A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.
Rules
This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.
Debating what intelligence is, is such a circle-jerk.
The term is so broad, that it encompasses aspects like motivation, memory retention capacity, memory recall rates, differentiates between verbal, spacial and emotional intelligence, and occasionally veers into scientific racism.
It's a fucking shit show. The comment sections of posts about intelligence are generally toxic because people end up talking past each other.
If debating intelligence is waste of time, imagine what a "shit show" trying to measure it must be. This is the central point: measuring intelligence is just as foolish as measuring beauty or charm.
The problem is that this isn't just a debate on the internet. Your IQ score can still literally be the difference between life and death in the US legal system. So it's pretty important to let people know it's pseudoscience from eugenicists that, by the way, doesn't work!
IQ tests are interesting, because they're mainly a test of pattern recognition.
However, knowing how the patterns are formed, can easily net you +10 points on an IQ test.
It's a shit way to determine "intelligence".
Some people might score highly, but are socially inept and unmotivated, meaning they have a lot of raw power, without having the mental capability to channel it productively, which is pretty fucking stupid.
Then you get people like Musk and Trump, who are both highly motivated people, despite being dumb as rocks. Yet, our geniuses can't figure out how to mitigate their stupidity.
well no, modern intelligence tests specifically test different things, for example the one i took had a section about working memory where i had to recite numbers in various ways.
which was useful because it turns out my working memory is absolute dogshit
Mensa has long been the benchmark for high IQ societies.
Go take their sample IQ test. It is only pattern recognition.
Unfortunately this is the norm.
Mensa has long been the benchmark for high IQ societies.
Mensa is a social club with an admittance test, which they're free to organize however they want. It holds no weight in the field of psychology
Mensa is a private society where you pay for membership and take a test which cherry picks from actual standardized intelligence tests and are openly available so you can practice them. Proper ones used in neuropsychology measure more than just pattern recognition. I don't know why Mensa has gotten such a prominent place, but it shouldn't be regarded as the benchmark for anything.
Paying for a "you're smart" placque is definitely a benchmark for stupidity.
i literally did the test with a registered psychologist, not sure what more you want?
it very much seems like you just want to hate intelligence tests and reality being different makes you frustrated
I got a clinical assesment and it took 12 hours spread over 12 weeks. Indeed contained verbal and visual memory tests, verbal and visual ability to fantasize, pattern recognition, logic, social ability, etc
I'm just going to point out the irony of using this meme format to make that point.
The meme is about the journey to acquire wisdom, not intelligence. It fits IMO, despite representing the lack of wisdom as low intelligence.
So the y axis (IQ Score) is a measurement for wisdom? OP could have easily edited it out but didn't to give it a meta layer
Not to mention the "stupid = ugly" wojacks
It just makes it that more delicious.
People who boast about their IQ are losers ~Stephen Hawking
Of course Thickie Hawking would say that ~Albert Einstein
he really said that https://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/12/magazine/the-science-of-secondguessing.html
Dear reader, it was Steven Hawking who really said that, not Albert Einstein.
Intelligence is what my sorcery damage scales with
Isn't that charisma-based?
I'm going by Dark Souls system
I like that to use every spell, you need intelligence and faith; so you just become a walking oxymoron.
Not true. At the end of Contact, Jodie Foster has to admit that her experience through the wormhole has no evidence and therefore her testimony is faith based- due to this, she is now able to cast pyromancies.
I mean, if the stats were actually taken at face value, strength would increase the maximum equipment load instead of endurance
I think Equip Load would have to be some kind of equation based on both. Strength allows you to lift an object. Endurance allows you to carry that object great distances before getting tired.
But str should affect your ability to hurt things with a punch even if you don't put a strip of leather over your knuckles (100% unarmed combat does basically nothing and isn't increased by STR; if you wanna punch things, you need at least a cestus).
I don't know Dark Souls, but presumably whatever it is you're having faith in, in-game, is provably real. Then, if the object of faith is also demonstrably faithful (which, by the repeatable application of spells, sounds likely), int ought to aid faith.
That isn't always the case, and is one of the driving themes of Miyazaki's games: unreliable narration and corrupted ideals. So, like yes; the "gods" are real but their power or God status isn't always what it appears to be. In some cases, the power people sought through their faith, brought them to total ruin when it wasn't all glitz and glamour as they were told. Like people who tried to become dragons but ended up as weird mutant half dragon things. Or Rosaria's Fingers that eventually turn into giant maggot things. Faith is very often rewarded with body horror in Dark Souls, Bloodborne, Elden Ring and even Sekiro.
