[Closed] How intelligent is the average STW poster...

The fun thing is that if you're intelligent, you're more likely to have mediocre idiots as children....regression to the mean and all that.

Er no. Not at all.

You're actually less likely as you're starting from a higher basis genetically. If you were more likely to have "mediocre idiots as children" there would be a negative correlation coefficient for intelligence being passed genetically between generations.

Oh Tom Bless 😆

As I said Backs away but this time chuckling

Bet you come back for a look.

See told you so.......

Hmmmmm cheers for that, not sure that is what I have, I can add up, multiply, divide and subtract no problem. It is when people start substituting letters for numbers. I get genuinely bewildered and confused by stuff like that.

You're actually less likely as you're starting from a higher basis genetically. If you were more likely to have "mediocre idiots as children" there would be a negative correlation coefficient for intelligence being passed genetically between generations.

Oh Tom Bless

[img] [/img]

Heritability is below 1, you are less likely to have children more intelligent than you if you are highly intelligent yourself. Given time, your family tree will regress back to the mean in terms of intelligence.

http://infoproc.blogspot.co.uk/2010/07/assortative-mating-regression-and-all.html

thestabiliser - Member
I've just been for a brain scan. It came back negative.

Turns out I'm a bit of a [i]Tiger[/i]

Grrrrr, yeah baby....

Not all qualifications are based on exams that test memory

I'm a Mensan.

I had a friend who got 5 GCSE's grade C.

For a laugh I encouraged him to go to university with me and study a foundation course. He worked hard, transferred to the university of Leicester and came out with a 2:2 in Computer Science.

He wasn't bright....most degrees value good memory over IQ.

So he got a Desmond from a non-Russell group university? Not sure which side of the argument you're trying to support here...

Not all qualifications are based on exams that test memory

Yeah, Maths, Physics and Chemistry. 😆

So he got a Desmond from a non-Russell group university? Not sure which side of the argument you're trying to support here...

If you hadn't noticed, Leicesters doing better than quite a few of the Russell Group unis. I'd consider a 2:2 in Computer Science as equivalent to a first in English anyway. 😆 Fnaarrr.

I can count to 20 in English and know the Alphabet from A - K

The fun thing is that if you're intelligent, you're more likely to have mediocre idiots as children....regression to the mean and all that.

Errr.. no.

The children of the smartest person in the world are unlikely to be even smarter, but that doesn't mean they'll be "mediocre idiots".

Likewise the children of the faster sprinter in the world are unlikely to be even faster, but that doesn't mean they'll be slow.

It's just that if you are a very rare extreme outlier on a given attribute then the odds are that your children won't be even rarer greater outliers on that same attribute.

If you hadn't noticed, Leicesters doing better than quite a few of the Russell Group unis. I'd consider a 2:2 in Computer Science as equivalent to a first in English anyway.

Haha, yes, definitely. I taught on an undergrad geography fieldclass in the Mojave with some Leicester lecturers - really good bunch. Not sure about the students though 😉

Errr.. no.

The children of the smartest person in the world are unlikely to be even smarter, but that doesn't mean they'll be "mediocre idiots".

Likewise the children of the faster sprinter in the world are unlikely to be even faster, but that doesn't mean they'll be slow.

It's just that if you are a very rare extreme outlier on a given attribute then the odds are that your children won't be even greater outliers on that same attribute.

I've seen some pretty nice calculations that show the effect over time, over several different generations and the drop off is quite considerable. Maybe I should have worded it better, your great grandchildren are likely to end up just as average as everyone else.

Heritability is below 1, you are less likely to have children more intelligent than you if you are highly intelligent yourself. Given time, your family tree will regress back to the mean in terms of intelligence.

http://infoproc.blogspot.co.uk/2010/07/assortative-mating-regression-and-all.html

None of which means you are more likely to have "mediocre idiots as children". Do you actually understand any of that article?

Whether or not the family tree will regress to the mean will also depends on whether mating choice is uncorrelated with intelligence which won't be true in most cases. So if you have above average people selecting above average mates, they won't regress back to the mean at all. Just look at height in Denmark as an example (although height and intelligence have different genetic correlations).

But that would mean we're all getting less intelligent over the generations, I'm more intelligent than my parents so a recessive gene thing?

A good memory alone isn't going to get you a PhD, for example. I bet there's a few with PhD's on here, though that doesn't mean you can give good biking advice!

I'm descended from a slack-jawed idiot* who was transported to Australia for being a rubbish thief - so, you know, as a family we're making progress.

*That's really how he was described on the court papers!

Ok one last time with numbers
Let’s say the mean is 100 [ it is]
Let’s say idiots are 60
Genius is 140
Let say they all breed only with each other let’s say the offspring results are
Idiots average = 80
Genius = 120

They both regress to the mean but they also have more intelligent or less intelligent children on average

For your broader point to be true the average for both would need to be the actual average for all [100] it’s not [ it may even need to be low average seeing as you said more likely to have idiots]so whilst it regresses to the mean [everything does] your broader point about more likely to have idiots is false.

The fun thing is that if you're intelligent, you're more likely to have mediocre idiots as children....regression to the mean and all that.

