Gee, Scoob, I wonder if screencap is relevant to pop music's effect on the brain? (link in comments)
(media.conspiracies.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (25)
sorted by:
That's not true at all. You can say that about the SAT, but modern IQ tests don't use questions that involve memory (minus holding the question in your head). They are made of very simple to comprehend, but highly abstract questions.
You're glossing over the entire point - the "book smart" person is only "smart" with topics they studied, i.e. they can only recite facts. They can't engage in new/novel information. They can memorize an entire math textbook but be unable to form new mathematical abstractions.
You can say that this rote memorization is a form of intelligence, but memorization will not help you do well on an IQ test. That's not how they work, and it's not what they measure. Memorizing things but being unable to form novel connections sounds pretty stupid to me.
Oh it is entirely true. The questions also follow a lot of the same tropes. Same as it's possible to prep for the LSAT, which is a logic test, memory plays a role because of pattern recognition. What you're saying, if taken just one step further than where you're at, is that if someone loses their memory (dementia) but they keep their abstract reasoning, they are still high intelligence, and that's just plain wrong. The cogitative power involves the use of memory and imagination.
You're also eliding on your terms again by using "smart" as a synonym for "memorization" and it's not. I also note, that you're not responding at all to the point that we know from experience, that charisma, while aspects of it can be learned, is also intuitive.
No, it’s not possible to prep for an IQ test. I’ve taken one with a professional evaluation. You obviously have no idea what an IQ test is like. If you want, you can take one to understand what it is. Chinamen studying for SATs won't give them a high IQ score. Only the proxy SAT score, which is not a real IQ test, so it can be manipulated.
Why are you conflating natural athletic ability and charisma with intelligence? The topic is that verbal intelligence, one of the classic multiple intelligences, is perfectly encapsulated by IQ. It's not a separate metric. The g-factor has been studied and it nearly perfectly correlates IQ to "verbal intelligence" every single time. There's no wiggle room here. There's no verbal IQ separate from IQ.
Memorize whatever you want, your pattern recognition for novel patterns will not improve. Pattern recognition has been extensively studied and has led to the most success-correlated psychometric test ever devised. If you have a high verbal intelligence, you have high spatial, musical, and logical intelligence. You'll need some effort to build those concrete skills, but your ceiling is much higher in every single one of those categories than somebody with a low IQ.
Yes, it is possible to prep for an IQ test by taking practice IQ tests. It's done all the time. I'm supposing, not to get to personal here but you brought it up, that you took one, scored fairly well, and thus are somewhat personally invested in their meaning.
I was using natural athletic ability as an analogy. BTW, physio-kinetics is a type of intelligence. Mohammed Ali's was a dumb as a box of rocks logically, but he understood human mechanics and movement to an amazing extent. If was all training, than any person, given enough training can become a professional athlete or artist like Raphael. That 10,000 hours estimate is discredited nonsense.
As for charisma, I see you refuse to answer that point. To a large extent, leaders are BORN as much as they are made by opportunity and training.
I'm not disputing that overarching mental strengths and weaknesses is a "mental horsepower". IQ is only a measurement of this; perhaps when we can map the brain fully we can see it rather than the shadow it casts. Merely augmenting our understanding of IQ through an acknowledgement that real-world experience, and the same people that do IQ tests have realized, that some people are good at some things naturally and worse at others.
p.s. Your discounting of memorization is so far out of whack with how the cognitive power acts, it's unreal. You're essentially saying that the ability to perceive new patterns is disconnected from the ability to remember and compare them to old ones (which is processed through the imagination, because that's how we access memories).
No, you can't. We know this because people who take multiple IQ tests don't score better in subsequent attempts. If you're memorizing exact test banks this is cheating.
Where? This doesn't happen.
This is heavily influenced by the "Big 5" personality traits. Openness, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Neuroticism. These are all critical to charisma, but they're not measures of intelligence. I think we can find a lot to agree on here but it's not a good example of straight intelligence.
There are also other factors with athleticism. Simple things like natural testosterone levels will give one person a massive athletic advantage over another. Like charisma, this just introduces too many variables. If it was based on intelligence, women would be competing with top male athletes. It's just pointless to discuss here.
--
I think the disconnect in this thread is that you consider intelligence to be what I consider (knowledge + intelligence). If we go by Google's definition, intelligence is "the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills", not the acquired knowledge itself. If you're smarter, you have a greater ability to learn. Your entire thread is operating under a different definition.
To be clear - I 100% agree that a genius needs both intelligence and large amounts of knowledge. I don't discount that at all. The thing that separates intelligent geniuses from "book smart" people with the same knowledge bank, is that actually intelligent geniuses can synthesize new ideas from their bank of existing knowledge. A stupid book smart person is just not able to do that. That's why they are actually pretty stupid. You need IQ to do this, and that IQ will encompass every type of "multiple intelligence" you can devise. So there is only one type of intelligence.
Go back to your original comment; you supposed that Jews have a high verbal IQ. No, they have a standard verbal IQ, determined by their very average 103 IQ scores. Their dominance is not due to inbreeding and many average IQ Christians also study ancient texts, probably even more than there are Jews total. If you have a high Verbal IQ, you will also score highly on IQ tests. Jews do not score high on IQ tests.