Topic: Why do most Bitcoiners seem intelligent? - page 3. (Read 10801 times)

If that's what you believe, then you are free to ignore someone's IQ test score.  No one is saying you should be forced to take someone's IQ test score into consideration, just that it would be nice to have a person's IQ test score available for those of us that disagree with you and believe that IQ test scores are a good measure of intelligence.

So, did i win?

I am curious, do any of you high IQ members have any criminal record? If yes then for what?

I always thought that IQ tests were not representative of intelligence. Any "standardized" test is way too simplistic to measure how intelligent one is. People have different strengths and weaknesses, and you can't just pick one number to decide their "intelligence". There's also the factor that getting a bunch of  random, generic questions right might not have anything to do with how smart you are with actual real world problems.

Of course, if you have a really high IQ you could be incredibly intelligent- but that one number should not be the sole indicator.

I found some interesting articles on the subject:

On motivation and IQ:


On the "three components" of intelligence:

some jobs, yes.

the important jobs requiring critical thinking I specified in my pointed question?

certainly not.

your attempt to answer a different question from the one asked is indicative of your dishonest desire to avoid the obvious answer.

those claiming they'd prefer an IQ 65 moron surgeon operate on their children, 'because IQ is meaningless social construct' or whatever, are a special kind of cowardly, insecure cretin.

Its better to give job to loyal idiot than smart asshole

By failing to recognize an ancient, well-worn joke, even when deviously obviously put in place just to give you another opportunity to demonstrate your lack of wit.

Thanks for asking, I'm glad my unkind assumptions regarding your humorless propensity towards pompous-yet-ineffectual pedantry proved productive.    


Umm, parse error.  Specific != abstract.


I rest my case.  




Thanks for playing You Got Trolled - Junior Edition (for IQs 19-99).

Aah, more insults of my intelligence.
And i am supposed to be the one with an insecurity about intelligence?
 

How do you fail an IQ test? 

No, it's by design. It has to do with the IQ tests reflecting how our scholastic systems present problems. This expression/presentation of problems is not nearly as generic as would obviously seem. People with different environmental contexts (all  the way down to what they watched on tv as a kid) can score differently on these tests for various reasons besides intelligence.
And of course there is the problem of pure motivation (as opposed to intelligence). How can you tell the difference between aptitude and attitude? Would a lazy smart person allways score more than an ambitious but less smart person?
Did you know you can boost your IQ score just by practicing the kinds of specific abstract questions that are asked in a particular IQ test? How is that anything even near general?


So we have this fine grained distribution of something and the best we can do is make a few digital decisions based on that set?
You know there is something incomplete about that.
If you would talk to some of the gifted people you describe they will basically tell you the same thing. Incidentally, there are a lot of very gifted people that do not test well on IQ tests. It just happens that their intelligence is not mostly in solving abstract logic puzzles of the kind seen in IQ tests.


Yes, because it's a serious problem with every single IQ test. Intelligence is not a singular thing.


No, but they do distort the relative differences in intelligence and have no absolute meaning besides relating to the test themselfs.


Yeah, these all matter to a certain degree, especially taking a similarilly formulated test several times or actually training for it. But cultural and developmental factors are much stronger. How well would you do on an IQ test if you had never as a baby played with one of those toys that make you put the right shapes in te right holes? So again, how general is the intelligence you try to measure if it is applied to specific abstract situations?


No, but is does play a big role. By taking an IQ test you also measure the motivation of the person to do these tests. How much effect this has will differ from instance to instance of test being taken.


Nah, mine is fine as it is. It's just that i'm smart enough to understand what they mean.
By the way, the designers of these tests are some of the biggest critics of the same thing. Would you say that this also demonstrates their low intelligence?


I don't think you can get a pilot/surgeon/lawyer/programmer/mechanic/broker with an IQ of 59.
Anyway, the difference between and IQ of 59 and an IQ of 135 is about 98% of the world population.. That's quite some rare people you want to hire for some of the most common jobs in the world..
And you get all kinds of new problems with intelligent people. Most of them are incapable of processing instruction that were not generated by themselfs. If they do manage this then they have internally translated the intructions to their own set. This can be a hit and miss thing if the instructions are simple but strict. They tend to rearrange the system to fit their particular set of instructions instead of just executing the instructions as intended.
So for a lot of tasks it is better to have someone with a suitable intelligence (and experience and insights) instead of having someone with a particularly high IQ.

Yah, I covered that already, in my list of predictable objections to IQ tests beloved by mouth-breathers who fail them.

No need to be sorry, as you aren't informing me of anything beyond the low values of your own mental parameters.


