Re:Is there a general factor of intelligence?
by Tenoke on Friday March 25, 2022 @12:09PM
(#30803893)
>Roger Penrose..
Showing outliers just proves there are outliers not that the averages are uselesss.
>Those that play chess will note that excellent Rapid or standard players can be terrible Bullet or Blitz players.
I play chess and those are definitely highly correlated, I suspect at least r of 0.7 especially for those who have put decent time into the different controls.
Re:Is there a general factor of intelligence?
by usgroup on Friday March 25, 2022 @12:19PM
(#30804022)
I didn't mention Penrose because he is an outlier. I mention him as an example where tool use disproportionally effects resultant performance, or conversely as an example of where a specific link in a reasoning chain effects the outcome. I think that is more close to normal than not. I.e. you can often patch people, and they become better at something.
Regarding chess, research suggests you're wrong:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S14690...
https://hvandermaas.socsci.uva.nl/Homepage_Han_van_der_Maas/...
I think that the treatment of things like time factors and tool use is also somewhat trivialised. Those that play chess will note that excellent Rapid or standard players can be terrible Bullet or Blitz players.
Roger Penrose -- nobel prize winning mathematical physicist -- was held back a year on count of his arithmetic being that bad. Yet he is a shockingly good mathematician mostly qua geometrical intuition to which he can convert other things. Who cares, Penrose can just use a calculator. Similarly, I'd say that many IQ tests are just symbolic regression. What if I was brilliant at stating symbolic regression problems, but poor at solving them? Then me + solver would make all the difference, unlike if I was poor at stating them ...
And so on.