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

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

Many tasks require knowledge and practice to be able to do competently. Intelligence doesn't really deal with that, it's generally seen as a more general thing like "athleticism".

Ask any serious athlete, and he'll tell you that "athleticism" itself is a a creature of many constituent and varied parts. That's why professional attempts to change sports usually go horribly wrong.

Wit and humor are innate, although they must be sharpened and honed to make them marketable. But you ain't ever gonna make an unfunny person funny. Same thing with musicality. Same thing with mathematical aptitude.

I'd be curious about how you'd classify Cesar Milan. Ask anybody who works with animals and they'll tell you, the man is a freakish genius. Very little schooling, probably wouldn't do that well on a standardized IQ test, and yet he has an area of genius that shines like a magnesium flare. Where does he fit into any unified schema of intelligence?

That's the thing that makes me batty about generalized intelligence tests. Real geniuses tend to be highly specialized, often with a narrow area in which they advance mankind in some manner or another. I don't think Mozart, for example, would have done particularly well on these sorts of questions. Not saying he would have done poorly, just that his field of brilliance had nothing to do with logic, puzzles or syllogisms (Bach would be a different story). In point of fact, there is nothing in the standardized IQ test that would detect a Mozart. He would be just another schmoe.

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

Just a small factual correction here. Scientists hate the fact that IQ differences exist, because it doesn't fit in with the "race doesn't matter" pillar modern society is based on. So they have tried to explain it away in every way possible, without success.

All scientists everywhere hate this? And they told you? What were they thinking?

@PJ
Here's a thing though: are boys on average more intelligent than girls? Because boys tend to score relatively a bit higher than girls on IQ and like tests. On the other hand, boys also game the system more -- using knowledge about the question and answer model to find the correct answer.
Another: are people over 70 on average really mentally retarded? The IQ drop is quite large and known as the Flynn effect.

Originally Posted by Lemur

A difficulty I have with this line of reasoning: How are we defining intelligence? 'Cause when I consider all of the myriad ways a human being may be intelligent, I get a little dizzy. Musical intelligence? Numerical math? How about somebody who is terrible at basic math but excels at more abstract formulations, as with Einstein? What about literary smarts? Engineering smarts? Practical smarts? How do we classify a woman who excels at chemistry but sucks at most other forms of science? What about a guy who's whip-smart about history and an idiot about all hard sciences?

All of these intelligences / character traits are unevenly distributed among human populations. If a characteristic is the product of heritable components, of genetic variation, it will most likely differ between populations.


Intelligence is a difficult subject. In a sense, I am not smarter than a snail. We are both equally adapt at what we do. My cognitive abilities useless to him, his to mine. But, nevertheless, we speak of me as more intelligent than a snail. This intelligence, as understood in this broad way, differs between human populations.

How would it be otherwise? It is commonly recognised that homo sapiens sapiens is more intelligent than his ape ancestors. By what mechanism did this evolution of cognitive abilities suddenly stop once humans diverged into seperate groups 60/70/150 thousand years ago? And if not, by what mechanism did all populations continue to develop in the exact same way? Rather, continue to develop mentally in the exact same way, even though all other physical traits continued to develop in diverging ways?

Originally Posted by Lemur

All scientists everywhere hate this? And they told you? What were they thinking?

lol

Originally Posted by Lemur

Ask any serious athlete, and he'll tell you that "athleticism" itself is a a creature of many constituent and varied parts.

All athletes everywhere believe this? There is not one athlete, anywhere in the world, that doesn't? How do you know this?

Originally Posted by Lemur

Ask anybody who works with animals and they'll tell you, the man is a freakish genius.

Every single person that works with animals believes Cesar Milan is a genius? After your extensive research, you could find no one that works with animals that disagrees? Can you link to your findings?

Double rolleyes for you, sir. >


Instead of jumping all over me for employing the common, yet oh-so-evil, rhetorical device of generalization, the same one that you used, not once, but twice, in the very same post, you could make an attempt at understanding the point I was making. It is no secret that after the first half of the 20th Century, the scientific community is uncomfortable with anything that could be construed as Social Darwinism, and the IQ test discrepancies between the races have been attacked from every possible angle with little success in explaining them away.

@PJ
Here's a thing though: are boys on average more intelligent than girls? Because boys tend to score relatively a bit higher than girls on IQ and like tests. On the other hand, boys also game the system more -- using knowledge about the question and answer model to find the correct answer.
Another: are people over 70 on average really mentally retarded? The IQ drop is quite large and known as the Flynn effect.

Well, the ability to figure out the question and answer model could be seen as intelligent in itself. However, I'm not trying to defend the IQ test, I was just pointing out that they were incorrect in assuming the IQ test did not factor in socioeconomic differences.

