[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 46 KB, 660x574, 24688908544778543.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15554657 No.15554657 [Reply] [Original]

When will you accept the fact that intelligence is not something you can quantify with a number?

>> No.15554667

What is intelligence?

>> No.15554677

>>15554667
How efficiently you can solve a problem.

>> No.15555055

>>15554677
What is the unit of intelligence?

>> No.15555089

>>15554657
It is accepted. People will still have questions though. There are not right ways to measure it, but there are wrong ways. So, in a goal to satisfy people's desire to answer their questions, which may be relevant for later engineering or for predictive use of deduction and statistics, systems are designed to approximate intelligence. These systems receive merit on their ability to generate interest as a usable scientific tool: something that can be used as a predictive tool to satisfy their questions. Immediately, you can see the issue here as choosing method as something to get your conclusion to agree with your hypothesis plagues publishing in psychology.
Despite your understanding that some things are intangible or outside of your scope of comprehension, others simply don't care and would prefer to use limited-scope approximations to spur their engineering. Which of course may be valiant or downright reckless.

>> No.15555092

>>15554657
>>15555089
in addition, what you allege is as dumb as saying I shouldn't consider using Newtonian physics when I know it is limited in scope as a description of the universe. I don't care, I just like bridges or computers.

>> No.15555108

>>15554657
intelligence = net worth
simple as

>> No.15555111

>>15554657
Ok but mine is over 9000

>> No.15555113
File: 80 KB, 220x220, 1688854191554190.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15555113

>>15555108

>> No.15555145

>>15554657
Can you say "X person is more intelligent than Y person" though? Or is that also against the Newspeak?

>> No.15555155
File: 58 KB, 750x1000, pepebig.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15555155

>>15554657
I do accept it

>> No.15555159

>>15555145
>Can you say "X person is more intelligent than Y person" though?
You can't. You can perhaps compare very specific areas, but "intelligence" is very broad to be comparable.

>> No.15555183

>>15555159
You saw what I was going to say next, Bravo.
But that's exactly what a g-factor is. A general factor. In general, if you're high in the g-factor, other facets of intelligence are going to be correlated to it. Unless you have issues such as autism or something. It is generally not going to be so that a man is genius in area of intelligence and a retard in another.

>> No.15555371

>>15554657
When D&D has to remove intelligence as a core stat because they realize it didn't actually work.

>> No.15555377

>>15555055
Clean money

>> No.15555399

>>15554657
In your view, is it possible to quantify athletic performance with numbers? I.e. someone like Messi has, according to one or several numbers, objectively the better stats than any 90 years old person.

If there are multiple such numbers, do you think it's impossible that there can be a scheme in which they are united in one? If so, why?

If numbers can't be used to measure athletic performance, why not?


Any framework about how the intelligence/IQ correspondence does not work, also needs to answer about athletic problem.

>> No.15555403

>>15555108
The top content producers on onlyfans are the most intelligent.

>> No.15555416

>>15555399
You can measure how fast someone runs a mile, how much weight they can bench press or how fast they read a book, multiply two digit numbers, etc at any given time, but that doesn't mean much in the scheme of things and is prone to change drastically from day to day.

>> No.15555432
File: 52 KB, 400x400, 1687149360622198.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15555432

>>15555403
They're at least intelligent enough to know when not to compete in a rat race that leads to 100k in debt or stuck in wage slave purgatory. So at the very least they pass the first intelligence filter.

>> No.15555441 [DELETED] 

>>15555416
And IQ tests do exactly that. They measure how fast you can recognize patterns, how good you can invert numbers, etc.
These are somehow correlated to intelligence. If you are good at these tasks in a timely manner (i.e. have a high score in these tasks), then it's also extremely likely you are intelligent.
What your side gets hung up on is that IQ tests do not offer an explanation, or make any statement, about how *precisely* this connection arises, or indeed how tight the correlation is. It suffices that they measure *something*, and the value in numbers of this something is to *some* degree of accuracy correlated with what any rational person would describe as "intelligent".

If you are anti-IQ being worthwhile, you also tacitly admit you are anti "intelligence" having ANY kind of explanatory value or as a token in language, because such advance always reduce into the debate if you can even *describe* intelligence (IQ).

