AI cum slut ad is annoying and intrusive.

[anne O'nymous]

Might be very reductive and simplistic but doesn't an IQ test essentially measure top potential for understanding and not the actual understanding of the person at that point in time, thus the number can change depending on who is taking the test and the external circumstances in their life at the time?

It measure a potential, yes, but isn't saying that it's one related to understanding reducing and misleading?

It make it looks like someone with a high IQ will understand more accurately, what is wrong. This while also making it looks like someone with an average IQ wouldn't be able to fully understand, what is wrong too.
Someone world wide recognized as an expert, in whatever field, at the age of 30 probably have a high IQ, but a 60yo can perfectly be considered as being a bit above him in terms of knowledge. One understand thanks to his IQ, the other understand thanks to his long experience.
In the same time, it's not because one have a >140 IQ, that he'll understand everything correctly. Nikola Tesla IQ is estimated between 130 and 160, what feel accurate seen his works. Yet he was eugenicist, what is the mark of a clear misunderstanding since, among other things, eugenicists confuse the capability to live in society with the capability to contribute to this said society. Fun fact, when you look at Tesla's life, it seem obvious that he would be part of the minority that an eugenicist would have discarded as being useless to the society.

"Learning" seem more appropriate, because dissociated from the understanding you'll have from what you know. You'll learn more easily if you have a high IQ, but you can still totally misunderstand what you learned and/or how to apply it. This while someone with a lower IQ can also learn everything you know, it would just take him more time.
And it's precisely where the use of "understanding" is dangerous. It lead to what Goeffel said about the Mensa members who think that they are "better". If one is convinced that his IQ make him understand better, he'll also be convinced that he can't be wrong due to his IQ. What lead to people like Musk, who clearly miss of basic understanding, but can not depart from their ideas because, "the fuck, I'm a genius, I know better that those plebeians".

Could be wrong but that's how I've looked at it. Einstein had what? 160-180 of the top of my head? Now if he just stayed a patent clerk and never learnt maths then it would be irrelevant wouldn't it?

It would also be irrelevant if he had learned Math, but decided to be a Math teacher. He would have used his potential, but not fully exploited the knowledge he gained thanks to it.

It's also a good demonstration of what I said above. One can say (to over simplify) that looking through the train windows, then into the cabin, make him understand the relativity of our universe. But you can also say that, by doing it, he learned that there's relativity in this universe. And the second is more accurate, because he still needed years to come to his E=mc². He learned something, then dedicated his time to demonstrate it. This while, if he understood it, he would also have had the demonstration right from the starts.
The same can be said for Isaac Newton, who learned by seeing an apple fall, but still needed years to understand what he learned and come to his Theory. This while also being an alchemist, in search for the ancient occultist knowledge. Someone, I don't remember who, described him as being "the last of the magicians", because behind his scientific approach he also believe in some magical capabilities, in the strict meaning of the word; therefore not as being something still unknown from science, but as being something independent from science.

I've always, and remember again I could be wrong, looked at it as potential rather than actual, [...]

On this you're right.

HOWEVER it is my understanding that IF Arthur was to take up the study of Mechanics, he could understand far more in terms of end knowledge than Dave and can assimilate and understand information far quicker, remembering it more and generally more efficiently than Dave, potentiall overtaking Dave at some point in the understanding of this knowledge of study.

But on this you're partly wrong. He would learn faster, but it doesn't imply that he would understand more. It's the difference between having knowledge and being smart. Understanding is what make you smart, and it's also something that don't come from books; it can only come from practice and experience. Then, on top of this there's your inherent capacities.

I know and understand music theory, and know how to play few instruments. I can improvise you a good violin jam, but ask me to play a partition, or to play with others, and the result would be a real piece of shit because I totally lack of sense of rhythm. And when I say "totally", I mean it, I can't even stay synced with a metronome.
I know, I understand, but still I'm shit at it, and the same principle apply to high IQ. It describe your potential, as long as you take the time to practice, and that you have the needed capabilities to do it right. So, as I said above, it's not a question of understanding, just a question of learning ability.

 

[suprisedcrankyface]

It measure a potential, yes, but isn't saying that it's one related to understanding reducing and misleading?

IQ has little to no bearing on ability to learn and retain set knowledge. Its to do with your ability to adapt to and include new information, and using that information to create new information.

A high IQ student learning maths for example, will result in them figuring out the purpose and order of the lessons they are receiving and reach the conclusion on their own, without needing to be told. Sometimes this means they will reach a different (but still correct) conclusion or method to the teacher.

Very high IQ students often end up with bad grades in a normal school because of this, because the teacher doesn't understand the student is also correct.

100IQ - Dave.
200IQ - Arthur.

If Dave is a mechanic then he understands more of mechanics than Arthur if we assume that Arthur has never studied Mechanics at all.

