Re:"Genius" and high IQ are different animals
on
The Prodigy Puzzle
·
· Score: 1
No one in academic circles doubt that there are multiple types of intelligences; how to break intelligence down into specific subdivisions is the current item of debate. For example, the Weschler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS)(the most common IQ test), which has been criticized for focusing too much on 2-3 specific types of intelligence, has 20+ subscores. A researcher can divide it up almost any way he wants.
Digression aside, I think what you're refering to is Howard Gardner's theory of multiple intelligences. He proposed that there are 7 types of intelligence: musical, kinesthetic (control over ones body, e.g. ballet dancer), spatial (mental representation of physical objects, e.g. maps), linguistic/verbal, logical/mathematical, intrapersonal (understanding of self), interpersonal (understanding of others, e.g. people-smarts, as you put it).
One way to find support for a distinct type of intelligence (and this is where neuropsychology comes in), is finding an individual with brain damage that impacts their ability in one area but not others. For example, if an individual were to exhibit brain damage that caused a huge deficit in their linguistic/verbal abilities compared to their premorbid functioning, this would support the idea of a separate linguistic/verbal intelligence. (There is: see individuals with damage to Broca and Wernicke's areas.)
Now that we have our definitions down, to answer your question: Gardner's theory has not been entirely discredited in academia, though criticism exists. Hit up Wikipedia for Theory of multiple intelligence for a decent introductory description.
I could go on at great length on this topic, and get into areas that would be extremely boring to anyone not in this field, but I need to go to bed. -Jon
"Genius" and high IQ are different animals
on
The Prodigy Puzzle
·
· Score: 4, Informative
Preface: The profession for which I am currently receiving training (Ph.D in Neuropsychology; look it up) involves the measurement of cognitive functioning; the assumption that there is some meaning inherent to these sorts of tests is part of my bias. Also, I'll be refering to intelligence as defined by the Western world. Different cultures have different ideas of what constitutes an "intelligent" individual.
What many in this discussion fail to realize is that genius and IQ are two very different things. In addition, the way IQ is measured is very important for this discussion.
"Genius" is a social construct. Genius is defined as one who has significant acumen in a certain area, while simultaneously being prolific in their participation in that discipline. Einstein is properly labeled as a genius because of the amount of significant work he published in 1905, NOT because his IQ score was 180 or some such arbitrary number. Currently, it would be very inappropriate if a psychometrician were to label someone as a "genius" based solely on their test scores.
IQ is a number, supposedly measuring overall intellectual ability. The Weschler Intelligence Scale for Children III (WISC-III) is the most effective measure we have for measuring intelligence in children. HOWEVER, it has been repeatedly shown that the accuracy of this test breaks down past the fourth standard deviation in the upper range; that is, anything past 160.
What I'm trying to get across is that genius is a label given by society, while a high IQ is something that is earned by scoring well on a test. Someone who is a genius need not have a high IQ, as IQ measures very specific things, and one can be a genius without excelling in those areas. Likewise, an individual with a very superior IQ need not be a genius; the main character from "Good Will Hunting" spent his time as a janitor in the beginning of the movie (if memory serves), and thus would not be considered a genius at that time.
Jon
Well. All right then. =)
I still don't think that many of the numbers really mean anything, especially the ones that are within a few percentage points of each other.
Shouldn't your statement be amended to "Movies open in august of 2004 or not as good as movies open in auguest of 2005" as opposed to your blanket generalization?
Thanks,
Jon
"The only conclusive thing I found was that bad movies are not to blame for lower box office tickets. Why? Because the movies were better than last year." Bold claim, lets see if you can back it up.
There are so many things wrong with your analyses of data here. Lets go statement by statement.
You state that you ran a "statistical analysis," when the only statistic that you've given us are measurements of central tendency (means, in this case).
