What do you hate the most?

[eastender]

The Right Tools

Simply using the right hammer and nails for the job at hand.

 

[John_Cage]

Sigh...

I don't believe we are arguing on point anymore.

Let me restate what I believe:

IQ is the measurement of one's logical skills (logicS: different sets of logic; look it up, logic can be plural because there are different schools of logic). Since IQ measures logical skills, I am defining that as "intelligence".

It's very easy to simple nitpick by giving "unrealistic" examples. When I said people with high IQ can do anything better than others, I believe anyone of normal intelligence can tell that I am not talking about sleeping or walking...

All arguments has to be logical by natural. If someones says Tiger Woods is the best golf player, would you say "Oh no, he's not, let's tied him up and then see if he will play as well." It's understood that all situations considered are within the "normal" range.

So allow me to restate that point:
Anyone who can do anything (that requires intelligence) better, it means they are more likely (50%+) to be smarter than others.

I honestly don't see how anyone can argue that...

As for all your "counter examples"... I KNEW that knowledge, training and whatnot means something in life. Why do you think I said USUALLY in my statement? High IQ USUALLY means success in life? Can you deduct my point? "Oh he said usually, it must mean that he's aware of exceptions... interesting..."

I have NEVER once stated that IQ is the sole reason for a person's success. I am arguing that IQ does indeed measure one's "INNATE" ability to understand. Do you or do you NOT agree with that? Stop arguing things that I didn't touch on. I never said Knowledge and training means NOTHING... In fact, I STATED that (in my examples you failed to understand) INNATE talent is NOT everything (hence the muscles example).

Ok, let me show you how it's done in the scientific research field (I am also a biochem major at McGill at the moment). When you are trying to prove something, you ALWAYS use a controlled environment. Similarly when you are trying to prove something is null, you also use a controlled environment.

When you "tried" to prove what I said about "IQ means I will do anything better" statement to be null with the "homeless" example. You INTRODUCED a new element? Do you understand this part? Which makes your argument very shaky. I can make anything null by adding a new element. All dogs can bark --- not if I remove his vocal cord ! Michael Jordan can shoot the hoop better than most people --- not when Michael Jordan's 90 years old !

It's tiring to see someone skip through your logicS with some moot point and thinks that he's right.

My statement "IQ is the ability to reason, to deduct; and it plays a major role in our success in life."

The only way for you to argue with my statement is this: The ability to reason and deduct does not play a major role in our success in life.

Please... Do you truly believe all men are born of EQUAL intelligence? Do we not have overwhelming data suggesting otherwise?

Social-Economic standings is BASED on IQ, not the other way around. Here, let me give you an example.

ARML (American Regional Mathematics League) is a national competition held in the US. Do you believe everyone who partakes in it all RICH? Do you believe everyone in private school is smarter than the poor kids in a ghetto? IQ correlates a LOT better with SAT scores than social economic standings (which correlates also, but like I said, since SE is based on IQ, it's normal that it also corelates). I went to NYSML (New York State Math League) and ARML, and believe me... people there aren't very rich (but they are very intelligent, you can tell be talking to them).

 

[John_Cage]

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.

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.

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?

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)?

 

[joelcairo]

If John Cage is, in fact, a "writer", I am curious as to which language he uses.

 

[John_Cage]

I don't get why people are arguing against "A person with a higher IQ is more likely to be successful."

A higher IQ is a positive thing, of course a person with a higher IQ is more likely to be successful." That's like saying (no other information), if someone had a head start in a race, he's more likely to win. NO SHIT !!??

IQ might not be the "BE ALL, END ALL" of success; but it matters. No bleeding heart liberal "equality" supporters can argue that.

 

[John_Cage]

...................

 

[John_Cage]

Did I ever say high IQ test results correlate with being rich? I think you should consider a refund from McGill because you don't seem to understand what a correlation is, or how to use it properly in a sentence, or how to make sense of it when I use it in a sentence. Children who come from poor socio-economic backgrounds tend to be less successful in school than those who come from richer (socially and economically) backgrounds. This has nothing to do with the amount of money in parent's bank account per say, but numerous studies have shown that children who didn't have breakfast in the morning (because their parents are maybe too poor to afford to provide them with 3 meals a day?) performed less well in things like math, and indeed new public policies emerged out of these findings. This is why we have now have breakfast programs in some schools in the poorer neighbourhoods in this province. And that is just one example.

t76

"Children who come from poor socio-economic backgrounds tend to be less successful in school than those who come from richer (socially and economically) backgrounds."

