What do you hate the most?

[ZoneAlarm]

Unfortunatly IQ test dont really prove anything. Its common knowledge that those test are purely based on academic knowledge because thats what they where originally designed for in France. Example: a person who is retarded lets use Celine Dion as a example, if you where to give her a IQ test she would probably get 50 tops lol, but then why is it she richer then all of us put together on this board and probably one of the most sucessful canadian singers. The IQ test really dont test ur intellegence.

Now what we should do is stop letting people with no education or no know hows into this country because what happens they all end up working under the table and sucking are health care and wellfare system dry. Let some of those japanese people in those guys work like animals and their very smart. Iv worked with many people from Japan and these guys know their stuff and their ability to learn new languages and adapt is very very impressive. Oviously theirs other nationalities i was just using Japan as a example.

 

[John_Cage]

I don't want to sound like an ass... but Intelligence is a very different thing than "being a good singer". She's still an idiot if she scored 50 on an IQ test (standardized).

The IQ test were NOT design to test academic knowledge... at ALL. What are you talking about? They design to test BASIC learning, and logical abilities (different fields in that as well). Abeit, the better educated is PROBABLY smarter than others (because he was capable of learning). The IQ (while culturally bias) is a very accurate measure of "REAL" intelligence. The basic human ability to learn, adapt and deduct.

Singing well is not "intelligent", neither is "making money" or "good at school". IQ is a very BOARD but BASIC quality. Yes, an intelligent person is PROBABLY good at school or making money, but that's not ALWAYS the case (since there are other factors).

Think of it this way:

Intelligent = Muscles
Knowledge/Other acquired ability = Learnt Fighting Skills

USUALLY, a bigger person will beat the shit out of a smaller person, IF they are on the same skill level. Meaning a smart person is usually better than others at doing certain things (unless, the "dumb" person did something to compensate for his/her lack of intelligence).

IQ is natural, it's what you got when you're born. It's genes, pure and simple.

I don't like the way words like "smart", "intelligent" and "skills" are being misused daily in today's world.

Further clarification:
A "intelligent" human (uneducated) and an "average" human (uneducated) are both put on an island. Chances are, the smarter one will live (or if they both lived, the smarter one will live "better").

Intelligence: Ability to learn, adapt, deduct, think critically and solve problems (That's what the term is meant to mean. It's NOT good at making money, or funny at dinner parties; although these "peaks" are very likely shared by the Intelligent).

Edit: I agree totally with the Japan comment. The Japs (or Chinese, or Koreans) are very smart by my definition as well. Combine that with a nice personality, non-violent and hard-working... Winning combo.

 

[C Dick]

IQ has been proven to be a better predictor of just about any positive outcome than anything else. Meaning there is a strong corelation between IQ and income, health, life expectancy, jail avoidance, anything like that, than any other predictor. There are similar corelations for things like education level, parents wealth, etc. But IQ is the best predictor, that is why it has value. If it only measured book smarts it would not have that value. But the corelation is not 100%, there are plenty of smart losers, and plenty of Celine Dions that do not fit the corelation.

 

[z/m(Ret)]

Squirrels and squirrel-behavior-like Plateau pedestrians! Ever observed a squirrel cross a street? Inches away from reaching safety, instead of taking that one last hop, it decides instead to retrace it's numerous steps towards the opposite direction, often winding up road kill.

Plateau pedestrians, don't ask me why, must have learned their street-crossing techniques from squirrels.

 

[eastender]

Animals Crossing Streets

Squirrels and squirrel-behavior-like Plateau pedestrians! Ever observed a squirrel cross a street? Inches away from reaching safety, instead of taking that one last hop, it decides instead to retrace it's numerous steps towards the opposite direction, often winding up road kill.

Plateau pedestrians, don't ask me why, must have learned their street-crossing techniques from squirrels.

Quite common to see squirrels crossing busy streets during the rush hour by scampering along the overhead wires.

Animals will turn back if they sense danger.

Unattended dogs cross streets in the middle of the block instead of corners.
Anyone know why?

