EPTSo either way, I'm smart.
Smarter people more prone to cognitive bias - Page 12
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Monsen
Germany2548 Posts
So either way, I'm smart. | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18426 Posts
On June 14 2012 00:19 mprs wrote: Yeah but do you know how hard it is to publish something in a decent journal? You'd have to be a master bullshitter. No. You have to actually do decent research. At least, for CS journals. No clue on psychology, maybe there bullshitting is enough. | ||
|
sashamunguia
Mexico423 Posts
On June 14 2012 00:37 Cynry wrote: Back this statement with something please, I'm interested. There are several kinds of "intelligence", if you have a IQ of 180 you are not likely to own several companies and be rich and sociable. IQ merely represents one kind of intelligence, if you are good at reasoning, quick thinking, and logic, you will hive a decent-er IQ. However, I've known people with relatively high GPAs with merely 100 of IQ, they usually need to work much harder than people with, let's say 130, to get the same results. Often people with not-so-high IQs get defensive and try to undervalue it by saying they're "too good" at something else regardless of their IQ. | ||
|
ParkwayDrive
United States328 Posts
| ||
|
vaL4r
Germany240 Posts
| ||
|
Cynry
810 Posts
On June 14 2012 00:50 sashamunguia wrote: There are several kinds of "intelligence", if you have a IQ of 180 you are not likely to own several companies and be rich and sociable. IQ merely represents one kind of intelligence, if you are good at reasoning, quick thinking, and logic, you will hive a decent-er IQ. However, I've known people with relatively high GPAs with merely 100 of IQ, they usually need to work much harder than people with, let's say 130, to get the same results. Often people with not-so-high IQs get defensive and try to undervalue it by saying they're "too good" at something else regardless of their IQ. Not the first time I hear that there are several kind of intelligence. I disagree with that. To me, intelligence is how good your brain works on a pure mechanical basis. Not the same as knowledge, success, skills or sociability, even though they all require that you use any amount of intelligence you have. Also, I don't understand your last sentence. | ||
|
N1k0
Uruguay1075 Posts
I has the smarts right? | ||
|
Dyme
Germany523 Posts
By knowing 'instantly' I mean following train of thought "24 DAYS. NO. 47." within a second. I approached the other question more 'slowly' though, because I expected some kind of trap and just did the math instead of intuition. And one personal example for IQ or test scores not reflecting other kinds of intelligence would be me being better in school and tests and analyzing shit etc. than one of my friends in school. He worked way harder for school than me, because I am lazy, it just didn't seem to matter. But when we played stuff like 'categories' he always was a billion times faster than me. While my brain does stuff like "City with S: SUMMER, oh thats no city...S.. hmmm.. SUMMER" in a loop. He could do shit like saying the alphabet fluently backwards, while I can say 'zyx' and then have to say the whole alphabet forward in my head for every additional letter. (He did that spontaneously at school, when I was bored and suggested doing that instead of productive things, so he probably didn't just learn it by heart beforehand.) | ||
|
Yorbon
Netherlands4272 Posts
On June 14 2012 01:09 Cynry wrote: Define pure mechanical basis.Not the first time I hear that there are several kind of intelligence. I disagree with that. To me, intelligence is how good your brain works on a pure mechanical basis. Not the same as knowledge, success, skills or sociability, even though they all require that you use any amount of intelligence you have. Also, I don't understand your last sentence. Also, aren't the categories you mention at least partially independent? (or at least, when put together, multidimensional) That would mean that the 'intelligence'-space will have multiple independent defining factors, making the difference between different kinds of intelligence and 1 multidimensional kind of intelligence nothing substantial anymore. | ||
|
Chronopolis
Canada1484 Posts
| ||
|
Severedevil
United States4839 Posts
Which bits you count as 'intelligence' is just semantics. | ||
|
I_are_n00b
196 Posts
I like how this article trolls the internet, because the internet is full of geniuses. Just look at the sorry excuses on this thread for missing the answer... Edit: Oh and to all those people defending intelligent people because they wre tricked/this is irrelevant. The point of the article is not to measure an intelligent person at his finest. The point is that in practice, intelligent/self-perceived intelligent people will commit errors confidently. Problems similar to the ones given in the article can come up in real world practice. | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + 50 lbs. Twice as much is "not water". Here is kind of an opposite problem. There are 100 football and basketball players in a room. There is at least one football player for every basketball