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.
Have you guys not seen Deuces' posting in the 9/11 thread? The man is a certified internet defective, I mean, detective. If he could multiply 2 digit numbers he'd basically be Sklansky.
Picking Apple in 1980 would have been pretty intelligent. Other than that, wat?
Well that's totally wrong. God does not play dice is just an easily understandable quote that has entered pop culture. Einstein and others were the first to seriously question whether quantum mechanics is compatible with relativity, causality and local realism. This lead directly to Bell's inequalities and literally the last Nobel prize in testing quantum mechanics vs hidden variables and other types of non quantum theories that can reproduce most of it's results. It was absolutely worth tes
If I am reading the popularizations of this stuff, it goes something like this:
1. After Einstein said that God doesn't play craps, (which is another way fo saying that there are "hidden variables' that control stuff rather than pure chance,) one of the few humans arguably even smarter, John von Neumann, essentially mathematically proved that given the results of certain experiments, Einstein must be wrong
2. A mere woman, (Greta Hermann), supposedly mathematically proved that von Neumann proof was in fact erroneous. Few paid attention for years, but eventually her proof/disproof was accepted by many if not most mathematicians/physicists
3. More recently some physicist big shots have come up with a proof/disproof/disproof which purportedly proves von Neumann's work disputing Einstein was, right all along.
4. Even more recently, other physics bigshots claim that it is in fact the above bigshots who are wrong in the following proof/disproof/disproof/disproof.
Luckily we have you to get to the bottom of this.
[1805.10311] Homer nodded: von Neumann's surprising oversight (arxiv.org)
I don't know that history and hadn't even heard of Hermann, which seems to be on me as she seems pretty interesting. I was born after the experimental tests of Bell's theorems so I think most people my age stopped really learning about the history of hidden variable theories because the ones that haven't been ruled out are so convoluted.
Pah! einstein only had an iq estimated at about 160.
Given his idea of a good argument was 'god doesn't play dice' he probably barely gets out of the 'stupid' range.
Sklansky, should Luciom lose estimated IQ points for missing an obvious joke or does he get excused because he's an Italian?
Non-locality is probably true, there is way more indicating that it's true than it isn't. It's just very bad for people who are pure physicalists (metaphysically), which is ironic since Einstein was a Spinozan so he should have had no difficulty with such a notion of reality in theory since it doesn't contradict dualism, idealism, or third substance monism. Once you reject physicalism then quantum mechanics and quantum entanglement is quite parsimonious.
Anyway, Einstein got so much correct and from an instrumentalist point of view his theories are absolutely sound in terms of what they have allowed us to do.
Also my last philosophy post on this sub.
Actually, I wasn't really asking whether hidden variables are possible. I don't think Greta thought she proved they were. I believe that all she supposedly did was show that von Neumann's proof that they were impossible (given certain experimental results) was flawed. What interests me is the fact that there has been so much back and forth as to whether Greta's objections were valid or not. In other words I was curious who wins the Hermann vs Von Neumann battle. It could have been about another subject and I would have been equally curious. It seems amazing that there is still controversy about whether Greta discovered that von Neumann made a mistake or not.
It was a joke based on metrics for intelligence and our bias in selecting them.
The IQ instruments that supposedly measure intelligence are heavily biased towards very specific types of problemsolving. They generally involve using pen and paper (or digital equivalent) to solve tasks involving word comprehension, numerical puzzles, logic tests etc. There are other approaches and variations, like
, which is a non-verbal IQ test, but it comes with related issues of its own.
My take, as stated earlier, is that this is a bias that exists because IQ as a metric for intelligence is a concept that arose in academia. Spearman's g-factor was very good at predicting academic aptitude, so academics figured it was therefore measuring intelligence.
IQ and g-factor then becomes the topic of discussion rather than intelligence, which means you start discussing the model rather than the reality you claim it describes. Like in this thread... instead of discussing how smart people are, there is a discussion of what their IQ score is. This is largely based on assumptions of how good they are at the subjects an IQ score predicts they will be good at. Which would seem to be circular reasoning, the statistical edition.
It is completely predictable. People love the idea of measurement and scales that weigh your ability, especially when they are numerical. It is final, absolute and discrete. We can put a value to people and say who is better and worse. Having a high score might become a matter of pride, while people having low scores can allow us to look down on them and discredit them.
