"Ed Seedhouse" wrote in message
...
On 17 Oct 2006 09:34:27 -0700, wrote:


I assure you that you are wrong. If you take any group of top
performers in any intellectual activity - be it chess, math, science,
poetry, management, law, etc - their IQ score will be several standard
deviations above 100.

I am amazed that intelligent people can dispute this obvious fact.
There must be some severe brain damage, caused by perverted political
correctness, that is responsible for such blindness to the obvious.

Actually, truly intelligent people will notice how not one shred of
evidence is provided in the referred post for these claims. There's a
reason for that...

I have just begun correspondence with a PhD student from India who wants to
make a new chess study. I began with trying to find significant ground that
is well covered, so as usual quoted Dutchman Adrian de Groot whose work
seems to be appreciated at only a perfunctory level [perhaps since it is
currently so counter-culture in implication for educators], but also Howard
Gardner of Harvard, whose multiple intelligence theory is now well-known to
mainstream educators. Significantly Gardner chooses chess as an illustration
for one of his 'intelligences'.

Also significant is that Gardner's thesis is the specific naming and
description of a plurality of intelligences, whereas Binet's idea is a
deliberately generalised one.

Phil Innes

On 17 Oct 2006 22:55:42 -0700, wrote:


Sorry for the slight tangent...talk about the power of hypertext: I
happened onto this newsgroup googling's the legitimacy of someone's
claims about being a former national champion, from that I bumped into
this post, which prompted me to look up Rubinstein, which brought me to
this link

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1119679

Sorry if this has been discussed before, but

* the page states Rubinstein's move 22 (Rxc3) was given !!! (and I can
see why)
* but wouldn't Rd2 at 22 had been just as good? Regardless of what
white does afterwards I can't discern an outcome that doesn't lead to a
Bxe4 and eventual checkmate in 2/3 moves, or there's something I'm not
seeing here? (most likely, since I'm not a great chess player).

And if White just chops the Rook ? Now ... Rxc3 doesn't work because
White can take the Bishop at b7.

"Sanny" wrote in message
oups.com...
A person in Africa can never tell about Streets in Japan, Simmilarly
a person in Japan can never tell about cities in Africa.

So IQ should be tested depending on occupation and region the person
lives in.

IQ has nothing to do with streets in Japan or cities in Africa.

When I gave IQ Test when I was in School I got an IQ of "125". In that
I was asked What is capital of Australia. Where is Effile Tower
Situated, Where is Panama Canal etc.

Is true! For example I would have to guess Panama Canal was in Panama, if I
never went there to know by personal experience or never read geography. But
the question is not completely crazy, since what is being tested?

It could be logic, ie, Panama canal is named for the place, Panama.
It could be memory, if you remember where canal is.
But if you didn't read geography then its not always possible to answer this
type of question - ie, where is Lake Champlain? Because the Lake is named
for a person, not a place.

Therefore, is this part of IQ test a measure of geographical knowledge
remembered?

---------

Other questions are self-inferential, either singly or as a group,

When was the War of 1812?
Who wrote Beethoven's 5th symphony.

--in multiple choice papers it is common to encounter these pairings

What is wool made out of?
What grows on sheep?

So if a person has never gone outside his town or read geography he
will never be able to answer these questions.

Recently I audited a curriculm for 11th grade students studying American
Literature. I had not read ANY of the books, but still scored 90%. How is
that possible when the course is intended as text-book based? Evidently I
knew enough from general knowledge and some logical determinations to score
an 'A' without reading these particular text-books. So was the test just on
literature, and was its 'American' nature simply the means to score grammar,
comprehension, etc?

If the "I" in IQ is taken to mean [is generally understood to mean]
'logical' intelligence [a left-brain process] then what you describe is not
a measure of that, but of memory alone [and which hemisphere is that?]. How
much of IQ testing is a measure of memory alone?

If that much relates to memory, it must also be said that it is culturally
selected memory, since some cultures may not stress geography.

As to logical measurements:-

Anyone interested in underscoring at IQ tests might read The Oxford Murders,
which is a drama resolving on logical determinations, but which illustrates
something about Godel's theorum. Often people give correct answers which are
marked wrong, not because they are not consequent [correct] answers, but
they are unusually correct answers! In fact more scientifically central to
mathematical reasoning than the ostensibly 'correct' answer.

