An obvious way to gauge Mental Age or grasping power.

[BurnedOut]

Oftentimes we label someone as intelligent/genius/dumb by the books they read. However it's one of the easiest ways to measure someone's cognitive prowess. One simple way is comparing the books meant for a particular age group being read by a person and his age.

For e.g. A=the actual age of the person
BA = the stuff the person reads for a particular age group.

Therefore ~IQ=BA/A

Granted it's not the best way but a quick way to measure someone's IQ. However, one's IQ can be tested with their assimilation and teleological usage of the information too. This is however somewhat independent from IQ test's verbal reasoning questions because at least in my case, I perform better in real life settings rather than an IQ test. (I don't fully promote the validity of IQ either)

My question here is, how do we estimate the BA of the books ?
If the formula I mentioned above is indeed valid then it simply becomes a link between crystallized intelligence and fluid intelligence.

First take my example and gauge me and then state your estimated IQs too.

1. I can understand theory of any sort. Time required differs from topic to topic and the precocious knowledge possessed about it ie the basics. Naming a few topics : Advanced level psychology, analytic philosophy (kant), quantum mechanics theory, advanced calculus, the theory of pentesting, Android, editing files in games (past time hobby), encryption methods (the hardest one was to study the working of md5), R + python(newbie yet), forensics, analysing literature, TCP/IP book ( not intrinsically difficult per se but puts a strain on my working memory ), intermediate chess

These are some examples. The adult INTPs now gauge my ~IQ at this instance and also state whether I can go any further or no. And state your IQs in a similar way

I'm 17 BTW.

Sent from my SM-J730GM using Tapatalk

 

[Black Rose]

You are at least 130.
I am around 118.

If you want to gage me or yourself this website has good information on that subject.

http://www.mind-development.eu/stages-development.html

 

[washti]

Obviously i'm interested only in literature for the elderly, retirees with a decent pention, recomended by Mensa Research Journal. And even here i'm very picky, choosing only these items that would satisfy Methuselah' intellectual hunger. My favourities are:
"The Little Old Lady Who Broke All the Rules"
"And Every Morning the Way Home Gets Longer and Longer"
"Major Pettigrew's Last Stand (Hardcover) "
BTW im 28

 

[BurnedOut]

You are at least 130.
I am around 118.

If you want to gage me or yourself this website has good information on that subject.

http://www.mind-development.eu/stages-development.html

The whole point of this thread is not to measure IQ, the "IQ way" my theory is that the IQ calculated on the basis of assimilating and teleogical usage of knowledge keeping aside the celerity of grasping. My theory however promotes the concept of "gaining intelligence" per se. Not "having high amounts" of it naturally. If one tries to expand his breadth of intellect, it is possible. People always tend to back out when the topic is visually appealing or contains foreign concepts. Let me give you a hilarious example. Today in the college lib, I was reading about TCP/IP. It was a fat book and head my headache. The content of the book was not impossible to understand. However the amount of working memory required is very high. I came across almost 20-30 abbreviations which were extensively used all over the 30 pages I read in 60 minutes. 2 minutes for one page is not me at all because I remember covering over 200 pages in an hour while reading mein kamph. Getting back to the story. He was reading Shakespeare and scowled at me for reading tech stuff and told me that it's not in his reach of intellect and I told him that I find Shakespeare hard. Well who do you think is smarter of the two ?

My psych told me the same. "You easily have an IQ above 130" however I show no high IQ traits whatsoever despite being more knowledgeable. I don't get good grades, I'm not keen in show off my intellect, i don't participate in various exams and then flaunt my marks, I don't have a certified IQ score, I don't answer stuff in the class and neither I score well in my law prep. I am often the one with the headache while doing elementary grade math stuff while prepping for my LSAT entrance. The one who always fucks up at verbal logic questions because I get very confused by looking at multiple instructions and I score average in comprehension because I cannot compensate to converge my brainstorming to a single choice.



So @animekitty, do you still think I'm smart or someone who loves reading ?

Sent from my SM-J730GM using Tapatalk

 

[Happy]

Why do you think reading a book on TCP/IP makes you more intelligent than someone who reads Shakespeare? This makes no sense to me. What does it matter?
EDIT: never mind, I misread.

(My reading habits: I read across a very broad spectrum, from the super technical to the pop science drivel. Usually juggling between 5 and 10 at any given time to keep interest levels up. I follow random obsessions. I’m 20-something [mumble mumble].)

 

[onesteptwostep]

Kant isn't analytic philosophy lol. Analytic philosophy (Russell, Wittgenstein) didn't come about until the 20th century. Kant is German idealism... .-. Kant is an easier philosophy read imo. Greek philosophers are harder imo, since they're boring as hell.. but it's not like their ideas are as complex as Kant's.

Either way I don't think books necessarily are a good way to measure intelligence. I think it has to do more with the quantity of books you read. I find that people who consistently read are more reserved, articulate and wholesome than I am, though the subject matter which I'm interested in are much more academic in nature.

 

[Black Rose]

So @animekitty, do you still think I'm smart or someone who loves reading ?

Sent from my SM-J730GM using Tapatalk

You have the amount of self-awareness at 17 as I am barely developing at 30. Your ability to logically reason is due to your frontal lobes control mechanism being highly developed. When I was 17 I was more like a shy 7-year-old. I did not question what happened in school, I did not ask the teachers for help. I kept my distance from other kids. I remember in a teachers meeting I heard one teacher say I might be autistic. I was not super logical in my thoughts or expression. I think that because of my high emotional intelligence I was hypersensitive to negativity. Bad experiences made me isolate myself. I would have been impossible at that stage to read Kant or understand Quantum Physics. I was in a computer class but failed to learn anything.

The frontal lobes can be used for any form of cognitive control. You just happen to use it for logic and therefore you structure and order your thoughts allowing for a vast deductive capacity. You can fit everything together with no inconsistencies because it is all sorted out.

This Friday I will be talking to my therapist about internal and external mental control. I have deficits and strengths in both internal and external mental control. I am not interested in making things like my brother. I am interested in ideas. But I have a problem with holding thoughts in my head in an orderly way. Word association is the closest frame to see it from which is Thought association or idea association. I have Aphantasia so I do not see my thoughts. In order to think I must observe my unconscious, hold onto the association I cannot detect with the 5 senses and then store the new cluster as a new concept. I am still limited by working memory, I can hold 5 numbers in WM at a time.

The Shakespeare book reading person is most likely a feeler.
No doubt he involves himself in the feelings Shakespeare is coveying.
You must have detachment when reading your books.
Introverted thinking relies on it. (detachment)
Since I rely on my unconscious my mind is unorganized.
People do not always understand what I say. I stutter.

