Intelligence

[fluffy]

Hi,

I have been interested in knowing what it is.

I took the SAT when 17 but forgot I took it. I did not realize until I saw that you need to take it to get the scholarship and I did go to college one semester but got depressed. I scored 1470 and the Internet tells me that is an IQ of about 140

To me intelligence is understanding how things go together, many parts in motion and what they can do.

Is anyone interested in this as well?

 

[EndogenousRebel]

Intelligence in humans is tied to the concept of the g factor.

G, I take, means general. Because it seems that there are factors (genetic/neurological) that hypothetical grant or diminish performance on tasks.

People that did will in one task, would tend to do well in another and vice versa.

This is common knowledge right?

From what I've seen most of these tests give a lot of credence to the time it takes to complete a task.

Modestly, it's generally accepted that if someone can do something faster than you, than they are at least more skilled than you are at that task.

Of course accuracy is also important.

Being faster might just mean you make more errors at some point. Speed is a relative metric anyways. Idk, why not?

Most of the ideas that underpin the study of intelligence are from the early 1900s and for whatever reason people think we should adhere without question in 2024.

.

I do like your approach. It implies some form of ability to anticipate an event or result.

I'm sure there's problems with it unless you include some other variables.

 

[fluffy]

Abstraction might be included.

Math example: f(x) = y

A function contains the process in a symbol called an operator. So like programs they compute.

Verbal and Spatial are the main iq sections.

The tests are more about puzzles so lots of information pattern matching but humans then need to come up with the ideas.

 

[fractalwalrus]

To me intelligence is understanding how things go together, many parts in motion and what they can do.

Hmmmmm..... : https://wikisocion.github.io/content/statics_dynamics.html

From what I've seen most of these tests give a lot of credence to the time it takes to complete a task.

Processing speed.

Being faster might just mean you make more errors at some point. Speed is a relative metric anyways. Idk, why not?

Heuristics. One of the ways that they screened people for "careful thought" at Harvard was a test that involved using a problem that looked easy at first glance when one attempted to use prior knowledge to quickly solve it, but it turned out that this approach was incorrect. The "quick" answer was not the correct answer.

 

[ZenRaiden]

I am not actually sure what purpose the IQ score really has.
I was interested in my IQ, for sometime, and I think the key question is does it really benefit you to know what IQ you have?
There are some good I Think reasons to know IQ, like knowing why you think and feel different from others, why you see things different.
But generally the real question is what can you do to make most of your intellect.
And to that effect Id say your personality, mental health, and good relationships that are fulfilling and good job makes whole lot more difference than having high IQ.

SO yes IQ is interesting number, but without context it really may not be as helpful plot point on a graph in life.

Its the same with autism. Does knowing you have it help. Sometimes yes, but once you know how does it actually help?

Its that sort of problem.

 

[fluffy]

IQ is a math thing in that it is relative. 200 is the limit because statistically one person has it. If more people existed on the curve then the middle would go up so average IQ would be above 100 - the standard deviation would shrink bellow 15 - in other words IQ is not showing what intelligence is, but the probability of finding a person in a sample away from the mean. (a height quotient of 200 would be 7'6" one in ten billion)

Yes I believe some knowledge is important but IQ will not tell me what intelligence is, what is a 1 in 200 person able to do? That is a statistic not abilities. So what if people should be compared more like sports, golf vs kung fu - intelligence is not apples to apples but more like fruits salad.

 

[EndogenousRebel]

From what I've seen most of these tests give a lot of credence to the time it takes to complete a task.

Processing speed.

'Processing' for me in this instance implies teleology in nature.

A computer processes something because we direct it to. It has a beginning state and an end state, when something is then processed.

I think that there are so many philosophical disservices when it comes to the science of intelligence.

Which is unfortunate because science is often informed by philosophical principles.

Being faster might just mean you make more errors at some point. Speed is a relative metric anyways. Idk, why not?

Heuristics. One of the ways that they screened people for "careful thought" at Harvard was a test that involved using a problem that looked easy at first glance when one attempted to use prior knowledge to quickly solve it, but it turned out that this approach was incorrect. The "quick" answer was not the correct answer.

Right, I think it's important to note that the questions are designed by people.

I think there are obvious drawbacks, and it's rather inconvenient, though it does yield interesting findings.

What you described, a 'careful thought' in problem solving can basically be described as something that is unintuitive to most persons.

I believe one of them was a simple math question about having some amount of change to be leftover after buying a bat and a ball or something.

That sort of insight to me exposes general blindspots in our biases. generally.

It's the heuristics that we opt for in such specific moment that did not prepare us for such a circumstance.

Heuristics is basically a "I do it because it works" behavior. We can alternatively systematically approach problems. Like science.

I guess, such discussion is more interesting than intelligence.

Intelligence encapsulates so many things as a label, and as it relates to humans, it's such a broad subject, that we try to delegate to the just a few terms like ; cognition, adaptiveness, intelligence.

