Sat in a philosophy class today.

[Kagatob]

Professor brought up how much a sadistic racist dickbag Mother Theresa was.

Black chick freaked out.

I s******ed.

[Ektar]

I took philosophy 101. I went to class the first day and some dude was "that guy" who said stupid shit thinking it was all profound and crap. I never went back.

I got a B+

[Rhambuk]

philosophy is kind of interesting but completely pointless, thankfully economics filled my requirement

[zanderklocke]

Pointless in the sense if you define monetary success as the only worthwhile thing in life, then yes it is pointless.

[Barkingturtle]

For the record, I don't have strong feelings about Kagatob one way or the other, but even I can't stop reading the thread title as "Sat on a Philosophy Class Today".

Some folks just exude an obese vibe, I reckon.

[Kagatob]

To each their own, though I don't think 190 lbs at 5'10" with a cyclist's build would be considered obese. :)

[Barkingturtle]

http://img.myconfinedspace.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/i-have-the-weirdest-boner-700x507.jpg

[Alawen]

To each their own, though I don't think 190 lbs at 5'10" with a cyclist's build would be considered obese. :)

BMI 27.3. You're about 15 pounds overweight.

[Barkingturtle]

You're about 15 pounds overweight.

It's mostly neckbeard.

[Gadwen]

To each their own, though I don't think 190 lbs at 5'10" with a cyclist's build would be considered obese. :)

lolololololol

[Hasbinbad]

BMI 27.3. You're about 15 pounds overweight.
BMI is a very poor metric for determining if someone is overweight. A basic example is if someone has more muscle mass, since muscle weights considerably more than fat, they will be seen as "overweight" if you do not include a physical evaluation. BMI is more useful when combined with water displacement, but the best way to make such a determination is direct observation.

Certainly, some dude on a forum for 14 year old elf simulators shouldn't be telling someone they are overweight based simply on a BMI. That's ridiculous.

[Alawen]

[QUOTE=Hasbinbad;1016255blah blah blah 14 year old elf simulator blah blah blah overweight blah blah blah[/QUOTE]

BMI tends to underestimate obesity. If he's a massively ripped athlete covered with lean muscle mass, I'll be happy to eat my words. Until then, I'm going to stick with 15 pounds overweight.

Bikers tend to be very lean with not much upper body development. Lance Armstrong is almost exactly the same height and weighs 165. You really want to go with 25 pounds more lean muscle than Lance Armstrong?

[Ektar]

even if muscle weighed less than fat it'd still negate the significance of a bmi chart

[Alawen]

For athletes under 15% body fat, BMI isn't useful. Those people tend not to justify their weight on RnF.

[Skope]

even if muscle weighed less than fat it'd still negate the significance of a bmi chart

I prefer the 'does your fat jiggle when you brush your teeth?' test.

[r00t]

philosophy stupid

BMI stupid

welcome to year 1003

[Barkingturtle]

I'm 5'8" and vacillate between 135 and 140. My abdominal muscles are individually defined -- I shit you not it's a real thing you can do, too.

This is the result of a vegan diet, lots of outdoor exercise and a less-than-tall father. Probably helps that I never got into anime, too.

[Ephirith]

BMI is useful as a very, very rough estimate of body composition and nothing more, because you can put it together with minimal data and measurement.

Using it to make a claim as specific as "you're 15 pounds overweight" is pretty bad

[Droxx]

You're the same height as Lance Armstrong and 25 pounds heavier. And he was on roids. You might be fat!

[Ahldagor]

I took philosophy 101. I went to class the first day and some dude was "that guy" who said stupid shit thinking it was all profound and crap. I never went back.

I got a B+

you had a bad teacher then. ask for your money back.

[Hasbinbad]

You really want to go with 25 pounds more lean muscle than Lance Armstrong?
That would be extremely easy to do if you lift. Armstrong is an insanely healthy person and his body would last FAR longer than mine in any sort of contest of endurance, but I might beat him arm wrestling. He doesn't have much muscle mass .. ON PURPOSE.

Horrible example.

Back to school, noob.

[Hasbinbad]

because you can put it together with minimal data and measurement.
Granted.

[Ektar]

a bad teacher is one who tells "that guy" to shut up and that he's wrong (unfortunately)


and trust me they ain't givin me my hundreds of thousands of dollars back. especially since I haven't paid it yet!

[Hasbinbad]

You're the same height as Lance Armstrong and 25 pounds heavier. And he was on roids. You might be fat!
See my answer to aladerp.

[Sadre Spinegnawer]

As a philosophy professor, I must remark, you claim to have been in that class. Yet your report on what the professor said is highly unlikely. Since you seem to have embellished and perhaps inaccurately interpreted what the professor actually said, in what sense -- other than physically -- were you actually in the class?

What exactly did the professor say? Why did he or she say it? What was the point? What was the argument? Did you even think to ask or press the professor for clarification?

I think your mind was wrapped up in what you found easy to hear and think you had interpreted and experienced, and then posted it here. I do not think you were really in the class.

I say this because, I am that professor. And I did not call Mother Theresa sadistic. I said she was fascinated by human suffering. You were the one breathing through your mouth in the back, correct? I knew you were not getting it. See me next class, we can get clear.

[Hasbinbad]

As a philosophy professor, I must remark, you claim to have been in that class. Yet your report on what the professor said is highly unlikely. Since you seem to have embellished and perhaps inaccurately interpreted what the professor actually said, in what sense -- other than physically -- were you actually in the class?

What exactly did the professor say? Why did he or she say it? What was the point? What was the argument? Did you even think to ask or press the professor for clarification?

I think your mind was wrapped up in what you found easy to hear and think you had interpreted and experienced, and then posted it here. I do not think you were really in the class.

I say this because, I am that professor. And I did not call Mother Theresa sadistic. I said she was fascinated by human suffering. You were the one breathing through your mouth in the back, correct? I knew you were not getting it. See me next class, we can get clear.
A+

[Hasbinbad]

Nobody needs ever make any argument for mother theresa, one only needs to be pointed in the direction of hitchens videos.

[Kagatob]

BMI tends to underestimate obesity. If he's a massively ripped athlete covered with lean muscle mass, I'll be happy to eat my words. Until then, I'm going to stick with 15 pounds overweight.

Bikers tend to be very lean with not much upper body development. Lance Armstrong is almost exactly the same height and weighs 165. You really want to go with 25 pounds more lean muscle than Lance Armstrong?
Lance Armstrong was an exceptional athlete who also juced, I'm not even going to say that I consider myself an athlete, even if I did the comparison would be much less than valid. By cyclist build I meant that most of my muscle mass is in my legs since my primary method of exercising is bicycle riding and between living on the 4th floor and working on the 7th (avoiding elevators) I climb lots of stairs.
a bunch of stuff

Actually I was in the front because my girlfriend's a fucking dork and always sits in the front of class. I was just visiting because they let me sit in since I had nothing better to do. :)

[Ahldagor]

As a philosophy professor, I must remark, you claim to have been in that class. Yet your report on what the professor said is highly unlikely. Since you seem to have embellished and perhaps inaccurately interpreted what the professor actually said, in what sense -- other than physically -- were you actually in the class?

