EPTAt least that is something you can actually objectively test.
Ask and answer stupid questions here! - Page 560
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Simberto
Germany11933 Posts
At least that is something you can actually objectively test. | ||
|
Sent.
Poland9322 Posts
| ||
|
Karis Vas Ryaar
United States4396 Posts
On December 31 2016 04:24 Sent. wrote: Are IQ tests truly objective? What if they give humans too many points because they were made by humans? What if dolphins are smarter than we think but they score poorly (if you can make them do such tests) because we rigged the tests against them? theres a lot of criticism of them. they were supposed to be simply what you know but got used for everything including social darwinism and how smart you are. the guy who invented them later ended up hating them. there are seeming racial biases and stuff. | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On December 31 2016 04:00 Atreides wrote: Even your example sucks ass. A group of 14 year olds probably can't come up with an agreed upon definition of "smartest". Is it the one with the best grades? Or the one with the best grades for level of effort put in? Or the one with the most widespread knowledge base relative to their peers? Or any number of definitions based on someones individual values and priorities. How in the world is that super specific. I'm gonna second the "descriptive words are rarely quantifiable" here. Go to a random classroom of 14 year olds. Ask them who the smartest in the room is, then ask the teacher who the smartest in the room is. They will give the same 2-3 people as their best guess. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
Liquid`Drone
Norway28873 Posts
On December 31 2016 04:07 Simberto wrote: You could go with something like "Person who scores best on x IQ test" At least that is something you can actually objectively test. That does determine which person has the highest IQ, but there's no universal agreement that this equates to smartness.  I don't know if 'best(worst/most/least) within a group' really counts as quantifying. What I mean is basically assigning an objective numerical value to something. IQ tests largely do that for certain aspects of ones intellect, but only certain aspects, and it's a bit of a stretch to say the numbers are objective. (Iq scores change over time, for one. In Norway, average IQ scores increased by 8 points between 1959 and 1998. The average is always set to 100, and the number indicates the deviation from the norm. That means that someone who scored 108 in 1959 would score 100-ish on a 1998 test, even if not factoring in mental decay from old age.  ) | ||
|
Atreides
United States2393 Posts
On December 31 2016 04:56 Thieving Magpie wrote: Go to a random classroom of 14 year olds. Ask them who the smartest in the room is, then ask the teacher who the smartest in the room is. They will give the same 2-3 people as their best guess. The fact that you get 2 or 3 answer is PRECISELY the point I made. lol | ||
|
Cascade
Australia5405 Posts
On December 31 2016 04:56 Thieving Magpie wrote: Go to a random classroom of 14 year olds. Ask them who the smartest in the room is, then ask the teacher who the smartest in the room is. They will give the same 2-3 people as their best guess. So peer recognition. How would you apply your previous comment on performing a task that few others can perform here? And yeah, if they can't agree on who is the smartest from 30 ppl (which I agree, they probably wouldn't in most classes), I wouldn't use the word "super specific".  | ||
|
Cascade
Australia5405 Posts
On December 31 2016 04:59 JimmiC wrote: Sort of related the genius grant. Maybe it will hold some qualifications. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MacArthur_Fellows_Program https://www.macfound.org/fellows-faq/ + Show Spoiler + pretty loose qualifications for it too Again determined by peer recognition. I think we are converging on an answer here. | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11933 Posts
On December 31 2016 04:53 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote: theres a lot of criticism of them. they were supposed to be simply what you know but got used for everything including social darwinism and how smart you are. the guy who invented them later ended up hating them. there are seeming racial biases and stuff. But that isn't criticism of the objectivity of the test, it is criticism of the validity. IQ tests are very good at objectively measuring...something. It just isn't totally clear what that something is. But IQ tests measure that something very independent of the observer. Thus they are objective. | ||
|
Karis Vas Ryaar
United States4396 Posts
On December 31 2016 09:58 Simberto wrote: But that isn't criticism of the objectivity of the test, it is criticism of the validity. IQ tests are very good at objectively measuring...something. It just isn't totally clear what that something is. But IQ tests measure that something very independent of the observer. Thus they are objective. yeah thats what I meant to say. guess it wasn't exactly clear. | ||
|
Cascade
Australia5405 Posts
On December 31 2016 11:15 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote: yeah thats what I meant to say. guess it wasn't exactly clear. you are agreeing, using different but roughly equivalent formulations I think. 1) IQ test isn't an objective test of intelligence. 2) IQ test is objective. But doesn't measure exactly intelligence. So I think you agree that the connection between your IQ test score and whatever intelligence is, is probably biased. | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On December 31 2016 09:43 Cascade wrote: So peer recognition. How would you apply your previous comment on performing a task that few others can perform here? And yeah, if they can't agree on who is the smartest from 30 ppl (which I agree, they probably wouldn't in most classes), I wouldn't use the word "super specific". Then its a misunderstanding in terms. The reason you would be able to get 2-3 people is because the group fully understands what a smart person is, because being smart is super specific, and the "smartest" is also super specific. If you asked that room "who is the genius in the classroom" variables would be necessary. "Genius in what?" "Compared to who?" "Genius among us in the classroom or genius overall or genius in the school?" This is because "A Genius" is super vague while "the Smartest" is super specific. Everyone knows who the smartest in their group is, even if different people have different answers to the question. You go to a classroom, ask a random kid who the smartest is, and he can point to a kid and say "that guy." And after you ask all of them there will be a few kids there that counts as "that guy" but they are able to give a super specific answer because its a super specific question. Genius does not have that specificity. | ||
|
Zambrah
United States7393 Posts
My feet hurt like a fuckin' bitch like 4 hours into working and the floor isn't gonna get less concrete so what are good shoes to keeping my feet not hurting like a fuckin' bitch while walking on concrete and asphalt for 5 - 10 hours a day? | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On December 31 2016 13:53 Zambrah wrote: What are good shoes for spending many hours walking on concrete and asphalt? I had a pair of Nikes and they got obliterated, the soles were pretty much paper in like a month. My feet hurt like a fuckin' bitch like 4 hours into working and the floor isn't gonna get less concrete so what are good shoes to keeping my feet not hurting like a fuckin' bitch while walking on concrete and asphalt for 5 - 10 hours a day? Work boots. | ||
|
xM(Z
Romania5299 Posts
| ||
|
Karis Vas Ryaar
United States4396 Posts
| ||
|
Simberto
Germany11933 Posts
I'd guess that it makes you more aggressive or something. Sounds like a really bad idea to randomly take hormons for no reason. I know that the anti-baby pill, which afaik is mostly estrogen, sometimes alters the mood of the women taking it, too. And at least they have a real reason for taking it. Randomly taking testosterone sounds idiotic. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18866 Posts
| ||
|
Yurie
12126 Posts
Don't forget to change the insole to let it rest. You can then reuse it for a while after that to save on costs for them. Seen 3 month recommendations for exchanging them. The shoe itself won't last past a year either in most cases for concrete floor usage 7-8 h a day. | ||
| ||
