Notices
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 100 of 116

Thread: IQ versus RQ (rationality)

  1. #1 IQ versus RQ (rationality) 
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    An article in New Scientist discusses some of the shortcomings of the IQ tests.

    http://www.newscientist.com/article/...ure-smart.html

    Having a high IQ does not mean you are smart. It just means you have certain mental tools. However, lots of high IQ people do not actually make very good use of those tools.

    Just as an example, the article mentions that Mensa Canada was surveyed, and its members showed the following beliefs.
    44% in astrology
    51% in biorhythms
    56% in aliens

    Clearly, their high IQ did not protect them from absurd beliefs.

    New Scientist discusses the need for an RQ test, measuring the ability to make rational decisions, as opposed to IQ. People of high RQ would make much better leaders, both in politics and in business. An RQ test would prove highly useful in selecting such people. Such an RQ test would have eliminated Bush junior as American president, for example, and kept the USA out of Iraq.

    Any other views on IQ and rationality?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Professor marcusclayman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,704
    shouldn't you ask for their reasoning behind these beliefs before judging them as absurd? or have you induced that the reasoning used by some, to justify a belief, is the reasoning used by all, for the same belief?


    Dick, be Frank.

    Ambiguity Kills.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    I believe in aliens. Not the flying saucer kind though, but I am pretty sure there are aliens on other planets. How were the questions phrased?

    It does not surprise me at all that even people of high intelligence can have absurd beliefs, or more specifically lend themselves to poor rationality. People aren’t made up of only a logic component. There are emotions, which help actuate our instincts, to consider as well. These two aspects, most of the time, don’t work well together, unfortunately.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    Marcus

    I do not think there is anything incredible about the idea that high IQ people may still have absurd beliefs. Take the 44% who believe in astrology. There is absolutely nothing about astrology that redeems it. It is pure superstition, and anyone who believes it has an irrational belief.

    The full New Scientist article describes how incomplete IQ as a measurement is to describe human mental abilities. IQ is just a measure of certain abilities to manipulate data. If the data chosen to be manipulated is bogus, the final conclusions will be rubbish. GIGO.

    In addition, high IQ people can still apply faulty reasoning.

    There are so many ways people can reason from premise to conclusion and go way off the tracks, and high IQ does not protect anyone from this diversion.
    For example : A common error is to apply emotion and personal interest to logic.
    That is : "It has got to be true because I want it to be true." That kind of specious reasoning is very common, and I have seen it displayed even here on this forum. That illogic is common with religious and pseudo-religious reasoning.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,305
    IQ has limits; so does RQ. Rationality does not equal smarts. Robin Williams is smart. Turkeys and terrorists and paid astrologers are smart. Most ancestors proved smarter than the general population.

    I personally would hate to see highly rational people in command of schools, hospitals, public parks, and all that we hold dear.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Professor marcusclayman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,704
    "Most ancestors proved smarter than the general population. "-pong

    Proved? Then it should be no problem to provide us with some of the proof it was proven with.

    "It is pure superstition, and anyone who believes it has an irrational belief. "-skeptic

    circular logic, much?

    Believing that there is a chance, however slight, that there are organisms somewhere else in the universe is superstitious?
    Dick, be Frank.

    Ambiguity Kills.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    Believing that there is a chance, however slight, that there are organisms somewhere else in the universe is superstitious?
    I think he was talking about astrology specifically.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    Marcus

    On astrology being superstition, and your implication of circular logic.

    Not quite, though you would not have known that. For your information, some years back I was a science teacher. As part of a class project we took astrology as a testable proposition. We carried out a very detailed study, with thousands of subjects interviewed, and tested to see if astrological predictions matched the reality.

    In short, they did not. I applied a statistical analysis to the results, and the results were random. In the years since then, I have read of a number of other scientists and their detailed studies of astrological predictions and astrological analysis of character. Again and again, the results prove equal to random chance.

    So when I call astrology superstition, that statement is based on proper scientific testing.

    On a belief in aliens. Well that depends. Personally, when I consider the number of stars, and the number of galaxies, I think it is entirely reasonable to suspect that one, and possibly billions of alien civilisations may exist. However, to believe that they are present here on Earth, and buzz around in flying saucers.... Well that is a little green man of a different colour entirely. If good empirical evidence existed, then fine. However, the evidence to date consists of crackpots and wide eyed media writers. So, any rational scientifically minded person will set up a tentative hypothesis that no such sentients exist, until demonstrated otherwise.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,305
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    Most ancestors proved smarter than the general population.
    Quote Originally Posted by marcusclayman
    Proved? Then it should be no problem to provide us with some of the proof it was proven with.
    Ancestors by definition are reproductively successful living things. We're the proof. Others not so smart are dead and ended, and in most cases forgotten. "Smarts" is efficacy, and it seldom requires a high RQ among modern humans. Smarts strike the highly rational as metagaming.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    The proof comes from the fossil record. Early hominin fossils had small brains. Ardipithecus brain, 4.4 million years ago, was no bigger than chimp (300 to 350 cc), for all that it stood upright. A few million years later, fossils of Australopithecus , 2.5 to 3.9 million years old, had larger brains (about 400 cc). Later Homo habilis, 1.6 to 2.5 million years ago, even larger (about 600 cc). Homo erectus was our immediate predecessor, living 1.6 million to 250,000 years ago, and had a brain of about 900cc. Neanderthal man and Homo sapiens both had full size brains, at about 1150 to 1200 cc. Both are modern era. Neanderthal died out quite recently.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,305
    I think the definition of "smart" may vary. Is smart synonymous with big brain, or mental horsepower? Or intelligence, or rational thought? I personally take it to mean "effective" especially pertaining to insightful choice of best approach. So neanderthals may have been highly rational, but they weren't as effective as homo sapiens e.g. while they were deftly picking berries one-by-one we were ripping up whole bushes and whacking them over the basket.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    76
    I offer HQ; Humanity Quotient.
    And I have already started to fantasize the possible test questions. I just need to find an answer to "what am I measuring for?" question...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Professor marcusclayman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,704
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    Most ancestors proved smarter than the general population.
    Quote Originally Posted by marcusclayman
    Proved? Then it should be no problem to provide us with some of the proof it was proven with.
    Ancestors by definition are reproductively successful living things. We're the proof. Others not so smart are dead and ended, and in most cases forgotten. "Smarts" is efficacy, and it seldom requires a high RQ among modern humans. Smarts strike the highly rational as metagaming.
    This is an interpretation, not proof. Not to mention none of this supports your claim.
    Dick, be Frank.

    Ambiguity Kills.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,305
    Survival - not extinction - is an "interpretation"? Seems evident to me that not one of your ancestors became extinct.

    I'm saying "smart" is whatever the best solution to a given situation is... not necessarily the intelligent (IQ) or rational (RQ) solution. I bring this up because the article and editorial both are peppered with the term "smart" to mean "rational" "intelligent" or "effective" variously.

    Maybe I'd be smart to ignore the fuzzy thinking.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    30
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic
    The proof comes from the fossil record. Early hominin fossils had small brains. Ardipithecus brain, 4.4 million years ago, was no bigger than chimp (300 to 350 cc), for all that it stood upright. A few million years later, fossils of Australopithecus , 2.5 to 3.9 million years old, had larger brains (about 400 cc). Later Homo habilis, 1.6 to 2.5 million years ago, even larger (about 600 cc). Homo erectus was our immediate predecessor, living 1.6 million to 250,000 years ago, and had a brain of about 900cc. Neanderthal man and Homo sapiens both had full size brains, at about 1150 to 1200 cc. Both are modern era. Neanderthal died out quite recently.
    Most specimens found have shown that neanderthals had a larger brain size then us. Around 200cc off the top of my head. But i haven't read on the subject in awhile so i could be off on the numbers.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Freshman DrNesbit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Supermegatopian Labs
    Posts
    98
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    I'm saying "smart" is whatever the best solution to a given situation is... not necessarily the intelligent (IQ) or rational (RQ) solution. I bring this up because the article and editorial both are peppered with the term "smart" to mean "rational" "intelligent" or "effective" variously.
    The best solution from what point of view? The point of view of evolutionary fitness or of an individual's own goals?

