| Well, there are many facets to this fenomenon. For instance: A blunt insult can make you sound like you're salty/triggered, which is a big no-no by today's standards of social interaction. To be assumed a salty/triggered person is to commit murder on your own argument, stance and credibility. On the other hand, a sophisticated insult can prevent this effect while giving the impression that you are in control of your emotions. Futhermore, if you manage to humor the expectators with insults they consider clever, that is a huge boost in support of your stance. |
HyperLMay 28, 2019 4:48 PM
| You are not your body, you are your brain, the "self" that emerges from within it. |
| They (arrogant) want to separate themselves from the plebs (in their head). They often do this, if they see the fault in the plebs mindset and the pleb cannot be converted with low effort. So the arrogant decides to cut it and decides: me good / higher class - you bad / not worthy. Other possible reasons: troll, bann-avoiding |
| Obviously to show one's superiority and wit. Saying "You should be retroactively aborted for this mistake." has a certain je-ne-sais-quoi so pitifully absent from the vulgar "Die, faggot.". That a man of culture remain as such even as he swears. |
 It is obvious that "obscenity" is not a term capable of exact legal definition; in the practice of the courts, it means "anything that shocks the magistrate". — Bertrand Russell |
| Metaphors and similes feel smart and when you read a metaphor you imagine someone smarter than someone who just says something plain |
| Signature removed. Please follow the signature rules, as defined in the Site & Forum Guidelines. |
| Because it takes an ordinary activity and makes it into a game. It's just for fun and occasionally to show a little wit. |
HungryForQuality said: HyperL said: Well, there are many facets to this fenomenon. For instance: A blunt insult can make you sound like you're salty/triggered, which is a big no-no by today's standards of social interaction. To be assumed a salty/triggered person is to commit murder on your own argument and credibility. On the other hand, a sophisticated insult can prevent this effect while giving the impression that you are in control of you emotions. But they're both insults. Why should it matter what cover you put over a shit cake if it's still a shit cake? It's just a facade that you're in control of your emotions if you use the "sophisticated" insult. If you were, you wouldn't insult or talk down to an anonymous person on the internet. It means on some level, you're disgusted or even angry. Just because it's passive aggressive doesn't make it any less venomous. Why do people gotta be fakers about this? And why do people buy it? Two things come to mind. 1.The cover matters because it works. It effectively manages to fool people into believing your cake is not shit. 2.Not everyone think the cake is shit to begin with. Many people actually believe in "owning" your opponents with clever insults. We are in an age where "destroying" your opponents is all the rage. |
HyperLMay 28, 2019 5:13 PM
| You are not your body, you are your brain, the "self" that emerges from within it. |
| Because you can get banned if you call someone braindead and proceed to insult him personally on MAL, assuming the other party reported you ofcourse. Disguising insults and vaguing intentions are just a way to avoid quarreling with the mods. This is the case on MAL. Gqz said: Likely pseudo-intellectuals with severely limited cognitive function. If someone suggests the IQ is a measure of intelligence then you should ignore them. Then what does it measure? Your penis length? I'd hardly imagine so. From experience, only people with an IQ of an gnat would discredit the integrity of the IQ scale. |
| must be some rich guy that is saying stuff like indirect insults |
| Haha I don't understand why they feel a need to do it tbh. Does it not feel much better to just be direct? |
| Signature removed. Please follow the signature rules, as defined in the Site & Forum Guidelines. |
Gqz said: If you actually had an IQ of 141, then you wouldn't be on an anime forum discussing the credibility of IQ tests.Yarub said: Then what does it measure? Your penis length? I'd hardly imagine so. From experience, only people with an IQ of an gnat would discredit the integrity of the IQ scale. Yet published paper Neuron and especially Dr Highfield discredit the IQ test as being fundamentally flawed? The IQ test doesn't measure one's intelligence, it's a correlative test called the g factor, the relationship of person's abilities compared to population. Otherwise my authentic 141 IQ would've landed me at Oxford instead of Ludwig-Maximilian over a friend who has an authentic IQ of 110. |
| @Gqz can you ELI5 whats the difference or correlation between IQ and G factor? to me they seem just synonymous |
| man i dont fuckin know. People usually complain that im too blunt with them if anything. |
