3 ms·

> I dislike the notion that some individuals are off the scale on cleverness. Why not? You accept that some individuals are off the scale of various physical a

by bena 4y ago

> I dislike the notion that some individuals are off the scale on cleverness. Why not? You accept that some individuals are off the scale of various physical abilities. That try as you might, you'll never be the fastest or tallest or strongest. What makes intelligence different? Why should we believe that everyone is roughly equal in intelligence? If you are mediocre in obvious ways, what's left? Everyone wants to be good at something. Everyone wants to be better at something than others. But it is fairly obvious with anything with a physical component. I am a mediocre guitar player. I am not tall. I am not fast. I am not exceptionally strong. These are things that can be sussed out fairly quickly with some basic tests. But intelligence. Well. That's not only fluid, but it's also abstract. What does it mean to have an IQ of 129 versus an IQ of 130. Especially when one could score both depending on how much sleep one has had. So you can just say IQ is bullshit. Intelligence don't real. Everyone is smart in their own way. No. That's just simply not true. Yes, one could test differently based on conditions. However, it will fall within a range. Which is why IQ is often expressed as a range. If you score a 129, you'll be within the 125-135 group or something. And it's just like with physical traits. Like right now, I will be much slower than normal because my quadriceps are fucking cooked. I overexerted myself and I'm sore as shit. Even though I am not normally fast, timing me now wouldn't give an accurate representation of my average speed. And you can tell when someone has spent any time among the truly gifted. Because running into people like this is something else. They will come into a situation blind, get what you've already gotten, and then make a realization you'd never would have. They do process on a different level. And it's not about knowledge. It's not how much they know. It's about how fast they can acquire that knowledge, understand it, and then build upon it. It's how they can relate knowledge from different areas in new and novel ways. People who have spent time with the truly gifted know there's a such thing as intelligence. People who have only spent time with people who are average to above average have never actually seen intelligence at work.

denton-scratch 4y ago
> You accept that some individuals are off the scale of various physical abilities. No I don't! I'm getting on, and not very fit; I can run about 30 yards, slowly, before I run out of steam. But even Olympic runners can't run 100x faster than me. I know how fast Olympic runners can run. > Why should we believe that everyone is roughly equal in intelligence? Why, indeed. Why do you think that I believe that? > Which is why IQ is often expressed as a range. I have avoided mention of IQ; I don't think it's equivalent to intelligence. > and then make a realization you'd never would have. Yes, of course. I've met a lot of people that are quicker on the uptake than I am. But I'm sorry; "truly gifted" suggests there's some kind of magic going on. I don't believe in magic, and I don't believe in gifts from the gods. And I don't believe that there are people that are orders of magnitude smarter than the average; my observation was simply that average people like me aren't in a position to estimate the smarts of brighter people. So there is a tendency to assume there's magic occurring; that they aren't just brighter, but there's some other ingredient. There's no magic ingredient; we're all made roughly the same way, from the same ingredients.
- bena 4y ago
  I think you believe that because you say basically that. Then you say that you don't believe there are people that are orders of magnitude smarter than the average. There are. There's no magic. Just like the fact Usain Bolt running the 100m dash in 9.58 seconds isn't magic. No one else has been capable of reproducing that feat. Including people who train to do exactly that. And I don't suggest there is magic. You're forcing an argument on me that I am not making. IQ is as good a measure of intelligence as there is. IQ is not a measure of human worth. IQ is not a measure of success. IQ is not a measure of a lot of things. IQ is the rough measure of the raw processing power of a human brain. I am simply pointing out that intelligence is no different than any other attribute one can possess. And some people possess it at the extremes.
  - denton-scratch 4y ago
    > Usain Bolt running the 100m dash in 9.58 seconds isn't magic Sure it is. But it's not orders of magnitude. > IQ is the rough measure of the raw processing power of a human brain. [citation needed] That claim is both specific and vague at the same time. I'll try to work out how you did that :-)
    - bena 4y ago
      Depends on your deviation. And how do you mean "specific and vague". IQ isn't precise because like all of our physical attributes, there's wiggle room. Like how you may think you're a certain height, but you actually fluctuate throughout the day. Same with weight. Or strength. Or speed. IQ is a rough measure. It can really only tell us what you get when you take the test. But if you take it several times, it should fall within a range. And a good IQ test shouldn't test knowledge. It should test reasoning, spatial ability, pattern matching, etc. You know, the factors that make up our raw processing power. Are you saying it's "specific and vague" because it's an imprecise measure of a specific ability? That wouldn't be "specific and vague" in the way you mean. You could say it's a vague claim about a specific thing, but that's not mysterious.
      - 4y ago
lordnacho 4y ago
> And you can tell when someone has spent any time among the truly gifted. Because running into people like this is something else. They will come into a situation blind, get what you've already gotten, and then make a realization you'd never would have. They do process on a different level. And it's not about knowledge. It's not how much they know. It's about how fast they can acquire that knowledge, understand it, and then build upon it. It's how they can relate knowledge from different areas in new and novel ways. People who have spent time with the truly gifted know there's a such thing as intelligence. People who have only spent time with people who are average to above average have never actually seen intelligence at work. I used to think this as well, having gone to a famous university. Some people just seemed to get it much faster than others. With some hindsight I no longer believe it. I think it was all hard work, and very much influenced by environment. One guy I knew seemed really quite bright, always seemed to know everything. Ended up getting a PhD as well. But I realized that he basically just studied a lot. I wanted to think he was smarter than me, but I also knew inside I wasn't putting in the same amount of practice he was. I brought the same fellow into a business to work with me, and he was ordinary. Couldn't have known that he was one of the top grads of two world famous universities, just one among a sea of reasonably competent quants. I'm fairly sure a lot of firms make this mistake as well, they think they need the people who did best at uni, but actually it has a lot to do with what you do with people, who you stick them with, what training they get, and so on. The thing about highly productive creatives is they seem to have special motivation. They ome into some field, they see connections, they are more motivated to read more, talk to more people, study more. That seems to be the driver. I never saw anyone good that was just smart but not engaged as well.