We want the world to be simple, but there are whole fields studying even single aspect of what you would consider a cohort of intelligence, such as decision making, emotional regulation, expectations.

The task of making a theory of intelligence would have to be coherent with all those fields, and I'm sure there are people who are contributing to such a cause, namely people who are specialist in their respective domains.

Still, compiling all that information and doing the leg work for that would be a hassle. And there is so much stigma around IQ the well is kinda poisoned on that matter.

 

[fluffy]

We do things in a 3D environment that requires perception and movement. We cannot say intelligence is simply head knowledge as the previous people in A.I. believed. It is controlling thought. So thinking is a real hard thing to grasp as a phenomena in itself. Most people cannot reflect on how reflection works but I have come to know where to start, the white matter loop in the third dimension.

 

[fractalwalrus]

A computer processes something because we direct it to. It has a beginning state and an end state, when something is then processed.

Does the brain operate similarly when it is directed by an outside force to do so?

Heuristics is basically a "I do it because it works" behavior. We can alternatively systematically approach problems. Like science.

I guess, such discussion is more interesting than intelligence.

I see them as related. Having a strong ability in heuristics relies upon having digested previous datasets. Someone with a vast array of knowledge in say, biology, would be more likely to be able to solve a biology related problem quickly (assuming they have the ability to recall the relevant information), don't you think? This quickness may change with the increasing complexity and novelty of the problem. Is intelligence simply the ability to accurately solve problems as quickly as possible?

 

[fluffy]

Is intelligence simply the ability to accurately solve problems as quickly as possible?

Humans have self directed awareness (selective attention). This utilizes our sailence network to pinpoint what needs to be done in the order it needs to be done. Without it we have combinatorial explosion.

Executive functioning with wider perception ranges then is what is needed for intelligence.

 

[ZenRaiden]

IQ is a math thing in that it is relative. 200 is the limit because statistically one person has it. If more people existed on the curve then the middle would go up so average IQ would be above 100 - the standard deviation would shrink bellow 15 - in other words IQ is not showing what intelligence is, but the probability of finding a person in a sample away from the mean. (a height quotient of 200 would be 7'6" one in ten billion)

Linda Silverman in one of her talks, said when they took of the cap on IQ tests, they had profoundly gifted that scored as high as 270 + IQ. Those types of scores are merely estimates though.

Yes I believe some knowledge is important but IQ will not tell me what intelligence is, what is a 1 in 200 person able to do? That is a statistic not abilities. So what if people should be compared more like sports, golf vs kung fu - intelligence is not apples to apples but more like fruits salad.

In my understanding intelligence is following.....
... memory
... creativity
... adaptation
... reaction speed
... awareness
We can argue not all of that is IQ, but essentially that is what it boils down to.
Some argue that IQ is product of better neuronal firing and faster transport of information due to more extreme pruning in the brain. So essentially more IQ means sometimes less connections in the brain, but more efficient.
Not sure we know about brains enough tho to support such claims.

I would argue personality or personal traits of person are also part of intelligence.
For example stubborn people can do things that people who give up easily cannot.
Aggressive people can do things that people who never get angry cannot.
Anxious people avoid problems that risk taking people do not.

 

[EndogenousRebel]

Does the brain operate similarly when it is directed by an outside force to do so?

No. Everything about a computer is happening due to interactions in the CPU.

I guess you can say the brain is like a CPU, but that analogy breaks down fast.

These chips are just changing ones into zeros.

Every neuron in your brain is alive and basically part of a the government that is your body. Not a mother boards architecture.

We cannot say intelligence is simply head knowledge as the previous people in A.I. believed

Actually it's an interesting point that you bring up that we are basically interpreting 3D space and this point about AI.

I'm not sure if this theory has been debunked so I might be completely wrong, but there's this idea that once you start developing a neural network feeding it enough data, say for example pictures of elephants: the AI has to correctly identify as an elephant or not an elephant.

The idea is that at some point data sets will be trained on these pictures, that then this becomes a leeway to a more general identifications, say cats.

The model has had pictures of cats shown to it, and it has said that they aren't elephants, but the whole point of AI is that it can look at connections and treat them as unique data points among billions of other connections.

So maybe our centers of spatial or auditory reasoning are all one in the same, and that's how we get these higher abstract concepts, because ultimately, AI like nature, is built off of surviving generations, and over billions of years, we are the right combination of success in evolution and cognition.

I see them as related. Having a strong ability in heuristics relies upon having digested previous datasets.

Then the barrier to entry to intelligence is more dependent on discipline to revise these datasets and refine hueristic models.

There is no amount of intelligence that can answer the question "what is important in life?"

Perhaps your ability to make choices will help you prioritize, but that comes from experience.

So, can intelligence make you be brave? Can intelligence make you willingly to do you are uncomfortable doing?

When you get into experience, you then have to consider how that experience felt.

Are you still reading all this dribble?

Is intelligence simply the ability to accurately solve problems as quickly as possible?

The media would have you think that someone who's super intelligent could solve problems quickly.