IQ tests circumvent this, simply because they only use a correlation, they do not make any essence (=fundamental being/semantics) statements.

>> No.15555442

>>15555416
And IQ tests do exactly that. They measure how fast you can recognize patterns, how good you can invert numbers, etc.
These are somehow correlated to intelligence. If you are good at these tasks in a timely manner (i.e. have a high score in these tasks), then it's also extremely likely you are intelligent.
What your side gets hung up on is that IQ tests do not offer an explanation, or make any statement, about how *precisely* this connection arises, or indeed how tight the correlation is. It suffices that they measure *something*, and the value in numbers of this something is to *some* degree of accuracy correlated with what any rational person would describe as "intelligent".

If you are anti-IQ being worthwhile, you also tacitly admit you are anti "intelligence" having ANY kind of explanatory value or as a token in language, because such advances always reduce into the debate if you can even *describe* intelligence.

IQ tests circumvent this, simply because they only use a correlation, they do not make any essence (=fundamental being/semantics) statements.

>> No.15555446

>>15555432
This is the most low IQ post you could've posted.

>> No.15555453

>>15555442
>but that doesn't mean much in the scheme of things and is prone to change drastically from day to day.
>but that doesn't mean much in the scheme of things and is prone to change drastically from day to day.
>but that doesn't mean much in the scheme of things and is prone to change drastically from day to day.
Since you seemed to miss the important part the first time.
Who cares if you can train to recognized the patterns they test for the fastest in some particular group or day? It doesn't really carry over to other things, just because an athlete is the best sprinter in some event doesn't really mean they swim the fastest mile or throw a javelin the furthest, it just tells you they trained to sprint for that event more appropriately.

>> No.15555455

>>15555442
Also, to add to your point, OP's point makes even less sense when you think about the fact that IQ isn't even a measurement the same way that running speed or other athletic ability might be. It is simply a percentile. It is not measuring your intelligence per se. It is just telling you what proportion of the population you're smarter than. All a 100 IQ is telling you is that you're smarter than 50% of the population. That is, you're better at pattern recognition, abstract thinking and other tasks highly correlated with general intelligence than half the population. Not that there is some arbitrary IQ unit that measures your intelligence like speed is measured in m/s.

>> No.15555457

>>15555441
Not him but the main problem with IQ is that it doesn't articulate associated functionality to a particular activity.

What exactly is the difference between an 80 IQ vs 160 look like in a writer? What does a 160 IQ look like between two writers with the same aptitude?

How does 160 IQ express itself when a writer chooses to be a science writer vs a creative? Why does a 160 IQ writer behave differently compared to a 160 mathematician?

>> No.15555458

>>15555403
Scientifically speaking, yes.
Morally speaking, no.

Which one it gotta be HUH HUH
A SAINTE?
A GRUNCH?

>> No.15555462

>>15555455
You can place runners in percentiles too if you want, its just the things they do have more concrete quantifiable metrics like meters per second rather than more abstract things like questions correctly answered out of 100.

>> No.15555471

>>15555453
You don't actually believe what you wrote, so why even make that post? Sure, you do believe the precise sentences you wrote -- how fast someone sprints isn't indicative of their javelin throwing ability. But the debate we are having is not about javelin throwing, but about whether Messi has a healthier heart, more oxygenated blood, more endurance, he has more muscles, stronger tendons, etc. than a 90 years old. Things he did not explicitly train for, but which are still a consequence of him being a high-performing athlete.

The same applies to intelligence. If you are intelligent, you are more likely to grasp an authors point faster and more deeply, you make better life choices, you can analyze novel situations more adeptly etc.

You literally cannot dispute above two paragraphs. This is what it means to be checkmate in a discussion, btw.

>> No.15555481

>>15555471
>how fast someone sprints isn't indicative of their javelin throwing ability.
Yes because athleticism is too broad to easily measure with a single metric.

> whether Messi has a healthier heart, more oxygenated blood, more endurance, he has more muscles, stronger tendons, etc
Knowing how fast they run and how much they can bench won't tell you any of that which is why seemingly elite athletes die of health complications or break down with unexpected injuries all the time.

