Page 5 of 9 [ 140 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next

hyperlexian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2010
Age: 48
Gender: Female
Posts: 22,023
Location: with bucephalus

01 May 2012, 9:18 pm

welcome to your new thread. i moved all of the off-topic discussion about intelligence and IQ over here.


_________________
on a break, so if you need assistance please contact another moderator from this list:
http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt237032.html


sage_gerard
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 20 Apr 2012
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 149

01 May 2012, 9:23 pm

Joker wrote:
Wikipeida is very flawed anyone can makes changes to it.


Trust me, you know little about it. Vandalism can be corrected quickly.
Wikipedia is brilliant. Research the implications of its model sometime. Oh, and actually read the linked article.


_________________
"Sex, streams, friends accessing private members... Either I am just discovering unintentional innuendo or Stroustrup is a pervert."


hyperlexian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2010
Age: 48
Gender: Female
Posts: 22,023
Location: with bucephalus

01 May 2012, 9:34 pm

wikipedia is problematic. i have used it as a source and been called out on it, so the next time i was tempted i decided to follow the sources instead. every single one of the 8 applicable sources i researched was biased, incorrectly quoted, non-scholarly, or a dead link. it was very disappointing.

i don't think wikipedia is useless, but i think it isn't really credible either. it is a good launching point for a basic overview but not too good for quoting or linking.

(yes, i read the article you linked).


_________________
on a break, so if you need assistance please contact another moderator from this list:
http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt237032.html


sage_gerard
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 20 Apr 2012
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 149

01 May 2012, 9:39 pm

hyperlexian wrote:
wikipedia is problematic. i have used it as a source and been called out on it, so the next time i was tempted i decided to follow the sources instead. every single one of the 8 applicable sources i researched was biased, incorrectly quoted, non-scholarly, or a dead link. it was very disappointing.

i don't think wikipedia is useless, but i think it isn't really credible either. it is a good launching point for a basic overview but not too good for quoting or linking.

(yes, i read the article you linked).


Well, you take that risk. As I implied, WP is designed to weather inaccuracies from the get-go.

On the other hand, Wikipedia never once valued being 100% accurate at any point in time. It only wants to become more accurate over time. If it could speak, it would say "I may not know much, but I learn something new every day".

That's what makes it amazing to me. It is designed by people who are not afraid to look stupid for a little bit. The site itself is like looking into the mind of an idiot and watching him or her learn more and more.

It's credibility is in its humility. It does not assume to be right at any point in time. It just knows its becoming "more right".

I can't begin to tell you how grateful I am for Wikipedia!


_________________
"Sex, streams, friends accessing private members... Either I am just discovering unintentional innuendo or Stroustrup is a pervert."


Joker
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Mar 2011
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,593
Location: North Carolina The Tar Heel State :)

01 May 2012, 9:41 pm

sage_gerard wrote:
Joker wrote:
Wikipeida is very flawed anyone can makes changes to it.


Trust me, you know little about it. Vandalism can be corrected quickly.
Wikipedia is brilliant. Research the implications of its model sometime. Oh, and actually read the linked article.


While that is true Wikipedia goes through so many changes information changes on that site daily.



hyperlexian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2010
Age: 48
Gender: Female
Posts: 22,023
Location: with bucephalus

01 May 2012, 9:45 pm

sage_gerard wrote:
hyperlexian wrote:
wikipedia is problematic. i have used it as a source and been called out on it, so the next time i was tempted i decided to follow the sources instead. every single one of the 8 applicable sources i researched was biased, incorrectly quoted, non-scholarly, or a dead link. it was very disappointing.

i don't think wikipedia is useless, but i think it isn't really credible either. it is a good launching point for a basic overview but not too good for quoting or linking.

(yes, i read the article you linked).


Well, you take that risk. As I implied, WP is designed to weather inaccuracies from the get-go.

On the other hand, Wikipedia never once valued being 100% accurate at any point in time. It only wants to become more accurate over time. If it could speak, it would say "I may not know much, but I learn something new every day".

That's what makes it amazing to me. It is designed by people who are not afraid to look stupid for a little bit. The site itself is like looking into the mind of an idiot and watching him or her learn more and more.

