The Attack on Intelligent people.

Before I say anything, I don't consider myself the "smartest" person in the world and I don't know my IQ as I've not done a real in-person IQ test.

There are two points of a male-female relationship that I will discuss: the one night stand and the committed relationship. I don't consider myself an unnattractive man, as I do have positive feedback from the opposite sex, thus, one-night stands for me are quite "easy" to come across as it is just sex, and sex is something that is inevitably on a mans mind aslong as his testosterone count is sufficiently high . Now in regards to a committed relationship, I have found myself repeatedly rejecting advances and not pursuing "opportunities" as I always tend to see the women my age that are doing so, to be somewhat very naive.

There have been times where one was quite knowledgeable and "geeky"(and being assertive too, which I find attractive) but their knowledge in regards to worldly matters was in the naive spectrum of human "awareness" (prone to being used, not used to loss, doesn't have a clue what they want to do in life, merely pursuing a career path on a whim, doesn't display any passion for anything, etc).

These are the only things from my point of view which have inhibited me from developing any meaningful relationship with a member of the opposite sex, and why I tend to be attracted to older women (I am 20 years old, and I find myself attracted to 27-35 year old women hah )

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
And this is also a pseudo Scientific Bull[snip] Response, IQ is a rather rigorous determination of intelligence, seeing as how we KNOW what intelligence is by MANY metrics, including Definition, Neuro-Scientifically, and what have you.

Please think before you write, as what you are saying is absurd, factually incorrect, and makes you look rather ignorant.

Intelligence is a subjective concept that is immeasurable and unquantifiable.

We don't know what intelligence is, as there is no way of accurately defining and assessing the plethora of components that make it up, nor how important each factor is in relation to intelligence overall.

You can argue otherwise, but you'll have to provide something a little more tangible than the tantrum and foot-stamping that you have offered so far, before I brush you off as just another ranter and raver.

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
No, listen.... that is WHAT INTELLIGENCE *IS*

IQ Tests MEASURE INTELLIGENCE.

LOL.

No, that's not what intelligence is. You are merely proving my point on the subjectivity of intelligence by offering your own view that IQ tests encapsulate intelligence in its entirety.

IQ tests measure someone's adeptness at certain skills, such as logic and problem solving, and were devised by different people who put their own subjective interpretations on the importance and value of the questions that are required in the assessments. And even the measurements on these factors alone will often be awry.

I think you really need to take some time to study the subject more comprehensively.

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
This is a common misconception, that there are forms of intelligence that are not "Intelligence", like "Kicking a Ball Intelligence" for example, popularized in the book "The Theory of multiple Intelligences by the Jewish Howard Gardner.

The Theory of Multiple Intelligences, and Emotional Intelligence is a Pseudo-Scientific *FICTION*

There's no misconception.

The misconception is on your part, as you appear to be under the naive view that there is a definitive view of intelligence and that there is a generally accepted scientific view on the subject.

It's not about ''multiple intelligences'', but multiple factors that make up intelligence.

Emotional intelligence is very important - which isn't included in IQ tests. Someone may have an IQ of 190, but are unable to use or control their emotions in an intelligent manner.

For example, excessive capitalisation, the inability to put your points forth without the need for uncensored profanity, and a general air of incoherency, leads me to believe that you are in an overly emotional state when you are writing your replies.
The more intelligent thing to do would be to calm down before your post, formulate your posts in a more coherent and measured way, and then - if you have any points of worth - you may be able to do your argument justice.

Also - dare I ask - what has the fact that the author of that book is Jewish got to do with anything ?

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
The Qualifying statement at the beginning of this paragraph "What I Believe" should have been bolded, Highlighted, and made 2 text sizes larger so that we can all be absolutely sure that you are attacking intelligence for no reason other than a hunch. So I have done that for you.

What ?

Of course my statement began with ''I believe'', as I was offering my opinion on a matter that could not be demonstrated or supported by objective evidence.

Wakey wakey !

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
You are of course, Completely Wrong.

Great counter-argument !

Sadly, in a world where the ''I'm right, you're wrong'' argument ceases to be a valid defence of one's view-point anytime beyond the age of five, I think that you are going to need a little more than that to remotely come close to falsifying my comments.

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
Social Intelligence is not a Real form of intelligence, it is merely a skill set consisting of experiance and knowledge about situations.

Of course it's a real form of intelligence. If you disagree, then once more that just solidifies my point about the subjectivity of the concept of intelligence.

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
It requires experiance and positive feedback to gain Social Aptitude... that is all.... and that is something that Intelligent people get less often, as they have the weight of the world placed on their shoulders.

Every form of intelligence requires experience, as someone's intelligence is greatly influenced by their environment.

You don't think that someone who had no education or life experience could solve a complex logic puzzle or maths equation, do you ?

Of course they couldn't, because they wouldn't have had the necessary experience or positive feedback to know how to do it or whether they were going the right way about it.

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
Please stop using "Social Intelligence" "Multiple Intelligence" and such as actual words that you believe have some sort of Merit, they DON'T... they are not REAL THINGS, and have NEVER met the criterion for accepted scientific theories, and have been COMPLETELY Debunked.

Firstly, I never used the term ''multiple intelligence'', it was you mentioned that. Please try and keep up.

Secondly, all of that which you have stated is your opinion, which is fine, but you've rather proved my point.

Intelligence can never meet the criterion for scientific theories, because it is a subjective concept with no accepted definition. IQ tests are only used because they at least they are something tangible that they deal with at the moment, even if rather faulty.

If something cannot be measured then that does not mean that it doesn't exist or is without merit. For someone who likes to constantly claim scientific support for their claims, without apparently understanding the nature and workings of science, you should be able to understand this.

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
This is what I mean about an ATTACK on intelligence..... By the Way.

LOL.

By the way, I'm going to have a wild stab in the dark here, but are you by any chance someone who scores highly on IQ tests but can't get laid ?

I don't think that's a conclusion that is open for debate.

reply to post by Sherlock Holmes


May I suggest to both of you the recent (general) findings on Neuroplasticity, which in my mind are beginning to throw away the old notion of inherited intelligence as the only way of being intelligent.

