/sci/ - Science & Math

It's a cocktail with a principal component being processing speed. This is why reaction time is such statistically linked with intelligence. Dumb jocks is a cope in light of this.

>>10319169
The ability to solve problems?

I bet there are tons of definitions and even more people who disagree with them. The worst are the anti-IQ fags

>hurr durr we can't define intelligence
>hurr durr IQ is pseudoscience

>>10319200
>racist detected

>>10319200
by that definition, wouldn't your IQ increase by doing How To Solve It by Polya?

>>10319200
>t. muh IQ

>>10319205
Maybe?.

That's why the entire field of psychometrics exist. They've done the dirty job for us.

>>10319186
Blacks have an insane reaction time. Especially the athletes. That's why blacks are overrepresented in smash bros. Your theory suggests that they are smart but they're not actually so I don't know.

>>10319213
>IQ is meaningless

stop discussing IQ. I made this thread to discuss what intelligence is.

>>10319217
Slanty Asians do not predominate?

>>10319236
t. darkie

>>10319217
Reaction time is actually quite mutable with very deliberate training. Athletes are going to have better RT. The predictive power with regards to IQ most likely vanishes when RT is deliberately trained.

Choice RT can still suffer with low intelligence, but depending on the sport and the nature of your role in it, what for most forces choice reaction times becomes so habituated as to be a question of simple reaction time.

Of course, if the sport involves blows to the head, and then doesn't allow about 3-6 months recovery, RT has been shown to suffer, in a limited number of studies anyway.

>>10319169
Because processing speed only matters slightly, what's more important is novelty of application.
That's what brings innovations.

>>10319200
>hurr durr
reddit awaits you

>>10319169
I think Intelligence is the abstraction of thought process towards thinking Abstractly, Computationally, Logically, Creatively, Analytically and probably a few more i cant think of at the moment. The gauge for your brains processing is speed, strength, stamina, coordination, patience and some other shit but you get my point. Like Fitness for physically there is fitness mentally.

So here are some examples.

Einstein (atleast from what i know of) wasn't a computerhead but he had the stamina, strength and patience

von Neumann (from what i've heard) was a computerhead thus he had the Speed, stamina, strength

Perelman has high measures of Strength, Stamina, Patience etc.

Now the gauges can measure the Types of thinking giving us a rough idea of what kind of intelligence the person has pertaining to the attributes and measures.

I hope this makes sense fug im tired i havent slept in 25 hours but i wanted to say this to get ppls opinion. I'll probably be called a brainlet but whatever were all a cess pool of brainlets compared to the guys in the history books.

>>10319605
Reolying to my own post here is a better example

Lets look at the Computation/Calculation attribute

von Neumann Computation is fast

Einsteins Compuation is not fast maybe but accurate? So accuracy could be a gauge?

Perelmans Computation has stamina and patience but maybe not as fast as neumann

Like i'm not saying they aren't fast or they don't have stamina it's just that they measure differently maybe compared to one another?

>>10319169
>Geniuses rarely do calculations at the speed of light.
Yes, they often do. They are a culmination of processing speed, input/output clarity and memory space.

>>10319169
Intelligence is knowing when it is a bad idea to make threads like this one, and unfortunately on that front you have failed.

Tentatively, (seems like using the word means you’re a crying clown now and no he does not receive the brunt of any collision) intelligence is the obfuscation of all former intelligence... and now without using the word in the definition again the seemingly apparent state of ones intelligence is the state of the decay rate that with opulence meaning the use of words one can clarify that there are certain kinds of declarations that to state a word means to utter it.

Cluttered as that is intelligence for proper and property in idiomatic sequences. They establish and do not portray. Nature is a clamor and we are clarity in disguise ... pants.

>>10319905
One comma and it's after the first word. Your wordspaghetti is hard to swallow buddy.

>>10319169
Pattern recognition. For instance, Newton recognizing the patterns in nature and formulating calculus to describe them was an act of immense genius.

Intelligence is being able to step back from a situation and look at the bigger picture.
-or-
Don't get caught up in your own shit, and just pay real attention to what's going on.

