/sci/ - Science & Math

>think of IQs as legit

Ohohoho
ohoho
no, no.

Ironically those posters who say IQ is bullshit are the same who frequently use accusations of low IQ as an insult.

only someone really stupid would think that IQ has any real meaning.

>America is the only country actually believing in IQ
>Americans are well known for their stupidity

What conclusions can we draw from these facts?

>>4722653
No, nobody here seriously believes in IQ. Maybe some American.

>>4722687
So you are saying that someone with an IQ of 60 can do advanced mathematics?

The only people who constantly discredit IQ are edgy amerifat teenagers who want to believe in themselves being intelligent despite having scored low.

Hey Op. How did I do?

my IQ is 897206890 but IQ is stupid and doesn't matter even though mine is higher than yours xDD

>>4722691
I am not amerifat and I do seriously believe in IQ. Actually it's not a matter of belief, but of accepting scientific facts.

IQ is a viable form of checking whether or not someone is dumb, since that's what it was made for.

Psych student here.

Even i know IQ is bullshit.

All it's good for is screening for mental disability.

>>4722684
LOL.
I do that.
Mostly in the racist threads. Mock the retarded racists for their low IQ. Explain how their races higher IQ is bullshit and does not mean a superior race.

>>4722702
But that's wrong. Someone who scores 150 is definitely more intelligent than someone scoring 130. Why do you faggots keep confusing intelligence with success or maturity?

>>4722710
>replying to racism threads

Can you please leave, cancer?

>>4722702
A little more than that, it give a rough idea of who is "normal" and who is talented.
There should be like five scores:
very low, low, average, high, very high.
that is about as useful as the test really is.

>>4722702
Your post accurately represents the average dullness of psych students that lead many of us into believing psychology was a pseudoscience.

>>4722711
That's true, but IQ testing can't define intelligence in all its forms, only some parts of it (like numerical reasoning and shit).

And intelligence, the higher level it gets the less "testable" it gets qualitatively. You can only talk about it in higher speed of processing but that doesn't say much about the content it creates.

>>4722719
> But that's wrong. Someone who scores 150 is definitely more intelligent than someone scoring 130. Why do you faggots keep confusing intelligence with success or maturity?

An IQ score means practically nothing. It's a good predictor of Academic success (R ~ .80 if i remember correctly), but it's used to scan for those who might need special help in education or - indeed, those who are particularly good. It is a BAD measure of intelligence.

The Average IQ Score increases at a rate of 1 point every 3 years, with no apparent increase in actual intelligence. By our standards, the highest scorers on IQ 100 years ago would be clinically retarded, yet clearly they were not.

IQ is a useless measure of intelligence outside screening for special needs.

>>4722716
A little more than that, it give a rough idea of who is "normal" and who is talented.
There should be like five scores:
very low, low, average, high, very high.
that is about as useful as the test really is.

Yes, I will grant you that. IQ tests do have similar scores to that (i mean, points are grouped into categories like that). If you are interested, I can take out my Notes/ lecture slides and upload them.

It is important to remember that IQ tests, the number you get, has an SD of about 5-6 points

Danm, i got the quotes mixed up a little.


>>4722711
>>Your post accurately represents the average dullness of psych students that lead many of us into believing psychology was a pseudoscience.

I'm sorry if i appear 'dull' to you, but i am rather annoyed at fact people bitch about psychology with little understanding as to what they are talking about.

As for the conclusion psychology is a Psudoscience? It's mostly bullshit. Mostly. There are parts that fucking retarded and hate with a passion (personality theory) But there are parts that are truly empirically valid and, whats more, useful. ( Neuropsychology, Mental illness)

Unfortunately, because Psychology is a relatively new field and people still lump it with frued there is a lot of bullshit. I had one person in a lecture ask when were were going to learn about mind control and parapsychology.

>>4722723
>> intelligence in all its forms

Intelligence is defined as the ability to apply cognitive skills

'forms' like emotional intelligence, musical intelligence, sporting intelligence

are just buzzwords to make people feel better

>>4722723
What are you fucking arguing?

Because pro-IQers are not arguing that IQ tests are the ultimate means for measuring every detail of a person's intelligence.

All we are arguing is that they aren't complete bullshit.

>>4722687
>only someone really stupid would think that IQ has any real meaning.

No, generally only dumb people think IQ is not legit. Barely any fysicist i know denies that IQ tests measure intelligence rather well.

>>4722688
This is not true either.

>>4722691
Also wrong. I'm not american.

>>4722700
>IQ is a viable form of checking whether or not someone is dumb, since that's what it was made for.

Among other things.

>>4722702
U shud know better. Maybe stop reading only politically correct textbooks and read some actual data. The data are very clear. IQ testing has been around for 100 years.

>>4722723
This person does not know anything about IQ testing.

>>4722745
>An IQ score means practically nothing. It's a good predictor of Academic success (R ~ .80 if i remember correctly), but it's used to scan for those who might need special help in education or - indeed, those who are particularly good. It is a BAD measure of intelligence.

Nonsense. IQ tests are a pretty good measure of intelligence. They are used for many things. The college tests are basically IQ tests in disguise. This is becus the thing that IQ tests measure well, intelligence, is the thing that is the most useful for predicting things.

>>4722745
>The Average IQ Score increases at a rate of 1 point every 3 years, with no apparent increase in actual intelligence. By our standards, the highest scorers on IQ 100 years ago would be clinically retarded, yet clearly they were not.

Flynn gains in IQ scores do not load on the g-factor, and hence are not gains in intelligence. They have also stopped. They do not gain anymore.

>It is important to remember that IQ tests, the number you get, has an SD of about 5-6 points

Wth. No they don't. Most IQ tests have SD=15.

>>4722748
>I'm sorry if i appear 'dull' to you, but i am rather annoyed at fact people bitch about psychology with little understanding as to what they are talking about.

So, why are u talking psychology (psychometrics) and don't know what u are talking about? I'm not a psychologist nor a formal student of it, but i know more about IQ testing than any psychology student i have ever spoken to.

I have even been accused of lying about not being a psych student by a psych student who cudn't believe that i knew so much about psychometrics and he so little. Apparently, all he knew was what he learned in some one class. I mean, bitch please.

>>4722745
>An IQ score means practically nothing.
>It's a good predictor of ...
That's totally not a contradiction. /irony

>IQ is a useless measure of intelligence outside screening for special needs.
Special needs like for example comparing intelligence.

>>4722776
fuck off IQ fundie

>>4722776
>> U shud know better. Maybe stop reading only politically correct textbooks and read some actual data. The data are very clear. IQ testing has been around for 100 years.

And IQ testing has been inaccurate for 100 years. I'm open to reading anything on the subject you care to reccomend, however.


>> IQ tests are a pretty good measure of intelligence. They are used for many things. The college tests are basically IQ tests in disguise. This is becus the thing that IQ tests measure well, intelligence, is the thing that is the most useful for predicting things.

what IQ tests measure well is Academic achievement. It does this very well, there is no doubt - that's why they are used for uni entry. However, Can Academic achievement be shown to = intelligence? less so.

IQ tests are a very useful thing - anyone who throws them off completely is ignorant as they can be very helpful. However, They are not a good measure of intelligence (just the best we actually have)

>>4722748
You showed your ignorance about psychology by making an idiotic statement about IQ tests. In addition you failed to understand the post you were quoting. I was saying that psychology is a legitimate and interesting field of research, but sadly it gets polluted by immature and cognitively deficient individuals like you.

>>4722748
>As for the conclusion psychology is a Psudoscience? It's mostly bullshit. Mostly. There are parts that fucking retarded and hate with a passion (personality theory) But there are parts that are truly empirically valid and, whats more, useful. ( Neuropsychology, Mental illness)

It is funny that u mention it like this. Psychometrics is the best thing to ever come out of psychology. The dealings with mental illnesses is a huge mess, and in a very bad shape (along with psychiatry).

Psychometrics is very useful in practice. There is a reason we test people for admission to stuff. It is generally becus testing works. There is a good reason why it is illegal to hire someone into the army with IQ<80. It's becus such people are too dull to train up in a cost-effective manner.

Obviously, psychoanalytic tradition is crap, and anyone who respects that instantly losses any respect from me (if they had any to begin with).

Another crappy areas of psych are social psychology, which is often borderline sociology. Another field with much dubious content altho not necessarily pseudoscientific as a field. It's just that it is full of ideological morons who know nothing about science. (Blank slate people.)

>>4722792
>You showed your ignorance about psychology by making an idiotic statement about IQ tests. In addition you failed to understand the post you were quoting. I was saying that psychology is a legitimate and interesting field of research, but sadly it gets polluted by immature and cognitively deficient individuals like you.

I agree with this, except for the ad hominem. I'd like to withhold belief on that part for now. His future posting ITT may change my opinion.

Some fields are in a worse shape than others, without any of them being pseudoscientific as a field. I recently saw some interesting data about this.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2012/05/bias-in-psychology/

Too bad the data does not include sociology, as i'm certain that field is also in a very bad shape.

>>4722791
How about you give us a better definition of intelligence and a method of measuring and comparing it? Otherwise I'd prefer to stay with the formally coherent and well researched notion of IQ.

>>4722794
You are a fucking moron. Psychometrics is a big field of bullshit. It's not even "science".

>>4722778
>> hey have also stopped. They do not gain anymore.

Sources, please?

>> Most IQ tests have SD=15.
Not what it says in my textbook. Again, the textbook could be wrong, but i'd ask for a source.

>> So, why are u talking psychology (psychometrics) and don't know what u are talking about?

I'll admit, I am but a lowly first year. I Could be, can be, and will be wrong - But i'm going off the textbook and research that i have done. If you know better, then please feel free to educate me and provide sources so that i may learn.

I don't really care what credentials you have, i am willing to consider your points either way.

>> That's totally not a contradiction. /irony
That's right, it isn't. In our Day to day lives IQ tests have no significance, and are only useful specialized situations.

