Does trading require talent?

[Paul71]

OK....There's a very thin line between "genius" and " insanity"...I would say they cross over quite frequently for some !

cv

I think it can be viewed in different ways. But in the end, evolution took him out of the game with exactly the same amount as he had started with.

 

[PKFFW]

The latter is why nine and I are not going to bother with you: If you must know all of mathematics can be demoted to 1s and 0s, and that includes 3 dimensional representations, so the answer to your question is that "three dimensional 0's and 1's" can be equivalently represented as normal 0s and 1s. The latter comment by the way is an entire field of mathematics known as logic, and a bit of model theory thrown in (something I will not be studying for some time).

And yet you still refuse to discuss the pertinent issue.

Would changing the 0's and 1's change the way the thing works? A simple yes or now will suffice. I'm not asking if you think it is possible, clearly you do not. Just answer the question that I have asked time and again.....would changing the 0's and 1's change how the thing works? Yes or no?

You talk about logic but you refuse to discuss the pertinant issue and just repeatedly proclaim your mantra that "it isn't possible". Well I'm sorry but the latest research, whether you like to admit it or not, suggests that it is possible.

germs would work at a level that would matter, and doctors take them into account. The fact that the forces are there does not alter the argument, because by your assumption we should all allow for them, which would make diagnosis impossible because it complicates things, and the energy level they work at (for the good of argument) does not happen so they can be safely "abstracted" out of the way? Do you get my point? DNA can be safely abstracted out of the way when talking about bounds, in the same sense that atoms can be safely abstracted away when we discuss how the Archimedes screw works.

And again you neatly sidestep the issue.

My point about the germs was there used to a be a time when doctors discounted the very idea of germs as the cause of illness. The current scientific reasoning said they did not exist and were illrelevent. Just as you now discount the idea of matter being energy and that energy being of any relevence.

I totally get your point, you believe because of current scientific reasoning that these forces do not matter and we shouldn't take them into account because they complicate things. DNA can be abstracted out of the way because current scientific reasoning knows enough about it to do so. I'm sorry to tell you that simply because current scientific reasoning believes something, doesn't necessarily make it so. That is my point. Any time you wish to address that point feel free. If you wish to continue proclaiming your mantra that you don't think it is relevent or possible then don't bother, I really do get it already.

Since DNA can be abstracted out of the way, could you please explain how it can change a persons eye colour, blood type or health in an instant based on the persons personality? I note that you never seem to have anything to say about that issue. Always choose the issue that you can easily come up with another reason for.

Again, you totally fail to understand what nine and I are telling you about what it is that you are "thinking". You totally got the wrong end of the stick.

I really do get what you and nine are trying to say. Let me break it down here so you know that I get you.

1: You think what I am talking about is illrelevant.
2: You think what I am talking about is impossible.

Now let me break down why you think the above and how you go about proving your point.

1: Current scientific reasoning hasn't proven the theories I have put forward here. Ergo, by your logic, they simply are not true.
2: Rather than deal with the theories and points raised you ignore them and chose tiny bits and pieces that are easy to ridicule or give another explanation for.
3: You repeat your mantra of "I don't think it is relevant or possible" over and over in the hope that repetition will breed belief.

That about sums it all up right?

And, of course, this means that it's possible for us to change it to our wills? I have no problem with the fact that the manipulation would effect physical matter itself, I have a problem with you using it to imply about how the human mind can "will" things to happen for it's own ends. There is no logic to that, only pathetic egotistic wishy-washy thinking.

See again you basically say "I don't believe it is possible therefore your logic and reasoning is wrong."

You really do seem to have a genuine interest in science and such. So why don't you take just a few minutes to actually do some research into the idea I've put forward. I promise it wont hurt you. Then you might find that maybe, just maybe, the simple fact that you do not believe something doesn't mean it is wrong.

