What do you hate the most?

[JustBob]

Do you think men are generally more intelligent than women?

Depends on which head men use to do their thinking.

 

[Love big tits]

Actually your "measly" IQ of 142 is in the upper percentile. Was this a disguised way of bragging?

 

[JustBob]

Actually your "measly" IQ of 142 is in the upper percentile. Was this a disguised way of bragging?

Nope. I actually found this "test result" rummaging thru my mother's papers after she died last summer. I had absolutely no recollection of taking this test. I had apparently taken it when I was very young and at a boarding school run by nuns (that I remember ), at the end of the 60's. It probably doesn't mean much (I'm not sure how standardized/reliable IQ tests were at that time), but I got a kick out of it, and kept the "certificate" just for fun (ok, and to brag when the occasion presents itself).

 

[Love big tits]

The school I went to used to be run by nuns before, could it be the same one? Spooky

 

[z/m(Ret)]

Intelligence

Anyone has an idea where this need for measuring it comes from, "need" being the operative word?

 

[John_Cage]

Yes you can learn to be better at IQ tests. Just like you can learn a2+b2=c2 and then learn how to figure more complex algabraical expressions, or learn 1+1= 2, and then go on to multiplication, and then to how to figure out the x of a quantity expressed as the root of another, not withstanding the fact that Pythagoras was inspired to come up with his theorems without math 101.

Logic can be plural... please look it up yourself before posting laughable points. Multiple sets of logic is known as LOGICS (if you noticed, I only used logics when I referred to them in general). Like I said before, kids can figure out X*2 = 4 if they understood it in its essense. If they knew that 2 equal parts of something is 4, then they will know that "something" is 2. Basic math does NOT need to be teached. Math is about labeling (at least basic math). We call a single unit ONE, and double it would be called TWO. Math is an eternal concept, we humans simply catergorized it. You see, in IQ tests, we don't have the specialized mathematical terms (or else it WOULD be testing education rather than "g" general intelligence). They will never ask you questions that require a high education. Just cause something seems too impossible for you doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

I never learn math by memorizing equation; I understood them. Even with physics (because it's very logical). Let's talk physics for a bit. Force cause acceleration in objects, that's the first thing we learn in physics in HS.

Why does a force cause "acceleration" and not simply "velocity"? Why is F=ma and not F=mv? When I first took physics in HS, many of my classmates thought that gravity gives objects "velocity". I understood that to be "illogical".

We all know from observations that when a force is applied to an object it causes it to move with a speed, right? We also know that the heavier an object, the more force is required to move it. Thus their relationship is somewhat like F = m * x (this is deducted logically, as you can see). F is the FORCE, m is the mass of the object and x is the "change cause to object". It makes sense, right? More Force (greater F) will cause more change to object (greater x) OR same change to a heavier object (greater m).

There is something else. In real life, we know that the object gains a velocity after a force is excert on it. So it makes sense to say F = mv? Force cause velocity to a mass. Hence lots of people would probably be willing to accept that equation (which is why sometimes students make mistakes if they didn't keep a clear mind).

However, there's a problem with F = m * v. Because it does not take into account that a force can be applied for different amount of time for different results. The velocity of the object CHANGES when the time period is extended. EX: You push a toy cart for 2 second with a set amount of force, it will cause the object to go twice as fast as if you pushed it for 1 second with the same amount of force. Thus it can't be just F causing mv; it's F * t causing m * v (where t is time). Since we have to make a clean equation, we will move the t to the other side. F = m * (v/t). Since v/t in plain language means change in velocity in relation to time (acceleration), we can denote it 'a' for acceleration. Now we have the famous F = ma. Force = Mass * Acceleration.

I just showed you how to deduct one of our most famous physics equation with no math knowledge. A clear mind and understanding of the world around us is all we need. You know how cavemen discovered the wheel? They probably tried a few objects and noticed that everytime a "round" object is used... their cargo can be pushed easier. Thus they made the deduction that wheels are great for transportation.

Without Intelligence (basic, innate ability to understand). We would NEVER advance in life. Some of us are needed to "figure" things out; while the rest "learn" it.

