Not just another IQ thread

[cswhisper]

I've met a few people who are what people would consider genius. And from my experience I have noticed that it is only people of marginal intelligence who obsess about IQ tests. Majority of genius aren't that concerned with eugenics, they are much to busy conquering the world, making money, or with humanitarian projects. Most whom are concerned with IQ are in the 115 to 125 range. Why is that really? Does it stem from some type of inferiority complex? Or the need to feel superior by finding someone who is inferior to them.

And then of course we have the statistics, that prove how valuable IQ is, ooh wee can't forget those statistics. I know plenty about statistics, especially how they can be manipulated to say what you want them to.(Aside: I got a perfect score in statistics class, easiest math I ever took). There is a saying "Believe none of what you see, and half of what you hear." It applies perfectly to statistics. Let's look at some statistics.

Statistics show that black americans score lower on IQ than there caucasianoid counter points. Now let examine these statistics. According to the 2000 census, African Americans make up 12.3% of the total United States population, and non-hispanic whites make up 69.1%, native americans .09%, etc etc, I provided the link. Let say I am really ambitious, I manage to give an IQ test to every american in the Adult population. I now have my raw data. How do I go about displaying the results hmmm. I know I will divide the number of people with an IQ of genius (G) for each race, into the total number of people in the population. Now I know this doesn't sound fair considering whites outnumber blacks and since geniuses are rare, and do to the overwhelming number of whites in the country there will undoubtfully be more whites in genius category than blacks, but hey, my job is to get the results I want. And how do I display these results, well in percentages of course. If I am pro-eugenics, as are many authors that spuriously connect race with IQ, I want to make sure my results come out the way I want. So there you have it. The statistics show that whites on average have higher IQ than blacks.

 

[selfAdjoint]

If you think this farrago represents any statistician's way of going about things, you should go back to the teacher of that statistics class and renogotiate your grade downward. It's a straw man argument made up of incorrect procedures.

Since you're so good at statistics look up the old book Bias in Mental Testing by Jensen. Most libraries have it. Read it and learn.

 

[cswhisper]

bite me. I never stated that this is how statistics is calculated. I simply stated that you can present the results in what ever light that best fits your own personal agenda. Raw data doesn't lie, statistics however is a joke.

You ever seen "Bowling for Columbine". I'm sure you can rent it at blockbusters.

 

[Thallium]

That did not exactly make me feel much better. I am afraid of being stupid and I need to prove to myself that I am intelligent. However, I am calmer now. It is nothing but a phase I am in because I am obsessed with getting good grades in school, but there are so many other important things to care about.

Humanitarian aid? Does prisoner support count?

 

[selfAdjoint]

Originally posted by cswhisper
bite me. I never stated that this is how statistics is calculated. I simply stated that you can present the results in what ever light that best fits your own personal agenda. Raw data doesn't lie, statistics however is a joke.

You ever seen "Bowling for Columbine". I'm sure you can rent it at blockbusters.

Michael Moore is of course the last word in statistical understanding.

 

[Nachtwolf]

And from my experience I have noticed that it is only people of marginal intelligence who obsess about IQ tests.

That was my experience as well, and it's what turned me off to the whole subject. But it actually has many important large scale consequences which are quite fascinating. There's a difference between caring about IQ so you can say "I'm smart, he's smart, she's smart" and knowing about IQ so that you can understand social trends and possibilities.

I know plenty about statistics, especially how they can be manipulated to say what you want them to.

Such tricks only really work on the uneducated and uncritical. Don't be fooled into thinking that statistics don't mean anything just because the weak minded can be easily confused by them.

Let say I am really ambitious

You don't understand the situation very well at all. Such effects as you brought up are quite easy to account for - don't compare the number of geniuses in one population to another, simply take the average of each group and find the standard deviation. This will tell you everything you want to know. Regarding the example you gave, the white IQ average is approximately 100 with an SD around 15, the black average around 85 with an SD of 13. This is the way real scientists gather data and compile it statistically - they aren't stupid.

statistics however is a joke.

You don't understand what you are talking about.


--Mark

 

[Thallium]

No one replies to my posts.

