How much does it cost to be an audiophile?

[mansr]

3 minutes ago, elcorso said:

Personally would define IQ as "the state of happiness".

Happiness is great. It is, however, not equivalent to intelligence. Indeed, stupid people are quite often happy. Ignorance is bliss.

[Ralf11]

33 minutes ago, AudioDoctor said:

 

It absolutely is.  It is also proof of how lacking our understanding of intelligence is as well as being proof of a reason we are not under pressures to become any smarter.

 

Evolutionary pressures are what made us "smart"

 

most workers in the field will relate mental abilities of vertebrates to living in societies - not just for humans either

 

however, there is a significant group who will ascribe human 'IQ' increase to either developmental alterations, or to exaptations

 

 

[Ralf11]

1 minute ago, mansr said:

 Ignorance is bliss.

 

good name for a cable company!

[elcorso]

1 minute ago, mansr said:

Happiness is great. It is, however, not equivalent to intelligence. Indeed, stupid people are quite often happy. Ignorance is bliss.

 

Then I prefer to be stupid and ignorant. Unfortunately I still have some moments of enlightenment?

 

Roch

[Ralf11]

another issue is trying to correlate IQ with success (or as Bob Dylan once put it, "suck-cess")

 

I can say that IQ is not a very good predictor of how well a grad. student in the sciences will turn out - nor are test scores or undergrad. grades - there is some quality good ones have - I call it "moxie" or used to - no way to predict really

 

then there is the interesting correlate of mathematical and musical ability...

 

I'd call both special or particular mental ability - you can have a whip smart attorney who is essentially innumerate for example

[elcorso]

9 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

 

good name for a cable company!

 

https://www.gentec-intl.com/brands/iq/

 

Roch

[mansr]

1 minute ago, Ralf11 said:

there are clearly overall aspects of general mental ability - that is what IQ tests seek to measure

There are, but quantifying them in a single number is difficult, if at all possible or meaningful. As a crude analogy, consider computer benchmarks. They, too, attempt to assign a single number to the performance of a system. In reality, which system wins is highly dependent on the specific workload. Humans are no different.

[Ralf11]

yup - pretty decent analogy

[AudioDoctor]

29 minutes ago, mansr said:

A human can't even outrun a house cat, yet only a few cats are able to open a door. Intelligence is, again, by definition distinct from physical strength. Both are, of course, a factor in survivability.

 

Sorry, I'm not that fast a runner.

 

A cheetah may be fast, but not for very long...  It certainly can't run 26.2 miles...

 

your thinking is entirely too narrow and small.

[Ralf11]

humans can out run any other animal

 

...under certain conditions

[mansr]

Just now, AudioDoctor said:

A cheetah may be fast, but not for very long...  It certainly can't run 26.2 miles...

No, but it will eat you within 100 yards. Not very smart of you, is it?

[mansr]

Just now, Ralf11 said:

humans can out run any other animal

 

...under certain conditions

Rocket engines are great.

[AudioDoctor]

2 minutes ago, mansr said:

No, but it will eat you within 100 yards. Not very smart of you, is it?

 

That's where your other survival abilities kick in...

 

IQ is more than one thing and it is intelligence gained by enduring severe survivability pressures.

 

Because there are no more survivability pressures on society of that level, we are in fact, becoming dumber. Pointing out one person that has one measure so far above the mean, has no impact on that.

[gmgraves]

3 minutes ago, mansr said:

There are, but quantifying them in a single number is difficult, if at all possible or meaningful. As a crude analogy, consider computer benchmarks. They, too, attempt to assign a single number to the performance of a system. In reality, which system wins is highly dependent on the specific workload. Humans are no different.

Actually, all an IQ test claims to do is to measure a person's ability to solve problems, and put a number to it. It's not supposed to measure knowledge or so-called "common sense". Smart people grasp concepts and abstractions faster than the average Joe, and that's all that an IQ test is designed to measure. 

