IQ and shit.
category: general [glöplog]
I love this violent opposition to the idea that some people might be smarter than others.
It's a little sad, too. Come on, guys. Of course an IQ test can only sample your intelligence in a limited fashion, and of course you can train to score higher with regards to that particular sampling, which to an extent defeats the purpose of such tests, but that doesn't mean you can't quantify intelligence in any way.
Also in the news tonight, some people are prettier than others, some are more built, some have better coordination, and some people are even morally superior to others. However many facets you apply to each of those things, there's still an objective reality at the heart of it all, and sometimes that reality isn't politically correct. It's certainly rarely fair. But so what?
It's a little sad, too. Come on, guys. Of course an IQ test can only sample your intelligence in a limited fashion, and of course you can train to score higher with regards to that particular sampling, which to an extent defeats the purpose of such tests, but that doesn't mean you can't quantify intelligence in any way.
Also in the news tonight, some people are prettier than others, some are more built, some have better coordination, and some people are even morally superior to others. However many facets you apply to each of those things, there's still an objective reality at the heart of it all, and sometimes that reality isn't politically correct. It's certainly rarely fair. But so what?
Quote:
and some people are even morally superior
Haha, no.
...so far, this thread has been mostly shit tho...
Quote:
work together on the question whether P = NP
Know your battles. Being intelligent also means to understand when to stop. And it also means to know when to apologize.
Command Cyborg : when u say "come on , guys" its porn ?
now that's not very janteloven of you, doom.
iblis, it got better when adok and barti got involved
CC nobody is quetioning that some are smarter than others, that is a given. It is the IQ tests that im personally quite the sceptic against.
sxrebbel...absolutely!
i don’t think intelligence is objective or even subjective. if anything it's relative. relative to a given time, place and criteria. those three factors change (obviously). let's see if our thought patterns, or the thought patterns of people we consider to have "genius minds" today (or in recent history) are relevant in 1000 – 5000 years time. Perhaps the "types" of people who fail at our silly myopic IQ tests today - because their thought patterns are at odds with current criteria - will be precisely whats needed in 5000 years time; to carry the human species forward to the next level.
The problem is, if people like adok and other Eugenicists had their way, their "genetic" predispositions will be totatally eliminated before that time comes. If you begin to say intelligence is absolute and objective than you have to say that there is a "right" and "wrong" type of intelligence. Once that is established work must begin on solving that problem...through genetic engineering or what have you. And then who knows exactly what important characteristics of humanity we might sacrifice.
The problem is, if people like adok and other Eugenicists had their way, their "genetic" predispositions will be totatally eliminated before that time comes. If you begin to say intelligence is absolute and objective than you have to say that there is a "right" and "wrong" type of intelligence. Once that is established work must begin on solving that problem...through genetic engineering or what have you. And then who knows exactly what important characteristics of humanity we might sacrifice.
Quote:
If you begin to say intelligence is absolute and objective than you have to say that there is a "right" and "wrong" type of intelligence.
No I don't. You can recognise objective reality without making value judgments. Like, I can recognise that there is such a thing as dexterity and that some people seem predisposed towards it, whereas I and some others I know seem to be born clumsy. If it's largely genetic, it might not be FAIR that people are different in this way, but that doesn't make it untrue. Either way, studying and discussing those differences doesn't make anyone a eugenicist.
Quote:
Once that is established work must begin on solving that problem...
Why? How does that follow?
in my humble experience, everyone has a unique quality. it seems to be man's nature to strife for "excellence" in what field ever. some people code, some people simply lead a happy marriage, some are creative in the "fine arts" (painting, music), some are (what some underestimate) socially competent. i am not probably not but i code ;) ok, seriously, iq means shit and this discussion reminds of whether it is apprioriate to measure one's skull size to determine his/her "intelligence". crap.
Intelligence is collective or isn't at all !
iq is nothing without hq I mean heart intelligence
maybe that's it. you could be able to calculate the trajectory of a missile in a blink of an eye but what makes you decide whether to actually build and launch that missile ?
(oh oh, I'm pouring oil into the flames unintentionally :X)
(oh oh, I'm pouring oil into the flames unintentionally :X)
There is (for all intents and purposes) limitless potential in both the number and direction of evolutionary pathways the human race could take. Remember, the human race wasn't always human, and - as far as we're aware - all living organisms on this planet, regardless of species, have a single, common origin.
Eugenicists seem to see life as a straight line - a simple example would be : starting from this point in time, and ending with a 'goal' based on criteria our collective imagination defines the most important to our survival. Taking our current understanding of life in to consideration, an approximation that's far more fitting is to see each species as a collection of nodes, each node with the potential of creating an infinite amount of new nodes. Traversal of a certain pathway through these nodes, beginning with the origin of life, resulted in the human species. From our node, there is the potential for an infinite amount of new species, depending on factors such as our choices of partners and the environment.
OK, so it's a simplistic analysis of a very complex system, but the point is, the 'human race' will not stay as uniform as it is at the present moment in time. Eventually we'll split in to many different species. Eugenics still somewhat applies to this viewpoint, but determining the value of a certain genetic code becomes far more complex when you consider that there's no singular direction to evolution, these evolutionary directions are influenced on a myriad of factors besides the genetic code alone, and that (disregarding the fact that we have no clear idea of what we are trying to achieve beyond a very limited scope) these directions become less clear with each evolutionary branch.
