Intelligence VS Experience

[sjwaste]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: loki8481
how are poli-sci and law related to macro economics of one of the largest economies of the world?

Because we usually elect economists to be President?

I was replying to Harvey's comment that Obama's studies are somehow related to economics.

Have you taken a course in political philosophy? Economics? They both deal with rationality and human nature, amongst other things.

Yes, I have. No, they don't. There is virtually no overlap once you start to move away from the very sociologically-oriented "economics" courses. Those aren't things that translate to macroeconomic solutions.

 

[sunzt]

I would take the GPA as an indicator of that person's ability to get things done correctly, and (depending on the institution) their work ethic; priorities; and ability to learn.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: sunzt
I would take the GPA as an indicator of that person's ability to get things done correctly, and (depending on the institution) their work ethic; priorities; and ability to learn.

Change your 'and' to an 'or' and you'll have it. You can have an IQ of 180, and be a savant in a subject, and still fail it if you don't show up. Or you can show up every day, try your hardest, and fail utterly if you're sporting a whopper 70IQ. Looking at the transcripts of the two people won't tell you who's smarter, or who works harder.

 

[KlokWyze]

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269
GPA is not a measure of intelligence.

I concur. The educational system hardly teaches people to "intelligent" by my definition.

I am in no way saying that Bush or McCain are intelligent though. =)

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: SlingXShot

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269
GPA is not a measure of intelligence.

It is a major factor...

I had a friend with higher IQ than me... It took him 20 mins to prepare for a test to get an A, it took me 6 hours to get a B...

I got a 2.72 through undergrad, 3.92 through my MBA, and I finished the CFA exam in 3 years, something maybe only 5% of people who take the exam do (only 20% who start finish).

GPA is a crap measurement of intelligence. Always has been, always will be. IQ isn't all that great either.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: SlingXShot

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269
GPA is not a measure of intelligence.

It is a major factor...

I had a friend with higher IQ than me... It took him 20 mins to prepare for a test to get an A, it took me 6 hours to get a B...

I got a 2.72 through undergrad, 3.92 through my MBA, and I finished the CFA exam in 3 years, something maybe only 5% of people who take the exam do (only 20% who start finish).

GPA is a crap measurement of intelligence. Always has been, always will be. IQ isn't all that great either.

IQ is pretty much the definition of intelligence (or vice versa). Wisdom is something else entirely of course, as is common sense, dedication, work ethic, etc. IQ = intelligence however, at least as close as you can get.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: sjwaste

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: loki8481
how are poli-sci and law related to macro economics of one of the largest economies of the world?

Because we usually elect economists to be President?

I was replying to Harvey's comment that Obama's studies are somehow related to economics.

Have you taken a course in political philosophy? Economics? They both deal with rationality and human nature, amongst other things.

Yes, I have. No, they don't. There is virtually no overlap once you start to move away from the very sociologically-oriented "economics" courses. Those aren't things that translate to macroeconomic solutions.

Economics is more sociable than quantitative. If it wasn't, you wouldn't have liberal economists and conservative economists.

 

[Fox5]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: SlingXShot

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269
GPA is not a measure of intelligence.

It is a major factor...

I had a friend with higher IQ than me... It took him 20 mins to prepare for a test to get an A, it took me 6 hours to get a B...

I got a 2.72 through undergrad, 3.92 through my MBA, and I finished the CFA exam in 3 years, something maybe only 5% of people who take the exam do (only 20% who start finish).

GPA is a crap measurement of intelligence. Always has been, always will be. IQ isn't all that great either.

IQ is pretty much the definition of intelligence (or vice versa). Wisdom is something else entirely of course, as is common sense, dedication, work ethic, etc. IQ = intelligence however, at least as close as you can get.

IQ may measure something, but whatever it is it's rather worthless.

