rigorousintuition.ca

82_28 » Mon Feb 22, 2016 4:29 pm wrote:I think the thing is one can only do so much. You aren't going to talk a racist out of being racist by argument alone. One must set examples with an open heart and hopefully good will come of it. People are set in their ways, I know I am. You could never persuade me to have an opinion because of skin color or culture etc. First off it's no soul's fault for landing on Earth the way they are. None of us asked to be born, right. Put a white toddler, a black toddler, an Asian toddler, a Persian toddler, a Native American toddler etc into a playpen and they will play together. Sure there might be little fights and fits of selfishness but they will play and for the most part naturally share and learn. It's when you get to the ideological stage of life where this shit gets imprinted, I think. Phenotypes are just that, the way you look.

I used to dye my hair all the time to set myself apart or something. Never have gotten a piercing or tattoo. But it seems to be some grand phenomenon to carry with you where you're from what you've been told to be about. All my girlfriends over like god, 20ish years got tons of tattoos and I begged each and every one to not do it when they said they were going to get a new one. Wanting to change your appearance is odd to me. It does come down to appearance though. How many times have I heard "you seriously don't have a tat?"

All told, when it comes to appearance I go the other direction. I don't think that makes any completely cogent sense, but I am going to hit submit anyway.

American Dream » Mon Feb 22, 2016 11:34 am wrote:WR, wondering what your thoughts are on 82's comments about anti-Racism...

Wombaticus Rex » Mon Feb 22, 2016 5:12 pm wrote:
...The Bell Curve is real. That's not White Supremacy, that's statistics. If anything it is Jewish and Asian Supremacy, and coincidentally, both sports teams tend to get omitted entirely from navel-gazing American discussions on "Race." That same culture war dynamic of lowering the resolution of factual detail and escalating the rhetoric makes it difficult to speak out against in-group mythology without being immediately identified with the very worst of their out-group opposition...

Naming the paradoxes

(1) The Factor Analysis Paradox: Factor analysis shows a first principal component called "g" or general intelligence that seems to bind performance on the various WISC subtests together. However, IQ gains over time show score gains on the WISC subtests occurring independently of one another. How can intelligence be both one and many?

(2) The Intelligence Paradox: If huge IQ gains are intelligence gains, why are we not stuck by the extraordinary subtlety of our children's conversation? Why do we not have to make allowances for the limitations of our parents? A difference of some 18 points in the average IQ over two generations ought to be highly visible.

(3) The Mental Retardation Paradox: In 1900, the average IQ scored against current norms was somewhere between 50 and 70. If IQ gains are in any sense real, we are driven to the absurd conclusion that a majority of our ancestors were mentally retarded.

(4) The Identical Twins Paradox: Twin studies show that genes dominate individual differences in IQ and that environmental effects are feeble. IQ gains are so great as to signal the existence of environmental factors of enormous potency. How can environment be both so feeble and so potent?

The solution in shorthand

(1) Solution to the Factor Analysis Paradox: The WISC subtests measure a variety of cognitive skills that are functionally independent and responsive to changes in social priorities over time. The inter-correlations that engender "g" are binding only when comparing individuals within a static social context.

(2) Solution to the Intelligence Paradox: Asking whether IQ gains are intelligence gains is the wrong question because it implies all or nothing cognitive progress. The 20th century has seen some cognitive skills make great gains, while others have been in the doldrums. To assess cognitive trends, we must dissect "intelligence" into solving mathematical problems, interpreting the great works of literature, finding on-the-spot solutions, assimilating the scientific world view, critical acumen, and wisdom.

(3) Solution to the Mental Retardation Paradox: Our ancestors in 1900 were not mentally retarded. Their intelligence was anchored in everyday reality. We differ from them in that we can use abstractions and logic and the hypothetical to attack the formal problems that arise when science liberates thought from concrete referents. Since 1950, we have become more ingenious in going beyond previously learned rules to solve problems on the spot.

(4) Solution to the Identical Twins Paradox: At a given time, genetic differences between individuals (within a cohort) are dominant but only because they have hitched powerful environmental factors to their star. Trends over time (between cohorts) liberate environmental factors from the sway of genes and once unleashed, they can have a powerful cumulative effect.