It's more than processing speed. A calculator program can add numbers together millions of times per second, but it can't speak English or do scientific research - there are AI programs that can do those things, but none that can do both. There's a component of intelligence that you're missing, which is the ability to abstract - to have an understanding of the world and its systems. The difference between a traditional computer program and a human is the power to encounter very different problems and solve them in very different ways. A human doesn't have the brute force of a computer, but is able to solve various problems with amazing efficiency.
If you define intelligence as processing speed, you come up with the strange result of computers being more intelligent than humans, which is currently untrue. Can you imagine talking to a computer and having a real conversation? Those online chatbots are impressive until you realise that you're not actually having a conversation, and that you're basically receiving nonsense answers within a pointless Q&A. Imagine a computer that gave you opinions and defended them. A computer that talked about its own creation and purpose. It could describe its model of the world and its internal workings. It could understand your ideas and your character. As incredible as that sounds, it's what humans have been doing for a very long time.

>>10319932
that's just detachment

1/2

Intelligence has various definitions and there is no consensus among the researchers about which one is right.

Howard Gardner proposed his theory of multiple intelligences in 1980's and it is largely supported by other people than psychologists and intelligence researchers. The theory suggests that there are many different intelligences such as interpersonal (ie. social), bodily-kinesthetic and musical intelligences. Gardner suggests that there are in total nine kind of intelligences and that each type of intelligence is independent of other intelligence "modality". Therefore, one could possess great mathematical talent and could still be very poor at visual-spatial tasks. Many people (especially teachers) like this theory because it implies that everyone can be intelligent in his/her own way. However, the scientific evidence is lacking and there is very little empirical proof to this theory. Almost all credible intelligence researchers dismiss this theory altogether.

The g-hypothesis (or the theory of general intelligence) has by far the largest empirical support. According to this theory, there are no different kind of intelligences and is in a way the opposite of Gardner's theory. The theory of general intelligence proposes that the different intelligence types of Gardner actually correlate strongly with each other, and that that there is a single intelligence factor (general intelligence ie. g) that predicts people's performance across situations. There is a strong psychometric evidence of g, and it is by far the most important predictor of life success and job performance. The arguments against the theory of general intelligence are usually not based on scientific support but rather on appeal to emotion - because g makes intelligence easily measurable, it makes it painfully clear that some people are much smarter than some people.

>>10319980

2/2

This idea is at war with our egalitarian society which supports the belief that everyone can become everything if they just want. In fact, many people are born at the bottom of the distribution and there is absolutely no way to raise your intelligence. Intelligence has a very large genetic component, with some studies suggesting almost 80% of intelligence being explained by genetic factors.

However, as I previously mentioned, there is no unanimity on the definition of intelligence. Some of the most popular definitions are: "intelligence involves the ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend complex ideas, learn quickly and learn from experience", "the ability to efficiently adapt to one's surroundings" and "ability to process and manipulate abstractions".

Unlike many people in the thread have suggested, the main component of intelligence is not processing speed. Processing speed is connected to intelligence and a part of it, but tasks that measure processing speed are among the weakest predictors of general intelligence among different intelligence tests. The best predictors of general intelligence is actually non-verbal abstract reasoning tests (pic related).

there is raw processing power and then there is the elegance of the programs on your computer and how good they are at turning real world data into commutable logical arguments and getting good outputs from your logic circuits. its taking information about the status quo and synthesizing good predictions about the future that are actionable and useful. thats wisdom.

>>10319169
The gradient ability to see metanarratives/connections.

its questioning your environment and making predetermined decisions, simple.

>>10319991
>making predetermined decisions
What does that even mean?

>>10319999

>>10319999
>>10319999
/thread

>>10319999
checked

>>10319999

>>10319169
>what is intelligence?
working memory.

>>10319983
Answer is 2. I took 20 seconds. Am I retarted?

>>10319999
Nice get machine (very easy to game on slow boards).

>>10320058
>get machine
I'm not that much of sad cunt.

>>10320031
sub-human answer

it's making (valid) connection among different things.
Sometimes is called creativity, sometimes genius.
But normie call it always retard.

the ability to understand and make predictions about the world around you.

>>10319983
>The best predictors of general intelligence is actually non-verbal abstract reasoning tests (pic related).
These tests only predict the degree to which a person or machine has been trained in pattern recognition.
Success on these tests is correlated with academic success only because both are correlated with upbringing (i.e., the amount of training data to which the tester was exposed).
The fact is that pattern matrices can't even distinguish man from machine reliably. Also, the score can be manipulated purely by altering the amount and quality of training data. But that should be impossible since the test quantifies intelligence, and intelligence can't be improved (according to you).
For all these reasons it's clear pattern recognition ability can be only a small part of intelligence.

