'Outliers' IQ Problem...

Off Topic
61

[quote]Oleena wrote:
Your’s is a really interesting point considering that the IQ test has a strong background in bigotry and eugenics.

And yes, my friend got accepted into a great program at a great college, and was hired by microsoft by showing them his mensa card.

[/quote]

[Fortunately] Mensa isn’t taken seriously over here (in the UK and Ireland). People I talk to mostly view it as a waste of time/money. I suppose it never really picked up the same momentum as in the US.

Are you sure it wasn’t that he got the place at a great college because he was clever and got a perfect GPA and SAT and wrote a great admission application? Then got the job at Microsoft because he had a great GPA in college [where he studied relevant subjects] and did a great interview for the job. I just find it hard to believe that anyone takes Mensa membership seriously.

62

[quote]Oleena wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
eh, you cannot trust any test that tries to measure human traits; they are biased precisely because they are invented by humans. Every measurement will end up eventually just confirming the biases we already have preconceived about ourselves.

Rocks and atoms…they’re another story. They’re pretty predictable in comparison to us humans – and we can’t identify with them.

And BTW, I stared at that puzzle all day and I still can’t see what the solution is. If it’s not based on a pattern then I can’t imagine what else the solution would be based on.

I am really intrigued now.

Your’s is a really interesting point considering that the IQ test has a strong background in bigotry and eugenics.

[/quote]

Would you mind elaborating on this point?

63

[quote]Defekt wrote:
Oleena wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
eh, you cannot trust any test that tries to measure human traits; they are biased precisely because they are invented by humans. Every measurement will end up eventually just confirming the biases we already have preconceived about ourselves.

Rocks and atoms…they’re another story. They’re pretty predictable in comparison to us humans – and we can’t identify with them.

And BTW, I stared at that puzzle all day and I still can’t see what the solution is. If it’s not based on a pattern then I can’t imagine what else the solution would be based on.

I am really intrigued now.

Your’s is a really interesting point considering that the IQ test has a strong background in bigotry and eugenics.

Would you mind elaborating on this point?[/quote]

The IQ test was originally used to seperate the retarded from the normal. Later, as it grew in popularity, it was used as “proof” that several groups such as Jews and Blacks were mentally inferior, and this was used as a reason why they should not be allowed to “taint” the pure white race.

There’s actually a lot more to it than that, but it would take a long time to track down all the references and crap. You should google it.

64

[quote]Oleena wrote:
Defekt wrote:
Oleena wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
eh, you cannot trust any test that tries to measure human traits; they are biased precisely because they are invented by humans. Every measurement will end up eventually just confirming the biases we already have preconceived about ourselves.

Rocks and atoms…they’re another story. They’re pretty predictable in comparison to us humans – and we can’t identify with them.

And BTW, I stared at that puzzle all day and I still can’t see what the solution is. If it’s not based on a pattern then I can’t imagine what else the solution would be based on.

I am really intrigued now.

Your’s is a really interesting point considering that the IQ test has a strong background in bigotry and eugenics.

Would you mind elaborating on this point?

The IQ test was originally used to seperate the retarded from the normal. Later, as it grew in popularity, it was used as “proof” that several groups such as Jews and Blacks were mentally inferior, and this was used as a reason why they should not be allowed to “taint” the pure white race.

There’s actually a lot more to it than that, but it would take a long time to track down all the references and crap. You should google it.

[/quote]

Is it your opinion that it is a false measure to base which characteristics are valued from a eugenics standpoint?

65

In an ideal situation where the test magically appeared from Heaven and was perfect in every way, perhaps not. Unfortunately there is no Heaven. It’s more something us humans constructed.

[quote]Defekt wrote:
Oleena wrote:
Defekt wrote:
Oleena wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
eh, you cannot trust any test that tries to measure human traits; they are biased precisely because they are invented by humans. Every measurement will end up eventually just confirming the biases we already have preconceived about ourselves.

Rocks and atoms…they’re another story. They’re pretty predictable in comparison to us humans – and we can’t identify with them.

And BTW, I stared at that puzzle all day and I still can’t see what the solution is. If it’s not based on a pattern then I can’t imagine what else the solution would be based on.

I am really intrigued now.