    Would you say that today the smartest people are those with the most children? That's a very unusual definition of "smart" you're using.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,305
    Quote Originally Posted by DrNesbit
    from what point of view?
    The given situation.

    In this thread "smart" is going undefined. The best solution will be the smartest one.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    Pong

    I believe you were the first person on this thread to use the word 'smart'. No problem, but perhaps you might like to give us your personal definition.

    The original terms were IQ and RQ, meaning for IQ, the ability to manipulate data, and for RQ, the ability to use logical thought processes accurately and reliably to obtain a correct conclusion.

    Lots of 'smart' people are not rational. Some of the errors I have seen in logic on this and other forums include such things as ....

    - Emotional thinking. Your emotions dictate the conclusion you want, and you then manipulate the reasoning process to obtain that conclusion. Heaps of people do this, and cannot understand that is what they have done even when someone points it out to them, and explains it in detail.

    - Slogan based thinking. Some people are unable to realise that an impressive slogan is not necessarily correct. Like in the gun control debates, where the slogan "guns do not kill people - people kill people" is used as an argument against gun control. A slogan is not an argument.

    - Politically correct illogic. Sometimes a conclusion is politically correct, and the debater works back for this point assuming that political correctness means scientific correctness. I got told once by a rabid feminist that I was a rapist. I carefully explained that I had never committed rape, never would commit rape, and never could commit rape. My argument fell on deaf ears. It was PC for that feminist that men were rapists and rational argument would not change that belief.

    - The democratic fallacy. Just because lots of people believe something does not mean it is true. Ditto for consensus. Medical researchers had consensus that ulcers were caused by stress. Then came some Australian researchers who found Helicobacter pylori in ulcers, and cured ulcers with antibiotics.

    - The 'long time' fallacy. If something has been believed for a long time, that does not, either, prove it is true. For example, acupuncture is a very old therapy dating back thousands of years. Nevertheless, it is garbage, having no more therapeutic value than the power of suggestion.

    - Argument by authority. Because the Great Man believes something is true, that does not mean it is true.

    - The fallacy of over-generalising. Sometimes you get an argument based on "if A implies C, then B also implies C."

    - The fallacy of group dynamics leading to exaggeration. If a bunch of people get together who all believe the same thing, they will reinforce each other's belief till it becomes exaggerated. Classic example is Muslim fundamentalists who talk each other into believing that the West is conspiring to attack their religion.

    There are so many fallacies. So many irrational ways to argue. A person who has a high RQ will be able to see through these fallacies, and will be able to reason correct, accurately, and reliably to a correct conclusion (assuming that person starts with correct data). This is not the same as IQ. The word 'smart' is ill defined, and really means what you choose it to mean.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,305
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic
    I believe you were the first person on this thread to use the word 'smart'.
    You opened the thread with Clever fools: Why a high IQ doesn't mean you're smart. I read the article and found "smart" invoked repeatedly without consistent meaning.

    My definition of "smart"? Lol well common usage likes it sloppy. I think in contrast to intelligence smart - like rational - is more a quality than a quantity. You can say a thought is smart or it isn't, but you don't say a thought is IQ or isn't IQ.

    I take no pleasure in this semantic torture.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Masters Degree Twit of wit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    553
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    Most ancestors proved smarter than the general population.
    Quote Originally Posted by marcusclayman
    Proved? Then it should be no problem to provide us with some of the proof it was proven with.
    Ancestors by definition are reproductively successful living things. We're the proof. Others not so smart are dead and ended, and in most cases forgotten. "Smarts" is efficacy, and it seldom requires a high RQ among modern humans. Smarts strike the highly rational as metagaming.
    So: Retard killed a brilliant scientist => Retard survived, scientist not => Retard is smarter. Correct?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    So: Retard killed a brilliant scientist => Retard survived, scientist not => Retard is smarter. Correct?
    Is this a serious question?
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22 Re: IQ versus RQ (rationality) 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    US
    Posts
    122
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic
    An article in New Scientist discusses some of the shortcomings of the IQ tests.

    http://www.newscientist.com/article/...ure-smart.html

    Having a high IQ does not mean you are smart. It just means you have certain mental tools. However, lots of high IQ people do not actually make very good use of those tools.

    Just as an example, the article mentions that Mensa Canada was surveyed, and its members showed the following beliefs.
    44% in astrology
    51% in biorhythms
    56% in aliens

    Clearly, their high IQ did not protect them from absurd beliefs.

    New Scientist discusses the need for an RQ test, measuring the ability to make rational decisions, as opposed to IQ. People of high RQ would make much better leaders, both in politics and in business. An RQ test would prove highly useful in selecting such people. Such an RQ test would have eliminated Bush junior as American president, for example, and kept the USA out of Iraq.

    Any other views on IQ and rationality?
    Intelligence is a subjective opinion

    Why would you say that believing in things you find ridiculous (an argument from personal incredulity) indicates that you're not smart and have no RQ?

    And how do you define an "absurd belief"?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Professor marcusclayman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,704
    Well, take a hypothetical situation: a consistent test is developed, and a word, say "smartishlike" were used to categorize those who scored within a certain range on the test, then it is not subjective.

    Intelligence can be objective. Assuming one defines it in an objective manner(for example by using someone's IQ test scores), and can then determine objectively what has it, and what does not, and to what degree, and in which ways one thing's intelligence differs from another(maybe they score the same, but got different answers wrong, one subject maybe had errors in linguistics, another in mathematics)

    Intelligence CAN be rather ambiguous, but that doesn't mean it MUST be used ambiguously.


    Same with the results of this study. What does it mean to believe in something? Do these Mensa Canada members believe in all astrological claims, or have some belief in some astrological claims? frankly, not all astrologists agree, such as Chinese Astrology based on Taoist symbolism, and a sacred numerology, revolving around 5 cycles of 12 years; and Europeen Astrology based on 12 months, and the location of celestial bodies; also many hardcore astrologist denounce daily horoscopes, or denounce some and not others; and some astrologist disagree on the symbolic relation of the stars to man, saying that it is not the stars that effect man, but man that effects the stars. I am not sure if Mensa Canada members think this much about the question if they were simply asked to answer yes or no to "Do you believe in astrology?"

    Also, it would be a better measure of rationality to follow up and ask if they know these things to be true. Hopefully they can tell the difference between belief/opinion and knowledge/fact.
    Dick, be Frank.

    Ambiguity Kills.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    US
    Posts
    122
    Quote Originally Posted by marcusclayman
    Well, take a hypothetical situation: a consistent test is developed, and a word, say "smartishlike" were used to categorize those who scored within a certain range on the test, then it is not subjective.

    Intelligence can be objective. Assuming one defines it in an objective manner(for example by using someone's IQ test scores), and can then determine objectively what has it, and what does not, and to what degree, and in which ways one thing's intelligence differs from another(maybe they score the same, but got different answers wrong, one subject maybe had errors in linguistics, another in mathematics)
    I disagree, intelligence can only be a subjective opinion. If you try to objectively measure intelligence by having some objective standards of what intelligence is, then that would only measure how well a person matches those objective standards. Viewing those objective standards as what "real intelligence" is would be a subjective opinion.

    Would you consider Newton, the inventor of Integral Calculus, founder of classical physics as a smart or intelligent person even though he believed in astrology?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Professor marcusclayman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,704
    "Viewing those objective standards as what "real intelligence" is would be a subjective opinion."

