IQ (moved subtopic)
^^Hey Luciom, can you remind me again how smart JD Vance is? Above, same, or below the average MAGA chode?
I have no problem with schools using affirmative action to help people like Vance with humble backgrounds.... but maybe not in law school where these idiots start becoming dangerous. And they got to find smarter people then Vance or the whole thing just looks ridiculous and all you're doing is de-valuing your own department.
On another note, it's about time for Sklansky to start quoting posts with his perceived IQ of the poster quoted for shits and giggles.
For example, there may be someone who is demonstrably a “genius” at mathematics, but they also are woefully handicapped at relating to other humans and understanding the core of the human condition. They don’t understand how other people process feelings, and they lack empathy. How “smart” are they in terms of how they relate to the world? How far will they go in society?
If you had the physical skills and size of Lebron but were a complete jerk that couldn't be coached or play team basketball could you be a successful NBA player? I think most people would answer, who cares? As they should with your hypothetical.
There's an unquantifiable intelligence in self-awareness of one's strengths, weakness, utility, and how to utilize strengths to mitigate weaknesses.
There are dissertations on leadership, but among common denominators seem to be the ability to empathize and delegate along with a baseline of expertise.
This and Crossnerd's (and to some extent, rickroll's) point is just a circular semantic argument rooted in "intelligence" being defined as "IQ plus all the qualities that IQ tests don't measure that are necessary for success". Yes, no ****, if you define intelligence that way, it is highly correlated with success.
The fact is that people keep trying to compare outlier midwits with outlier super geniuses. That’s just sneaking in your conclusion using a bad sample space. Let’s look at the general pop of super geniuses and midwits, then see whether or not high IQ has predictive value for success.
What if you weren't kicked in the head by a horse by a young age, is there a correlation between having a high IQ and being more likely to play top-level chess or get a PhD? If so, sounds like the test is doing its job.
But the test can't be doing its job if it purports to be measuring "intelligence" or "scholastic aptitude." It shouldn't be possible for me to increase my intelligence or scholastic aptitude by reading a test prep strategy guide.
The test is measuring *something*, but what, exactly?
But the test can't be doing its job if it purports to be measuring "intelligence" or "scholastic aptitude." It shouldn't be possible for me to increase my intelligence or scholastic aptitude by reading a test prep strategy guide.
The test is measuring *something*, but what, exactly?
Depends how you define "intelligence". Your definition is that it has to be innate.
I have two separate lines of argument here:
1. Why? Why can't it be learned?
2. Let's assume it is innate, and it is in fact an innate capacity for learning. Therefore, if we measure how much someone has learned or is able to learn, we're measuring its effects, therefore measuring "it". Moreover, how else would you measure a "capacity for doing x" other than by measuring "x"? If you want to know the capacity and strength of a water pump, you measure the volume and pressure of the output.
In either case, I disagree that the fact you can increase your score through preparation somehow renders the results meaningless. All you're saying is that you don't like the fact that what is being measured is referred to as "intelligence". Why? Because you don't like the stigma that attaches with being considered stupid?
The fact is that people keep trying to compare outlier midwits with outlier super geniuses. That’s just sneaking in your conclusion using a bad sample space. Let’s look at the general pop of super geniuses and midwits, then see whether or not high IQ has predictive value for success.
From crossnerd post, I reiterate the movie rain main created weird priors about IQ
This and Crossnerd's (and to some extent, rickroll's) point is just a circular semantic argument rooted in "intelligence" being defined as "IQ plus all the qualities that IQ tests don't measure that are necessary for success". Yes, no ****, if you define intelligence that way, it is highly correlated with success.
yeah i was kind of agreeing with both sides
that
A😀 what we typically believe signifies intelligence (the proxies op was sat scores) is a good starting point but very far from the truth
B😀 even with raw intelligence, you still need to have a work ethic, ambition, and common sense in order to make it all work - either that or be really pretty and have a mouth like a hoover
don't make me google new words please
Depends how you define "intelligence". Your definition is that it has to be innate.
I have two separate lines of argument here:
1. Why? Why can't it be learned?
That just simply isn't what people mean when they talk about "intelligence," or how the word is used. Someone who's just read an SAT test prep manual isn't markedly more intelligent than they were before reading it. Yet an SAT/IQ test could show a significant jump.
In either case, I disagree that the fact you can increase your score through preparation somehow renders the results meaningless. All you're saying is that you don't like the fact that what is being measured is referred to as "intelligence". Why? Because you don't like the stigma that attaches with being considered stupid?
As rational people, we should be precise about what it is, we're measuring, no? Especially when weird creeps are using IQ testing to justify their priors. Why are we committed to believing that these logic puzzles are really doing what their creators claim?
The tests aren't "meaningless," they're just measuring something that is only loosely correlated with "intelligence" (whatever that really is). We might both agree that chess ability is at least somewhat correlated with intelligence, but you wouldn't insist that a chess ranking is a direct measure of intelligence the way people say IQ scores are. If I insisted that Magnus Carlson was the smartest person on Earth, you would question that.
Trollson think of muscles and their benefits for sports and other activities.
You can train, but some bodies are inherently, genetically so much more predisposed to develop muscle structures that are optimal for specific endavours, that it's easy to see why the existence of training , even heavy training, doesn't deny the biological underpinning.
