The paradox of IQ testing.

[BurnedOut]

I hypothise that there exists a set of people from the superset of ears smartasses who have the capability to do exceptional levels of reasoning in real life except in IQ test. Take the example of Richard feynman. He scored shit on an IQ test for his own good ie 122 allegedly yet we can see that he's one of the reminiscent giants in the scientific world. My point here is not to disapprove of the validity of IQ tests but rather mention that after a certain iq threshold, the intelligence of a person can't be gauged in terms of reality. I'm assuming the limit is 120+. After this limit, it's unlikely whether the iq of the person will actually predict his or her success in purely reasoning based fields eg. Physics

I've noticed this common trend of IQ tests being very biased towards the test taker's working memory. Complex patterns are not very difficult to spot after you learn all the basic permutations and combinations of patterns but what makes it hard is the prevalence of working memory which is oftentimes unable to hold information for too long.
Isn't it paradoxical that high working memory has a correlation of ~. 80 with g while high g with low wm still exist. I doubt whether the latter is documented or no but nevertheless low wm and high g can still theoretically exist given that the person is allowed to draw diagrams and everything while still possessing the ability of reasoning.
The so called genius IQs of the famous historical figures are not calculated in a scientific way. Yes, a mind can be very precocious but at the same time after reaching a certain age, the cognitive ability can peak suddenly as well for eg, my reasoning abilities developed manifold after being a teenager. This might be pseudoevidence because we need to consider the possibility of actually discovering the acumen for reasoning might contribute to the sudden increase as well but however it is scientifically documented that IQs suddenly increase or peak during teenage or when the person is synaptically adapting.
I've also noticed that most IQs test, the so called ones available, lack a common consensus. Some of them have shitloads of verbal reasoning. Some expect you to have a hard disk in your head with a high writing speed but low logical functioning. Some expect you to spot patterns which are impossible to inductively find using system 2 thinking, some expect you have to have a very powerful working memory and so on. So, what the fuck are we measuring? Even if you want to measure the pure reasoning ability, are today's iq tests really meant to measure the purest ability of logical reasoning?
( in my opinion, maths ( again, you have to grasp the concepts quickly and then employ it) , music and instant learning of concepts and checking of cognitive complexity while writing down theses are some valid ways)

It's a commonly held notion that learning concepts precociously is a good indicator of g but has someone tried teaching calculus actively to a 6th grader? Calculus is meant only for 16-17 year olds but it's easy enough for a 10 year old to understand to given that he is taught the basics.
The level of precocious understanding should be exceptional ( a kid programing when he's just 8-9 yo for an instance) and not something which can't be gauged simply because it's stereotyped for being practised by a certain age group.
Another trend IQ tests have is the level of executional abilities. Many of the questions are simply solved by applying methodical step by step approach. But executional skills can be honed too right?
I suppose one should not be bothered too much by his/her iq if he/she possesses a good abstracting ability and fast grasping. That's enough to keep you motivated and achieve what you want to achieve.

What are your opinions on this?

Sent from my SM-J730GM using Tapatalk

 

[Hadoblado]

What's the paradox?

IQ is one of the most well developed constructs in psychology, but it's still just a psychological construct (meaning it requires a statistical approach by definition). Feynman got an IQ of 125, but that's one data point. Savants sometimes score well below 100 but are capable of operations the highest IQ masterlords can only dream of.

TBH I don't think it's really that useful past a point.
- 85 and below you'll probably have a lot of difficulty establishing financial independence
- 100 you're probably not going to stand out
- 115 you've probably got the option of doing well in a complicated field if you've got the right approach
- 130 you can do most things you put your mind to, you're basically not capped from particular fields (probably)

Beyond that you're talking about a very small portion of the population. The number of things you don't have the mental horsepower for are small, so it becomes less relevant (afaik basically just for bragging rights). It still predicts academic and financial outcomes better than any single personality variable I've heard of. When you talk IQ in regard to physics and whatnot it seems almost like you're missing the point? Well... No that's not right. You're expecting IQ to do something it's not really designed for. It's value is in describing/predicting the vast majority of the population, not the people that are basically by definition outliers.

 

[Black Rose]

At last testing, my g was 37 points higher than wm. I believe that creativity is more associated with g than full scall IQ. Realistic drawing correlated high with g but I score 80 in drawing, me still being g 130.

This is why I believe that the network the bain has, some nodes work excellent and some don't. But the reason I believe this is because of my own diagnosed nonverbal learning disability. Some node give me high scores in the IQ subtests, the others don't. So this means I am lopsided. A normal person has a balance and maybe one high or low node. But me, it is so extreme that they need to do more testing. You burnout because of your ADD compensate in your strong areas. I do the same (I do not have ADD). The evaluation I will have Tuesday will check what I do and map that onto my brain to see what the hells in imbalanced. Imbalance can allow creativity but it can still cause confusion and frustration not being good at your weak spots.

I say BunerdOut that when I saw that you could learn computers so fast that I was impressed because In my deficits I really do not and cannot figure things out the way you can and you are 13 years younger than me. When I was 17 I was socially inept. I always had a blank stare on my face and would be unable to understand Immanuel Kant. I really was not systematic about my ideas or projects or people. The point of this is that I have a miniscule amount of self-understanding and self-awareness (I consider those two separate but coexisting things). I was disconnected in a sense from people around me. I based everything on intuitive emotion and abstract recognition in the unconscious. I never asserted myself. Existence in a thoughtless state so to know things not calculate them. I have hundreds of pictures on my computer that I use as visual aids to remind me of hidden realities I saw in fantasy and sci-fi and all sorts of things, people, and places. I am big into mystical experiences.

If I had known what I was doing when I was doing at 17 I would have been more logical. Over time I mentally and emotionally damaged myself because I was stuck for 10 years lacking self-awareness and understanding. I forced myself to try and do things I could not do feeling bad about my failers. It was a neurosis, which is doing the opposite of what you naturally are. Going against your own nature damaging yourself. Trying to and be what I am not.

It did not matter my IQ was 120, my psychological state was not mature but helpless and lacking independent purpose. Always holding in the negative feelings of isolation. The opposite would be a better understanding of what my place in the world should be. Knowing why you exist, achieve goals, get around/overcome obstacles, know all options available, engage people. Sometimes I am so emotionally drained I limit myself to certain activities because I can't handle them and like I said I avoid my weak areas even when not emotionally or physical drained.

IQ does measure something but it simply is not psychological maturity. WM is a calculator ALU catch, g is turning completeness programmability. So people with low g may well be command line and high g is a GUI. Don't take this speculation to seriously. The balance is between speed memory and programs. Might as well include neurolinguistic programming for good measure.

The biggest thing that stops me is that I don't want to cry, been holding it for so long and anxiety suck. Self-awareness has been helping me but it is painful. Pain can block intelligence. Destroying connections that need to be regrown. IQ can increase by a person my be trained to allow their brain regions to work together all at the same time. My focus on improving self-awareness with remove blockages so I can function properly without pain but with the expansion of perception and fix the functional hole I have. The best fighter in the world may be the best person to learn from and the analogy is that all parts must work at the same time I the brain. Conditioning the brain to have higher intelligence or even just the best way to think logically, it is all based on reorganizing the wires and connections in the brain. People who are 60 years old can be trained to do backflips. The brain is super flexible when connecting to itself the right way.

 

[BurnedOut]

At last testing, my g was 37 points higher than wm. I believe that creativity is more associated with g than full scall IQ. Realistic drawing correlated high with g but I score 80 in drawing, me still being g 130.

This is why I believe that the network the bain has, some nodes work excellent and some don't. But the reason I believe this is because of my own diagnosed nonverbal learning disability. Some node give me high scores in the IQ subtests, the others don't. So this means I am lopsided. A normal person has a balance and maybe one high or low node. But me, it is so extreme that they need to do more testing. You burnout because of your ADD compensate in your strong areas. I do the same (I do not have ADD). The evaluation I will have Tuesday will check what I do and map that onto my brain to see what the hells in imbalanced. Imbalance can allow creativity but it can still cause confusion and frustration not being good at your weak spots.

