Take a sample Wonderlic test/Manziel aces it

[ramsrams]

When you're smart enough to understand you're stupid, that's progress.

 

[brokeu91]

How do I get to be gifted---I want that; I am a lead guitarist, but I don't wanna brag cause I can jam out the Stones and talk a coherent conversation at the same time (Broadcast news)

I don't want to totally get into it, but it's my awesomeness. My awesomeness was not developed, it was just innate. I wish everyone was as humble, modest, and awesome as I am.

I actually ended up going to the school for the gifted because my parents couldn't afford to send me to parochial school (which is where I was previously going). They didn't want me going to the regular public school system, because it was terrible, so I had to apply for it. It was based on standardized test scores and grades. There were many people in that school who were much smarter than me-for instance two people who I graduated with are physics professors-one at MIT and the other Univ of Michigan.

 

[Stranger]

Consider this classic example illustrating the limitations of binary logic (or two-valued logic or mathematical logic or whatever). A person makes the statement, "I always lie." If true, the person was lying when they made the statement, and the statement is a contradiction. Yet, if the statement is true, then the person is also contradicting him|herself. This is known as the Liar's Paradox. It illustrates that simple logical systems with only a few values (true|false, yes|no, 1|0, in|out, etc.) to establish truth are not rich enough to handle the complexities of real life that allows seeming paradoxes like the above.

Another logical oversimplification and one more germane to sports is the failure of the transitive property of inequality when applied to real life. Team A beats Team B; Team B beats Team C; therefore, Team A necessarily will beat Team C. Of course, we know there is no guarantee there for the same reason as above. Simple systems like most mathematical systems are not rich enough to analyze the complexities of real life where there are so many variables involved.

Other difficulties involve things like division by zero. The standard answer of division of a non-zero term by zero being undefined is really unsatisfactory. If we divide the number 12 (the dividend) by 4 (divisor), it is easy to regard this is computing that it would take 3 (quotient) groups of 4 to comprise the number 12. So division can be viewed as deciding how many groups (quotient) of the divisor are needed to make up the dividend. However, if one divides a number, say 5, by zero, the standard answer of undefined or positive infinity is unsatisfactory since it is fairly obvious that one can never find any groups of zero that will make up the desired result of 5.

Don't get me started on the philosophical difficulties with infinity.

thanks for posting. just awesome material

 

[Stranger]

I don't want to totally get into it, but it's my awesomeness. My awesomeness was not developed, it was just innate. I wish everyone was as humble, modest, and awesome as I am.

I actually ended up going to the school for the gifted because my parents couldn't afford to send me to parochial school (which is where I was previously going). They didn't want me going to the regular public school system, because it was terrible, so I had to apply for it. It was based on standardized test scores and grades. There were many people in that school who were much smarter than me-for instance two people who I graduated with are physics professors-one at MIT and the other Univ of Michigan.

i would argue that we all have such innate ability, it's just that some abilities are more recognized by human created institutions, like MIT.

 

[bluecoconuts]

So, individual human observation plays no role. There is objective fact outside the human experience, and either we all see it the same way or we do not?. Is that your argument?

Let me share with you an alternative view, one espoused by the late head of the University of Illinois Bio-Computing Lab...



@2:10

Interviewer: "But science, and your own resarch... those are not just inventions or good stories? Surely, they're based on mathematics, on numbers, on provability, on indisputable scientific data?"

Heinz: "Well, yes, but these days there is already so much data that it is no longer possible to include all the different data in your 'story'. And then artificial data is invented. For example, 'particles'. .. Then 'particles' are invented that do whatever it is we don't understand. So, in my opinion particles are always the solutions to problems that we can't solve any other way. That is, they are inventions that help to explain certain problems. Those are particles....

Let's say there is a hole in my theory, one I can't gloss over. So, what I do it, I just say: Look, here are some new particles, that are either green, yellow or... I don't know what.... They replace the hole in my theory.

