|
On October 22 2004 02:28 MoltkeWarding wrote: Show nested quote +On October 22 2004 02:17 Element)FrEaK wrote:
you can measure a person's ability to understand and retain information and then repeat it though.
That's not all memory, the ability to memorize a passage does not mean you understand it.
That is all that IQ really is, the higher the IQ the greater the ability to understand and retain information given to you. Having a higher IQ just means you have to work less hard to learn things, but it does not make you any better at execution or applying them. Hard work will almost always outdo IQ, IQ and Intelligence can only go so far. If this were true, how would one take such a measure? Even the most abstract of memory tests rely on a degree of comprehensive familiarity. Such things as logic, association and generalization are subordinate to the kind of breeding one's mind undergoes. You will forgive a person who has never been exposed to mathematics to be unable to grasp the connection between the ideas of "seven days" and "seven apples". It is more reasonable to conclude that such ideas, and intelligence with it, are cultivated. People are overeager to come to the conclusion that Intelligence -> Ability to think -> Ability to Understand -> Creates interest -> Creates knowledge The amusing thing with such a hierarchy of causes is that it can be inverted so assume any form, the logic of which may be defended in argument. Interest -> Creates knowledge-> Intelligence-> Ability to think-> Ability to understand. Furthermore this kind of analysis completely ignores the purposes of the person involved. One's ability to think does not matter as much in the long run as their willingness to think; which involves a choice to take an interest in thinking, and not merely one's innate ability.
The majority of that post was redundant. If you can count you can do the math section of an IQ test, if you can't, then you clearly don't have the intelligence if you can't logically come up with a way to count. You don't need established laws of mathematics to be able to do the math in an IQ test. Most of it is Logic and Problem Solving in pictures, which you don't need formal education to do. The only barrier in testing would be language, or if you were never taught language they would have to do it by association, the same way they would test a baby.
And I said that hard work will overcome intelligence, so the last part of your post was completely useless. That is why a disciplines culture like china, japan and korea all seem alot more intelligence on average in comparison to the majority of other countries.
Afterall, even though I have the ability(IQ), I would not know nearly as much about half the things I know if I didn't have some interest and willing to put the time into learning.
|
On October 22 2004 11:47 TvP On Guillo wrote: Show nested quote +On October 21 2004 23:54 Hydrolisko wrote: On October 21 2004 08:51 TvP On Guillo wrote: On October 21 2004 02:17 Hydrolisko wrote:
Average IQ by nation
China, Japan, Korea (Eastern Asia Countries) 103-107
United States 98
Mexico 87
African countries 70
This statement is incredibly stupid and incorrect. Could you link me to where you read this? IQ tests that result in a specific race getting higher scores than another, are completely useless. A proper IQ test doesn't require any knowledge. Obviously these scores are based on a select few of iq tests from the different countrys, and as we all know, the educational system in Africa as a whole, is not really great. If anything, these scores might be an indicator to how well the education system is in those specific countrys/nations, compared to each other. Um yes I can, it's a damn book. You think I made it up or something? http://www.socialsciencesweb.com/IQ_and_the_Wealth_of_Nations_027597510X.htmland... if you have ever taken an IQ test or even read about it, you'll know that it does not require much knowledge, if any at all. Most of the IQ test is based on memory, logic, and speed of response. Please get it right before you come out with your non-sense opinion claiming my facts as non-sense. I don't care if it was something you made up, its still stupid and incorrect. I hope no one takes that book serious, or you for that matter. To quote the link: "The lowest measured is in Guinea (IQ, 59)," (Guinea has an average IQ of 59 according to this book) Hah. If this was true, over 50% of the Guinean population are unable to speak coherently / are lower intelligent than the average retard. Further down it says: "The numbers may be incorrect but nonetheless are worthy areas of debate and data for additional research." Well, no shit! The numbers in the book DOES NOT INDICATE IQ, NOR IS BASED ON TESTS THAT ACCURATELY MEASURES IQ.
How do you propose we measure IQ correctly? Give the Guineans a boost of 60points?
Its interesting how nobody would argue if people said Africans were better at running/sports than others eh...?
|
On October 22 2004 11:51 Element)FrEaK wrote: Show nested quote +On October 22 2004 02:28 MoltkeWarding wrote: On October 22 2004 02:17 Element)FrEaK wrote:
you can measure a person's ability to understand and retain information and then repeat it though.
That's not all memory, the ability to memorize a passage does not mean you understand it.
