Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it,
follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given
their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!
Posts
I have developed a very useful set of obsessive compulsive disorders to better my life overall.
I think you missed my point - I went and did the IQ test in the OP and was helped precisely because in my toolkit of techniques to solve pattern matching problems, when the shape challenges came up I could test a set of rotational patterns against the presented shapes. This is something I wouldn't have done normally - I end to be more spatially oriented, spherical coordinate systems and the like don't sit well with me (but damn are they useful).
It highlights the fault of the system - you do not need to specifically study to game the test, you just need to have happened to have encountered the right type of problems before.
I have wisely chosen to invest this capacity in learning far too much about comic book continuities.
It leaves little room for programming or engineering but some sacrifices must be made.
Most Mensans are nothing like that. But hey, gross innacurate generalisations are fun. I can't blame you given the perception the media gives off. I'm at a Birmingam (AGM? or something, dragged along by the family). Anyway they recently reviewed a large group the teenagers here, including two rugby players and a football player who look like it, along with a load of normal looking teens. When they run the interview on fox they show the dorkiest fattest teen you've ever seen wearing this videogame t-shirt.
Are you saying that speed is a component of intelligence?
Because I'll wholeheartedly disagree.
Intelligence is a measure of how fast you learn.
So stuff like reflexes is just micromanaged intelligence, where you learn something is about to happen in a very short amount of time.
So intelligence does have a speed component.
First, not everybody agrees with any given definition of intelligence, but that's a pretty unusual one. You can continue to argue it if you like, just be aware and that's not a widely accepted definition at all, and that arguing for a given definition of intelligence is basically opening a can of worms.
Second, how fast you learn is not necessarily how fast you can recall. Being able to perform a skill quickly is highly dependent on how much, and how recently, you've practiced that skill. If you want to do arithmetical calculations rapidly, just do them every day (Brain Age, anybody?) up until the day of your test, and you'll see scores much higher than somebody who didn't practice that one specific skill, or who hadn't practiced it the days immediately prior.
Third, how fast you can perform one skill does not necessarily imply that you can engage in more complex reasoning, and abstract reasoning ability is part of pretty much every mainstream definition of intelligence. Just because you can do arithmetic rapidly doesn't mean you'll understand calculus, for instance.
Cockroaches have amazing reflexes. Are they highly intelligent?
Actually, I usually feel much smarter than the people around me when they actually bother bringing up their IQs in conversation. Particularly when theirs are much higher than mine. I'm smarter than a guy with a 178 IQ, for example, since I know better than to go around telling people my IQ as if it mattered.
Drunks Against Mad Mothers
I don't even see how it's wildly unusual. A person who can be told something once and they learn it the first time is probably more intelligent than someone who has to have the same damn thing repeatedly told to them over and over until they learn it. In the wild, if a dog runs into a street and almost gets run over and then realizes he shouldn't go in the street anymore, that dog would be more intelligent than a dog who continues to run into the street even after nearly being killed several times.
Come on man, what the fuck?
People who require less practice to achieve the same performance as a person who has to continually practice to achieve a certain performance are more intelligent than that person. But it's worth noting that once a test finally comes by, you won't be able to distinguish who is smarter just by looking at the results of the test. You would have to see how much time they spent practicing for it. Guy A who practices for 5 minutes and gets 473 points is smarter than Guy B who had to practice for 4 weeks and got 500 points. BUT, when the scores are finally in Guy A looks like a dumbass and Guy B looks like he's pretty smart because he got a higher score. This is why in IQ tests you can't spend more than like 30 seconds on a question or else you invalidate your score and make yourself look like some kind of genius at the end. Truth?
This isn't a very profound statement. Sure, being able to do arithmetic rapidly doesn't mean you can understand calculus. But they are not mutually exclusive. You COULD still understand calculus AND do it very rapidly.
They are intelligent.
More intelligent than humans? Hell no. We can learn larger and more complex things in shorter amount of times than they can.
I don't know. Creatures with very complex bodies usually seem to be more intelligent than creatures with simpler bodies. Look at Octopus or Humans.
Causation correlation etc. etc.
Well, now you're talking about two different things. You're equating repetition with slowness - they're related, but not the same.
Haven't you ever been presented with an interesting idea, but you don't fully grok it until after a night's sleep, or until you've had a chance to do something else and relax for a while? Haven't you ever solved a difficult puzzle from work or school in the shower or while playing a video game? Happens to me all the time.
