Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
European IQ map
Options
-
02-08-2008 1:26pm#1European IQ map proves Brits are brainy
It's a discovery that is bound to leave French pride smarting: new research has revealed that we Brits are markedly more intelligent than them.
While Britons managed eighth place in a new European league table of IQ scores, with an average of 100, the French languished in 19th place with a score of just 94.
Is it irresponsible to judge entire countries in this way? Tell us in reader comments below.
But it's not all good news. Britain was not only trounced by Germany and the Netherlands, which came top of the heap, but by five other nations including Poland and Italy.
The league table has been compiled by Professor Richard Lynn of the University of Ulster, who has ranked average national IQ scores for the first time.
His research not only reveals significant differences across the continent but within the UK as well.
Professor Lynn has discovered that Scotland and Ireland lag behind England in the intelligence stakes, while the population of London and the South East is top of the domestic league.
The professor has spent 30 years scrutinising thousands of test results from around the world to investigate the role of evolution in IQ and has published his results in a new book.
He concludes that in Europe, adults in Germany and the Netherlands have the
highest average IQ at 107, compared with 100 across Britain. The UK is also beaten by Poland (106), Sweden (104), Italy (102), Austria (101) and Switzerland (101).
But Britons are brighter than people in Belgium (99), Spain (98), Hungary (98), Russia (96), Greece (95), France (94), Romania (94), Turkey (90) and Serbia, which finishes bottom with 89.
Adults in England and Wales have an IQ of 100.5, ahead of Ireland and Scotland, both with 97. Residents of London and the South East average 102.
Last night Professor Lynn's findings were attracting a mixed reaction. Rebecca Loos, who claimed she had an affair with David Beckham in 2004 and is the daughter of a Dutch diplomat, said: "The Dutch have always been a highly intelligent nation. Most Dutch people are multilingual and speak an average of three languages fluently. Certainly all of them speak English."
An immodest Rebecca, 27, added: "Just look at me - I'm Dutch and look how clever I am!"
But Romanian pop twins The Cheeky Girls - Gabriela and Monica Irimia - said it was an "insult" to their nation to suggest its average IQ was 94. 'Our father is head of the ambulance service in Romania," said Gabriela, 23. "He's a doctor of medicine and extremely intelligent. We completed 18 years of college and managed to juggle singing training as well."
Britain does well in another of Professor Lynn's measures. He found that university students here have the second-highest undergraduate IQs in the world at 109, pipped only by those in America on 110.
The professor, who caused controversy last year by claiming that men were more intelligent than women by about five IQ points on average, warns that some of his results could be subject to 'sampling errors'. But he says the geographic trends are consistent and can be explained by theories of evolution and migration.
He claims that populations in the colder and more challenging environments of northern Europe have developed larger brains than those in the balmier climates of the south.
The average brain size in northern and central Europe is 1,320 cubic centimetres, but in southeast Europe it is 1,312cc.
"The early humans in northerly areas had to survive during cold winters when there were no plant foods and were forced to hunt big game,' he says. 'The main environmental influence on IQ is diet, and people in south-east Europe would have had less of the proteins, minerals and vitamins provided by meat, which are essential for brain development."
However, he dismissed as "an old wives' tale" the theory beloved of Cockneys - that they owe their alleged quick wits to a diet rich in jellied eels.
Professor Lynn said the geographical differences in intelligence across Britain could be explained because "over the course of centuries many of the brightest have left the regions to seek their fortune in London".
He added: "Once in the capital, they have settled and reared children, and these children have inherited their high intelligence and transmitted it to further generations."
The pattern is repeated in other countries - in France, for instance, IQ scores in Paris are much higher than in rural areas.
More controversially, Professor Lynn claims the IQ differences between France and Germany can be linked to the results of military confrontations, describing it as "a hitherto unrecog-nised law of history" that "the side with the higher IQ normally wins, unless they are hugely outnumbered, as Germany was after 1942".
IQ tests were first used in France in 1904 to identify intelligent children. And since then, experts have estimated that the 18th Century German writer and poet Goethe had the highest IQ in history, at 210.
The tests are not a measure of general knowledge, but of how the mind copes with reasoning problems and mental arithmetic. Normal IQ is from 85 to 115, and genius level starts at 145.
Professor Lynn has also made a correlation between a country's prosperity and the average IQ of its people, concluding that each average IQ point above 70 is worth about £500 in gross domestic product per person.
A spokesman for the German Ambassador to London diplomatically said he was reluctant to comment on the alleged brilliance of his countrymen.