>>10319983
>he best predictors of general intelligence is actually non-verbal abstract reasoning tests
That's wrong, the strongest correlate of general intelligence is verbal intelligence.

compression rate*memory

>>10320627
Black and other underperforming backgrounds do better on verbal though, its easily the most cultural laden, so how does that also be true?

>>10320672
Look at the picture. The sources can be found in the wikpedia article on general intelligence. Verbal subtests on the WAIS correlate more highly with general intelligence than performance subtests and other "culture netural" subtests.

>>10320672
>how can the least racially biased test be the right one
hmm, I really can't figure it out.

>>10320702
It may resemble the g best, however the balance of sub tests are for skill more necessary for STEM.

>>10320702
Its the most biased in favor of all test takers, it correlates more and returns an over estimate.

>>10319169
L2 cache size

>>10320710
ok so g factor is wrong, got it.

>>10320735
this point is literal nonsense

>>10320780
g isn't a meme it does not offer context into the specific test of smarts and its applications. Source spearman

How does more culture loading mean less cultural bias?

>>10320786
cuz niggas only do it for tha culture

>>10320786
>>10320789
but seriously, if dwight was training math while tyrone was freestyling, obviously dwight will do better on the pattern recognition type tests. However, freestyling is just as difficult and useful a task in terms of training your brain as doing math problems, even though it's in a different area. I thought that was the whole point of g-factor?

>>10319169
A composite of logic and processing speed. More logic circuitry = complex questions faster. (Computer architecture definition of the word logic)

IN MY OPINION time to solve problems scales exponentially with their difficulty, but at a slower rate the more intelligent you are.

The most g loaded test is the best one you morons. If blacks do bad on a test, that doesn’t mean that it is bad, and if a test is culturally loaded, that also doesn’t mean it is bad.

>>10320950
Computers are not intelligent

>>10320967
Does this mean blacks have a theoretical (verbal) approach to civilization and whites have an applied(practical) approach?
Literally the difference between physics majors and engineers?

>>10319169
>What is intelligence?
One thing would be the ability to learn.
I read that among war veterans who had brain injuries, the ones who were most able to recover were also the ones who had high IQs. Recovery was defined as regaining lost functions, due to the trauma. That means they had to re-learn motor skills, language skills, etc, depending on the injury. This has to do with neuroplasticity and how easy your brain can form conections and pathways to process certain stimulus and perform certain functions, or in this case re-route itself to have other areas resposible for the functions of the injured area.
The correlation between the ability to recover and the IQ of the individuals suggest that people with high IQ has an easier time with neuroplasticity and therefore learning new things is easier for them.

>>10320995
This doesn't take into account theoretical IQ. What if you're high IQ and you realized the world was shit so you didn't want to recover while the dumb ones decided to push through and recover?

>>10321000
But that quite the opposite of what the results showed.
The ones with the highest IQ scores were the ones with the most successful recoveries.

>>10319623
I mean Von Neumann could think faster, but Einstein could reach higher levels of abstraction. That's it.

>>10321031
von neumann has got to be the best example of a mathematics savant that was a brainlet in other areas

someone show verbal IQ by race

>>10321031
con neumann had rhetoric that placed his answers in like a logistics of logic. constantly trying for a reality of basis is like trying calculate that you can manipulate. a boolean is outsourced and being is only a switch from making you the smartest person in the world. abstraction isn’t a simple concept so it can’t be that easy to negate that there isn’t intelligence being but it is easy to say that people can learn from it so a situation where intelligence is key may offer a solution to people with no measure of their own and create a possible scenario for them, out of faculty, that they could use to negate their own intelligence as it may omit that they have reached a depth or platitude for that intelligence. it’s negligible when you think it’s suitable to prepare intelligent conversation for a norm, like a lecture on a discrete function or set of variables, but confronting that fact with statistics as invalidating other approaches is like the symbol for david being made for use to anything but war. david was a warlord. so were many other semitic and von meumannesque satires but there aren’t enough proofs in the world to negate that intelligence played a key role in einstein becoming a prolific writer as well as satirist. jesus also didn’t cut his hair so maybe he smiled weed and was hippie, did you think about that...? NO

>>10320627
Surprise surprise, blacks score high in the highest predictor of intelligence and yet they design IQ tests to reduce the weight of vocabulary and increase the weight of maths so whites score higher

>>10320672
most nogs are essentially ESL, confounding the test results

>>10319169
maybe it's the ability to survive. it's not primarily about recreation but about the survival of ideas: immortality of the subjective mind.