/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.5032901]

How are IQ and creativity related?

[Anonymous No.5032904]

They aren't.

[Carl No.5032910]

I have both of them.

[Anonymous No.5032921]

Some researchers believe that creativity is the outcome of the same cognitive processes as intelligence, and is only judged as creativity in terms of its consequences others believe that creativity and intelligence are two distinct mental processes.

[Anonymous No.5032936]

>>5032901

IQ is not an adequate measure of intelligence.

Creativity is not objectively measurable, nor is absolute creativity possible.

They are related because they are both bullshit and brain scientists don't give a shit about either of them.

[Anonymous No.5032943]

>>5032901

They aren't. Are you perhaps trying to ask us how intelligence and creativity are related? That's also a bad question, but it's at least worthy of discussion.

[Carl No.5032944]

>>5032936
>IQ is not an adequate measure of intelligence.

Go ahead and post a better one.

[Anonymous No.5032948]

>>5032921

>Some researchers believe that creativity is the outcome of the same cognitive processes as intelligence, and is only judged as creativity in terms of its consequences others believe that creativity and intelligence are two distinct mental processes.

This is /sci/; I think you're looking for /pseudosci/ or perhaps /popsci/.

[Anonymous No.5032952]

>>5032943

Yeah, that's my question. I wasnt excepting to create a discussion about how IQ tests are reliable.

[Anonymous No.5032956]

>>5032944

That's like asking someone to go ahead and post a better way of building a fusion reactor. It's an entire field of study, and despite the thousands of bright men and women studying it, no one has a concrete answer yet.

[Anonymous No.5032960]

>>5032952

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/2012/08/22/from-stem-to-steam-science-and-the-arts-go
-hand-in-hand/

The author of that article is horrible, and they like to leap to bizarre conclusions, but the data is pretty solid. So just pay attention to the numbers and ignore the writing.

[Carl No.5032966]

>>5032956
So you dismiss a scientific way of measurement solely because of emotional reasons? Shame on you. You'll never be a real scientist.

[Anonymous No.5032973]

if a tribe of wild Aboriginal type folks gave you their version of an IQ test, what would be your score?

keep in mind we both know well enough that nobody here wouldn't be dead three times over before one of their toddlers that already know better, left alone in a jungle for five minutes.

[Anonymous No.5032983]

>>5032966

>scientific way of measurement

No. There are statistics involved, if that is your only qualifier for "scientific way of measurement." However, any study or test claiming to establish or describe something as immensely broad as "intelligence" is going to be greatly exaggerated or even fraudulent. Someone's intelligence quotient is merely a measure of their intelligence quotient. It is related to "intelligence," but it is only one type of intelligence. Someone with an IQ of 140 could be an absolute moron in situations that do not require the specific knowledge used in IQ tests.

[Anonymous No.5032990]

>>5032966

Also, if you happen to be in college, what is your major? If I may ask, that is.

If you aren't in college, what do you intend to study?

[Carl No.5032996]

>>5032983
Would you mind defining "intelligence"? I prefer to stick with the definition given by IQ scores.

>>5032990
I'm in university, not in college.

[Anonymous No.5033001]

>>5032996
>I prefer to stick with the definition given by IQ scores

There is no definition given by IQ scores. That's not what IQ tests are for.

[Carl No.5033004]

>>5033001
You define length by saying how many meters/centimeters/inches something is long. Similarly you define intelligence by the score on IQ tests. That's how science works. We invent tools to measure things.

[Anonymous No.5033018]

>>5032973
An idiot can think a genius is an idiot and another idiot is a genius, and a genius can think an idiot is an idiot and another genius is a genius.

Not all points of view are equally valid, and IQ doesn't measure specialized knowledge.

[Anonymous No.5033029]

>>5032996

You're circling around my point here. No one knows what intelligence is. At this point you're better off trusting philosophers (I'm not joking) to answer that question. I'm a neuroscience major doing undergrad research under a professor whose focus is cognitive neuroscience (her Ph.D. is in biological psychology, from before the days when "neuroscience" was big), if you're wondering about my background. Certainly someone who is retarded is going to have a low IQ, and I would say that many bright people are going to have high IQ's if you test them. That does not necessarily mean that IQ is a solid measure of intelligence, because IQ only measures a tiny part of cognitive ability.

Also I apologize about the university/college confusion. Here in the United States the two words are used interchangeably, something which I fall victim to even if I disapprove of it.

[Anonymous No.5033031]

>>5033004

Neuroscience guy again. Your major or specialization wouldn't happen to be in chemistry or physics, would it?

[Carl No.5033048]

>>5033029
>No one knows what intelligence is
And yet you imply to know what it is by dismissing the best operational definition we have right now. Fucking hypocrite.

