Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > IQ is a garbage tool for determining intelligence      Home login  
Joined: 1/12/2008
Msg: 164
IQ is a garbage tool for determining intelligencePage 10 of 10    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10)
What have all these equations and diatribes and distillations of current and past knowledge have anything to do whatsoever with sex and the birth of a child.

Quite a lot actually. If it weren't for quantum mechanics and some intellectual curiosity about the magnetic moments of protons and electrons, there would be no MRI machines. If it weren't for the equations describing the classical doppler shift, there would be no diagnostic use of ultrasound. The lack of those things would mean poorer prenatal care for women having babies and eliminate the ability of physicians to diagnoase and correct a problem before a baby is born. Those are only two examples of what that has to do with sex and babies. How many more would like?

Not all remind me of somebody out watching the stars and approximating the distances between. Its good to know..but NOT a basis to build your life on.

If no one did those things, you wouldn't be able to park your butt on the couch and wax inane through your computer to people on the internet. I really feel sorry for people like you who are unable to appreciate nature in any but the most superficial way.
Joined: 12/27/2005
Msg: 165
view profile
IQ is a garbage tool for determining intelligence
Posted: 7/29/2010 11:10:06 AM
When I was a kid, it was inadvisable to tell children what their IQ was.
My father did once reveal to me that my IQ was well above 100.

But, I don't know if he meant....... well above 100 ?
Or if he meant, well....... above 100 .
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 166
view profile
IQ is a garbage tool for determining intelligence
Posted: 7/30/2010 7:24:02 AM
RE Msg: 219 by abelian:

Did you mean that conservation of charge is a phenomenon that was never assumed until recently, or did you mean that the conservation of charge was taken for granted, and so Maxwell's motivations existed equally in everyone? If everyone had the same motivation, to add the same term, then why didn't everyone add it? It suggested to me that you are trying to downplay Maxwell's achievement.
For someone who claims to know about this, you don't seem to know much at all. Why don't you just go look up Maxwell's equations and figure out exactly what you're talking about before pontificating about it.
I did. I watched Jim Al Khalili and Stephen Hawking rave about Maxwell, who are theoretical physicists who are very famous in the UK. I didn't quite understand why. But due to your urgin, I looked up Ampere's Law with Maxwell's correction, and put a bit more effort into attempting to understand what Maxwell was adding. However, the more I think about what I've read, the more it blows me away.

Ampere's law is quite straightforward: magnetic field strength is dependent on the strength of the electric current. You were right to point out that Ampere's Law without Maxwell's correction shows an inconsistency with the conservation of charge. Ampere's Law only really looks at situations where the charge density is constant.

Maxwell's correction is described as explaining a displacement current, that calculates the extra effect of a change in the electric field on the magnetic field strength.

So naturally, I have a few problems, things I need to think about:

1) Ampere's law makes sense. Why would it show a violation of conservation of charge? There is obviously a disconnect between the way electro-magnetism is popularly portrayed, and the way it really works, that means that the way it is portrayed would violate the basic rule of conservation of charge.

2) Maxwell's correction is very specific, mathematically, in the formula. But the way a formula is written speaks directly as to how the laws of physics work.

I've realised that Maxwell's correction, though short and to the point, had to reflect the laws of physics, and so each symbol used, tells me reams about the fundamental nature of the behaviour of electro-magnetism.

It's also started me thinking in entirely different ways about gravity, that might explain it in sub-atomic situations, in ways that are even easier to understand about the normal world than I was taught.

It looks to me as if it could reveal as much to me about physics, as Cantor's Theorem has about mathematics, and that has completely revolutionised my view of mathematics, maybe even more than Einstein's theory of relativity has totally changed the way I see the world.

I don't want to go into specifics here, because frankly, my mind is exploding with possibilities, and I don't want to go off half-cocked, particularly with you. I think I really do need to read Maxwell's paper, in the original text, and take my time over it, to really understand it well. So if you want to say more about the displacement effect, how it works in detail, and what it teaches us about the fundamentals of electro-magnetis, then by all means. But I'd rather wait, until I've read the original paper.

But if past experience is true to form, Maxwell's correction could teach me 1000 times what Jim Al-Khalili and Stephen Hawking claimed.

