|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Thu Aug 24, 2006 4:01 pm
Dave the lost paradigmwind poweroutage exactly you can't quantitatively compare people's emotions, that's exactly what I meant. well actually you can. It is again pretty easy. You simply get someone to observe people and make them count. Ask how many times timmy gets angry in an hour and how many times jill gets angry in that hour. As a nice signing bonus for being born human beings we got some neat machinery for recognizing emotions. A quick tally and you have numbers which represent anger. Actually comparison is really the only way we can quantitatively deal with emotions since it is easy to say "timmy got angry 10 times as often as jill" but it would be a whole lot harder to say "timmy's anger was a 1.7" and have it mean anything useful. Bolding mine. But how angry is angry? What if someone is midly exasperated instead? What if someone hides their anger better? If you have a subjective comparision and are unable to get meaningful numbers that stand on their own, is it really quantitative, not qualitative? If you were running an experiment to count the number of times that someone got angry you wouldn't need to have an exact place that non-anger becomes anger. All that is necessary is that whoever is measuring it be able to give a rough but somewhat consistent judgement of someone elses emotions. So no we won't get a perfect measurement of anger but that is not necessary in order for the measuremtn to be quantitative. A qualitative description would be that "dave got angry" but the description that "dave got angry 17 times in 20 minutes" is quantitative even though it is also to some degree subjective. Subjective measurements can still be quantitative. For instance if you asked people to rate their discomfort on a scale from 1 to 10 your data would be simultaneously quantitative and subjective.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 24, 2006 10:10 pm
paradigmwind poweroutage pradigmwind: I'm sorry, I kinda lost interest in this. I personally think that there is such a thing as general intelligence, but I also think that in a larger scope it's much more complicated. It always pisses me off when people can label others as intelligent or not based on scores. It pisses me off that amongst the plethera of human skills and intelligences we can talk about people as being smart or stupid. Its something I've always debated with myself. I thought it would be fun to try and debate completely opposite, to negate the existance of a general intelligence which was communicable. Well ultimately the g-factor is not terribly important. It does have some real value, use, and validity but it is certainly a long way from a general view of intelligence which is more or less what I have been saying from the beginning. But only demonstrating that g-factor approaches are inadequate is not enough. What do you think the model is missing? The g-factor model? I don't know in detail what the model entails, except that, as was mentioned, the idea that we can quantitatively describe intelligence. In terms of the IQ test, it is curious that in the language part of the test it tests only the knowledge of extremely obscure words. While, yes, the person who reads A LOT is the only kind of person who would come across those words and actually know them, they might not necessarily use them irl. What about the person who uses less obscure but more uncommon than most words in speech? Or the person who is well aquainted with the language more than the average person? They might get a zero on the language component of the IQ test just because they didn't know extremely obscure words while their intelligence is actually above average in the field. This is the problem with the g-factor, to what extent do you measure intelligence? how in-depth do you go? The relationship between accuracy and detail increases exponentially, the more accurate you want the g-factor to be the more detail you must undertake, but ultimately there is an asymptote. We can never reach that value of 100% accuracy, because at 100% we require an infinite amount of detail. Ironically, the more quantitative we wish to make the g-factor the more we shall entangle ourselves in qualitative observations. We can seek mediums, as you suggested, but to what extent is that useful and/or pragmatic? That depends entierly on the scale of the y and x axis. Sure we can say, if we take the square root of the conjugate of the detail we shall achieve accuracy and that is the accuracy within which we shall base our g-factor, but, what will that number measure, intelligence to a certain extent? And furthermore, what can this intelligence measurement tell us? What if the graph is not continuous and/or is irregular, what if there is a jump somewhere which we do not see? We might be looking at the wrong part of the graph, in short, where do we draw the line, and why? This is my problem with the current IQ test, someone decided to draw the line somewhere with particular results, of which we debated at length, but that is only the beginning in our quest for understanding and defining human intelligence in all its variety. I think the model needs to explore the graph, look at more detail for more accuracy or less, just to familiarize itself with the area and test in what ways the different results are usful (if at all). That's what I think the model, or the group of people working on a model, should do.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 25, 2006 12:25 pm
I just think that I should point out that g-factor is not something that there is any one test to measure per se. the g factor is something that emerges because of correlations among many mental tests. That said IQ tests tend to give results wich are positively correlated to calculated g-factors by about 90% which is pretty darn good agreement. So even though IQ tests are biased towards people with certain kinds of habits (reading alot and who do mathematics regularly for instance) Measuring a g factor for individual people is not very practiceable since it requires significantly more testing and more complex and independent analysis while yielding results only marginally better. The IQ test certainly does underestimate the abilities of a few people and overestimate those of others but for the vast majority it does a pretty good job. That one of my pet peeves about intelligence tests. Because they are based on things that can be measured consistently accross large populations the tests loose validity for the tail ends. So an IQ score of 200 is essentially meaningless except to say that the person is indeed very smart. However even though 200 is many standard deviations from 160 the proportions don't work out to a normal distribution meaning that the means with which the scores are calculated and given meaning in the first place break down at the far ends. Ultimately I think this is specialization showing through.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Sep 01, 2006 2:26 am
there are different kinds of intelligence, so I would say, academically I am average/above average, if that makes any sense. with any other kinds of inttelligence I don't know
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Sep 09, 2006 4:41 pm
Eh, I don't think of myself as smart. I am a legend for the length of time it can take me to get home while drunk.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 10, 2006 9:22 pm
A Lost Iguana Eh, I don't think of myself as smart. I am a legend for the length of time it can take me to get home while drunk. do tell. A legend? does that mean that you get home quickly or that it can take you days?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Sep 11, 2006 6:09 am
paradigmwind A Lost Iguana Eh, I don't think of myself as smart. I am a legend for the length of time it can take me to get home while drunk. do tell. A legend? does that mean that you get home quickly or that it can take you days? I would guess the latter. No offence to your keen sense of direction or anything Iguana of course.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Sep 15, 2006 11:49 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 24, 2006 12:53 pm
I learned algebra when I was exactly 4 years and 7 months old.