It's credibility is in its humility. It does not assume to be right at any point in time. It just knows its becoming "more right".

I can't begin to tell you how grateful I am for Wikipedia!

yes, i go to it by default when i am without knowledge in an area, or if i want quick factoids. even though it doesn't pretend to be anything more than it is, people mistake it for some sort of gospel (i was guilty of that at one time).


_________________
on a break, so if you need assistance please contact another moderator from this list:
http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt237032.html


Ancalagon
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Dec 2007
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,302

01 May 2012, 11:37 pm

TM wrote:
The interesting thing is that I regularly talk with people who score high and I do so myself and as an example, (I believe you said you were a CPA), I was able to learn and score in the top 1% in accounting after spending roughly 30 hours on the coursework. I can also do equations in my head, quote a million different people and read at 1400 WPM, somehow I suspect that is connected with how well I score on IQ tests.

Keep in mind that computers are as dumb as bricks, but even old computers can do more equations than you in their heads, quote more people more accurately, read faster than 1400 WPM (where the M stands for millisecond rather than minute), and do it all day long without getting tired or bored. I don't doubt that calculational skill is useful, but it is less so since the advent of computers.

Quote:
I still find it hysterical that IQ somehow doesn't measure intelligence properly, yet I've never heard of a theoretical physicist with an IQ of 80. If it wasn't accurate to a degree, then you would see people who are obviously highly intelligent score poorly and people who are obviously less intelligent score well.

You're acting like how IQ measures intelligence is a binary quality, that it either measures it perfectly or not at all. I think IQ does indeed measure something, which is not entirely unrelated to intelligence. I wouldn't expect a theoretical physicist to score an 80, but if one scored 15 points lower than expected I wouldn't bat an eye.


_________________
"A dead thing can go with the stream, but only a living thing can go against it." --G. K. Chesterton


CrazyCatLord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Oct 2011
Age: 49
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,177

02 May 2012, 12:06 am

This is how Wikipedia creates new "facts":

Image



NarcissusSavage
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Sep 2009
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 675

02 May 2012, 3:49 am

I'm going to generally side with TM, as his points here are more rational and logically consistent.

*Before I get into my case. Please be advised, despite your inclination to read below in my post the word “men” “women” etc as being individuals…for whatever reason you might be inclined to do so…I am not speaking of individuals. I am using the context of those words to imply the full group. You know, the sum of many, the average of all, however you most comfortably look at discussing a characterization of a group.*



Given that IQ tests are the most established means of quantifying intelligence, and given that men as a group score higher on IQ tests than women, then it follows that men (still as a group, remember) are more intelligent than women.

I don't understand why this is sexist. Men are taller than women. Women have a higher body fat percentage than men. Men are slightly darker in pigmentation than women. Women have higher levels of estrogen than men. The list goes on...and on...

There are measurable differences between males and females. These differences are not breaking news...I fail to see why there is controversy. Our species has sexual dimorphism…many species do.

Despite that there are differences; the issue of value is independent from this discussion. I think, or at least suspect, that this is what those arguing against this notion that "men are more intelligent than women" have. But the two are very separate and distinct concepts. You can be both different and equally valued. Value of every human being does not mean we must all put blinders on and pretend everyone is completely identical. We should celebrate our differences, in every form they come in.


_________________
I am Ignostic.
Go ahead and define god, with universal acceptance of said definition.
I'll wait.


aghogday
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,075

02 May 2012, 4:23 am

Quote:
Women’s rate of college attainment also rose during the 1960s and 1970s at a relatively quick pace, but unlike the male rate, it continued to increase during the 1980s. By the mid-1990s, women had closed the gap on men, and by
2010, their college attainment rate exceeded men’s by 8 percentage points (or by 29 percent) in this age cohort.


http://www.clevelandfed.org/research/Commentary/2011/2011-21.pdf

The cultural changes in reproductive freedoms for women in the 60's and 70's has provided a change in the ability of women to gain advanced educations.

Studies show that measures of fluid intelligence increase throughout young adulthood in different cultures as well as among individuals, based on environmental factors, and in part due to the process of neuroplasticity.

