[ 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: 275 KB, 395x395, smart.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6331117 No.6331117 [Reply] [Original]

I propose a new test of smartness to replace the useless and highly arbitrary IQ scale.

I got this idea by thinking about Turing machines. I figured if we can determine the computational capability of a machine, we could apply the same principles to humans.

I start with a postulate that a smart person is distinguished from a non-smart person by the level of their learning capabilities.

It all boils down to this very simple idea. A person is smart if they can learn anything _learnable_.

To determine if a person is smart or not, the following test is proposed:
- evaluate the person to determine the skills they have acquired so far
- pick a number of random skills that the person has not learned thus far, and are completely unrelated to their skills so far
- determine time required to acquire each skill to a degree of technical proficiency
- put the person in a controlled environment with enough time to absorb skills
- when the time runs out, perform a test

If the person has learned each proposed unrelated skill to a degree of proficiency, that person is deemed "smart", which means that they can learn anything that is learnable.

Comments, suggestions?

>> No.6331119

A quick, reliable and well-established procedure like an IQ test is to be preferred. Not everyone is a NEET loser like you who has huge amounts of time to waste. Unlike yours, our time is valuable.

>> No.6331127

>>6331119
It may be well-established and quick, but it's not reliable.

>> No.6331136

>>6331127
Its predictive power on socio-economic status and academic achievements has been confirmed in hundreds of studies. Fucking google it and stop wasting time with shitposting.

>> No.6331140

>>6331117
>highly arbitrary IQ scale

you know fuck-all about IQ.

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

>> No.6331164

>>6331140

Thank you for corroberating my beliefs of the empirical arbitrariness of IQ with that link.

>> No.6331169

>>6331136

>it has correlates with other variables

=/=

>it's a valid scientific concept

IQ fundies...

>> No.6331198

>>6331169
What other scientific theories do you deny? Do you deny evolution as well? How about gravity? Quantum consciousness? Global warming?

>> No.6331212
File: 22 KB, 340x255, r596917_3857995.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6331212

>>6331198
>IQ
>scientific theory

>> No.6331225
File: 42 KB, 625x351, 1391544307739.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6331225

>>6331212

>> No.6331227

>>6331225
>sociology
>real science

>> No.6331229

>>6331227
Sociology is very rigorous and uses the scientific method. By not relying on quasi-empirical math wizardry but only on pure empirical observation, sociology is an even purer science than physics where you get untestable philosophical /x/ quackery like string theory and quantum field theory.

>> No.6331235

>>6331229
>Implying real physicists follow string theory

Your pop science/liberal arts is showing.

>> No.6331237
File: 71 KB, 533x594, lolwut.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6331237

>>6331229
Your whole post is just a marmelade made of wut and lel.

>> No.6331244

>>6331235
>bawww string theory is 2mathy4me

Have fun failing your calc 1 class, kid.

>> No.6331246

>>6331117
this is a very interesting concept.As a psyc student i imagine this would prove to be a very valid and reliable measure of intelligence. That being said what the 2nd poster brings up is critical