We were talking about IQ from the beginning, when you accused me of throwing of a straw man. You seem to have trouble following the conversation. But I'll answer. Intelligence = smartness. I think we agree there. The best way we have to measure intelligence is by IQ. Among other reasons, this is because IQ is highly predictive of life outcomes we associate with intelligence. It is highly predictive of level of performance of skills associated with those outcomes. This is not controversial. And intelligence, as measured by IQ, is highly hereditary. This is not controversial. And now we are learning more about it, including the very recent article I posted about 50+ genes associated with intelligence, as measured by IQ. IQ is further highly predictive of outcomes for ALL RACES. So where do you disagree?
Your tautology club membership got shipped with that sentence. I apologize to the mods for my inability to tolerate this nonsense. "Intelligence = Smartness" might be one of the least insightful things I've ever read. And I assign semester papers.
Don't insult @superdave like that. If you bothered to read the post I was responding to, you would see that was his analogy. But rage has a way of blinding us.
I'm dubious. Is it as highly predictive as the class one is born into? Are you measuring causation, or correlation? Hopefully you see where I'm going with this. To me, this whole exercise in neo-eugenics is just an effort by the 1% to polish their turd of an economic agenda in a quasi-scientific veneer. Neo-eugenics is to science as Ayn Rand is to philosophy.
There is no reason for you to speculate about what seems intuitively true about intelligence and environment, when plenty of up to date literature exists. But I can't stop you from ignoring the most up to date science because it contradicts your politics, makes you uncomfortable, or suggests unhappy truths. Genetics for IQ as measured by intelligence is more predictive than environment, so more predictive than class--most studies put it at 80%. We are discovery more genes regularly that affect intelligence, as measured by IQ. Not surprisingly, these genes are also linked to schizophrenia and addiction. Here is a brand new study on this issue--literally the latest science: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/05/170523083324.htm http://www.newsweek.com/intelligence-genes-discovered-scientists-iq-clever-inherited-613348 ""These results are very exciting as they provide very robust associations with intelligence. The genes we detect are involved in the regulation of cell development, and are specifically important in synapse formation, axon guidance and neuronal differentiation. These findings for the first time provide clear clues towards the underlying biological mechanisms of intelligence," says Danielle Posthuma, Principal Investigator of the study." Intelligence, as measured by IQ.
Isn't it circular to state that IQ is a good measure of intelligence, and that intelligence as measure by IQ is largely inherited? What if IQ is a poor measure of one's inherited capacity to be smart?
Is it possible that temporal spatial skills and written language capacity are orthogonal to the capacity for critical thinking and awareness of logical fallacies? This anecdotal post sequence of a small sample of an internet message board presents a positive indication of this possibility.More study is required.
Anybody involved in education will know that last bit, specially, because there is this guy, Howard Gardner, who came up with this thing called Multiple Intelligences. While he categorized them in 7 groups, somebody else (I forget who, I read it only one, and it has come up on conversation a couple of times) said there are something like 237 different intelligences.
Fundamentally, that means taking a standardized test, so, beneath all the rhetoric, using IQ as the standard means measuring how well somebody does on a standardized test, and understanding the intent of the test creator. These types of test, by in large, exclude those more predisposed to the arts.
I can't tell if you are just having trouble understanding, or trolling. What I mean by "as measured by IQ" is that the scientists in these articles are using IQ as a proxy of intelligence--because its the best one scientists have. IQ is a good measure of intelligence because it correlates very well with both specific types of advanced, abstract thinking, and overall positive life outcomes. Many social behavior problems, such as dropping out of school, chronic welfare dependency, accident proneness, and crime, are negatively correlated with g independent of social class of origin. You are nearing LousianaStriker status at this point in failing to respond to the actual points in a debate. And as mentioned in the article, we now we are uncovering genetic the basis for IQ. So Gardner's work actually supports the notion of IQ, because his cognitive categories correlate highly with G-scores (or IQ). Those that don't are generally personality characteristics, which IQ does not purport to measure.
In agreement with the observation of russ (1), there are three questions which more succinctly need to be investigated. The first being the identify of the term "smartness" and whether or not it has any relation to the various kinds of "smart" (ie: book-smart, people-smart, etc.). The second is the term "intelligence" and how that became and the various measures which can be analyzed to attempt to quantify "intelligence." The third question is whether the various kinds of "smartness" can be quantified in such a way that it not only relates to "intelligence" but that it equates to "intelligence." "Smartness," as it relates to the area under discussion does not exist in scientific literature, thus making the first question impossible to answer. Due to this missing piece of information, the ability to answer the third question is removed, thus making the second question mute. Concluding, the research shows that "smartness" does not equal "intelligence." No further study is necessary. 1. russ. "Criticism of the political left". bigsoccer.com, post 259. May 25, 2017.