The reason I think you have a high IQ is that of how your thoughts are so organized that you can do so many things I cannot. I would even say the reason I had trouble by which I mean I had low self-awareness was that my thoughts were not organized. Only now can I understand how to communicate because I now use language to structure thoughts. I still do thought association randomly but I can express myself better. I have self-knowledge which helps me see how to fix my problems. Better Self-awareness means I am more aware that I have agency. The way I was, I was like a 7 years old. I had no inner voice. You do not get your inner voice on average till you are 10 years old. I use my inner voice more often now. Bottom Line @BurnedOut is you have excellent inner mental control. Something I lacked at 17.

 

[BurnedOut]

You have the amount of self-awareness at 17 as I am barely developing at 30. Your ability to logically reason is due to your frontal lobes control mechanism being highly developed. When I was 17 I was more like a shy 7-year-old. I did not question what happened in school, I did not ask the teachers for help. I kept my distance from other kids. I remember in a teachers meeting I heard one teacher say I might be autistic. I was not super logical in my thoughts or expression. I think that because of my high emotional intelligence I was hypersensitive to negativity. Bad experiences made me isolate myself. I would have been impossible at that stage to read Kant or understand Quantum Physics. I was in a computer class but failed to learn anything.

The frontal lobes can be used for any form of cognitive control. You just happen to use it for logic and therefore you structure and order your thoughts allowing for a vast deductive capacity. You can fit everything together with no inconsistencies because it is all sorted out.

This Friday I will be talking to my therapist about internal and external mental control. I have deficits and strengths in both internal and external mental control. I am not interested in making things like my brother. I am interested in ideas. But I have a problem with holding thoughts in my head in an orderly way. Word association is the closest frame to see it from which is Thought association or idea association. I have Aphantasia so I do not see my thoughts. In order to think I must observe my unconscious, hold onto the association I cannot detect with the 5 senses and then store the new cluster as a new concept. I am still limited by working memory, I can hold 5 numbers in WM at a time.

The Shakespeare book reading person is most likely a feeler.
No doubt he involves himself in the feelings Shakespeare is coveying.
You must have detachment when reading your books.
Introverted thinking relies on it. (detachment)
Since I rely on my unconscious my mind is unorganized.
People do not always understand what I say. I stutter.

The reason I think you have a high IQ is that of how your thoughts are so organized that you can do so many things I cannot. I would even say the reason I had trouble by which I mean I had low self-awareness was that my thoughts were not organized. Only now can I understand how to communicate because I now use language to structure thoughts. I still do thought association randomly but I can express myself better. I have self-knowledge which helps me see how to fix my problems. Better Self-awareness means I am more aware that I have agency. The way I was, I was like a 7 years old. I had no inner voice. You do not get your inner voice on average till you are 10 years old. I use my inner voice more often now. Bottom Line @BurnedOut is you have excellent inner mental control. Something I lacked at 17.

I appreciate a lot for your appreciation regarding my mental prowess. However given that your g lies in the 98th percentile, I suppose you are one of the smart-asses too. The difference between you and me is I have learned to harness the power, in fact it's getting abused. I lack self awareness totally. I feel guilty, happy, sad, happy solely after I process the whole situation and then compare it to the truth table of emotions. I was feeling very guilty that day because my logic declared me as guilty for hurting someone. Later I got the correct facts and I stopped feeling guilty altogether. Talking about sensitivity, I'm pretty bipolar in that sense. My emotional depth runs very deep often to a level which damages my sanity and mental functioning so I avoid being empathetic too often. I oscillate between psychopathy and HSPness.

Sent from my SM-J730GM using Tapatalk

 

[Black Rose]

I appreciate a lot for your appreciation regarding my mental prowess. However given that your g lies in the 98th percentile, I suppose you are one of the smart-asses too.

Maybe I used the wrong terms but I was implying the opposite of what you said meaning, I did not call you self-aware because you were not. That would be condescending.

The reason I see you as self-aware is a different reason from the emotional problems you have. You can use reason and logic which to me seems self-aware. I quit college because of emotional problems that without logic and reason I simply could not handle schoolwork nor ask for help. I have been to the psychiatric hospital 5 times since 2007. From 2007 to 2009 I was in the TLC temporary living center. I barely functioned throughout the day. I was like a zombie. Completly shut down. I was disappointed in myself for not being able to generate new ideas. To me, it seems you can work out your ideas and test them even if they fail. The only thing I can do is contemplate my ideas, I have no opportunity to test my ideas. And that is why I think you are more self-aware but now I realize a better term is metacognition. You solve problems and you know how your own thinking affects how you solve them. If metacognition is not the way you would describe it I am still impressed by the fact that you can understand what you do. Do not be disappointed with failer, I know you've said you work around setbacks.

 

[BurnedOut]

Maybe I used the wrong terms but I was implying the opposite of what you said meaning, I did not call you self-aware because you were not. That would be condescending.

The reason I see you as self-aware is a different reason from the emotional problems you have. You can use reason and logic which to me seems self-aware. I quit because of emotional problems that without logic and reason I simply could not handle schoolwork not ask for help. I have been to the psychiatric hospital 5 times since 2007. From 2007 to 2009 I was in the TLC temporary living center. I barely functioned throughout the day. I was like a zombie. Completly shut down. I was disappointed in myself for not being able to generate new ideas. To me, it seems you can work out your ideas and test them even if they fail. The only thing I can do is contemplate my ideas, I have no opportunity to test my ideas. And that is why I think you are more self-aware but now I realize a better term is metacognition. You solve problems and you know how your own thinking affects how you solve them. If metacognition is not the way you would describe it I am still impressed by the fact that you can understand what you do. Do not be disappointed with failer, I know you've said you work around setbacks.

Absolutely not. I can relate to you in fact. Suicidal thoughts aren't an uncommon thing for me. The attempt did happen once eventually out of uncertainty. It's fucking painful to live like this. Walking through the corridors and get treated like a pebble. I'm seen as condescending, dangerous, arrogant and eccentric by my peers. Very few people accept me. I suppose you have an upper hand in this milieu

Sent from my SM-J730GM using Tapatalk

 

[Haim]

I appreciate a lot for your appreciation regarding my mental prowess. However given that your g lies in the 98th percentile, I suppose you are one of the smart-asses too. The difference between you and me is I have learned to harness the power

Nope, "harness the power" is being a genius, you are still far from it, you need more than knowledge.
Animekitty you definitely have the horse power, your brain is highly encrypted and compressed, of course the humans you know would not understand.

 

[gps]

IQ calculated ...

Still keeping that Q quotient?
Got a problem with Instantaneous Intelligence as brought to bear on some Real World setting, scenario, or `problem'?

... on the basis ...

Basis or bases, plural?
You mention several bases ... or are these several allusions to the same suchness?

... of assimilating ...

Whereas your disclosure/revelation that you rather quickly FORGET what you've gleaned from previous manic study sessions might indicate a rather limited capacity to `accommodate'?