And I guess yes, someone who is that intelligent would hypothetically solve such a problem.

But that's fiction. We are talking meat, given Devine thought by Prometheus.

 

[fractalwalrus]

Executive functioning with wider perception ranges then is what is needed for intelligence.

To do what with?

 

[fractalwalrus]

In my understanding intelligence is following.....
... memory
... creativity
... adaptation
... reaction speed
... awareness

To do what with?

 

[fractalwalrus]

I guess you can say the brain is like a CPU, but that analogy breaks down fast.

Let's go abstract here rather than focusing on the mechanics or details of how the brain vs the CPU does things. What do you they both "do?" What do they have in common?

Then the barrier to entry to intelligence is more dependent on discipline to revise these datasets and refine hueristic models.

I would not claim that heuristics is the sole component to intelligence, but its methods can certainly sometimes (not always) result in accurate problem-solving.

The media would have you think that someone who's super intelligent could solve problems quickly.

What will AGI be able to do?

 

[fluffy]

Executive functioning with wider perception ranges then is what is needed for intelligence.

To do what with?

It depends. One has goals. People form goals as a hierarchy of values. The most important of which is survival or no other goals can be obtained. Humans once they begin to self reflect ask questions of what is important to them. This is an old question such as, is hedonism the best answer or family or doing something important.

 

[ZenRaiden]

It depends. One has goals. People form goals as a hierarchy of values. The most important of which is survival or no other goals can be obtained. Humans once they begin to self reflect ask questions of what is important to them. This is an old question such as, is hedonism the best answer or family or doing something important.

It this sense operating with in constraints is also skill.
For instance you can be hedonistic and family person and do something important.
But in order to do all three youd have to know how to navigate constraints of day to day life so you can plan and focus on three different things. In this sense this could relate to ability to self control. Self control is also hallmark of intelligence, but ability to control one self is more defined by ability to manage emotions.
Some literature suggests that managing emotions is part of intelligence, but you can definitely struggle with emotions and be intelligent.

 

[fluffy]

It depends. One has goals. People form goals as a hierarchy of values. The most important of which is survival or no other goals can be obtained. Humans once they begin to self reflect ask questions of what is important to them. This is an old question such as, is hedonism the best answer or family or doing something important.

It this sense operating with in constraints is also skill.
For instance you can be hedonistic and family person and do something important.
But in order to do all three youd have to know how to navigate constraints of day to day life so you can plan and focus on three different things. In this sense this could relate to ability to self control. Self control is also hallmark of intelligence, but ability to control one self is more defined by ability to manage emotions.
Some literature suggests that managing emotions is part of intelligence, but you can definitely struggle with emotions and be intelligent.

This is why quantitatively many things must be thought of at once. Tony Stark (Iron Man) made his suit and to do so he thought of all the variables involved. Most people would lose track of what to do. So control would have to be thinking of lot of things.

Of course he might want to do something else besides making suits that fly so he would have to think differently yet still be high above average in what he could hold in his head to apply elsewhere.

 

[fractalwalrus]

I guess you can say the brain is like a CPU, but that analogy breaks down fast.

Let's go abstract here rather than focusing on the mechanics or details of how the brain vs the CPU does things. What do you they both "do?" What do they have in common?

Then the barrier to entry to intelligence is more dependent on discipline to revise these datasets and refine hueristic models.

I would not claim that heuristics is the sole component to intelligence, but its methods can certainly sometimes (not always) result in accurate problem-solving.

The media would have you think that someone who's super intelligent could solve problems quickly.

What will AGI be able to do?

Executive functioning with wider perception ranges then is what is needed for intelligence.

To do what with?

It depends. One has goals. People form goals as a hierarchy of values. The most important of which is survival or no other goals can be obtained. Humans once they begin to self reflect ask questions of what is important to them. This is an old question such as, is hedonism the best answer or family or doing something important.

Would it be inaccurate to reduce what you have said down to one simple concept: problem solving.

 

[fluffy]

Would it be inaccurate to reduce what you have said down to one simple concept: problem solving.

Almost, simple problems can be solved by just breaking them apart but then this is only analysis. Synthesis (putting things together) is just as important. It depends on the size of what one would be making.

 

[EndogenousRebel]

Let's go abstract here rather than focusing on the mechanics or details of how the brain vs the CPU does things. What do you they both "do?" What do they have in common?

What is the utility of going abstract is kinda the central point of my posts.

Creating a model that is meant for simplicity rather than a reflection of reality, applicable, is kinda just meant to be fraternize with and create what is a shadow of comprehension.

We don't want a shadow, we want to 'see' intelligence.

IQ, is a shadow of a part of intelligence. In the brain.

Cores, architecture, and Ghz, is basically the analog to CPUs and IQ. However, programs run on CPUs. If you run garbage programs, your going to get garbage results.

These electronics however, are just dealing with one type of information, electrical.

 

[fractalwalrus]

Would it be inaccurate to reduce what you have said down to one simple concept: problem solving.