HOWEVER it is my understanding that IF Arthur was to take up the study of Mechanics, he could understand far more in terms of end knowledge than Dave and can assimilate and understand information far quicker, remembering it more and generally more efficiently than Dave, potentiall overtaking Dave at some point in the understanding of this knowledge of study.

Yes and no, 100IQ will know just as much, where Arthur would shine over Dave is if something happened outside of what they had studied (say an issue on their project neither had encountered before), and they had to rely on what they did know to deal with the new problem. After sorting it the experience would bring Dave up to Arthurs level (if Dave paid attention to Arthurs logic/working) if they both then encountered the same problem again.

The thing is with a High IQ and motivation, you can learn alot of new things and that knowledge piles up, for example Arthur might be working with Sally next time, so Dave misses out.

Basically the higher the IQ the less dots you need to draw a line in a pattern or logic, the lower the more dots.

Thats my understanding anyways

 

[morphnet]

Might be very reductive and simplistic but doesn't an IQ test essentially measure top potential for understanding and not the actual understanding of the person at that point in time, thus the number can change depending on who is taking the test and the external circumstances in their life at the time?

Could be wrong but that's how I've looked at it. Einstein had what? 160-180 of the top of my head? Now if he just stayed a patent clerk and never learnt maths then it would be irrelevant wouldn't it? It would only be a potential, an idea, that without the will does not become an actuality or a thing in itself (sorry I'm currently in the last 40 or so pages of Schopenhauer's Die Welt Als Vill Unt Verstellung or in English The World as Will and Idea).

I've always, and remember again I could be wrong, looked at it as potential rather than actual, a person of 100 IQ vs 200 IQ for example. For the sake of concept let's assume:

100IQ - Dave.
200IQ - Arthur.

If Dave is a mechanic then he understands more of mechanics than Arthur if we assume that Arthur has never studied Mechanics at all.

HOWEVER it is my understanding that IF Arthur was to take up the study of Mechanics, he could understand far more in terms of end knowledge than Dave and can assimilate and understand information far quicker, remembering it more and generally more efficiently than Dave, potentiall overtaking Dave at some point in the understanding of this knowledge of study.

This would apply to any medium of knowledge, not just Mechanics.

You must be registered to see the links

 

[suprisedcrankyface]

You must be registered to see the links

Short article, very very vague, and we are specifically talking IQ I thought, which is still a test designed to track your ability to combine fact 1 and fact 2 to make fact 3. This article is correct in that since IQ tests were developed, science moved forward and there are now many other forms of intelligence recognized and its not 'IQ is king' anymore. So having a high IQ doesn't mean you are super intelligent, it does means you can readily draw conclusions faster than others from the information presented (a form of intelligence).

 

[anne O'nymous]

IQ has little to no bearing on ability to learn and retain knowledge.

What is "being taught".

Its to do with your ability to adapt to and include new information, and using that information to create new information.

While this is what learning is. But can it really be qualified as "understanding"?

[...] science moved forward and there are now many other forms of intelligence recognized and its not 'IQ is king' anymore. So having a high IQ doesn't mean you are super intelligent, it does means you can readily draw conclusions faster than others from the information presented (a form of intelligence).

C3p0 had a good example in a discussion about AI, talking about someone who could know what was wrong with an electric motor (or gearbox he didn't remembered correctly) just by ear.

He would draw conclusion faster than others from the information presented; in fact he would be the only one able to draw a conclusion based on the information presented. Yet this doesn't imply that he have a high IQ, what he have is a hearing far above the average coupled to a good practical knowledge.
Someone with a high IQ that would pass some times working with him wouldn't have difficulties to associate by himself the sounds and the issues. Then, working alone, he would be able to extrapolate a possible issue based on the sound made by the motor; It's "that kind of sound", the two other cases I know for similar sounds point to "this part", so the issue surely come from there.
He have a theoretical understanding, able to point to the right direction when he hear an unknown sound. This while the other guy have a practical understanding, able to explain the issue even if he hear the sound for the first time.

One know that the sound and issue are associate, the other know why they are associated. Which one have a better "understanding"?
This make IQ even less relevant nowadays, because we aren't anymore in a time of discovery. There's still many things to discover, but outside of pure theoretical science, and few other positions, practical knowledge is mandatory, what make other form of intelligence way more useful.

 

[suprisedcrankyface]

What is "being taught".

In its rawest form the transfer or knowledge from one human to another. This takes two to tango. Imagine a teacher with dementia, who only says the right thing 3/4 times. IQ would be a person who can discern the real based on the previous real examples and realizing that some are false the fastest (but not exclusively, its not a super power).

While this is what learning is. But can it really be qualified as "understanding"?

Yes, and no, it is a kind of learning that can mean leaping ahead but may leave gaps. To explain this I will use the classic example of knowledge as a mountain you need to climb - IQ lets you get there faster, but others may be slower but know every crevice on the way. Again there is no reason you couldn't slow down though, these are different areas like personality overlapping with other factors like IQ.

