Intelligence and IQ Levels

[Wizard22]

+++The most obvious ones are with imagined physical rotation of objects. A lower IQ does not have the ability to 'turn' objects in its mind using imagination.+++

You may find the following quite interesting.

https://www.rnib.org.uk/professionals/h ... ed-people/

+++Key findings
Tests developed for sighted individuals are not always appropriate to use with blind and partially sighted people.
Non-verbal reasoning tests are more problematic than verbal reasoning tests as they often use pictures and images which are inaccessible to blind and partially sighted people.
Psychometric tests are often used to test innate ability, but the skills being assessed for a blind or partially sighted person may differ from the skills being assessed for a sighted person.+++

Perhaps surprisingly, there is still no universally accepted IQ test to measure the intelligence of blind people, though there have been a number of partial proposals.

So, with regard to being able to imagine the physical rotation of objects in one's mind, this is something I do all the time, without thinking about it. I couldn't navigate the world if I didn't. I don't do it visually, though, and this is what standard IQ tests measure. Perhaps the same is true of a lot of other people, too.

I know that blind people can imagine rotation in the mind akin to sighted people. You can feel an object with your hands just the same as it can be seen.

The point is about the ability to Abstract experience. It requires memorization, imagination, and then imagined manipulation.

Blind people can understand mathematics too. So IQ tests can be applied to them within the mathematical parameters. Nobody can rule-out validity of IQ tests without ruling-out both mathematical and verbal understanding, which is mostly innate and ingrained, because of how humans learn about the world and society during the infantile stages. Even a feral child understands the difference between 'one' and 'many', for example. But feral children likely do not understand 'zero', because that requires Education and Abstraction based upon that education.

[Maia]

+++The most obvious ones are with imagined physical rotation of objects. A lower IQ does not have the ability to 'turn' objects in its mind using imagination.+++

You may find the following quite interesting.

https://www.rnib.org.uk/professionals/h ... ed-people/

+++Key findings
Tests developed for sighted individuals are not always appropriate to use with blind and partially sighted people.
Non-verbal reasoning tests are more problematic than verbal reasoning tests as they often use pictures and images which are inaccessible to blind and partially sighted people.
Psychometric tests are often used to test innate ability, but the skills being assessed for a blind or partially sighted person may differ from the skills being assessed for a sighted person.+++

Perhaps surprisingly, there is still no universally accepted IQ test to measure the intelligence of blind people, though there have been a number of partial proposals.

So, with regard to being able to imagine the physical rotation of objects in one's mind, this is something I do all the time, without thinking about it. I couldn't navigate the world if I didn't. I don't do it visually, though, and this is what standard IQ tests measure. Perhaps the same is true of a lot of other people, too.

I know that blind people can imagine rotation in the mind akin to sighted people. You can feel an object with your hands just the same as it can be seen.

The point is about the ability to Abstract experience. It requires memorization, imagination, and then imagined manipulation.

Blind people can understand mathematics too. So IQ tests can be applied to them within the mathematical parameters. Nobody can rule-out validity of IQ tests without ruling-out both mathematical and verbal understanding, which is mostly innate and ingrained, because of how humans learn about the world and society during the infantile stages. Even a feral child understands the difference between 'one' and 'many', for example. But feral children likely do not understand 'zero', because that requires Education and Abstraction based upon that education.

Standard IQ tests include a visual element, too. That was the point the RNIB were making in their report. If IQ tests can be conducted just using maths, why aren't they?

[Wizard22]

Or, it could be self-knowledge: left/liberals tend to do better on IQ tests than conservatives.

Liberal-Lefties value social accreditation, recognition, and expertise more than the Conservative-Right, hence why Academic centers lean Left.

Christopher Langan has perhaps the highest recorded IQ-test scores and is far-right.

As mentioned throughout the thread, it should be assumed that IQ-tests are perfect measures or correlate to Intelligence. There is an offset, a bias, askew at play, which many people try to wedge to their personal or collective benefits. How easy it would be in life to believe that "the intelligent people agree with my positions".

[Wizard22]

Standard IQ tests include a visual element, too. That was the point the RNIB were making in their report. If IQ tests can be conducted just using maths, why aren't they?

You're arguing under the presumption that these tests are "accurate-enough". I didn't say they were. My argument was and is, that within the confines of basic mathematical understanding, they have to be correct. So it doesn't matter if you're blind or not, deaf or not, humans can understand 1+1=2 in the abstract. Therefore the abstraction represents the Intelligence.