Some of us favor accommodation as an indicator of Intelligence applicable to ad hoc, Real World scenarios.

... and teleogical usage of knowledge keeping aside ...

Teleology or finality[1][2] is a reason or explanation for something in function of its end, purpose or goal.

As if at the ripe old age of 17 you -- or a 100-year old -- could or would have a clue as to what might constitute either `finality', end-purpose, or goal?
I'm going to end up dead, so that finality should entail that I work towards generating a higher quality head cheese for the worms to eat as my corpse is laid to rest among said worms?

Without pinning down a specific goal one can't assess how one's knowledge base, repertoire of know-how, or creative problem solving abilities might be brought to bear vis-a-vis said specific goal.
This notion of teleology seems a J trick to induce the experience of `closure' via a time-delaying place holder.
Until a specific goal is sought we can bandy around words about goal-seeking, goal-accomplishing prowess while putting ourselves at risk of defenestration.

... the celerity of grasping.

or the graspyness of celery ... to the same Real World effects.

 

[HDINTP]

My psych told me the same. "You easily have an IQ above 130" however I show no high IQ traits whatsoever despite being more knowledgeable. I don't get good grades, I'm not keen in show off my intellect, i don't participate in various exams and then flaunt my marks, I don't have a certified IQ score, I don't answer stuff in the class and neither I score well in my law prep. I am often the one with the headache while doing elementary grade math stuff while prepping for my LSAT entrance. The one who always fucks up at verbal logic questions because I get very confused by looking at multiple instructions and I score average in comprehension because I cannot compensate to converge my brainstorming to a single choice.



Sent from my SM-J730GM using Tapatalk

Funny. If I listened to my psychologist then who know where would be the end to me DESPITE showing high IQ traits. (My parents were told something along those lines: "He will not be at top of his class" "(meant to be nice way of saying "He is a copmlete Idiot ") Getting "good" grades on demand. As for showing off intellect I rather refused to play theater...

Are you Dyscalculic?

 

[ruminator]

Oftentimes we label someone as intelligent/genius/dumb by the books they read. However it's one of the easiest ways to measure someone's cognitive prowess. One simple way is comparing the books meant for a particular age group being read by a person and his age.

For e.g. A=the actual age of the person
BA = the stuff the person reads for a particular age group.

Therefore ~IQ=BA/A

Granted it's not the best way but a quick way to measure someone's IQ. However, one's IQ can be tested with their assimilation and teleological usage of the information too. This is however somewhat independent from IQ test's verbal reasoning questions because at least in my case, I perform better in real life settings rather than an IQ test. (I don't fully promote the validity of IQ either)

My question here is, how do we estimate the BA of the books ?
If the formula I mentioned above is indeed valid then it simply becomes a link between crystallized intelligence and fluid intelligence.

First take my example and gauge me and then state your estimated IQs too.

1. I can understand theory of any sort. Time required differs from topic to topic and the precocious knowledge possessed about it ie the basics. Naming a few topics : Advanced level psychology, analytic philosophy (kant), quantum mechanics theory, advanced calculus, the theory of pentesting, Android, editing files in games (past time hobby), encryption methods (the hardest one was to study the working of md5), R + python(newbie yet), forensics, analysing literature, TCP/IP book ( not intrinsically difficult per se but puts a strain on my working memory ), intermediate chess

These are some examples. The adult INTPs now gauge my ~IQ at this instance and also state whether I can go any further or no. And state your IQs in a similar way

I'm 17 BTW.

Sent from my SM-J730GM using Tapatalk

To clarify, do you mean the books people read or the books people are capable of reading? Some intelligent people read dumb books for fun.

Also, where do we get the BA value? Is this a formula that has been developed? Is there a chart of which books are for which age group?

 

[Grayman]

17 is a very low IQ

 

[BurnedOut]

Funny. If I listened to my psychologist then who know where would be the end to me DESPITE showing high IQ traits. (My parents were told something along those lines: "He will not be at top of his class" "(meant to be nice way of saying "He is a copmlete Idiot ") Getting "good" grades on demand. As for showing off intellect I rather refused to play theater...

Are you Dyscalculic?

No, i can do mental calculations fluently. As I kid I used to go for a class which taught mental arithmetic. However I dropped out because I started becoming lazy but since a very long time, I can perform 2 digit mental math. So no, that's out of question. However Im diagnosed of LFT (low frustration tolerance) and ADD which is not very chronic. I've extreme difficulty understanding instructions and I look at the instructions on the paper and get overwhelmed. I can't kickstart my brain to start brainstorming. I can either spontaneously brainstorm by logic or I take a lot of time to think mostly letting processes run subconsciously

Sent from my SM-J730GM using Tapatalk

 

[BurnedOut]

To clarify, do you mean the books people read or the books people are capable of reading? Some intelligent people read dumb books for fun.

Also, where do we get the BA value? Is this a formula that has been developed? Is there a chart of which books are for which age group?

The books people read. However about the capability thing? It's really confusing. I've mentioned this argument before. We don't exactly know whether a 10 year old can perform calculus or not. Moreover if precocious learning is possible by these so called 'high iq people', I suppose it's just another word for autodidacts. But then really, the actually measure of intelligence is the flow of information among the cortices of the brain and we don't know whether these fluxes can be strengthened or not. If they can be strengthened, then every other guy who gets enough stimulation will be able to emulate another high iq guy. I think it's not just about pure intellect. I theorise hormones play a crucial role in shaping your iq too.

Sent from my SM-J730GM using Tapatalk

 

[ruminator]

The books people read. However about the capability thing? It's really confusing. I've mentioned this argument before. We don't exactly know whether a 10 year old can perform calculus or not. Moreover if precocious learning is possible by these so called 'high iq people', I suppose it's just another word for autodidacts. But then really, the actually measure of intelligence is the flow of information among the cortices of the brain and we don't know whether these fluxes can be strengthened or not. If they can be strengthened, then every other guy who gets enough stimulation will be able to emulate another high iq guy. I think it's not just about pure intellect. I theorise hormones play a crucial role in shaping your iq too.

Sent from my SM-J730GM using Tapatalk

But if it is just the books people read, how would that account for intelligent people who read dumb books by choice?

 

[BurnedOut]

But if it is just the books people read, how would that account for intelligent people who read dumb books by choice?

Any example per se?

Sent from my SM-J730GM using Tapatalk

 

[gps]

But if it is just the books people read, how would that account for intelligent people who read dumb books by choice?

And then there are the cases where intelligent people `read' no books at all as they `read' blue prints, flow charts, source code, web pages, etc.

Ink-on-paper `Books' are the new stone tablets and papyrus scrolls.

 

[BurnedOut]

And then there are the cases where intelligent people `read' no books at all as they `read' blue prints, flow charts, source code, web pages, etc.

