ACCOUNTABILITY

Mark Nelson wrote:I think one day, me & my partner will take some bashies up a wall for an anchor, hang a ledge, have either me or him lead up & pop off, fire the one finger salute at everyone on our way down, and make this entire argument even more pointless than it already is.

Sounds like something Texans would do, mark....

Ummm.... you're conflating measurement with definition and haven't come any closer to telling me what "intelligence" is. You've certainly listed a few aspects, but that doesn't make a definition.

Just exactly how does Stanford-Binet measure "practical" intelligence? What does it have to do with "social" intelligence? How do you measure "fluid" intelligence as opposed to "crystallized" intelligence? Could Stanford-Binet be a language test?

I think you're putting an awful lot of power into that single instrument, and that it doesn't deserve it. Just exactly what is it that correlates to the score? Performance on other tests? "Success" in life?

People use the word all the time, and act as if they know what it is. It's like the classic about pornography: I can't define it, but I know it when I see it. That makes it totally subjective and doesn't do any good either. I certainly know it when I see it, but then I have my own "gut" recognition algorithm. Might it be the case that you can't define intelligence except by enumerating its dimensions (as if we know them all); and that measurement has to be along all of these (as if we could)?

Idealistic sand? ... you get an irrelevant turn of phrase prize for that, but until you can make a real definition, you don't get any gold stars.

PS - Guess I'm not intelligent enough to make the quoting thing work this time.

Hank Caylor wrote: Sounds like something Texans would do, mark....

That figures. Well, we love ya anyway, Hank!

Did I mention, I was gonna put on some skiis while doing my final belay?? Ride the Vertical, M'r F'r!!

Gosh, we are a mile off topic. Not a problem for me, I find it very interesting. Most interesting so far of all was some of the stuff RIchard pointed out. Dismal, but interesting. But I digress...

SB, WAIS (Wechsler) and WJ (Woodcock Johnson) all used to correllate pretty well, probably because they were all normalized. I don't believe that they are language tests because of the undeniable genetic components in the scores of the population. After all, as I previously mentioned, environment produces a smaller component of the score than genetics. There is a good book out there by Lawrence Wright called "Twins" that explores genetics and personality (and intelligence is not ignored).

I guess since these are scientifically developed and standardized intelligence tests, as defined by the scientific body who is best fit to define intelligence, that intelligence can be defined as the score on these tests. I will not attempt to deny that they are imperfect.

Meanwhile, Webster says:
Main Entry: in·tel·li·gence
Pronunciation: in-'te-l&-j&n(t)s
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin intelligentia, from intelligent-, intelligens intelligent
(1) : the ability to learn or understand or to deal with new or trying situations : REASON; also : the skilled use of reason (2) : the ability to apply knowledge to manipulate one's environment or to think abstractly as measured by objective criteria (as tests)

Note that definition B even mentions tests. Both defintions include the vectors I previously mentioned, less language.

I'd like a gold star, darn it.

Isn't the fact that IQ is predictive of acedemic success, of earnings, of proability for casuing accidents, and of accidental death, of drug use and abuse, and of just about everything else under the sun (save for happiness, though there is a inverse correlation to suicide) enough to suggest that people who have IQ's are maybe smarter than people who do not.

As for that other matter, of gold stars, you owe me at least one more gold star for this one:

"If you can show that people with higher IQ's are having fewer children than people with lower ones I'll give you three."

I believe I've answered that one, so I want at least that gold star!
I'd like to collect over a beer some day.

Yes, we're a mile off. It's OK, but I don't have the foggiest idea why I get caught up in these things. I'll be too busy for the next couple of weeks to even come back. You can have your stars. Southern Sun is a good place to get them. There are just a zillion factors involved in intelligence (whatever that might be). The discussion makes me think.

• **I don't believe that they are language tests because of the undeniable genetic components in the scores of the population...***

I'm not sure how that rules out being a language test. I don't know if anybody's done any work, but language proficiency might be genetically related. Some, for instance, are good at learning foreign languages, others are not. Language is also a cultural thing that evolves with time.

• ** Isn't the fact that IQ is predictive of ... ***

Correlates with might be a better construction, but point taken. I just hate to use "predictive" with anything that involves statistics. Still all the dimensions of intelligence come together to produce a well rounded human being, and (from personal acquaintance) a lot of people with very high IQ's are not very well rounded or adapted human beings. Go visit the math or computer science department at any university. For that matter, try ethnic studies at CU :-).

• **I guess since these are scientifically developed and standardized intelligence tests, as defined by the scientific body who is best fit to define intelligence, that intelligence can be defined as the score on these tests. I will not attempt to deny that they are imperfect.***

Well... I guess we define a lot of physical things that way (force, charge, etc.) it could make a definition. I guess the thing I was getting at was "What is intelligence?" when I asked for a definition. Still, it conflates measurement of a thing with knowledge of what a thing is and doesn't get us any closer.

Associated Press
Saturday, August 25, 2007

CHEYENNE, Wyo. — No criminal charges will be filed against a man who threw a bowling ball-sized rock over a cliff, hitting and killing another man climbing below, a prosecutor said Friday.

Fremont County Attorney Ed Newell said a number of factors went into his decision not to file criminal charges, including the fact that drugs and alcohol were not involved. Newell has refused to identify the man who threw the rock, saying only that he recently returned from military service in Iraq.

Thanks Mark. Heres a bit more from that AP article that's relevant to this thread:

"He had no idea that there was anybody below," Newell said.

The man then leaned over and saw the rock hit Absolon, immediately calling his friends for help and running to the bottom of the cliff to check on Absolon, Newell said.

"He could have easily walked away, and it would have been assumed that the rock had simply fallen due to natural causes," Newell said.

In making his decision not to file charges, Newell cited the man's remorse and said he took responsibility and cooperated with investigators.

is the entire story.

Well, at least the stage is being set for a substantial civil judgment. 50% of lifetime earnings at least.