In your arguments on IQ tests, I will side with Sherlock Holmes' statements as being more logically conclusive. Did you know that you can actually practice for IQ tests? If you can practice for an IQ test, how reliable is it?

Originally posted by Somehumanbeing
Did you know that you can actually practice for IQ tests? If you can practice for an IQ test, how reliable is it?

I have never taken an IQ test myself, so my arguments against them are not a case of sour grapes.

The fact that you can practice IQ tests is one of the biggest flaws with them. I've seen some of the questions that are asked and the puzzles that you have to solve, and all the skills required can be honed by extensive mental exercises in the days and weeks prior to taking the test.

Another major flaw is that someone can take a tests of comparable difficulty on different days, and the results may fluctuate wildly within the space of a couple of days !

Some days you really just aren't with it and the score would suffer, while other days you really are on form and would have an inaccurately high score.

Intelligence levels will vary from day to day because of things such as the amount of sleep we've had, the food that we've eaten, our emotional state, or because of any substances that we may have ingested.

reply to post by ErtaiNaGia


''This is a Highly uninformed and idiotic opinion, Intelligence is a measure of critical thinking, abstract thinking, problem solving, and knowledge application, A.K.A. What built the world that is around you.''

I don't appreciate that. Intelligence by definition is the application of skills and/or knowledge. The way in which you have applied yourself towards others on here does not suggest a remarkable level of intelligence.

''The Theory of Multiple Intelligences, and Emotional Intelligence is a Pseudo-Scientific *FICTION* None of it is REAL, and none of it is even ACCEPTED by the scientific community.''

Again, revealing that you give credence to what the scientific community accepts suggest that you don't give merit to independent, radical or pragmatic thoughts, that in my opinion, are expressions of true intelligence.

You Sir are the one who is on the attack!

BTW what built the world around me is irrelevant to my previous post and IMO to put it in an understandable context, what makes communities flourish is understanding how others act and to work with them, using patience, empathy and non-judgement. You have displayed non of these qualities.

There are benevolent, empathic and kind people who can be considered to be intelligent, and then there are smart arses with no people skills.

Nobody likes a smart arse.

You have every right to criticise my opinion but do not tell me what to do.

Just who do you think you are?

Originally posted by MMPI2
I wish you would share with the rest of us the result of your study, research and insight.

Well, I don't know anything about keeping a woman, but I am certainly more successful than I was at pulling them thanks to studying and researching their behaviour more thoroughly, and understanding how to use this to my advantage.

I certainly wouldn't want to put myself across as any kind of doyen on attracting women, but - and this is going to sound like a cop-out - it would be hard for me to explain that well as so much of it is dependent on intuition regarding the individual circumstances and woman who you are trying to attract.

I would highly recommend that men do the same that I did and observe and understand how a woman behaves and reacts in your interactions, and in interactions with others when you are present.


The main thing to do first of all is to get rid of any of your preconceptions about what you think women want or how you should attract them.

You see, I used to go around being myself and largely failing to attract women, but I kept on doing the same approach again and again, despite the fact that I was mainly getting rebuffed. It was like Einstein's definition of insanity !

I had to eventually realise that it was me who was going about attracting women the wrong way, and accept that my view on what women wanted and how to treat them didn't correlate with what women actually wanted !

I was the typical ''nice guy'' who was kind, sensitive and always treated women well and attempted to please them, yet, in reality, to most women that met me, this made me just another shmuck who didn't interest them other than to use me to their advantage ( sadly, not in a sexual way. LOL ).

Women are attracted to novelty and excitement, so you've usually got to offer something different, rather than just be a doormat who puts them on a pedestal; they could find dozens of other men who did the same

I also had to teach myself how to be confident ( bordering on brash ), and when I got used to it, I notice that women can't usually tell the difference between fake confidence and natural confidence.

Also, I had to learn how to handle situations that I was unprepared for; there's nothing worse than when you're with a woman, and when something crops up out of the blue, and you don't know how to handle it. Women aren't usually impressed by weak-acting dufuses.

All this stuff may sound obvious, but that's only the start and basics of what I learnt and how I went about changing things !

reply to post by Sherlock Holmes

Sherlock Holmes:
Intelligence is far too complex and subjective a concept to be accurately measured or quantified.

ErtaiNaGia
And this is also a pseudo Scientific Bull[snip] Response, IQ is a rather rigorous determination of intelligence, seeing as how we KNOW what intelligence is by MANY metrics, including Definition, Neuro-Scientifically, and what have you.

Sherlock Holmes:
Please think before you write, as what you are saying is absurd, factually incorrect, and makes you look rather ignorant.

Intelligence is a subjective concept that is immeasurable and unquantifiable.

We don't know what intelligence is, as there is no way of accurately defining and assessing the plethora of components that make it up, nor how important each factor is in relation to intelligence overall.

You can argue otherwise, but you'll have to provide something a little more tangible than the tantrum and foot-stamping that you have offered so far, before I brush you off as just another ranter and raver.

Have I been Challenged?

Really?

BRING IT ON!!!!

Some definitions on Intelligence, and the Definitional Break Down (In parenthesis)
Alfred Binet: Judgment, otherwise called "good sense," "practical sense," "initiative," the faculty of adapting one's self to circumstances ... auto-critique.

(Adaptability and Good Sense, Sense here is defined as "a general conscious awareness" or "the meaning of a word or expression; the way in which a word or expression or situation can be interpreted". and Adaptability being defined as "The ability to change", hence, the Ability to be Practical in ones cognitive abilities, and correctly interpret events, situations, etcetera... I.E. A General Cognitive Trait)

David Wechsler: The aggregate or global capacity of the individual to act purposefully, to think rationally, and to deal effectively with his environment.

(Act Purposefully, As in, the ability to make correct judgments about a situation, and act based upon those good judgments, the ability to think critically about a situation, and act correctly upon the basis of your capacity to think critically.)

Cyril Burt: Innate general cognitive ability

(Cognitive here is defined as: "The scientific term for 'the process of thought' to knowing." I.E. The ability to think critically, and arrive at the correct, and thus useful Knowledge of a Situation.)

Linda Gottfredson: The ability to deal with cognitive complexity.