I say BunerdOut that when I saw that you could learn computers so fast that I was impressed because In my deficits I really do not and cannot figure things out the way you can and you are 13 years younger than me. When I was 17 I was socially inept. I always had a blank stare on my face and would be unable to understand Immanuel Kant. I really was not systematic about my ideas or projects or people. The point of this is that I have a miniscule amount of self-understanding and self-awareness (I consider those two separate but coexisting things). I was disconnected in a sense from people around me. I based everything on intuitive emotion and abstract recognition in the unconscious. I never asserted myself. Existence in a thoughtless state so to know things not calculate them. I have hundreds of pictures on my computer that I use as visual aids to remind me of hidden realities I saw in fantasy and sci-fi and all sorts of things, people, and places. I am big into mystical experiences.

If I had known what I was doing when I was doing at 17 I would have been more logical. Over time I mentally and emotionally damaged myself because I was stuck for 10 years lacking self-awareness and understanding. I forced myself to try and do things I could not do feeling bad about my failers. It was a neurosis, which is doing the opposite of what you naturally are. Going against your own nature damaging yourself. Trying to and be what I am not.

It did not matter my IQ was 120, my psychological state was not mature but helpless and lacking independent purpose. Always holding in the negative feelings of isolation. The opposite would be a better understanding of what my place in the world should be. Knowing why you exist, achieve goals, get around/overcome obstacles, know all options available, engage people. Sometimes I am so emotionally drained I limit myself to certain activities because I can't handle them and like I said I avoid my weak areas even when not emotionally or physical drained.

IQ does measure something but it simply is not psychological maturity. WM is a calculator ALU catch, g is turning completeness programmability. So people with low g may well be command line and high g is a GUI. Don't take this speculation to seriously. The balance is between speed memory and programs. Might as well include neurolinguistic programming for good measure.

The biggest thing that stops me is that I don't want to cry, been holding it for so long and anxiety suck. Self-awareness has been helping me but it is painful. Pain can block intelligence. Destroying connections that need to be regrown. IQ can increase by a person my be trained to allow their brain regions to work together all at the same time. My focus on improving self-awareness with remove blockages so I can function properly without pain but with the expansion of perception and fix the functional hole I have. The best fighter in the world may be the best person to learn from and the analogy is that all parts must work at the same time I the brain. Conditioning the brain to have higher intelligence or even just the best way to think logically, it is all based on reorganizing the wires and connections in the brain. People who are 60 years old can be trained to do backflips. The brain is super flexible when connecting to itself the right way.

See? This is precisely what I'm talking about. I score shit at iq tests (okay never below 120) but clearly you are sort of smarter right? A g of 130 but no fast grasping. It's fucking confusing, that's my point. Like I ranted about precociousness as well. We never know whether a normal 10 year old can do calculus because we never try. We assume that a normal 10 year old is supposed to do basic mathematics. It's a question of plenty of grey areas ignored during iq testing after a certain limit. I'm good at computers because when I was a baby, I used to see my dad play computer games. So I grasped the functions of keys when I was 11 months old. I became 1 and started playing on the computer, the very basic shit but that doesn't exactly make me a prodigy at programming right? . See, my point is, we don't exactly know what normal iq people are capable of. If iq is to be really evaluated, they should measure the densities of grey and white matter in the brain. If too much grey matter with less than enough white matter while again equal to a normal iq person because the person can't use the resources. But a guy with normal grey matter and tons of white matter while be a calculating genius. Even bordering around genius IQ without actually having one because he can simply process things very fast and that gives him an edge on time constrainted tests. A true genius will have high amounts of grey matter and white matter. That will simply result into him having an immeasurable iq. Simply exceeding 200.

They try to advocate that high iq people are differently wired than normal people. However they don't classify smartasses in terms of their brain wiring. Therefore, iq tests are not necessarily tests of your actual distilled reasoning skills rather a battery of academically inclined reasoning tests which is moderately correlated with your actual intellect.

On top that, they should also consider the functioning of the limbic system, endocrine system along with iq since they seem to influence the iq in some or the other way. For eg, I tend to possess several moods while iq tests. Sometimes the processing would be fast, sometimes it would be slow. Makes it almost impossible to obtain a pure reasoning stage. The only way to accurately measure someone's iq is perhaps make the test in a way which induces dopamine. The person will be more and more motivated to solve the questions more objectively. However, that's not possible.

For me, iq tests are stupid waste of time, I get bored quickly, achieve no braingasm and I give up too quickly or think in a very one dimensional way so as to exclude even the easiest heuristics to beat a question. But let's admit, you and me, we possess high emotional processing. However nihilistic or unique we think we are, we still tend to succumb to the societal beliefs no matter what and the biggest example of us trying to adhere to the society is gauging someone's smartness by their iq.

Sent from my SM-J730GM using Tapatalk

 

[BurnedOut]

What's the paradox?

IQ is one of the most well developed constructs in psychology, but it's still just a psychological construct (meaning it requires a statistical approach by definition). Feynman got an IQ of 125, but that's one data point. Savants sometimes score well below 100 but are capable of operations the highest IQ masterlords can only dream of.

TBH I don't think it's really that useful past a point.
- 85 and below you'll probably have a lot of difficulty establishing financial independence
- 100 you're probably not going to stand out
- 115 you've probably got the option of doing well in a complicated field if you've got the right approach
- 130 you can do most things you put your mind to, you're basically not capped from particular fields (probably)

Beyond that you're talking about a very small portion of the population. The number of things you don't have the mental horsepower for are small, so it becomes less relevant (afaik basically just for bragging rights). It still predicts academic and financial outcomes better than any single personality variable I've heard of. When you talk IQ in regard to physics and whatnot it seems almost like you're missing the point? Well... No that's not right. You're expecting IQ to do something it's not really designed for. It's value is in describing/predicting the vast majority of the population, not the people that are basically by definition outliers.

It is certainly. I think the samples are not too big to predict an outcome so accurate. You are missing the entire point here. I'm not criticising the concept of IQ testing. I'm criticising it's purity. My point is, sometimes smart people miss the radar of high iq but they are still very smart to succeed in real life

Sent from my SM-J730GM using Tapatalk

 

[Hadoblado]

I don't think anyone thinks it's pure? Nobody who matters anyway. It's just the most useful tool we have.

 

[BurnedOut]

What's the paradox?

IQ is one of the most well developed constructs in psychology, but it's still just a psychological construct (meaning it requires a statistical approach by definition). Feynman got an IQ of 125, but that's one data point. Savants sometimes score well below 100 but are capable of operations the highest IQ masterlords can only dream of.

TBH I don't think it's really that useful past a point.
- 85 and below you'll probably have a lot of difficulty establishing financial independence
- 100 you're probably not going to stand out
- 115 you've probably got the option of doing well in a complicated field if you've got the right approach
- 130 you can do most things you put your mind to, you're basically not capped from particular fields (probably)

Beyond that you're talking about a very small portion of the population. The number of things you don't have the mental horsepower for are small, so it becomes less relevant (afaik basically just for bragging rights). It still predicts academic and financial outcomes better than any single personality variable I've heard of. When you talk IQ in regard to physics and whatnot it seems almost like you're missing the point? Well... No that's not right. You're expecting IQ to do something it's not really designed for. It's value is in describing/predicting the vast majority of the population, not the people that are basically by definition outliers.

One more thing. Conscientiousness is a better predictor of IQ than g

Sent from my SM-J730GM using Tapatalk

 

[BurnedOut]

Predictor of success *

Sent from my SM-J730GM using Tapatalk

 

[Hadoblado]

Wait really? I thought it was a strong runner up?