What do you mean with obsession? Because I seldom take IQ tests. I started one on a science website. 40 questions and 41 minutes to finish it. The first 15 were more or less clicking through, but then the more challenging came. I really liked that test. Quite a good brainteaser and I like solving problems. Is it obsession when I am afraid of not being intelligent? Or if not, what is obsession with IQ tests?

 

[TENYEARS]

I became enlightened in 1987 and we are all the same. If you need to think differently I understand. There is no such thing as genius. When you understand that you will have reached your potential and not until. Genuis is realizing genius does not exist.

At one time or another in life we all feel a little stupid, if not compared to others maybe within ourselves. It is a function of being human with a relative vision of the world. When you punch through relativity, you will find the answer. It will not require a book or a teacher. It will only require answering a single question. When you do that, no one will ever be smarter than you, but neither will they be less stupid.

This understanding, when you achieve it, you will have no doubt. It will be a new state of mind which you have never before experienced.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Originally posted by TENYEARS
I became enlightened in 1987 and we are all the same. If you need to think differently I understand. There is no such thing as genius. When you understand that you will have reached your potential and not until. Genuis is realizing genius does not exist.

At one time or another in life we all feel a little stupid, if not compared to others maybe within ourselves. It is a function of being human with a relative vision of the world. When you punch through relativity, you will find the answer. It will not require a book or a teacher. It will only require answering a single question. When you do that, no one will ever be smarter than you, but neither will they be less stupid.

This understanding, when you achieve it, you will have no doubt. It will be a new state of mind which you have never before experienced.

But if you're enlightened, there is no school, there is no work, it's all illusion, right? Probably you should start a thread about this on one of the philosophy forums.

 

[TENYEARS]

Truth has no boundaries, yet you would place it in a category?

 

[Thallium]

I am beginning to understand myself better. It is true about the relative vision one has to the world and the circumstances. I especially begrudge the one's in my class who get high grades, but I do too and the price I have to pay is hard work, reconsideration, constructing and using my thought.

There are no geniuses. I never believed there were. When one so-called genius has made a crucial discovery it sometimes appears that someone else thought of the same idea. Fortune or coincidence.

selfAjoint: What did you mean with if you are enlightened, there is no education or school? A rather irrational comment.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Thallium, in many traditions - especially eastern ones - enlightenment means recognizing that the perceived world is a fake, only a mask for the One. I hasten to say I don't believe that, but it was a reasonable inference from his post. And you notice he didn't call my inference false, he changed the subject.

 

[TENYEARS]

selfAdjoint, what you spoke is just words you read and parrot back. You say I don't believe them. What if you did believe them. Did OJ do it. I believe or I do not. This is not knowlege, this is not truth. When an instructor teaches you something, you believe it. You test it within the confines of what is given to you and what you know. The question is, is this real knowledge what you post in your brain and memories? I am a fool for the most part, and I am not being humble or pretending to to look into the mirror of a mirror of a mirror. What I say is the truth, not because I say it for egos sake, but because it is. I was renewed on a specific day, it change me and obliterated a huge part of my relative being if that is a possible thing. You know the day.

I had a vision concerning proving of this. I was going to JREF, but I can see that is not the place. I was thinking to go to repuatble college and to have some statistical analysis done. My worry is would human kind benifit from it? Would it be more damaging than good.

I have been on this forum for a little more than a year and I still ask myself the same question waiting. You see how englightened can I be if I concern myself with such foolishness?

My concern is for the future of all peoples, of my children your children of this planet which we inhabit and are quickly destroying. If it was not for this, I would say nothing at all, but we must take reponsiblity, and the truth is the only way.

Thallium, heads up I threw you a ball and you just dropped it why? If you understand the nature of this small question, there is no mountain you will not be able to move. None of your classmates will understand this riddle. You might.

 

[Thallium]

Originally posted by TENYEARS
Thallium, heads up I threw you a ball and you just dropped it why? If you understand the nature of this small question, there is no mountain you will not be able to move. None of your classmates will understand this riddle. You might.

You do like speaking in riddles don't you? I saw no ball, I did not catch it and therefore I could not drop it. I cannot know there was a ball if I was unaware of it. So tell me, what ball did you send that you thought I dropped?

 

[TENYEARS]

Why would you drop a ball that was thrown to you? Would it be because of inability? If you understand the nature of the question, the answer will be automatic. From that moment on, your life will be quite different. If you address the question the answer will be automatic. How can this be? All the clues you or anyone else need are located in this paragraph.

