traveller_76 said:
Depends what that thing was.
Let me ask you this: I offer person A 100$ to perform a particular task as many times as possible in a day. Think of an assembly line. Then I ask person B, who's been watching the whole scene, to do the same thing, but only offer him 50$. Ready, set, go! Which one will you bet on repeating the task the most times on that day?
That's not what I was saying. What I stated was very simple. If A can do something better than B (and THAT'S ALL YOU KNOW about them). Who would you say is smarter? Assuming "doing something" is something that requires some degrees of intelligence. Logic dictates that A is better than B in something, thus it's more likely that A is smarter... It's very simple. Since no other facts are given, that's what you place your bet on. If you are to bet on horses, and you KNOW horse A is sick and horse B isn't. Which one do you bet on (without any additional info?). Intelligence is a difficult thing to measure 100% accurately, thus anything that shows a tendency is welcomed (because after all, what is absolute?)
traveller_76 said:
I'm very good at taking a shower, waking up in the morning, eating, breathing... Am I smarter? I submit that all people can do all these things without difficulty (that's 'something' isn't it?), unless something like bad health (or being forgotten tied up to the bedposts...
) impedes them. You're in the realm of 'spurious conclusions' (if I’m in ‘fatal flaw’).
Funny. Obviously I meant something that "requires" intelligent. Something that can be done "better". How do one "wake up" better? Your example makes no sense in the situation I offered. If someone can do something BETTER, it means he's more than 50% likely to be smarter (all things else being equal). Is that hard to understand? All things being equal, if one of them has an advantage, he/she is smarter (If X = Y, then X+0.001 > Y).
traveller_76 said:
Intelligence is 'basic logics'? Please expand because you didn’t in the rest of your post.
That's very difficult to explain properly within the scope of this post.
Intelligent is innate. Something you get with your genes, your birth-right. You can't improve it, nor can you lose it. It's there. If you take a human baby, and a monkey. Leave them both on an island, the human will survive better (without any special superceeding event). In fact, that's why Homo Sapians are alive and dominating. We are smarter than monkeys. We know how things work (logics).
traveller_76 said:
How do 'things' benefit from 'logics'? Are we talking about an ability to reason through problems, or of some force that has an ability of its own to imposes itself on 'anything' in a 'beneficial' manner? Ok... You meant: if I am a person with a strong logical ability, everything I do should be done better than the next guy, who has a lesser ability... Say you’re really good in arithmetics (and say that means your ‘smart’ or have ‘logics’) can you survive a week on the streets better than a homeless person?
That's exactly what I meant. Again there is a flaw in your logics; you added another element. If there's two person who's the same in EVERY WAY except one of them has an IQ of 180 and the other is normal (IQ 100). The smarter one WILL survive better on the street. Because he can think more, adapt more... so forth. A homeless person had "practice" at surviving, thus you gave him an advantage. That's like saying "Bruce Lee can't fight for shit... Why don't you let him fight a guy with a machine gun?" Basic thing to remember while comparing two qualities: You must keep everything else equal. In science, we call that a CONTROLLED environment (otherwise, the results mean nothing).
traveller_76 said:
The ability to reason through problems will not help me wake up any better in the morning--the alarm clock will
Is the highly intelligent person more likely to remember to put the alarm on than the 'normal' person? Don’t know. Probably not if he’s a CEO
Ok... nitpicking, again, aside, does it mean he or she can break a system into its parts more quickly? Maybe, but I think the only thing ‘speed’ measures is successfulness of the training. The saying doesn't go: ‘intelligence makes perfect’…
See my point regarding what I meant by "doing things better".
traveller_76 said:
What I was saying is that the ability to perform a task fast is not necessarily a measure of intelligence. My sense of greed might help me finish my work faster because I've been promised a bonus if I could do the job twice as fast as the other guy.
Not my point. I meant CAPABILITY and not WILL power. Any idiot can WANT TO do something faster, but is he CAPABLE of doing so? Greed will not help you solve a logical problem any faster... Try it. lol.
traveller_76 said:
Ok, let's agree to disagree. I think IQ tests measure levels of culturally defined intelligence. I'll expand if someone asks.