 |
Gqz said: Yarub said: If you actually had an IQ of 141, then you wouldn't be on an anime forum discussing the credibility of IQ tests. You're totally right! My supervised IQ test, sponsored by B.Mensa, offering 50% discounts on their annual meetings should dissuade me from discussing the IQ test. Especially, to someone with the mentality of a 10 year old. Because being 'intelligent' should limit my scope of enjoy-ability to STEM. I also guess my previous tutor who's world leading in applicable biology and has a certified IQ of 162 shouldn't play Minecraft because it's not intellectually stimulating? Judging by your mentality, and the manchildness of your previous tutor, if I ever do an IQ test, I'd better be over 180. It seems that'd be new standard for genius. Thanks for lowering the standards for 160-140. Oh please, STEM is blatant repetition and pure regurgitation. As a student, you'd only need the will to succeed to do so, which is why our world is what it is today. Filled with mediocre men that are mediocre at their jobs. IQ scale is the most reputable metric available to 'measure' intelligence. Intellect is not a numerical value and it cannot be empirically measured, however it provides estimates on your intelligence/potential intelligence. If you denounce it, then you denounce your intellect along with it. Sure, the difference between a person with 130 and a person with 140 would be moot, however, if you bring a person with 90 into the case, IQ shows the difference. Get that through your certified 141 IQ skull. |
| 'Cause shit talking can be funny, creative, and is supposed to cause long-lasting offense and anguish to the person receiving it. There aren't any rules and nothing is off-limits. Some people really do have a way with words. I can dig it. Personally, I just jab and poke at people's insecurities and inabilities if I need to be mean. Thankfully, it's not often I need to be |
| Either way the way I see it, if you (by you I mean the person insulting/shit talking) or me bothered to reply is because we do care or got a little butthurt. No amount of mental gymnastics, "sophisticated" or being blunt is going to change that. |
Please learn about cel animation and its technical process. Learn how special effects and backlighting were done without computers. |
| Because they think swearing makes them appear imature and/or have no other argument left. Using metaphors, they can pretend and lie to themselves that they still have a civic composure and have not sunk down to ad hominems, even if they have. It makes them sound fancy! Gqz said: My supervised IQ test, sponsored by B.Mensa, offering 50% discounts on their annual meetings [...] lol I thought I had adblocker on. |
 |
| People who use direct insults are mostly morons who don't deserve to be on the internet. Wait a minute, did I just directly insult those types of people? Oh noooooooo- HungryForQuality said: But they're both insults. Why should it matter what cover you put over a shit cake if it's still a shit cake? It's just a facade that you're in control of your emotions if you use the "sophisticated" insult. If you were, you wouldn't insult or talk down to an anonymous person on the internet. It means on some level, you're disgusted or even angry. Just because it's passive aggressive doesn't make it any less venomous. Why do people gotta be fakers about this? And why do people buy it? Basically rewording the post you quoted: the more direct insults you use, the more angry and uncouthed you look to your opponent and to everyone else. And the more angry you sound, the less people are going to take you seriously - including your opponent. I've seen back-and-forths between people who use the subtle torpedo insults like there was no tomorrow and it always churned out better, constructive arguments than a confrontation between 2 people who use direct insults. Using direct insults makes you look incredibly immature and it's a general rule of the internet to just leave them until someone reports them for bad language (or not, this is MAL, not club penguin). That is not to say there are no exceptions. I have seen fights where people outright call others braindead and its hilarious when people take things so seriously on the internet instead of, you know, clicking the X button on the browser tab. Lesson: Think of when two people in real life have a heated confrontation over hotdogs or something and start throwing punches. You'd obviously assume that they're idiots. It'll be better if you just let things slide and pull out the popcorn whenever things get heated. Seriously, nothing is worth much over the internet. |
 Latest reviews: Wonder Egg Priority and A Couple of Cukoos |
