Am I missing something here?
Your sarcasm detector?
See, I did wonder, but I find sarcasm much harder to detect in text. The post didn’t seem too dissimilar to TJ’s. (Apologies for any offence).
Whats your issue Gobuchal? I was merely trying to use my own experience to show how limited IQ tests are as a measure of intelligence
Anyway - to shift it back to the OP
Its also a known effect that you get regression to the mean. IE two parents of 120 IQ are likely to have a child of 115 IQ. simlarly to parents of 85 IQ tend to have children 95 IQ.
High intelligence seems to be a a different effect Perhaps a mutation?
I can ride a bike with no handlebars
Isn't this one of those things where it's very hard to separate out nature vs. nurture? The brain, especially the young brain, is very plastic - so parental behaviour will influence the child and affect how their brain grows.
The analogy with a computer is a really bad one - the human brain is nothing like a computer.
The analogy with a computer is a really bad one - the human brain is nothing like a computer.
It was just an example of the difference between knowledge and intelligence and how both are needed.
Knowledge is knowing a tomato is a fruit. Wisdom is not putting it in a fruit salad
Whats your issue Gobuchal?
Apologies. Just taking the piss a bit.
I'm sure you are a really smart and decent bloke in "real" life.
But sometimes your apparent lack of self awareness when you post on here is extremely funny.
Posts like "exactly - I was tested a lot at school and also out of school." added as an edit. 😀
No worries. a bit savage for pisstaking. 🙂
bencooper - Member
Isn't this one of those things where it's very hard to separate out nature vs. nurture? The brain, especially the young brain, is very plastic - so parental behaviour will influence the child and affect how their brain grows.
Well to make sure we know how about some tests, collect 20 of the first born and raise them in isolation, then 20 second born, a few sets of identical twins should make some handy control subjects, of course we would need to
gobuchul - Member
...So, not really a true genius, just very superior?...
Strange isn't it?
Of all the various talents a person can have, eg musical ability, athletic performance, strength, etc, the one that must not be mentioned is intelligence.
Otherwise the mean regress into nastiness... 🙂
We can measure musical ability, athletic performance etc very well. Intelligence is in some ways a little more abstract and doesn't always translate well to other things - it's almost like a potential - like the footballers who didn't want to train it's all good and well having the skills but if you don't use them what are they.
Flip side is I don't meet many people who rush to tell me their 100m time or what they can bench press
the one that must not be mentioned is intelligence.
Most of the ones you mention are forms of intelligence.
one that must not be mentioned is intelligence.
The other ones can be "measured" to a greater or lesser degree.
Is "intelligence" a talent?
What is "intelligence"? Is it the capacity of the brain for processing information? Or something else?
Is somebody like Paul Gascoigne intelligent? At his peak, his brain processed information incredibly quickly, performing calculations and then sending signals to his muscles that allowed him to kick a ball with fantastic speed, control and accuracy.
Is having a powerful brain a measure of intelligence?
Here's a few logs for the fire
[img] 
[/img]
[img] 
[/img]
Blimey! This intelligence lark all sounds really, really complicated. I’m actually grateful to be a bit thick
Davidtaylforths ‘system’ with the change, though?
MIND
BLOWN!
If I tried to instigate a similar system round here, would we have to pay you royalties? And how would we work out how much....
If I tried to instigate a similar system round here, would we have to pay you royalties?
I've just filed a suit with the court of common sense for an injunction on that one, I've been doing that for years.
Yeah.... so you say
You’ve never mentioned it before?
This idea that 'highly intelligent' people are impractical or socially cack-handed in some way is bollocks wheeled out by the dim to make them feel less inadequate.
Here's a few logs for the fire
The theory of multiple intelligences has always seemed entirely trivial to me. I read quite a bit about it and it never offered any insight deeper than 'different people are good at different stuff'.
But sometimes your apparent lack of self awareness when you post on here is extremely funny.
December the 5th, and we have the understatement of the year :D.
