You are invoking a theoretical situation to support your palpably defensive claims...
I have no idea what you mean by 'palpably defensive' and the 'theoretical situation' is relevant in light of the fact that it deals with the theoretical subject-matter of intelligence. I also have no clue what 'immaterial' means in this context and why anything that is 'material' in the vernacular sense of the term would be significant in a discussion regarding the definition and social implications of intelligence.
Why wouldn't a Mensa member with an IQ of 140 be able to read a "complex" book on a subject or make a thought provoking thought? This contention is immaterial..
You misunderstood the underlying theoretical assumption which is the conclusion my thought experiment vindicates. A person's IQ test score result is not indicative of his ability to solve abstract problems. For this reason, many MENSA members have little to contribute to serious intellectual disquisitions. For examples regarding this subject-matter, look no further than the high IQ sumbforum of INTPc. For further confirmation, join your local MENSA group.
Furthermore, you have neglected to respond to my method regarding the measurement of a person's genuine intelligence. I contend that his or her ability to solve recondite and abstract problems sheds more light on this person's intellectual abilities.
You are misconstruing my definition. Nowhere did I state that it boiled down to problem solving alone, although I do maintain that IQ tests generally measure one's ability to solve abstract problems in a timely manner...
I made no reference to your claim. My purpose was to evince that it would errant folly to propound a single definition of intelligence. Ludwig Wittgeinstein (1953) claimed that a word should be defined how it is used in ordinary language. “The meaning of a word is its use in the language” (Wittgenstein P.43 1953)
Professor Bloom of University of Yale (
Session 13 - Why Are People Different?: Differences — Open Yale Courses) stated that hundreds of researchers with an academic interest in intelligence have been interviewed regarding the definition of this elusive term. Many said it is an ability to solve abstract puzzles, others said ability to learn in general, some mentioned ability to memorize or retain impressions and so forth. Dr. Bloom's description of the various received resopnses was nowhere close to exhaustive. In literature, the term has often been exploited as an instrument of social and political vendetta, vainglorious scholarly behavior, been subjected to poorly controlled empirical psychological research and most frequently of all was utilized as an instrument of emotionally loaded name calling. With all things considered, 'intelligence' bears all the hallmarks of an 'essentially indefinable concept'. The best we can do is cite the greatest conceptual overlap among all attempted definitions of this term. As Paul Bloom suggested, most of the experts on the subject stated that intelligence has a great deal to do with an ability to learn and solve difficult puzzles. I've attempted to narrow down our purview by focusing on the most significant of puzzle solving and learning endeavors. Uncontroversially, abstract theoretical problems require a greater aptitude for learning than virtually all other types of problems. This rationale justifies my working definition of intelligence. It is not by any means complete or conclusive and any effort to render such a definition is bound to be shipwrecked.
Being able to acquire, understand, and utilize information is another aspect of intelligence, formally known as crystallized intelligence....
It's great that you have memorized the definition of chrystallized intelligence commonly employed by professional psychologists, however, this does not help us solve the abstruse philosophical puzzle regarding what our working definition of intelligence should be.
What makes you think that the intelligence one utilizes to solve an IQ test is not the same as that applied to more "complex" problems?....
I made no claim implying that the type of intelligence used in solving IQ test puzzles differs significantly from the one used in abstract-theoretical problems. My assertion was that the former are much simpler than the latter which means that succeeding at solving them does not render one justifiably intelligent. Intelligence is an ability to solve complex problems and therefore claiming that one competently discovers solutions to simply problems does not constitute sufficient evidence for his or her intelligence.
After all, logic is logic and pattern recognition is pattern recognition. This universal intelligence is the underlying factor some eminent scientists call g.?....
Let me give you a concrete example. As a soccer fan, I am interested in discovering what teams are some of the best that I may observe. When I see that a certain team beat a series of opponents of indubitably merit, I become convinced that this team is of great talent. However, if they merely beat amateurs or teams that strike me as weak, I find no evidence suggesting that the group in question is of great merit. Similarly, if a person solves difficult puzzles, I'd be compelled to maintain that he is intelligent, but if he merely performs well on simple ones, we'd have no reason to believe that his abstract reasoning abilities are superb.
I don't quite understand what you're getting at, but I have a hunch that it involves a highly inaccurate and misconstrued view of contemporary psychometric testing.].?....