Yarub said: Gqz said: You're totally right! My supervised IQ test, sponsored by B.Mensa, offering 50% discounts on their annual meetings should dissuade me from discussing the IQ test. Especially, to someone with the mentality of a 10 year old. Because being 'intelligent' should limit my scope of enjoy-ability to STEM. I also guess my previous tutor who's world leading in applicable biology and has a certified IQ of 162 shouldn't play Minecraft because it's not intellectually stimulating? Judging by your mentality, and the manchildness of your previous tutor, if I ever do an IQ test, I'd better be over 180. It seems that'd be new standard for genius. Thanks for lowering the standards for 160-140. Oh please, STEM is blatant repetition and pure regurgitation. As a student, you'd only need the will to succeed to do so, which is why our world is what it is today. Filled with mediocre men that are mediocre at their jobs. IQ scale is the most reputable metric available to 'measure' intelligence. Intellect is not a numerical value and it cannot be empirically measured, however it provides estimates on your intelligence/potential intelligence. If you denounce it, then you denounce your intellect along with it. Sure, the difference between a person with 130 and a person with 140 would be moot, however, if you bring a person with 90 into the case, IQ shows the difference. Get that through your certified 141 IQ skull. Yarub stfu please. STEM is the hardest field of research any student is going to enter. Friends have commit suicide despite being the smartest in our country. I don't get to see my family over fears of failing my course in uni. Stop being bitter about failing to get into STEM and also stop misrepresenting our future doctors. You're wrong. Accept it, now stop lying about what the IQ correlation is. |
Yarub said: If you actually had an IQ of 141, then you wouldn't be on an anime forum discussing the credibility of IQ tests. I don't know about that user's IQ but I have to disagree with the logic here. Not everyone with high IQ is successful and vise versa. Even if you have like 160 IQ, you can still procrastinate all day and waste your life shitposting on MAL. Like what are "smart" people supposed to do in their free time anyway? Studying? Trying to get rich? Memorizing random history books while working as a janitor at M.I.T.? Yea, that might be the case in most Hollywood movies but the reality it is quite different. In my opinion the average 140 IQ guy is far more likely to find himself arguing about something stupid on some cartoon forum than the average 100 IQ guy. |
Gil213 said: Yarub stfu please. STEM is the hardest field of research any student is going to enter. Friends have commit suicide despite being the smartest in our country. I don't get to see my family over fears of failing my course in uni. Stop being bitter about failing to get into STEM and also stop misrepresenting our future doctors. You're wrong. Accept it, now stop lying about what the IQ correlation is. Look at this fucker. I love how you assumed how I did not enter STEM. I'm a fucking med student. The irony is too much. But I love me some "You're wrong therefore you are wrong" logic going on. You sure do represent the finest of STEM students. 149597871 said: Yarub said: If you actually had an IQ of 141, then you wouldn't be on an anime forum discussing the credibility of IQ tests. I don't know about that user's IQ but I have to disagree with the logic here. Not everyone with high IQ is successful and vise versa. Even if you have like 160 IQ, you can still procrastinate all day and waste your life shitposting on MAL. Like what are "smart" people supposed to do in their free time anyway? Studying? Trying to get rich? Memorizing random history books while working as a janitor at M.I.T.? Yea, that might be the case in most Hollywood movies but the reality it is quite different. In my opinion the average 140 IQ guy is far more likely to find himself arguing about something stupid on some cartoon forum than the average 100 IQ guy. Your 'logic' is loosely based on The Big Bang Theory characters. Try harder next time. |
YarubMay 29, 2019 8:26 AM
Yarub said: 149597871 said: I don't know about that user's IQ but I have to disagree with the logic here. Not everyone with high IQ is successful and vise versa. Even if you have like 160 IQ, you can still procrastinate all day and waste your life shitposting on MAL. Like what are "smart" people supposed to do in their free time anyway? Studying? Trying to get rich? Memorizing random history books while working as a janitor at M.I.T.? Yea, that might be the case in most Hollywood movies but the reality it is quite different. In my opinion the average 140 IQ guy is far more likely to find himself arguing about something stupid on some cartoon forum than the average 100 IQ guy. Your 'logic' is loosely based on The Big Bang Theory characters. Try harder next time. I don't know about the TV show but there are some sources which state that smart people are usually less social and tend to procrastinate more than the average person, both of which can lead to having a stupid conversation like this one on MAL. You claimed that it can't be true in your first post but it is actually the case with many "smart" people. https://www.businessinsider.com/common-traits-of-highly-intelligent-people-2016-11 |