IF a force can be applied to an object for a PERIOD of time rather than once, it must mean it causes CHANGE in relation to time. What this means in mathematical terms is that: There must be a t factor (time), in order to calculate the final velocity of the object. Thus F=mx

So the longer it is applied on an object, the FASTER it goes. From that, I understood that there's NO WAY gravity simply give an object "velocity", it gives it "acceleration"; in a way, it provide an object with "velocity" in relation to the amount of time it is applied.

Haven't you heard enough genius story about kids who can do complicated mathematical calculations faster than what's generally accepted as possible? Just cause we are surrounded by the mediocre, it doesn't mean there aren't any geniuses.

Think about it this way... Who taught the first mathematician? Who "invented" math 101? Someone must be capable of grasping math without anyone else. Then some other people must have understood higher math with the first guy's basis. The fact that math is UNIVERSAL, means it has a lot more "IQ" element to it than "history". No one invented history, it has happened, and people merely recorded it... No IQ is needed to excel in history (except for maybe understanding why certain things happened, cause and effect... etc...).

You're right. I've never seen an IQ-type question in a gradeschool or highschool exam. That doesn't mean school doesn't prepare me to answer IQ test questions by training my logical ability. But no, your ability to reason was always 'innate' (like you didn't need to take math classes to understand complex mathematical expression; how about bullshitting, does that come naturally to you too?).

Well, I noticed that you really tend be miss logical flaws...

If knowing A can help you know B; does it mean knowing B is not an innate ability?

Fish can swim as an "innate" ability; yet humans can learn it. Does that take away the fact that fishes swim as an innate ability?

I am tired of pointing out logical flaws... Please, think about your statements first then post them. It's like debugging a newbie's java script program (full of simple logical oversights).

Of course school helps with IQ tests. School helps with a lot of things. Heck, higher educations helps with personality skills, manner... a LOT of things. Just cause doing math a lot "helps you" with an "IQ" test. It doesn't mean you won't get "your ass handed" to you if you faced off against an actual high "IQ" person. The amount of benefit you get from "higher" schooling means almost nothing in an "IQ" test setting... HELLO? That's the point of IQ tests. Why don't you go read about them? They are DESIGNED that way. They use very BASIC words, and BASIC concepts. If you want to talk about ALL the god-damn little things that can affect the outcome of an "IQ" test... then I give up. Because it can be the weather, the mood, the biological condition of the student... etc... We are talking about things that makes a difference. Do you think you can take on a genius 18 year old kid in logics even if you had all your university diplomas? I deducted that I am younger than you (and you also went to university), so why not show me how smart you are? We can both post certified IQ result on the net. I have to get my second test from my psychologist soon anyways. Hell, take it with me !

As you can see from my Physics example... I don't bullshit. I truly understand them in ways you can't begin to comprehand.

Where did you learn how to spell? Or was that innate too (like being a 'writer')?

Never said being a "writer" was innate... I said it requires inspiration and a decent vocabulary.

Spelling, I am not sure about. I can't comment on it, because I am not sure if it takes a high IQ to be good at spelling. My gut feelings is no. Spelling is more like memorizing.

Not all things are intelligent BASED; just that having a high IQ would grant you an advantage in them.

Why don't you graduate with your BA and then we'll compare.

That's a long wait, in a year I will have my biochem BA. What would you have then? I am thinking of going into law or med school if my writing career don't sky rocket by then.

I come from a middle class family too. I never suggested intelligence was linked to social-economic background. I suggested educational acheivement was. I was top of my class in math till I ran away from home and landed in an escort agency at 17.

Pet peeve. I really hate people who thinks that "top of my class" means anything. How many classes are there in the city? country? world? I compete on the national scene in mathematics... I could've made it to the math olympaid if I was a bit smarter. There are different levels of intelligence, being above average is nothing to write home about. Want me to scan my medal? My certificate? My math league t-shirt (that we were required to wear during the 2 day ARML event)?

I'm not about hugging concepts or saying 'aww, poor anyone'. I'm about looking at things macro, not just the particular micro aspects of reality that confirm my view of the world (things like 'intelligence is genetic', but that's a whole other discussion)

Ok, but we are not arguing about the macro aspect. I agree that it takes more than just 180 IQ to be successful. I am simply stating that "g" general intelligence (measured by IQ) is innate and it affects our success. I am arguing THIS micro aspect. The macro is a whole other discussion which I am happy to engage in.