If you don't believe the IQ test is an accurate measure of intelligence, or that there is any accurate measure of intelligence as some people seem to be saying, then by all means disregard it. I have yet to see a measure of intelligence that did not point to a racial disparity, but I don't spend much time looking for them either.

For the sake of fun, a genetic map of Europe.

You can have your ancestry determined almost down to a single valley.

Italians are a race of their own. Two races, in fact, north and south. Iberia is isolated. The Swiss are the peoples most closely related to the French. Within Switserland, your genetic passport will reveal which of its languages you are very likely to speak.
I am also going to remember this map, and repost it at an opportune time in some 'British politics / EU' thread. The Pyrenees and the Alps are barriers, the North Sea is non-existent. Britain is not an island.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Originally Posted by Husar

Just discovered Venn-diagrams, didn't you?

Venn-diagrams ftw! This is what I mean, yes,

Originally Posted by Lemur

Ask any serious athlete, and he'll tell you that "athleticism" itself is a a creature of many constituent and varied parts. That's why professional attempts to change sports usually go horribly wrong.

Yes I agree. But I don't think that's important here. If you take someone who's strong, fast, good reflexes, endurance, strong heart etc (all the possible facets of athleticism) there are many sports that they won't be good at. How good they are at it depends on them knowing how to play, and having all the implicit memories of how to throw a ball or swing a bat.

I think of intelligence as your capacity to do complicated mental tasks. You still have to learn the tasks, but I don't see why there would be a separate intelligence for each task.

I'd be curious about how you'd classify Cesar Milan. Ask anybody who works with animals and they'll tell you, the man is a freakish genius. Very little schooling, probably wouldn't do that well on a standardized IQ test, and yet he has an area of genius that shines like a magnesium flare. Where does he fit into any unified schema of intelligence?

He is very talented, and very skilled in a specific area. But I think you end up redefining intelligence if you say that he has dog training intelligence. Because then jugglers have juggling intelligence, and ice skaters have ice skating intelligence, etc. I think most wolf pack leaders can do what he does within their own pack right?

That's the thing that makes me batty about generalized intelligence tests. Real geniuses tend to be highly specialized, often with a narrow area in which they advance mankind in some manner or another. I don't think Mozart, for example, would have done particularly well on these sorts of questions. Not saying he would have done poorly, just that his field of brilliance had nothing to do with logic, puzzles or syllogisms (Bach would be a different story). In point of fact, there is nothing in the standardized IQ test that would detect a Mozart. He would be just another schmoe.

The IQ test probably can't measure einstein or 1000's of other very smart people. I wouldn't expect it to be good at outliers. Savants and prodigies seem to have a specific part of their brain operating at an abnormal level. So where normally increased capacity on one area is correlated with an increase in another, with them it isn't.

Originally Posted by Louis

Intelligence is a difficult subject. In a sense, I am not smarter than a snail. We are both equally adapt at what we do. My cognitive abilities useless to him, his to mine. But, nevertheless, we speak of me as more intelligent than a snail. This intelligence, as understood in this broad way, differs between human populations.

Yeah, intelligent is different than smart. Smart implies being adapted to the environment. We contrast someone with street smarts with the absent minded professor.

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

All of these intelligences / character traits are unevenly distributed among human populations. If a characteristic is the product of heritable components, of genetic variation, it will most likely differ between populations.


Intelligence is a difficult subject. In a sense, I am not smarter than a snail. We are both equally adapt at what we do. My cognitive abilities useless to him, his to mine. But, nevertheless, we speak of me as more intelligent than a snail. This intelligence, as understood in this broad way, differs between human populations.

How would it be otherwise? It is commonly recognised that homo sapiens sapiens is more intelligent than his ape ancestors. By what mechanism did this evolution of cognitive abilities suddenly stop once humans diverged into seperate groups 60/70/150 thousand years ago? And if not, by what mechanism did all populations continue to develop in the exact same way? Rather, continue to develop mentally in the exact same way, even though all other physical traits continued to develop in diverging ways?

kk if that were to be true than the difference is not black/white/yellow. but much more diverse than that. basque could be much more or less intelligent than germans or samis or inuits. but this difference is never made.

Originally Posted by Lemur

That's the thing that makes me batty about generalized intelligence tests. Real geniuses tend to be highly specialized, often with a narrow area in which they advance mankind in some manner or another. I don't think Mozart, for example, would have done particularly well on these sorts of questions. Not saying he would have done poorly, just that his field of brilliance had nothing to do with logic, puzzles or syllogisms (Bach would be a different story). In point of fact, there is nothing in the standardized IQ test that would detect a Mozart. He would be just another schmoe.

Why does Mozart have to be intelligent; why can't he just be creative?

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

I think of intelligence as your capacity to do complicated mental tasks. You still have to learn the tasks, but I don't see why there would be a separate intelligence for each task.

