On the contrary, they are intelligent in social settings. They make connections much quicker than I do and their understanding goes much deeper in them. In short, their computational strength in social situations is superior to mine - meaning they are socially more intelligent.
Most frustrating experience I've ever had in 20 years of gaming lol
- Thread starter zak
- Start date
- Status
Midcal9
Member
It's a personality dimension at best, but calling it intelligence is a scam. It has nothing to do with IQ, G factor and Intelligence, it has numerous definitions and it is SELF REPORTED and NON quantifiable. There is no objective way to measure it or anything that would approach some kind of..semi reliable way of identifying it. Moreover, it's very closely related and highly correlates with low neuroticism which is..personality trait, an officially recognized one. That might give you some clue. I score very high on neuroticism and I do have a fairly hard time making connections with people unless I'm motivated to do so. Meaning, generally speaking I'm bad at establishing connections and making other people like me unless I want to, unless someone picked my interest first. Look, you are mixing two different categories here because someone decided to call people with high social adjustment "socially intelligent".
Anyways, there is a lot of total feel good BS that floats on net, even on the "reputable" site so yea, if you believe it then good on you.
Last edited:
Syllabear3
Member
I once met like a "genious" in primary... she really retarded with anything related to her body.
Would you call a person that can give a good use to his/her body smart? As far as i know its controled by the brain, how could she fail so horribly with her body then?
Would you call a person that can give a good use to his/her body smart? As far as i know its controled by the brain, how could she fail so horribly with her body then?
Midcal9
Member
You can also meet a hot broad with an IQ of 90. Would you call her genius? Personality traits and Intelligence belong to separate categories in real science. Ehh look, I see that people tend to disagree with what I've got to say here and I have no interest in being perceived to be a deviant here or get slammed by the mods. Not yet anyways, wink. Let's get back to discussing the video games.
I don't like two handed swords which are available in the arena, especially the one which has a smaller, upswept hilt and is sharper. It looks like that danish darksword armory sword and it's blade doesn't look real, it is too thick. It's very noodleish. Although I honestly don't care at this point because they got the color scheme right. Sane colors, cool clothes and ok to excellent clothes. What's your least and fav weapon Mr. CatBear?
Syllabear3
Member
Nope, im interested in this discussion.
How cant you even process your own f*ing body movements? How couldn't she throw a ball to a moving target, calculating the trajectory, calculate the time required to it to reach a point where the target will be in order to hit... i mean is brain stuff, is thinking, is using ur brain to move your body.
You know the answer, iq is not everything.
Midcal9
Member
I know I might get banned for this but women are not as agile as men, on average for biological differences and IQ has nothing to do with your brain's ability to control the body. You actually don't calculate those consciously I'm pretty surprised you haven't noticed that. So yes, IQ has little to do with ones agility and I never said it does. It also has nothing to with ones sexuality, I'm saying it advance you know, to avoid people saying that some people are gay, therefore IQ is not everything.
I was nut now..it's getting tedious and one sided. Plox CatBear, don't torment me like diz. Tiz time toh chaenge dah topic.
Ohh yes, are there any exceptional padded coats and leather coats in arena? Been shopping for one for 2 weeks and all I get is either, heavy, thick or Superior. I want to have a dark blue, exceptional leather or padded coat. Or dark brown, basically Black. Evil cool black coat cuz I'm your anime villain!
Syllabear3
Member
Sources? Women are way more agile and have more reflexes as far as i know and seen.
Take jugglers as example, also females learn quicker at younger ages. Their cerebellum is bigger if i well remember.
Why do i take a little time to calculate then (in any game) an accurate shot of those characteristics? Be irl or games.
Is not one sided...
Midcal9
Member
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21268467
http://www.americankinesiology.org/AcuCustom/Sitename/Documents/DocumentItem/TAP_25_EnhancingHumanPerformanceInSport_08.pdf
But tbh, when it comes to things like general motor skills or some fairly rudimentary behavioral traits I use my own observation and common sense, IE the good old common sense, not the modern millennial one. As for your observations, I don't know where you're from but it seems like you guys are total emasculated wimps then. Look, I've been bombarded with total relativistic BS on IQ and now you are telling me that you have reverse sexual dimorphism in your region..there is a limit to how much crap I'm willing to tolerate. What's next? You gonna tell me a tale about brave amazons?
You don't calculate, you estimate based on previously learned experience, you are using averages. You don't actually calculate real numbers. Look I'm no expert here but people usually use their instincts and educated guesses based on their "feeling". IE you are not doing math, you are using your previous experiences, your memory of your previous experiences in regards to a certain type of motor activity. Now, you can still call that Calculation if you want to play semantics with me, but I am really tired of this convo, I should not have even started talking about IQ with you guys. It was a mistake.