For example, you can understand rotating an object forward by pushing the top and pulling the bottom.

Or you can understand rotating an object reverse by pulling the top and pushing the bottom.

That is an abstraction that doesn't require vision. It is the mind that 'sees' it, imagines it.

[Iwannaplato]

Liberal-Lefties value social accreditation, recognition, and expertise more than the Conservative-Right, hence why Academic centers lean Left.

Academic centers? Do you mean like universities? there are a lot of ways to improve IQ'.

Christopher Langan has perhaps the highest recorded IQ-test scores and is far-right.

Then he must value social accreditation, recognition, and expertise[/quote] And then, yah, the whole exception doesn't mean much.

As mentioned throughout the thread, it should be assumed that IQ-tests are perfect measures or correlate to Intelligence.

I assume there's a missing negative word in this sentence.

There is an offset, a bias, askew at play, which many people try to wedge to their personal or collective benefits. How easy it would be in life to believe that "the intelligent people agree with my positions".

Then it's very odd that you talk about IQ rather than just intelligence. IQ is the result of those tests.

[Maia]

Standard IQ tests include a visual element, too. That was the point the RNIB were making in their report. If IQ tests can be conducted just using maths, why aren't they?

You're arguing under the presumption that these tests are "accurate-enough". I didn't say they were. My argument was and is, that within the confines of basic mathematical understanding, they have to be correct. So it doesn't matter if you're blind or not, deaf or not, humans can understand 1+1=2 in the abstract. Therefore the abstraction represents the Intelligence.

For example, you can understand rotating an object forward by pushing the top and pulling the bottom.

Or you can understand rotating an object reverse by pulling the top and pushing the bottom.

That is an abstraction that doesn't require vision. It is the mind that 'sees' it, imagines it.

I have no difficulty imagining shapes and rotating them, for example. The issue, though, is that IQ tests can't test this. So if you're saying that IQ tests are fundamentally flawed, then I agree with you.

[Skepdick]

This is all hogwash.

It's because time is a finite resource is why I can't be an expert/know-it-all about everything. A jack of all trades is a master of none.

"Trust the Experts" is just a political slogan for "delegate your decision-making to people who have spent far more time and resources thinking about this problem than you ever will.". Quite rightly so - you shouldn't trust me with flying a fucking airplane.

It's not self-defeat. It's recognition of one's own limits. The inevitable product of specialization, division of labour, segregation of duties which emerges with economies of scale.

This is why hierarchies emerge in the first place. Otherwise how do we make decisions as a collective?

Making good leadership decisions about running a country is a very different skill from making good decisions about running a familly of 5. Scale matters.

This is the usual sort of drivel from the deluded individualists suffering from a bad case of Hero syndrome - the stupid idea that individuals achieve greatness with no help from anyone else.

You missed the point, but your defensiveness is telling about how you ought to blindly trust...an airplane pilot. Or a doctor. Or your news anchor.

You essentially reinforced my point. People innately trust Authority according to hierarchy and scale, all the way up to the 'Top' which the religious and secularists both abstract as 'God'.

I didn't miss the point and I am not reinforcing yours. I am rejecting yours.

Hierarchies are emergent in any collective. The top of the hierarchy isn't God - that's just the elected leader. Whether you trust them or not - they are there and they are going to do the job they've been appointed to do despite your trust issues.

Irrespective of the bullshit story you tell yourself every time you set foot on an airplane you are "blindly trusting" the pilot. Least you want to convince me that you demand the pilot prove their worth and skill to you before you allow them to take off with you on-board.

The fact of the matter is that if you know nothing about flying you can't tell the difference between a good answer and a good-sounding bullshit answer. You simply lack the competence to determine the (in?)competence of somebody more competent than you who's simply managing your trust issues.

Trust isn't what you think it is. You can be just as mistaken in trusting somebody untrustworthy; as you can be mistaken in distrusting somebody trustworthy.

All the (dead) anti-vaxxers are a testament to the dangers of distrust. If they are so autonomous and self-sufficient why didn't they invent their own, effective vaccine? You don't trust the experts - fine. Make your own equally-effective vaccine. Why can't you?

[Wizard22]

IQ is the result of those tests.

The point I made in the OP is that, according to the evolving literature, different IQ levels are capable of cognitive tasks and complex degrees of abstraction and sophistication that lower levels simply are not—because they are physically incapable of doing.