 

[John_Cage]

If you inferred that from what I wrote, the situation is sad indeed.

You meant it passively. I said why are some kids dumb? You said oh, well... they aren't "dumb" they are just poor... (you showed the correlatin between social-economic standing vs academic success). However, being poor is a REASON. It doesn't change who they are. They can be DUMB and POOR. Thus by saying there's a reason some kids do worse and it's not IQ, you are in fact stating, "it's because they are poor and can't learn as well". Just cause you don't say something doesn't mean you don't mean it.

Just cause my gf doesn't ask me to buy her a dress (but she keeps on looking at it and commenting on it), it doesn't mean she didn't want me to buy it for her. I simply made the logical conclusion.

I wish I could be so credulous. I wouldn't spend so much time breaking my head on things that make no sense. So why do they only test IQ starting at a certain age in children? Logical abilities are developped throughout childhood. The ability to reason logically may be innate, but the ability to reason logically through tougher problems is developped through practice (in this country, also referred to as 'education').

Most accurate results come from young child with little or no education... So I have no idea where you're coming from. Obviously, you can't test a baby girl who's 2 years old and won't stop biting her nails...

She's a 'she'. You might have inferred that from reading my posts whole. I did mention the escort agency thing.

Sorry, I apologize. Wasn't keeping tab on it while making a point about intelligence.

Logic doesn't 'back things up'. You keep employing the word as if it was a living thing. Maybe you should look the word up in the dictionary so you can learn to stop using it in an imaginary plural form.

I hope you looked it up by now.

What does the word drivel mean?

t76

Why do you insist on calling ideas you don't agree with, "drivel"? Are we down to calling names and throwing around useless labels now? lol. I thought we were having an "intelligent" conversation, pun well-intended. The moment an argument turns into labeling, it means one of the sides has lost.

Edit: Are you stating that I didn't answer what drivel was? Drivel is your illogical, bleedheart view on things. lol.

Drivel is going on and on about nonsense; it also invokes the image of an old men driveling. Mumbling on and one under his breath, sparing neither words nor spit. Repetitive... kind of like your arguments. lol. I am sorry, you started the labeling.

Anyways, I believe you already understood my point. But like some people, you choose to believe what makes you feel safe. Does IQ threaten you? You are defending not just a belief but your very self, that's why you choose to argue not with logics but with moot points.

Logical flaws you made so far:

1. Using outside factor to negate the effect of intelligence; you actually believed that you were making sense until I brought out the CONTROL environment point.

2. Hearing somewhere that "correlations" and "statistics" are neutral; thus you thought your points were neutral. You forgot that once you used the statistics to prove a point, it cease being "neutral". Guns are neutral (an object), until someone picks it up.

3. Believe that minority reports negates the truth. Just cause SOME kids are poor and don't do well, it does not mean ALL kids who don't do well is due to their social-economical standings. To prove something affects another, you need it to be significant... not just EXIST. Some black man can't play basket-ball because he's not interested, can you say because of that ALL black man can't play b-ball because they are not interested in it? Yes, I agree that some outside situation CAN affect a kid's performance, but it doesn't mean take away the importance of IQ. In fact, like I said, lots of kids with very bad social standings DO do very well in school. Look at all the newly arrived Jews, Russians, Chinese, Japanese... They just got here, and they do better than kids here. Some dumb kids DO have bad social standing, but is THAT the reason why the kid is doing badly? Is that more believable than genetics?

4. Failure to understand basic logics.

Do you agree that genetics determine Height?
What about facial feature?
Eye color?
Hair color?
Sports performance?
Running speed?
INTELLIGENCE?

Why is intelligence SO SPECIAL? Why must everyone be equal in intelligence? Does that make you feel safe?

If this keeps on going, sooner or later, we will have people suggesting that Blue Eyes is environmental rather than genetics. Don't you know? Rich people have more sapphires, thus their eyes reflect the blue color!!!

