|
|||||||
| 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 |
|
|
#101 |
|
sunshine and rainbows
Join Date: Feb 2006
Age: 38
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
#102 |
|
x'); DROP TABLE FFR;--
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 6,334
|
The SAT is just converted from a raw score to a curved score in order to standardize it. Harder tests will be curved easier and vice-versa. That's all that is. Missing one or two on a hard as **** Math SAT section might net you a 780 whereas on an easier test it'll net you a 740.
The point of having a large drop in score versus a little drop in score would be directly translated into the frequencies of scores with respect to raw score. Again, still perfectly valid. Reporting raw score to colleges doesn't necessarily mean anything without context. "Student X missed 5 questions on his SAT." Well, how easy was that particular test? That's what the curving does. It scales raw score to a number that tells you how your score stands against the population (percentile-wise). |
|
|
|
|
|
#103 | |||
|
FFR Simfile Author
|
Quote:
(Also, for the sake of the psychometrician that made the test, if you do take it, don't post answers). Also, yeah, the SAT is curved, so it's quite simple to estimate IQ from SAT scores directly. 2400-> ~143, 2300-> 138, 2200-> 133, 2100-> 128 2000->124 1900-> 119 etc etc Though, to be fair, the new SAT is a relatively weak IQ test. It still has some utility, but with every revision they appear to dilute it more and more. I think they're trying to make it useless >_> Quote:
If this *isn't* intelligence, according to you, fine. It still doesn't change my point though and it doesn't defend your argument of concentration and motivation. It's pretty much a moot point. If intelligence is something not defined by IQ, then what is it, and does it have any utility at all? IQ has a lot of utility. IQ is how fast your brain processes and deals with complex information. How fast you learn, how fast you think, how accurate your reasoning and recall is. It is many things, much of which I think can be considered intelligence... Quote:
However, there are many studies assessing the correlation between time spent on tests and the number of items correct. In other tests, Xavier (the psychometrician behind the TRI52 and CCAT, which Rubix linked to) has analysis on his blog showing the relationships between time and answers correct. All of the correlations are very small, ~r=0.2, meaning it explains some 4% of variance (without even factoring out the fact that people that stop preemptively will naturally spend less time regardless of how fast they answer the questions). Also, it wouldn't be necessary to measure how well the IQ score correlates to other factors. This is already known for tests like the WAIS or WISC, S-Binet etc, so the typical method here is simply to take your test and see how well it correlates with those tests (in the case of the TRI52, for example, the correlation is very high, so it's assumed to also correlate with job and grade performance, etc).
__________________
Last edited by Reach; 06-22-2011 at 05:38 PM.. |
|||
|
|
|
|
|
#104 |
|
Forum User
|
i think it's kind of ironic that the two most "intelligent" people in this thread have sigs with physically attractive women in them
also IQ is arbitrary and really no offense to reach and rubix but uhhhhh yeah Hot Women ! xD
__________________
#TeamSwoll
Last edited by justaguy; 06-22-2011 at 05:43 PM.. |
|
|
|
|
|
#105 |
|
x'); DROP TABLE FFR;--
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 6,334
|
I've got the yellow plague
|
|
|
|
|
|
#106 |
|
Forum User
|
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?
srs question i'd kind of like to know ya input
__________________
#TeamSwoll
|
|
|
|
|
|
#107 | |
|
x'); DROP TABLE FFR;--
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 6,334
|
Quote:
I mean I'm not the smartest person in the world or anything but I've always been pretty good at figuring stuff out even from an early age. I could read when I was less than two years old -- used to waste a lot of time reading license plates, looking at newspaper articles, writing words with an Etch-A-Sketch, drawing art, playing with toy puzzles, writing stupid little books (I wanted to be a novelist for a long time), etc. Another big step was the fact that I've been using computers since I was like four or five, so I've been a pretty big nerd for as long as I can remember. Confidence has always played a big role in the sense that I've never been afraid to take on a new challenge. I know that if I do well, then great -- and if I don't, then I have something new to learn more from. You really can't go wrong when it comes to stuff like that. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#108 |
|
sunshine and rainbows
Join Date: Feb 2006
Age: 38
Posts: 1,987
|
"You can't really measure motivation and concentration. At least not directly. As much as they're obviously and intuitively important with respect to testing, at some point, you have to let them go and deal with the data..."
