User Tag List

First 34567 Last

Results 41 to 50 of 109

  1. #41
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    253

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jonnyboy View Post
    Jesus, I just read some of your past posts/threads and realized that they were perhaps some of the silliest I have ever read. I say that because I indeed remember them: remember reading them; remember thinking to myself about how stupid/silly/weird they were; but I didn't remember you.
    Interesting. Did you read my recent one on IQ testing? Was it equally stupid, silly and weird, or was it more weird than silly or stupid than weird, etc? Please, take a few moments and break it down analytically.

  2. #42
    null Jonny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    MBTI
    FREE
    Posts
    2,484

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Provoker View Post
    Interesting. Did you read my recent one on IQ testing? Was it equally stupid, silly and weird, or was it more weird than silly or stupid than weird, etc? Please, take a few moments and break it down analytically.
    Would you link it please?
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

  3. #43
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    253

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jonnyboy View Post
    Would you link it please?
    Hm, that's ok. It's not difficult to find, though you commit the fallacy of a forgetful induction by not taking into account all of the available information before formulating your claim. Is that Russell in the picture under your name?

  4. #44
    Blah Orangey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    ESTP
    Enneagram
    6w5
    Socionics
    SLE
    Posts
    6,364

    Default

    Like anything, my enjoyment of poetry depends on the poet, the quality of the particular poem, and the circumstances surrounding my reading of it. For example, I find William Butler Yeats to be boring and horrible, but I enjoy Rainer Maria Rilke. And I don't tend to like any poem that is assigned to me in K-12.

    This is the only reasonable answer to this question. To say that you dislike all poetry, whatever the reason, is to admit to an unreasonable prejudice. What's more, it's also to admit to being vulgar.
    Artes, Scientia, Veritasiness

  5. #45
    null Jonny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    MBTI
    FREE
    Posts
    2,484

    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 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
    1. Relative to the entirety of the universe, humans are quite similar.

    2. Since humans are quite similar, if one is more of something, he must be more of the same. Unlike other things, however, more intelligence is not usually recognized as more of the same.

    3. IQ tests test a person's ability to do well on IQ tests, which are generally focused on recognizing patterns in a timely manner. Recognizing patterns in a timely manner requires an aptitude for logic and reasoning. Logic and reasoning is the business of philosophers. Therefore, philosopher implies high IQ, but high IQ doesn't imply philosopher because philosopher = high IQ + reasoning abilities not tested by IQ tests.

    4. From three we can conclude that a person could test very well on an IQ test but be unable to reason effectively. As an example: in a response to something I said, another person claimed I am a genius (a claim to which I am indifferent, because concerning myself with such things would make me think too highly of myself, impinging upon my objectivity); from this I gathered that he must have believed that seeing one move ahead on the chess board was the only way someone could be seen as more intelligent. I observed this belief in others as well, including a mathematical PhD candidate who probably was surprised at my intellect as well. The point I am making is that IQ tests don't test everything that makes someone intelligent. I believe the level of intelligence of a person is directly related to his ability to reason, and directly but inversely related to the effort required to reason. A genius would then be someone who can reason very well with very little effort. As I may reason well, but it requires effort, I am not a genius.

    5. The person designing a test should be smarter than the people the test is testing (should he wish for the results to be valid). IQ tests trade difficulty (depth) for speed; value is placed on timely completion of simpler tasks rather than completion of more difficult tasks. The reason for this is because the governments creating these tests don't want those individuals capable of deep reasoning to be seen as valuable because they tend to reject the government. To paraphrase what I just said, academia should be free from the influence of government and economics, but it isn't. To paraphrase what I just said again, *Test designers do not design tests which test for deep pattern recognition, *Economics and government place a higher importance on speed of thought than depth of though, therefore someone can perform well on an IQ test without having extreme intellect/intelligence.

    6. One's performance on an IQ test, as in the game of chess, can be influenced by his state of mind.

    7. IQ tests are redundant because they don't tell us anything we cannot observe through simple interaction. The knowledge of one's own IQ inclines him to think in such a way so as to lower his level of intelligence.

    8. Despite my best efforts, some of you will be mindless and not do what I tell you to; I don't recommend this. If you have to, then do these things as well: Increase your intellectual activity; do philosophy, logic, math, chess, music, and economics because they sharpen the mind, increasing your ability to recognize patterns and solve problems. I suspect that the smartest people already do what I'm telling you to do, so if I wish for the things I'm telling you to do to remain associated with intelligence, I should probably not recommend you do them, because you're going to make chess stupid. Because of this, I retract my recommendation, and am going to stay out of this. No comment.

