Am 15.01.2014 21:48, schrieb Nekar Xenos:
> On Wed, 15 Jan 2014 15:50:53 +0200, clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
>
>> Am 14.01.2014 23:10, schrieb Doctor John:
>
>> Interestingly, in Einstein's days there apparently wasn't. He was a
>> kind of pop icon of his time.
>>
> ..even though he stopped in the middle of the road when the "Don't Walk"
> light lit up :)

Sounds like the witty type of humor I'd expect from him :-)

Post a reply to this message

Am 15.01.2014 20:11, schrieb Warp:

> Also, feeling inferior in mental capacity is a much more touchy
> subject than feeling inferior eg. in soccer or throwing a javelin.

Might be because most people associate soccer or throwing a javelin with 
training, but mental capacity with genetic disposition.

My personal presumption is that they all depend on both disposition and 
training. If you are of short growth, chances are you'll never play in 
the top basketball league or become a world-class sprinter, no matter 
how hard you try. On the other hand, even the best genetic disposition 
for mental skill won't make you a grandmaster of chess unless you spend 
many hours on mental exercises each day.

Post a reply to this message

On 1/15/2014 4:15 PM, Warp wrote:
> Orchid Win7 v1 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>>>> And someone please explain to me, what IQ is?
>>>
>>> IQ is a quantification of your intelligence in comparison to the average
>>> person of your age.
>
>> It is therefore fundamentally dependant on whatever the designer
>> considers to be the "average person".
>
> I don't think the idea is to define the "average person". The idea
> is to measure tons of people and just take the average, and scale
> the results so that the average gets 100 points.
>
If it worked like that.. The problem is that you get two things 
happening: 1. Tests based on the assumption that every human being has 
equal conditions, and thus learns to think about all problems in 
equivalent ways, and 2. Some yokel deciding that, having come up with a 
test, it never has to be recalibrated. A good example would be something 
like handling money. Would someone in the UK, prior to the Euro, be 
"smarter" than someone in the US? I mean, after all, there where like 40 
different kinds of money, some of them sounding more like weight/liquid 
measures, being with like.. 1/8th of some higher denomination, and 
stuff, and people *used* all the bloody things, while, the US currency 
was all metric. Then, you could ask the same question the other way, is 
it more clever to deal with inches, feet, yards, etc., or the metric 
system? More to the point, someone with the wrong way of thinking is 
going to go, "WTF is this?!", no matter which category they are in, when 
dealing with the ones where there are fractional coinage. Personally.. I 
think the UK went metric because it was a huge burden on the state to 
place both their economists *and* engineers in rubber rooms, instead of 
just one set, but... lol

This is BTW what I meant about "tricks" before. If you don't know how to 
think about a problem, you either can't solve it, or take far longer to 
do so, or you solve it wrong. But, think in terms of like.. memory. 
Memory mnemonics are used all the time by "experts" on memorizing lists 
and things. As a child, almost everyone probably went through a stage of 
sing songing objects, and attaching other things to them, which is 
exactly how that "trick" works, but then... how many parents, when their 
kids are in the middle of doing that say, "Stop that, you are being 
silly.", and, perhaps derail a natural tendency to learn such a method 
of memorizing complex sets? In math, the "experts" use short cuts. Some 
of them they come up with on their own, others they may pick up from 
other sources, but.. they may not retain either, without the proper 
conditions.

By the same token, you can "learn" how to solve puzzles, by learning ho 
to think about them, including the ones that get stuffed on IQ tests, 
and that includes the stuff Mensa uses (I know, I have seen them, and 
wasn't impressed). When I was eight, these things might have been 
interesting, though, only because they where better than going back to 
the classroom, and listening to someone drone on about how to now 
multiply 4x, instead of 3x, while most of the class had their brains 
dripping out of their ears. Now.. I just don't have the patience for 
them, and some of them "require" skills that I never cultivated, because 
I didn't need them (which results in my taking longer at them than the 
ones I find mind numbingly simple).