There are many scientific studies on telekinesis for example. So many studies that many a reputable scientist with far more knowledge on the subject that you or I have declared that we should stop debating whether it is possible and begin studying to what extent it is possible. Now, if it is possible(and I'm going out on a limb and siding with the reputable scientists who have done the research rather than discount it because I don't believe it) to move something with the mind please explain to me how it is illogical to suggest that other things can be manipulated with the mind? And by "explain" I don't mean simply say you don't believe it is possible. I mean actually explain how the logic is wrong.

And as regards this "manipulation", how pray do you think we go about it? These forces of energy and waves that you talk about requires horrendous energy to study because what we need to do is to see them in isolation. This requires building particle accelerators, because only those can get us to seeing them (even if only for a millionth of a second). So we have to spend 100s of billions of pounds building these damn particle accelerators to analyse/manipulate something that so unimaginably tiny and exists in unheard of dimensions etc. . . Are you saying to me that the human mind is capable of this amazing feat? That it's capable of this energy level without doing untold damage to all the surrounding living cells that makes it up for the purpose of "willing" an outcome beneficial to the body that it resides in?

You are absolutely right about what it takes to study these issues in isolation. Billions of pounds, lots of equipment etc etc.

Please explain how your logic works here. You say "it costs x amount to study these things therefore the mind can't do them". Is that about it? Does it logically follow in your opinion that the cost of an experiment has any bearing on the validity of the result? Nuclear bombs cost a crap load to make, does that mean it is impossible to split the atom?

What I am saying is simple. The latest research into matter and what it is made of suggests that it is made of energy. The latest research into this area suggests that this matter can be manipulated. The latest research into this area suggests that it is possible, to some extent, for our thoughts to affect this energy structure thereby affecting the matter itself. Now, as I've admitted previously, all that research may turn out to be a dead end. I have never once claimed the theories I have put forward here are absolutely proven fact. I am just advising you what the latest research seems to be pointing to. From that I point out that for you and nine to suggest none of this is possible or relevent is really quite laughable. It may end up being not possible and illrelevent but far greater and more knowledgable minds than yours seem to think it is. Forgive me if I side with them and the latest research for now and do not close my mind off to the possibility simply because you guys don't think it is possible.

Whether you and nine wish to believe all that is your perogative. Those are the facts and your belief is not necessary.

I think nine will agree with me when I say that I am glad there are no people like you on scientific advisory committees, nor on the boards of governing bodies who dispense funds for scientific research.

And I am glad there are none like you and nine on the boards. Otherwise no progress would be made. Grants would only be given to those that agree with you. You only agree with what science has currently "proven". Therefore only currently proven ideas would get funding. Therefore nothing new would ever be learnt. What a great world that would be!

Cheers,
PKFFW

 

[PKFFW]

What can I say, nine? Just another "incident" that people like to see things into. Why don't I recall the incident when Richard Feynman was at his beloved's bedside and at the moment when she died the clock on the table stopped? Being a rational man that he was he just realised it was a coincidence, even though at that moment he must have been filled with extreme grief.

I specifically stated that I was not claiming the man did in fact will away his cancer didn't I?

Just another example of you cherry picking the points you can easily deny or explain away whilst continually refusing to deal with the point I was trying to make.

Like I said, give people some hope and they can project whatever the f*ck they want into it. My view is that people are lazy and they don't want to think, and ask dumb questions and resolve those dumb questions independently, because it takes sooooo much work.

Yep like you said that is your view. Once again I'm sorry to tell you, your view doesn't count as proof.

Maybe some people see something into it and want to explore that idea. Newton saw something in an apple falling from a tree and wanted to explore the idea. Einstein saw something in the idea of matter and light being related and wanted to explore the idea.

Every great advancement comes from someone seeing something that others have not yet seen and wanting to explore the idea. Guess you will never come up with an original or great advancement.

Maybe there was a profound reason the clock stopped. Guess we will never know because Feynman didn't want to ask any questions about it. Maybe the world is a poorer place because Feynman made a judgement based on nothing more than his preconceived idea that it was a coincidence. Maybe not. Who knows.

