European IQ map

darkman2 · 02-08-2008 05:22PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THyTnt00b5I

SimpleSam06 · 02-08-2008 05:22PM

axer wrote: »

Is that the best argument you have?

Eh just on a point of interest, when did the psychological profession stop using electroshock therapy?

axer wrote: »

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.

Indeed, its not like doing extremely well in two tests then doing poorly in one would throw off an average or anything.

axer wrote: »

Are you implying that there is not at least a vague, general understanding of intelligence?

Who is implying anything? I am directly saying it, and I'm saying it from the standpoint of people trying to replicate intelligence in even its most basic form. Unlike others, they can't afford to sit around navel gazing and waiting for the next Jungian archetype theory to come along and become fashionable.

What most are missing is that the study of the mind is very like Schrodingers cat, by studying it you change it, so you ultimately end up studying your studies. However I have neither the time nor the patience to wade through endless pages of recursive discussion with you before finally agreeing to disagree, so I'll just say that I am satisified with my position, and you can feel free to be satisfied with yours.

axer · 02-08-2008 05:23PM

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Oh, that was just the appetiser. The real meat was in the second link.

Lol, you highlight a quote from over 100 years ago and a psychologist who wrote a paper nearly 20 years ago and offer it as proof. I somehow think things have changed with regards testing since then.

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

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.

So you are basically trying to dismiss general intelligence and the IQ test because no one has created AI yet. Not much of an argument there. I think you should start reading modern evidence and start listening to the countless psychologist who have studied in the field and agree that their is such a thing as general intelligence - fluid and crystallised and that whilst the IQ is not perfect, it is a useful tool.

Tigger · 02-08-2008 05:26PM

by the same princaple bees cannot fly

axer · 02-08-2008 05:30PM

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Eh just on a point of interest, when did the psychological profession stop using electroshock therapy?

The psychological profession never used ECT. The psychiatric profession did. I don't see your point.

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Indeed, its not like doing extremely well in two tests then doing poorly in one would throw off an average or anything.

Of course if someone has already done the test or has seen the test material then it will not work accurately. No psychologist would rely soley on an IQ test.

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Who is implying anything? I am directly saying it, and I'm saying it from the standpoint of people trying to replicate intelligence in even its most basic form. Unlike others, they can't afford to sit around navel gazing and waiting for the next Jungian archetype theory to come along and become fashionable.

Well then you are very much mistaken. Just because something is not currently replicated doesn't mean it cannot be tested or doesn't exist.

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

What most are missing is that the study of the mind is very like Schrodingers cat, by studying it you change it, so you ultimately end up studying your studies. However I have neither the time nor the patience to wade through endless pages of recursive discussion with you before finally agreeing to disagree, so I'll just say that I am satisified with my position, and you can feel free to be satisfied with yours.

You still have not provided any evidence to back up your case but believe what you want to believe.

SimpleSam06 · 02-08-2008 05:45PM

axer wrote: »

Lol, you highlight a quote from over 100 years ago and a psychologist who wrote a paper nearly 20 years ago and offer it as proof. I somehow think things have changed with regards testing since then.

No, I highlighted the seedy beginnings of intelligence testing, and the even seedier continuation of it. Nothing has come along to make me believe that it has improved in any significant fashion, and its highly unlikely that it will in the near future.

axer wrote: »

So you are basically trying to dismiss general intelligence and the IQ test because no one has created AI yet. Not much of an argument there.

Well, 1, its the only argument that needs to be made, and 2, I'm not arguing with you since I already know it would be an act of futility. If it makes you feel better to think that you won, go right ahead and think that.

axer wrote: »

and agree that their is such a thing as general intelligence - fluid and crystallised and that whilst the IQ is not perfect, it is a useful tool.

Oh there probably is such a thing as general intelligence, but watching researchers trying to pin it down is like watching children with crayons trying to replicate the Mona Lisa.

axer wrote: »

The psychological profession never used ECT. The psychiatric profession did. I don't see your point.

Really? I beg to differ.

axer wrote: »

Of course if someone has already done the test or has seen the test material then it will not work accurately. No psychologist would rely soley on an IQ test.

Ah, so now the IQ tests are unreliable. I see.

axer wrote: »

Well then you are very much mistaken. Just because something is not currently replicated doesn't mean it cannot be tested or doesn't exist.