Your’s is a really interesting point considering that the IQ test has a strong background in bigotry and eugenics.

Would you mind elaborating on this point?

The IQ test was originally used to seperate the retarded from the normal. Later, as it grew in popularity, it was used as “proof” that several groups such as Jews and Blacks were mentally inferior, and this was used as a reason why they should not be allowed to “taint” the pure white race.

There’s actually a lot more to it than that, but it would take a long time to track down all the references and crap. You should google it.

Is it your opinion that it is a false measure to base which characteristics are valued from a eugenics standpoint? [/quote]

66

I’m very tall, therefore I’m better at basketball than you are. /my thoughts on IQ tests.

67

[quote]Oleena wrote:
limitatinfinity wrote:

Every other skill is just an extension of mathematical intelligence to learned motor patterns developed with lots of exposure through practice and interest.

First of all, there are several other skills which many psychologists label intelligence to which that statement does not remotely apply.

Secondly, what is the practical point of mathematical intelligence for basic survival? I love Einstein, but he was a little “special” in some aspects of life. He reportedly had to have his door painted green so he could remember which one it was. Many of the highest mathematical intellects I’ve met are not good at basic living (career and home) to the point where I think they would have trouble if you left them on an island alone.

If it wasn’t for “normal people” reminding them to eat and shit these geniuses might not survive :)[/quote]

The rumor is that Einstein got help from his first wife with the mathematics needed to describe general relativity. He needed help with tensor calculus.

Yes, he was socially retarded too.

68

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
The rumor is that Einstein got help from his first wife with the mathematics needed to describe general relativity. He needed help with tensor calculus.

Yes, he was socially retarded too.[/quote]

I hope you were joking. If not read this:

http://www.esterson.org/milevamaric.htm

69

A

70

To those thinking that IQ ‘isn’t important’…if you got a diploma at merit level or higher then your average IQ is likely to be over 100. I have a friend of mine that can’t even reach that and tell you what-it just reflects in the way he tries to solve logic problems. On the other hand we have a couple of lecturers (both engineers) and both have a MENSA approved IQ of 140+. Both love math and both seem to solve real life complex problems easily. In my opinion a high IQ is a must for anyone studying in any engineering field, hell even tattoo artists most often then not have a high IQ. (I knew one with an IQ of 160, and yes, he was one of those ‘quick reasoners’.

A High IQ isn’t that important for someone dealing with a job where he/she needs to perform the same sequential tasks repeatedly. In that case that person needs good memory.

In my case I have way below average memory (which some say it can be solved by use of Piracetam or some other nootropic) but above average IQ. In fact when at work I used to reason faults decently, but used to forget about what tasks I had to carry out during the day too. This just shows that memory isn’t correlated with intelligence. But again, I might be wrong.

Bdw Einstein was/still is one of the greatest Physicists…just read about how he reasoned the theory of relativity. For him it was ‘common sense’, it really isn’t for most of us. I refuse to think that he needed the help of his wife to solve math problems. That’s just stupid.

71

[quote]PimpBot5000 wrote:
I don’t know if anyone here has read the book “Outliers” by Malcolm Gladwell, but its an excellent read. Near the beginning he talks about Christopher Langan, a chronic underachiever who has spent his life in menial jobs, with an IQ hovering around 205. There was an IQ problem mentioned in the book that often finds its way onto the tests for unusually high IQ (>160). Langan apparently answered this question in 15 seconds, and the tests allows for a maximum of 2 minutes. As I’ve read the book I know the answer, but just for fun (please don’t Google it, after all most T-Nation readers claim to have 145 IQs, so it’ll be a snap), give it an honest shot.[/quote]

who else got G?

72

[quote]Bicep_craze wrote:
To those thinking that IQ ‘isn’t important’…[/quote]

I agree with most of what you are saying but I still take issue with IQ tests as a measure of “innate” intelligence. Personally I don’t know of any good measure for innate intelligence. It’s too abstract and difficult a thing to measure accurately. It is much easier to measure someone’s proficiency at specific tasks or subjects.

Also if you really are having trouble with memory pick up a copy of “How to develop a perfect memory” by Dominic O’Brien. His methods take a good bit of effort and practice before they become useful but if you are motivated enough it can definitely help.