By the way, Feynman didn't realise(which denotes knowing) it was a coincidence he assumed it was.

And about this man getting rid of his cancer without treatment, there are a number of possibilities which include, excuse the crude exposition:

1) his other cells were "smart" enough to get rid of the cancer cells.
2) the DNA of the cancer cells are also f*cked in the sense they self destruct after a certain time, in another words their senescence was rather short. Certain species of animals have this, after they've breed the animal just self destructs. It could well be that the DNA of the cancer cells had defective code in them that made them "weak" and vulnerable to attack from other cells.
and so on . . . .

Yep, could be any number of reasons. Once again I specifically stated I did not think it constituted proof he willed the cancer away.

By your logic we shouldn't investigate the idea because you do not think it is possible. So I guess we will never know if what the man claimed is possible. Lets just assume there is another reason for it. Oh wait a minute, as scientists aren't we supposed to avoid assuming?

who ever said DNA was perfect? and to perform a diagnostic at the DNA level to see what went on is not within mankind's means at the moment. I'm just trying to point out that there are other possibilities not mentioned which renders this case inconclusive.

Never said it was conclusive, in point of fact I specifically stated I was not claiming it was. I only pointed out that just because there are other possibilites doesn't mean the one put forward by the man is wrong. It doesn't mean we should assume it didn't happen the way he said it did.

To talk about "willing" something to happen would be like me saying, in logical terms: this is a cat, therefore my wife likes me?!!!

Once again you make a bold statement that simply isn't supported by the facts at hand.

Whether you and nine care to believe it or not the latest research into this area suggests that it is possible for "will" to have an affect on physical matter. That is fact. That is what the research is pointing to. Has it been conclusively proven yet? No. By your logic it would be illogical for Newton to have theorised about the law of gravity because he had not yet proven it. Going by your logic it is illogical for Einstein to come up with the theory of relativity. As a theory it has not been proven to be fact thus it must be illogical right?

There is logic and research to back up the claim that "will" can affect physical matter. Your proclaiming there isn't is just plain silly.

Cheers,
PKFFW

 

[PKFFW]

Well maybe you and I got it all wrong. You see, we should take total advantage of people's gullibility and start writing books to tell people the wonderful unfalsifiable things that is possible if only they "believe". Oh, and the market does need cannon fodder doesn't it?:cheesy: I mean, for crying out loud, why strain ourselves taking money out of the markets when we can start courses and seminars and charge people £500 - £2000 a time for a day's work, all we have to do is talk piffle?

And yet again you resort to ridicule rather than deal with the points and issues raised.

How very scientific of you.

Interesting that you choose a well worn path as a suggestion of what to do. Wouldn't want to try something new or original would you? Go with the safe, proven idea and ridicule any who dare to see something different to you.

Cheers,
PKFFW

 

[firewalker99]

And yet again you resort to ridicule rather than deal with the points and issues raised.

How very scientific of you.

Interesting that you choose a well worn path as a suggestion of what to do. Wouldn't want to try something new or original would you? Go with the safe, proven idea and ridicule any who dare to see something different to you.

Regardless of my thoughts on the matter, this is a very common reaction from people who are running out of logical rational arguments and choose to walk the path of opinions and red herrings instead of deduction.

I'm attacking temptrader or anybody in specific here. It's just something that happens very often when people (try to) engage in any serious discussion. At some point one side will give up on debating logically. In the reactions to my posts, I've noticed people using straw man's arguments or ignoratio elenchi. It's a common pitfall and we should all try to think about not only the contents of our replies, but also the way we respond to others. I hope this thread can continue an interesting debate in a civilized manner.

Perhaps we could think of this an exchange of ideas/thoughts instead of a stubborn way to convince others of our beliefs/thoughts? Because let's face it, this isn't going to happen. From my experience on other threads I've learned that people often fail to see the other side of a trade. A very similar thing is happening here. People refuse to see the other side of an argument.