The Daily Mail extolling the virtues of the intelligence of Britons *shock horror*
http://i35.tinypic.com/2lk8buv.gif MapTagged:0
Comments
-
So Britain averaged 100 IQ, by definition average intelligence.
Go UK woot
Edit: Actually I'd love to know the average IQ of a daily mail reader compared to a non-reader, might put this article in perspective.0 -
So in theory I should be the smartest person in this country. Now, how to profit from this.
1. Move to lower IQ country. (check)
2. ?????
3. Profit
Hmmmmm.0 -
The French certainly aren't always the brightest...
http://www.maniacworld.com/pitiful-answer-on-game-show.html0 -
The French still think they're at the centre of the universe. Pfft.0
-
My dad's is 138 (It did not pass down to me) and he buys it, although that could well be for the puzzle page.So Britain averaged 100 IQ, by definition average intelligence.
Go UK woot
Edit: Actually I'd love to know the average IQ of a daily mail reader compared to a non-reader, might put this article in perspective.
0 -
Advertisement
-
They make awesome clocks thoughmonkeyfudge wrote: »The French certainly aren't always the brightest...0 -
So that would mean the GDP in Ireland would be £13,500 (€17,143.07).Professor Lynn has also made a correlation between a country's prosperity and the average IQ of its people, concluding that each average IQ point above 70 is worth about £500 in gross domestic product per person.
However, according to the world bank, the CIA world fact book and the IMF our GDP per capita is an average of $60419 or €38,879.63 or £30,617.33.0 -
The only thing here thats in any way stupid is this report. And I have to say it takes stupidity to shining new levels.
You can't have different average IQs and compare them, since every IQ test is normalised for its population. The basic premise is bollocks, wrong, a logical fallacy.
But lets not forget this is the university of Ulster, who solemnly released an official study saying that women were naturally worse at engineering and mathematical studies than men, and should just stick to the cooking like.
Maroons.
I mean this fuckwit is even talking about brain sizes. By his reckoning, Napoleon should have been fairly thick due to his small size, rather than being the man who almost conquered from Portugal to China. Gah. Whats next, trepanning to count the brain cells? I'm glad I don't pay taxes in the UK to support these clowns.0 -
I don't think there's much of a genetic basis for I.Q
The brain is like a muscle- If you want to be good at one aspect of brain power (e.g mental arithmetic) then you'll have to practise it!
Genius isn't something people are born with, it's something they aquire.0 -
Captain Ginger wrote: »My dad's is 138 (It did not pass down to me) and he buys it, although that could well be for the puzzle page.
I said average IQ, each person like your dad could be offset by 50 jade goody fans
Or whatever these rags publish these days about "celebs".0 -
Advertisement
-
I don't think there's much of a genetic basis for I.Q
The brain is like a muscle- If you want to be good at one aspect of brain power (e.g mental arithmetic) then you'll have to practise it!
Genius isn't something people are born with, it's something they aquire.
eh no
warning don't read this if you don't believe in scienceGenetics of Intelligence
The study of intelligence genetics examines how much and by what manner mental abilities are affected by genes. Since many genetic and environmental factors influence intelligence, it is considered a complex trait. However, we do not know much about the quantity and character of genes responsible for mental abilities. We know even less about the factors responsible for expression of these genes.
Intelligence is of primary interest to human genetic research. The first methodical set of experimental observations can be traced back to Galton’s work in 1865, a year before Mendel’s influential article on the laws of heredity [5]. Galton evaluated the transmission of several traits in families using statistical tools. He concluded that many traits including mental ability are genetically transmitted and normally distributed in the general population. He did not analyze the role of the common environment within the families, biasing his conclusions towards the genetic. He did, however, recognize significant general principles such as regression to the mean in children of parents with extreme phenotypic traits.
Is anyone still reading at this point i'm just wondering...
The first adoptee and twin studies on intelligence were carried out in 1920s. Later animal studies on maze-bright and maze-dull rats investigated individual differences in intelligence. Studies on inbred mice also demonstrated the critical role of genetics in individual differences for aspects of learning. By the 1960s genetic studies on intelligence resulted in declining interest in the environmental origins of intelligence in psychology, enhancing acceptance of a genetic influence on intellect [reviewed in 6]. Then in 1969, in the Harvard Educational Review Jensen suggested that while cultural factors contributed to the 15-point difference in average IQ between black and white Americans, genes could not be ruled out. This declaration made Jensen a target of student protests, acts of vandalism, death threats, and introduced the word “Jensenism” [2]. However, Jensen pointed to an issue that brought strong criticism to genetic research on intelligence, leading to a generation of bigger behavioral genetic studies.