73

It has a place. However, I strongly object to using this imperfect test to seperate children into advanced and normal classes at the beginning of their education.

I have a story from my own experience to explain the dangers. When I was in 11th grade I failed out of an honors history class. I completed the whole thing, and the teacher told me that if she was just grading the class out of in class performance, I would have had the highest grade.

I re-took history in 12th grade, but decided to take the “normal” class instead of honors. The difference between the classes was 2/3rds of the material. The kids in the honors class were receiving 2/3rds more information about the history of the United States, with that class often putting more emphasis on how we fucked up and what better decisions could be made in the future.

Most of the kids in the highschool were taking the normal history class, and I doubt they explored American History further after that. It’s kind of scary if you think about it.

[quote]Bicep_craze wrote:
To those thinking that IQ ‘isn’t important’…if you got a diploma at merit level or higher then your average IQ is likely to be over 100. I have a friend of mine that can’t even reach that and tell you what-it just reflects in the way he tries to solve logic problems. On the other hand we have a couple of lecturers (both engineers) and both have a MENSA approved IQ of 140+. Both love math and both seem to solve real life complex problems easily. In my opinion a high IQ is a must for anyone studying in any engineering field, hell even tattoo artists most often then not have a high IQ. (I knew one with an IQ of 160, and yes, he was one of those ‘quick reasoners’.

A High IQ isn’t that important for someone dealing with a job where he/she needs to perform the same sequential tasks repeatedly. In that case that person needs good memory.

In my case I have way below average memory (which some say it can be solved by use of Piracetam or some other nootropic) but above average IQ. In fact when at work I used to reason faults decently, but used to forget about what tasks I had to carry out during the day too. This just shows that memory isn’t correlated with intelligence. But again, I might be wrong.

Bdw Einstein was/still is one of the greatest Physicists…just read about how he reasoned the theory of relativity. For him it was ‘common sense’, it really isn’t for most of us. I refuse to think that he needed the help of his wife to solve math problems. That’s just stupid. [/quote]

74

[quote]Bicep_craze wrote:

Bdw Einstein was/still is one of the greatest Physicists…just read about how he reasoned the theory of relativity. For him it was ‘common sense’, it really isn’t for most of us. I refuse to think that he needed the help of his wife to solve math problems. That’s just stupid. [/quote]

There is no debate that Einstein was one of the greatest physicists, and that’s not the point of the discussion.

However, he did have trouble doing simple math, and he didn’t solve his own problems. My understanding from what I’ve read is that he had a team of scientists solve his problems, and then he would glance at their black boards upon black boards of work, scratch his head, and either say “Yeah, that looks right” or “I think it’s wrong”. Based on that they would have to do it over again. I’ve never heard anything about his wife solving his problems for him, but that wouldn’t surprise me.

Congradulations, though, on landing on the point of the discussion with your ending judgement. With his outlier intelligence, there are some “basic” skills that he couldn’t perform very well, even though he surpasses you and me at the complex ones. Does that make him and the outlier intelligence inferior for everyday survival?

75

[quote]Oleena wrote:
There is no debate that Einstein was one of the greatest physicists, and that’s not the point of the discussion.

However, he did have trouble doing simple math, and he didn’t solve his own problems. My understanding from what I’ve read is that he had a team of scientists solve his problems, and then he would glance at their black boards upon black boards of work, scratch his head, and either say “Yeah, that looks right” or “I think it’s wrong”. Based on that they would have to do it over again. I’ve never heard anything about his wife solving his problems for him, but that wouldn’t surprise me.

Congradulations, though, on landing on the point of the discussion with your ending judgement. With his outlier intelligence, there are some “basic” skills that he couldn’t perform very well, even though he surpasses you and me at the complex ones. Does that make him and the outlier intelligence inferior for everyday survival?

[/quote]

Please tell me you are joking about the comment with Einstein being bad at maths and having a team of scientists helping him [BTW generic scientists are never better at maths than physicists, only mathematicians are better at math than physicists]. Of course Einstein collaborated with many people better than him at maths he was still exceptional by anyone’s standard.