>more likely
See, you are the one who clearly doesn't believe what you are saying since you have to add vague qualifiers like "likely" instead of definite terms like certainly.

I did dispute the previous paragraphs, measuring the m/s or m/g you can run or throw something doesn't actually tell you how healthy your heart is or how strong your tendons are or predict whether you will live to be 90.

>> No.15555488

>>15555481
>See, you are the one who clearly doesn't believe what you are saying since you have to add vague qualifiers like "likely" instead of definite terms like certainly.
Nope. You don't understand how logicians and high IQ people work. I never make a statement like "certainly" EXCEPT when talking about statements which logically only yield this value. With "logic" I mean statements that can be rewritten as logic formulas if one so desires. Of course, I don't actually care about writing natural language statement as logical formulas, but I have to explain the difference to you so you don't get the misconception I am talking about colloquial "logic".

For example, I would always say "-5 is certainly less than 10". I would never say "if you pick a number at random from 1 to 1 trillion (inclusive), it's certainly less than 1 trillion".

The rest of your post is inconsequential noise of someone who has lost the argument.

>> No.15555529

>>15555488
What a long winded way of saying you don't actually believe what you are typing.

>> No.15555530

>>15554657
So you propose a vector?

>> No.15555531

>>15554657
intelligence is a spectrum like gender and autism

>> No.15555547

>>15555529
Oh, but I do. If I believe it will 99% rain, then I believe the chance is 99% it will rain, and I will bring a raincoat. I believe the chance is in excess of 99% that Messi has a healthier body than a 90 years old.

You wouldn't bring a raincoat, since you don't believe in probabilities. (I had to eliminate the word "probably" from this sentence to make it understandable to you).

>> No.15555552

>>15555547
So even with a 99% chance, you would only bring a raincoat rather than wear it around waiting for it to rain because you don't actually believe it is raining until you see it raining and you still have no way of determining if Messi is healthy enough to live to be older than that 90 year old based on how many points he scored in the last game?

>> No.15555609

>>15555453
Even if a metric is very volatile over time you can still measure averages.

>> No.15555619

>>15555609
Its not just one metric, you need to rely on thousands of volatile metrics, many of which can't be measured at the same time since you can't run and swim underwater and above ground simultaneously to get an idea of someone's overall athletic ability.

>> No.15555734

>>15554657
already did long ago since i grew up of my muh IQ phase, you can be good at math all you want but you can have terrible creativity

>> No.15555764

>>15555108
Surely poor people must have a poor person gene then. I think that's basis enough to kill them all.

>> No.15555767

>>15554657
Most aspects of intelligence absolutely can be quantified.
Anybody who says otherwise is a coping retard.

>> No.15555784

>>15554657
I already have. Im dumb as a rock but give me time and I can crush a diamond.

>> No.15555798

>>15554657
Honestly, conversations about intelligence get blurred by people's ego. In reality, it is pretty much an objective thing. It's your ability to process information and understand reality(this involves several mental faculties such as memory, critical thinking, logical thinking,etc). IQ tests are far from perfect but they provide you a good metric, if a person has low IQ you can be pretty sure he's a dumb ass.

>> No.15555838

>>15554677
What if you are super efficient to solving problems but you end up creating 2 more while you are at it

>> No.15556119

>>15555838
Job security.

>> No.15556147

i already accepted that a long time ago

>> No.15556216

>>15554657
>When will you accept the fact that intelligence is not something you can quantify with a number?
source?

>> No.15556220

>>15555159
you can quite obviously say that some people are more intelligent than others, brainless sissy retards are not as intelligent as any normal person

>> No.15556227

>>15554657
When you prove that it is 0% quantifiable.

>> No.15556233

>>15555838
Was the problem inherently conjured in such a way that it would end up creating 2 more problems no matter what, or was it your own doing? If the latter is the case, then you didn't solve it the right way. If the former, then you are good at solving problems because you did what was required of you.

>> No.15556275

>>15555619
Oh well I guess there's just no way of determining if olympic athletes are have superior athletic ability to chain smoking lardwhales then.