DNA tests can predict intelligence

[Deleted User]

Arklight wrote: »

The ability to process information and derive a correct solution to a problem that can be delivered via a paper based medium in an exam room and then scored by a researcher. To be accurate.

No that's a description of a method used to try to measure intelligence, not a definition of intelligence. Intelligence is the ability to learn, understand, process information, draw the correct inferences and conclusions etc.

GreatApe

elsien wrote: »

So where do other types of intelligence, such as emotional intelligence fit into the IQ scoring scenario? Or cultural biases?
Or does asking the question automatically make me a "momentum-supporting envy monkey"?

Intelligence is information processing

So your pocket calculators is intelligence and so is a sieve. One can do math the other can order things by size.

Emotional intelligence exists clearly some people are much better at reading and reacting to emotions. But what people really mean by intelligence is general intelligence. The ability to do multiple things. A sieve or a calculator is not general AI. Humans are and we also seem to have created the first types of software AI.

An IQ test seems to measure success in multiple fields and how quickly people can learn.
Other types of intelligence like emotional or musical or dance don't seem to do that hence why those are mostly called talents not intelligence.

Having said all this to me it's clear different parts of the brain do different intelligence processing.
I am embarrassingly bad at countdown but I am good at math reason logic invention design patterns memory etc. Definitely decreasing with age though! I used to have an amazing memory I would meet someone I hadn't seen for months and remember the last conversation we had in detail like it was just five minutes ago. Now sometimes I forget what I said five minutes ago :rotfl:


If IQ is fake and doesn't exist or intelligence itself doesn't exist why do we all know and accept we get slower as we age? Its clearly brain damage slow but for sure its happening. IQ also picks up this decreasing ability as we age but since we all get old it was decided to rebase IQ by age so as not to embarrass ourselves as we age. That is definitely one of the failures of IQ tests it shouldn't be rebased to take account of age

Arklight

GreatApe wrote: »

Lefties should embrace IQ

You could simply say 2% of the population have an IQ so low they are or borderline mentally !!!!!!.
Another 8% (so 10% in total) have an IQ so low they can only do the simplest of tasks.

This would be a very powerful argument for a social state and welfare.
If people are born disabled or very incapable I'm sure most the right would not object to helping them. People can be born blind or deaf or physically disabled and everyone feels compassion and sympathy towards them. Well it appears many people are born mentally disabled and there is a spectrum it isn't just mentally disabled or fully competent there is clearly a grey area where people are partially competent.

Anyone who has gotten to know a wide range of people would see this.
I've known of people on the borderline and I have a lot of sympathy towards them but a lot on both the left and the right don't seem to accept they are in effect disabled or at least very limited as it isn't obvious to see outwardly without talking to them for some time.

If the Right had its way we'd still have work houses, debtors prisons and people dying in the street of treatable diseases.

Clearly that’s what the Tories would like to return to considering the heap of privation they are visiting on the most vulnerable.

Arklight

jack_pott wrote: »

No that's a description of a method used to try to measure intelligence, not a definition of intelligence. Intelligence is the ability to learn, understand, process information, draw the correct inferences and conclusions etc.

All of which is completely unmeasurable. You can only quantity something when it is measured.

You can measure your height, you can measure the amount of petrol in your car, you can measure the distance to the nearest Lidl, you can only draw an inference with psychometrics.

We can all find examples of people who aren’t book smart who do well in life and geniuses who never leave their parents basement.

westernpromise

GreatApe wrote: »

You could simply say 2% of the population have an IQ so low they are or borderline mentally !!!!!!.
Another 8% (so 10% in total) have an IQ so low they can only do the simplest of tasks.

This would be a very powerful argument for a social state and welfare

No, the left would find it a very good argument for state extermination of that 10%, and has done so several times. It was a basic tenet of socialists 100 years ago that a welfare state would require eugenics as otherwise the numbers of the weak would so multiply as to become unaffordable.

westernpromise

elsien wrote: »

So where do other types of intelligence, such as emotional intelligence fit into the IQ scoring scenario? Or cultural biases?
Or does asking the question automatically make me a "momentum-supporting envy monkey"?

Emotional intelligence is a personality trait, not an allotrope of intelligence. It was thought up to flatter wimmin (whose supposed EQ is in my experience no different to anyone else's).

westernpromise

michaels wrote: »

It always surprises me that people are so laid back about an existential threat that is as little as 10 years away.

It's been 10 years away since Mary Shelley wrote Frankenstein, which is to say for the last 200 years or so, hence is rightly dismissed as something that only excites computer dweebs.

westernpromise

jack_pott wrote: »

No that's a description of a method used to try to measure intelligence, not a definition of intelligence. Intelligence is the ability to learn, understand, process information, draw the correct inferences and conclusions etc.

You'll have to excuse our resident lefties. They're thick, poor, envious, badly parented and heavily invested in the idea that all this is other people's fault.

Malthusian

elsien wrote: »

So where do other types of intelligence, such as emotional intelligence fit into the IQ scoring scenario?

There is no such thing as emotional intelligence.

Suppose we gathered exponents of spatial intelligence, mathematical intelligence, linguistic intelligence, analytical intelligence, and emotional intelligence: a chess grandmaster, an expert actuary, a crossword champion, a quantum physicist and whoever an expert on emotional intelligence would be. (Arts undergraduate who is president of the uni Momentum society?) And we got them into one room (yes, one of Arklight's dreaded exam rooms) and had them play mutliple contests which tested each of those different types of intelligence. Like The Krypton Factor without the assault course.

In each contest, the person who specialised in that area would come first, but the other competitors would follow behind in various orders with little to choose between them. At the end the aggregate scores would be about even. Except for the emotional intelligence expert, who would come dead last in every single game (other than their own, whatever that would be).

As they say in Mensa tests: which is the odd one out? (Of course there is no such thing as an odd one out and this question is racist and exclusionary.)

Moby

Gathering people in a room to test their intelligence is not the correct environment to test emotional intelligence. When I was at University I knew many people who were assessed as intelligent by IQ tests, members of MENSA etc but many of these same people came up short on skills such as communication, empathy, understanding other peoples body language etc. It is patently obvious that a person who has lived all his life as a bushman in the Kalahari would not be able to process information in the same way as a westerner or Asian person.....people have deduced from this that the bushman is therefore less intelligent but of course we are now aware that the cultural difference is so huge this makes an accurate assessment unhelpful or highly contentious. In Universities there have been huge controversies when 'research' has attempted to link intelligence and race but it is now generally accepted that different societies value and promote different kinds of skills and that the concept of intelligence is therefore culturally variable and cannot be measured by the same criteria in different societies. Of course as we can see on this thread many people have their own political axe to grind and use IQ tests as cover to hide their own malign prejudices.