|
Tiggum posted:What does "smart" mean at all? What's the objective measure of intelligence? Agreeing with all of my opinions, obviously.
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2015 10:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 05:56 |
|
|
Of course he's smart. You have to be pretty smart to come up with something this convolutedly stupid.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2015 12:04
|
|
|
Tiggum posted:I don't think the CGP Grey video is supposed to be teaching science. It's just a simple analogy for an interesting idea. That's pretty much what I took it for but because it's been published on the internet, it's almost guaranteed that some people will insist that it must be 100% true.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2015 12:33
|
|
|
Tiggum posted:Doctors can be really good at their job while simultaneously believing some really dumb stuff. Expertise in one area doesn't translate to superior reasoning in all areas. Definitely. Take Nobel Prize winner Kary Mullis, for instance... http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/02/11/do-not-respect-authority/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vc6CHHrCV7g https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uPYFjDSG0JU
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2015 14:31
|
|
|
Tiggum posted:What does "smart" mean at all? What's the objective measure of intelligence? Well that's my whole point. There isn't one. There can never be a measure of intelligence because you can't build a measuring stick for intelligence. Because what even is intelligence? You can objectively measure things like education, vocabulary, and some basic problem solving skills (i.e. arithmetic) but how do you measure something like emotional intelligence? Or physical intelligence? How do you roll all of those things up into a single number? Why would you want to? It's just never useful to say "he's really smart but has lots of bad ideas", because that questions in which way he's smart. You can say "he's good at his job but overreaches in areas that are not in his expertise", or "he's very proficient with language use but expresses strange and wrong ideas with it". To say that "The problem really isn't that he doesn't have enough brains, but that he's using it wrong." is an extremely essentialist notion of intelligence, and I have never been comfortable with those, because that way lies notions of "meritocracy" which exist only to reinforce privilege, and eventually, eugenics.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2015 15:08
|
|
|
This is the reason that every philosophical tradition on earth distinguishes between knowledge and wisdom.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2015 15:16
|
|
|
neonnoodle posted:This is the reason that every philosophical tradition on earth distinguishes between knowledge and wisdom. Objectivism doesn't 
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2015 17:15
|
|
|
DStecks posted:Well that's my whole point. There isn't one. There can never be a measure of intelligence because you can't build a measuring stick for intelligence. Because what even is intelligence? You can objectively measure things like education, vocabulary, and some basic problem solving skills (i.e. arithmetic) but how do you measure something like emotional intelligence? Or physical intelligence? How do you roll all of those things up into a single number? Why would you want to? I'm not claiming one can "put a single number on all facets of intelligence". But you're doing the Scott Thing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2015 18:01
|
|
|
DStecks posted:Well that's my whole point. There isn't one. There can never be a measure of intelligence because you can't build a measuring stick for intelligence. Because what even is intelligence? You can objectively measure things like education, vocabulary, and some basic problem solving skills (i.e. arithmetic) but how do you measure something like emotional intelligence? Or physical intelligence? How do you roll all of those things up into a single number? Why would you want to? Careful, you're covering ground LW has already reached rational conclusions on: "sports quotient". Of course they're back on form these days, with a highlarious piece on why race and IQ is just  (20 upvotes, objectors to this idiocy downvoted to hell).
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2015 18:37
|
|
|
J_RBG posted:Not to mention that the 'meme' was theorised in various forms pretty consistently pre-Dawkins. He's late to a party he didn't even know existed. And it's been put it in far less dodgy terms than strictly Darwinian evolution.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2015 19:19
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:You're doing the Scott Thing: poo poo-talking something you simply haven't read up on. No, he's pretty much completely right, IQ is bullshit. It's dumb to claim that intelligence is scalar and measurable and it's contaminated as gently caress by racist origins that haven't left it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2015 19:37
|
|
|
Also I should note that Nydwracu and Yudkowsky both claim that their IQs are so high that the IQ test isn't relevant anymore and everyone just lets them get away with it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2015 19:39
|
|
|
The Vosgian Beast posted:No, he's pretty much completely right, IQ is bullshit. But look at all the sweet clubs it lets you join!