Ink-on-paper `Books' are the new stone tablets and papyrus scrolls.

Hehe, the etymology of books... philosophically any book is a 'compilation of ink-botched pages'. So blueprints, manuscripts are all k*n where n is the hypothetically infinite number of pages but brought into finite elements as perceived by us and k is the constant which is a slicing function(the [int)] function in python]

Sent from my SM-J730GM using Tapatalk

 

[ruminator]

Any example per se?

Sent from my SM-J730GM using Tapatalk

Not a specific example, I just don't see why the reading level of books you read necessarily corresponds to your intelligence level. For example, someone like you, can simply choose to read YA fiction just because. But that doesn't take away from your intelligence because, as demonstrated, you are capable of reading the stuff you read now.

 

[gps]

Not a specific example, I just don't see why the reading level of books you read necessarily corresponds to your intelligence level.

Well said.
And `intelligence' can manifest in ways other than fairly-passive READING.

Some apply intelligence by ACTIVELY plotting their own paths rather than slavishly following the narrative or organization structure of another as with books.
Engineering new inventions, artistically creating new anthropogenic artifacts, beating someone's ass in a person-on-person sport which requires `thinking on one's feet', etc.

Reading may help one acquire knowledge applicable to DOING but as far as DOING GOES it rates pretty low in the world of DEEDS others count as noteworthy.
Making it through War and Peace rates right up there with finishing a comic book in the eyes of many, if not most, of the world ... certainly the bulk of SP/Artisans, for example.

Crafting some `code' which DOES something useful can take more intelligence and creativity than passively reading a book.

 

[Black Rose]

Reading comprehension is tested allot in school. They make the questions increase in complexity to see if you understand it. I once did a test in December 2016 and it said I read at a 2nd-grade level. I took the test to get a free class at the community college. I do not think I read at that level. I understand it fine. But when I need to answer questions about what I read I am too stupid at explaining to get the answers right.

Books go by grade levels in school and post K12 schooling. So that may be a way of comparing intelligence from what a person can understand.

This is a passage about me when I was 13.

On the Terra Nova testing Jeremy participated in 6th grade he scored in the average range for the Reading, Math and Language Composites. For the science and social studies scores, he scored above the 92nd percentile.

science and social are my strengths. I suck at explaining what I read.

 

[ruminator]

Reading comprehension is tested allot in school. They make the questions increase in complexity to see if you understand it. I once did a test in December 2016 and it said I read at a 2nd-grade level. I took the test to get a free class at the community college. I do not think I read at that level. I understand it fine. But when I need to answer questions about what I read I am too stupid at explaining to get the answers right.

Books go by grade levels in school and post K12 schooling. So that may be a way of comparing intelligence from what a person can understand.

This is a passage about me when I was 13.



science and social are my strengths. I suck at explaining what I read.

Inability to explain may not mean you are stupid. Complex thoughts are harder to put into mere words. Maybe you have a complex understanding and interpretation of things that it is harder to articulate than a lay person who perceives things on a more superficial level.

 

[Black Rose]

Inability to explain may not mean you are stupid. Complex thoughts are harder to put into mere words. Maybe you have a complex understanding and interpretation of things that it is harder to articulate than a lay person who perceives things on a more superficial level.

I once took an advanced history class in Highschool. The only way to get the questions right on the tests was to memorize 20 pages of historical events. I understood the history just fine. I just could not memorize 20 pages. Only 7 people were in the class.

 

[BurnedOut]

Not a specific example, I just don't see why the reading level of books you read necessarily corresponds to your intelligence level. For example, someone like you, can simply choose to read YA fiction just because. But that doesn't take away from your intelligence because, as demonstrated, you are capable of reading the stuff you read now.

It is because, I surmise, we subconsciously judge our own intellect and define a limit to the intellectual quests we take. Since reading (not in a competitive setting) is somewhat a leisure activity, your intellect may actually dictate the level of complexity you can take in while you are not intensively engaged or using your brain analytically. In other words, your intellectual thirst in a state of inertia can actually show your intellect to a good extent.


Eg, suppose a there's a smart guy and a dumbass. We will consider that both of these people are in camera. They are given a variety of books varying in complexity, sure, they will explore but their intellect while dictate the level of complexity they will choose to comprehend when their brain is not actively engaged or socially motivated. And that is, the dumb guy might probably end up reading comics and the smart guy may read comics along with a quantum physics book.


My point is, when we generally talk about smart people excluding the grades they get, the criteria for gauging intellect is mostly precocious taking of an above-age activity and insatiable curiousity or obsession with a particular thing which is penetrative in nature and the most common criterion is books. Hobbies are a different thing but the level of penetration employed + time spent + level of theorising + level of obsession may directly correlate with the intellectual abilities.

Sent from my SM-J730GM using Tapatalk

 

[BurnedOut]

Well said.
And `intelligence' can manifest in ways other than fairly-passive READING.

Some apply intelligence by ACTIVELY plotting their own paths rather than slavishly following the narrative or organization structure of another as with books.
Engineering new inventions, artistically creating new anthropogenic artifacts, beating someone's ass in a person-on-person sport which requires `thinking on one's feet', etc.

Reading may help one acquire knowledge applicable to DOING but as far as DOING GOES it rates pretty low in the world of DEEDS others count as noteworthy.
Making it through War and Peace rates right up there with finishing a comic book in the eyes of many, if not most, of the world ... certainly the bulk of SP/Artisans, for example.

Crafting some `code' which DOES something useful can take more intelligence and creativity than passively reading a book.

Like I mentioned before, we are considering books both in a colloquial and a philosophical sense.

Sent from my SM-J730GM using Tapatalk

 

[Teax]

Inability to explain may not mean you are stupid. Complex thoughts are harder to put into mere words. Maybe you have a complex understanding and interpretation of things that it is harder to articulate than a lay person who perceives things on a more superficial level.

There's a difference between inability to explain and inability to put it into mere words. The former depends on the stupidity of the listener. The latter only on your own.

 

[Cognisant]

Intelligence is too broad a term, learning speed is but one facet of intelligence and while one person may learn abstract things like mathematics faster than others another might learn hand/eye coordination tasks faster.

I think the difference between people's intelligence is minimal, completely eclipsed by their life experience, education and attitudes, e.g. someone who thinks they're dumb may give up a lot faster or be more persistent that someone who thinks they're smart which will make a huge difference to how successful each person is.

 

[BurnedOut]

Intelligence is too broad a term, learning speed is but one facet of intelligence and while one person may learn abstract things like mathematics faster than others another might learn hand/eye coordination tasks faster.

I think the difference between people's intelligence is minimal, completely eclipsed by their life experience, education and attitudes, e.g. someone who thinks they're dumb may give up a lot faster or be more persistent that someone who thinks they're smart which will make a huge difference to how successful each person is.