Even with a singular branch, do we really understand life well enough to be able to determine at the level of DNA, that the genetic code of a certain member of a specific species (for example, a monkey) has the potential to evolve into an as yet undefined new species (for example, a human)? The most we're really able to determine is how likely it is to survive in its current environment.
Also :
Collecive imagination is a powerful thing, but it's power alone doesn't guarantee its validity. This is why singular nodes are required - to direct this collective force towards (truth).
The fate of (our species) relies on every (nodes) ability to seperate themselves from the collective and make descisions based on (the environment) rather than basing them on the attractive force of the hive mind. Essentially, each node needs the ability to make it's own choice - based on it's own universe. Without this ability, definition stagnates and validity of previous descisions are never questioned - this is important, considering that these parts influence the whole in immeassurably vast and complex ways.
Eugenicists seem to see life as a straight line - a simple example would be : starting from this point in time, and ending with a 'goal' based on criteria our collective imagination defines the most important to our survival. Taking our current understanding of life in to consideration, an approximation that's far more fitting is to see each species as a collection of nodes, each node with the potential of creating an infinite amount of new nodes. Traversal of a certain pathway through these nodes, beginning with the origin of life, resulted in the human species. From our node, there is the potential for an infinite amount of new species, depending on factors such as our choices of partners and the environment.
OK, so it's a simplistic analysis of a very complex system, but the point is, the 'human race' will not stay as uniform as it is at the present moment in time. Eventually we'll split in to many different species. Eugenics still somewhat applies to this viewpoint, but determining the value of a certain genetic code becomes far more complex when you consider that there's no singular direction to evolution, these evolutionary directions are influenced on a myriad of factors besides the genetic code alone, and that (disregarding the fact that we have no clear idea of what we are trying to achieve beyond a very limited scope) these directions become less clear with each evolutionary branch.
Even with a singular branch, do we really understand life well enough to be able to determine at the level of DNA, that the genetic code of a certain member of a specific species (for example, a monkey) has the potential to evolve into an as yet undefined new species (for example, a human)? The most we're really able to determine is how likely it is to survive in its current environment.
Also :
Quote:
Intelligence is collective or isn't at all !
Collecive imagination is a powerful thing, but it's power alone doesn't guarantee its validity. This is why singular nodes are required - to direct this collective force towards (truth).
The fate of (our species) relies on every (nodes) ability to seperate themselves from the collective and make descisions based on (the environment) rather than basing them on the attractive force of the hive mind. Essentially, each node needs the ability to make it's own choice - based on it's own universe. Without this ability, definition stagnates and validity of previous descisions are never questioned - this is important, considering that these parts influence the whole in immeassurably vast and complex ways.
Almost immediately I regret posting that.
alienus: to a *certain* point I agree BUT I think that there is no common "goal" at all. there are many, many different "goals" for each facette of mankinds existence but NOT a single "ultimate" one.
about collective imagination: one interesting fact about mankind is that, although we all seem to be so different, I believe that there really is some thing like "collective imagination" (or "common sense", like I once explained it to a friend). My assumption is that this "common sense" simply prevents us from acting too stupid towards each other (a kind of "constraint" in a coding sense..)
about collective imagination: one interesting fact about mankind is that, although we all seem to be so different, I believe that there really is some thing like "collective imagination" (or "common sense", like I once explained it to a friend). My assumption is that this "common sense" simply prevents us from acting too stupid towards each other (a kind of "constraint" in a coding sense..)
I'm so intellectually deficient that I don't even have an IQ.
Quote:
Mmhmm. You're suggesting that common sense is a set of definitions which have grown out of a need for collective coherence. Eventually an infrastructure of knowledge and understanding grows from this set of definitions, and therein lies a huge flaw - it means that if one of the base definitions is incorrect (the world is flat, for example), then any 'bit' of information generated from this definition is also incorrect. Perhaps though, like you say, the goal isn't necessarily in a correct definition, but more in harmony between organisms. That implies though that the collective imagination shouldn't be trusted when forming your own definition of the universe.about collective imagination: one interesting fact about mankind is that, although we all seem to be so different, I believe that there really is some thing like "collective imagination" (or "common sense", like I once explained it to a friend). My assumption is that this "common sense" simply prevents us from acting too stupid towards each other (a kind of "constraint" in a coding sense..)
i'd believe in iq the day the welfare will exist on earth, great swindle ahahah
Just for the record, the only time I believe in what I'm writing is when I'm writing it.
you don't really believe that, do you?
well, if your "own definition of the universe" were not coherent with that "common sense", then yes, you probably would not trust it.
then again, I am personally assuming that we all strife for a kind of "comfort" in our lives -- BUT: I still believe that not all of us seek "comfort" (but most do) those who do not seek "comfort" are usually the ones who seek the "short cut" to what "goal" ever.
then again, I am personally assuming that we all strife for a kind of "comfort" in our lives -- BUT: I still believe that not all of us seek "comfort" (but most do) those who do not seek "comfort" are usually the ones who seek the "short cut" to what "goal" ever.