traveller_76 said:
If you can demonstrate that null hypotheses 'Muscle + Skill', or 'IQ+ Knowledge' never equal 'failure in a fight' or 'failure in life' then you’ve got yourself a theory.
There are indeed many geniuses on the streets.
... Geniuses on the street? Due to a lack of Knowledge prehaps? That's the whole point, you need both.
Show me how many MIT graduate, IQ 180 geniuses, are on the street. Remember their EXISTANCE means nothing, there have to be enough of them (out of the whole geniuses population) for the data to mean anything.
What I can show you is that the average of university students (the US) is about 5 points higher than the US national average. It's well known that smart people will get further in life. How would you argue that? Seeing how university graduates do better than HS graduates in life, it stands to reason that HIGH IQ means you are more likely to go to university, thus more likely to get a better life.
traveller_76 said:
I understand that. You’re the one that built the theory that IQ and knowledge were enough.
t76
Define enough. Of course it's enough. Most smart, knowledgable people have great jobs. SURE if we are playing this YOUR WAY. There are many other factors... Hey, if people don't eat, they can't be too successful (cause they will be dead?). If people don't walk, they can't be too successful (because they can't get to their job?). OH WOW! I conclude that in addition to IQ and Knowledge, you need 10 million other things, among them: walking, eating and sleeping.
Please... I meant major factors. I am WILLING to accept that a "stable" environment is probably needed. But keep in mind, an "UNSTABLE" environment is a outside factor that affects the person. ANYONE can be affected by unstable environments (abuse... so forth). Heck if you count abuse as a factor for "lack of success". You might as well count reckless driving, or drinking, or drugs. If you OD'd, chances are, you won't be very successful.
You need to identify the range of the argument. While a stable environment means something, it's not the point. It's an outside factor. As long as the person has high IQ and knowledge he WILL BE successful without an outside factor (such as abuse... struck by lightning... murdered...etc...)
Here, let me give you some supporting fact. Causation in criminal law. It basicly means you may construct a murder by using chains of connecting and possible events.
For example, if A shoots B, B is wounded and sent to the hospital. If B dies while being operated, is A guilty? A could argue, "Hey, it's the hospital's fault for not saving him, I am only guilty of WOUNDING him."
To avoid defenses like that, we have the CHAIN of CAUSATION. Which basicly asks IS B's death CAUSE by A. Without A, would B have died? It's called the "but for" test. Would B have died but for A's actions. The answer is NO. Without being shot, B can't die. THUS A is responsible, ok?
NOW there is an exception... If on B's way to the hospital, he was STRUCK by lightning... Is A guilty of murder? NO. Because although A cause B to go to the hospital, but being STRUCK by lightning is not the "NORM". Without being struck by lightning, B could've lived. It interfers with the CHAIN of CAUSATION (the lightning bolt broke the chain). Thus A would not have been charged with murder.
What this means is... When I state a statement, you can't counter it with a "unnatual" point. Because it breaks the chain of logics. I am using standard situations where more than 50% of the people are concerned. Unless more than half of the world is being abused, then abuse does not enter into the equation of success (neither does lightning bolts). You can't use a rare and unnatural event or condition to counter a point... I used to debate, I know.
traveller_76 said:
Really? Kid A excels in Math and English. Kid B does not, for a host of reasons. Which kid do you bet on to get the higher IQ score? Did you base your answer on their level of prior achievement or their 'innate intelligence'?
t76
. Interesting, please tell me who would you bet on, let's have a little fun.
You are trying to show me that I would choose Kid A DUE to some prior achievement, is that right? Thus it would prove your point, yes?
Mmm, interesting... Since I have no other way of knowing which one is smarter (without an "IQ" test), I must use my logics.
Remember what I said before? If someone is has higher IQ, he probably do things better...
So if A does math better than B, it follows that A is probably smarter, yes?
This is exactly what I meant. Because A is smarter (higher IQ) THUS he's doing better. THUS, he has achievements (better math and english).
He's not magically smarter AFTER his achievements (he doesn't LEVEL UP and gain INT points; lol, sorry, D&D reference). He achieved BECAUSE of his intelligence. So of course achievement can be used to "guess" if someones' intelligent.
Think about this relation: Does raining cause people to bring umbrellas? YES. NOT the other way around. BUT, if I see someone carrying an umbrella on the street, does it stand to reason that IT COULD BE RAINING? Yes, it does. But that does not prove umbrella causes raining.
Just like your example does not prove a nice Social-Economic background causes High IQ (or success).
Another thing about your example, if I have data on his "innate intelligence" for some weird reason. Then I would simple compare the two... Higher Intelligence means better score on an "IQ" test... How hard is that?
Your example proved my point... How's that for Irony? (REAL irony)
BTW, I understand people's need to feel like they can achieve as long as they "worked hard". That we are all born equal (in intelligence). I understand that. The fuzzy feeling is nice. However, it's unrealistic.
I don't understand why we are even arguing... IQ has a strong correlation with achievements. I can find 2000 supporting articles; yet none will suggest IQ has nothing to do with achievements.
Just remember, I NEVER ARGUED that IQ is the SOLE factor in success. Why do you insist on going on?
Ziggy Montana said:
Is concisiveness a form of intelligence?
I tried to be concise, but the scope of the discussion makes that difficult. Not to mention it seems to be difficult to present my point when the opponent is countering with moot points.
I am already very concise, these IQ researches are like 100+ pages.
Ziggy, please give your opinion on the matter, I want to know if anyone else understood my points.
Do you believe there is a innate intelligence? Does it matter (in terms of our success)?