Interesting Stuff Thread

sephir0th

Dave! wrote: »

FYI Steven Pinker was on 'Futureproof' on Newstalk yesterday evening (27th). You should be able to listen back.

31:20 in if anyone's interested:
http://www.newstalk.ie/programmes/all/futureproof/listen-back/

robindch

Over the last century, people appear have become noticeably smarter at abstract thinking and nobody's all that sure why. It seems at least plausible, though, that the decline of religion is one of the more useful outcomes.

http://www.tnr.com/book/review/are-we-getting-smarter-rising-IQs-james-flynn

The New Republic wrote:

IN THE MID-’80s, the political philosopher James Flynn noticed a remarkable but puzzling trend: for the past century, average IQ scores in every industrialized nation have been steadily rising. And not just a little: nearly three points every decade. Every several years, IQ tests test have to be “re-normed” so that the average remains 100. This means that a person who scored 100 a century ago would score 70 today; a person who tested as average a century ago would today be declared mentally retarded.

This bizarre finding—christened the “Flynn effect” by Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray in The Bell Curve—has since snowballed so much supporting evidence that in 2007 Malcolm Gladwell declared in The New Yorker that “the Flynn effect has moved from theory to fact.” But researchers still cannot agree on why scores are going up. Are we are simply getting better at taking tests? Are the tests themselves a poor measure of intelligence? Or do rising IQ scores really mean we are getting smarter?

In spite of his new book’s title, Flynn does not suggest a simple yes or no to this last question. It turns out that the greatest gains have taken place in subtests that measure abstract reasoning and pattern recognition, while subtests that depend more on previous knowledge show the lowest score increases. This imbalance may not reflect an increase in general intelligence, Flynn argues, but a shift in particular habits of mind. The question is not, why are we getting smarter, but the much less catchy, why are we getting better at abstract reasoning and little else?

Flynn starts from a position that accepts the idea of IQ—a measure that supposedly reflects an underlying “general” intelligence. Some researchers have objected to this concept in part because of its circular definition: psychologists measure general intelligence by analyzing correlation patterns among multiple intelligence tests; someone with greater general intelligence will perform better on all these subtests. But although he does not quibble with the premise, Flynn argues that an increase in general intelligence is not the full story when it comes to the past century’s massive score gains.

If we were really getting smarter overall, scores should be going up across all the subtests, but that is not the case. To understand the score gains, then, we need to set aside issues of general intelligence and instead analyze patterns on the IQ subtests. Doing so opens a window into cognitive trends over time and reveals a far more interesting picture of what may be happening to our minds. This inquiry is at the heart of Flynn’s thirty-year career, and it drives his thoughtful (though occasionally tedious) book.

As Flynn demonstrates, a typical IQ test question on the abstract reasoning “Similarities” subtest might ask “How are dogs and rabbits alike?” While our grandparents were more likely to say something along the lines of “Dogs are used to hunt rabbits,” today we are more likely to say the “correct” answer, “Dogs and rabbits are both mammals.” Our grandparents were more likely to see the world in concrete, utilitarian terms (dogs hunt rabbits), but today we are more likely to think in abstractions (the category of “mammal”). In contrast, the Arithmetic IQ subtest and the Vocabulary IQ subtest—tests that rely on previous knowledge—show hardly any score increase at all.

[...]

robindch

robindch wrote: »

Over the last century, people appear have become noticeably smarter at abstract thinking and nobody's all that sure why. It seems at least plausible, though, that the decline of religion is one of the more useful outcomes.

I would've thought that the luxury of time to think about things other than where the next meal is coming from would be a major cause.

Genghiz Cohen

Wait.... FGM isn't currently banned?!

UN set to ban female genital cutting

Obliq

robindch wrote: »

Over the last century, people appear have become noticeably smarter at abstract thinking and nobody's all that sure why. It seems at least plausible, though, that the decline of religion is one of the more useful outcomes.

http://www.tnr.com/book/review/are-we-getting-smarter-rising-IQs-james-flynn

"As Flynn demonstrates, a typical IQ test question on the abstract reasoning “Similarities” subtest might ask “How are dogs and rabbits alike?” While our grandparents were more likely to say something along the lines of “Dogs are used to hunt rabbits,” today we are more likely to say the “correct” answer, “Dogs and rabbits are both mammals.” "

My first thought was that they both have four legs, but then, my special skill of wall-building isn't in the IQ test. If the IQ test measured where exactly you hit a 2 ton stone to get it to fall back off of a pivot, I'm elected.

Obliq

Obliq wrote: »

My first thought was that they both have four legs, but then, my special skill of wall-building isn't in the IQ test. If the IQ test measured where exactly you hit a 2 ton stone to get it to fall back off of a pivot, I'm elected.

Pfft, while nerds figure out the "ideal" spot to hit I'll have hit enough spots for it to collapse anyway. :pac:

Obliq

Deleted User wrote: »

Pfft, while nerds figure out the "ideal" spot to hit I'll have hit enough spots for it to collapse anyway. :pac:

And by that, you will learn:-) Some of us have that naturally though....*coughs* not smug at all....