 

[new_trader]

Regardless of my thoughts on the matter, this is a very common reaction from people who are running out of logical rational arguments and choose to walk the path of opinions and red herrings instead of deduction.

I'm attacking temptrader or anybody in specific here. It's just something that happens very often when people (try to) engage in any serious discussion. At some point one side will give up on debating logically. In the reactions to my posts, I've noticed people using straw man's arguments or ignoratio elenchi. It's a common pitfall and we should all try to think about not only the contents of our replies, but also the way we respond to others. I hope this thread can continue an interesting debate in a civilized manner.

Perhaps we could think of this an exchange of ideas/thoughts instead of a stubborn way to convince others of our beliefs/thoughts? Because let's face it, this isn't going to happen. From my experience on other threads I've learned that people often fail to see the other side of a trade. A very similar thing is happening here. People refuse to see the other side of an argument.

Firewalker,

I am using logic and reasoning to arrive at my conclusions. I think you are using logic and reasoning but arriving at incorrect conclusions. The Flynn effect is the rise in IQ test scores which may be attributable to children attending school longer now and becoming much more familiar with the testing of school-related material. It has nothing at all to do with BIOLOGICAL changes in the brain. If biological intelligence was rising as rapidly as you imply then you would only need to go back a few hundred generations and the average person would be an absolute complete and utter moron with a lower IQ than the dumbest primate on the planet. Project forward a few generations and you make the average person smarter than Einstein.

As you may or may not know, psychologists refer to intelligence in two ways:

Fluid intelligence is the ability to find meaning in confusion and solve new problems. It is the ability to draw inferences and understand the relationships of various concepts, independent of acquired knowledge.

Crystallized intelligence is the ability to use skills, knowledge, and experience. It should not be equated with memory or knowledge, but it does rely on accessing information from long-term memory.

The flaw in many so called ‘IQ’ tests is that they test crystallised intelligence and we know this will increase or vary greatly according to experience and education and knowledge. You can’t increase fluid intelligence in the same way. This is the type of intelligence that interests me most because it is the application of logic and reasoning in new situations rather than use of knowledge and experience. You can’t teach fluid intelligence. People can’t explain how they come up with their ideas or solutions to problems, and often, even if they do, some and even most people just won’t ‘get’ it.

Biology doesn’t give people what they want or don’t want; it is genetics that determines what people get. People don’t want cancer but they get it. People don’t want to grow old but they do. People don’t want wrinkles but they get them. This is very different to wanting to play the piano or wanting to ride a bike. These activities don’t require an alteration of genes. If it were so simple to alter your DNA structure it would be inadmissible in a court of law, yet we know now that DNA is used extensively in criminal trials.

Let’s take 2 people, Person A & Person B.

Person A spends most of their time watching brainless reality shows on TV and holds a simple job like stacking shelves.

Person B on the other hand is more interested in intellectual pursuits. S/he watches only watches quiz shows and documentaries. S/he is interested in puzzle books and solving brain teasers and works in a professional scientific field.

They are both good friends and decide to take the same IQ test. Person A scores 100 and person B scores 135. They both read this thread and consider the possibility of increasing their intelligence. What do you think is the likelihood that person ‘B’ will be able to increase it beyond 135? Do you think that intelligence will only be boosted when a person makes a conscious decision to do so? Or do you think it is something that the brain does all by itself?

Now, let me ask you. Have you taken an IQ test? Do you know what your average IQ is? Have you done anything to try and boost it? Did you fail/ succeed? If you can’t honestly answer these questions then I think I am wasting my time here because we aren’t working from the same benchmark.

 

[PKFFW]

Regardless of my thoughts on the matter, this is a very common reaction from people who are running out of logical rational arguments and choose to walk the path of opinions and red herrings instead of deduction.