(Again, Cognitive is used in the definition, relating to critical thinking, and the term complexity is added to refer to the DEGREE of difficulty involved in the act of Cognition, or Critical Thinking.)

Sternberg & Salter: Goal-directed adaptive behavior.

(Goal Directed, this is an interesting one, as one would assume that adapting ones behavior based on bad judgments would necessarily be "Unintelligent", So, The meaning of "Goal-Directed Adaptive Behavior" is the same as the previous definitions, that being, the ability to use critical thinking to arrive at a correct judgment of a situation, in order to adapt ones behavior in a successful manner.)

Reuven Feuerstein: The theory of Structural Cognitive Modifiability describes intelligence as "the unique propensity of human beings to change or modify the structure of their cognitive functioning to adapt to the changing demands of a life situation."

(And this one is more of the same, actually... the Ability to use critical thinking to arrive at correct judgments of a situation, and to change your behavior to be more correct according to that critical thinking.)

So, as you can see, Every definition of intelligence (That is not Willfully Retarded) is basically the same thing:

The ability to Think Critically about a situation, event, or 'object' and to change ones actions in accordance to the correct judgment of this critical thinking process.

Intelligence is a well defined ability, whether you want to admit it or not.

And as far as your claim of "Not being able to measure it" is where we get into the truly Sad and pathetic portion of this rebuttal.

THIS:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/e0501ce721d5.gif[/atsimg]

Is a Raven Progressive Matrix...

It is a timed test that asks you to judge the next symbol in the bottom row, based upon the previous examples.

It requires *NO* previous knowledge that can be studied for, and how long it takes you to get the right answer (or IF you get the right answer) is tabulated against a group of your peers (along with obviously more of these test questions) to give us a ranking of intellectual capability.

The Progressive Matrix tests the test takers ability to rotate an object in their mind, and view it from other angles, and to predict patterns, based on observation of previous states of this pattern.

This is what an IQ test consists of, and this measures what is known as "General Intelligence" ("g")which is the Intellectual factor that underlies all other forms of cognitive ability (that have been well studied, mind you)

The g factor, where g stands for general intelligence, is a statistic used in psychometrics in an attempt to quantify the mental ability underlying results of various tests of cognitive ability. The existence of such an underlying factor was postulated in 1904 by Charles Spearman.

Spearman, who was an early psychometrician, found that schoolchildren's grades across seemingly unrelated subjects were positively correlated, and proposed that these correlations reflected the influence of a dominant factor, which he termed g for "general" intelligence or ability. He developed a model in which all variations in intelligence test scores are explained by two factors: first, a factor specific to an individual mental task: the individual abilities that would make a person more skilled at a specific cognitive task; and second a general factor g that governs performance on all cognitive tasks.

en.wikipedia.org...

g has a large number of biological correlates. Strong correlates include mass of the prefrontal lobe, overall brain mass, and glucose metabolization rate within the brain, and cortical thickness. g correlates less strongly, but significantly, with overall body size. There is conflicting evidence regarding the correlation between g and peripheral nerve conduction velocity, with some reports of significant positive correlations, and others of no or even negative correlations.[citation needed] Some research has found the g completely mediates the relation between IQ and cortical thickness. Current research suggests that the heritability of g is approximately 0.85 - even higher than that for IQ itself - so the heritability of most test performance is thus attributable to g.

Brain size has long been known to be correlated with g. Recently, an MRI study on twins showed that frontal gray matter volume was highly significantly correlated with g and highly heritable. A related study has reported that the correlation between brain size (reported to have a heritability of 0.85) and g is 0.4, and that correlation is mediated entirely by genetic factors. g has been observed in mice as well as humans.

en.wikipedia.org...

So, when you say that "We don't know what Intelligence even IS", what you are REALLY saying, is that *YOU* don't know what intelligence is, and you want everyone else to think that your Willful Ignorance is the Truth.

Please try to practice what you preach, and... how did you put it:

I think you really need to take some time to study the subject more comprehensively.

Yeah.... You should do that.

IQ tests measure someone's adeptness at certain skills, such as logic and problem solving,

Which is what Intelligence *IS*

Logic and Problem solving.

and were devised by different people who put their own subjective interpretations on the importance and value of the questions that are required in the assessments. And even the measurements on these factors alone will often be awry.

No, those definitions all converged upon a single categorical definition, that you have actually said outright.....

IT is Logic and Problem Solving.... or, more commonly known as "Critical Thinking"

There's no misconception.

The misconception is on your part, as you appear to be under the naive view that there is a definitive view of intelligence and that there is a generally accepted scientific view on the subject.

There is, and I am not under the misconception... You are.

If I didn't know better, I might say that it was deliberate on your part... but I digress.

Intelligence is made up of Critical Thinking, Logic, and Reasoning Capabilities... which are all just different ways to say the same thing, actually.

You appear to want to state that intelligence does not exist.... almost as if you are attacking the very concept of intelligence as a Real thing that has effects on Reality.

Why is this, do you think?

It's not about ''multiple intelligences'', but multiple factors that make up intelligence.

And what Factors are you describing?

Things like Brain size, Cortical Thickness, Neural Capacity, Brain Bloodflow, Neural growth rate, etcetera?

Or are you talking about things as absurd as "Bodily-kinesthetic Intelligence"

The core elements of the bodily-kinesthetic intelligence are control of one's bodily motions and the capacity to handle objects skillfull. Gardner elaborates to say that this intelligence also includes a sense of timing, a clear sense of the goal of a physical action, along with the ability to train responses so they become like reflexes.

This is FROM the theory of multiple intelligences, by the Way..... Athletics is a Form of INTELLIGENCE, by this theory...

That's right... the WORD that we define AS:

"the ability to comprehend; to understand and profit from experience"

Means the ability to Kick a BALL, by the theory of multiple intelligences.

I was not JOKING earlier when I said "Kicking a Ball intelligence", I was being as serious as a heart attack.

Yoiur entire argumenative position seems to revolve around explaining that Words *DO NOT MEAN WHAT THEY MEAN*

So why don't we add some NEW words in...

Like, the Theory of Multiple Athleticism..... where calculating mathematical puzzles is a form of Athletics.

Because that is exactly what you are doing.

You are attempting to Obfuscate Words, and their meanings.