 

[Thallium]

I don't know what you are talking about. Forgive me, but your intelligence is far greater than mine - that is why I don't see what you mean. I see no hints, no clues. Perhaps you should do this discussion with someone brighter because I don't see where you are going.

EDIT And I am very angry because I don't understand. Why can't you just SAY IT?

 

[TENYEARS]

See now you are not telling the truth. You are the smartest person I know. The truth can take time, don't rush it, be consistant and you will find what you are searching for. Don't compare youself to others, it is a complete waste of time and has no value whatsoever.

 

[Thallium]

Originally posted by TENYEARS
See now you are not telling the truth. You are the smartest person I know. The truth can take time, don't rush it, be consistant and you will find what you are searching for. Don't compare youself to others, it is a complete waste of time and has no value whatsoever.

That got me thinking. Why am I the smartest person you know? Because there is no truth? I do not tell the truth because I do not know it.

 

[TENYEARS]

Thallium, I was responding to this "Forgive me, but your intelligence is far greater than mine - that is why I don't see what you mean.". When your desire to understand is great enough because knowing the truth is what is really important to you, the truth will have to choice but to respond. It's the law and it doesn't have a name.

 

[Nachtwolf]

Maybe you should lay off the dope.

 

[Thallium]

Originally posted by Nachtwolf
Maybe you should lay off the dope.

What did this mean Nachtwolf?

 

[hitssquad]

Nachtwolf wrote
Maybe you should lay off the dope.

Originally posted by Thallium
What did this mean Nachtwolf?

From M-W Unabridged 3.0:


-
Main Entry:1dope
Pronunciation:'dOp
Function:noun
Inflected Form:-s
Etymology:Dutch doop sauce, from dopen to dip, baptize, from Middle Dutch dOpen; akin to Old High German toufen to baptize, Gothic daupjan to baptize, dip into, Old Norse deypa to dive, Old English dyppan to dip — more at DIP

1 a : any of various thick liquid or pasty preparations (as formerly of pan drippings or gravy and more recently of grease for use as a lubricant) <pipe dope should be applied to the male end in making up a screwed joint> <coated the water pipelines with a corrosive-resisting dope> b : a lubricant for the bottoms of skis c : any of various cosmetic or medicinal preparations or insect repellents <dope for dry skin>
2 : any of various additive substances or liquid preparations introduced into a substance or applied to a surface to contribute a desired quality: as a : a food adulterant b : a coating (as a cellulose lacquer) applied especially to a fabric (as of airplanes to produce tautness and increase strength or of balloons to increase gastightness) c (1) : a syrupy liquid consisting chiefly of cellulose derivatives in solution from which the transparent support or backing of a sensitive film is made (2) : a liquid preparation or varnish used to facilitate retouching, to block out parts of a negative, or to reduce reflection from the surface of a print d : a material (as an antiknock agent) added in small quantities to an internal-combustion fuel (as gasoline) to improve engine performance — called also fuel dope e : a light varnish added to lithographic ink to reduce the tack
3 a : absorbent or adsorbent material (as wood pulp or kieselguhr) used in certain manufacturing processes <active dope for dynamite> — compare 1BASE 2b(1) b : absorbent material used in packing to reduce the effects of friction or to provide lubrication (as the oil-soaked cotton waste packed in the journal boxes of freight cars)
4 a : a preparation of opium or other narcotic or habit-forming drug (as cocaine, heroin, marihuana) especially as used for a certain initially pleasurable stimulating or stupefying effect b slang : a preparation (as of opium) given to a horse to depress or stimulate it temporarily (as before a race) c slang : an opium or narcotic addict d : a dull-witted, obtuse, or stupid person : NITWIT
5 slang a : information, factual data, details, or comment concerning a particular subject especially when purporting to come from an informed source <the British Travel Association has a great deal of dope on this subject— Richard Joseph> b : information or prediction concerning the progress or outcome of a situation or coming event <advance dope on military purchasing policies>
6 South & Midland : a cola beverage
7 : a solution (as of cellulose acetate in acetone) for spinning synthetic fibers : a spinning bath — called also spinning dope
-



-Chris

 

[Thallium]

Cheeky? I know what dope is, but who that comment was directed to was what I wanted to know and what Nachtwolf meant was what I wanted to know. Nor reason to prove you are a wandering Encyclopædia.. Perhaps you should as Nachtwolf should - find somewhere else to talk because nothing sensible comes out of your mouth.