 

[CoolAmadeus]

You're right, but it's the whole northeast, and in my opinion, MA, CT and NH are the worst. You know the arrogant prick, who tailgates you, then flashes his lights at you, because you're not passing the woman in the right lane fast enough, even though you're going nearly 80mph, then you see him pass you on the right, get back in the left lane with like two feet of clearance between you and him, which is how much space there was between you and him when he was tailing you

Hey! I'm not that bad! And I'm not an arrogant prick! Plus if people are passing at 80mph there's no reason to complain, right?

But now check this... You're on a highway. It's a sunny day. You're in a good mood. You're on the cruise control at 140kmh (about 90mph) on the left lane. Right when you're getting close to pass those two cars in front of you, the moron behind decides to pull on the left to pass the one in front of him.... He drives just above legal speed (70mph). Should you complain then? Well... You have to react quickly and brake, and then wait for him to pass. ARGHHHH~(*#$~)(@#_$(* Did he see you coming quickly, driving 20mph faster than him? Probably. Did he care? Of course not! Then you look at his plate to see where he's from......NY, MA, CT, whatever. Oh yeah, as usual, he owns the road!

Some will say I'm driving too fast. Slow down and it won't happen. That's not the point. Those saying that are probably..... driving 60 mph on the highway! LOL

 

[jacep]

because some guy wants to buy a handful of lottery tickets...

What about waiting in the line at a depanneur/grocery store/regular store because some person in front is counting their pennies/coins in order to pay? ;-)

 

[jacep]

What ranks up there for me is kids that are misbehaving and the adult supervisor or parents don't do anything about it.

This happened to me a few times:
1) when going to a movie theatre, the very young kids are running around in the movie theatre. During the movie, they get up off their seats and move around a lot. However, sometimes I also think that students in their teens to early 20's are also an issue in the theatre with their rowdiness.
2) in an airplane, the kid behind me has started doing things like kicking my chair, etc. I give the kid a stare and the parent notices the kid doing this but doesn't do anything
3) in a restaurant, some kids running around, bumping into your table, etc and the parents completely oblivious to the fact or simply don't care that their kids are disrupting others.

I know that kids will be kids but the adult supervisors (or parents) should do something about it.

 

[John_Cage]

I did an IQ test for fun once, on the Mensa website, and I don't remember my score exactly, but I remember thinking it sucked.

[...]

Is the ability to recognise beauty also a form of intelligence then?

t76

You raised two questions:

1. Is the capability of doing something in a limited time frame a measurement of intelligence?

Let me ask you this, if person A was capable of doing something faster than person B, and you have 100 bucks to place a bet on who's "smarter". Which one will you bet on?

Being able to do ANYTHING positive is a sign of intelligence. I said Intelligence is basic logics, what I didn't say is what logics is. EVERYTHING we do in life CAN benefit from logics. I mean EVERYTHING. A highly intelligent person will do just about anything better than a normal person (on average).

In your example about how you can't seem to solve problems fast enough. I guess you are trying to state that even though you can't solve them fast enough, it doesn't mean you aren't smart (according to your other example about the two code breakers). However, there's a fatal flaw in your logics. Your "lack of speed" DOES indeed put you lower on the IQ scale than faster people; however some of them will NOT be able to solve HARDER questions. You will out shine them there, thus you might score better than them on the IQ test. The truly intelligent will not have a problem with both. You think a mastermind who cracks complicated codes will not be able to solve a simple one like less than 0.0002 seconds? Intelligence is very straight forward, there's no MAGIC in it. If a person is capable of solve a simple code in 1 second... then he can PROBABLY solve one that's twice as hard in maybe 2 seconds (obviously, it shouldn't be a linear relation, but I am making it up). There is no "special" sort of intelligent that let's your solve "faster". A complicate code is basicly a LOT of simple ones. The way to solve a code (assuming we are talking a language code) is about finding a relation between it (the unknown) and something we already know (the alphabet, math... etc...). It's basicly lots of "regconizing" and lots of "logical deductions". The reason a complicated code takes longer to solve is because it requires many little steps to peel away to its core. A person who can do those little steps faster will be the more "LIKELY" person to solve the big puzzle.

Conclusion: Yes, those logic and spatial questions DOES in fact measure intelligence. Think about how long the test would be if they give you problems that require a year to solve?