One more on this--there is much less scholarship on his theory than IQ generally. See the following criticism, easily found on Wikipedia:: Linda Gottfredson (2006) has argued that thousands of studies support the importance of intelligence quotient (IQ) in predicting school and job performance, and numerous other life outcomes. In contrast, empirical support for non-g intelligences is either lacking or very poor. She argued that despite this the ideas of multiple non-g intelligences are very attractive to many due to the suggestion that everyone can be smart in some way.[39] A critical review of MI theory argues that there is little empirical evidence to support it: To date, there have been no published studies that offer evidence of the validity of the multiple intelligences. In 1994 Sternberg reported finding no empirical studies. In 2000 Allix reported finding no empirical validating studies, and at that time Gardner and Connell conceded that there was "little hard evidence for MI theory" (2000, p. 292). In 2004 Sternberg and Grigerenko stated that there were no validating studies for multiple intelligences, and in 2004 Gardner asserted that he would be "delighted were such evidence to accrue",[40] and admitted that "MI theory has few enthusiasts among psychometricians or others of a traditional psychological background" because they require "psychometric or experimental evidence that allows one to prove the existence of the several intelligences."[40][41]
You're not understanding the argument, it's not that something isn't measured by an "iq test" that may correlate to things like greater success in life, it's that "iq" itself is not a real thing, just a name given to a collection of traits measured by specific tests. Now if you used the term "intelligence" as opposed to "iq" you might have more people agreeing with you, but Brummie's point was that intelligence is an incredibly complex thing, and people who might measure well in one domain might measure terribly in another. An example that was really an eye opener for me in my early 20's: I was at a party and hanging out with some people I didn't know, and I was fascinated with this one guy who, on first pass, seemed really, really stupid; his speech was slow, his vocabulary limited, and I would guess he wouldn't do well on an "iq test." And yet his emotional intelligence (a term I use loosely) was off the charts, as I saw him interpreting interactions and human behavior at a depth that was way beyond what I or any of the other people in the group were personally attuned to. So yeah, he was dumb, but he was also brilliant. My guess is he hasn't been all that successful in our society, but that says more about the limitations of our society than his overall level of intelligence.
Sorry, dude, but....what, are you in high school? In this type of argument (intellectual), Wiki is never an acceptable source. Try this: http://ocw.metu.edu.tr/pluginfile.php/9276/mod_resource/content/1/s15326985ep4104_1.pdf This is the actual source of your quote. But, the same source also says: Chen (2004) defended MI theory against the claim that it lacks empirical support arguing that “a theory is not necessarily valuable because it is supported by the results of empirical tests” (p. 22) and that “intelligence is not a tangible object that can be measured” (p. 22). She also claimed that the novelty of the intelligences requires new measures and that MI theory has already been validated in its successful classroom application. Chen further claimed that MI theory better accounts for cognitive skill profiles in both brain-injured and typical individuals than do IQ measures But, as I'm sure you would not do, I'll provide the problem with Chen... From the same paper: MI are intangible theorized constructs, but, if their components are specified, they can be tested. MI may require new measures, but new measures depend on clearly defined components for the intelligences, and Gardner (1999, 2004) stated that he will not define such components. MI theory cannot be validated through application research because such research assumes the validity of the intelligences and because positive application effects may be caused by confounding independent factors such as novelty and excitement. For some reason, though, these two quotes are not part of the Wiki entry. btw - have you ever taught in a classroom?
I asked an electrician yesterday if he had ever wired a building before, because he was doing it wrong.
I think I mentioned that, probably before Wikipedia was a year old, my brother and I added stuff to the page about our home town. I had a slow day at work, so I looked up a bunch of male porn actors from John Holmes to ... about six or eight of others I can't remember ... and had them born there. A couple of them were still listed as such for two or three years. But my brother won: His is still there, modified only by the phrase "According to legend" and supplemented by a dead-link newspaper article that was never available online.... According to legend, it was in Galesburg, at the Gaity Theatre in 1914 where the four Marx Brothers (Groucho, Chico, Harpo, and Gummo) first received their nicknames. Nicknames ending in -o were popular in the early part of the 20th century, and a fellow Vaudevillian, Art Fisher, supposedly bestowed them upon the brothers during a poker game there. Zeppo Marx received his nickname later.[20] When I came across the information that the guy who announces Nashville Predator hockey games was born in Galesburg, I thought my brother made it up.
Well-played! I tend to give Wiki credit for birth/death dates/cities, but not much more. Now, it seems, I can't do even that.
I went to college with this guy (was in a play with him once, even). He was two years ahead of me. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Boatman Now he's three years younger.