3 ms·

Sounds like a really bad IQ test. I took a Mensa IQ test once, and all the questions were grids, 3x3, with various patterns in all cells except the lower right

by bakhy 8y ago

Sounds like a really bad IQ test. I took a Mensa IQ test once, and all the questions were grids, 3x3, with various patterns in all cells except the lower right one, and 6 (I think) offered answer patterns. You pick the one that you think best fits into the overall pattern of the grid. Such a test seems much better to me, since it does not depend on what you know, though I guess even that might have some issues. Many popular IQ tests are really full of trick questions that mostly depend on whether you've seen the trick before...

IggleSniggle 8y ago
Pattern recognition ability is associated with higher false positives. Eg, conspiracy theorists typically perform significantly better on pattern recognition tests. A pattern recognition test is indeed measuring something, but “intelligence quotient” may be a misnomer. Full disclosure: I do very well on pattern recognition tests. I also am often accused of “reinventing the wheel.” I think these are related; but then, I would.
- ravar 8y ago
  Lets propose that pattern recognition is indeed something different than what most people would call intelligence. If this is so then there should be a statistically reliable way to measure pattern recognition in a way that does not also measure intelligence. However based on my understanding of how the IQ test is designed this is not the case.
  - chillacy 8y ago
    Just want to throw in the context, performance in subtests which measure pattern recognition or short term memory all correlate into g: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/G_factor_(psychometrics) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/G_factor_(psychometrics) There’s still debate over whether this correlation points to anything meaningful though.
- bakhy 8y ago
  You are implying that conspiracy theorists are unintelligent. Though it is a very tempting assumption :) I don't know if it's fully warranted. From my experience, ignorance is more essential to conspiracy theory thinking. People lack the will and/or time to learn all they need to make sense of the world, so they fall prey to overly simple, manipulative stories. And furthermore, it is known that more intelligent people tend to be more naive... I'm not saying you're fully wrong, lack of intelligence can surely help, but I think on the whole it's more complicated than just a lack of intelligence.
  - IggleSniggle 8y ago
    On the contrary, I was trying to suggest that intelligence is a broad term, and that being skilled at pattern recognition is a singular ability that is one small sliver of what most people usually mean when they talk about intelligence. IQ doesn’t really measure what most people believe it measures, and may therefore be a misnomer.
    - bakhy 8y ago
      Ok, I misunderstood. I agree with you. I think it's an interesting situation - the broader term is more relevant, but it's also less measurable. So we settle for what we can measure and kinda forget that it doesn't capture the full picture.
  - pas 8y ago
    Conspiracy theorists have a huge blindspot, an unchecked bias. They prefer for some irrational reason (usually to fit their narrative of the world, that also rests on biases) a less likely explanation (a worse model). It is usually lack of certain empathy, overabundance of xenophobia or other kind of bias.
    - bloak 8y ago
      It's a very popular word these days, but what is "bias"? Some people assign different prior probabilities than others. Which of them are "biased"? The people I've known who take an interest in conspiracy theories seem more open-minded and flexible in their beliefs than the general population. They may argue vehemently in favour of a particular theory now, but in six months' time they will probably have moved onto something else. But perhaps we're thinking of different groups of people. For me a typical "conspiracy theory" involves UFOs.

by bakhy 8y ago

IggleSniggle 8y ago

Pattern recognition ability is associated with higher false positives. Eg, conspiracy theorists typically perform significantly better on pattern recognition tests. A pattern recognition test is indeed measuring something, but “intelligence quotient” may be a misnomer. Full disclosure: I do very well on pattern recognition tests. I also am often accused of “reinventing the wheel.” I think these are related; but then, I would.

ravar 8y ago
Lets propose that pattern recognition is indeed something different than what most people would call intelligence. If this is so then there should be a statistically reliable way to measure pattern recognition in a way that does not also measure intelligence. However based on my understanding of how the IQ test is designed this is not the case.
- chillacy 8y ago
  Just want to throw in the context, performance in subtests which measure pattern recognition or short term memory all correlate into g: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/G_factor_(psychometrics) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/G_factor_(psychometrics) There’s still debate over whether this correlation points to anything meaningful though.
bakhy 8y ago
You are implying that conspiracy theorists are unintelligent. Though it is a very tempting assumption :) I don't know if it's fully warranted. From my experience, ignorance is more essential to conspiracy theory thinking. People lack the will and/or time to learn all they need to make sense of the world, so they fall prey to overly simple, manipulative stories. And furthermore, it is known that more intelligent people tend to be more naive... I'm not saying you're fully wrong, lack of intelligence can surely help, but I think on the whole it's more complicated than just a lack of intelligence.
- IggleSniggle 8y ago
  On the contrary, I was trying to suggest that intelligence is a broad term, and that being skilled at pattern recognition is a singular ability that is one small sliver of what most people usually mean when they talk about intelligence. IQ doesn’t really measure what most people believe it measures, and may therefore be a misnomer.
  - bakhy 8y ago
    Ok, I misunderstood. I agree with you. I think it's an interesting situation - the broader term is more relevant, but it's also less measurable. So we settle for what we can measure and kinda forget that it doesn't capture the full picture.
- pas 8y ago
  Conspiracy theorists have a huge blindspot, an unchecked bias. They prefer for some irrational reason (usually to fit their narrative of the world, that also rests on biases) a less likely explanation (a worse model). It is usually lack of certain empathy, overabundance of xenophobia or other kind of bias.
  - bloak 8y ago
    It's a very popular word these days, but what is "bias"? Some people assign different prior probabilities than others. Which of them are "biased"? The people I've known who take an interest in conspiracy theories seem more open-minded and flexible in their beliefs than the general population. They may argue vehemently in favour of a particular theory now, but in six months' time they will probably have moved onto something else. But perhaps we're thinking of different groups of people. For me a typical "conspiracy theory" involves UFOs.