I is Mensa now

Discussion in 'TT - Public' started by Polymath, Aug 31, 2016.

  1. Nottuh

    Nottuh Active Member Governor

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2016
    Posts:
    252
    Thanks Received:
    231
    I think I'm one of the slower people on this forum, mentally. I'm bad at rhythm video games and seem to take a long time to solve problems.
     
    • Thank Thank x 1
  2. Polymath

    Polymath Member Typed

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2016
    Posts:
    73
    Thanks Received:
    75
    I'm currently doing another of his tests, the Marathon test. I am going to finish it because I think it would be rude not to give it a real attempt after requesting it, but I'm not having nearly as much fun with this one. It's extremely long and tedious and has a lot of problems of the kinds that I'm not good at (unlike the first test I took, which played much more to my strengths). I have a feeling my score is going to be lower on this one by at least several points. If anyone else is planning to try his tests, I would highly recommend starting with the Cooijmans Intelligence Test 3e rather than the Marathon Test, although I can't say anything about any of his other tests.
     
  3. Thalmoses

    Thalmoses Founder Administrator

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2016
    Posts:
    2,232
    Thanks Received:
    558
    It's interesting, I think people of similar speed tend to get along much better.

    The speed can be perceived as showing off, and the slower party can have difficulty following, which is partly ability but also significantly stylistic, because the fast think in a different style, violating communicative expectations and signaling different emotional valences than they intend.

    What's not perceived is that being fast is actually a handicap in achieving groundedness to reality, which may be one of the rate-limiting factors on human intelligence. I always greatly appreciated my slow-but-wise friends because they were able to achieve groundedness much sooner than I could. I had to process for decades to get a decent mental working model that would let my emotions settle. In the meantime I was making all kinds of basic mistakes that they would avoid.

    Also I think I was an annoying destabilization vector for them with my doubts, injecting problems in their headspace which they weren't equipped to resolve, to their adaptational detriment.

    Perhaps being a fast MM is qualitatively different, since speed applied to social anchor is purely advantageous.

    Obviously the slower people on this forum are self-selected to have personality factors and/or the other components of intelligence which mitigate the above.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  4. Thalmoses

    Thalmoses Founder Administrator

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2016
    Posts:
    2,232
    Thanks Received:
    558
    Aha! This explains the pseudo-thal melon "dip" in early adolescence, before the fire takes over and they soar.

    It takes a much shorter time to perform a purely social anchor mental bootstrapping than to perform an objective + social one.
     
    • Thank Thank x 1
  5. Nottuh

    Nottuh Active Member Governor

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2016
    Posts:
    252
    Thanks Received:
    231
    I think I should add that I think mental quickness is a Neanderthal trait. I say this because East Asians have more Neanderthal DNA than other races on average and they have faster reaction times, processing speed and greater potential at rhythm video games, compared to other races on average.
     
  6. Thalmoses

    Thalmoses Founder Administrator

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2016
    Posts:
    2,232
    Thanks Received:
    558
    > I think mental quickness is a Neanderthal trait.

    Could be. The bootstrapping problem I was describing wouldn't be an issue in a supportive ancestral tribal environment.
     
  7. Vejiortan

    Vejiortan Geheimrat Baron

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2016
    Posts:
    2,304
    Thanks Received:
    1,196
    The difference in overall neanderthal % is not necessarily that relevant.
    There was a study posted in the former forum about a specific group of genes affecting lipid production in the brain. Those genes where positively selected for in europeans, but not in east asians. Also, there's a study showing a more "complex" frontal in europeans and a more "complex" parietal and temporal in east asians. Quickness seems to correlate strongly with parietal.

    In my new STS version, the effective mode (corresponding to aeoli's "caliber") has to do with anchors correlating with frontal, while the efficient (high-speed, superficial) mode has to do with anchors correlating with the parietal.

    It appears that efficiency is a trait of people whose ancestors where positively selected for in social environments.
     
    • Thank Thank x 1
    • Possible x 1
  8. Boneflour

    Boneflour Moderator SuperMod

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2016
    Posts:
    1,109
    Thanks Received:
    747
    I think Lorien is tied with Aeoli as one of the least "assholey" people on the forum. I agree with Polymath about the low quantity, high quality responses.

    One of the things I'm still coming to terms with is the fact that character matters as much or more than raw intelligence. The ability to accept a less than positive test result without calling bullshit (esp. when it might even BE bullshit) means something. Also the fact that nobody can really believe your test result means something, I think.

    I doubt there are any dumb people on this forum, any average IQ people either. There's just too much to sort through and the average person doesn't like reading through that much esoteric shit.

    NEETS, on the other hand...
     
