Graeme

Although I realize that the argument against the dogmatic faith in IQ tests is completely valid, I don't think they should be thrown out simply because of their somewhat narrow spectrum.

IQ tests DO basically just test how good one is at taking IQ tests, but it's a level playing field - and the 'skill' of taking an IQ test well is not that likely to be one that a great number of people have intentionally developed.

So while the IQ test method of measuring intelligence may not be perfect, it DOES tell us some things, even if simply on a comparative basis.

Mr. Sammi

THE IDEA THAT : Intelligence is a rate at which one learns a specific quantity of knowledge at a given depth of understanding.

(1) How then is the rate applied? This is only the cross product of knowledge and understanding in relation to a clock.

Let us suppose Jasmine and Sarch are both in the same class (just a supposition), they are both given homestudy on the fly-by-wire system of F18s. They both embark on the projects at 6pm, however Sarah drinks milk every half-an-hour and takes a peek at TV while she drinks. Jasmine just drives on through. Sarah finishes her homestudy at 11pm in time for the "do you know where your children are contest", BUT, Jasmine had already done so 20 minutes before.

The next day at the round-robin disussion both did equally well.

BUT according to your definition, Jasmine had a faster rate than Sarah and as such SHE is the more intelligent. This sounds very very fishy to ME. How do you argue this headlock?

Sammi Na Boodie ()

dannyk

I wouldnt factor in the time spent drinking milk and watching tv as relevant to her learning rate about f18's.

Mr. Sammi

dannyk, albeit, this time spending milk may be irrelevant, which leads us to the point of which times are relevant to the measure. Is blinking time relevant? OR pausing for reflection relevant to the rate?

Does she have to carry around a stop-watch, which she clicks on everytime she seems buried in the books AND which she clicks off whenever she raises her head?

Is this not impossible to measure?

What about the person who does drink water to take a pause, but keeps repeating the information in their head like a mantra, while it seems like they are pausing.

* * *

d/dt (dk.du) = d/dt dk . d/dt du.

Hopelessly said how does one evaluate d/dt dk in terms of realising the validity of dk. Similar terms hold in evaluating du. (dk implies the knowledge while du implies the understanding).

In other words : How will one know that one knows? is this one wise enough to follow?

Sammi Na Boodie ()

John Page

No, assertoric.

dannyk

I think it is very difficult to measure intelligence and as you state probably impossible . I think the difficulty is comparing intelligence increases as the learning time periods become shorter and shorter. How do we measure instantaneous intelligence activity?
I think a similar analogy is the one hundred meter sprint. The winner is commonly recognised as the fastest man on earth. But did he run the fastest in the race?
In your example , they both left school at the same time , and presumably both did well in the discussions at the same time. I would say by the definition they are equally intelligent 'as measured' by this 'test'.If we want to separate their intelligence further, we need a new test.

S.A.TAN

To AtlanticCitySlave

I agree with you that that (my posting which you have placed in quotation marks) was not what you said, I think it very obvious that that was what I said. And since what I said was not meant to paraphrase what you said, what I said (or wrote to be precise) is obviously not a different form of what you said and hence, quite clearly, what I said was said with the full intention of conveying what I meant and not what you meant. And what I meant was to disagree with what you said and what you meant.

You see, right now we are having a dispute over the term "justified" which you used in your first posting.

Obviously your definition of "justified" is much broader than mine and that is why, for you, people can still be justified even if their understanding of a particular term is vague. Whereas for me, people are not justified in using a particular term if they cannot formulate a clear understanding of it.

I propose that we resolve this issue of what justified means so that we do not engage each other at cross purposes.

S.A.TAN

To snatch balance

Do you live in your own world?

In your own world, you can assign whatever term to whatever you see.

You will know it when you see it but that does not mean that other people will know it when they see it.

Can I ask you what is the purpose of communication? To use terms with meanings that are different from what the people you are talking/writing to would use them for? (Its okay to do so actually, but you jolly well have to tell them that it is different and what exactly your term means so that they don't engage you at cross-purposes)

U say that by using my definition, one could refer to certain idiot savants as being very intelligient (ACSlave, please note, this is what I meant by paraphrasing)

Well, if you want to classify the people that I classify intelligent as idiots, you have to do two things

1)state the characteristics of idiocy

2)demonstrate how the attributes that I have used in my definition are also the attributes of idiocy

So there, any criticism is welcome

excreationist

I agree with Kharakov that intelligence involves patterns... it would be about finding/recognizing patterns... well that's what ordinary logical-type intelligence is about. Maybe things like emotional and musical(?) intelligence, etc, involve learning patterns as well and applying them. Although those kinds are more specialized.

Kharakov

excreationist-

I always thought everything was patterns, and that the measurement of intelligence is how well our mind duplicates external patterns internally.

Words are just another thing that I try to match up with all the patterns that are around. Me like patterns.

-k