What exactly did the professor say? Why did he or she say it? What was the point? What was the argument? Did you even think to ask or press the professor for clarification?

I think your mind was wrapped up in what you found easy to hear and think you had interpreted and experienced, and then posted it here. I do not think you were really in the class.

I say this because, I am that professor. And I did not call Mother Theresa sadistic. I said she was fascinated by human suffering. You were the one breathing through your mouth in the back, correct? I knew you were not getting it. See me next class, we can get clear.

http://town-ya1.ru/uploads/posts/2013-05/1368351841_applause-gif-3.gif

[Alawen]

That would be extremely easy to do if you lift. Armstrong is an insanely healthy person and his body would last FAR longer than mine in any sort of contest of endurance, but I might beat him arm wrestling. He doesn't have much muscle mass .. ON PURPOSE.

Horrible example.

Back to school, noob.

I didn't realize that adipose tissue was key for arm wrestling.

I'm 6'3" and 180 and I actually do have a biker/runner physique.

http://supportyourlocalgunfighter.com/wp-content/uploads/Naked-Lance-Armstrong.jpg

[Ektar]

is that a portait of you hanging on the wall directly across fro myour door


god I hope so

[r00t]

"I'm the professor" was a good troll

[Droxx]

See my answer to aladerp.

My point wasn't muscle mass vs endurance. It was just that he claimed to have a cyclists build and was clearly much heavier than a doping cyclist.

[Hasbinbad]

My point wasn't muscle mass vs endurance. It was just that he claimed to have a cyclists build and was clearly much heavier than a doping cyclist.
That actually was your point. :)

[Hasbinbad]

I didn't realize that adipose tissue was key for arm wrestling.
Just like your mom hides some good pussy under her fat rolls, I hide a gun show.

[Hailto]

Just like your mom hides some good pussy under her fat rolls, I hide a gun show.

Fucking lold, sometimes if you sift through the shit pile of hbb posts you find a gem.

[Hasbinbad]

Fucking lold, sometimes if you sift through the shit pile of hbb posts you find a gem.
A true and loyal fan.

[Csihar]

I had sex with a cyclist's build once.

[Splorf22]

I'm still snickering at "cyclist's build" :D

Also someone 5'10 / 190 lbs at 10% body fat would a) be lifting weights like crazy b) squat 450 lbs with a 40" vertical and c) have the body of an NFL running back. Contrary to HBB it isn't that easy to put on that much muscle.

[Alawen]

Just like your mom hides some good pussy under her fat rolls, I hide a gun show.

My mom is 5'9" and about 125. I talked to her earlier today. She spent the morning pruning trees and weeding her garden. She mows her own grass and shovels her own snow. Next month is her 70th birthday.

tl;dr: septuagenarian more fit and active than HBB

[Ektar]

I'm still snickering at "cyclist's build" :D

Also someone 5'10 / 190 lbs at 10% body fat would a) be lifting weights like crazy b) squat 450 lbs with a 40" vertical and c) have the body of an NFL running back. Contrary to HBB it isn't that easy to put on that much muscle.

this actually is more or less a description of me


why you creepin on me bro

[Splorf22]

paladin 1st round NFL draft pick np

[Ektar]

they don't allow flaming swords on the field I checked :x

[Sadre Spinegnawer]

they should!

[Abacab-Godking]

here you go kagoterbs... they locked her in a cage for you, enjoy.

http://i253.photobucket.com/albums/hh74/another-singer-girl/littlegreeneyedgirl.jpg

pedophile

[Abacab-Godking]

here you go kagoterbs... they locked her in a cage for you, enjoy.

http://i253.photobucket.com/albums/hh74/another-singer-girl/littlegreeneyedgirl.jpg

pedophile

[Ektar]

awww yeah double prizes

[Bazia]

here you go kagoterbs... they locked her in a cage for you, enjoy.

http://i253.photobucket.com/albums/hh74/another-singer-girl/littlegreeneyedgirl.jpg

pedophile

HAHA the jokes on you she is actually a 500000 year old spirit

so there is nothing pedo about it

[Hasbinbad]

Contrary to HBB it isn't that easy to put on that much muscle.
The "ease" (loosely defined here as gain in muscle mass divided by effort) with which the phenotype develops depends entirely on the genotype; some organisms have to work harder than others, born with superior genetics for the purposes of gaining lean muscle mass.

[Alawen]

I am amazed by the gyrations you're willing to go through in an attempt to deny your own poor physical condition. Your current implication is that Kagotob is some ferocious specimen of massive muscle development due to superior genetics.

The guy is overweight, and I was going easy with the 15 pounds.

[Kagatob]

You guys care way... too... fucking... much.

[Alawen]

You guys care way... too... fucking... much.

Quiet fatty. This is no longer about you.

[Alawen]

I am knowingly prejudiced against fat people and I feel kind of bad about it. I'm not sure how to resolve it. I can't seem to find sympathy for people who have created their own problems by eating too many french fries.

[Alawen]

I also feel a little uncomfortable about how much I enjoy pictures of slutty cosplay girls.

[Hasbinbad]

I am amazed by the gyrations you're willing to go through in an attempt to deny your own poor physical condition. Your current implication is that Kagotob is some ferocious specimen of massive muscle development due to superior genetics.

The guy is overweight, and I was going easy with the 15 pounds.
The word you're looking for is inference, not implication, because it is something you inferred, rather than being something I implied.

I was simply calling in to question your criteria.

[Grahm]

My mom is 5'9" and about 125. I talked to her earlier today. She spent the morning pruning trees and weeding her garden. She mows her own grass and shovels her own snow. Next month is her 70th birthday.

tl;dr: septuagenarian more fit and active than HBB

I justify my moms weight on forums as well. YOU'RE NOT ALONE.

weirdo

[Alawen]

I justify my moms weight on forums as well. YOU'RE NOT ALONE.

weirdo

Hey, if Mom is not worth white knighting for, who the fuck is?

[Alawen]

The word you're looking for is inference, not implication, because it is something you inferred, rather than being something I implied.

I was simply calling in to question your criteria.

FAT

[Hasbinbad]

FAT
mad.

[Hailto]

I am knowingly prejudiced against fat people and I feel kind of bad about it. I'm not sure how to resolve it. I can't seem to find sympathy for people who have created their own problems by eating too many french fries.

Do you feel the same way about drug addicts?

[Alawen]

I even like the fat cosplay girls showing way too much skin. What the fuck is wrong with me? I wish I'd gone to Convergence this weekend, but I have too much work and homework to do.

[Hailto]

Do you feel the same way about drug addicts?

Aside from people addicted to certain prescription drugs, you could make the argument that those addictions arose from necessity originally. What about heroin addicts? Do you feel the same disdain for them or just fat people because they aren't pleasing to look at?

[Hasbinbad]

alawen is the creepy old dude hanging out with younger, smarter people wherever he goes.

[Alawen]

Do you feel the same way about drug addicts?