However, at that point, you've firmly crossed into "a map is not the territory"-objection. A good map might be useful, but even a good map is useless if brought to the wrong place.
I think IQ should be used for what it is good at: Testing probable academic aptitude. I think the concept of IQ as a measure of intelligence is dubious, and I think discussing people's intelligence in terms of IQ scores is stupid.
It was a joke based on metrics for intelligence and our bias in selecting them.
The IQ instruments that supposedly measure intelligence are heavily biased towards very specific types of problemsolving. They generally involve using pen and paper (or digital equivalent) to solve tasks involving word comprehension, numerical puzzles, logic tests etc. There are other approaches and variations, like
, which is a non-verbal IQ test, but it comes with related issues of its own.My take, a
I think that the most important part is to be able to check if interventions improve that characteristic, which you can't if you can't quantify it.
What i hear frome the anti-IQ crowd are echoes of the debate about GDP being an improper measure of material well being.
Fact is , given it correlates with stuff most of us tend to agree matters, it doesn't matter that it is a rough approximation.
It was a joke based on metrics for intelligence and our bias in selecting them.
The IQ instruments that supposedly measure intelligence are heavily biased towards very specific types of problemsolving. They generally involve using pen and paper (or digital equivalent) to solve tasks involving word comprehension, numerical puzzles, logic tests etc. There are other approaches and variations, like
, which is a non-verbal IQ test, but it comes with related issues of its own.My take, a
Yep it's much better measure of likely academic achievement tahn intelliogence.
Maybe a better measure of intelligence would be the ability to get jokes. Or at least, spot them.
Indeed
Curious who has taken a real IQ test here
Crossnerd
Myself
Anyone else?
We might need to start working on a logarithmic scale if PW wants to play.
Actually, I wasn't really asking whether hidden variables are possible. I don't think Greta thought she proved they were. I believe that all she supposedly did was show that von Neumann's proof that they were impossible (given certain experimental results) was flawed. What interests me is the fact that there has been so much back and forth as to whether Greta's objections were valid or not. In other words I was curious who wins the Hermann vs Von Neumann battle. It could have been about another
I'm just guessing here as I have not read any of these papers, but I doubt either one of them made a "mistake" in the traditional sense. Von Neumann probably placed a huge restriction on the type of local hidden variable theories that were possible based on data they had then. Some people certainly made a mistake and took that to mean no hidden variable theory of any type can possibly reproduce known experiments. Hermann correctly pointed out that these people were wrong. This happens all the time in physics where a correct result is interpreted too broadly or important caveats are dropped or forgotten. But like I said, only a guess in this particular case as I haven't gone through any of it. And it's even harder to say now because we have to go back and only look at the experimental data vavaliable to them at the time.
I remember taking some tests when I was a young kid to help out a friend of my parents who needed to gain experience administering the tests. If they were IQ tests, I didn't recognize them as such at the time and I have no idea what my score was.
I certainly haven't taken one as an adult.
I remember taking some tests when I was a young kid to help out a friend of my parents who needed to gain experience administering the tests. If they were IQ tests, I didn't recognize them as such at the time and I have no idea what my score was.
I certainly haven't taken one as an adult.
Did it involve arranging shapes inside of other shapes?
Was it timed?
The closest I remember taking was in Jr high was a test the made the whole school take. They didn't tell us it was an IQ test or even give us our scores, but the questions were all diagrams of talking about folding a sheet of paper a certain way, punching a hole then unfolding it and picking out what it would look like. I only remember it because it was so unlike the standard tests you take at that age. AFAIK, I think the purpose of the test was to identify kids for honors/"gifted" classes that may not already be in them. Seems like a decent use of the test.
So, judging by the experiences related so far, nobody who has taken an IQ test had the opportunity to prepare for it, or in some cases even knew they were going to be taking one. And, as I have recently learned, the plural of anecdote is in fact data, so it sounds like this whole preparation thing is a bit of a red herring.
So, judging by the experiences related so far, nobody who has taken an IQ test had the opportunity to prepare for it, or in some cases even knew they were going to be taking one. And, as I have recently learned, the plural of anecdote is in fact data, so it sounds like this whole preparation thing is a bit of a red herring.
So far only two people have taken IQ tests. The experiences you reference are not relevant in the slightest.
IQ tests are administered by doctors in a controlled office setting. They use timers. They distract you and see how well you respond etc
I could be wrong ofc but all this other stuff sounds like tests that are not IQ tests