Large sample size studies in monozygotic (MZ) and dizygotic (DZ) twins raised together show an average correlation of .86 for MZ twins, while the correlation for DZ twins is only .60. Twenty-five years later, in The Bell Curve, Herrnstein and Murray [7] claimed that intelligence is strongly inherited with a heritability estimation of .60 + .2 within whites. Based on data from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth (NLSY), a federal project testing over 10,000 youths in the 1980’s, they declared that social intervention had very little effect on IQ. A large group of scientists and researchers see this claim as racist.
The g factor has a normal distribution in the general population, suggesting g is probably a product of several genes that interact with the environment. Moreover, although g correlates with the parental value, it has a tendency to be closer to the population mean, suggesting a regression to the mean. These observations suggest that some genetic variants that influence g will vary between populations rather than within populations. For instance, certain Asian populations have a frequency of 0.60 in COMT Met158 allele, which predicts lower COMT-enzyme activity and thereby better cognitive performance, while Caucasians have a frequency of 0.42 for the same allele [8].
Studies show a moderate increase in g over time in developed countries, correlating with improvements in nutrition, health and education. Environmental conditions such as socio-economic status have been shown to play a significant role in intelligence. A study by Wahlsten [9] showed that children transferred from a home with low socio-economic status to a home with high socio-economic status improved their test scores as much as 16 points. Moreover, in a study by Plomin et al. there was a .19 correlation for adoptive parents and their adopted children and a .32 correlation for the adopted siblings who had no genetic relatedness, suggesting the shared environment could be responsible for a third of the total variance of g between individuals [6]. It has been reported that heritability for intelligence increases during development, resulting in heritability as high as 80% in adulthood while there is also some evidence that heritability might be lower in adulthood than in childhood [10,11].0 -
I don't think there's much of a genetic basis for I.Q
The brain is like a muscle- If you want to be good at one aspect of brain power (e.g mental arithmetic) then you'll have to practise it!
Genius isn't something people are born with, it's something they aquire.
If you are going to go down the "the brain is like a muscle" road then you can't discount genetics. An average joe can train everyday of his life as hard as anyone but he still isn't going to be able to out run the likes of Ussain Bolt if he wasn't born with a suitable genetic make up.0 -
-
I don't think there's much of a genetic basis for I.Q
The brain is like a muscle- If you want to be good at one aspect of brain power (e.g mental arithmetic) then you'll have to practise it!
Genius isn't something people are born with, it's something they aquire.
Well bang goes gene theory then.0 -
And countered with:eh no
warning don't read this if you don't believe in science
Even the creator of IQ tests protested their uselessness...* Intelligence Quotient (IQ) tests were pretty much exposed as fraud decades ago and I thought they had been dumped by any serious scholars. These tests go back to the era of eugenics and social Darwinism. They are suspect in their origin and their purpose. And, whatever one thinks of IQ tests, the difference they researchers found was miniscule, just two points.
* Most tests, including standardized school and SAT tests, tend to track the kind of socialization and language experience you have had. All societies and cultures socialize their young adequately to function in those societies. But in a diverse society such as the U.S., the measures of adequacy are established by white middle class academics. So they are really testing for, "How much have you managed to talk and think like me?" This is a handy way to mask reproduction of privilege and class as a fair meritocracy.
Oho and by the way, if your basic metric to measure intelligence is flawed, your conclusions are off the map entirely.Intelligence testing began in earnest in France, when in 1904 psychologist Alfred Binet was commissioned by the French government to find a method to differentiate between children who were intellectually normal and those who were inferior.
This led to the development of the Binet Scale, also known as the Simon-Binet Scale in recognition of Theophile Simon's assistance in its development. It constituted a revolutionary approach to the assessment of individual mental ability. However, Binet himself cautioned against misuse of the scale or misunderstanding of its implications. According to Binet, the scale was designed with a single purpose in mind; it was to serve as a guide to identify children in the schools who required special education. Its intention was not to be used as “a general device for ranking all pupils according to mental worth.”
In addition, Binet feared that IQ measurement would be used to condemn a child to a permanent “condition” of stupidity, thereby negatively affecting his or her education and livelihood:
"Some recent thinkers…[have affirmed] that an individual's intelligence is a fixed quantity, a quantity that cannot be increased. We must protest and react against this brutal pessimism; we must try to demonstrate that it is founded on nothing."