  9. Boneflour

    Boneflour Moderator SuperMod

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2016
    Posts:
    1,109
    Thanks Received:
    747
    Second lateish opinion: g is real, even if the current measurements for it aren't 100% accurate. There's some whatever it is that lets people just do stuff plain better. More g lets you put a cabinet together better, lets you read faster and with better comprehension, lets you cook recipes on the first try, lets you pick a diet plan better, lets you repair a vacuum cleaner better... lets you figure out all of these weird trickety tricks that didn't get encoded in your instincts.

    If you could look at old aptitude tests given by the military, I would predict that the lower aptitude people would qualify in one or two fields, but the high aptitude people would score higher in most of the fields.

    Some guy I waited on once had this magic trick thing he did. One of those, "untie a knot without opening your hands" kind of deals, don't remember exactly what it was. He did it, then had me try to do it.

    I sat there and tried it a couple times, and he did the smug grin thing. I got it on the third try, and he was that semi-angry kind of surprised people get when you guess their clever riddle. Was I hustling him? "Oh, so you do magic tricks and stuff, right? Have you done this before?"

    I've been asked that question after kicking a football, after putting on a sterile gown, after using a pottery wheel, after figuring out a magic trick puzzle... There's just some whatever it is that helps out in all of those situations.

    Of course, being (relatively) smart but lazy is what led to waiting tables in the first place. I must learn discipline. I must become a person of better character, not just a smarter one.

    This guy went from being a national chess champion to being a world class martial artist:



    Dude has a learning process that lets him acquire skill in more or less whatever he wants to learn. He says anyone can become great at what they do, as long as they "approach the learning process in a way that isn't self-paralyzing". Well, sure... If you've got that whatever it is that helps you learn all those different things.

    I'm betting "anyone" doesn't include Australian Aborigines or Somalians. There's just something missing, something that just makes everything harder for those people:





    One minute in, and those repair contractors look really friggin white. I'm sure the aborigines can repair the houses they live in. Give em a home repair manual and some power tools and let them figure it out. Right? Right?
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  10. Thalmoses

    Thalmoses Founder Administrator

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2016
    Posts:
    2,232
    Thanks Received:
    558
    That lugubrious fuckwit intonation. Couldn't endure more than 1 minute of it. This is the raw sewage they pump into Americans 5 hours per day, disproportionately women. No wonder I can't stand simply being in the presence of their body language field. Disgusting turd clots.
     
  11. Vejiortan

    Vejiortan Geheimrat Baron

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2016
    Posts:
    2,304
    Thanks Received:
    1,196
    "One of the things I'm still coming to terms with is the fact that character matters as much or more than raw intelligence."

    That's because those aspects of intelligence which can't be quantified by tests are just called "character" in order to trivialize their importance. Or because of such trivialization.
     
  12. Boneflour

    Boneflour Moderator SuperMod

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2016
    Posts:
    1,109
    Thanks Received:
    747
    There is a difference between general cognitive ability (g) and the personality traits and habits that make up one's character. There are smart cowards and there are dumb cowards, smart and kind people, smart and cruel people, dumb and loving people, dumb and hateful people.

    If I can give someone a sheet of instructions and a cabinet and they put it together well, it's likely they can learn how to build and operate a loom, or a T-Shirt press, or a centrifuge and related lab equipment, or write a book report.

    That doesn't necessarily mean I can trust them around the cash box without supervision.

    The aspect that improves skill with everything from using power drills to folding origami is one thing. The aspects that decide if someone "takes this outside" during an argument... or just goes out and keys the guys car... is a different thing in kind.

    A high g individual can learn how to be a "hard worker", to improve conscientiousness. A lower g "hard worker" has a much harder time improving g.
     
  13. Polymath

    Polymath Member Typed

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2016
    Posts:
    73
    Thanks Received:
    75
    Going a little off-topic here, but I took Paul's "Personality Scale for Intelligent Adults" and thought I would share my results. I think this is one of the most detailed and interesting personality tests out there. Here is his explanation of the different scales: Personality Scales for Intelligent Adults - Explanation of scales | http://paulcooijmans.com/personalitytests/psia_scales.html

    For each rating, the median is 50 and standard deviation is 10.

    The 12 scales

    Antisocial: 48
    Aspergoid: 72
    Cold: 66
    Cruel: 42
    Extreme: 52
    Introverted: 68
    Just: 70
    Neurotic: 59
    Orderly: 39
    Rare: 62
    Rational: 36
    True: 64

    The 3 factors


    Deviance: 61
    Ethics: 65
    System: 62
     
    • Thank Thank x 2
    • Friendly Friendly x 1
  14. Thalmoses

    Thalmoses Founder Administrator

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2016
    Posts:
    2,232
    Thanks Received:
    558
    It's entirely possible that what I currently refer to as "verbal IQ" is a misnomer for "performance on GMAT/GRE reading passages". I'm not to the point of accepting that yet, but if a timed proctored test proves that the two diverge hopelessly, then I would have to find some other shorthand for what I want to express.
     