MB

 

[Ex-User (14663)]

There have been studies showing that among chess grandmasters, there is an inverse relationship between IQ and chess skill. IQ is just a factor amongst millions of potential factors predicting any given outcome, and the utility and predictive power of this factor will vary depending on circumstances. It is a very primitive tool. I believe it was originally developed to identify problem cases among young kids in school. Somehow people got the silly idea that this quiz taps into the essence of innate human intelligence.

 

[BurnedOut]

Wait really? I thought it was a strong runner up?

MB

That is not it. The funniest part is conscientiousness is inversely related to IQ.

If we take the above subject supposition unanimously then it's better to say that many smartasses are up there purely due to their variable's probability of success getting executed. In other words, high iq people are not likely to succeed all the time if they opt for being conventionality. But again orderliness of thinking is something which varies from person to person, from iq to iq. It is not a faculty of reasoning per se but still is a non-intellect factor influencing the score immensely. Isn't that paradoxical now?

Sent from my SM-J730GM using Tapatalk

 

[Black Rose]

Orderliness?

I am very ordered. But so much less than INTP's (looks in BurnedOut's direction)

yep

but

maintaining the integrity of mental orderedness would be high in working memory?

 

[Hadoblado]

I dunno, this is starting to feel like a semantics maybe?

I don't see it as a paradox. Can you reduce it to a logical contradiction?

If you have sources on hand for conscientiousness predicting success better than IQ, or conscientiousness being inversely correlated with IQ, I'd be interested in reading them (this isn't me calling you out, I'm genuinely surprised and would like to learn more). Seems weird that IQ and C are positively correlated with success, but IQ and C are inversely correlated themselves?

 

[QuickTwist]

I think just because there are exceptions doesn't mean there is a paradox.

 

[BurnedOut]

The paradox is sometimes smartasses don't fall under the radar of smartness when it comes to their IQ number.

Sent from my SM-J730GM using Tapatalk

 

[BurnedOut]

Orderliness?

I am very ordered. But so much less than INTP's (looks in BurnedOut's direction)

yep

but

maintaining the integrity of mental orderedness would be high in working memory?

Orderliness per se can be mental orderliness which is independent of conscientiousness

Sent from my SM-J730GM using Tapatalk

 

[gps]

I think just because there are exceptions doesn't mean there is a paradox.

Thus these posited exceptions just might tip one off that the orthodox REDUCTIONISM is just THAT.
Single-number reductionist IQ is bullshit.

If you round up an assortment of individuals having attained the same IQ scores and put them in a room together to see how this supposed IDENTICAL Intelligence as revealed by this `quotient' plays out ... what would be observed?

If I'm placed in a room with others of same IQ, but different configuration of Multiple Intelligences I'm going to be hard pressed to manifest mutually meaningful interaction.

IQ is a Meaningless Indicator of Performance.
It can't predict HOW a person will apply his or her intelligence -- if outside of IQ tests which convey a SOCIAL status without having to PERFORM any useful behavior -- and it can't predict WHICH types of hobbies, jobs, or occupations which the testee WILL -- with any degree of accuracy -- fit and live happily ever after.

The use of Aptitude and Multiple Intelligences are FAR more likely to help a person find their niche and excel in life.

IQ per se is a red herring ... a bit of trivial drivel more likely to distract than add value or meaning to a testee's life ... FWIW, IMNSHO.

 

[BurnedOut]

Thus these posited exceptions just might tip one off that the orthodox REDUCTIONISM is just THAT.
Single-number reductionist IQ is bullshit.

If you round up an assortment of individuals having attained the same IQ scores and put them in a room together to see how this supposed IDENTICAL Intelligence as revealed by this `quotient' plays out ... what would be observed?

If I'm placed in a room with others of same IQ, but different configuration of Multiple Intelligences I'm going to be hard pressed to manifest mutually meaningful interaction.

IQ is a Meaningless Indicator of Performance.
It can't predict HOW a person will apply his or her intelligence -- if outside of IQ tests which convey a SOCIAL status without having to PERFORM any useful behavior -- and it can't predict WHICH types of hobbies, jobs, or occupations which the testee WILL -- with any degree of accuracy -- fit and live happily ever after.

The use of Aptitude and Multiple Intelligences are FAR more likely to help a person find their niche and excel in life.

IQ per se is a red herring ... a bit of trivial drivel more likely to distract than add value or meaning to a testee's life ... FWIW, IMNSHO.

It's not completely invalid but becomes invalid after a limit

Sent from my SM-J730GM using Tapatalk

 

[gps]

invalid ... invalid

Apropos of WHAT, precisely?
Valid FOR what domain(s) of application?
If you can't ground validity in a domain of application to BEGIN WITH, how could one leverage invalidity off the non-extant fulcrum?

It was contrived socio-(im)political fluff from the outset.

A teacher can't `TEACH' a submoron, moron, or imbecile to accomplish what's in the curriculum as per the one-size-fits-all lesson plan ... so The State contrives a sieve for sorting out those not tractable to inculcation by tax-funded functionaries as per social engineering `for the greater good'.

Now we have Mensa nincompoops whipping out there IQs instead of their genitalia for one and all to SEE who IS the `better man'.

 

[Grayman]

There is something IMPORTANT about 'THIS' but what does it MEAN?

 

[Black Rose]

I think IQ is more like finding the center of gravity than the shape of an object. The distribution of an object's mass means that interactions with it, is shifted because of inertia. A tall stick will act differently than a flat plate. The center of gravity determines inertia so that is what I analogize IQ to be like. A distribution of measurable abilities can be tested for speed and abstraction. This is all on a prevalence to do tasks. Tasks with a number of variables. So it would just be the handling of information. By my analogy, high inertia would be handling a large amount of information. The center of gravity analogy would be that you have a distribution of handling different kinds of information in certain amounts. The total I would just call distributed bandwidth.

When I took my test I did notice what I had problems with. I had certain limitations. The high scores balanced out the low scores. I know this because I do see that I compensate for the low ones with the high ones. It feels to me like a handicap but I think the number I got is not meaningless. My brain handles information unevenly but I believe my IQ score accurately measured my bandwidth at the time considering my health problems. At the time I took the test I was under chronic fatigue. Had to stop because I was fainting. Normally I can accomplish allot, I have just not been well.

 

[gps]

^-- Okay. I'll offer my own analogy.

Many of the higher-than-my-IQ folks I've met personally seemingly had a lot of height without much width.
They've seemed slender and top heavy.
I've beaten a few of them while playing team trivia solo.

My intelligence seems to exploit analogical reasoning, memory retrieval, criteria based cognition, and left-right hemispherical mutual reality testing and synergistic synthesis.

My my most recent Multiple Intelligence scores induced an ironic smile; my lowest score was bodily-kinesthetic as in high school I received a jock of the year award my senior year.
I'm sure all my team mates and class mates would all find this VERY amusing.
Though I was among the more cerebral wrestlers in my weight class.

I was given a Strawson(sp) IQ test as part of a psych eval back in '04 during a depression, which resulted in a diagnosis of GAD and PTSD: it placed me at around the 95 percentile, a capability sufficient for doing Phd grade academic work.
I don't know how and in which ways that depression influenced the results.
Don't really care all that much either.

I'm still too dammed artistic and creative to `be' an engineer.
Too much of an engineer to `be' either an `artist' or a `philosopher'.
So here I am composing textual drivel in a thread on IQ.
How smart/intelligent or `logical' SEEMS this?

 

[QuickTwist]

^-- Okay. I'll offer my own analogy.

Many of the higher-than-my-IQ folks I've met personally seemingly had a lot of height without much width.
They've seemed slender and top heavy.
I've beaten a few of them while playing team trivia solo.

My intelligence seems to exploit analogical reasoning, memory retrieval, criteria based cognition, and left-right hemispherical mutual reality testing and synergistic synthesis.

