PDA

View Full Version : Chiefs Measure Intelligence?


jidar
10-22-2009, 11:31 AM
Why is it that typical people seem to often believe that you cannot accurately measure brain power? I ask because any time IQ tests or the like are brought up there are lots of folks who say that they don't work.
Why not?
What is it about intelligence that makes it untestable?

Rain Man
10-22-2009, 11:47 AM
It's criticized because a majority of people are not above average. Same reason why people don't like standardized tests. I personally think the 40 yard dash is invalid because I'm not good at it.


That said, raw intelligence isn't the only key to success in life. In fact, I don't think it's in the top two. I suspect there's also a valid criticism that being labeled average or below average means you can't be successful when that's not the case.

vailpass
10-22-2009, 11:48 AM
It's easy to measure, just start at the base.

Iowanian
10-22-2009, 12:14 PM
There is a difference between intelligence and knowledge.

If you're trying to measure intelligence with facts, a person with superior intellect may never have been exposed to that fact.

A couple of the most intelligent people I know are utterly pathetic in work ethic and success in life.

Demonpenz
10-22-2009, 12:15 PM
I have an above average IQ. So take that test with that grain of salt

Blindside58
10-22-2009, 12:15 PM
This Thread is Culturally Biased!

Jenson71
10-22-2009, 12:18 PM
I think they work and are good indicators for raw intelligence. Maybe it's just a matter of whether they deserve to be touted so highly?

I'm slightly above average in intelligence. I'd say I'm smarter than 63% of the rest of America. Not outstanding. But I'd consider myself to have a pretty solid work ethic and emotional intelligence. I work well with others, can be a good follower or leader if need to be. So maybe based on that I shouldn't be discredited with my somewhat average IQ.

Rain Man
10-22-2009, 12:19 PM
I have an above average IQ. So take that test with that grain of salt


Not that I'm saying this about you, but I find it funny that the less intelligent a person is, the more likely it is that they'll misunderstand the results, and misunderstanding the results means by definition that they'll think they're above average. So you can't really trust what anyone tells you about intelligence tests because the smartest and the most stupid will tell you that they did well.

Again, not necessarily saying this about you. It's a general observation.











So...can you tell me your exact score?

Rain Man
10-22-2009, 12:20 PM
I think they work and are good indicators for raw intelligence. Maybe it's just a matter of whether they deserve to be touted so highly?

I'm slightly above average in intelligence. I'd say I'm smarter than 63% of the rest of America. Not outstanding. But I'd consider myself to have a pretty solid work ethic and emotional intelligence. I work well with others, can be a good follower or leader if need to be. So maybe based on that I shouldn't be discredited with my somewhat average IQ.


I stopped listening to you when I saw you were only in the 63rd percentile.

Jenson71
10-22-2009, 12:21 PM
I stopped listening to you when I saw you were only in the 63rd percentile.

But...but I'm friendly!

:sulk:

Rain Man
10-22-2009, 12:22 PM
But...but I'm friendly!

:sulk:



Yeah, but I can't relate to that until someone designs a test to measure friendliness so I can know for sure.

Jenson71
10-22-2009, 12:23 PM
Also, some studies suggest rep points is a better measurement of intelligence than standardized tests.

Iowanian
10-22-2009, 12:24 PM
I am fairly certain I'd score very high, as people have been calling me a smartass since I was 4 years old. With the number of times I've heard that, I must be some kind of prodigy.

Pablo
10-22-2009, 12:28 PM
My room-mate took an IQ test online and scored like a 152...then printed out the results and hung it on his wall like an A+ paper or something. Sometimes he gets drunk and shows it to people over at the house like they're supposed to be majorly impressed.

Always good for a chuckle.

Bearcat
10-22-2009, 12:29 PM
That said, raw intelligence isn't the only key to success in life. In fact, I don't think it's in the top two. I suspect there's also a valid criticism that being labeled average or below average means you can't be successful when that's not the case.

Yep... Malcolm Gladwell's Outliers has some great insights into IQ and emotional intelligence as it relates to the business world.