What I am getting at is that most IQ test puzzles can be solved in several minutes and contain offer far less conceptual content than sophisticated problems of mathematics, physics or philosophy.
...What? Alright.
Either way, this is completely irrelevant..].?....
It is relevant to the point I have been discussing in passages above. This thread forces you to deal with puzzles that are far more challenging than those commonly observed on IQ tests.
...First of all, I did not know that "controversy" in science was looked down upon, and that one couldn't cite "controversial" works; that they are 'invalid', so to speak...].?....
You've misunderstood what I meant. There are two ways you can convince us to share your beliefs on intelligence. Make an argument in favor of your conclusion or cite credible authority whose views support the outcome of your thought-experiment. Since you made no effort to do the former, the onus is on you to cite the relevant authority. Jensen's views are impertinent because they are contradicted by the beliefs of many other experts. Your position would have been more persuasive had Dr. Jensen's views been shared by an overwhelming majority of his colleagues.
... I suppose the liberal agenda rearing its ugly head even in the scientific community should not come as a surprise. After all, it occurred in the Soviet Union, why not the United Socialist States of America?...].?....
What the hell are you talking about? Interestingly enough, I was born and raised in the Soviet Union, what does this tell you about me or my argument?
... I don't need to cite any "non-controversial" authority. I have stated my position and stand by it.?...].?....
Sorry pal, stating your opinion boldly does not amount to an argument, not even in an academic enterprise that is founded on absurdities such as the one currently discussed!
... On a side note, the so-called "controversy" does not apply to the genetic basis proponents of intelligence alone, but to the entire topic of intelligence, which some wishful thinkers believe does not apply to humans, even though we see it in every other organism..?...].?....
There is, as a matter of fact, controversy regarding the hereditarian aspect of intelligence. Stephen Jay Gould discussed how primitive 19th century inquiry led scholars to equate intelligence with 'caucasianness' and the size of one's skull. Those studies were fraught with social bias, logically incoherent thinking and preposterous conclusion. The first intelligence tests employed by American psychologists of the early 20th century were an outgrowth of the aforementioned archaic enterprise. The pervasive and pernicious legacy of these practices even resurfaced in the Bell Curve which was published in the late 20th century. Herrnstein and Murray have stated that intelligence is mostly innate and accurately measured by tests. They have supported this claim with specious supposition that children's IQ tests do not change throughout their lives. Famously, the American Psychological Association found no evidence to vindicate this wildly speculative and an unwarrantedly ambitious assertion.
See the 'contradictory findings' of the following article.
The Bell Curve - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
" A recent paper in the Psychological Review, "Heritability Estimates Versus Large Environmental Effects: The IQ Paradox Resolved," presents a mechanism by which environmental effects on IQ may be magnified by feedback effects. This approach may provide a resolution of the contradiction between the viewpoint of The Bell Curve and its supporters, and the 'nurture' factors of IQ believed to exist by its critics. Janet Currie and Duncan Thomas presented evidence suggesting AFQT scores are likely better markers for family background than "intelligence" in a 1999 Study "Herrnstein and Murray report that conditional on maternal "intelligence" (AFQT scores), child test scores are little affected by variations in socio-economic status. Using the same data, we demonstrate their finding is very fragile.[17]
Charles R. Tittle, Thomas Rotolo found that the more that written, IQ-like examinations are used as screening devices for occupational access, the stronger the relationship between IQ and income. Thus, rather than higher IQ leading to status attainment because it indicates skills needed in a modern society, IQ may reflect the same test-taking abilities used in artificial screening devices by which status groups protect their domains."
... According to your logic, nobody should cite any sources when it comes to IQ because controversy may be hidden anywhere...?...].?....
This interpretation evinces your stark dificiency in reading comprehension.
... If you don't accept the theories on intelligence propounded by such respected scientists as Spearman, Jensen, Murray, Lynn, et al., you are free to do so, but you cannot reject my use of their works offhand, and must provide counter evidence or a reasonable refutation....?...].?....
The counter evidence is the work of multiple scholars who have contradicted many of the discoveries of the thinkers you listed. See professor Paul Bloom's lecture for a more detailed review of the subject-matter. As supplemental material, you may read the previously cited Wikipedia article.
... "Foundationless"? Genetic IQ is only gaining ground in the scientific community, and it does so despite the vociferous clamor of the ideological left.....?...].?....