> At this point you're better off trusting philosophers
Trusting philosophers is always better. They often tend to be more knowledgable than scientists.

> someone who is retarded is going to have a low IQ
>bright people are going to have high IQ's
That makes IQ a perfectly valid measure of intelligence. What more do you want?

> because IQ only measures a tiny part of cognitive ability.
So what? Other cognitive abilites have other names.

>>5033031
Who cares? Irrelevant.

[Anonymous No.5033049]

>>5033031
What are you implying? There's nothing wrong with applying the same sort of reasoning to both fields.

Obviously, the correct way to measure intelligence is to count the number of brains.

[Anonymous No.5033053]

>>5033029
>No one knows what intelligence is. At this point you're better off trusting philosophers (I'm not joking) to answer that question.

what? everyone knows what intelligence is. the problem is that we have different definitions, even if we think we mean the same thing.
And really, asking philosophers?

[Anonymous No.5033062]

>>5033048

>And yet you imply to know what it is by dismissing the best operational definition we have right now. Fucking hypocrite.

That is not what I'm doing. I am dismissing erroneous measurements for the sake of discussion and science in general. Part of science is discarding what is not true, and IQ is not considered by any psychologist or neuroscience to be an adequate measure of "intelligence," beyond determining whether or not someone is mentally retarded.

>Trusting philosophers is always better. They often tend to be more knowledgable than scientists.

In this particular area, they very well may be.

>That makes IQ a perfectly valid measure of intelligence. What more do you want?

People who smoke are more likely to become impotent. People who do not smoke are less likely to become impotent. We do not measure actual likelihood of becoming impotent solely by observing smoking habits.

>So what? Other cognitive abilites have other names.

And they contribute to "intelligence," and until we can define intelligence, and then define all of those cognitive processes, and ten measure all of them objectively, we will have no accurate measure of intelligence.

Also, I was just curious as to what your educational focus was. As I said, we don't understand intelligence, so really I don't think that someone in another major would have a better or worse idea. Your reasoning just happens to mirror that of many physics students that I have talked to. Am I right in thinking you are studying physics?

[Anonymous No.5033066]

>>5033049

>What are you implying? There's nothing wrong with applying the same sort of reasoning to both fields.

There is pretty much nothing correct at all about that post. If you were right, there wouldn't be separate fields of science, we'd just get a general education and then take a class or two on basic stuff for specialization.

[Anonymous No.5033069]

>>5033053

Please define intelligence for me, then.

[Carl No.5033070]

>>5033062
> I am dismissing [...] science in general
Well played.

> IQ is not considered by any psychologist or neuroscience to be an adequate measure of "intelligence,"
Your opinions are not facts.

>People who smoke
Wrong analogy. You cannot compare a direct definition by measurement with causal correlations.

>And they contribute to "intelligence,"
Guess why we call them OTHER abilities.

>and until we can define intelligence
We already did. We defined it to mean the IQ score.

[Anonymous No.5033074]

At this moment and time the human brain is still not perfectly understood, how it works etc. but IQ is the best we have got so far, of course it isn't perfect, but neither is our knowledge of the brain, so we cannot make a legit way of measure just yet and need to stick with what we have got.

[Carl No.5033075]

>>5033062
>Am I right in thinking you are studying physics?
Among other things. I'm literally studying everything.

[Anonymous No.5033077]

>>5033049

There is nothing wrong with applying "the same kind of reasoning" to both fields, but similar reasoning in physics is far more basic than in psychology, because psychology and neuroscience data have more "noise" interfering with measurement and analysis. You have to be particularly careful about defining in psychology, and if you need proof of that look at the rate of fraud and misconceptions among psychologists.

This is also why sample sizes are so large in psychology, and why data analysis is such a chore, because everything can bias the mind.

[Anonymous No.5033079]

Intelligence is the ability to recognize patterns.
Creativity is the ability to create them.
Or something like that.

[Anonymous No.5033081]

>>5033070

>We already did. We defined it to mean the IQ score.

I'm not even going to address the other things in your post. Who is "we" here? I have literally never met anyone with even a bachelor's degree in psychology or neuroscience who would agree with this.

>>5033075

I was curious because you reason like a physics and maths major. You are extremely trusting of quantitative measurements, but since you're not very involved in the field of psychology, I don't think you understand how difficult it is to find anything quantitative about the mind.

[Anonymous No.5033080]

>>5033079
i recognize that every time i bring your mother flowers, i get laid. She has creative ways of laying me.

[Anonymous No.5033088]

>>5033048

Do you even realize how complex a structure the human brain is? We know next to nothing about how it works, so the humility is perfectly rational.

