Rununder, it’s not expected that most people understand how these things work. I went through some of this as a kid. It was crazy when I realized that a person being dumb, means that you can’t teach them certain stuff. I was overwhelmed with a feeling of isolation, especially the more I interacted with people. It’s because most of them are fucking idiots, at least from my vantage point. When I was younger, and more idealistic, I thought that anyone could learn anything and I specifically went around denying my intelligence and telling the other kids those tests are bogus and they’re just as smart as me.
But it’s not true. Those kids weren’t as smart as me. Almost no one is. I watch people blabber on tired old played out lines about intelligence testing and it’s like watching a re-run of andy griffith I’ve seen 100 times. Then…I watch those same people go out and fail at things and come back frustrated and upset. I watch them blame others for their failures. I watch them as they lack the ability to observe things unbiased and form accurate understandings of the things in front of them. I watch them miss details, I watch almost everyone on this site spell like a bunch of assholes all my god damned life it seems like. These things are because they aren’t smart. But you can’t tell a smart person they’re not smart. It’s like telling an ugly person they’re not pretty. I mean…it’s true, but it’s rude. And in the case of the idiot, more than likely, the bastard wont even understand that he’s an idiot. There are people who can’t spell. They’re fucking morons. Then there are people who can spell every word right if they try really hard and edit. Those are regular people. Then there are people who can be drunk and typing with one hand at 630am having not slept in a day, taking drugs all night, who can spell almost every word correctly without even looking back at what they wrote and without using the backspace. Those people are geniuses.
People think that pattern recognition isn’t important. But then I see these people go in the same circles of frustration over and over again forever. They would be better off if they recognized it.
Like kids who say, “I don’t need to learn this math, I’m never going to use it”. I say to them, “get ready because you are going to get screwed over by people who will use it against you”.
It’s an exercise in futility.
I want you guys to know that I’ve never put more time into a post than the time it took to type off the top of my head. Think about that. Think about the sheer amount of rich, robust content I’ve added to this site without only the slightest bit of effort. It’s innate. Sorry losers. You can’t learn it.
I’m working on compiling all the intelligences I believe iQ tests leave out into a list, then organizing that list comprehensively, systematically into a diagram or thought map. I’m not sure where I’ll go from there, if anywhere, but it would be nice just to have a theory of intelligence and to know the various ways man’s mind assesses reality. Maybe I’ll make a more robust IQ test in the future, or maybe this will inspire someone else to do so, I have no idea. Any input on your behalf would be appreciated.
Smears, thanks for sharing. Had you taken an iQ test online, you would’ve known the overwhelming majority of online iQ tests are also timed, by a computer, a few of them you have to time yourself. The stress you had to deal with as a child put you at a disadvantage, but it’s not necessary you be under any undue stress, in order to give you an accurate measure of your iQ. iQ tests are intelligence tests, they’re not supposed to test how well you cope under pressure, although they often end up doing so, incidentally. intelligence and cowardice are by and large, two different things, though one can have implications for the other. iQ tests should attempt to minimize stress, not maximize it. Perhaps you’d perform better now, when you don’t have a group of people in white coats looking over your shoulder.
You can cure ignorance but you can’t cure stupidity. You can teach an ignorant man to fish, but a genius can learn faster, teach himself, or invent a new, more efficient way of fishing. It’s an unsettling fact for some, particularly for those who’re insecure about their own intellect, but a fact no less.
That being said, intelligence isn’t monolithic, as I’ve attempted to demonstrate here, even geniuses have their weaknesses and retards their strengths. No one’s perfect, we’re all struggling in certain areas and with certain things, and it takes more than intelligence to see one through, it takes luck, and personality, among other things. Personality goes along way.
Some animals have evolved faster than others biologically, and some people evolve faster than others intellectually. Physical and mental speed, along with physical and mental dexterity, is an asset, speed, is a part of the game, life doesn’t wait till you’re ready, life comes, ready or not (if there’s mental speed and dexterity, is there a mental stamina and strength? Why not? Do mental abilities correlate with physical ones)?
Many birds can differentiate quantity, they just don’t normally put it into human equations like 2 + 2 = 4, though some of them can be taught to do so, some of the more intelligent ones like Pigeons, Parrots, Crows, Ravens, Magpies and Jays. Fuck even paper wasps can count to 3. Differentiating quantity is a form of intelligence, so yes, if a bird can’t, then it lacks an intelligence. However, it may possess others. Perhaps there are some aspects of reality human beings can’t differentiate, or don’t normally differentiate, that other animals or extraterrestrials, do.
Rununnder: although evolution is not = to intelligence, but it is the function of evolution through time. Why? Because intelligence is acquired through learning, and learning is a function or repeated mental performance.
Analogically, the timing in cognitive performance is a function of recall (of learning) which is based on repetitive schema.
So the time of the test taking can be corresponded, albeit in a very compressed form, the time it took evolution to develop intelligence.
This is a likely principle which applies to slow thinking people versus quick witted. Take these to limits, the spread is between the moron and the genius, and every shade in between.
I never took calculus and scored very high. But you’re right about the memorization stuff. A real, shrink administered test is like a whole day of random shit that all gets equated into a final score. It’s literally nothing like the internet tests at all.
I wonder smears, if we took a random sample of IQ’s based on non internet/internet IQ’ of ILP meebers, what would be the median score? Probably up there. I duno.
It’s hard to say. Philosophy is the stuff of smart people generally, but…there have been at least one or two times around here where I’ve run into some that might seriously fuck up the average.
i think that people who design q tests are doing so cause its a bit of an industry (paychek) and some take pride in it or dont or love it or hate it. I sure people want an effective iq test but good luck pulling that. Regardless the industry will continue (i suspect because the want for effective ‘intellgence’ testing is fear based. (other vested interests (racist,nerdy) jump on the ship too. unfortunetly)
One of the problems is that people have a natural tendency to pimp the particular criteria of intellect that they have dedicated their process to. This goes to the common redneck that argues:
All I need is good old common horse-sense; and anyone that needs anything else is just plain stupid.
And we’re all likely guilty of this, including the beautiful soul that considers all perspectives valid.
For my part, I think that intellect is relative to the needs of any given social situation. One could be a quantum physicist but still look like an idiot to the small town mechanic when their car is broke down. And left in some catastrophic situation where people are stranded, it will be the knuckle-dragging hero that will be the most intelligent among the group. If there is a scientist among them. They will only be intelligent to the extent that the leader can use them.
Think about it: how intelligent would Van Gogh seem among scientists as compared to the genius attributed to him among art lovers.
You have to give Foucault some credit for recognizing that notions of IQ are intimately tied in with power structures.