I have a rated IQ of over 170...but I don't think it means I'm notably smarter than anyone else, rather I was just in a gifted and talented program throughout my formative years in school that continually exposed us to the same types of problems that would be seen on an IQ test. Nearly everyone in that group scored at least over 130, which according to
http://wilderdom.com/intelligence/IQWhatScoresMean.html
is quite above average.
Additionally, the IQ ratings are broken down by ranges citing the level of education, indicating that IQ is perhaps strongly correlated with the level of education and no such thing as raw intelligence.
I've also done extremely well on the SAT and the GRE, especially the reading comprehension and writing sections. This is due to a few factors:
reading a lot as a child
the ability to speed read
always keeping microsoft word on the strictest possible grammar settings (good practice)
and being well versed in what makes a logical argument.

I've done extremely well on all these standardized tests, not through a natural intelligence, but through training. My college GPA so far has been an A- for the first year, B for the second year, and B-/C+ for the third, with an overall of a B average. My GPA is lower than you'd probably expect, mainly because I don't put in the effort. And honestly, for any position requiring the skills I'm learning in my majors, you'd probably be better off picking someone with a high GPA.
Now, as to how you'd pick a leader, that should be done more off accomplishments and not GPA or seniority. (ie, Mccain, Bush, and Clinton are not necessarily good leaders just because they're career politicians)

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Lets be honest, neither experience or intelligence are particularly good predictors of how a president will perform.

Usually not but in Bushes case it seems it was spot on. He isn't to smart and he hasn'trun the country very intelligently and his experience was that of a failed businessman and he has been a failure as a President.

i wouldnt say he was a failure. he did what almost everyone wants who has a position of power and that was get more power for himself and friends.

Everything else was just a afterthought for him.

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

You can have an IQ of 180, and be a savant in a subject, and still fail it if you don't show up. Or you can show up every day, try your hardest, and fail utterly if you're sporting a whopper 70IQ. Looking at the transcripts of the two people won't tell you who's smarter, or who works harder.

agreed. i have seen people with high IQ that i wouldnt hire to mow my lawn. When i was working i found many with High IQ's and impressive college degrees who are terrible at work. If anything happened outside of what the books say they really couldnt come up with something "outside of the box".

i would take experiance over IQ. but you need both to be a success.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: SlingXShot

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269
GPA is not a measure of intelligence.

You are telling me that a mentally retarded person with an IQ of 75, could get a 4.0 GPA... in your dreams... like I said its a major factor...

If you look at grade inflation data you'll see how easy it is for average or slightly below students to get great grades. It's also very common for people with extraordinarily high IQ's to receive poor grades for a number of factors. It only takes an IQ of 100-130 to receive perfect grades through any discipline. Higher than that can actually get in the way. I will admit that a 75IQ would have difficulty keeping a 4.0 through a Masters in physics or engineering, but otherwise they can do fine.

I very much doubt that someone with even a well above average intelligence could pull a 4.0 in physics or astronomy. I was an undergrad in physics, and half of the physics majors bailed by the time they reached their junior year. I personally knew two students who averaged less than 3.0 in their physics courses, but pulled straight A's once they changed majors.

The reason, I think, is that many courses of study reward rote memory. In physics however (and in astronomy, which is really a specialized branch of physics), simply memorizing formulas is a surefire route to failure. Success in physics requires a faculty for understanding and applying abstract concepts.

 

[trenchfoot]

All things considered, i am much more concerned about the experience and intelligence of the folks voting for their candidate rather than the candidates themselves.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: Fox5

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: SlingXShot

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269
GPA is not a measure of intelligence.

It is a major factor...

I had a friend with higher IQ than me... It took him 20 mins to prepare for a test to get an A, it took me 6 hours to get a B...

I got a 2.72 through undergrad, 3.92 through my MBA, and I finished the CFA exam in 3 years, something maybe only 5% of people who take the exam do (only 20% who start finish).

GPA is a crap measurement of intelligence. Always has been, always will be. IQ isn't all that great either.

IQ is pretty much the definition of intelligence (or vice versa). Wisdom is something else entirely of course, as is common sense, dedication, work ethic, etc. IQ = intelligence however, at least as close as you can get.

IQ may measure something, but whatever it is it's rather worthless.