Per research, humans have an innate ability for language, but reading and writing skills are evidenced as a result of cultural factors, rather than innate abilities.

Cultural influence impacts every area of IQ, measured by standard IQ tests.

Testosterone does impact brain development, but both higher than normal levels of testosterone and lower than normal levels of testosterone are correlated with lower measures of IQ.

Two noted individual historically noted as having genius level intelligence, ranged from a brain size of 1000 cc for Anatole France to 2200 cc for Lord Byron. So while there is a slight correlation of brain size to intelligence, it means very little as to what factors may result in genius

Intelligence is not well defined, with many suggested areas of intelligence in human beings that are not measured at all in Intelligence quotient testing.

Emotions are studied to play an active role in learning, memory formation, and decision making.

Those with brain injuries that are evidenced as having no pro-social emotions, as well as no internal emotions, like the emotion of pleasure, are evidenced to lose their decision making abilities in life, as well as motivation.

Emotional Intelligence has been a controversial area of intelligence, however a meta-analysis of research over the last decade shows a valid association between job performance and emotional intelligence.

Women have been measured as scoring higher than men overall on measures of emotional intelligence, however cultural influence plays a role as well as inherent factors, and other environmental factors.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/job.714/full

Studies also provide association of IQ and job performance as well.

Theories of multiples intelligences go well beyond traditional IQ tests, as well as measures of emotional intelligence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_multiple_intelligences

Standard IQ testing is a cultural construct that attempts to measure intelligence, however there is evidence that it is not reflective of a measure of full human intelligence, or per the APA, an accurate measure of intelligence among different cultures, in part, because of cultural bias within the cultures that the tests were developed in.

Individuals in Sub Saharan countries, afforded good nutrition, and opportunities for education in good schools can excel to academic levels as high as any other race or country of national origin.

Obama's father as a first generation Kenyan who excelled at Harvard, and sired the most powerful political leader, that exists in the world today, is evidence that full potential for human intelligence and achievement, has no race or country of origin.

The US is only a few steps away from a female president. Reproductive freedoms as well as minority rights, are a large part of why the full intellectual potentials of all citizens can contribute to the success or failure of the country as a whole.

Gender and race of which was once considered an inherent limiting factor among the masses, in overall intelligence and potential for achievement, has proven out to be a non-factor in the potential for human achievement at the highest levels, per real life results.

IQ alone, means nothing to survival, without the motivation of emotion. Without passion, Obama could have never achieved the highest level of power in the world.

It's hard to say where something like that comes from, but it's hard not to notice. In part, it was Kenya.

It is part of the innate factor of human emotion, that is not easily measured by any test of intellect, not even measures of emotional intelligence.

Perhaps the highest measure of all intelligence is the will to survive. It is not logic; it is pure emotion. The only evidence of it is now.



CrazyCatLord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Oct 2011
Age: 49
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,177

02 May 2012, 5:22 am

NarcissusSavage wrote:
Given that IQ tests are the most established means of quantifying intelligence, and given that men as a group score higher on IQ tests than women, then it follows that men (still as a group, remember) are more intelligent than women.


A relatively recent study conducted by psychologists at Edinburgh University found that the overall IQ difference between men and women is only marginal, but there is a far greater variance in IQ among men. Men seem to be more likely to be either in the top or the bottom percentiles of intelligence. Which means that as a group, men are both more intelligent and more stupid than women. As individuals, they are more likely to be either geniuses or village idiots.

Here is a link to the study: http://www.subjectpool.com/ed_papers/20 ... rences.pdf
This would explain why female college / university graduates outnumber male ones, and why men at the same time far outnumber women in fields like theoretical science. It also provides a partial explanation as to why there were (and, what is more puzzling, still are) no female equivalents of Newton and Einstein, Bach and Beethoven, or Shakespeare and Chekhov.



sage_gerard
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 20 Apr 2012
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 149

02 May 2012, 7:25 am

CrazyCatLord wrote:
This is how Wikipedia creates new "facts"


Oh ye of little faith. As if issues like this are never caught. :roll:

Google itself gives you what you want, not what is true. As I said before, Wikipedia does have standards. They encourage citing peer-reviewed sources themselves and not original research. They even have places dedicated to debate on the reliability of sources (click).


