How much does it cost to be an audiophile?

[mansr]

10 minutes ago, Kal Rubinson said:

Yes but I was thinking, in the context of this discussion, of selection for intelligence and talent.

I'm mostly seeing the opposite.

[Hugo9000]

13 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

Well, Fast cars are generally expensive, and as such are an outward indicator of possible wealth and women are attracted to money as proof that the guy can provide her with financial security and in first world cultures, that's a big attraction. It can even trump #1, looks. Case in point: Bill Gates, Melinda French!

 

Oh, come on, now!  You can't tell me that this man doesn't just radiate sex appeal!  That come-hither look, the naughty, crooked smile, that pose on his desktop?

 

  

 

?

 

[firedog]

3 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

 

Not exactly.  You need more than just differential mortality or fertility (or increased parental care leading to higher offspring fitness even in the face of LOWER fertility - the so-called K-selected organism)...  you also need a change in gene frequencies before you actually have evolution caused by selection.

 

 

Yes of course. I was merely speculating about areas where those types of mutations could have an effect. I'd imagine abilities related to success in urban environments could also be such an area.

[Jud]

13 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.

 

 

Thank you for the thoughtful reply. Let me provide some additional food for thought.

 

Have you ever seen the video of Bill Gates’ deposition in the US government’s anti-trust case against Microsoft?  He has his arms folded, rocks back and forth, stammers, is hesitant and unsure, speaks in a soft, querulous voice - generally gives the impression of someone who might be on the autism spectrum - oh, and happened to be the richest man in the world at the time.

 

Speaking of the autism spectrum, Temple Grandin, who is on the spectrum, is famous for (among other things) designing cattle handling facilities that reduce the animals’ anxiety and thus weight loss, maximizing the return to the owner.  She has a facility for understanding how animals will feel in various situations and in various types of enclosures.

 

If you had a couple of conversations with either of these people, particularly in a stressful situation that might not include discussion of their areas of expertise, would you be confident in your ability to assess their general mental acuity (or even that there was a real characteristic called general mental acuity to assess)?

 

In the future, a facility with computer programming or AI training may come to be thought of as equally or more important than some of the subjects now asked about on “IQ tests,” and may replace questions on those subjects in the tests.  Do you think a talent for computer programming is a more or less valid measure of general mental acuity than facility with analogies, or multiplication and division?

 

What I am suggesting is two things:

 

- Our assessment of someone’s intelligence has everything to do with whether their demeanor seems appropriate *to us*, and whether they are conversant with topics that seem *to us* to be those a smart person would be familiar with.

 

- IQ tests have everything to do with what makes a person intelligent *in the view of the testmakers.* And then the statistical tool is applied that invariably finds a portion of the subject’s performance on these disparate tests is due to a single “general factor” of intelligence.

[mansr]

3 minutes ago, Jud said:

Our assessment of someone’s intelligence has everything to do with whether their demeanor seems appropriate *to us*, and whether they are conversant with topics that seem *to us* to be those a smart person would be familiar with.

I judge a person as reasonably intelligent if I can have a conversation with them for more than 5 minutes without getting bored.

[gmgraves]

1 hour ago, Kal Rubinson said:

That's well known but that affects his options which may not be influenced by whether she is capable of (or interested in) a large family.  My point is that a wealthy and advanced society (putting aside its inequities and inefficiencies for the moment) does not challenge selection for intelligence to the extent that physical and intellectual abilities are selected in physically challenging environments.

True enough. 

[Ralf11]

seems likely - such a society could allocate resources to ensure that env'l factors (lead in poor US areas, gender exclusion as in Japan) do not impede societal progress

 

but I am now wondering if the primatologists and anthros have correlated rate of brain size increase in those lineages with societal conditions...

[pkane2001]

13 minutes ago, Jud said:

Have you ever seen the video of Bill Gates’ deposition in the US government’s anti-trust case against Microsoft?  He has his arms folded, rocks back and forth, stammers, is hesitant and unsure, speaks in a soft, querulous voice - generally gives the impression of someone who might be on the autism spectrum - oh, and happened to be the richest man in the world at the time.