It is becoming stronger? Can you cite any scholarly source that supports this claim? Furthermore, how do you go about refuting Dr. Bloom's claim that whether intelligence tests evince intelligence or that intelligence is innate is subject to 'extreme debate'. Furthermore, how do you deal with the challenge of Rotollo and Tittle who have discovered that IQ tests are indeed manipulable and that a person can acquire other skills than intelligence to do well on the IQ test and prevail in other walks of life?
"Charles R. Tittle, Thomas Rotolo found that the more that written, IQ-like examinations are used as screening devices for occupational access, the stronger the relationship between IQ and income. Thus, rather than higher IQ leading to status attainment because it indicates skills needed in a modern society, IQ may reflect the same test-taking abilities used in artificial screening devices by which status groups protect their domains."
Far from 'becoming stronger' or gaining support in the scientific community, the hereditarian view of intelligence is now a dogma of the past. The APA reviewers of the Bell Curve have made the outcomes of their research clear, intelligence is influenced significantly by both nurture and nature, however, the former factor is more prevalent than the latter. As a matter of fact, Bloom stated that the APA consensus is that intelligence is mostly an outcome of people's life-experiences. In light of the fact that intelligence is difficult to the define to the point of being virtually intractable and the apparent crudity of IQ tests (Tittle and Rotolo), there is little evidence to believe that intelligence exists as conceived of by hereditarian zealots, let alone that an IQ test can accurately appraise the level of a person's 'innate intelligence'!
... I do not claim to be an expert on the matter, and my interpretation of certain works may be incorrect, but my logic in this regard is not circular......?...].?....
You are guilty of the bare assertion fallacy. You state that innate intelligence exists and that IQ tests can measure this factor, yet neglect to provide supporting rationale or cite credible authority. Now, to avoid complicating matters even further, lets go back to the original passage where I claimed that your reasoning is circular.
"Generally the proponents of your thesis, like Herrnstein and Murray would be inclined to say that a person's IQ test scores don't change and that is why natural intelligence exist. Yet you hold that any person who in the past received low scores and now consistently scores highly must have had a high intelligence to begin with. The trouble is, the argument from the consistency of test-takers' scores throughout their lifetime was what granted a foundation for the claim that there is 'natural intelligence' in the first place. Again, as common of numerous partisan defender's of the existence of intelligence and viability of IQ tests, you've reasoned in a decidedly circular manner. "
In an exchange with Blackmail, you stated that a person who dramatically improves his IQ test scores must have had a high intelligence to begin with. Your premise is indistinct from your conclusion or you start exactly where you have finished. You maintain that there is innate intelligence, yet allow for the possibility that a person's IQ test scores can improve significantly. The proponents of your conclusion claimed that intelligence is innate or not influenced by environmental factors because test-taker's results rarely change. You reject this premise, yet continued to adhere to the conclusion that there is an innate intelligence. Hence, your conclusion is rendered circular by the fact that you have abandoned the premise that led to the finale of the inquiry.
What scientists who hold the genetic position state is that consistency on IQ tests is due to g,].......?...].?....
'Scientists' or the partisan researchers you cited? There is no consensus that tests accurately measure intelligence, thus any inference suggesting that consistency of 'test-scores' is resultant of general intelligence is erroneous.
but they do not claim that every psychometric test has an equally strong correlation with g, nor that IQ scores cannot be improved, only that these improvements do not have any impact on g.......?...].?....
It shall be difficult to find the test that has a strong correlation with 'g', because they are too simplistic and conceptually impoverished.
It is not unusual for a person's IQ to rise or fall by as much as ten points depending on their physical and mental condition, although anything more than ten is generally considered reliable. This is what I meant.].......?...].?....
Can you cite any research that vindicates the conclusion that it is impossible for a person to increase his IQ by more than 10 points? Various partisans and propagandists asserted that 15 is the maximal range, however, they made no effort to provide theoretical support for this claim or reference any scientific consensus on the matter.
.
I don't see how one can improve their IQ score simply by rote learning; surely, one would need to learn how to employ the requisite functions, which in and of itself is a type of intelligence..].......?...].?....
One can improve performance on tests by understanding the underlying system of tests and the type of answers examinations commonly accept. This is the 'feedback effect' that is the screening device problem references by Rottolo and Tittle. One can improve his performance on an IQ test in a similar fashion that he could improve his performance on an ACT test or a certain university class.