I'm attacking temptrader or anybody in specific here. It's just something that happens very often when people (try to) engage in any serious discussion. At some point one side will give up on debating logically. In the reactions to my posts, I've noticed people using straw man's arguments or ignoratio elenchi. It's a common pitfall and we should all try to think about not only the contents of our replies, but also the way we respond to others. I hope this thread can continue an interesting debate in a civilized manner.

Perhaps we could think of this an exchange of ideas/thoughts instead of a stubborn way to convince others of our beliefs/thoughts? Because let's face it, this isn't going to happen. From my experience on other threads I've learned that people often fail to see the other side of a trade. A very similar thing is happening here. People refuse to see the other side of an argument.

Too true Firewalker.

The thing I find most amusing is that nine and temptrader are so vehemently trying to show I am wrong when I have only really suggested that the issue may not be as cut and dried as they believe. I've not said they are definitely wrong or I am right.

That they have their knickers in such a knot about it all when all I'm trying to say is it is best not to declare "this is the way it is" is kind of funny.

Cheers,
PKFFW

 

[firewalker99]

The Flynn effect is the rise in IQ test scores as a result of children attending school longer now and becoming much more familiar with the testing of school-related material.

This is much open for debate and certainly to my knowledge not proven until today. For instance, better and healthier nutrition has been proposed as one of the possibly explanations.

It has nothing at all to do with BIOLOGICAL changes in the brain. If biological intelligence was rising as rapidly as you imply then you would only need to go back a few hundred generations and the average person would be an absolute complete and utter moron with a lower IQ than the dumbest primate on the planet. Project forward a few generations and you make the average person smarter than Einstein.

I agree that such a significant gain cannot be a result of genetic changes (over the short term). Which again favours what I've been trying to defend all along: that social determinism is more important than the genes we are born with. There doesn't need to be a fundamental biological change in people's brains in order for them to get smarter, expand or enhance their abilities and capabilities. All this only supports my premiss that individuals can change and on a larger scale humans are evolving continuously.

As you may or may not know, psychologists refer to intelligence in two ways:

Fluid intelligence ...
Crystallized intelligence...

I'm very glad you brought up the distinction. This was going to be my next point in the argument. Bare with me:

The flaw in many so called ‘IQ’ tests is that they test crystallised intelligence and we know this will increase or vary greatly according to experience and education.

Much to the surprise of scientists - and I would've thought you were aware of that - the increase in scores has not been in the so called crystallised intelligence part!

Because children attend school longer now and have become much more familiar with the testing of school-related material, one might expect the greatest gains to occur on such content-related tests as vocabulary, arithmetic or general information.
Just the opposite is the case: "Crystallized" abilities such as these have experienced relatively small gains and even occasional declines over the years.

How would you explain that?

Biology doesn’t give people what they want or don’t want; it is genetics that determines what people get. People don’t want cancer but they get it. People don’t want to grow old but they do. People don’t want wrinkles but they get them. This is very different to wanting to play the piano or wanting to ride a bike. These activities don’t require an alteration of genes. If it were so simple to alter your DNA structure it would be inadmissible in a court of law, yet we know now that DNA is used extensively in criminal trials.

I'm not sure where you are going with this. Genetics determine what we are born with yes,... but we don't need a transformation to acquire a new skill as you yourself give an example of. Why is learning to play the piano any different to learning calculus? What exactly is it that you are saying? We can learn new things, but we can't get smarter? Don't misunderstand me, I just like to know what exactly it is you are defending, because we seem to be getting away from the original problem. As far as I remember, this all started when you said intelligence is rigid.

 

[new_trader]

Firewalker,

1) You didn't answer my questions about YOUR I.Q and efforts to increase it.

2) We will never get far on this debate simply because we can't even agree on the definition of intelligence.