C3p0 had a good example in a discussion about AI, talking about someone who could know what was wrong with an electric motor (or gearbox he didn't remembered correctly) just by ear.

He would draw conclusion faster than others from the information presented; in fact he would be the only one able to draw a conclusion based on the information presented. Yet this doesn't imply that he have a high IQ, what he have is a hearing far above the average coupled to a good practical knowledge.

Again its not an exclusive thing, its just IQ is the speed you could notice that. If an apprentice noticed it on their own based on the noise it made when they fixed something the week earlier, chances are that apprentice has a high IQ. Again less dots to reach a conclusion.

Someone with a high IQ that would pass some times working with him wouldn't have difficulties to associate by himself the sounds and the issues. Then, working alone, he would be able to extrapolate a possible issue based on the sound made by the motor; It's "that kind of sound", the two other cases I know for similar sounds point to "this part", so the issue surely come from there.
He have a theoretical understanding, able to point to the right direction when he hear an unknown sound. This while the other guy have a practical understanding, able to explain the issue even if he hear the sound for the first time.

One know that the sound and issue are associate, the other know why they are associated. Which one have a better "understanding"?

To go back to my example of the apprentice - high IQ could have neither understanding but know that the two experts gave it importance. From that they could realize the vehicles that those experts did 'x' work on had a different noise to the others. No idea how to fix it, but now a very high understanding of that noise being important for identifying that certain work was required. That apprentice for example could then 'revere fill' the knowledge of why if those mechanics were kind enough to share. Certain things must still be taught, but its a process jumping all over the place.

This make IQ even less relevant nowadays, because we aren't anymore in a time of discovery. There's still many things to discover, but outside of pure theoretical science, and few other positions, practical knowledge is mandatory, what make other form of intelligence way more useful.

Again yes, and no. IQ is the ability to adapt and draw ideas together. So Someone with amazing memory and a disciplined personality is perfect as an expert, but when two experts from different fields need to work together a High IQ will result in better cross pollination of ideas.

Also finally knowledge isn't just one thing, its better thought of as a pie graph. Some have amazing muscle memory and coordination. Some memory. Some IQ. Some social skills. Its about how big that pie is and how the distribution goes, but there is a graph you could draw of every person (amazing PHD world leading expert, but uncoordinated as hell for example).

 

[morphnet]

Short article, very very vague, and we are specifically talking IQ I thought, which is still a test designed to track your ability to combine fact 1 and fact 2 to make fact 3.

Firstly since no one stipulated which I.Q. / I.Q. test was being discussed or which version of intelligence was being debated the article is relevant. It points out clearly that high I.Q. score is NOT a measure of intelligence.

Secondly, it is not designed to "track your ability to combine fact 1 + fact 2 to "make" fact 3".

You must be registered to see the links

So having a high IQ doesn't mean you are super intelligent, it does means you can readily draw conclusions faster than others from the information presented (a form of intelligence).

Again not accurate, please refer to the above link.

In its rawest form the transfer or knowledge from one human to another. This takes two to tango.

This is again inaccurate, firstly, information is shared not transferred, information is the foundation for knowledge. Secondly, it does NOT require a second human, there has been and still are many people who acquire information through observation of nature (or nature and the universe depending on your acceptance of the definitions) and gain information in that way. It does NOT take two to tango in this context.

For the rest of your reply you mix up or mislabel information, knowledge and understanding and your examples of the mountain, the apprentices and the experts are incorrect as you apply the wrong criteria to them.

You must be registered to see the links

 

[MissCougar]

AI milfs in your area want you to click their x.

 

[tanstaafl]

Might be very reductive and simplistic but doesn't an IQ test essentially measure top potential for understanding and not the actual understanding of the person at that point in time

Traditional:

• Verbal IQ – Language-based reasoning, vocabulary, reading comprehension.
• Performance IQ – Non-verbal and spatial reasoning (puzzles, patterns, visual tasks).
• Full Scale IQ (FSIQ) – Overall score combining all subtests.

There are a lot more classifications now, even emotional, but they all usually break down to this or subsets of this (except for the emotional.)

 

[suprisedcrankyface]

Firstly since no one stipulated which I.Q. / I.Q. test was being discussed or which version of intelligence was being debated the article is relevant. It points out clearly that high I.Q. score is NOT a measure of intelligence.

Secondly, it is not designed to "track your ability to combine fact 1 + fact 2 to "make" fact 3".

You must be registered to see the links

Again not accurate, please refer to the above link.

Interesting read, if you go through all the associated articles as well there is quite a lot there, will use this site to refer back to you.
check out theories-of-intelligence-2795035

Have left chunks out to save space, you can read it yourself

" How Do We Define Intelligence?

• Learn from experience: The acquisition, retention, and use of knowledge is an essential component of intelligence.
• Recognize problems: To use knowledge, people first must identify the problems it might address.
• Solve problems: People must then use what they have learned to come up with solutions to problems."

