FloatingIdiot said: Trance- said: Not blank states of knowledge; the definition of knowledge here is blurry. If you give someone a puzzle, and he notices the pattern, it could be said that the pattern was in his knowledge so he solved it. Very precise argument can be made against 'knowledge' here. A better approach is to think of intelligence as the ability to detect and hence employ that knowledge. And in that sense, it works. Forming new connections from available knowledge is precisely the part about 'employing already gained knowledge'. The more intelligent person understands more from a question than a less intelligent person does. That's one of the differences too. Regardless of how you choose your syntax, the knowledge base one works from in an IQ test is of a much different nature than in complex intellectual pursuits. You can't just treat all knowledge sets as if they are processed by the brain in the same way. That point has already been discussed in Cartell-Horn's theory. |
Trance- said: FloatingIdiot said: Regardless of how you choose your syntax, the knowledge base one works from in an IQ test is of a much different nature than in complex intellectual pursuits. You can't just treat all knowledge sets as if they are processed by the brain in the same way. That point has already been discussed in Cartell-Horn's theory. So how do these two guys suggest testing what appears to be the untestable? |
 |
For that, you'll have to read the article. And then try out the test yourself. |
I read the article and in the conclusion it basically says "Don't be Trance". |
|
Cookies was trying to convince me to put one of your quotes in my signature. I declined. Now I've found the quote I should put. |
Trance- said: TheBrainintheJar said: The model does seem wide, but where's an actual test I can see for my own eyes? Also, how come these fields DON'T change? I mean, we used to think atoms were the smallest particle there is. Now we know what they are made of. Go to the psychologist. There you'll see it. That's knowledge. Not intelligence lol. This is an example of how these fields are changing. With new knowledge comes new ways of thinking. |
| WEAPONS - My blog, for reviews of music, anime, books, and other things |
Trance- said: If my Creative Director is disliked by the audience, then I need only to test him through big five and see what scores he gets on 'agreeableness' and 'extroversion'. No need for an EQ test which doesn't present substantial correlations between a certain performance and itself if all other cognitive factors are balanced. But doesn't it make sense that a Big Five test would sacrifice it's depth in the department of EQ in favor of the breadth of it's five characteristics? Or do you think that both models are designed to tackle their factors in the same depth, regardless of how narrow or broad they may be? Also, I don't see how Extroversion would necessarily be that important here. It doesn't really take an extrovert to communicate pertinent information to their consumers when the need arises, nor does extroversion equate to emotional maturity (see Antisocial Personality Disorder for an extreme example). Trance said: When a broad model already takes it in account, there's no need for it to exist independently. Now don't bring out the straw-man that multiple intelligence theory encompasses IQ as well but is disregarded in favor of IQ; thing with multiple intelligence theory is: It cannot be measured. And even if it can be measured, there are so many types of intelligence that are more correctly named 'skills', not aptitudes. Oh, and forgive the nitpickiness here, but that wouldn't be a straw-man. A straw-man is misrepresenting someone's argument, but you clearly said that there's no need to have a narrow model in place when a broader one exists. Under that rule I could bring up this "Why have IQ when we have Multiple-Intelligence Theory" question, and it would still be a perfect representation of your "broad model > narrow model" argument. All you did was provide me with a caveat as to why it's not applicable here. A very reasonable caveat might I add, but it still wouldn't be a straw-man for me to bring that up. |
| @TheRefractingOne If the Creative director has to communicate with people on a daily basis, then being extroverted would help for obvious reasons. "Why have IQ when we have Multiple-Intelligence Theory" Except you have it the other way around. IQ is the broad model which takes in account all types of intelligence and then gives a generalized result which represents the specific factors involved. You can even get an in-detail report of how you scored on a particular part of a test. Multiple Intelligence theory breaks down the broad model (which is IQ) and tries to expound how each and every intelligence is unique and immeasurable. So, for one it's the 'narrow model'. Two, it doesn't measure anything so it's irrelevant. |
Trance- said: Except you have it the other way around. IQ is the broad model which takes in account all types of intelligence and then gives a generalized result which represents the specific factors involved. You can even get an in-detail report of how you scored on a particular part of a test. Multiple Intelligence theory breaks down the broad model (which is IQ) and tries to expound how each and every intelligence is unique and immeasurable. So, for one it's the 'narrow model'. Two, it doesn't measure anything so it's irrelevant. The primary aspect of Multiple Intelligence measured by IQ is the whole Mathematical/Logical aspect, which is only one of several aspects of cognitive skill measured by Multiple Intelligence, or at the very least attempted to be measured. I say this because while we could obviously implement means of measurement for IQ to the Mathematical/Logical facet (and any other aspects that IQ may touch upon), it's hard to create a truly effective means of measure for stuff like Intrapersonal and Interpersonal intelligence without observation by professionals. But the point in this paragraph I'm trying to make is that Multiple-Intelligence is the broad model in this case. I mean, I actually agree with you completely on why IQ should be a favored model (at least for now), just sayin' that it wouldn't be a straw-man to bring that up. It just frustrates me a bit when people use the term "straw-man" inappropriately, since it can really stifle arguments when people don't fully understand what it is. Trance said: If the Creative director has to communicate with people on a daily basis, then being extroverted would help for obvious reasons. Help? Definitely, but I'd estimate that it'd be of somewhat negligible help. See: "it doesn't really take an extrovert to communicate pertinent information to their consumer when the need arises." This seems like very shaky ground on which to base an argument for Big Five in favor of EQ. The important thing I think we should focus on here is whether or not the breadth of Big Five comes at the cost of depth in it's testing for each individual trait. I'm curious, would you truly think that it'd be practical to invest the same amount of examination into Agreeableness in a Big Five test (where each of the remaining four traits would be tested in a similar amount of depth) as the depth of examination present in an EQ test? If so, we'd end up with a VERY long and tedious Big Five test, and an EQ test of only roughly twenty-percent it's length (therefore making the EQ test more economical for time usage, if one is just interested in their degree of EQ/Agreeableness), otherwise we would end up with an EQ test that spends far more time being precise in it's measurement than Big Five, still making EQ the desirable testing model to use if one is only really interested in measuring/evaluating that aspect of their psyche. I'm not even arguing that Big Five should be discarded solely because it's not terribly precise (in fact I like Big Five), I'm just saying that EQ does have value as an independent model. |
| Being "smart" regardless of having academic succes or a high IQ doesn't make you succesful. There a plenty nerds that are socially not good enough to achieve succes. Those that really rise to the top are the ones that use the nerds and present their ideas in a succesful way. |
More topics from this board
» Why should we have sympathy for drug addicts? ( 1 2 )HarryRambod22 - Feb 10, 2022 |
67 |
by 88expert
»»
1 minute ago |
|
» Is English your native language? ( 1 2 )DesuMaiden - Apr 16 |
67 |
by vasipi4946
»»
13 minutes ago |
|
» I got spooked by a water bottletsukareru - Yesterday |
21 |
by tsukareru
»»
43 minutes ago |
|
» Manga piracy website operator ordered to pay ¥1.7 billion to publishersMeusnier - Apr 19 |
22 |
by JaniSIr
»»
54 minutes ago |
|
» Fill this thread with the most questionable statement or two you can think of!IAmOdie - Apr 20 |
34 |
by Zarutaku
»»
1 hour ago |