You can't really measure intelligence, at least not directly. As much as it's obviously and intuitively important with respect to testing, at some point, you have to let it go. I love how justaguy calls the people he disagrees with the most intelligent people in the thread, as if his own opinion is clearly stupid but he doesn't want to change it. As to Barbara Arrowsmith Young, the woman I was talking about, I read it in "The Brain that Changes Itself" by Norman Doidge, MD. There is also talk of Lyova Zazetsky, who had been shot in the head and who damaged his brain who had very similar problems that the woman had. The only reason barbara wasn't labelled mentally retarded was because her auditory and visual memory were amazing. Can probably find out more about them on the internet. Last edited by Cavernio; 06-22-2011 at 07:07 PM.. |
|
|
|
|
|
#109 | |
|
x'); DROP TABLE FFR;--
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 6,334
|
You keep dodging the central question -- how do you, then, define intelligence? You seem to keep saying that intelligence is this sort of nebulous concept that you can't measure, and yet here we have metrics that are very good at predicting your ability to learn/process/apply complex information. If you disagree with that, then okay -- but that's how we're defining it.
Even if you "agree" with that definition, you say "We can't measure it because it doesn't account for things like motivation and concentration" without acknowledging the facts that have been brought up against you in this thread regarding both those things, which you seem to be ignoring. I mean, what's to stop you from saying that about ANY relationship? I quote Reach's question again from earlier in this thread: Quote:
Last edited by Reincarnate; 06-22-2011 at 07:57 PM.. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#110 |
|
x'); DROP TABLE FFR;--
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 6,334
|
Also: I mean hell, if anything, lack of motivation is a *result* of inability, not necessarily a cause. It doesn't matter if I go into a test fully-pumped and ready to rock -- if the questions are hard, it's going to own me. I only lose motivation if the questions are really tough, but this doesn't in turn diminish my ability to answer something correctly when that ability was not there to begin with. Confidence just influences my willingness to do things without necessarily needing to double-check everything -- it doesn't make me any smarter. The only thing lack of motivation might do is make me want to answer shit by just guessing and hope I get something right, but on tests with so many options per question (iqtest.dk, TRI52, etc), the chance that you get stuff right by pure guessing is still pretty low. Again, it's one of those things where you either know the answer, or you don't.
Focus is a stronger claim to defend. We can argue that lack of focus means we're less able to make the observations necessary to process the information and perform to the best of our ability, resulting in a lower score. But if this were true, then we'd expect that scores should jump up by some significant margin if they *do* take the test focused, or if you give them more than enough time to be able to relax and really think out their logic for each question. This just isn't what we see in the data. Last edited by Reincarnate; 06-22-2011 at 07:59 PM.. |
|
|
|
|
|
#111 |
|
sunshine and rainbows
Join Date: Feb 2006
Age: 38
Posts: 1,987
|
Yes, I am specifically avoiding how to define intelligence. It IS a nebulous concept, and to put a number to something that measures it as well as various other things is wrong. I BEGAN by saying I didn't like psychometrics.