>> Special needs like for example comparing intelligence.
Once again, academic achievements does not equate to intelligence. While it is True IQ tests are generally very good at separating out the full retards/gifted from 'normal' It is very bad at single case comparison.

>>4722787
I have already told u once that i'm not him. If i was, i wud be talking about hurr durr qualia now.

Also IQ fundie does not use reformed spellings.

>>4722791
>And IQ testing has been inaccurate for 100 years. I'm open to reading anything on the subject you care to reccomend, however.

Nonsense. Modern IQ tests are good measures of g. Raven's tests IQ correlate with g >0.9.

>what IQ tests measure well is Academic achievement. It does this very well, there is no doubt - that's why they are used for uni entry. However, Can Academic achievement be shown to = intelligence? less so.

Never use equal signs like that again. Use them only to mean that two things are identical. What matters is correlation. No, intelligence does not correlate perfectly with academic achievement, but they correlate very well. Intelligence is relevant for pretty much everything in life. See e.g.

Gottfredson, L. S. (2002). Where and why g matters: Not a mystery. Human Performance, 15(1/2), 25-46.
http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/reprints/2002notamystery.pdf

Gottfredson, L. S. (1997). Why g matters: The complexity of everyday life. Intelligence, 24(1), 79-132.
http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/reprints/1997whygmatters.pdf

>IQ tests are a very useful thing - anyone who throws them off completely is ignorant as they can be very helpful. However, They are not a good measure of intelligence (just the best we actually have)

This is still wrong. U also fail to note that different IQ tests are not equally good at measuring intelligence (not equally g-loaded). I don't want u to backtrack later and focus on some shit internet test, and then claim that IQ testing is 'inaccurate'. Focus on proper tests. If u want, we can talk exclusively about Raven's tests.

The problem with IQ is that you not only have to define intelligence, but also define the quotient. Then you have to test based on your arbitrary definitions and set parameters for the score.

It's not that great, no matter how useful it may be.

>>4722792
>> Ad homs

Cool.

I understood your post, i was expanding on why Psych has a bad rep.

But psychology is bullshit. For example, check out this article from 2011 on precognition.

http://psycnet.apa.org/?&fa=main.doiLanding&doi=10.1037/a0021524

Of course, it could not be replicated because events in the future cannot influence things in the past.

>>4722801
>dat butthurt

Geuss what: Science doesn't give a fuck about whether you in your childish emotional subjectivity like it or not.

>>4722751
For example, a painter who creates a work of art may work slowly to get to the form he wants to achieve, so in this case this sort of intelligence is surely not defined by what IQ tests are measuring.

Also, at some point intelligence is not a question of speed of processing, since the depth of someone's pattern recognition has little to do with speed of processing, but with other variables. IQ testing is done under time constraint, deep thinking and insight are not a product of time-contrained performance.

This focus on qualitative measuring of "intelligence" comes from the Ameritard conception of mental abilities. They took Binet's test made to separate children with some form of mental retardation or developmental disability from "normal" ones and made an altar to it, because of the business model of Ameritard system of education (based on funding and measurable "performance").

>>4722802
>Sources, please? [about Flynn effect]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect#Possible_end_of_progression
Use Wiki's sources if u don't trust Wiki.

>Not what it says in my textbook. Again, the textbook could be wrong, but i'd ask for a source.

Ur textbook says that IQ tests normally use SD 5-6? Wtf. IQ tests almost always use 15. Sometimes they use 16, and sometimes 24.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_test
"An intelligence quotient, or IQ, is a score derived from one of several standardized tests designed to assess intelligence. The abbreviation "IQ" comes from the German term Intelligenz-Quotient, originally coined by psychologist William Stern. When modern IQ tests are constructed, the mean (average) score within an age group is set to 100 and the standard deviation (SD) almost always to 15, although this was not always so historically.[1] Thus, by construction, approximately 95% of the population scores within two SDs of the mean, i.e., has an IQ between 70 and 130."

>That's right, it isn't. In our Day to day lives IQ tests have no significance, and are only useful specialized situations.

IQ tests may not matter in most everyday life situations. From this it does NOT follow that intelligence does not matter. Intelligence matters for almost anything in life. The most important exception i can think of is happiness, which has been shown in a scottish cohort to not correlate with intelligence at all. Very strange. It may have some other relationship besides a linear one tho.

>>4722808
You were posting uneducated opinions and by doing so you once again showed that it's people like you who are the reason why psychology has a bad reputation, people who conflate and confuse emotional opionons with science.

>>4722803
>> Nonsense. Modern IQ tests are good measures of g. Raven's tests IQ correlate with g >0.9.

I'm going to be honest and say we have get to cover the g factor, so i can't comment on it.

>> Never use equal signs like that again. Use them only to mean that two things are identical.

That's what i was saying - Academic achievement is not identical to intelligence. I do, however, accept your point about correlation mattering. I'll begin reading your links after i post.

>>U also fail to note that different IQ tests are not equally good at measuring intelligence (not equally g-loaded). I don't want u to backtrack later and focus on some shit internet test, and then claim that IQ testing is 'inaccurate'.

Internet tests never really count for anything - do a quick google search for an 'IQ test' and what you get is laughable.

For the record, the test i am most familiar with is the wechsler set.

>Once again, academic achievements does not equate to intelligence. While it is True IQ tests are generally very good at separating out the full retards/gifted from 'normal' It is very bad at single case comparison.

There's that word again "equate". Please stop using it for purposes other than identity. People who use it, generally don't understand correlation between 0 and 1. The same morons say things like "smoking does equate to cancer.". No one thinks that smoking and (lung) cancer correlate at 1. But no one except a moron thinks that they correlate at 0.

>>4722811
>psychometrics measure numerically unmeasurable traits
>"science"
>not subjective

yqw you weren't smart enough to study actual science

>>4722802
>In our Day to day lives IQ tests have no significance,
So you actually believe that someone with an IQ of 60 should be allowed to occupy a higher position of control and should be given responsibility over other people's lives?

>academic achievements does not equate to intelligence
That's what I told you. IQ measures intelligence and not academic achievement. Academic achievement requires more than just intelligence, for example motivation and the so called "hard work".

>>4722817
>> When modern IQ tests are constructed, the mean (average) score within an age group is set to 100 and the standard deviation (SD) almost always to 15,

Ah, okay, i see.

I'm talking about a specific test - So, If i take an IQ test and get 100 - my 'true' IQ is somewhere between 95 and 195, and if i take the test multiple times i will consistently score around there. Basically, Retest Sd.

Sorry for the confusion.

>>4722819
>> emotional opinions

what?

>>4722803
>No, intelligence does not correlate perfectly with academic achievement, but they correlate very well.

That's because all the instutions are structured in such a way to reflect how cognitive abilities are trained from school to work of place. That's why "IQ test predict" achievement, because those achievements are self-referential to the same system of cognitive training. Ie, you learn in school to structure your thinking along measurable tasks, like numerical reasoning, and you will use similar cognitive tasks at your workplace or in the rest of the environment. So, in this sense, "IQ score (retro)predicts" what the system creates and measures afterwards.

But IQ tests can't predict who will be more likely to create the next groundbreaking theory in a field of research. Because that type of intelligence is not, well..., measurable.

>>4722820
>I'm going to be honest and say we have get to cover the g factor, so i can't comment on it.

Perhaps u shudn't be making claims about IQ testing then? Hell, u don't know to understand how factor analysis works to understand what the g-factor is. Even reading Wikipedia will be sufficient for most purposes. I've read pretty much every single Wiki article relating to intelligence research. Then i started reading academical papers and books.

>Internet tests never really count for anything - do a quick google search for an 'IQ test' and what you get is laughable.

Not true again. Raven's tests have been made in flash, and they are good. Same test was used for Mensa for many years, and still is used in some localities (Singapore, at least).

Altho there are lots of bogus tests online, there are also legitimate tests. U just have to know what u're looking for.

www.iqtest.dk <-- Advanced Raven's Progressive Matrices (ARPM).

>>4722823
Thanks for the immature and utterly idiotic response. Can you please be a waste of life somewhere else?

>>4722828
>I'm talking about a specific test - So, If i take an IQ test and get 100 - my 'true' IQ is somewhere between 95 and 195, and if i take the test multiple times i will consistently score around there. Basically, Retest Sd.

Eh. There is no such thing as a true IQ score. IQ scores are test-relative. It makes more sense (but not entirely) to talk about a true g-score. g is a much better measure of intelligence, but not quite. But so close that differences are trivial. If one takes a large battery of tests, and extracts a g-score from that, then that's almost perfectly correlated with a person's intelligence.

For laziness, it is better to just make tests that are good measures of g, i.e. are highly g-loaded. As it so happens, this is precisely what psychologists have been doing. Additionally, if one avoids language elements, then the tests will be culture-fair, and so can be used in countries with another native language. This is why testing now a days usually use non-verbal tests. Often RPM tests.

>>4722693
I forgot what mathematician had an IQ of 80 or something.

>>4722829
>But IQ tests can't predict who will be more likely to create the next groundbreaking theory in a field of research. Because that type of intelligence is not, well..., measurable.

What you are talking about is not "intelligence". Creating a groundbreaking theory requires a lot of other skills like creativity, motivation, patience, perseverance etc.

>>4722827
>So you actually believe that someone with an IQ of 60 should be allowed to occupy a higher position of control and should be given responsibility over other people's lives?

Pic.

> hat's what I told you. IQ measures intelligence and not academic achievement. Academic achievement requires more than just intelligence, for example motivation and the so called "hard work".

IQ is a good predictor of academic achievement.

I am not convinced IQ is a good predictor of intelligence.


A question: what do you define intelligence as?

My textbook gives "the application of cognitive skills and knowledge to learn and solve problems"

My dictionary of psychology gives a more elaborate and reasoned definition that is a few paragraphs, but can basically be summed up as 'ability to apply logical and abstract thinking to a real world problem'

Thoughts on these?

