Are you insecure about your intelligence?

[Reach]

I am saying that if you don't think we can accurately measure focus or motivation, why would you expect us to measure intelligence any better?

Because I consider many of the things IQ cross correlates with to fall within the definition of intelligence. These factors have high utility and predictive value.

If you want to define intelligence as something else, so be it. That most definitely ends the debate though, since there's nothing to talk about until you come up with a concrete definition of what intelligence is.

http://www.sas.upenn.edu/~duckwort/i...sts%20test.pdf
The best I could find given that I can't access the majority of psychological journal articles.

Interesting read.

The increases seen in this study are certainly quite impressive. It's important to note though, that they fall basically within the top range of standard error. That is to say, these results are not entirely unexpected. It's well known and accepted that variables other than intelligence itself can cause fluctuation in IQ scores, and many other studies have demonstrated gains of more than the 9 IQ points shown here under different conditions. I think this is pretty standard agreement within clinical psychology right now. That is why interpretation of scores needs to be done within context by a psychologist in a way that maximizes utility for the patient in question.


A key point in the study I think is that motivation explains more of the cross variance between IQ-motivation in non academically related factors than academic ones. That is, motivation has limited influence when compared to IQ in academic affairs, but can certainly affect life outcomes profoundly that are also correlated with IQ.

Another thing to note would be that they shown what types of gains can happen in situations of maximum motivation, they ignore the fact that average motivation is something that will obviously remain relatively stable throughout the lifetime. So, under ideal conditions we get ideal results, but under regular conditions you're going to get...I would presume, regular results. This is probably why motivation isn't a mediating factor in some of the variables discussed in the paper.

to what extent do you guys (reach n rubix) feel like you've conditioned yourselves to be incredibly efficient at dissecting/processing information, logic puzzles, etc? and to what degree has your confidence in deez matters perpetuated your talent?

It was always something I was good at. When I was little I learned quickly, was accelerated in school, and was strong in all subjects. Logical puzzles etc is just an extension of that, imo, that required little to no conditioning.

Scientific reasoning and debating on the other hand, is certainly something that required conditioning. I don't think this comes as intuitively to anyone. I know that my evidence based reasoning was quite poor when I was younger, and continues to improve with age.