How much does it cost to be an audiophile?

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

1 minute ago, Ralf11 said:

 

1st you don't know the terminology - it is selection, and survival is only one aspect of it

 

2nd, selection is ongoing in humans

 

3rd as you later said you have no data

 

etc etc

 

Yes but @AudioDoctor argument Trumps all !

[beerandmusic]

after 33 pages i am still trying to figure out how much it costs to be an audiophile...and who do we pay to join?

[Ralf11]

1 minute ago, AudioDoctor said:

If you can't survive, you can't pass on your genes, therefore, you are not going to be helping to increase the overall intelligence of the species...

 

there is a very useful Primer of population biology written by Wilson & Bossert - it's short; try reading that

[AudioDoctor]

then you missed my reply pages ago.  It costs nothing.

[Ralf11]

Just now, beerandmusic said:

after 33 pages i am still trying to figure out how much it costs to be an audiophile...

 

depends on your IQ

 

and the desired SQ

[AudioDoctor]

3 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

 

there is a very useful Primer of population biology written by Wilson & Bossert - it's short; try reading that

 

I dont accept smart ass book recommendations.

[elcorso]

7 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

after 33 pages i am still trying to figure out how much it costs to be an audiophile...and who do we pay to join?

 

For me, a lot of money, if "time is money". I spend a lot of time on Google Translators !!!

 

Roch

[AudioDoctor]

8 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

 

1st you don't know the terminology - it is selection, and survival is only one aspect of it

 

2nd, selection is ongoing in humans

 

3rd as you later said you have no data

 

etc etc

 

Sure.  I wish our ancestors had neglected survival and instead focused on testing their IQ on math and reading skills...

 

2nd, sure.  Selection has  a much wider pool to pull from because...  (see below)

 

3.  Sure, I have no data, but all those pressures and challenges that made us so smart are no longer a factor in the passing on of genes and survivability of humans as a species.

[fas42]

24 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

 

and the desired SQ

 

Yes. The most important cost is time - time to work out the options, listen to what everyone is saying, analysing who is making sense and who is not, listening to examples of rigs done using various approaches, allocating time to tuning a set of components so that you get the most out of the combo - the more "cost" spent here, the better the outcome is likely to be.

[Jud]

3 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

 

That is a measurement issue.

 

Try sources other than the internet.

 

If you think it is a measurement issue, you are being unduly simplistic and dismissive, or you didn't understand the piece.  Again, the link is http://bactra.org/weblog/523.html .

 

It's a blog post (part of a series) by a professor of statistics.  Before repeating again what he's saying, it's a good idea to remember exactly what IQ is as a concept. It is supposed to be a "general factor" of intelligence, a sort of generalized smarts that works for any kind of mental task. 

 

What the professor points out is that the method used to derive this general factor *will always find it exists*. It never permits the conclusion that there is no such general factor, and we are simply finding out how fast people get the answers correct to particular questions in specific topic areas. And it doesn't show why they got the answers correct, as I mentioned I was easily able to do with several SAT reading comprehension questions - without having the reading passage the questions were supposedly about.

 

Now a tool that always gives a "yes" answer is obviously problematic. But the problem goes deeper than the tool. The problem is the entire concept of a "general factor" of intelligence.  There is nothing in all of biology that would say it is a valid idea to summarize the entire physical or mental capability of any animal with a single indicator. So what is the entire reason for and usefulness of applying this obviously wrongheaded concept to humans? Why, to say "Mine's bigger than yours," of course.

[Ralf11]

Thanks for the lecture on biology -  

 

You don't understand this.  Biologists do.

[Jud]

2 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

Thanks for the lecture on biology -  

 

You don't understand this.  Biologists do.

 

Thanks for the lecture on what I don't understand.  As soon as you give me a number that encompasses all human physical abilities we can star talking about how much sense the concept of IQ makes. 

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

3 hours ago, Jud said:

 

If you think it is a measurement issue, you are being unduly simplistic and dismissive, or you didn't understand the piece.  Again, the link is http://bactra.org/weblog/523.html .

 

It's a blog post (part of a series) by a professor of statistics.  Before repeating again what he's saying, it's a good idea to remember exactly what IQ is as a concept. It is supposed to be a "general factor" of intelligence, a sort of generalized smarts that works for any kind of mental task. 