That is all that IQ really is, the higher the IQ the greater the ability to understand and retain information given to you. Having a higher IQ just means you have to work less hard to learn things, but it does not make you any better at execution or applying them. Hard work will almost always outdo IQ, IQ and Intelligence can only go so far. If this were true, how would one take such a measure? Even the most abstract of memory tests rely on a degree of comprehensive familiarity. Such things as logic, association and generalization are subordinate to the kind of breeding one's mind undergoes. You will forgive a person who has never been exposed to mathematics to be unable to grasp the connection between the ideas of "seven days" and "seven apples". It is more reasonable to conclude that such ideas, and intelligence with it, are cultivated. People are overeager to come to the conclusion that Intelligence -> Ability to think -> Ability to Understand -> Creates interest -> Creates knowledge The amusing thing with such a hierarchy of causes is that it can be inverted so assume any form, the logic of which may be defended in argument. Interest -> Creates knowledge-> Intelligence-> Ability to think-> Ability to understand. Furthermore this kind of analysis completely ignores the purposes of the person involved. One's ability to think does not matter as much in the long run as their willingness to think; which involves a choice to take an interest in thinking, and not merely one's innate ability. The majority of that post was redundant. If you can count you can do the math section of an IQ test, if you can't, then you clearly don't have the intelligence if you can't logically come up with a way to count. You don't need established laws of mathematics to be able to do the math in an IQ test. Most of it is Logic and Problem Solving in pictures, which you don't need formal education to do. The only barrier in testing would be language, or if you were never taught language they would have to do it by association, the same way they would test a baby. And I said that hard work will overcome intelligence, so the last part of your post was completely useless. That is why a disciplines culture like china, japan and korea all seem alot more intelligence on average in comparison to the majority of other countries. Afterall, even though I have the ability(IQ), I would not know nearly as much about half the things I know if I didn't have some interest and willing to put the time into learning.
I would say that logic and problem solving require alot more of an education than simple language. Few people remember that logic and rhetoric were academic practises in ancient times (one of the only academic practises), the condition that we take it for granted today is because our entire method of communication is based on its historical advancements, while at the same time we lose its basic theoretical concepts and come to accept it as a part of human nature.
Furthermore I can attest from experience that the assertion that people of oriental countries are smarter is an illusion in N America. This is something people are unlikely to see, because of our modern equation of academic success with intelligence. While probably a better indicator than raw "IQ"s, the measure of academic success especially in mathematics, etc. ignores completely the unimaginativeness and ultimate simplicity of their thinking. In China, where I was born, very many people are able to do math problems well ahead of their Western counterparts, yet their ability to think and for self-expression as well as liberty of mind is retarded probably for the duration of their lives.
|
Einstein's brain was physically different from that of a regular human... might be the cause of greater intellect...
autistic story; some girl from my grade school (old one) was like..13~14 and went to quebec on vacation for 2 weeks and came back fluent in french... she can speak perfectly.. fucknig ridiculous!
|
Thats why I said they seem alot more intelligent than average. Discipline has its advantages and disadvantages, one of its greatest disadvantages is, quite often but not always, a lack of thinking for themselves.
And ya, you are right about the logic and problem solving, at least more right than I am. I'll give you that. I still think neither of us is entirely right, it is somewhere in between.
|
Best way to do an IQ test is at an early age.
|
On October 22 2004 11:47 TvP On Guillo wrote: Show nested quote +On October 21 2004 23:54 Hydrolisko wrote: On October 21 2004 08:51 TvP On Guillo wrote: On October 21 2004 02:17 Hydrolisko wrote:
Average IQ by nation
China, Japan, Korea (Eastern Asia Countries) 103-107
United States 98
Mexico 87
African countries 70
This statement is incredibly stupid and incorrect. Could you link me to where you read this? IQ tests that result in a specific race getting higher scores than another, are completely useless. A proper IQ test doesn't require any knowledge. Obviously these scores are based on a select few of iq tests from the different countrys, and as we all know, the educational system in Africa as a whole, is not really great. If anything, these scores might be an indicator to how well the education system is in those specific countrys/nations, compared to each other. Um yes I can, it's a damn book. You think I made it up or something? http://www.socialsciencesweb.com/IQ_and_the_Wealth_of_Nations_027597510X.htmland... if you have ever taken an IQ test or even read about it, you'll know that it does not require much knowledge, if any at all. Most of the IQ test is based on memory, logic, and speed of response. Please get it right before you come out with your non-sense opinion claiming my facts as non-sense. I don't care if it was something you made up, its still stupid and incorrect. I hope no one takes that book serious, or you for that matter. To quote the link: "The lowest measured is in Guinea (IQ, 59)," (Guinea has an average IQ of 59 according to this book) Hah. If this was true, over 50% of the Guinean population are unable to speak coherently / are lower intelligent than the average retard. Further down it says: "The numbers may be incorrect but nonetheless are worthy areas of debate and data for additional research." Well, no shit! The numbers in the book DOES NOT INDICATE IQ, NOR IS BASED ON TESTS THAT ACCURATELY MEASURES IQ.
and so what?
Are you talking to me or the author of the book? I didn't write this book.. You're talking like you're speaking to the author. I'm just listing what i found with research.
and um.. til the day you write a book that completely refutes and obliterates this book, i'll believe that book for now.
You talk like you know everything about IQ, much more than the author of this book. Sounds like me when I was 14. "Everything I think or say is right, everything else is wrong!!"
|
On August 30 2003 15:41 WickedDreams wrote:
In 1925 his book 'The Animate and the Inanimate' was published. This was a scientific work in which William predicted black holes years before anyone else.
He was not the first, black holes were predicted long time ago ^^
link
|
What is more important? To be smart or to achieve something? 
|
Just because they never 'achieved' anything for us (society) doesnt mean they didnt achieve anything at all.
He wrote a book on his favourite hobby - thats a great achievement for him as an individual.
|
Why don't we hear anything about this man in media, schools, etc?
|
Why don't we hear anything about this man in media, schools, etc?
|
This story is true. Look him up, there's a ton of stuff on him.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