    Who said anything about "real intelligence?" What is "real intelligence?"
    Dick, be Frank.

    Ambiguity Kills.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    What is an 'absurd' belief?

    I would give two criteria for a belief being seen as absurd, but that is only my opinion and others may disagree.
    1. There is no strong empirical, objectively derived evidence to support the belief.
    2. The belief is sufficiently removed from what we know to be correct, to raise a proper scepticism.

    For example : the belief in astrology fails criterion 1, since there have been numerous attempts by people of scientific bent to carry out studies to test the principles. Since astrology fails those tests, we can say it clearly looks absurd by the first standard.

    Astrology also fails the second standard. To suggest that a person's character is moulded by (for example) where the planet Mars happens to be, at the time of his/her birth, is clearly way different from the factors that we know genuinely affects character (genes, upbringing, education etc). It is this separation from what is known to be sound that makes it fail the second criterion.

    As always, the principle remains : extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

    A belief in aliens may be reasonable, if it is limited to the idea that another intelligent, and technologically sophisticated, life form may exist somewhere else in the universe, other than Earth. However, if the belief is that these guys are regularly visiting the Earth, then extraordinary evidence is called for. In spite of vast numbers of books by 'true believers' such evidence cannot be found.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Ph.D. Raziell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    928
    I consider myself as a wise, perceptive, imaginative and reflected person good at critical thinking. Though i suck at math and have a horrible memory.

    Though i still just score average on IQ scores.

    The problem with IQ tests are that they seem to just measure your math skills and problem solving.

    If you ask a computer what 14050 times 2943 divided on 17.3 is it will have the answer and fast. But thats it...

    Though a human will use way more time, the human will know what the numbers represent, how it can be solved, why it should be resolved and for what purpose. We can store this information and put it to general use and maybe link it to other events where the equation can be usefull aswell etc.

    See the point?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    There are numerous tests for various varieties of intelligence. Here is one for maths ability. Time yourself. You must get the answer within 5 minutes. I will give the correct answer tomorrow.

    If:



    2 + 3 = 10



    7 + 2 = 63



    6 + 5 = 66



    8 + 4 = 96







    Then:







    9 + 7 = ????



    Rationality, however, is different to IQ, whether mathematical, verbal, visuo-spatial, or otherwise. My own view is that rationality is the ability to recognise and work with what is real. In medieval times, apparently, biblical scholars used to argue about how many angels could fit on the head of a pin. These guys were probably extremely intelligent, but non rational. Lack of rationality shown by the inability to determine what is real and what is unreal.

    Without rationality, and with high IQ, we get the GIGO principle demonstrated. Garbage in leads to Garbage out. Unreal assumptions worked through a very intelligent brain still leads to nonsense conclusions.

    For a person to be truly effective on a mental level requires both rationality and intelligence.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Masters Degree Twit of wit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    553
    not too hard...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    There is an email circulating where the above question is asked and then the answer is the password of an attached Excel file where you add your name to the list of people that were able to solve it. Very easy.

    Another question I heard is one someone told me about that he got as part of an interview. He failed it, but again, it is very simple.

    "Let's say you have a container and a liquid. Once you pour the liquid in the container it starts to double in volume every second. It is known that it takes 37 seconds for the liquid to fill the container. The question is, after how many seconds will the container be one quarter full?
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Masters Degree Twit of wit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    553
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    "Let's say you have a container and a liquid. Once you pour the liquid in the container it starts to double in volume every second. It is known that it takes 37 seconds for the liquid to fill the container. The question is, after how many seconds will the container be one quarter full?
    This is too easy to be meant seriously.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    101
    Name two coins that add up to thirty cents, one of them is not a nickel.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    Quote Originally Posted by Twit of wit
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    "Let's say you have a container and a liquid. Once you pour the liquid in the container it starts to double in volume every second. It is known that it takes 37 seconds for the liquid to fill the container. The question is, after how many seconds will the container be one quarter full?
    This is too easy to be meant seriously.
    Apparently not. The guy who told me about it is not an idiot by any standards. The question is meant to test the thinking processes of the candidate. Apparently it tests a certain way of thinking. While I gave the answer in seconds, he spent minutes doing calculations on paper without finding the answer. My boss and my brother also could not get it.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    That question is essentially the same as the water lily puzzle, which I first heard about as a kid. If a water lily doubles in area every day, and takes 20 days to cover the surface of the pond, how many days to cover half the surface?

    Pretty obvious when you know, but often people get it wrong anyway.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    227
    If you watch the movie Rain Man, then you'll see a savant in action. Savant = retarded genious. While he can memorize entier phonebooks, count a mass of matchsticks in mere sec ..etc, he is still utterly stupid as he has no greater logic. What he know is only liniar knowledge, which he can't precive abstractly. Q: What is the cost of a car? A: About 100 dollars.

    The brain consist of ~12 major intelligence centers, with many subdivisions, a genious may calculate big numbers flawlessly in mere seconds, but fail and small number math. Or if you have a stem when speaking, you can sing and thereby stop the stem or maybe talk with a dialect and thereby also avoid stemming, explaining the subdivisions of an intelligence center.

    Those with lobotomy (seperating the 2 brainspheres by cutting the bridge) may see with both eyes and 'fully see' an object, if they only see an object with 1 eye they may only see colors, conture etc, but can't identify what it is, but looking with the other eye they can identify the object but can't tell what the other brain part saw. The same may go for people with mental distortions, where they either have low, partially or no funtional intelligence in certain area. The opposit is overstimulated intelligence center.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Quote Originally Posted by HexHammer
    If you watch the movie Rain Man, then you'll see a savant in action. Savant = retarded genious. While he can memorize entier phonebooks, count a mass of matchsticks in mere sec ..etc, he is still utterly stupid as he has no greater logic.
    Nonsense. Kim Peek, the man on whom Rainman was fashioned, was hardly stupid, and despite your claim to the contrary he DID have greater logic. Would you care to try again at making a valid observation, or are you content to throw around more unsupported silliness based on your own subjective interpretations?



    Quote Originally Posted by HexHammer
    The same may go for people with mental distortions, where they either have low, partially or no funtional intelligence in certain area. The opposit is overstimulated intelligence center.

    ..urgh ..too exhausted to write more. I might write more should you collectivly bug me for more
    WTF do you mean by "intelligence center?" Sounds like the CIA or something... Regardless, there is no spot in the brain which serves as an "intelligence center," so perhaps when you're less exhausted you can elaborate?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    227
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Quote Originally Posted by HexHammer
    If you watch the movie Rain Man, then you'll see a savant in action. Savant = retarded genious. While he can memorize entier phonebooks, count a mass of matchsticks in mere sec ..etc, he is still utterly stupid as he has no greater logic.
    Nonsense. Kim Peek, the man on whom Rainman was fashioned, was hardly stupid, and despite your claim to the contrary he DID have greater logic. Would you care to try again at making a valid observation, or are you content to throw around more unsupported silliness based on your own subjective interpretations?
    Ok let me correct myself, he was a high functional savant.
    Dude, where comes the real person into the picture? Some are super savants which isn't retarded. Seems you should study savants more.

    But my initial point is, that in the same person you can have both genious and retardness, as the word savant means, while most people only see intelligence black or white, either you are stupid or intelligent, when you can be both at the same time.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    How are you defining intelligence? What are it's characteristics, and how can they be quantized?


    My response above is because you are being sloppy with your language. If I am not mistaken, you are attempting to describe how an individual can be rather gifted in some arenas yet show profound deficits in others. Is that a fair representation of your intended point?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    227
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    How are you defining intelligence? What are it's characteristics, and how can they be quantized?