If you could point out to me where I said that, I'd be much obliged. I just find current theories on the matter more or less laughable.

axer wrote: »

You still have not provided any evidence to back up your case but believe what you want to believe.

Indeed I will.

axer · 02-08-2008 06:09PM

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

No, I highlighted the seedy beginnings of intelligence testing, and the even seedier continuation of it. Nothing has come along to make me believe that it has improved in any significant fashion, and its highly unlikely that it will in the near future.

What has any seedy beginings got to do with the effectiveness of the test?

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Well, 1, its the only argument that needs to be made, and 2, I'm not arguing with you since I already know it would be an act of futility.

Its not the only argument that needs to be made since it does not prove anything.

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

If it makes you feel better to think that you won, go right ahead and think that.

What a childish statement. I guess if you have no proof then you cannot argue.

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Oh there probably is such a thing as general intelligence, but watching researchers trying to pin it down is like watching children with crayons trying to replicate the Mona Lisa.

So you think they shouldn't bother with it then even though psychologists all around the world use IQ tests regularly to help them diagnose problems. But I guess you know better since you have spent years researching it yourself and have a deep understanding of psychology, right?

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Really? I beg to differ.

Lol, wtf? Did you even look at the page you linked to? That was an experiment to do with obedience. They did not use any electroshock therapy. lol

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Ah, so now the IQ tests are unreliable. I see.

I never said they were 100% reliable. I said in my posts that they are used along with other tests to diagnose conditions but they are a useful tool.

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

If you could point out to me where I said that, I'd be much obliged. I just find current theories on the matter more or less laughable.

If you can test something then you have to have at least a "vague, general understanding of intelligence" since you need to know what to test.

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Indeed I will.

I figured that.

Tar.Aldarion · 02-08-2008 06:29PM

Iq tests are not exact, obvious. They do give a general idea though. If somebody gets 100 and another 200, you do know the latter is smarter. They are not exact but just give an idea, there is on way you can tell how good people are at picking up things and a lot of other things. You can't get a higher IQ than born with, you can become better at IQ tests though.
Btw, unlike the article says, Marilyn vos Savant is thought to have the highest IQ.
I have double the average of france, tekkit frenchies.

KnifeWRENCH · 02-08-2008 06:43PM

Why on Earth did they choose to interview Rebecca Loos and The Cheeky Girls about this?

Not exactly intellectual powehouses.

Anyway I've taken a few different IQ tests and got very different results so they're obviously not a perfect indicator of intelligence. Apparently my IQ ranges from 126 to 154 (so above average but unfortunately not a genius)

Tara is your IQ really 188? Would you be considered a genius with that score?

Tar.Aldarion · 02-08-2008 06:48PM

Their not exactly accurate, in test the nation I got better than all of britain that did the test :-d. After I did my first one you just know how to do them all. They only ask really easy things the method of which would be taught to us in school anyway. I wouldn't put much stock in them.

KnifeWRENCH · 02-08-2008 07:06PM

Tara Le d'Arion wrote:

After I did my first one you just know how to do them all. They only ask really easy things the method of which would be taught to us in school anyway.

That doesn't work for me unfortunately. I've done a few and I still can't do those fecking visualisation ones (you know the ones with a sequence of symbols and asking which comes next) I hardly ever spot the pattern

I'm much better at the language questions and pretty good at the math ones. But those damn pictures lower my IQ score!

Tar.Aldarion · 02-08-2008 07:25PM

You mean like the nine square ones and the shaded squares move? Like the ones that are square, triangle, circle, what is next etc. If you look up the answer, how it was done you will always know it (probably) which is why they are not so accurate.

axer · 02-08-2008 07:37PM

square_igloo wrote: »

Anyway I've taken a few different IQ tests and got very different results so they're obviously not a perfect indicator of intelligence. Apparently my IQ ranges from 126 to 154 (so above average but unfortunately not a genius)

What IQ tests have you taken? I only got tested with the WAIS-III.

AckwelFoley · 02-08-2008 07:55PM

Ive an Iq of 257.

Tar.Aldarion · 02-08-2008 08:01PM

Is that a sequence?
2, 5, 7, 8?!