Learning speed also depends on the level of abstraction employed to it. For example, some people especially me, have the habit to read the same thing from multiple sources to get a good grasp of it in a more permanent way. You can either be cursory with your learning or go deep penetratively. Either ways both the methods can be employed by apparent smartass. Apparently low iq people don't have the motivation to continue to rack their heads with the complexity presented by the issues.

Sent from my SM-J730GM using Tapatalk

 

[Rixus]

(Age 33, last IQ test low 130's)

The reading age of the material may work when you're a teenager, to a certain extent - I've known a few people to initiate a pissing contest based on what age they first read Lord of the Rings. When I was asked and responded, "once when I was 19 and once when I was 25." The person who'd asked cockily proclaimed, "I read it when I was 15 - so I have a higher reading age than you." Just sounded like a complete ass, really.

I remember the second time I read it (at about 25), I followed it up by reading The Saga of Seven Suns (all 7 books one after the other), then The Inheritance Cycle and as I was in a fantasy mood by that point decided to finally give in and the whole Harry Potter series to see what the fuss was about. (All of which took me about a year) What age were all those meant for? Drats - one of them was meant for 11 year olds, so I must be severely retarded.

And yes, I too can read either Shakespeare or a book on quantum mechanics depending on what mood I'm in. I actually enjoy reading Shakespeare sometimes.

I might also add that Twilight is meant for the same age group as The Inheritance Cycle. And while Paolini was no Tolkien and the series has many flaws, I feel a little more respect for someone who read that than the Twilight Saga (unless they read it only for shits and giggles).

As Washti points out, what of literature meant for the elderly? Does it make you a genius to read about knitting patterns? I saw a magazine around here somewhere about local activities for over 50's - might boost my IQ to read that.

 

[Ex-User (14663)]

I know some people who read very advanced books but are extremely ignorant and unskilled in the subjects in question. Their mental representations of the subjects amount to mere descriptions – a bunch of talk without substance, forms without function. These people are like natural-language processing algorithms which manage to generate pseudo-meaningful sentences about the subjects yet it is quite clear they are not able to perform any real manipulation of the concepts, nor generate any real judgment of them, nor produce any real results using the concepts.

 

[Rixus]

Serac - that sounds like the difference between an ISTJ and an INTP to me.

With Si being their primary function, the ISTJ usually has a very good memory for wrote learning, where we INTP's prefer to understand the concepts behind the subject. For example, one of the functions of our computer system in work involves manipulating 11 variables to form a technical image. It's easy enough once you know how it works. I don't memorise any patterns - i just work them out on the fly and can turn any relevant image in my head into a variable series quite quickly. However, my ISTJ boss understands how this works, but struggles to work them out himself. Instead, he had me type up a list of all of the main 50 combinations we would need day to day, and found it easy enough to memorise all of them.

Am I the smarter for understanding this, or is he because he has a better memory than I? Though I am asked if anything too complex for the ST's to work out comes up, he is always asked to remember totally obscure details of the past. At which point he reiterates something and then proceeds to tell me that I was the one who handled it and completely forgot.

 

[BurnedOut]

I know some people who read very advanced books but are extremely ignorant and unskilled in the subjects in question. Their mental representations of the subjects amount to mere descriptions – a bunch of talk without substance, forms without function. These people are like natural-language processing algorithms which manage to generate pseudo-meaningful sentences about the subjects yet it is quite clear they are not able to perform any real manipulation of the concepts, nor generate any real judgment of them, nor produce any real results using the concepts.

It is impossible to read advanced material without understanding it. If these cases indeed exist, these guys are great at roting.

Sent from my SM-J730GM using Tapatalk

 

[Ex-User (14663)]

Serac - that sounds like the difference between an ISTJ and an INTP to me.

With Si being their primary function, the ISTJ usually has a very good memory for wrote learning, where we INTP's prefer to understand the concepts behind the subject. For example, one of the functions of our computer system in work involves manipulating 11 variables to form a technical image. It's easy enough once you know how it works. I don't memorise any patterns - i just work them out on the fly and can turn any relevant image in my head into a variable series quite quickly. However, my ISTJ boss understands how this works, but struggles to work them out himself. Instead, he had me type up a list of all of the main 50 combinations we would need day to day, and found it easy enough to memorise all of them.

Am I the smarter for understanding this, or is he because he has a better memory than I? Though I am asked if anything too complex for the ST's to work out comes up, he is always asked to remember totally obscure details of the past. At which point he reiterates something and then proceeds to tell me that I was the one who handled it and completely forgot.

Not sure if I would be able to relate it to types. To me it is the difference between using language as a means to put down concepts in writing or into oral communication, and on the other hand merely emulating the language of a subject while not having real insight into a subject. Once again, the latter is a form without function. Incidentally, I happen to think that some INTPs are quite prone to the latter case.

The situation you describe sounds like one where you do understand the concept. Your boss might not, but it sound like he is not fooling himself about understanding it either – which is good.

 

[Ex-User (14663)]

It is impossible to read advanced material without understanding it.

What?

 

[BurnedOut]

What?

And by reading I mean comprehending it

Sent from my SM-J730GM using Tapatalk

 

[Ex-User (14663)]

And by reading I mean comprehending it

Sent from my SM-J730GM using Tapatalk

And how is that impossible?

 

[BurnedOut]

And how is that impossible?

I'm trying to get a grip on the grep command on bash.
Earlier when I used to read the manuals, it used to seem gibberish to me. It's true that some things can't be found as it is, it's only after I started using it, I got to understand the whole process.

My point is, reading highly technical/advanced material is hard without having the basic knowledge about something. What you are talking about is a case in which a person has little knowledge and is able to understand some of the stuff but not all of it but tries to do the whole, is unable to and then ends up memorising it instead

Sent from my SM-J730GM using Tapatalk

 

[Skinart]

Oftentimes we label someone as intelligent/genius/dumb by the books they read. However it's one of the easiest ways to measure someone's cognitive prowess. One simple way is comparing the books meant for a particular age group being read by a person and his age.

For e.g. A=the actual age of the person
BA = the stuff the person reads for a particular age group.

Therefore ~IQ=BA/A

Granted it's not the best way but a quick way to measure someone's IQ. However, one's IQ can be tested with their assimilation and teleological usage of the information too. This is however somewhat independent from IQ test's verbal reasoning questions because at least in my case, I perform better in real life settings rather than an IQ test. (I don't fully promote the validity of IQ either)

My question here is, how do we estimate the BA of the books ?
If the formula I mentioned above is indeed valid then it simply becomes a link between crystallized intelligence and fluid intelligence.

This is pretty much the same trick used to estimate the IQ of juveniles and adolescents ((Mental Age/Age) * 100)--the difference being the part you forgot: to multiply by 100. However, your conception has similar flaws, one of which is age in the denominator, which I will get to shortly.

