/sci/ - Science & Math

>>7001114
Only retards like yourself take part in these conversations anyways.
People with notable intelligence realize "intelligence" has no agreed on definition and is thus irrelevant.

>>7001120
>doesn't know anything about cognitive psychology

because liberals

>>7001114
>muh IQ.

>>7001125
I know about cognitive psychology, and I have to agree with OP. Believing in multiple intelligences is definitely not on the track to understanding anything about it.

Intelligence tests should account for your ability to get laid. A person who will never pass on their genes is surely not intelligent from an evolutionary point of view.

>>7001137
Intelligence isn't the same as fitness you dumb dumb

>>7001145
I didn't say anything about lifting weights.

>>7001150
yeah, but do you even lift?

>>7001150
fitness is not the same as physical condition you dum dum

"Body smart"? Are they fucking serious? I can see the other categories linking back to some form of intelligence (except perhaps "people smart" but "body smart" just refers to one's athleticism. i.e.- strength, dexterity & constitution. Intelligence is a very broad category any-way, but only about four of these categories in the image refer to any sort of intelligence. I'm sure one can easily guess which ones.

>>7001443
Maybe it refers to coordination?

>>7001114
>this clearly is pseudoscience
>People having multiple skills not described by IQ is pseudoscience
lol ok

>>7001467
skills!=intelligence

Different abilities (e.g. musical and mathematical) are strongly correlating suggesting there is only one general intelligence.

>>7001476
Source?

Though intelligence does not have a clear defiinition, I strongly believe that we can give certain pinpoints of what intelligence might be. Most of (if not all) our features and skills is manifested in the brain. I find it logical to think that any cognitive properties, that be the use of our hands in crafting, the use of logical thinking in sudoku, or jogging, lifting weights is strongly dependent of the brain's function. Intelligence has been thought of as a property of the brain, then why is it so wrong to think that other seemingly properties of the brain also represents some kind of intelligence?

>>7001482
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G_factor_%28psychometrics%29

>>7001114
People endorse this kind of stuff for the same reasons they endorse every other social science. Basic Psychology accomplishes absolutely nothing other than giving names to concepts you probably understood anyway. Everybody knows that some people are better with language and others are better with math, socialization, etc. People think they are smart for learning this crap in their first year of college. All of the social sciences are like this.

>>7001114
its just liberal propaganda in the modern school system to perpetuate the 'special snowflake' idea that everyone even complete dumbfucks is actually equal in every way and equally intelligent just intelligent in different ways. its bullshit, its propaganda, its not supposed to be true or scientific you are just supposed to accept it without asking questions.

>>7001443
Someone's just mad because he's clumsy.

>>7001114

>back in H.S.
>teacher starts a whole unit on MI
>me and another guy start telling him all about the bull shit he's about to feed us
>teacher can't handle anything outside the box
>ouropinionsinthetrash.png

Worse class ever. Still managed an A+ in it though. It's good to be out of there.

>>7001497
Everybody knows that some stuff is faster than other stuff. Physics...what a joke.

>>7001501
/pol/ is normal again, can't you just fuck off?
>>>/pol/

>>7001502
>Any objection against anything means you're butthurt.

>>7001518
identifying obvious propaganda as propaganda is not crazy conspiracy theories anon, you are surrounded by propaganda and you would realize this if you would ever truly open your mind

>>7001114

because education is an industry based off of snake pil salesmen selling garbage to parents so they can think their children are smart

anyway, it's all going to collapse in a few years when the college loan market goes bust

>>7001476
>two things are correlated
>must be the same thing

>>7001114
Basically, Beurocrats want some type of metric to measure intelegence while still satisfying the feel-good-about-yourself type groups who have a hand in their budgets.

Because the alternative is accepting an imperfect measure of Intelligence which is borderline retarded also.

IQ's entire foundation is based on biology, normality and statistics. All three factors are subject to change all the time, that is their "linchpin" it is what they thrive on. With IQ you are never really given an exact measure of intelligence but a comparative against the average "current" population performance there is no attempt to weight against "past" and "current" population performance.

Yes, you tested for a 125 IQ but what does that mean? Psychology has you down for being more intelligent than 4/6ths of the total population but what does that mean? Are you really more intelligent than 4/6ths of the total population? Are we really more intelligent than past populations? The Flynn effect saids yes, but the flynn effect is only measuring 85 years of 515 years of "modern" human history. Practical intelligence testing itself has only tested roughly 1/5 of those 515 years.

The problem with IQ compounds even more when you realize that epigenetics and imprinting is possibly allowing us to continue being better at IQ testing. IQ testing is said to lose it's worth when an individual repeatedly takes it and learns it, what if that's what's happening now? What if the way how we structure our testing and academics indirectly responds to that? Are we achieving higher levels of intelligence or is our genes expressing better testing? You ask, whats the difference? I say it makes all the difference.

It's similar to weight lifting, yes your body is becoming more stronger and can lift even more weight but outside that can you properly use that built body to do well in other athletic activities? Or are you stuck being good at body building and nothing else? The same goes for IQ, are we becoming more able in expressing our intelligence or are we simply becoming better test takers and it being applicable to pattern recognition/ math was a fluke?

>>7001667
Good point, I think I agree with that

>>7001114
"multiple intelligences" is bullshit
However specialization is not bullshit.
An intelligent person can choose to become specialized in any field that they decide to study in. A stupid person just picks the field that they just so happen to know the most about, and is mediocre at it.