You equate intelligence with learning whereas I do not. Learning calculus does not make you more intelligent. Leibniz and Newton are geniuses because they pulled ideas together into a coherent whole and they are usually credited with the independent and nearly simultaneous invention of calculus. Newton was the first to apply calculus to general physics and Leibniz developed much of the notation used in calculus today. Do you now see the difference between intelligence and knowledge?

As a physical analogy you are using intelligence to describe a person's weight and I am using it to describe a persons height.

In computer terms, I would describe the brain as the entire computer where the hard disk is crystallised intelligence and the CPU is biological/fluid intelligence. Once the CPU leaves the factory there is nothing that can be done to increase it's processing power because the number of transistors inside it are fixed. You can increase the size of the hard disk and load new applications (learning) but the CPU can only process this at the speed set at the factory. Now, bear in mind this is a tenuous analogy, so please don't introduce clock speeds or any other flaw in the analogy. I'm sure you get the gist.

 

[firewalker99]

Firewalker,

1) You didn't answer my questions about YOUR I.Q and efforts to increase it.

Wait! I am just typing that answer

 

[firewalker99]

Ok, here it is.

Let’s take 2 people, Person A & Person B.

Person A spends most of their time watching brainless reality shows on TV and holds a simple job like stacking shelves.

Person B on the other hand is more interested in intellectual pursuits. S/he watches only watches quiz shows and documentaries. S/he is interested in puzzle books and solving brain teasers and works in a professional scientific field.

They are both good friends and decide to take the same IQ test. Person A scores 100 and person B scores 135. They both read this thread and consider the possibility of increasing their intelligence. What do you think is the likelihood that person ‘B’ will be able to increase it beyond 135? Do you think that intelligence will only be boosted when a person makes a conscious decision to do so? Or do you think it is something that the brain does all by itself?

Now, let me ask you. Have you taken an IQ test? Do you know what your average IQ is? Have you done anything to try and boost it? Did you fail/ succeed? If you can’t honestly answer these questions then I think I am wasting my time here because we aren’t working from the same benchmark.

I don't think we are wasting our time. Unless one of us is trying to convince the other of being right/wrong, which I doubt is going to happen. But in any case, I'm open to suggestions and I'm willing to accept the fact that I'm wrong. But everything I've read and looked at so far, supports my premiss.

Now to answer your question, yes I've taken IQ tests in the past. My results were in the upper 5% segment, but that's really not much relevance here. Besides, I believe IQ has been greatly over exaggerated. You don't need an IQ of +135 to be great at something. I know how IQ tests are made up and I agree that once that a person to a certain extent will be able to train his verbal, numerical or spatial skills to gain points on these tests. So yes, in the past I've tried too boost my results and I succeeded.

In your example, person B will most likely be much more interested in participating in such a test as he enjoys intellectual pursuits. Hence it's a normal to assume he will try his best to boost his results and find for more means to do so. Person A might not be interested in doing so. However, person A would have the most absolute points to gain from this practice. All this doesn't really matters much, as most IQ tests are just a matter of how good one is at solving abstract problems.

The brain can and will react to different impulses. For example, music lessons in school increase IQ (http://www.psychologicalscience.org/pdf/ps/musiciq.pdf). I've already given examples of other causes. The only logical conclusion is that we can change how we are by doing what's best for our brain. Swimmers perform best in the evening and worst in the mornings. Students who are eager to improve and willing to learn, will in effect learn faster and quicker than those who get irritated in the face of difficulty.

I hope I'm not offending anyone with this, because it might be stereotypic, but the example new_trade gave already is, so forgive me.
Person A most likely falls into the category of what Professor of Psychology
Carol Dweck would call "the helpess", while Person B falls into the "master-oriented" one:

"The helpless ones believe that intelligence is a fixed trait: you have only a certain amount, and that’s that. I call this a “fixed mind-set.” Mistakes crack their self-confidence because they attribute errors to a lack of ability, which they feel powerless to change. They avoid challenges because challenges make mistakes more likely and looking smart less so.