[mansr]

3 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

Actually, all an IQ test claims to do is to measure a person's ability to solve problems, and put a number to it. It's not supposed to measure knowledge or so-called "common sense". Smart people grasp concepts and abstractions faster than the average Joe, and that's all that an IQ test is designed to measure. 

All true, but an IQ test doesn't account for the effects of long-term experience. Reaching one's limit in a particular area of problem solving can take years.

[esldude]

15 minutes ago, mansr said:

No, but it will eat you within 100 yards. Not very smart of you, is it?

 

[elcorso]

6 minutes ago, esldude said:

 

 

Love this film !  I have a copy on DVD.

 

Roch

[elcorso]

14 minutes ago, mansr said:

All true, but an IQ test doesn't account for the effects of long-term experience. Reaching one's limit in a particular area of problem solving can take years.

 

This is called scientific obsession.

 

Like me, trying to figure out why USB cables sound different ?

 

Roch

[sandyk]

6 minutes ago, elcorso said:

 

This is called scientific obsession.

 

Like me, trying to figure out why USB cables sound different ?

 

Roch

 

Have you tried that $6,000 one yet ?

[elcorso]

2 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

Have you tried that $6,000 one yet ?

 

They stole it from me at customs ?   Maybe they thought they had diamond inside and it was just Litz cable with 99.99999999% purity, very rare. Dr. krishnamurti from India spent 9 years, 9 months, 9 days, 9 hours, 9 minutes and 9 seconds manufacturing it.

 

But the truth is that I am very happy with my Lush ! 

 

Roch

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

2 hours ago, Jud said:

There is no such thing as IQ (technically, a 'common factor'of mental acuity, that is, general intelligence across all problems, subjects, or topics).

 

Well there is, whether you agree with the validity of the measurement is I believe a different matter.

 

2 hours ago, Jud said:

There's a book about the SATs called "None of the Above" that has a sequence of reading comprehension questions taken from an actual SAT test. I got them all correct - it wasn't difficult.  What's so special about that?  

 

It is special that you got them all right and others did not.

 

2 hours ago, Jud said:

 

 Purely by intuitively understanding how the test maker would phrase correct vs. incorrect answers, it was simple to get every multiple choice question correct.

 

You may call this intuition, others may argue an intelligent strategy to beat the system, a learning phenomenon requiring intelligence. It certainly took me time to figure out how to 'play' the game of multiple choice exams. Not what is right or wrong, not what is ambiguous or not, but what did the author of this question want me to say, their idea of the correct answer.

 

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

 

1 hour ago, Kal Rubinson said:

The real problem is that not much is subject to selection any more.  Everybody lives to reproduce.

 

Natural selection is still probably in operation but maybe future generations will not be fond of the results....except that they will be the result

 

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

1 hour ago, AudioDoctor said:

The problem with our IQ tests is they don't test what is evolutionally important to make humans smarter.  There is something called IQ, but our current understanding and testing of it does not test for it.

 

 

They supposedly test for a range of things related to smartness. Smartness may or may not prove to be an evolutionary advantage, I would think it is.

 

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

39 minutes ago, Jud said:

Well, the mention of distance running raises an important issue that will illustrate one of the very big problems with the concept of IQ. 

 

Let's consider athleticism. Is a champion marathoner or a champion wrestler, or,  say,  a champion basketball player, more "athletic"?  Dumb question, right, because there's such a variety of human physical capabilities. What on earth would make you think mental capabilities are any less various? They are probably more so. 

 

That's why it's ridiculous to think there is a single measure of human mental capability called "IQ."

 

The variety of mental capabilities doesn't mean there cannot be an average or overall test measure. I acknowledge of course that someone scoring high on visuospatial tasks will have an average score if they perform poorly on language tasks. That said, a very low score or very high score is instructive in a non specific way.

 

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

33 minutes ago, elcorso said:

Personally would define IQ as "the state of happiness".

 

Smartness isn't the same as happiness (unless you include emotional IQ I guess). You could have either or neither.

But the donkey reference reminded me of an Einstein quote "Well-being and happiness never appeared to me as an absolute aim. I am even inclined to compare such moral aims to the ambitions of a pig."