Can you do better than Boris?

In article , Bill Wright
wrote:
Jim Lesurf wrote:


A good practical measure of intelligence is accumulated wealth.

Apart from asserting it as your definition, how would you prove that?

OK, I'll play. It is true by definition. There's no need to prove it.
The fact of having accumulated wealth is, by this definition, proof of
intelligence.

Right, so that means we can dismiss all 'IQ tests' and their scores since
they may simply not map 1:1 with the above. Hence 'intelligence' can now be
tested and given as a value in dollars. Looks like the children of dead
millionaires and lottery winners are going to suddenly become highly
intelligent. :-)


Are you including, for example, football players, pop artists, etc?
No, I think to be practical we'd have to exclude them.

Ah. So there will have to be some other '"Bill's Rules" tests to pass. But
presumably the 'most intelligent' will be the ones who would be the mose
sensible to decide these. I suspect you may not be a billionaire, so I
guess we'll have to leave these added rules to the super-rich, erm
super-intelligent to specify. Alas, that may mean that the football players
get to decide they *are* very intelligent and since you and I are evidently
stupid on the now-established rules, we won't be able to deny them this.


And is your point that skilled health workers, teachers, etc, must
tend to have lower 'intelligence' because they don't get paid as well
as international bankers?

There are obviously many facets to 'intelligence', but the most basic
facet is concerned with improving one's lot.

Ok, to hell with relations and friends, then. Given how well crime can pay
(look at bankers and lawyers) I guess this means intelligence will come
with being a crook who doesn't give a hoot for anyone else.


I'm aware that this is anathema to those who have a strong belief in
social justice.

No, it just makes clear how absurd the concept of 'intelligence' becomes as
soon as someone tries to treat it as one single property of a person and
base social policies on that. Nice example. :-)

One of the things I've stuggled with over the years as an 'academic' is the
tendency in education to teach topics because they can be *examined* rather
than because they are useful for those doing the learning once they have
left 'school'. Thus also all the quiz progs that confuse being 'brainy'
with having a good memory or some particular skill.

'Intelligence' seems to bring out a similar problem. If you can test and
quantify it, then it ain't intelligence.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article , Bill Wright
wrote:
Jim Lesurf wrote:

A friend of mine when we were undergrads spent some time doing a
series of tests in 'Check your IQ' books. His 'IQ' rose as he did
more of them. No idea if this ever helped him in the world outside
such tests.

Some junior school year 6 kids have to spend most of their time doing
tests that simulate the IQ tests that the nearby 'good' secondaries use
for admission.

Not surprised. I think that kind of behaviour is fairly common. Similar to
the way 'public schools' tend to teach students how to deal with university
interviews, etc. All gaming the system.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

On Sun, 08 Dec 2013 20:14:38 +0000, Bill Wright
wrote:

Jim Lesurf wrote:

A friend of mine when we were undergrads spent some time doing a series of
tests in 'Check your IQ' books. His 'IQ' rose as he did more of them. No
idea if this ever helped him in the world outside such tests.

Some junior school year 6 kids have to spend most of their time doing
tests that simulate the IQ tests that the nearby 'good' secondaries use
for admission.

Around here the grammar school tests are memory tests, not IQ tests so
anyone can get in given sufficient coaching. Thankfully this is about
to change.
--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) If a man stands in a forest and no woman is around
(")_(") is he still wrong?

Jim Lesurf wrote:

OK, I'll play. It is true by definition. There's no need to prove it.
The fact of having accumulated wealth is, by this definition, proof of
intelligence.

Right, so that means we can dismiss all 'IQ tests' and their scores since
they may simply not map 1:1 with the above.

No, of course not. My phrase 'proof of intelligence' did not mean 'all
intelligence'. As I have mentioned, the ability to accumulate wealth is
a measure of certain types of intelligence. In my view it is valid
because it is a genuine 'real world' test.


There are obviously many facets to 'intelligence', but the most basic
facet is concerned with improving one's lot.

Ok, to hell with relations and friends, then.

That's a very black and white view. One of the most important things a
man can do for his kids is ensure that they have enough to eat and a
warm shelter, plus other peripheral benefits that might need money to
obtain. The same applies to friends and relations. If your friend has a
personal crisis it is likely to be easier to help if you have money.

One of the things I've stuggled with over the years as an 'academic'
is the
tendency in education to teach topics because they can be *examined* rather
than because they are useful for those doing the learning once they have
left 'school'.

But isn't that because a lot of people in the education industry want to
teach what they know, and what they know often ain't much real use
(unless you can turn a penny by teaching it to kids who will grow and
become teachers and teach it to kids who will... )

Bill

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
In article , Bill Wright
wrote:
Jim Lesurf wrote:


A good practical measure of intelligence is accumulated wealth.

Apart from asserting it as your definition, how would you prove that?

OK, I'll play. It is true by definition. There's no need to prove it.
The fact of having accumulated wealth is, by this definition, proof of
intelligence.

Right, so that means we can dismiss all 'IQ tests' and their scores since
they may simply not map 1:1 with the above. Hence 'intelligence' can now
be
tested and given as a value in dollars. Looks like the children of dead
millionaires and lottery winners are going to suddenly become highly
intelligent. :-)


Are you including, for example, football players, pop artists, etc?
No, I think to be practical we'd have to exclude them.

Ah. So there will have to be some other '"Bill's Rules" tests to pass. But
presumably the 'most intelligent' will be the ones who would be the mose
sensible to decide these. I suspect you may not be a billionaire, so I
guess we'll have to leave these added rules to the super-rich, erm
super-intelligent to specify. Alas, that may mean that the football
players
get to decide they *are* very intelligent and since you and I are
evidently
stupid on the now-established rules, we won't be able to deny them this.