So, I maintain that each particle we read about in today's physics is the answer to a questoin that we can't answer.


@3:30

Interviewer: "How can we let a world-wide networked system of machine grow, more or less into infinity, if it is based on theories that apparently have holes or are only 'good stories', I mean on such shaky foundations? Isn't that dangerous?"

Heinz: "Well, in this world-wide, function system of machines all theories are correct. And of course, that's what people want.

Any why are they correct? Because they can all be deduced from other theories and 'stories'....."

Interviewer: "But what will it lead to? How does it go on?"

Heinz: "It goes on deducing indefinitely. "

Interviewer: "But there have to be limits somewhere?"

Heinz: "No, not at all, that's the good thing about it. You can go on forever."

Interviewer: "In logic. Yes, precisely. But in reality?"

Heinz: "Where is reality? Can you show it to me?"


No, this was merely a simple way to make my point. There is no formula that I know of to show this. But, the logical proof does exist to show maths inconsistency.

In some cases other human observation is required. Some things, like science, has no "facts" because science never closes the door on anything. New evidence can always come up and change how we view things. However when certain observations are consistently repeated many times by many different scientists, it's labeled a "theory" and widely accepted as truth or essentially fact. A theory in the non scientific world is just an idea, in science it is pretty much fact. It would take one hell of a piece of evidence to prove otherwise. Science requires other human observation to confirm something.

Some things are just universal fact regardless of what anyone says though. Take my other example, shooting. If I hit a bullseye at a grand, and you dont, there's no leeway there. You either you did or didn't. If we shoot another 5 times and I continue to hit on target, and you continue to miss, then I correctly adjusted for wind, distance, pressure, etc as well as displayed proper long distance shooting fundamentals and you did not. You can't argue that you did everything correct because you missed the target. The proof is right there, and that's simply fact. To say otherwise would be wrong.

As for math being inconsistent, I wouldn't argue that. It can be weird, especially given the crazy advanced things, however even if you can't prove something, if you continue to plug in the same numbers to the same formula you will get the same result. If you want to argue if the result is correct then that's one thing, but the results should be constant.

Math is correct, and these examples are correct, because you and I agree that they are correct. That's all. It's an agreement between you and I because we both went thru similar indoctrination growing up.

Math is a man-made system, a set of tools, that we agree on in terms of how it works. That's all it is. See the video I posted a few posts ago.

Math is a man made tool to understand the laws of the universe. We don't really invent math, we just discover and interpret it.

 

[Mojo Ram]

Logical Spock has something to say about this thread

 

[jap]

Logical Spock has something to say about this thread

As Spock himself would say, "Fascinating!"

 

[SteveBrown]

So, what are those kids good at? What are things that they understand early, well before their north side peers? Can you think of anything that you'd be willing to share?

They understand how to "read" people---very good at it. They have a good level of confidence despite academic problems. They understand respect on some level better. They are more aware of life in general...but I don't know if they apply those blessings in to productivity. They don't have parents who are helping them in that way--my opinion

 

[RamFan503]

I worked/tutored a lot of inner city kids (Cheecago);and they are not "trained" on the south side by the parents; the home training is more important than the schooling. IF a kid is not 'trained' before, and during school by parents, the schooling doesn't work so good. I love the south side of chicago, and dig those kids, but everyone who lives there knows these kids don't receive training. Therefore, VERY few of these kids can from the south side can take tests written by a north side professor. YOu have to 'live' this, like I did, to really feel how deficient the training of the south side kids is...you have to enter a few dozen homes and see what there parents are teaching them...

I don't doubt any of what you said. I am just pointing out a false statement. You can't take something that is made up and use it to prove a point. That's all.

Kids in a lot of areas are at a disadvantage. My cousin has taught in several cities and countries. He says the worst parental involvement he's witnessed was in Hawaii. Not exactly what I'm guessing many of us think of when we think disadvantaged youth.