I agreed with that, didn't I? I KNOW there's a cultural difference; but it's not enough to make it inaccurate. Think about it this way: The common view point about why certain people score better at IQ tests is that they SPEAK the language the tests are made in (better than others) AND they are used to the kind of questions it ask. Ok, fine... that works for Europe and North America (who scored higher than South America, Africa and Pacific Islands)... but why the hell are Asians scoring better? Some of them barely speak the language ! They sure as hell are not using our educational system, they aren't used to IQ tests til we showed it to them... so WHY?
traveller_76 said:
I failed my first driver's exam because I failed the 'parallel-park' task. I have this guy breathing down my neck, telling me I need to do it faster because he doesn't have all day. I'm stressed out. I make a mistake. I’m 17. Yet I have no trouble parking a car in impossible spaces, more so than most drivers I know (granted, this is montreal and most people don’t know how to drive
). Question back at you: are people who have performance anxiety less smart that people who don't? IQ clock ticking...
Again, you introduced another element. Anxiety made it harder for you even IF you had a higher IQ. BUT, remember, if your IQ was lower, then you would have even HARDER a time, anxiety notwithstanding.
traveller_76 said:
Maybe no magic. What do you think about insight?
No insight... look at those questions, it's very basic logics. If something is something then what? Or find a match for figure 3. What kind of insight do you need to solve those? It's just pure logics (the easiest kind of test). Nothing is required, just your ability to understand.
traveller_76 said:
True or False:
If some Cs are As, and all Bs are Cs, then all As are Bs?
You can answer this question because you’ve received the training to do it. You learned the steps. When you answer the right choice in the IQ test you demonstrate that you’ve been well educated in the cultural system that put together the IQ questions.
Answered the question in last post. lol. No, no one trained me to answer basic logical questions... What the hell? How could one be trained to understand things? I don't need someone to tell me If A is B and B is C... Is C also A? Come on ! Logics is the most basic thought process ever.
traveller_76 said:
The ability to think logically, as you pointed out, is the ability to break a whole in its various parts and understand those parts’ relationship to one another. Ability to understand systems. Geometry is a good example : A-squared + B-squared= C-squared. We all learned this theorem in math in grade 6, I think. We need to be trained to be able to answer: ‘what is A and what is B if C is 4?’ 2. If you didn’t have breakfast that morning when the teacher was teaching, or most mornings, because you’re parents were broke, you likely wouldn’t do well on the exam, or be sucessful at the next levels : algebra, trigonometry…
I am glad you posed this question. The answer is very complicated. Now, math is very intelligent based; however, there is an element of knowledge as well. If you do not understand what "squared" means, you will not be able to answer the question. Why? (the following part is difficult to grasp) Because "squared" is a human concept. We called letting a number multiply itself, "squared". Just like we called counting a number a few times, "multiply". The words mean nothing, it's the concept behind it. Once the human understands that 2*3 means count 2 (1,2) three times (1,2 -> 3,4 -> 5,6), he/she learns that 2*3 = 6. We do it faster in our head because we memorized it (no one counts when doing 2*3). The reason many people think math needs to be "learnt" is because... well, they are not geniuses. REAL geniuses can understand math's VERY CORE, the base; and thus understand the parts that follow. When I learn math, I don't memorize it... I understand it and why it's like that. A^2 + B^2 = C^2 can be deducted with basic math (now THAT'S a long post, again out of the scope of this post). Do you think people just MADE IT UP? Some mathematician deducted it. Kids nowadays just memorize it and think that it's just an "equation". All equations are made through deduction by brilliant minds.
No one really "needs" to be trained to answer any math question. As long as they understand what it is asking (sometimes "math" words make it difficult). 6 years old kids may not be able to solve X * 2 = 4, because they didn't "learn" it. But sure as hell they will know if both of his/her parents gave him/her an equal amount of money and he recieved 4 dollars total; it means each of his/her parents gave him 2 (any non-dumbass kid should know). Math isn't mystical... It is LOGICS.