    My response above is because you are being sloppy with your language. If I am not mistaken, you are attempting to describe how an individual can be rather gifted in some arenas yet show profound deficits in others. Is that a fair representation of your intended point?
    Seems your too busy being a talkative smartass, besides english isn't my first language. We can talk again when you ain't so hyper.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    I don't think inow is being unreasonable. You chose to end your post with "I might write more should you collectivly bug me for more", implying that you possess a good level of knowledge in this area that we should be glad to hear. The fact is that you were sloppy with your language and to take umbrage when being asked to clarify is, frankly, childish. If you do have that knowledge, then please share it with us in a clear manner and preferably with references if asked for them.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    227
    All our major intelligence centers in the brain works individually, that was established under the Vietnam war in USA, studying the casualties with braindamage. One can play perfect piano whilst being unable to compute 2+2, so on and so forth.

    [edit] all our major intelligences
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Quote Originally Posted by HexHammer
    All our centers in the brain works individually, that was established under the Vietnam war in USA, studying the casualties with braindamage.
    I'm sorry to have to break it to you, mate, but the suggestion that the various centers in the brain work individually... independent of one another... is also false.


    [EDIT]Come to think of it, I can't really say whether or not it is false, as it's difficult to tell what you actually mean. You are still being rather sloppy with your language. [/EDIT]


    Quote Originally Posted by HexHammer
    One can play perfect piano whilst being unable to compute 2+2, so on and so forth.
    Wow... nifty. Now, would you please be so kind as to address the actual questions posed to you instead of continually pontificating on complete non-sequiturs?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    227
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    I don't think inow is being unreasonable. You chose to end your post with "I might write more should you collectivly bug me for more", implying that you possess a good level of knowledge in this area that we should be glad to hear. The fact is that you were sloppy with your language and to take umbrage when being asked to clarify is, frankly, childish. If you do have that knowledge, then please share it with us in a clear manner and preferably with references if asked for them.
    I must disagree with you judgeing me as childish in this case. He barraged me in a very agressive way with nonsens, making me less forthcoming with a good answer.

    Starting off with accusing my statemen with "nonsens", why would I dignify such brutish attack, if he was reasonable and used less agressive words I would more forthcoming.

    Besides, suddenly talk about the real person which the movie are based upon, clearly shows his lack of ability to compute relevance. Imo the Rainman which Dustin Hoffman plays lack greater logic, i may be the real Rainman doesn't, but that's besides the point.

    So blaming me and accusing me for being childish, is stupid, blame him if any.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    227
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Quote Originally Posted by HexHammer
    All our centers in the brain works individually, that was established under the Vietnam war in USA, studying the casualties with braindamage.
    I'm sorry to have to break it to you, mate, but the suggestion that the various centers in the brain work individually... independent of one another... is also false.


    [EDIT]Come to think of it, I can't really say whether or not it is false, as it's difficult to tell what you actually mean. You are still being rather sloppy with your language. [/EDIT]


    Quote Originally Posted by HexHammer
    One can play perfect piano whilst being unable to compute 2+2, so on and so forth.
    Wow... nifty. Now, would you please be so kind as to address the actual questions posed to you instead of continually pontificating on complete non-sequiturs?
    You talk agressive and puerile like an immature teen.

    Please disprove my claims, instead of fanatically pick on me. Please show you are actually able to be constructive.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    I must disagree with you judgeing me as childish in this case.
    Childish might be the wrong word in this case, but I disagree with your interpretation of his appraisal of your comments. Saying your statements are nonsense means they make no sense. No offence, but you are being overly touchy about this I think. If your comments were not nonsense, then as asked, please prove him wrong. We are not here to argue about who is the bigger a-hole, but to learn something interesting.

    For the record, I think you are talking about the modularity of mind, which does enjoy some support, but not the consensus as far as I know. If you were talking about phrenology, then that is pseudoscience.

    Modularity is certainly an interesting avenue of research and if you can provide us with referenced info, we would be very much obliged.

    I think we can move on now from simple name calling and start to learn something. I am eager to do so.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    227
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Quote Originally Posted by HexHammer
    All our centers in the brain works individually, that was established under the Vietnam war in USA, studying the casualties with braindamage.
    I'm sorry to have to break it to you, mate, but the suggestion that the various centers in the brain work individually... independent of one another... is also false.
    You are right, I should have said major intelligences.

    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Quote Originally Posted by HexHammer
    ]One can play perfect piano whilst being unable to compute 2+2, so on and so forth.
    Wow... nifty. Now, would you please be so kind as to address the actual questions posed to you instead of continually pontificating on complete non-sequiturs?
    You act like a savant, able to comprehend liniar knowledge, but being completely baffled when it comes to a bit of abstract thinking and acts agressive on your fustration.

    @ KALSTER
    I havn't stydied the brain much, major source of knowledge is Discovery Channel, which mostly have primitive lectures on any subject.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Quote Originally Posted by HexHammer
    You act like a savant, able to comprehend liniar knowledge, but being completely baffled when it comes to a bit of abstract thinking
    No, I'm quite fine with abstract thinking... understanding metaphors, too. I just don't think that inaccurate comments should go unchallenged. I also note that you continue to evade the questions posed to you, and also continue to ignore requests for clarification.

    I'll just assume that you are either unable or unwilling so we can move on.


    Quote Originally Posted by HexHammer
    @ KALSTER
    I havn't stydied the brain much, major source of knowledge is Discovery Channel
    Whoa! Shocker. I would NEVER have guessed that.
    I shall just back down now... knowing that your knowledge gained from television is certain to far surpass my own which was gained from years of study at university, including my research work on the human mind (both my own and with others). I eagerly await you coming back to share further enlightenment with us.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    227
    Sorry, but I don't really like being bossed around by a psycotic idiot, nor being bullied by an unemotional mod.

    inow you make me too sick to my stomach, I'll just put you on ignore.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    @ KALSTER
    I havn't stydied the brain much, major source of knowledge is Discovery Channel, which mostly have primitive lectures on any subject.
    Fair enough, but please in future make clear where you are getting your information from. While this is not a forum for scientists only, we generally are still interested in proper science from reputable and referenced sources, i.e. scientific debate. While your anecdotes of what you saw on the Discovery Channel can be interesting, they cannot be accepted as serious sources of knowledge. Even the Discovery Channel mucks up the science on an unexpectedly regular basis. I realize you might be new to this type of debate and might not be used to this requirement, so I won't hold it against you. Goodness knows, it took me while to get that and we all still make the mistake every now and then.

    Sorry, but I don't really like being bossed around by a psycotic idiot, nor being bullied by an unemotional mod.

    inow you make me too sick to my stomach, I'll just put you on ignore.
    That is quite enough. Now stop the name calling and contribute conscientiously or stay out of it.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Quote Originally Posted by HexHammer
    Sorry, but I don't really like being bossed around by a psycotic idiot, nor being bullied by an unemotional mod.

    inow you make me too sick to my stomach, I'll just put you on ignore.
    I apologize if I seemed rude, but at the same time you're not helping by lashing out with labels like "psychotic idiot." When I commented, it was nothing personal (although I did find the arrogant tone of your first post in direct conflict with the inaccurate assertions you were putting forth). I was not attacking you, but attacking your argument. There is a great big huge gigantic ass difference, and I hope you will realize that.

    You're certainly welcome to put me on your ignore list, but you should know that ignoring me won't suddenly make your inaccurate comments any more valid.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Forum Masters Degree Twit of wit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    553
    inow, how many languages do you speak?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Quote Originally Posted by Twit of wit
    inow, how many languages do you speak?
    Relevance?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Forum Masters Degree Twit of wit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    553
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Quote Originally Posted by Twit of wit
    inow, how many languages do you speak?
    Relevance?
    It could explain your childish criticism of HexHammer's "imprecise language". It seems you have never used any foreign language.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    227
    @ it of wit
    Thanks for helping, specially when the mod so blatantly turn the blind eye to the absurdeties going on.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Quote Originally Posted by Twit of wit
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Quote Originally Posted by Twit of wit
    inow, how many languages do you speak?
    Relevance?
    It could explain your childish criticism of HexHammer's "imprecise language".
    I really don't see how it could. My criticisms of his imprecise language are a result of my own experience in science, research, and reading/writing scholarly journal articles.