However, the American educators and psychologists who championed and utilized the scale and its revisions failed to heed Binet's caveats concerning its limitations. Soon intelligence testing assumed an importance and respectability out of proportion to its actual value.
Few people realize that the tests being used today — of which the IQ test continues to be the most popular — represent the end result of a historical process that has its origins in racial and cultural bigotry. Many of the founding fathers of the modern testing industry — including Goddard, Terman and Carl Brighan (the developer of the Scholastic Aptitude Test) — advocated eugenics.
According to most definitions — although they are not conclusive — intelligence is made up of the skills of logical reasoning, problem solving, critical thinking, and adaptation.24 This scenario seems reasonable, until one examines the content of IQ tests. The definition of intelligence, as is operationalized in all IQ tests, includes virtually no skills that can be identified in terms of the definitions of intelligence. To support her statement, Siegel gives a detailed analysis of the subtests of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Revised (WISC-R). This IQ test is composed of Verbal and Performance sections, and is nearly always used in LD diagnosis. In each subtest of the Verbal scale, performance is in varying degrees dependent on specific knowledge, vocabulary, expressive language and memory skills, while in the Performance scale, visual-spatial abilities, fine motor coordination, perceptual skills, and in some subtests speed, are essential for scoring.25 As Siegel rightly points out, IQ tests measure, for the most part, what a person has learned, not what he or she is capable of doing in the future (his potential).
The unreliability of IQ tests has been proved by numerous researchers. The scores may vary by as much as 15 points from one test to another,29 while emotional tension, anxiety, and unfamiliarity with the testing process can greatly affect test performance. In addition, Gould described the biasing effect that tester attitudes, qualifications, and instructions can have on testing.31 In one study, for example, ninety-nine school psychologists independently scored an IQ test from identical records, and came up with IQs ranging from 63 to 117 for the same person.
The number of muscles and physical makeup required to run faster or benchpress more weights is extremely low and extremely simple, unlike the very complex and constantly changing interactions between various parts of the nervous system that make up what we call "intelligence".If you are going to go down the "the brain is like a muscle" road then you can't discount genetics. An average joe can train everyday of his life as hard as anyone but he still isn't going to be able to out run the likes of Ussain Bolt if he wasn't born with a suitable genetic make up.0 -
I will be less subtle.
IQ tests are bo**ocks.0 -
Between simplesam06 and flamed diving I think they have the counter argument to IQ test down to a t.0
-
of the University of Ulster, who has ranked average national IQ scores for the first time.
That's all I saw before laughing. What a complete waste of time.
(FTR, IQ tests measure how good you are at doing IQ tests - nothing else)0 -
SimpleSam06 wrote: »Maroons.
http://www.unlockingthearchives.rgs.org/resources/images/maroons-en.jpg ? :pac:0 -
IQ tests have their place. No psychological test is perfect and one test alone should not be taken as an end result - they should be used with other tests to give a general result i.e. they are only one tool in the process of diagnostics.
With regards being born with a high intelligence or not, there are two types of intelligence - fluid and crystallised intelligence. Fluid intelligence is what you are born with - it is the ability to find meaning in confusion and solve new problems. Crystallized intelligence is the ability to use skills, knowledge, and experience.
My girlfriend (a psychologist) did the WAIS IQ test on me. I scored 126. It was not a case of answering a number of questions on a piece of paper; it was much more practical than that.0 -
Advertisement
-
A little more apt...
Yes, in application to IQ tester school.IQ tests have their place.
Without trying to be insulting, thats quackery once again. Find meaning in confusion, solve new problems? Are you saying that previous experience, learning, and education will have no bearing on problem solving and order situations. Yeesh.With regards being born with a high intelligence or not, there are two types of intelligence - fluid and crystallised intelligence. Fluid intelligence is what you are born with - it is the ability to find meaning in confusion and solve new problems. Crystallized intelligence is the ability to use skills, knowledge, and experience.
Of course its fairly handy to spout whatever the meme of the season is, but in areas where you actually need to produce something in order to get paid, like for example AI in software and hardware, we aren't even close to a basic theory of what intelligence is, in order to replicate its mechanisms.0 -
Look i'm not saying there aren't genetic factors involved.I'm just saying they're way less than you think they'd be.
In school i was a smart kid, i hung around with other smart kids. One thing i found out was that all the really smart kids had been thought by their parents how to read,write and solve basic arithmetic before the started school.I could do all this at three.I don't put this down to inborn intelligence, i put this down to my mother spending lots of time teaching me.
meanwhile the other kids waited untill they started school for this.
