Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Issac Asimov: What Is Intelligence, Anyway?

talentdevelop.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 62 posts

Re: Issac Asimov: What Is Intelligence, Anyway?

#51

Post by tete »

I also reach ridiculously high IQ score on tests (no, not online one ;p), but I know I am not smart. In fact I am very dumb. This proves that IQ test have a lot of flaws.

Besides that I don't think intelligence can be measured. I know neuronal networks are simulated in a very similar way, but it still can be used to explain the concept of IQ is nonsense.

It's the same nonsense with people claiming brain size related or genomes relate with what people mean when they talk about intelligence. There are people who had half or their brain removed (for example because of epilepsy) which disproved pretty much every claims made. Some of these people were able to live a pretty much normal live, studied, etc.

Re: Issac Asimov: What Is Intelligence, Anyway?

#52

Post by Game_Ender »

billconan wrote: post #29

When I was in high school, I topped my class. Some of my classmates started to call me about questions in their quizzes. I could remember the exact descriptions of the quiz questions back in few months. So when they asked me about certain question, I didn't need my exam papers. They told me the number of a question, I could give both the question and the answer. I didn't remember the question on purpose, I simply did…

Gattaca explores this concept nicely: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gattaca I think we will get there someday. Then after that, those who can it afford will flip on all the intelligence genes for their children. That world will be a much more "interesting" place then one where you know you were "born stupid". You will be less intelligent because you were too porn, or your parents didn't believe in genetic modification.

Re: Issac Asimov: What Is Intelligence, Anyway?

#53

Post by grandalf »

ominous_prime wrote: post #42
grandalf wrote: post #24

I think this essay makes a good point but largely misses the mark. Much of what the vast majority of people do with their brains is a biproduct of training, and little of it can be attributed to intelligence. In most fields there is some combination of motivation and intelligence necessary for success. It is my view that an IQ of 110-120 is more than sufficient for abundant success in nearly any field. 40% of the pop…

An error that may change your outlook a bit-- only about 16% of the population fall into the 110-120 range (roughly 74th to 90th percentiles)

It doesn't really change it. One in 6 is close to saying one person in every household, and so intuitively it negates the notion that intellect sufficient to achieve at the highest levels is scarce.

Re: Issac Asimov: What Is Intelligence, Anyway?

#54

Post by grandalf »

Jach wrote: post #27
hackinthebochs wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand these meme of degrading IQ as having little real world value. That mentality seems to fly in the face of just about every observation one can make. It seems obvious that in general, smarter people tend to get ahead. Of course there are many counter examples, but overall the trend seems obvious. Why is it everyone must apologize, make excuses for, or somehow downplay their own intelligence? Maybe it…

It is interesting. On the one hand, very few people argue that a person with measured IQ of 80 won't have a hard time in life. On the other hand people dismiss 120 people and pretend IQ doesn't matter. (And it seems a lot of this group is made of 120+ people.) I figure it's just a form of social signaling, a signal of false modesty so the 100s still like you. Though personally I don't see that much difference in the…

It's not that intelligence is irrelevant, it's just far less relevant than a lot of other factors. Also, people are quick to attribute someone else's success to an innate quality like intelligence rather than things like tenacity, hard work, etc., b/c then we don't need to feel lazy.

Re: Issac Asimov: What Is Intelligence, Anyway?

#55

Post by david927 »

But Asimov's answer was an indication of intelligence -- not the opposite. Intelligence often means dealing at a conceptual level as opposed to a more detailed level. There's a reason that there's the stereotype of the absent-minded professor. He or she will publish an important paper and then leave their sweater at work. They've sacrificed one level for the other. Asimov's mistake answering the question was the same as forgetting a sweater -- he just didn't spend any effort thinking about it.

And as for his point that there's an educational bias to IQ tests -- that's just silly. The intellectual requirements of being a nuclear scientist are more stringent than those of being a car mechanic. The qualities we ascribe to intelligence map more to the former than to the latter. Next, IQ tests don't measure intelligence. Intelligence is qualitative, like beauty, not quantitative, like height. We use it to look for attributes of intelligence. Knowing a woman has high cheekbones doesn't tell you if she's beautiful, but it gives an indication that she might be, for what that's worth.

Re: Issac Asimov: What Is Intelligence, Anyway?

