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.
Redefining "intelligence" to mean "effectiveness" is dumb imo
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.)
Isn't intelligence somewhat like the word "good" - as in, someone must be "good at" something, rather than inherently. Are cars "good"? (sometimes but not always...) Are cats? Are people? e.g. regarding the latter, there are many tasks for which a computing device is much better than most people - e.g. sorting a list of >1000000 elements, within one second (and then doing that task, without pausing or slowing down or error, in perpetuity). So the term "good" is only definable given a known fitness landscape.
Which then becomes somewhat naive to try to extrapolate beyond that - bc then someone good at sports could be said to be "intelligent" (at performing their particular sport?), or someone with high emotional flexibility at adaptive to new circumstances, etc. Ironically enough, someone with good accounting skills (always thinking within the box, that being the whole point for them) would likely make a horrible scientist (who needs to think OUTSIDE of the box), and potentially though not guaranteed vice versa.
So intelligence must be reflective of.... SOMETHING, blah blah hand waving meaning things that "I" am good at, basically. I know right, I have all the best-er-est words, I am such a jenius, and so on.
How would that measure the intelligence of a tribal person who has not seen abstracted geometrical shapes?
So yeah, they would be less "intelligent" at performing those tasks that are measured by the test. Corollary: people on average may legitimately have gotten more intelligent over time, depending on availability of schooling. Thus necessitating adjustment of the measurement system, if the real goal was not to measure "intelligence" and rather to provide some kind of separation among people based solely on that singular metric (which itself should be questioned, if the people doing so are wise rather than merely intelligent:-).
The things I think the standard IQ test measures are more about a combination of an ability to quickly visually process information, and some elements of mathematics/logical thinking. I’ve scored +1.3~2.0 z score at various points in my life, and I think that the elements are that I can read extremely quickly and perceive math problems very quickly.
I’ve frequently worked with students who understand math and patterns very well, they just struggle with some element of the visual processing. They transpose numbers and letters when they see them, they switch up letters in geometrical figures, they get so overwhelmed with the stress of reading under eye or the clock that the words mix up and they miss the meaning.
They have the low “IQ” has measured. But they are capable of understanding the concepts - just not conveying them in the way that a standardized instrument can (or even should?) measure.
Ie; I don’t think it’s that great a measure beyond the sub 80 - which is a meaningful deficit and is acknowledged in the process of diagnosing for developmental delays/impairment. (It also can entirely be overcome in some cases with good support - like istfg as someone who has been paid to do this kind of thing the difference is that poor/middle class kids don’t get help)
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
Why on Earth would you call the horizontal axis in a 2d plot like this a y axis?
Good question
I recently had a psychological assessment that led to ASD and ADHD diagnoses. Part of it was intelligence testing and it led me to have some additional context I didn't have before. I always knew I was "smart" - at the very least I had the numerical data of always doing really well in school. As an adult I continued to have people tell me I was really smart, and my response was usually (internally) like "Sure, Jan" or "K" like, maybe in some ways but it seemed like kind of a pointless thing to think about. I've never felt any amount of superiority about being smart - my brain is what it is and I didn't really do anything to earn it so it seems weird to feel any certain way about it.
In my assessment, there were 6 intelligence factors that were measured. In 4 of them, I scored 95-98th percentile, one around 80th, but the last one I scored exactly average. That last one was processing speed. According to my assessor, it's more or less true that a brain wants to be similar levels across the board. Otherwise you basically have perceived bottlenecks in your processing. And I thought that was really interesting and resonated, because my brain can do some really cool things, but yeah it always feels like when it comes to actually articulating and thinking in certain ways, I basically have to slam the brakes. It was helpful to explain certain things, and apparently having a discrepancy with processing speed can be caused by unmedicated ADHD. I'm still unmedicated but hopefully that will change soon.
No idea what I'm trying to say about this. Maybe I just want to shout out to the void lol. But the meme definitely resonates. I guess I have some nuance in that, I agree with what I read to be the intent of the meme, that IQ is just a measurement that doesn't mean anything in a lot of ways. But this lense was new to me - that there are several axis of intelligence, and it's more typical that people are similar across all axes (whether low, high, or average), and spikiness on these axis can lead to dysregulation and other issues.
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 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.
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).
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.
Thank you for clarifying.
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.
The purpose of a test is what it tests.
Ok, you've officially taken the propaganda phrases too far, because this one doesn't even make sense. The purpose of an algebra test is ability to do algebra? The purpose of an intelligence test is pattern recognition, working memory, and some other things? Huh?
The right thing to say would be "The purpose of a test is what it does", in keeping with the phrase you modified this from, but that's arguably false too. The purpose of a test is what it was designed to do, and what it does is what it actually does.
You could say that the purpose of our continued usage of a test is to encourage what it actually does, regardless of what it was designed to do; which is what I believe you're trying to say, and I would agree with that statement. But I object to the thoughtless propagation of dumb phrases like the one you used.
This must be your first time in a meme community.
Shit
Intelligence is the Intel core i3 4th gen
How it called this meme format? I want see more of this examples