Kind of. Honestly, it's a really shallow aesthetic thing. If someone is a reasonably clean and neat drug addict, I don't think as poorly of them as I would if they are dirty and smell like burned piss.

[Alawen]

alawen is the creepy old dude hanging out with younger, smarter people wherever he goes.

Projection.

[Alawen]

I looked up cosplay fat on google images. I'm glad to discover that I have limits.

[Alawen]

Your Spiderman costume is awesome, HBB.

http://scrapetv.com/News/News%20Pages/Entertainment/images-11/fat-guy-spiderman-cosplay.jpg

[Hailto]

Cosplay is weird.

[Hailto]

alawen is the creepy old dude hanging out with younger, smarter people wherever he goes.

I think Alawen is probably your intellectual better judging by forum posts, but you're both alright in my book.

[Alawen]

Intellect is so tricky to try to judge. I have a ridiculously high IQ, yet I'm sitting here looking at pictures of scantily clad fat girls at conventions and bickering mindlessly with HBB and fake Abacab. If only I'd use my powers for good instead of dumb.

[Hasbinbad]

IQ is not really a great measure of anything except being able to score well on an IQ test.

[SamwiseRed]

a class to teach you how to think. interesting.

[Hasbinbad]

a class to teach you how to think. interesting.
lots of those, critical thinking is a skill.

[Alawen]

Do you have one in particular in mind? Most people who talk about IQ tests with any knowledge refer to either Stanford-Binet or WAIS/WISC. Both are very comprehensive. If you've never taken a real IQ test or researched this, what you think you know lacks substance.

There are a lot of theories about intelligence and testing intelligence. The most generally accept (in a sense of plurality, it's pretty far from consensus) is Cattell's concept of generalized intelligence (g), split into both fluid intelligence (Gf, roughly the ability to learn) and crystallized intelligence (Gc, sort of accumulated knowledge and thinking skills). Gardner's theories of multiple intelligences are also quite interesting.

Your dismissal of IQ is popular with people who don't score well on IQ tests, but not among people who are actually involved in psychometrics. Modern IQ tests are sophisticated and they hold up well from the perspectives of standardization, validity, and reliability. Results are consistent with Cattell's theories. I'm sure you learned all this if you took an introductory psychology class. I think you're trying to have a twenty-year-old argument that has been discredited for almost that long.

There is the caveat, however, that IQ tests have difficulty accounting for abilities like creativity. They can also distort at the upper range. It's very hard to test someone like Marilyn vos Savant.

[Ektar]

Actually the word implication was correct, as he was telling you what you were implying, not what he inferred from what you said. Whether you actually did imply it or not is another story.


I AM SMART TOO BROS

[Hasbinbad]

Do you have one in particular in mind? Most people who talk about IQ tests with any knowledge refer to either Stanford-Binet or WAIS/WISC. Both are very comprehensive. If you've never taken a real IQ test or researched this, what you think you know lacks substance.

There are a lot of theories about intelligence and testing intelligence. The most generally accept (in a sense of plurality, it's pretty far from consensus) is Cattell's concept of generalized intelligence (g), split into both fluid intelligence (Gf, roughly the ability to learn) and crystallized intelligence (Gc, sort of accumulated knowledge and thinking skills). Gardner's theories of multiple intelligences are also quite interesting.

Your dismissal of IQ is popular with people who don't score well on IQ tests, but not among people who are actually involved in psychometrics. Modern IQ tests are sophisticated and they hold up well from the perspectives of standardization, validity, and reliability. Results are consistent with Cattell's theories. I'm sure you learned all this if you took an introductory psychology class. I think you're trying to have a twenty-year-old argument that has been discredited for almost that long.

There is the caveat, however, that IQ tests have difficulty accounting for abilities like creativity. They can also distort at the upper range. It's very hard to test someone like Marilyn vos Savant.
fat.

[Hasbinbad]

Actually the word implication was correct, as he was telling you what you were implying, not what he inferred from what you said. Whether you actually did imply it or not is another story.


I AM SMART TOO BROS
implication is something the sender does
inference is something that the receiver does

the receiver cannot be more in tune with the senders intent than the sender because of sensation and perception.

but thanks.

[Ektar]

he was telling you what you were implying


whether he was correct in trying to tell you, the sender, what you were saying is not in question here.


imply is the right word

[Ektar]

person A: you are slow

person b: you are implying I will lose this race? fuck you!



are you trying to say it's "person b: you are inferring I will lose this race?"

[Splorf22]

Do you have one in particular in mind? Most people who talk about IQ tests with any knowledge refer to either Stanford-Binet or WAIS/WISC. Both are very comprehensive. If you've never taken a real IQ test or researched this, what you think you know lacks substance.

There are a lot of theories about intelligence and testing intelligence. The most generally accept (in a sense of plurality, it's pretty far from consensus) is Cattell's concept of generalized intelligence (g), split into both fluid intelligence (Gf, roughly the ability to learn) and crystallized intelligence (Gc, sort of accumulated knowledge and thinking skills). Gardner's theories of multiple intelligences are also quite interesting.

Your dismissal of IQ is popular with people who don't score well on IQ tests, but not among people who are actually involved in psychometrics. Modern IQ tests are sophisticated and they hold up well from the perspectives of standardization, validity, and reliability. Results are consistent with Cattell's theories. I'm sure you learned all this if you took an introductory psychology class. I think you're trying to have a twenty-year-old argument that has been discredited for almost that long.

There is the caveat, however, that IQ tests have difficulty accounting for abilities like creativity. They can also distort at the upper range. It's very hard to test someone like Marilyn vos Savant.

I don't really believe in IQ, because I don't believe the brain works that way. I believe the brain is much more specialized. Machine learning methods in general don't transfer: you can't take a classifier built for one task and reuse it for another. There is such a thing as working memory I guess, but in general I just don't like IQ.

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

I much prefer this explanation for IQ: high IQ people more than anything have high future time preference. What else can explain sitting inside reading books while the sun is out and everyone else is playing ball? And so we repeatedly expose ourselves to technical/abstract material until we eventually get better at it.

Now here is where the story takes an interesting racial turn. I believe that on average Blacks have lower future time preference. It's an easy argument to motivate on environmental grounds: Europeans had to store for the future, Africans did not. Africans lived in an extremely dangerous environment (elephants, tigers, tropical diseases) compared to Europeans. So Africans became more likely to value now over a tomorrow which might not happen and if it did would probably be OK, while Europeans became more likely to be cautious about the future.

I recently read about how California three-strikes laws are retarded. People are going to jail for life for stealing socks and pizza slices and so on. However, think about what an incredible lack of impulse control it takes to steal a piece of pizza knowing that if you are caught you will go to jail for life? Well criminals have low future time preference. And yes, the people hit by three strikes laws are inordinately Black.