We review new findings and new theoretical developments in the field of intelligence. New findings include the following:

(a) Heritability of IQ varies significantly by social class.
(b) Almost no genetic polymorphisms have been discovered that are consistently associated with variation in IQ in the normal range.
(c) Much has been learned about the biological underpinnings of intelligence.
(d) “Crystallized” and “fluid” IQ are quite different aspects of intelligence at both the behavioral and biological levels.
(e) The importance of the environment for IQ is established by the 12-point to 18-point increase in IQ when children are adopted from working-class to middle-class homes.
(f) Even when improvements in IQ produced by the most effective early childhood interventions fail to persist, there can be very marked effects on academic achievement and life outcomes.
(g) In most developed countries studied, gains on IQ tests have continued, and they are beginning in the developing world.
(h) Sex differences in aspects of intelligence are due partly to identifiable biological factors and partly to socialization factors.
(i) The IQ gap between Blacks and Whites has been reduced by 0.33 SD in recent years.

We report theorizing concerning
(a) the relationship between working memory and intelligence,
(b) the apparent contradiction between strong heritability effects on IQ and strong secular effects on IQ,
(c) whether a general intelligence factor could arise from initially largely independent cognitive skills,
(d) the relation between self-regulation and cognitive skills, and
(e) the effects of stress on intelligence.

Wombaticus Rex » Mon Feb 22, 2016 12:12 pm wrote:

American Dream » Mon Feb 22, 2016 11:34 am wrote:WR, wondering what your thoughts are on 82's comments about anti-Racism...

While this may come as a shock to many of you here, the fact I have differing opinions from many (if not most) of you doesn't bother me very much. I am not hugely attached to them, and I am pretty fond of you guys. Further still, I can both appreciate and understand the arguments many of you make without it having any effect on the ideas I've been working through since approximately 1988. I have certainly had my mind changed many times over due to interactions here, but it doesn't happen often. Often in relation to the amount of time I spend here and the amount of content I digest.

American Dream » Mon Feb 22, 2016 1:29 pm wrote:You presented much more as a left/liberal friendly person the first several years I was here.

Did something change? If so, when?

The Prometheus Society is a high IQ society, similar to Mensa International, but much more restrictive. The entry test is designed to be passable by 1 in 30,000 of the population,[3] while Mensa entry is achievable by 1 in 50.[4] The society produces a magazine, Gift of Fire, published ten times a year.

http://216.224.180.96/~prom/oldsite/articles/changingface.html
...
The "classical" education highly valued by the erstwhile British aristocracy emphasized linguistic skills almost exclusively; youths were taught predominantly literature, philosophy, ancient Greek and history. In a more technologically oriented age, some of the most respected scholars of that time might have seemed profoundly inept or "one sided;" conversely, many modern scientists—esteemed for their acute mathematical and spatial reasoning—might have been judged "ill fit for higher learning" or "unintelligent" by an educational system which focused entirely on literary accomplishment.

In our own era, the ability to reason analytically is deemed vital to the advancement of technology and, thus, is stressed on many intelligence tests. Because all information is communicated through the verbal modes of speech and writing, vocabulary and linguistic reasoning are considered important indicators of "mental capacity." The ability to "rote memorize"—vital to the retention of knowledge in a pre-literate era and important in the learning of complicated ecclesiastical rituals in the medieval period—has been de-emphasized; moreover, the focus on technologically useful forms of thinking has reduced the value placed on linguistic aptitude in isolation.

Thus, the mental abilities deserving emphasis—the criteria for assessing intelligence—may change with the times; men of extreme but one sided talent, deemed "brilliant" in one era, might be considered unremarkable in another. In evaluating intelligence, we measure how well an individual has assimilated the knowledge valued by his culture, how well he has learned to reason in conformity with the current styles of thinking, and how well he can adapt (on a cognitive level) to the conventions of his time. The particular knowledge and mental skills valued by a given society, extensively taught in school and used frequently in practical daily affairs, are indispensable to academic or professional success and should be mastered quickly and in depth by any ''bright," receptive individual. Assessing what has been learned as an index of what can be learned, and attempting to predict future scholastic achievement, intelligence tests will measure the extent to which an individual's thinking conforms to the pattern currently deemed most "desirable.'' A man talented at rote memorization but inept at deductive reasoning would not be expected to score highly on intelligence tests, or even to appear bright before his peers, in an era which de-emphasizes retentive powers and stresses "scientific" thinking.
...