And, since I don't really plan to make more replies here, this is *one* 
reason why being in it doesn't impress me. The other reason is that, my 
experience to date, with people willing to mention being in it, have 
tended to do so in the context of wanting people to go, "Wow!", so that 
they then question their own certainty about a subject, or more easily 
believe the guy claiming it, when, in point of fact, in their case, its 
intended to shield some howler of an opinion, or claim, or hypothesis, 
they have about something, which they either don't actually understand, 
or have completely misunderstood.

So.. I apologize for calling the whole thing a social club for the stuck 
up and self obsessed. Its not like I have had a huge opportunity to 
meet, or talk to, the ones that where not.

Post a reply to this message

On 16/01/14 02:50, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> On 1/15/2014 4:15 PM, Warp wrote:
>> Orchid Win7 v1 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>>>>> And someone please explain to me, what IQ is?
>>>>
>>>> IQ is a quantification of your intelligence in comparison to the
>>>> average
>>>> person of your age.
>>
>>> It is therefore fundamentally dependant on whatever the designer
>>> considers to be the "average person".
>>
>> I don't think the idea is to define the "average person". The idea
>> is to measure tons of people and just take the average, and scale
>> the results so that the average gets 100 points.
>>
> If it worked like that.. The problem is that you get two things
> happening: 1. Tests based on the assumption that every human being has
> equal conditions, and thus learns to think about all problems in
> equivalent ways, and 2. Some yokel deciding that, having come up with a
> test, it never has to be recalibrated. A good example would be something
> like handling money. Would someone in the UK, prior to the Euro, be
> "smarter" than someone in the US? I mean, after all, there where like 40
> different kinds of money, some of them sounding more like weight/liquid
> measures, being with like.. 1/8th of some higher denomination, and
> stuff, and people *used* all the bloody things, while, the US currency
> was all metric. Then, you could ask the same question the other way, is
> it more clever to deal with inches, feet, yards, etc., or the metric
> system? More to the point, someone with the wrong way of thinking is
> going to go, "WTF is this?!", no matter which category they are in, when
> dealing with the ones where there are fractional coinage. Personally.. I
> think the UK went metric because it was a huge burden on the state to
> place both their economists *and* engineers in rubber rooms, instead of
> just one set, but... lol
> 
> This is BTW what I meant about "tricks" before. If you don't know how to
> think about a problem, you either can't solve it, or take far longer to
> do so, or you solve it wrong. But, think in terms of like.. memory.
> Memory mnemonics are used all the time by "experts" on memorizing lists
> and things. As a child, almost everyone probably went through a stage of
> sing songing objects, and attaching other things to them, which is
> exactly how that "trick" works, but then... how many parents, when their
> kids are in the middle of doing that say, "Stop that, you are being
> silly.", and, perhaps derail a natural tendency to learn such a method
> of memorizing complex sets? In math, the "experts" use short cuts. Some
> of them they come up with on their own, others they may pick up from
> other sources, but.. they may not retain either, without the proper
> conditions.
> 
> By the same token, you can "learn" how to solve puzzles, by learning ho
> to think about them, including the ones that get stuffed on IQ tests,
> and that includes the stuff Mensa uses (I know, I have seen them, and
> wasn't impressed). When I was eight, these things might have been
> interesting, though, only because they where better than going back to
> the classroom, and listening to someone drone on about how to now
> multiply 4x, instead of 3x, while most of the class had their brains
> dripping out of their ears. Now.. I just don't have the patience for
> them, and some of them "require" skills that I never cultivated, because
> I didn't need them (which results in my taking longer at them than the
> ones I find mind numbingly simple).
> 
> And, since I don't really plan to make more replies here, this is *one*
> reason why being in it doesn't impress me. The other reason is that, my
> experience to date, with people willing to mention being in it, have
> tended to do so in the context of wanting people to go, "Wow!", so that
> they then question their own certainty about a subject, or more easily
> believe the guy claiming it, when, in point of fact, in their case, its
> intended to shield some howler of an opinion, or claim, or hypothesis,
> they have about something, which they either don't actually understand,
> or have completely misunderstood.
> 
> So.. I apologize for calling the whole thing a social club for the stuck
> up and self obsessed. Its not like I have had a huge opportunity to
> meet, or talk to, the ones that where not.

