How much does it cost to be an audiophile?

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

3 hours ago, beerandmusic said:

sorry, won't hurt me....i like all brands of beer, and I like some class D amps....seriously, i can't think of anything anyone could say that would offend me personally....even if someone said something offensive, i would just accept the fact that they probably had a rougher life or missing something else in their life where they feel they have a need to take the low road.  I know everything will be sorted out in the end...this life is really meaningless in comparison to the big picture....anyone that would have the practice at dealing with my wife for over 30 years or a childhood where they were skinny, had tons of freckles, couldn't pronounce their r's, and was a total nerd during a time when it wasn't "cool" to be a nerd, would believe me that i have a very thick skin.

Good for you Beery! I think we all put up emotional sea walls at times and as Socrates said, sometimes not to keep people out but to see who cares enough to break them down. I surely agree that no-one can offend you without your consent.

[beerandmusic]

1 hour ago, elcorso said:

Last news regarding IQ !

 

https://www.care2.com/greenliving/new-study-finds-iqs-have-been-falling-for-decades.html

 

Please stop the junk food because artificial intelligence will replace us (even more) ?

 

Roch

the real reason high iq''s are declining is because the really smart people are having less and less kids because they know this world is going to crap and don't want to torture future generation....now the dumb people will keep reproducing....lol...

[Nordkapp]

16 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

the real reason high iq''s are declining is because the really smart people are having less and less kids because they know this world is going to crap and don't want to torture future generation....now the dumb people will keep reproducing....lol...

Couldn't have said it better.

[Ralf11]

6 hours ago, beerandmusic said:

sorry, won't hurt me....i like all brands of beer, and I like some class D amps....seriously, i can't think of anything anyone could say that would offend me personally....even if someone said something offensive, i would just accept the fact that they probably had a rougher life or missing something else in their life where they feel they have a need to take the low road.  I know everything will be sorted out in the end...this life is really meaningless in comparison to the big picture....anyone that would have the practice at dealing with my wife for over 30 years or a childhood where they were skinny, had tons of freckles, couldn't pronounce their r's, and was a total nerd during a time when it wasn't "cool" to be a nerd, would believe me that i have a very thick skin.

 

how about I assail your penchant for cheap, factory cheese?

[Ralf11]

2 hours ago, beerandmusic said:

the real reason high iq''s are declining is because the really smart people are having less and less kids because they know this world is going to crap and don't want to torture future generation....now the dumb people will keep reproducing....lol...

 

to what extent is IQ genetically based?

 

what is the level of penetrance?

 

how much variable expressivity is there?

[AudioDoctor]

Before this specific IQ question goes further, everyone here has to read The Boy Who Was Raised As A Dog.

[AudioDoctor]

2 hours ago, beerandmusic said:

the real reason high iq''s are declining is because the really smart people are having less and less kids because they know this world is going to crap and don't want to torture future generation....now the dumb people will keep reproducing....lol...

 

even dumb people have smart kids...

 

IQ is based more on survival pressures.  It used to be that the most likely to survive passed on their genes.  Now we let every dumbass survive their stupidity. Because we are not under pressure from anything to survive, we don't need to evolve to be smarter...

 

edit:  You want to get smarter?  You want your kids to be smarter?  Challenge them, force them to use their brains.

 

I suppose a long term ongoing generational alien invasion would also do it.

 

[PeterG]

7 hours ago, beerandmusic said:

a childhood where they were skinny, had tons of freckles, couldn't pronounce their r's, and was a total nerd during a time when it wasn't "cool" to be a nerd,

 

MY BROTHER!

?

[Ralf11]

58 minutes ago, AudioDoctor said:

 

 

IQ is based more on survival pressures.  It used to be that the most likely to survive passed on their genes.  Now we let every dumbass survive their stupidity. Because we are not under pressure from anything to survive, we don't need to evolve to be smarter...

 

 

 

IQ is not under much selection now - I hope you aren't an MD

[AudioDoctor]

1 minute ago, Ralf11 said:

 

 

IQ is not under much selection now - I hope you aren't an MD

 

Isn't that what I said?

[Jud]

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

 

IQ tests are rather ludicrous.  Human evolution doesn't take place on the time scales over which scores have gone down.  So what's actually happening?