 

I met him in person a number of times, and had a few conversations while he was still running MSFT. He never came across as autistic, although possibly not very adept or comfortable in social situations. 

 

I've also met with Steve Jobs a few times. He also appeared not to be fully adept at the accepted social behavior, although his approach was much more of the "I couldn't care less about social conventions" kind.

 

[gmgraves]

12 minutes ago, Jud said:

- IQ tests have everything to do with what makes a person intelligent *in the view of the testmakers.* And then the statistical tool is applied that invariably finds a portion of the subject’s performance on these disparate tests is due to a single “general factor” of intelligence.

I think that's probably not correct. It's not "in the view of the testmakers", it's the result of a standard test given across all social, economic, racial and gender groups. It's non-verbal and basically is designed to measure only one aspect of any human being's make-up and that's the individual's ability to solve problems. Most of the tests are based on visual cues using shapes and forms which makes some apologists say that some groups don't do well because the tests are "culturally biased", which is, of course, nonsense. One doesn't even have to know how to read to take a Stanford-Binet IQ test. 

[gmgraves]

1 minute ago, pkane2001 said:

I've also met with Steve Jobs a few times. He also appeared not to be fully adept at the accepted social behavior, although his approach was much more of the "I couldn't care less about social conventions" kind.

 

I've met Steve several times as a technical marketing engineer in Silicon Valley. He went out of his way to be a jerk. Literally. The first time I met him my company's sales rep and I went in to sell him on a keyboard encoder chip my company was making (they ere designing the Apple III). We went into his office where he had his dirty, bare feet up on the desk. He was very perfunctory; no "welcome  to Apple", in fact he didn't Even introduce himself! I gave my pitch, and when I was finished, without saying a word to me, he turned to the sales guy and started to excoriate him about some delivery issues on another part that we sold to Apple. When they got around to the keyboard encoder it broke down into an argument about cost/quantity issues. That first time he never said a word to me! Subsequent times, he did address me, but never in a friendly or even a cordial way just very perfunctory as if he was saying "What have you come here to bother me about today?" 

[pkane2001]

1 minute ago, gmgraves said:

I've met Steve several times as a technical marketing engineer in Silicon Valley. He went out of his way to be a jerk. Literally. The first time I met him my company's sales rep and I went in to sell him on a keyboard encoder chip my company was making (they ere designing the Apple III). We went into his office where he had his dirty, bare feet up on the desk. He was very perfunctory; no "welcome  to Apple", in fact he didn't Even introduce himself! I gave my pitch, and when I was finished, without saying a word to me, he turned to the sales guy and started to excoriate him about some delivery issues on another part that we sold to Apple. When they got around to the keyboard encoder it broke down into an argument about cost/quantity issues. That first time he never said a word to me! Subsequent times, he did address me, but never in a friendly or even a cordial way just very perfunctory as if he was saying "What have you come here to bother me about today?" 

 

Yes, a very similar experience. Although at the time I met him he wanted to do business with my company, and so was generally much nicer, but still, in a very standoffish kind of way.

 

[gmgraves]

1 hour ago, Hugo9000 said:

 

Oh, come on, now!  You can't tell me that this man doesn't just radiate sex appeal!  That come-hither look, the naughty, crooked smile, that pose on his desktop?

 

  

 

?

 

He doesn't radiate sex appeal to me! But This does!

 

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

1 hour ago, Jud said:

 

Thank you for the thoughtful reply. Let me provide some additional food for thought.

 

Have you ever seen the video of Bill Gates’ deposition in the US government’s anti-trust case against Microsoft?  He has his arms folded, rocks back and forth, stammers, is hesitant and unsure, speaks in a soft, querulous voice - generally gives the impression of someone who might be on the autism spectrum - oh, and happened to be the richest man in the world at the time.

 

Speaking of the autism spectrum, Temple Grandin, who is on the spectrum, is famous for (among other things) designing cattle handling facilities that reduce the animals’ anxiety and thus weight loss, maximizing the return to the owner.  She has a facility for understanding how animals will feel in various situations and in various types of enclosures.