Not that I'm saying this about you, but I find it funny that the less intelligent a person is, the more likely it is that they'll misunderstand the results, and misunderstanding the results means by definition that they'll think they're above average. So you can't really trust what anyone tells you about intelligence tests because the smartest and the most stupid will tell you that they did well.

What I've noticed, too, is that less intelligent people are told they are intelligent by parents and teachers ("you're just not motivated" ... "you're just misguided" ...), and they will obviously believe that over any test so they can stay comfortably in denial (and they generally have no idea how much work it actually takes to be successful, so success = luck).

If a human keeps telling you that you're smart, why believe a test that says otherwise? It's not like you're going to get that it's just a cheap motivational tool... after all, you're an idiot...

kstater
10-22-2009, 12:34 PM
I don't need a test to tell me I'm smarter than the average American. When you stop to think about it, your typical Wal-Mart shopper is an average American. I know without speaking to them I'm smarter than them.

jidar
10-22-2009, 12:35 PM
I've always assumed that intelligence tests work pretty well, by that I mean they measure raw intelligence well. A lot of times the arguments I see to the contrary focus on other factors such as financial success, ambition, work ethic, and social skills, and I really think that's missing the point.

jidar
10-22-2009, 12:35 PM
I don't need a test to tell me I'm smarter than the average American. When you stop to think about it, your typical Wal-Mart shopper is an average American. I know without speaking to them I'm smarter than them.

It's like people walk around being kind of slow and don't even realize it.

Pablo
10-22-2009, 12:36 PM
It's like people walk around being kind of slow and don't even realize it.It's called being drunk.

jidar
10-22-2009, 12:38 PM
It's called being drunk.

I guess if you scored high enough on the tests then being drunk might be like being average.

kepp
10-22-2009, 12:49 PM
Who makes IQ tests?

phisherman
10-22-2009, 12:50 PM
My room-mate took an IQ test online and scored like a 152...then printed out the results and hung it on his wall like an A+ paper or something. Sometimes he gets drunk and shows it to people over at the house like they're supposed to be majorly impressed.

Always good for a chuckle.

those IQ tests are BS.

i had mine tested when i was in grade school (5 or 6 years old i believe) and they wouldn't tell us the scores, but they put in the gifted program. maybe i need to get my mom to dig up the test scores.

jidar
10-22-2009, 12:54 PM
Who makes IQ tests?

There are several.

I think if you went to a psychiatrist and took a test today you would be given a variant of the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS). David Wechsler first developed the test in the 50s and since then it's undergone quite a bit of tweaking.

Demonpenz
10-22-2009, 01:06 PM
wait..... nevermind I remember I tested high....not my scores were high

Pants
10-22-2009, 01:11 PM
Raw intelligence is easy to measure - it's about pattern recognition. But like others have said, that alone won't get you far in life. Knowing how to talk to people and have the power to influence their views and thought processes is huge, I think.

kepp
10-22-2009, 01:11 PM
wait..... nevermind I remember I tested high....not my scores were high

ROFL

wild1
10-22-2009, 01:12 PM
Why is it that typical people seem to often believe that you cannot accurately measure brain power? I ask because any time IQ tests or the like are brought up there are lots of folks who say that they don't work.

That's what dumb people say. :D

JD10367
10-22-2009, 01:38 PM
Yellow in front, brown in back.

In her mouth first, THEN in her ass.

Follow those two intelligent rules, and everything else is easy.

Pablo
10-22-2009, 01:44 PM
those IQ tests are BS.

i had mine tested when i was in grade school (5 or 6 years old i believe) and they wouldn't tell us the scores, but they put in the gifted program. maybe i need to get my mom to dig up the test scores.Yeah, I did the same thing. I had to take one in the 3rd grade for our Gifted program. I don't know if that test was any more accurate than the online ones; but I'd assume so. I think you had to score above a 130 for admittance into the program.

KCChiefsMan
10-22-2009, 02:05 PM
I think saying that the IQ tests don't work is just because certain people want an excuse for their lack of intelligence.