PLEASE WE DON'T NEED ANOTHER IQ THREAD
PLEASE

LOL I JUST LITERALLY


PEED

MY

PANTS


JUST A LITTE THOUGH

I MEAN ITS A LITTLE SPOT NOT LIKE IT RUINED MY CHAIR R NYTHING LOL BUT FOR REAL EPIC LULZ *HIGH FIVES* XDDDDDDDDDDDDDD


U FRUSTRATED U FRUSTRATED BRO U SO MAD WHY ARE YOU SO MAAAAD I CAN POST ANYTHING I WANT THAT IS HOW IT SAYS IN THE RULES I DONT CARE ABOUT YOUR FAGGOTRY RULES Y SO MAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD


WHATA FUCK MAN xD i just fall of my chair kuz i couldnt and i CANT stop laugh xDXDXDXDXDDDDDDDDDDDDXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD OMGOSH DDDDDXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD DDDDDD LOOOOOOOOOLLLLL THIS IS A SHIT XDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDXDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD A BIG ONE XDDDDDDDD A GRAT ONE XXXXXXDDDD CONGRATS MAN XD
U FRUSTRATED U FRUSTRATED BRO U SO MAD WHY ARE YOU SO MAAAAD I CAN POST ANYTHING I WANT THAT IS HOW IT SAYS IN THE RULES I DONT CARE ABOUT YOUR FAGGOTRY RULES Y SO MAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD

WHATA FUCK MAN xD i just fall of my chair kuz i couldnt and i CANT stop laugh xDXDXDXDXDDDDDDDDDDDDXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD OMGOSH DDDDDXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD DDDDDD LOOOOOOOOOLLLLL THIS IS A SHIT hgXDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDXDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD A BIG ONE XDDDDDDDD A GRAT ONE XXXXXXDDDD CONGRATS MAN XD

WHATA FUCK MAN xD i just fall of my chair kuz i couldnt and i CANT stop laugh

xDXDXDXDXDDDDDDDDDDDDXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD OMGOSH


HOOOOOOOOLLLLLLYYYYY SHIT

whatr the HELL

WHATA FUCK MAN xD

i just fall of my chair kuz i couldnt and i CANT stop laugh

xDXDXDXDXDDDDDDDDDDDDXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD

OMGOSH

DDDDDXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD DDDDDD LOOOOOOOOOLLLLL

THIS IS A SHIT

XDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDXDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD

A BIG ONE

XDDDDDDDD

A GRAT ONE

XXXXXXDDDD

>>4722830
Please never link to iqtest.dk again. That test is a prime example of an inaccurate IQ test having only 30 non-randomized questions and covering only raven's matrices.

>>4722829
*place of work/workplace

>>4722838
>I forgot what mathematician had an IQ of 80 or something.

There is never a source on those claims. Such claims are almost always spurious and made up to try to discredit IQ research. Like the Richard Feynman IQ score of 125. Almost certainly spurious/made up.

http://infoproc.blogspot.com/2012/05/jensen-on-g-and-genius.html

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/finding-the-next-einstein/201112/polymath-physicist-richard-feyn
mans-low-iq-and-finding-another

There is one exception tho. If one measures a mathematician at very old age, and does not correct for age, then becus the brain deteriorates with age, he may have a somewhat lower IQ than usually thought. I read somewhere a long time ago that IQ at age 80 is about 2sd lower than at age 25. On average.

>>4722845
You are wrong.

You need insight, not just work. You will never gain insight into a difficult problem only by pushing yourself to work harder, but if you have insight and motivation, indeed, you can get to a new perspective of understanding things which is not predictable by the current understanding of intelligence.

Not sure I made myself understood.

>>4722850
>Please never link to iqtest.dk again. That test is a prime example of an inaccurate IQ test having only 30 non-randomized questions and covering only raven's matrices.

U don't know what u are talking about. It uses the ARPM test, which is highly valid and very reliable.

It's flawed because it only judges a small set of skills.
It isn't because it does what it's supposed to.

A mathmatician doesn't necessarily make a good salesman and a great artist doesn't make a good quantum physicist. And then again, try telling a savant human calculator he's a genius while he can only solve problems instead of coming up with new novel ones.

>>4722845
>What you are talking about is not "intelligence". Creating a groundbreaking theory requires a lot of other skills like creativity, motivation, patience, perseverance etc.

Right about this. This confusion always happens. Genius requires something more than raw mental power. Otherwise people like these wud be great geniuses.

http://www.esquire.com/features/smartest-man-1199

They are clearly not.

Not a lot of research has been done on geniuses mental abilities, except for some raw intelligence scores. More research is necessary.

>> Perhaps u shudn't be making claims about IQ testing then?

My claim is essentially 'I am not convinced IQ tests are a good predictor of intelligence.'

You have given me quite a bit to read on, and for that i thank you. It may or may not convince me otherwise.

>> Raven's tests have been made in flash, and they are good.

But it is still a properly drawn out test, designed and tested by Psychologists, and not a silly quizz made in 10 minutes on quizzmonkey or whatever?

The latter is what i was referring to, i failed to make myself clear. Sorry.

>>4722842
>Pic.
Are you really that dense to call a logical consequence of your reasoning a "straw man"?

>IQ is a good predictor of academic achievement.
>I am not convinced IQ is a good predictor of intelligence.
Repetition is not an argument. I explained why it's exactly the other way round. You can repeat your wrong beliefs again, they won't become less wrong.

>My textbook gives "the application of cognitive skills and knowledge to learn and solve problems"
>My dictionary of psychology gives a more elaborate and reasoned definition that is a few paragraphs, but can basically be summed up as 'ability to apply logical and abstract thinking to a real world problem'
In order to apply cognitive skills, you first must to have them. That's what an IQ test measures.

>>4722836
Slightly butthurt, aren't we?

>>4722856
30 questions is not enough.

>>4722855
>"You are wrong"
>rest of the post is full of agreement with my statement

Are you dumb?

>>4722842
>I am not convinced IQ is a good predictor of intelligence.

This does not even make sense. There is no single, absolute thing called IQ. IQ scores are always, always, always test relative. If one used a shitty test, and got a super high score, this does not mean that one is very clever.

As it is, many IQ tests are good measures of intelligence. Not perfect, but very good.

>My dictionary of psychology gives a more elaborate and reasoned definition that is a few paragraphs, but can basically be summed up as 'ability to apply logical and abstract thinking to a real world problem'

>Thoughts on these?

Intelligence is a vague concept. Any good definition of that will be vague. Try something like this:

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

"Intelligence is a very general mental capability that, among other things, involves the ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend complex ideas, learn quickly, and learn from experience. It is not merely book-learning, a narrow academic skill, or test-taking smarts. Rather, it reflects a broader and deeper capability for comprehending our surroundings "catching on," "making sense" of things, or "figuring out" what to do."

We don't need some super clear concept of intelligence. We just need to be able to measure it well, which we can.

>>4722862
>My claim is essentially 'I am not convinced IQ tests are a good predictor of intelligence.'

So you don't have a claim at all. You are posting an uneducated opinion. Cool story, moron.

>>4722873
>30 questions is not enough.

Yes it is. Obviously, u don't know anything about IQ testing, and is just pulling stuff about ur ass about how a test with only 30 items cannot be a good measure of intelligence. It turns out that it can. One can see this with the g-loadedness of the test, which is >0.9.

>>4722880
A test with more questions will give a more accurate result. Deal with it. iqtest.dk is only a short test and nearly everyone gets a score of 140.

>>4722862
>My claim is essentially 'I am not convinced IQ tests are a good predictor of intelligence.'

Then either u have been reading the wrong things, or nothing relevant at all, or ...

Besides, it's not really much of a claim. Ur earlier remarks were much more direct.

>But it is still a properly drawn out test, designed and tested by Psychologists, and not a silly quizz made in 10 minutes on quizzmonkey or whatever?

I have multiple times ITT said that it is an ARPM test. It's a Raven's test with a high ceiling. High ceiling becus Mensa uses it for applicants. If they used the colored version, for instance, the ceiling wud be too low as pretty much every adult wud get a max score.

>>4722885
>A test with more questions will give a more accurate result. Deal with it. iqtest.dk is only a short test and nearly everyone gets a score of 140.

Perhaps, but it gives a good enough result. That's why it's a good test...

No, most people will not get a 140 on that test. Try it urself. Given ur comments ITT, i doubt u will get 140. Cya in 40 mins with a perfect score screenshot?

>>4722875
>> if one used a shitty test, and got a super high score, this does not mean that one is very clever.

That's because it is a shitty test. I don't fault the concept because bad tests exist.

>>4722873
Actually, 30 questions is fine. What would you define as 'enough,' and what brings you to that conclusion.

G factors looks very intreagueing, i want to learn more about it.

>>4722897
>Given ur comments ITT, i doubt u will get 140.

First of all you don't even know which posts ITT were my comments. I'm not the stupid wannabe psych student btw. Secondly you are committing the worst crime of idiocy by assessing formal intelligence based on /sci/ posts, which is essentially among the things you were arguing against ITT by defending the validity of IQ tests. While I fully agreed with your earlier posts, I now have to revise my view upon your person and add your tripcode to my filter. Congratulations.

>>4722911
>First of all you don't even know which posts ITT were my comments. I'm not the stupid wannabe psych student btw. Secondly you are committing the worst crime of idiocy by assessing formal intelligence based on /sci/ posts, which is essentially among the things you were arguing against ITT by defending the validity of IQ tests. While I fully agreed with your earlier posts, I now have to revise my view upon your person and add your tripcode to my filter. Congratulations.

I don't need to assess any formal intelligence based on posts. I only need to know statistics and know that 140 is rare, even on /sci/.

Altho i cud do that as well, and lower my expectations a bit based on ur opinions about iqtest.dk and Raven's tests, etc. It was not necessary, so ur characterization of my reasoning was wrong.

>>4722901
I think Lisa Gottfredson introduces the reader to it in her two articles that i mentioned already.