2. Is Musical talent (amongst others) a sign of intelligence?

I am a writer and I guess you would agree that beautiful writing doesn't need "logics"... But it does.
Where should I put the dramatic pause? Where should the sentence end? How should it end? Many thinks it's "natural" that beautiful writing comes out of writers, but it's not. We are just VERY used to doing the logics in our head, thus we are capable of making it seen like we are doing some kind of "art". Writing is purely logical; it's about how to seduce with words.

I cannot speak for painting or musics... but keep in mind that most people who score well on IQ tests are MUSICAL geniuses ! I took piano lessons when I was 12... guess what? There was little freaking 6 years old chinese kids who played a heck lot better than me (which is why I've given up).

There difference is that: While Musical Talent IS based on IQ; it's NOT ONLY based on IQ.

Like I said before, even if you have the biggest muscles in the world (natural talent, like IQ), if you don't train and learn how to fight (education), you "could" still lose to someone who's smaller than you (unlikely, but possible).

Conclusion: Of course Musical Talent is a SIGN of intelligence; but it's not the absolute measurement of it.

Let me clarify the difference: Yes, having a nice car is usually a sign of being rich; but it's not the absolute measurement of it. You could've sold everything you own just to buy a 1 million dollar car, does that mean you're richer than someone who drives a 0.5 million dollar car but owns 2 factories and 3 oil rigs?

The only true measurement of "rich-ness" is MONEY. Just like the true measurement of "Intelligence" is IQ.

 

[John_Cage]

I apologize for the double post (the original is long enough as it is, I rather not make it any more unsightly).

Quite common to see squirrels crossing busy streets during the rush hour by scampering along the overhead wires.

Animals will turn back if they sense danger.

Unattended dogs cross streets in the middle of the block instead of corners.
Anyone know why?

Two guesses:

1. There's more "middle" than "corner" on a block, thus it's more likely (mathmatically speaking) for a dog (who has no preference) to cross in the "middle".

2. I guess it's "easier" to manage in the middle (only two possible directions to watch for). Since they don't understand traffic lights, the best thing for them to do is simply PICK a place to cross where there's LESS things to watch out for.

Regarding "dumb kids" problem:

I think I might have a solution to the "dumb kid" problem in today's world. We need positive influence and maybe a little bit of Eugenics (don't scream "nazi" and don't shoot... wait).

Maybe if we showcase intelligence, manners and anything positive on tv and movies, then we will have a world that VALUES those more so than we do now. Ban the violent movies, violent video games, sexist music videos and those gangsta's. If you want to act like a thug, you will be treated like one (locked up).

By positively portrait these positive quality, we "create" an innate sort of eugenics. People already select their mate due to influcence from the media. That's why those teens dress like "thugs". We are simply "correcting" their selection. These kind of eugenics are not racist or evil in anyways, it's probably the best thing (since we will have less idiots running around).

Either that, or we could gather the idiots and send them off to some remote island (and possibly make a FOX special out of it).

 

[eastender]

Correct and Managing Kids

2. I guess it's "easier" to manage in the middle (only two possible directions to watch for). Since they don't understand traffic lights, the best thing for them to do is simply PICK a place to cross where there's LESS things to watch out for.

Correct about dogs crossing.

Also know a pensioner who is very successful in getting kids to turn down loud music. She just starts dancing to the beat. Works very well.

 

[The family guy]

Board members with inferiority complex. Tough guy wannabes coping with teacher's pet syndrome.

Mouhahahahhaahahah... Thanks for reporting this to me, xxx, look who's missing me!

They're really desperate for action on the little board... Nuff playing with retards, back to business- you know? Business?

Hmmmm... I hate cowards that hides with BD... and their handle...NEWBIE

 

[Sinfulsweet]

ignorance

I had some bad experiences with squirrels during my cycling rides. These animals just appear out of nowhere a few inches from the bike's front wheel. Very dangerous.