Traditional IQ tests would test along these lines, but obviously the final (solving the problem) was the final and defining trait as to do so you needed to both have remembered enough, understood the problem and then resolved it.

Learn fact 1, learn fact 2, encounter issue & use known knowledge to problem solve & reach fact 3 (conclusion, solution, workaround etc.).

My point (and its further down the page) is there are now known to be many types of intelligence, the older tests weighted heavily on this aspect alone, and when people say IQ they generally refer to the zeitgeist understanding of the era's it evolved and was widespread (not the current scientific understanding).

This is again inaccurate, firstly, information is shared not transferred, information is the foundation for knowledge. Secondly, it does NOT require a second human, there has been and still are many people who acquire information through observation of nature (or nature and the universe depending on your acceptance of the definitions) and gain information in that way. It does NOT take two to tango in this context.

We were talking about 'taught' not 'learnt'.

transfer /trăns-fûr′, trăns′fər/
intransitive verb
To convey or cause to pass from one place, person, or thing to another.

convey /kən-vā′/
transitive verb
To communicate or make known; impart.

This could be via all kinds of things, article, book, direct language, visually etc. A 'self taught' lawyer for example has still read many articles and documents designed to transfer knowledge, they just did so without a teacher. The examples above are learning, anything you 'figure out' without anyone or any assistance are not 'taught' they are learnt (via observational learning for example).

For the rest of your reply you mix up or mislabel information, knowledge and understanding and your examples of the mountain, the apprentices and the experts are incorrect as you apply the wrong criteria to them.

These were simplistic examples highlighting what I have elaborated on above to convey a concept, not a straight up factual dump.

I was also stating that there are many forms of intelligence now & overall intelligence is a mixture/ratio of these combined.

Refer to your own site again under theories-of-intelligence-2795035

"Multiple Intelligences
Among more recent ideas about intelligence is Howard Gardner's theory of multiple intelligences. He proposed that traditional IQ testing does not fully and accurately depict a person's abilities. He proposed eight different intelligences based on skills and abilities that are valued in various cultures"

AI milfs in your area want you to click their x.

But I dun wanna click on Barry

 

[morphnet]

My point (and its further down the page) is there are now known to be many types of intelligence, the older tests weighted heavily on this aspect alone, and when people say IQ they generally refer to the zeitgeist understanding of the era's it evolved and was widespread (not the current scientific understanding).

I'm going to reply to these slightly out of order to keep the context so I answer this part then the fact 1,2,3 one after.

For this part, it doesn't matter if people use the older understanding of the concept because when discussing the topic in this context the requirement is on them to have up to date knowledge of the topic. If they use out dated information then from the start they are wrong and any points based on incorrect information would be wrong too.

Learn fact 1, learn fact 2, encounter issue & use known knowledge to problem solve & reach fact 3 (conclusion, solution, workaround etc.).

The issues I take with this is that you are saying fact when you should be saying correct facts. The above section of my reply illustrates this but to avoid any confusion, with this topic, technical details are important and stating facts instead of correct facts changes the topic completely.

I.E. You say I.Q. is speed, the ability to take fact 1 and fact 2 and reach the conclusion of fact 3 faster than others if the I.Q. is higher. However if the facts are incorrect the speed at which fact 3 is reached is meaningless.

Example:
Fact 1: almost all living things need oxygen
Fact 2: Trees create most of the oxygen

Question: where do we get the most oxygen from?

Answer: Trees

This was a common misconception for a very long time and some people still believe it. Using your assertion, a person with a high I.Q. would reach the answer of trees faster but the answer is wrong, so it doesn't matter if they reached the answer the quickest.

The correct answer is phytoplankton, which creates 50% of the world oxygen. So if the person with the higher I.Q. knew about the trees misconception and a person with a lower I.Q. knew about phytoplankton and gave the answer much later, they would still be right and the higher I.Q. person would still be wrong.

This could be via all kinds of things, article, book, direct language, visually etc. A 'self taught' lawyer for example has still read many articles and documents designed to transfer knowledge, they just did so without a teacher. The examples above are learning, anything you 'figure out' without anyone or any assistance are not 'taught' they are learnt (via observational learning for example).

This is still not accurate or correct, many animals, plants and other things in nature have taught people many lessons. Whether we go back in time and see how animals taught people which plants and fruits were safe to eat through to today where people are still learning from nature how our actions are affecting our environment. The form the information takes is different but the results are what counts.

Remember that people did not start out with books or information and information is constantly evolving, not because a person or book said so but because of observations. Your assertion was "in it's rawest form the transfer of knowledge from one human to another" but the order in is incorrect.

Where did the first person sharing information get their information?

We gather information from nature (and the universe depending on your acceptance of the definition), our surroundings and our environment, we combine that information into knowledge, we then share the information to the next generation which adds information they have discovered and they create new knowledge, they in turn share their information with the next generation and so on and so on.

