4 ms·

If I just suggest a reference without a suggested change in "point of view" you're likely to get very confused. May I recommend as a starting point: Be skepti

If I just suggest a reference without a suggested change in "point of view" you're likely to get very confused. May I recommend as a starting point: Be skeptical about the idea of a single number characterizing intelligence. We don't even do that for the weather. Next, learn about the genesis of the entire IQ concept, and later efforts to academically justify past ideas about intelligence. The first really popular writings were by Galton http://galton.org/books/hereditary-genius/text/pdf/galton-1869-genius-v3.pdf http://galton.org/books/hereditary-genius/text/pdf/galton-18... Afterwards, Binet and Simon, and Terman (at Stanford, the Stanford in Stanford Binet) get at it. Back then, IQ was really a "quotient," "mental age" divided by actual age. The concept only really makes sense in a developmental context -- after all, how are we supposed to believe that a "developmentally baseline" 23 year old is actually the pinnacle of intelligence? Only after this did the Weschler Adult Intelligence scale come in. Read (some) of the criticisms Weschler had of the Stanford Binet here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wechsler_Adult_Intelligence_Scale https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wechsler_Adult_Intelligence_Sc... This was devised as a clinical scale. This is still one of the only widely administered and normed tests. The norming takes place only over a few thousand individuals. The types of abilities typical in an international IMO context are simply unlikely to show up in these cases, much less register statistically in the test! It's also important to learn about the hypothesis behind "Spearman's g", https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G_factor_(psychometrics) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G_factor_(psychometrics) and the mathematics behind what suggested it, "Factor Analysis," which has many capabilities but is worthy of many criticisms, including particularly that there is no obvious weigh to norm or weight any of the tests, so ultimately you end up with a judgement call for which tests to include, and how much to gather from their results. A far more enlightening study of genius, I have found in the book "Human Accomplishment", by Charles Murray. When you're sample is all of those humans who have left a mark on history, and your measure is impact, and our remembrance of it, you learn far more about the heights of human capability, I believe, than by scoring how well people match patterns to a preconceived idea of the "right answer" on a test.

chillacy 10y ago
Ok, you had some interesting points. But then I had to go look up Charles Murray... The same Charles Murray who co-authored https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bell_Curve https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bell_Curve ? > The Bell Curve argues that: > Intelligence exists and is accurately measurable across racial, language, and national boundaries. > Intelligence is one of, if not the most, important factors correlated to economic, social, and overall success in the United States, and its importance is increasing. > Intelligence is largely (40% to 80%) heritable. > No one has so far been able to manipulate IQ to a significant degree through changes in environmental factors—except for child adoption—and in the light of these failures, future successful manipulations are unlikely. > The United States has been in denial of these facts. A better public understanding of the nature of intelligence and its social correlates is necessary to guide future policy decisions. And who then went on to argue in Human Accomplishment that the most important humans were European males based on a biased application of Pagerank on modern encyclopedias written in English? Not sure how he fits into this.
DaniFong 10y ago
This is the response to the reply above; I'm unable to directly respond to a comment that deep. I thought similar things about Charles Murray, and I don't think that the Human Accomplishment book is without flaws -- it has many. Nonetheless, the whole book is worth reading. Honestly, I think it faces some serious facts on the distribution of impact on civilization. The fact that some cultures, like classical Athens and Elizabethan and Enlightenment England, have had an outsized impact on modern science and civilization, that we have a massive debt to particular thinkers from Europe of the past few centuries, is a fact I think a serious study of great scientists needs to come to terms with. That being said, past contribution is not a good indicator of genetic, racial superiority! We should do well to ask what made those contributions possible, from nurturance, to growth, to self belief, and belief in the idea of progress.
- chillacy 10y ago
  Just FYI the lack of comment button is based on time, and is meant to prevent deep threads that become flamewars, or devolve into arguing over semantics. > nurturance, to growth, to self belief, and belief in the idea of progress. I'd also guess: encouraging risk taking; valuing radical ideas, or at least individualism; and a safe environment, or at least a sufficient military.

chillacy 10y ago

Ok, you had some interesting points. But then I had to go look up Charles Murray... The same Charles Murray who co-authored https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bell_Curve https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bell_Curve ? > The Bell Curve argues that: > Intelligence exists and is accurately measurable across racial, language, and national boundaries. > Intelligence is one of, if not the most, important factors correlated to economic, social, and overall success in the United States, and its importance is increasing. > Intelligence is largely (40% to 80%) heritable. > No one has so far been able to manipulate IQ to a significant degree through changes in environmental factors—except for child adoption—and in the light of these failures, future successful manipulations are unlikely. > The United States has been in denial of these facts. A better public understanding of the nature of intelligence and its social correlates is necessary to guide future policy decisions. And who then went on to argue in Human Accomplishment that the most important humans were European males based on a biased application of Pagerank on modern encyclopedias written in English? Not sure how he fits into this.

DaniFong 10y ago

This is the response to the reply above; I'm unable to directly respond to a comment that deep. I thought similar things about Charles Murray, and I don't think that the Human Accomplishment book is without flaws -- it has many. Nonetheless, the whole book is worth reading. Honestly, I think it faces some serious facts on the distribution of impact on civilization. The fact that some cultures, like classical Athens and Elizabethan and Enlightenment England, have had an outsized impact on modern science and civilization, that we have a massive debt to particular thinkers from Europe of the past few centuries, is a fact I think a serious study of great scientists needs to come to terms with. That being said, past contribution is not a good indicator of genetic, racial superiority! We should do well to ask what made those contributions possible, from nurturance, to growth, to self belief, and belief in the idea of progress.

chillacy 10y ago
Just FYI the lack of comment button is based on time, and is meant to prevent deep threads that become flamewars, or devolve into arguing over semantics. > nurturance, to growth, to self belief, and belief in the idea of progress. I'd also guess: encouraging risk taking; valuing radical ideas, or at least individualism; and a safe environment, or at least a sufficient military.