Overheal · 02-08-2008 08:11PM

Im still smarter than the average yank: after all I left for 95% of the Bush Administration.

SimpleSam06 · 02-08-2008 08:43PM

axer wrote: »

Lol, wtf? Did you even look at the page you linked to? That was an experiment to do with obedience. They did not use any electroshock therapy. lol

So, one school uses electric shocks to achieve the desired result, and the other school uses electric shocks to achieve the desired results. Yes, the magical blue fire will answer all the questions.

Its like getting a computer with a virus and kicking it repeatedly in the hopes that it will somehow work. What a shower of arse picking monkeys, the keystone cops of science.

Lol.

axer wrote: »

What has any seedy beginings got to do with the effectiveness of the test?

Its not effective, and its initial premise was abused horribly to produce what we have today, which is a damn good earner for any quack with nothing to do with themselves.

Lol.

axer wrote: »

Its not the only argument that needs to be made since it does not prove anything.

I'm going to make this very simple for you, see if you can track this. Just because you say something, doesn't make you right, doesn't make your comment right, and doesn't mean anything at all to anyone except you. I make a very clear statement about AI, and your response is "it doesn't prove anything".

Lol.

You have no idea what intelligence is, and neither does anyone else. Crystalline and fluid, indeed, all the fine terminology of a discipline with a burden of proof without any of the actual burden.

Lol.

axer wrote: »

If you can test something then you have to have at least a "vague, general understanding of intelligence" since you need to know what to test.

No you don't, when you have a preconceived notion of what intelligence is, then all your tests need to do is arrive at that conclusion.

Lol.

nyarlothothep · 02-08-2008 10:04PM

internet debates are silly because they usually end up as slagging matches like this one, but Im going to come down on Simple Sams side because he makes very lucid points. We have a very rudimentary understanding of intelligence which is reflected in our attempts to replicate it through AI. So jumping to definitions/conclusions about intelligence is going to involve error as an inevitability. Muhammad Ali scored so low he didn't get admitted into the army, are you going to say he's unintelligent? The dude who discovered dna has an IQ of 115, is he unintelligent? Einstein had an IQ of 165 and discovered general relativity, some of you may have an IQ of 180, are you smarter than him?

Sure there are people that are mentally incapacitated, they will never be as intelligent as the general populace but the majority of people have an average start point and some just take it in different directions, some become adept puzzle solvers or display the intelligence to do well in IQ tests, but others display different kinds of intelligence which impact on our lives today in terms of art, music etc. And they may suck at IQ tests, but to say they're inherently less intelligent is stupid.

axer · 03-08-2008 12:10AM

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

So, one school uses electric shocks to achieve the desired result, and the other school uses electric shocks to achieve the desired results. Yes, the magical blue fire will answer all the questions.

Its like getting a computer with a virus and kicking it repeatedly in the hopes that it will somehow work. What a shower of arse picking monkeys, the keystone cops of science.

Lol.

Seriously, I haven't a clue what you are trying to say. Can you try again in English please.

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Its not effective, and its initial premise was abused horribly to produce what we have today, which is a damn good earner for any quack with nothing to do with themselves.

Lol.

Have you a problem with psychologists or something? Do people go to psychologists just for an IQ test?

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

I'm going to make this very simple for you, see if you can track this. Just because you say something, doesn't make you right, doesn't make your comment right, and doesn't mean anything at all to anyone except you. I make a very clear statement about AI, and your response is "it doesn't prove anything".

Lol.

I was saying that just because they cannot create AI doesn't mean that they do not know anything about intelligence. AI is in existence today in many range of fields. There are machines that can do all sorts of jobs better than humans.

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

You have no idea what intelligence is, and neither does anyone else. Crystalline and fluid, indeed, all the fine terminology of a discipline with a burden of proof without any of the actual burden.

Lol.

It depends what you define intelligence as.

axer · 03-08-2008 12:32AM

nyarlothothep wrote: »

Muhammad Ali scored so low he didn't get admitted into the army, are you going to say he's unintelligent?

I believe he failed the writing and spelling tests - not an IQ test. Plus those tests were re-classified in 1966 (2 years later) and he was indicted for not joining the army.

nyarlothothep wrote: »

The dude who discovered dna has an IQ of 115, is he unintelligent?