The theory of multiple intelligences has always seemed entirely trivial to me. I read quite a bit about it and it never offered any insight deeper than 'different people are good at different stuff'.
It's also a bit "Everyone's a unique and special snowflake".
I don't think calling lots of different talents and abilities "intelligence" really helps - why not just say someone's good with their hands or really thoughtful and caring?
gobuchul - Member
...Is "intelligence" a talent?...
I hesitated before calling it that, but couldn't think of another characteristic for the raw processing power of the mind.
However, the selection IQ tests my generation were subjected to in our youth couldn't have been applied if we had not already acquired a significant skill set of reading and computation and general knowledge. Hence a kid who had been educationally nurtured may have had an advantage in the selection tests.
Is that unfair?
Would we think so if it was a selection for say, a football* academy, where some kids had been specifically trained and others not?
Almost all gifts we call talent have been enhanced by some form of training.
I do suspect it is unfair when discussing the intelligence of the likes of the African bushmen. We would not last long in their environment without help, and must look stupid to them.
However the point I was making in support of TJ, was that if he had mentioned his football* talent no one would have felt fit to make negative comment.
*substitute whatever talent you like, eg music, art, etc
Both our kids are cleverer than either me or Mrs Seadog. Especially me. Hmmm...?
Definately not genetics, more to do with nurture rather than nature IMO.
However the point I was making in support of TJ, was that if he had mentioned his football* talent no one would have felt fit to make negative comment.*substitute whatever talent you like, eg music, art, etc
Well if TJ* had claimed he was a "vastly superior" footballer to the majority of the population, I would expect him to of played at at least at a semi-pro, National League level or above.
If however, his only evidence for the claim, was that he had been decent and in the school team, then I would of made a negative comment about his claim.
*Other posters are available.
Nurture and opportunity probably has more to do with it, if you add in a bit of natural ability then things improve again.
Having had none of the above I assume my ability to talk bollocks has kept me safe.
Never underestimate how far talking bollocks can get you. I'd go as far as to say that its the number one ability needed in the modern workplace
Thank god!!! 😀
Gobuchul..re: Paul Gascoigne..
" performing calculations and sending signals to his muscles that allowed him to kick a ball with fantastic speed,control & accuracy "
Although I agree entirely with the point you were making that is possibly the worst description as to the genius of Paul Gascoigne I've ever come across 😀
Any pro.footballer can do what you have described ..what set Gazza apart was his ability to second guess what his opponent was going to do to try and stop him and then doing completely the opposite ..an ability /skill that most pro footballers will never get near to.
I saw his debut at Newcastle when he was 18 years old as a sub coming on against Liverpool ..with his first touch he then beat four players in his own penalty area cracked the ball out to Waddle on the wing kept running and got the ball back about 30 yards from the Liverpool goal and hit a shot that dipped just over the bar.
I think everyone in the ground that day believed they had seen the birth of a footballing genius.
Off the field though thick as a brick and as mad as a box of frogs and still to this day pushes the self destruct button ..not the first and won't be the last..Bestie , Marsh , Bowles..to name a few ..
Supreme sporting intelligence...but if you told him he had bodily kinesthetic intelligence he would probably nod and look blank...
The problem is the use of tests to determine intelligence. Tests by their very nature can be practised.
A guy on my degree got a first but by no means was the best chemist. He did have a photographic memory but stick him in a lab and ask him synthesise a specific compound to purity and he'd struggle. He could "see" the path to the answer when he'd seen it before but couldn't use his mental tools to problem solve.
..an ability /skill that most pro footballers will never get near to.
However, by your own definition of football genius, Gascoigne, is surpassed by another product of Wallsend Boys Club, Beardsley.
I don't want to get in to a football debate here but I used Gascoigne as an example as it always gets a response from the football haters, who see him as the typical thick footballer and hate hearing described as intelligent.
Davidtaylforths ‘system’ with the change, though?
I still can't get my head round that and believe me, I am great at intelligence. I got an A+ for it at school.
