I know so. Even within the IQ community there is not a consistent definition. When we know how brains work, we might have such a definition. But we don’t now.
I believe that. I can’t prove it because of item 1.
I know that. You can’t accurately measure something you can’t define. Example: How many akjhad are in a sdlkfij?
It would be incongruous if that was what I was saying. I am giving opinions, and identifying them as such, and not making claims of scientific proof. I am reporting on empirical observations. And not claiming that they provide conclusions. If you have a definition of intelligence, state it. If you have an opionion, or facts, that intelligence can or cannot be improved, state it. Otherwise, I have no interest in continuing this inane conversation. There are many inane conversations on this board that are more interesting.
Oh gee. Well I guess I’m wrong since you are the authoritative, indisputable source for that information.:rolleyes: Don’t argue with me when I express opinions, and you make claims of fact without the least evidence.
As for evidence, there’s the stuff quoted in this New York article. It backs up the “encourage effort” method.
And perhaps I don’t understand the type of intelligence that the OP is asking about. If performing memory feats doesn’t count, what does? I also know strategies to solve logic puzzles and enhance spacial reasoning. I wasn’t born knowing how to do that; I was trained, and I practiced it.
Why does that not count as developing intelligence? Is it not development, or is it not intelligence?
Let me make this simple. I might be able to run faster by increasing the strength of my leg muscles. You seem to contend that a brain functioning cannot be analogously improved. Do you have any evidence of that?
Since you seem to be claiming expertise in this area, please answer this for me. When one person gets different IQ scores from tests taken at different times, is IQ inaccurate, or has the person’s IQ changed? Or do you claim that has never happened?
Well,it does in the sense that the measure is that people with that score are by definition 3+ standard deviations from the norm, so there can only be so many of them.
If it turns out that the distribution shifts over time, then the scores are re-normed, and people are back to where they were.
If you want to make the claim that cy changing scores, people are changing their relative position to others, then have at it, because that is what the score is about. It is not some absolute value.
Is there anyone here that understands basic statistics? Anyone? Bueller?
That article is an echo chamber – the NY journalist cites Daniel T. Willingham who is the author the book ultrafilter already mentioned.
We can certainly come to some sort of agreement that it’s developing a subset of intelligence. However at the same time, it’s not what the OP was asking about.
Well you should know: they are normed statistical instruments.
Maybe you are just in the wrong thread if you don’t know what the OP was talking about?
Bolding mine.
OK, really?
How are you going to measure how fast your car goes without statistics?
You know, you can’t just make up meanings for words and expect to be taken seriously. Especially when you are trying to argue a way to increase intelligence
[/QUOTE]
Cite please?
I studied physics for 3 years at a top ranked university. OK, it was a long time ago, but I am quite certain that our physics books did not discuss matters on scales such as the temperature as reported on the weather report. If yours do, then please share.
Look, you don’t know the scientific meaning of temperature, and even if you grasp the concept, you don’t know how it relates to the thermostat on your wall that any 8 year old can understand. I am not asking for a fallacious appeal to authority, I am asking you to explain something, anything, that demonstrates you understand basic statistics and the way they are used in daily life.
Yes, you did say you know what intelligence is, and how to change it. Me, I simply said there exists an instrument for what it is not clear or not known what it measures, but for which a lot people seem to have an emotional attachment.
There are lots of things we measure but don’t know precisely what they are, and yet can make use fo that data. Temperature is one thing, a kid knows not to wear a winter coat in the summer, and the reason has to do with relative temperatures.
We also intuitively know about relative rankings, even if they are somewhat fuzzy. For instance, my Toyota Camry is not a Nascar racing vehicle, and it is not a truck either. It has some qualities of both, but it is better or worse than each at some qualities. For instance, again, even children know that a truck is generally better than a car for carrying large loads, and some cars are better than others for various tasks.
Furthermore, we understand “potential” compared to “actual” with comparative qualities. There is nothing I can do to my Camry to make it have the same carrying capacity as a truck. It simply does not have the potential. But it does have the potential to be green instead of its current silver, so the actual color is no statement on the potential color. Again, even children understand these concepts.
I can only conclude, since these are concepts that children routinely grasp, and frankly so do adults, that there is something in the particular language, an attachment to the word “intelligent” itself. I can understand that notion - gf wants to test me, and I say no - what could be the value of knowing to me or her? I am comfortable with what intelligence I possess, I don’t find it particularly malleable, and even if it were, so what?
OTOH, oh hell yeah I can teach you lots of test taking tricks - I guarantee I can raise your score on SAT or other similar tests by practice of the types of questions, and judicious learning of test taking skills.
Finally, I might mention that an IQ test can’t be repeated and found valid in a certain period of time, regardless of what it measures, I forget how long, but I am thinking at least several years. How do you propose to keep taking this test and get a valid 2nd and later score, let alone an accurate one?
I put some of my thoughts above in red in response to your statements so that I didn’t have to seperate the quote out a whole bunch.