B_Ambuehl
10-22-2009, 02:10 PM
Also acknowledging the truth doesn't fit in with standard leftist multicultural and egalitarian agenda. The scientific reality would scare a lot of people. For exampl, see:

http://www.erectuswalksamongst.us/Chap14.html

MikeMaslowski
10-22-2009, 02:16 PM
Intelligence is relative.

Guy with a Harvard Degree and no mechanical inclination and a guy that can hardly spell his name but can take apart an engine blindfolded are stuck in the desert with busted alternator.

Who's smarter?

bowener
10-22-2009, 02:19 PM
Why is it that typical people seem to often believe that you cannot accurately measure brain power? I ask because any time IQ tests or the like are brought up there are lots of folks who say that they don't work.
Why not?
What is it about intelligence that makes it untestable?

Didn't read any prior responses, in a hurry, but one major issue is just the vocabulary of the test questions. Vocabulary is in no way a reflection of a person's "brain power", nor is mathematics for that matter. They are learned knowledge. Einstein was a god at mathematics, and possibly language, but had he never learned more than the basic set of words to get by in the world, he wouldn't understand certain questions or instructions, yet still be a fucking god at mathematics.

It also creates problems for nonnative English speakers, for the same reason as above of course. This problem also pertains to poorly educated inner city children (thus why they show lower scores on average).

There is too much tied into the human brain and sensory perception to probably ever fully test it and understand it. Perhaps the puzzle section of the test is a good grade for a persons IQ as it shows the ability to problem solve, but again some people are naturally great at this, and others it takes time, lots of time, yet they are also extremely intelligent.

For the record I am ranked well above average (at least I was in HS when I had to take a test for some scholarship I got... and later lost because I did poorly my first year in college), I am not sure of which one I took, but I think the scores went to ~140 or so. Point is, I am not below average and think that they are biased.

In the end there are tons of them, all claim to measure some sort of aspect accurately. While this may be true, the human IQ does not appear to be one particular thing in of itself, but rather several aspects, many of which are unknown apparently. They do know now, possibly true at least, that the denser the gray matter the better, but even it does not fully matter either...so yeah, your guess is as good as any.

jidar
10-22-2009, 02:21 PM
Intelligence is relative.

Guy with a Harvard Degree and no mechanical inclination and a guy that can hardly spell his name but can take apart an engine blindfolded are stuck in the desert with busted alternator.

Who's smarter?

Unless he's McGyver he's going to need a car to go with that alternator. Or at least a motorcycle.

jidar
10-22-2009, 02:23 PM
Also acknowledging the truth doesn't fit in with standard leftist multicultural and egalitarian agenda. The scientific reality would scare a lot of people. For exampl, see:

http://www.erectuswalksamongst.us/Chap14.html

I really wasn't thinking about Eugenics at all when I started this thread.

MikeMaslowski
10-22-2009, 02:28 PM
Unless he's McGyver he's going to need a car to go with that alternator. Or at least a motorcycle.

Im no MacGyver... but isnt there some stuff like popping the clutch...hitting it with a hammer just right or something that can get the car going with a bad alternator?


Sadly...I'm more like the Harvard guy.... :(

Pants
10-22-2009, 02:39 PM
Intelligence is relative.

Guy with a Harvard Degree and no mechanical inclination and a guy that can hardly spell his name but can take apart an engine blindfolded are stuck in the desert with busted alternator.

Who's smarter?

You're talking about knowledge...

Or are you saying the engine dude has no experience with it and is just able to do it?

The military could train a monkey to take apart an engine and put it back together...

Pablo
10-22-2009, 02:43 PM
The military could train a monkey to take apart an engine and put it back together...They already have/conspiracy theorists.

bowener
10-22-2009, 02:48 PM
Also acknowledging the truth doesn't fit in with standard leftist multicultural and egalitarian agenda. The scientific reality would scare a lot of people. For exampl, see:

http://www.erectuswalksamongst.us/Chap14.html

Read through your posted site, wow outdated and racist.

This alone is horribly discredited today:

http://www.erectuswalksamongst.us/Images/Figure%2014-3.GIF

I would hope that you understand that race does not actually exist, right? It is just a word Europeans created during the naturalist movement to separate the exterior differences of human beings found on the planet.