For example, the MW dictionary says "a (1) : the ability to learn or understand or to deal with new or trying situations : reason; also : the skilled use of reason (2) : the ability to apply knowledge to manipulate one's environment or to think abstractly as measured by objective criteria (as tests)".

So if you are intelligent, I think that you essentially got flexible brain power; you have a greater ability to adapt to and comprehend new and unusual situations.

IQ differences have pretty much been mapped out, we Dutchies and our German neighbours are on top with a shared average of 108. But IQ is an old fashioned concept, doesn't the daft football-player make perfect calculation before he curves a ball right into the goal. Psychologists destinguish 6 subgroups nowadays.

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

The IQ test probably can't measure einstein or 1000's of other very smart people. I wouldn't expect it to be good at outliers. Savants and prodigies seem to have a specific part of their brain operating at an abnormal level.

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?

Originally Posted by Viking

Why does Mozart have to be intelligent; why can't he just be creative?

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:

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

I think of intelligence as your capacity to do complicated mental tasks. You still have to learn the tasks, but I don't see why there would be a separate intelligence for each task.

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.

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

If you don't believe the IQ test is an accurate measure of intelligence, or that there is any accurate measure of intelligence as some people seem to be saying, then by all means disregard it.

I do, I do, I do. There's nothing sadder than a Mensa convention (and for the record, those losers asked me to join). As for an "accurate measure of intelligence," I'm not in the business of creating them, and if I were, I think I'd be depressed. What do we mean by "intelligence"? How many aspects of intelligence are we prepared to acknowledge? How do we propose to measure them in an even slightly meaningful way? I think these are non-trivial questions and problems.

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.

Originally Posted by Lemur

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?

The relation of you compared to the average (100).

As people generally get smarter over generations, IQ test actually becomes more difficult as the average is higher. IQ test is meant to find underperformers in order to direct more educational attention to them so they can improve. It wasn't meant to be a intellectual e-peen size measuring contest. A proper IQ test takes a few hours with a trained educational psychologist in a pretty much, 1 to 1 environment. This isn't actually one test either, it is usually around 12 different sub-test areas measuring from short-term memory, long-term, spatial awareness, social comprehension, etc, etc. These are mainly used to examine and test people for as dyspraxia, dyslexia and other various disabilities.

Also, an IQ over 135 cannot be reliably tested.

i think he knows that...

Originally Posted by The Stranger

i think he knows that...

Actually, Beskar's post is helpful. If you look at the IQ test primarily as a tool for diagnosing people with learning problems, it makes a great deal more sense. As a tool for measuring an individual's (or a population's) real "intelligence"? Not so much. I guess that's why the use of IQ scores in discussions of population-specific intelligence levels always strikes me as weird.

Originally Posted by Lemur

I do, I do, I do. There's nothing sadder than a Mensa convention (and for the record, those losers asked me to join). As for an "accurate measure of intelligence," I'm not in the business of creating them, and if I were, I think I'd be depressed. What do we mean by "intelligence"? How many aspects of intelligence are we prepared to acknowledge? How do we propose to measure them in an even slightly meaningful way? I think these are non-trivial questions and problems.

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.

Although I personally admire the effrontery it takes to so easily dismiss every measure of intelligence and the work of those who devote themselves to the study of it while in the very next paragraph posit your own theory, I'm just not sure where that gets us.

If IQ tests measure nothing, why is there statistical variation among the races at all? Wouldn't it just be randomly distributed? Or are you saying black people have special intelligence the IQ test can't quantify, while Asian people just happen to have IQ measurable intelligence?

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

If IQ tests measure nothing, why is there statistical variation among the races at all? Wouldn't it just be randomly distributed? Or are you saying black people have special intelligence the IQ test can't quantify, while Asian people just happen to have IQ measurable intelligence?

I like how you basically just say all black people are dumb as if it some known fact, when this is clearly not the case. The differences you are talking about are basically not existant, unless in clear cases where there is obvious reasoning behind it, which doesn't boil down to the colour of skin or "race" but infact, the environmental conditions or cultural differences which would show an obvious impact using the same blanket test in different locations.

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

Or are you saying black people have special intelligence the IQ test can't quantify, while Asian people just happen to have IQ measurable intelligence?

Actually, since we began discussing intelligence, I haven't even touched on race. That's you bringing favors to the party, friend.

I have not dismissed "every measure of intelligence," which should be clear to anyone reading my posts, so positing my own theory is entirely in line with the questions and objections I have raised.

Instead of getting all frothy, why not take a stab at answering one of my questions? Like this one, say:

Originally Posted by Lemur

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?

Originally Posted by Lemur

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:

And I did it to; even brought a dictionary definiton. If you have a great creativity, but no intelligence to filter your ideas, then I think that you are nothing but a madman, since you will not be able to value one idea over another. Intelligence is something that is supposed to be generic; it's about spotting patterns. There does not have to be 1:1 correspondance between IQ tests and intelligence, but I don't think that IQ tests without merit.