My my most recent Multiple Intelligence scores induced an ironic smile; my lowest score was bodily-kinesthetic as in high school I received a jock of the year award my senior year.
I'm sure all my team mates and class mates would all find this VERY amusing.
Though I was among the more cerebral wrestlers in my weight class.

I was given a Strawson(sp) IQ test as part of a psych eval back in '04 during a depression, which resulted in a diagnosis of GAD and PTSD: it placed me at around the 95 percentile, a capability sufficient for doing Phd grade academic work.
I don't know how and in which ways that depression influenced the results.
Don't really care all that much either.

I'm still too dammed artistic and creative to `be' an engineer.
Too much of an engineer to `be' either an `artist' or a `philosopher'.
So here I am composing textual drivel in a thread on IQ.
How smart/intelligent or `logical' SEEMS this?

I have no idea what your point is considering the measurement you think is more valid is blatantly contradicted by the most important sample you could have.

I think I know what your problem is tho.. Its in the 5th line. I think where you are wrong is that IQ is just how much pointless shit you can memorize.

If you are as good at trivia as you say you are, philosophy sounds like a great career choice, but what do I know?

 

[Black Rose]

I won't be shy about this but I am very insecure about my intelligence. When I cannot do something, in the past and today, I would get upset and sad. I remember crying in 5th grade when I made mistakes on my math paper we had to do because they were so small I should not have gotten them wrong. I always make small mistakes that mess everything up for me. In a movie, I saw this college student mistakenly started by putting the answer to the first question in bubble number 1 in bubble number 2. Answer to buble number 2 in bubble 3 and so on. That ruined his whole SAT score. And that is what I do sometimes. I make little mistakes like that and feel so helpless that I avoid even starting certain activities. I believe that the test I took shows why I make the mistakes I do. Not all of them but most of them. IQ tests are mostly given as a diagnostics evaluation with multiple subtests to understand if people have problems. My doctor did tell me I have a nonverbal learning disorder but my IQ was normal above average. I am going to have a neuropsychological evaluation tomorrow at 8:30am. It could take 4 hours to finish it. The main point is to check for as many aspects of my brain as possible.

When I said intelligence was about the amount of information your brain can handle, I believe that testing for this is possible. So when a person scores high it is most likely the capacity to retain, create and organize information will be high. Generally, the people that score high find it easier to do mental activities. The bottom line is they learn faster and can solve harder problems. In my computer class, I was considered the dumb one. Unlike BurnedOut who had a dad who helped them get involved I really had no parental involvement in school or technology. I said before I lacked self-awareness. I can tell that BurnedOut at age 17 has a faster mind than I do when I was 17 in 2005. In the computer class I took I developed the perception-action cycle as a model of cognition. I simply did not understand how to program it into the computer. This year was when I discovered most scient already had developed it before me. But what I did was completely my own idea. I did read Jeff Hawkins book On Intelligence that lead me to start thinking about hierarchies in cognition.

If we think of a specific GPU being faster at parallel processing than another GPU they reason may be GPU 1 has 1,000 cores and GPU2 has 100 cores. The newest and fasted GPU can calculate 100 trillion operations per second. My PC has a GPU at 1 teraflop. In consideration of all this. Software plays a key role in the efficiencies of GPU parallelism. Two GPU's can be equal in cores but contrasted by the efficiency of the different software that runs on them. A lest powerful GPU can outperform a more powerful GPU by software alone. IQ tests are just testing for cores and flops but not software. An intelligent person can make bad decisions and a gold medal Olympic sprinter can break a world record for sprinting a distance until they run off a cliff (splat). We can treat IQ as a GPU benchmark and the rest as good or bad software.

My mental GPU bandwidth may be average, but I work on improving brain software all the time.

 

[QuickTwist]

...

IQ tests are just testing for cores and flops but not software...

I love this analogy. I know I personally find IQ a more reasonable measurement than Multiple Intelligences because there really is not "standard" for the scores in Multiple Intelligence as far as I am aware... It's just "you are high in this and low in that" without some kind of standard metric that is badly badly needed for such things. If its a statistical measurement of something it needs to have a concrete norm. Without that the whole thing falls apart. With anything, you need an anchor if you want to measure... no anchor, no measurement.

My mental GPU bandwidth may be average, but I work on improving brain software all the time.

Sometimes when you make posts and don't explain yourself it can be kinda hard to follow. When you make posts like this I can really tell that you are improving. This post is communicated perfectly and I can understand everything crystal clear. You are getting much better at articulating yourself IMO and that is a huge point toward self-improvement.

 

[Ex-User (14663)]

For people who make the distinction between "hardware" and "software" in the brain, it might be informative to understand that there is little in the way of fixed structures in it. The brain physically changes based on what tasks you use it for, very much like a muscle. This notion that the brain is a fixed entity which might learn some things by mapping knowledge onto the fixed structure is a very outdated notion going back to days before we had things like neuroimaging.

But then again, who am I to get in the way of some good ol' hyperreductionsim and fitting the world into neat little binary boxes.

 

[Ex-User (14663)]

When you use a bad tool to measure something, it is the tool that is being measured.

 

[BurnedOut]

I'll second to GPS about the bodily-kinestetic thing. I scored crap in that as well and I'm a gymnast and an athlete. Something that someone may find funny for I'm an INTP.
My percentile was roughly placed somewhere above 95% too. However it doesn't bother me one bit for I've rationalised it now. My intelligence works more on attacking through several vectors, analysing every node of the argument and naturally detect practical / hypothetical fallacies which doesn't fit with the stated idea/proposition. Moroever I possess a good synthetical skill which helps me form theories originally without much effort. (I read up on cellular automata and e8 and realised that my theory is very different from those) sometimes I've this hyperthreading switch in my brain which when flipped when I'm not mentally exhausted, I can turn into sherlock holmes (not a self-titled one) as observed by many of my friends seeing me deduce things with rapidity without employing any conscious effort. I will conclude by saying that I possess the intelligence of intense subconscious synergistic brainstorming but yeah, people who have higher than mine iqs like I've met suck at grasping stuff with my rapidity, even play dumb on chess but are well adept with the classroom scoring system at which I suck. There's only one intj guy I know who has an IQ of 140 which is something I feel I'm not even close of, funnily, I can still grasp things faster than him coming to practicality.


Bottom line : identify your skill, tell higher-than-your-IQ guy to fuck off and flaunt your lower IQ by outmatching them

Sent from my SM-J730GM using Tapatalk

 

[BurnedOut]

They just legit do brainscans and then establish someone's real iq. But one more irony, the density of grey matter is not yet significantly correlated with intelligence.. Take the example of cats and dogs. Cats have double the number of neurons but are not as socially intelligent as dogs are. In fact many a times, dogs actually outsmart cats by a great margin and readily admired by humans. So is the case with crows and chimps. Crows have been evidently smarter than chimps at logical thinking but again, their grey matter is obviously somewhere around 1/10 of that of a chimp. We don't really know where the IQ comes from. There's no genetic link firmly established yet and neither is the brain yielding any substantial evidence about it. The current genetic correlations of g are established as a result of statistics not brainscanning. Grey matter can increase in fact in the temporal lobe of the brain that processes the spatial realm similar to cab driver's highly developed cerebellum. So the question is : if the motherfucking brain can in fact increase grey matter in certain areas, why is it that smart people still exist without any strong scientific explanations. I'll be an XSXJ right now and say - because God made everyone different
*wink*

Sent from my SM-J730GM using Tapatalk

 

[Black Rose]

For people who make the distinction between "hardware" and "software" in the brain, it might be informative to understand that there is little in the way of fixed structures in it. The brain physically changes based on what tasks you use it for, very much like a muscle. This notion that the brain is a fixed entity which might learn some things by mapping knowledge onto the fixed structure is a very outdated notion going back to days before we had things like neuroimaging.

But then again, who am I to get in the way of some good ol' hyperreductionsim and fitting the world into neat little binary boxes.