 

What the professor points out is that the method used to derive this general factor *will always find it exists*. It never permits the conclusion that there is no such general factor, and we are simply finding out how fast people get the answers correct to particular questions in specific topic areas. And it doesn't show why they got the answers correct, as I mentioned I was easily able to do with several SAT reading comprehension questions - without having the reading passage the questions were supposedly about.

 

Now a tool that always gives a "yes" answer is obviously problematic. But the problem goes deeper than the tool. The problem is the entire concept of a "general factor" of intelligence.  There is nothing in all of biology that would say it is a valid idea to summarize the entire physical or mental capability of any animal with a single indicator. So what is the entire reason for and usefulness of applying this obviously wrongheaded concept to humans? Why, to say "Mine's bigger than yours," of course.

 

 I started to read the article but confess my eyes started glazing over. Statistical analyses affect me that way. I am possibly more skeptical about statistics than most other test measures but agree that reducing "general intelligence factor" to a numerical value is not without problems.

 

That said I didn't really hear anything very revelatory. Stuff about flaws of correlation between tests as a basis to derive "g" and so fourth, I mean sure duh but so what. I have seen many neuropsych tests inclusive of IQ components. My overwhelming impression was that the same information could be ascertained by spending a bit of time with that person and perhaps, possibly, probably even a better, more meaningful assessment can be made compared to the test measures.

 

Interestingly, psychologists also estimate "pre-morbid intelligence" IOW intelligence prior to a brain impairment. I always thought this was a bit of a flaky proposition but, as I understand it, they use indicators like aspects of long term memory and language acquisition or whatever that would have preceded and survived the insult. I guess to the extent that you believe this is possible you would be even more willing to accept that current levels of functioning can be quantified in some ways.

 

I submit we all can tell a bright person from a not-so-bright (stupid) person fairly intuitively. Personally, I don't have any great difficulty estimating a "general intelligence" for most individuals after a certain time of interacting with that individual. There are exceptions and initial impressions not always being correct. You get a general idea of their cognitive abilities for speed of information processing, flexibility of thinking, ability to grasp abstractions, logical reasoning, problem solving, organizational and executive skills and so fourth.

 

While this cannot inform you how they might perform in any one specific area I have found it positively correlates with a range of cognitive functions, if not necessarily all functions. This does not mean obviously that these individuals will be more successful in life's endeavors than their not-so-intelligent counterparts. My observation is that things like personality and emotional stability along with high levels of drive are more deterministic.

 

I agree that putting a quantum on IQ like "136" is not an all encompassing construct but I can tell you IME I would predict that individual to be highly intelligent in a general layman's sense of the word. I look at it as analogous to some "visual analogue scales" like 9 out of ten for pain or beautiful women (or men). You know "9" is a lot of pain even if you know little else about the pain and "9" is a hot woman or man even if you know nothing else about their particular physical attributes.

 

 

 

[semente]

8 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

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

 

Success in this day and age is mostly down to a person's ability to sell his creation or himself.

Humans are highly evolved...buyers.

[Summit]

10 hours ago, mansr said:

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

 

If you are in an area there the probability to be attacked by any predator without anything to defend yourself with, you are not very smart. Even the Neanderthals with an IQ below 70 know it.

[Summit]

12 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

There is most certainly such a thing as IQ.

 

Don't confuse that with the difficulty in measuring it.

 

Yes exactly, how to calculate IQ is difficult because intelligence include so many different capacities like logic, understanding, self-awareness, knowledge, reasoning, planning, creativity and problem solving. To have great capability in logic or knowledge is often of little value IRL if other skills and common sense are severely lacking.       

[esldude]

3 hours ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

 I started to read the article but confess my eyes started glazing over. Statistical analyses affect me that way. I am possibly more skeptical about statistics than most other test measures but agree that reducing "general intelligence factor" to a numerical value is not without problems.

 

That said I didn't really hear anything very revelatory. Stuff about flaws of correlation between tests as a basis to derive "g" and so fourth, I mean sure duh but so what. I have seen many neuropsych tests inclusive of IQ components. My overwhelming impression was that the same information could be ascertained by spending a bit of time with that person and perhaps, possibly, probably even a better, more meaningful assessment can be made compared to the test measures.