Bannasidhe

Deleted User wrote: »

Pfft, while nerds figure out the "ideal" spot to hit I'll have hit enough spots for it to collapse anyway. :pac:

I'd be using the opportunity to construct some medieval siege weapons to research their wall knocking down abilities. I'm all about the research...

Obliq

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I'd be using the opportunity to construct some medieval siege weapons to research their wall knocking down abilities. I'm all about the research...

Hmm. In medieval times they didn't have lock-on devices to pin-point the exact spot. You would need someone like me in this case - research smesearch :P (But maybe the research would win the day??:P

Bannasidhe

Obliq wrote: »

Hmm. In medieval times they didn't have lock-on devices to pin-point the exact spot. You would need someone like me in this case - research smesearch :P (But maybe the research would win the day??:P

It was more feck things at the wall until you found the sweet spot - then no-one was to move anything bar the means of projection until wall all fall down.

Then there was the 'dig a tunnel to undermine the wall' tactic - this got quite exciting once explosives got some R and D funding....

Obliq

Bannasidhe wrote: »

It was more feck things at the wall until you found the sweet spot - then no-one was to move anything bar the means of projection until wall all fall down.

Then there was the 'dig a tunnel to undermine the wall' tactic - this got quite exciting once explosives got some R and D funding....

Yes, I can see the logical application of that. But in my world, any leader wanting to break down a wall would ask the person best equipped to break down the wall, ie. the person who can tell you which stone is the weakest in the structure just by looking at it, and who can aim accordingly. No?

I'd bloody love a go with explosives - carefully applied to the structural weak points of course:-)

Bannasidhe

Obliq wrote: »

Yes, I can see the logical application of that. But in my world, any leader wanting to break down a wall would ask the person best equipped to break down the wall, ie. the person who can tell you which stone is the weakest in the structure just by looking at it, and who can aim accordingly. No?

I'd bloody love a go with explosives - carefully applied to the structural weak points of course:-)

Yes - but the wall would have to be observed from quite a distance due to sharp pointy arrows, sharp pointy crossbow bolts and hot molten whatevertheyhadtohand being shot at/poured on by the defenders on those who ventured too close for a spot of structural analysis.

Plus - sometimes sneaky defenders would bluff - a weak looking wall could have another wall behind it - breech the 'weak' wall then storm into a killing zone yelling for England, Harry and St Gearrrggggghhhhh'

Better to stay far back and feck things at them - rocks, rotten cows, some of their lads who were out on a reccy, burning stuff....lepers....smallpox victims...

Irish Tower houses have a thing called the murder hole. It's usually just in the ceiling above the front door. Access to the first floor was always via a wooden ladder the defenders could pull up behind them. The main door is too small to get another large ladder in so it was a one at a time job for attackers to clamber up to the first floor (from where people are shooting arrows/bolts at them and trying to turn them into corpses by hacking at them with swords, axes and pikes). First attacker to make it would be grabbed, throat cut instantly then plonked down the murder hole where the blood gushing corpse would land directly on the lads who were just behind them in the clamber queue.


I love my job....:D

Obliq

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I love my job....:D

I love your job too! I'd love to know that stuff I still think that the success rate of the person who argues for a particular weak point in the wall would have shone through after a while, and that their skill would be recognised. In the same way as a person might argue for bringing down a deer with a shot to the heart rather than the leg.

kiffer

I'm just having trouble with the idea that someone would say dogs are like rabbits because dogs hunt rabbits...
I honestly can't imagine any of my grandparents saying anything like that. I can imagine them saying "dogs aren't like rabbits", or "both have four legs" or something...
I can't imagine anyone saying that they are similar for that reason.

General Relativity

I have the answer, but it only works for the case of spherical walls in a vacuum.

/Physics :cool:

mikhail

Obliq wrote: »

"As Flynn demonstrates, a typical IQ test question on the abstract reasoning “Similarities” subtest might ask “How are dogs and rabbits alike?” While our grandparents were more likely to say something along the lines of “Dogs are used to hunt rabbits,” today we are more likely to say the “correct” answer, “Dogs and rabbits are both mammals.” "

My first thought was that they both have four legs, but then, my special skill of wall-building isn't in the IQ test. If the IQ test measured where exactly you hit a 2 ton stone to get it to fall back off of a pivot, I'm elected.

Well, your answer is correct, if a little simplistic. Mammals are distinguished by two things: giving birth to live young, and feeding that young milk. However, most of them also have lots of other features in common: lateral symmetry (two limbs each side, one eye each side, a symmetrical nose and mouth at the front), fur or hair as a means of keeping warm, 'warm blood' (that is, the ability to generate their own heat), and so on. All of those apply to rabbits and dogs (which also share a habitat and are sometimes kept as pets, even if they're otherwise unalike), and any subset of these features is a valid answer to the question. I don't know how flexible IQ tests are in what they'll take as an answer though.