Emotional intelligence is very important

Emotional Intelligence *DOES NOT EXIST*

You are putting words together that have no MEANING together.

You are not talking about a form of Intelligence that centers on Emotions, you are talking about GENERAL INTELLIGENCE *APPLIED* to the realms of Emotions.

The only difference between someone with (as you would put it) High Emotional Intelligence, and Low Emotional Intelligence, is Experience at the task.

That is All.

The theory of Emotional Intelligence has NEVER been verified NOR Accepted by the Scientific community, as I have CLEARLY proven in my last post, where I linked to the Rebuttal that Debunked the ridiculous term.

So... here is that link *AGAIN* so that you will be sure not to miss it this time:

Inadequate Evidence for Multiple Intelligences,
Mozart Effect, and Emotional Intelligence Theories

I (Waterhouse, 2006) argued that, because multiple intelligences, the Mozart effect, and emo-
tional intelligence theories have inadequate empirical support and are not consistent with cog-
nitive neuroscience findings, these theories should not be applied in education. Proponents
countered that their theories had sufficient empirical support, were consistent with cognitive
neuroscience findings, and should be applied in education (Cherniss, Extein, Goleman, &
Weissberg, 2006; Gardner & Moran, 2006; Rauscher & Hinton, 2006). However, Gardner and
Moran offered no validating evidence for multiple intelligences, Rauscher and Hinton con-
cluded that “listening-to-Mozart” studies should be disregarded, and Cherniss, Extein,
Goleman, and Weissberg agreed that emotional intelligence lacked a unitary empirically sup-
ported construct. My reply addresses theory proponents’ specific criticisms of my review and
reasserts my original claims.

Conclusion:

Although Gardner and Moran (2006), Rauscher and Hinton
(2006), and Cherniss et al. (2006) claimed that there was a
wealth of empirical support for their theories, Gardner and
Moran offered no research evidence to validate MI, Rauscher
and Hinton included only three published music instruction
studies with significant positive findings for spatial skill en-
hancement, and Cherniss et al. provided five published stud-
ies whose findings did not provide strong support for the pre-
dictive validity of EI.

Despite their inadequate empirical bases, these theories
have wide currency and, unfortunately, may continue to be
applied in education because they tell “good news” stories.
Gardner’s MI theory tells us the story that we each have
eight forms of intelligence, so there is likely to be one in
which we can shine. Rauscher’s music transfer theory of-
fers spatial skill improvement through music lessons—a
cognitive bonus for keeping music in the curriculum.
Goleman’s EI theory tells the story that job and life success
depends much more on our EI than our IQ, with the good
news that we can increase our EI.

Tilly (2006) argued that there are four modes of explana-
tion: conventions (accepted reasons for events and actions),
stories (simple cause and effect accounts), codes (sets of
rules such as legal judgments), and technical accounts (sys-
tematic discipline-based empirical explanations). Gardner
and Moran (2006), Rauscher and Hinton (2006), and
Cherniss et al. (2006) argued that MI, the music instruction
effect, and EI were validated technical accounts of brain
systems. In the absence of adequate validating empirical
support, and in the absence of concord with neuroscience
findings, these three theories are not validated technical ac-
counts. Therefore, at present, despite their appeal, they
should not be applied in education.

For example, excessive capitalisation, the inability to put your points forth without the need for uncensored profanity, and a general air of incoherency, leads me to believe that you are in an overly emotional state when you are writing your replies.

You are quite mistaken, actually.



But please.... keep talking to me like you know exactly who I am, and what I'm thinking... I *LOVE* being Underestimated.

It makes my eventual, inevitable victory all the sweeter.

The more intelligent thing to do would be to calm down before your post, formulate your posts in a more coherent and measured way, and then - if you have any points of worth - you may be able to do your argument justice.

The more important thing for you to do, is to stop assuming that you can psychoanalyze me from across the Internet.

That would maybe serve you well in future endeavors.

ErtaiNaGia
Social Intelligence is not a Real form of intelligence, it is merely a skill set consisting of experiance and knowledge about situations.

Sherlock Holmes
Of course it's a real form of intelligence. If you disagree, then once more that just solidifies my point about the subjectivity of the concept of intelligence.

Just because *YOU* don't understand it, does not mean that EVERYONE IN THE WORLD shares your opinion, actually.

That was the most sad retort I think I have ever seen, actually.

ErtaiNaGia
It requires experiance and positive feedback to gain Social Aptitude... that is all.... and that is something that Intelligent people get less often, as they have the weight of the world placed on their shoulders.

Sherlock Holmes
Every form of intelligence requires experience, as someone's intelligence is greatly influenced by their environment.

You don't think that someone who had no education or life experience could solve a complex logic puzzle or maths equation, do you ?

Of course they couldn't, because they wouldn't have had the necessary experience or positive feedback to know how to do it or whether they were going the right way about it.

You are not even rebutting my point, you are merely trying to obfuscate it.

Stop doing that.

Except, you know... thanks for agreeing with me, and thus destroying your own position.

ErtaiNaGia
Please stop using "Social Intelligence" "Multiple Intelligence" and such as actual words that you believe have some sort of Merit, they DON'T... they are not REAL THINGS, and have NEVER met the criterion for accepted scientific theories, and have been COMPLETELY Debunked.

Sherlock Holmes
Firstly, I never used the term ''multiple intelligence'', it was you mentioned that. Please try and keep up.

Well, you aren't going to NOW are you?

Secondly, all of that which you have stated is your opinion, which is fine, but you've rather proved my point.

The Proof is up there, Buddy ^^^^^

Intelligence can never meet the criterion for scientific theories, because it is a subjective concept with no accepted definition.

Already proved you wrong, Just because you DON'T want to understand something, does not make it any less real.

IQ tests are only used because they at least they are something tangible that they deal with at the moment, even if rather faulty.

Are they perfect at measuring intelligence?

No, of course not...

Is Giving up and stating that Intelligence does not exist a Valid Substitute?

You would have to be absolutely Retarded to claim that.

If something cannot be measured then that does not mean that it doesn't exist or is without merit.

IQ Tests ARE A MEASUREMENT OF INTELLIGENCE.