Almost, simple problems can be solved by just breaking them apart but then this is only analysis. Synthesis (putting things together) is just as important. It depends on the size of what one would be making.

Aren't you still attempting to find a solution when you apply synthesis? Divergent thinkers still solve problems, but they don't necessarily break things down to do it. "Size of what one would be making" implies that one is making something, which implies that there was a motive to do so, which would imply that the individual doing the making was not as contented with the state of not having a certain thing, therefore making that state the problem to be solved, no?

 

[fractalwalrus]

Let's go abstract here rather than focusing on the mechanics or details of how the brain vs the CPU does things. What do you they both "do?" What do they have in common?

What is the utility of going abstract is kinda the central point of my posts.

Creating a model that is meant for simplicity rather than a reflection of reality, applicable, is kinda just meant to be fraternize with and create what is a shadow of comprehension.

We don't want a shadow, we want to 'see' intelligence.

IQ, is a shadow of a part of intelligence. In the brain.

Cores, architecture, and Ghz, is basically the analog to CPUs and IQ. However, programs run on CPUs. If you run garbage programs, your going to get garbage results.

These electronics however, are just dealing with one type of information, electrical.

Ok, yes, the details vary in how the brain accomplishes a task vs a CPU, but they both certainly follow the garbage in, garbage out principle wouldn't you say? They are both trying to take inputs, process those inputs, and get results. I think it is important to define terms here, because there have been many debates on how relevant IQ is to intelligence, the conclusions of which would suggest that they are not synonymous. If IQ is not synonymous with intelligence, but instead a possible component of it, then what is it? What behaviors or outcomes can be said to be intelligent?

 

[fluffy]

Would it be inaccurate to reduce what you have said down to one simple concept: problem solving.

Almost, simple problems can be solved by just breaking them apart but then this is only analysis. Synthesis (putting things together) is just as important. It depends on the size of what one would be making.

Aren't you still attempting to find a solution when you apply synthesis? Divergent thinkers still solve problems, but they don't necessarily break things down to do it. "Size of what one would be making" implies that one is making something, which implies that there was a motive to do so, which would imply that the individual doing the making was not as contented with the state of not having a certain thing, therefore making that state the problem to be solved, no?

So a problem is anything that motivates an action to change ones circumstances?

Yes in a way all intelligence is about bringing ones motivations to fruition. The competency of doing it would rely on the fact one know what they are and how much cognitive resources are available. Contingency planning for whatever obstacles exist.

 

[EndogenousRebel]

See, using a term like Motivation, is psychologically charged and is exemplary.

We aren't directed by our motivation, we are directed by our environment essentially.

We might be motivated to make money, if we don't have money, but if we have a lot of money, more than we can ever spend, you'd think that we wouldn't be so "motivated" in getting more. We might prioritize something else.

Notwithstanding, evolutionary life is basically a pyramid scheme among carbon atoms.

The whole point is to maintain the homeostasis, the metabolism of the organelles and the organism as a whole.

DNA is the vector with which our 'hardware' and 'software' is saved and copied.

We are driven to behaviors that keep us in homeostasis, because other beings that didn't, or did it "inadequately", perished.

Genes can very much predict aspects of cognition and of course have been correlated with occurrence of IQ individuals when people share the same genes, even among disparate parts of the world.

When you accept the fact that genes are a product of environment, and yet they don't mutually occur in all populations, and in fact are at least initially introduced through random mutations, you kind of have to accept that intelligence isn't really a real thing.

Or rather there's no meta idea about intelligence, because, these genes of which apparently smart people have, ought to be everywhere.

I would say, that it's because it's a change that we associate with intelligence or just jeans that randomly happen to be beneficially adaptive for a specific circumstance.

That old quote "judge a goldfish by his ability to climb a tree?"

If you want to understand intelligence, as a whole, you'd really have to look into the literature regarding genetics.

 

[scorpiomover]

I am not actually sure what purpose the IQ score really has.

I had thought about that for a while.

The test doesn't give people less marks for getting things wrong. So it isn't a good test for mission-critical situations.

The test is also timed. So it isn't a good test for situations where you have plenty of time to figure out a good answer.

It's really a test for when you have a situation where you need people to get more right answers, or get right answers quicker than others, but where you'd have other people checking their work, so it doesn't matter if they get a few answers wrong.

I was interested in my IQ, for sometime, and I think the key question is does it really benefit you to know what IQ you have?

Yes and no. It tells you if you'd be a good fit for a job like a scientist or an engineer or even a politician, where you'll still hire other people to check your work so if you have made a mistake, it won't be the end of the world.

But generally the real question is what can you do to make most of your intellect.

With high IQ people, that doesn't exactly matter, as it's really testing general ability. It really means that whatever you do, on average, you'll probably be more likely to come up with more right answers than others, or usually would come up with a right answer quicker than others. So whatever you do, is usually going to be better than others. So it's not so much "what you can do with your intellect", and more that "whatever you do with your intellect, is usually going to worth it for others to employ you and listen to you."