You reference a group known as "the critics," however you do not specify who you consider to be members of this group. Did you count only critics that are published in major newspapers, or did you include internet only critics? If you chose to include internet critics, how did you choose which to count? Anyone who can write a review and post it to the internet can be considered a critic (if sources such as rottentomatoes.com are to be relied upon). In addition, some critics approach and rate movies from a certain orientation (for example, some internet critics write their reviews solely from the perspective of a parent). Your statements would be a lot more believable if there was some sort of qualifications required to be counted as part of this group.
Which brings me to question how you managed to assign a quantitative number to such a subjective activity as analyzing a movie. On his tv show, famous critic Roger Ebert rates movies with a thumbs up or thumbs down, then occasionally augments that. What number would you assign a movie that got a "thumbs up" when compared to a movie that got a "thumbs way up"? What number would you assign a movie that received a C+ rating (some critics like to grade movies on the classic academic scale)? Or do you forgo that and follow rottentomatoes' style, by deciding that a movie got a positive review or a negative review, and assign it 1 point or 0 points, respectively. If you used that style, how did you deal with critics that gave a movie a mixed review (e.g. a review that says "If you liked X, then you'll like this movie. If not, then don't see it.")
Almost all of the differences between 2004 and 2005 mvoies are small, and while you did not include size of your rater pools, I suspect that most of them are not statistically significant. ("The audience also posted better ratings for 2005 movies: 68.4% versus 67.9%" I can assure you that this is NOT a statisticallly significant difference, thus your statement is not supported by the data.) If you actually did run a "statistical analysis," you'd have given stats rating the reliability of your results.
Certainly, while the precentages are maybe a bit higher for 2005 vs. 2004 (which a very astute poster suggested might have to do with the phenomenon of grade inflation), you don't account for the fact that this year is not over. What you might have done was only included 2004 movies released in January to September.
All in all, while your numbers are interesting, they don't support your broad generalization that "The only conclusive thing I found was that bad movies are not to blame for lower box office tickets. Why? Because the movies were better than last year." Instead, they show that there is actually no powerful difference one way or the other between the quality of movies from last year compared to this year.
Slashdot Mirror
No one in academic circles doubt that there are multiple types of intelligences; how to break intelligence down into specific subdivisions is the current item of debate. For example, the Weschler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS)(the most common IQ test), which has been criticized for focusing too much on 2-3 specific types of intelligence, has 20+ subscores. A researcher can divide it up almost any way he wants.
Digression aside, I think what you're refering to is Howard Gardner's theory of multiple intelligences. He proposed that there are 7 types of intelligence: musical, kinesthetic (control over ones body, e.g. ballet dancer), spatial (mental representation of physical objects, e.g. maps), linguistic/verbal, logical/mathematical, intrapersonal (understanding of self), interpersonal (understanding of others, e.g. people-smarts, as you put it).
One way to find support for a distinct type of intelligence (and this is where neuropsychology comes in), is finding an individual with brain damage that impacts their ability in one area but not others. For example, if an individual were to exhibit brain damage that caused a huge deficit in their linguistic/verbal abilities compared to their premorbid functioning, this would support the idea of a separate linguistic/verbal intelligence. (There is: see individuals with damage to Broca and Wernicke's areas.)
Now that we have our definitions down, to answer your question: Gardner's theory has not been entirely discredited in academia, though criticism exists.
Hit up Wikipedia for Theory of multiple intelligence for a decent introductory description.
I could go on at great length on this topic, and get into areas that would be extremely boring to anyone not in this field, but I need to go to bed.
-Jon
Preface: The profession for which I am currently receiving training (Ph.D in Neuropsychology; look it up) involves the measurement of cognitive functioning; the assumption that there is some meaning inherent to these sorts of tests is part of my bias. Also, I'll be refering to intelligence as defined by the Western world. Different cultures have different ideas of what constitutes an "intelligent" individual. What many in this discussion fail to realize is that genius and IQ are two very different things. In addition, the way IQ is measured is very important for this discussion. "Genius" is a social construct. Genius is defined as one who has significant acumen in a certain area, while simultaneously being prolific in their participation in that discipline. Einstein is properly labeled as a genius because of the amount of significant work he published in 1905, NOT because his IQ score was 180 or some such arbitrary number. Currently, it would be very inappropriate if a psychometrician were to label someone as a "genius" based solely on their test scores. IQ is a number, supposedly measuring overall intellectual ability. The Weschler Intelligence Scale for Children III (WISC-III) is the most effective measure we have for measuring intelligence in children. HOWEVER, it has been repeatedly shown that the accuracy of this test breaks down past the fourth standard deviation in the upper range; that is, anything past 160. What I'm trying to get across is that genius is a label given by society, while a high IQ is something that is earned by scoring well on a test. Someone who is a genius need not have a high IQ, as IQ measures very specific things, and one can be a genius without excelling in those areas. Likewise, an individual with a very superior IQ need not be a genius; the main character from "Good Will Hunting" spent his time as a janitor in the beginning of the movie (if memory serves), and thus would not be considered a genius at that time. Jon
Well. All right then. =) I still don't think that many of the numbers really mean anything, especially the ones that are within a few percentage points of each other. Shouldn't your statement be amended to "Movies open in august of 2004 or not as good as movies open in auguest of 2005" as opposed to your blanket generalization? Thanks, Jon
"The only conclusive thing I found was that bad movies are not to blame for lower box office tickets. Why? Because the movies were better than last year."
Bold claim, lets see if you can back it up.
There are so many things wrong with your analyses of data here. Lets go statement by statement.
You state that you ran a "statistical analysis," when the only statistic that you've given us are measurements of central tendency (means, in this case).
You reference a group known as "the critics," however you do not specify who you consider to be members of this group. Did you count only critics that are published in major newspapers, or did you include internet only critics? If you chose to include internet critics, how did you choose which to count? Anyone who can write a review and post it to the internet can be considered a critic (if sources such as rottentomatoes.com are to be relied upon). In addition, some critics approach and rate movies from a certain orientation (for example, some internet critics write their reviews solely from the perspective of a parent). Your statements would be a lot more believable if there was some sort of qualifications required to be counted as part of this group.
Which brings me to question how you managed to assign a quantitative number to such a subjective activity as analyzing a movie. On his tv show, famous critic Roger Ebert rates movies with a thumbs up or thumbs down, then occasionally augments that. What number would you assign a movie that got a "thumbs up" when compared to a movie that got a "thumbs way up"? What number would you assign a movie that received a C+ rating (some critics like to grade movies on the classic academic scale)? Or do you forgo that and follow rottentomatoes' style, by deciding that a movie got a positive review or a negative review, and assign it 1 point or 0 points, respectively. If you used that style, how did you deal with critics that gave a movie a mixed review (e.g. a review that says "If you liked X, then you'll like this movie. If not, then don't see it.")
Almost all of the differences between 2004 and 2005 mvoies are small, and while you did not include size of your rater pools, I suspect that most of them are not statistically significant. ("The audience also posted better ratings for 2005 movies: 68.4% versus 67.9%" I can assure you that this is NOT a statisticallly significant difference, thus your statement is not supported by the data.) If you actually did run a "statistical analysis," you'd have given stats rating the reliability of your results.
Certainly, while the precentages are maybe a bit higher for 2005 vs. 2004 (which a very astute poster suggested might have to do with the phenomenon of grade inflation), you don't account for the fact that this year is not over. What you might have done was only included 2004 movies released in January to September.
All in all, while your numbers are interesting, they don't support your broad generalization that "The only conclusive thing I found was that bad movies are not to blame for lower box office tickets. Why? Because the movies were better than last year." Instead, they show that there is actually no powerful difference one way or the other between the quality of movies from last year compared to this year.
Jon