You cannot measure body types (somatotypes) such as Sheldon did for criminology to determine one's likelihood of intelligence or predisposition to commit crimes. That is just ****ing stupid. You can of course study the effects of a sever physiological disorder or anomaly (over a life time) and study its effects on the person once they die, but that is a very small percentage of the population.

Back to "race". There is one species of human, one. The "races" are exterior differences among the population of human beings. The physiological differences amongst humans is almost 0%. Body shape, heigh, weight, skin color, hair color, none of that has anything to do with natural intelligence. This is why when people of two different "races" have a baby, there is a blending effect.

Skin color is a product of sexual selection over thousands of years and generations of human beings. This is easy to understand when you look at populations and their central characteristics. If you live in Africa all your life you are going to find the African standard of beauty matches yours (most likely), and you will mate with a female closely resembling this (as you will also most likely fit the same mold for the male). This union will result in the passage of your genetic traits to your child, who will almost certainly look the same as both the parents (skin tone and body type and the such). This is why we can find population differences such as this. Whites beget whites, and so forth.

Interesting side note: Blue eyes in white Europeans originated with 1 single male ancestor long long ago. It is a mutated brown pigmented iris (the world par for eye color-- also the fastest reacting eye muscles for reflexes). That is why blue is not dominant over Brown, but closer to a tie at times.

Brain size is also a result of sexual selection, by the way. That is the only plausible reason why it rapidly increased in size as well as how it came to be since it is a massive hindrance to survival (at rest it consumes 18-20% of the bodies energy output per day while only consisting of about 2% of the body mass-- impressive little bastard). We do not need as sophisticated of a brain as we have to merely survive in nature... but having the brain we have it allowed members of the opposite sex to have more elaborate means of coercing mates. When you study the human brain during sex or sexual attraction as well as during singing and dancing, large portions of the brain that are never in use at any other time light up, showing that this is most likely their primary purpose (those sections that is), there is also a strong connection between sexual activity in the brain and language. So mates with more language got more poon, which in turn also allowed for more complex language systems which in turn aided society, and also got mates with more language more poon.

Body hair is also another sexually selected trait. Just listing them so that if anybody wonders why the difference between sexual and natural selection is (sexual is part of the natural selective process, though at times it can work against the positive naturally selected traits; most commonly sited example is that of the peacock's tail.) I wrote a very long and very good research paper on this topic. It is fascinating!

edit: also, now I am late for a meeting! I get way too into this, sorry!

B_Ambuehl
10-22-2009, 03:19 PM
Bowener, that entire post is a good example of what I said reality doesn't fit in with leftist hippie bullshit. Next you'll probably say we're all equally intelligent too right? If race didn't exist we would all be the same. We're obviously not. We're all humans but the allelss that make us different are what determines individual race and those vary bigtime. Some alleles are older than others, some newer. It is very simple when you look at the scientific facts.

ziggysocki
10-22-2009, 03:28 PM
I don't need a test to tell me how smart I am. I am so smart I already know.

jidar
10-22-2009, 03:35 PM
Bowener, that entire post is a good example of what I said reality doesn't fit in with leftist hippie bullshit. Next you'll probably say we're all equally intelligent too right? If race didn't exist we would all be the same. We're obviously not. We're all humans but the allelss that make us different are what determines individual race and those vary bigtime. Some alleles are older than others, some newer. It is very simple when you look at the scientific facts.

So to get back on topic.
My question to you is do you reject IQ tests based on your low tests scores or are you reconciling youself with them somehow? I guess I'm just interested in finding someone with a low or average IQ who doesn't outright reject the results.

JimNasium
10-22-2009, 03:38 PM
Some of the most sucessful people I know measure higher on Emotional Quotient tests than Intelligence Quotient tests. I will add that the most intelligent person I have ever known once worked for me and he was barely functional on a social level. I'm much happier being dumb.
Posted via Mobile Device

Fish
10-22-2009, 03:43 PM
Intelligence is relative.

Guy with a Harvard Degree and no mechanical inclination and a guy that can hardly spell his name but can take apart an engine blindfolded are stuck in the desert with busted alternator.