The biggest flaw is you are trying to find a way to define something fuzzy by using an equally fuzzy measure. As an example, the expected age at which someone might be reading graduate level texts starts about 23. Where doctoral texts start is more discipline dependent but an average full-time master's student would finish in 2 years. So doctoral level books start at 25. While the expected age for a person to be ready to read doctoral level material in some discipline might be 25, most people will never get there.

So what other measure to use? The level of books most people of an age group read? That sets a dismally low bar, but it makes at least as much sense.

Or should we use the existing concept of a reading grade level? There are several methods of evaluating the grade level of a text. The Flesch-Kinkaid method has the handy feature of having no upper bound--but think about what that means--it brings us to the second problem of having age in the denominator.

Let's say someone was reading college level texts--third year books--at the age of 10. By your formula (with my addendum of multiplying by 100) they'd have an IQ of 200. Seems legit--depending on the discipline.

If they never pick up a more challenging book they will be ahead the majority of their peers, but will end up with an IQ of 100 when they turn 20--same as the subset of their peers that followed the basic college track.

When they turn 21, they'll drop below 100--which is fair. 21 for many is a pretty sketchy afternoon, but still, 200 IQ at 10, mastered material most never even see, and by 50 they've got an IQ of 40?

Further, the academic method has a definite stopping point. We just run out of tiers to work with; any brilliant mind that lives to middle age is going to have a sub-100 IQ.

If we try looking at what difficulty of material a particular age group reads, again, we run into a fairly low cap. People in their fifties usually aren't reading more challenging material than in their 30's. I expect most people reach their peak reading level in their 20's--so what to do when 20-60 reads at the same level? What specific numeric value do you give that?

It doesn't matter because it's still going to be a fixed point which the denominator keeps marching toward and (hopefully) surpassing, which has the same result on the output estimation--and if your scale gives geniuses the same result as the severely mentally challenged, it's not a good system.

This leaves us with something like Flesch-Kincade. Having no upper bound, it means that a person could demonstrate ability to read increasingly complicated, lengthy sentences filled with polysyllabic verbiage of unusually high syllable count, but at that point you've made it something that not only encourages a person to read for the sake of difficulty to chase the Hi-IQ dragon, but you've made it a reward to read badly written sentences, which in turn encourages bad writing.

I'm not for it.


These limitations are the reason why they stop using mental age in the formula for adult IQ tests.

 

[gps]

Well said, Hephy!

 

[Skinart]

Well said, Hephy!

Hey Gman! Hope all is well. I need to fix that typo you've politely overlooked. Fricken nargles followed me.

 

[BurnedOut]

This is pretty much the same trick used to estimate the IQ of juveniles and adolescents ((Mental Age/Age) * 100)--the difference being the part you forgot: to multiply by 100. However, your conception has similar flaws, one of which is age in the denominator, which I will get to shortly.

The biggest flaw is you are trying to find a way to define something fuzzy by using an equally fuzzy measure. As an example, the expected age at which someone might be reading graduate level texts starts about 23. Where doctoral texts start is more discipline dependent but an average full-time master's student would finish in 2 years. So doctoral level books start at 25. While the expected age for a person to be ready to read doctoral level material in some discipline might be 25, most people will never get there.

So what other measure to use? The level of books most people of an age group read? That sets a dismally low bar, but it makes at least as much sense.

Or should we use the existing concept of a reading grade level? There are several methods of evaluating the grade level of a text. The Flesch-Kinkaid method has the handy feature of having no upper bound--but think about what that means--it brings us to the second problem of having age in the denominator.

Let's say someone was reading college level texts--third year books--at the age of 10. By your formula (with my addendum of multiplying by 100) they'd have an IQ of 200. Seems legit--depending on the discipline.

If they never pick up a more challenging book they will be ahead the majority of their peers, but will end up with an IQ of 100 when they turn 20--same as the subset of their peers that followed the basic college track.

When they turn 21, they'll drop below 100--which is fair. 21 for many is a pretty sketchy afternoon, but still, 200 IQ at 10, mastered material most never even see, and by 50 they've got an IQ of 40?

Further, the academic method has a definite stopping point. We just run out of tiers to work with, any brilliant mind that lives to middle age is going to have a sub-100 IQ.

If we try looking at what difficulty of material a particular age group reads, again, we run into a fairly low cap. People in their fifties usually aren't reading more challenging material than in their 30's. I expect most people reach their peak reading level in their 20's--so what to do when 20-60 reads at the same level? What specific numeric value do you give that?

It doesn't matter because it's still going to be a fixed point which the denominator keeps marching toward and (hopefully) surpassing, which has the same result on the output estimation--and if your scale gives geniuses the same result as the severely mentally challenged, it's not a good system.

This leaves us with something like Flesch-Kincade. Having no upper bound, it means that a person could demonstrate ability to read increasingly complicated, lengthy sentences filled with polysyllabic verbiage of unusually high syllable count, but at that point you've made it something that not only encourages a person to read for the sake of difficulty to chase the Hi-IQ dragon, but you've made it a reward to read badly written sentences, which in turn encourages bad writing.

I'm not for it.


These limitations are the reason why they stop using mental age in the formula for adult IQ tests.

I don't know whether I've mentioned this somewhere or no, I theorise everyone has a particular boredom threshold and intellectual stimulation threshold.
The first thing required to read up enormous amounts of complicated things, it usually required just more than the 'sake of reading'. The thermostatic balance between the stimulation derived from researching on things might directly correlate to intellect ( opiods are indeed responsible for making us feel high after learning something new. I've posted the link somewhere)

What you are suggesting is the at-the-moment-eval of the person. Granted if a person simply is not accustomed to reading, it is useless to even use the formula I have mentioned. However by the faculty of gestalt, if we try to aggregate the amount of technicalities the person can readily comprehend without using any simple-(cognition (aka pen/paper))machines, it might give us a rundown on his intellect. I've misnomered the term book for 'simply reading' so I apologise for that. Getting back to the point, a person's capacity or achieved depthness is particularly an indicator of actualising the knowledge that is to say knowledge qua empiric-use.

The main assumption behind this theory is the latent capacity of the person to readily comprehend a predetermined level of complexity which is dictated by the ability of the person to mangle and permutate the basic faculty of reasoning, abstractions and imagination and employ it. Your arg revolves around the concept that grandiloquence=complexity, however my assumption is based on the 'relative degree of logical mangling and pure reasoning contained in the book which is independent of overly complicated verbose' for eg, a bash scripting book will be much harder than shakespeare's tragedies for a person who's reading it for the first time. Why ? Because the concepts in bash are grossly interconnected and great in number which results into almost infinite numbers of permutations which can be derived from it. These permutations can vary in their complexity. However a shakespeare's tragedy can be read by researching on the vocabulary used and the grammar, apply basic aspects of moralistic human reasoning and a little bit of logical reasoning for reading between the lines. This makes the scope of the aggregate number of permutations quite limited. This is why maths, physics, pure fields become much more complex than fields which are already consisted of applied concepts ie to say, analysing a molecule is easier than analysing the atom.