    Although, I should probably thank you for calling me childish instead of rebutting any of the actual content of my posts or addressing any of my actual criticisms. It's sort of one of those pot meet kettle moments.


    Quote Originally Posted by Twit of wit
    It seems you have never used any foreign language.
    That would be a false impression for you to hold.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Forum Masters Degree Twit of wit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    553
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    It could explain your childish criticism of HexHammer's "imprecise language".
    I really don't see how it could. My criticisms of his imprecise language are a result of my own experience in science, research, and reading/writing scholarly journal articles.[/quote]
    Ok, for the first time maybe. However, you continued your attacks despite he said english is not his first language. That clearly shows that you have no experience with such situations. (Of course it can simply mean you are a jerk...) You should say what is not clear so he can explain and not refuse talking with him just because his english is not perfect.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Quote Originally Posted by Twit of wit
    You should say what is not clear so he can explain and not refuse talking with him just because his english is not perfect.
    I have... multiple times... stated what was not clear, and corrected him where he was mistaken, and he has not yet taken the opportunity provided him to explain or clarify. Further, his english was never at issue. He clearly has good grammar and is able to articulate his intended points successfully. The issue was the points themselves.

    Please also note that it was he who refused to talk with me... not the other way around. All one needs to do is look back and read the exchanges which took place in order to confirm this (oh wait... perhaps you can't. It seems he has edited nearly every one of his posts AFTER the discussions took place... how wonderful )

    Regardless... Your suggestion that I am ignoring him because his english is not perfect is without merit.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    227
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    [EDIT]Come to think of it, I can't really say whether or not it is false, as it's difficult to tell what you actually mean. You are still being rather sloppy with your language. [/EDIT]
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    his english was never at issue. He clearly has good grammar and is able to articulate his intended points successfully. The issue was the points themselves.


    Regardless... Your suggestion that I am ignoring him because his english is not perfect is without merit.
    Nice selfcontradiction.

    Hmmm, the word sociopath comes to mind.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Oh, give me a break. Get a clue, dude. Being imprecise with language struggling with english.

    Would you please at least ATTEMPT to address the questions or criticisms leveled at you instead of responding every time by calling me childish, a hyper talkative smartass, a puerile immature teen, a psychotic idiot baffled by abstract concepts, and sociopathic?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    227
    Thanks for the confirmation.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61 Re: IQ versus RQ (rationality) 
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    227
    Sorry for derailing the topic, I have now vented my fustrations and will go back on topic.
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic
    Just as an example, the article mentions that Mensa Canada was surveyed, and its members showed the following beliefs.
    44% in astrology
    51% in biorhythms
    56% in aliens

    Clearly, their high IQ did not protect them from absurd beliefs.
    Seeing on past sience postulations, absurdity are always a factor in sience. Please let me for a moment play the devils advocate.

    Aluminum can never be transparent!
    - well now me military are testing transparent aluminum armor.

    Carbon can never be magnetic!
    - yet we now have carbon magnets, and better yet, they'r some of the strongest static magnets around.

    Grand Canyon was carved out over million of years!
    - an idiot suggested it was made in a week ..yet it wasn't mad enough, it was more likely made over night with a huge glechier sea pouring out, explaining the cavitation holes scatterd around the area.

    Flying machines isn't possible, how can iron ever get airborne?
    - we now have a huge industry of airtransport and military birds of iron (sorry ...couldn't help myself)

    Astrology, let's split it up in 2 parts, the character description of the person, and the fortune telling. The character description part seems to hold true, but fortunetelling ..not.

    Bitorythms, I honestly havn't read anything about it, but all I know which can relate to the topic, is the fact that a group of women who are closely related, syncronize their mestruational period ...........why?!

    So, maybe people with high IQ does belive in these absurdities, because they'r smarter than the rest of us, and thereby can see beyond the obvious that elude the rest of us mortals.


    ......but seeing the matter with a grain of psycology, high IQ doesn't save you from naivity.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #62  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    Sorry for derailing the topic,
    You should be, as your reaction to reasonable requests for clarification has been indignant lashing out and continued failure to explain yourself. English not your first language? Me neither. That cannot be a reason for being unable to honour a simple request for you to back up your claims and to clarify them. Your grasp of the English language is more than good enough to understand this simple request.

    Now I will say this one last time: Be ready to support your contentions and clarify when requested to do so or don't contribute at all. This is a scientific discussion and debate forum, not a place to simply voice your opinions and claim them as fact without providing any evidentiary support for them when asked. This is not a high school debate and one has to consider that others might actually know what they are talking about with sources other than third hand anecdotal accounts.



    Grand Canyon was carved out over million of years!
    - an idiot suggested it was made in a week ..yet it wasn't mad enough, it was more likely made over night with a huge glechier sea pouring out, explaining the cavitation holes scatterd around the area.
    This another obvious example of undiluted nonsense. The fact that you believe this to be true does not make it so and you should learn to not simply quote from memory without being ready to defend it in a civilised manner without lashing out every time you are being
    challenged.

    If you or Twit of wit have any problems with this rule, then I suggest you take it up in the feedback subforum, but any more off topic feet stomping will be removed. I hope I am making myself clear.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #63  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    227
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    Grand Canyon was carved out over million of years!
    - an idiot suggested it was made in a week ..yet it wasn't mad enough, it was more likely made over night with a huge glechier sea pouring out, explaining the cavitation holes scatterd around the area.
    This another obvious example of undiluted nonsense. The fact that you believe this to be true does not make it so and you should learn to not simply quote from memory without being ready to defend it in a civilised manner without lashing out every time you are being
    challenged.
    1) can a silly little stream carve a canyon 18 miles across? No, only simple minded would belive so.

    2) studying Flood Geology can explain Grand Canyon and Scablands of Eastern Washington.


    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kR4YT...eature=related

    http://www.nps.gov/history/history/o.../72-2/sec1.htm
    most geologists today agree that the Scablands were carved by a flood of unprecedented proportions that took place 18,000 to 20,000 years ago during the Great Ice Age.
    http://creationwiki.org/Flood_geology
    Flood geologists explain strata with reference to catastrophes like the eruption of Mt. St. Helens, which carved out enormous canyons and laid down large amounts of rock strata within the space of a single day.
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...farm-land.html
    believed to have been formed in a matter of minutes when millions of gallons of floodwater from surrounding farmland suddenly tore through the soil
    I'v already explain I can't dignify myself to explain myself further to inow, I'm sure I have such right. Specially when he attack with words like "nonsens, sillyness" when so obvious being wrong about his anology of basing my case study on the real Rainman, when I'm ONLY refeering to the movie Rainman.


    KALSTER I do respect your great knowledge base, but as a moderator I don't really think it works out.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #64  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    FYI - You just cited creationwiki as a source... Not generally a good idea. Also, just in terms of basic etiquette, it's usually helpful to quote the relevant parts of the citation so we don't have to read every single word in every single one of them in an attempt to determine which part you feel supports your claims.

    But yeah... either way... probably don't want to cite creationwiki as a source. Not a good idea.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #65  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    227
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    FYI - You just cited creationwiki as a source... Not generally a good idea. Also, just in terms of basic etiquette, it's usually helpful to quote the relevant parts of the citation so we don't have to read every single word in every single one of them in an attempt to determine which part you feel supports your claims.
    That's a reasonable request, and I will do that later.