Who's smarter?

They're both idiots if that slows them down... a car can start and run just fine without an alternator for a good while....

bowener
10-22-2009, 04:26 PM
Bowener, that entire post is a good example of what I said reality doesn't fit in with leftist hippie bullshit. Next you'll probably say we're all equally intelligent too right? If race didn't exist we would all be the same. We're obviously not. We're all humans but the allelss that make us different are what determines individual race and those vary bigtime. Some alleles are older than others, some newer. It is very simple when you look at the scientific facts.

ROFL

We are the same species, yes, which is what I said. "Race" is a word we use to demarcate the external differences of the human race, which are obviosuly biologically based, such as certain skin types having more melanin than others... these are what would appear different under comparison.

Race is the same thing as species for all other animals, except the human animal and that is due to a historical fuck up. Humans are demarcated as different races, such as the racist Negroid (obviously super stupid and ape like as described by the European naturalists of the day) and the far superior species/race of Caucasoid (I mean, how could the white man not be superior since he is the one conducting the research after all).

As you should know from the scientific data you are talking about, we are almost exactly identical to each other genetically, white or black, except for the genetic traits that tell our body to make straight or kinky hair, light or dark skin (again, melanin levels), brown eyes or blue. On top of that you must know then that we have the SAME genes, just depending upon what traits one is inheriting, those genes are "on or off".

For example, my skin tone is "white" and my friends is "black". Let us make up a number of genes that controls this difference on the genetic level, the difference being the amount of melanin in my skin compared to his skin (same goes for hair color as well). Let us say that it is 12 genes that determine skin tone (represented by the letter "S" for on and the lower case "s" for off).

We know that the more melanin there is the darker the skin or hair is, so let us say that my friend is represented by the following sequence of genes (on or off):
SSSSSSSSSsss
That is 9/12 are "on".


As we can see he has the majority of the gene's on, which is why his body is now going to produce a lot of melanin, thus making him have a dark skin tone.

Now let us see what mine might look like:
ssssssssssSS
That is 10/12 are "off".


As we can see I have the majority of gene's off, which is why my body is now going to produce far less melanin than my friend, and thus I will have a lighter skin tone than he.

Now, I know you have the scientific facts to look this all up and comprehend it, so I assume you will follow right along when we discuss how these genes, the one's we used for skin tone (and hair color), are the same gene's for both he and I, my friend and I that is. So let us say that two people who have the same skin tone's as he and I (though one is male and one female) mate. What would their offspring look like? Since these are the same genes in each human being EVERYWHERE in the world, we should have no problem with this.

Since the child is going to get half of its genetics from its father, and half from its mother, we can look at the 12 genes for the skin/hair tone, and take half from each. To make it simple to understand we can say that it takes "SSSSSS" from the father, and "ssssss" from the mother, thus giving the child the genetic code for skin tone, "SSSSSSssssss", or a blending appearance (haven't you ever look at a mixed race child? They arent one parent or the other, they are a blending of the two... thus an example of how race does not actually exist amongst humans, but rather it is a term used to demarcate the different outward appearances of a group of mammals).

More fascinating, since my friend did not have all "S" genes turned on, his halving of the genetics could have looked this way:
SSSsss

Let us then say that the mother's half remained the same as before, "ssssss". That would now give the offspring of this pair the following sequence of genes for skin tone:
SSSsssssssss

From that we can see that there are far fewer genes that determine melanin levels in the epidermis, and thus in producing less melanin for the skin, the child will have a lighter skinned pigment while having the exact same genetics as every other human being on Earth (except mutants and GoChiefs). The awesome thing about our almost identical genetics is that 1 gene being on or off can make a gigantic difference in appearance and function.

BTW, This is not hippie bullshit, unless by that you mean science, and the study of the human ancestry. I mean I did learn this at a university, and am continuing to study it now at the graduate level, as well as conducting research, so that must make me hippie full of bullshit and an elitist.

bowener
10-22-2009, 04:33 PM
So to get back on topic.
My question to you is do you reject IQ tests based on your low tests scores or are you reconciling youself with them somehow? I guess I'm just interested in finding someone with a low or average IQ who doesn't outright reject the results.