The mastery-oriented children, think intelligence is malleable and can be developed through education and hard work. They want to learn above all else. After all, if you believe that you can expand your intellectual skills, you want to do just that. Challenges are energizing rather than intimidating; they offer opportunities to learn. Students with such a growth mind-set, were destined for greater academic success and were quite likely to outperform their counterparts."​

 

[firewalker99]

Firewalker,

2) We will never get far on this debate simply because we can't even agree on the definition of intelligence.

That's right, perhaps we have travelled to far away from the path by discussing IQ tests.

 

[new_trader]

Much to the surprise of scientists - and I would've thought you were aware of that - the increase in scores has not been in the so called crystallised intelligence part!

This supports my hypothesis that intelligence cannot be increased. The increases don't prove there is an actual increase in intelligence. They prove there is a better understanding of IQ tests themselves. Remember what I said about saturation?

Now have you or haven't you tested your IQ?

Have you or haven't you been able to boost it?

 

[firewalker99]

In computer terms, I would describe the brain as the entire computer where the hard disk is crystallised intelligence and the CPU is biological/fluid intelligence. Once the CPU leaves the factory there is nothing that can be done to increase it's processing power because the number of transistors inside it are fixed. You can increase the size of the hard disk and load new applications (learning) but the CPU can only process this at the speed set at the factory. Now, bear in mind this is a tenuous analogy, so please don't introduce clock speeds or any other flaw in the analogy. I'm sure you get the gist.

Ok, I won't debunk your analogy because analogies only go as far as they go. No problem, I understand what you are saying.

But you didn't exactly respond to the part that I found most significant: which is that the research results show in fact that not crystallised intelligence was the factor that changed or increased, but in fact fluid was! Most of that is contained in the link I posted earlier on. So, are you know saying this research is invalid or that the means of measuring aren't suited for determine what it is we are trying to either confirm or deny?

 

[temptrader]

1: You think what I am talking about is illrelevant.
2: You think what I am talking about is impossible.

No, sir, it's just that you are totally and utterly miss guided, that is all.

It's not that what you are talking is irrelevant, it is not that what you are talking is impossible. It's what that you are talking is unfalsifiable.

Now let me break down why you think the above and how you go about proving your point.

1: Current scientific reasoning hasn't proven the theories I have put forward here. Ergo, by your logic, they simply are not true.
2: Rather than deal with the theories and points raised you ignore them and chose tiny bits and pieces that are easy to ridicule or give another explanation for.
3: You repeat your mantra of "I don't think it is relevant or possible" over and over in the hope that repetition will breed belief.

1. For a theory to be a theory, it requires testing within a framework of reference. It requires consistent replicability in accordance with this theory. If that can not be, it is not a theory, and is of no practice use to anyone.
2. Explanations and proofs? From what I gather about you, you won't know an explanation and proof if it slapped red paint on your forehead.
3. Whether something is "relevant or possible" does no necessarily make it provable. Goldbach's conjecture appears to be relevant and provable but no mathematician on this earth can prove it with the means we have now. And until it is provable, we cannot call it a theorem, even though a lot of numerical evidence favours it, and no numerical evidence has yet falsified it. Physics is slightly lenient, because generally all you require is falsification.

If you were Mr Newton living in the 17th century, how would you like it if someone who only read bits of your work propose that light is the same speed within all inertial frames, or that one day it is possible to split the atom and harness that energy, and offer no proof or background to go about this and instead talk a load of total BS about "willing" and "positive thinking"? Notwithstanding that the person is right, of what f*cking practical use would it be in the 17th century when all the groundwork has not even been laid yet?

Science deals with the falsifiable, it deals with the testable, it deals with the practical. It is basically harnessing practical repeatable patterns that we can use to our advantage. It gives us a common language and procedure to test our theories within a practical framework. And from that theorizing and testing we can start to advance and produce ever important technologies. Nothing more, really.