Now, if you model intelligence the same everything works out the same.
You can have 100 people each studying 2000 hours per year, with exceptionally different outcomes, and that will be because of your biological intelligence.
Tests aren't measuring something that is only vaguely correlating to that biological intelligence, they test something that is very strongly correlated given the importance of the test already has most test taker spending decent time training for it, in the same country.
I think no one would object with a claim about Carlsen being at the very minimum in the top 0.1% of intelligence worldwide, probably much higher than that.
That just simply isn't what people mean when they talk about "intelligence," or how the word is used. Someone who's just read an SAT test prep manual isn't markedly more intelligent than they were before reading it. Yet an SAT/IQ test could show a significant jump.
As rational people, we should be precise about what it is, we're measuring, no? Especially when weird creeps are using IQ testing to justify their priors. Why are we committed to believing that these logic puzzles are really doing what
You're lumping in SAT and IQ tests together in one bucket and I don't think anyone here was doing that. IQ tests are defined specifically to test reasoning ability, no? I'd say that correlates directly to what we call intelligence. As does chess ability probably, IMO, at least if you're good enough to be top 10 in the world at it.
You're lumping in SAT and IQ tests together in one bucket and I don't think anyone here was doing that. IQ tests are defined specifically to test reasoning ability, no?
IQ tests are supposed to directly measure innate intelligence. SATs are supposed to measure "scholastic aptitude." But it's clear these are at best indirect measurements that can be heavily influenced by other things. Which brings into question Lucio's entire race science shtick --what else is influencing the measurement?
An example: take two identical clones, both have identical "intelligence," whatever you think that means. Have one do a month of intense IQ test prep and have one do some other intense cognitive task like learning Norwegian. There will be a difference in IQ scores, but is the one really more intelligent and better at reasoning than the other?
You're lumping in SAT and IQ tests together in one bucket and I don't think anyone here was doing that. IQ tests are defined specifically to test reasoning ability, no? I'd say that correlates directly to what we call intelligence. As does chess ability probably, IMO, at least if you're good enough to be top 10 in the world at it.
And SAT scores strongly correlate with IQ tests
IQ tests are supposed to directly measure innate intelligence. SATs are supposed to measure "scholastic aptitude." But it's clear these are at best indirect measurements that can be heavily influenced by other things. Which brings into question Lucio's entire race science shtick --what else is influencing the measurement?
An example: take two identical clones, both have identical "intelligence," whatever you think that means. Have one do a month of intense IQ test prep and have one do some other
I mean, you could make that argument about anything. Am I really innately better as a programmer because I've been programming for the last 20 years than someone who's been a theoretical physicist for the last 20 years? Probably not, but I would probably be better than they are at a programming-related task if you gave us both one today.
Yes, you can prepare for any test, but unless you have a better idea of how to measure/quantify intelligence or scholastic aptitude or whatever you want to call it, it's what we've got. Is your issue with the specific test as designed, or with the concept of having any test at all?
Trollson argument is that since nutrition in childhood is very relevant to express your full biological height, then it's racism to claim that with plenty of food available different ethnic groups end up with different median heights.
I mean, you could make that argument about anything. Am I really innately better as a programmer because I've been programming for the last 20 years than someone who's been a theoretical physicist for the last 20 years? Probably not, but I would probably be better than they are at a programming-related task if you gave us both one today.
Well, being "good at programming" is a much narrower thing than "intelligence." It's easier to define and set up a test for programming ability.
Yes, you can prepare for any test, but unless you have a better idea of how to measure/quantify intelligence or scholastic aptitude or whatever you want to call it, it's what we've got. Is your issue with the specific test as designed, or with the concept of having any test at all?
Sure, but we should be upfront about the limitations of this kind of testing. Esp when weird people start making claims about racial intelligence or some gross old man boasts about his cognitive ability based on an SAT score he got as a teenager.
Well, being "good at programming" is a much narrower thing than "intelligence." It's easier to define and set up a test for programming ability.
Sure, but we should be upfront about the limitations of this kind of testing. Esp when weird people start making claims about racial intelligence or some gross old man boasts about his cognitive ability based on an SAT score he got as a teenager.
What do you mean when you call someone "smart" or "dumb"? Whatever that is, find a way to measure it and put a number on it. If there's a better way than the current tests, I'm all for it.
You can't equate intelligence with athletics. I don't know why this keeps coming up.
You're lumping in SAT and IQ tests together in one bucket and I don't think anyone here was doing that. IQ tests are defined specifically to test reasoning ability, no? I'd say that correlates directly to what we call intelligence. As does chess ability probably, IMO, at least if you're good enough to be top 10 in the world at it.
Here is the problem. Over the years, like many people, I have known a decent number of people who are classical or jazz musicians, novelists, visual artists, screenwriters or directors, etc. Many are quite successful.
I suspect that I would outperform some of them, and perhaps many of them, on an SAT or IQ test. But I would be very hesitant to call myself more intelligent than any of them because I can't do what they can do. I very likely would have been less successful than those people in their respective fields, even if I had devoted my life to those endeavors.
In other words, I think that people on legacy poker forums skew toward a relatively specific type of analytic intelligence. And unsurprisingly, those people tend to overweight that type of intelligence.
