The Phora  

Go Back   The Phora > The Academy > Mathematics
User Name
Password
Blog Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

Mathematics Quantity, Structure, Space and Change

View Poll Results: Are people who study math smarter than people who study liberal arts?
Yes 37 49.33%
No 26 34.67%
Uncertain 12 16.00%
Voters: 75. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #151  
Old 03-04-2012, 07:16 PM
Hartmann von Aue's Avatar
Hartmann von Aue Hartmann von Aue is offline
Established member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,689
Country: Holy_Roman_Empire
Default

There's a big difference between actually performing works of genius and being in the .1%. That's why you're disappointed when you're exposed to people in the .1%.

(There are millions such people on earth after all)
Reply With Quote
  #152  
Old 03-04-2012, 07:32 PM
Angler's Avatar
Angler Angler is offline
Strength Through Hate
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Behind enemy lines
Posts: 8,429
Country: American_distress
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hartmann von Aue
I've never been heavily involved in IQ societies and I let my membership in ISPE lapse.

Much of the discussion is rather mediocre.
I considered joining ISPE at one point (or maybe it was Triple Nine?), but after reading some of the online discussion, it all looked like intellectual masturbation to me.

Quote:
I don't think they're "mutual admiration societies'" though, not in my experience.
I could be wrong about that, but my impression of people I know who have joined Mensa has been less than stellar. Most of them seemed eager to stroke their own egos, believing that a high IQ score was an achievement in itself. But where's the beef? The truest proof of ability is producing something novel and useful. Those who developed quantum theory or invented the radio aren't famous for their high IQs, but for their work. No doubt there are people with higher IQs than they had but who never "delivered the goods" by producing anything of value.

Quote:
The point is for people with higher IQs to network and get to know each other. I'm not sure they're very effective, but they're not bad things in my experience.
The thing is, people with high IQs tend to go to school with and work alongside other people with high IQs. If we use the SAT and GRE as surrogates for IQ, the average student in my college and grad programs was in the 99th percentile. Similarly, in my job I routinely work with people who are very bright. It's not as if our conversations are strictly limited to what's work-related, and if we want to discuss something further, we can always do so after work.

The existence of the Internet is another reason why I question the stated rationale for groups like Mensa. Plenty of bright people gravitate to certain discussion boards -- hell, there are some very bright people right here on this one. So if it's intelligent discussion one wants, one can find it very easily on the Web.

All this considered, I suspect most people who are attracted to groups like Mensa are really just seeking bragging rights. I know that's not true of everyone who joins those groups, but it's been my general impression.
__________________

"How can they be even considered men, whose whole lives are governed by cast-iron regulations, whose every movement circumscribed and restrained by penal threats, even whose secret thoughts are in a constant state of silent repression? ...

Is it not better to perish than to serve? 'Liberty or death' is not a meaningless phrase. No! It is of tremendous import to those who comprehend.

What is death that it should make cowards of us all? What is life that it should be valued so highly? There are worse things than death, and among them is a life of dishonor. All men lead dishonorable lives who serve a master with hand or brain."


-- Ragnar Redbeard


Don't just complain about the Jewish stranglehold on the US government -- do something about it! Donate generously to the Council for the National Interest and encourage others to do the same.
Reply With Quote
  #153  
Old 03-04-2012, 07:35 PM
Angler's Avatar
Angler Angler is offline
Strength Through Hate
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Behind enemy lines
Posts: 8,429
Country: American_distress
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hartmann von Aue
There's a big difference between actually performing works of genius and being in the .1%. That's why you're disappointed when you're exposed to people in the .1%.

(There are millions such people on earth after all)
Very true, and I think the difference is creativity. A lot of people associate creativity primarily with literature and the fine arts, but I believe it's a prerequisite for innovation in ANY field. Furthermore, although creativity doesn't lend itself to testing the way IQ does (at least not yet), I've read about research showing that creativity and general intelligence have separate neurological bases.
Reply With Quote
  #154  
Old 03-04-2012, 08:02 PM
Blighter's Avatar
Blighter Blighter is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 330
Country: United States
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hartmann von Aue
There's a big difference between actually performing works of genius and being in the .1%. That's why you're disappointed when you're exposed to people in the .1%.

(There are millions such people on earth after all)

I have met exceptional and unexceptional people with high IQs. The difference isn't that one type performs 'works of genius' and the other doesn't. The difference is that one is absolutely on the ball, razor sharp, and when a problem requires logical thought they can apply themselves to it effectively without requiring outside assistance or a thorough explanation. The other type of 'high IQ' person struggles in the same way that a perfectly average person struggles, and then blames the stupidity of the problem itself or the person who posed it for their failure to find a solution.

I don't expect intelligent people to shoot lightning out of their arsehole, but I can distinguish capability from incapability.
Reply With Quote
  #155  
Old 03-05-2012, 07:26 AM
Ash's Avatar
Ash Ash is offline
Established member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,586
Country: Mexico
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Macrobius
Interesting. This makes the 'modern research results' exactly the dual of my intuition.

My intuition placed the hot/cold distinction on the horizontal (verbal) axis, and identified the principal 'intelligent' cross-dimension (upper left to lower right) as 'dry' with wet being upper left or lower right, and dry closer to the g-loaded diagonal.

