5 ms·

This is a joke, right? The authors report conducting two "intelligence" tests: "Wordsum task"; and "Raven’s progressive matrices". The first is a verbal test.

by aazaa 5y ago

This is a joke, right? The authors report conducting two "intelligence" tests: "Wordsum task"; and "Raven’s progressive matrices". The first is a verbal test. Correlation should be expected.. The second is a kind of visual puzzle. Among other things, Wikipedia has this to say about it: > A 2007 study provided evidence that individuals with Asperger syndrome, a high-functioning autism spectrum disorder, score higher than other individuals on Raven's tests.[10] Another 2007 study provided evidence that individuals with classic autism, a low-functioning autism spectrum disorder, score higher in Raven's tests than in Wechsler tests. In addition, the individuals with classic autism were providing correct answers to the Raven's test in less time than individuals without autism, although erring as often. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raven%27s_Progressive_Matrices https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raven%27s_Progressive_Matrices Lots of things could correlate with the ability to solve this kind of puzzle. So it's really odd to use the adjective "honest" in front of the noun "intelligence." I know there's some mumbo jumbo about what the word means in the paper. But seriously, how can you talk about anything correlating with intelligence when the tools your using are so primitive? What if the "honest" signal of intelligence is the ability to detect bullshit?

asoylu 5y ago
This title reflects subject of the paper by self-examplification, almost in an autological manner.
dave_sullivan 5y ago
> What if the "honest" signal of intelligence is the ability to detect bullshit? In machine learning research, we have the idea of adversarial algorithms. One algorithm tries to generate convincing bullshit, and the other algorithm tries to differentiate this bullshit compared to the real thing. Resources are spent equally on improving both sides, to the benefit of the larger system. Perhaps human evolution does the same. People get better at bullshitting to navigate social structures in a more efficient way, and other people get better at calling bullshit to prevent people from navigating those structures TOO efficiently. Makes sense to me.

by aazaa 5y ago

asoylu 5y ago

This title reflects subject of the paper by self-examplification, almost in an autological manner.

dave_sullivan 5y ago

> What if the "honest" signal of intelligence is the ability to detect bullshit? In machine learning research, we have the idea of adversarial algorithms. One algorithm tries to generate convincing bullshit, and the other algorithm tries to differentiate this bullshit compared to the real thing. Resources are spent equally on improving both sides, to the benefit of the larger system. Perhaps human evolution does the same. People get better at bullshitting to navigate social structures in a more efficient way, and other people get better at calling bullshit to prevent people from navigating those structures TOO efficiently. Makes sense to me.