To sum it up, if a person is attracted to books which stimulate him to think more, employ more theories and subject his qualia to practicality of the knowledge he's gained from the source, we can with no further doubt conclude that he is very likely to possess a good iq. If you talk about literature, if a person starts stepping up the complexity of the literature read, it starts becoming more and more synonymous to pure subjects however it has more of a 'superior working-memory bent' than a reasoning bent.

Sent from my SM-J730GM using Tapatalk

 

[Skinart]

I don't know whether I've mentioned this somewhere or no, I theorise everyone has a particular boredom threshold and intellectual stimulation threshold.
The first thing required to read up enormous amounts of complicated things, it usually required just more than the 'sake of reading'. The thermostatic balance between the stimulation derived from researching on things might directly correlate to intellect ( opiods are indeed responsible for making us feel high after learning something new. I've posted the link somewhere)

What you are suggesting is the at-the-moment-eval of the person. Granted if a person simply is not accustomed to reading, it is useless to even use the formula I have mentioned. However by the faculty of gestalt, if we try to aggregate the amount of technicalities the person can readily comprehend without using any simple-(cognition (aka pen/paper))machines, it might give us a rundown on his intellect. I've misnomered the term book for 'simply reading' so I apologise for that. Getting back to the point, a person's capacity or achieved depthness is particularly an indicator of actualising the knowledge that is to say knowledge qua empiric-use.

The main assumption behind this theory is the latent capacity of the person to readily comprehend a predetermined level of complexity which is dictated by the ability of the person to mangle and permutate the basic faculty of reasoning, abstractions and imagination and employ it. Your arg revolves around the concept that grandiloquence=complexity, however my assumption is based on the 'relative degree of logical mangling and pure reasoning contained in the book which is independent of overly complicated verbose' for eg, a bash scripting book will be much harder than shakespeare's tragedies for a person who's reading it for the first time. Why ? Because the concepts in bash are grossly interconnected and great in number which results into almost infinite numbers of permutations which can be derived from it. These permutations can vary in their complexity. However a shakespeare's tragedy can be read by researching on the vocabulary used and the grammar, apply basic aspects of moralistic human reasoning and a little bit of logical reasoning for reading between the lines. This makes the scope of the aggregate number of permutations quite limited. This is why maths, physics, pure fields become much more complex than fields which are already consisted of applied concepts ie to say, analysing a molecule is easier than analysing the atom.

To sum it up, if a person is attracted to books which stimulate him to think more, employ more theories and subject his qualia to practicality of the knowledge he's gained from the source, we can with no further doubt conclude that he is very likely to possess a good iq. If you talk about literature, if a person starts stepping up the complexity of the literature read, it starts becoming more and more synonymous to pure subjects however it has more of a 'superior working-memory bent' than a reasoning bent.

Sent from my SM-J730GM using Tapatalk

Fuzzy measure using a fuzzy measure using a fuzzy measure that is better by power of defining it so. Sorry man, it's all hubris to me with some elitism thrown in. Your vocabulary neither intimidates nor convinces me.

My argument isn't revolving around grandiloquence. That's just one of the possible methods of measure. My argument revolves around the mathematical limitations you've created by putting real age in the denominator.

You're also wrong about Shakespeare, and the reasons a book about bash scripting would or might be difficult. No one comes away from a book about a language understanding all the permutations that are implied unless the language being discussed is so trivial it barely qualifies as a toy. To do a fair comparison between the two, a person would need to also have a strong and native understanding of the culture of Shakespeare, as well as that of every culture that ever was or has been to properly understand all the different ways it might be understood or interpreted. You have never truly experienced Shakespeare until you've read it in the original Klingon with the relevant native cultural background--which is to say nothing of the nuance which is best (if not only) exposed through performance. Plays are often different when performed, much as songs with weak poetry can still sound strong.

Basing a judgment of a person's intellect on their predisposition to complicated writing is to fall into tropey pretentiousness about what intellect is or isn't. Might as well judge a person's IQ by their passion for Chess, or Go. Doyle snarked on it over a 100 years ago in having Sherlock pass time reading explicitly boring monographs.

One of the issues here is that complexity of topic is frequently predicated on previous learning, which is inherent to your bash example--it would be difficult for someone with no exposure to programming languages, but to someone who already has such experience, it's not a big deal. To do a fair comparison, you need to have someone barely literate attempt to read Shakespeare, because as you have noted in your example, it's much more tractable once some pre-requisite learning has been done.

So, which is the greater challenge? A literate person with knowledge of Algebra and experience with computer systems tackling bash or someone from a foreign land who just mastered Dick and Jane books taking on Macbeth?

 

[BurnedOut]

Fuzzy measure using a fuzzy measure using a fuzzy measure that is better by power of defining it so. Sorry man, it's all hubris to me with some elitism thrown in. Your vocabulary neither intimidates nor convinces me.

My argument isn't revolving around grandiloquence. That's just one of the possible methods of measure. My argument revolves around the mathematical limitations you've created by putting real age in the denominator.

You're also wrong about Shakespeare, and the reasons a book about bash scripting would or might be difficult. No one comes away from a book about a language understanding all the permutations that are implied unless the language being discussed is so trivial it barely qualifies as a toy. To do a fair comparison between the two, a person would need to also have a strong and native understanding of the culture of Shakespeare, as well as that of every culture that ever was or has been to properly understand all the different ways it might be understood or interpreted. You have never truly experienced Shakespeare until you've read it in the original Klingon with the relevant native cultural background--which is to say nothing of the nuance which is best (if not only) exposed through performance. Plays are often different when performed, much as songs with weak poetry can still sound strong.

Basing a judgment of a person's intellect on their predisposition to complicated writing is to fall into tropey pretentiousness about what intellect is or isn't. Might as well judge a person's IQ by their passion for Chess, or Go. Doyle snarked on it over a 100 years ago in having Sherlock pass time reading explicitly boring monographs.

One of the issues here is that complexity of topic is frequently predicated on previous learning, which is inherent to your bash example--it would be difficult for someone with no exposure to programming languages, but to someone who already has such experience, it's not a big deal. To do a fair comparison, you need to have someone barely literate attempt to read Shakespeare, because as you have noted in your example, it's much more tractable once some pre-requisite learning has been done.

So, which is the greater challenge? A literate person with knowledge of Algebra and experience with computer systems tackling bash or someone from a foreign land who just mastered Dick and Jane books taking on Macbeth?

There is no question of me spewing any sort of avant-garde vocab.