I have a rated IQ of over 170...but I don't think it means I'm notably smarter than anyone else, rather I was just in a gifted and talented program throughout my formative years in school that continually exposed us to the same types of problems that would be seen on an IQ test. Nearly everyone in that group scored at least over 130, which according to
http://wilderdom.com/intelligence/IQWhatScoresMean.html
is quite above average.
Additionally, the IQ ratings are broken down by ranges citing the level of education, indicating that IQ is perhaps strongly correlated with the level of education and no such thing as raw intelligence.
I've also done extremely well on the SAT and the GRE, especially the reading comprehension and writing sections. This is due to a few factors:
reading a lot as a child
the ability to speed read
always keeping microsoft word on the strictest possible grammar settings (good practice)
and being well versed in what makes a logical argument.

I've done extremely well on all these standardized tests, not through a natural intelligence, but through training. My college GPA so far has been an A- for the first year, B for the second year, and B-/C+ for the third, with an overall of a B average. My GPA is lower than you'd probably expect, mainly because I don't put in the effort. And honestly, for any position requiring the skills I'm learning in my majors, you'd probably be better off picking someone with a high GPA.
Now, as to how you'd pick a leader, that should be done more off accomplishments and not GPA or seniority. (ie, Mccain, Bush, and Clinton are not necessarily good leaders just because they're career politicians)

Ummm, no. Though there are different scales (and sometimes tests) for adolescents as opposed to adults there is no accounting for education level or anything else. There is an argument about the various racial/cultural/ses biases, but these are mostly accounted for now. The test an 18 year old high school dropout takes and the test a 65 year old holder of 5 PhDs takes is the exact same test. It measures the exact same things.

After a lifetime of studying intelligence/cognitive ability I have seen no better exploration of intelligence than 'g', with the possible exception of MI. But even MI theory is partially 'g'. The amount of research into this field is simply staggering, and until someone presents a supported alternative there is none. All there is is people whining and bitching about something because they don't like or understand it.

You'll find that most supported opposition to existing IQ theories are refutations of specific methodology, specific people within the field, already debunked studies, or general whining without any actual factual refutations.

In short it comes down to this: post your credentials in this field, and your research supported theories, or accept that your opinion on the subject is worth exactly dog spit and accept the work of hundreds of men more intelligent than us over the last few hundred years...all of whom more or less agree that you're wrong. Mind you I'm not demanding this on my own credentials...I'm demanding on behalf of Mills, Gardner, Sternberg, Piaget, Wechsler, etc.

 

[Stiganator]

Depends on the major and the rigor of the program. I'm guessing we are talking Political Science at Ivy League schools. So I would say 3.8 is better than 2.0, but certainly that doesn't explain the whole person. But it does indicate that the 3.8 either knows the material better and didn't need to work hard or they busted their ass on material they struggled with. Either way it shows that a 3.8 more consistently knows the material when they need too. Knowing and making the right decisions more consistently seems to be a good trait for a president.

EDIT: I would love to see someone as president who double majored in engineering and political science. PoliSci to cover history/people and engineering to cover implementing efficient systems and clever ideas with your available resources.

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: Stiganator

EDIT: I would love to see someone as president who double majored in engineering and political science. PoliSci to cover history/people and engineering to cover implementing efficient systems and clever ideas with your available resources.

someone like that sounds too smart to want the job

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: SlingXShot

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269
GPA is not a measure of intelligence.

It is a major factor...

I had a friend with higher IQ than me... It took him 20 mins to prepare for a test to get an A, it took me 6 hours to get a B...

I got a 2.72 through undergrad, 3.92 through my MBA, and I finished the CFA exam in 3 years, something maybe only 5% of people who take the exam do (only 20% who start finish).

GPA is a crap measurement of intelligence. Always has been, always will be. IQ isn't all that great either.

IQ is pretty much the definition of intelligence (or vice versa). Wisdom is something else entirely of course, as is common sense, dedication, work ethic, etc. IQ = intelligence however, at least as close as you can get.

Yeah, the definition of intelligence, designed by people who think they can define all intelligence.

I always found it a bit flippant to think that intelligence can be defined by tests.

As far are refution of other people's work, I agree that I don't have anything "solid", nor scientific studies, just my own opinions. I have formed them after getting an undergrad in Psych, as well as going through various other forms of education. I have seen, time and again, people who score high on IQ tests utterly fail to understand even the most basic concepts.