PS- I am sorry for getting so far off topic, man. I dont know what to tell you, got to the local library in look into some books that have researched the matter, or find a family member who is particularly dull, test them, then ask them about it.

Direckshun
10-22-2009, 04:36 PM
I have a high IQ score, but I've always thought I was a bit of a dumbass, so draw your own conclusions.

Rain Man
10-22-2009, 04:38 PM
Unless he's McGyver he's going to need a car to go with that alternator. Or at least a motorcycle.

You don't need a car. You wait until night and grind the alternator to create sparks that are visible to friendly Bedouins off in the distance.

B_Ambuehl
10-23-2009, 01:46 PM
We are the same species, yes, which is what I said. "Race" is a word we use to demarcate the external differences of the human race, which are obviosuly biologically based, such as certain skin types having more melanin than others

Except that in the real world the gene difference between blacks and whites go a lot deeper than just one gene that controls skin color. Obviously, as a football fan, logic should tell you that that if that weren't the case we'd have more than 0 white cornerbacks in the NFL and more than 0 white athletes breaking 10 sec. in the 100 meter dash over the last 40 years (compared to 100+ blacks). People have no trouble pointing out the genetic phsical superiority of blacks, but to acknowledge biosocial reality and other obvious differences between peoples everyone loses all sense of logic.

Which goes back to my original point dealing with the title of the opening post, that being one reason people want to argue it's impossible to test intelligence is because the results of those test (which are able to do what they're supposed to do) on avg. demonstrate unequivocal racial/ethnic inequality and some people would rather not acknowledge that.

ziggysocki
10-23-2009, 02:35 PM
Except that in the real world the gene difference between blacks and whites go a lot deeper than just one gene that controls skin color. Obviously, as a football fan, logic should tell you that that if that weren't the case we'd have more than 0 white cornerbacks in the NFL and more than 0 white athletes breaking 10 sec. in the 100 meter dash over the last 40 years (compared to 100+ blacks). People have no trouble pointing out the genetic phsical superiority of blacks, but to acknowledge biosocial reality and other obvious differences between peoples everyone loses all sense of logic.

Which goes back to my original point dealing with the title of the opening post, that being one reason people want to argue it's impossible to test intelligence is because the results of those test (which are able to do what they're supposed to do) on avg. demonstrate unequivocal racial/ethnic inequality and some people would rather not acknowledge that.

http://static.open.salon.com/files/thatsracistgm751224856460.gif

jidar
10-23-2009, 02:38 PM
Except that in the real world the gene difference between blacks and whites go a lot deeper than just one gene that controls skin color. Obviously, as a football fan, logic should tell you that that if that weren't the case we'd have more than 0 white cornerbacks in the NFL and more than 0 white athletes breaking 10 sec. in the 100 meter dash over the last 40 years (compared to 100+ blacks). People have no trouble pointing out the genetic phsical superiority of blacks, but to acknowledge biosocial reality and other obvious differences between peoples everyone loses all sense of logic.

Which goes back to my original point dealing with the title of the opening post, that being one reason people want to argue it's impossible to test intelligence is because the results of those test (which are able to do what they're supposed to do) on avg. demonstrate unequivocal racial/ethnic inequality and some people would rather not acknowledge that.

This can be explained by a few centuries of slavery selecting for physical performance over a dozen generations. In this case it's entirely possible to have a physical disparity that associates with skin tone since people were intentionally trying to make that exact association.

Pants
10-23-2009, 02:39 PM
This can be explained by a few centuries of slavery selecting for physical performance over a dozen generations. In this case it's entirely possible to have a physical disparity that associates with skin tone since people were intentionally trying to make that exact association.

Yeah, selective breeding is the reason for that. Some messed up sh*t humans are capable of doing to each other.

B_Ambuehl
10-23-2009, 03:48 PM
Except those differences exist even in the absence of slavery. Keep trying.

It shouldn't be racist to acknowledge scientific reality, but the funny thing is that accusation only goes one way. For example, if I say white people are all weak uncoordinated nerds that's not deemed as racist.