Abstract Intelligence vs Common Sense

[fgalkin]

http://m.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-s ... ntelligent

Go ahead and show it as wrong if you'd like or can. No anecdotes please.

Published on December 12, 2010 by Satoshi Kanazawa in The Scientific Fundamentalist

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satoshi_Kanazawa

Next moron, please.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[ArmorPierce]

That did not disprove his findings at all unless you are suggesting his findings were fabricated or fudged.

[ArmorPierce]

Looking Smart and Looking Good: Facial Cues to Intelligence and their Origins http://psp.sagepub.com/content/28/2/238.abstract

Another reference intelligence and attractivness being correlated.

[fgalkin]

That did not disprove his findings at all unless you are suggesting his findings were fabricated or fudged.

Even leaving aside bullshit like this:

Genetic quality may be a common cause for both (such that genetically healthier people are simultaneously more beautiful and more intelligent).

, his conclusions rely on his extremely shaky and controversial definition of beauty (which got him into deep shit). He even notes that it could be nothing more than the halo effect, but then dismisses the notion out of hand.

As for the other study, did you even read it?

Judgments were more accurate than chance in childhood and puberty, marginally more accurate in middle adulthood, but not more accurate than chance in adolescence or late adulthood.

It actually shows there is no way to tell if an adult or an adolescent is intelligent or not by looking at their photo!

Are you illiterate or simply stupid?

You do realize that the 'dumb jocks' actually tend to be smarter and have higher IQs than most of those who are considered the nerdy people... right?

You assume that jocks are more attractive without any supporting reasons (hint: working out more is not a genetic trait, which is what "jock" means). So, I'll go with stupid.

Also, ugly. According to Kanazawa, it's probably because you're black.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[ArmorPierce]

Wrong, it states it did not find statistical evidence for adolescents or older adults but did see it in middle aged adults . Learn to read you dumb fuck.

I actually do believe that the halo effect has at least something to do with it I'm arguing the data not the analysis of the data. Genetic or not there is a correlation which gives the same result, these jocks are probably more intelligent than the so called 'nerds'. Of course I'm speaking in terms of averages rather than any specific indicidual.

Being a jock means working out yes but being a jock in of itself does not give higher access to women. Some of the biggest strongest beastly jocks I knew were virgins.

The op is obviously referring to those jocks who got women which would have been the handsome charismatic guys with a strong social network.
Are you really this fucking dumb or dumb that I have to spell it out for you?

[ArmorPierce]

Any way my point is that the 'jocks' being dumb is largely a myth perpetuated by movies I guess.

[fgalkin]

Wrong, it states it did not find statistical evidence for adolescents or older adults but did see it in middle aged adults . Learn to read you dumb fuck.

How is this relevant? How many middle-aged adults go to high school and are "jocks"?

(And yeah, you can tell intelligence in that case, but not necessarily from facial features, but from things like dress or grooming.)

I actually do believe that the halo effect has at least something to do with it I'm arguing the data not the analysis of the data. Genetic or not there is a correlation which gives the same result, these jocks are probably more intelligent than the so called 'nerds'. Of course I'm speaking in terms of averages rather than any specific indicidual.

Being a jock means working out yes but being a jock in of itself does not give higher access to women. Some of the biggest strongest beastly jocks I knew were virgins.

The op is obviously referring to those jocks who got women which would have been the handsome charismatic guys with a strong social network.
Are you really this fucking dumb or dumb that I have to spell it out for you?

If you meant "charismatic handsome guys," then that is what you should have said. You said "jocks," which, as you admit, is a different group. Nice shifting of the goalposts, asshole.

Also, I am still waiting for evidence that "nerds" are less attractive than "jocks" in any genetically meaningful way (facial symmetry, etc), as opposed to atheticism, grooming, and social skills. Without that, your entire argument is worthless.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[ArmorPierce]

This entie thread has been speaking about this 'jock' group that are full of idiots but are counter intuitively banging all the girls. Obviously not all jocks are banging girls left and right so obviously we speaking regarding a sub set group or everyone else in the thread is just mis informed about jocks. I know many 'jocks' who were virgins leaving high school.

It does not to be genetic. It very well can be the halo effect. Regardless the results are the same.