I also had a funny experience with cats. Two years ago, I was cycling when I saw a cat on the sidewalk a few tens meters away. First, I thought that the cat was going to cross and prepared myself to slow down. Then, the cat just kept waiting while looking at me. I said to myself cool, he is waiting for me and we made eye contact, for some reason I was assuming that I was dealing with a rational human being. When I got like 2 meters close to him, the cat decided to cross without any prior notice. I reached for the brakes, hit them, blocked my rear wheel and almost fall down on the floor to save little catty. This happened on Boyer street, and there you can expect cats, squirrels and distracted housewives crossing without any prior notice.

That's too funny, Spiderman05! Urban squirrels are much bolder (aggressive, even) than their cousins from the suburbs... And I think that cat was just messing with you. He probably laughed his ass off all the way home!

I hate when someone throws open their car door on a busy street just as you're approaching... parking in a clearly marked no parking zone... crossing the road without even looking up... But what really gets me is when someone doesn't know (or can't remember) my name and instead of politely asking, they go "Hey you, whatever your name is..." OMG!! I get homicidal urges!!

 

[John_Cage]

To Traveler:

"if some Cs are As and all Bs are Cs, then all As are Bs., ‘true’?"

First off, the answer is false...
Some Cs are As, and all Bs are Cs... why would As be Bs?
If you need me to explain further, here it goes:
Some Cs are As, fine (argument 1)
All Bs are Cs, thus we can conclude the each B have the same quality as a C (argument 2)
If ONLY some Cs are As (argument 1) and B have same quality as Cs (argument 2), then it means that some Bs are As (argument 3).
The only conclusion is that some Bs are As, so we can be sure some As are Bs, but not ALL As are Bs (Conclusion).

That's how I would show it to you. But in my head... all I had to do was read the damn thing... it doesn't make sense (thus it's false). That's what intelligence is... Deduction, Logics...

 

[John_Cage]

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?)

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).

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).

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).

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".

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[John_Cage]

(Continuing)

I’d like to introduce exhibit A : another indicator that 'correlates' with IQ test results is 'socio-economic status'.

Agreed. Except you ASSUMED their role. You got the cause/effect part reversed. Because the higher IQ, they GOT better status; not the other way around. Why are there different scores in the same class? Why do the higher scores often belong to the high IQ kids? Their education is exactly the same.

I disagree that the ability to punctuate and structure, or have an introduction and a conclusion, demonstrates a higher ability to think logically. I also disagree that it isn't 'natural' that some writers and artists more generally produce beautiful works. Artists couldn't create masterpieces if they didn't have inspiration and insight, nor could people like Einstein and Pythagoras come up with ground breaking theories.

How do you measure that?

I said writing needs IQ, and high IQ makes it easier (because writing is logical). That does not mean ALL of writing is BASED on logics. Inspiration is very important (trust me, I know... that's why I write so slowly, no inspiration nowadays).

Think about it this way: Does gun affect the outcome of combat? Yes it does. But don't you need a solider who has the training to use it? Yes you do. What it means is that, while IQ is important in a lot of things, it NEEDS something else.

Not all geniuses can write, not all geniuses can draw, not all geniuses can play music. Because other than a high IQ, they need something else. If I didn't have a decent vocabulary, I wouldn't write very well, IQ notwithstanding.

Remember, I am stating that high IQ ***USUALLY*** means "better" at things. It's not absolute. There are other contributing elements.

Disagree with last sentence and the second half of the first. If you want to know why, ask. It will be a long post. As for the first part, yes, we are very used to 'doing logic' in our heads because if humans had no logical ability they would be extinct.

What I meant was that: sometimes people are SO USED to doing something, they do it fast enough that we THINK "it's a innate ability". But it's often something that's logic based. When I argue in writing, I often point out someone's else's logical flaw then restate my point (that way, I weaken their statement and strength mine). Do I "THINK" about it when I do it? No. I am so used to it, it's "natural". I am simply pointing out that sometimes you "think" something isn't "intelligent" based because you believe in some "magical" talent. But there isn't any (most cases). Intelligence is the grand daddy of talent; all talents are born of it.

I have reasons to believe that not all my points are fully understood the first time, please re-read what I said (first post).

I am not insulting anyone's intelligence here, just stating what intelligence is (and pointing out logical flaws).