Read above, then read my post on the ARML. I am telling you that people who do well in school have NOTHING to do with their social-economic background... Which means the difference between their standing is not significant enough. Lots of people who can't even afford decent clothing are competiting in the national scene. Guess what? They will more likely grow up to be rich, thus fitting into your "correlation" between kids who do well in school and social econonmic backgrounds.

Another thing to consider is this, what DOES a social-economic background mean? Does it not in a way, mean better genes? Smart people tend to climb the social ladder faster. Maybe the kids are doing better in school because their had smarter parents?

If you are going to use CORRELATIONS as an argument, it no longer stays neutral... remember that. Else, what's the point? "Look, the sky is blue!" If you are showing me some data, rest assured, you meant to say SOMETHING with it. You tried to say that maybe kids are doing better in school because of their social economic background (rich/poor). I showed you that it's not true, because poor people do just as well. There's a correlation between IQ and achievement, what about that?

As for the breakfast or lunch thing... that qualify as being outside the "norm". Unless a lot of our children can't afford lunch, it means nothing in terms of statistics. Being hungry means that you have a physical disadvantage while in class, so of course you will do worse than others, high IQ notwithstanding.

Traveler? How about this, tell me WHY some kids do better on IQ tests? Also, why is it that the high IQ seems to be dominate with some groups of people (Europeans and Asians)? If it's merely about social standings, Asians would not score well. Do you know how poor some southeastern asia is? I read about it on national geographics, some southeastern kids (the islanders) are just as poor as kids in africa, if not worse ! How would you explain that then? People keep saying that IQ tests are racist... If it's so racist, why are Asians doing better than us?

 

[Agrippa]

JC, where did you learn this drivel? Mensa?

 

[John_Cage]

JC, where did you learn this drivel? Mensa?

Omega, actually.

I took an IQ test from a psychologist and she told me that I have to take another one (because the one I took cannot accurately measure my IQ).

After that, I didn't just aim at Mensa, I wanted to get into Omega. I emailed them and they said they would welcome me in after I take their advanced version of the standard IQ test (which only measures accurately up to 130).

Omega takes a much harsher point of view on IQ then Mensa.

I am taking the test soon, wish me luck !

 

[Agrippa]

Omega takes a much harsher point of view on IQ then Mensa.

I am taking the test soon, wish me luck !

Do you know what the word drivel means?

 

[John_Cage]

http://webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/intelligence.html

There... I spent like 2 seconds on the web and here it is... An university professor's view on Intelligence.

Note his sentence: All of these are important and cannot be ignored -- especially when these are the things we can most easily do something about! But I do believe that something better than half of intelligence is accounted for by genetics.

That's the essense of what I believe. While there are other factors, genetics is the main indication of how smart a person will be.

You would probably see strong correlations between Biological Parents and their child, Biological Siblings... so forth. AS OPPOSED TO adopted famillies; which proves that even if smart parents with good social-economic standings will NOT produce smarter kids as long as the kid does not have their genes. Outside factors do not affect the kid's intelligence as much as genetics do.

Biological vs Adopted famillies (in terms of the IQ correlations between the parents and their child):

0.41 > 0.09
0.40 > 0.16
0.35 > -0.03

The data means that biological parents share a similar intelligence as their child (which means it's BORN WITH, INNATE); while adopted children do not have a strong correlation (IQ wise) with their parents or siblings (they still have the same social background, but different intelligence).

Also, the second part clearly stated how IQ correlates with social standing. Higher IQ people are less likely to go to jail, or have illegitimate children. They are LESS likely to be unemployed ! That just shut off your genius on the street argument. SURE, there are one or two... but it's LESS LIKELY.

So basicly, IQ (innate) is the basis of Intelligence and Intelligence is the basis of success (among others such as knowledge, persoanlity and health).

Disclaimer: I am well aware of other factors... I am just stating the main factors.

 

[John_Cage]

Do you know what the word drivel means?

lol. Yes, it means you have a different view point than the Omegas... You are entitled to it. Lots of great ideas were considered "drivel" before they were proven. People are quick to judge what they are not comfortable with.