    Take to heart, don't see the form, see the content. It may be from a questionable source, but everybody can hold a grain of truth, and even a grain can tip the scale.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #66  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    Your quoting of creationwiki is totally bunk and pretty indicative of what you take reliable information. You have much to learn, but already seem to lack the tools to distinguish reliable information from nonsense and wishful thinking. In any case, leave the geology for the proper forum.


    Quote Originally Posted by HexHammer
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    FYI - You just cited creationwiki as a source... Not generally a good idea. Also, just in terms of basic etiquette, it's usually helpful to quote the relevant parts of the citation so we don't have to read every single word in every single one of them in an attempt to determine which part you feel supports your claims.
    That's a reasonable request, and I will do that later.

    Take to heart, don't see the form, see the content. It may be from a questionable source, but everybody can hold a grain of truth, and even a grain can tip the scale.
    And who chooses what is truth? Are we supposed to take what we like? Is that what you are doing? Do you see the problem now?

    KALSTER I do respect your great knowledge base, but as a moderator I don't really think it works out.
    It doesn't matter much what you think. You are violating the guidelines and it is my job to alert you to it.

    Now, can this thread get back to the original question?
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #67  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    227
    I belive the fight with KALSTER and inow perfectly displays the IQ v RQ thesis. 2 highly wise and knowledgeable people who fails in obvious simple matters. I would reccomend to take this as a valid case study answering the initial point of this thread.

    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    And who chooses what is truth? Are we supposed to take what we like? Is that what you are doing? Do you see the problem now?

    KALSTER I do respect your great knowledge base, but as a moderator I don't really think it works out.
    It doesn't matter much what you think. You are violating the guidelines and it is my job to alert you to it.

    Now, can this thread get back to the original question?
    Stop be so qualmingly arrogant and admit that I'm right.

    That might be that I'm violating the codes, but you are blatantly selective in enforcing them.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #68  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    Stop be so qualmingly arrogant and admit that I'm right.
    You must be joking, right?

    That might be that I'm violating the codes, but you are blatantly selective in enforcing them.
    You take umbrage at inow calling your unsupported assertions nonsense. YOU fire back with personal insults. NOBODY else got personal.


    Any further comments not related to the original question will be removed. If there are any complaints, it can be taken up either with (In)Sanity or Skinwalker (the Admins), or posted in the feedback subforum.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #69 Re: IQ versus RQ (rationality) 
    Forum Ph.D. Raziell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    928
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic

    New Scientist discusses the need for an RQ test, measuring the ability to make rational decisions, as opposed to IQ. People of high RQ would make much better leaders, both in politics and in business. An RQ test would prove highly useful in selecting such people.

    Any other views on IQ and rationality?
    On this again...

    I think the current IQ tests are EXTREMELY flawed. (to the point a little bold text and a fancy underline i just used and mere words cant even begin to describe it) In my opinion id score in the range of genius in a pure RQ test and a drooling retard if it was pure math.

    In many tests there are combinations of both but IQ tests today are pretty much giving you a really weird and unreal view of your actual mental capabilities. If you are very good at one area mentally, that doesent include math - you are pretty much screwed.

    Wisdom, intelligence, perception and so many more factors would be needed to be included on a real test. The extreme love for math related problems in these tests are irrelevant. If you can solve math problems that goes beyond human comprehension but you cant dress yourself proparly and wouldnt last 10 seconds alone in the wild id hardly call that a genius. If you are godlike in one single fraction of a field but useless in all other endevours it just dont fit my definition of genius.

    My suggestion: Rename it to Mental proficiency test or anything that implies your mental abilities as a whole - is measured. The extreme weight on math related problems is giving IQ tests a twisted picture not even remotely showing a persons actual potential.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #70  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    227
    Read your Private Messages.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #71  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    My suggestion: Rename it to Mental proficiency test or anything that implies your mental abilities as a whole - is measured. The extreme weight on math related problems is giving IQ tests a twisted picture not even remotely showing a persons actual potential.
    IQ tests are general tests that test different aspects of intelligence. It is far from perfect, but the best we have currently. I agree with you completely that you shouldn't read too much into IQ tests, but as far as maths go, it after all is a pretty good indicator of logic ability. A big contributor to IQ scores is the mental state of the person taking the test and also the person's attitude towards a certain type of question.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #72  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    227
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    but as far as maths go, it after all is a pretty good indicator of logic ability.
    Don't really see how math has anything to do with logic, savants good at math doesn't possess any logic. There can be logic in math, but that's only liniar.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  74. #73  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    Mathematics is pure logic. Get an education.

    And on Savants, I would never question their abilities to reason. Every Savant is different, and its often social skills they lack, not logic and reason
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  75. #74  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    I wouldn't be so sure, Arcane. HexHammer HAS watched the Discovery Channel. We should probably assume he's correct despite our own training and knowledge which suggests otherwise. 8)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  76. #75  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    227
    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
    Mathematics is pure logic. Get an education.

    And on Savants, I would never question their abilities to reason. Every Savant is different, and its often social skills they lack, not logic and reason
    Then you speak of high functional savants or super savants. If you have actually studied savants, you'll know they'll often fail at abstract logic. Cost of things.

    This "pure logic" does not apply to other intelligences.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  77. #76  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    Quote Originally Posted by HexHammer
    ]Don't really see how math has anything to do with logic
    yeah. okay. Math is nothing but logic. There is nothing else to it. If you can think of something, please, share it.

    Abstract logic, cost of things, isn't about simple logic. It's about choice, and in that category there is a marked difference between logic and ability to differentiate one path from another. In that, yes, savants often fail. but their rationality is still potentially VERY sound.
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  78. #77 Re: IQ versus RQ (rationality) 
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    Quote Originally Posted by HexHammer
    Sorry for derailing the topic, I have now vented my fustrations and will go back on topic.
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic
    Just as an example, the article mentions that Mensa Canada was surveyed, and its members showed the following beliefs.
    44% in astrology
    51% in biorhythms
    56% in aliens

    Clearly, their high IQ did not protect them from absurd beliefs.
    Seeing on past sience postulations, absurdity are always a factor in sience. Please let me for a moment play the devils advocate.
    "Absurdity" has always been present in human endeavors and, while science hasn't been immune, most absurd notions have been effectively filtered from scientific study such that modern scientific methods exclude their survival. Further, it is wrong to say that "absurdity (sic) are always a factor in sience (sic)." They (absurdities) are not. Nor were they "always" a factor in the past. They were sometimes a factor and there is still some absurdity in modern science though far, far less so for greatly diminished periods of time.


    Aluminum can never be transparent!

    Carbon can never be magnetic!

    Flying machines isn't possible, how can iron ever get airborne?
    You're the only person I know of that has said these things.

    Grand Canyon was carved out over million of years!
    - an idiot suggested it was made in a week ..yet it wasn't mad enough, it was more likely made over night with a huge glechier sea pouring out, explaining the cavitation holes scatterd around the area.
    There are no serious or credible geologists who espouse an idea that the Grand Canyon was created in anything short of millions of years. Indeed, the canyon was cut as the Colorado Plateau was uplifted, as evidenced by the sedimentology of one of the most studied and, thus, understood regions of geologic interest.

    Astrology, let's split it up in 2 parts, the character description of the person, and the fortune telling. The character description part seems to hold true, but fortunetelling ..not.
    There is no evidence that "astrological character description[s]" are anything more than generalizations that can apply to just about anyone. Those that believe otherwise are fools or the fooled.