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2015 20:03
|
|
|
I think the IQ test was developed to test kids' progress through school, mainly to diagnose developmental delay. The idea that a half hour test can give you a single number that tells you how objectively smart you are is and always had been complete bullshit, as I think the original paper describing the test pointed out. Apart from anything else it's a learned skill, you can practise the type of questions a bunch and watch your inherent intelligence soar by 10 points. It's just that a clinical, objective test of intelligence is a really attractive idea so people latched onto it through the 20th century (mainly to prove black people are bad). I mean significantly low IQ is a useful clinical tool, and IQ through your childhood can be (broadly, on average) a predictor of future sucess. But the idea that I've got an IQ 135 and you're 128 or whatever so I'm smarter is dumb, and used by dumb nerds who have no actual meaningful achievements to point to.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2015 20:21
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:You're doing the Scott Thing: poo poo-talking something you simply haven't read up on. I've read up on IQ and I've come to the conclusion that it's loving stupid
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2015 21:34
|
|
|
IQ measures pattern identification. Which is often a requisite step for understanding complex things. But overcoming your own assumptions is one of the biggest hurdles to good understandings of things. Which is why we left the "elites and elders are right" model behind during the enlightenment and embraced modernism and the scientific method as approaches to understanding the world.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2015 21:35
|
|
|
Magnus Manfist posted:But the idea that I've got an IQ 135 and you're 128 or whatever so I'm smarter is dumb, and used by dumb nerds who have no actual meaningful achievements to point to. But if I keep working out and lifting weights, I'll eventually get my strength to 18/00, right? Or do I need to
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2015 21:53
|
|
|
The people who just flirt with NRx kind of annoy me more than the people who go full fascist, because you get poo poo like this. My knowledge of meta-level politics makes me avoid taking sides on petty object-level shenanigans like the riots in Baltimore, where everyone is blinded by tribal thinking. Gamergate are the heroes of the modern age It's like, you kind of have to try to be this hypocritical.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2015 21:59
|
|
|
The Vosgian Beast posted:The people who just flirt with NRx kind of annoy me more than the people who go full fascist, because you get poo poo like this. "I don't see the problem therefore there is no problem. I probably have deep thoughts about science fiction."
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2015 22:09
|
|
|
The Vosgian Beast posted:The people who just flirt with NRx kind of annoy me more than the people who go full fascist, because you get poo poo like this. The LW approach: start at meta level 1 (thinking about doing things) and try to live your entire mental life on meta level 2 (thinking about thinking about doing things) or even 3 (thinking about how to think about thinking about doing things), and never notice you've completely neglected level 0 actually being any loving good at doing anything at all, because such concrete concerns are the mind killer. Anyone who calls out the obvious reprehensible implications of your metaing is just mindkilled. Honi soit, dude. Honi soit. Of course, post-rationalist (that's their name for themselves now LW itself is too weird and insane to talk to) Tumblr occasionally slips up and expresses a checkable reprehensible, stupid or both opinion, as above.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2015 22:18
|
|
|
The sports analogy based criticism has been done rather well by Tal Yarkoni and Cosma Shalizi: http://www.talyarkoni.org/blog/2010...nitive-ability/ http://bactra.org/weblog/523.html Cosma's piece also includes a :car analogy: Although the most definite critical research on the validity of IQ, and of its (in)applicability for estimating intelligence, is probably still Flynn's well-known work. And I'm really not saying IQ is a terribly useful, or valid, thing. But your criticism is nothing but uninformed. Magnus Manfist posted:I think the IQ test was developed to test kids' progress through school, mainly to diagnose developmental delay. The idea that a half hour test can give you a single number that tells you how objectively smart you are is and always had been complete bullshit, as I think the original paper describing the test pointed out. Apart from anything else it's a learned skill, you can practise the type of questions a bunch and watch your inherent intelligence soar by 10 points. It's just that a clinical, objective test of intelligence is a really attractive idea so people latched onto it through the 20th century (mainly to prove black people are bad). Your 'short history of IQ testing' just shows how you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. "the IQ test"? Every single thing you presuppose there is just egregiously wrong. The Vosgian Beast posted:No, he's pretty much completely right, IQ is bullshit. IQ is a scalar trait and, as any other trait, to some degree measurable. That it's contaminated and noisy and only partially reliable and clearly does not precisely correspond to any out of the myriad of common-language meanings of the word intelligence is surely not completely irrelevant, but just as surely not the whole story either. Neither regarding the usefulness of IQ, nor of its relationship to whatever you consider intelligence. Chocolate Teapot posted:I've read up on IQ and I've come to the conclusion that it's loving stupid
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2015 23:12
|
|
|
divabot posted:The LW approach: start at meta level 1 (thinking about doing things) and try to live your entire mental life on meta level 2 (thinking about thinking about doing things) or even 3 (thinking about how to think about thinking about doing things)
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2015 23:13
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:The sports analogy based criticism has been done rather well by Tal Yarkoni and Cosma Shalizi: http://www.talyarkoni.org/blog/2010...nitive-ability/ So what trait does IQ measure? What is IQ?
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2015 23:22
|
|
|
"The IQ test" referenced above is probably Stanford-Binet.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2015 23:26
|
|
|
neonnoodle posted:"The IQ test" referenced above is probably Stanford-Binet. I quite like Raven's progressive matrices.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 00:02
|
|
|
I've always been partial to Voight-Kampff. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 01:04
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:The sports analogy based criticism has been done rather well by Tal Yarkoni and Cosma Shalizi: http://www.talyarkoni.org/blog/2010...nitive-ability/ I shoulda known better than to expect anything good on LW to be original. I guess I was just at the wrong level of meta. Cingulate posted:Although the most definite critical research on the validity of IQ, and of its (in)applicability for estimating intelligence, is probably still Flynn's well-known work. He's saying IQ is useless, you're indignantly pointing out it's only almost entirely useless. OK
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 01:06
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:I've always been partial to Voight-Kampff. I'll tell you about my mother! 