Obliq

mikhail wrote: »

Well, your answer is correct, if a little simplistic. Mammals are distinguished by two things: giving birth to live young, and feeding that young milk. However, most of them also have lots of other features in common: lateral symmetry (two limbs each side, one eye each side, a symmetrical nose and mouth at the front), fur or hair as a means of keeping warm, 'warm blood' (that is, the ability to generate their own heat), and so on. All of those apply to rabbits and dogs (which also share a habitat and are sometimes kept as pets, even if they're otherwise unalike), and any subset of these features is a valid answer to the question. I don't know how flexible IQ tests are in what they'll take as an answer though.

Very inflexible if they would not accept a simple answer, although correct. I knew my answer was simplistic, but thanks for the clarification on what constitutes a mammal :rolleyes: My point was that IQ tests are not a good measure of my intelligence because they do not reflect what I am best at.

Bannasidhe

Obliq wrote: »

Very inflexible if they would not accept a simple answer, although correct. I knew my answer was simplistic, but thanks for the clarification on what constitutes a mammal :rolleyes: My point was that IQ tests are not a good measure of my intelligence because they do not reflect what I am best at.

IQ tests bore me so I usually wonder off as soon as I see the word ' if 25 telegraph poles are spaced 100 metres apart.....'

mikhail

Obliq wrote: »

Very inflexible if they would not accept a simple answer, although correct. I knew my answer was simplistic, but thanks for the clarification on what constitutes a mammal :rolleyes: My point was that IQ tests are not a good measure of my intelligence because they do not reflect what I am best at.

Well you expressed it poorly, and then were snotty about a perfectly innocent post, so I guess we can rule out some more areas of intelligence for you.

robindch

^^^ Boys and girls, calm down, plz.

Obliq

mikhail wrote: »

Well you expressed it poorly, and then were snotty about a perfectly innocent post, so I guess we can rule out some more areas of intelligence for you.

Ha! Brilliant:-) I do express myself best with my hands, but that doesn't make me less intelligent than people who express themselves best with words. Btw, my post was perfectly innocent too - you have read far too much into it. I took no offence at you telling me my post was simplistic, because it had been intended that way (as I stated in my reply).

Ps. Mod (sorry, can't remember which one) - I am not cross and do not need to calm down - Oh, robindch - sorry...

robindch

Two psychics are tested by Chris French of the Anomalistic Psychology Research Unit at Goldsmiths. Nothing happens. "Scientists are very closed-minded" said one of the failed psychics.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-20145664

BBC wrote:

A scientific experiment has found that two mediums were unable to demonstrate that they had special psychic powers.

The test by researchers at Goldsmiths, University of London, tried to establish whether mediums could use psychic abilities to identify something about five unseen volunteers.

The results, carried out under test conditions, did not show evidence of any unexplained powers of insight.

But medium Patricia Putt said this experiment "doesn't prove a thing".

This Halloween challenge was an attempt to investigate whether professional mediums could demonstrate their psychic powers in a controlled setting - by inviting them to deduce something about people they had never met and could not see or hear.

'Psychic energy'
The experiment, designed by Chris French, head of the Anomalistic Psychology Research Unit at Goldsmiths, asked two professional mediums to write something about five individuals who were concealed behind a screen.

These five volunteers were then asked to try to identify themselves from these psychic readings - with a success rate of only one in five.

This was a result that was "entirely consistent with the operation of chance alone", said Professor French.

But one of the mediums, Patricia Putt, rejected the suggestion that this showed any absence of psychic powers - saying that she needed to work face-to-face with people or to hear their voice, so that a connection could be established.

"Psychic energy" was not likely to work in the setting created for the experiment, she said, and her success rate was usually very high.

Ms Putt said the experiment was designed to confirm the researchers' pre-conceptions - rather than examine the nature of her psychic ability.

"Scientists are very closed-minded," she said.

She said there were fraudsters operating as psychic mediums - but that it was wrong for scientists to think that such mediums "were all the same".

But Michael Marshall of the Merseyside Skeptics Society, who helped to organise the test, said it showed that claims to have special abilities "aren't based in reality".

kylith

dp

kylith

Sounds like "But I need to be able to cold read them in order to cold read them!"

Also, if she's a medium how does that work? Generally these spirits tend to be invisible, so how does her communication with them work if she needs to be able to see them?

pauldla

kylith wrote: »

Sounds like "But I need to be able to cold read them in order to cold read them!"

Also, if she's a medium how does that work? Generally these spirits tend to be invisible, so how does her communication with them work if she needs to be able to see them?

Well of course she can see them, she's a medium! But they were put off by the feng shui of the lab. Spirits are easily spooked (no pun intended).

sephir0th

The real question is, does she actually believe her own ****e?

robindch

A theoretical physicist becomes slightly teary-eyed about the great work done by the good folks at the US's National Hurricane Center, a department of the NOAA, who did a magnificent job predicting when and where Hurricane Sandy would strike and what it would do when it did:

http://profmattstrassler.com/2012/10/31/sandy-science-amazing/

Meanwhile, Romney wants to "slash" funding for the NOAA and appears to want to privatize the emergency services:

http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2012/10/romneyryan_on_f.html

Obliq

Seriously good job, considering how chancy chance is.

Hotblack Desiato

Obliq wrote: »

Seriously good job, considering how chancy chance is.

It's OK provided you're not a scientist in Italy.

fitz0