|
|||||||
| View Poll Results: Insecure about intelligence? Strive for more intellect? | |||
| Yes, all the time! |
|
9 | 12.86% |
| Yes, some of the time. |
|
22 | 31.43% |
| Yes, rarely. |
|
9 | 12.86% |
| No, all the time! |
|
12 | 17.14% |
| No ,some of the time. |
|
3 | 4.29% |
| No, rarely |
|
15 | 21.43% |
| Voters: 70. You may not vote on this poll | |||
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
#11 |
|
sunshine and rainbows
Join Date: Feb 2006
Age: 43
Posts: 1,987
|
Creativity fits into all of this nowhere easily because it doesn't have nearly as much data for measures of it. Personally, I think creativity should be included in any measure of overall intelligence. I can't even think of anything I remembered learning about how creativity related to other things. I think I remember some tests that are used as measures of creativity though. They give you a scenario where you have to accomplish a task X (I can't think of what it was, like reaching an object or something), and you are given a list of tools you could use, and you're then told to think up as many ways as possible to accomplish X. You were probably rated on the number of different methods you came up with, as well as how often other people came up with the methods you mentioned.
rein: No no, I'm not talking about the measures of a bell curve per se. I'm talking about using a scoring system where the difference of 1 is not uniform across all the possibilities of it. Like if I were to use farenheit instead of Celcius (or Kelvin), it doing any sort of statisitical analysis, it would be wrong. That the scoring system is based on the bell curve is irrelevant. The difference in actual intelligence/achievement (whatever it is that the SAT's measure,) between someone who gets 600 to someone who gets 700, should be the same as the difference in intelligence/achievement as someone who gets 2400 compared to 2500, in order to use SAT scores in a relevant comparison to another measure. If that is the case, then I misundestood what you were saying. Also, I wasn't clear with what I said about that woman. She can now easily read a clock, like any person of regular intelligence can, and can now understand relationships in regular speech, just like that, no extra effort on her part. Things which the entirety of her education didn't fix until she decided to try and improve whatever cortical area it was that she figured needed work. I would bet money that her g would have increased hugely after she did her training. |
|
|
|
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|