It's not perfect to say the brain has a hardware/software distinction but it is also inaccurate to call IQ complete bullshit because it is reducible to one number. We might say that body mass index is BS because it reduces height and weight to one number. The GPU analogy I use is simply a relative capacity for the brain to handle more information. The software bt may be analogous to education or just the kind of information taken in general. Some people specialize in medicine and some people specialize in computer programming and some people can specialize in multiple areas just because they can handle more. What you learn is not as important for understanding intelligence as finding out the capacity to handle information, that is why I believe the hardware/software analogy works. How much you can learn is intelligence and what you choose to learn are not to be confused. A person can be highly intelligent and what they lean is not important to there capacity.

When you use a bad tool to measure something, it is the tool that is being measured.

People always say this in IQ debates but never really explain the flaws in the tests. Between my highest and lowest subtests score I understand what it would mean regarding my abilities if they were higher or lower, faster or slower. For example, dexterity is a measurable thing and I suck at it. No matter how hard I try I can never type faster or utilize my fingers flexible. Fine motor control in my case is poor. Maybe overall one number does not say much but the subtests do measure accurately different capacities that is not just a single tool but a variety of measurements that add together. The flaw in thinking that IQ tests are flawed is in thinking that all measurements in the tests are inaccurate. Thinking that one tool is used and not realizing the tests has several tools used to cover as wide a number of capacities as possible. You must show what capacities are being missed by the test to show it may not measuring everything it can in aggregate.

 

[gps]

IQ complete bullshit because it is reducible to one number.

Point taken!
Shall I use an additional attribution of causality?

It's bullshit contrasted with other BETTER tools which don't promote, lead-to, or engender a mere gist interpretation of a synergy of intelligence, memory recall, creativity, and problem solving across several domains of application.

If the IQ test produced gist results which acted as sockets for follow-on more-detailed testing -- such as Multiple Intelliegences, and/or aptitude (I suspect statistically significant correlations) -- plugins resulting in more-refined, more-detailed, more-USEFULL understanding.
But Noooooo!
Otherwise `intelligent' -- but perhaps overly conscious of social status influenced by `intelligence' -- take one `official' `IQ' test which satisfies their NEED to have something to compare with others in lieu of prodigious genitalia ... then rather than TAKE a `multiple intelligences' test and an aptitude test ... they either do NOTHING or they poo poo these more-useful alternatives which would better help them answer the questions they pose on this forum regarding jobs, university majors and such.

The bullshit of IQ is that it too often tragically DISPLACES its betters in matters of how one might productively, satisfyingly APPLY whatever `intelligence' one can manifest in The Real World.

If IQ is `good' and the good is the enemy of both the great and good's betters then IQ is VERY good ... EG a mediocre piece of shit, too often mis-used towards spurious, thusly ill-founded ends.

As you, AK, have waxed poetic on the myriad dimensions of brain functioning more than anyone else posting here I'll close with the following:
How many dimensions would the one reductionist IQ number have to NOT accurately parameterize for you to admit that the loss of detail from the N dimensions you acknowledge down to The One orthodox parameter before this reduction were too obnoxious to let stand?

Space-time has 4 dimensions.
Perhaps we could simplify any place in space-time with the reduction-down-to-a-singleton indexcical (t)here&then and call it a day?
Then let one and all try to pin it down by whatever context is magically conjured up by authorial intent and personal-subjective interpretation of every member of the reading audience as per `communication'?

If the IQ score were a sum of binary digits representing factorial dimensions we might have something.
But can we unencode an IQ score and strip out encoded information about aptitude or a specific kind of intelligence ... or the ability to rote memorize trivia and recall-on-demand at any arbitrary future date ... such as one's IQ score?
No, we can't; all such finer distinctions are muddled together.
Encoding RGB and optionally alpha channel values in 4 btyes offers us a stellar example of what a reductionist IQ number CAN'T do.

It's not a case of lips moving without saying anything; its a case of lips moving and saying vague, misleading, gibberish which most interpret as if something more meaningful than a Rorschach inkblot pandering to self-apperception of `intelligence' aid by confirmation bias.

IQ is -- for me -- distracting, misinforming, curiosity-squelching bullshit!

You, of course, may place it on a pedestal of whatever height you dare, to await the next iconoclast to come along and playfully labor to smash it to smithereens.

 

[Ex-User (14663)]

It's not perfect to say the brain has a hardware/software distinction but it is also inaccurate to call IQ complete bullshit because it is reducible to one number. We might say that body mass index is BS because it reduces height and weight to one number. The GPU analogy I use is simply a relative capacity for the brain to handle more information. The software bt may be analogous to education or just the kind of information taken in general. Some people specialize in medicine and some people specialize in computer programming and some people can specialize in multiple areas just because they can handle more. What you learn is not as important for understanding intelligence as finding out the capacity to handle information, that is why I believe the hardware/software analogy works. How much you can learn is intelligence and what you choose to learn are not to be confused. A person can be highly intelligent and what they lean is not important to there capacity.

Well, if you would treat IQ the same way you treat BMI, you would (correctly) infer that IQ is just an arbitrary choice of metric, in particular one that measures your ability to answer quizzes of the type you encounter in IQ tests. It has varying degree of predictive power, and in various ways, of certain outcomes – as mentioned earlier, in some counterintuitive cases, it even has the opposite relationship of what you would expect. It may be that your ability to solve crossword puzzles is predictive of career success. Yet I don't see anyone claiming that crossword puzzles is close to being a universal measure of human intelligence.

But in terms of the software/hardware analogy, my point is that it is not only imprecise, but outright wrong. Because as mentioned, the brain physically changes according to what you apply it to. I mean, I am surprised that you, with your knowledge of things like artificial neural networks would have such a conception of the mind, as it is well known that the brain can grow neurons and synapses based on the problems it tries to solve. The computing speed is not important – we know the computing speed of the brain is vastly slower than silicone transistors. It's the neural network you create that matters.

People always say this in IQ debates but never really explain the flaws in the tests. Between my highest and lowest subtests score I understand what it would mean regarding my abilities if they were higher or lower, faster or slower. For example, dexterity is a measurable thing and I suck at it. No matter how hard I try I can never type faster or utilize my fingers flexible. Fine motor control in my case is poor. Maybe overall one number does not say much but the subtests do measure accurately different capacities that is not just a single tool but a variety of measurements that add together. The flaw in thinking that IQ tests are flawed is in thinking that all measurements in the tests are inaccurate. Thinking that one tool is used and not realizing the tests has several tools used to cover as wide a number of capacities as possible. You must show what capacities are being missed by the test to show it may not measuring everything it can in aggregate.

The IQ test is not flawed. It is the interpretation of the results that is flawed. The validity of IQ as a viable measure of general intelligence is based on fraudulent inference: we say IQ is a measure of general and innate intelligence. Based on what? Nothing, but we verify the claim, as it were, by performing regressions of stuff like career success. That's not a verification of the actual claim. Your parents' income level is probably also a predictor of career success, but can we then claim that one's parents' income level measures one's innate intelligence?

 

[Ex-User (14663)]

IQ is -- for me -- distracting, misinforming, curiosity-squelching bullshit

Not to mention, a vulgar insult to any aesthetic conception of the human mind.

IQ, to the human mind, is what a square of used toilet paper is to a Michelangelo

 

[BurnedOut]

Hey, come on. It's not fair to deem iq testing as complete bullshit. The problem start happening when the questions start becoming difficult. At this point, it is obvious that everyone is going to use different hacks to crack the password to the question

There are three types of smarties :

1. The dictionary attackers : will use all the well known tools and mental resources to attack the victim question.

Success rate : very high

How to prep : research a lot before giving an IQ test, get acquainted with verbal logic, numeric patterns and patterns in general.