Otherwise:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G_factor_%28psychometrics%29

Or even better:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_g_Factor:_The_Science_of_Mental_Ability_%28book%29

I have yet to read the above book tho. It is considered the magnum opus of Art Jensen.

ITT: "It must be wrong, because I don't like it."

>>4722944
I'm about 10 pages away from finishing the book i'm currently reading, so tomorrow i'll have a look in the library for it.

I did the Raven test you Linked, and scored ~ 110

>>4722961
>I'm about 10 pages away from finishing the book i'm currently reading, so tomorrow i'll have a look in the library for it.

Which book is that?

It's pretty long and dense. I've been reading a few reviews of the g-factor in the meantime. Sounds very interesting. The case for hereditary differences in intelligence between races really is stronger than i thought, and i was convinced before too.

>I did the Raven test you Linked, and scored ~ 110

Psychologists usually score a bit higher on verbal tests, in sd units. So, if u got ~110 on Raven's, u probably lie a bit higher, since Raven's is nonverbal.

A score of ~110 is a standard score for psychologists i'd think. So, i tested it by converting the combined average psychologist GRE score to IQ. Result: 1022. Closest point in the chart is 1020 which is equal to IQ 112.66 (sd=15).

Seeing that the world average of intelligence is lower than whites (<100), being a brighter than average white person is pretty decent. Luck of the draw.

Data from here:
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2012/01/classicists-are-smart/
http://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/GREIQ.aspx

>>4722870
Creativity, perseverence w/e u wrote there are not insight, fuckwit.

>>4722928

>cud
>ur

also he can't read your comment you dipshit, he filtered you.

>>4723060
Do you know what the letters "etc" mean?

I scored 132 in HS.

Please tell me I'm intelligent, please ;_;...

>>4723089
You're average at best.

>>4723089
Depends on which test. And the age of scoring. Childhood IQ scores are less reliability than adulthood IQ scores.

Anyway, unlikely that u went from 132 to <100. So, probably above white average.

>>4723066
>also he can't read your comment you dipshit, he filtered you.

Maybe he didn't. Maybe someone else got something out of my post.

Obviously, my use of "cud" etc. are on purpose. Hence my username.

http://www.spellingsociety.org/spelling/irregularities

U must l2judge properly when assessing intelligence based of spellings. Sometimes, even if rarely, the deviations from standard are on purpose.

>tfw 150 IQ at 18

psychometric =/= psychology faggots

>>4723096

WELP, according to your test, I'm amazingly clever.


I'm not amazingly clever I'm a moron who at one point due to my low grades had to retake a year at 6th form.

Also Rainymood is amazing

>>4723126

Can I just say, that last question was hard as fuck.

>>4723126
>WELP, according to your test, I'm amazingly clever.

138 is not amazingly clever. Besides, u cud have lifted that picture off Google for all i know.

>I'm not amazingly clever I'm a moron who at one point due to my low grades had to retake a year at 6th form.

Cud be lying to discredit IQ research. Common among 4channers.

Or cud be very lazy, also common among 4channers. Being very clever will not make u pass if u don't study at all.

>>4723096

You know that no one really cares though right? I mean about your language reform. You know what the current score is on the passive language change vs active language change match? About a billion to one. No one has ever attempted and succeeded to actively change the English language, because it is spoken by so many people with so many dialects and roughly none of them give a shit about what you think would be best for the language.

Whether or not you are an idiot hardly matters because the tone you write with comes off as dense at best, especially because the way you choose to spell words implies a subtly different pronunciation.

And since this is the internet, and we therefore have no expressions or verbal emphasis to go off of, if you sound like an idiot, you are an idiot. For all we know you've just been exceptionally lucky so far that the words you apparently jumble together at random have made any sort of sense.

In case you're wondering, the only point under active language change belongs to southpark.

>>4723145

I suppose I was using my anecdotal evidence to make a point rather than anything. Yes, I also realised I've made a fallacy of using anecdotal evidence at all.

I just think that measuring the general factor is far more difficult than a few simple pattern tests which is what they all were in that test.

>>4723126
prøv lige at tage den på illvid.dk istedet den er mere precis

>>4723174
>You know that no one really cares though right? I mean about your language reform. You know what the current score is on the passive language change vs active language change match? About a billion to one. No one has ever attempted and succeeded to actively change the English language, because it is spoken by so many people with so many dialects and roughly none of them give a shit about what you think would be best for the language.

U obviously do not know much about language reform. Go read Wikipedia about it at the very least.

There have been lots of reforms thru time. Not so many for english, ofc, but that is not becus of the things u mention. Other languages have those problems as well.

Besides, there have already been spelling reforms of english. The difference between US english and UK english are becus of spelling reform, even if it was a small reform. It's too bad that Webster (yes, the dictionary guy) didn't get his ideas thru. That wud have been very, very good for english.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_and_British_English_spelling_differences#Historical_origins

Again and again, my critics on 4chan prove that they don't know anything about language reform.

>Whether or not you are an idiot hardly matters because the tone you write with comes off as dense at best, especially because the way you choose to spell words implies a subtly different pronunciation.

The latter point may be sort of true, altho i don't think people really think i pronounce "could" as /kʌd/. I think they think that i pronounce it like everybody else i.e. /kʊd/. The association of U with /ʊ/ is not entirely new. "put" also has it. It seems like the best simplification to make of the words "would", "should", "could". Alternatively one cud go with "coud", "cood", "cuud" or something. My choices have the added benefit that they already are in use. It is generally a good idea to use existence variation for reforms, if there is any. Same goes for you→u.

The first point is not true. That's just u associating deviance from standard spellings with denseness.

>>4723174

>No one has ever attempted and succeeded to actively change the English language

>>4723187
People here are not danish. I suggested iqtest.dk in part becus the testing part is in english.

There is also the IQ test on Mensa Norway's homepage. I never studied it, so it cud be better or worse for all i know.

>>4723207
I think he meant in a reform kind of way. Shakespeare obviously changed the language, even without formal power to do so (which wud be necessary now a days probably).

So many automatically hidden posts ITT. I geuss there's a lot of trip toll activity going on.

>>4723217

Oh my god. Fuck right off you filthy pleb and clean up your language.

I'm sure you think you're so edgy doing that shit, but you just look retarded and I regret even implying that I was on your side of the argument.

>>4723213
oh ok
but the test you found is only visual intelligence, you are still missing math, launguage, memory and logic.
so the IQ you get from that test is not your overall IQ

I'd rather not detract from the thread but my /lit/ side is coming out.

Language is not something to be ordered or reformed. It's organic evolution. The things that Language reform guy does a lot of people do. If it becomes popular enough it shall become the norm amongst people. That's how language works. Language reform action will not be actioned (See what I did there). It language will flow and splutter with various fads hitting the tongues of many and the few and will die away. Some will stay amongst select groups and some will pass. It's beautiful and you ought to simply devour the goods words and refuse the ones you believe to be ugly, speaking in a way you enjoy is certainly to engage in gastronomy.

>Pseudo-intellectual wank phase over.

>>4723236
>but the test you found is only visual intelligence, you are still missing math, launguage, memory and logic. so the IQ you get from that test is not your overall IQ

U don't understand how IQ works. Read the thread. Don't just repeat the falsehoods people wrote earlier. Hell, read the papers i posted earlier by Lisa Gottfredson. Those shud clear up most things.

>>4723204

>The latter point may be sort of true, altho i don't think people really think i pronounce "could" as /kʌd/. I think they think that i pronounce it like everybody else i.e. /kʊd/.

Negative. I know that you 'mean' could, but that is not how it comes off. Even if it did, it makes no sense for a guy who wants language simplification to push for a context sensitive pronunciation of a common word.

>The first point is not true. That's just u associating deviance from standard spellings with denseness.

No its actually associating pronunciation deviance with denseness. When people write they do so in a particular tone completely independent of the content of their writing, given what they want to get across and how they want the other person to understand it. Your spelling produces a particular tone, and it happens to be quite dense sounding.

Admittedly that last bit is up for personal interpretation, but based only on your sudden jarring transition from what is basically lolspeak to regular writing in the middle of posts, you seem like you are trying very hard to sound either very stupid or very smart and doing neither very well. You really should already know this though. Not the part where I imply you're an idiot, that's just for me really, but rather how tone in writing works.

>>4723247
This is indeed some pseudo-intellectual trash that one usually finds on /lit/.

It's always the same analogy tho. With language being compared to some living, organic thing.

In the analogy, reform somewhat corresponds to artificial selection/eugenics. Language change is inevitable. Directing it in a good direction is important.

Change in language does not always come from the bottom, as u described. It sometimes comes from the top, i.e. from reform. There have been many examples of this thruout history. Educate urself.

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

>Besides, there have already been spelling reforms of english. The difference between US english and UK english are becus of spelling reform, even if it was a small reform. It's too bad that Webster (yes, the dictionary guy) didn't get his ideas thru. That wud have been very, very good for english.

Define 'good'. I've read through the websites that you've posted, and the only real benefit I can see is making English slightly easier for new speakers to learn.
The downside that comes with this is the same problem we already have with reading texts from just a few hundred years ago, except the difference would be even larger, and be much faster in terms of history.

>>4723307
>Negative. I know that you 'mean' could, but that is not how it comes off. Even if it did, it makes no sense for a guy who wants language simplification to push for a context sensitive pronunciation of a common word.

Yes, it does. "cud" is a better spelling for "could", than "could" is. Even if it doesn't result in a 1-to-1 system (foneme spelling).

Even if the simplification is not a perfect solution, it is better than the current system. People tend to think that any proposal that doesn't result in a perfect solution is not worth getting. This is clearly bad thinking, and they do not use it anywhere else in life. (Hopefully, otherwise they wud be useless perfectionists!)