 

If you had a couple of conversations with either of these people, particularly in a stressful situation that might not include discussion of their areas of expertise, would you be confident in your ability to assess their general mental acuity (or even that there was a real characteristic called general mental acuity to assess)?

 

In the future, a facility with computer programming or AI training may come to be thought of as equally or more important than some of the subjects now asked about on “IQ tests,” and may replace questions on those subjects in the tests.  Do you think a talent for computer programming is a more or less valid measure of general mental acuity than facility with analogies, or multiplication and division?

 

What I am suggesting is two things:

 

- Our assessment of someone’s intelligence has everything to do with whether their demeanor seems appropriate *to us*, and whether they are conversant with topics that seem *to us* to be those a smart person would be familiar with.

 

- IQ tests have everything to do with what makes a person intelligent *in the view of the testmakers.* And then the statistical tool is applied that invariably finds a portion of the subject’s performance on these disparate tests is due to a single “general factor” of intelligence.

 

Hi Jud,

I find (IMO) we often agree on things even if sometimes coming at the problem from a different angles. Perhaps tho the point of difference here is that I do believe in the concept of a "general intelligence" but possibly that apparently differing view can be reconciled.

 

Regarding "general intelligence"  I consider you an intelligent person and there are many more on this forum which I would consider "intelligent" (whether I like them or not, whether I agree with them or not......but of course the ones that agree with me are more intelligent ?, not)

 

The question for me therefore is can you quantify it in a meaningful way. This leads to the whole murky area of efficacy and applicability of "tests" (you know, sensitivity, specificity, reliability....etc). As is known by many here I am a self proclaimed test skeptic. I didnt think of myself in this way prior to visting audio fora because in my line of work it is standard operating procedure to define the accuracy and quality of test parameters ( as no doubt it is for good engineers etc). Thus I have a similar stance to you, it appears to me anyway, on say audio ABX blind tests. Thats just an example so a plea to others, lets not go there.

 

So, the examples you cited of applying "standardised" tests to 'non-standard', not neurotypical individuals seriously challenges if not invalidates the test procedure. Similarly using the same test battery on a tribe of natives in an undiscovered part of a jungle somewhere is meaningless. Cultural background counts. However that doesnt mean they are or are not intelligent in a generic sense, IF you test them the right way eg sensitive to finding what you are looking for. In some cases that may just not be possible.

 

Actually, I don't have to go to any kinds of extremes to throw serious doubts on the validity of IQ tests, or indeed neuropsych test. Two words, Anxiety and Depression. In (mostly) "normal" neurotypical people these two things confound the results of most neuropsych testing procedures. At least for the higher order levels of functioning where mild levels of brain impairments just can't be distinguished from impaired performance from A + D. Neuropsychs may wish to disagree but if I had a $ for every time I have read that in reports I could buy a new car!

 

So for me, it is not a question of if and more a matter of how. The "test makers" need to apply tests relevant to the subject and exercise judgement in test interpretation making note of confounders and qualifiers.

 

[mansr]

10 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

So, the examples you cited of applying "standardised" tests to 'non-standard', not neurotypical individuals seriously challenges if not invalidates the test procedure.

But they work just fine on GUTB.

[esldude]

5 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

Historians rank the dumbest presidents - list includes Harding, Andrew Johnson, Reagan, and GW Bushco

Well I agree with one of them.  The most recent.

 

But is that because of his innate IQ or just the leftover effects of cocaine.  

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

2 hours ago, mansr said:

But they work just fine on GUTB.

 

only if GUTB is neurotypical as he *claims*

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

14 hours ago, Kal Rubinson said:

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

 

5 hours ago, Kal Rubinson said:

My point is that a wealthy and advanced society (putting aside its inequities and inefficiencies for the moment) does not challenge selection for intelligence to the extent that physical and intellectual abilities are selected in physically challenging environments.

 

perhaps first world cultures with welfare and life sustaining technological support etc will encourage a greater polarization between intelligent and less intelligent cohorts in the population.Pure speculation of course and it assumes that the more intelligent are mainly responsible for providing said welfare and life sustaining technology.