#56

Post by pjscott »

palish wrote: post #40
pjscott wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Genes are a lot more complicated than that. Unless you get some really blatant genetic problem, like Down Syndrome, there's a very heavy environmental component to how you turn out. And that's exactly what you want, isn't it? You want your life not to be predetermined, or even predictable -- and that seems to be the way things really are! Of course, some people do wind up with, say, a genetic predisposition to alcoho…

Apologies, but this attitude is quite annoying: "As long as you're healthy and a hard worker, you too can be a genius! It just takes time!" If anyone bothered to try to answer the question "do genetics matter much?" by examining real-world prodigies, they would be forced to conclude "Yes, genetics are equally important to upbringing/environment". Read through this, then claim genetics don't matter: "This was Richard…

I'm also irritated by the inaccuracy of that attitude, which is why I never expressed it. Of course genetics are a big deal. They just aren't the only thing, which was the subject at hand.

Re: Issac Asimov: What Is Intelligence, Anyway?

#57

Post by tadfisher »

kahawe wrote: post #44
ThomPete wrote: post #7

A friend of mine used to be a welder. I always found his political views simplistic to say the least. He couldn't control his liqueur and one day he felt down from high up and his arm got trashed. I always thought that he was going to end up as a looser, although I love him as a good friend. Years went by and he never really got anywhere, of course supporting my theory and increasing my concern. Then a friend suggest…

Another moral here is: you were seeing him as less clever and less successful because he was "just" a welder. A skilled craftsman who understands what he is doing, understands a bit of the market and the chances available to him can run circles around any struggling internet startup, if only because the equipment and training needed are typically not as easy to come by as a Rails or AJAX or web handbook.

As a full-time software developer who recently took a three-month intro course to welding, I can certainly take this moral to heart. Good welders (and other craftsmen) are able to successfully channel years of knowledge and experience through their eyes, wrists and fingertips, balancing an incredible amount of variables to end up with a good product in a short amount of time. They can also make pretty good money.

After my experience, I've tried to apply the lessons I learned from welding to my full-time job, and I've become a better developer as a result. "Measure twice, cut once" is a mantra that should apply to every field. At the same time, it's easier now to recognize when something isn't done right and it's time to refactor or rewrite. Good welders, like good developers, do it right the first time :)

Re: Issac Asimov: What Is Intelligence, Anyway?

#58

Post by codeslush »

pjscott wrote: post #34
codeslush wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"tend to get ahead", "trend seems obvious", "fly in the face..." -- I've witnessed a lot of "intelligent" people in my life, and a lot of people on the other end of the spectrum. Intelligent or not, I would suggest that people who "tend to get ahead" are those that ENJOY and are HAPPY with life. I would go so far as to say that IQ doesn't play a part in this outcome - and may make it more difficult to achieve. It's a…

How confident are you in your intuition on this matter? IQ does seem to be significantly correlated with a bunch of things that fall under the general umbrella of "getting ahead in life", like income and job performance: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ#Social_outcomes

I read the wikipedia article - thank you. However, I think we are speaking of different things! Maybe, maybe not. I speak of true happiness. I look at the people in my life that live "a good life" and the people I see succeeding are those with very little. I don't question, for one moment, that higher IQ leads to more opportunity, more money, more things. When I look at people who are happy, by the values upon which I place importance, the things that high IQ bring to the table aren't relevant. Maybe I have it all wrong, and I certainly don't have a statistical sampling to prove my point - just an observation!

Re: Issac Asimov: What Is Intelligence, Anyway?

#59

Post by palish »

pjscott wrote: post #56
palish wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apologies, but this attitude is quite annoying: "As long as you're healthy and a hard worker, you too can be a genius! It just takes time!" If anyone bothered to try to answer the question "do genetics matter much?" by examining real-world prodigies, they would be forced to conclude "Yes, genetics are equally important to upbringing/environment". Read through this, then claim genetics don't matter: "This was Richard…

I'm also irritated by the inaccuracy of that attitude, which is why I never expressed it. Of course genetics are a big deal. They just aren't the only thing, which was the subject at hand.

Sorry! Didn't mean to imply you did. It was sort of a tangent... a lot of people think that way, and so I sort of had a bone to pick with 'em. Cheers.

Re: Issac Asimov: What Is Intelligence, Anyway?

#60

Post by pjscott »

palish wrote: post #59
pjscott wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm also irritated by the inaccuracy of that attitude, which is why I never expressed it. Of course genetics are a big deal. They just aren't the only thing, which was the subject at hand.

Sorry! Didn't mean to imply you did. It was sort of a tangent... a lot of people think that way, and so I sort of had a bone to pick with 'em. Cheers.

Ah! I withdraw my indignation. :-)
Post reply on HN