I gave a few examples which you seemed to be confused by... Draw a parallel between them and you will see what I meant. Logics can be used to understand something if you used ANOTHER example that's "easier" for the person (this case, you).

I was trying to show my view on what Intelligence is, and since it's a new concept, I have to draw a parallel.

I know you understand "fighting", right? I am using "comparing fighting skill" to mirror "comparing intelligence".

Similarly, I am using "muscle" to show you what role I believe "IQ" plays in life.
"Muscle" help in a fight, i believe you knew that (which is why i used the example). So, my parallel means that I believe "IQ" does benefit as well (in life). Also note that "Muscle" is natural (to some extend it's innate). Which is exactly what I believed is true for "IQ".

Then, I compared "Fighting Skills" with "Knowledge". Both are abilities that can be acquired. They are NOT natural; yet they contribute to one's success (in fighting, and in life). I believe you understand that "fighting skills" help one "fight". Which is why I drew that parallel.

By now, I hope you understand what I meant. If not... let me try again in MATH.

IQ + Knowledge = Success in Life (simplified equation)
Muscle + Skills = Success in a Fight

In this two equation, all your questions are answered. Why is it that homeless people are better at surviving on the street? Because his "KNOWLEDGE" of doing so is higher. So my higher IQ may not be enough to compensate for it. Thus he will survive better. Like-wise, if he was recently homeless, and his "knowledge" about the street is only marginally better than mine, then maybe a superior IQ would make me the better survivor.

You have to understand that there are MANY factors in success; but it DOES NOT take away from the fact that IQ plays a major part in it.

 

[John_Cage]

JC:

Thank you. I wouldn't have thrown it out there if I didn't get it

I was trying to make this point:

True or False:

"The only true measurement of "rich-ness" is MONEY. Just like the true measurement of "Intelligence" is IQ?"

-False.

cheers,

t76

Do you understand "premise" and "conclusion"? lol. Sorry, no rudeness intented.

I don't know why I gave the idea of a "premise", "conclusion" relationship with those two statements (statements are premises).

I stated two statements, they are not related. They are compared.

I showed you that "YES, a nice car is a SIGN of richness" but the true measurement of RICHNESS is "money".

It is meant to compare with

"Yes muscial talent is a SIGN of intelligence" but the true measurement of Intelligence is "IQ".

I am showing you their role. While musical talent COULD mean genius, it's not absolute. Because "IQ" is the measurement (since it measure the basic quality of logical deduction). The Car and Richness crap is called an "example", a "comparison" if you will.

Also the cat, dog, mammal thing didn't make sense...

"All" is conclusive while "some" only shows it exists. Some mammals are cats means that "Mammals that are also cats EXIST". All cats are mammals would mean that "If an object has the quality of cat, it must also have the quality of mammal" Thus it LIMITES of a cat can be (it must be a mammal).

Also, I noticed that the ability to draw parallels (and to understand them) is a measurement of intelligence. In fact, they test them on IQ tests (choosing similar shapes and so forth). Understanding quality and what defines them is important.

 

[John_Cage]

I'll take the time to respond to all your posts tomorrow point-form. I am too tired to deal with all this right now. Blanket statements are tiring to respond to. Plus, you're not doing really good at detecting my irony as illustrated in your first response to the last sentence of my previous post. By the way, did you know irony is a system that must be broken up into parts to be understood?

This statement here jumped at me. Let me make a first point in answering it now: I didn't assume anything. This is what the literature in this field of research suggests, if you are at all aware of that literature, which I wouldn't expect you to be as most people have no reason or interest to read this stuff unless they were social scientists. I said correlation. Poor socio-economic background correlates positively with low IQ scores. Socio-economic status is not a cause of low IQ scores, nor did I imply that. A correlation is not the same thing as 'cause to effect', or a 'causal relation'. I've been trained to not make blanket statements. It is your statements, not mine, that are full of 'fatal flaws'.

Good evening,

t76

It's funny, because I did the research on the exact topic a while back. Which is why some of you saw my Prof. Rushton links (which I will not post again cause it was deemed racist). I had also read government datas and opponents of Rushton (who had data suggesting "other" factors that might affect "IQ").