And before anyone goes off pointing the racism cannon, I think low future time preference is (within reason) a great way to be happy. Some of the most miserable people I used to work with were the guys working 70 hours a week and working on night time MBAs and never seeing their kids in the hope of retiring at 40 and dragging their burned out bodies to the beach. Personally I say fuck the future. Unfortunately when everyone does this, society collapses :(

[Alawen]

If IB could go back in time and kill Hitler before the war and atrocities, would it be an ethical imperative to do so? (I'm ignoring the fact that he's a Nazi and that the guild is dedicated to killing Nazis.)

http://cdn-usa.gagbay.com/2012/05/eatler-76833.jpg

[Ektar]

from what I learned from seinfeld, yes you are supposed to go back in time and kill hitler.


they also kinda do that in the movie hehehe

[Alawen]

I don't really believe in IQ, because I don't believe the brain works that way. I believe the brain is much more specialized. Machine learning methods in general don't transfer: you can't take a classifier built for one task and reuse it for another. There is such a thing as working memory I guess, but in general I just don't like IQ.

Delayed gratification is an interesting element to introduce, but I'm not convinced of your reasoning. I would argue that IQ scores and the ability to delay gratification both result from high intelligence. As evidence, I would present the fact that high IQ also correlates with the same successful life outcomes as the marshmallow test that you referenced, even when controlled for things like economic background and education. As with all metrics, IQ works much better on a population than on an individual.

Do you really read for some kind of future benefit? I read because I honestly enjoy it. I have "Quiet: The Power of Introverts in a World That Can't Stop Talking" and "For Whom the Bell Tolls" waiting for my class to end. I chose them both purely for my own interest, not for any practical future use.

[Hailto]

For Whom the Bell Tolls is great, love Hemmingway, should read The Old Man and the Sea too if you haven't.

[Alawen]

For Whom the Bell Tolls is great, love Hemmingway, should read The Old Man and the Sea too if you haven't.

I haven't, but I intend to, assuming that I enjoy this one. I read "The Sound and the Fury" and intended to read more Faulkner, but goddamn. What the fuck?

[Alawen]

Oh, I totally didn't understand the reference to machine learning. Was that an analogy, or do you mean that you think we'd attempt to create an AI that works like our mind, or is there a use of that phrase in reference to human intelligence that I don't understand?

[Splorf22]

Well when I said books I was referring to study, not web comics.

Anyway I find it much more reasonable to put the causality from future time preference to intelligence than vice versa simply because FTP seems like something that is far more likely to be emotional/structural/genetic.

[Splorf22]

Oh, I totally didn't understand the reference to machine learning. Was that an analogy, or do you mean that you think we'd attempt to create an AI that works like our mind, or is there a use of that phrase in reference to human intelligence that I don't understand?

My point was that its special purpose. Your computer has 1 CPU and many programs. Upgrade the CPU and they all get faster.

Keep in mind that I'm not arguing that some people don't have better brains. Clearly the brain is defined by genetics as well; some people will have more neurons or more connections or whatnot. I just think the biggest part is simply time spent.

[Hasbinbad]

he was telling you what you were implying


whether he was correct in trying to tell you, the sender, what you were saying is not in question here.


imply is the right word
but i said that that wasn't my implication, which means that it is so, making the insight he gained from what I said an inference.

[Ektar]

if you're red and I say you are green, is my use of the word "are" incorrect? that is the verb which I am using to assert a false statement.

are is still correct, as in imply. He inferred what he claimed you implied

[Hasbinbad]

no he inferred meaning from what i said, and misspoke that as implication

[Hasbinbad]

Alawen is mostly facade.

[Ektar]

misspoke perhaps, but that is why I mean by that is not what's i nquestion. Within his usage/meaning of his sentence, the verb was correct - as far as imply vs infer.


if you're bored of this we can stop :P

[Hailto]

Where did your sig come from originally Ektar?

[Hasbinbad]

misspoke perhaps, but that is why I mean by that is not what's i nquestion. Within his usage/meaning of his sentence, the verb was correct - as far as imply vs infer.
ok I know you have special needs so I am being super patient with you. i will repeat: an implication is something you're told about by the sender, and a receiver cannot say what the sender implied, therefore his usage was wrong.

[Hasbinbad]

Things teenagers say:
Where did your sig come from originally Ektar?

[Hailto]

Im 25, should I know where its from?

[Hasbinbad]

i understand what you are saying ektar, but trust me when i tell you that your hair is a bird.

[Hasbinbad]

Im 25
Color me shocked bro. Color me shocked.

[Hailto]

Just tell me what the gif is from you mongoloids.

[Ektar]

I can tell you what you're implying. I may be wrong, but I can do it. you're making this word to be mystical or intrinsic to the user or something. It's just a verb whose definition is the transmission of meaning, as opposed to infer which is acceptance of meaning. Just like I can tell you "you are something," I can tell you "you are implying this" (whether I am right or not!)

or I can ask you "are you implying this?" is that one ok? because it's the same thing


and my sig is sprites from quest for glory 1, which I extracted with some program and made into a gif with GIMP (avatar same thing from qfg2)

[Ektar]

pal I was getting to it don't be so aggressive I was bullied as a child

[Hailto]

I see, game came out in 1989; really dating yourself there HBB.

[Hasbinbad]

I can tell you what you're implying. I may be wrong, but I can do it. you're making this word to be mystical or intrinsic to the user or something. It's just a verb whose definition is the transmission of meaning, as opposed to infer which is acceptance of meaning. Just like I can tell you "you are something," I can tell you "you are implying this" (whether I am right or not!)
Yes Ektar, I understand what you're saying, but you're wrong.

An analogue to what you're saying is the following situation:

Jake and Anthony are sitting in a Buick smoking a fatty.
Jake thinks "hey, I would like a frosty beer and a blowjob."
Anthony says "Hey Jake, I sure would like to give you that frosty beer and a blowjob you just asked for."

Now, Anthony can SAY that Jake asked him for a frosty beer and a blowjob, but he would be WRONG, because Jake only THOUGHT that.

[Hasbinbad]

I see, game came out in 1989; really dating yourself there HBB.
I was already a bad seed in 1989.

[Daldolma]

i wish i had caught this thread in its examination of iq, back before hbb turned it into gay blowjobs

[Hasbinbad]

hbb turned it into gay blowjobs
See this is HBB fan fiction because I didn't TURN this forum any which way. There were gay blowjobs here before I got here (real short list folks), and there will be gay blowjobs long after I leave. Don't blame me for pointing out reality.

[Kagatob]

Holy shit Alawen went full retard in this thread.

[Alawen]

Alawen is mostly facade.

You really can't control yourself with personal insults, can you? That's got to make establishing long-term friendships really difficult.

[Alawen]

i wish i had caught this thread in its examination of iq, back before hbb turned it into gay blowjobs

Did you have something interesting to add, or did you just want to drop a sarcastic bomb?

[Daldolma]

nope, i know relatively little about iq testing. i don't really understand how scores can vary so significantly if these test actually measure what they purport to measure. can general intelligence really fluctuate as you age?

anyway, i preferred that conversation to hbb defining implication in terms of gay blowjobs

[Ektar]

I can play that game too... you're wrong hbb.

it's a fucking verb and there are no boundaries on it. I can say things that are not true. just because person 1 thought it doesn't mean person 2 can't say it. it CAN happen.