Nope 115 would be above average. He also claimed black people are not as intelligent as white people so he discovered DNA but it doesn't automatically give him a really high IQ. There are many other factors that come into play such as persistance, interest in the subject etc.

nyarlothothep wrote: »

Einstein had an IQ of 165 and discovered general relativity, some of you may have an IQ of 180, are you smarter than him?

They could be but that does not mean they will be successful. As I said above their are many other factors.

nyarlothothep wrote: »

Sure there are people that are mentally incapacitated, they will never be as intelligent as the general populace but the majority of people have an average start point and some just take it in different directions, some become adept puzzle solvers or display the intelligence to do well in IQ tests, but others display different kinds of intelligence which impact on our lives today in terms of art, music etc. And they may suck at IQ tests, but to say they're inherently less intelligent is stupid.

Again, it depends on how you define intelligence. Different IQ tests measure different abilities.

mise_me_fein · 03-08-2008 01:04AM

A good aul IQ......some people are intelligent but don't know how to make money, some people know how to make money but are that intelligent...............which would you rather be?

There are so many different types of intelligence, streetsmart, etc.......I don't care if I come from a stupid race according to some test.

I know a guy who's really really smart but he can't have a human conversation with anyone.....is this good or bad?

nyarlothothep · 03-08-2008 01:59AM

axer wrote: »

I believe he failed the writing and spelling tests - not an IQ test. Plus those tests were re-classified in 1966 (2 years later) and he was indicted for not joining the army.

Nope 115 would be above average. He also claimed black people are not as intelligent as white people so he discovered DNA but it doesn't automatically give him a really high IQ. There are many other factors that come into play such as persistance, interest in the subject etc.

They could be but that does not mean they will be successful. As I said above their are many other factors.

Again, it depends on how you define intelligence. Different IQ tests measure different abilities.

Ok I accept the first point, although I might add he was a very articulate individual in what he wanted to say.

However, the point about the second dude is that intelligence could involve just those very factors. A person is defined by their actions. Someone with an IQ of 210 could just spend their lives posting on internet forums about how high their IQ is, but to me they're not as intelligent as someone who made an intelligent discovery or someone who contributed something intelligent to human discourse. We are making a huge leap in relation to defining intelligence when we have no idea about how it operates, and its so obvious when we try to emulate it with AI, we have no idea, not a clue, the best we have are culturally defined models and I can say that anything that is culturally defined is a product of the times and not reliable in a scientific sense. The problem with IQ tests is that they measure puzzle solving ability no matter what skill they test, eg. spatial ability-puzzle solving, mathematics-puzzle solving, verbal ability-logical relationships--->puzzle solving. So they test intelligence for puzzle solving, thats it. Its pretty much a waste of time because its not scientific, there are too many variables and too many questions with regards to how the human mind operates. People I know have achieved IQ scores of anything from 90-130/130-200, how is that reliable? How are polls reliable? How is someone scoring low on verbal ability yet getting As in languages at school reliable? If anything the appeal of IQ tests is divisible to putting people in boxes, something some people like to do. Its another expression of the status quo ideology. IMO.

axer · 03-08-2008 02:49AM

nyarlothothep wrote: »

A person is defined by their actions.

A person maybe but intelligence is defined as:

Capacity of mind, especially to understand principles, truths, facts or meanings, acquire knowledge, and apply it to practice; the ability to learn and comprehend;

[SIZE=-1]
[/SIZE]

nyarlothothep wrote: »

Someone with an IQ of 210 could just spend their lives posting on internet forums about how high their IQ is, but to me they're not as intelligent as someone who made an intelligent discovery or someone who contributed something intelligent to human discourse.

Yes, to you. Just because someone might have high intelligence doesn't mean they will be successful. It doesn't even mean they will seem smart.

nyarlothothep wrote: »

We are making a huge leap in relation to defining intelligence when we have no idea about how it operates, and its so obvious when we try to emulate it with AI, we have no idea, not a clue, the best we have are culturally defined models and I can say that anything that is culturally defined is a product of the times and not reliable in a scientific sense.

Are you saying we don't understand fully how the brain operates?