Just because you REALLY REALLY DON'T WANT THEM TO BE, does not make you RIGHT.

For someone who likes to constantly claim scientific support for their claims, without apparently understanding the nature and workings of science, you should be able to understand this.

Oh, you mean you have peer reviewed data to back up your claim that intelligence is not real?

Or that Emotional Intelligence is a Real form of the Intelligence that you claim is not a real thing anyways?

Or perhaps that Intelligence is made up of many different factors, and thus we will never know what it is, despite the fact that you claim that it is not even real?

Honestly, why are you even arguing the point....

Just say "God did it" and begone with you.

By the way, I'm going to have a wild stab in the dark here, but are you by any chance someone who scores highly on IQ tests but can't get laid ?

I don't think that's a conclusion that is open for debate.

No, actually I am a moron who is constantly surrounded by fly honeys, because the Powers that be have decided to engineer society to make Social hierarchies with ME on the top, BECAUSE I am stupid...

This hierarchy is Mandated by State and Federal Tax dollars, and is often called "Sports" programs...

They force students to Worship me, as I run with a ball....

Thus, setting up the Information Cascade, of Social Proof, where all of the young-lings see me as popular, because the student body is FORCED to praise me.

And the females see me as ATTRACTIVE because the cheerleaders surround me, and cheer me on in my endeavors, as is their Scholastic mandate. (Not to mention that I get a pass on the regular studies, so that I can press weights during school)

The other women, seeing this Attention, and adulation, respond by assuming that I am Popular with the ladies, and thus, I become popular with the ladies.


Oh, wait... were you using a logical fallacy known as an ad homenim to attack *ME* and discredit *ME* instead of arguing my position?

Wow, your position must not really be that strong, if you are resorting to informal logical fallacies so early in the debate.

That's just sad, actually.

Oh, and just so that we're on the same page... I have had Girls *STEAL THINGS* for me before.... so... yeah.

(No, I didn't tell them to do that, they were just trying to impress me)

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
Some definitions on Intelligence, and the Definitional Break Down (In parenthesis)

You are listing a number of renowned psychologist's personal definitions of intelligence.

In other words, you are posting something that illustrates and confirms my point.

All these definitions support and validate the fact that intelligence is highly complex and subjectively defined, and is not an objectively measurable or quantifiable concept.

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
So, as you can see, Every definition of intelligence (That is not Willfully Retarded) is basically the same thing:

The ability to Think Critically about a situation, event, or 'object' and to change ones actions in accordance to the correct judgment of this critical thinking process.

Intelligence is a well defined ability, whether you want to admit it or not.

That is not ''every definition of intelligence''. LOL.

All of those definitions that you listed vary and have a certain degree of ambiguity about them, or can be interpreted in a different way by different people.

Your interpretation, for example, is such a broad definition that makes an IQ test completely inadequate at covering such a wide ranging concept.

You have to understand that intelligence is a subjective concept. Once you appreciate that, then you'll be able to have a more well-rounded view of the subject.

Of course you're going to get a broad understanding of what ''intelligence'' means, as most of the factors that make it up are agreed upon. The problem arises with the weight or value placed on each facet that makes up intelligence, and which facets are or are not included in intelligence as a whole.

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
And as far as your claim of "Not being able to measure it" is where we get into the truly Sad and pathetic portion of this rebuttal.

Of course you're not able to accurately measure it. As intelligence is something which, as you have now conceded, is not a finite concept, but one with a variety of definitions, then any test to measure or quantify it is based upon the designer of the test's subjective view on the importance and weight of the different factors that are involved in the test.

IQ tests measure a number of factors that contribute to intelligence, but not overall intelligence. The factors that are measured can never be gauged for accuracy, as accuracy can only be measured with the influence of preconceived personal bias from those who define the test.

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
It requires *NO* previous knowledge that can be studied for, and how long it takes you to get the right answer (or IF you get the right answer) is tabulated against a group of your peers (along with obviously more of these test questions) to give us a ranking of intellectual capability.

Which is a way to measure someone's ability at quickly recognising a sequence of patterns and to work out, through the previous sequence, which one should come next.

That is all it measures. While I realise those must only be the very basic visual IQ tests, it doesn't really go far to measuring someone's overall intelligence.

All it points to is that there is a genetic basis involved in someone's abilities of critical thought and logic. I don't think that that has seriously been questioned.

''The g factor, where g stands for general intelligence, is a statistic used in psychometrics in an attempt to quantify the mental ability underlying results of various tests of cognitive ability.''

''Attempt'' being the operative word here.

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
So, when you say that "We don't know what Intelligence even IS", what you are REALLY saying, is that *YOU* don't know what intelligence is, and you want everyone else to think that your Willful Ignorance is the Truth.

I think that you misunderstand my comment.

We don't know what intelligence is because there is no accepted definition of it, as once again, it is a subjective concept, not an objective one.

Obviously, we broadly know what intelligence is, otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion !

The idea and measurement of general intelligence that you mention ( sorry, that wiki mentioned :p ), is based upon individual interpretations and ideas of what constitutes ''general intelligence''.

The fact that there is evidence to suggest that there is a correlation between someone's neurological genetic make-up and their ability at logic and problem solving is hardly surprising,

I think you may be getting confused between the different points that are being argued in this discussion.
IQ tests attempt to measure things such as logic, problem-solving, maths ability etc. but not all the other components that go into intelligence.

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
Which is what Intelligence *IS*

Logic and Problem solving.

And that is your personal opinion on the subject, which is fine. Although, these are only a some of the abilities that make up intelligence, especially in a practical, ''real-world'' situation. Sadly, most other components of intelligence cannot even be attempted to be measured.

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
No, those definitions all converged upon a single categorical definition, that you have actually said outright....
IT is Logic and Problem Solving.... or, more commonly known as "Critical Thinking"

Again, which is your personal opinion and the opinion of some scientists who think that it is a measurable quantity.

Intelligence is not an accurately measurable phenomena.

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
Intelligence is made up of Critical Thinking, Logic, and Reasoning Capabilities... which are all just different ways to say the same thing, actually.

These are all important factors in intelligence, but are not effective indicators of intelligence unless they can be applied practically in a novel, real-world situation. Sequencing shapes, for example, is hardly an accurate measure for someone's ability to prepare and solve a problem in a dynamic scenario.