The body of modern knowledge is enormous—too huge for one individual to master—even 5 lifetimes; continual advancement, especially in the technologies, assures that every man will always be "slightly ignorant" (even regarding the developments in his own specialty) and that, inevitably, he will often need to consult references for an explanation of new discoveries. The efficient use of such reference sources, necessary for adaptation to an ever-changing society, is of vital practical importance; gaining access to the facts of interest, when (abundant) information is stored in a complex manner, is facilitated by a divergent type of thinking called "resourcefulness." This "resourcefulness," as a key determinant of success in the modern world, may be a valid criterion by which to evaluate adult intelligence.

An intelligence test, adapted to the needs of modern society, should assess the examiner's ability to use reference sources (resourcefulness) more than his speed of performing arithmetic computations or his memory for esoteric definitions. Test-takers might actually be handed dictionaries and encyclopedias upon entering the examination hall and many problems, requiring a comprehension of obscure terms, would really measure how well the examinee uses the reference sources at his disposal: the question, for example, "What does a physician mean by 'succussion splash'?" might be easily answered by anyone who thought to consult the medical dictionary handed to him at the start of the test. Because the ability to add and subtract quickly is of little practical importance in today's computerized society, all examinees would be permitted to use calculators to solve the quantitative problems. A flair for learning Latin roots and a knack for performing sums at lightning speed, like a talent for rote memorizing (ecclesiastical rituals), are forms of mental ability irrelevant to modern society; in education and in testing, far more emphasis should be placed on "resourcefulness"—currently a much more pertinent ability.

Sociological conditions and technological innovations (such as the development of writing, the invention of the printing press, the advent of the computer) determine what particular mental abilities are most valued during a given period; these prized abilities are considered, by themselves, to be the marks of high intelligence. In short, the definition of intelligence changes with the times; so, too, should our means of evaluating it.

....a knack for performing sums at lightning speed, like a talent for rote memorizing (ecclesiastical rituals), are forms of mental ability irrelevant to modern society...

https://www.theguardian.com/science/ale ... athematics
Or rather, it requires contestants to use the mental image of an abacus. Since when you get very good at the abacus it is possible to calculate simply by imagining one.

In Flash Anzan, 15 numbers are flashed consecutively on a giant screen. Each number is between 100 and 999. The challenge is to add them up.

Simple, right? Except the numbers are flashed so fast you can barely read them.

I was at this year’s championship to see Takeo Sasano, a school clerk in his 30s, break his own world record: he got the correct answer when the numbers were flashed in 1.70 seconds. In the clip below, taken shortly before, the 15 numbers flash in 1.85 seconds. The speed is so fast I doubt you can even read one of the numbers.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19679763

In the present study, we examined cortical activation as a function of two different calculation strategies for mentally solving multidigit multiplication problems. The school strategy, equivalent to long multiplication, involves working from right to left. The expert strategy, used by “lightning” mental calculators (Staszewski, 1988), proceeds from left to right. The two strategies require essentially the same calculations, but have different working memory demands (the school strategy incurs greater demands). The school strategy produced significantly greater early activity in areas involved in attentional aspects of number processing (posterior superior parietal lobule, PSPL) and mental representation (posterior parietal cortex, PPC), but not in a numerical magnitude area (horizontal intraparietal sulcus, HIPS) or a semantic memory retrieval area (lateral inferior prefrontal cortex, LIPFC). An ACT-R model of the task successfully predicted BOLD responses in PPC and LIPFC, as well as in PSPL and HIPS.