I have not ignored any FACTS brought up in this thread. You keep saying that I have a no argument, yet the ONLY thing you have against what I've said is that there is a weak correlation in" time spent on tough problems and the chance that they'll get the answer right"...which as you've pointed out has a correlation of .2, which, as stated in the article Reach linked much earlier on, is as strong as g was found to correlate to some measures mentioned in that article. Besides which, you're assuming that concentration is best measured by time it takes to do a question, which clearly has its own problems. And all your talk about focus and motivation is, AGAIN, ignoring that one person's motivation is not going to be same as another's, and you're assuming that motivation and focus within a person is going to vary greater than motivation and focus between individuals. The vast majority of testing is taken under similar circumstances, where one would expect similar outcomes for both focus and even moreso, motivation, from one test try to another. But even if this weren't the case, you're doing nothing but supposing. Show me a test, give me some sort of empirical evidence, and I will agree with you. If you think that intelligence can be measured properly, then let concentration and motivation also be measured properly, and properly analyzed as variables for g. If you don't think either of those two things can be measured properly, then as far as I can tell, (since you've give me no reason why intelligence would be any easier to measure than those 2 things), you're deluding yourself into thinking intelligence can be measured properly. Your hard data is test-retest data, and time it takes to do hard questions, and you expect me to say those 2 things clearly show that motivation and concentration aren't strongly related to g at all. That's just not good enough, especially when I completely agree that someone who can concentrate well may not be able to answer a question because they don't have the know-how to do it. I also don't think SATs are good measures of intelligence; we just have a ton of data for them. And as to what Reach said...type in IQ and fitness into google. Oh look! They're related! The smarter I am, the more fit I am. Well, clearly that means something, clearly physical fitness plays a role in my intelligence...because to look at numbers, and using your line of reasoning, that's what it must mean. Besides which, I already addressed what Reach said there: running speed and how fast you are are clearly, intuitively related. To separate them would be dumb. To question how a wide variety of tests that some developer said measured intelligence in some way actually measure intelligence, is logical. "IQ has a lot of utility. IQ is how fast your brain processes and deals with complex information. How fast you learn, how fast you think, how accurate your reasoning and recall is. It is many things, much of which I think can be considered intelligence..." No. And sentences like these are why I still debate this. If IQ were all that, then all the relationships between IQ and any other specific measures of those variables would be totally predictive of those, no r's (or whatever other measure for non-linear functions you would use), that aren't close 100% predictive. Last edited by Cavernio; 06-22-2011 at 08:41 PM.. |
|
|
|
|
|
#112 |
|
x'); DROP TABLE FFR;--
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 6,334
|
I don't even know if that post warrants a response -- it's beyond clear you don't understand statistics. A statistical relationship doesn't have to have an r^2 near 100% in order for it to be a reasonably predictive relationship. And it doesn't matter if focus/motivation differs from person to person because they are separate data points analyzed in aggregate -- which means that if we assume it differs from person to person, then the effects will average out.
An r of .2 means there's an r^2 of .04, which means that 4% of the variance is attributable to time taken to answer the question. In other words, for hard questions, the amount of time you take has little impact on whether or not you get the answer right. If focus/motivation played as big of a role as you say, then we'd expect that spending more time on the question will ultimately lead you to getting the right answer. If a question plagues you, go back to it later with a clearer head or a fiery desire -- you will probably still have a hard time getting it right. r^2=.04, which, in the realm of statistics, is pretty much near zero. If you're purposely going to define intelligence as something we can't understand, and then ask us to measure things which themselves are nebulous, you're putting yourself in a position where no answer will satisfy you, especially if you're demanding near-100% predictability. You're asking for a definition of something you won't even yourself define. Saying "intelligence is undefinable" is a worthless claim with no testable value. This is naive, especially when we have a pretty good model of what represents general cognitive ability. If you're saying intelligence is a worthless concept to even debate about, then you're going to tell me everyone is equally intelligent? Where's the proof in that? Is everyone equally fast, too -- just held back by focus and motivation? Are everyone's physical faculties identical despite the variegated structures and capacities of their functions? Also, we stated earlier that statistics doesn't aim for 100% prediction rate, which you said you understood. G is taken from the largest weight out of a factor analysis resultant from a variety of cognitive tasks which we define as indicative of various forms of intelligence. In other words, you're not going to get a better predictive factor than g out of that factor analysis since it is, by definition, the weight that explains the most variance. And yet, despite all this "I understand, I understand" garbage, you keep rattling off stuff that shows you don't understand. Last edited by Reincarnate; 06-22-2011 at 09:24 PM.. |
|
|
|
|
|
#113 | ||
|
Forum User
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
#TeamSwoll
Last edited by justaguy; 06-22-2011 at 10:01 PM.. |
||
|
|
|
|
|
#114 |
|
sunshine and rainbows
Join Date: Feb 2006
Age: 38
Posts: 1,987
|
'Reasonably predictive' to who or what? Not physics, that's for sure. Oh wait, that's right, I think that psychometrics is doomed from the get go, one of the reasons being things like poor predictability that never reaches anything close to 100%.