 

Interestingly, psychologists also estimate "pre-morbid intelligence" IOW intelligence prior to a brain impairment. I always thought this was a bit of a flaky proposition but, as I understand it, they use indicators like aspects of long term memory and language acquisition or whatever that would have preceded and survived the insult. I guess to the extent that you believe this is possible you would be even more willing to accept that current levels of functioning can be quantified in some ways.

 

I submit we all can tell a bright person from a not-so-bright (stupid) person fairly intuitively. Personally, I don't have any great difficulty estimating a "general intelligence" for most individuals after a certain time of interacting with that individual. There are exceptions and initial impressions not always being correct. You get a general idea of their cognitive abilities for speed of information processing, flexibility of thinking, ability to grasp abstractions, logical reasoning, problem solving, organizational and executive skills and so fourth.

 

While this cannot inform you how they might perform in any one specific area I have found it positively correlates with a range of cognitive functions, if not necessarily all functions. This does not mean obviously that these individuals will be more successful in life's endeavors than their not-so-intelligent counterparts. My observation is that things like personality and emotional stability along with high levels of drive are more deterministic.

 

I agree that putting a quantum on IQ like "136" is not an all encompassing construct but I can tell you IME I would predict that individual to be highly intelligent in a general layman's sense of the word. I look at it as analogous to some "visual analogue scales" like 9 out of ten for pain or beautiful women (or men). You know "9" is a lot of pain even if you know little else about the pain and "9" is a hot woman or man even if you know nothing else about their particular physical attributes.

 

 

 

This is at least a 9. 

 

[Summit]

9 hours ago, AudioDoctor said:

 

 

I dont have any data, but I do have one giant orange dumbass as president to point to as potential proof...

 

If a dumbass president was elected in free and fair election, what does it say about the people that vote for him? After all he mainly does what he promised he would do ? 

[firedog]

 A few points:

there is definitely selection ongoing among humans today, but the selection pressures are different than thousands or millions of years ago. The conditions that hunters and gatherers faced changed in a fundamental way when humans moved over to agriculture thousands of years ago. In the last century or two they've changed again.

IQ: intelligence is complicated and has lots of facets. We tend to overemphasize language skills and math as intelligence. That's not all there is to it. 

Dogs have skills we don't, and some that chimps/primates don't - including some involving abstraction and reasoning. 

I'd wager that if a dog based intelligence test was set up - with problem solving tasks based on the ability to smell, for instance - we'd fail. Just one example. 

 

Even octopi, that don't have what we call a brain, have been shown to have reasoning powers, and possibly even to understand the concept of zero. No present day scientist understands how their ""nervous system" works to do these tasks - but it does. 

 

My experience with all types of animals tells me that they are very intelligent when it comes to the things they need to survive. Those things don't always match a human conception of what's important. 

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

1 hour ago, esldude said:

This is at least a 9. 

 

Yes, this is the photo they have in the neuropsych exams. Stunning IQ !

[mansr]

10 hours ago, AudioDoctor said:

Smartness is a result of evolutionary pressures,

Yes, because we pretty much suck physically, we had to invent various tools and otherwise outsmart other animals.

 

10 hours ago, AudioDoctor said:

IMO.  ie: our ancestors had to adapt and problem solve to survive and meet new challenges as they moved out of Africa.  I have seen some argue that an ice age and the pressures to survive in the new climate, as well as the different cold climates further north from Africa as early humans spread out, is the cause of our intelligence and evolution into what we are now.

You seem to be suggesting that Africans are not as smart as others. That's wrong and offensive.

[mansr]

1 hour ago, Summit said:

If you are in an area there the probability to be attacked by any predator without anything to defend yourself with, you are not very smart.

Right, so if you can't outrun the predator, you invent the spear and bring one with you.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

50 minutes ago, firedog said:

I'd wager that if a dog based intelligence test was set up - with problem solving tasks based on the ability to smell, for instance - we'd fail. Just one example. 

 

Some humans excel at smelling. Just ask @Superdad  about his teenage son's socks !

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

2 minutes ago, mansr said:

Right, so if you can't outrun the predator, you invent the spear and bring one with you.

 

No, you just hang out with other humans that are slightly slower runners !

[Kal Rubinson]

1 hour ago, firedog said:

there is definitely selection ongoing among humans today, but the selection pressures are different than thousands or millions of years ago.

What are some of those current selection pressures in first world societies?