And to that effect Id say your personality, mental health, and good relationships that are fulfilling and good job makes whole lot more difference than having high IQ.

Sure.

Its the same with autism. Does knowing you have it help. Sometimes yes, but once you know how does it actually help?

Auties are funny. Yes, they can be socially clueless. But I know a few people like that. Whatever they say is usually interesting and useful to know, even if it's not that useful right now.

 

[fluffy]

If you want to understand intelligence, as a whole, you'd really have to look into the literature regarding genetics.

Humans adaptability I think is less above circumstances yet we can reason our way out of them. Not all the time but if say things do not go as planned we can improvise whereas other animals cannot.

We can also reverse engineer our way out.

Thinking as I see it has greater potential for some.

Genes do not need to all be the same distribution, they just need to align with a process like supply and demand. Get things where they need to be cognitively which has many vectors of influence. Food is food. It is fuel and body's resources. Just because some people adapted to eat rice and some wheat does not mean both cannot walk on two legs. But it does mean the brain will use it to grow faster to think more or less.

A meta idea as you call it won't apply to non humans unless we characterize is beyond the nitch. Intelligence is about bringing thought into play, along with control. No food? Think how to get food. Don't just use hard wired instinct. It is an if then process. If I can't get things where they need to be the genes don't matter as much when I have done it without relying on a preprogrammed response.

Certainly thinking is what you do when you don't know what to do. Modes of thought vary but overall it is about having overcome a circumstance never seen before.

It would be wrong to say genes don't give extraordinary abilities (I cannot write music) but a nitch is hard wired in the organism and we humans are not fish trying to climb trees over millions of years we are apes that went to the moon in a decade.

Intelligence is faster because it is not preprogrammed.

 

[EndogenousRebel]

Intelligence is about bringing thought into play, along with control.

Very specific definition of intelligence right there. That seems more like a specific aspect of cognition.

Is a simple calculator more intelligent than me because I can't square root 892 off the top of my head?

Not trying to be tongue and cheek, I'm not quite sure what you're referring to with the word intelligence anymore.

Certainly thinking is what you do when you don't know what to do. Modes of thought vary but overall it is about having overcome a circumstance never seen before.

I'm pretty sure modes of thought can be divided between 2 categories of brain state.

Diffused and Focused. Focused is what happens when you are effortfully engaged in trying to solve a problem in front of you. Diffused is when you aren't necessarily doing so, consciously anyways.

It would be wrong to say genes don't give extraordinary abilities (I cannot write music) but a nitch is hard wired in the organism and we humans are not fish trying to climb trees over millions of years we are apes that went to the moon in a decade.

Intelligence is faster because it is not preprogrammed.

Yes, and since 1969, we have not really done much in the realm of extra-terrestrial travel.

Our solutions consisted of creating a series of hermetically sealed tubes and launching that into space with rockets. Innovation that excites.

From there it was about calculating physics of celestial objects in care of Isaac Newton 200 years before that.

So, it's not really as you say, in a decade, when we had to build off the work of someone from the 17th century.

 

[fluffy]

@EndogenousRebel

Rationality would be focused. More so in working memory. Liebniz plotting a circle had to understand basic relationships. But it would take what could fit in a limited window of cognition.

The genes for working memory may not be known but what it does is not hard wired. This is why a.i. still has problems as a model. Even fish can solve problems with memory, myth busters taught a goldfish to go in a maze. A.I. is not general.

That is what I meant by intelligence as thought. As it can be applied to many situations not just nitchs.

 

[fluffy]

Intelligence is a meta cognitive state: "I am here, what do I do next".

Jacob Barnett was a kid who said he could think in the 4th dimension. Supposedly he has a higher IQ than Albert Einstein (170) Albert = 160 : so it makes sense that what I said would derive from a set of relationships. He has advanced some aspects of technology like fiber optics having to do with photon symmetry.

To meta a state we need to grasp mentally one thing goes next to another then what can be done together then put them into a relation to the self. A working memory construct acquiring self reference. "This with that, is this what I want?" Which would be the evaluation.

To be clear: a conscious being is deciding what to do based on how to achieve their desires and the internal memory to know how to do it.

We gage peoples intelligence by what they can do, what they can do is based on how well they can see their options. But then we also see that people can have good ideas and they also need opportunities.

I believe someone once asked an inventor in the 1770's: what good is electricity for and he responded, what good is a baby that could become a great king.

The most important aspect is self.

Self that has the idea.

I will do this

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

Jensen box - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[fluffy]

Jensen box - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Reading Speed:

Words per minute = bits^2

bits = (IQ - 70) ÷ 2

IQ = ((√wpm) • 2) + 70

IQ 100 = 15 bits = 225 wpm

Jordan Peterson once said he can read 1,200 wpm

140 = ((√1225) • 2) + 70

Regarding bits, a paper I saw said this is what we are aware of at any given moment and can take in. There is a limit with an average of 15 bits for a human.

