On IQ and "smart" and trolling around it

You can talk about anything related to Wikipedia criticism here.
Post Reply
User avatar
Abd
Sucks Warrior
Posts: 708
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 11:22 pm
Has thanked: 68 times
Been thanked: 31 times

On IQ and "smart" and trolling around it

Post by Abd » Tue Jan 28, 2020 10:47 pm

Both Vigilant and Oliver Smith have written allegations about me and "IQ."
Vigilant on Reddit
Well, you see...

Abd aka Dennis George Lomax will tell you that he's got an IQ of nearly 160 and that he sat in on lectures with Feynmann and so he's terribly, terribly smart and it must be that you're just not bright enough to understand his genius gibberish
I have never told anyone that, like that, nor would I. In fact, I would tell someone that if they don't understand what I've written, ask for clarification. I would never think of a failure to understand as being due to a person not being "bright enough." That's rude. It is possible that a person doesn't have the background to understand, but they could be supported in understanding if they ask. I would also never say that I have "an 1Q of nearly 160." If I said it somewhere, it was an error, and here is why:

IQ, Intelligence Quotient, is a test result, not something that someone "has." It measures something, to be sure, but what it measures is controversial. So the fact is that my IQ was measured once, when I was in high school, maybe 15 or 16 years old, and the test result was, as I recall, 157. With that and 25 cents, at that time, I could have gotten a ride on the subway.

Yes, that's very high. If it was accurate, that would place me well into the top 0.1% of people my age at that time in performance on that test.
I might also be "terribly smart" and be a terrible writer who does not know how to explain things so that "ordinary humans" will understand them, and that would be my responsibility.

There are people who do understand what I write. Are they "smarter" than others? Maybe. Or maybe they are not loaded with preconceptions that inhibit understanding. Or maybe something else.

Yes, I sat through Feynman's 1961-63 lecture series. More to the point here is what it took to have that opportunity. Performance in high school. Interview with Cal Tech representative. SAT scores also off the charts. (Verbal aptitude 794/800, Math aptitude, 784/800, Math Achievement 800/800 -- which was relatively common at Cal Tech.) National Merit Scholar. Full scholarship.

None of that gives me the right to claim that I am correct about something "because I'm so smart," and such a claim would be offensive.

Nevertheless, I sometimes write about, ah, unusual topics, and might use terms very familiar to me and not to some readers. But that's not about the readers not being "bright," It would be a simple and remediable communication failure.

If the reader isn't interested in the topic, they will likely not tolerate exposure to it. If a reader is actually averse, if what is being said seems to them to contradict what they "know," it is even less likely they will understand, because it takes patience and detachment to move ahead in those conditions, and if it's complicated with hostility, the probability of successful communication falls even lower.

But first contact understanding of some of what I write in some areas is not necessarily common. Yet someone like Dysklyver seems to understand immediately. And Vigilant has written about my answers to questions in r/sudoku as dismissing the people there as stupid, when, in fact, I get thanks from newcomers and others constantly. I also get obvious signs of gratitude on Quora (it is measurable there) where people who ask questions appreciate detailed answers. So Vigilant is blowing smoke, as he always does.

Oliver D. Smith wrote:
Have you not realised yet no one believe a word you say?
I mean… take this example:
“When I was in high school, my intelligence was measured at 157, which was more or less off the charts, the test was not designed for that.”
An IQ of 157? Albert Einstein had an IQ of~ 160.
Your posts are always filled with blatant absurdities like this.
Apparently Einstein's IQ was never measured. So that's an estimate people have made, which could be wildly off. People who are not-so-smart have strange ideas about what intelligence means.

Smith takes a factual claim (a test result) and rejects it as absurd, which is what stupid people do (more accurately, people attached to their own ignorance and arrogance). If that test result were from some anomaly, it would be meaningless, but the claim still factual. As quoted, I deprecated possible interpretations.

Yet there is plenty of evidence indicating I'm not exactly "normal."

And so what? If we look closely enough, "normal" is an illusion, it's all relative, and people are both unique and alike.

Smith went on about this:
The people with IQ’s above 150 are notable savants and geniuses. That totally excludes you; anyone who looks at your website and your own biography can see you aren’t a savant or genius.

But thanks for once again proving you are a massive liar.
"Anyone"? Doesn't it "take one to know one"?

But I did not claim that my IQ was 157, only that a test score was that, over sixty years ago. This is typical with Smith -- who is now allied strongly with Vigilant.

Take what someone says and distort it to create a desired impression. It has been working less and less for him, he is now widely known and rejected. But, hey, it seems Vigilant believes him and his brother!

