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:
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.
Now you're going "source". You want an example? The ASVAB is an IQ test, and people retake it and/or practice to get higher scores. Recruiters tell people do to this. Understanding how a test works, and memorizing question TYPES and how to solve them does indeed improve test scores, it's measurable, and it is statistically significant. Same goes for IQ adjacent tests, like the LSAT or GRE.
The big 5 personality traits affect leadership style, but we are talking about charisma; charm, wittiness, people skills, the ability to inspire people, etc. Rhetoric can be practiced by any sophist and improved, but charisma is partially a product of emotional intelligence, and your ability to inspire others ain't captured on IQ tests. Napoleon was a genius, so was Newton. But Newton had zero day game and thus stayed unmarried, while Napoleon let a generation to slaughter.
Yes, there are a hundred factors, a thousand factors, with athleticism. But underlying ALL athletic ability is a kinetic/spacial ability to put your body where it should be at the right time, and that ain't captured on IQ tests.
I also mentioned artistic ability. Michelangelo likely had a high IQ, but you can't take a high IQ individual and, given enough training, make a Michelangelo out of him. Nonsense to think you can.
Anyway, to your summation, I mostly agree. High intelligence people, as measured by IQ at least, have the ability to be a Renaissance man. But what you have to realize, is that IQ is just a poor, pretty sad, measure of intelligence given our limited understanding of our brain and how thought and conscienceness work. What general IQ doesn't capture, the theory of multiple intelligences at least TRIES to, which is formulate a way to measure intellectual strengths and weaknesses. Admittedly, it has problems as a theory, I don't discount that.
Back to my original comment. It's a hypothesis I have that Jews have higher than average verbal IQ based on three data points.
I could be wrong, it's just a hypothesis.
Yeah this is exactly what I'm talking about. Practically every single category here is testing your knowledge on a subject. This is not an IQ test, it doesn't produce an IQ score. It's a proxy test. You're not talking about IQ tests.
Newton could have been a neurotic introverted mess with no conscientiousness, that's basically what you said but captured with the Big 5. Those personality traits have been heavily studied, they play a big role in why men tend to be leaders more often than women. Saying that it's just a "style" just throws that entire body of research to the side. Try being an agreeable leader that is not assertive, it's not possible. I think you're using "emotional intelligence" as Big 5 traits associated with good leadership. Being an assertive, extroverted person, who has no neurotic thoughts doesn't have to do with intelligence. If you want to talk about game, that's what you need.
Yeah and just like those thousands of factors, this could be only 1% of the equation. Perhaps experience & knowledge is a lot more critical. Discussing with a million variables particularly when it comes to athletics is pointless. We can find a better analogy with your Michelangelo comment.
Right, nobody can be exactly someone else. He had his own life experiences and memories. Extremely high IQ individuals are at an exponential advantage when it comes to reaching that level. It seems we agree on this fully.
The problem is that "multiple intelligences" claims that this is innate. If you count training & knowledge you're just back to IQ being the only innate intelligence. That's the crux of the inbreeding argument. If you agree with this, perhaps we are using different words to describe the same thing.