 

[Nachtwolf]

What did this mean Nachtwolf?

It was a rather straightforward suggestion (directed at TENYEARS).

From M-W Unabridged 3.0:

The only thing on this thread funnier than Thallium asking me what I meant was you telling him.


--Mark

 

[Thallium]

Do not say anything like that to TENYEARS. He is a good man with a lot more sensibility than others here. I pray you will realize that some day, though it is very unlikely in your state, Nachtwolf.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Well thalium, you can lose faith in met too then, because I consider tenyears either a kook or a troll, or both.

 

[Thallium]

Why is that selfAdjoint? What's with him that is so wrong?

 

[selfAdjoint]

Anybody can claim marvelous epiphanies and talk in riddles. I've met the type before, and I repeat, in my experience they turn out to be Kooks and/or Trolls. Real masters are much much quieter.

 

[Thallium]

I am aware of that sort. But do not come and claim that you are right in every case.

And the clever one thinks twice before he decides to keep silent.

 

[hitssquad]

Statistics as a science

Originally posted by cswhisper
And then of course we have the statistics, that prove how valuable IQ is, ooh wee can't forget those statistics. I know plenty about statistics, especially how they can be manipulated to say what you want them to.(Aside: I got a perfect score in statistics class, easiest math I ever took).

That's like saying you got a perfect score in algebra class, and applying your assessment of algebra from that experience to graduate-level linear algebra.

Do you know what an actuary is? Actuaries have to take more than a generic "statistics class". Their statistical analyses make money for their employers. Does that sound like something that can be "manipulated to say what you want"?

It is said that the sine qua non of a science is its ability to produce effective technology. The science of statistics is a legitimate science by this measure, for it has given us statistical tools with which we have been able to amplify signal from within noisy data sets. Scientists have even dug up data sets from previous centuries -- the results of "failed" studies; studies that, at the time they were performed, did not produce statistically meaningful results -- and applied modern statistical tools to them. The results, viewed through this lens, changed from insignificant to significant.

Statistics is also being applied to other types of data sets to amplify the signal-to-noise ratio. In the area of astronomy, Earth based telescopes are now challenging orbiting telescopes in clarity of image. How is this done? It is done with statistical tools. The noise added by Earth's atmosphere is literally filtered out by modern statistical tools to give pictures as clear as those from orbiting telescopes. Do you want pudding proof? All they have to do to see if their statistically-based clean-up feats are accurate is compare cleaned-up images from a terrestrial telescope with images of the same astral bodies from an orbiting telescope.

The difficulty in obtaining sharp images from an Earth-based telescope, explained DuVarney, lies in turbulence caused by the motion of gases in the Earth's atmosphere. Every split second, the atmosphere shifts slightly. Such changes cause light to bend, creating distortion in photographs taken through telescopes. "It's why the stars twinkle," he explained.

However, it is possible to eliminate the effects of atmospheric turbulence. And over the past 10 years, scientists and engineers have been developing adaptive optics systems to do so.

http://www.emory.edu/EMORY_REPORT/erarchive/1997/March/ERmarch.3/3_3_97DuVarney.html


For more on the statistical science of adaptive optics, also see:
http://cfao.ucolick.org/
http://www.aoainc.com/technologies/adaptiveandmicrooptics/aostutorial.html
http://caao.as.arizona.edu/


-Chris

 

[Nachtwolf]

Originally posted by Thallium
I pray you will realize that some day, though it is very unlikely in your state, Nachtwolf.

Hahaha! By all means, pray away! I'm sure the gods all agree with you!

--Mark

 

[Nereid]

hitssquad wrote: Statistics is also being applied to other types of data sets to amplify the signal-to-noise ratio. In the area of astronomy, Earth based telescopes are now challenging orbiting telescopes in clarity of image. How is this done? It is done with statistical tools. The noise added by Earth's atmosphere is literally filtered out by modern statistical tools to give pictures as clear as those from orbiting telescopes. Do you want pudding proof? All they have to do to see if their statistically-based clean-up feats are accurate is compare cleaned-up images from a terrestrial telescope with images of the same astral bodies from an orbiting telescope.