[fgalkin]

This entie thread has been speaking about this 'jock' group that are full of idiots but are counter intuitively banging all the girls. Obviously not all jocks are banging girls left and right so obviously we speaking regarding a sub set group or everyone else in the thread is just mis informed about jocks. I know many 'jocks' who were virgins leaving high school.

It does not to be genetic. It very well can be the halo effect. Regardless the results are the same.

So, your point is....some jocks bang more women? And you don't know why? Gee, thanks for that amazing piece of insight.

I also distinctly recall an argument along the lines of "haha u guize r wrong. Jockz r akshully SMART!" but I assume you've now conceded this due to lack of evidence.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Ziggy Stardust]

Looking Smart and Looking Good: Facial Cues to Intelligence and their Origins http://psp.sagepub.com/content/28/2/238.abstract

Another reference intelligence and attractivness being correlated.

So ... yeah, you can't read.

the correlation was significant in childhood
and puberty and marginally significant in middle adulthood,
largely due to a smaller sample size at the latter
age. The correlation was not significant in adolescence
or in later adulthood, although within-sex analyses
revealed significant accuracy in judging the intelligence
of men in later adulthood, r(95) = .20, p < .05.4 It should
be noted that because either photographs or IQ scores
were missing for different participants at different ages,
the samples are not identical across the life span. The
size of the longitudinal sample that spanned the entire
age range under investigation was too small for meaningful
analysis (N = 39).

Oops.

I could go through the rest of the paper, but there's no point. IQ scores are not a meaningful measure of intelligence, the sample size was small, the experimental design suspect, etc. etc.

[fgalkin]

And this is why the stereotype of dumb jocks exists. Thanks for playing, AP.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[ArmorPierce]

This entie thread has been speaking about this 'jock' group that are full of idiots but are counter intuitively banging all the girls. Obviously not all jocks are banging girls left and right so obviously we speaking regarding a sub set group or everyone else in the thread is just mis informed about jocks. I know many 'jocks' who were virgins leaving high school.

It does not to be genetic. It very well can be the halo effect. Regardless the results are the same.

So, your point is....some jocks bang more women? And you don't know why? Gee, thanks for that amazing piece of insight.

I also distinctly recall an argument along the lines of "haha u guize r wrong. Jockz r akshully SMART!" but I assume you've now conceded this due to lack of evidence.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

Nope that was never my assertion I was speaking strictly regarding these 'jocks' who are apparently banging girls left and right despite being of low intelligence. Why would I be speaking about any other jock? Or are you of the mistaken opinion that all jocks are banging girls left and right?

Umm did I ever state I was a jock? I'm a nerd. Dumb ass. The difference between you and I is that I'm able to divorce my peronal want of how reality is with how it objectively is.

[ArmorPierce]

Looking Smart and Looking Good: Facial Cues to Intelligence and their Origins http://psp.sagepub.com/content/28/2/238.abstract

Another reference intelligence and attractivness being correlated.

So ... yeah, you can't read.

the correlation was significant in childhood
and puberty and marginally significant in middle adulthood,
largely due to a smaller sample size at the latter
age. The correlation was not significant in adolescence
or in later adulthood, although within-sex analyses
revealed significant accuracy in judging the intelligence
of men in later adulthood, r(95) = .20, p < .05.4 It should
be noted that because either photographs or IQ scores
were missing for different participants at different ages,
the samples are not identical across the life span. The
size of the longitudinal sample that spanned the entire
age range under investigation was too small for meaningful
analysis (N = 39).

Oops.

I could go through the rest of the paper, but there's no point. IQ scores are not a meaningful measure of intelligence, the sample size was small, the experimental design suspect, etc. etc.

Firstly please post where you got that or did you pay for it.

Secondly this shows me that you guys are dumb as shit. Do you need me to explain what it says? It says that the data was incomplete for life long judgement on individuals due to a too small of a sample size for that because many people did not have iq tests and photos from across the studied age range. That was what wasv too small to be meaningful.

Also it goes on to further validate my claim by showing intelligence and attractiveness is shown to be correlated for later adult when only men were accounted for.

As for iq tests, I would argue that it is a plenty good measure of intelligence depending on how you define intelligence. In this circumstance I am defining intelligence by iq.