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
You appear to want to state that intelligence does not exist.... almost as if you are attacking the very concept of intelligence as a Real thing that has effects on Reality.

You have obviously not been reading my posts too thoroughly if that is the conclusion that you've drawn from my comments.

The components that make up intelligence all exist in reality, it's the idea of intelligence as an objective concept, and the notion that there is a means to define and accurately measure these abilities, that I'm correctly disputing.

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
This is FROM the theory of multiple intelligences, by the Way..... Athletics is a Form of INTELLIGENCE, by this theory...

Once again, I am not arguing ''multiple intelligences'' nor am I using Gardner's theories in my arguments.

You still haven't explained why the fact that Gardner is Jewish had any relevance to your position or needed to be pointed out...

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
Yoiur entire argumenative position seems to revolve around explaining that Words *DO NOT MEAN WHAT THEY MEAN*

LOL.

Nowhere in my argument have I disputed the meaning of a word.

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
Emotional Intelligence *DOES NOT EXIST*

You are putting words together that have no MEANING together.

Of course it exists.

Emotional intelligence describes the ability to understand, use and control emotions in an intelligent manner.

Many autistic people have very high IQs, but, due to their condition, have very low emotional intelligence.

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
You are not talking about a form of Intelligence that centers on Emotions, you are talking about GENERAL INTELLIGENCE *APPLIED* to the realms of Emotions.

I don't know how you had the audacity to falsely accusing me of questioning the meaning of words.

Having a high IQ does not mean that you necessarily have the intelligence to control your emotions. Emotional intelligence is different to having good logic and critical thinking skills.

Where you're going wrong here is thinking that ''emotional intelligence'' is separate from intelligence as a whole, whereas it is just another facet of it.

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
You are quite mistaken, actually.

But please.... keep talking to me like you know exactly who I am, and what I'm thinking... I *LOVE* being Underestimated.

The problem with interacting in text form, is that it is impossible to know the true intent and emotions behind someone's words, unless they explicitly state them ( even then, they may be up for debate ).

Therefore, I can only draw a conclusion based on the impression that I get from your posts.

The impression clearly indicates to me someone who is in a overly emotional state when posting something that need minimal emotional input.

The confrontational style, addressing the discussion as some kind of a ''battle'' that is imperative to ''win'', and a feeling that it is a personal slight on you to have your opinions contested, also leads me to believe that you aggressive style is just a manifestation of your natural defensiveness on this subject.

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
It makes my eventual, inevitable victory all the sweeter.

Oh dear...

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
The more important thing for you to do, is to stop assuming that you can psychoanalyze me from across the Internet.

Ouch ! That one must have stung.

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
Just because *YOU* don't understand it, does not mean that EVERYONE IN THE WORLD shares your opinion, actually.

I do understand it, which is why I would never claim that anybody else shared my opinion.

Do keep up !

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
That was the most sad retort I think I have ever seen, actually.

A cursory perusal of your replies to me in your previous post, should make you quickly retract this comment...

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
You are not even rebutting my point, you are merely trying to obfuscate it.

My reply adequately rebutted your point, which didn't really seem to be based on anything other than a vague and confused idea you had.

I'm sorry to obstruct your banalities by bot giving you the reply that you were hoping I would !

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
Already proved you wrong, Just because you DON'T want to understand something, does not make it any less real.

Nowhere have you ''proved me wrong''. LOL. You offered your personal opinion which differs from mine.

I, at least, am offering coherent and reasoned support for my position, whereas you are operating on the ''I'm right, because I say so'' line of argument, which, if we're perfectly honest, doesn't really hold up to any kind of logical scrutiny.

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
Are they perfect at measuring intelligence?

No, of course not...

By Jove, I think he's finally got it.

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
Is Giving up and stating that Intelligence does not exist a Valid Substitute?

Who stated that ?

Why are you bringing up a speculative and theoretical position that we never even discussed ?

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
IQ Tests ARE A MEASUREMENT OF INTELLIGENCE.

No, IQ tests are a rough indicator of someone's abilities at a set of questions about maths and logical puzzles.

The questions and the results of these tests are based on someone's personal opinion as to what is an accurate assessment of these abilities, and the accuracy can only be supported by preconceived personal bias.

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
Oh, you mean you have peer reviewed data to back up your claim that intelligence is not real?

I may have looked for some if I had made that claim. As I didn't, this would be rather unnecessary.

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
No, actually I am a moron who is constantly surrounded by fly honeys, because the Powers that be have decided to engineer society to make Social hierarchies with ME on the top, BECAUSE I am stupid...

This hierarchy is Mandated by State and Federal Tax dollars, and is often called "Sports" programs...

They force students to Worship me, as I run with a ball....

You don't sound stupid to me. You just come across as somebody who gets a little too ''involved'' in a debate and frustrated when people don't see things the same way as you do, and who looks at discussions as some kind of a contest rather than a means to exchange differing ideas and viewpoints.
If you had conducted yourself with a bit more civility and less aggression then we may have had a more fruitful discussion on this issue and perhaps even came to some kind of mutual understanding.

I don't think there's any conspiracy in this. The current social hierarchy tends to be based on those who are the most ''eligible'' being at the top.

It's important for children to take part in sport and physical education, so I don't see anything sinister in the motives of funding this and encouraging children to participate.

Sportsmen are always going to be more popular in school because it's a far more glamorous thing to do than having your head buried in a book all the time.

The fact of the matter is that sports players display physical strength and dominance which is much more desirable to a female than someone who can give a detailed explanation of the relationship between photon energy and frequency.

In an ideal world people would select partners based on things such as aptitude at the sciences, but as much as we may like that to be the case, we can't ignore the simple facts of survival instinct and evolution.

There is truth to what you say about social proof, where people will ''follow the crowd'', but that is only part of the explanation.

It becomes a bit of a ''chicken or egg'' situation, but social proof will always exist, regardless of whether it was engineered or not.

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
Oh, wait... were you using a logical fallacy known as an ad homenim to attack *ME* and discredit *ME* instead of arguing my position?

Wow, your position must not really be that strong, if you are resorting to informal logical fallacies so early in the debate.

