So, do I.Q. tests measure intelligence? In roughly the same way your shirt size is a measure of how much you weigh. They are a rough gage, unless, of course, you define intelligence tautologically as being the thing an I.Q. test measures. Most I.Q. tests are composed of subtests that tap different abilities, considering intelligence to be a composite of many factors, of which the tests measure some small sampling.
The popular Wechsler intelligence scales categorize subtests into Performance I.Q. and Verbal I.Q. The former attempts to measure spontaneous thinking skills, while the latter is much more highly correlated with academic achievement. Thus, the split between PIQ and VIQ performance can give a psychologist a sense of an individual's academic striving vs. their innate mental ability. So motivation certainly plays a big role in the I.Q. score. The ideas in this "new research" mentioned in TFA don't sound terribly new.
Hundreds of studies have correlated I.Q. with success in academics and other aspects of life. So are geniuses predestined to success? Well... No, but if you're two standard deviations below average (100), it's as unlikely as Forrest Gump being a real person that you're going to make the history books. People with above average IQs simply have the ability others lack --whether they take advantage of it is up to them. (Oblig. car analogy: Properly maintained and driven, your Ferrari could win a race --your Ford Fiesta really couldn't.)
Sounds like an awful waste... But if you're completely burnt out on the technical side, I guess it's either management or recruiting --assuming you have the soft skills.
My advice, in changing job functions or your entire public persona, is that you need to make a clean break. Coworkers at your current job will have difficulty not thinking of you in your old role and it may be difficult and alienating to go from comrade to boss. (I have seen some people pull this off by erecting an emotional wall overnight. We missed the old coworker and they didn't seem happy with the loss of their work friends.) Familiarity has a way of persisting the same behaviors; with new people and a new environment you have no habits or preconceptions to fight.
We had a Magellan GPS years ago that responded to its name. It did a good job of constantly listening for voice commands --except when we had conversations about famous Portuguese explorers, of course.
Um... Yeah... This is one of the dumber trolls I've ever seen on/. Tell me when you've worked out how to make a faith-powered car or a cell phone that communicates through prayer.
This distinction isn't hard to understand --unless you're a project manager. I made the mistake a few years ago of telling a PM about a vulnerability in one of our web apps. She started sending e-mails CCing everyone from the CEO to the janitor telling them about this "security breach." When I tried to gently correct this misunderstanding, all I got was a lot of diva attitude and "I'll call it whatever I want." I was really happy when I quit that job.
You seem to be missing the fact that scaremongering (anxiety in general) can be a very useful thing for our survival. Don't you think the Green Revolution had some impetus in the fear of Malthusian predictions? FUD or not, sometimes our anxieties get us to think about potential problems before it's too late.
Flawless logic AC. Consider a hypothetical situation that might add some perspective to the idea that all ideas are equal. Next time you have a serious accident, go home and pray about it --or go see a faith healer. Or maybe you could see a medical doctor that just says some magical incantations ala Harry Potter? All these "theories" on how the human body heals are equally valid, right? To say otherwise or not hire the superstitious doctor would constitute unconstitutional discrimination.
Is there enough statistically significant clear, objective data that is available to be verified that indicates anything with any amount of confidence?
Or you could just trust in the scientific community that does this kind of research for a living to not be part some some enormous, X-files worthy conspiracy.
Sorry if this all sounds patronizing, but it really pains me when I see people trusting politicians more than scientists.
There is some truth to this, but financial self-interest aside, we don't really change that much. As our brains age, not unlike concrete, we become more rigid and less open-minded. Long-term habits, attitudes, and expectations form. We stay the same, stuck in our old ways of thinking and acting --it's the world around us that changes and progresses. There is no spoon.
This was definitely a difficult software development task. The delivery date they promised this time last year has slipped several times and several months --proof that Watson is not just a mechanical turk.
Thank god we've got brilliant ACs who see through this science ruse. This is just like that bullshit about gravity being the cause of things dropping to the ground, but some things like balloons and steam rise --what's with that? Obviously science is completely made up.
Considering that even if we could provide Mars settlers a completely self-sufficient and regenerating biosphere, there's still the issue of our bodies being very poorly adapted for Mars's low gravity. IMNAEB (I Am Not An Evolutionary Biologist), but I really doubt we could live for many years (and reproduce) will such an abrupt change in gravity. Considering the harsh effects micro-gravity has on human physiology (see http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2001/ast02aug_1/ ), I don't think we'd make it.
I'm betting with the Singularitians; wait another 3-4 decades and it'll be easy to go there "in silico."
Unfortunately, this kind of rational analysis (of what a staggering waste of time and energy is our collective terrorist freak-out) will always be trumped by stupid panicky human emotion. Our policies have rarely been dictated by logic or evidence after all.
What's "likely" isn't really important, and is what leads to confirmation bias on both sides. Perhaps your fictitious corpse was a politician in the middle of a scandal who committed suicide, but their party thought a murder would be more sympathetic.
The anti-religious have an uncanny ability to accept things on faith when they agree with their worldview.
Really? You really think science is faith-based? You really think people believe in science without question and then take pride in blindly accepting it? I think you forget that science can actually test hypotheses with repeated experimentation. And at the end of the day, science can not only explain, but predict phenomena. It's actually really useful, pragmatic stuff.
Dang. Reading the summary, I was all excited until they ruined it at the end by revealing that it was only "the size of a cat." Mondays are filled with disappointment.
Slashdot Mirror
So, do I.Q. tests measure intelligence? In roughly the same way your shirt size is a measure of how much you weigh. They are a rough gage, unless, of course, you define intelligence tautologically as being the thing an I.Q. test measures. Most I.Q. tests are composed of subtests that tap different abilities, considering intelligence to be a composite of many factors, of which the tests measure some small sampling.
The popular Wechsler intelligence scales categorize subtests into Performance I.Q. and Verbal I.Q. The former attempts to measure spontaneous thinking skills, while the latter is much more highly correlated with academic achievement. Thus, the split between PIQ and VIQ performance can give a psychologist a sense of an individual's academic striving vs. their innate mental ability. So motivation certainly plays a big role in the I.Q. score. The ideas in this "new research" mentioned in TFA don't sound terribly new.
Hundreds of studies have correlated I.Q. with success in academics and other aspects of life. So are geniuses predestined to success? Well... No, but if you're two standard deviations below average (100), it's as unlikely as Forrest Gump being a real person that you're going to make the history books. People with above average IQs simply have the ability others lack --whether they take advantage of it is up to them. (Oblig. car analogy: Properly maintained and driven, your Ferrari could win a race --your Ford Fiesta really couldn't.)
Sounds like an awful waste... But if you're completely burnt out on the technical side, I guess it's either management or recruiting --assuming you have the soft skills. My advice, in changing job functions or your entire public persona, is that you need to make a clean break. Coworkers at your current job will have difficulty not thinking of you in your old role and it may be difficult and alienating to go from comrade to boss. (I have seen some people pull this off by erecting an emotional wall overnight. We missed the old coworker and they didn't seem happy with the loss of their work friends.) Familiarity has a way of persisting the same behaviors; with new people and a new environment you have no habits or preconceptions to fight.
Why on earth is this written as a negative story rather a positive story about the capabilities that people will be able to explore?
You must be new here...
We had a Magellan GPS years ago that responded to its name. It did a good job of constantly listening for voice commands --except when we had conversations about famous Portuguese explorers, of course.
Um... Yeah... This is one of the dumber trolls I've ever seen on /. Tell me when you've worked out how to make a faith-powered car or a cell phone that communicates through prayer.
Exactly. My first thought was "Hmmm... Is this Ender's Game meets the War on Drugs?" (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narco_submarine)
I see Adam Smith's invisible hand reaching for the plug on somebody's life support.
I prefer to stream my own music collection at work and in the car. Here's an excellent solution (OSS of course): http://sockso.pu-gh.com/
But they make really awful dog food. I can see why they'd avoid it.
This distinction isn't hard to understand --unless you're a project manager. I made the mistake a few years ago of telling a PM about a vulnerability in one of our web apps. She started sending e-mails CCing everyone from the CEO to the janitor telling them about this "security breach." When I tried to gently correct this misunderstanding, all I got was a lot of diva attitude and "I'll call it whatever I want." I was really happy when I quit that job.
You seem to be missing the fact that scaremongering (anxiety in general) can be a very useful thing for our survival. Don't you think the Green Revolution had some impetus in the fear of Malthusian predictions? FUD or not, sometimes our anxieties get us to think about potential problems before it's too late.
If abstinence was a working strategy, none of us would be here. The human sexual instinct ranks just below air, food, and shelter.
But your last point on conquering poverty and improving education to lower population and increase the poor's standard of living is absolutely right. Here's a great TED talk that brings up some of the points everyone has made:
http://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_shows_the_best_stats_you_ve_ever_seen.html
Hmmm... I like this line of thought.
I still haven't decided whether I should raise my kids in the Norse, Greek, or Roman religious tradition.
Flawless logic AC. Consider a hypothetical situation that might add some perspective to the idea that all ideas are equal. Next time you have a serious accident, go home and pray about it --or go see a faith healer. Or maybe you could see a medical doctor that just says some magical incantations ala Harry Potter? All these "theories" on how the human body heals are equally valid, right? To say otherwise or not hire the superstitious doctor would constitute unconstitutional discrimination.
Once the human problem is solved, Skynet can start work on dressing the cheetah-bots in people clothes and making them do other adorable things.
Is there enough statistically significant clear, objective data that is available to be verified that indicates anything with any amount of confidence?
Yes. Anyone honestly interested in understanding this or any other scientific finding can start their education here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confidence_interval
And once you understand the principles of statistical confidence, you can get some data and run the numbers:
http://rainbow.ldeo.columbia.edu/datasources.html
Or you could just trust in the scientific community that does this kind of research for a living to not be part some some enormous, X-files worthy conspiracy.
Sorry if this all sounds patronizing, but it really pains me when I see people trusting politicians more than scientists.
There is some truth to this, but financial self-interest aside, we don't really change that much. As our brains age, not unlike concrete, we become more rigid and less open-minded. Long-term habits, attitudes, and expectations form. We stay the same, stuck in our old ways of thinking and acting --it's the world around us that changes and progresses. There is no spoon.
This was definitely a difficult software development task. The delivery date they promised this time last year has slipped several times and several months --proof that Watson is not just a mechanical turk.
Thank god we've got brilliant ACs who see through this science ruse. This is just like that bullshit about gravity being the cause of things dropping to the ground, but some things like balloons and steam rise --what's with that? Obviously science is completely made up.
Considering that even if we could provide Mars settlers a completely self-sufficient and regenerating biosphere, there's still the issue of our bodies being very poorly adapted for Mars's low gravity. IMNAEB (I Am Not An Evolutionary Biologist), but I really doubt we could live for many years (and reproduce) will such an abrupt change in gravity. Considering the harsh effects micro-gravity has on human physiology (see http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2001/ast02aug_1/ ), I don't think we'd make it.
I'm betting with the Singularitians; wait another 3-4 decades and it'll be easy to go there "in silico."
I really want to get a t-shirt made with this brilliant image:
http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/4/2009/12/odds-of-airborne-terror2.jpg
Unfortunately, this kind of rational analysis (of what a staggering waste of time and energy is our collective terrorist freak-out) will always be trumped by stupid panicky human emotion. Our policies have rarely been dictated by logic or evidence after all.
And here's where this moronic paranoia is headed:
http://cartoonnewsmagazine.com/Daily/plane500px.jpg
What's "likely" isn't really important, and is what leads to confirmation bias on both sides. Perhaps your fictitious corpse was a politician in the middle of a scandal who committed suicide, but their party thought a murder would be more sympathetic.
The anti-religious have an uncanny ability to accept things on faith when they agree with their worldview.
Really? You really think science is faith-based? You really think people believe in science without question and then take pride in blindly accepting it? I think you forget that science can actually test hypotheses with repeated experimentation. And at the end of the day, science can not only explain, but predict phenomena. It's actually really useful, pragmatic stuff.
Overclocking the brain? I've been doing it for years with an experimental substance called coffee.
...and the Office suite has been M$'s biggest cash cow. Next question.
Dang. Reading the summary, I was all excited until they ruined it at the end by revealing that it was only "the size of a cat." Mondays are filled with disappointment.