Another thing i noticed was that smart kids watched documentaries and read science books,while the other kids didn't. coincidence.... no! that's why they were smart!!!
They did an experiment in america in the 70's where they took a group of toddlers from disadvantaged communities, and from a very young age (less than 2 i think) they started playing games with them designed to develop different mental skills.They continued this for some time (i think till the kids were 7), provided the kids with factual books and left.
Guess what? ALL of the kids had I.Q's far above average and i think all of them went on to college (these's were kids from REALLY disadvantaged commmunities).
The fact is, between the ages of 1 and 4 you're brain undergoes massive development. If you start using certain parts of your brain loads then those parts of your brain will stay strong for you're entire life.The opposite is also true.
If you're looking for a source on all this, i don't have one, i saw it all on a documentary last year some time.
http://www.nypost.com/seven/04172007/entertainment/how_you__too__can_be_a_genius_entertainment_farrah_weinstein.htm0 -
It has its place in testing for developmental problems.SimpleSam06 wrote: »Yes, in application to IQ tester school.
Because you have studied the tests and are a psychologist? How is that quackery? Learning has no bearing on fluid intelligence *unless* someone had already learned the test being performed. When testing fluid intelligence previous education etc does not come into play. In the WIAS test for example a person is given a number of shapes of cardboard with drawings on them that make a picture when put in the right order but it is unclear what the picture is supposed to be by looking at each individual piece until they are in the right order. A person with higher fluid intelligence would see how the pieces come together quicker than a person with lower fluid intelligence (it's timed).SimpleSam06 wrote: »Without trying to be insulting, thats quackery once again. Find meaning in confusion, solve new problems? Are you saying that previous experience, learning, and education will have no bearing on problem solving and order situations. Yeesh.
Just because there is not perfect understanding of something does not mean it cannot be tested.SimpleSam06 wrote: »Of course its fairly handy to spout whatever the meme of the season is, but in areas where you actually need to produce something in order to get paid, like for example AI in software and hardware, we aren't even close to a basic theory of what intelligence is, in order to replicate its mechanisms.0 -
but mabey their parents were smart and thats why they gave them this advantageLook i'm not saying there aren't genetic factors involved.I'm just saying they're way less than you think they'd be.
In school i was a smart kid, i hung around with other smart kids. One thing i found out was that all the really smart kids had been thought by their parents how to read,write and solve basic arithmetic before the started school.I could do all this at three.I don't put this down to inborn intelligence, i put this down to my mother spending lots of time teaching me.
potential must be used
did you read any of the article i posted on twin and adoptive siblings
they are interesting read them
meanwhile the other kids waited untill they started school for this.
Another thing i noticed was that smart kids watched documentaries and read science books,while the other kids didn't. coincidence.... no! that's why they were smart!!!
They did an experiment in america in the 70's where they took a group of toddlers from disadvantaged communities, and from a very young age (less than 2 i think) they started playing games with them designed to develop different mental skills.They continued this for some time (i think till the kids were 7), provided the kids with factual books and left.
link please
Guess what? ALL of the kids had I.Q's far above average and i think all of them went on to college (these's were kids from REALLY disadvantaged commmunities).
The fact is, between the ages of 1 and 4 you're brain undergoes massive development. If you start using certain parts of your brain loads then those parts of your brain will stay strong for you're entire life.The opposite is also true.
If you're looking for a source on all this, i don't have one, i saw it all on a documentary last year some time.
well thats nice0 -
That is crystallised intelligence (learned) which is different to fluid intelligence (innate) as I mentioned above. gF (fluid intelligence) and gC (crystallised intelligence) are factors of g (general intelligence).Look i'm not saying there aren't genetic factors involved.I'm just saying they're way less than you think they'd be.
In school i was a smart kid, i hung around with other smart kids. One thing i found out was that all the really smart kids had been thought by their parents how to read,write and solve basic arithmetic before the started school.I could do all this at three.I don't put this down to inborn intelligence, i put this down to my mother spending lots of time teaching me.
meanwhile the other kids waited untill they started school for this.
Another thing i noticed was that smart kids watched documentaries and read science books,while the other kids didn't. coincidence.... no! that's why they were smart!!!
They did an experiment in america in the 70's where they took a group of toddlers from disadvantaged communities, and from a very young age (less than 2 i think) they started playing games with them designed to develop different mental skills.They continued this for some time (i think till the kids were 7), provided the kids with factual books and left.