My point is simple : books that require pure reasoning are harder to read than books which can be read without intensely thinking


No, my school had shakespeare in its curriculum. We studied Macbeth in the 8th grade, MOV in the 9/10th grade and I read Macbeth (this time the entire book) when I was 15. It was not hard.
I do have a little history with programming. I know some intermediate java, qbasic and a little bit of html, R basics and right now I'm doing python seriously. It was still difficult to transit from R to python and then juggling between python and bash because they simply have different syntaxes for the same thing. This makes it confusing to keep various things in mind, especially the functions which do the same task.


For eg.
In bash

For X in {1,2,3,4,n} where { contains_sequence }

However in python :
X=range(1,n,1)
Which does the exact same thing.



Sent from my SM-J730GM using Tapatalk

 

[BurnedOut]

There is no question of me spewing any sort of avant-garde vocab.


My point is simple : books that require pure reasoning are harder to read than books which can be read without intensely thinking


No, my school had shakespeare in its curriculum. We studied Macbeth in the 8th grade, MOV in the 9/10th grade and I read Macbeth (this time the entire book) when I was 15. It was not hard.
I do have a little history with programming. I know some intermediate java, qbasic and a little bit of html, R basics and right now I'm doing python seriously. It was still difficult to transit from R to python and then juggling between python and bash because they simply have different syntaxes for the same thing. This makes it confusing to keep various things in mind, especially the functions which do the same task.


For eg.
In bash

For X in {1,2,3,4,n} where { contains_sequence }

However in python :
X=range(1,n,1)
Which does the exact same thing.



Sent from my SM-J730GM using Tapatalk

Excluding the for loop from the bash example

Sent from my SM-J730GM using Tapatalk

 

[Skinart]

There is no question of me spewing any sort of avant-garde vocab.


My point is simple : books that require pure reasoning are harder to read than books which can be read without intensely thinking

You can read any book without intensely thinking. You can read any book intensely thinking about it. But you can't attach age to the ability to comprehend.

No, my school had shakespeare in its curriculum. We studied Macbeth in the 8th grade, MOV in the 9/10th grade and I read Macbeth (this time the entire book) when I was 15. It was not hard.

See above. When you're 30, if you re-read it, you'll likely realize you missed a bunch. Life experiences matter. But I understand you want to defend against being dismissed for your youth. It will be funny when you get old. I promise!

I do have a little history with programming. I know some intermediate java, qbasic and a little bit of html, R basics and right now I'm doing python seriously. It was still difficult to transit from R to python and then juggling between python and bash because they simply have different syntaxes for the same thing. This makes it confusing to keep various things in mind, especially the functions which do the same task.


For eg.
In bash

For X in {1,2,3,4,n} where { contains_sequence }

However in python :
X=range(1,n,1)
Which does the exact same thing.

The first programming language is the most difficult. After that, it's all syntax. By the third it should be pretty easy to pick up the basics and just sit down with a compact reference manual and code--with a few exceptions. LISP is sort of it's own thing with it's homoiconicity (get into it now while you're young enough for it to take root better--you might like it, it's all foreach loops for everything) and then there are languages like Brainfuck which is about as minimalist as you can get. Take a look: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brainfuck

That's one of the things I like about programming languages though--way easier to pick up new ones than natural languages, especially for me. My only known learning disability is learning languages. Biggest genetic ripoff ever.

 

[gps]

My argument revolves around the mathematical limitations you've created by putting real age in the denominator.

I've brought up the same issue with discussions also involving AK -- Animekitty -- in which I've ridiculed all but instantaneous intelligence, artistry, and creativity applied towards real world circumstances.

Serac has also eschewed and disparaged IQ.

Rather than debate the subject as if in good faith I suspect that you'd get better results by simply accepting the extraneous factor of chronological age as an idee fixe in/for both BO and AK.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idée_fixe_(psychology)

Over the years I've noticed that those most capable of applying and manifesting intelligence are the least obsessive over superficial indicators of intelligence in the abstract -- of which IQ is presented as if a non-bogus measure -- and MORE capable of wisdom which guides them in applying their intelligence towards goals above and beyond re-re-re-assuring -- in fucking never ending perpetuity -- themselves and others they have IT when they (mis)use *Appeal to Authority*, *Argument from Authority* and *Genetic Fallacy* with themselves posturing as higher-than-you-in-IQ authorities from which a_priori-SUPERIOR knowledge/know-how/wisdom flows like a veritable fountainhead.

If I'm so fucking smart why would I attempt to reason with those with an idee fixe -- involving a chronological age factor -- who are thusly recalcitrant to rhetoric which requires reason their idee fixe demotes and perhaps outright precludes?
I'm not, BTW; I'm providing my old friend Hephy with a heads-up for use in this not-as-yet-too-familar socio-impolitical context.

 

[BurnedOut]

I've brought up the same issue with discussions also involving AK -- Animekitty -- in which I've ridiculed all but instantaneous intelligence, artistry, and creativity applied towards real world circumstances.

Serac has also eschewed and disparaged IQ.

Rather than debate the subject as if in good faith I suspect that you'd get better results by simply accepting the extraneous factor of chronological age as an idee fixe in/for both BO and AK.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idée_fixe_(psychology)

Over the years I've noticed that those most capable of applying and manifesting intelligence are the least obsessive over superficial indicators of intelligence in the abstract -- of which IQ is presented as if a non-bogus measure -- and MORE capable of wisdom which guides them in applying their intelligence towards goals above and beyond re-re-re-assuring -- in fucking never ending perpetuity -- themselves and others they have IT when they (mis)use *Appeal to Authority*, *Argument from Authority* and *Genetic Fallacy* with themselves posturing as higher-than-you-in-IQ authorities from which a_priori-SUPERIOR knowledge/know-how/wisdom flows like a veritable fountainhead.

If I'm so fucking smart why would I attempt to reason with those with an idee fixe -- involving a chronological age factor -- who are thusly recalcitrant to rhetoric which requires reason their idee fixe demotes and perhaps outright precludes?
I'm not, BTW; I'm providing my old friend Hephy with a heads-up for use in this not-as-yet-too-familar socio-impolitical context.

That's one of the things I like about programming languages though--way easier to pick up new ones than natural languages, especially for me. My only known learning disability is learning languages. Biggest genetic ripoff ever.

Touche. It didn't make it difficult for me to understand the language itself but the changing syntactical quirks is what caused the mindfuck.

I'm doing mandarin. Trust me it's a mindfuck. I'll soon be tetralingual (including french because I know a little bit of it)

If I'm so fucking smart why would I attempt to reason with those with an idee fixe -- involving a chronological age factor -- who are thusly recalcitrant to rhetoric which requires reason their idee fixe demotes and perhaps outright precludes?

Only valid till a point. Most of the smart-asses I've met are pretty much condescending and proud about their intellectuality

Sent from my SM-J730GM using Tapatalk