And is your point that skilled health workers, teachers, etc, must
tend to have lower 'intelligence' because they don't get paid as well
as international bankers?

There are obviously many facets to 'intelligence', but the most basic
facet is concerned with improving one's lot.

Ok, to hell with relations and friends, then. Given how well crime can pay
(look at bankers and lawyers) I guess this means intelligence will come
with being a crook who doesn't give a hoot for anyone else.


I'm aware that this is anathema to those who have a strong belief in
social justice.

No, it just makes clear how absurd the concept of 'intelligence' becomes
as
soon as someone tries to treat it as one single property of a person and
base social policies on that. Nice example. :-)

One of the things I've stuggled with over the years as an 'academic' is
the
tendency in education to teach topics because they can be *examined*
rather
than because they are useful for those doing the learning once they have
left 'school'. Thus also all the quiz progs that confuse being 'brainy'
with having a good memory or some particular skill.

'Intelligence' seems to bring out a similar problem. If you can test and
quantify it, then it ain't intelligence.


I am struggling somewhat with the logic of "Given how well crime can pay
(look at bankers and lawyers) I guess this means intelligence will come
with being a crook who doesn't give a hoot for anyone else." Perhaps Jim
could give some examples.

--
JohnT

On 08/12/2013 12:21, Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , Roderick
Stewart
wrote:
On Sat, 07 Dec 2013 16:21:13 +0000 (GMT), Jim Lesurf
wrote:

A good practical measure of intelligence is accumulated wealth.

Apart from asserting it as your definition, how would you prove that?

Are you including, for example, football players, pop artists, etc? And
is your point that skilled health workers, teachers, etc, must tend to
have lower 'intelligence' because they don't get paid as well as
international bankers?

The intelligence tests I can remember doing as a child were a good
practical measure of my ability to answer multiple choice questions
that, unlike normal schoolwork, required me to do hardly any writing. On
this basis I must be extremely intelligent. I wish it were true.

A friend of mine when we were undergrads spent some time doing a series of
tests in 'Check your IQ' books. His 'IQ' rose as he did more of them. No
idea if this ever helped him in the world outside such tests.

Indeed. Apparently average IQ test results have been rising every year
since they became widely used, such that if you project the rate of
increase backwards, the average IQ in 1900 would be have been below 70,
meaning that the average person then was mentally retarded.

Z

On Mon, 09 Dec 2013 13:51:19 +0000, Bill Wright
wrote:

Jim Lesurf wrote:

OK, I'll play. It is true by definition. There's no need to prove it.
The fact of having accumulated wealth is, by this definition, proof of
intelligence.

Right, so that means we can dismiss all 'IQ tests' and their scores since
they may simply not map 1:1 with the above.

No, of course not. My phrase 'proof of intelligence' did not mean 'all
intelligence'. As I have mentioned, the ability to accumulate wealth is
a measure of certain types of intelligence. In my view it is valid
because it is a genuine 'real world' test.

I disagee with your definition of "proof of intelligence". It is
quite possible for someone to have acquired wealth without having done
anything much. You can inherit or win money, for example. Any test
for intelligence must look at skill or learning.


--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) If a man stands in a forest and no woman is around
(")_(") is he still wrong?

In article , Bill Wright
wrote:
Jim Lesurf wrote:

OK, I'll play. It is true by definition. There's no need to prove it.
The fact of having accumulated wealth is, by this definition, proof
of intelligence.

Right, so that means we can dismiss all 'IQ tests' and their scores
since they may simply not map 1:1 with the above.

No, of course not. My phrase 'proof of intelligence' did not mean 'all
intelligence'. As I have mentioned, the ability to accumulate wealth is
a measure of certain types of intelligence. In my view it is valid
because it is a genuine 'real world' test.

Ok so we are back to their being an indefinite number of forms of
'intelligence' which generally can't really be measured very well. i.e. a
fairly useless basis for any attempt to do more than hand-wave based on the
opinions of the speaker. That's pretty much my own view as well.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article , JohnT
wrote:

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...



I am struggling somewhat with the logic of "Given how well crime can pay
(look at bankers and lawyers) I guess this means intelligence will come
with being a crook who doesn't give a hoot for anyone else." Perhaps
Jim could give some examples.

I confess I am a little surprised that you have missed events from 2008
onward. Mis-sellings of all kinds, LIBOR, fines, etc, etc.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article , Zimmy wrote:
On 08/12/2013 12:21, Jim Lesurf wrote:


A friend of mine when we were undergrads spent some time doing a
series of tests in 'Check your IQ' books. His 'IQ' rose as he did
more of them. No idea if this ever helped him in the world outside
such tests.

Indeed. Apparently average IQ test results have been rising every year
since they became widely used, such that if you project the rate of
increase backwards, the average IQ in 1900 would be have been below 70,
meaning that the average person then was mentally retarded.

We'd need to unpick that a bit. IIRC The reality for traditional formal 'IQ
tests' is that the outcomes are statistically *defined* to be a 'normal
distribution' with its peak at '100' and that this distribution, being
normal, is symmetric. Hence the mean/peak/mode/median all neatly coincide.
How wonderfully neat humans must be. :-)

So I can see that any raw results from a test which has remained the same
probably will drift about with time. But AIUI the statisticians then
cheerfully year-by-year reshuffle each years's results to get the average,
etc, back to being the same IQ score distrubution and shape once they have
done bending the results into this shape which they *require*. This is one
of the oddities of such 'measurements' that they start with the statistics
they 'require' and then make the actual values fit. One of the reasons that
different tests may give different results for a given individual.

In a similar way, other exams may be processed in a similar way.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html