_________________
"Sex, streams, friends accessing private members... Either I am just discovering unintentional innuendo or Stroustrup is a pervert."


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 84
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

02 May 2012, 10:12 am

Joker wrote:
bizboy1 wrote:
There are more men that are simply intellectually superior. It's a fact.


Unless you have some form of proof I disagree both men and women are equal intellectually.


There are far more male mathematicians and theoretical physicists than female. And it is not a matter of prejudice. Female brains and male brains on average work differently. Female reproductive plumbing differs from male. Female abstraction machinery differs from male. It is as simple as that.

ruveyn



hyperlexian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2010
Age: 48
Gender: Female
Posts: 22,023
Location: with bucephalus

02 May 2012, 11:14 am

NarcissusSavage wrote:
I'm going to generally side with TM, as his points here are more rational and logically consistent.

*Before I get into my case. Please be advised, despite your inclination to read below in my post the word “men” “women” etc as being individuals…for whatever reason you might be inclined to do so…I am not speaking of individuals. I am using the context of those words to imply the full group. You know, the sum of many, the average of all, however you most comfortably look at discussing a characterization of a group.*



Given that IQ tests are the most established means of quantifying intelligence, and given that men as a group score higher on IQ tests than women, then it follows that men (still as a group, remember) are more intelligent than women.

I don't understand why this is sexist. Men are taller than women. Women have a higher body fat percentage than men. Men are slightly darker in pigmentation than women. Women have higher levels of estrogen than men. The list goes on...and on...

There are measurable differences between males and females. These differences are not breaking news...I fail to see why there is controversy. Our species has sexual dimorphism…many species do.

Despite that there are differences; the issue of value is independent from this discussion. I think, or at least suspect, that this is what those arguing against this notion that "men are more intelligent than women" have. But the two are very separate and distinct concepts. You can be both different and equally valued. Value of every human being does not mean we must all put blinders on and pretend everyone is completely identical. We should celebrate our differences, in every form they come in.

intelligence != IQ. the only conclusion you can really draw is that.... men score slightly higher on IQ tests on average. that does not equal being more intelligent on average.


_________________
on a break, so if you need assistance please contact another moderator from this list:
http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt237032.html


WilliamWDelaney
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Apr 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,201

02 May 2012, 11:25 am

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19457060

"Castration impaired spatial working memory performance in the delayed matching to place water maze task following a 1-h, but not a 1-min, retention interval, as has been reported for rats. In contrast, castration had no effect on novel object recognition memory, spatial reference memory in the water maze, motor coordination, or passive avoidance memory...

...Finally, we assessed the effects of androgen replacement with non-aromatizable dihydrotestosterone on spatial working memory following various retention intervals. Dihydrotestosterone recovered spatial memory performance following a 24-h, but not a 1-h retention interval, and had no effect at other retention intervals."


In other words, it's a scientific fact that just BEING A GUY gives you a boost in certain areas. It doesn't mean everything, and that's why we ought to be on our guard against people who would abuse these facts to try to justify harmful, unprofessional conduct. However, it does have an effect, and the point of bringing it up is that...

(deep breath)

...YOU CAN'T EXPLAIN EVERYTHING BASED ON DISCRIMINATION OR CULTURAL INDOCTRINATION. THEY ARE SERIOUS PROBLEMS, BUT THERE ARE LIMITATIONS TO THEIR EXPLANATORY POWER. WHAT PART OF THIS IS HARD FOR PEOPLE TO COMPREHEND?



SanityTheorist
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Feb 2012
Age: 27
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,105
Location: The Akuma Afterglow

02 May 2012, 11:31 am

Men do science and technological matters better, women do artistic and social endeavors better.

The title made me think this would be about cultural prejudices with IQ tests.

In regards to comments below, men are far more likely to be scientists and women artists/stay-at-home mothers, which they should be.


_________________
My music at: http://www.youtube.com/user/SanityTheorist5/videos

Currently working on getting in a studio to record my solo album 40+ tracks written.

Chatroom nicks: MetalFluttershy/MetalTwilight/SanityTheorist