安装 Steam
登录
|
语言
繁體中文（繁体中文）
日本語（日语）
한국어（韩语）
ไทย（泰语）
български（保加利亚语）
Čeština（捷克语）
Dansk（丹麦语）
Deutsch（德语）
English（英语）
Español-España（西班牙语 - 西班牙）
Español - Latinoamérica（西班牙语 - 拉丁美洲）
Ελληνικά（希腊语）
Français（法语）
Italiano（意大利语）
Bahasa Indonesia（印度尼西亚语）
Magyar（匈牙利语）
Nederlands（荷兰语）
Norsk（挪威语）
Polski（波兰语）
Português（葡萄牙语 - 葡萄牙）
Português-Brasil（葡萄牙语 - 巴西）
Română（罗马尼亚语）
Русский（俄语）
Suomi（芬兰语）
Svenska（瑞典语）
Türkçe（土耳其语）
Tiếng Việt（越南语）
Українська（乌克兰语）
报告翻译问题
讨论规则及指引
举报此帖
I failed my I.Q. test.
Apparently ripping off my clothes and running around in my underwear screaming "This is SPARTA!" at all the other people in the room is not the correct answer to what hole the star shape goes into.
So someone could have a, intelligence score of 80 in mathematics, but 155 in spatial perception, 115 in science, 15 in social skills, and 120 in critical thinking and so on... With none of it being "averaged" together into a single score like the more flawed I.Q. testing does.
Most people's exposure to "I.Q." testing is usually nothing more than a single multiple choice test of various subjects, a few word problems, and a trivia section that is really no better than a facebook quiz that then pumps out a single number to cover all areas.
What is even more interesting is the history of I.Q. testing being used for very dark and evil reasons including genocide and forced sterilization.
They have proven predictive value.
They do not, however, act to state what practical value any human being may have in society. THAT is not their purpose, yet many people imply that from their results.
Mathematical ability has been found to be of good predictive quality in terms of one's overall "intelligence." It is not the only predictor, though.
They also do not act as a predictor for "possible" success, even within those skills they directly measure. Outliers, unique individuals, unique situations, aren't always so very unique and "luck" is pretty common for people who are able to maximize its potential...
There are many highly desirable qualities we value in human beings that are not measured by an I.Q. test.
Related: IMO, notions of general intelligence being split and given other qualities, like "Emotional Intelligence" and the like... are generally not worthy of intense consideration and may not have much value or predictive quality. They could, however, indicate mental disorders at their most extreme, which begs the question of whether or not they're not actually "generally" applicable in any normal sense. Many people suffering from certain things can excel in certain behaviors... That does not mean they are "more intelligent" in these... things. It's something else that drives that rather than some shared intellectual quotient humans possess.
the issue is our ability to make decisions is based as much on our wisdom as intellec,t and IQ doesn't care for that.
But beyond that you have to start wondering what makes a Plato or Einstein different from some materialistic human calculator with 200 IQ. And what makes an idiot-savantic artificial neural network different from conscious genius, as well.
Hyperbole: Assume remote-viewing real in a higher-dimensional sense, possibly necessitating the presence of consciousness. How then could an unconscious AI ever compete, no matter how well-trained and oversized its artificial neural network is? It'd be like bringing a knife to a gunfight. The AI would need more than just an exponential increase in artificial neurons in order to compete in the "real world," beyond one-dimensional games such as chess.
Meaning: It's entirely plausible that you can make up for the lack of "IQ" in other regards. As it's not exactly known to what degree the IQ is just the proverbial knife in a gunfight. And today's AI doesn't even have a real knife, but an oversized toothpick.
Then sans hyperbole: The world is proven to be at least 4-dimensional. And if some test only concerns itself with lower dimensional or highly linear problems that don't necessarily require consciousness or abstract reasoning... You're testing for a knife. But that's just a sidearm. Plato and Einstein bring a gun. They don't need a Katana.
I really like that psychology believes it an argument to declare people ill if they disagree.
"If you question the validity of sexually repressed anal phases, then you're schizoid!"
It's nothing but a Kafka trap at that point. When rejecting something is merely evidence of your guilt. As a matter of fact, I'm pretty sure that's exactly the reason why people such as Popper disliked psychology. Because you cannot falsify it without being declared "guilty."
So clearly the IQ is a knife. And an excessively high IQ is arguably a Katana. But Plato and Einstein use a gun. They don’t need a Katana. A regular knife does the trick for them. It’s why it becomes ultimately pointless to test for “IQ” as such, above some threshold. As is evidenced by people with excessive IQs never amounting to anything, even if they spend their entire life researching. And certainly the same would go for excessively propped up machine learning algorithms.
Pure neural networks as sockets (knives) are already outdated. And clearly the conscious self is a gemstone (gun) within.
But the money can survive better than you in the jungle. They know which fruit to eat, which tree brunch is strong or weak. They can imagine how a tiger will attack and defend themselves. What a human can do is just to visualize this silly circle divide and nothing else, and it can all be learned from a math book. Isn't the monkey with survival instinct smarter and the IQ test pointless?
The answer is no. If there are 5000 monkeys and 5000 humans in the same jungle, overtime humans will conquer, setting up their tribes and weapons. So I think the blind spot is that we try to argue about the test credibility with results from just 1 person. The high IQ person cannot do a lot of things. Sometimes a low IQ person can do better. Because life depends on a lot of other factors.
The IQ test is legit, it can be consider smart if we can divide the circle to 3 equal parts, or 10 equal parts. But the smart person will need other smart things around him to deliver results, just like a smart programmer with many good formulas needing a computer. The test is only a starting point that determines that you have that creative room, and that is the whole purpose of the test. For example if you know that your child has extraordinary high IQ, you might try giving him piano lessons, chess or to explore other things and create a miracle.