I will stop talking about this subject, I'm out. All ya all may have whatever ideas you have.
Last edited:
Syllabear3
Member
Do you have something more... actualized???
Are you getting mad that i mentioned that? Does it make you feel insecure in your masculinity?
Women recently joined sports, and are getting better and better (source: studies).
Yes i do.
That what you call motor activity, what controls it? Brain, is the fucking same. I dont care if it milenian or old common sense, its using actual common sense.
Well well, we discovered a white male.
ps: before iq was calculated only with maths, how many bulshit did they add to consider the rate? Now it should happen the same. Some people are more capable of thinking, other are more capable in abilities etc.
IQ was a mistake to begin with...
Very related video, and very "milenian"
Last edited:
O poor you, you must be new around here; we don't argue with Sylla, it's a pointless exercise that can only result in madness or disappointment
Syllabear3
Member
I made bob fear me.
The poor thing couldnt win an argument, he started the "puke the bear" in pure frustration.
The poor thing couldnt win an argument, he started the "puke the bear" in pure frustration.
Now i feel like I should go ahead and copy paste the entire history of our "arguments" (as you put it, but it<s worth noting an argument requires two people making valid points, you usually fail at that) on here, but thankfully this forum records everything for posterity and whatnot so readers can have all the fun in the world reading the stupidity coming out of your account. I swear, most of it is so ridiculously insane, it's genuinely funny.
It generally goes like this: Sylla posts one of his crazy opinions that no one else can get behind, I point out the futility of his argument, he goes into personal insults that he believes to be clever (see the previous post for a great example, and the next one too apparently), and then I promptly ignore him as I'm about to do right after this sentence! Well, after this one: I missed you Sylla, there's just no one quite as ineffective at dialectics as you are on other forums.
It generally goes like this: Sylla posts one of his crazy opinions that no one else can get behind, I point out the futility of his argument, he goes into personal insults that he believes to be clever (see the previous post for a great example, and the next one too apparently), and then I promptly ignore him as I'm about to do right after this sentence! Well, after this one: I missed you Sylla, there's just no one quite as ineffective at dialectics as you are on other forums.
Last edited:
Syllabear3
Member
Oh you got back into "im right and you dont because a few disabled people agree with me". Please no, i think we had enough of that.
I think that your main problem is that you CANT* discern when im serious or when im not (or when im both). Thats why you let adults talk and you step at one side.
But let not get to personal here, whats your opinion in these discussions?
I know you are traumatized and you try to attack me all the time, but i really want to read your opinion.
I think that your main problem is that you CANT* discern when im serious or when im not (or when im both). Thats why you let adults talk and you step at one side.
But let not get to personal here, whats your opinion in these discussions?
I know you are traumatized and you try to attack me all the time, but i really want to read your opinion.
Last edited:
In the neuroscientific community, the topic of "multiple intelligences" is still contentious and widely debated. This is because we simply do not have the tools to test these hypotheses - that, for example, IQ tests in the western world are biased towards certain types of intelligence. But what *is* almost universally acknowledged is that a developing intelligence is deeply embedded in the environment in which it is nurtured, which means that yes, it does mean that intelligence adapts to what it needs to do. Which suggests that there are several areas it could specialize in, even though most areas of cognitive ability are interconnected.
Like Kaladin said, there's a lot of debate surrounding the definition of intelligence and cognition.
In neuro-cognitive sciences, the only thing all scientists seem to agree on is that there's little to no empirical evidence supporting any of the damn theories out there The argument you guys are having in here is the same one happening in scientific publications. Take a moment to read here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G_factor_(psychometrics) , that article should demonstrate there is no scientific consensus, and therefore no "good" answer. So you're all free to pick the one that makes you feel best about yourselves and roll with it, science don't care just now cuz no proof.
In neuro-cognitive sciences, the only thing all scientists seem to agree on is that there's little to no empirical evidence supporting any of the damn theories out there
The argument you guys are having in here is the same one happening in scientific publications. Take a moment to read here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G_factor_(psychometrics) , that article should demonstrate there is no scientific consensus, and therefore no "good" answer. So you're all free to pick the one that makes you feel best about yourselves and roll with it, science don't care just now cuz no proof.Damn, I know I said I'd ignore him but this is too good:
Alright, alright, I'ma stop polluting this thread now, promised! Can't speak for Sylla tho.
Sylla, being serious and not serious are mutually exclusive concepts. I know, those are 3 big words there, but simply put, it means you can't be both at the same time. You need to put some more effort into this if you have any hope of being taken seriously.
Alright, alright, I'ma stop polluting this thread now, promised! Can't speak for Sylla tho.
