Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Egan_BW]

Okay, so, a ship's spine runs along her bottom, beneath the water level. But in vertebrates, the spine usually runs along the back, not down the belly. From this, we can conclude that a ship on the water is actually laying down on the water belly-up, like an otter floating on it's back, rather than belly-down like a swimming whale or turtle.

[methylatedspirit]

The problem with trying to measure some general intelligence value g is that you're basically trying to compare billions of different microarchitectures, each specialized to some set of tasks, and then compressing that down to one value. Like, people have problems with Geekbench as a one-size-fits-all benchmark, imagine doing the same for people, who vary far more than any CPU could. IQ is a thing, and Stephen Hawking said that "People who boast about their IQ are losers". Not a good look.

How would you even get close to getting enough tests to realistically measure every single facet of intelligence? By the time you have enough tests, no-one would take that test because it would take hours. At least with a computer, it's automated; you don't actually have to be present the whole time.

And for what, precisely? If you look at benchmark scores for a computer or a part, you get to make an informed purchase. Knowing your intelligence level? Dick length's more useful! That's all intelligence testing is; yet another proxy for dick length. Yet another thing to show off to people. It's pretty much indecent exposure to show off to uninterested people, too, so the dick length analogy works in more ways than one.

[Reelya]

I think that's correct. While IQ test have some general usefulness, the history of concept of 'g' itself is based on a blank slate model where how much 'g' you have indicates how good you are a 'general intelligence' tasks. The assumption here is that the brain is like a car and g is horsepower, and the more 'g' you have the better you do at all 'general' tasks.

Except the evidence points more to the idea that the brain isn't like a general-purpose computer where G = GHz or an engine when G = Horsepower, but it's more a series of specialized units that do very specific tasks. This bit was a very contentious point for many years, between those who believe the brain is like a blank slate that has pure generalized learning ability (g) vs those who believed the brain consists of a large number of specialized units that have evolved to handle common problems.

So IQ / 'g' is a very crude measure. It's like trying to say how big your house is by measuring its height. It'll be accurate to some degree since height of the house is correlated to size, but it's going to be a poor measure overall.

Back in the heyday every workplace used IQ tests based on the promise that it would find the best people for their jobs. Almost nobody does that now. That tells you how useful IQ testing is in real-world scenarios. The main uses for IQ tests now is that you win if you fail the test tif you're a death row inmate; so exploiting a loophole in the law that says you can't execute people with low IQ (i.e. it's in there for arbitrary reasons), or if you want to join Mensa, the club for people who score highly on IQ tests. Neither of these uses actually requires IQ tests to have any sort of validity outside the test itself.

[delphonso]

For instance, I have taken an official IQ test, scored quite high, and am a big idiot.

[King Zultan]

Okay, so, a ship's spine runs along her bottom, beneath the water level. But in vertebrates, the spine usually runs along the back, not down the belly. From this, we can conclude that a ship on the water is actually laying down on the water belly-up, like an otter floating on it's back, rather than belly-down like a swimming whale or turtle.

Damn it we've been using boats the wrong way the whole time!

am a big idiot.

Lies, I have yet to see anything to make me think that.

[scriver]

I too scored pretty high that one time I took a free mensa, and I too am a moron. So I think this qualifies as a trend.

Okay, so, a ship's spine runs along her bottom, beneath the water level. But in vertebrates, the spine usually runs along the back, not down the belly. From this, we can conclude that a ship on the water is actually laying down on the water belly-up, like an otter floating on it's back, rather than belly-down like a swimming whale or turtle.

This, however, is genius.

[Enemy post]

I've always been skeptical of IQ, but I've been a lot more adamant that intelligence is more complicated than a linear value ever since seeing Ben Carson. For anyone who forgot who he was, he's a famous brain surgeon who tanked his Presidential campaign insisting that the pyramids of Egypt are the grain silos built by Joseph in the Bible.

[Egan_BW]

Intelligence isn't that simple. Even DnD has three different mental stats which might be useful for doing smart things in different situations!

[Bumber]

Cheesecake is actually pie.

[Uthimienure]

Yup.  Piebald is typically a horse.

[Bumber]

Horses aren't typically bald.

[Reelya]

Intelligence isn't that simple. Even DnD has three different mental stats which might be useful for doing smart things in different situations!

DnD's three mental stats are about as simple as you can make it and still represent the different aspects of mental ability. For example, Trump would have 18 Cha, 7 Int and 3 Wis.

EDIT: DnD probably lacks a trait for raw cunning. For example, Trump isn't particularly bright nor wise, but he's good at playing people. Charisma would be the trait for that, but Charisma describes Obama as much as it describes Trump, so it needs another dimension to it. Cunning would be a good name for that.

[Bumber]

Isn't that just Int or Cha with Evil alignment?

[Reelya]

No I don't really think so, someone can be an evil genius but hopeless at interpersonal stuff, so high Int plus evil doesn't make you a manipulator. Consider a mad scientist who's the henchman of a supervillain for example. So high Int plus evil shouldn't mean you're automatically good at manipulating people.

As for the other traits, consider Trump as the example. He has a knack for exploiting people but would you say he's particularly wise or intelligent? So that leaves Cha as the trait to describe Trump, a single dimension. But does he really exude charm? I don't think so, so I think interpersonal traits need at least an extra dimension.

Int and Wis describe two sides of internal intelligence, so having two sides of interpersonal intelligence could help too. For example, Cha would be traditional Charisma, the natural ability to exude charm and influence people, but Cunning would work the other way, it would be the ability to "read" people. Someone with the Cunning trait would make up for a lack of charisma by using trickery, but they wouldn't necessarily have book-smarts intelligence or be wise like a priest.

As an example why I think the three-value system isn't sufficient consider someone based on the Dalai Lama archetype. They could have high Int, high Wis, high Cha, but they could also be naive about evil in others, so for example they take a chance on someone then that person betrays them. Should we say they lacked Wis then because they were fooled that way? the added "Cunning" trait would represent street smarts, cynicism, and the ability to detect ulterior motives. I think tacking all of these into Wis or something would limit the ability to tell different types of stories, for example a highly enlightened Zen Buddhist who took in a person who turns out to be evil and betrays them. It seems a little too reductionist to then say that the Buddhist must have been dumb or unwise then, unless all wise people are automatically distrusting cynics.

[MrRoboto75]

Trump has high cha but put no skill points into bluff, diplomacy, or intimidate.