Originally Posted by Megas Methuselah

Stating that this is due to evolution and not inequalities in living standards is simply ridiculous.

why is it ridiculous?

this is not to say that any evolutionary difference is significant, or even that the variation due to evolution is much less important than variation due to social and educational factors.

but why is it ridiculous to make that statement, is it becuase it frightens you?

Isn't much of what files under the various definitions of "intelligence" also the kind of stuff that you mainly develop and keep through constant mental stimulation, though ? Much the same way how linguistical skills decay without practice ?

If so, it should then be obvious that higher standards of living generally correlate to that much better access and exposure to such stimulation (and while we're at it, contribute to a better level of nutrition so your gray stuff has the energy and building materials it needs) and, hence, the developement of a more fluid and alert intellect and well-equipped "mental toolboxes" to take on problems with... right ?

And conversely if your life has been spent starving in a third-world slum where daily survival is a struggle that occupies the vast majority of your time, attention and energy, well, obviously that highbrow stuff is kind of low on the priority list...

Originally Posted by Lemur

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.

Originally Posted by Lemur

Actually, Beskar's post is helpful. If you look at the IQ test primarily as a tool for diagnosing people with learning problems, it makes a great deal more sense. As a tool for measuring an individual's (or a population's) real "intelligence"? Not so much. I guess that's why the use of IQ scores in discussions of population-specific intelligence levels always strikes me as weird.

hmm what most IQ tests (those standard quick ones, not the real deal) measure is actually knowledge as opposed to ignorance. while their supposed to test ones ability at apprehending a situation and quickly understand and analyse the situation. and to whatever this situation may be turn it into ones benefit or bring it to a good end.

Originally Posted by Furunculus

but why is it ridiculous to make that statement, is it becuase it frightens you?

No, the people who make those statements frighten me, because the things they try to do ultimately because of it, like recreate the "Master Race" or attempt to express superiority over others due to a negligible difference and lack of understanding.

Originally Posted by Beskar

No, the people who make those statements frighten me, because the things they try to do ultimately because of it, like recreate the "Master Race" or attempt to express superiority over others due to a negligible difference and lack of understanding.

so it is fear, we cannot accept or discuss even the possibility of intelligence being a characteristic with heritable properties because to do so will immediately summon the second coming of the holocaust?

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

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

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.

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

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.

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

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.

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

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.

Originally Posted by Furunculus

so it is fear, we cannot accept or discuss even the possibility of intelligence being a characteristic with heritable properties because to do so will immediately summon the second coming of the holocaust?

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

Nope, we are keeping of the ghosts in the past sealed and shut in the cupboard. We are to learn from History, not repeat it.

Heritable properties play a minimal effect compared to that of the environment, as if you go to a bad school, your grades would be significantly lower than if you went to a good school, no matter what genes you have. Even then, genetic disorders which affect performance can already be tested (down symdrone, for example), and thus we should help enable them reach their potential.

Ultimately, you are trying to open up a can of worms. Trying to find something in the dirt that really isn't there.

Edit:

Reminds me of when I was doing reading and came across what is called "Law of the Instrument", basically they used to perform these tests on discriminated minorities to reinforce negative stereotyping, and it turned out it was pretty much a case of "the shoe doesn't fit the foot, therefore, there is something wrong with the foot". They neglected the situations and the other variables, and it turned out that these discriminated minorities didn't have problems at all, since those in the exact same situations had effectively the same exact scores.

These occured around the 1960's.. which would make your "new galileo" 50 years behind the times.

Originally Posted by Beskar

Trying to find something in the dirt that really isn't there.

That's the key, you don't really know that.

Originally Posted by Viking

That's the key, you don't really know that.

Actually, I do. There isn't anything significant there.

However, I won't go more into it, simply because it means I have to 1) Trawl through journal articles for references, 2) I shouldn't be on the Org as I have a deadline tomorrow as it is.

Originally Posted by Beskar

Actually, I do. There isn't anything significant there.

However, I won't go more into it, simply because it means I have to 1) Trawl through journal articles for references, 2) I shouldn't be on the Org as I have a deadline tomorrow as it is.

Weak. 'Tis not a simple topic.

http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/IQ/1950-2050/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_...lth_of_Nations

and if different "races" have indeed developed inequally in such a way that it can account for 40 points, what would be the reason for lets say hand-eye coordination or spatial coordination to develop so radically different?

and how can the difference between america and for instance germany be explained, many descendents of the germans live in america, many descendants of countries who score much higher on the test. is this because america is ethnically mixed and all this mixing results in an average of 98. or is it because they have so rapidly evolved (in the wrong direction)?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_an...e#Flynn_effect

and when IQ can rise so fast in only 80 years, how can it possibly be evolutional?

Originally Posted by Lemur

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.