IQ and shit.
category: general [glöplog]
(note to self: do not post on pouet when drunk. the last messages probably don't make sense to any sober people.. summing up the troubles of existence in a few words is probably a futile effort.. fun, though ;))
not that I discouraged anyone to take shortcuts ;) shortcuts that don't offend other "nodes" are quite welcome ;) (read: optimize your f***ing c0d3Z !")
peace, I'm out ;)
not that I discouraged anyone to take shortcuts ;) shortcuts that don't offend other "nodes" are quite welcome ;) (read: optimize your f***ing c0d3Z !")
peace, I'm out ;)
the definition of "comfort" is so different for each others, isn't it ?
or everybody wants the same thing, except women of course.
or everybody wants the same thing, except women of course.
the "definition of comfort" deviates from a baseline of "comfort" determined by the basic human needs (eating, sleeping, reproduction and disposal of other bodily secrets .. yac!)
everybody is looking for the truth, am I right?
(it just so happens that our the criteria governing our decisions differ somewhat).
(it just so happens that our the criteria governing our decisions differ somewhat).
and I guess that is a close relative of the survival instinct. an abstraction in the realm of identity. I'll be quiet now.
(the past messages could be embarassing tomorrow... not everyone will share my "nihilistic" (?) point of view...............)
truth vs justice
who knows the truth and who knows justice ? the great collective people ?
who knows the truth and who knows justice ? the great collective people ?
yep, that's the everlasting, never answered question: where is left and right on any given path through the great set of "nodes" that alienus described in his last posts.....that's what it all boils down to.... what can be considered "left" and what "right" in any given situation with respect to any hidden agenda ("secret goal") that a respective individual has in mind....
..is there a main "trunk" we all "deviate" from ? ... ?
(beer me!)
..is there a main "trunk" we all "deviate" from ? ... ?
(beer me!)
I guess there is a lot you can learn from trees. ;)
yeah man, you should learn lisp !
:) srly, let's grab some bananas and get the f**k outta here :D
:) srly, let's grab some bananas and get the f**k outta here :D
Quote:
No I don't. You can recognise objective reality without making value judgments. Like, I can recognise that there is such a thing as dexterity and that some people seem predisposed towards it, whereas I and some others I know seem to be born clumsy. If it's largely genetic, it might not be FAIR that people are different in this way, but that doesn't make it untrue. Either way, studying and discussing those differences doesn't make anyone a eugenicist.
Ok, maybe I should have said "we", as in "if we begin to believe that intelligence is an absolute". I didn’t mean you personally.
Regardless, people who consider intelligence to be an objective absolute make value calls when they estimate a person's IQ score, otherwise there would be no point in doing so. Low IQ score = bad, high score = good, and to the people undertaking the most research in the area of intelligence (ie: psychologists and eugenicists, aka genetic engineers today), any characteristic they consider bad is a problem which at some point will require a solution.
No, discussing it doesn't make you and I eugenicist, but there are eugenicists out there seriousely discussing this also. Unlike us, they are discussing it with real purpose in mind. To these people, ther is "right" and "wrong" intelligence, btw.
Quote:
Why? How does that follow?
Because the purpose of IQ evaluation is not so that we can passively sit here on Pouet debating its merits. It is designed to answer a question, "how intelligent is this person or group of people?", or more accurately "what type of intelligence do they have?". So once geneticists figure out how to eradicate "bad intelligence", do you honestly think they will not be using IQ scores (or similar) to determine value?
I don’t think they’ll be able to resist, not when I read how "close they are to discovering the gene that causes criminality and obesity" and how wonderful it will be to finally get rid of these "genetic problems". They're already telling us that the plan is to get rid of what they decide are problem characteristics in humanity.
Anyway, I just think variation in thought processes is humanity's greatest survival strength and to even begin evaluating people's intellect in terms of myopic IQ scores is very dangerous. Particularly when we are getting ever closer to being able to alter those genes in line with what our current ignorance and lack of wisdom tells us is "superior".
Alinus' first post describes best why maintaining that variation is so important...he's absolutely right.
i don't know if it was alinus' first post, but the first one after your post which i responded to. :)
ergh, that was pretty obviouse i guess!
Our current wisdom....too true.
Mankind has a big problem for some time now imho.
Its technological progress is much faster than its ethicical development.
And the next step of meassurement is usually judgement.
I do not say stop all those evil tests, stop research on humans. I just say give the results and the way they were achieved deep thoughts before claiming some theories or even asking for consequences.
One more thing. Someone said there are people who belive in science.
But never forget science is made by man. Man has interests and many branches of science are not base on hard facts. Thats an illusion. Much science is theory based and tries to get the right facts to prove it.
Mankind has a big problem for some time now imho.
Its technological progress is much faster than its ethicical development.
And the next step of meassurement is usually judgement.
I do not say stop all those evil tests, stop research on humans. I just say give the results and the way they were achieved deep thoughts before claiming some theories or even asking for consequences.
One more thing. Someone said there are people who belive in science.
But never forget science is made by man. Man has interests and many branches of science are not base on hard facts. Thats an illusion. Much science is theory based and tries to get the right facts to prove it.
Quote:
many branches of science are not base on hard facts.
Utter bullshit, please emigrate to utah.
Calexico: Is what you trying to say:
You smell like one of those religious fanatics who do not share my deep believe in science ?
So now would be the time for me to justify myself etc.