| Because it's more effective. It's like asking why you'd write poetry like Walt Whitman as compared to someone like Rupi Kaur; shouldn't either get the job done? Well, the job partly consists of being crafty with it. Gqz said: Yet published paper Neuron and especially Dr Highfield discredit the IQ test as being fundamentally flawed? The IQ test doesn't measure one's intelligence, it's a correlative test called the g factor, the relationship of person's abilities compared to population. Otherwise my authentic 141 IQ would've landed me at Oxford instead of Ludwig-Maximilian over a friend who has an authentic IQ of 110. There's work ethic, too, you know, probably more important than intelligence. I might not have 141 IQ but if you ask my third world ass, Ludwig-Maximilian would be a dreamland for me -- money and luck are pretty damn important too. In any case, it seems dishonest to cite your IQ as proof of your intelligence while discrediting it. You rightly brought up IQ's correlative nature to intelligence but forgot that as a predictor of success, it is again correlative and therefore you can't use your own failure to reach your idea of success as a refutation of IQ's value as a success predictor. I like to keep things simple: if you got a high IQ, you're pretty damn smart (inverse is not true). As a smart boy, you can go a long way, if other things go right. I'm open to seeing the research papers which discredit IQ, because a few years ago I'd read a lot of studies speaking to the contrary. |
Gqz said: deg said: @Gqz can you ELI5 whats the difference or correlation between IQ and G factor? to me they seem just synonymous How fast one car goes is your g-factor. Having 100 cars and seeing which car is the fastest and assigning it the 99th percentile is your IQ test. this seems same to me since they both measure how fast a car goes? i mean ranking (like IQ test) is just another measurement on how fast a car goes? |
| @Gqz I have no interest in humoring you any longer. But I shall show you your own idiocy as a finale. If you discredit the IQ scale, therefore you are smart (because countless people have studied and devised this scale). If this is true, then the IQ scale is correct. If you further discredit your intelligence, then it proves my point of anyone having a will to succeed can succeed in STEM. Either way you're at a dead end. On the other hand, addressing the subject of your pal of yours @Gil213. He utilizes ad hominem, circular logic, and appeal to emotion to further his non-existing argument. If he is a face of future STEM gradates, I'd not know what to say on the future of this world. I wouldn't have confidence in him as a butler. Last comment: When the fuck have I ever said I had high IQ? I quote: " if I ever do an IQ test, I'd better be over 180". This sentence represents hope, induction and condition. If I do an IQ test, I'd better be over than 180, because looking at you, Mr. IQ 141, the standard is quite low in the 140s. @Thanakos Fuck. Beat me to it. Glad I wasn't the only one here disrupted by this dysfunctional discourse. |
| @traed mention something about subtle/vague toxicity in another thread and my response to that is im fine with it since they are not that easily noticeable anyway compared to direct toxicity/insults that have more seriousness in them its like soft insults vs hard insults if that is even a thing |
Gqz said: You actually might be the most retarded MAL user I have ever encountered.Yarub, you're such a sorry person aren't you? Lying about being a medical student. Then proceeding to attack the brightest of our generation. Are you still bitter about not getting into some 'repetitive STEM job'? |
| Mental masturbation is fun. I like reading witty snark remarks rather than the monotonous insults. It's unbecoming of teenagers and older to use such childish profanity. Similar to 'Noblesse oblige', any person possessing sufficient mental faculty should utilize their ability. HungryForQuality said: Like I know you're not thinking in similes or metaphors if you despise me enough to see a random person on the internet like me as actually inferior. So why not be raw about it and call me a fucking dumbass or something? It would cut out the fakeness and I would actually appreciate it believe it or not. It is the duty of those who are superior to save those who lead a pitiable existence (just kidding) It's not for your appreciation, it's for entertainment. It's harmless banter, I doubt the majority of people actually harbor negative emotions for some random on the Internet. HungryForQuality said: [Why should it matter what cover you put over a shit cake if it's still a shit cake? That's your perspective, you're simplifying it into a dichotomy of insult and not