 

[RamFan503]

It brings into question foolish notions you seem to harbor about IQ tests and their inherent "racism." The racism angle is your term---not mine or anyone else's. I employed an example illustrating differences of economic levels among people. Are all economically lower bracket people from one race only? Do you have evidence to prove that such examples are inherently racist?

That is how the "proof" you quoted has been used. Not my angle - especially in that the "proof" is made up. You are right in that I took it toward the racist end rather than just economically disadvantaged. I don't inherently believe the test itself IS racist in nature. But that hasn't stopped people from using the saucer/coaster example to prove otherwise. That's all I'm saying. If someone uses a made up factoid to prove anything, their argument is flawed and their position should be called into question.

 

[jap]

That is how the "proof" you quoted has been used. Not my angle - especially in that the "proof" is made up. You are right in that I took it toward the racist end rather than just economically disadvantaged. I don't inherently believe the test itself IS racist in nature. But that hasn't stopped people from using the saucer/coaster example to prove otherwise. That's all I'm saying. If someone uses a made up factoid to prove anything, their argument is flawed and their position should be called into question.

What makes you so sure it was made up? I am 55 years old now. I first heard this when I was still in high school, which was at least 38 years ago. I interned at the Educational Testing Service and was present when a similar scenario was presented to some of the very people who create the national USA tests such as the SAT, GRE, etc. I saw their reactions and heard their responses when they admitted they had not considered some of the differences between the lifestyles of the economic poor vs the middle-high economic groups.

There are differences between these groups that could impact acquisition of knowledge.

However, that raises another issue. Many of these so-called IQ tests do not test IQ at all---they test knowledge. I scored the highest score on one of these nationally standardized tests in my high school my sophomore year. I was told my score indicated I was on the level of a college sophomore in his second semester of a standard trimester schedule. As a senior I was again told I scored the highest score in my class, although I wasn't told my collegiate equivalent ranking then. At no time was I under any illusion that I was necessarily brighter than everyone else in my class. I scored higher because I read more books in quantity and diversity than just about all my classmates---hardcore scifi, detective (think Ellery Queen, the Saint, Hardy Boys, Nancy Drew, etc.), history, Westerns, adventure, mystery, even romance. Hardcore scifi tales by the grandmasters like Isaac Asimov, Sir Arthur C. Scott, Ray Bradbury, and Robert Heinlein were based on existing scientific/engineering knowledge and often involved puzzles that highlighted scientific comprehension. Even though I was raised in the West Indies and didn't do much early traveling, I was extremely familiar with time zones because an Ellery Queen story required that understanding to solve the mystery. My Western reading of true historians like Zane Gray and Louis L'Amour highlighted the fact that the so-called American Indians spoke openly of people who preceded them in the Americas.I discovered the Greco-Roman pantheon of Gods by following the chain of references to them in encyclopedias. In short, I exposed myself to reading material and expanded my knowledge and tested my intellect.

As a computer science grad student, I focused on artificial intelligence. AI has long moved from the idea using computers to employ pure logical reasoning to augmenting reason by filling them with "relevant" world knowledge to provide them with the illusion of intelligence. This was my true edge over my classmates---all my reading provided me with more world knowledge than they had and allowed me to outscore them, nothing more.

The lack of "relevant" world knowledge is one of the major factors that often separates the so-called economically disadvantaged from the more economically privileged. The saucer/coaster scenario is only a small example of that. Of course, what is "relevant," depends on who assigns themselves as judge of who is intelligent.

 

[RamFan503]

It was from a scene in a 70's sitcom so yeah... timing sounds about right.

The rest of what you are saying makes perfect sense. Without going into much more detail, as I said before (I think), the value of a test depends on who is administering it. Questions are designed with an end in mind - or at least should be. What is the goal from the test? What does the creator consider the right answer or what kind of answers would fall into the "right" category? Tests are almost always subjective and in reality most often should be so. If you are testing someone it is because you want to know something about them. That something should determine the test.