  15. Polymath

    Polymath Member Typed

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2016
    Posts:
    73
    Thanks Received:
    75
    They are probably as a good a measure of verbal IQ as any, but that isn't saying much. Any verbal test is going to measure the combination of general intelligence, verbal-specific intelligence, and task-specific intelligence. If someone gets different scores on different types of verbal tests, it means they differ in the factors of intelligence which are specific to the types of problems on those tests.
     
    • Thank Thank x 1
  16. Polymath

    Polymath Member Typed

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2016
    Posts:
    73
    Thanks Received:
    75
    Adding onto this: People tend to use the term "IQ" colloquially to refer to general intelligence, but this isn't strictly correct usage of the term. IQ is a score on a test. A person can have different IQ's on different tests, and someone who has not taken an IQ test does not have an IQ. IQ tests attempt to measure general intelligence, but what they actually measure is an approximation thereof. It is impossible to directly measure general intelligence (or verbal intelligence, or any type of intelligence). This is because performance on any given task that uses general intelligence will always be mediated by non-general types of intelligence (the reverse is also true).

    So, is verbal IQ equivalent to performance on GMAT/GRE reading passages? Pedantically, no: IQ is a score on an IQ test (ie. a test which gives a rating of intelligence on a scale which has been normed based on mean of 100 and standard deviation of roughly 15), and the GMAT and GRE are not IQ tests. Taking "verbal IQ" in the colloquial sense, the answer is yes, with the caveat that it is just one of many possible approximations of verbal IQ and different approximations might give different results, for reasons previously explained.

    A large number of people do not seem to understand the distinction I'm talking about, and this leads to confusion about the nature of IQ scores along the lines of "if you score x on an IQ test, then your general intelligence is x". Anyone who is still confused on the matter should read the following:

    IQ (1) = the score which someone has received on an IQ test, as a result of interplay between many different factors
    IQ (2, colloquial) = a slang term for "intelligence", often (but not always) referring to general intelligence
    IQ (3, colloquial) = a made-up quantity used by dilettantes to rank people by intelligence ("Newton had an IQ of 200")
    general intelligence = the rough concept of "how smart someone is"; not a measurably quantity
    g = a mathematical abstraction used to represent general intelligence for the purpose of statistical calculations
     
  17. Boneflour

    Boneflour Moderator SuperMod

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2016
    Posts:
    1,109
    Thanks Received:
    747
    While we're being pedantic, I'd say that general intelligence is a measurable quantity, just not a precisely measurable quantity. Between numbers on various IQ tests... and GMAT/GRE, SATs and other aptitude tests... you can get a result with reasonable predictive power. You can't measure it to the inch like a person, but it's pretty easy to figure out "average" "kinda slow" "midwit" "YUGE g", etc.

    "This guy can likely manage a McDonalds, but will probably flunk the actuary exams."

    "This guy can barely read, much less learn to code."

    "This dude is off the charts, I can't even tell how far past the rest of us he is, but damn."

    The fact that you're differentiating between five definitions of IQ/general intelligence is an indicator of above average intelligence, for example.
     
  18. Polymath

    Polymath Member Typed

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2016
    Posts:
    73
    Thanks Received:
    75
    For clarity, what I mean by "measurement" is reading a value from an objective scale like inches, ounces, etc. I'm not arguing that we can't perceive differences between people in general intelligence.
     
  19. Thalmoses

    Thalmoses Founder Administrator

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2016
    Posts:
    2,232
    Thanks Received:
    558
    The problem with this definition is that it leaves no room for someone to receive an incorrect IQ score on a test, which in practice frequently happens.
     
  20. Polymath

    Polymath Member Typed

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2016
    Posts:
    73
    Thanks Received:
    75

    A lot of people think that each person has a set number, intrinsic to their brain, which is the number they are "supposed" to get on an IQ test. I'm arguing that this isn't the case (and that concept of IQ would fall under my definition #3).

    A score is what it is. There are a lot of factors which might influence a score. For instance:

    *general intelligence
    *how well the testee's pattern of non-general intelligences align with the test's content
    *how well the testee's cultural background aligns with the test's content (for non-culture-fair tests)
    *for problem types which are trainable, how much the testee has practiced that type of problem
    *level of motivation and interest in the test
    *testee's current physical state (well-rested, nutrition, hydration, not ill, etc.)
    *testee's current mental state (presence of depression or anxiety)
    *luck (if the testee happens to guess on certain problems, do they guess right?)
    *steepness of childhood development curve (fast development curve = higher childhood than adult IQ, slow development curve vice-versa)
    *presence of non-intellectual disabilities which make test-taking more difficult

    Because of all of these factors, it can never be appropriate to say "if you get x on an IQ test, then your general intelligence is x", and so the notion of a correct vs. incorrect score is meaningless.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2

Share This Page