As for the transfer vs sharing, your reply listed this

transfer /trăns-fûr′, trăns′fər/
intransitive verb
To convey or cause to pass from one place, person, or thing to another.

convey /kən-vā′/
transitive verb
To communicate or make known; impart.

Transfer, to convey or cause to pass this part is important because 2 teachers in 2 different parts of a country will never do this when teaching the same information, they add to it their own understanding, add or leave out parts dictated by that areas schooling regulations and in some cases change the information completely etc. etc. so that you end up with students from 2 different parts of the country having taken the same subject but with different levels / amounts of information.

If it was purely conveyed or passed on both students would have the exact same information.

Nowhere in the "to convey or cause to pass" does it state to replace, change, add or remove. Information is shared because it comes with extras. Learn about hummingbirds from 2 people who studied the same course and read the same books and the information passed on while having some core details the same, will be different.

These were simplistic examples highlighting what I have elaborated on above to convey a concept, not a straight up factual dump.

I was also stating that there are many forms of intelligence now & overall intelligence is a mixture/ratio of these combined.

Refer to your own site again under theories-of-intelligence-2795035

"Multiple Intelligences
Among more recent ideas about intelligence is Howard Gardner's theory of multiple intelligences. He proposed that traditional IQ testing does not fully and accurately depict a person's abilities. He proposed eight different intelligences based on skills and abilities that are valued in various cultures"

I don't dispute that, my point is that you examples were tailored to make your point and could not be applied to the actual concept. They also did not take any of the other tests into account or cater to people without an education.

 

[suprisedcrankyface]

The issues I take with this is that you are saying fact when you should be saying correct facts. The above section of my reply illustrates this but to avoid any confusion, with this topic, technical details are important and stating facts instead of correct facts changes the topic completely.

Fact vs misconception, save this for next time because we already blown the word count out here

I.E. You say I.Q. is speed, the ability to take fact 1 and fact 2 and reach the conclusion of fact 3 faster than others if the I.Q. is higher. However if the facts are incorrect the speed at which fact 3 is reached is meaningless.

Example:
Fact 1: almost all living things need oxygen
Fact 2: Trees create most of the oxygen

Question: where do we get the most oxygen from?

Answer: Trees

This was a common misconception for a very long time and some people still believe it. Using your assertion, a person with a high I.Q. would reach the answer of trees faster but the answer is wrong, so it doesn't matter if they reached the answer the quickest.

The correct answer is phytoplankton, which creates 50% of the world oxygen. So if the person with the higher I.Q. knew about the trees misconception and a person with a lower I.Q. knew about phytoplankton and gave the answer much later, they would still be right and the higher I.Q. person would still be wrong.

If someone is handed the answers to the test, they know the answers. Problem solving isn't applying a known solution to a know problem, its the opposite.

This is still not accurate or correct, many animals, plants and other things in nature have taught people many lessons. Whether we go back in time and see how animals taught people which plants and fruits were safe to eat through to today where people are still learning from nature how our actions are affecting our environment. The form the information takes is different but the results are what counts.

No. People copied animals, and some died copying the wrong animals. People saw that and taught their offspring and tribe which animals that you COULD copy.

Remember that people did not start out with books or information and information is constantly evolving, not because a person or book said so but because of observations. Your assertion was "in it's rawest form the transfer of knowledge from one human to another" but the order in is incorrect.

Where did the first person sharing information get their information?

We gather information from nature (and the universe depending on your acceptance of the definition), our surroundings and our environment, we combine that information into knowledge, we then share the information to the next generation which adds information they have discovered and they create new knowledge, they in turn share their information with the next generation and so on and so on.

As for the transfer vs sharing, your reply listed this

transfer /trăns-fûr′, trăns′fər/
intransitive verb
To convey or cause to pass from one place, person, or thing to another.

convey /kən-vā′/
transitive verb
To communicate or make known; impart.

Transfer, to convey or cause to pass this part is important because 2 teachers in 2 different parts of a country will never do this when teaching the same information, they add to it their own understanding, add or leave out parts dictated by that areas schooling regulations and in some cases change the information completely etc. etc. so that you end up with students from 2 different parts of the country having taken the same subject but with different levels / amounts of information.

If it was purely conveyed or passed on both students would have the exact same information.

Nowhere in the "to convey or cause to pass" does it state to replace, change, add or remove. Information is shared because it comes with extras. Learn about hummingbirds from 2 people who studied the same course and read the same books and the information passed on while having some core details the same, will be different.



I don't dispute that, my point is that you examples were tailored to make your point and could not be applied to the actual concept. They also did not take any of the other tests into account or cater to people without an education.

If the river last rose when the sky is dark for many suns, noticing this and moving is not being 'taught' by the river. Someone has learned via observation, telling this to someone who has never seen it happen (or didn't understand the link) is teaching.

 

[morphnet]

Fact vs misconception, save this for next time because we already blown the word count out here

Not really sure what you mean by "blown the word count" this is a discussion, there is no limit as far as I'm aware.