I notice you ignored ^my question^ because the answer is not appealing to your dim mendacity.  How cowardly.

But thanks for illustrating the point in the middle.  

I've read Steven J. Gould's tendentious failed attempt to critique IQ into meaninglessness, and found it far less convincing than The Bell Curve.

You can't even comprehend the complete content of my posts on the subject, and so have zero chance of succeeding where the overrated, politically correct Harvard professor failed.

And what is a "paradime" anyway?  Some new altcoin perhaps?  

Don't be fooled- they aren't.

I'm sorry to inform you, but there is no such thing as general intelligence.
And if there is then our IQ tests are way too specific to measure it

The system is corrupt to the core, the way I see it there is nothing wrong with drug dealers despite the fact that I am an athlete and chose the life of sports over drugs/alcohol, they are responding to a free market and drugs on the darknet have been the best at reducing violence.

what about the bad population of bitcoiners? the drug dealers? they are all over the darknet

Who else stopped reading at "paradime" and began laughing?   

IQ tests measure general intelligence.  Not mathematical knowledge (sorry imaginary algebra girl!)

Results correlate strongly with SAT scores for scholastic aptitude.  Mere coincidence, I'm sure!   

They work great for determining which kids go into the gifted program, and which will be stuck parroting the same boring old loser speech about how meaningless tests are.  Also a coincidence, according to the Idiocracy lobby.   

Bluh-bluh, cultural socioeconomic bias, oh noez!

Bluh-bluh, dimensionless numbers are meaningless!

Bluh-bluh, teaching to the test, test anxiety, self-serving arguments from ignorance, etc.

And the all-time favorite classic "Your I Will is more important than your IQ."

Complaining about IQ tests is a great way to demonstrate both low intelligence *and* an inferiority complex.

Would you rather your pilot/surgeon/lawyer/programmer/mechanic/broker/child be an IQ 59 moron or 135 near-genius?   

Yeah. The hardline is that IQ tests measure your ability to solve IQ tests.

What realy makes it hard is brain specialization.
Often you will see smart people programmed to think along certain paradimes. This makes them utterly impractical to communicate with.
More often than not it's the smart person that's inable to communicate normally simply because they never got around to practicing it and now their brains are too specific to lock easily into other brains.

The smarter the people you work with are the more they behave like a collection of autistic cats.
At least, that's my experience.
Once you get into the 150's you find that everyone has their own view on existance and making an argument, however casual, will result in half these people re-evaluating the meaning of life.

BTW, IQ is not a measure of intelligence.
It's a measure of order of intelligence.
It gives you an order of intelligence, like 120 is more intelligent than 106, but it does not tell you how smart 120 is compared to 106.
It just tells you how likely someone is to be born with that particular IQ.
What you see is that there is little gain from ever higher IQ. The difference in real-life (non IQ-test) performance is much greater when going from 100 to 130 than it is when going from 130 to 160.
So this whole intelligence thing is weird anyway. It's stupid to discuss it.
If you want to be realy realy fair then you will have to conclude that an IQ score is a measure of how well you perform on IQ tests.
This simple truth is by far the most accurate description of IQ.
So what are we talking about anyway?
If you never heared of algebra and heared a 12 year old explain it to you, wouldn't you think she was the most intelligent human being alife?
For a bystander it would certainly seem as if the little girl is much smarter than you.
But what if you were a greek named Archimedes?
You would still be oblivious to algebra and it would still look to an outsider as if the girl was outsmarting you in these math puzzles.
But meanwhile you would have your own body of work that your brain was perfectly capable of dealing with (since it was trained for that) and here is where your intelligence shines.
So if you were to make an IQ test based on symbol manipulation like in algebra, then the girl may come out as having a higher IQ.
On the other hand, if you were to make this test based on geometric relations chances are you, Archimedes, would come out as having the highest IQ.
But all that is OK, because we still haven't got a good idea of what intelligence is supposed to be in the first place!

IQ tests have to be the most bullshit way of identifying a persons intelligence I have ever seen, especially the ones that are largely maths problems because not everyone is good at or likes doing maths.

I think you misinterpret the Dunning-Kruger effect.
You do not have to be dumb to be affected. It's a relative scale.
The smartest people on earth have problems with this phenomenon.
It simply states that people affected will think they are smatrter than they realy are.
It's about thinking you are smarter than you actually are. It's not about being smart or dumb in an absolute way.
Moreover, you synthetically divide the community into 'bitcoiners' and 'detractors' while it's an obvious 'no true scotsman'.

IQ of 160 my ass.... you've been Dunning-Krugering yourself.