And sure I'll grant that somebody who can absorb a concept within seconds of being presented with it is likely more intelligent in that field. But other than that kind of instant-understanding, I don't think there's a direct correlation between speed and intelligence. Somebody who figures out a problem six hours after being presented with it is not twice as intelligent as somebody who figures out a problem twelve hours later.
Part of the reason I'm taking up this argument is because there is a bias in our culture towards speed. Sometimes this bias makes sense - in the real world there are deadlines to meet, so we want people who can solve problems in a few days to meet those deadlines. But sometimes that bias doesn't make sense - for an example, I point to standardized testing, where enforcing an arbitrary time limit can disadvantage students who simply don't test well.
Just because you can do something faster doesn't mean you can do it better, or more thoroughly. Sometimes going slower can reduce the amount of errors or lead to flashes of insight that wouldn't have happened had you rushed. It's easy to forget that in our culture.
Sure. I'm with you on that one.
No, it's not, but you implied that speed was the only meaningful component of intelligence. "Intelligence is a measure of how fast you learn." Maybe you meant "Intelligence is a measure of how fast you learn among other things." Not trying to be anal here, it's just that intelligence as a concept has a lot of connotations and it's easy to accidentally disparage people without meaning to if you're not careful about your definitions.
Basically I think they're both stupid, with the high IQ one being especially so. I mean, you have to know what disease Ali had? WTF?
They're obviously too busy curing cancer and perfecting FTL travel.
If faith is just a silent tribute, mine is just a desperate act.
Do you have a pathological fascination with perfect squares?
Hey bud! We're IQ pals.
If faith is just a silent tribute, mine is just a desperate act.
Comic Book Guy: Quit butting in please. Your IQ is a mere 155 while mine is a muscular 170.
Comic Book Guy: I am smart. Much smarter than you. Hibbert!
Professor Frink: You should all do what I do. My IQ is 199 for crying out glaving.
[Accidentally bumps his head]
Professor Frink: 198... 197.
Stephen Hawking: Big deal. My IQ is 280.
If faith is just a silent tribute, mine is just a desperate act.
But now we are talking about two different things. Problem solving, as opposed to learning.
Problem solving in many cases don't use intelligence as much as it uses experience. When a creature learns something and internalizes it, it no longer has to relearn it unless it forgets. It will now have to use it as an experience that it can apply to other things. This, will not do. We can't use it as a definition for intelligence because it would require Intelligence to be bundled with knowledge. Example, there could be an old guy who has gathered a lot of knowledge but he's a super slow learner. There could be a younger guy who has little knowledge but learns very quickly. Your view of intelligence would label the older guy as more intelligent, when really he is not. He just has more wisdom, and the younger guy is actually the smarter one who is a much better investment, even though he has no knowledge right now. Because he can learn, fast.
I am pretty sure I could do amazingly well on any standardized test if I was given infinite time. But that doesn't really return any meaningful result. Timing is important.
"among other things" though is too vague, and undefined. I don't like things like that in my definitions.
But intelligence is generally held to be a fairly vague concept. As is any definition of ability really. *Warning dumb analogy* Someone who can play up to Grade 5 piano after learning for a week obviously has more talent than someone who gets to Grade 8 after playing for ten years. But at that point in time does he have less ability? What if the person who can get to Grade 5 plateaux off after that? It's nice to have dictionary definitions for things, but some concepts just aren't focussed enough for that to suffice.
"You have a strong ability to process visual-spatial and mathematical information and this, combined with your logical mind, means you are a Visual Mathematician. You can manipulate multiple parts of the picture (or problem) to come up with a solution and can understand the "big picture," which is partly why people may turn to you for direction.
Like Einstein, your ability to detect patterns and your skills in maths and logic, make it natural for you to come up with ideas and theories that simplify processes for everyone. "
I'd like to take the Mensa exam at some point and see where I'm at now. I went through the test a long, long time ago when I was young to get into the gifted program, and I wasn't told the actual result but it was somewhere in the 200s.
just listing cause others are. I'd really like to take an actual test one day.
Because I just did, not the lowest, but the result of random clicking
It's so very random. I understand how the sum total of your general knowledge could be indicative of IQ, as smarter people are probably likely to know more. But it's ridiculous that I get a higher mark because of whichever book I randomly happened to read. And I'm pretty sure it was Alzheimer's, wasn't it?
Also, that cube game someone posted before is pretty awesome.
Muhammad Ali?
"Sorry man, your charisma isn't anywhere near 15. If you give yourself a charisma of 15 your lack of modesty immediately means it can't be more than 10. As I have a wisdom of 16, I know such things..."