insult. Why do people wear fashionable clothing, put makeup and wear jewellery? It's all superficial, maybe it's just a part of human nature. Going against the default flow of superficiality requires deliberate mental force. Yarub said: From experience, only people with an IQ of an gnat would discredit the integrity of the IQ scale. Psychology is a soft science, the exact criteria to determine intelligence or even what intelligence is, is still up for debate. The IQ test is also standardized so it becomes less accurate the more you move away from the mean. That doesn't discredit the results but it should be taken with a pinch of salt. Intelligence isn't the only factor that determines ones success so people who put an overemphasis on it are myopic. HungryForQuality said: @Yarub You don't see how that's the height of immaturity? Trying to bypass the system with roundabout insults instead of reflecting and not insulting the other person at all. You can just ignore the person, it's the fucking internet dude. Why is it obligatory to insult the anonymous internet user on the other side You seek some rational explanation when there might not be any. Humans do irrational things, people can't insult people randomly irl so they might just be blowing off some steam online or a myriad of other reasons. People don't really care about behaving mature online either especially with the veil of anonymity. If you think people contemplate about their words instead of typing impulsively then you've come to the wrong place. Gqz said: Otherwise my authentic 141 IQ would've landed me at Oxford instead of Ludwig-Maximilian over a friend who has an authentic IQ of 110. That's because IQ is not the only factor that determines academic success, your statement doesn't discredit the integrity of the IQ test. Also pretty sure there's different areas so savants/prodigies who excel in a particular area but have an overall less score are still more likely to be successful if they use their abilities effectively. What was your score distribution? My supervised IQ test, sponsored by B.Mensa, offering 50% discounts on their annual meetings *Cringe* He never claimed to have an IQ of 180+, read again. |
<Insert clever quote> |
| Being colorful with language when insulting someone is overrated I like to be concise and to the point like go fuck yourself |
| They just wanna come off as smart and intellectual. Most people who directly insult others by calling them fucking braindead etc. do it to feel superior, and those who dress up their insults just take it to a whole other level. Putting others down while making themselves look as good as possible makes them feel good about themselves, and since going around calling others morons isn't the best look they make their insults look all fancy to come off as 'intellectuals'. |
 |
| @Gqz I went over the abstract of O'Doherty et al (can't pay for the full pdf because I'm poor as shit). I don't understand your point here, so please explain. Gqz said: You mention this rightly, I admit to my ignorance on the topic of IQ. However, you forget to mention that people like Kringelbach and O’Doherty state in their citation for Fractionating Human Intelligence, 'Is it possible that other factors contribute to general task performance? In our opinion, this is most likely the case, as there are many functional networks in the brain.' -https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0896627312005843 Our understanding of the brain and how truly applicable the IQ test is are beyond our current reach. I admit however, again that I'm not educated on this topic enough. I think they're trying to understand the nature of g-factor in that study rather than discrediting it; none of their findings dismantle it either. The g-factor stands as an abstraction, the underlying working of which we need to figure out. The fact that there could be multiple mechanisms at work do not negate the overall abstraction, or maybe I'm failing to understand your argument. Please elaborate. |
| Some people that are cowards will use acronyms instead of curved messages such as: STFU to avoid getting in trouble when it comes to online arguements. If someone irritates me out of nowhere without motive I'll straight off tell em to fuck off.~ |
 サディスティックな考え "JUST KILL ME." サディスティックマインド |
| because they are cowards OP always be blunt! |