LOL.

Your whole posts are filled with borderline ad homs. What's the matter, you can give but you can't take ?

Your vehement defence of IQ tests being a measure of intelligence made me wonder whether you had a ''vested interest'' in this being the case, while your OP about intelligent people having trouble finding partners also made me wonder whether this was a little more personal than just an interesting topic for debate.

My favourite definition of intelligence:

''intelligence is what one uses when one does not know what to do''

reply to post by Sherlock Holmes


The topic of this thread is "The Attack On Intelligence"

You are Attacking Intelligence.

Thank you for proving my point.

And now, for my Retort.

You are listing a number of renowned psychologist's personal definitions of intelligence.

Definitions are how we know what a word means.

In other words, you are posting something that illustrates and confirms my point.

Your point, that we do not know what intelligence IS, has been thouroughly debunked by the FACT that we can define it.

That is how we USE words, in fact.... by defining them with concepts and ideas.

because that is all words ARE.

You are stating that a word, that we all *KNOW* what it means, doesn't mean what it MEANS.

Your "Attack" on intelligence, is quite transparent at this point, and any further arguments from you will only serve to highlight the inherent ignorance of your own position.

That is, your WILLFUL ignorance.

Ignorance, meaning that you lack knowledge of a thing (the definition of intelligence), and willful, because you CHOOSE not to ACCEPT the DEFINITION of intelligence, the word.

All these definitions support and validate the fact that intelligence is highly complex and subjectively defined, and is not an objectively measurable or quantifiable concept.

Keep digging your own grave buddy....

That is not ''every definition of intelligence''.

Well then, please define the word "Intelligence" in your own idiom, and we will contrast YOUR OPINION, against the valid definitions that professionals in the field use.

All of those definitions that you listed vary and have a certain degree of ambiguity about them, or can be interpreted in a different way by different people.

If you try hard enough, one could argue that you are actually Arguing FOR the concrete definition of intelligence... But that doesn't necessarily make it right, does it?

Your interpretation, for example, is such a broad definition that makes an IQ test completely inadequate at covering such a wide ranging concept.

What part of "The ability to Think Critically about a situation, event, or 'object' and to change ones actions in accordance to the correct judgment of this critical thinking process." is ambiguous?

IT's actually pretty straightforward....

No, seriously, Explain what you mean, as if you had a solid position to argue.

You have to understand that intelligence is a subjective concept.

No, I don't. Just because you say that I *MUST* do something, does not mean that I, In fact, MUST.

This is merely your ignorant position, actually.

I, along with many other rational minds, have already defined the concept of intelligence, just because you refuse to accept that definition, does not mean that it is "Magically Not SO"

You are basically plugging your ears and Humming to yourself to prevent any knowledge of veracity from penetrating your head.

Of course you're going to get a broad understanding of what ''intelligence'' means, as most of the factors that make it up are agreed upon.

See?

You are already agreeing with me... not completely, but you are learning.

The problem arises with the weight or value placed on each facet that makes up intelligence, and which facets are or are not included in intelligence as a whole.

Then you must not have read my previous posts where General intelligence was positively correlated across a broad range of categories.

You might want to actually READ my posts, and respond to them as if they were THERE, instead of vomiting ignorance at me.

Of course you're not able to accurately measure it. As intelligence is something which, as you have now conceded, is not a finite concept, but one with a variety of definitions, then any test to measure or quantify it is based upon the designer of the test's subjective view on the importance and weight of the different factors that are involved in the test.

Testing critical thinking is not subjective, it is QUITE objective, in fact.

if you can't figure out a simple puzzle, but your friends can, then you are DUMBER than them.

Simple, Logic.

IQ tests measure a number of factors that contribute to intelligence

You see? You are already agreeing with me, because you MUST agree with me.

You cannot Argue AGAINST intelligence, while arguing that intelligence is something that it is NOT, because you must INVOKE the ACTUAL MEANING of intelligence BEFORE you attempt to obfuscate it's meaning.

Because Everyone ALREADY KNOWS what intelligence MEANS.

You are USING that knowledge, to attempt to DESTROY that knowledge.

And it is getting pretty pathetic.

Which is a way to measure someone's ability at quickly recognising a sequence of patterns and to work out, through the previous sequence, which one should come next.

Yes... that is what intelligence IS, "The ability to Think Critically about a situation, event, or 'object' and to change ones actions in accordance to the correct judgment of this critical thinking process."

You see, just because YOU don't understand the concept, does not mean that the concept is meaningless, it just means that perhaps you are not intelligent enough to understand it.

And that is the truly SAD part.

That is all it measures. While I realise those must only be the very basic visual IQ tests, it doesn't really go far to measuring someone's overall intelligence.

Tests of general intelligence are actually quite similar to the Progressive matrices that I posted above, because they require no previous knowledge of any specific field, they are IN FACT, more accurate in gageing general intelligence than tests that rely on your knowledge of words would be.

This is why I chose the Progressive matrix as my example, actually.

All it points to is that there is a genetic basis involved in someone's abilities of critical thought and logic. I don't think that that has seriously been questioned.

Well then, thank you for completely agreeing to the Veracity of the REALITY of the thing that you are still claiming is not real.

Genes are REAL, and you agree that the abilities to think critically and use logic are RELATED to those REAL THINGS, therefore, you agree that intelligence *IS* a real thing.

You don't even KNOW that you categorically MUST agree with me in order to even ARGUE the point... and that is SAD.

''The g factor, where g stands for general intelligence, is a statistic used in psychometrics in an attempt to quantify the mental ability underlying results of various tests of cognitive ability.''

''Attempt'' being the operative word here.

And considering that the outcomes of those tests have Real World Predictive outcomes, that fits the Scientific model of a theory for the basis of Prediction.

Your theory, however, that intelligence does not exist, has NO predictive capability, and in fact is not vindicated by peer reviewed science, as we can CLEARLY demonstrate a cognitive ability that ACTUALLY EXISTS that gives some people enhanced plan making abilities over their less "Intelligent" counterparts.

We don't know what intelligence is because there is no accepted definition of it, as once again, it is a subjective concept, not an objective one.