For example, on IQ tests only one answer was permitted for the following:-

Complete the series: 2, 4, 8, ....

How many correct answers are there? Of all correct answers justify which one
you would choose to complete the series.

Phil Innes

Bye
Sanny.

Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html

On 18 Oct 2006 09:57:26 +0100 (BST), David Richerby
wrote:

Ed Seedhouse wrote:
wrote:
I assure you that you are wrong. If you take any group of top
performers in any intellectual activity - be it chess, math,
science, poetry, management, law, etc - their IQ score will be
several standard deviations above 100.

I am amazed that intelligent people can dispute this obvious fact.
There must be some severe brain damage, caused by perverted
political correctness, that is responsible for such blindness to
the obvious.

Actually, truly intelligent people will notice how not one shred of
evidence is provided in the referred post for these claims. There's
a reason for that...

Though I note you haven't cited any evidence, either. Surely somebody
must have done a study indicating that there's no significant
correlation between IQ and chess ability.

The person who makes the claim is the one who is required to supply
evidence. I am merely pointing out it's absence here. Anyone can
disprove me simply by providing such evidence. Yet each time this
subject has come up over the years and I point out that there is no
evidence, no evidence has ever been presented. I think there's a reason
for that.

If you want to know what actually correlates with chess skill (or great
skill in most any field), it was well covered in one of the recent
issues of Scientific American which relates several studies on the
subject. None of them find any relationship between brilliance at
chess, or indeed any particular endeavor, and a "high I.Q.", let alone a
causal relationship.

Remember that correlation does not prove causation. But no one has yet
even provided evidence of a simple correlation, let alone causality.

The actual evidence indicates rather that great skill at chess is a
result of a whole lot of effortful study and practice.

On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 10:53:42 GMT, "Chess One"
wrote:

Actually, truly intelligent people will notice how not one shred of
evidence is provided in the referred post for these claims. There's a
reason for that...

I have just begun correspondence with a PhD student from India who wants to
make a new chess study.

Fine - let him do it and report the results to the scientific community.
I began with trying to find significant ground that
is well covered, so as usual quoted Dutchman Adrian de Groot whose work
seems to be appreciated at only a perfunctory level [perhaps since it is
currently so counter-culture in implication for educators], but also Howard
Gardner of Harvard, whose multiple intelligence theory is now well-known to
mainstream educators. Significantly Gardner chooses chess as an illustration
for one of his 'intelligences'.

There are recent studies which show that great skill in chess is largely
a result of lots of effortful study and practice. These are reported in
a recent issue of Scientific American and are easily available at your
local public library to anyone who is interested in actual evidence, as
opposed to empty claims.

None of these studies supports a correlation between "I.Q." and chess
skill, let alone causation. However I predict that this will not change
the opinions of the "I.Q." true believers who post in this forum.

On 18 Oct 2006 02:03:52 -0700, wrote:


Does VKarlamov approve of the 1994 book, 'The Bell Curve: Intelligence
and Class Structure in American Life', by Richard Herrnstein and
Charles Murray?

"The Bell Curve" is well-known pseudoscience, and anyone who relies on
it to support an argument will rapidly become a laughingstock.

Ed Seedhouse wrote:
Nick wrote:
Does VKarlamov approve of the 1994 book, 'The Bell Curve: Intelligence
and Class Structure in American Life', by Richard Herrnstein and
Charles Murray?

wrote:
I don't remember details but it did seem like an intelligent book.

Given that VKarlamov has writen 'There must be some severe
brain damage, caused by perverted political correctness,
that is responsible for such blindness to the obvious' (about
IQ scores), it seems hardly surprising that VKarlamov seems
to have been impressed by 'The Bell Curve'.

"The Bell Curve" is well-known pseudoscience,

I regard 'The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in
American Life' by Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray
as pseudoscience in the service of political propaganda.

and anyone who relies on it to support an argument
will rapidly become a laughingstock.

As far as I can recall reading, 'The Bell Curve' did receive
positive reviews in several American publications (which
were sympathetic to the authors' evident political agenda).
But academic journals had much more critical reviews.

As I recall, a black scholar (who had been on cordial
terms personally with Richard Herrnstein) wrote that
he was quite disappointed that Herrnstein had come
to such racist conclusions in 'The Bell Curve'.