-

>Admittedly that last bit is up for personal interpretation, but based only on your sudden jarring transition from what is basically lolspeak to regular writing in the middle of posts, you seem like you are trying very hard to sound either very stupid or very smart and doing neither very well. You really should already know this though. Not the part where I imply you're an idiot, that's just for me really, but rather how tone in writing works.

U shud get back to discussing things and not pointless psychoanalyzing.

>>4723326
Why is it better?

Because it sounds more like it "shud"?

>>4723317
>Define 'good'. I've read through the websites that you've posted, and the only real benefit I can see is making English slightly easier for new speakers to learn.
The downside that comes with this is the same problem we already have with reading texts from just a few hundred years ago, except the difference would be even larger, and be much faster in terms of history.

www.lmgtfy.com/?q=define+good

Yes, i hate such pseudofilosofical questions/demands.

Clearly, u have not been thinking very hard about it. "slightly easier"? What is wrong with u? English spellings are so horrible that even people who have spent 20 years in education cannot spell words correctly consistently. That's why there is all this focus on spellcheckers...

U can imagine all the lost time becus of people complaining about pointless spelling mistakes, and reading thru their texts to try to weed out spelling mistakes. Extreme waste of time. Then comes the fact that reformed spellings wud be shorter, requiring less time to type/write, which also reduces the chance of typos (hitting the wrong key on the keyboard). Actually, before the invention of the internet, a spelling reform wud have saved millions becus of books being shorter (requiring less paper, less energy to transport, etc.).

There are so many reasons to reform. The Cut Spelling Handbook spends a lot of time discussing this issue IIRC.

www.spellingsociety.org/journals/books/books.php

Yes, there is an adverse effect on being able to read old texts. But this is not very important. The important texts will be translated to modern english, and the rest will be for those that bother to learn old english to read.

>Yes, it does. "cud" is a better spelling for "could", than "could" is. Even if it doesn't result in a 1-to-1 system (foneme spelling).

>Even if the simplification is not a perfect solution, it is better than the current system. People tend to think that any proposal that doesn't result in a perfect solution is not worth getting. This is clearly bad thinking, and they do not use it anywhere else in life. (Hopefully, otherwise they wud be useless perfectionists!)

A perfect solution? It's not even a notable solution. You are performing a direct exchange between ease of spelling and ease of understanding.


>U shud get back to discussing things and not pointless psychoanalyzing.

It's not psychoanalyzing. I actually have no idea how you reached that conclusion (maybe I should check my tone ololololol cough*).

I'm not going to post a link, but you really need to brush up on your knowledge of writing. I don't think you know what writing tone is, and that's kind of a big deal considering you're trying to actively change the English language to suit your ideals.

>>4723341
It's shorter and doesn't involve silent letters. It is imperfect becus U is both associated with /ʊ/ and /ʌ/, and thus there is no 1-1 correspondence between fonemes and spelling. This is regrettable, but it wud require a large reform to change english orthografy into 1-to-1 correspondence. For an attempt at that, see New Spelling.

http://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/?p=2676
^ my review and analysis of it.

Will it be possible in the future to increase a person's intelligence through artificial enhancements?

>>4723348
>I'm not going to post a link, but you really need to brush up on your knowledge of writing. I don't think you know what writing tone is, and that's kind of a big deal considering you're trying to actively change the English language to suit your ideals.

>>>/lit/

-

>>4723356
> Will it be possible in the future to increase a person's intelligence through artificial enhancements?

It might be. Not very much right now. Try looking up n-back training. That seems to increase fluid intelligence a bit.

>Clearly, u have not been thinking very hard about it. "slightly easier"? What is wrong with u? English spellings are so horrible that even people who have spent 20 years in education cannot spell words correctly consistently. That's why there is all this focus on spellcheckers...

I honestly feel that has more to do with not caring than it does with any particular difficulty. Misspellings are a triviality, especially as you mentioned, in an age of spellcheckers. I also choose to classify the fact that your solution to the epidemic of misspelling you insist exists is to completely embrace it as irony.

>U can imagine all the lost time becus of people complaining about pointless spelling mistakes, and reading thru their texts to try to weed out spelling mistakes. Extreme waste of time. Then comes the fact that reformed spellings wud be shorter, requiring less time to type/write, which also reduces the chance of typos (hitting the wrong key on the keyboard). Actually, before the invention of the internet, a spelling reform wud have saved millions becus of books being shorter (requiring less paper, less energy to transport, etc.).

Surely you realise that even with your changes and shortening there will still be spelling mistakes, and it takes the same amount of time to locate three spelling mistakes of 'wuold' 'feild' and ''caek' as it does to locate 'wuld' 'feeld' and 'cka' in a text of the same time. It might statistically decrease the chance of a spelling mistake, but no more so than a Dvorak keyboard would. And just buying the keyboard wouldn't require an entire language to be changed.


>Yes, there is an adverse effect on being able to read old texts. But this is not very important. The important texts will be translated to modern english, and the rest will be for those that bother to learn old english to read.

At the cost of tone, interpretation, and depth. But you apparently think reading tone is 'sykoanlyzing' so that might be lost on you.

>>4723361
Ladies and gentlemen: The Language Reform Guy

Taking the lit right out of literature.

In all honesty it is both disheartening and kind of pathetic that you truly think the only function of the written English language is the direct and mechanical expression of ideas.

>>4723383
>I honestly feel that has more to do with not caring than it does with any particular difficulty. Misspellings are a triviality, especially as you mentioned, in an age of spellcheckers. I also choose to classify the fact that your solution to the epidemic of misspelling you insist exists is to completely embrace it as irony.

No. People care rather much about spelling properly. They do this becus they know that other people judge their intelligence by how well they write.

This is also why we see these endless posts pointing out that someone is a retard becus they wrote "their" instead of "they're" or "there". If these words were ("where") spelled the same way, this wud not happen.

>Surely you realise that even with your changes and shortening there will still be spelling mistakes, and it takes the same amount of time to locate three spelling mistakes of 'wuold' 'feild' and ''caek' as it does to locate 'wuld' 'feeld' and 'cka' in a text of the same time. It might statistically decrease the chance of a spelling mistake, but no more so than a Dvorak keyboard would. And just buying the keyboard wouldn't require an entire language to be changed.

This is not true. People who have learned to spell "would" as "wud", wud not make mistakes like "wuld". This is rather obvious. One does not just insert random silent letters in words by accident. (In the transition period, some might make mistakes like "wuld" simply becus they are reading "would" spelled as "would" in some texts.)

Reforming spellings is not requiring an entire language to change. If u want to argue against my position, don't straw man it. Changing the entire language wud be like proposing that we stopped teaching english and only taught french or spanish (or better esperanto).

nonsense. IQ tests are an excellent way of analyzing the people who write IQ tests.

>>4723384
>At the cost of tone, interpretation, and depth. But you apparently think reading tone is 'sykoanlyzing' so that might be lost on you.

Speculating about others' motives for doing stuff is psychoanalyzing. It does not belong in rational discussions.

>>4723401
>In all honesty it is both disheartening and kind of pathetic that you truly think the only function of the written English language is the direct and mechanical expression of ideas.

The comment about strawmaning equally applies to u as well. If u want to debate me, do it properly and don't make up shit.

For instance, no one has yet challenged me with a single piece of counter-evidence. If one showed, for instance, that the complexity of the orthografy is completely unrelated to how difficult it is to learn a language, my proposals wud all pretty much all justification.

Ofc, no one has even tried that. Discussions about language reform are quite similar to those about race and IQ. Pretty much no one ever challenges the evidence, they speculate about the reasons for saying such things ('racism'), politics, moralizing, questioning the usefulness of such research, etc.

>>4723401
In case you didn't notice: It's IQ fundie's new trip. You better stop responding to him.

>>4723470
>In case you didn't notice: It's IQ fundie's new trip. You better stop responding to him.

U people keep lying about this.

>>4723460


>No. People care rather much about spelling properly. They do this becus they know that other people judge their intelligence by how well they write.

>This is also why we see these endless posts pointing out that someone is a retard becus they wrote "their" instead of "they're" or "there". If these words were ("where") spelled the same way, this wud not happen.

Ignoring the irony so thick you could stop a 45mm with it, that does not make spelling mistakes any less trivial in an age of spellcheckers. Even if it did, introducing ambiguity and context sensitive pronunciation for spelling mistakes is pretty much an equivalent exchange at best.
'Hooray, it is now less likely people will assume I'm a retard'
'I no! Hey do u think that cud cud work in ways that wud also help?'

>>4723460


>This is not true. People who have learned to spell "would" as "wud", wud not make mistakes like "wuld". This is rather obvious. One does not just insert random silent letters in words by accident. (In the transition period, some might make mistakes like "wuld" simply becus they are reading "would" spelled as "would" in some texts.)

Ooooh. Well there you go then. Of course people who learned to spell would as wud would never make a mistake like wuld. They would make a mistake like wqud. So much better. Still take the exact same amount of time to find the mistake in a text of the same length so I don't know how that was counter argument, but hey. Accuracy.

>Reforming spellings is not requiring an entire language to change. If u want to argue against my position, don't straw man it. Changing the entire language wud be like proposing that we stopped teaching english and only taught french or spanish (or better esperanto).

My deepest apologies. I meant 'change the way we spell a series of extremely common words instead of just buying a keyboard'.

>>4723470

I've been looking for a fight and he offered it on a silver platter. Besides, he's starting to stumble now. It will be over soon.

>>4723496
>Ooooh. Well there you go then. Of course people who learned to spell would as wud would never make a mistake like wuld. They would make a mistake like wqud. So much better. Still take the exact same amount of time to find the mistake in a text of the same length so I don't know how that was counter argument, but hey. Accuracy.

No, they wud not make such a mistake. U are conflating mistakes of spelling with typos, i.e., hitting the wrong key on the keyboard.

No one makes mistakes by randomly inserting silent letters into words. The closest case, is making mistakes like writing "phantasy" instead of "fantasy" or writing "dam" as "damn". Such mistakes are caused by other failures of the system.