Oh dear, Patrick. You seem to have become obsessed with justifying your
original comment by descending to the level of the bullies.
If you had read my original post post properly, you would have noticed
my comment about joining Thick As A Brick.

Secondly, stop using lol as a comment - it's juvenile.

Finally, read your responses at least twice before posting. It stops you
from offending people who have been on the group longer than you.

John
-- 
Protect the Earth
It was not given to you by your parents
You hold it in trust for your children

Post a reply to this message

Stephen, I find your babbling delightful.  :)

My doggies say hi to you, too.

--Sherry Shaw

Post a reply to this message

On 16/01/2014 3:21 AM, Doctor John wrote:
> Secondly, stop using lol as a comment - it's juvenile.

ROTFLOL

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

> You can certainly train your deductive skills, but people with a
> higher intelligence often find it easier and become more proficient
> at it.

This is the key point, without any training, or with very little 
training, a "would-be" very intelligent person will not be considered 
intelligent. On the other hand, someone with mediocre intelligence could 
spend 16 hours a day for 30 years studying physics and maths and be seen 
as a very intelligent person, able to solve complex equations with ease etc.

Post a reply to this message

Am 16.01.2014 03:50, schrieb Patrick Elliott:
> On 1/15/2014 4:15 PM, Warp wrote:
>> Orchid Win7 v1 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>>>>> And someone please explain to me, what IQ is?
>>>>
>>>> IQ is a quantification of your intelligence in comparison to the
>>>> average
>>>> person of your age.
>>
>>> It is therefore fundamentally dependant on whatever the designer
>>> considers to be the "average person".
>>
>> I don't think the idea is to define the "average person". The idea
>> is to measure tons of people and just take the average, and scale
>> the results so that the average gets 100 points.
>>
> If it worked like that.. The problem is that you get two things
> happening: 1. Tests based on the assumption that every human being has
> equal conditions, and thus learns to think about all problems in
> equivalent ways,

Like so many other people, you seem to believe that intelligence is 
something innate. It isn't - it /is/ something acquired.

> and 2. Some yokel deciding that, having come up with a
> test, it never has to be recalibrated.

To all my knowledge, those tests /are/ recalibrated every now and then.

> A good example would be something
> like handling money. Would someone in the UK, prior to the Euro, be
> "smarter" than someone in the US?

We're not talking about being smart - we are talking about being 
intelligent. And, as I wrote previously:

"Intelligence is the fitness to perform well in a so-called intelligence 
test."

> And, since I don't really plan to make more replies here, this is *one*
> reason why being in it doesn't impress me.

Why not? Is there any reason to be unimpressed by someone having 
acquired the skill to solve certain types of puzzles? Is it pointless? 
No more so than the skill to kick a ball into a rectangular frame I 
suspect: Both, as a side effect, tend to also make you good at other 
things that /can/ be of practical value.

Post a reply to this message

Am 16.01.2014 10:12, schrieb clipka:

>> If it worked like that.. The problem is that you get two things
>> happening: 1. Tests based on the assumption that every human being has
>> equal conditions, and thus learns to think about all problems in
>> equivalent ways,
>
> Like so many other people, you seem to believe that intelligence is
> something innate. It isn't - it /is/ something acquired.

... in other words: There's nothing wrong with intelligence tests. If a 
job requires a skill that typically correlates with intelligence, then 
an intelligence test is what you want to do.

Problems arise when people use intelligence tests on children, in an 
attempt to asses their /potential/ for intelligence: That is indeed 
something intelligence tests are rather poor at.

Post a reply to this message

>> I don't know how you would go about
>> changing it, perhaps separate out by ability at a much earlier age?
>
> The only thing I can think of is that if somebody does well at school,
> people hate them out of jealousy - and there's where this "cool to be
> dumb" crap comes from. If that's the psychology behind this, then more
> separation would just make the problem worse...

Not if the separation was a totally different school rather than just 
different classes.

Post a reply to this message