European IQ map

axer

Quazzie2002 wrote: »

I have an IQ of 145 (Official test result) but couldn't tie my laces till I was 9. Nuff said. IQ tests are crap and are no real representation of any intelligence.

There can be other reasons for that - your abilities tested by the IQ test may not have had anything to do with the problem thus still showed high.

JC 2K3

IQ tests measure problem solving ability and lateral thinking in the context of mathematical, linguistic and spacial reasoning.

Whether you consider this to be "intelligence" or not, is a personal interpretation/opinion.

Oh, and Mensa was a really crap magazine.

Talliesin

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

But lets not forget this is the university of Ulster, who solemnly released an official study saying that women were naturally worse at engineering and mathematical studies than men, and should just stick to the cooking like.

More to the point, it was the same professor.

He's just one eugenics-obsessed little nut.

SimpleSam06

Tara Le d'Arion wrote: »

The problem I have with a non deterministic brain is how would it come about? This is how I see it.

Well the way I see it is there is an awful lot we don't understand about how anything works, at the smallest scale. Maybe it is deterministic, but the mechanisms for that determinism are forever too obscure to be within ours or anyone's grasp, so to all intents and purposes its non-deterministic. Or, it might be just non deterministic period. We just don't know.

Tara Le d'Arion wrote: »

We all started off as 'low intelligence' cells which came from simple enzymes/chemicals/whatever and evolved over millenia gaining new algorithms through evolution.

And before we were cells we were the components of cells, and before that we were chemicals. And that right there is where things get strange. You may as well ask why chemical compounds started taking it upon themselves to reproduce and eat things. It makes no sense in a deterministic world, but eppur si muove.

Tara Le d'Arion wrote: »

Our program is adapting over time and becoming more advanced, such as when any animal is born with instinct due to previous members of it's species. Now, how much exactly does something have to evolve for it to be non deterministic?

I don't buy the evolutionary progression argument EDIT as an argument in favour of determinism either. What value to our "program" in music, or the appreciation of music?

Tara Le d'Arion wrote: »

A lot of people that think we are not deterministic think other animals are, clearly teh switchj for them must be between their brains and ours...

Well while I might not be in favour of the idea of something special in human brains, you do have to admit that our bnrains have significant differences to other animals'.

Tara Le d'Arion wrote: »

I do believe that the like of a computer playing chess etc and winning through a genetic algorithm is part of the AI you are referring to, it is a basic first step before things get more complicated.

I believe it only won because it was being reprogrammed after every move by its team to adapt to the strategies of its opponent. I could be mistaken in that though. Even if it weren't, chess is a discrete number of possible moves by a discrete number of pieces. Its closer to something you could solve with an abacus that with a brain.

Tara Le d'Arion wrote: »

This is not the same thing, a mint and the police are not two interconnecting branches of a security force, they are different things.

I was referring to coppers as in the coins there...

Tara Le d'Arion wrote: »

A robot arm and so forth are AI with regards to creating human intelligencce in the way that the hope is to develop each aspect of what we know to be intelligence, no matter how simple and combine them tgether in some way.

No. An axe is an extension of the human arm, making it more effective at chopping wood. In the same way, the robot arm is an extension of the human arm, repeatedly doing things that would be physically difficult for us. This is automation, not AI, and in essence the axe and the robot arm are the very same things. Tools.

If ever we do form strong AI, these developments will be mere tools for that, as well.

axer wrote: »

Ah, no...you are the one who brought up both AI and robotic arms.

To quote yourself, lol.

axer wrote: »

but you are wrong but you will not admit it. You were also wrong about the milgram experiment having used ECT. I think this clearly shows the complete ignorance in your posts regarding intelligence and psychology in general.

Thats it, I'm getting the crayons out.

axer wrote: »

Maybe you really want to be talking about artificial life and not AI and are simply confused.

Or maybe not! One small step for axer, one giant leap for the thread. Sorry now, your attempt to mislead the discussion failed. Better luck next time.

Overheal

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Are you serious?

Which part don't you believe? That I have a high IQ or that I received preferential treatment?

SimpleSam06

Overheal wrote: »

Which part don't you believe? That I have a high IQ or that I received preferential treatment?

A little from column A, a little from column B...

Ah no seriously though, I was wondering if preferential treatment for people who scored well on IQ tests (alone) was an institutionalised part of the US education system, or whether it was just that your parents moved you to a better school.

Overheal

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

A little from column A, a little from column B...

Ah no seriously though, I was wondering if preferential treatment for people who scored well on IQ tests (alone) was an institutionalised part of the US education system, or whether it was just that your parents moved you to a better school.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talented_and_Gifted_program

In my case I was moved into a seperate class in which we all had greater than normal IQs. They gave us access to IBM machines for typing classes etc.

SimpleSam06

Overheal wrote: »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talented_and_Gifted_program

Was there any other examination besides an IQ test?