Seriously, what do you people have against IQ?

 

[John_Cage]

Remember in 1989, that Liberal plan "to achieve the goal of eliminating poverty among Canadian children by the year 2000"? In 2000, the United Nations Children's Fund released its "Child Poverty in Rich Countries' report, which put Canada in 17th place overall, with 15.5% of Canadians under 18 living in poverty (defined as: household income below 50 per cent of national median).* In the 2005 report, we were in 19th place, with 14.9% of children living in relative poverty.** Go visit Stats Can to find out how many Canadians were under the age of 18 those years, then tell me that "means nothing in terms of statistics".

*poverty rate refers to year 1995.
**poverty rate refers to year 2000.

source:

http://www.unicef-icdc.org/publications/pdf/repcard1e.pdf
http://www.unicef-icdc.org/publications/pdf/repcard6e.pdf

t76

Ok. So is 15% in relative poverty enough to alter the correlation between IQ and doing well in school? I agree that extreme poverty WILL affect how one does in school, IQ notwithstanding. Because like you said, they could be hungry or whatnot. But I don't think it's significant enough to altar the fact that high IQ lead to achievements (in school) which further lead to achievements in life. Imagine IF IQ has nothing to do with success, which is the null hyp.

Now we have 100 kids, 50 with 100+ IQ, 50 with below 100 IQ. We divide them into Success and Failure.

If there's indeed no correlation between IQ and Success, then there should be around 50% above 100 IQ (25 kids) and 50% lower than 100 IQ (25 kids) in the success area. Now given a 15% abnormal condition. We will still need about (25 kids * 0.85) 21.25 idiot kids in the success area in order for there to be no correlation between Success and IQ.

21.25 successful idiots is (21.25 / 50) 42.5% of the whole idiot population (50 kids). If you can find a research where shows that at least 42.5% below average IQ people are successful, then there would be no correlation between IQ and Success. Otherwise, IQ still determines if a person is successful. In fact, most studies would show a very strong correlation between Success and IQ, which means the 15% hungry kids notwithstanding, IQ STILL affects Success.

"The American Psychological Association's report Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns (1995)[1] Wherever it has been studied, children with high scores on tests of intelligence tend to learn more of what is taught in school than their lower-scoring peers. The correlation between IQ scores and grades is about .50. However, this means that they explain only 25% of the variance. Successful school learning depends on many personal characteristics other than intelligence, such as memory, persistence, interest in school, and willingness to study."

So there, while IQ does has its place... so do many other factors. Which was basicly my point.

Traveler, I am willing to agree that. YES, sometimes the failure of certain people can be attributed to NOT just their lower IQ but also their social-economic standings (that was what I believed at first anyways). However IQ does dictate the general success of people, do you agree? We could call it a scholar's agreement if there's no further arguments about those two points.

 

[CoolAmadeus]

When some a-hole has the audacity to pass another slow moving car, they're at fault when you have to break to only five miles an hour over the limit? That is extrordinarily arrogant and a dangerous way to drive. I don't know, and I can't speak for him, but I think you're the kind of guy rumples was talking about. The road is there for everyone, and the fact that you make it unsafe, means that in a just world you would lose your privilege to drive-and it's a privilege, not a right. What if someone has a kid in the car in front of you and you kill the kid? Or a pregnant woman?

Sorry dude, but I'm not trying to be arrogant. All I'm saying is that some drivers just don't look in their mirrors before they decide to switch lanes. They are the ones who are dangerous on the road. Same for drivers who just don't care about other cars around them when they drive. As you said yourself, the road is there for everyone. Don't try to slow people down by staying in the left lane just because YOU think it's the safe way to drive.

I see you're pissed off because I said I was driving at 90mph on the highway. You missed my point. What if I said I drove 60mph on the same highway and I was bitching about the guy in front of me switching to the left lane at 50mph... The issue would be the same. Below the limits would it sound better to you? I don't care what speed people drive. My point is that some people drive as if they're alone on the road, as if they owned it. Everyone has at least two mirrors on their car. USE THEM!!! When someone is behind you and want to pass, be respectful to others and move to the right lane!

BTW, I'm not an aggressive driver. I drive a lot (close to 60,000km per year) and on the highway I'm a fast driver, yes. But aggressive, no. I just expect people to be respectful to others and selfishness bugs me.