 

[fractalwalrus]

Jensen box - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

What if I told you, that someone who can think in pictures and manners that others cannot understand in a non-linear fashion can solve certain problems quicker than the individual who must reason their way through problems?

 

[fractalwalrus]

Jensen box - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Reading Speed:

Words per minute = bits^2

bits = (IQ - 70) ÷ 2

IQ = ((√wpm) • 2) + 70

IQ 100 = 15 bits = 225 wpm

Jordan Peterson once said he can read 1,200 wpm

140 = ((√1225) • 2) + 70

Regarding bits, a paper I saw said this is what we are aware of at any given moment and can take in. There is a limit with an average of 15 bits for a human.

So I'm intelligent if I can read really quick? What if my eye speed is overclocked?

 

[dr froyd]

fun facts

1 in 76 billion people has an iq of less than zero.
there's been about 117 billion people that have ever lived, so there must have been that one super dumb guy

 

[fractalwalrus]

fun facts

1 in 76 billion people has an iq of less than zero.
there's been about 117 billion people that have ever lived, so there must have been that one super dumb guy

Sign me up.

 

[fluffy]

Jensen box - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Reading Speed:

Words per minute = bits^2

bits = (IQ - 70) ÷ 2

IQ = ((√wpm) • 2) + 70

IQ 100 = 15 bits = 225 wpm

Jordan Peterson once said he can read 1,200 wpm

140 = ((√1225) • 2) + 70

Regarding bits, a paper I saw said this is what we are aware of at any given moment and can take in. There is a limit with an average of 15 bits for a human.

So I'm intelligent if I can read really quick? What if my eye speed is overclocked?

I have heard of super speed readers but I think there is a difference between memorization and true comprehension.

 

[fluffy]

Jensen box - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

What if I told you, that someone who can think in pictures and manners that others cannot understand in a non-linear fashion can solve certain problems quicker than the individual who must reason their way through problems?

Excellent observation.

I think in intuitions, where ideas come to me from the subconscious but people who use pictures are great at spatial tasks are just as talented.

 

[fractalwalrus]

Jensen box - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Reading Speed:

Words per minute = bits^2

bits = (IQ - 70) ÷ 2

IQ = ((√wpm) • 2) + 70

IQ 100 = 15 bits = 225 wpm

Jordan Peterson once said he can read 1,200 wpm

140 = ((√1225) • 2) + 70

Regarding bits, a paper I saw said this is what we are aware of at any given moment and can take in. There is a limit with an average of 15 bits for a human.

So I'm intelligent if I can read really quick? What if my eye speed is overclocked?

I have heard of super speed readers but I think there is a difference between memorization and true comprehension.

Yes, I was trying to provoke a discussion on just what "processing" means. I mean, when we talk about say "processed food," usually it conjurs up images of finished products. So, what if the reading and understanding part is not enough to qualify an entity as intelligent? What if processing involves output as well? When one "processes" paperwork, it usually implies that they finished it.

 

[fractalwalrus]

Jensen box - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

What if I told you, that someone who can think in pictures and manners that others cannot understand in a non-linear fashion can solve certain problems quicker than the individual who must reason their way through problems?

Excellent observation.

I think in intuitions, where ideas come to me from the subconscious but people who use pictures are great at spatial tasks are just as talented.

They may not always be accurate solutions, but they seem to come quicker.

 

[fluffy]

Yes, I was trying to provoke a discussion on just what "processing" means. I mean, when we talk about say "processed food," usually it conjurs up images of finished products. So, what if the reading and understanding part is not enough to qualify an entity as intelligent? What if processing involves output as well? When one "processes" paperwork, it usually implies that they finished it.

In Japan I believe they read in pictograms not completely phonetical. They can look at all the konji at the same time and derive meaning from it.

That is where extreme parallel processing takes place. Much like math in its symbolic form.

 

[fractalwalrus]

Yes, I was trying to provoke a discussion on just what "processing" means. I mean, when we talk about say "processed food," usually it conjurs up images of finished products. So, what if the reading and understanding part is not enough to qualify an entity as intelligent? What if processing involves output as well? When one "processes" paperwork, it usually implies that they finished it.

In Japan I believe they read in pictograms not completely phonetical. They can look at all the konji at the same time and derive meaning from it.

That is where extreme parallel processing takes place. Much like math in its symbolic form.

I wonder if the difference in their language expression results in a strengthening of certain abilities.

 

[fluffy]

Yes, I was trying to provoke a discussion on just what "processing" means. I mean, when we talk about say "processed food," usually it conjurs up images of finished products. So, what if the reading and understanding part is not enough to qualify an entity as intelligent? What if processing involves output as well? When one "processes" paperwork, it usually implies that they finished it.

In Japan I believe they read in pictograms not completely phonetical. They can look at all the konji at the same time and derive meaning from it.

That is where extreme parallel processing takes place. Much like math in its symbolic form.

I wonder if the difference in their language expression results in a strengthening of certain abilities.