As far as my own thoughts on the matter, in addition to what’s posted above, I believe that people can can increase their reasoning via the study of formal logic, critical thinking, heuristics and so forth. Their is also good evidence that engaging in new types of learning can help prevent alzheimer’s and dementia - http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa022252.
But I have never seen evidence that a person can ‘train’ their way from being a person of normal intelligence to someone of extraordinary intelligence. Since intelligence is ‘fuzzy’, and because there are ways to develop a better memory or better math skills and become more educated in general, it is very difficult - maybe impossible - to detect small increases in what is commonly understood to be intelligence.
This is similar to the perosn who can ‘study’ for an IQ test and score 5 points higher. They are developing their skills, not their innate ability. And this is basically where the breakdown occurs - some say ‘well, those skills are intelligence’ and others say ‘no, it’s the innate part that’s intelligence.’
What leans many, including myself, into the innate camp is that the skills can only get the 5 or 10 points - it can’t get 50. I say that it’s impossible in the same way that people say unicorns don’t exist. I can’t prove it because it is impossible to prove a negative. But I can indicate that there is no proof to the contrary and state that the burden of proof is on anyone who would like to make the claim that it is possible, and not vice-versa.
Finally, I would like to say that I still don’t udnerstand why you included the statement about not being able to run 50 mph if you weren’t trying to imply that it had some relation to training intelligence to a high level.
I’ve also never seen evidence but I hold out a small sliver of hope that it may be possible. I quit my job to work on it actually.
Best-practice teaching methods and encouragement are good ideas but they can only go so far.
I’m guessing if scientists discover a way to boost IQ, it will be hardware assisted – computer simulations or elaborately designed stimulus devices for eyes and ears to absorb new patterns. A (fictitious) example could look something like the Lawnmower Man movie.
Other possibilities include drugs that change and improve neural pathways or alter electrical activity boosting pattern recognition and complex problem solving. (Obviously it would something more potent than caffeine.)
Whatever technology it might be, nobody knows but whatever it is, it’s going to be way more complicated than just backslapping your child with praise or feeding him a box of Wheaties.
It’s ironic. I’m simultaneously skeptical of the “nurture” argument while at the same time working on the very thing that would bolster their position.
I’m not arguing a way to increase intelligence. I don’t even understand your grammer. If you want to apply a single measurement as a statistic, and extend that to the plural definition statistics, go ahead. It doesn’t help your argument.
Cite what? You don’t think you will find a definition of temperature in a physics book? Temperature is a physical property. You can produce statistics using it. So what? Tell me anything about intelligence. You refuse to address that.
My first post was unclear. That was my default, and you can criticize me for it. The rest of my posts have been clear on what I am stating as fact, and what I am stating as opinion. I did not say I know what intelligence is. I don’t have time to reread the posts again, so if I did, following my first post, which I clarified. Then you are right, and I was mistaken. Otherwise retract your claim.
There are lots of things we measure but don’t know precisely what they are, and yet can make use fo that data. Temperature is one thing, a kid knows not to wear a winter coat in the summer, and the reason has to do with relative temperatures.
We also intuitively know about relative rankings, even if they are somewhat fuzzy. For instance, my Toyota Camry is not a Nascar racing vehicle, and it is not a truck either. It has some qualities of both, but it is better or worse than each at some qualities. For instance, again, even children know that a truck is generally better than a car for carrying large loads, and some cars are better than others for various tasks.
Furthermore, we understand “potential” compared to “actual” with comparative qualities. There is nothing I can do to my Camry to make it have the same carrying capacity as a truck. It simply does not have the potential. But it does have the potential to be green instead of its current silver, so the actual color is no statement on the potential color. Again, even children understand these concepts.
I can only conclude, since these are concepts that children routinely grasp, and frankly so do adults, that there is something in the particular language, an attachment to the word “intelligent” itself. I can understand that notion - gf wants to test me, and I say no - what could be the value of knowing to me or her? I am comfortable with what intelligence I possess, I don’t find it particularly malleable, and even if it were, so what?
OTOH, oh hell yeah I can teach you lots of test taking tricks - I guarantee I can raise your score on SAT or other similar tests by practice of the types of questions, and judicious learning of test taking skills.
Finally, I might mention that an IQ test can’t be repeated and found valid in a certain period of time, regardless of what it measures, I forget how long, but I am thinking at least several years. How do you propose to keep taking this test and get a valid 2nd and later score, let alone an accurate one?
[/QUOTE]
I’m not arguing any of those things. You are imagining that I am, if you hold that belief after my clarification. I don’t propose anything about taking valid IQ tests.
This has been fun. If you have something to say about intelligence I’ll address that. Otherwise, please enjoy the holiday weekend.
Are you suggesting that there is room for more people in the subset of > 3 std devs out than there is now?
How does that work?
Right, and by renormin, only the same number of people as before will be 3 std devs (or whatever distance interests you) out. If someone where to move in, then someone else would have to move out.
It is at the heart of the very definition of a normed score, which you claim to grasp. Now you are saying that the definition of a normed score is not relevant to the way we interpret it?
Hmmm.