player. How many basketball players are there? + Show Spoiler + Maybe it seems obvious that the answer is one-- I dunno, maybe the phrasing made it harder before? This problem popped up freshman year in the finals of Mathbowl for MAO (I was freaking the fuck out) and we missed it. Lost by that one point in the end, second place T_T I tried looking for the full article on my uni's catalogs and stuff. No luck though. I figured ah, uh, "top 20 private research institution" would have a subscription to, y'know, the APA. Where does my tuition gooo? T_T Anyways, students at Harvard, MIT and Princeton are "smart". It doesn't mean they are math smart. I think this is a pretty terribad study from what I've read of it. Without a control or varying levels of the independent variable, you have no standard of comparison. Imagine if you had done this "cognitive bias" with the math people-- MAO members, kids who took the AMC, math majors. Probably would have gotten a MUCH higher percentage of people getting it right. (God psychology is such a joke sometimes) EDIT: The actual article is not online on pubmed or other sources yet because apparently it hasn't actually been published yet. | ||
|
CCitrus
Canada164 Posts
Second instinctive trial: $0.00. Fail. Third instinctive trial: $0.05. Success. This process takes about a second. I got it! Now I'm doubting my intelligence. | ||
|
Otolia
France5805 Posts
On June 14 2012 00:19 mprs wrote: Yeah but do you know how hard it is to publish something in a decent journal? You'd have to be a master bullshitter. There are 2 main journals, Nature and Science. The rest is very accessible as long as you present something that is valuable. But it doesn't mean the research has any point or any significance. As long as it respects particular codes, you can wrote almost anything even if the research you are doing isn't relevant to anything or so limited in its subject that it makes little sense. I can assure you, I know how hard it is to get publish and how much everyone works but it doesn't mean their paradigm are worth the time you put in reading it (aka it's bullshit). Some universities (particularly in the USA) force their grad students to produce papers after papers which clearly brings the quality of every studies down. | ||
|
nucLeaRTV
Romania822 Posts
| ||
|
TenJin`Lucian
Costa Rica158 Posts
| ||
|
nalgene
Canada2153 Posts
On June 14 2012 01:12 Dyme wrote: Either I am really stupid because I knew the answers instantly, or judging someone's intelligence by SAT scores is. By knowing 'instantly' I mean following train of thought "24 DAYS. NO. 47." within a second. I approached the other question more 'slowly' though, because I expected some kind of trap and just did the math instead of intuition. And one personal example for IQ or test scores not reflecting other kinds of intelligence would be me being better in school and tests and analyzing shit etc. than one of my friends in school. He worked way harder for school than me, because I am lazy, it just didn't seem to matter. But when we played stuff like 'categories' he always was a billion times faster than me. While my brain does stuff like "City with S: SUMMER, oh thats no city...S.. hmmm.. SUMMER" in a loop. He could do shit like saying the alphabet fluently backwards, while I can say 'zyx' and then have to say the whole alphabet forward in my head for every additional letter. (He did that spontaneously at school, when I was bored and suggested doing that instead of productive things, so he probably didn't just learn it by heart beforehand.) That's a classic 2^X question. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheat_and_chessboard_problem it's pretty old | ||
|
bOneSeven
Romania685 Posts
But yeah, this is the sad truth in our society. This and political correctness. And maybe some of the illusionary cultural boundaries... Oh well... | ||
|
babylon
8765 Posts
On June 14 2012 01:39 Otolia wrote: There are 2 main journals, Nature and Science. The rest is very accessible as long as you present something that is valuable. But it doesn't mean the research has any point or any significance. As long as it respects particular codes, you can wrote almost anything even if the research you are doing isn't relevant to anything or so limited in its subject that it makes little sense. I can assure you, I know how hard it is to get publish and how much everyone works but it doesn't mean their paradigm are worth the time you put in reading it (aka it's bullshit). Some universities (particularly in the USA) force their grad students to produce papers after papers which clearly brings the quality of every studies down. There are also Topics (you know, the ones that everybody in the goddamn field will write on) where scholars just go on and on and on without actually adding anything of worth to the conversation... These papers are usually structured like this: Here is the issue, let me summarize the history of the issue, let me "complicate" the issue by repeating what others have said is problematic about this issue, I think it is very complicated and should be approached with care. Holy fuck, are these papers painful to read or what? | ||
| ||