I would rather ask, what you think science is like ??
Science is not only about maths which has a certain amount of hard facts based on its own laws.
Science consists of many branches such as history. Now tell me in history how many "facts" are based upon sources such as bias historians or just fragments of texts ? Add a lot of fantasy and fashion of a time and you got a picture of history.
Well i do not doubt there is also science that provides us with many useful insights resulting in new tools and possibilities.
I am just very careful when it comes to believe everything because of the sentence "scientists found out that..." and sometimes later other find out it was wrong :-)
I guess people should simply do more demos.
You smell like one of those religious fanatics who do not share my deep believe in science ?
So now would be the time for me to justify myself etc.
I would rather ask, what you think science is like ??
Science is not only about maths which has a certain amount of hard facts based on its own laws.
Science consists of many branches such as history. Now tell me in history how many "facts" are based upon sources such as bias historians or just fragments of texts ? Add a lot of fantasy and fashion of a time and you got a picture of history.
Well i do not doubt there is also science that provides us with many useful insights resulting in new tools and possibilities.
I am just very careful when it comes to believe everything because of the sentence "scientists found out that..." and sometimes later other find out it was wrong :-)
I guess people should simply do more demos.
BASS!
Zweckform:
No, but you are mixing up methods (science) with subjects (history).
Religion and science are completely different concepts. Statetements like "...believe in science" show that you are not aware of this. There is no point in having a lengthy, sophistic debate about this in pouet. The zealots on wikipedia have already done a good job:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demarcation_problem
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science
No, but you are mixing up methods (science) with subjects (history).
Religion and science are completely different concepts. Statetements like "...believe in science" show that you are not aware of this. There is no point in having a lengthy, sophistic debate about this in pouet. The zealots on wikipedia have already done a good job:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demarcation_problem
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science
calexico:
i got some nice ones for you, then:
- how about proving oil and coil are fossil? have we really put some leaves and dead animals in the ground and waited for 120 mln years? well, no.
- the whole hiv -> aids discussion. can hiv cause aids at all? and what is aids, anyway? many other "normal" venereal diseases have been rounded up under the common name aids. chemo treatments which were considered too poisonous for treatment of leukaemia were applied to patients without any solid proof of hiv causing anything. even worse, hiv tests were extremely crude and unreliable at that time as well.
- global warming: is it man-made? or not? how the hell can we possibly know with maybe 500 years of history of which probably only the last 100 provide reliable statistics. sure, it's an interesting problem to solve. but no-one in his right mind can claim to have the definitive answer at this point in time. yet, al gore and friends (and enemies) are claiming they know everything.
the mentioned issues concern (unproven) assumptions, lobbying and church-like behaviour. and it's all happening in the scientific world.
the only thing that makes science better than organised religion is self-criticism, which is inherent in the scientific method. we should take care about not losing this due to issues like job security and glory hunting.
zweckform:
history is not science. in german and dutch history is a 'wetenschap' or 'wissenschaft'. but science is what is called 'exacte wetenschappen': biology, physics, chemistry.
back on topic:
personally, i think IQ tests are the dullest thing in existence, and they are indeed made for kids. loads of simple questions. to make it hard you get a lot of them and at high speed. is that relevant to anything except, like adok says, school children? the harder IQ tests are a lot like academic mathematical problems. so, just study math if you want that.
you can believe in science, and you can believe in IQ tests too. it's a shame they indeed, for some part, kill creativity.
the aharonid IQ tests totally rock, though!
i got some nice ones for you, then:
- how about proving oil and coil are fossil? have we really put some leaves and dead animals in the ground and waited for 120 mln years? well, no.
- the whole hiv -> aids discussion. can hiv cause aids at all? and what is aids, anyway? many other "normal" venereal diseases have been rounded up under the common name aids. chemo treatments which were considered too poisonous for treatment of leukaemia were applied to patients without any solid proof of hiv causing anything. even worse, hiv tests were extremely crude and unreliable at that time as well.
- global warming: is it man-made? or not? how the hell can we possibly know with maybe 500 years of history of which probably only the last 100 provide reliable statistics. sure, it's an interesting problem to solve. but no-one in his right mind can claim to have the definitive answer at this point in time. yet, al gore and friends (and enemies) are claiming they know everything.
the mentioned issues concern (unproven) assumptions, lobbying and church-like behaviour. and it's all happening in the scientific world.
the only thing that makes science better than organised religion is self-criticism, which is inherent in the scientific method. we should take care about not losing this due to issues like job security and glory hunting.
zweckform:
history is not science. in german and dutch history is a 'wetenschap' or 'wissenschaft'. but science is what is called 'exacte wetenschappen': biology, physics, chemistry.
back on topic:
personally, i think IQ tests are the dullest thing in existence, and they are indeed made for kids. loads of simple questions. to make it hard you get a lot of them and at high speed. is that relevant to anything except, like adok says, school children? the harder IQ tests are a lot like academic mathematical problems. so, just study math if you want that.
you can believe in science, and you can believe in IQ tests too. it's a shame they indeed, for some part, kill creativity.
the aharonid IQ tests totally rock, though!
pizza
brain pizza?
DUNGEON HORROR!
UNSETTLING PIGEONS!
finally, who needs to prove he's intelligent with a test ? A nut ? For what ?
Quote:
many branches of science are not base on hard facts.
Correct, e.g. math which is based on axioms, aka assumptions.