I was once told that the key to intelligence was negative space relationships.

I would not have personal experience with this as I must reason everything out linearly but the animation in Japan is highly complex.

Maybe something akin to ray tracing in one's head.

Ray tracing (graphics) - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[scorpiomover]

I was once told that the key to intelligence was negative space relationships.

The key to intelligence is hard work of the brain.

The difference between someone smart and someone stupid, is that someone stupid has a problem, tries to think of a few solutions, realises they are wrong, and gives up.

The smart person does exactly the same, except that he keeps trying to think of solution after solution, until he comes up with a solution that works.

That is why IQ tests measure how many answers you get right in 2 hours. The stupid people try to answer a few questions, realise that it's hard, give up, and just answer the rest randomly or not at all. The smart people keep working on each question, trying to come up with a good answer for each one, right to the end of the test. The only time the smart people stop working, is when they either have answered all the questions, or their time runs out and they are forbidden from trying any longer.

 

[ZenRaiden]

Jordan Peterson once said he can read 1,200 wpm

Speed reading is method, not reaction time tho, if anything what I learned when trying to speed read it correlates with focus and generally focus also correlates with higher intelligence for obvious reasons, but the funny thing is lack of focus does not always mean lack of intelligence.
There is plenty reasons people sometimes focus less.

All I can say about speed reading, people need to know is that its not equal to reading normal stuff. Its a method of reading fast, and yes I heard crazy stories about speed reading, but once you start reading something more difficult your reading speed will drop to 50 or even 30 words a min if not less, regardless what you think your IQ is.


Its only one type of method that works in texts that require more memory than comprehension. If you try to read a chapter in physics and understand what is says and try to do a test on it later, you better be reading real fucking slow.

 

[fluffy]

I was once told that the key to intelligence was negative space relationships.

The key to intelligence is hard work of the brain.

The difference between someone smart and someone stupid, is that someone stupid has a problem, tries to think of a few solutions, realises they are wrong, and gives up.

The smart person does exactly the same, except that he keeps trying to think of solution after solution, until he comes up with a solution that works.

That is why IQ tests measure how many answers you get right in 2 hours. The stupid people try to answer a few questions, realise that it's hard, give up, and just answer the rest randomly or not at all. The smart people keep working on each question, trying to come up with a good answer for each one, right to the end of the test. The only time the smart people stop working, is when they either have answered all the questions, or their time runs out and they are forbidden from trying any longer.

What I think was meant by "negative space relationships" was that we have perceptions of a correct solution. In a spatial sense if you can see, actually see where all the parts fit together in your visual working memory then the solution is obviously in front of you. You don't need to try different answers because you "see" what needs to happen. The round peg must necessarily go in the round hole not the square or triangle because you see all the parts at the same time and subsequently more parts must be seen with a higher level of perception all together. Less intelligent people cannot see the answer so must try all the available options (round peg in triangle hole, round peg in square hole ect...)

The thing about IQ tests is that they don't let you answer all the questions. If you mess up they stop at that one point. Example is that 10 subtests exist, each has a max score of 150 - if all are answered correctly the ceiling is 160 - that is on the WAIS-4 : only on tests like the SAT do they allow all questions to be answered and they deduct points for wrong answers on it. The SAT is correlated with IQ but is not 100% an IQ test because poor people do poorly on it without training in school. It has a practice effect.

 

[fluffy]

Jordan Peterson once said he can read 1,200 wpm

Speed reading is method, not reaction time tho, if anything what I learned when trying to speed read it correlates with focus and generally focus also correlates with higher intelligence for obvious reasons, but the funny thing is lack of focus does not always mean lack of intelligence.
There is plenty reasons people sometimes focus less.

All I can say about speed reading, people need to know is that its not equal to reading normal stuff. Its a method of reading fast, and yes I heard crazy stories about speed reading, but once you start reading something more difficult your reading speed will drop to 50 or even 30 words a min if not less, regardless what you think your IQ is.


Its only one type of method that works in texts that require more memory than comprehension. If you try to read a chapter in physics and understand what is says and try to do a test on it later, you better be reading real fucking slow.

When looking at all the words at the same time you read faster. Not by scanning each word separately but fast but all together as one object. But if a difficult word pops up you don't understand then you do slow down. Reading requires familiararty with all the vocabulary. Then you can see the words together as single conceptual objects.

 

[scorpiomover]

What I think was meant by "negative space relationships" was that we have perceptions of a correct solution. In a spatial sense if you can see, actually see where all the parts fit together in your visual working memory then the solution is obviously in front of you. You don't need to try different answers because you "see" what needs to happen. The round peg must necessarily go in the round hole not the square or triangle because you see all the parts at the same time and subsequently more parts must be seen with a higher level of perception all together. Less intelligent people cannot see the answer so must try all the available options (round peg in triangle hole, round peg in square hole ect...)

I get the impression that less intelligent people seem to think that's what I and others do.