Binners post is spot on. It's about who you know and all that. The amount of professionals I know that have talked their way in, then when shit hits the fan they go into hiding.
Not read the entire thread, but I think IQ tests are a reasonable measure of something, not sure if it can be classed as intelligence though.
I sat two different tests when I was younger, one for mensa, and one as an entry "exam" for an IT training course.
Both tests were designed so that everyone can get answers right, but its impossible to finish in the time limit. So, what they are testing is your speed of logical thought. How many correct answers can you give in the time given.
Isn't this one of those things where it's very hard to separate out nature vs. nurture?
the point of OP's clip is that Plomin has proved this. Genetics DOES play a role in intelligence, this is a fact. twin studies, animal studies, endlessly, to the point where it's not really debatable and more experiments are pretty pointless. the measurable Variable is there; end. The only additional information needed now is to identify the actual genes responsible (bearing in mind that could be well into the thousands, all contributing a teeny amount)
The difficulty is attaching value and what to do with that information, now it's been defined. Do we identify children who WILL find learning harder, for instance. Do we identify children who WILL excel given the right stimulus?
EDIT: what Plomin says is that given if you can identify the genes that predict intelligence, you can skip all the nuture stuff and say with pretty much pin point accuracy "person x will be intelligent" What he's not saying is that "person X will be succesfull, kind, rounded human being"
It's also a bit "Everyone's a unique and special snowflake".
Its been round far longer than that. In part its driven by looking at other species.
I don't think calling lots of different talents and abilities "intelligence" really helps
Why call IQ intelligence? Its just as arbitrary as toolmaking or language.
Those bushmen will need excellent general purpose intelligence. Good memory for the different foods and locations, planning and so on.
Gobuchul ..understood ( but.. Beardsley brilliant but not in the same class ..and I've more reason to agree with you if it were true)
Gascoigne never played for Wallsend Boys Club 😉
I doubt the bushman would be much help at telling you which knife to use at a formal dinner, or even how to survive in Greenland though and the advice they'd give you about the Kalahari has very little to do with intelligence.
Correct decision-making in matters of life and death strike me as a better definition of intelligence than memorising etiquette.
Gascoigne never played for Wallsend Boys Club
Well, that's a surprise, I always thought he did!
😀
Correct decision-making in matters of life and death strike me as a better definition of intelligence than memorising etiquette.
Both are useful in a particular time and place.
At the court of a King where everyone is a backstabbing arse then not knowing which spoon to use would limit your career and hence life prospects.
To claim that being able to recognise and prepare say 100+ plants isnt more complicated than learning formal etiquette is an interesting one though. Especially as the tribe would likely have equally complex etiquette for their gatherings.
and both driven by your genes...
and both driven by your genes..
Both driven by a mixture of factors.
Which is the entire problem when people get overly excited about one measure or another of intelligence.
Yes genes play a part but that can easily be masked by environmental factors.
The easiest example for IQ is the average yank in 1900 measured using todays IQ tests would end up as mentally impaired. Do you really think that is true?
Yes genes play a part but that can easily be masked by environmental factors.
Sort of, Genes are by far and away the largest part. Genes mark out intelligence: End of discussion. A person with the right gene mix (what that is at this point isn't clear) WILL have greater intelligence in a given mix of people. It is a measurable variable.
Envirnomental factors may give that person less life chances, perhaps worse health outcomes, worse socio-economic outcomes...but NO impact on how intelligent they are.
Driven by your jeans?
[img] 
?itemid=7595560[/img]
those are the wrong jeans...
jus' sayin
Very wrong jeans.
[i]Genes are by far and away the largest part. Genes mark out intelligence: End of discussion. A person with the right gene mix (what that is at this point isn't clear) WILL have greater intelligence in a given mix of people.[/i]
See, I partly agree with this, but I'm still a "everyone's a different snowflake" theory kinda guy. Siblings can have markedly different intelligence levels. I know this from my own family.