AI is all around us. There are many machines operating with AI that you come into contact with everyday. Many machines operate better than humans - does that make them more intelligent than humans? World chess champions have been beaten by computers.

nyarlothothep wrote: »

The problem with IQ tests is that they measure puzzle solving ability no matter what skill they test, eg. spatial ability-puzzle solving, mathematics-puzzle solving, verbal ability-logical relationships--->puzzle solving. So they test intelligence for puzzle solving, thats it. Its pretty much a waste of time because its not scientific, there are too many variables and too many questions with regards to how the human mind operates.

And that is what an IQ test is designed to do. They are not testing a person. They are merely one tool a psychologist would use but no psychologist would rely solely on one tool.

nyarlothothep wrote: »

People I know have achieved IQ scores of anything from 90-130/130-200, how is that reliable?

There are many different IQ tests and plenty of made up tests on the internet that people think are the real tests. You would have to get tested with something like the WAIS-III.

nyarlothothep wrote: »

How are polls reliable? How is someone scoring low on verbal ability yet getting As in languages at school reliable?

People overcome weaknesses the whole time. If persistence and interest are strong then the person could do very well in their subject but a person with a higher IQ, the same persistence and same interest (amongst other factors) would learn quicker.

nyarlothothep wrote: »

If anything the appeal of IQ tests is divisible to putting people in boxes, something some people like to do. Its another expression of the status quo ideology. IMO.

Its a psychological test that is all. It is nothing more or nothing less.

SimpleSam06 · 03-08-2008 07:53AM

axer wrote: »

Seriously, I haven't a clue what you are trying to say. Can you try again in English please.

My sneering contempt > your sneering contempt. Certainly more eloquent anyway. May I direct you to a dictionary so that you can look up some of the words there?

axer wrote: »

Have you a problem with psychologists or something? Do people go to psychologists just for an IQ test?

Were we talking about an IQ test here or not?

axer wrote: »

AI is in existence today in many range of fields. There are machines that can do all sorts of jobs better than humans.

See this is what I'm talking about. Complete lack of understanding of what intelligence actually is. A scythe does a job better than humans for a limited definition of "job", does that make it smarter?

AI is not in existence in any way, shape, means or form today. Christ almighty what an ignorant statement.

axer wrote: »

Are you saying we don't understand fully how the brain operates?

Aaahahahahah!! He finally gets it! /facepalm

axer wrote: »

AI is all around us. There are many machines operating with AI that you come into contact with everyday. Many machines operate better than humans - does that make them more intelligent than humans? World chess champions have been beaten by computers.

Sigh. The chess computer was reprogrammed after every move by its team to take account of the moves of its opponent. And even then chess is a simple game with a discrete number of moves at any given time. Its about a billion miles away from intelligence.

I mean what, do you look into you monitor when you turn on your computer and feel there is some sort of "intelligence" looking back at you? Its no more intelligent than a shovel or a dishcloth. Its this sort of primitive witchdoctoring that defines the mental health professions today.

axer wrote: »

There are many different IQ tests and plenty of made up tests on the internet that people think are the real tests. You would have to get tested with something like the WAIS-III.

I can't think of a more profound waste of time.

axer wrote: »

Capacity of mind, especially to understand principles, truths, facts or meanings, acquire knowledge, and apply it to practice; the ability to learn and comprehend;

You know whats interesting about your high sounding definition, if you try to make it into anything even vaguely useable in terms of AI, its worthless. So by definition, your definition is useless.

Overheal · 03-08-2008 08:08AM

You tell him sam! Give into the petty argument and let everyone know you care about what they think of your IQ!

seriously people try putting mensa membership on your CV - it just makes you seem arrogant.

SimpleSam06 · 03-08-2008 08:56AM

Overheal wrote: »

You tell him sam! Give into the petty argument and let everyone know you care about what they think of your IQ!

Ha?

Overheal · 03-08-2008 09:08AM

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Ha?

Ya :pac:

SimpleSam06 · 03-08-2008 09:20AM

Overheal wrote: »

Ya :pac:

SRSLY?

Overheal · 03-08-2008 09:22AM

No. Sit down.

SimpleSam06 · 03-08-2008 09:24AM

Overheal wrote: »

No. Sit down.

Well that was surreal.

European IQ map

Comments