What you are saying is that the wet/dry axis is primary, and that it trends from lower left (wet) to upper right (dry). The 'hot-cold' axis trends from upper left to lower right, growing 'cold' away from the g-loaded diagonal -- either to the upper left, or the lower right. In short, you make the verbal axis phlegmatic (non-verbal) to melancholic (highly verbal), and present choleric as 'mathematical' and its opposite, sanguine, as non-mathematical. In contrast, I put the 4 humours in the 4 quadrants, on the diagonals, not on the vertical and horizontal axis.

Thus, I say Physics is hot and dry, while you say research supports the notion that it is cold and dry. There is no way to reconcile the two theories, by simply tilting the diagram, say. So deeper reflection work is at principle (the medievals, for their part, took the horizontal axis to represent the introvert/extrovert dimension, making all 'verbal' people simply extroverts. I suspect none of these three reductions of three degrees of freedom to two is entire satisfactory, though all three approaches capture something interesting.

To take an example, I see the INFP 'priest' type as a melancholic healer, a bit of a psychologist, whereas you (or modern research) sees a highly intelligent person interested in the classics, and excelling at verbal skill but not at all at mathematics.

We may need Astrology and the planets to weigh in, in order to sort this out!
Well I've yet to be iNtuitively satisified by such humourous correspondences, but here is how I would divide Sluggo's graph:



We could bisect each quadrant according to dominant function:



Or go by extraverted, rather than dominant, function, and get the simpler:



I'll go with dominant for now, which gives us something like this:



P.S. For anyone who's wondering: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myers-B...Type_Indicator
Reply With Quote
  #156  
Old 03-05-2012, 07:40 AM
Ash's Avatar
Ash Ash is offline
Established member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,586
Country: Mexico
Default

Actually, this rings truer, going on personal experience:

Reply With Quote
  #157  
Old 03-05-2012, 11:30 PM
Allegheny's Avatar
Allegheny Allegheny is offline
U Mather, bro?
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,272
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hartmann von Aue
I've never been heavily involved in IQ societies and I let my membership in ISPE lapse.

Much of the discussion is rather mediocre.

I don't think they're "mutual admiration societies'" though, not in my experience.

The point is for people with higher IQs to network and get to know each other. I'm not sure they're very effective, but they're not bad things in my experience.

People with higher IQs tend to be better adjusted than those with lower IQs. The trade-off in social functioning doesn't really start to bite until an extremely high threshold, likely somewhere around .05% range, perhaps even higher.
__________________

The towering Nordic race of physical and mental giants, comprising the Germans, Scandinavians and Anglo-Saxons--the big-headed, broad-shouldered, big-eating, big-drinking and big-fighting sword-arm men of the north--were the architects of the modern world. They were the old Vikings who, before Columbus, ferried the Atlantic in an open boat. They were the conquerors of Imperial Rome. That race of men has civilized, enlightened and uplifted the entire world, banished the ages of darkness and savagery, and replaced them with this age of invention, discovery, enlightenment and human well-being.
Reply With Quote
  #158  
Old 03-05-2012, 11:32 PM
Allegheny's Avatar
Allegheny Allegheny is offline
U Mather, bro?
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,272
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Angler
Very true, and I think the difference is creativity. A lot of people associate creativity primarily with literature and the fine arts, but I believe it's a prerequisite for innovation in ANY field. Furthermore, although creativity doesn't lend itself to testing the way IQ does (at least not yet), I've read about research showing that creativity and general intelligence have separate neurological bases.

Genius = high IQ + emotional instability (psychoticism) + task dedication, which is why it is so rare. Emotional instability is negatively correlated with high IQ and dedication. If genius were merely high IQ, then we would be inundated with geniuses.
Reply With Quote
  #159  
Old 03-06-2012, 12:13 AM
Opus131's Avatar
Opus131 Opus131 is offline
Established member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,990
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Allegheny
Genius = high IQ + emotional instability (psychoticism) + task dedication, which is why it is so rare.

Just about the dumbest thing i ever heard. Psychoticism? Where does that even enter as a factor?

Genius has nothing to do with either high IQ, task dedication or any particular psychological pathology. Genius is a metaphysical quality. Things like high IQ are mere facilitators, they do not determine genius.

Weininger got as close to a conception of genius as you can hope to get without taking the absolute into the equation. Perhaps you should read it up.
Reply With Quote
  #160  
Old 03-06-2012, 05:14 AM
Macrobius Macrobius is offline
Established member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 5,180
Country: United States
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Man of Ash
Actually, this rings truer, going on personal experience:

Now those are very thought-provoking.

Leaving aside your and my intuitions, and modern research, the theory is that there are two primary axes, corresponding to brain function -- N/S (the P function) and T/F (the J function). The suffix P or J refers to which is the major axis. Thus, a person who is J must be further out on T/F dimension (in whichever direction) than on the N/S dimension. This implies they can't be simple octants.

Also, the medieval theory tends to confound melancholy and phlegmatic with introverted, and choleric and sanguine with extroverted. Whereas, the MBTI theory treats I/E as a dualism that indicates whether you present your major or minor function.

Finally, the mapping of the theory of temperaments to MBTI usually has the four characters as (NT, NF, SP, SJ) *not* (NT, NF, ST, SF) which would be a simple cross.

Thus, the matter is somewhat complex.
__________________
The Pirate Barrel Quot Euclidis discipulos retrojecit Elefuga quasi scopulos eminens et abruptus, qui nullo scalarum suffragio scandi posset! Durus, inquiunt, est hie sermo; quis potest eum audire?
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT. The time now is 06:10 PM.


Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Page generated in 0.08064 seconds with 12 queries