If someone is handed the answers to the test, they know the answers. Problem solving isn't applying a known solution to a know problem, its the opposite.

Two things here,

1) Your examples literally did just that
2) That doesn't address my point.

No. People copied animals, and some died copying the wrong animals. People saw that and taught their offspring and tribe which animals that you COULD copy.

Incorrect, yes people copied animals and other things, yes some failed but they did not teach their offspring and tribe which animals to copy, after coping the animal the next generation expanded on it. Once people knew which foods were safe they didn't tell their children to find out for themselves by watching the animals they showed them. You can see this by the advancements such as forager - farmer etc.

But with each advancement came new difficulties / problems and new lessons had to be learnt from nature, their environment and their surroundings. This has been the process and it still continues today.

If the river last rose when the sky is dark for many suns, noticing this and moving is not being 'taught' by the river. Someone has learned via observation, telling this to someone who has never seen it happen (or didn't understand the link) is teaching.

Which is probably why so many people still live next to rivers and get flooded out each year. Some lessons people refuse to learn.

Also not really fair on my part but the river wouldn't be the one teaching a lesson in that example, a number of different parts of nature would come into play, from seasons to destruction of natural habitat to marks / scars / evidence left behind etc. etc.

You must be registered to see the links

You must be registered to see the links

You must be registered to see the links

You must be registered to see the links

You must be registered to see the links

You must be registered to see the links

You must be registered to see the links

You must be registered to see the links

You must be registered to see the links

You must be registered to see the links

You must be registered to see the links

 

[suprisedcrankyface]

Not really sure what you mean by "blown the word count" this is a discussion, there is no limit as far as I'm aware.



Two things here,

1) Your examples literally did just that
2) That doesn't address my point.



Incorrect, yes people copied animals and other things, yes some failed but they did not teach their offspring and tribe which animals to copy, after coping the animal the next generation expanded on it. Once people knew which foods were safe they didn't tell their children to find out for themselves by watching the animals they showed them. You can see this by the advancements such as forager - farmer etc.

But with each advancement came new difficulties / problems and new lessons had to be learnt from nature, their environment and their surroundings. This has been the process and it still continues today.



Which is probably why so many people still live next to rivers and get flooded out each year. Some lessons people refuse to learn.

Also not really fair on my part but the river wouldn't be the one teaching a lesson in that example, a number of different parts of nature would come into play, from seasons to destruction of natural habitat to marks / scars / evidence left behind etc. etc.

You must be registered to see the links

You must be registered to see the links

You must be registered to see the links

You must be registered to see the links

You must be registered to see the links

You must be registered to see the links

You must be registered to see the links

You must be registered to see the links

You must be registered to see the links

You must be registered to see the links

You must be registered to see the links

The more side topics the further it moves from IQ, the point we were talking about. You have left the point of the argument, IQ. Please stop googling something, throwing out a link, then refusing to contextualize any of it. You are confirmation seeking in your searches 'what lessons does nature teach' - tada you have an article. Read one. 'Ocean' 'teaches' us about the impact of plastic. Scientists using existing knowledge break down new data and learn from their observations. The ocean teaches fk all, its fancy words thrown into a new article about plastics to draw in clicks. And thats the .gov one, the others are places like 'nature-mentor.com' wtf do you expect from that. There is clear bias within many of these.

If you think clues 'teach' the detective then we will agree to disagree, there's no logic left to work with.

And this is not an insult, but if you have not been tested for the spectrum you should, the apprentice example relies on the apprentice not having knowledge the others do, if that wasn't apparent that's a marker.

 

[anne O'nymous]

Imagine a teacher with dementia, who only says the right thing 3/4 times. IQ would be a person who can discern the real based on the previous real examples and realizing that some are false the fastest (but not exclusively, its not a super power).

Your example only apply for structured sciences, yet as long as it stay on an already studied, even if only incompletely, topic.
An English (or in fact whatever language) teacher that would mess up exception to a rule, a biology teacher that would mess up one organ role, an history teacher that would mess up whatever, and so on, wouldn't be caught just because you have a high IQ. And even for strongly structured sciences, like Math or Physic, it would only apply either if he mess up after having starting to teach a given topic, or after six sessions when the divergence will become obvious.
It's also assuming that, contrarily to the reality, students with high IQ do not doubt about what they understand.

Yes, and no, it is a kind of learning that can mean leaping ahead but may leave gaps.

It's not a question of gap, but of interpretation.

The higher will be the IQ, the higher are the risks of misinterpretation at short term, because you'll see relations that exist, but can be totally irrelevant and limited to the sample you were confronted with. It's like all those "math trick" you can found on social networks, what works but only with a limited number of cases. And once you seen that relation, once your mind printed it as being the main point, it's really hard to depart of it. Especially when, here again, it's not highly structured sciences.
With Math or Physic it's, relatively, easy to switch back to the relation that still apply to the first "bogus" example. But for all other topics, you're facing the existence of exceptions; and there's exceptions everywhere, even in structured sciences like biology or genetic. You're there face to a dilemma; have you misinterpreted, or are you facing an exception?