 

[firewalker99]

This supports my hypothesis that intelligence cannot be increased. The increases don't prove there is an actual increase in intelligence. They prove there is a better understanding of IQ tests themselves. Remember what I said about saturation?

The fact that we can increase fluid intelligence should come as a surprise to someone who said we cannot change it? Also you said yourself crystallised intelligence doesn't imply intelligence per se because of what it tests. Yet somehow you now say that it proves that there is no such actual increase. Either you agree it tests something different, but you can't use the result for both arguments, as they are mutually exclusive.

Now have you or haven't you tested your IQ?

Have you or haven't you been able to boost it?

See other post.

 

[new_trader]

Ok, I won't debunk your analogy because analogies only go as far as they go. No problem, I understand what you are saying.

But you didn't exactly respond to the part that I found most significant: which is that the research results show in fact that not crystallised intelligence was the factor that changed or increased, but in fact fluid was! Most of that is contained in the link I posted earlier on. So, are you know saying this research is invalid or that the means of measuring aren't suited for determine what it is we are trying to either confirm or deny?

No, I am saying their are many problems with the research because there isn't a valid 'control'. I like IQ tests and think they are valid if properly standardised. The problem as I see it is there is only about 100 years of empirical evidence. "In 1905 the French psychologist Alfred Binet published the first modern intelligence test."

So, the question is, at any point in history would we have seen the same level of increases as described by the Flynn effect? IMO 3 points per decade is just too fast to be attributable to biological development. If you project that back a few generations it would place the Paleolithic Period only a few hundred years ago.

 

[new_trader]

One more thing firewalker. I didn't say intelligence is rigid. I said that there is a biological limit that is determined by a person's genes. I hope this NOW clears up my position. I said repeatedly that there are flaws in IQ measurement and that these flaws can be exploited to give an 'apparent' increase in IQ level. But, even these 'tricks' have limits and once everyone knows the flaws and tests are re-standardised your IQ will revert to its proper relative level. IQ is not an absolute measure of brain processing power it is a relative score, a comparison between you and the rest or the population. If tests are properly standardised a person’s relative intelligence in comparison to everyone else should never change. THAT is what IQ is. I know, I sometimes use intelligence and IQ interchangeably, but I shouldn’t.

 

[firewalker99]

No, I am saying their are many problems with the research because there isn't a valid 'control'. I like IQ tests and think they are valid if properly standardised. The problem as I see it is there is only about 100 years of empirical evidence. "In 1905 the French psychologist Alfred Binet published the first modern intelligence test."

So, the question is, at any point in history would we have seen the same level of increases as described by the Flynn effect? IMO 3 points per decade is just too fast to be attributable to biological development. If you project that back a few generations it would place the Paleolithic Period only a few hundred years ago.

Agreed, that would be an interesting thing to look into. Unfortunately, we can't do that anymore. However, I never attributed those 3pts increase to biological development. If anything, I believe it is a matter of how the environment has an impact on us. The point is that we can change over time, given we are capable of putting an enormous amount of effort, hard work and time into achieving certain goals.

Biological determinism says that the genes completely determine how a person or system behaves, evolves or changes over time. I don't know to what extent you are willing to assume this hypothesis. For instance, do you really believe that we are born geniuses or born criminals?

 

[firewalker99]

One more thing firewalker. I didn't say intelligence is rigid. I said that there is a biological limit that is determined by a person's genes. I hope this NOW clears up my position. I said repeatedly that there are flaws in IQ measurement and that these flaws can be exploited to give an 'apparent' increase in IQ level. But, even these 'tricks' have limits and once everyone knows the flaws and tests are re-standardised your IQ will revert to its proper relative level. IQ is not an absolute measure of brain processing power it is a relative score, a comparison between you and the rest or the population. If tests are properly standardised a person’s relative intelligence in comparison to everyone else should never change. THAT is what IQ is. I know, I sometimes use intelligence and IQ interchangeably, but I shouldn’t.

Much clearer. We might even agree on some parts