[Barkingturtle]

Hey, I would like a frosty beer and a blowjob.

[FoxxHound]

BMI 27.3. You're about 15 pounds overweight.

What about me? I am 5'7-5'8 and roughly 140.

[Alawen]

nope, i know relatively little about iq testing. i don't really understand how scores can vary so significantly if these test actually measure what they purport to measure. can general intelligence really fluctuate as you age?

anyway, i preferred that conversation to hbb defining implication in terms of gay blowjobs

I'm going to start with the very basics of psychometrics, so my apologies if this is review. I mentioned the elements of standardization, validity, and reliability in a previous post.

In brief, standardization is a given test being delivered in the same way given different physical locations, test administrators, and so on. If you've taken the SAT or the ACT, you've experienced their attempts to create a very controlled environment for taking the test.

Validity is the quality of testing what you are trying to test. This is what HBB is questioning--whether IQ is a valid test of intelligence. Validity is viewed from three perspectives: content, criterion, and construct. This is why the underlying theory of intelligence is important. I think Loraen is mostly objecting to the Cattell model of generalized intelligence; he would probably be more comfortable with Gardner's theory of multiple intelligences.

Reliability is the consistency between assessments and this is what you're questioning. It also has three subcategories, which are stability (also called test-retest), alternate form, and internal consistency. Obviously, stability is the characteristic you're calling into question.

You use a coefficient of variation to measure test-retest reliability (the quotient of standard of deviation and mean). Coefficients for both Standford-Binet and the Wechsler tests are around .90, and coefficients between the two tests, which have very different histories, are approximately .85. These are not results from a single study--this is a heavily researched area.

Most people have never taken a real IQ test. They may have received an estimated IQ based on a standardized achievement test, or taken some hokey short form internet test, but these approaches fail at all of the above. All of the standardized IQ tests require a skilled tester and quite a bit of time. As a result, they're expensive. As an aside, the popular Jung-based Myers-Briggs assessment fails horribly at reliability. Of the four elements, the only consistent measurement comes from the introvert/extrovert axis.

Returning to your question for explanations of the variance that does exist, it probably makes the most sense to consider Cattell's model. Up to this point, I've done very little speculation. This part is mostly my own thoughts. It seems unlikely that fluid reasoning (Gf) is subject to much variation. It doesn't seem to me that people learn things like curiosity and creativity. They seem to have them from a young age or not. However, it is the expressed purpose of a liberal arts education to teach logic, rhetoric, and critical analysis. Perhaps there is evidence of fluctuation in Gf between high school seniors and those same students graduating from a four-year liberal arts curriculum.

Within the limits of the model, then, variation in intelligence would most likely come from crystallized intelligence, Gc. It makes perfect sense that skills, knowledge, and experience could expand or contract with continued learning or disuse. Some of that will almost completely atrophy given a decade or two of neglect. On the other hand, some people are always learning. I like to think of myself in that group, though my skills in higher math are abominable now. I have to look up almost everything beyond simple trigonometry.

In brief, variance in test-retest reliability for standardized IQ tests is pretty acceptable, depending on what you're looking for. I think there's a lot of confusion from the simple fact that most people have never taken a real IQ test.

[Alawen]

What about me? I am 5'7-5'8 and roughly 140.

At 5'8", your BMI is 21.3, right in the middle of normal weight. You're probably in pretty decent shape. The National Institute of Health has a BMI calculator at NIH BMI calculator (http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/guidelines/obesity/BMI/bmicalc.htm).

[Kagatob]

This thread makes me not that sad that my new position won't be having general internet access.

[myriverse]

nope, i know relatively little about iq testing. i don't really understand how scores can vary so significantly if these test actually measure what they purport to measure. can general intelligence really fluctuate as you age?
They measure capacity to learn, not what is learned. Typically, there isn't much fluctuation in "capacity to learn" as you age after 6 or so years. However, your brain can be trained to learn more. Also, there can be a 20pt fluctuation just based on environmental factors: good diet, sleep, exercise, etc.

[Alawen]

This thread makes me not that sad that my new position won't be having general internet access.

We'll all miss your brilliant insights and bigotry.

[Alawen]

I just found an interesting study about this that was published last December in Neuron. It was an online test with tens of thousands of respondents, and they concluded that intelligence has three distinct elements: memory, reasoning, and verbal competence. The authors are challenging conventional IQ testing, which isn't new, but here's what I found noteworthy: "Intriguingly, people who regularly played computer games did perform significantly better in terms of both reasoning and short-term memory."

[Daldolma]

I'm going to start with the very basics of psychometrics, so my apologies if this is review. I mentioned the elements of standardization, validity, and reliability in a previous post.

In brief, standardization is a given test being delivered in the same way given different physical locations, test administrators, and so on. If you've taken the SAT or the ACT, you've experienced their attempts to create a very controlled environment for taking the test.

Validity is the quality of testing what you are trying to test. This is what HBB is questioning--whether IQ is a valid test of intelligence. Validity is viewed from three perspectives: content, criterion, and construct. This is why the underlying theory of intelligence is important. I think Loraen is mostly objecting to the Cattell model of generalized intelligence; he would probably be more comfortable with Gardner's theory of multiple intelligences.

Reliability is the consistency between assessments and this is what you're questioning. It also has three subcategories, which are stability (also called test-retest), alternate form, and internal consistency. Obviously, stability is the characteristic you're calling into question.

You use a coefficient of variation to measure test-retest reliability (the quotient of standard of deviation and mean). Coefficients for both Standford-Binet and the Wechsler tests are around .90, and coefficients between the two tests, which have very different histories, are approximately .85. These are not results from a single study--this is a heavily researched area.

Most people have never taken a real IQ test. They may have received an estimated IQ based on a standardized achievement test, or taken some hokey short form internet test, but these approaches fail at all of the above. All of the standardized IQ tests require a skilled tester and quite a bit of time. As a result, they're expensive. As an aside, the popular Jung-based Myers-Briggs assessment fails horribly at reliability. Of the four elements, the only consistent measurement comes from the introvert/extrovert axis.

Returning to your question for explanations of the variance that does exist, it probably makes the most sense to consider Cattell's model. Up to this point, I've done very little speculation. This part is mostly my own thoughts. It seems unlikely that fluid reasoning (Gf) is subject to much variation. It doesn't seem to me that people learn things like curiosity and creativity. They seem to have them from a young age or not. However, it is the expressed purpose of a liberal arts education to teach logic, rhetoric, and critical analysis. Perhaps there is evidence of fluctuation in Gf between high school seniors and those same students graduating from a four-year liberal arts curriculum.

Within the limits of the model, then, variation in intelligence would most likely come from crystallized intelligence, Gc. It makes perfect sense that skills, knowledge, and experience could expand or contract with continued learning or disuse. Some of that will almost completely atrophy given a decade or two of neglect. On the other hand, some people are always learning. I like to think of myself in that group, though my skills in higher math are abominable now. I have to look up almost everything beyond simple trigonometry.