I understand what r is, what r of .2 is, and you have not read what I said about concentration in relation to intelligence. I never said or meant to imply that intelligence or their tests are mediated by purely focus and motivation. Which is the message that you got, since you keep harping on it. I never said I think everyone is equally intelligent. I never said that g was worthless. I am well aware that it correlates to a great many things. I keep saying and saying it, but you just don't get it, I just don't think that g or IQ or reaction time or physical fitness or anything else that correlates in one huge mess represents what intelligence is. 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? Again, as I said in, like, my second post, if the prediction accuracy is not 100%, then whatever is left over is NOT determined by whatever measure you're using. "This is naive, especially when we have a pretty good model of what represents general cognitive ability." No, we have a model that poorly predicts things, but nevertheless predicts them, and then we say they're all measures of intelligence. We do not have a good model for representing general cognitive ability. The model includes intelligence and motivation and cultural bias and concentration and visual ability and any other number of factors. "G is taken from the largest weight out of a factor analysis resultant from a variety of cognitive tasks which we define as indicative of various forms of intelligence. " Not 'we', 'you' and other short-sighted people who define them as indicative of various forms of intelligence and nothing more. 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. I haven't looked up anything regarding concentration. From synopses of the thing that are peppered all over the internet, it supports exactly what I was saying in regards to motivation. Damn, page 5 is exactly what I was talking about! (Except replace concentration with motivation.) Last edited by Cavernio; 06-22-2011 at 09:58 PM.. |
|
|
|
|
|
#115 | |
|
FFR Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: In your anus. Right corner
Age: 27
Posts: 1,002
|
Quote:
I ended up with 130 which surprised me since I've run onto a lot of these questions xD Is it normal that I get 130 on the TRI52 test and only 118 on the RAVEN one ? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#116 |
|
FFR Veteran
|
I feel like I'm a waste of intelligence sometimes, yes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#117 |
|
x'); DROP TABLE FFR;--
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 6,334
|
That article you linked isn't saying anything that Reach and I haven't already agreed with. We know things like motivation/focus/happiness/whatever plays some role in performance. But, as that article shows, it's not massively huge or anything (did you even look at the data/results?). It's no secret that incentivizing performance typically results in better performance.
Furthermore, that's not even the point. The point is that regardless of whether or not you want to label it as intelligence, g is defined in such a way that it allows us to predict performance with a certain confidence interval on a variety of other tasks/areas of relevance. That's it. Whether you want to call it something else is entirely up to you, but we call it "cognitive ability/general intelligence" because g is derived from a factor analysis of many variegated cognitive tasks that involve many aspects of learning/applying complex information. It doesn't mean there aren't other metrics that can be effective at predicting performance in other cognitive realms, either. But those other metrics won't have the average ability to explain a wide variety of tasks like g can (by definition). G is a useful cognitive-performance prediction tool for this reason. So the fact that you want to "not call it intelligence" is just belaboring the point, and the fact that you bring up stuff like motivation/focus doesn't hugely detract from g's already-predictive power. Last edited by Reincarnate; 06-22-2011 at 10:41 PM.. |
|
|
|
|
|
#118 |
|
x'); DROP TABLE FFR;--
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 6,334
|
It wouldn't affect my intelligence TOO much -- I've always been able to make the logical inferences with the same sort of ability. I would just be a lot less knowledgeable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#119 |
|
FFR Veteran
|
How would I increase my intellect
|
|
|
|
|
|
#120 |
|
Expect delays.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Montreal, QC
Age: 27
Posts: 3,882
|
By following this guide.
|
|
|
|
![]() |
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|