>My deepest apologies. I meant 'change the way we spell a series of extremely common words instead of just buying a keyboard'.

Another strawman.

Protip: using actual quotations instead of parafrases avoids making strawmen to some degree. One can still quote out of context tho. Rational discussion skills 101.

>>4723577
fuck off fundie

This Language Reform Fag has been spamming his inane garbage ITT for 5 hours now. The only person to waste so much time on such irrelevant crap is IQ fundie, who coincidentally didn't post today.

>>4723592
Actually, i'm sort of annoying that he didn't, in which case i cud have linked to his posts.

Also, tfw this is the only close to decent thread active on /sci/. It's even got some variation. Intelligence discussion and language reform discussions. I'd be nice if there was also some other discussion like evo psych, copyright reform, drug law reform, etc.

>>4723577
>No, they wud not make such a mistake. U are conflating mistakes of spelling with typos, i.e., hitting the wrong key on the keyboard.

>No one makes mistakes by randomly inserting silent letters into words. The closest case, is making mistakes like writing "phantasy" instead of "fantasy" or writing "dam" as "damn". Such mistakes are caused by other failures of the system.

SIGH.
So your telling me that these changes would admittedly do nothing to help typing speed and errors, but instead help writing by hand.

When was the last time you wrote something out by hand, and didn't copy it into a word processor? Because I can tell you it won't have been since highschool. No one in the professional world is the least bit interested in having people write out documents by hand.

Even the their/there problem is reduced by word processors now, and changing everything to their/their/their would exchange grammar mistakes for context mistakes.

>>4723605
>actually i'm sort of annoying

>Protip: using actual quotations instead of parafrases avoids making strawmen to some degree. One can still quote out of context tho. Rational discussion skills 101.

Hmm. Another accusation of strawmanning instead of actually addressing the point brought forth.

Then I will ask it directly. What does your language reform contribute to English that is not already taken care of by new keyboards, and word processors.

>>4723630
Tsk tsk. Nice irony otherwise. :P

annoyed*

>>4723626
>SIGH.
>So your telling me that these changes would admittedly do nothing to help typing speed and errors, but instead help writing by hand.

I have not said that, nor have i implied that. Use actual quotations.

I don't disagree with ur comments about handwriting. I never type in the hand anymore either.

>Even the their/there problem is reduced by word processors now, and changing everything to their/their/their would exchange grammar mistakes for context mistakes.

I'm not particular keen on that proposed reform. I just mentioned it without explicitly endorsing it.

Even if it does result in some 'context mistakes' (not sure what that is), it might be worth the trade.

My primary concern is that it might be too confusing. I think they did actually change it in both Cut Spelling (to "ther") and New Spelling (to "thaer"). There are some samples of text written in those reforms. One cud read those and see if one is confused at times. I don't recall being confused when i read them, but it was some time ago and i'm not representative.

The better idea is to take a sample of native english speakers, and have them read a body of text where the same spelling is used for all three, and then ask them various questions that wud reveal change in reading comprehension. I don't think such a test has been carried out, but it isn't particularly hard or expensive to do.

>mfw people don't understand how language evolves

goddamn you fagmos, it is entirely social. The internet has been changing language for the last ten years, "LOL" is becoming a word on par with OK and there is nothing you faglords can do

>>4723632
>Hmm. Another accusation of strawmanning instead of actually addressing the point brought forth.

There was no point brought forth. That's the point of it being a strawman. Attacking a strawman is arguing against something that others do not believe and mistakenly thinking or pretending that they do believe it. I don't generally bother to defend views that i don't share.

>Then I will ask it directly. What does your language reform contribute to English that is not already taken care of by new keyboards, and word processors.

Which language reform? There are many different that one cud do. I have explicitly mentioned two of the popular ones: Cut Spelling, New Spelling. I'm working on my own which is more modest and thus easier to put into practice.

Anyway, the same result comes from all of these three reform proposals: they make learning to read and write easier, speeds up reading and writing. There will be enormous economic benefits from those things with time.

>>4723775
What does this have to do with anything ITT?

"lol" and others already are in the OED...

>>4723747

>I have not said that, nor have i implied that. Use actual quotations.

Unknowingly or not, yes you did, by making the statement that typos (accidentally inserting letters into words) are not the focus of your reforms.
When you said that it implied that the only thing you were worried about were changes like 'i before e', which are readily solved by any spellchecker,

Also: I am using actual quotations. I am cutting and pasting exactly what you said, and doing my best to interpret what you've said. You know that tone and interpretation thing you blew off as being unimportant? Yeah, this is what happens when you fuck those up. Your writing alone is making an excruciatingly poor case for the cause you champion.

Iq test were invented by geeks to compete each other like weightlifters

>Which language reform? There are many different that one cud do. I have explicitly mentioned two of the popular ones: Cut Spelling, New Spelling. I'm working on my own which is more modest and thus easier to put into practice.

So just for clarity's sake, with the last post of mine that mentioned the quote thing. See what you said above? When you read the following statement you made, shown below, it is useless. There is no reason for you to even say it, because in your own following statement, you disregard the any difference there might be.

>Anyway, the same result comes from all of these three reform proposals: they make learning to read and write easier, speeds up reading and writing. There will be enormous economic benefits from those things with time.

Once again, you claim it would speed up reading and writing, but it would do so at the cost of tone and interpretation. The matter of education, learning to read and write, is hardly something for you to comment on.

You claim there would be economic benefits, but from where would those come? Shorter books so less paper? Have you noticed physical books are coming less popular?

Faster writing, less time spent? Many businessmen already do this. They type as you do, but use a spellchecker to autochange the words to the accepted standard and briefly check it for tone.

Less time spent in childrens education? Unfortunately schools prior to about grade 11 are actually not intended to impart any marked knowledge. They teach you the basics and you are expected to learn the rest on your own. They exist primarily as daycare centres so parents can work.

>>4723813
>Unknowingly or not, yes you did, by making the statement that
typos (accidentally inserting letters into words) are not the focus of your reforms.

>saying things unknowingly
what am i reading.jpg

I explicitly stated that my reform proposal were not about typos, as in, hitting the wrong key on the keyboard. I said this twice in these posts: >>4723346
>>4723577

>When you said that it implied that the only thing you were worried about were changes like 'i before e', which are readily solved by any spellchecker,

No.

>Also: I am using actual quotations. I am cutting and pasting exactly what you said, and doing my best to interpret what you've said. You know that tone and interpretation thing you blew off as being unimportant? Yeah, this is what happens when you fuck those up. Your writing alone is making an excruciatingly poor case for the cause you champion.

I'm getting a little tired of this supposed critique. U are the only person in my entire life who has said anything of this sort. Everybody else thinks i have a good writing style (this includes past teachers, readers, native english speakers i know over the net). I therefore just ignore ur critique as a strange fringe case.

And no, u didn't use actual quotations. If u want to see how to do that, then read my posts. I have almost exclusively used actual quotations. I recommend using copy+paste and greentext to make quotations stand out from ur response to the quoted words.

>>4723844
>So just for clarity's sake, with the last post of mine that mentioned the quote thing. See what you said above? When you read the following statement you made, shown below, it is useless. There is no reason for you to even say it, because in your own following statement, you disregard the any difference there might be.

It makes a difference. U referred to one particular reform (proposal). If u later refer to the same language reform proposal and ask about something where they differ, this makes a difference. Just be more clear. Use acronyms if u want to ask about a particular reform proposal. NS (New Spelling), CS (Cut Spelling) and URP (unnamed reform proposal) might suitably be used.

>Once again, you claim it would speed up reading and writing, but it would do so at the cost of tone and interpretation. The matter of education, learning to read and write, is hardly something for you to comment on.

I have not claimed that it wud be at the cost of tone. Nor have i said as a general thing that it wud be at the cost of interpretation. My comment about interpretation is in relation to the proposed merging of spellings {their, there, they're}, not generally about reforms.

Ur last remark is uncalled for, and does neither follow from other points or is relevant. U really shud learn to debate properly. Avoid psychoanalyzing, avoid red herrings, avoid strawmen.

>You claim there would be economic benefits, but from where would those come? Shorter books so less paper? Have you noticed physical books are coming less popular?

I have already commented on this once, and explicitly said that the effects on paper books are increasingly less relevant. I did this in post >>4723346.

>Faster writing, less time spent? Many businessmen already do this. They type as you do, but use a spellchecker to autochange the words to the accepted standard and briefly check it for tone.

Yes, ofc, faster writing and reading, which results in time saved, which results in money saved.

It is nice that u argue my case for me, even by giving an example of someone who does it, even if they do it in a half-arsed way (becus they spend time correcting themselves after).

Now, generalize the point about businessmen and remove the point about correcting it afterwards (or just reducing the time of correcting it)... well... yeah... captain obvious.

-
>Less time spent in childrens education? Unfortunately schools prior to about grade 11 are actually not intended to impart any marked knowledge. They teach you the basics and you are expected to learn the rest on your own. They exist primarily as daycare centres so parents can work.

I will just let this speculative theory on schools stand for itself. Some things need no refutation except for being quoted. One might call them self-refuting (altho not in the filosofer's typical sense).

>>4723857

> I explicitly stated that my reform proposal were not about typos, as in, hitting the wrong key on the keyboard. I said this twice in these posts: >>4723346
>>4723577

I know. That's why the sentence immediately following the one you quoted made a supposition as to what I thought you meant.

Apparently I was wrong, which I now understand because you actually did manage to post something on what you expect your language reform to provide.


>I'm getting a little tired of this supposed critique. U are the only person in my entire life who has said anything of this sort. Everybody else thinks i have a good writing style (this includes past teachers, readers, native english speakers i know over the net). I therefore just ignore ur critique as a strange fringe case.

That explains so very much. I hope to god none of those were university level professors.

>And no, u didn't use actual quotations. If u want to see how to do that, then read my posts. I have almost exclusively used actual quotations. I recommend using copy+paste and greentext to make quotations stand out from ur response to the quoted words.