In brief, variance in test-retest reliability for standardized IQ tests is pretty acceptable, depending on what you're looking for. I think there's a lot of confusion from the simple fact that most people have never taken a real IQ test.

okay, so it seems like the main issue is that i'm just not that familiar with real IQ tests. my limited experience has been with estimates based on other, more popular standardized tests. and with those tests, your score can fluctuate drastically over the course of a few years. to me, that would signal such an egregious lack of stability that it casts doubt on the value of the test as iq predictive

i imagine you would view those tests as unacceptable for iq translation, but i know that mensa (just as an example) will accept scores on tests similar to the SAT as grounds for entry

[Alawen]

okay, so it seems like the main issue is that i'm just not that familiar with real IQ tests. my limited experience has been with estimates based on other, more popular standardized tests. and with those tests, your score can fluctuate drastically over the course of a few years. to me, that would signal such an egregious lack of stability that it casts doubt on the value of the test as iq predictive

i imagine you would view those tests as unacceptable for iq translation, but i know that mensa (just as an example) will accept scores on tests similar to the SAT as grounds for entry

This is exactly the confusion I was referencing. As it happens, Mensa is the lowest of the high-IQ societies and their standards are correspondingly lax. Mensa's intention is to include people over the 98th percentile, which is 1 of every 50 individuals. That's not very discriminating.

In contrast, the Triple Nine Society no longer accepts scores from tests like SAT, ACT, or GRE. They will, however, accept a GMAT score over 750. Their standard is the 99.9th percentile--1 in 1000.

The Prometheus Society seems to be the most exclusive of the stable high IQ societies with a threshold at the 99.997th percentile--one in 30,000 or a full four standard deviations above norm. The only score they currently accept is an MAT (Miller Analogies Test) of 500 or above.

Approximate scores are probably good enough for a low standard like Mensa, but any estimate made from an achievement test introduces a lot of variation and becomes more about acquired knowledge than generalized intelligence. I personally find the MAT and GMAT somewhat troubling in this respect. I consider Stanford-Binet and WAIS (WAIS is the adult test from Wechsler, WISC is for children) the current standards in IQ testing.

[Alawen]

I should mention that four standards of deviation is the limit of the Stanford-Binet test. It is very difficult to measure IQs over 160.

[Hasbinbad]

Hey alawen, what happens if you eat a large meal of fish 12 hours before you take an IQ test?

[Samoht]

The only score they currently accept is an MAT (Miller Analogies Test) of 500 or above.

holy, crap.

just looked up some MAT sample questions (http://www.kaptest.com/GRE/Prep-for-the-MAT/Explore-the-MAT/mat-practice.html).

i only got six of them right.

[Samoht]

i don't know if i could sit through 2 hours of those, but these (http://www.matexampracticetests.com/practice1.html)are fucking easy in comparison

[Barkingturtle]

All easy u dum.

[Alawen]

holy, crap.

just looked up some MAT sample questions (http://www.kaptest.com/GRE/Prep-for-the-MAT/Explore-the-MAT/mat-practice.html).

i only got six of them right.

They're tough, but they don't do a very good job of measuring fluid reasoning at all. The MAT is almost all accumulated knowledge. It's almost a trivia test. Liberal arts majors should crush STEM majors, and that's just silly.

[Samoht]

MAT is clearly a combination of reasoning and working knowledge of the world. would do.

[Splorf22]

What I am trying to say is that I feel the human brain is extremely specialized. Not just something like multiple intelligences but literally case by case, problem by problem.

Making this claim requires some explanation for the correlations we see (some people seem to be able to solve more problems on average than others). I am saying that some of these correlations are probably genetic (person x has more neurons or faster or more connections or whatever) but a lot of it probably has to do with motivation.

Also all of those theories of intelligence are basically BS. For a great (if longwinded and somewhat difficult to read) explanation, see http://vserver1.cscs.lsa.umich.edu/~crshalizi/weblog/523.html. The basic idea is that just because you run PCA on your data and get some dominant eigenvalues doesn't mean that your new basis vectors actually have physical meaning. Sometimes they do, sometimes they dont.

[Alawen]

I don't think you read that paper. I just did and it has several problems. He is operating under the assumption that IQ tests from different sources are designed to correlate. That assertion has no basis. More importantly, the entire article is devoted to debunking Spearman's unitary g factor model. If you've been paying attention, you will note that I, following Cattell, never mentioned that earlier model, and that I discussed the two-factor model, Gf and Gc. The more recent study I linked today identifies three distinct factors.

What really gets my nuts twisted, though, is that after spending almost two hours reading his horrible prose and looking up everything I wasn't positive that I understood, he writes off the whole exercise as too distracting from his real work to finish and delivers a weak conclusion: he doubts that there is a general factor of intelligence, but he's been wrong before. Along the way, he pretty much trashes all social science. I bet he's popular with other departments at CMU.

Well, that straw man is fucking dead and burned to the ground. You sure did a number on him.

[Alawen]

I just read through all of his notes while thinking about your idea of motivation as the real distinguishing factor. On a complete tangent, I like his ideas about the purpose of democracy.

I'm trying to wrap my mind around your general model of how the human brain works. Are you saying that turning on one burner of the stove is a different thought process than turning on a different burner? Or just that finding my keys is different from locking the door? In either case, essentially no commonality at all and that learning something is not useful for learning any other thing however related?

Regarding your idea that despite some possible biological differences, everything really comes down to motivation, isn't that a bit rhetorical in practical terms? You seem to be saying that person A isn't really smarter than person B, he just wants to think more. How is that functionally different?

[Splorf22]

He is operating under the assumption that IQ tests from different sources are designed to correlate. That assertion has no basis.

I actually rechecked and didn't see this. Anyway I'm not sure you understand his point, maybe because its mostly technical and I'm not sure I can summarize it easily. The key idea he is trying to get across is that G is based on a misuse of mathematics. Maybe one way to put it is the difference between correlation and causation: because various tests are correlated you can run a regression and it will automatically spit out G. But G is just a mathematical artifact that doesn't necessarily represent anything physical, and he shows this in two ways: the fact that G fails confirmatory factor analysis, and the fact that a different model can give the same conclusions. Which is why you probably find his conclusion so wishywashy, he's not actually disproving G, simply saying that its not necessary (what makes it unlikely is the kind of neuroscientific argument I have been making).

More importantly, the entire article is devoted to debunking Spearman's unitary g factor model. If you've been paying attention, you will note that I, following Cattell, never mentioned that earlier model, and that I discussed the two-factor model, Gf and Gc. The more recent study I linked today identifies three distinct factors.

Well he mainly focuses on G but he also talks about the five factor model. Really the mere fact that his alternate model works already casts serious doubts on any other one.

What really gets my nuts twisted, though, is that after spending almost two hours reading his horrible prose and looking up everything I wasn't positive that I understood, he writes off the whole exercise as too distracting from his real work to finish and delivers a weak conclusion: he doubts that there is a general factor of intelligence, but he's been wrong before. Along the way, he pretty much trashes all social science. I bet he's popular with other departments at CMU.