2. The ace-rs : the ones who claim to solve the toughtest of the questions without any prior research aka IQ nazis

Success rate : high

How to prep : train yourself to be extremely methodical. Breaking everything down into steps and then attacking the problem is one of the best methods


3. The rainbow attackers : employ a flurry of brainstorming attacks with combined dictionary and brute force. Suffer from lack of knowledge of most commonly used ways. Success depends on the intrinsic level of difficulty of the iq test.

Success rate : Moderate - High

Prep : nothing actually, INTPs are naturally equipped with this. Every INTP belongs to this category originally. And by originally I mean childhood. Not the afterwards-acquired knowledge

4. Brute Forcers : the pure brainstormers and the slowest of all. Hates time constraints because the person is not able to examine every possibility. Ends up abhorring the concept of IQ testing itself. Oftentimes finds it hard to fit in the education system and change thinking strategy. The brute forcing depends on the processing speed notwithstanding intelligence infinitesimaly.

Success rate : low - moderate

Prep : no method to prep for this. Ingrained in the person itself.

Sent from my SM-J730GM using Tapatalk

 

[gps]

It's not fair to deem iq testing as complete bullshit.

How `fair' seems it to test or assess `intelligence' -- how about instantaneous `intelligence' -- then inject a `quotient' prejudicing biological age?

How fair seems it to favor this one `official' orthodox test and all the biases it injects into what one supposedly/allegedly is testing?

I'm not asserting or suggesting that `testing'/assessing are bullshit; these are part and parcel with empiricism ... which I advocate.
Yet how `empirical' can PERSONAL investigation BE if one's own investigations are so biased by the paradigms, cognitive frameworks, and schemes of interpretations of `authorities' to which one slavishly adheres to the displacement of any unique framework one may further by one's own pre-biased investigation?

If this bullshit notion of intelligence couldn't predict the intelligence I'm manifesting right here and now as Instantaneous Intelligence ... possibly alloyed with creativity, synergistic syntheses of Multiple Intelligences, or such then this outmoded legacy concoction should -- to my mind -- be discounted or discarded in favor of less rigid, less prejudicial models of intelligence.
Especially when otherwise abstract `intelligence' is grounded in domains of application.
For me this `IQ' model promotes a free-floating notion that intelligence is ever-present and constant ... at the ready for any application to real-world scenarios.
What I had for breakfast and the phase the moon juxtaposed with my own personal ultradian rhythms *might* -- for all I know -- influence my Instantaneous Intelligence in ways the IQ model doesn't and perhaps CAN'T accommodate.

I don't regard the testing of GROUNDED Intelligence bullshit; I regard this ungrounded biological-age-prejudiced notion bullshit.
It panders to J preferences for closure and certainty while allowing those who crave such to close their alleged minds based on `evidence' with all the grounding validity of belly button lint.

 

[gps]

There are three types of smarties :

Perhaps ... even if one's numbering system goes up to and includes `4'

Though there ARE only TWO kinds of people: those who divide people into to two kinds and those who don't.

And these `smarties', do you have a 6-sigma model which you can present which dePICTs the region under the Gaussian distribution curve you've deSCRIBed as `smarties'?

Does one have to qualify as a `smarty' to notice how tax-funded functionaries and government would-be `authorities' have, do, and might misuse IQ scores to discriminate based solely on artificial tests such as IQ while ignoring what the intelligence a testee can bring to bear in a Real World problem-to-be-solved situations ... in situ as contrasted with in_test-room-with-pencil-and-paper?

Next thing we'll know you'll be trying to assert that Grade Point Average reflects this or indicates that!

And there are plenty of INTPs who don't care enough about jumping through hoops held up by agents of the state or what they slander on `permanent records' to apply their intelligence ... whether measured or not by any number of intelligence tests.

Isn't this behind your defense of IQ?
When you fuck off vis-a-vis grades entered on your transcript you can redeem yourself by saying, "But yeah ... take a look a my IQ score instead of my GPA!"

And what rhetorical gimmicks might be used to make it past the dip shits in the Human Resources departments fronting for Big Business and Big Government alike?
Ahhh ... that's the point, isn't it?; they won't CARE what you SAY.
They'll want to see your transcripts, GPA, and -- when, if ever? -- IQ score.

 

[Black Rose]

too long; don't read

gps has a point that not all testing is bullshit but the problem I have is that when Serac says IQ tests are no better than crossword puzzles I begin facepalming. IQ tests are not based off of nothing. Psychometric do measure mental abilities because mental abilities do exist. What goes into the tests is not just made up but actually reflects differences in abilities that were discovered when looking for a way to measure all abilities that could be found. The brain handles information and different brain regions working together are the cause of people having multiple abilities at different levels of proficiency. To call it bullshit because you think it is only a mathematical construct makes me feel like what the fuck? Like gps said it is empirical. But it is bullshit because it is not empirical enough. It should measure more things that he said those kinds of tests exist. Yes I do understand that deep learning is just regression and it's a bad comparison to equate intelligence with computer power but that does not mean the core argument I made is wrong. I said the more information the brain can handle in parallel the more intelligence it will have. Am I wrong on this? I don't think so because the people I have met who are smarter than me can mentally do more than me. Just because my brain can change its connections is a poor excuse to say this means IQ tests are shit. We can empirically measure if a person can do more mentally than another person and this is not a math trick or sudoku or crossword puzzle shit. It is wrong to call empirical measurements bullshit, what they should be called is limited because they do not measure the entire amount of information a person can handle mentally. I know a guy that says artificial intelligence is bullshit because computers only follow instructions. That kind of facepalm was exhausting. Same with the fact that people believe regression in deep learning proves A.I. is impossible. The brain is a control mechanism. And some people have mechanisms that handle more information. We say these people are intelligent because more is better apparently. gps thinks I am trying to win a dick waving contest because I disagree with him. Animekitty loves IQ therefore he is closed minded and therefore my dick is bigger because I am an iconoclast that knows IQ is bullshit. He has been condescending from the moment he returned to this forum. It is simple arrogance to believe that everyone that thinks differently must be torn down and labeled inferior because your dick is so big like gps. His hatred for IQ as a dick waving is the same attitude he has himself. Why the fuck else would he express how he thinks I worship IQ. I simply think I understand the subject matter. Why is it wrong to have an opinion and think different. People that worship their dicks should take a long look in the mirror. I am tired of encountering people that focus on tearing everyone down.

 

[QuickTwist]

For people who make the distinction between "hardware" and "software" in the brain, it might be informative to understand that there is little in the way of fixed structures in it. The brain physically changes based on what tasks you use it for, very much like a muscle. This notion that the brain is a fixed entity which might learn some things by mapping knowledge onto the fixed structure is a very outdated notion going back to days before we had things like neuroimaging.

But then again, who am I to get in the way of some good ol' hyperreductionsim and fitting the world into neat little binary boxes.

I don't think that is the point of the analogy. As I see it, the hardware is your brain and your behavior is the software.

 

[BurnedOut]

Look. The bottom line is when someone tells you that he has an evidently high iq, you are gonna feel inferior. Moreover @gps, cut the socratic questioning crap. There are several scientific papers on the validity of IQ tests and it's almost a causation relationships between high IQ and high academic success. Sadly, we are all missing the moderate realm of realisation that iq tests are not entirely bullshit but still are bullshit after the scores start getting higher. This argument was provided by others as well and so they said that any iq above 160 would be unpredictable using any iq tests per se. My point here is, 160 shouldn't be the cap, it should be placed at 130

Sent from my SM-J730GM using Tapatalk

 

[QuickTwist]

Look. The bottom line is when someone tells you that he has an evidently high iq, you are gonna feel inferior. Moreover @gps, cut the socratic questioning crap. There are several scientific papers on the validity of IQ tests and it's almost a causation relationships between high IQ and high academic success. Sadly, we are all missing the moderate realm of realisation that iq tests are not entirely bullshit but still are bullshit after the scores start getting higher. This argument was provided by others as well and so they said that any iq above 160 would be unpredictable using any iq tests per se. My point here is, 160 shouldn't be the cap, it should be placed at 130

Sent from my SM-J730GM using Tapatalk

Do you know of any articles that are peer reviewed that share your sentiment?