---------

To Eliza:

Well, I do not think men are "smarter" on average; because researches have shown that we do the same on IQ tests (the two sexes). Verbal intelligence IS a form of intelligence. I never said MATH was everything. Logics helps with verbal intelligence as well. Lots of logical problem are given in words rather than mathematically. If Jone has a pig and Jane has always wanted a pig but never had... Josh had two more animals than half of the total number of animals owned by Jone and Jane... bla blah... IQ tests have 50-50 verbal and math parts; hence the SATs are 800 math and 800 english (it was when I was in NY, I think it changed now).

Yes, people do do things to show superiority. But that's not why I am arguing this. We argued before about SPs and professionism. I don't feel anything about SPs nor professionals, yet I argued with a similar undying passion. That's how I am, I argue for fun (I like debates). I have very strong beliefs and I can't take it when I see logical flaws (I NEED to point them out). Must be all the optional Java script courses I took (debugging logical flaws all day... FUN... lol).

I think a more interesting question is... Do you believe in "superiority"? Do you believe in someone being "better" than others by birth? Are you willing to accept it if it exists? While equality is nice... Truth is better, hearts bleeding notwithstanding.

 

[John_Cage]

As for IQ, I think that intelligence is much more complex to be described by a set of tests. I would have liked to believe in the effectiveness of IQ tests as I scored 138 on one of those internet tests (again untimed) which classifies me as a very smart person and means than less than 2% of the people in my age range are smarter than me. Though, many of these questions were very simple questions about relations and propositional logic. So, I don't know how much did my academic background help me in acquring such score. I saw managers who were dumber than their feet (to adapt a french expression), but they were still considered to be succeful people. What about the EQ (Emotional Qutient)? I think that it plays a very important role too. I still have that Daniel Goleman's book on my bookshelf since year 2000 and never had a chance to read it. I am pretty sure that my EQ is below 20 though.

I agree. Just look at Paris Hilton... or anyone in hollywood. Hell, look at 50 cent ! You don't need IQ to succeed at ALL; but it helps. Personality probably plays a role in getting nice jobs as well. After all, who doesn't want a nice cheerily person to work with?

Please tell traveler how much your educational help you scored in the basic relative, propositional logic questions?

 

[John_Cage]

I'm waiting for the answer...

I answered it in the post above you.

 

[z/m(Ret)]

Why IQ Tests are FOS

Troglodytes (tro.glo.dytes) scored in the lowest percentiles yet recent observations revealed that these cave-dwellers use the internet proficiently.

 

[z/m(Ret)]

You deftly accuse Traveller of discrediting those who don't agree with him

"her"

........

 

[z/m(Ret)]

It's clearly a need to prove some kind of superiority.

Superiority of what over what else?

 

[z/m(Ret)]

However, being poor is a REASON. It doesn't change who they are.

Are we ontologically what we are? Does intelligence have an ontological value?

 

[z/m(Ret)]

Was this a disguised way of bragging?

Where's the disguise? (oh, relax!)

 

[z/m(Ret)]

What if we know the word in French? ('conciseveness' looked perfectly fine to me--i think it's a French thing ) And what about 'conciseness'

t76

Conciseveness is the overwritten version of conciseness.

 

[z/m(Ret)]

Too many threads, need to increase my productivity...

therefore I'll switch to French. Please use Babelfish or any other online translator.

L'une des belles histoires d'universalité, sans guerre et sans domination, soulignait Michel Serres, a justement été celle des mathématiques. L'Égypte régna des millénaires, Rome des siècles, l'Angleterre quelques décennies et, depuis l'après seconde guerre, les États Unis, bientôt la Chine... Alors que chacune de ces puissances étendait, en son temps, son hégémonie, et que, ce faisant, le monde bigarré, coloré, divers, se diluait, sous le joug des Grands, dans l'uniformité blanche du dominant, la mathématique, elle, outrepassait les différences linguistiques , religieuses, économiques et militaires.

Faibles ou forts, gagnants ou perdants, l'histoire des peuples nous enseigne que tous les peuples ont calculé, raisonné et démontré selon des logiques mathématiques. Tous les peuples ont plus ou moins aussi tenu des registres comptables, calculé les mouvements du ciel, etc...

Ceci dit une seule inventa de représenter des formes comme le carré, le cercle, la sphère, une seule a inventé la géométrie: la Grèce, il y a 27 siècles de cela.

Innéisme? C'est une doctrine métaphysicienne que Platon fut sans doute le premier à exposer qui trouve encore aujourd'hui ses lettres de noblesse.