    I no longer believe you are a troll; which saddens me.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

  6. #46
    ReflecTcelfeR
    Guest

    Default

    I enjoy complex poetry like The Divine Comedy (and others). To be able to write an entire book in one style and be as good as that is talent.

  7. #47
    null Jonny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    MBTI
    FREE
    Posts
    2,484

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Provoker View Post
    Hm, that's ok. It's not difficult to find, though you commit the fallacy of a forgetful induction by not taking into account all of the available information before formulating your claim. Is that Russell in the picture under your name?
    Forgetful induction implies the absence of relevant information. Redundant information is irrelevant.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

  8. #48
    psicobolche tcda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    MBTI
    intp
    Enneagram
    5
    Posts
    1,292

    Default

    Provoker: I agree with oyu on IQ tests.

    But I notice you assert the supremacy of "classical logic". Have you paid much attention to the General Theory of Relativity, developments in Quantum Physics, or the "sum-over-histories" concept; all of which mean that "classical logic" is surpassed?

    "Obsolete" is not the same thing as "absolutely incorrect" - certain sceintific/social/political advances can indeed have been progressive in relation to the ruling ideas they surpassed, and in so doing have laid the foundations for future advances which eventually surpass them in turn.
    "Of course we spent our money in the good times. That's what you're supposed to do in good times! You can't save money in the good times. Then they wouldn't be good times, they'd be 'preparation for the bad times' times."

    "Every country in the world owes money. Everyone. So heere's what I dont get: who do they all owe it to, and why don't we just kill the bastard and relax?"

    -Tommy Tiernan, Irish comedian.

  9. #49
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    253

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jonnyboy View Post
    Forgetful induction implies the absence of relevant information. Redundant information is irrelevant.
    By breaking it down analytically in the context in which it was asked, you decided to restate what I said in other words. I know what I said. It is unclear how one might draw such an inference. Nevertheless, my assumption was that you would use it to support your assertorial claim that my posts are silly, stupid, and weird, or else (and by disjunction) admit that your assertion was based on a forgetful induction fallacy.

  10. #50
    null Jonny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    MBTI
    FREE
    Posts
    2,484

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Provoker View Post
    By breaking it down analytically in the context in which this was asked, you decided to restate what I said in other words. Ok. I know very well what I said. I wanted you to use it to support your assertorial claim that my posts are silly, stupid, and weird, or else admit that your assertion was based on a forgetful induction fallacy.
    I assumed that by breaking down what you said, it would be apparently silly. Your posts, for the most part, seem to me very strange (uncommon thought patterns). It could very well be that your ideas are revolutionary, your thoughts lucid, and your intelligence keen; but, your use of the English language (in written form on this forum) is poor. Your posts are often very long, redundant, haphazard, and the conclusions you draw in them do not follow from the premises you put forth (ironic, given your apparent obsession with logic). The fact that I was able to break down what you said using a fraction of the verbiage, and the fact that what you said broke down into something seemingly incongruent, self evident, trivial, or/and narcissistic, are evidence of my claim.

    My motivations for our original discourse were your confrontational posts (in this thread) and your seemingly trollesque misuse of logic; I had thought you might be a troll. At this point I regret having confronted you because I typically resent those who put others down (which is what I am doing now), but my hope is that this might serve as a catalyst for self-improvement (your ability to convey your ideas effectively).

    Edit: Now someone banish this chain of posts to Off-topic posts. This was a good thread and I helped ruin it.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

Similar Threads

  1. [E8] Any other 8's have difficulty working boring jobs?
    By Azure Flame in forum Enneatypes
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 08-26-2017, 10:56 AM
  2. [MBTItm] Any other NTs here who are more into NFs than NTs?
    By gandalf in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 10-01-2012, 08:26 AM
  3. [NT] Any other NTs like Weird Al?
    By Gewitter27 in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 08-27-2012, 02:20 AM
  4. [NT] Do any other NTs(INTPs) act this way?
    By Nizy in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 65
    Last Post: 09-18-2009, 01:08 AM
  5. [NT] Any other NTs have a Genius-Crush on Richard Feynman?
    By Usehername in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 09-14-2007, 02:16 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