 

[QuickTwist]

When you use a bad tool to measure something, it is the tool that is being measured.

A tool can only measure what it is supposed to. It can't measure itself without some sort of criteria that is framed for the tools use.

 

[Minute Squirrel]

Look. The bottom line is when someone tells you that he has an evidently high iq, you are gonna feel inferior.

Well if your IQ is lower then you are inferior, at least as far as IQ is concerned. The scope of ones feelings of inferiority depend on how much weight they give IQ in their conception of worth.

There are several scientific papers on the validity of IQ tests and it's almost a causation relationships between high IQ and high academic success. Sadly, we are all missing the moderate realm of realisation that iq tests are not entirely bullshit but still are bullshit after the scores start getting higher. This argument was provided by others as well and so they said that any iq above 160 would be unpredictable using any iq tests per se. My point here is, 160 shouldn't be the cap, it should be placed at 130

Sent from my SM-J730GM using Tapatalk

IQ test are bullshit the same way packs of bottled water are bullshit.

Really, imo, IQ is completely and utterly worthless on a personal level. I'm pretty sure any sort of introspection on what your intellectual capabilities are will give you a better approximation in what you can and can't do. I get why people reasearch it and why it's a valuable tool but I can't see why anyone would give a wet 2 ounce shit about it on a personal level.

 

[Ex-User (14663)]

too long; don't read

gps has a point that not all testing is bullshit but the problem I have is that when Serac says IQ tests are no better than crossword puzzles I begin facepalming. IQ tests are not based off of nothing. Psychometric do measure mental abilities because mental abilities do exist. What goes into the tests is not just made up but actually reflects differences in abilities that were discovered when looking for a way to measure all abilities that could be found. The brain handles information and different brain regions working together are the cause of people having multiple abilities at different levels of proficiency. To call it bullshit because you think it is only a mathematical construct makes me feel like what the fuck? Like gps said it is empirical. But it is bullshit because it is not empirical enough. It should measure more things that he said those kinds of tests exist. Yes I do understand that deep learning is just regression and it's a bad comparison to equate intelligence with computer power but that does not mean the core argument I made is wrong. I said the more information the brain can handle in parallel the more intelligence it will have. Am I wrong on this? I don't think so because the people I have met who are smarter than me can mentally do more than me. Just because my brain can change its connections is a poor excuse to say this means IQ tests are shit. We can empirically measure if a person can do more mentally than another person and this is not a math trick or sudoku or crossword puzzle shit. It is wrong to call empirical measurements bullshit, what they should be called is limited because they do not measure the entire amount of information a person can handle mentally. I know a guy that says artificial intelligence is bullshit because computers only follow instructions. That kind of facepalm was exhausting. Same with the fact that people believe regression in deep learning proves A.I. is impossible. The brain is a control mechanism. And some people have mechanisms that handle more information. We say these people are intelligent because more is better apparently. gps thinks I am trying to win a dick waving contest because I disagree with him. Animekitty loves IQ therefore he is closed minded and therefore my dick is bigger because I am an iconoclast that knows IQ is bullshit. He has been condescending from the moment he returned to this forum. It is simple arrogance to believe that everyone that thinks differently must be torn down and labeled inferior because your dick is so big like gps. His hatred for IQ as a dick waving is the same attitude he has himself. Why the fuck else would he express how he thinks I worship IQ. I simply think I understand the subject matter. Why is it wrong to have an opinion and think different. People that worship their dicks should take a long look in the mirror. I am tired of encountering people that focus on tearing everyone down.

AK, you keep repeating the same argument which I have tried to point out is erroneous. It looks something like this, and is what any IQ proponent suggests:

A : Innate intelligence is a real thing
B: IQ measures the said innate intelligence

Even if you assume A is true, you still haven't done anything to corroborate B. You just pull that assumption out of thin air with next to nothing as far as evidence goes. But there is an even bigger issue: you haven't even shown A to be true. So the argument is just a circular word game: we assume IQ measures innate intelligence because innate intelligence exists, and we know innate intelligence exists because IQ measures it.

The only thing you can say for certain is that IQ measures the stuff that is in IQ tests. Everything else is just vague, pseudo-scientific conjecture and religion.

 

[Black Rose]

AK, you keep repeating the same argument which I have tried to point out is erroneous. It looks something like this, and is what any IQ proponent suggests:

A : Innate intelligence is a real thing
B: IQ measures the said innate intelligence

Even if you assume A is true, you still haven't done anything to corroborate B. You just pull that assumption out of thin air with next to nothing as far as evidence goes. But there is an even bigger issue: you haven't even shown A to be true. So the argument is just a circular word game: we assume IQ measures innate intelligence because innate intelligence exists, and we know innate intelligence exists because IQ measures it.

The only thing you can say for certain is that IQ measures the stuff that is in IQ tests. Everything else is just vague, pseudo-scientific conjecture and religion.

@Serac

I think innate intelligence does exist because if it did not there would be no starting point. If intelligence does not exist then it is odd that people can do intelligent things. The innateness of it I think is reasonably simple because I have met super smart people and I have met people lesser so. People do differ in intelligence levels. The question of what the tests measure I believe can be addressed by how I defined intelligence earlier in that it is the ability to handle more or less information. We know that innate intelligence exists first and foremost because we can see peoples capacities in areas that require more or less information processing. Therefore the IQ test was designed to measure something already known about. This means there is no circular reasoning but empirical verification of what has already been observed. The tests measure the different ways the brain handles information. This includes pattern recognition.

We knew intelligence existed way before IQ tests existed. If we needed IQ tests to tell us intelligence existed that would mean we invented IQ tests to discover something we did not know about so that we could measure it with the thing we needed to discover its existence. (we invented a god detector so that we could discover the existence of a god that we previously did not know existed in order to know we needed to build the god detector to discover the god in the first place) That is not how it works at all with IQ tests. First people had to know intelligence existed so they could work on finding ways to measure it. They did not make IQ tests first to measure something they did not know about.

Yesterday I spent 5 hours being tested. It was a neuropsychological evaluation. Part of the testing was an IQ test. IQ tests are almost exclusively used as a diagnostic tool. They are used to check for deficits and learning problems. At least 10 subtests are part of WAIS-4. It takes at least a decade to create a new test. The WAIS-5 will be available in 2019 and will have 5 indexes instead of the usual 4 indexes. As time goes by the reason for the decade-long updates are because of the need to find a better balance between the subtests so that abilities are evenly measured and that they correspond to brain functions. I learned yesterday that executive functioning happens in the frontal lobes and is related to ADD. Deficits in executive functioning can be measured on some of the WAIS-4 subtests and can be used to diagnose ADD. So no IQ tests are not Saduko puzzles. The tests are tested to correspond to brain functions as much as possible. In the odd case, a person has a high IQ that just means the functions of the person's brain performs above average. I connect this with handling more information but also with overall brain coordination.

 

[Ex-User (14663)]

IQ - perhaps the most most blatant case of a Procrustian bed, induces only one interesting question: what are the psychological idiosyncrasies of the human mind that makes it susceptible to believing in such a stupid little gimmick. IQ shares that property with astrology, religion, and similar shames of human fallibility.

 

[Black Rose]

IQ - perhaps the most most blatant case of a Procrustian bed, induces only one interesting question: what are the psychological idiosyncrasies of the human mind that makes it susceptible to believing in such a stupid little gimmick. IQ shares that property with astrology, religion, and similar shames of human fallibility.

You provide no real substance to this subject matter. You are convinced that IQ is bullshit even when presented with sound reasoning why it is not. Reminds me of the time you said that machine can never be intelligent because they lack a secret ingredient only white males have. You are making the same mistakes with what IQ tests are. You believe I have fallen for a scam because of some sort of idiosyncrasies I have. In other words, you believe I a not rational enough to detect bullshit or in what it is you consider bullshit base of the idiosyncrasies you have that fails to understand IQ tests are not bullshit. Because you choose to make ad-hominins that my mind flawed and therefore eats up bullshit.