For further reading:

'The Bell Curve Debate: History, Documents, Opinions'
edited by Russell Jacoby and Naomi Glauberman

'The Bell Curve War: Race, Intelligence, and the
Future of America' edited by Steven Fraser

--Nick

Nick wrote:
Ed Seedhouse wrote:
Nick wrote:
Does VKarlamov approve of the 1994 book, 'The Bell Curve: Intelligence
and Class Structure in American Life', by Richard Herrnstein and
Charles Murray?

wrote:
I don't remember details but it did seem like an intelligent book.

Given that VKarlamov has writen 'There must be some severe
brain damage, caused by perverted political correctness,
that is responsible for such blindness to the obvious' (about
IQ scores), it seems hardly surprising that VKarlamov seems
to have been impressed by 'The Bell Curve'.

"The Bell Curve" is well-known pseudoscience,

I regard 'The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in
American Life' by Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray
as pseudoscience in the service of political propaganda.

and anyone who relies on it to support an argument
will rapidly become a laughingstock.

As far as I can recall reading, 'The Bell Curve' did receive
positive reviews in several American publications (which
were sympathetic to the authors' evident political agenda).
But academic journals had much more critical reviews.

As I recall, a black scholar (who had been on cordial
terms personally with Richard Herrnstein) wrote that
he was quite disappointed that Herrnstein had come
to such racist conclusions in 'The Bell Curve'.

For further reading:

'The Bell Curve Debate: History, Documents, Opinions'
edited by Russell Jacoby and Naomi Glauberman

'The Bell Curve War: Race, Intelligence, and the
Future of America' edited by Steven Fraser

--Nick

Nick,
Hasn't it been theorized that many current IQ tests are sociologically
biased to Eurocentric cutlures?
Rob

Rob wrote:
Nick wrote:
Ed Seedhouse wrote:
Nick wrote:
Does VKarlamov approve of the 1994 book, 'The Bell Curve: Intelligence
and Class Structure in American Life', by Richard Herrnstein and
Charles Murray?

wrote:
I don't remember details but it did seem like an intelligent book.

Given that VKarlamov has written 'There must be some severe
brain damage, caused by perverted political correctness,
that is responsible for such blindness to the obvious' (about
IQ scores), it seems hardly surprising that VKarlamov seems
to have been impressed by 'The Bell Curve'.

"The Bell Curve" is well-known pseudoscience,

I regard 'The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in
American Life' by Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray
as pseudoscience in the service of political propaganda.

and anyone who relies on it to support an argument
will rapidly become a laughingstock.

As far as I can recall reading, 'The Bell Curve' did receive
positive reviews in several American publications (which
were sympathetic to the authors' evident political agenda).
But academic journals had much more critical reviews.

As I recall, a black scholar (who had been on cordial
terms personally with Richard Herrnstein) wrote that
he was quite disappointed that Herrnstein had come
to such racist conclusions in 'The Bell Curve'.

For further reading:

'The Bell Curve Debate: History, Documents, Opinions'
edited by Russell Jacoby and Naomi Glauberman

'The Bell Curve War: Race, Intelligence, and the
Future of America' edited by Steven Fraser

The correct title is 'The Bell Curve Wars...'

Hasn't it been theorized that many current IQ tests
are sociologically biased to Eurocentric cutlures?

IQ tests have been criticised for being biased
on account of class, culture, race, and/or sex.

I consider it self-evident that the people who design
IQ tests would be satisfied with such tests only if
they themselves could score well enough on them.

Let's suppose that Herr Doktor Professor Ubermensch
designed an IQ test for which he was disappointed with
his score. Would he be more likely to think that
1) "There must be something wrong with me!
I am less intelligent than I had thought." or
2) "There must be something wrong with this test!" ?

--Nick

Sanny wrote:

...

So if a person has never gone outside his town or read geography he
will never be able to answer these questions.

Flawed rational Sanny - for ex: man sits outside mud-hut in
deepest/darkest Efrica, listening to radio Zambesi, broadcaster
announces that exhibitionist arrested after 'bungee' jumping the Eifel
Tower in Paris. Ergo! mud-hutter is now aware Tower in Paris, & Paris
capital of French real-estate - also don't forget TV & 'puter
dissemination of general data. Do you see now?..