[Carl No.5033091]

>>5033081
>I have literally never met anyone with even a bachelor's degree in psychology or neuroscience who would agree with this.
Funnily IQ was invented by psychologists.

>I'm not even going to address the other things in your post
Because you got fucking told. lel

> I don't think you understand how difficult it is to find anything quantitative about the mind.
Define it and design a test. Where's the problem?

>>5033088
Exactly. That's why we don't arrogantly dismiss IQ without having a better definition.

[Anonymous No.5033110]

>>5033091

Psychologists have been spectacularly incorrect before. That's why everyone is so wary of such broad generalizations.

[Anonymous No.5033113]

>>5033091

>Exactly. That's why we don't arrogantly dismiss IQ without having a better definition.

This was never done. We did however put emphasis on how vague an frail the term is due to the lack of knowledge of the brain.
We should not dismiss it, simply recognize how unprecise it is.

[Anonymous No.5033114]

>>5033075
I'm calling bullshit. The only thing you have ever discussed on sci with a modicum of competence is philosophy.
You have never posted accurately or correctly in an energy thread, a physics thread or a math thread.

[Anonymous No.5033115]

>>5033075

Your parents probably called you a "special boy", am I right?

[Anonymous No.5033127]

I'm just a normal high school kid (18), and a I got 152 on a Mensa test. If I can have a say on the matter of creativity, even tough most of my family (uncle, granddad, grandma) are (have been) artists, I cannot do anything with my hands. My handwriting is shit, my pictures are crap... In terms of fantasy, I'm would say I'm as anybody else.

[Carl No.5033128]

>>5033110
If they were incorrect, you could prove them wrong. Obviously you can't.

>>5033113
Post the evidence for why you consider it unprecise.

>>5033114
I did with my other trips or anonymously.

>energy threads
What the fuck does that even mean? Peak oil or similar troll crap?

>>5033115
If by "special" you mean "highly intelligent", then yes.

[Anonymous No.5033149]

>>5033128

>This fucking post

[Anonymous No.5033157]

>>5033128
So you're only full of Shit when you post as "Carl"? I'll keep that in mind.

[Carl No.5033167]

>>5033157
Where did I say that? I'm never "full of shit". I'm taking /sci/ serious and answer questions in a scientific manner.

[Anonymous No.5033175]

>Post the evidence for why you consider it unprecise.

It is unprecise because there is not enough evidence to support it. Do you even science?

Serious question, how old are you? I'm 22. No intentions here just curious.

[Carl No.5033183]

>>5033175
There's alot of evidence to support it. The neuroscience guy ITT himself said in >>5032983
>someone who is retarded is going to have a low IQ
>bright people are going to have high IQ's

Do you disagree? Don't you start posting anecdotal evidence or related fallacies.

[Anonymous No.5033190]

>>5033183

But you and I know that the IQ measurements vary greater than just "retarded" and "smart" - if not, these very definitions would be adequeate categorizations of intelligence.

[Anonymous No.5033195]

i dont know why people still argue about iq tests.
they measure the effectivity of a persons brain to perform a set of functions. a person with a high score performed well, a person with a low score did not. what sort of "intelligence" do you think is not explicitly tested that you absolutely want in there so you can accept an iq test as a measure for intelligence?

[Carl No.5033202]

>>5033190
>if not, these very definitions would be adequeate

Why are they not? Because you already assume that they aren't? That's circular reasoning, my friend. You should learn some logic.

[Anonymous No.5033206]

>>5033167

[Anonymous No.5033233]

>>5033202

9/10 I replied. You have got to be the most deluded person in terms of overestimating your own intelligence.
What I said was the the IQ-measuring scale has more possible outcomes than just smart or retarded; it ranges in some instances from 50-190.
If an IQ test had just two possible outcomes, smart and retarded would suffice.
An IQ test has more than two outcomes.
Therefore, smart and retarded does not suffice.
What we are critiszing is the lack of precision the IQ outcome is determined by, even though it can tell the two "rough" distinctions.

If you were my little brother I would have raped you by now.

[Carl No.5033250]

>>5033233
IQ is a spectrum like gender. Is that what you're saying? Well that's trivially true, because this is how IQ tests were designed. That's a good thing btw, since a spectrum fits the social reality better than a binary categorization.

[Anonymous No.5033264]

>>5033250

But that has nothing to do with the reliability of the system, which is the only thing we are discussing you cock-juggling thundercunt.

[Anonymous No.5033365]

Nobel laureates are 14 times more likely than another scientist to be a painter.

[Anonymous No.5033374]

Intelligence and creativity are related, or at least useful for each other. IQ only asks for the most obvious, "logical" answer, and is therefore not very much related to creativity at all.