People keep saying statistical things in this thread, that they apparently don’t understand are in fact statistical claims. Yours are approaching the one up above where someone said they can measure the speed of a car without statistics.
As someone asked upthread for another to follow the board tradition of separating paragraphs with 2 line feeds, may I ask that you follow board convention regarding quotes please?
[QUOTE=Darth Panda;12874639
I put some of my thoughts above in red in response to your statements so that I didn’t have to seperate the quote out a whole bunch.
…
[/QUOTE]
I would like to discuss this with you further, because you are demonstrating that you have studied the subject of intelligence. But I have wasted time arguing with others. So I may not be back to this right away. I don’t have much disagreement with what you are saying, but only have had time for a cursory glance. The 50mph statement was to emphasize that I never argued that I knew of a way to change an IQ score from 100 to 150. Not that it was the same thing. Simply to differentiate the difference between the concepts of ‘increase’ and ‘increase by 50’. I can see you understand that difference. The problem occurs when I say I believe (meaning I have the opinion) that people can increase (or improve) their intelligence, and people immediately respond, ‘No they can’t, nobody can get a jump from 100 to 150 on IQ tests’. I admit I do the same thing sometimes. But once you get down to discussing things in reasonable terms, there is no point to that kind of statement. By the way, in reference to my last statement, I can easily demonstrate how most people can increase their score by 50 points on an IQ test. It isn’t hard to figure out how. It isn’t relevant to our discussion, but it does amuse me.
Sorry about the quoting conventions but things are really starting to fall apart now, so I’ll just respond in text below.
I think maybe you are misconstruing what I’m saying somehow.
My ONLY claims are:
a 150 IQ is not beyond human limits
a running speed of 50 mph is beyond human limits
they are, therefore, not particularly similar expressions of human ability and not particularly useful for talking about what can or cannot be done
I have never made the claim that somone can increase their IQ into the 150 range - I have made the opposite argument. Does this clear things up for you?
I think I may understand what you were thinking - that someone couldn’t make their way into a category because there was no more statistical ‘room’ - but this, too, would be unture - it would just be harder than it might initially appear because they would have to push someone out, in effect lowering that persons score -since the scores are relative, not absolute - as you are aware. (statistically possible, not actually possible :))
The second statement does hinge on the first in that it takes as a premise something that is arrived at after a a consideration of statistics, but the premise is sound as I intended it and the second statement is in fact more general, and really about logic more than statistics.
Any test that would give results in the range of 50 or less to 100 or more with 100 being the mean. I’m not making a serious assertion of anything relevant to intelligence or IQ testing though. Think about it. BTW: ’ professionally administered by a psychologist’ could make it much harder, but not impossible.
No, see post 31. You demonstrated a misunderstandng of the OP, who was discussing normed statistical assessments.
LOL you an be in attack mode, but you are just digging yourself deeper.
Tell me exactly about this “statistic” of describing how fast your car is traveling, and how you calculate it, and how it is but one measurement.
Come on, it will be fun
[QUOTE]
Cite what? You don’t think you will find a definition of temperature in a physics book? Temperature is a physical property. You can produce statistics using it. So what? Tell me anything about intelligence. You refuse to address that.
[QUOTE]
You told me to look for it in a physics book. I want to know what physics book to find it in. If you prefer to provide me a web link, I am OK with that too. Whatever definition you want, I am fine with it - you pick it. I jsut want to see if you can relate something that will probably be described as described as related to changes in energy levels of electrons orbiting a nucleus (old physics, memory fuzzy, don’t hold me to the details!), I want to see how you think that relates to the statistic that it is 75 degrees outside today.
The reason is, still, I want you to demonstrate mastery of the statistics you are using in your sentences. Apparently you don’t realize they are based on statistics, which could well be. I accept that might wellbe the case.
But then, if it turns out to be the case, it is going to affect how I think about our equally statistical claims of intelligence.
OTOH, if you show you DO understand the statistical claims you are making outside the realm of intelligence, it will carry a lot of weight in evaluating your intelligence claims too.
Its up to you really. I have my suspicions, but like a good scientist, I am just trying to collect data to use to evaluate a hypothesis.
yes, well when being unclear is your default, you can expect a lot of pushback.
And when you mix the two, you need to be prepared to support which ones are fact, and not hidden opinions, and also not to use them improperly to conclude your opinions.
If you don’t know what it is, then how do you measure it?
With an IQ test, right?
So then why do you dismiss the substantial mathematics around the creation of a population-normed instrument?
Because you don’t have a clue what they are about, right?
I am not arguing you hold those beliefs. I am asking you to demonstrate your understanding of how routine things in life, that we all grasp intuitively, have statistical underpinnings if they have any underpinnings at all.
So people can increase intelligence, and this can be shown by not measuring it in any way.
OK. That makes as much sense as anything you have said.
May I suggest you practice a lot of the logic problems that the books suggested upthread recommend in your spare time? I won;t take any position on if you will be more intelligent as a result or not, but I do think it will help you construct arguments with fewer fallacies. And then others might perceive you as more intelligent than they do now.