And it's not just high-end telescopes, you can buy image enhancement tools for amateur 'scopes too. One has a tilt-tip mirror, and some deconvolution image processing software. I've not heard FFTs and deconvolution described as statistical processing before, and am not sure that the techniques have much in common with meta-analysis.

 

[hitssquad]

Signals and noise

Originally posted by Nereid
And it's not just high-end telescopes, you can buy image enhancement tools for amateur 'scopes too. One has a tilt-tip mirror, and some deconvolution image processing software. I've not heard FFTs

20,800 hits:
http://www.google.com/search?q=fft+fourier+statistical

and deconvolution

23,900 hits:
http://www.google.com/search?q=deconvolution+statistical

described as statistical processing before, and am not sure that the techniques have much in common with meta-analysis.

Meta-analysis does not imply quality of randomness of the sampling in the same league as that of physics-phenomenon sampling. High-order trends tend to need to be accounted for in sampling of study data, where high-order trends don't tend to need to be accounted for in physical phenomena sampling:
http://www.qmk-online.de/pdfs/epidemiology_episcope.pdf

And no one seems to use the term "meta-analysis" to refer to what is done when telescope images are compared and signal is inferred.
http://www.google.com/search?q=image+telescope+"meta-analysis"

However, I would submit that if you are enhancing a signal/noise ratio in any other way than by moving your sampling instrument to an area that lends itself to good signal/noise ratio sampling, you are applying statistical tools to the data in order to infer the signal from the noise. And statistical tools are statistical tools. They don't care where you got the data. They just help you filter out noise from signals that might already be present. Therefore the statistical analysis of meta-analysis, and the mathematics involved in image correction of telescope data, is essentially the same.


From the M-W Unabridged 3.0:

---
Main Entry:meta*analysis
Pronunciation:*med.**
Function:noun
Etymology:meta- + analysis

: quantitative statistical analysis that is applied to separate but similar experiments or studies of different and usually independent researchers and that involves pooling the data and using the pooled data to test for statistical significance
---

---
Main Entry:mon£te car£lo
Pronunciation:*m*nt**k*r(*)l*-, -t**k-
Function:adjective
Usage:usually capitalized M&C
Etymology:from Monte Carlo, Monaco, city noted for its gambling casino

: of, relating to, or involving the use of random sampling techniques and often the use of computer simulation to obtain approximate solutions to mathematical or physical problems especially in terms of a range of values each of which has a calculated probability of being the solution *Monte Carlo methods* *Monte Carlo calculations*
---

---
Main Entry:statistical inference
Function:noun

: the making of estimates concerning a population from information gathered from samples
---

Google returns 11,600 hits for the search argument <image telescope "monte carlo">:
http://www.google.com/search?q=image+telescope+"monte+carlo"

Google returns 40,700 hits for the search argument <image telescope statistical>:
http://www.google.com/search?q=image+telescope+statistical



-Chris

 

[Nereid]

peace! It's just semantics.

The folks who get paid to do astronomy often use statistical tools in the work they do; some use such tools and techniques extensively.

Those astronomers who, as part of their work, improve the quality of images taken from ground-based optical and IR telescopes, use a wide variety of techniques. There are a number of image-enhacement algorithms which are now widely deployed, in standard packages (e.g. Lucy-Richardson, maximum entropy), and a number of metrics quoted for how close the image comes to a theoretical 'best' (e.g. Strehl ratio). There are other processing and enhancement techniques which have more limited use.

In the case of deconvolution (e.g. reducing the smearing caused by atmospheric 'seeing'), it's not so much extracting a signal from noise, as transforming the signal to a form which can be better analysed. In this sense, it's similar to reconstructing a 'clean' image of a distant galaxy, from what we see through a gravitational lens. Another example, for a totally different field, would be a CDMA mobile phone message - the spread spectrum technique makes the signal look like noise, but if you have the keys ('code'), you can extract the signal easily. No statistics involved, at least not directly.

A good example of extracting a weak signal from noise, in astronomy, would be the timing of pulsars. The tests of GR done by using such observations rely heavily on statistical techniques to extract the signal.

 

[Thallium]

Nachtwolf, please read my PMs.