 

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?  The reading segment about which the questions were asked was omitted from the book.  Purely by intuitively understanding how the test maker would phrase correct vs. incorrect answers, it was simple to get every multiple choice question correct.

 

Remember these are almost always timed multiple choice tests.  So the faster you eliminate wrong answers by intuition, the less time you have to spend actually thinking about the answer, and the better your score.

 

Therefore, my guess regarding what we are seeing is that the life experiences of test makers and test takers are diverging ever more rapidly in our speeded-up world, steadily depriving test takers of an intuitive understanding of how test makers phrase right and wrong answers.

[Ralf11]

There is most certainly such a thing as IQ.

 

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

[mansr]

17 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

There is most certainly such a thing as IQ.

 

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

I have no difficulty at all identifying stupid people.

[Jud]

16 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

There is most certainly such a thing as IQ.

 

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

 

Nah. 

 

It's an artifact of the statistical method used to derive it. 

 

Briefly: IQ tests have multiple parts.  A common factor is then derived from the individual scores. The problem is that the statistical method used to do this will *always* find a common factor, regardless of whether the individual scores come from the Olympic Decathlon and the Pillsbury Bake-Off. 

 

More detail: http://bactra.org/weblog/523.html

[Kal Rubinson]

1 hour ago, Ralf11 said:

IQ is not under much selection now - I hope you aren't an MD

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

[AudioDoctor]

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.

 

For example...

 

humans are distance runners.  This was evolutionarily necessitated by the need to tire out our food so we could more easily kill it.  If you were unable to kill your food, you died.  There is no physical fitness part of our IQ tests.

 

maybe we are becoming a more weighty society because we no longer need that specific ability to acquire food.  Things to think about.

[mansr]

16 minutes ago, AudioDoctor said:

humans are distance runners.  This was evolutionarily necessitated by the need to tire out our food so we could more easily kill it.  If you were unable to kill your food, you died.  There is no physical fitness part of our IQ tests.

That's because physical fitness is by definition not intelligence.

 

16 minutes ago, AudioDoctor said:

maybe we are becoming a more weighty society because we no longer need that specific ability to acquire food.  Things to think about.

I get food by running after the pizza guy and snatching the box. Doesn't everybody?

[AudioDoctor]

7 minutes ago, mansr said:

That's because physical fitness is by definition not intelligence.

 

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"

[mansr]

Just now, AudioDoctor said:

It absolutely is.  It is also proof of how lacking our understanding of intelligence is.

So by your definition, Stephen Hawking was really stupid.

[AudioDoctor]

7 minutes ago, mansr said:

So by your definition, Stephen Hawking was really stupid.

 

lol...

 

Nice try.  If not for our modern medical advances he would have died a long time ago...  Individually, yes.  He owes everything to those who cared for him.

 

You're stuck in our very basic modern understanding of IQ as only brain smarts.  Great, 1000 years ago Hawking would have been eaten by a tiger.  Not very smart is it.

 

You should stick to arguing about electronics.

[Jud]

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."

[mansr]

9 minutes ago, AudioDoctor said:

You're stuck in our very basic modern understanding of IQ as only brain smarts. Great, 1000 years ago Hawking would have been eaten by a tiger.  Not very smart is it.

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.

 

10 minutes ago, AudioDoctor said:

You should stick to arguing about electronics.

Sorry, I'm not that fast a runner.

[elcorso]

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

 

I once commented in this forum that I was married to a clinical psychologist. When she was doing her practice she decided to use me to do her first IQ test. I had a tremendous flu, it was late at night and I was very tired, however I decided to take it ... The next morning she had the result, I was the closest thing to a donkey ... and added, "that it's because of you smoke and drink a lot and you work like a donkey ... " OK", I replied, "but I'm a happy donkey ..." ?

 

Roch

[Ralf11]

1 hour ago, Jud said:

 

Nah. 

 

It's an artifact of the statistical method used to derive it. 

 

Briefly: IQ tests have multiple parts.  A common factor is then derived from the individual scores. The problem is that the statistical method used to do this will *always* find a common factor, regardless of whether the individual scores come from the Olympic Decathlon and the Pillsbury Bake-Off. 

 

More detail: http://bactra.org/weblog/523.html

 

That is a measurement issue.

 

Try sources other than the internet.

[Ralf11]

10 minutes ago, Jud said:

a single measure of human mental capability called "IQ."

 

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