| I recently had an argument on YouTube, where I claimed God as being escapist, in response to a woman in a video saying she doesn't use drugs because she has God. Someone responded to me with, "Explain how drugs have the same effect as God, wtf". Now, I could have intelligently said a, b, c, d, e exists in set A. A has property X, conferring said property to a, b, c, d, e. f exists in set B. B also has property X, conferring said property to f. a, b, and f all have property X. But a =/= b =/= f, thereby proving that two things with some property doesn't necessarily have to be the same. But honestly, outside of an academic setting, or where everyone's smart (e.g. not a religious video on YouTube), this kind of retort will offend more people than it instructs, because they don't fucking get it. I could say, "You're stupid" instead, but that doesn't have the same illustrative effect as something like, "Explain to me how carrots and tomatoes taste exactly the same?" "Who said they do? "Yeah, exactly. What said they do?" (confused) He was still confused. But at least other people who wandered onto our short argument understood exactly what I meant, whereas "You're stupid" wouldn't have been so effective. So most likely, you're like a shounen MC that's more about guts than brains, and you want to call people who use fancy words, analogies, metaphors and similes cowards, or elitists, or pretentious, or whatever excuse you have. That's because you couldn't see the meaning in the metaphor. |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
HungryForQuality said: Why does it have to be an exercise in ego on MAL forums? Only a handful of users on MAL exercise their ego in this way. Even less users use the same type of language just out of habit. The mass majority of MAL users can't use caps lock and type sentences in stanzas. This should be addressed to the internet as a whole, because using MAL as a primary object of criticism is just a weak ass argument, because nobody ever does that. |
Sexual tension and men get turned on when women call them worthless pigs. |
 |
Thanakos said: @Gqz I went over the abstract of O'Doherty et al (can't pay for the full pdf because I'm poor as shit). I don't understand your point here, so please explain. Gqz said: You mention this rightly, I admit to my ignorance on the topic of IQ. However, you forget to mention that people like Kringelbach and O’Doherty state in their citation for Fractionating Human Intelligence, 'Is it possible that other factors contribute to general task performance? In our opinion, this is most likely the case, as there are many functional networks in the brain.' -https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0896627312005843 Our understanding of the brain and how truly applicable the IQ test is are beyond our current reach. I admit however, again that I'm not educated on this topic enough. I think they're trying to understand the nature of g-factor in that study rather than discrediting it; none of their findings dismantle it either. The g-factor stands as an abstraction, the underlying working of which we need to figure out. The fact that there could be multiple mechanisms at work do not negate the overall abstraction, or maybe I'm failing to understand your argument. Please elaborate. I can't find O'Doherty et al. anywhere at my Uni. Friend's sister (psychologist) didn't read it either but I have Fractionating Human intelligence. However the same principles still apply. Because of this, I'm struggling to understand what you mean. I don't know if you have read Fractionating Human Intelligence, but they don't measure the g-factor like this because it is not valid. Nor do they want to understand the nature of the g-factor. This is because you cannot measure the g-factor without a Spearman's rank matrix (I think its called), which will not apply to measuring voxels within the MD cortex. This doesn't apply to O'Doherty et al. either. Therefore, just doing an IQ test and getting a score of 199.9 will correlate positively with areas of understand. This 199.9 IQ means I am able to get excellent scores on every subject which requires intelligence. This is false. However in the The Cattell-Horn Theory by Raymond Cattel, proposes that general intelligence is actually a conglomeration of perhaps 100 abilities working together in various ways. Case study from Fractionating Human Intelligence:  (Figure 4C). The STM and reasoning components were also dissociated from each other. For example, individuals who regularly suffer from anxiety (Figure 5A) had significantly lower mean scores (0.21 SDs), a relationship that was most pronounced for the STM component (0.35 SDs), with negligible reasoning (0.06 SDs) and verbal (0.16 SDs) effect sizes. Overlaps in S.D. > Gf states > physiological ability predetermines how well you are to cope w/ complex problems. University of Liverpool modelled biological pattern formation using dirichlet boundary conditions. Act upon our brain's ability to work within set conditions based on enzyme activity and excitation waves. ---- Why doesn't the g-factor apply? 