CA

PS: Despite the fact I drive faster than the average driver, I still consider myself a safer driver than average: only driving fast on highways and when conditions are good, lots of driving experience, no responsible accident in almost 30 years of driving. I do have kids too, and safety is VERY important to me (and not only my own but others as well). You can keep your judgments without knowing me to yourself.

 

[CoolAmadeus]

OMG...
I give up.

t76, Please don't!

Whatever we say, however eloquent, clear and concise one may be in their posts, unfortunately there will always be someone to get it all wrong. Focus on the 80% who got your meaning right, not the 20% (or maybe am I too generous at 80%??? lol).

CA

 

[John_Cage]

OMG...
I give up.
(I said from the beginning that poverty has an impact on how kids will do in school. Thanks for agreeing. The second step is, if they don't do well in school: they are less likely to do well in IQ tests. Why? Because if your kid was daydreaming during math and English, especially in the first years of that 'training', because he or she didn't have breakfast for example, he or she will not have gained the same skill and knowledge to answer the IQ questions, as compared to the kid who was well fed. This is very different from saying poverty 'leads' to a poor IQ score. If that's what you understood, fault the profs at McGill who taught you what 'science' was, though I doubt they're to blame)

Cheers,

t76

Like I said before... You can't LEARN to be better at IQ tests. Sigh, read the link I posted... IT'S GENETICS. Why are you arguing agaisnt statistics? Poverty does nothing to IQ tests. Seriously, have you taken many IQ test? Some of them (the newer ones) show you a serie of pictures and asks you to find the next one. There's no class that helps with stuff like this. It's pure logics and deduction.

You never counter this point: Why are the Chinese and Korean doing better than us in school? Don't they work for half of our salary in their country? We have MIT and Harvard (and McGill !)... We are not inferiorly educated. I sure as hell don't fall asleep in class... WHY then? WHY?

IQ tests are not really school material... Plus, lots of IQ data are taken from like 6 years old kids who have no schooling of any sort. They let them choose the "odd-man-out" from a series of pictures and objects. It's about REASONING.

I KNOW what IQ tests are, it's almost my passion now... Why are you arguing about things you don't understand? IQ tests have LITTLE if any to do with education (yes, ability to speak and understand is needed... you can't be a deaf-mute and expect to score high).

Hey, did you graduate from university? If you are "better" educated than I... Why don't you go take an IQ test and we will compare (I have a certified one scoring 156, and because it's too high, they have to retest me with a different test). I am from a middle-class familly, dad owns a restaurent... nothing to write home about... There's no real advantage on my side, is there?

Don't just hug the concept of "aww, poor kids who have no money for lunch, they must be the reason why some kids have low IQ". Because chances are, the poor kids are not neccessarily dumb. IQ is inherited, pure and simple. You can learn, study a lot... so forth; but you will always be limited by your IQ.

An elephant is an elephant, even if you feed a mouse the best growth horomones, it's still a mouse (and smaller than an elephant). The point is, YES, environment helps, but your genes is the dominating factor.

t76, Please don't!

Whatever we say, however eloquent, clear and concise one may be in their posts, unfortunately there will always be someone to get it all wrong. Focus on the 80% who got your meaning right, not the 20% (or maybe am I too generous at 80%??? lol).

CA

Care to clarify what you believe is right?

I mean, I believe I clearly countered all his points. Believing something, while admirable, is useless unless you have the logics to back it up. Faith is best left for religions.

If you think I didn't answer clearly to some of his points, please point it out. That's what a debate is... getting points across.

 

[z/m(Ret)]

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)?

I'll read the thread first which, at first sight, seems as intimidating as Immanuel Kant's Critique of Pure Reason. I must warn you though that the word "innate" associated with anything related to cognition might bring back the old Chomsky/Piaget debate on the table: pull those dictionaries out.

 

[Dee]

Is concisiveness a form of intelligence?

Could you expand on that?

 

[Red Paul]

Is concisiveness a form of intelligence?

"Conciseveness" is not even a word, let alone a form of intelligence. On the other hand, concision is often a sign of intelligence.

 

[JustBob]

Heritability does not imply immutability. The assumption that because something is heritable it is necessarily unchangeable (by environmental factors) is an enormous fallacy. I mean this is fairly basic stuff that even I with my measly IQ of 142 is able to grasp.