by bena 4y ago

denton-scratch 4y ago

> You accept that some individuals are off the scale of various physical abilities. No I don't! I'm getting on, and not very fit; I can run about 30 yards, slowly, before I run out of steam. But even Olympic runners can't run 100x faster than me. I know how fast Olympic runners can run. > Why should we believe that everyone is roughly equal in intelligence? Why, indeed. Why do you think that I believe that? > Which is why IQ is often expressed as a range. I have avoided mention of IQ; I don't think it's equivalent to intelligence. > and then make a realization you'd never would have. Yes, of course. I've met a lot of people that are quicker on the uptake than I am. But I'm sorry; "truly gifted" suggests there's some kind of magic going on. I don't believe in magic, and I don't believe in gifts from the gods. And I don't believe that there are people that are orders of magnitude smarter than the average; my observation was simply that average people like me aren't in a position to estimate the smarts of brighter people. So there is a tendency to assume there's magic occurring; that they aren't just brighter, but there's some other ingredient. There's no magic ingredient; we're all made roughly the same way, from the same ingredients.

bena 4y ago
I think you believe that because you say basically that. Then you say that you don't believe there are people that are orders of magnitude smarter than the average. There are. There's no magic. Just like the fact Usain Bolt running the 100m dash in 9.58 seconds isn't magic. No one else has been capable of reproducing that feat. Including people who train to do exactly that. And I don't suggest there is magic. You're forcing an argument on me that I am not making. IQ is as good a measure of intelligence as there is. IQ is not a measure of human worth. IQ is not a measure of success. IQ is not a measure of a lot of things. IQ is the rough measure of the raw processing power of a human brain. I am simply pointing out that intelligence is no different than any other attribute one can possess. And some people possess it at the extremes.
- denton-scratch 4y ago
  > Usain Bolt running the 100m dash in 9.58 seconds isn't magic Sure it is. But it's not orders of magnitude. > IQ is the rough measure of the raw processing power of a human brain. [citation needed] That claim is both specific and vague at the same time. I'll try to work out how you did that :-)
  - bena 4y ago
    Depends on your deviation. And how do you mean "specific and vague". IQ isn't precise because like all of our physical attributes, there's wiggle room. Like how you may think you're a certain height, but you actually fluctuate throughout the day. Same with weight. Or strength. Or speed. IQ is a rough measure. It can really only tell us what you get when you take the test. But if you take it several times, it should fall within a range. And a good IQ test shouldn't test knowledge. It should test reasoning, spatial ability, pattern matching, etc. You know, the factors that make up our raw processing power. Are you saying it's "specific and vague" because it's an imprecise measure of a specific ability? That wouldn't be "specific and vague" in the way you mean. You could say it's a vague claim about a specific thing, but that's not mysterious.
    - 4y ago

lordnacho 4y ago

> And you can tell when someone has spent any time among the truly gifted. Because running into people like this is something else. They will come into a situation blind, get what you've already gotten, and then make a realization you'd never would have. They do process on a different level. And it's not about knowledge. It's not how much they know. It's about how fast they can acquire that knowledge, understand it, and then build upon it. It's how they can relate knowledge from different areas in new and novel ways. People who have spent time with the truly gifted know there's a such thing as intelligence. People who have only spent time with people who are average to above average have never actually seen intelligence at work. I used to think this as well, having gone to a famous university. Some people just seemed to get it much faster than others. With some hindsight I no longer believe it. I think it was all hard work, and very much influenced by environment. One guy I knew seemed really quite bright, always seemed to know everything. Ended up getting a PhD as well. But I realized that he basically just studied a lot. I wanted to think he was smarter than me, but I also knew inside I wasn't putting in the same amount of practice he was. I brought the same fellow into a business to work with me, and he was ordinary. Couldn't have known that he was one of the top grads of two world famous universities, just one among a sea of reasonably competent quants. I'm fairly sure a lot of firms make this mistake as well, they think they need the people who did best at uni, but actually it has a lot to do with what you do with people, who you stick them with, what training they get, and so on. The thing about highly productive creatives is they seem to have special motivation. They ome into some field, they see connections, they are more motivated to read more, talk to more people, study more. That seems to be the driver. I never saw anyone good that was just smart but not engaged as well.