Je repose alors ma question en adaptant les termes: est-ce que la mathématique a une valeur ontologique? Si l'on suit l'histoire de la mathématique, son universatlité malgré la domination des Forts, on aurait tendance à penser que oui.

Mais si on se concentre sur l'histoire de la géométrie, celle-ci remontant à une seule source, la Grèce d'Anaximandre et de Thalès, on penserait alors l'exact contraire.

 

[Agrippa]

[...] However, there's a problem with F = m * v. Because it does not take into account that a force can be applied for different amount of time for different results. The velocity of the object CHANGES when the time period is extended. EX: You push a toy cart for 2 second with a set amount of force, it will cause the object to go twice as fast as if you pushed it for 1 second with the same amount of force. Thus it can't be just F causing mv; it's F * t causing m * v (where t is time). Since we have to make a clean equation, we will move the t to the other side. F = m * (v/t). Since v/t in plain language means change in velocity in relation to time (acceleration), we can denote it 'a' for acceleration. Now we have the famous F = ma. Force = Mass * Acceleration. [...]

Yeah, your 'simple' derivation took thinkers almost 2000 years to figure out... in daily experience, applying a force to an object does set in motion, but as soon as the force is removed, the object stops. For 2000 years, Aristotle's (I paraphrase) "the natural state of an object is to be at rest" held true, since that is what we experienced. It took until Galileo to create a thought experiment (forget the tower of Pisa story, it's a tale, (as is Newton's apple)) to conceive of what is now apparently 'evident.' Is it really? Has anyone pushed a plate on a table and seen it accelerate? No... you need one of those air hockey tables that eliminates friction. Friction is determined empirically, it does not have 'pure' theory...

I am not denying the usefullness of Newtonian physics, they are still taught in schools after all, but they are simply an approximation of the phenomena... re: general relativity...

I would extend my comments to your insistence on the determinism of IQ tests. They bracket out a lot and purport to measure an individual's ability to learn. Imagination, creativity, wisdom are not a part of the test, nor are they taught in our schools and universities. Students are simply taught by rote to become productive citizens (or should that read slaves?)... I think it is your reductive that makes us disagree with you.

Maybe reading some of your namesake's work would broaden your world view.

 

[Agrippa]

[...]L'une des belles histoires d'universalité, sans guerre et sans domination, soulignait Michel Serres, a justement été celle des mathématiques. L'Égypte régna des millénaires, Rome des siècles, l'Angleterre quelques décennies et, depuis l'après seconde guerre, les États Unis, bientôt la Chine... Alors que chacune de ces puissances étendait, en son temps, son hégémonie, et que, ce faisant, le monde bigarré, coloré, divers, se diluait, sous le joug des Grands, dans l'uniformité blanche du dominant, la mathématique, elle, outrepassait les différences linguistiques , religieuses, économiques et militaires. [...]

Je raffine (ou peut-etre embrouille) un peu tes commentaires... en effet les Grecs en on fait beaucoup, mais par exemple, le theoreme de Pythagore etait connu bien avant Pythagore lui-meme, et de plus, dans toutes les parties du monde.

Aussi, les maths n'auraient jamais progresses sans avoir mis de cote les chiffres Romains (Avez-vous deja essaye de faire une multiplication avec des chiffres Romains! ) pour les chiffres arabes. Faut pas oublier la contribution des Perses...

Ca fait pas aussi partie du mythe que les plus grands mathematiciens Grecs ont appris ce qu'ils connaissent des magiciens/pretres Egyptiens?

Mythe? Verite? Qui sait? C'est quoi le titre de l'ouvre de Michel Serres dont tu parles?

 

[JustBob]

Je repose alors ma question en adaptant les termes: est-ce que la mathématique a une valeur ontologique?

In regards to science, that would depend on whether or not one believes that the Quine-Putnam indispensability argument applies to mathematics. If you do, that would make you a mathematical realist who believes in "mathematical entities" (hence in the ontological value of mathematics). If you don't, you'd fall into the anti-realist (nominalists) camp.

Personally, I don't really give a damn.

 

[Agrippa]

Personally, I don't really give a damn.

I do!

Which school of thought would I have to belong to to annul my taxes?