    Bitorythms, I honestly havn't read anything about it, but all I know which can relate to the topic, is the fact that a group of women who are closely related, syncronize their mestruational period ...........why?!
    One can only assume you're referring to biorhythms. Biorhythm theory is pure pseudoscience. As to why "groups of women who are closely related syncronize (sic) their mestuational (sic) period[s]," the answer is they don't. There is no evidence that menstral periods of women are synchronized or matched in any significant way other than chance.

    So, maybe people with high IQ does belive in these absurdities, because they'r smarter than the rest of us, and thereby can see beyond the obvious that elude the rest of us mortals.
    Or maybe they simply lack critical reasoning skills to see beyond simple logic patterns.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  79. #78  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    227
    @ SkinWalker

    - yes it was poorly formulated, you'r absolutely right.

    - do some better research in my claims of:

    Aluminum can never be transparent!

    Carbon can never be magnetic!

    Flying machines isn't possible, how can iron ever get airborne?
    ..and you'll see I'm right, it's simple historical facts.

    - please do me a favor and replace Grand Canyon with Channeled Scablands, been like 10 years since I heard about Flood Geology and fucked up the names. Sorry.

    Quote Originally Posted by SkinWalker
    Or maybe they simply lack critical reasoning skills to see beyond simple logic patterns.
    I belive I already said this in layman terms.
    Quote Originally Posted by HexHammer
    ......but seeing the matter with a grain of psycology, high IQ doesn't save you from naivity.
    [edit] edited out the astrology part.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  80. #79  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Quote Originally Posted by HexHammer
    - as there's no clinical study of astrology I won't go further discussing it.
    Wrong... again. Here are almost 21,000 examples disproving your assertion:

    http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl..._ylo=&as_vis=0
    Reply With Quote  
     

  81. #80  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    Quote Originally Posted by HexHammer
    @ SkinWalker

    - yes it was poorly formulated, you'r absolutely right.

    - do some better research in my claims of:

    Aluminum can never be transparent!

    Carbon can never be magnetic!

    Flying machines isn't possible, how can iron ever get airborne?
    ..and you'll see I'm right, it's simple historical facts.
    I don't doubt that someone said these things. I just have no evidence that anyone other than you has. This isn't because you're the only one but, rather, because it doesn't appear that this was a general consensus of those who were involved in science.

    In other words, this seems to be myths you're propagating to demonstrate that because something was once obscure to science, therefore absurd nonsense such as that noted to be believed by so-called Mensa members (aliens, biorhythms, astrology, etc) cited by skeptic are to be taken as true or even probable.

    His point stands: people alleged to be smart viz a viz "IQ" tests are not immune to irrationality.

    - pease do me a favor and replace Grand Canyon with Channeled Scablands, been like 10 years since I heard about Flood Geology and fucked up the names. Sorry.
    Why would I do that? Either you think the Grand Canyon was created over night or you don't. Simply admitting ignorance will suffice, no need to move your goal post.

    - as there's no clinical study of astrology I won't go further discussing it.
    Would you like to place a wager on that? I'm aware of more than one study that would qualify as "clinical" in that it was done with strict scientific controls. Let me know the amount you would like to wager and I'll forward you the citations for the studies as well as my paypal link.

    So, we can agree that belief in aliens, astrology, and biorhythms is irrational, yes?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  82. #81  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    227
    Quote Originally Posted by SkinWalker
    I don't doubt that someone said these things. I just have no evidence that anyone other than you has. This isn't because you're the only one but, rather, because it doesn't appear that this was a general consensus of those who were involved in science.
    I'm overjoyed that you have had the right sources to turn to, when I had not.

    Quote Originally Posted by SkinWalker
    Would you like to place a wager on that? I'm aware of more than one study that would qualify as "clinical" in that it was done with strict scientific controls. Let me know the amount you would like to wager and I'll forward you the citations for the studies as well as my paypal link.
    Fine, add "that I know of" If you have any such things, by all means link them.

    Quote Originally Posted by SkinWalker
    Why would I do that? Either you think the Grand Canyon was created over night or you don't. Simply admitting ignorance will suffice, no need to move your goal post.
    Yes I'm very ignorent of Grand Canyon of how it was formed, my limited knowledge only applies to Scablands, how hard is it to understand?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  83. #82  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    227
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Quote Originally Posted by HexHammer
    - as there's no clinical study of astrology I won't go further discussing it.
    Wrong... again. Here are almost 21,000 examples disproving your assertion:

    http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl..._ylo=&as_vis=0
    Now, some posts ago you asked for quotations and etiquette and such, please adhere your own request.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  84. #83 Re: IQ versus RQ (rationality) 
    New Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic
    New Scientist discusses the need for an RQ test, measuring the ability to make rational decisions, as opposed to IQ. People of high RQ would make much better leaders, both in politics and in business. An RQ test would prove highly useful in selecting such people. Such an RQ test would have eliminated Bush junior as American president, for example, and kept the USA out of Iraq.

    Any other views on IQ and rationality?
    I think this is false dichotomy. The article discusses how IQ consists of a range of mental facilties and uses George Bush as an example by saying because [he] isn't analytically minded as such that it somehow opposes what an IQ represents. Critical thinking skills apparently falling outside reasoning is absurd to a certain extent. A very good memory contributes something to IQ, as they say, you get better at IQ tests from doing them. You learn the sorts of "tricks" and the format of the problems and your IQ goes up without necessarily learning anything beside the IQ tests themselves.
    I believe if you focus entirely on a group who "have" a high IQ and are somehow seen to be irrational then you need to include the gifted autistic, eccentric geniuses, etc.
    As in all areas of intelligence where you excel you sometimes also lack aswell, often without realising.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  85. #84  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,561
    A note on the Channeled scablands, they were not formed overnight anymore then the Grand Canyon was, they formed from cyclical flooding which occurred from 15,000 to 13,000 years ago (~2000 years total), with about 40 floods occurring. While not a "single stream" in the sense uses in the thread it is also certainly not an overnight occurrence as also implied earlier.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  86. #85  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    227
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum
    A note on the Channeled scablands, they were not formed overnight anymore then the Grand Canyon was, they formed from cyclical flooding which occurred from 15,000 to 13,000 years ago (~2000 years total), with about 40 floods occurring. While not a "single stream" in the sense uses in the thread it is also certainly not an overnight occurrence as also implied earlier.
    Out of curiosity, does that explain the cavitation holes scatterd around the place?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  87. #86  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,561
    Quote Originally Posted by HexHammer
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum
    A note on the Channeled scablands, they were not formed overnight anymore then the Grand Canyon was, they formed from cyclical flooding which occurred from 15,000 to 13,000 years ago (~2000 years total), with about 40 floods occurring. While not a "single stream" in the sense uses in the thread it is also certainly not an overnight occurrence as also implied earlier.
    Out of curiosity, does that explain the cavitation holes scatterd around the place?
    Are you referring to "potholes" holes carved into the bed of a stream by swirling stones?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  88. #87  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    227
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum
    Quote Originally Posted by HexHammer
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum
    A note on the Channeled scablands, they were not formed overnight anymore then the Grand Canyon was, they formed from cyclical flooding which occurred from 15,000 to 13,000 years ago (~2000 years total), with about 40 floods occurring. While not a "single stream" in the sense uses in the thread it is also certainly not an overnight occurrence as also implied earlier.
    Out of curiosity, does that explain the cavitation holes scatterd around the place?
    Are you referring to "potholes" holes carved into the bed of a stream by swirling stones?
    I know of 2 kinds of pot holes in the Scablands, the crude cutted, and some weird smoothly shaped which are circular and concave. Both carved by swirling stones?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  89. #88  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,561
    Quote Originally Posted by HexHammer
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum
    Quote Originally Posted by HexHammer
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum
    A note on the Channeled scablands, they were not formed overnight anymore then the Grand Canyon was, they formed from cyclical flooding which occurred from 15,000 to 13,000 years ago (~2000 years total), with about 40 floods occurring. While not a "single stream" in the sense uses in the thread it is also certainly not an overnight occurrence as also implied earlier.
    Out of curiosity, does that explain the cavitation holes scatterd around the place?
    Are you referring to "potholes" holes carved into the bed of a stream by swirling stones?
    I know of 2 kinds of pot holes in the Scablands, the crude cutted, and some weird smoothly shaped which are circular and concave. Both carved by swirling stones?
    The smooth one certainly, the "crude cut" one I don't know but they sound like they may be resultant from plunge pools etc...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  90. #89  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    US
    Posts
    122
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic
    What is an 'absurd' belief?