Midcal9
Member
There are plenty of studies, both old and new which measure the correlation of IQ and personal success, there is crystal clear correlation, it can not get any more empirical than that. Wiki is not the best source of information and I've seen a lot of signs of SJWs editing the pages. And yes, there are some experts who would intentionally muddy the water.Like Kaladin said, there's a lot of debate surrounding the definition of intelligence and cognition.
In neuro-cognitive sciences, the only thing all scientists seem to agree on is that there's little to no empirical evidence supporting any of the damn theories out there
http://www.emilkirkegaard.dk/en/wp-content/uploads/Intelligence-and-socioeconomic-success-A-meta-analytic-review-of-longitudinal-research.pdf
you can use sci fi hub to acces certain papers, like this for example; http://psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=buy.optionToBuy&id=1998-10661-006
http://www.sciencedirect.com.sci-hub.io/science/article/pii/S0160289608000305
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/per.799/abstract
Right at the bottom the wiki page mentions Jay Gould, a well known left wing hack who misrepresented raw data to fit his false narratives. Look, you can call it "relative" all you want because of some "experts" who desire to believe that all men are equal, that everything is relative and nothing is measurable. However, this is a very recent development which is fueled by ideological agenda's and not actual raw data, it has not changed one little bit.
Last edited:
Good science requires falsifiability, which is very difficult to get in these kinds of contexts. How can you falsify a statement made about cognition? It's why I don't consider most human sciences as science at all. I can say whatever I want about the human psyche, there's plenty of ways to offer proof, but no way to disprove, therefor it's "bad science" (in quotes, cuz it's still the best we can do at this point in time).
I don't know enough about Mr. Gould to voice a proper opinion, but based on what you said he sounds like he's actually a great example of something that's been plaguing the scientific world: monetization of scientific agendas. That said, a good encyclopedia will present all points of views, regardless of their validity (altho it is welcome to comment on it where there is scientific consensus), so I'd think that's a fairly good article overall. Also worth noting, Wikipedia is largely considered accurate where pure sciences are concerned. It goes to shit rather quickly in historical or biographical articles tho :/
One more thing: correlation != proof! I'm fair sure you can agree with me that there's still no consensus. I suspect if we ever have hope of unlocking the secrets of intelligence and cognition, it will go through better understanding of information systems (which is why neuro-cognitive research teams will sometimes include computer programmers along with the expected biologists and neurologists and whatnot). The brain can be boiled down to an advanced computer working with multiple processing and signaling systems by contrast to man-made computers who's only method of processing and signaling is binary through electrical signals. If we can map all these processes and signals, we may be able to get a better grasp into the nature of cognition. Should lead to some interesting practical applications too: mind-machine interface so you can control your Exanima character like you would your very own body would be extremely cool
*edit* BTW I followed those links, but I suspect you copy/pasted those while logged in to those sites because none of them yield a full research paper for me when I click on them
Sounded like interesting reads
Last edited:
Midcal9
Member
Correlation does not prove causation, yes. However, if your sample size for each group is in tens of thousands and you see a clear correlation then most likely you're onto something. You can dismiss it and poke holes or you can accept that this is as close as you going to come. I live in a real world, not in abstract one where each thought must be controlled for fallacies in accordance with strict Aristotelian logic.
You can use sci fi hub to view those papers without buying them, however, I'm not going to post links to sci hub or tell you how to use it (which is like super easy..) for obvious legal reasons. It would no different from posting torrent links here. However, even the basic Abstract description of the paper can give you a good idea what it's about.*edit* BTW I followed those links, but I suspect you copy/pasted those while logged in to those sites because none of them yield a full research paper for me when I click on them
These two can be freely accessed; http://neuron4.psych.ubc.ca/~dpaulhus/research/SHYNESS/downloads/JPSP 97 with Morgan.pdf
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/247676963_Self-Report_Measures_of_Intelligence_Are_They_Useful_as_Proxy_IQ_Tests
You're asking too much, you are saying that you want a full map (flashy and interactive too right?) of the brain and fully grasp human cognition (which is physically impossible, you can only roughly model it, your mind doesn't have enough room to map every neuron and be aware of its actions) before you are willing to make up your mind about intelligence, you are setting a far too strict of a standard. You don't need to have a fully detailed map of your PC processor (or even know how it works on a basic level) in order to bench mark it and get a rough idea of how fast it is by comparing to slower and better ones, by relating it.
Intelligence can be estimated without having a excellent or even a good grasp on cognition at all if you 1. create sensible tests with sensible and gradual difficulty curve 2. have a large amount of participants. That's basically how we've got the bell curve with IQ100 being the average for whites.
Last edited:
- Status