In this line:
Are you still claiming you were a midwife (whose heard of a male midwife) who delivered hundreds of babies? lol
Right. He's never heard of it, so proof that it's a lie. Ignorance as evidence, lovely. I responded in more detail there.

I don't claim I delivered hundreds of babies. I assisted in about 30 births. I delivered the last four of my biological children, and I had the advice (but not the presence) of an obstetrician for the first of these home births (and his assistance in later work, until he died). He also did the prenatal care for us, and later, we insisted on all mothers having professional prenatal care).

He said that "God delivers the baby, the woman gets out of the way, and the doctor is the Messiah." Medical humor, but carrying some truth. When a doctor delivered my wife's first child in San Francisco, I wanted to kiss him! It was so amazing and I was so grateful!

In fact, he'd made many mistakes and was basically an asshole, and when we realized that, this led us to consider home birth for the next. And the rest was history. Because we had done it, people asked us to help. I founded the Arizona School of Midwifery and my ex-wife was licensed and delivered about 200 before she left the state. That School accomplished its mission, from a later journal article I cite on that blog comment section.

User avatar
ericbarbour
Sucks Admin
Posts: 1882
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 1:56 am
Has thanked: 46 times
Been thanked: 119 times

Re: On IQ and "smart" and trolling around it

Post by ericbarbour » Sun Feb 02, 2020 5:47 am

Saying it again: people in the psychology/behaviorism fields have long joked that IQ tests measure only one thing: talent for taking IQ tests. Human intelligence is far too complicated to be described with a bunch of multiple-choice questions. The same has been said (sometimes VERY contemptuously) of the SAT and ACT. For that matter, I always thought the Myers-Briggs personality thing was absurdly pat and basically useless. Our society is basically corrupt and prefers to promulgate simple-minded, cheap, and often questionable methods of categorizing human beings. Ultimately economics and the need to exploit labor ends up controlling the situation.

(You know who loves to quote their Myers-Briggs scores? Certain early extra-nerdy Wikipedians. Might as well be a dating website. Oops, almost forgot: VIGINA.)

User avatar
Abd
Sucks Warrior
Posts: 708
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 11:22 pm
Has thanked: 68 times
Been thanked: 31 times

Re: On IQ and "smart" and trolling around it

Post by Abd » Sun Feb 02, 2020 4:47 pm

ericbarbour wrote:
Sun Feb 02, 2020 5:47 am
Saying it again: people in the psychology/behaviorism fields have long joked that IQ tests measure only one thing: talent for taking IQ tests. Human intelligence is far too complicated to be described with a bunch of multiple-choice questions.

The same has been said (sometimes VERY contemptuously) of the SAT and ACT.
Yes.

However, contempt betrays reactivity and attachment. A martial artist never holds contempt for an opponent, it can be fatal. Presence and knowledge are not at all contempt, they are practically opposites.
For that matter, I always thought the Myers-Briggs personality thing was absurdly pat and basically useless. Our society is basically corrupt and prefers to promulgate simple-minded, cheap, and often questionable methods of categorizing human beings. Ultimately economics and the need to exploit labor ends up controlling the situation.
Well that's one story. I suggest caution as to belief in any story. In ontological training, stories are distinguished as invented by humans. They obviously serve purposes, or did. But when stories become beliefs, they can paralyze and inhibit growth. What we become interested in, when we awaken to stories being human creations, not existing in reality, is the effect of a story. Does it inspire or does it disempower? Does it make us laugh or hate? Without that understanding, we are generally obsessed with figuring out if a story is "true" or "false." And all stories are neither. Including this one.
(You know who loves to quote their Myers-Briggs scores? Certain early extra-nerdy Wikipedians. Might as well be a dating website. Oops, almost forgot: VIGINA.)
Without a link, it's a rumor. This is not a debate nor is it a Wikipedia article, and we are free to express personal experience and opinion without any "proof" at all. But links are always appreciated. With a link, your knowledge is transferred, which is much more valuable than your opinions, even as valuable as your opinions are, Dear Leader.

User avatar
Graaf Statler
Side Troll
Posts: 3996
Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2017 4:20 pm

Re: On IQ and "smart" and trolling around it

Post by Graaf Statler » Mon Feb 03, 2020 6:44 pm

IQ? I have read somewhere Einstein had once said if you ask a fish to clime in a tree that fish looks pretty stupide.

User avatar
sashi
Sucks Critic
Posts: 283
Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2017 2:01 am
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 5 times

Re: On IQ and "smart" and trolling around it

Post by sashi » Mon Feb 03, 2020 7:11 pm

The Count wrote:IQ? I have read somewhere Einstein had once said if you ask a fish to clime in a tree that fish looks pretty stupide.
(or like sushi)

-- shashi

Post Reply