towards all because it can't be done.

    As such, most IQ tests are fail due to several reasons:

    - Requiring previous knowledge (anagrams for example; if yeu didn't know how to spell refrigerator in the first place yeu CAN'T reasonably be expected to figure out the anagram of one); IQ is ability to reason out new information, most IQ tests fail this bad

    - Too large a spread of IQ types; there's estimated 8 types of intelligence and many tests try to cover all of them, which averages everyone out to about the same in many cases. The people who score 'high' aren't even particularly adept at much of anything usually, nor would they be considered smart by most anyone.

    - Too narrow a spread of IQ types; inverse to the other, while this's more accurate, it must display such. Usually it's mislabeled. Things like being able to grasp moving an object in 3d spatial rotation is a form of intelligence as it requires comprehension, but it uses a totally different set of mental mechanics behind it than say... being able to be given the definitions of words from 3 languages, and then reason out whot one from the 4th language means despite never having heard the word before. These tests only really test one 'type' of intelligence usually, maybe two tops, and give a score which's specialized to those types, but rarely do they explain this. If yeu're really good at math, yeu may look godlike genius, but if yeu took another test spread out, yeu may look average at best due to poor language comprehension.

    Overall, IQ tests are fail. They spread too much, too little, or expect yeu to have knowledge yeu may not have.

    A proper IQ test would have several sections, each one broken down to a particular type of reasoning, with a separate score for each, and ensure that any information required is already available.

    Keep in mind, einstein failed math because the test was in french, so he didn't know whot he was supposed to do. Same applies for anyone else; if yeu don't understand the question, or it requires information irrelevant to the reasoning process to succeed, then it's a bad test :O

    As such, I've never seen a good test >.>

    So yeah.

    IQ fail.





    EDIT: Had meant to mention this and forgot to it seems since I just woke up XD

    - IQ tests have a BROAD range of scores... some tests have very tight groupings; check like say... the official British one they do every few years. I took that one and got 110 on it, which was my lowest score ever. Of course I didn't understand a few questions due to them using queen's english terminology, and several other references I didn't have knowledge about. But it was TIMED, another failing part.

    But anyways that needs to be broken into two issues:

    - IQ tests tend to have different score groupings... some claim people have IQ's on average around 150 and can go as high as 300. Others claim the whole point of a score is that 100 is a baseline for "average" and that people have been slowly getting smarter over time, so that the baseline is not a fixed point, and someone who scored 100 about 1000 years ago would not be the same as someone who scores 100 today. According to OFFICIAL stuff... the average is 100, and virtually noone scores above 140, and geniuses don't pass 160 in most cases. There's something like 3 people in history believed to be 200+ and those are impossible to prove as none of them were alive when the classifications and tests were invented; that and it would be based on the current sliding scale of 100 so they wouldn't reach 200 anymore.

    - Timing; the ability to reason a problem out FASTER doesn't necessitate that one is SMARTER. The methodology by which one reasons out a problem can make a big deal in speed... one who's methodical and goes in carefully planned structured thought may be slower if they don't reach the correct answer immediately in their process. They will get to the answer in a set time, more or less, but it may require broad concepts, then refinements, and so on, or very linear considering each point one at a time in depth then moving on to the next. Another individual may just 'see' the pattern instantly, but may not be nearly as capable of complex problems since it just saw something obvious and latched onto it from there. This doesn't show anything about reasoning capacity, just reasoning STYLE, which's totally different. Slow, methodical reasoners generally tend up being more intelligent in the long run as they'll usually be capable of perceiving problems from many angles and evaluating each separately and then comparing for similarities between them, which is a major point for actual intelligence and reasoning. Those who just flit to the first thing they see may be 'right' but, with the confines of the test, it may not be complex enough for them to fail to grasp. A more complex situation than a test is capable of providing, they would never complete. Myself, I consider several different possible lines of reasoning in rapid succession, then, if those don't find anything that seems accurate, begin to arduously narrow things down further. It's blind luck if I get the answer right in the first 30 seconds or in 5 minutes, rather than actual skill, or intelligence, since it's based on whether the 'correct' answer just happened to be in the first half dozen random attempts made, which weren't based on reasoning or Ti, but more Ne just going "zomg shotgun style reasoning!". Sometimes it'll come up with an answer incredibly fast, other times it'll miss the mark by a wide margin, but subsequent refinement will yield the correct answer. As the end answer is the important part, however, it doesn't really say much based on the time spent. A nuclear physicist may take a long time to answer a test simply because they are very meticulous in their careful reasoning of each individual section, and need to be absolutely 100% sure of the answer before moving on. Someone who just guesses blindly and goes faster may achieve a higher score despite they obviously don't have the same reasoning capacity.

    In any case, just further complaints on IQ tests in general.

    Oh and ones which ask yeur age or gender... usually they slant yeur score further. Women generally are less capable of things like 3d rotations, the brain's just not designed for it. Men, however, are less designed for linguistics skills. Depending on how yeu scored, and if yeu pick a different gender, it can slant yeur score... so if yeu happen to be say... something like an undiagnosed transexual where yeu have a different brain than body, then it can screw up the score and reduce the value yeu should've had in one area, or increase it in another. Taking the same test twice can also screw things up; take it when yeu're 10 and again when 15, and again at 20, sure yeu'll do BETTER each time at answering the questions... but if yeu scored well to start, yeu'll probably LOOSE IQ points from getting older because of the 100-curve.

    Overall, the whole thing's flawed and needs to be ditched as even being considered as accurate in any way shape or form.

  10. #100
    Senior Member HotpinkHeatwave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Posts
    382

    Default

    WAY TOO HIGH.

Similar Threads

  1. What are your instincts?
    By Magic Poriferan in forum Online Personality Tests
    Replies: 280
    Last Post: 12-19-2016, 02:12 AM
  2. [ENTJ] ENTJs, what are your future plans?
    By Electric in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 04-21-2008, 02:09 PM
  3. What are your political views?
    By Dufresne in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 76
    Last Post: 01-30-2008, 08:08 AM
  4. Has anyone heard of Global Dimming and if so what are your thoughts on it??
    By ladypinkington in forum Science, Technology, and Future Tech
    Replies: 42
    Last Post: 09-16-2007, 06:13 AM
  5. Replies: 20
    Last Post: 04-28-2007, 06:40 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO