Chile Forum

Asean wrote:I believe gifted people are truely a needle in the haystack but IQ tests needs to be broadened other than academic level. And cause your IQ is poor does that mean u prefer your people IQ to be the same or poorer than yours...quite opposite you need higher IQ people be it your friends or family ..

I agree. I've known extremely intelligent people (idiots savants?) who were bewildered by daily affairs (like planning to do their laundry, or what to wear for the day). I've known other people who weren't what I'd call intelligent, but were gifted. They could make things happen. Society is like a workflow or lifecycle. Everyone doing their part.

It reminds me of a book I read during the dot-com bubble called "Crossing the Chasm." It described how technological advances occur using a bell curve to describe everyone in the life cycle. At one extreme were the geeks who worked on leading-edge technology regardless of whether it had any practical application. They didn't care if anyone "got it" like they did. They knew they were right, even if nobody else recognized it. Then the bridge-builders who could see the practical application, but could have never developed the technology. (What Steve Jobs was to Wozniac in Apple's early years). Next, the early adoptors. The late adopters. And, the neo-ludites (who oppose any change, and are a stabilizing force).

If the high-IQ types depend on others to make themselves relevant, are the others really irrelevant?

Mark

Besides to 100% agree with last Charles post I may add just a practical remark: to tie directly IQ with technological development AND with the wealth of nations is a very, very VERY superficial approach to much more complex phenomena. I have never read any reputable hypothesis or writing on this asumption

totally 100% agree with Charles.. IQ is a quantitative measure of something that can neither be quantified nor measured.. the way i see it is this.. Is a random group from Africa less intelligent then say a random group from Germany?
First of all you would have to define intelligence.. which is something that is quite subjective.. everyone's idea of intelligence is different.. so lets assume most people say Germans are more intelligent than Africans.. well perhaps if they had were tested on maths, science, philosophy and so on.. the Germans may get higher scores.. but if we tested for survival, finding water in Arid regions, hunting wild animals and so on.. perhaps the Africans would score higher.. the point is.. Intelligence is subjective to one's point of view.. yeh sure science matters and humankind has made progress in many areas of science.. but there is more to life than science, maths, economics, psychology.. there are things to life that we cannot measure by an arbitrary number.. like love, hope, joy.. things like sense of community.. life is not just about economic wealth..

BTW its plain silly to say that without money misery is inevitable... there is a Cree Indian Prophecy that goes something like "Only when the last tree has died, the last river has been poisoned, and the last fish has been caught,will we realise that we cannot...EAT MONEY.".. Money does not equal Happiness. FOOD does .. humans have 5 basic levels of needs and none of them is the need of MONEY.. MONEY is just an ends to a means not an end in itself..

hope what i wrote made some sense.. im off to bed

One of the stories I come across is the breeding practices of the elite ashkenazi jews in europe, by marrying smart children of professors and professionals, they largely improved their gene pool and gained a foothold in many industries of the West.
But though inbreeding keep up with the bell curve, they suffered from other defects too.Expand and contract ...marry out your race with the scholars of their european countertparts and keep it in the family too..
This is the main reasons of anti semitism...IQ instead of improving human minds have become a racial superiority game

Maslow’s pyramid depicting the hierarchy of needs has been discredited long ago, particularly in the scheme shown above. Personally, though, I agree somewhat with the concept, especially its relationship with one’s IQ, but the interaction between them would need a forum of its own to be discussed.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You may try to ignore reality, but reality doesn’t ignore you.

IQ has absolutely nothing to do with the wealth of nations. IQ is measured by a test so therefore any national assessment of IQ's is more about the ability to take tests well than actual intelligence.

The application of creative ideas into marketable products is what truly makes a nation wealthy. A wealthy nation is one that can mix the three factors of production(land, labor and capital) together into a recipe that generates wealth not only for the entrepeneur who grows a business, but for each individual factor.

Looking back historically at the US, Australia, Canada, etc, business owners have grown wealthy, owners of capital have grown wealthy, owners of land(resources) have grown wealthy, and the working class has grown comparatively wealthy.

In Chile, I don't think the working class has grown comparatively wealthy yet, but certainly groups in the equation have.

a bit complex thought for english language, but i''ll try...

i believe intelligence is one of most abused women on this planet. intelligence is a tool. it means how many GHz the main processor has. nothing less, nothing more.

intelligence can be measured when the tests are balanced to the environment where they are used. from the definition every country (culture, nation...) has the approximate iq 100. not less, not more. but you can have politics too, they say, so you can manipulate with numbers... sky is the limit.

and even if you want to measure whole world on one scale (which i agree is completely irelevant scale) there is a question of population which created data. in my country there is basically one test for everybody at 13. so we can have pretty good data. how many persons are tested in darfur?

intelligence has nothing with success, creativity, social adaptation or whatewer else. it's only the processor. and from there on you need to have a good software and good knowledge how to use it.

intelligent persons are equally distributed among rich and poor, educated and non educated, talented or non-talented, well, anyzhing you can imagine. opposite maybe common thinking it's even not very correlated to mental diseases...

and i believe there are no serious iq150 questions. education, knowledge, informations, analytical and synthetic skills and preferable at least similar philosophical attitude to many things in general is a way to a good answer that you could accept. if you trust in someone because of his/her intelligence, then, i think, you'll need a lot of faith.

i believe iq (measured in known environment) can be a relevant data if you have almost all others data. and this same iq data would be very meas leading without all other data.

charles, i found interesting your thought on connection between intelligence and language. it's very similar to my most reasonable (not original) thought that you cannot think without language. there are many who argues it's not true and por ejempio show music and visual art. well, doesn't change my mind. but i do believe there could be intelligence even without language. there had to be intelligence to start language, at first. and don't think that thinking and intelligence are not even really connected and of course not the same. don't even want to wright about intelligence and other creatures (beside hs) living on this planet. we are not that special, at least not in that way.

as intelligence can be quite useful, can be also a great burden. among many other things intelligence can be very helpful when someone wants to close his/her eyes and mind before the reallity. intelligent person knows it's intelligent. and because of that thinks that what he/she thinks is correct. it's true. sometimes.

einstein was genius and as such very intelligent. that's why i don't understand theory of relativity. but i'm a little intelligent too and so far i understand that there must be some relativity.