I have to thank you most sincerely.

Spend less time telling us how brilliant you think you are and put a little effort into an attempt to make that self-evident in at least one post that doesn't ramble off topic
I try. But I have so many thoughts, and it takes me a huge amount of time to condense my thoughts down into a very short and concise point, and yet is still long enough for people to understand easily. I usually end up making things way too long, or way too short for others to understand.

I have to be realistic, though. If I aimed to wait until I'm as good at being concise and clear as you want, then I'd be 70 before I posted a single post. Perfection is a road, not a destination. So I write my posts, re-write them a few times, and then post, knowing that they still could be improved.

If you have self-esteem issues, see a psychologist,
I already chose to work on that aspect of myself. I'm not relying on you for that. You're not being asked to indulge me at all.

since I'm not being paid to indulge you.
I can do that. But smart people hate it. If I take my time to condense my thoughts into very a clear, concise point, that takes me a lot of time. During that time, I'm usually coming up with tons of ways of looking at the same problem. So the more I make my posts easy for you to read, the longer I think about it, and the better my analysis of the issue. Usually, if I take enough time to condense it properly, I've considered so many angles, that my single clear and concise point takes into account everything that smart people have contributed that is true, and shows abundantly clearly the points that they made that are not true, to such an extent, that everything they've said looks either obviously idiotic, or almost totally superfluous, and that drives smart people crazy, because they feel they might as well not exist.

So I'm not going to just wait until I've got my points concise and clear enough that they are easy to read, or you'll be positively livid.

Again, I have to thank you for your posts, for you have shown me that I really have something really worth sinking my teeth into, with Maxwell's correction.
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 167
view profile
IQ is a garbage tool for determining intelligence
Posted: 7/30/2010 7:24:52 AM
RE Msg: 220 by desertrhino:
Just for the record: Abelian generally (and in this case) makes sense, and Scorpio generally (and particularly in this case) doesn't make nearly as much sense.
Can I just add, "in your opinion"? Not everyone agrees with everything you believe, you know.

I think it has to do with Scorpio's self-proclaimed non-standard world-view and information processing...
I agree. I do think of things from angles few have even thought about in the present time.

He gets off on these incredible tangents that mean nothing to anyone but Scorpio,
I agree that I'm not as clear as I could be. I can explain them clearer. But that usually involves either condensing them to a single point, which no-one but me understands, or expanding them to several pages, which is more than most are prepared to read. Getting the right balance between the two, seems to take me an incredible amount of time.

and he CANNOT let go of them or admit they might be skew or outright flawed. That's pretty clearly what's happening here.
I just wrote that I'm going to read Stephen Pinker's book before I post on the topic, to see if I am wrong.
Joined: 12/27/2005
Msg: 168
view profile
IQ is a garbage tool for determining intelligence
Posted: 7/30/2010 12:23:38 PM

IQ is a garbage tool for determining intelligence

Not intelligence but accomplishment.

Van Goethe was undoubtedly more intelligent than Newton but Newton is better remembered for his accomplishments.
Newton did more with what he had.
Joined: 12/14/2009
Msg: 169
IQ is a garbage tool for determining intelligence
Posted: 7/30/2010 2:40:33 PM
Can't say as I ever met anyone that scored high on the IQ test that wasn't intelligent. I have met people pissed off that they didn't score high and so they said the test was a bunch of crap. They felt they were so much more intelligent and superior, so they knocked the test instead of comprehending that it is just a tool to measure where you are.
Joined: 12/27/2005
Msg: 170
view profile
IQ is a garbage tool for determining intelligence
Posted: 7/30/2010 6:00:40 PM

Oh yes. Because calculus is less complicated than painting

Perhaps you misunderstood.
I was talking about the great German poet, philosopher, scientist, Johann Van Goethe.... not the Dutch painter Vincent Van Goth.
Joined: 12/31/2008
Msg: 171
view profile
IQ is a garbage tool for determining intelligence
Posted: 7/30/2010 10:06:58 PM
a person with high IQ improperly channelled would suck, as opposed to an average properly channelled individual.

proper to me does not mean a crowd follower
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > IQ is a garbage tool for determining intelligence