Overheal

Not that I can recall, other than the standard children's IQ test. They may have weighed the test against your pre-existing Grade Point average, but other than that I think not.

edit:

Your score was 24 out of 30. That is a very good score—you would have a good chance of passing the Mensa test.

whoohoo! \o/

Prof.Badass

Tara Le d'Arion wrote: »

They show some areas such as numberical and so on. Very limited though, in my opinion. Everybody knows roughly how intelligent they are, although everybody overestimates it for themselves.

+1

..and underestimates it for others (especially if those people don't go around like arrogant assholes).

tbh i think the whole concept of intelligence is flawed. There's too many factors involved that need to be weighted accordingly, and how they are weighted counts entirely on the opinion of the person designing the test, so therefore intelligence is really a matter of opinion rather than a quantitaive figure.

Also..... does one's level of understanding the world not count for anything?

(IMO this is more important than I.Q)

someone could spend their whole childhood solving puzzles and doing sums and come out with a genius I.Q, but they still mighn't have a clue about science or geography or social sciences, or anything really...

axer

There are many out there that use IQ tests for the wrong reasons. The IQ test is not supposed to be able to test every ability associated with intelligence - they are designed to test certain abilities and have been proven to be both stable in their results and have been able to predict certain forms of achievement.

As I said before, no psychologist would rely on any one test but that does not make the test useless when included in an overall psychological evaluation performed by a psychologist. It would be useless to just do an IQ test by itself and label someone a genius or stupid.

Cunning

i havnt read any replies just the first bit of the Original post.

as for french people
there is a brain parasite called toxoplasma as far as i know.
the parasite is present in 90% of supermarket beef (in europe)
and once you get it you cant get rid of it.

to avoid the brain parasite all you need to do is cook the food, which
quickly kills it,
however!>>>>> about 2/3 of the french population over 30 carry the
parasite due to the french diet (french medium=irish rare!!)

the effect of the parasite is to lower iq by as much as 15%
as well as leaving the infected prone to greater risk taking!!

thats why the french boys are more daring and less smart.

my advice: eat fish, i hear heavy metals are good for you!!

TomCo

The brain is not something that you just dump something on. It's not a big truck. It's a series of tubes.

And if you don't understand, those tubes can be filled and if they are filled, when you put your message in, it gets in line and it's going to be delayed by anyone that puts into that tube enormous amounts of material, enormous amounts of material.

Overheal

red meat makes i dumber? nu uh,.

m@cc@

More taxpayers money wasted on research that proves little.

Pride Fighter

What struck me is that Ireland is not mentioned on its own. For some reason they say Ireland and Scotland are level after the SE of England as being the smartest region in the UK.
I have some fvcking news for you, we are fvcknig independent!!!!!

tech77

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

The number of muscles and physical makeup required to run faster or benchpress more weights is extremely low and extremely simple, unlike the very complex and constantly changing interactions between various parts of the nervous system that make up what we call "intelligence".

Are you saying complexity can't be accounted for by genetics (at least partially) but simplicity can.

C'mon, of course intelligence has a (partial) genetic basis.
Societal/environmental theories might be more palatable (Yeah, yeah, we're all blank slates etc etc..)- doesn't mean they completely account for variations in intelligence.

tech77

snyper wrote: »

Ive an Iq of 57.

Fixed that for ya.
LOL at the original post though.

Dave!

Jesus Harold Christ, who the f*ck cares what Rebecca Loos thinks???? :eek: What a rag of a paper

I'm sure it's interesting research though

tech77

Tara Le d'Arion wrote: »

I edited my post above to include this btw:

What your quote does is say that we do not know how the brain works, we can't know yet but then goes on to make assumptions based on nothing.
An example:

What is a thought, why could we think and something else not? What proof has anybody for this? None. How is a thought different from a gathering of information and creating a decision based lo an algorithm? Why would he go to the pain of saying we can't understand the brain but then go on to say it is nothing like a computer? Does his pyschology degree tell him or others something my electronic and computer one doesn't even though I have done a specific course on this topic? Was taught how and why the body works with regards to electricity and electromagnetism. We work exacltly like a machine, it is how we are controlled. I could apply a voltage to you and know what the reaction wouold be, I know what voltage pain responds to and can change it. We act exactly like a machine. Until somebody can prove we do not somehow I won't believe we somehow have a 'soul' for want of a better term. Your quote even says we are not like a machine but other animals are, lol.


What they call it is what it is, you are saying that things are not AI when in all definitions of AI that there are, they are.


I was not arguing the IQ thing, IQ tests are nonsense, they are just handy for giving a reasonable estimation of if somebody is smarter in some areas than another person. I was just having an issue with your use of AI having been around it in university.


The definition of intelligence in varying cultures does not affect the definition of 'artifical intelligence' which is a coined term by certain lecturers/researchers and given a certain definition.
It is not a case of chinese people think this is intelligence and americans think this is intelligence so the definition of AI is differing for both.

^Agree largely with the above.
TBH i don't think there's much persuading SimpleSam though, who seems intent on keeping intelligence a sacred, vague, undefinable, untestable entity no matter what.
And defending his position with what seems like an evangelical zeal.

tech77

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Thats it, I'm getting the crayons out.

What's that meant to mean. He's right about you and the Milgram experiment.
This is getting ridiculous.
Fcuking congrats if your trolling though.