This point is more obvious when intelligence is compared average and the lowest end of the spectrum, Down Syndrome for example. For you to deny such differences, means you must deny the inabilities of those who are mentally impaired.

[Wizard22]

I have no difficulty imagining shapes and rotating them, for example. The issue, though, is that IQ tests can't test this. So if you're saying that IQ tests are fundamentally flawed, then I agree with you.

It depends on the test. From what I know of IQ tests, they have varying ranges of ability to measure such. Some do and can test such, others cannot.

As you mentioned, most of testing is premised on sight. So you can tell the difference between intelligence and IQ which is not measured through regular IQ tests.

[Skepdick]

IQ is the result of those tests.

The point I made in the OP is that, according to the evolving literature, different IQ levels are capable of cognitive tasks and complex degrees of abstraction and sophistication that lower levels simply are not—because they are physically incapable of doing.

This point is more obvious when intelligence is compared average and the lowest end of the spectrum, Down Syndrome for example. For you to deny such differences, means you must deny the inabilities of those who are mentally impaired.

It's like you don't want to recognize the point.

An IQ tests tests nothing other than your ability to perform well on an IQ test. A high score on those tests doesn't translate into any predictive power outside the domain of IQ testing.

Intelligence doesn't generalize well.

[Wizard22]

I didn't miss the point and I am not reinforcing yours. I am rejecting yours.

You are not "rejecting mine" because that would presuppose you know what my point is.

You don't, which is becoming a regular occurrence.

Hierarchies are emergent in any collective. The top of the hierarchy isn't God - that's just the elected leader. Whether you trust them or not - they are there and they are going to do the job they've been appointed to do despite your trust issues.

"Been appointed" by whom or what?

Irrespective of the bullshit story you tell yourself every time you set foot on an airplane you are "blindly trusting" the pilot. Least you want to convince me that you demand the pilot prove their worth and skill to you before you allow them to take off with you on-board.

What else is trust but blind, as-if you do any differently?

The fact of the matter is that if you know nothing about flying you can't tell the difference between a good answer and a good-sounding bullshit answer. You simply lack the competence to determine the (in?)competence of somebody more competent than you who's simply managing your trust issues.

You're missing a large range of points here, as per usual.

Some airlines are safer than others. This is a Fact. People trust airlines with proven track records. People trust the news about plane crashes, if and when they report them. People trust their experiences and share stories of high turbulence and bad landings through social media. As typical, you neglect all the information and contexts.

Trust isn't what you think it is. You can be just as mistaken in trusting somebody untrustworthy; as you can be mistaken in distrusting somebody trustworthy.

All the (dead) anti-vaxxers are a testament to the dangers of distrust.

As are all the dead vaxxers who were killed by vaccine-injuries and damage.

If they are so autonomous and self-sufficient why didn't they invent their own, effective vaccine? You don't trust the experts - fine. Make your own equally-effective vaccine. Why can't you?

Who says I can't? You?

My specialty is Philosophy, not Biochemistry and Virology, although the latter certainly interests me after what Pfizer and Moderna companies, along with Bill Gates and Peter Daszak, were able to pull-off with their agenda to mass vaccinate the entire global population so that the human chattel become used to the idea of blind-faith in their authority. What is more adulated to Eugenicists than the prospect of every single human on Earth having blind-faith and trust to inject in your bloodstream...whatever they say and want?! You certainly have no resistance, no second-thought, no doubt. You are just as Faithful to Science as the Christian to God.

[Wizard22]

It's like you don't want to recognize the point.

An IQ tests tests nothing other than your ability to perform well on an IQ test. A high score on those tests doesn't translate into any predictive power outside the domain of IQ testing.

Intelligence doesn't generalize well.

I do believe there are methods to test whether a person is self-conscious or not, has an "inner monologue" or not, and can rationalize different levels of abstractions or not.

In fact much of this is evident throughout this forum. Some posters have abilities that others clearly do not, such as self-reflection. Ability to learn. Ability to understand. Ability to integrate new knowledge and apply it. Etc etc.

[Atla]

I can't visualize anything at all. I envy those who can..

[Wizard22]

I can't visualize anything at all. I envy those who can..

Do you have an inner-monologue? What jobs have you had in life, or are good at?

[Flannel Jesus]

I can't visualize anything at all. I envy those who can..

You can't see anything in your mind? Are you also blind or is it just something you cannot do?

I've heard of this before, aphantasia it's called, but I've always thought it was really rare.