Are you purposely being obtuse? Do you see a different screen than I do or something? Because that greentext right above what you're reading now? That's copy and pasted what you've said. I've been doing that, and admittedly editing for space but not content, the entire time.

>>4723916
>It makes a difference. U referred to one particular reform (proposal). If u later refer to the same language reform proposal and ask about something where they differ, this makes a difference. Just be more clear. Use acronyms if u want to ask about a particular reform proposal. NS (New Spelling), CS (Cut Spelling) and URP (unnamed reform proposal) might suitably be used.

By your own post though, the one following earlier, there is no difference in terms of general benefit so it need not be commented on.

>I have not claimed that it wud be at the cost of tone. Nor have i said as a general thing that it wud be at the cost of interpretation. My comment about interpretation is in relation to the proposed merging of spellings {their, there, they're}, not generally about reforms.

I know you haven't, but as you implied earlier:

>>4723348
>I'm not going to post a link, but you really need to brush up on your knowledge of writing. I don't think you know what writing tone is, and that's kind of a big deal considering you're trying to actively change the English language to suit your ideals.

>>>/lit/

You don't really view it as part of your reforms, so it is quite reasonable to believe that the reforms you propose would do so at the cost of tone.

>Ur last remark is uncalled for, and does neither follow from other points or is relevant. U really shud learn to debate properly. Avoid psychoanalyzing, avoid red herrings, avoid strawmen.

It's quite relevant. Throughout the discussion you've shown difficulty interpreting posts, and expressing your ideas. It is not psychoanalyzing (you spelled that properly, but changed 'filosofer' in the next post), but simple conclusions based on what I have seen of your understanding of the system. I actually do have education in education, and I feel you are in no position to comment on the current state of affairs.

>Yes, ofc, faster writing and reading, which results in time saved, which results in money saved.

And who's to say the time saved in writing would not be lost in time spend interpreting.

>It is nice that u argue my case for me, even by giving an example of someone who does it, even if they do it in a half-arsed way (becus they spend time correcting themselves after).

The corrections are necessary. There can be no room for error in business communication, everything must be said exactly and it must be said in a way that foreign businessmen will find acceptable.

>Less time spent in childrens education? Unfortunately schools prior to about grade 11 are actually not intended to impart any marked knowledge. They teach you the basics and you are expected to learn the rest on your own. They exist primarily as daycare centres so parents can work.

>I will just let this speculative theory on schools stand for itself. Some things need no refutation except for being quoted. One might call them self-refuting (altho not in the filosofer's typical sense).

As I mentioned above, I have education in education. Believe me when I say, much of what is done before highschool is an exercise in time wasting, waiting for the students to become mature enough to chose a course in life. There have been non-genius students that have achieved a masters in medicine at the age of 16, simply because their parents chose to have them skip grades like crazy. Unfortunately they found themselves uncomfortable with their positions in life very early on, but that is to be expected.

>>4723938
>That explains so very much. I hope to god none of those were university level professors.

Some of them are/were. Now, u shud stop talking about irrelevancies, and start providing any evidence. Nothing, absolutely nothing, has been provided so far. Not by u, or by others.

>You don't really view it as part of your reforms, so it is quite reasonable to believe that the reforms you propose would do so at the cost of tone.

What the fuck. The reforms mentioned do not have anything to do with tone. I sent to comment to /lit/, becus it sounds like something they wud say. I don't mean that in a good way. /lit/izens are generally morons, even if they are smarter than 4chan average.

>>4724012
>It's quite relevant. Throughout the discussion you've shown difficulty interpreting posts, and expressing your ideas. It is not psychoanalyzing (you spelled that properly, but changed 'filosofer' in the next post), but simple conclusions based on what I have seen of your understanding of the system. I actually do have education in education, and I feel you are in no position to comment on the current state of affairs.

I have not shown any such difficulty and i have expressed my ideas clearly. That people on /sci/ like to misinterpret posts on purpose is not my failing.

Obviously, "filosofer" is on purpose. I change all PH→F when the sound is /f/.

Yes, blablabla, u're in no position to this or that. Hurr durr appeal to self-authority. Use evidence and arguments. This is getting tiresome. I have been very patient.

>>4724077

>Some of them are/were. Now, u shud stop talking about irrelevancies, and start providing any evidence. Nothing, absolutely nothing, has been provided so far. Not by u, or by others.

I'm nearly to the point of requesting transcripts, because I simply do not believe that.

>What the fuck. The reforms mentioned do not have anything to do with tone. I sent to comment to /lit/, becus it sounds like something they wud say. I don't mean that in a good way. /lit/izens are generally morons, even if they are smarter than 4chan average.

And yet when you type in your reformed language, your tone is badly formed and difficult to interpret. Therefore, how can I not conclude that the reforms you propose would adversely affect tone in communication?

>I have not shown any such difficulty and i have expressed my ideas clearly. That people on /sci/ like to misinterpret posts on purpose is not my failing.

Hardly. I have been doing my level best to understand what you have tried to communicate, and I simply cannot. I don't know if it is you personally, or the way you choose to type, but I am simply unable to consistently interpret your posts.

>Yes, blablabla, u're in no position to this or that. Hurr durr appeal to self-authority. Use evidence and arguments. This is getting tiresome. I have been very patient.

You know what? No. I will not.

You have provided no evidence for your own position beyond to explain what you 'think' language reform 'might' produce.

You claim it will save time? I disagree. Are you able to provide evidence that it will?

You claim it will make education easier? I disagree. Are you able to provide evidence that it will?

>>4724141
>And yet when you type in your reformed language, your tone is badly formed and difficult to interpret. Therefore, how can I not conclude that the reforms you propose would adversely affect tone in communication?

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/noncause.html

There is no cause, becus the spelling does not have anything to do with 'tone', and since i do not have a bad 'tone' in the first place, yeah well. ...

-

>You claim it will save time? I disagree. Are you able to provide evidence that it will?

No one has asked for evidence for that claim yet. Since it is impossible to provide evidence for every single claim made, i only provide for those where i think it isn't obvious or those where it has been requested.

I have already argued that it will save time. The only uncertainty is how much. It is not really known and it is difficult to estimate.

I recently read a linguistics textbook wherein it was mentioned that badly spelled words were read more slowly. (Fromkin et al, p. 384)

It is quite obvious that when one is not in any doubt about how to spell words, then one will not spend time looking them up, or correcting them via built-in spellcheckers, etc.

>>4724141
>You claim it will make education easier? I disagree. Are you able to provide evidence that it will?

Obviously, it will make education easier becus it is easier to learn words when their spelling make sense. With the time saved, one can either spend that time on learning something else, or save it all together.

I'm thinking u will deny this point becus of ur strange idea about the purpose of schooling.

The 100% regular spelling is one of the reasons why esperanto is so easy to learn. The grammar is quite simple as well.

I did a random Google search to see if i cud find any quantitative data. There is a bit of data here:
http://finnish-and-pisa.blogspot.com/

>>4724263
>No one has asked for evidence for that claim yet. Since it is impossible to provide evidence for every single claim made, i only provide for those where i think it isn't obvious or those where it has been requested.

I have requested both for education, and time related to cost savings. Provide it.

>I have already argued that it will save time. The only uncertainty is how much. It is not really known and it is difficult to estimate.

Unacceptable. You propose a substantial change to a system that has proved functional for years. Provide at least a preliminary estimate of the time-and therefore cost-it will save. Do this on a net basis and produce a timeline for net gains.

>I recently read a linguistics textbook wherein it was mentioned that badly spelled words were read more slowly. (Fromkin et al, p. 384)

Acceptable, however based on the reference provided I am unable to review the source. Please provide a full reference.

>It is quite obvious that when one is not in any doubt about how to spell words, then one will not spend time looking them up, or correcting them via built-in spellcheckers, etc.

Provide at least a preliminary estimate of the time-and therefore cost-it will save. Do this on a net basis and produce a timeline for net gains. Take into account the cost of reprinting school textbooks, retraining educators, and the time necessary to pass before the proposed language changes are fully established.

>>4724320

>Obviously, it will make education easier becus it is easier to learn words when their spelling make sense. With the time saved, one can either spend that time on learning something else, or save it all together.

Unacceptable. It is not obvious.

>The 100% regular spelling is one of the reasons why esperanto is so easy to learn. The grammar is quite simple as well.

Source.

>I did a random Google search to see if i cud find any quantitative data. There is a bit of data here:
http://finnish-and-pisa.blogspot.com/

There is a substantial amount of supposition in this source, but I will accept that Finnish students did score better than others, and that their language does employ transparent spelling.

Another day at /sci/...

>>4724327
>Unacceptable. You propose a substantial change to a system that has proved functional for years. Provide at least a preliminary estimate of the time-and therefore cost-it will save. Do this on a net basis and produce a timeline for net gains.

Impossible given current data.

>Acceptable, however based on the reference provided I am unable to review the source. Please provide a full reference.

I quoted it here.
http://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/?p=2793
The book is also attached in pdf.

>Provide at least a preliminary estimate of the time-and therefore cost-it will save. Do this on a net basis and produce a timeline for net gains. Take into account the cost of reprinting school textbooks, retraining educators, and the time necessary to pass before the proposed language changes are fully established.

Impossible given current data.

U are setting expectations unreasonably high. No one can calculate such things with any precision. There is ofc a transition cost. There is no additional cost with printing textbooks, since one simply just waits for the next line of textbooks to be printed and have them be with the new system.

Besides, with the advance in computer-assisted teaching, it might not be necessary at all to print textbooks. Ebooks are free to distribute, so the only cost here is writing some textbooks. Not any significant cost there.

Another thing is the re-training of teachers. No idea what that will cost. Perhaps the same method as for printing books can be used.

>>4724341
>Unacceptable. It is not obvious.

Yes it is.

>Source.

Unnecessary. Take a course in esperanto.

>There is a substantial amount of supposition in this source, but I will accept that Finnish students did score better than others, and that their language does employ transparent spelling.