My only option is to say that my attempts to explain IQ the best I can is not do to flawed thinking but from a rational process of research as an inductive process. Looking for answers to objections about why I think IQ tests measure mental abilities. IQ tests are clinically useful for seeing for example that some people have better hand-eye coordination than others because trials happened to find the best way to measure it. Hand-eye coordination is part of intelligence because the brain needs to operate fast so that you can do tasks fast. The reason I cannot play fast shooter game is that I have bad coordination between my eyes and hands. Consequently, people that have good coordination can do more things better when it comes to manipulating objects in the physical world.

The entire point of measuring intelligence is to see if one brain can do more or less than other brains. The more a brain can do the more intelligent it is. So people started looking at what people could do and measured it. The same thing happened with the big 5 model of personality clusters appeared and separated into 5 dimensions. This is what happened when making reliable subtests. Data was collected on what people could do and tests were made that we selected in or out based on the predictability each one had to the data of what people could do. The tests that were included best measured a cluster of what the brain was doing. This is called norming. Norming is done on a huge sample size in order to prevent outliers from skewing the cluster formations. The number of participants is around 2,000 people accounted for by age.

You may call me a bullshit eater if you wish but I have just presented my "rational" argument that stands as it is even if you ignore it or find a new way to indirectly call me a shit eater. To drive the point home: I have a horrible time internally manipulating stuff. I failed my typing class because my low dexterity makes my hands hurt when I do typing. I have almost a genius level ability for language abstraction. I have a learning disability and even if I seem smart because I can abstract ideas, that does not mean my deficits do not exist. I am high in some areas and low in other areas and the sum total of those highs and lows adds up to how much my brain can do overall.

A person in a wheelchair may be the best pianist in the world but if he had his legs healed by the magic of medical technology he would be the best pianist and be able to do more because he had his abilities expanded by restoring leg function. I hope I am clear that I am trying to be rational when I present my arguments. I do not believe IQ is a susceptible little gimmick that I have fallen for. That is an insult to my intelligence if not an insult to my moral/intellectual integrity that I would not change my mind if I had to be presented with real objections that I would have no way to refute. Frankly, I don't eat shit and it is bad form to dismiss persons reasoned arguments as wrong by questioning their capacity think. (Animekitty can't think therefore what he said is wrong and because he can't think right he is a shit eater that believes IQ measures some of what might be called intelligence, what a moron)

 

[BurnedOut]

You provide no real substance to this subject matter. You are convinced that IQ is bullshit even when presented with sound reasoning why it is not. Reminds me of the time you said that machine can never be intelligent because they lack a secret ingredient only white males have. You are making the same mistakes with what IQ tests are. You believe I have fallen for a scam because of some sort of idiosyncrasies I have. In other words, you believe I a not rational enough to detect bullshit or in what it is you consider bullshit base of the idiosyncrasies you have that fails to understand IQ tests are not bullshit. Because you choose to make ad-hominins that my mind flawed and therefore eats up bullshit.

My only option is to say that my attempts to explain IQ the best I can is not do to flawed thinking but from a rational process of research as an inductive process. Looking for answers to objections about why I think IQ tests measure mental abilities. IQ tests are clinically useful for seeing for example that some people have better hand-eye coordination than others because trials happened to find the best way to measure it. Hand-eye coordination is part of intelligence because the brain needs to operate fast so that you can do tasks fast. The reason I cannot play fast shooter game is that I have bad coordination between my eyes and hands. Consequently, people that have good coordination can do more things better when it comes to manipulating objects in the physical world.

The entire point of measuring intelligence is to see if one brain can do more or less than other brains. The more a brain can do the more intelligent it is. So people started looking at what people could do and measured it. The same thing happened with the big 5 model of personality clusters appeared and separated into 5 dimensions. This is what happened when making reliable subtests. Data was collected on what people could do and tests were made that we selected in or out based on the predictability each one had to the data of what people could do. The tests that were included best measured a cluster of what the brain was doing. This is called norming. Norming is done on a huge sample size in order to prevent outliers from skewing the cluster formations. The number of participants is around 2,000 people accounted for by age.

You may call me a bullshit eater if you wish but I have just presented my "rational" argument that stands as it is even if you ignore it or find a new way to indirectly call me a shit eater. To drive the point home: I have a horrible time internally manipulating stuff. I failed my typing class because my low dexterity makes my hands hurt when I do typing. I have almost a genius level ability for language abstraction. I have a learning disability and even if I seem smart because I can abstract ideas, that does not mean my deficits do not exist. I am high in some areas and low in other areas and the sum total of those highs and lows adds up to how much my brain can do overall.

A person in a wheelchair may be the best pianist in the world but if he had his legs healed by the magic of medical technology he would be the best pianist and be able to do more because he had his abilities expanded by restoring leg function. I hope I am clear that I am trying to be rational when I present my arguments. I do not believe IQ is a susceptible little gimmick that I have fallen for. That is an insult to my intelligence if not an insult to my moral/intellectual integrity that I would not change my mind if I had to be presented with real objections that I would have no way to refute. Frankly, I don't eat shit and it is bad form to dismiss persons reasoned arguments as wrong by questioning their capacity think. (Animekitty can't think therefore what he said is wrong and because he can't think right he is a shit eater that believes IQ measures some of what might be called intelligence, what a moron)

Hey, no offence whatsoever, I feel the same 5 hours if put into something can yield something great

Sent from my SM-J730GM using Tapatalk

 

[Ex-User (14663)]

AK, I think you are a smart guy. But in this case, the word games are getting the best of you. Your last post was another roundtrip across the very same argument I adressed earlier. "Palm reading must be legit, because without palm reading there would be no fates to read"

 

[Black Rose]

AK, I think you are a smart guy. But in this case, the word games are getting the best of you. Your last post was another roundtrip across the very same argument I adressed earlier.

I am in circular reasoning again?

I don't see how that is possible?

It is your view then that no way can we use psychometrics to tell us what intelligence is even though we can measure aptitudes of people that can do more with their minds than others?

OK then I guess, I will consider that IQ does not let us know a person intelligence so I will phase a few sentence to best describe what I think is happening.

The brain can do many things. It can manipulate information from the outside world or inside mental space. People can handle only so much information at a time. Manipulation of information in the brain has various control mechanisms. People have made tests to find out if differences exist between people as to how much a persons brain can do. This lead to the notion of abstraction being the number of variables a brain can manipulate mentally or physically and the speed at which manipulation occurs. The test had to account for these parameters. Questions begins with a small amount of information and as more questions were presented the information increased. Eventually, a person would become overwhelmed and be unable to manipulate because they had reached their limit. A variety of subtests were developed to find a person limit for manipulation of information that corresponded to the different control mechanisms in the brain. This was true for speed as well. Altogether the subtests would tell the limit of the amount of information that could be manipulated and the speed at which manipulation happens. A brain that can manipulate huge amounts of information at once at a high rate of speed, is a brain that can do more than a brain that can only handle small amounts of information at a moderate speed. Both internal and external thinking can be shown to be a matter fast or slow mental manipulation abstracted as high or low information content. The test tries to measure this and much research has gone into trying to test all the control mechanisms involved to know how much a brain can do.

Can we agree that some brains can do more than other brains can do?

 

[Hadoblado]

For the record, I disagree with you Serac.

But I also think that on average, people are better off not thinking in terms of IQ. It seems to break identity when people are ordered in terms of an objective or semi-objective variable. People get all weird and fixated on it. To me it's a limited measure of facets of intelligence, but I think it does more harm than good unless it's actually factoring into real decisions.

So I disagree with you Serac, but think the world would be better if people agreed with you more.