Tell me, if you "assumed" nothing... then what's the point of merely showing me "correlations"? lol.

"I am not saying anything... but you do know that there's a positive correlation between education and success? I am not suggesting anything... Just wanted to show correlation..." lol. Come on...

Correlation is meant to show a possible connection. That's what statics is. It's data that MEANS something. By showing me some "correlation" as a response to my post, do you honestly mean to tell me you didn't THINK that "poor familly" lead to low "IQ"?

I have studied their research, but I opposed their findings. Like many researches, there are COUNTER points and COUNTER researches. I would like to state here, even though there is a correlation between "IQ" and "familly income", it does not in fact mean "poor people" are "dumb". It means "Dumb" are likely to be "Poor"; makes sense, no? Which is why I gave the counter point of why kids in the same school and neighborhood have different "IQ"s and success. If environment dictates "IQ", their IQ should be similar, and not lop-sided. The US is richer than most countries but their "IQ" is a lower than let's say China or Korea (not as rich as the US).

I never once stated a "blanket" statement. A blanket statement would imply that I saw one thing and ASSUMED it worked for the rest. I assumed nothing. I said that it USUALLY worked (IQ USUALLY led to better performance). How is that a blanket statement? A blanket statement would also imply that I willfully disregard some uncertainties; which I didn't, since I said USUALY, which left plenty of room for any special cases. Also, blanket statements are not by its nature "wrong". All dogs are mammals are in fact a BLANKET statement, yet it's true. You just have to understand the background surrounding the statement.

Also notice your inability to detect the irony of my answer, even though it ended with a question mark. Aren't you the writter?

If you had used your 'logics' you might have seen that the comparison was not between two similar syllogisms (those 'premise to conclusion' things) but two similar fallacies.

really out,

t76

Because your "irony" made no sense...

If you were trying to show that my second premises is false, then you should've have said (something like):

---
JC, what you said is like:
Apples grows on trees, so cats must be dogs.
---

Then I would've understood that you saw no connection between Money = Riches AND IQ = Intelligence. Because Apple growing on trees have NOTHING to do with cats and dogs.

What you said made me think that you believed my first statement LED to my second (what you said was saying that I made a false deduction based on some premises; and since I didn't base the statements on each other, there can be no fallacy).

Also the first statement cannot be a fallacy unless you have some weird understanding of "richness". Richness (in term of physical wealthy) is DEFINED by money (property). Just like Intelligence is DEFINED by ability to understand (which as I have shown is measured by IQ). I am not speaking of "Knowledge" nor "know-how" nor "personality" nor "hard working"... I am talking INTELLIGENCE, pure and simple.

An irony must be done right... else it backfires.


Also, I tend to talk (type) "rudely" when I am trying to be logical. It's not meant to offend or belittle anyone. Please don't be offended (I detected something ).

I am simply saying that "IQ" is signficant in judging one's success; and "IQ" is innate and natural. My points are both backed by researches (there's a positively correlation between "IQ" and achievement AND their relationship cannot be reversed; Since high achievement leading to high IQ would not make sense).

 

[John_Cage]

Sorry, I have not been following so maybe it was said before but...

Just a thing I want to point out : IQ tests measures SOME intellectual capacities. Not all of them. So you can't rely only on those results to determine someone's intelligence.

Correct in some ways. It really depends on how you define intelligence, doesn't it?

I define it as (most IQ proponent and psychologist also) ability to reason. In that sense IQ is the "alpha and omega" of it.

IQ does not measure your inter-personal skills, nor your physical skills, nor your reaction time, nor your memory. So in some other definition, IQ cannot measure all "forms of intelligent". I personnaly do not think of those qualities as part of a person's intellect. But this point, is always up for debate.

To be nice, most people like to believe there are so many different fields of intelligence and everyone is smart in thier own ways (sounds familliar?). But I believe there's only one TRUE intelligence; but there are other "qualities" that I won't called "intelligence".

Sum it up. IQ measures ability to reason (deduction and logics). That's IT. If you believe it's important, then you will have faith in IQ; otherwise you could see it as some snob's way of making himself/herself "special".

 

[z/m(Ret)]

Is concisiveness a form of intelligence?