Black woman single cos the black men are in jail - would you marry outside your race?

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Well, this is a source of difficulty for me. If the standardized IQ test cannot accurately measure outliers, savants and/or geniuses, what the hell good is it? I ask this as a serious question. If it can't catch an Einstein or a Picasso, why do we regard it as a useful tool? What is it measuring?

Well, what use is your bedroom scale if it can't measure someone who's 500 pounds? I think historically it (and other intelligence tests) have been used in education.

Lately it's been perceived as a "how much do you bench" boasting kind of thing which could be the source of the backlash I guess.

Are we defining creativity out of intelligence? Gah, I hate to sound like a second-year philosophy student, but maybe examining our terms would be helpful. What do we mean when we say "intelligent"? Sasaki kinda went there already, but even his well-considered definition leaves me feeling like important bits were omitted:

I've heard that a lot of the source of creativity comes from the senses interfering with each other chemically. Artists are 8 times as likely to by synaesthetic as the normal population or something like that. Which helps with description and metaphor.

Lateral thinking is another kind of creativity. There's a logic puzzle I've seen before that intelligent people almost always fail horribly at, and less intelligent people figure out right away. The intelligent people see all kinds of complicated answers and patterns and try to make them work, and miss the simplistic solution. In other puzzles intelligent people are just as likely to make the mistake (due to a cognitive bias of some kind) but once they see that they've made a mistake, they figure it out much faster.

I just don't know about this. Why "complicated mental tasks"? Sometimes the simplest things are the hardest. To quote a Brit writer, "To see what is in front of one's nose needs a constant struggle." If anything, I have often observed moderately bright people getting lost in complicated sub-strata of a problem, while the scary-intelligent person cuts right to the essence with a simplicity that is wonderful to behold.

Cutting right to the essence of a problem sounds more like a function of memory through practice than intelligence. Like when they do brain scans of chess masters playing chess and they are going by memory, while chess amateurs brains are spending tons of energy trying to figure things out. Seems like being able to see the answer simply is a function of learning how to solve problems and being familiar with the subject.

The only accurate measure of intelligence, in my opinion, is accomplishment. Someone who aces an IQ test but cannot do anything of note is not functionally brilliant. Sorry. There's a combination of raw brains, tenacity, willpower, luck and skill required to get anything worthwhile done. That's my (idiosyncratic) measure of intelligence.

Accomplishment has a very high correlation with IQ iirc. But I don't see why intelligence would be measured by achievement, as you said it requires luck and skill and willpower to achieve it. Surely if someone fails to achieve be mere chance that doesn't mean they are now less intelligent? That's kind of like saying you define height as "being good at basketball". When being good at basketball requires height, athleticism, hard work, luck, tenacity and skill.

[Lemur]

Well, what use is your bedroom scale if it can't measure someone who's 500 pounds?

Point of order: I know exactly what my bedroom scale is measuring (mass*gravity). Can't say that with confidence about an IQ test; indeed, that's a big part of why I'm raising so many questions and objections.

Artists are 8 times as likely to by synaesthetic as the normal population or something like that. Which helps with description and metaphor.

There must be some truth to that; a person who I know who get a full-ride scholarship to the Art Institute of Chicago told me that almost half of her class was dyslexic. Clearly there's some relationship between re-wired perceptions and visual creativity.

Cutting right to the essence of a problem sounds more like a function of memory through practice than intelligence.

While the examples you give a good and valid, they aren't what I was driving at. To draw a broad (bordering on meaningless) generalization: Some folks are a bit thick, and they don't see anything complicated as such; brighter people are able to see just how complex a problem can be; and the scary smart people are able to see how simple the root of that complexity is. With some thinkers there is a definite quality of incisiveness which I admire.

I don't see why intelligence would be measured by achievement, as you said it requires luck and skill and willpower to achieve it. Surely if someone fails to achieve be mere chance that doesn't mean they are now less intelligent?

You're quite right, of course. In my clumsy way, I was seeking a real-world correlation with (not causation of) intelligence, something with a bit more meat on its bones than these tests.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Point of order: I know exactly what my bedroom scale is measuring (mass*gravity). Can't say that with confidence about an IQ test; indeed, that's a big part of why I'm raising so many questions and objections.

Yeah, the scale measures mass*gravity*error rate for that scale. And IQ test measures questions right/time it takes or something. The quantitative aspects are pretty cut and dry. But you step on the scale ultimately to measure your health don't you? It's hard to say with confidence what "good health" is too.

But I'm not sure that's important to what sprung this line of thought. Many tests and scales don't measure outliers properly. But that's ok because they work for 99% of the population.

There must be some truth to that; a person who I know who get a full-ride scholarship to the Art Institute of Chicago told me that almost half of her class was dyslexic. Clearly there's some relationship between re-wired perceptions and visual creativity.

Yup, which is partly why I don't see the need to posit a "creative intelligence" as Gardner does. One of his quotes is:

"I balk at the unwarranted assumption that certain human abilities can be arbitrarily singled out as intelligence while others cannot"

Which is I guess the source of his argument for multiple intelligences.

While the examples you give a good and valid, they aren't what I was driving at. To draw a broad (bordering on meaningless) generalization: Some folks are a bit thick, and they don't see anything complicated as such; brighter people are able to see just how complex a problem can be; and the scary smart people are able to see how simple the root of that complexity is. With some thinkers there is a definite quality of incisiveness which I admire.