You are more likely to have mediocre bright kids but not idiots. Idiots are more likely to have idiots. Given enough time /generations [ I assume more than 10 generations possibly more not sure ] and enough sampling you will get everything returning to the average/mean assuming the sample size is large enough

Amusingly [ and I wish i had read it before posting] that is what your own "supporting piece/ link" shows as well

FWIW i have not seen research with real world figures [ would be interested] with bright parent and offspring over generations to see what happens but "selective breeding" for intelligence would clearly work and I dont think you start with idiots as parents

Chuckles some more [ deffo leaving this time* as tom is belligerent if not correct - to be fair you are sort of correct here]

* i pinky promise

You are more likely to have mediocre bright kids but not idiots. Idiots are more likely to have idiots. Given enough time /generations [ I assume more than 10 generations possibly more not sure ] and enough sampling you will get everything returning to the average/mean assuming the sample size is large enough

Only if you assume mate selection is random wrt intelligence. If not, you will never regress back to the mean as you're continually selecting with a positive bias.

None of which means you are more likely to have "mediocre idiots as children". Do you actually understand any of that article?

Males tend to choose mates roughly equivalent or less intelligent than themselves no? So your children are likely to pick partners less intelligent than yourself, still probably more intelligent than the mean though. Regression to the mean is still going to operate in the same way for them, hence your grandchildren are likely to be even thicker than you.

I guess I was being a bit absurd.

For your broader point to be true the average for both would need to be the actual average for all [100] it’s not

True, but people don't tend to marry outside their ethnic group....

Males tend to choose mates roughly equivalent or less intelligent than themselves no?

Aha, this is where I went wrong.

I guess I was being a bit absurd.

Yes. Both my kids are more intelligent than me, and they are 6 and 2.5yo.

Measuring intelligence by test results is like measuring digestion by turd length.

Males tend to choose mates roughly equivalent or less intelligent than themselves no?

Now you've been and gone and done it !!

You are more likely to have mediocre bright kids but not idiots.

Semantics

😛

I notice Mr Woppit is yet to comment on this thread...

I notice Mr Woppit is yet to comment on this thread...

By my calculations, 67,403 forum members are yet to comment on this thread. Are you going to call out the other 67,402 as well?

Mr Woppit has shown in the past that he puts great value on his intelligence...

Its is a pretty good way
IIRC the higher and the better the qualification the brighter you are

The point I was making was that qualifications aren't a great way of "comparing" intelligence.

Meaning, that just because one person has a Degree and another left school after CGSE's, that means nothing if you are trying to compare their intelligence.

Some people just decide further education isn't for them, nothing to do with lack of ability or intelligence.

Paper qualifications are a good indicator of the intelligence of an individual, but can't really be used as a comparison (unless the same exams were taken by all parties)

I am a total success story though of course, I have 2 degrees and a living wage job at 46

I have 3 degrees including a PhD and work part time I a supermarket - I've failed at life ha ha ha

Well history has been made... for once I agree with nealglover!!

Intelligence has so many aspects~ for example:

Gymnasts (and slopestylers, FMXers, Freestylers etc)= spatial intelligence

Card sharps = Emotional+Mathematic intelligence

Politicians = Bullshit genius

etc etc

there are so many aspects to intelligence that are not easy quantified by standardized curricula that qualifications generally entail.

A great academic may be a flawed individual in the real world, just as many successful businessmen have limited qualifications.

I went to the scientologists for an IQ test, they told me I was so clever that nobody would ever understand me or be my equal except for them, and I would never be happy unless I joined. Which ironically must mean they thought I was pretty stupid.

I am a scientist with a PhD.
I'm not great at words-with-friends unless I cheat.

I have tested more than 5 times of: 140-145 I.Q. points (Mensa framed certificates on Mum's wall with my degree)
but still feel thick as a plank and my English grammar needs improving.

I teach maths, physics, biology and chemistry to A' level.
Can also read and speak 3 languages and speak another two.
I've rebuilt engines, bathrooms, kitchens, computers, bikes, and Java.

I'm a failure in my families eyes! The black sheep. So far nothing has been challenging so lately I'm been teaching myself to play guitar until I get bored again. Also have ADHD.

Need to open my own business one day, get rich and do something?

Another piece of paper?

We're all equals and even the Queen sits on the toilet. Except nobody comes running when I shout Jeeves, you may wipe now.

I'm not stupid, I can hold involved conversations on many things, except politics, were many people can out-argue me with no trouble at all. There are many here who are far more knowledgeable than I am on many things, I'm just a generalist.
Thanks to Junkyard for the link to discalclia, at last I have a name for what I've always thought of as a kind of numeric dyslexia, and the connected spacial issue; I've never been able to really do maths, and those quizzes where there are similar patterns, or where you have to fit a bunch of random shapes into a given space have always foxed me, now I know why.

yours the person with a degree in Psychology

hehehe! Bachelors hehehe!

Only one poster has got the answer 100% correct.

My borderline dyslexia seems to infer to others I am thick. Saves me a job. 😉

My borderline dyslexia seems to infer to others I am thick. Saves me a job

imply, not infer

Only one poster has got the answer 100% correct.

+ haddock

(Jonba?)

Measuring intelligence by test results is like measuring digestion by turd length.

*applauds*

I always assumed offspring of the wealthy were a bit dim because of inbreeding. So now I can pretend I'm a bit more intelligent having read that research 🙂

The answer is 'not very' if this thread is anything to go by!

http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/doctors-pharmacists-will-i-die

My borderline dyslexia seems to infer to others I am thick. Saves me a job

imply, not infer

That's what he said he just spelt it wrong.

Frankenstein - Member

I teach maths, physics, biology and chemistry to A' level.

Well the physics and biology must come in useful.

[img] [/img]

How intelligent is the average STW poster...

How do you measure that?

I have colleagues who have answers to everything but somehow they have problems dealing with others so I can't decide whether they are intelligent or emotionally fused wrongly ... 😯

Some insist on being rational but they contradict themselves all the time in their actions. They try to or pretend to be rational deep down they are rather different person.

Hence my conclusion is that they are all ZMs in disguised. 😛