 

 

 

 

 

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

 

On 6/17/2018 at 10:00 AM, 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.

 

An IQ test would be expected to account for past long term experience, not so much in predicting one's future limit. It is a current 'snap shot'.

 

 

 

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

On 6/17/2018 at 9:51 AM, 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. 

 

Yes but most will also test tings like short term memory or working memory. Without STM it makes it very difficult to harness intelligence.

 

3 hours ago, gmgraves said:

I think that's probably not correct. It's not "in the view of the testmakers", it's the result of a standard test given across all social, economic, racial and gender groups. It's non-verbal and basically is designed to measure only one aspect of any human being's make-up and that's the individual's ability to solve problems. Most of the tests are based on visual cues using shapes and forms which makes some apologists say that some groups don't do well because the tests are "culturally biased", which is, of course, nonsense. One doesn't even have to know how to read to take a Stanford-Binet IQ test. 

 

There are typically language and visuospatial tasks. I would argue that if there weren't the result would be compromised. I think the Stanford-Binet IQ test is mainly used in kids but I could be wrong. using only visual cues may be used in certain populations to increase test sensitivity and applicability where language is known to be compromised.Nonetheless there is verbal and non-verbal visuospatial components to IQ. people also learn in quite different ways, some needing visual illustrations and others using more verbally based explanations.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

4 hours ago, mansr said:

I judge a person as reasonably intelligent if I can have a conversation with them for more than 5 minutes without getting bored.

 

Yeh but that might just be because they get bored with you after one minute and cease to engage you, making you bored after 5 minutes

[Ralf11]

7 hours ago, Kal Rubinson said:

Yes but I was thinking, in the context of this discussion, of selection for intelligence and talent.

 

 

this popped up in my head while hiking... so, those with very low intelligence are being selected against even in modern societies (and may need caretakers as well) - to the extent that genes influencing that are the same as the genes influencing high intelligence (say it's a quantitative trait - as most traits are) then you have selection for higher intelligence

 

also, even if those genes are different, if they are close to each other the chromosomes you have selection

[accwai]

11 hours ago, gmgraves said:

He doesn't radiate sex appeal to me! But This does!

 

I thought the question was what appeals to women. Kinky

 

As for cars, Toyota just won 1st and 2nd overall yesterday at 24 Hours of Le Mans with a pair of TS050 Hybrid, women would go crazy over the black/white/red Gazoo Racing color scheme:

 

 

 

[gmgraves]

15 hours ago, esldude said:

Well I agree with one of them.  The most recent.

 

But is that because of his innate IQ or just the leftover effects of cocaine.  

I certainly wouldn't consider Reagan dumb. He was quite effective, where many presidents weren't (aren't). In fact, I'd go so far as to say that in my lifetime, we've only had three "great" presidents: Truman, Eisenhower and Kennedy. Reagan was a "good", effective leader, and I wouldn't give a nickel for the rest, each worse than the one before. 

[gmgraves]

13 hours ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

Yes but most will also test tings like short term memory or working memory. Without STM it makes it very difficult to harness intelligence.

 

 

There are typically language and visuospatial tasks. I would argue that if there weren't the result would be compromised. I think the Stanford-Binet IQ test is mainly used in kids but I could be wrong. using only visual cues may be used in certain populations to increase test sensitivity and applicability where language is known to be compromised.Nonetheless there is verbal and non-verbal visuospatial components to IQ. people also learn in quite different ways, some needing visual illustrations and others using more verbally based explanations.

IQ tests are generally given to kids in the 7th-8th grades here in the USA. It's also given by Mensa to prospective members. I've often thought that it should be given several times over one's productive life as IQ can change. I know it can go up, and there are probably situations where it can go down too. 

[esldude]

19 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

I certainly wouldn't consider Reagan dumb. He was quite effective, where many presidents weren't (aren't). In fact, I'd go so far as to say that in my lifetime, we've only had three "great" presidents: Truman, Eisenhower and Kennedy. Reagan was a "good", effective leader, and I wouldn't give a nickel for the rest, each worse than the one before. 

I was referring to Bush not Reagan.