If only I could be so grossly incandescent.
The purpose of IQ is to measure some sort of “g factor” which is a model of “general intelligence.” This was based on the idea that people who tend to do good at some kinds of tests tend to also be good at other kinds of tests.
The IQ test is “reliable” - ie its consistent and you’ll usually get the same results +/- an acceptable amount every time. However, there are lots of concerns about its “validity” - whether it measures what it purports to measure - ie, the “g factor.”
Of note is the “Flynn effect” - that performance on the test in the general population has been improving over time, so the test has to be renormalized. (IQ is a “normalized” test - so about 68% of the population needs to be within 1 standard deviation of the mean. I think standard deviation is about 15 - so 68% of people are going to score between 85 and 115.)
The question then would be - are people getting “smarter” or is it just that people are more adapted to taking tests on pattern recognition and mathematics/logical thinking? How would that measure the intelligence of a tribal person who has not seen abstracted geometrical shapes?
You can bring in alternative models of intelligence - like Gardner’s multiple intelligence - but then that doesn’t really have much of the psychometrics behind it.
(In general, I think a huge issue in psych research is a lack of critically examining the validity of psychometric instruments. It seems we often stop at being reliable.)
Intelligence is the Intel core i3 4th gen
How it called this meme format? I want see more of this examples
Anyone who hasn't listened to the podcast "My Year in Mensa" by Jamie Loftus, do yourself a favor.
Its one of my favorite podcasts ever.
I don't get it? I'm still in the middle of the graph.
The average person (and to be fair, most psychologists) thinks of intelligence as the innate, fundamental characteristic of a person to think across all cognitive areas. However, this concept is not easily falsifiable and therefore arguably exists outside the realm of science.
For example, say I wanted to come up with a concept called "sportsness" which is the ability to be good at sports. I could test a bunch of people in a battery of sports-related tasks, and I'd probably get a nice bell curve where some people have high sportsness across all tasks and others have low sportsness across all tasks.
But does that prove the existence of sportsness? Or did I just measure a spurious correlation caused by the fact that some people are just more likely to be playing many different sports than others, or that some body types may lead to being better at sports related tasks, or some people are just better at handling the pressure of athletic performance tests, or some combination thereof? Of course most would say the latter, but then maybe some would defend the concept of sportsness by saying sportsness is just an emergent property of those things or something like that. But then is sportsness useful as a concept at all? You get the idea.
Yeah sure buddy, sportness is all made up by —let me guess— Big Sportness? Clearly you're just mad that you're not very sportnant. /s
That's a great example.
That's why scientists ( I assume they're supposed to be the right hand side) claiming to measure "intelligence" should pick a more specific term for what they're measuring.
If they use the word "intelligence" I'd be extremely suspicious about why they've chosen that word. I would assume they have a decent understanding of how the word is likely be interpreted by the other 97.5%, if not they need to get out and do some fieldwork.
The left side is the position that definitions of intelligence are all arbitrary, and that psychologists just make up tests and call what it measures "intelligence."
The middle is the position that there is a real thing that can be called "intelligence," which can be defined in different (meaningful) ways, and that intelligence tests are objective ways to measure it.
The right side is the position that intelligence is probably still real and can probably still be defined in different (meaningful) ways, but that we can never directly measure intelligence and instead observe it indirectly through observable indicators like someone's performance on an intelligence test. This means that any practical statement about intelligence, while probably real and definable, are contingent on the specific test used to measure it.
Left side is saying that intelligence is an objective thing that can be measured with the test.
Right side is saying the test is the objective thing that defines what we think of as intelligence. "If you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree..."
Broke: The results of IQ testing are dependent on a person's intelligence. Intelligence is an objective reality that can be observed and measured with IQ testing.
Woke: The results of IQ testing are independent of a person's intelligence. Intelligence is an objective reality but complex and impossible to perfectly measure.
Bespoke: A person's 'intelligence' is dependent on the results of IQ testing. Intelligence is a social construct and IQ testing is a means to reinforce that construct.
Bro there are different categories of intelligence
It’s fine, it’s a really long test.