The link I gave previously addresses the issue of Einstein’s wife helping him. Along with this issue it goes into substantial detail about Einstein’s mathematical ability. I’ll repost the link since you ignored it the first time:
http://www.esterson.org/milevamaric.htm

Here is an extract from the link that is relevant:

[i]In the light of suggestions that Einstein was a mediocre mathematician it is worth noting the following in relation to Einsteinâ??s Ph.D. thesis submitted to Zurich University in 1905. In his â??Expert Opinionâ?? statement the physics professor Alfred Kleiner wrote that â??The arguments and calculations to be carried out are among the most difficult ones in hydrodynamics, and only a person possessing perspicacity and training in the handling of mathematical and physical problems could dare tackle them.â?? Kleiner added that as â??the main achievement of Einsteinâ??s thesis consists of the handling of differential equations, and hence is mathematical in character and belongs to the domain of analytical mechanicsâ?? he had sought the expert opinion of the head of mathematics, Professor Heinrich Burkardt. Burkhardt reported that what he checked he â??found to be correct without exception, and the manner of treatment demonstrates a thorough command of the mathematical methods involvedâ?? (emphasis in original).[68]

[68] Collected Papers, Vol. 5 (1995). Beck, A. (trans.) and Howard, D. (consultant), pp. 22-23.[/i]

76

I took me 5 min just to figure out the explanation of why its A.

I’m definitely no genius but at least I understand the answer.

77

[quote]TYPE2B wrote:
limitatinfinity wrote:
Oleena wrote:
I really don’t see what these things have to do with a person’s ability to survive in life, change their circumstances, and understand novel concepts. I’ve always thought IQ tests were biased towards mathematical, visual intelligence.

Unfortunately that’s the only kind of intelligence there is.

Every other skill is just an extension of mathematical intelligence to learned motor patterns developed with lots of exposure through practice and interest.

Please correct me if I’m wrong because I disagree…

The theory of multiple intelligence states that there are 7 or more types of intellectual attributes. (spatial awareness, logical-mathematical, creativity, etc.)

On the contrary, your belief that there is only ONE type of intelligence is consistent with the “g factor” theory where it states that a person’s cognitive abilities are all linked to each other.

If the g-factor theory is right, then that means a person who is good in math will also be good in songwriting… and we all know that’s not true. Alot of valedictorians in colleges probably don’t even have the motor capacity to properly do a barbell curl… (motor abilities is a part of intelligence.)[/quote]

And herein lies the problem with the whole concept of “intelligence.” Intelligence itself has to be inferred; it cannot be directly measured. Many psychologists would argue it doesn’t even exist. Ultimately, intelligence should really be consistent with one behaving effectively given the environmental context, which is extremely broad. The whole 7 types of intelligence argument is made in effort to capture behavior outside of the other made up constructs like working memory, perceptual reasoning, processing speed, etc. But the problem is that you’d ultimately have as many factors of “intelligence” as you’d have broad bases of behavior.

78

wow… it was so simple once you knew the answer. the files… are IN… the computer!

79

[quote]Oleena wrote:
Mattlebee wrote:
One approach to simplfy this is to state an uncontroversial truth, which is that whatever intelligence is, it’s something that humans have to a greater degree than other animals.

I hate to break it to you, but this is actually a “truth” still in controversy. So far we have not been able to construct a puzzel that dolfins can’t solve almost before it’s complete. There is a line of thought resulting from this work that dolfins may be a “super species” with perhaps greater processing abilities than humans.[/quote]

Whether or not dolphins, a single species, are as (or more) intelligent than us doesn’t change the basic claim. In fact they may be a way of defining it. If problem-solving = intelligence then mathematical problem-solving is an abstract, but highly advanced demonstration of problem-solving.

Maybe it’s about how they’d get so much inventing of shit done if they just had fingers like those damn apes in their boats.

Whales apparently beach themselves to commit suicide too. I’m not sure how it suggests intelligence. Many animals, like salmon, die shortly after or even during reproduction so an animal choosing to do something that causes its death can’t credibly be a sign of intelligence.

I wasn’t talking about outlier intellect, but your specific statement/assumption that being good at maths would have a practical survival advantage if it were a form of intelligence. developing colour vision let apes find the ripe fruit - clear survival advantage - but the fact that it also means flowers become pleasant to look at is purely incidental. In evolutionary terms mathematical ability is like seeing flowers as objects of beauty.

80

What is the unit of measurement of human intelligence?