 

[kurtfaulk]

I'd say I'm trying to communicate its limits, not debunk it. We've been taught that math is absolute, just as we've been taught that examinations and methods of measuring intelligence are absolute. And my point is to question this absoluteness, because these man-made systems are limited and fallible.

Here's a longer version of the video on Dangerous Knowledge (which I posted previously). Watch the last couple of minutes where they discuss humanity's need to believe in absolute certainty, and systems that supposedly give us such certainty, when in actuality there is none.

that was way too deep. i think i will stick with basic mathematics which serve me so well.

.

 

[kurtfaulk]

Consider this classic example illustrating the limitations of binary logic (or two-valued logic or mathematical logic or whatever). A person makes the statement, "I always lie." If true, the person was lying when they made the statement, and the statement is a contradiction. Yet, if the statement is true, then the person is also contradicting him|herself. This is known as the Liar's Paradox. It illustrates that simple logical systems with only a few values (true|false, yes|no, 1|0, in|out, etc.) to establish truth are not rich enough to handle the complexities of real life that allows seeming paradoxes like the above.

Another logical oversimplification and one more germane to sports is the failure of the transitive property of inequality when applied to real life. Team A beats Team B; Team B beats Team C; therefore, Team A necessarily will beat Team C. Of course, we know there is no guarantee there for the same reason as above. Simple systems like most mathematical systems are not rich enough to analyze the complexities of real life where there are so many variables involved.

Other difficulties involve things like division by zero. The standard answer of division of a non-zero term by zero being undefined is really unsatisfactory. If we divide the number 12 (the dividend) by 4 (divisor), it is easy to regard this is computing that it would take 3 (quotient) groups of 4 to comprise the number 12. So division can be viewed as deciding how many groups (quotient) of the divisor are needed to make up the dividend. However, if one divides a number, say 5, by zero, the standard answer of undefined or positive infinity is unsatisfactory since it is fairly obvious that one can never find any groups of zero that will make up the desired result of 5.

Don't get me started on the philosophical difficulties with infinity.

1 - the statement is false. it's a great statement for philosophical purposes but in reality it is false. nobody can always lie.

2- yes, too many variables involved. but i never said maths could explain everything.

3 - yes, the answer is infinity. why is it unsatisfactory? it will go on forever and it still won't make it to 5. i guess the more pertinent question is where in life will you divide a number by zero? what purpose does it achieve? infinity is just a succinct way of saying it can't be done.

4 - you got a problem with infinity?

.

 

[Ramrasta]

This has turned into a very interesting thread.

I think the appropriate solution here though is that we can all agree to disagree and Go Rams!

 

[RamFan503]

This has turned into a very interesting thread.

I think the appropriate solution here though is that we can all agree to disagree and Go Rams!

That has 0/5 chance of happening.

 

[Stranger]

Some things are just universal fact regardless of what anyone says though. Take my other example, shooting. If I hit a bullseye at a grand, and you dont, there's no leeway there. You either you did or didn't. If we shoot another 5 times and I continue to hit on target, and you continue to miss, then I correctly adjusted for wind, distance, pressure, etc as well as displayed proper long distance shooting fundamentals and you did not. You can't argue that you did everything correct because you missed the target. The proof is right there, and that's simply fact. To say otherwise would be wrong.

This has turned into a very interesting thread.

"It not nature that gives us answers, it is the questions that we ask of nature, and the experiments we have, and the means of observation that we have, that gives us the answer."
~ Klaus Krippendorff

 

[Ramrasta]

If you want the answers, you ask the questions. If you want the truth, you question the answers.

 

[RamFan503]

If you want the answers, you ask the questions. If you want the truth, you question the answers.

If you want to be in politics, you make up the questions AND the answers.

 

[moklerman]

I was going to address a few of the points being presented but I choose to not get involved and thus, consider myself intelligent.