But the gaps you'll find in your knowledge will be the same than for anyone else, therefore the parts that you didn't cared about.

Again its not an exclusive thing, its just IQ is the speed you could notice that. If an apprentice noticed it on their own based on the noise it made when they fixed something the week earlier, chances are that apprentice has a high IQ. Again less dots to reach a conclusion.

There's absolutely no relation between the two. He can have a high IQ, but it will be something independent to his capability, that come from his passion for what he's doing and experience. Both thing that aren't defined by one's intellectual potential. In fact, it's a capability that is frequent with people who have a low potential, because they focus on data that are generally discarded by anyone else.

Again yes, and no. IQ is the ability to adapt and draw ideas together.

With absolutely no guaranties that you'll do it correctly and, for most, while fighting a (more or less strong) imposter syndrome.

Also finally knowledge isn't just one thing, its better thought of as a pie graph. Some have amazing muscle memory and coordination. Some memory. Some IQ. Some social skills. Its about how big that pie is and how the distribution goes, but there is a graph you could draw of every person (amazing PHD world leading expert, but uncoordinated as hell for example).

You're confusing knowledge and cognitive abilities.

 

[its_not_real]

Instead of involving myself in discussions about iq and such, I will provide some other facts about adblocking...

There is only one adblocker that actually works today, and that is uBlock Origin. And that ONLY works on firefox based browsers.
On any chromium based browser there is this thing called Manifest V3 that prevents adblocking to work properly. The uBlock lite version available for those does not block properly.
Browsers like Brave, Opera, Edge, Vivaldi, Samsung Internet, Arc, Avast, DuckDuckGo browser are ALL chromium based browsers and therefore go under Manifest V3, ie, origin does not work, only lite and lite does NOT update adlists.

Adblocking relies on adlists, ie a list of sites to block, and that is a cat and mouse procedure.
Ad services change url on more or less a daily basis, the adblock updates the lists to include the new url:s, ad service changes the url again and so on.
With Manifest V3 the adblocker is not allowed to download lists daily. According to google "to protect the user" witch is compete and utter bullshit for the lack of a better word. This is ONLY to protect big corp interest, nothing else.
This is by design from google.

If you don't believe me, check uBlocks own webpage about the matter.

You must be registered to see the links

You must be registered to see the links

Use firefox (or any fork of that) and uBlock origin, set it to "advanced mode", use the "element picker" and click the banner and it is gone.
OR what I would suggest, just donate 10 bucks instead to support the site...

As a matter of fact, I am going to go do that right now...

 

[morphnet]

The more side topics the further it moves from IQ, the point we were talking about. You have left the point of the argument, IQ. Please stop googling something, throwing out a link, then refusing to contextualize any of it. You are confirmation seeking in your searches 'what lessons does nature teach' - tada you have an article. Read one. 'Ocean' 'teaches' us about the impact of plastic. Scientists using existing knowledge break down new data and learn from their observations. The ocean teaches fk all, its fancy words thrown into a new article about plastics to draw in clicks. And thats the .gov one, the others are places like 'nature-mentor.com' wtf do you expect from that. There is clear bias within many of these.

If you think clues 'teach' the detective then we will agree to disagree, there's no logic left to work with.

And this is not an insult, but if you have not been tested for the spectrum you should, the apprentice example relies on the apprentice not having knowledge the others do, if that wasn't apparent that's a marker.

You could've left it at I.Q. is not an indication of intelligence. You broadened the topic and I engaged in the discussion.

As for the context, it was in response to the quoted section. To answer and expand on it.

As for the links themselves, the concept / fact that nature has taught and continues to teach humans is not mine, I am sharing that information here. Your refusal to accept the idea, the data or how it is presented does not change it or the fact that it is an accepted concept.

It is also clear you disagree but are you able to provide any reputable sources that say nature has not and does not teach anything or is that your personal point of view?

Also the main topic was the ad banner, I.Q. is already a very side topic taken from a reply.

As for the bias, what exactly could there be bias towards? Sharing information? gathering information? There is no agenda or angle being worked here, people are saying look and learn how could that possibly be bad?

 

[peterppp]

Instead of involving myself in discussions about iq and such, I will provide some other facts about adblocking...

There is only one adblocker that actually works today, and that is uBlock Origin. And that ONLY works on firefox based browsers.
On any chromium based browser there is this thing called Manifest V3 that prevents adblocking to work properly. The uBlock lite version available for those does not block properly.
Browsers like Brave, Opera, Edge, Vivaldi, Samsung Internet, Arc, Avast, DuckDuckGo browser are ALL chromium based browsers and therefore go under Manifest V3, ie, origin does not work, only lite and lite does NOT update adlists.