>>7001114
well considering the basis of intelligence in our brain is something of an pre-cognition or intuition bank of a criteria of pre-determined receptors that we've built up through a quarter of our life before we really start to use them and that those can be stimulated through the most obscure of ways, from lying your face off resulting in logic to playing to rough with your siblings resulting in being extremely self reliant, that we might as well be putting ourselves or our children through the most bizarre conditions to simply stimulate them instead of having the repetitiveness of every day life over develop one or another part of the brain and leave the rest grasping at straws when it finally comes to a point of simplistic endeavors being to much for them- my point being is that we we're all conceived the same way and there's so much variety from then on that makes a strong person; and from there specialization becomes almost a null point

>OHBTWHAVEUHEARD?
>a way of looking at it, basically, is that reality is a fractal, but not like triangles and swirls, but a concept fractal- where the velocity is maintained by the concurrence of new elements blending with the old; as to say that every new element of structure, events/scenarios are ever coming into existance by the sheer gravity of the environments inquiry to the background structure of gravity, or pure space or the blank enviroment of what a conventional fractal would look like

>>7002045
Nice.

>>7002076
>complementing somebody on 4chan

>>7002076
>somebody being complemented on 4chan

>>7002122
I too have been complemented on 4chan: I was called the greatest of all fags once.

>>7001996
I hope this isn't your specialty.

>>7002076
>nice guy poster

What the fuck is "self smart"?

>>7003216
To know you havnt reached maturity until blood starts leaking out your ass

>been learning the humanities from south park since I was 12

This is just weird. Why do they have to call it intelligence? It just means you're good at painting or you're athletic

Is it possible to teach early childhood science without injecting propaganda into it?

You can kind of see this in autistic people. One might be great with numbers but bad at literally everything else. Another may be great at just drawing or just music.

>>7002045
>Raising your children free range or penned

>>7003540
>To know you havnt reached maturity until blood starts leaking out your ass
What if you're male?

>>7003631
Then you'll never become mature.

>>7003631
Men have asses too.

>>7003641
bullshit, we consume all material in us for energy, nothing is left over- so is the way of the world

>>7003647
This is now a shitposting thread.
I have a Ph.D. in shitposting.
>300k in 4chan passes.
>In any board I want.

>>7002045
bumping for great post

>>7003840
>

>>7001443
retard strength makes downsies the smartest of all

>>7001114
because political correctness. with multiple intelligences it's like contest with prizes to everyone so the retards can feel better about themselves.

Then why you aren't using your all-purpose intelligence and getting some friends?

>events/scenarios are ever coming into existance by the sheer gravity of the environments inquiry to the background structure of "<i>gravity</i>" ???

Eh?

>People advocate for IQ scores being used for anything but intellectual masturbation.
A stronger processor doesn't do shit, when it's strapped to a fucking rock.

>>7001114
But there are multiple aspects of intelligence.

>>7001114
>why do people still know their astrological signs
>why do people still give a shit about IQ
>why do people still take online tests to determine what their personality is when they can already self-appraise
>why do
because people are fucking stupid

>>7006157
Why does the sun come up? Are stars just pinholes in the curtain of night?

Why are, relatively speaking, math grades so weakly correlated with g?
What the fuck is classics?
Why are your grades on shitty subjective essays better correlated with g than math grades?

I have a hypothesis, but I'm not sure. It's only not very well correlated because the teachers can't teach for shit. Some smart kids are lucky enough to figure it out by themselves, while other smart kids aren't so lucky. I think that if you take just the kids with the highest grades, the correlation will be much stronger.


Please comment on this.

>>7001129

>I really don't understand cognitive psychology

sure thing (not) op

>>7006216
I would say teachers can teach.
You practice English all day.
You're not exactly practicing algebra all day.

>>7008441
*teachers CAN"T teach

>>7006216
I didn't realize this until I had already finished college, but math lectures taught me nothing. You need to memorize a LOT of shit it math. You aren't going to do that by listening to the professor take two hours to read one chapter of your math textbook to you, you're going to memorize it by actually doing the homework.

Furthermore, math tests are much harder to B.S. than other tests. They're generally open-answer while other subjects are multiple-choice or reward points for solid reasoning rather than absolutely correct answers (e.g. in English classes).

Note that pitch/music were so weakly affected by I.Q. Musical notation also requires a lot of memorization. You're not going to sit through one music class and suddenly have perfect pitch, you need to listen and practice.

Some of this is genuinely bad teaching, but I think for example math is just poorly suited to lecture-style teaching. One thing about math majors is that they're all retardedly stubborn. I don't think this is by accident, I think that only the stubborn kids are the ones who actually did all their math homework (despite everyone having problems) and thus became good at math.

>>7008518
But I think most of us agree that to be really good at math, not school math, you need to be much more intelligence than a novelist.
Math is only memorization because it's taught in a shitty way. The fact that there is so much memorization is simply a symptom of the fact that it's taught in a very bad way.

thread almost died

>>7001536
If degree of correlation is 1, then yes. If -1 then it's the same thing measured upside down. If 0, then not.

The variables you measure can be correlated with one another. Then you extract factors.

>>7001667
Measure carries a degree of error. Unless you are working with just math, this can't be avoided.

I wouldn't say multiple intelligences is outright pseudoscience but I would say it isn't as grounded as IQ. Wescheler's scales do measure different aptitudes and try to derive general factor(s) from there.

Not that they aren't subject to change. I think 5e is already out in the states?

Personally I think the next best upgrade is adding scales for emotional IQ. As it is, IQ just tells you how much you know and how well you solve problems in a very optimal setting. But I'm sure we all know someone we consider to be smart but chokes under pressure. We should have a measure of how good people are at managing emotions (keeping their cool and such).

>>7001128
Said the fag with a low IQ

>>7001443

Close your parenthesis, nigger.

>>7001125
>psychology
>science

Topkek

How can i know if i'm intelligent or stupid, i feel like i don't know anything about myself?
How can i improve myself?

>body smart