1. An in-depth discussion of the relationship between biological or demographic variables and components of intelligence is outside the scope of the current article and will be covered elsewhere. Friend's sister who is psychologist > listened to Hampshire talks > publicly stated that unlikely to pursue this - Also 'that, in our view, created unnecessary confusion about the conclusions Hampshire et al. reached' - A comment on “Fractionating Intelligence” and the peer review process 2. Consequently, there was little requirement for a diffuse higher-order ‘‘g’’ factor once the tendency for tasks to corecruit multiple functional brain networks was accounted for. ------------------------------------------------------------ I can't wait for braindeads who fake being medical students w/ 180 IQs (not @Thanakos, thanks for valid approach) to attempt to discredit a Dr in psychology and professor of neurology: ‘IQ tests are pretty meaningless - if you are not good at them, all it proves is that you are not good at IQ tests. 'It does not say anything about your general intelligence.’ The majority of IQ tests were developed in the 50s and 60s when the way we thought and interacted with the world was different, - Dr Owen. |
removed-userJun 3, 2019 8:46 AM
| @Gqz I'd only read the abstract last time. I took a more in-depth look now and my overall contention is the same. Nonetheless, since I'm not a Med student, I'm open to the possibility that I might be missing something. This is the main argument against higher-order components like g quoting directly from 'Fractionating Human Intelligence': ...the basis of the higher-order component is ambiguous and may be accounted for by cognitive tasks corecruiting multiple functionally dissociable brain networks. Consequently, to interpret a higher-order component as representing a dominant unitary factor is misleading. It's obvious that g has ambiguous biological basis and this study proves that, ultimately, there really is no biological basis for it: No doubt, it is the case that the functional networks identified here often interact closely during the performance of complex cognitive tasks and, consequently, could be considered to form specialized subcomponents of a broader cognitive system. Indeed, from this perspective, the higher-order “g” factor that may be generated from hierarchical analysis of the behavioral data may be described as representing a higher-order functional network formed from the corecruitment of the MDwm and the MDr subnetworks. Such nested architecture is likely to form an accurate description of the functional organization of the brain (Bullmore and Sporns, 2009). Nonetheless, activity across the MDwm and MDr brain regions was not positively correlated (Table S5). More importantly, the combination of corecruitment and strong double dissociation across task contexts is in close concordance with the proposed criteria for qualitatively dissociable brain systems (Henson, 2006). So what this study has refuted is the idea that g-factor directly reflects some cognitive system or neural network in the brain, which is what I called 'inquiry into the nature of g'. I don't see how lacking any biological basis vitiates g's value as a measuring rod for intelligence, or at least the study didn't prove how the independence of MDwm and MDr brain regions nullifies that. I'm okay with g-factor being purely fictional because in CompSci, my field, it's not uncommon to create fictional constructs just to achieve greater accuracy. For example, in linear regression algorithms, you can half-arbitrarily add multiple features to your hypothesis equation so that it fits the training set plot more accurately. For example, if I have a training set that maps the input 'size of cloth' against the output 'price of cloth', then I should have a hypothesis that increases the output as the input increases because obviously a bigger cloth should mean greater price (even if you apply diminishing returns); so instead of a quadratic hypothesis which tends to have a global maxima, meaning that it eventually comes down rather than going up continuously, I can add a few more fictional features (apart from size only) to have a hypothesis that fits the training set and which also continues to go up (say, a 3rd degree polynomial). So my takeaway from this study is that intelligence is an emergent property of multiple independent networks/systems in the brain. However, we know how to measure the property itself by relying on a fictional higher-order component which is the g-factor. All of this doesn't invalidate the IQ tests, only informs them (supports Cattell-Horn theory better). Still, I'm not a Med student so I don't have any intuition for why fictional constructs must be avoided in biology. |
More topics from this board
Poll: » Bluey is the most watched anime in the world nowtsukareru - 54 minutes ago |
7 |
by rohan121
»»
7 seconds ago |
|
Poll: » Are you mentally ill?Ejrodiew - 4 hours ago |
10 |
by Malkshake
»»
22 seconds ago |
|
» Why should we have sympathy for drug addicts? ( 1 2 )HarryRambod22 - Feb 10, 2022 |
72 |
by KitsuFrost
»»
6 minutes ago |
|
» Planning a Spain Tripredlockhigh - Apr 8 |
22 |
by tsukareru
»»
53 minutes ago |
|
» Dracula, Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde or Frankenstein(books)?Absurdo_N - Yesterday |
9 |
by LoveYourEyes
»»
2 hours ago |