OK, I was just being cute there, but it beats being ugly. My gf and I were talking about intelligence, and I came up with a simple way to describe it. Well, relatively simple, depending on one's ability to comprehend. Yes, I'm talking about Bush, but I'm also talking about Hawking. Intelligence is like an equalizer with a volume control. Musicians in particular will understand this concept, once I've finished explaining it, since they are familiar with the device. An equalizer(E) contains controls for various frequencies. Each individual control allows people to increase or decrease a specific frequency. For the sake of this explanation, I will use a range from 0 to 10. Here, I'll also use just three frequencies: Bass, Mid-range, and Treble, but a person has a lot more of these intelligence "controls". The volume control is your baseline intelligence (BI). Plotting this on a graph will produce what my gf aptly called a bell-curve. As a baby, a person's BI is near zero. As a person grows into adulthood the BI rises. As a person nears death the BI drops. An example of that is if you turn on a TV with the sound off, increase the volume for a while before turning it completely down, and turning the TV off again. I'll use two famous people to compare their BIs, Bush and Hawking. Bush's BI is significantly lower than Hawking's. Where Bush's may be a 4, Hawking's may be a 9. That alone is not intelligence defined. I pose the idea that as certain frequencies are increased above the BI, a corresponding lowering must occur elsewhere to retain overall balance. In Bush's case, I'll say his bass is above his BI by two points. That would be from the BI=4 to a bass=6. I'll keep his mid-range the same, and move his treble. In order to satisfy balance, I must lower his treble two points. That would be from the BI=4 to a treble=2. Where Bush's BI is 4,4,4, his E is 6,4,2. "E", for the purpose of this example can be considered to be Bush's true intelligence. He is smarter in bass, but dumber in treble. Yes, treble must be his speechifyin' skills lol Hawking has a BI=9. I'd leave it at that, for fear of the cyborg's wrath, but I'll say his E would be similar. Instead of a BI=9,9,9, I'll change it to an E=10,9,8...since his speechifyin' ain't too good either lol Some of you may have trouble with Hawking's treble=8 compared to Bush's treble=2, and you're right. For the purpose of this exercise I kept E limited to three controls, but in reality Bush's treble is far above Hawking's, who has a treble=0 when all controls are considered. In my hypothesis, a corresponding rise in several controls would be necessary to account for his lack of treble. Hope you didn't need aspirin lol
Interesting concept. Intelligence is one of those things which is hard to put into perspective. Myself- I'm obviously not even on the same scale as Hawking when talking physics. But, take a subject I deal with daily, say Pneumatic air braking systems, and I probably blow Hawking away. It's only relative in the specific areas you choose to focus on. I like to think I'm generally smarter than Bush in most things, but I'm sure he has me beat in a few areas. Now, what would be really interesting is if you came up with a way to base your scale on. I'm not saying it couldn't be any less accurate than any other scale, but the means to arrive at the basis would be interesting to see, and perhaps experiment with. In other words, come up with a test and test us. I'll go along with it.
That would be interesting. I need some time to think, but at the moment I don't believe I can do that easily. OK. The problem lies with the amount of data I would need to post, I think. Each "frequency" would need to be labeled and a test would need to be designed for each. The more frequencies tested the more accurate the results. To be honest, I know some IQ tests take forever lol...the two I took lasted maybe four hours each. I took one at around age 14 and another around age 30, with identical results. I guess you want to know them. I guess I can say. 140. I decline the invitation lol
To be clear here: While I say this is "my" hypothesis, and I did come up with this just today, I'm sure there is already one out there that says the same thing. I didn't bother looking, but I guess I could. If I find it, I'll post a link.
I didn't even have to look twice: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient What? no Nobel again? LOL....just kidding, I did this on a lark, and expected it to be a part of the calculations in standard testing. I do think I did pretty good explaining it though, so I posted it ...for fun.
Actually, I do. I misinterpreted the quote. See? Even smart people can be dumb. I'll keep researching.