AGAIN, for the SEVENTH TIME:

"The ability to Think Critically about a situation, event, or 'object' and to change ones actions in accordance to the correct judgment of this critical thinking process. "

That is the ACCEPTED DEFINITION of Intelligence.

Just because you don't Agree, does not mean that you are right, in FACT, in the face of so much EVIDENCE TO YOUR CONTRARY, That would TECHNICALLY make you *WILLFULLY IGNORANT*

Obviously, we broadly know what intelligence is, otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion !

Again, you agree with me.

The idea and measurement of general intelligence that you mention ( sorry, that wiki mentioned :p ), is based upon individual interpretations and ideas of what constitutes ''general intelligence''.

No, it is based upon REAL WORLD METRICS of cognative ability, known as TESTS or "Capacity" in which we use examples of problems that need to be solved, and see how good someone is at solving them, against a group of their peers.

You are just attempting to obfuscating the fact of intelligence, which is what this thread is ABOUT, anyways.... so, thank you for taking my THREAD from theory, to FACT, by the way.... with your ATTACK on INTELLIGENCE.

The fact that there is evidence to suggest that there is a correlation between someone's neurological genetic make-up and their ability at logic and problem solving is hardly surprising,

You just agreed again that Intelligence is Real.

You are not even trying, are you?

I think you may be getting confused between the different points that are being argued in this discussion.

Oh, no.... I'm not confused at *ALL*, I know EXACTLY what I'm doing......

and you underestimated me.

IQ tests attempt to measure things such as logic, problem-solving, maths ability etc. but not all the other components that go into intelligence.

Oh, I'd *LOVE* to hear you try to Weasel your way out of this one....


WHAT OTHER COMPONENTS GO INTO INTELLIGENCE BESIDES CRITICAL THINKING AND PROBLEM SOLVING?

EXPLAIN YOUR POSITION!

And that is your personal opinion on the subject

*NO* for the EIGHTH TIME, Critical Thinking and Logic *IS* what intelligence *IS*.

Just because *YOU* don't understand it, does not mean that it IS NOT SO!

Although, these are only a some of the abilities that make up intelligence, especially in a practical, ''real-world'' situation.

Well, then... please explain some of these nebulous OTHER components that make up intelligence?

So that I can singularly De-construct what I'm sure will be a laughable attempt at an explanation.

Oh, and making PLANS *IS* a real world example of Critical thinking, and Problem Solving, like making a thread ABOUT the attack on intelligence, so that you can PROVE that attacks on intelligence Exist.

Check, Mate.

Again, which is your personal opinion and the opinion of some scientists who think that it is a measurable quantity.

Intelligence is not an accurately measurable phenomena.

You keep claiming that, but I have yet to see you produce any evidence of your position other than foot stamping and Endless Ranting....

So until you DO, I shall merely ignore you as a Troll.

The rest of your post is merely you saying more of the same ignorant opinions, and attacking intelligence, which is what I started this thread to prove existed.

So, thank you for playing right into my hand.

I shall not respond to the rest of your "Post" if you can even call it that, as all you do is rehash the same ignorance that you have been repeating ad nausium, accuse me of being "Emotionally unbalanced" more attempts to state that a word that we have clearly defined has no clear definition, and completely misunderstand the context of my replies, and the general subject at hand.

Thank you for your time, and attempts to argue the point; and as a matter of opinion, I at least now understand why *YOU* don't know what intelligence is....

Your post makes it fairly clear why you don't believe in it.

reply to post by ErtaiNaGia


I see no point in wasting another hour or so of my time by replying to your post in any kind of depth, as firstly, we are going round in circles and I would just be repeating and reiterating the points that I've already adequately made on this thread, and secondly, your position on this issue is evidently closed-minded and intransigent, and you aren't remotely interested in entertaining anybody else's views that are not in full alignment with yours.

For these reasons alone, any continuation of this debate is futile, as I would have as much luck in having a genuine, honest debate on this issue with a brick-wall.

Still, amid all of your bluster, I hope that you have learnt something, Ertai.

I find the title of this thread misleading. An "attack on intelligence" implies an active bias against intellect or intellectualism, which is certainly a grave problem. The actual subject seems to be "why don't smart people get laid more often?" Setting aside a broader definition of intelligence, one commonly accepted component is the ability to perceive consequences and plan one's actions accordingly. This explains why "less intelligent" members of the test group were more prone not only to early sexual activity, but more likely to go on to have criminal records. They did not think about the consequences of their actions, or had poor impulse control. The "more intelligent" were concerned about preparing for admission to college, which would also provide higher earning potential in the future. This orientation towards future results also means that they are willing to post-pone purely emotional satisfaction and/or reproduction until their career has reached a point that allows them to maintain themselves and their families in a more economically secure fashion. Indeed, statistics indicate that couples are having children later in life compared to previous generations.

Great!..... I'm still a Virgin..... there's hope for me yet!

Seriously, Men with high IQ's are smart enough to not fall into the hole...... you can take that as you please.

If all the intelligent people "won" then we would live in a cold, technical, automated, robotic soceity filled with gadgets but no real feeling or quality of life - which is what is occuring. Its hard to explain, but basically, emotional sensitivity and intelligence are usually inversely related (i.e autism/aspergers/sociopaths) and in general, they only feel at the extreme ends, as exreme anger/frustration, or extreme excitement/elation as opposed to all the more complex emotions inbetween. Sex is an emotionally driven activity, and is connected to a variety of emotional signals, that most intelligent people cannot perceive (different area of brain development).

In terms of being a virgin, I would never bring a girl home, even if my parents arent there, on the remote 1% chance that they could find me or find any form of "evidence". Generally my parents would make fun about me whenever I mentioned the name of a girl at school, and also in school my friends would always rat me out when I was honest about who I liked - and thus ruined it for me.... The problem with people like me (introverts) is that we are only really attracted to each other, and we are also a dying breed, and we only really connect emotionally when talking to each other directly, and in general circumstances are usually closed-off from the rest of the people.

Anyway, I was not a "wanted" child myself (I was born through a defunctional "birth resistor") and somehow feel that there is a deep instinctual drive by my parents (even soceity) to prevent me from trying to have offspring.

SystemResistor because: (no reason given)