Also the estonians. For all i know, the reason that the romance languages mentioned do poorly is that they have worse educational systems (pretty plausible) or that they have grammatical gender. Nothing has ever annoyed me as much as grammatical gender when learning a language. That's probably one of the one good things that can be said about english! (Also, relatively simple grammar compared to german.)

>>4724585

>Impossible given current data.

Then you'll have to retract your statement.

>I quoted it here.
>http://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/?p=2793
>The book is also attached in pdf.

Excellent, thank you.

>Impossible given current data.

Then you'll have to retract your statement.

>U are setting expectations unreasonably high

In order to have any change made in any system larger than a family, a cost benefit analysis must be performed. In order to justify such a large change to such a large system, a cost benefit analysis is unavoidable.

Without additional data your assumptions are baseless.

>Yes it is.

My knowledge gained from my instruction on education directly contradicts your statement. However, since I know you will not accept that, I will simply require you to provide a source for the assertion you made.

>Unnecessary. Take a course in esperanto

Unacceptable. You have made an assertion, and must be able to support that assertion with evidence or that assertion will be disregarded.

>>4724625
>In order to have any change made in any system larger than a family, a cost benefit analysis must be performed. In order to justify such a large change to such a large system, a cost benefit analysis is unavoidable.

>Without additional data your assumptions are baseless.

No and no.

>My knowledge gained from my instruction on education directly contradicts your statement. However, since I know you will not accept that, I will simply require you to provide a source for the assertion you made.

I consider ur education pretty worthless. An appeal to authority from that field means almost nothing to me.

>Unacceptable. You have made an assertion, and must be able to support that assertion with evidence or that assertion will be disregarded.

I don't particularly care if u personally disregard it. (I mainly discuss with u becus i like discussing.) U will never be convinced becus u have set the evidential standard impossibly high. Good thing u are not everybody and reforms have happened many, many times.

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

They will eventually reform english as well. Sooner or later english will be so hard that the costs of illiteracy will be crazy high. Well, the cost already is, but it will be unbearably high and politicians will need to act when they can't hide behind conservatism any longer.

I.e., this http://www.amazon.com/Lets-End-Our-Literacy-Crisis/dp/1589822307

The only valid school of psychology is evolutionary psychology which is supported by Pinker's research.

Everything else is a crock of shit.

>>4724644

>No and no.

Thank you for that insightful response.

>I consider ur education pretty worthless. An appeal to authority from that field means almost nothing to me.

I know, that's why I want you to provide a source stating that education will be easier for students given a simplified written language.
You might not have any regard for the field, but if you're going to tell me you know this will help, there had better be a peer reviewed resource backing it up.

>I don't particularly care if u personally disregard it. (I mainly discuss with u becus i like discussing.) U will never be convinced becus u have set the evidential standard impossibly high. Good thing u are not everybody and reforms have happened many, many times.

If it helps then, I'll ignore your failure to provide a cost/benefit analysis that actually supports your claims. But I won't let you tell me how it will benefit students without something to back that up.

>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_reform

>They will eventually reform english as well. Sooner or later english will be so hard that the costs of illiteracy will be crazy high. Well, the cost already is, but it will be unbearably high and politicians will need to act when they can't hide behind conservatism any longer.

>I.e., this http://www.amazon.com/Lets-End-Our-Literacy-Crisis/dp/1589822307

Just as you don't care if I disregard your statement with regards to Estonian, I don't really care about, well, any of the greentext above this sentence.

>>4724647
Nah. Pinker is not an evolutionary psychologist anyway. David M Buss is the world's leading evo. psychologist AFAIK.

Generally, social psychology is the worst, but there is bad psychology in all 'schools'. Obviously, psychoanalytic/-dynamic is utterly terrible. Those ideological nurture-only people also make a lot of worthless science.

Evolutionary psychology sometimes suffer from WEIRD syndrome* -- over-relying on european samples to supposedly prove human universals. It is quite expensive and difficult to prove such universals.

* http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/primate-diaries/2011/12/07/the-weird-evolution-of-human-psycholo
gy/

Probably the biggest problem with psych is the extraordinarily high rate of publication bias.**

** http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2012/05/bias-in-psychology/

>>4724652
>I know, that's why I want you to provide a source stating that education will be easier for students given a simplified written language.

That justification does not make sense. U know that i think that ur education is not worth much (and how'd u know that anyway?), and thus u want me to provide a source for something entirely obvious...?

>You might not have any regard for the field, but if you're going to tell me you know this will help, there had better be a peer reviewed resource backing it up.

Peer-review is seriously overrated. Anyone who has studied it knows this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review#Criticism_of_peer_review
Read the sources mentioned. I have. Peer-review is meh.

I certainly do not need a peer-reviewed source to state that making language easier to learn will make education easier. If u don't want to accept the reasoning given without any more or less made-up numbers, then i will just note that u have set the evidential requirement too high and move on.

>If it helps then, I'll ignore your failure to provide a cost/benefit analysis that actually supports your claims. But I won't let you tell me how it will benefit students without something to back that up.

Evidential requirements problem noted.

>>4724687

>That justification does not make sense. U know that i think that ur education is not worth much (and how'd u know that anyway?)

Because you keep repeating it.

>and thus u want me to provide a source for something entirely obvious...?

What you're doing right now is essentially saying 'I'm pretty sure your education is shit, and I know I can do better, so I'll just make a baseless assumption about how education with regards to spelling and pronunciation works and then tell you your business."

It doesn't matter how many times you repeat it, you will never stop being wrong. I ask you to cite a resource that actually supports your statement, because I know you won't be able to find a meaningful one.

>I certainly do not need a peer-reviewed source to state that making language easier to learn will make education easier. If u don't want to accept the reasoning given without any more or less made-up numbers, then i will just note that u have set the evidential requirement too high and move on.

Well, I've now officially heard it all. Saying that a persons random uneducated claim needs some sort of backup is apparently requiring far too much evidence. I will file that appropriately.

Unless you score high (>150) or very low (<80), IQ scores mean next to nothing. Someone with an IQ score or 140 isn't inherently smarter than someone with a score of 137.

>>4724699
>Because you keep repeating it.

I have not repeated it even once. I mentioned it one time when u tried to appeal to self-authority for ur education in that field.

>What you're doing right now is essentially saying 'I'm pretty sure your education is shit, and I know I can do better, so I'll just make a baseless assumption about how education with regards to spelling and pronunciation works and then tell you your business."

No. I suppose this is another time to call for actual quotations. I have not made any claim that education is shit. In fact, i generally haven't talked much about education before u started talking about it. I did reviewed the entire thread with a search for "education" to see if i had said something i had forgotten. I didn't.

>It doesn't matter how many times you repeat it, you will never stop being wrong. I ask you to cite a resource that actually supports your statement, because I know you won't be able to find a meaningful one.

I cud dig up hundreds if i wanted to. But it doesn't matter becus such a claim doesn't need a source. It is obvious given the reasoning mentioned ITT.

>Well, I've now officially heard it all. Saying that a persons random uneducated claim needs some sort of backup is apparently requiring far too much evidence. I will file that appropriately.

Another strawman/misrepresentation.

>>4724708
> Unless you score high (>150) or very low (<80), IQ scores mean next to nothing. Someone with an IQ score or 140 isn't inherently smarter than someone with a score of 137.

Such claims have been made before, even in popular books. They are still wrong. For instance, there was a bestseller* recently that claimed that >120 IQ didn't mean much or anything.

This is just not true.**

* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outliers_%28book%29
** http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/15/books/review/Pinker-t.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

>>4724719

>I have not repeated it even once. I mentioned it one time when u tried to appeal to self-authority for ur education in that field.
>I consider ur education pretty worthless. An appeal to authority from that field means almost nothing to me.


>I cud dig up hundreds if i wanted to. But it doesn't matter becus such a claim doesn't need a source. It is obvious given the reasoning mentioned ITT.

Okay, let me put it this way. The statement 'making a language easier to learn makes it easier to teach' might be acceptable. Except these are children. And it does not work the same way between children and adults.

I do not care to explain why, and I know as was mentioned above, you have little regard for the field of education anyway.


>I cud dig up hundreds if i wanted to. But it doesn't matter becus such a claim doesn't need a source. It is obvious given the reasoning mentioned ITT.

Firmly doubt it.

>>4724731
Outliers didn't claim that over 120 didn't mean anything... it just said that other factors were so overwhelming with regards to traditional measures of success, and the sample size is so small, that any additional benefit a 150 IQ has over a 120 IQ is drowned out in the noise.

Read the fucking book before you comment on it.

is the criticism that these IQ tests are culturally biased still valid?
i just remember when they gave these tests to indians and immigrants and a significant number of them tested as retards

The screwdriver.

>>4724753
>Outliers didn't claim that over 120 didn't mean anything... it just said that other factors were so overwhelming with regards to traditional measures of success, and the sample size is so small, that any additional benefit a 150 IQ has over a 120 IQ is drowned out in the noise.

>Read the fucking book before you comment on it.

That claim is wrong as well.

I don't need to read the book. I read the quotes from it, and they were wrong. There is no ability threshold, and ability still matters and does not 'drown out' in other things. More ability is always better.

http://infoproc.blogspot.com/2012/05/exceptional-cognitive-ability-phenotype.html

>>4724780
>is the criticism that these IQ tests are culturally biased still valid?
>i just remember when they gave these tests to indians and immigrants and a significant number of them tested as retards

What counts as a retard for whites, is not the same level used for other populations. Retardedness is population relative. We call it mild retardation when a white person tests below 70, which is 2sd below population average. Given a US black average of 85, mild retardation is <85-30=<55.

Some of the tests are culturally biased, in that they use a specific language. The typical case is giving english language tests to non-natives of english. This does not well too well.

Interestingly, on the nonverbal tests, the differences between blacks and whites in the US become larger, not smaller, as the nurture-only people wud predict.