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 01:12
|
|
|
That St. Rev dude is strange. I've followed him for a while on twitter and he's utterly convinced that #GamerGate is a movement of heroes; vanguards against the evil progs. Same with the whole Reddit fiasco going on, he's very much convinced that the racist morons who harass others beyond their subreddits are the poor underdogs being crushed by the prog bulldozer driven by Gawker and BuzzFeed. He's one of those people who mourn for Pax Dickinson and Tim Hunt. And yet, I've never seen him or his compatriots mount a viable argument for any of those positions. Usually when I see them cry over poo poo like that I ignore most of it, but has anyone here got any idea about what their actual defense of such people is? And anyone interested in the whole psychometrics debate who hasn't read FHI should do so.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 03:39
|
|
|
Merdifex posted:That St. Rev dude is strange. I've followed him for a while on twitter and he's utterly convinced that #GamerGate is a movement of heroes; vanguards against the evil progs. Same with the whole Reddit fiasco going on, he's very much convinced that the racist morons who harass others beyond their subreddits are the poor underdogs being crushed by the prog bulldozer driven by Gawker and BuzzFeed. Basically the same ingroup out group thinking they accuse others of as far as I can tell.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 03:42
|
|
|
coyo7e posted:Really? I never really delved into it, my first brush with it was in a copy of Snow Crash that came boxed with a tank videogame I got in the early 90s.. Do you have any sources I can check out, I'd be really interested thanks! Not exactly my field of expertise I'm afraid. Possibly this is the starting point for a lot of this thinking. Really there's a lot in the history of ideas to be explored https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_ideas. But also in this area is semiotics, where the act of interpretation itself is linked to wider culture. I think this is a good introduction to the most-read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semiotics#Some_important_semioticians. But all this is rather dense I'm afraid. I don't know any beginner's introductions to either of these things.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 12:13
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:Don't ever think about thinking about CENSORED though or you lose CENSORED. YOU DO NOT THINK IN SUFFICIENT DETAIL ABOUT SUPERINTELLIGENCES CONSIDERING WHETHER OR NOT TO BLACKMAIL YOU. THAT IS THE ONLY POSSIBLE THING WHICH GIVES THEM A MOTIVE TO FOLLOW THROUGH ON THE BLACKMAIL. You have to be really clever to come up with a genuinely dangerous thought. I am disheartened that people can be clever enough to do that and not clever enough to do the obvious thing and KEEP THEIR IDIOT MOUTHS SHUT about it, because it is much more important to sound intelligent when talking to your friends. This post was STUPID. Much like arguing about IQ.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 12:19
|
|
|
Who gives a gently caress about IQ and whether it's good or bad or whatever, the point is that, this last couple of pages being a prime example, ordinarily smart people can be huge dumbasses sometimes. Henry Kissinger is smart as hell, but I wouldn't want that fucker doing my dental work.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 15:30
|
|
|
TetsuoTW posted:Who gives a gently caress about IQ and whether it's good or bad or whatever, the point is that, this last couple of pages being a prime example, ordinarily smart people can be huge dumbasses sometimes. Henry Kissinger is smart as hell, but I wouldn't want that fucker doing my dental work. There's a difference between smart and evil.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 15:56
|
|
|
The Vosgian Beast posted:There's a difference between smart and evil.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 17:17
|
|
|
Curvature of Earth posted:Given what we've seen in Harry Potter and the Yudhowsky Wankfest, I'm not sure they themselves can tell the difference. Oh, Yudkowskyites cannot tell the difference between people saying horrible things and people willing to explore Difficult Questions that the rest of us are Too Blinded By Political Correctness To See.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 17:46
|
|
|
The Vosgian Beast posted:Oh, Yudkowskyites cannot tell the difference between people saying horrible things and people willing to explore Difficult Questions that the rest of us are Too Blinded By Political Correctness To See. It's endlessly amusing to me how politics is the mind-killer and at the same time NRx aren't considered mind-killed.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 19:28
|
|
|
Merdifex posted:It's endlessly amusing to me how politics is the mind-killer and at the same time NRx aren't considered mind-killed. They're part of the gray tribe, which is different from the red tribe because they say it is. I, personally am a member of the #3FFF00 tribe. We only associate with the #B2FFFF tribe and fiercely oppose the #DE6FA1 tribe on all things
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 19:46
|
|
|
The Vosgian Beast posted:They're part of the gray tribe, which is different from the red tribe because they say it is. Remind me again why Scott seriously thought NRx was part of the "grey tribe" and got morons like Nydwracu to seriously consider themselves grey tribers?
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 19:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 05:56 |
|
|
Merdifex posted:Remind me again why Scott seriously thought NRx was part of the "grey tribe" and got morons like Nydwracu to seriously consider themselves grey tribers? It let him justify hanging out with them to himself.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 19:57
|
|