    I would give two criteria for a belief being seen as absurd, but that is only my opinion and others may disagree.
    1. There is no strong empirical, objectively derived evidence to support the belief.
    2. The belief is sufficiently removed from what we know to be correct, to raise a proper scepticism.

    For example : the belief in astrology fails criterion 1, since there have been numerous attempts by people of scientific bent to carry out studies to test the principles. Since astrology fails those tests, we can say it clearly looks absurd by the first standard.

    Astrology also fails the second standard. To suggest that a person's character is moulded by (for example) where the planet Mars happens to be, at the time of his/her birth, is clearly way different from the factors that we know genuinely affects character (genes, upbringing, education etc). It is this separation from what is known to be sound that makes it fail the second criterion.

    As always, the principle remains : extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

    A belief in aliens may be reasonable, if it is limited to the idea that another intelligent, and technologically sophisticated, life form may exist somewhere else in the universe, other than Earth. However, if the belief is that these guys are regularly visiting the Earth, then extraordinary evidence is called for. In spite of vast numbers of books by 'true believers' such evidence cannot be found.
    Hmm...so then by your reasoning would you consider Isaac Newton to be smart or intelligent, or would you say he had a high IQ but low RQ, since he invented Calculus, founded classical physics, laws motion, etc...

    Also, based on your definition of an absurd belief, free will fits in, so that means people who believe in free will have a low RQ?

    Also does abiogenesis, multiple universes, or the string theory fit into what you consider absurd?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  91. #90  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    8
    When trying to decide the level of intelligence in a human being, we must first understand that we are basing the perceived intellect of a human, therefore the question must be answered in consideration of what areas of measure make up a human being intellect. This is our first mountain to climb so to speak, as those areas have already been a matter of debate, in this thread.

    To measure properly, in my humble opinion, all areas of human beingness must be included. For if we are a species that are more than a single area of measure, then the most proficient of its species would have an understanding of each of these and be capable of accurate, measurable and applied knowledge in each area of human being potential.

    Human beings should threfore be measured in the areas of body, mind and spirit. The problems with measuring intellect based on a test like IQ , EQ, RQ or any other Q - alone, is that humans have more than one area by which comprises intellectual measure. The collective measure is what makes a human intellect testing more accurate for judgement of data. Each area of mastery, working together, is intellgence. We have not mastered a seperation of ourselves in a daily life, therefore only the combined measure is accurate to judge.

    There is of course reasons why the use of only one of the tests might seem appropriate, however, that is debatable when you consider the very real possibility that the test subject may have far less ability in one of the other areas to measure , which brings decline to the general whole and in some cases, a serious inability to apply the tested area in life. (ie: rainman)

    It is a mistake in my opinion to exclude emotion or intuition in some cases, when measuring intellect. All areas of human characteristics must be used for accurate measure. If we are measuring a species that does not have these qualities, then and only then is it appropriate to exclude them.

    Thoughts?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  92. #91  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    Re Isaac Newton

    I am sure he had a very high IQ. He is a genius whose intellectual performance was greater than any other of his time, perhaps with the exception of Robert Hooke.

    However, on his RQ, I am not too sure. Obviously we have no measure of this quality, which makes opinions subjective. I have a sneaking suspicion that his RQ was nowhere near as high as his IQ. Isaac Newton, after all, spent more time in a futile search for principles of alchemy than he did in his scientifically productive work.

    He was also subject to the superstitions of his day. Newton claimed a rainbow had 7 separate visible colours, and science students have been taught this for hundreds of years. (Remember Roy G Biv?). However, if you actually stand and look at a rainbow and count the colours, you will see that there are only 6. Indigo is not a separate colour. It is just a shade of blue, and it should not be included as one of the separate colours. So why did Newton include it? Simple. he was superstitious. At the time, the number 7 was considered God's sacred number, and therefore the rainblow just had to have 7 colours.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  93. #92  
    Forum Freshman Biomass's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    9
    The OP touches on a nerve for me. I don't believe that real innovators pass other peoples ideas off as irrational. Unconventional sure, but not irrational. True innovators keep their minds open to anything and everything to some extent IMO. I hate to see smart people state absolutes, its so disappointing because they are immediately limiting their imaginations. Everything is subjective.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  94. #93  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    14
    Very rational people usually have trouble with emotions, so it is wrong to use RQ as standard in evaluating one's leadership skills or ability to make decisions. An extremely rational person could make terrible acts, although logically correct.

    A really intelligent person should be able to think rationally and emotionally.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  95. #94  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by Biomass
    I hate to see smart people state absolutes, its so disappointing because they are immediately limiting their imaginations. Everything is subjective.
    Was that deliberate?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  96. #95  
    Forum Masters Degree Twit of wit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    553
    Quote Originally Posted by Fgil90
    Very rational people usually have trouble with emotions, so it is wrong to use RQ as standard in evaluating one's leadership skills or ability to make decisions. An extremely rational person could make terrible acts, although logically correct.

    A really intelligent person should be able to think rationally and emotionally.
    Emotionless is not rational and emotional is not irrational.
    Emotionless people (some personality disorders cause that) can still think and act irrationally just like everyone else. However, people often mistake their emotionlessness for rationality.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  97. #96  
    Forum Freshman Biomass's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    9
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Quote Originally Posted by Biomass
    I hate to see smart people state absolutes, its so disappointing because they are immediately limiting their imaginations. Everything is subjective.
    Was that deliberate?
    Yeah, I should have worded that better, because I don't know that even that is absolute.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  98. #97  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    Actually, part of rationality is working with your emotions. A truly rational person will recognise his/her emotions, and not fight them. They, too, serve a purpose.

    Rationality is not being Mr. Spock. I diagnose Mr Spock as being a victim of Aspergers Syndrome. In other words, his lack of human emotions make him koo koo. Except that he is not human. Ho hum.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  99. #98  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    14
    Quote Originally Posted by Twit of wit
    Quote Originally Posted by Fgil90
    Very rational people usually have trouble with emotions, so it is wrong to use RQ as standard in evaluating one's leadership skills or ability to make decisions. An extremely rational person could make terrible acts, although logically correct.

    A really intelligent person should be able to think rationally and emotionally.
    Emotionless is not rational and emotional is not irrational.
    Emotionless people (some personality disorders cause that) can still think and act irrationally just like everyone else. However, people often mistake their emotionlessness for rationality.
    1 - I didn't say emotions are opposite to reason.
    2 - I didn't say emotional people usually act irrationaly, I said "very rational people usually have trouble with emotions", and not "very emotional people act irrationally" or "very rational people never act irrationally".

    Sorry if I expressed myself wrongly, english is not my native language.

    What i did mean is that rationality shouldn't be the only parameter for evaluating one's intelligence, or ability to make decisions; there should be different parameters to evaluate such as: how he handles emotions (his and other's), creativity, etc.

    That's my opinion, though.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  100. #99  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    12
    Would an RQ test be unfairly skewed towards males?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  101. #100  
    Forum Masters Degree Twit of wit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    553
    Quote Originally Posted by EnterTheYeti
    Would an RQ test be unfairly skewed towards males?
    You think that men are more rational? Why?
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •