🧵 My theory on intelligence
Anonymous at Tue, 19 Mar 2024 20:52:47 UTC No. 16087012
Intelligence is the ability to learn something within a certain timeframe.
Let's say for example, you want to teach a group of 1000 people on discrete mathematics, and let's assume each person has the perfect resources and plan to fit their learning style (tutors, videos, etc.) and let's assume that nobody has ever learned anything about discrete mathematics.
First we must assess baseline intelligence, this determines if it's even possible to learn discrete mathematics. Animals don't have this, and let's say humans with IQs of less than 83 don't have it either, which means it's impossible to learn it. So let's assume the baseline intelligence to learn discrete math is an IQ of 83. This means that it is possible to learn it but the amount of time it can take to learn it can be up to a lifetime for those with IQs of 83.
But let's assume those students must learn it within 1 year, so now the baseline intelligence is now 100 IQ. That means those with 100 IQ, it takes exactly 1 year to learn it, meanwhile the higher the IQ the shorter time it will take to learn it. For example, it will take a person with 160 IQ to learn it in 1 month, a person with an IQ of 130 in 3 months, etc. Out of those 1000 people, the smartest person is the one who learned the fastest and the dumbest person is the one who learned the slowest.
Do you agree with my theory and if not then why?
Anonymous at Tue, 19 Mar 2024 20:58:12 UTC No. 16087017
I can learn very abstract math in a few weeks but I didn't learn how to interact with females in 30 years. Am I smart or stupid?
Anonymous at Tue, 19 Mar 2024 20:59:34 UTC No. 16087018
>>16087012
>intelligence is how fast you learn stuff
nice restating fluid intelligence big brain how long of a time frame did it took you? iq train has left years ago, still trying to catch up sub 80 iq turd?
Anonymous at Tue, 19 Mar 2024 21:05:19 UTC No. 16087026
>>16087018
Intelligence isn't just processing speed, it's whether it's even possible to learn something no matter how hard you try even with the perfect plan and resources and with the perfect physical and mental health, and I believe baseline intelligence determines this possibility even if the person never learned a concept at all in their lives. This is similar on how the NBA basically have a minimum height requirement (you'll never see a 4'11 NBA player) so even a 6'8 morbidly obese peraon can become an NBA player through hard work and weight loss, meanwhile a perfectly fit 4'11 person doesn't have a baseline height requirement.
Anonymous at Tue, 19 Mar 2024 21:22:29 UTC No. 16087048
Not saying this is completely wrong, but if it were true it would imply intelligence is immutable, completely set in stone and no amount of practice or training could improve it.
Your brain is a neural network, just like an AI, your whole POV existence is nothing else than matrix multiplication. You get input, it gets processed trough many layers which give it less or more weight depending on previous experiences. The good inputs reinforce your positive patterns and negative inputs break make them less certain and favorable.
What im trying to say is that whatever data you train your brain on, thats what its gonna excel at. Some people are smarter but is it not mainly because their previous experiences precondition the brain to be efficient at similar tasks, which discrete math may or may not be ? Genetics do play a role in this, afterall if your parents are smart, you are likely to be as well. Humans arent born with completely empty brains, as the theory of Tabula Rasa suggests.
The experiment you proposed would solve this issue but its impossible to practically perform. Finding a person with no learnt nor birth inherited intelligence is impossible thus we cannot neither rule out or confirm that all people are equal if they had clean brains.
But then again, genetics is mostly a matter of development instructions which the brain and its default information is part of. If we were to find 2 subjects with like minds, it may imply that they are perfect clones of each other. Again impossible.
So in conclusion, you need to distinguish that baseline intelligence doesnt work, its a matter of previous experiences that you or your ancestors dealt with and that contributed to some of your personality attributes. Be it algorhytmic solving, critical thinking, compassion or whatever else.
Benchmarking sole intelligence will always be a comparison of product of practice and previous instances
Anonymous at Tue, 19 Mar 2024 21:25:46 UTC No. 16087054
>>16087017
you're posting on /sci/ so your iq ceiling is about 115
Anonymous at Tue, 19 Mar 2024 21:34:29 UTC No. 16087066
>>16087061
>Clinton 154
fr?
Anonymous at Tue, 19 Mar 2024 21:43:19 UTC No. 16087086
>>16087048
>Not saying this is completely wrong, but if it were true it would imply intelligence is immutable, completely set in stone and no amount of practice or training could improve it.
This is true, because intelligence is similar to being physically gifted. No amount of training will make you the fastest runner or best NBA player if you have no physical gifts, meanwhile a physically gifted person who has never trained their entire lives can become these things if they put in the work.
>>16087048
>So in conclusion, you need to distinguish that baseline intelligence doesnt work, its a matter of previous experiences that you or your ancestors dealt with and that contributed to some of your personality attributes. Be it algorhytmic solving, critical thinking, compassion or whatever else
Yes, previous experiences can enhance faster learning. For example, someone with an IQ of 100 who went to school vs someone with an IQ of 200 who never went to school. You give them both a concept to learn within a certain timeframe (let's say trigonometry) the 100 IQ person is going faster due to previous experience in mathematics, meanwhile the 200 IQ person will take slower to learn since they've never done math. But if the 200 IQ person had the same schooling then they will learn it faster.
Anonymous at Wed, 20 Mar 2024 09:19:20 UTC No. 16087796
>>16087012
>Intelligence is the ability to learn something within a certain timeframe.
what if a dumb person, cutting corners, skates through with just enough knowledge to pass the test,
and a smart person takes a really long time to thoroughly understand the how and why and completion of the whole process?
Anonymous at Wed, 20 Mar 2024 09:56:36 UTC No. 16087838
>>16087796
Assuming we're talking about IQ tests, if the "dumb" person got an IQ score of 120 within 1 hour, and the "smart" person got an IQ score of 120 within 2 hours, then the "dumb" person is actually the smart person due to faster processing speed. Those with higher IQs can learn at a faster rate whether for complex or non-complex topics, they even have higher reaction times and less likely to have PTSD.
Anonymous at Wed, 20 Mar 2024 17:20:51 UTC No. 16088329
>>16087061
>George Bush and Trump 125-130 IQ
horse shit
Anonymous at Wed, 20 Mar 2024 17:30:30 UTC No. 16088340
>>16088329
if this is true i must be packing something in the 200s. i'm retarded but i could blow either of them out of the water in any logical test.
Anonymous at Wed, 20 Mar 2024 17:39:27 UTC No. 16088347
>>16088340
that's what I'm saying, Bush was well educated for sure, and trump certainly has a high social IQ.. he knows how to rally his crowd - in fact, they both do, but I refuse to believe either of them are more logically intelligent than your average /sci/ poster that enjoys doing math.
>>16088336
This motherfucker can hardly form a coherent sentence currently. I'm sure he was pretty intelligent in his younger years but if he's being judged as having a 115 IQ right now then I must be fucking Einstein
Anonymous at Wed, 20 Mar 2024 18:23:11 UTC No. 16088395
>>16088336
>115
Maybe at his peak. It must now be about 85
Anonymous at Wed, 20 Mar 2024 18:24:01 UTC No. 16088396
Tell me a story about doodooshit
Anonymous at Thu, 21 Mar 2024 12:43:11 UTC No. 16089387
>>16087012
>Do you agree with my theory and if not then why?
Disagree. There is very little connection between learning stuff and intelligence.
Anonymous at Thu, 21 Mar 2024 13:16:38 UTC No. 16089401
>>16087012
>Intelligence is the ability to learn something within a certain timeframe.
Not to learn, but to understand. And on the higher levels, to figure out.
Anonymous at Thu, 21 Mar 2024 14:08:28 UTC No. 16089439
>>16087012
Interesting that you consider yourself big brain, when you are actually describing learning processes that have nothing to do with intelligence.
Anonymous at Thu, 21 Mar 2024 14:12:39 UTC No. 16089443
>>16087012
I can assure you, that inteligence is a height jump, not distance run. You either can or can't, longer time may help, if you're on the edge, but if you are dumbfuck, no matter how hard your tutors will try, you'll stay dumbfuck.
Anonymous at Thu, 21 Mar 2024 14:30:20 UTC No. 16089465
>>16087048
>intelligence is immutable, completely set in stone and no amount of practice or training could improve it.
Yeah, afaik most evidence indicates this. Your intelligence is mostly the same throughout life. Although it decreases slightly as you age.
For example, adults tend to score nearly the same IQ as when they were children.
>>16087012
I think intelligence has to do with your ability to find effecient configurations of neurons. Iirc there was a study that measured brain activity while performing some set of novel tasks.
Initially, all participants showed high level of brain activity. However after time passed, the more intelligent ones showed less brain activity, while the less intelligent ones continued displaying higher amount of activity.
In other words, intelligent people's brains found the least amount of work to still accomplish the same task. They minimized the required resources.
A huge part of intellect is abstraction. It's being able to do calculations like 135*8 not by imagining 135*8 objects and counting them, but using shortcuts, symbols, etc. I think for less intelligent people, they are less capable of abstraction and as a result can't process as much. They hit a limit on the amount of mental "objects" they can juggle at once and get fatigued