Guess what? ALL of the kids had I.Q's far above average and i think all of them went on to college (these's were kids from REALLY disadvantaged commmunities).
The fact is, between the ages of 1 and 4 you're brain undergoes massive development. If you start using certain parts of your brain loads then those parts of your brain will stay strong for you're entire life.The opposite is also true.
If you're looking for a source on all this, i don't have one, i saw it all on a documentary last year some time.
Of course the more someone learns or is taught the higher their crystallised intelligence will be but it will not effect their fluid intelligence. There is a correlation between crystallised and fluid intelligence however in that the higher someone's fluid intelligence is the quicker they can learn thus generally people develop a higher crystallised intelligence (but it is not always the case of course).
SimpleSam06, you quote an article that talks about IQ tests having been exposed as fraud decades ago. Some did argue that you could not measure general intelligence but it has been proven in the last decade or so with different testing methods. That guy in the article clearly does not know what he is talking about.0 -
If you are going to go down the "the brain is like a muscle" road then you can't discount genetics. An average joe can train everyday of his life as hard as anyone but he still isn't going to be able to out run the likes of Ussain Bolt if he wasn't born with a suitable genetic make up.
pfft genetic determinism is teh suck.0 -
Nonsense is nonsense; but the study of nonsense is scholarship.Because you have studied the tests and are a psychologist?
Heh. Unless the person had seen that or a similar picture before. Then they would pass much more quickly. This is just the first and most obvious flaw, but consider carefully what it implies.A person with higher fluid intelligence would see how the pieces come together quicker than a person with lower fluid intelligence (it's timed).
A vague, general understanding would be a good first step, however.Just because there is not perfect understanding of something does not mean it cannot be tested.
Heh. You've really bought into this whole thing, haven't you?That is crystallised intelligence (learned) which is different to fluid intelligence (innate) as I mentioned above.0 -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environment_and_intelligence#Development_of_genius
there that's basically saying the same thing. They gave loads of sources on it so you can look them up all day!
Also this;
As babies, our neuronal connections are completely undifferentiated. Neurons make connections with neighboring neurons, and these become more complex and more idiosyncratic as the child ages, up until the age of 16, when this process halts. This is also the time frame for development of what is defined in psychometric studies as the general factor of intelligence, or g, as measured by IQ tests. A person’s IQ is supposed to be relatively stable after they’re reached maturity.[1]
The capacity of the brain to adapt its connections to environmental stimuli diminishes over time, and therefore it would follow that there is a critical period for intellectual development as well. While the critical period for the visual cortex ends in early childhood, other cortical areas and abilities have a critical period that lasts up through maturity (age 16), the same time frame for the development of fluid intelligence. So for a person to develop certain intellectual abilities, they need to be provided with the appropriate environmental stimuli during childhood, before the critical period for adapting their neuronal connections ends. It should be mentioned that some researchers believe that the critical period effect is a result of the manner by which intellectual abilities are acquired—that changes in neuronal connections inhibit or prevent possible future changes. However, the critical period is observed at approximately the same age in all people, no matter what level of intellectual ability is achieved
It's on the same page!0 -
Oh, that was just the appetiser. The real meat was in the second link.SimpleSam06, you quote an article that talks about IQ tests having been exposed as fraud decades ago. Some did argue that you could not measure general intelligence
Great news, yourself and the rest of the psychological profession can nip by the nobel prize awards and pick up your trophy, before stopping at any AI research group and enlighten them about it, before retiring on the countless billions you have made by creating true AI. I'm sure they will be delighted that you have sorted it out.but it has been proven in the last decade or so with different testing methods.
I am glad thats all cleared up.0 -
Advertisement
-
Is that the best argument you have?SimpleSam06 wrote: »Nonsense is nonsense; but the study of nonsense is scholarship.
How would they have seen the picture before unless they were shown the test before? The average is still taken on all the tests thus they would have had to have seen all the tests before. That does not negate the power of the test.SimpleSam06 wrote: »Heh. Unless the person had seen that or a similar picture before. Then they would pass much more quickly. This is just the first and most obvious flaw, but consider carefully what it implies.
Are you implying that there is not at least a vague, general understanding of intelligence?SimpleSam06 wrote: »A vague, general understanding would be a good first step, however.
lol, what an argument! So I guess you are dismissing general intelligence (including fluid and crystallised intelligence) then? Are you just making it up as you go along or have you actually seen any real evidence that proves they are wrong?SimpleSam06 wrote: »Heh. You've really bought into this whole thing, haven't you?0
Advertisement