| Author |
Message
|
| skeptic |
 Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 6:31 pm Post subject: IQ versus RQ (rationality) |
 |
|
Forum Professor
Joined: 05 Nov 2008
Posts: 1110
|
An article in New Scientist discusses some of the shortcomings of the IQ tests.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20427321.000-clever-fools-why-a-high-iq-doesnt-mean-youre-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? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| marcusclayman |
| Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 9:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Professor
Joined: 10 Mar 2009
Posts: 1729
|
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. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| KALSTER |
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 1:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
Moderator
Joined: 08 Sep 2007
Posts: 4571
Location: South Africa
|
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
"I don't want to achieve immortality through my work...
I want to achieve it through not dying."
- Woody Allen |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| skeptic |
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 2:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Professor
Joined: 05 Nov 2008
Posts: 1110
|
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. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Pong |
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 4:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Radioactive Isotope
Joined: 08 Apr 2008
Posts: 4180
|
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 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| marcusclayman |
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 9:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Professor
Joined: 10 Mar 2009
Posts: 1729
|
"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. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| KALSTER |
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 9:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
Moderator
Joined: 08 Sep 2007
Posts: 4571
Location: South Africa
|
| Quote: |
| 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
"I don't want to achieve immortality through my work...
I want to achieve it through not dying."
- Woody Allen |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| skeptic |
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 11:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Professor
Joined: 05 Nov 2008
Posts: 1110
|
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. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Pong |
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 3:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Radioactive Isotope
Joined: 08 Apr 2008
Posts: 4180
|
| Pong wrote: |
| Most ancestors proved smarter than the general population. |
| marcusclayman wrote: |
| 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 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| skeptic |
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 4:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Professor
Joined: 05 Nov 2008
Posts: 1110
|
| 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. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Pong |
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 6:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Radioactive Isotope
Joined: 08 Apr 2008
Posts: 4180
|
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 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| baftansowibat |
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 7:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Freshman
Joined: 25 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... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| marcusclayman |
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 7:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Professor
Joined: 10 Mar 2009
Posts: 1729
|
| Pong wrote: |
| Pong wrote: |
| Most ancestors proved smarter than the general population. |
| marcusclayman wrote: |
| 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. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Pong |
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 10:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Radioactive Isotope
Joined: 08 Apr 2008
Posts: 4180
|
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 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Midgetmaid |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 7:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Freshman
Joined: 21 Sep 2009
Posts: 31
|
| skeptic wrote: |
| 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. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