Personally I think this makes him fun to read, but maybe that's just me :D

[Alawen]

"The correlations among the components in an intelligence test, and between tests themselves, are all positive, because that's how we design tests." You proposed this as proof that "all of those theories of intelligence are basically BS," but it does no such thing. He doesn't even propose such a thing. What he is asserting is that exploratory factor analysis does not (and cannot) prove the existence of g.

I can't figure out if you're trying to bamboozle me or if you don't understand the essay.

[Alawen]

Incidentally, the five factor model (more commonly referred to as the Big Five) is a personality model analogous to Myers-Briggs, not a theory of intelligence.

[Alawen]

I'm reading the Glymour paper now, just out of curiosity. Herrnstein and Murray really get hammered from every possible direction.

[Splorf22]

I just read through all of his notes while thinking about your idea of motivation as the real distinguishing factor. On a complete tangent, I like his ideas about the purpose of democracy.

I'm trying to wrap my mind around your general model of how the human brain works. Are you saying that turning on one burner of the stove is a different thought process than turning on a different burner? Or just that finding my keys is different from locking the door? In either case, essentially no commonality at all and that learning something is not useful for learning any other thing however related?

Regarding your idea that despite some possible biological differences, everything really comes down to motivation, isn't that a bit rhetorical in practical terms? You seem to be saying that person A isn't really smarter than person B, he just wants to think more. How is that functionally different?

I guess I am not saying this very well. What I am saying is I believe what the brain learns is extremely specific and there is not much transfer. Learning about American history doesn't help you with mathematics. Learning about integration by parts won't help you with whether power series converge. And so on.

But at the same time we clearly see correlations between various intellectual tasks. On average people that are good with math DO know more about American history than people who aren't. And if you believe the brain is specific, the only logical explanation is that a brain that has been exposed to math is more likely to have been exposed to american history. And the mostly likely reason for that is that this person chose to study.

Also my theory makes vastly different predictions than g. For example g predicts that black people are dumb: every IQ test has blacks about 1 standard deviation below whites. On the other hand my theory predicts that blacks would simply rather play basketball. And in fact IIRC there are studies that black children raised by white parents have comparable IQ scores to white children (don't quote me on that).

[Splorf22]

"The correlations among the components in an intelligence test, and between tests themselves, are all positive, because that's how we design tests." You proposed this as proof that "all of those theories of intelligence are basically BS," but it does no such thing. He doesn't even propose such a thing. What he is asserting is that exploratory factor analysis does not (and cannot) prove the existence of g.

Ah its in the notes. I actually find that a bit puzzling but I seem to recall reading somewhere that test designers do look at other tests. Regardless I don't think it's a critical point; the fact is the tests are correlated and the reason has no meaning on what he is saying.

When I say "all those theories of intelligence are bs" I am referring to all of these factor models that attempt to break up intelligence (and by extension personality) into nice linear combinations. Just because you can do some statistics and find some correlations and make models that may even predict with a moderate degree of accuracy doesn't mean that those models directly reflect reality.

I can't figure out if you're trying to bamboozle me or if you don't understand the essay.

Well then, in your opinion what is the summary of the essay?

[Alawen]

I guess I am not saying this very well. What I am saying is I believe what the brain learns is extremely specific and there is not much transfer. Learning about American history doesn't help you with mathematics. Learning about integration by parts won't help you with whether power series converge. And so on.

But at the same time we clearly see correlatifons between various intellectual tasks. On average people that are good with math DO know more about American history than people who aren't. And if you believe the brain is specific, the only logical explanation is that a brain that has been exposed to math is more likely to have been exposed to american history. And the mostly likely reason for that is that this person chose to study.

Also my theory makes vastly different predictions than g. For example g predicts that black people are dumb: every IQ test has blacks about 1 standard deviation below whites. On the other hand my theory predicts that blacks would simply rather play basketball. And in fact IIRC there are studies that black children raised by white parents have comparable IQ scores to white children (don't quote me on that).

I think I understand what you're saying now, but I'm not sure how it applies to IQ testing. IQ tests are not like achievement tests or college placement tests, although parts of the ASVAB (do they still use that?) are similar to IQ tests. They aren't sectioned by discipline or intended to focus on accumulated knowledge. Regardless of your interest focusing on either history or math, you should be increasing your crystallized intelligence.

I don't know of any studies like the one you suggest, though I do know there is a world-wide trend toward higher IQs as books and learning have become more ubiquitous. The tests have been repeatedly adjusted to maintain a median score of 100 with 15 point standard deviations. This would support your assertion that intelligence correlates with exposure to knowledge.

I should probably mention that I am not a true believer in any particular model. I think they're all interesting. What you are proposing is very similar to Gardner's model, which I often think of when I see art or watch dancing and think, "That is brilliant."

[Alawen]

Ah its in the notes. I actually find that a bit puzzling but I seem to recall reading somewhere that test designers do look at other tests. Regardless I don't think it's a critical point; the fact is the tests are correlated and the reason has no meaning on what he is saying.

When I say "all those theories of intelligence are bs" I am referring to all of these factor models that attempt to break up intelligence (and by extension personality) into nice linear combinations. Just because you can do some statistics and find some correlations and make models that may even predict with a moderate degree of accuracy doesn't mean that those models directly reflect reality.



Well then, in your opinion what is the summary of the essay?

It wasn't in the notes, it was early in the essay, and there is absolutely no basis for it. The tests are expensive and in competition. Stanford-Binet and Wechsler are the survivors after the deaths of a number of other tests.

The Big Five, like Myers-Briggs, has problems with test-retest. Comparing intelligence testing to personality profile testing is a stretch.

I already stated my one-sentence summary: he is asserting that exploratory factor analysis cannot prove the existence of g.

[Splorf22]

I already stated my one-sentence summary: he is asserting that exploratory factor analysis cannot prove the existence of g.

Yes, but what does this mean?

[Alawen]

Yes, but what does this mean?

I'm not sure what you're asking. In this context, the practical meaning is that Charles Spearman's attempt to derive a unitary factor through factor analysis of correlation was flawed. I think he even mentions that some relevant statistical method hadn't been invented yet.

The simplified Gf-Gc model which evolved into the current Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC) theory was derived empirically and not from factor analysis. Like I said, dead straw man is dead.

[Splorf22]

This is not what I am saying at all.

I googled "example IQ test questions" and got the following: http://www.stevezervos.com/iq-test.htm

So I go to the first question: Which letter does not belong in this series? H D R Y L

I have seen similar questions before, so I start running through my list of possibilities: Is it a mixture of letters and vowels? no. Are the letters almost in order? no. What do the letters look like in standard book code? 8 4 18 25 12. Now I start running through my list of number sequence possiblities. Are the numbers in order? no. Are they primes? no. Are they a mix of odd and even? Yes. So my answer is Y is the odd one out. Is this right? I have no idea.

I go to the second question: Which alpha-numeric is the odd one out? 9D 8F 3E 6C

I again begin to enumerate. The obvious answer is that 3E contains 3, an odd number. The second possibility is that these numbers are in hex. In that case both 8F = 143 and 9D = 157 are odd, while 3E = 62 and 6C = 108 are even, so that's out. Another possibility is that the numbers are in hex and one is prime. In this case 62 (31x2), 108 (9x12), and 143 (11x13, I checked a list of prime numbers :p) are not prime (11 x 13, I googled) but 157 is. Both solutions match so I select the hexadecimal one a-priori because prime numbers are cool.

The point I am trying to make is that my thought process here is entirely specific to IQ tests. I know several ways of looking at sequences of numbers for patterns. I apply them. If the test uses one of the ones I know, I get the problem right. If it doesn't, I don't. So I check the answers: (1) Y does not belong.. Every other letter is the third letter following a vowel. (2) 8f. The word for the number 9 contains 4 letters (nine) so the fourth letter of the alphabet (D) is paired with it. This rule applies to the other pairs as well, except 8F.

I have not seen either of those types of patterns before, so I never considered them. I definitely prefer my first solution to his as it is far simpler. I also prefer my second solution as "hexidecimal primes" is simpler than "pairing the book code of a number's english length with the number".

The point I am trying to make by this is that there is nothing GENERAL or FACTORED to what I am doing. It is 100% specific to IQ tests. I don't believe in Spearman's 1 factor or Gardner's 10 factors or whatever.

[Splorf22]

I'm not sure what you're asking. In this context, the practical meaning is that Charles Spearman's attempt to derive a unitary factor through factor analysis of correlation was flawed. I think he even mentions that some relevant statistical method hadn't been invented yet.

The simplified Gf-Gc model which evolved into the current Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC) theory was derived empirically and not from factor analysis. Like I said, dead straw man is dead.

I am saying that you could make that statement by reading the section headings. Pretend I am an idiot (maybe this is not hard, I don't know :p) and explain it to me.

[Cecily]

So the big take away from this is that IQ tests are just a front to find out who can save American by breaking Nazi codes.

[Alawen]

I am saying that you could make that statement by reading the section headings. Pretend I am an idiot (maybe this is not hard, I don't know :p) and explain it to me.

Yeah, this is a real asshole game that you're playing with me.

In 1904, there was this guy Charles Spearman. He had a bunch of data from giving different mental tests to a bunch of people. I don't know how many tests or how many people. He noticed that there seemed to be similarity between the scores for different tests by the same person. He used math to try to isolate the cause of that similarity. Then he developed a model of how intelligence works based on his math.

In 2007, an obnoxious physicist named Cosma Rohilla Shalizi used over 10,000 words and a lot of unnecessary commas to say that the kind of math Charles Spearman used can't identify the cause that Spearman was looking for. He says that this kind of math can never identify an underlying cause, because lots of different causes could produce the same kind of data that Spearman started with.

I'm pretty irritated with your relentless implication that I didn't understand the paper when in fact it's you who don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

[Alawen]

Shalizi, by the way, is a really fucking horrible writer who intentional obfuscates a pretty simple idea in an apparent attempt to impress people like you.

[Splorf22]

I'm pretty irritated with your relentless implication that I didn't understand the paper when in fact it's you who don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

Actually if anyone should be irritated it's me: the first thing you said is that I hadn't even read the paper. But I never really get irritated over the Internet.

Anyway if I am such an idiot then how about you explain to me what I'm missing?

[Alawen]

Shalizi is basically backing up Glymour responding to Herrnstein and Murray.

Debunking the century-old incarnation of Spearman's theory of generalized intelligence is a straw man. You don't appear to understand the context of Shalizi's paper, you missed important details that make it irrelevant to anything I've been talking about, and you seem to have willful ignorance of contemporary intelligence theories. You apparently dismiss all social sciences as pointless, so why are we even discussing this?

I mentioned at the beginning of this discussion of IQ that I think there is a disconnect between IQ and intelligence; I am not a strong proponent of IQ as a measure of anything. I just think psychometrics are interesting and I know a few things about them. Neuroscience will probably answer many of these questions in the next few decades. I'm going to bed.

[Hasbinbad]

Alawen what happens if you eat a big meal of fish 12 hours before you take an IQ test?

[Hailto]

I would like to take you out for a nice fish dinner HBB.

[Hasbinbad]

I would like to take you out for a nice fish dinner HBB.
Word, let's go.

I'm always down for a free meal from a fan.

[Barkingturtle]

I was getting caught up on the last pages of threads and I came upon this:


So I go to the first question: Which letter does not belong in this series? H D R Y L

I have seen similar questions before, so I start running through my list of possibilities: Is it a mixture of letters and vowels? no. Are the letters almost in order? no. What do the letters look like in standard book code? 8 4 18 25 12. Now I start running through my list of number sequence possiblities. Are the numbers in order? no. Are they primes? no. Are they a mix of odd and even? Yes. So my answer is Y is the odd one out. Is this right? I have no idea.

I go to the second question: Which alpha-numeric is the odd one out? 9D 8F 3E 6C

I again begin to enumerate. The obvious answer is that 3E contains 3, an odd number. The second possibility is that these numbers are in hex. In that case both 8F = 143 and 9D = 157 are odd, while 3E = 62 and 6C = 108 are even, so that's out. Another possibility is that the numbers are in hex and one is prime. In this case 62 (31x2), 108 (9x12), and 143 (11x13, I checked a list of prime numbers :p) are not prime (11 x 13, I googled) but 157 is. Both solutions match so I select the hexadecimal one a-priori because prime numbers are cool.


Hehehe. Must be weird being a normie. Honestly, that whole exercise exhausted me and I all I did was read your desperate mental groping. I look at those questions and I just know the answers. I don't even have to consciously think--patterns are that apparent. I've only taken a few IQ tests because frankly I don't need a number--it was affirmation enough growing up in the 99% percentile on standardized tests--it has always been enough just knowing I have an advantage over people like you. By which I mean dumb people, of course.

This excerpt in particular was very interesting and illuminating in my quest to better understand the primitive thought processes of the American Neckbeard:

I go to the second question: Which alpha-numeric is the odd one out? 9D 8F 3E 6C

I again begin to enumerate. The obvious answer is that 3E contains 3, an odd number,

The first number you read was nine. It is also an odd number. Your very first enumeration--the initial impression by which you format the whole exercise--is flawed and in a way which suggests you are major dumb. I cannot imagine how terrifying it must be to be capable of such loose thinking. The fortunate thing is I've heard there's some blissful agent associated with being dumb as shit and so you'll never mind.

[Splorf22]

The first number you read was nine. It is also an odd number.

Lol you guys win :D

[Barkingturtle]

I am mean before I've had my first cup of joe and I apologize but you know what's even weirder?

The thing about 3E that made it conspicuous to me was the fact it was the only option which included a vowel. Also, there's a nice symmetry to 3E just from an abstract, purely visual point of view--if you can remove the customarily attached significance of those symbols. That's easier done if you haven't had your first cup of coffee. Anyway, it really got me thinkin'.