http://psychiatry.wustl.edu/Resources/LiteratureList/2001/January/Pesenti.pdf

Calculating prodigies are individuals who are exceptional at quickly and accurately solving complex mental calculations. With positron emission tomography (PET), we investigated the neural bases of the cognitive abilities of an expert calculator and a group of non-experts, contrasting complex mental calculation to memory retrieval of arithmetic facts. We demonstrated that calculation expertise was not due to increased activity of processes that exist in non-experts; rather, the expert and the non-experts used different brain areas for calculation. We found that the expert could switch between short-term effort-requiring storage strategies and highly efficient episodic memory encoding and retrieval, a process that was sustained by right prefrontal and medial temporal areas.

http://216.224.180.96/~prom/oldsite/art ... tiple.html
Interpreting the results of a factor analysis is a bit like attempting to read the entrails of a chicken, as the ancient Roman priests once did to discover the will of the gods. It is more difficult than actually carrying out the mathematical procedures, which are quite difficult in themselves. It takes a lot of practice, and even a skilled interpreter can easily go wrong. The trickiest part of the problem, but also the most fun, is naming the factors that the procedure reveals. Sometimes factors can't be characterized verbally at all. The safest procedure, and one often followed in the investigation of intelligence, is to assign letters to the factors discovered instead of just names. This is why the general factor is called g, and why special factors such as verbal comprehension is called v, verbal fluency called w, spatial ability called k, and so on. How does an investigator tell if he has discovered a g factor? The rule of thumb is that he has found a g when one of his factors accounts for at least twice as much variance as any other factor in the same analysis. In the case of intelligence tests, it usually turns out that one factor alone accounts for more of the variance than all the other factors combined. What is often misunderstood by laymen, and sometimes forgotten even by experts, is that all a factor analysis can do is cut up the data in a mathematically parsimonious way. In order to detect a factor, at least two of the tests in the battery must load on that factor. If there aren't two tests in a battery that load on verbal ability, for example, no verbal factor will be uncovered. That's why it took so long to discover that there were two g factors, fluid and crystallized. Conventional IQ tests measure both kinds of intelligence, but the loadings on fluid g are so small that at first it took a special trick to identify it. Once Cattell suspected its existence, he made up new tests that loaded heavily on fluid g, and used them to prove that there definitely was another form of intelligence than that measured by conventional IQ tests. A similar situation presently exists with reference to the new theories of multiple intelligence. It may be that there really is a third form of intelligence not yet confirmed simply because no test has yet been invented to measure it. As things stand now, only fluid intelligence and crystallized intelligence are definitely known to exist. I joined the high IQ societies looking for people with strong insight abilities. Instead, I found an army of logical analysts who wanted to nitpick everything to death. I really shouldn't have been surprised at this, as this was the very quality they were originally selected for. Nevertheless, I not only felt disappointed with the high IQ societies, I also felt I didn't belong in them despite my IQ. The fact is, I don't enjoy arguments of any kind, and logical puzzles bore me. What I do enjoy, more than I can say, are insight puzzles like this one:

A hunter went hunting for bear. He walked five miles east of camp, but couldn't find any game. So he walked five miles north, where he saw a bear and shot it. Then he walked five miles directly back to camp. What color was the bear?

It is precisely items of this kind that Sternberg is using to construct his test of experiential (insight) intelligence. I don’t know if his test will turn out to be a measure of a genuinely new kind of intelligence, or whether it will turn out to be a special factor like verbal fluency, and frankly I don't care. What I know for certain is that whichever way it turns out, it's of immense personal importance to me. You see, it's the source of almost all of the essays I write for the high IQ societies. (But not this one, however.) I know from personal experience that the three kinds of insights identified by Sternberg and Davidson really do exist, because I use them all the time. I can even point to specific essays I've written and tell you which kind of insight sparked it. I don't claim that my insights are profound, only that I seem to have a lot of them, and that most of my readers seem to find them interesting. I am not, of course, the only individual in the high IQ societies who writes this kind of essay, but we do seem to be spread exceedingly thin. So thin, in fact, that I really don't believe it. I think there are many more people with this "knack" in the high IQ societies than have ever appeared in the journals. I think we see so few of them because most of them realize what kind of harsh treatment new ideas receive in the journals, and don't want to run that gauntlet themselves. And to be quite candid, I can't say I blame them very much.