[fgalkin]

This entie thread has been speaking about this 'jock' group that are full of idiots but are counter intuitively banging all the girls. Obviously not all jocks are banging girls left and right so obviously we speaking regarding a sub set group or everyone else in the thread is just mis informed about jocks. I know many 'jocks' who were virgins leaving high school.

It does not to be genetic. It very well can be the halo effect. Regardless the results are the same.

So, your point is....some jocks bang more women? And you don't know why? Gee, thanks for that amazing piece of insight.

I also distinctly recall an argument along the lines of "haha u guize r wrong. Jockz r akshully SMART!" but I assume you've now conceded this due to lack of evidence.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

Nope that was never my assertion I was speaking strictly regarding these 'jocks' who are apparently banging girls left and right despite being of low intelligence. Why would I be speaking about any other jock? Or are you of the mistaken opinion that all jocks are banging girls left and right?

Umm did I ever state I was a jock? I'm a nerd. Dumb ass. The difference between you and I is that I'm able to divorce my peronal want of how reality is with how it objectively is.

*Sigh* I don't know why I bother, but let me try again, using small words. Someone said, "jocks get more women." You responded "attractive people are actually more intelligent!" That does not follow, because you don't know how attractiveness, as defined by the study, translates to attractiveness TO WOMEN. You yourself have said that it's the "charismatic" guys who get laid. Charisma depends on social skills, something that is not measured by this study.

So, in other words, even assuming that Kanazawa is correct (he's not), your statement still makes no sense because he's talking about something else entirely! Apples and oranges, and all that.

Now do you see why people think you're stupid?

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Ziggy Stardust]

Firstly please post where you got that or did you pay for it.

IT'S FROM THE PAPER YOU POSTED TO YOU DUMB FUCK. (Edit: In retrospect, I wasn't clear in that last post where I was quoting from specifically. My mistake.)

Secondly this shows me that you guys are dumb as shit. Do you need me to explain what it says? It says that the data was incomplete for life long judgement on individuals due to a too small of a sample size for that because many people did not have iq tests and photos from across the studied age range. That was what wasv too small to be meaningful.

I know what it says. That's why I posted it, you blithering idiot. The results of that study are inconclusive at BEST. I'm glad at least you understand what the word 'meaningful' means.

Also it goes on to further validate my claim by showing intelligence and attractiveness is shown to be correlated for later adult when only men were accounted for.

SMALL SAMPLE SIZE. TOO SMALL TO BE MEANINGFUL. How thick are you? You just fucking admitted this in the previous sentence.

As for iq tests, I would argue that it is a plenty good measure of intelligence depending on how you define intelligence. In this circumstance I am defining intelligence by iq.

*face palm*

So ... IQ is a good measure of intelligence, because you are defining intelligence as IQ. Brilliant.

IQ is a good measure for certain things. But there are very few who believe it is at all representative of the totality of intelligence. In fact, IQ numbers are almost meaningless except at the extremes of its ranges; that is, scores below 80 or 90 and above 120 are significant, but in between that range (which is, shockingly, the vast majority of people) the differentiation is insignificant to the point of meaninglessness. That is, you can't say someone with an IQ of 100 is smarter than someone with an IQ of 99. You can't even say that the person with IQ 110 is smarter.

[Luke Skywalker]

Sorry to bump this, but I had saved a draft, and then completely forgot about the thread.



OK, two things to throw out here:

1. Those who argue that book-dumb athletes still need to use their brains to play their sport don't seem to understand that this would actually support a distinction between two separate types of intelligence! I thought it was easy enough to understand that this thread is not for debating the difference between intelligence and the lack of intelligence, but between different types of intelligence.

2. Almost all stereotypes do have a basis in fact. When I point out that the highly intelligent tend to be less sexually active than the jock, I mean this as a broad generalization; pointing out that there exist exceptions to this rule does nothing to prove or disprove my point.

But speaking of my point, I'm not trying to take a position either way. As petty as this may sound, I'd actually prefer to think that my mild absent mindedness is just a result of my mind wandering, and not my whatever-intelligence being markedly separate from my academic smarts.

[D.Turtle]

I'll let this necro go through, but I have my eye on this thread. Keep it classy, or it will get killed.