I think this is a learning thing though. Like if I watched a chess game, I would see a move as simple. If I learned more about it, I might see a ton of complexity and how it was a countermove to a countermove. If I became a chess master, I might see at simple again, because now I see that all the moves and countermoves are part of an overall strategy, and the move was an obvious defensive move.

And I would be smarter if I'd learned that much. But intelligence is generally thought of as separate from that. What I think is tricky though, is that we say intelligence is separate, but clearly certain skills are required in order to be intelligent at all. Language skills for example. And I believe IQ scores have risen over time with education.

I guess I think of intelligence as: given two people with equal motivation, knowledge and resources (i.e. everything else being equal) who solves a problem faster, learns something faster, can understand something that the other person can't grasp? Like the equivalent of a 2 Ghz processor compared to a 1.9 Ghz processor, given the same task from the same program.

[The Stranger]

I guess I think of intelligence as: given two people with equal motivation, knowledge and resources (i.e. everything else being equal) who solves a problem faster, learns something faster, can understand something that the other person can't grasp? Like the equivalent of a 2 Ghz processor compared to a 1.9 Ghz processor, given the same task from the same program.

since this is barely ever the case, how can we still make an accurate estimate of someones intelligence. and how would we calculate the impact of these differences and changes on someones behaviour and intelligence if we would try to artificially recreate the circumstances to make them identical for said 2 persons?

[Sasaki Kojiro]

since this is barely ever the case, how can we still make an accurate estimate of someones intelligence. and how would we calculate the impact of these differences and changes on someones behaviour and intelligence if we would try to artificially recreate the circumstances to make them identical for said 2 persons?

Probably you do it over a large number of people and assume a normal distribution, and then run some statistics on it. Instead of trying to artificially create the circumstances.

[Watchman]

Given that we can't even unambigiously define intelligence...

looks like we'll be burning the new galileo's just like we burnst the original.

FAIL.

[Furunculus]

Given that we can't even unambigiously define intelligence...
FAIL.

why?

[Fragony]

Given that we can't even unambigiously define intelligence...
FAIL.

IQ test comes pretty close, problem is that it's snapshot. And something isn't fail just becaus you dismiss it, can't just decide these things this isn't the DDR's ministry of truth.

[The Stranger]

Probably you do it over a large number of people and assume a normal distribution, and then run some statistics on it. Instead of trying to artificially create the circumstances.

like the way they did in cases of Kyrgyzstan? which seems like artificially recreating circumstances to me.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I don't see the need to divide intelligence into all sorts of categories.

While there are prodigies and people who might have great abilities in one respect, but be dumb on the whole, for the most part, people tend to be either generally clever or generally thick.

Surely, everything that goes on in our brain is a sort of calculation. Intelligence would simply be how effectively we can carry those out. Hand-eye coordination is based on calculations. For example, to catch a frisbee, you have to work out how fast it is travelling, then consider the length of your arm, the speed to move it to reach the frisbee as it arrives etc. Over time, as you make more of these calculations, your brain starts to learn the patterns, it takes on board past experiences and stores information away so your reactions in future become instinctual. It's the same with playing an instrument, there's no special 'creative' intelligence, its just recognising patterns till you can play a piece of music. When that information is efficiently stored away, you can play the piece without doing all the calculations and do it barely thinking about it.

[The Stranger]

I don't see the need to divide intelligence into all sorts of categories.

While there are prodigies and people who might have great abilities in one respect, but be dumb on the whole, for the most part, people tend to be either generally clever or generally thick.

Surely, everything that goes on in our brain is a sort of calculation. Intelligence would simply be how effectively we can carry those out. Hand-eye coordination is based on calculations. For example, to catch a frisbee, you have to work out how fast it is travelling, then consider the length of your arm, the speed to move it to reach the frisbee as it arrives etc. Over time, as you make more of these calculations, your brain starts to learn the patterns, it takes on board past experiences and stores information away so your reactions in future become instinctual. It's the same with playing an instrument, there's no special 'creative' intelligence, its just recognising patterns till you can play a piece of music. When that information is efficiently stored away, you can play the piece without doing all the calculations and do it barely thinking about it.

yet why is a person like einstein considered intelligent then, lets assume he did all that he did, only he was bad at languages, bad at any kind of physical activities, bad at social contact etc. we might say he was a savant, but we would not deny his intelligence. yet his intelligence only flourishes at one field. so much is clear. yet when the intelligence flourishes more in the bodily part, the athletic sportive part, than in the mental scientific part(reading, maths, analytics, knowledgable) people are not as fast considered intelligent.

while in school/uni though ive met alot of knowledgable people, who werent exactly intelligent. and they are found on the highest educational levels of one of the most intelligent (according to the IQ tests) in the country. and I went to an fairly elite school (in both the sense of rich white kids and level of education). there is a obvious double standard, and a bias towards certain "forms" of intelligence.

and to go more deep into your definition of intelligence, for as far as i understand it, i think i agree with you though mostly, and what qualifies one as more or less intelligent is with what ease and speed of person learns these patterns as opposed to another person (or actually a whole bunch of other persons). but as said before, at least in day to day life who attribute intelligence mostly only to the artificial, wholly mental and "self"conscious activities, such as reading, writing, stating facts, etc.