My IQ is about 167
But I can't even remember my shopping list and still put on my shoes backwards sometimes xd
I think my lack of common sense just about balences out any advantages I have xd
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 11, 2006 8:39 am
Uhmmm. I call myself stupid. Because my brain has rotted through lack of use. I'm very lazy and I got through uni easily enough without studying. Except for a little for my finals xd
But everyone says I'm smart. I think it's the age+level thing heh.
meh.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 11, 2006 1:47 am
i am an egotist so of course im goingto say i am the smartist person i know but i am also the smartest person alot of other people know too i play football am on the speech and debate team am a part of the physics club at my school i correct my history teacher and have arguments over gramaticle situatiuons with my eng. teach but i am dumb in many respects too i do stupid thimngs for money and dont do alot of my homework i am a freshmen in highschool and my iq is 204
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 11, 2006 8:55 pm
I'm pretty smart. I won't go so far as to say that I'm an intelligence god, but I have my reasons.
For example, I'm a sophomore in high school. Every night, I procrastinate my homework until 8 or 10 pm. I rarely ever study. I basically skim through everything. And with this said, I get better grades than people around me who struggle and spend every last minute of their lives, staying up late, to learn.
What's more, in my Pre-Calc class, I have (more or less) become the secondary teacher, because all during class, people ask me for help, for advice and explanations. I gladly give these to them. But when people ask me how long I study, when they ask how I do it all, I tell them the truth, and they...sorta...hate me for that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 11, 2006 11:57 pm
Homiseidl17 I'm pretty smart. I won't go so far as to say that I'm an intelligence god, but I have my reasons. For example, I'm a sophomore in high school. Every night, I procrastinate my homework until 8 or 10 pm. I rarely ever study. I basically skim through everything. And with this said, I get better grades than people around me who struggle and spend every last minute of their lives, staying up late, to learn. What's more, in my Pre-Calc class, I have (more or less) become the secondary teacher, because all during class, people ask me for help, for advice and explanations. I gladly give these to them. But when people ask me how long I study, when they ask how I do it all, I tell them the truth, and they...sorta...hate me for that. Wow that sounds like me!!! I honestly think part of the reason I can grasp stuff as well as I do is because I never stressed about learning it, and just played with it. Though all my tutees give me really weird looks when I tell them to play with their math. rofl
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 17, 2006 9:43 pm
I would never say I am smart... I am just a lucky, bumbling fool who, by some strange coincidence, picks up skills quite quickly... I can look at a problem and feel the answer... My intuition is my guide. I am very much in the way of quirky in my learning... Making up songs or rhymes for anything that must be memorized... I am nothing more than someone that got lucky... I just happen to pick my mother and father wisely. wink Good genes go a long way you know.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 24, 2006 6:29 pm
s**t xd I only am online late at night, & my mind is slowing down. This keeps me from understanding this kind of "deep" debate. My head is spinning!!!! rofl But, the only word of advice is, that being smart only can be judged be ones self, such as "beauty is in the eye of the beholder". This leads me to my point, intelegance is only a way of summing up the ammount that one puts into a specific sstate of mind. What i mean by a specific state of mind is, that we only can judge on the single plain of existance that our intelegence exists on! So overall intelegance is irevelant to levels, only intelegance on one plain of existance can be judged by its inhabitents.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