I did not claim that using those functions is the "only" way to solve the test, only that this is what I define as intelligence...].......?...].?....
I have not seen you define intelligence, but good luck with that.
In order to be able to test for intelligence, we must have an objective definition of it, and this is my own, which happens to follow in line closely with the standard definition of general intelligence as proposed by Raymond Cattell....].......?...].?....
Had it been the standard definition, we would have observed far greater uniformity and consistency in how this word is used in professional publications.
I am curious, though, as to which other functions if not the above could one possibly employ to solve the tests?....].......?...].?....
Imagination, memory, perception of structure, aesthetical perceptibility, ability to make connections between unrelated objects, ability to make connections between conceptually related objects. All of these concepts are elusive and only broadly defined, once one attempts to limit the scope, intractable difficulties fast ensue.
Which views have been refuted? Their core theories remain intact and are only gaining support. ?....].......?...].?....
That the 'g' factor cannot be manipulated or that IQ tests necessarily evince natural intelligence. That intelligence is more innate than learned.
This is a common tactic amongst those who deny the validity of IQ tests. They project their own open-ended definition of intelligence in order to convince the less educated that no objective definition exists or can exist, and that the entire concept is worthless.?....].......?...].?....
Go ahead and try to provide a succinct and a conceptually unambiguous definition of intelligence.
I can (look at Lloyd Humphreys' twin study, correlation between brain size and IQ, positive correlations between tests, etc.), but I won't bother..?....].......?...].?....
Craniology or inferring a person's intelligence on the basis of his brain is a practice of the 19th century that is no longer recognized as plausible. As a matter of fact, eminent mathematician Gauss did not have a larger brain than a normal person. As a matter of fact, 19th century researchers discovered that criminals often had larger brains than upstanding and intelligent citizens. Stephen Jay Gould documented the hopeless of craniology suffered by 19th century researchers. Go check his sources if you don't trust Gould. Cite the 'twin studies'. Many of them were as sound as the craniology studies.
All of these scientists (with the exception of Spearman, who died long before Gould's book was published) have defended their positions and addressed Gould's distorted representation of their research. Look at the review by Arthur Jensen that I linked above...?....].......?...].?....
Their defenses from Gould's charges have not been consistently recognized as successful.
Again, this is a problem that plagues the behavioral sciences: critics of genetic intelligence wish to obfuscate the definition intelligence or redefine it in such a way that it cannot be stipulated so as to give the impression that general intelligence cannot be tested....?....].......?...].?....
Provide the kind of a definition of intelligence that can be assessed by an IQ test. Focus less on who is trying to obfuscate or persuade the public of something and more on the concepts of the inquiry at hand.
I am not going to defend against these disingenuous and ignorant tactics. ....?....].......?...].?....
Thus far you've done nothing but voice your disagreement with those 'tactics', furthermore your neglect to provide a definition of intelligence offers us no reason to believe that those who prefer to keep it as an open-ended concept are in error. Your conception of the activities in question as mere persuasion 'tactics' is also presumptuous at best and baseless at worst. The views of the scientists you appealed to do not represent the consensus of contemporary researchers. You've done nothing to refute my conclusion regarding definition of intelligence other than state the 'research is becoming stronger and gaining support'.
Read the works of the scientists and let them support their own works, which they have consistently done.....?....].......?...].?....
They've done a poor job and have not answered any of the objections I've raised in this post.
To conclude, your definition of intelligence is incomplete and inconsistent,.....?....].......?...].?....
As usual you stated your conclusion without providing an argument to support it. Where is the inconsistency in my definition of intelligence? I am looking forward to your effete efforts to provide a 'complete' definition of intelligence.
and seems to rest on the assumption that my own definition somehow precludes all of the "examples" of intelligence you have enumerated throughout your long winded post.
I made no such assumption as you haven't provided a definition of intelligence.
to all my INTJ's - you are gusto fun!
I am seriously gonna have to grab a pan the next time this happens and hold it over my dads head. Um...dont try this with dom/aux Fi unless you have a layer of chainmail, followed with a couple layers of armor. Or fully encased in bubble wrap with...it might be fun to be pushed down stairs in bubble wrap. Ok, I found a ruleset where it may be ok to do this with NFPs.