[Ziggy Stardust]

It's been several months since anyone posted in this thread, and I don't particularly feel like re-reading it (especially as I seem to remember it got derailed and sidetracked pretty quick), so I am just responding to Luke's post on its own, without reference to the rest of the thread.

1. Those who argue that book-dumb athletes still need to use their brains to play their sport don't seem to understand that this would actually support a distinction between two separate types of intelligence! I thought it was easy enough to understand that this thread is not for debating the difference between intelligence and the lack of intelligence, but between different types of intelligence.

The problem with arguments like this is that defining terms gets tricky real fast. How do you define intelligence? How do you delineate a "type" of intelligence? Are all cognitive faculties a "type" of intelligence? Theoretically, you could use this same logic to say that someone with an excellent sense of smell is really intelligent, but it's just a different type of intelligence.

2. Almost all stereotypes do have a basis in fact. When I point out that the highly intelligent tend to be less sexually active than the jock, I mean this as a broad generalization; pointing out that there exist exceptions to this rule does nothing to prove or disprove my point.

The problem is that you are assuming that "intelligent people are less sexually active" IS the rule. You have to first prove that this is the case before you can claim that other people are simply pointing out "exceptions" to this rule. Cultural stereotypes of this sort are both broadly inconsistent and persistent over time, you can't use the existence of a stereotype as ipso facto proof that it is accurate. Hell, it's tough to make the argument that stereotypes have a basis in fact when they can be mutually incompatible: for example, people from the Southern part of the United States have the stereotype both of being friendly ("southern hospitality") and of being violent (guns and racism). How do you reconcile these contradictions if you are assuming the stereotype is the rule to which we must prove the exception, as you are doing here?

But speaking of my point, I'm not trying to take a position either way. As petty as this may sound, I'd actually prefer to think that my mild absent mindedness is just a result of my mind wandering, and not my whatever-intelligence being markedly separate from my academic smarts.

I'm a little confused by what you mean here. Did anybody make the claim that absent mindedness was anything but just the result of your mind wandering?

[Channel72]

2. Almost all stereotypes do have a basis in fact. When I point out that the highly intelligent tend to be less sexually active than the jock, I mean this as a broad generalization; pointing out that there exist exceptions to this rule does nothing to prove or disprove my point.

I think you need to prove somehow that stereotypes actually have a factual basis. Realistically, many stereotypes are simply the result of specific cultural or historical coincidences that made a lasting impression in the public consciousness. For example, Jews are stereotypically money savvy or greedy. Where did this stereotype come from? Well, obviously there's nothing genetic going on here - and it's not as if any of the various Jewish ethnicities have some cultural predisposition towards money-saviness. It's just that, during the Middle Ages, Jews were associated with money lending, and this stereotype has stuck in the public consciousness to this day. Or how about the stereotype that Asians are naturally better at math? Anecdotally, I've seen too many counter-examples to possibly give any credence to this stereotype at all, but I'd guess that the stereotype appeared initially because the minority population of Asian students in mostly white American school districts consisted primarily of children from highly-educated, successful families who were able to emigrate from China or Korea in the first place.

So, the idea that highly intelligent people are somehow, on average, less sexually active than jocks, is highly suspect to me. Does this stereotype consistently hold true in the real world, outside of 80s movies like Revenge of the Nerds? If so, I think you really need to prove this rather than just assuming that it's the case. I'd guess that social introverts are likely less sexually active, but then we have the question of how large the intersection between social introversion and intelligence (or athleticism) actually is.

[Lagmonster]

2. Almost all stereotypes do have a basis in fact. When I point out that the highly intelligent tend to be less sexually active than the jock, I mean this as a broad generalization; pointing out that there exist exceptions to this rule does nothing to prove or disprove my point.

So, the idea that highly intelligent people are somehow, on average, less sexually active than jocks, is highly suspect to me.

What does "sexually active" mean? Does he mean "has more partners" or "has more sexual encounters"? What about which person is more likely to publicize their sexual adventures? What about which person is expected, because of stereotypes, to behave a certain way, and conforms because of those expectations (or lies in order to conform to same).

I'd argue that a shitload of stereotypes, especially racial ones, have a basis in fantasy - things we want to believe about types of people.