I am sure many of the people studying for the CFA score high on the IQ tests, yet they cannot pass an exam that's pretty easy to understand. Only 20% who start, finish. Only 5% who start finish in 3 years. I believe that many don't take it seriously and don't study enough, which, is actually, just a different form of intelligence (the ability to recognize one's own limitations and plan appropriately).

There are far too many aspects to human "intelligence" that cannot be measured in the terms of how IQ exams currently measure. Psychologists are often full of themselves in thinking they have defined various forms of human behavior within tests, which in an of itself limits their ability to measure.

 

[SickBeast]

According to wikipedia, McSame had the 5th worst graduating average at the Naval Academy out of a class of about 900. That's bad IMO. I also fail to see what he's 'experienced' at. His role in the Navy appears to have been limited in terms of leadership and strategy.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: SlingXShot

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269
GPA is not a measure of intelligence.

It is a major factor...

I had a friend with higher IQ than me... It took him 20 mins to prepare for a test to get an A, it took me 6 hours to get a B...

I got a 2.72 through undergrad, 3.92 through my MBA, and I finished the CFA exam in 3 years, something maybe only 5% of people who take the exam do (only 20% who start finish).

GPA is a crap measurement of intelligence. Always has been, always will be. IQ isn't all that great either.

IQ is pretty much the definition of intelligence (or vice versa). Wisdom is something else entirely of course, as is common sense, dedication, work ethic, etc. IQ = intelligence however, at least as close as you can get.

Yeah, the definition of intelligence, designed by people who think they can define all intelligence.

I always found it a bit flippant to think that intelligence can be defined by tests.

As far are refution of other people's work, I agree that I don't have anything "solid", nor scientific studies, just my own opinions. I have formed them after getting an undergrad in Psych, as well as going through various other forms of education. I have seen, time and again, people who score high on IQ tests utterly fail to understand even the most basic concepts.

I am sure many of the people studying for the CFA score high on the IQ tests, yet they cannot pass an exam that's pretty easy to understand. Only 20% who start, finish. Only 5% who start finish in 3 years. I believe that many don't take it seriously and don't study enough, which, is actually, just a different form of intelligence (the ability to recognize one's own limitations and plan appropriately).

There are far too many aspects to human "intelligence" that cannot be measured in the terms of how IQ exams currently measure. Psychologists are often full of themselves in thinking they have defined various forms of human behavior within tests, which in an of itself limits their ability to measure.

*buzzer* Since when has dedication had anything to do with intelligence? One has NOTHING to do with the other. Do we have ANY supporting evidence that they were actually unable to pass it, or can we assume (as you yourself do) that they were merely unwilling to pass it? Intelligence would relate to the ability to pass it (kind of), not the willingness to pass it. I understand it's just your opinion, but there is ZERO logic behind this association. Arguments like this prevent meaningful growth in the field so they kind of get under my skin a bit.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
*buzzer* Since when has dedication had anything to do with intelligence? One has NOTHING to do with the other. Do we have ANY supporting evidence that they were actually unable to pass it, or can we assume (as you yourself do) that they were merely unwilling to pass it? Intelligence would relate to the ability to pass it (kind of), not the willingness to pass it. I understand it's just your opinion, but there is ZERO logic behind this association. Arguments like this prevent meaningful growth in the field so they kind of get under my skin a bit.

I would say that some of it is dedication, but there is also the rationalization of what needs to be done and application of effort. Both of which require intelligence of different forms than a simple MCQ can deliver. I'm sure everybody has made the comment when a bright person didn't study enough and did poorly on an exam and said "Well, that was stupid".

This is the problem with IQ tests. They depend on application of simple constructs which other people believe set the metric for intelligence. However, there are many other applications of intelligence than recognizing patterns, which is certainly a valid form of intelligence, which aren't considered by the testing currently in place.

I score pretty high on IQ tests and have done well. However, I think they are very flawed.

 

[idiotekniQues]

im pretty sure obama got his good grades by blackmailing all the profs with terrorist threats from his muslim extremist friends.

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: idiotekniQues
im pretty sure obama got his good grades by blackmailing all the profs with terrorist threats from his muslim extremist friends.

:thumbsup::laugh:

winner! we would have also accepted disarranging comments about affirmative action