I found something else entirely that is hysterical: http://www.livescience.com/18132-intelligence-social-conservatism-racism.html With few exceptions, that's a no-brainer, especially here
I thought this may be what I'm looking for (the idea that for one part of your IQ to rise, another part must fall) but nope. It is however a very interesting read. It's from the Weekly Standard, who I take it is right-leaning: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/002/730avutr.asp Please note that the article may have more than one page, and that it was written in 2003. I post it here, in Chatter, because it does deal with IQ, but it's political in nature.
I've used a variety of search-terms, and read dozens of articles, but can't find anything related to the idea that "For one part of your IQ to rise, another must fall."...so I may be on to something unique. Guy (Medley), I agree with you on everything you said. btw, my dad worked as a brake specialist in Detroit, wayyyy back. I used Bush and Hawking on a lark. I was writing this on-site and Bush became a punchline. I added Hawking as a counter-example. I adapted my hypothesis on the fly to include them and I'm glad I did. They really emphasize the principle well. Both lack the ability to communicate well, but have higher intelligence in other areas. I know it's hard for some people to understand, but Bush did have his strong points. I'm posing the idea that his speech impediments are countered by a correlating rise elsewhere, that they are spread out over several other specialized areas. Same with Hawking. Now I have to REALLY think about your suggestion to create a test. I doubt I can, but I may be able to give someone else a shot at it, should they see this hypothesis. I'm going to sleep on it. (smiling) Not bad for a days work. Not bad at all. This thing still has legs.
Well, now I know I'm insane. I invited a Finnish professor here to check out my hypothesis LOL Better: I gave him the site's address...and neglected to point out where on the site it is. Yeah, smart people can be dumb. But nah, if he comes here he'd find it easily enough. Chances are he won't. Chances are that if he did he'd say it has no value. I believe in chances...but those two suck lol
I had this link in post #9, but didn't post any quotes, so... http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/002/730avutr.asp Too Smart To Be So Dumb The moral tyranny of IQ. 12:00 AM, MAY 27, 2003 • BY JOEL ENGEL "THE RELEVANCE OF INTELLIGENCE" is a phrase from former journalist/political attack dog Sidney Blumenthal's just-published memoir of the Clinton administration, in which he writes that the ex-president was usually the smartest guy in the room, knowing more about any particular policy than the policy experts themselves. Reading that phrase in a book review the other day reminded me (for reasons you'll soon understand) of a car accident my wife and daughter were lucky to walk away from three years ago. A 16-year-old driving a new Lincoln coupe hit them at 70 mph--twice the speed limit--after careening off a hillside. Later that night the kid's mother told me how shocked she was by the witness reports of his reckless driving. "But he got 1550 on his SAT," she cried. "What do you do for a living?" I asked. It was no surprise to hear that she's a college professor. Like millions of intellectual elites and wannabes, this woman presumes an inherent connection between intelligence and goodness, and between intelligence and wisdom, as though there exists some objective domain of ethicality to which Mensa members are automatically admitted. blah, blah, blah, annnnnd... Indeed, the zeitgeist was not surprised when the Lovenstein Institute of Scranton, Pennsylvania, led by Dr. Werner R. Lovenstein and Professor Patricia F. Dilliams, released its study ranking the IQs of every president over the last 50 years and found that first among them, with a 182, was Bill Clinton. He was followed, in order, by Jimmy Carter, John F. Kennedy, Richard Nixon, and Franklin Roosevelt (so much for 50 years). As for the dumbest chief executives, they were, in descending order, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and--brace yourself--his son, the current president, whose 91 charts in at exactly half of Clinton's. He goes on for a couple more pages.
Your version is slightly twisted from teh original, but you might find this interesting; SNOPES; False http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/hoaxes/presiq.asp BTW, Dr. Werner R. Lovensteindoes not exist.
The story about the Presidents is indeed false. The author's comments in the blog states that clearly, though I admit I intentionally didn't post that fact. I am attempting to encourage people to continue reading the blog, a blog from a republican's point of view, as it is interesting...especially to people who enjoy politics.