Adblocking relies on adlists, ie a list of sites to block, and that is a cat and mouse procedure.
Ad services change url on more or less a daily basis, the adblock updates the lists to include the new url:s, ad service changes the url again and so on.
With Manifest V3 the adblocker is not allowed to download lists daily. According to google "to protect the user" witch is compete and utter bullshit for the lack of a better word. This is ONLY to protect big corp interest, nothing else.
This is by design from google.

If you don't believe me, check uBlocks own webpage about the matter.

You must be registered to see the links

You must be registered to see the links

Use firefox (or any fork of that) and uBlock origin, set it to "advanced mode", use the "element picker" and click the banner and it is gone.
OR what I would suggest, just donate 10 bucks instead to support the site...

As a matter of fact, I am going to go do that right now...

u can still use ublock origin in chrome if it has been disabled (cant speak for other chromium based browsers). you just gotta enable it.
https://f95zone.to/threads/easter-sale-feedback.252618/post-16790928

 

[suprisedcrankyface]

But the gaps you'll find in your knowledge will be the same than for anyone else, therefore the parts that you didn't cared about.

I am not disagreeing with what you are saying, I am using example where IQ may increase the speed of drawing connections. Its not a superpower & doesn't create abilities others do not have, everyone has an IQ.

it's a capability that is frequent with people who have a low potential, because they focus on data that are generally discarded by anyone else.

Or they see value where others don't?

Unless there is a gaping issue there that is overlooked because people have accepted at face value 'that's how it works'. For years and years people thought horses saw normally, this was a published scientific fact accepted by all. Then someone saw a horse run into another horse. They went through said 'discarded' (already accepted don't look at) data and discovered they see in a narrow but wide band, so tack that forces their nose down restricts their vision to the ground in front of them (and their sides).

There is 0 chance that in human history this was the first person to observe a horse colliding.

With absolutely no guaranties that you'll do it correctly and, for most, while fighting a (more or less strong) imposter syndrome.

You are assuming that person did not also study within a field. If they studied Law and were running around as an engineer, then yes, this may be true. but like I said earlier, plenty of high IQ people can discipline themselves to learn through a process.
This is where personality & behavioral traits come into it. Imposter syndrome can also occur because the more you know the more you realise you do not know, and the more problems/inadequacies become obvious to you. It can occur in many, many different types of people.

You're confusing knowledge and cognitive abilities.

Was pretty tired when I finished that post so used the words interchangeable when they are different. What I was mean to be saying was that a trained athlete also has knowledge & intelligence. The actions and training to perfect techniques are stored in the brain to allow those coordinated actions, which is a form of intelligence. This was supposed to be example of why IQ isn't the only form of intelligence.

 

[its_not_real]

u can still use ublock origin in chrome if it has been disabled (cant speak for other chromium based browsers). you just gotta enable it.

I repeat: uBlock origin lite is NOT the same as full fledged uBlock origin, not even close.
When all Manifest v2 plugins are removed, witch is very soon, only lite will remain.

Click the link:

You must be registered to see the links

Google has previously told BleepingComputer that the disabling of Manifest V2 extensions is a gradual rollout process, which is why the extensions may still work for some users.

For those who need more time, Google will let the enterprise and certain users continue using Manifest V2 extensions until June 2025 through a

You must be registered to see the links

. For everyone else, the rollout of Manifest V3 is already in progress, and Chrome will keep encouraging users to move away from older extensions.

If you're affected by Google's Manifest V2 deprecation, you can switch to Manifest V3-supported extensions, such as the

You must be registered to see the links

(uBOL), which the uBlock Origin developer has created.

However, if you prefer uBlock Origin's advanced filtering, you may find the Lite version too limited.

v2 is already deprecated, not removed, but it WILL happen.
If you are among the users that it still works for, lucky you I guess.
Google does partial rollouts for their software and platforms, that is why some had the "remove the adblock to view the video" on youtube a few months back, but some didn't, it's how google operates.

I can't even watch youtube videos any longer, they freeze and buffer forever after exactly 1min (probably tries to roll an ad at that point)
But joke's on them, I just use

You must be registered to see the links

to download the videos I am interested in instead, gives them zero money but they still have to pay for the data traffic. Sucks for the content creator, but I donate directly to those I like anyway so I have no bad conscience about that.
And my pihole removes close to all tracking from google api:s.
FUCK GOOGLE!

DESIGN BY GOOGLE TO DEFEND CORPORATIONS TRACKING YOU!
Here are some of the things that is removed with lite: (ie, the whole point with an adblocker, especially the first point, although it is misleading since there are no longer any filter lists, it's using declarative rulesets and scripts which are the results of compiling filter lists when the extension package is generated)

• Filter lists update only when the extension updates (no fetching up to date lists from servers)
• Many filters are
  You must be registered to see the links
  due to MV3's limited filter syntax
• No
  You must be registered to see the links
  (thus no
  You must be registered to see the links
  )
• No
  You must be registered to see the links
  pages
• No
  You must be registered to see the links
• No
  You must be registered to see the links
• No
  You must be registered to see the links