Live data from Hacker News

11th grade

xkcd.org

141–145 of 145 posts

Re: 11th grade

#141
post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for the response, I appreciate it. I guess you get a wider perspective as you age, and I don't really have much of an idea about what I'll think later. Though I might disagree with you on specifics, I agree that it's important not to restrict yourself to a limited set of things. I guess I was slightly annoyed mainly due to the fact that a few of my school admins sound very similar, except they don't bother to…

No problem. For what it's worth, I realize that high school (especially public high school; I went to one, too) can be a brutally authoritarian place sometimes. I pretty much hated most of mine, for the same reason. That said, there are parts of high school that I'd give money to experience just one more time. And of all of the people I know, I don't think anyone has ever said that they wished they'd paid less attent…

I sure wish I had paid less attention in school.

I attended college prep high schools and was a 3.9+ GPA student, took many AP courses, etc. I ate the dog food. But at the end of the 11th grade I decided I was through, and left early for college en route to a PhD in CS. Looking back, I am disappointed at myself for being so focused on the main curriculum -- the only activities that I am proud of now were ones done outside of it.

I think the flaw in your argument is that you assume that ignoring school yields narrow mindedness. It does not have to be so. For example, in my spare time I developed a web site of a well-known physicist that was eventually reviewed by the Scientific American. I can understand how someone would consider that narrow, but it required me not only to read physics and hack HTML (this was the mid-90s), but also to write essays, develop design skills, and become comfortable holding my ground in discussions with people far my senior who wanted the site changed in one way or another. These were all invaluable skills that I learned, really internalized, only because I pursued something that I considered important. With the exception of one class, that never happened at school.

That being said, I agree that in order to get a PhD one needs a certain level of tolerance of inane work. But that tolerance should be extended only to activities that stand in the way of accomplishing some goal that is important to you. To people reading this board a high school diploma is irrelevant, so I think most schoolwork does not achieve any particular goal for them.

Re: 11th grade

#142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks. I am a bit hazy from not reading too thoroughly and mostly picking it up from spoofs.

I think this makes an important point about paying attention to more than just computers in high school.

I actually think The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn has more literary value to an adult than to a high-schooler, not that I would remove it from any high school curriculum. It's the Great American Novel. Worth a re-read, whether or not one has read it or grasped it before.

Re: 11th grade

#143
post #138
post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah, I see. I usually think about IQ in the way Retric describes, where it is proportional to "mental age." That assumption makes it seem quantitative, so yes, it's easy to get it wrong.

Hmmm, now I realized why child psychologists still use old ratio based definition. It's just more useful for them to think in terms of mental ages. To respond to your original question, I have a hunch that intelligence variance (as opposed to IQ) is indeed quantitative. It kind of make sense. Intelligence seems to correlate positively with simple stuff, like reaction speed or short term memory span. Qualitative diffe…

Back to my question about the distribution, if IQ is just a rarity ordering metric based on rarity, then IQ testing is somewhat confused. For example, say someone scoring 150 on an IQ test is rarer than someone scoring 160, they should be ranked higher according to your definition of the metric. If the claim in the article that higher IQs occur more frequently than predicted, then something like this scenario is possible and IQ scores may be unreliable as a rarity ordering metric.

At any rate, is there quantitative metric for intelligence?

Re: 11th grade

#144
post #143
post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hmmm, now I realized why child psychologists still use old ratio based definition. It's just more useful for them to think in terms of mental ages. To respond to your original question, I have a hunch that intelligence variance (as opposed to IQ) is indeed quantitative. It kind of make sense. Intelligence seems to correlate positively with simple stuff, like reaction speed or short term memory span. Qualitative diffe…

Back to my question about the distribution, if IQ is just a rarity ordering metric based on rarity, then IQ testing is somewhat confused. For example, say someone scoring 150 on an IQ test is rarer than someone scoring 160, they should be ranked higher according to your definition of the metric. If the claim in the article that higher IQs occur more frequently than predicted, then something like this scenario is poss…

It is not rarity ordering. Just ordering.

Simplified view: people solve a test with a number of questions. They are getting ordered by how many questions they get right.

Tests are constructed to produce Gaussian distribution of numbers of correct answers. Some questions are easy, almost everybody can solve them. Some questions are difficult, almost nobody can solve them. There should be progressively less and less people getting more questions right.

But in reality, it's not a perfect Gaussian distribution. There are some numbers of questions that have more people getting them right than would be predicted by normal distribution.

Now, about quantitativeness. We could get somehow quantitative metric, if questions would simple and uniform in structure, for example test composed just of "how fast you can multiply x-digit numbers" task, or test solely composed of "how fast you can arrange pieces into a particular shape" task.

But it's not like this. There are different tests, some of which have several thematically different sections. Even inside one section, questions do differ a lot (for example, some shapes are harder to compose of primitive elements, how would you quantify this difficulty?).

To further complicate matters, usually completely different tests are used for different intelligence ranges.

And we are not even speaking about normalizations. Your rank is computed just for your age group. For the same raw score, you get extra points if you are younger or older than the optimal age.

If I remember well, there is a fast ramp up of raw scores till 18 years, followed by a slow decline afterwards (rate of decline is slower for more intelligent people).

And then there are national/race differences. And Flynn effect. It's much more messy than it looks.

Re: 11th grade

#145
post #132
post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there any difference between your thinking and less intelligent people besides just being able to "get it" faster? Based on the link you give, I'm curious whether IQ isn't just a quantitative metric but perhaps also qualitative. Like, past a certain level high IQ people have a different kind of mental capability. Also, do you meet more people than you would statistically expect who are around your level? Another i…

Well, it's not even quantitative metric, it's ordering metric. Making quantitative statements about IQ is quite meaningless. It is not like height or weight. It seems to be easy to get it wrong. Even the author of the article, who studies giftedness professionally, made such mistake (she tells that IQ 190 to IQ 130 is like IQ 130 to IQ 70). What's that supposed to mean? The meaning of IQ 190 is that it is 6 standard…

A very good book about fallacies of treating psychological tests as measurements is Measurement in Psychology: A Critical History of a Methodological Concept

http://www.amazon.com/Measurement-Psychology-Critical-Histor...

by Joel Michell. IQ scores definitely do not, as bd correctly points out, constitute an interval scale. They are not measurements.

Post reply on HN