But usually, I find that to get to a good answer, I have tried all sorts of crazy ideas that other people wouldn't because they seem to be crazy and would probably not yield any solutions. But I will try them anyway, because I know from hard experience that a lot of my solutions were things that at the time, most people said couldn't work, and even I thought had very little chance of working.

If you want to get to the Emerald City, you have to keep following the yellow brick road, even if that means you have to kill the Wicked Witch to get there, and you can't see a way to do that, because she's far too strong to be killed by a little girl like Dorothy.

The thing about IQ tests is that they don't let you answer all the questions. If you mess up they stop at that one point. Example is that 10 subtests exist, each has a max score of 150 - if all are answered correctly the ceiling is 160 - that is on the WAIS-4

That's deliberate, to ensure that people like Richard Feynman who were excellent on maths but very weak on verbal skills, don't think that being super-smart will overcome all weaknesses in communication, because in real life, you need both.

 

[fluffy]

What I think was meant by "negative space relationships" was that we have perceptions of a correct solution. In a spatial sense if you can see, actually see where all the parts fit together in your visual working memory then the solution is obviously in front of you. You don't need to try different answers because you "see" what needs to happen. The round peg must necessarily go in the round hole not the square or triangle because you see all the parts at the same time and subsequently more parts must be seen with a higher level of perception all together. Less intelligent people cannot see the answer so must try all the available options (round peg in triangle hole, round peg in square hole ect...)

I get the impression that less intelligent people seem to think that's what I and others do.

But usually, I find that to get to a good answer, I have tried all sorts of crazy ideas that other people wouldn't because they seem to be crazy and would probably not yield any solutions. But I will try them anyway, because I know from hard experience that a lot of my solutions were things that at the time, most people said couldn't work, and even I thought had very little chance of working.

If you want to get to the Emerald City, you have to keep following the yellow brick road, even if that means you have to kill the Wicked Witch to get there, and you can't see a way to do that, because she's far too strong to be killed by a little girl like Dorothy.

Well in reference to myself I do not always see the solution, I do try many things. The point is that pattern recognition can be high or low meaning you can recognize a few patterns at once or many at the same time and that is what IQ tests are trying to gage about people.

The thing about IQ tests is that they don't let you answer all the questions. If you mess up they stop at that one point. Example is that 10 subtests exist, each has a max score of 150 - if all are answered correctly the ceiling is 160 - that is on the WAIS-4

That's deliberate, to ensure that people like Richard Feynman who were excellent on maths but very weak on verbal skills, don't think that being super-smart will overcome all weaknesses in communication, because in real life, you need both.

Feynman was good at math. I think the test he took had a standard deviation of 10 or 12 so his real IQ was not 125 but actually 139

I had not researched Friedman Dyson much but I think he was doing stuff with geometry that led to quantum chemistry Feynman was involved in.

 

[fractalwalrus]

What I think was meant by "negative space relationships" was that we have perceptions of a correct solution. In a spatial sense if you can see, actually see where all the parts fit together in your visual working memory then the solution is obviously in front of you. You don't need to try different answers because you "see" what needs to happen. The round peg must necessarily go in the round hole not the square or triangle because you see all the parts at the same time and subsequently more parts must be seen with a higher level of perception all together. Less intelligent people cannot see the answer so must try all the available options (round peg in triangle hole, round peg in square hole ect...)

I get the impression that less intelligent people seem to think that's what I and others do.

But usually, I find that to get to a good answer, I have tried all sorts of crazy ideas that other people wouldn't because they seem to be crazy and would probably not yield any solutions. But I will try them anyway, because I know from hard experience that a lot of my solutions were things that at the time, most people said couldn't work, and even I thought had very little chance of working.

If you want to get to the Emerald City, you have to keep following the yellow brick road, even if that means you have to kill the Wicked Witch to get there, and you can't see a way to do that, because she's far too strong to be killed by a little girl like Dorothy.

Well in reference to myself I do not always see the solution, I do try many things. The point is that pattern recognition can be high or low meaning you can recognize a few patterns at once or many at the same time and that is what IQ tests are trying to gage about people.

The thing about IQ tests is that they don't let you answer all the questions. If you mess up they stop at that one point. Example is that 10 subtests exist, each has a max score of 150 - if all are answered correctly the ceiling is 160 - that is on the WAIS-4

That's deliberate, to ensure that people like Richard Feynman who were excellent on maths but very weak on verbal skills, don't think that being super-smart will overcome all weaknesses in communication, because in real life, you need both.

Feynman was good at math. I think the test he took had a standard deviation of 10 or 12 so his real IQ was not 125 but actually 139

I had not researched Friedman Dyson much but I think he was doing stuff with geometry that led to quantum chemistry Feynman was involved in.

There are unconventional methods of problem-solving. One could spend a lot of time figuring out cold fusion or a solution to the Poincare conjecture, or they could just seduce the people who know how to do it. I don't think IQ tests measure seduction and charisma, but those things seem to solve problems from the perspectives of certain people.