I've read that this thing, raw intelligence, peaks at age fifteen though.

-------
click and please click
^use head phones

you know how in those IQ tests there are things like this
you can't be taught how to do those kinds of problems, you just need to be able to recognize the pattern. the ability to do so is what people are calling 'raw intelligence'.
all it is is a way for educators to think about the flaws in the standardized assessment protocol. they say that not everybody is book smart (lots of knowledge), but that doesn't mean that they aren't intelligent in other ways. they come up with all these other kinds of things and label them as intelligence and the whole thing is completely unscientific and abhorrent but i don't really have the energy to do it any better so fuck

-------
The moon's phase on the day you were
born was waxing crescent.

You know I know people's IQ increases with age and if that tests raw intelligence I don't see how the fifteen-year-olds could come out on top

-------
click and please click
^use head phones

---

oh it's the white square with the plus

You know I know people's IQ increases with age and if that tests raw intelligence I don't see how the fifteen-year-olds could come out on top

---

they weigh the scores according to age

-------
The moon's phase on the day you were
born was waxing crescent.

For instance, developing a mathematical proof.  Most people who actually know math can verify a proof's correctness very easily if they know what it means (otherwise it wouldn't be a proof) but that doesn't mean that they can actually generate a clever proof themselves.

The same goes with music.  Most people can easily hear music and say "I like that" or "I don't like that."  That doesn't mean that they can create music that is good, however (even if they use their own definition of good and ignore what other people like).  That is, I can listen to music that I like, but I can't write music that I like as much as my favorite music.  

It's sort of vaguely analogous to the P=NP problem (as with mathematical proofs, it actually turns out to be more or less an instance of P=NP), but that's not really as relevant as a lot of self-proclaimed "philosophers" would like for it to be.

As for whether such an ability peaks at age 15?  I don't know.  I wouldn't be surprised, given that I've wondered similarly before despite the fact that I've never heard 15 thrown out as a particular number before.  There would probably be an evolutionary reason for this, as well.  People who are under, say, 15, are much more "mold-able" because they are learning things, but by the time they reach that age they should be able to throw out "bad" ideas themselves without spending a great deal of time analyzing them.  The price for this is a lot of the "bad" ideas they don't analyze must necessarily not be bad at all (because it's impossible to tell with 100% accuracy if an idea is good or not without actually evaluating it in its entirety).  Worse yet, these ideas that most people dispose of as bad are the really "creative" ones simply because they don't correspond to most peoples' heuristic for what makes a good idea.

That said, a lot of really smart people are able to continue generating creative ideas throughout their adult lives with no discernible decline in intelligence, so don't despair.

I would say that staying mentally flexible and entertaining weird ideas throughout your life is the key to being one of those eccentric genius types, but of course, the trade-off is that you'll be less likely to fit in because what you do will naturally seem, in some sense, immature to other people.

-------
http://www.golivewire.com/forums/peer-yatapys-support-a.html

It's supposed to mean the REAL intelligence of someone, untainted by the methodology behind any kind of testing.

The problem with that is that ANY kind of assertion of intelligence requires some kind of testing to back it up. So instead of just being content with their levels of intelligence, these people devise supposedly "better" tests that transcend elements that come from practice, culture or exposure to popular media. But they all suck shit. And they write articles telling each other how THEIR method is better.

It's about as bad as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigo_child";" target="_top">this.

-------
i spy on you too

---

graarrrrrr

you know how in those IQ tests there are things like this

---

There's controversy surrounding these types of tests, too. IQ tests are so common and widespread that most people in our culture know how to do well in them, and practice does help these skills. (The stimuli are only partially novel). For example, in Australia, there are many institutions that train kids to do these patterns in order to pass the Selective Schools Test, which allows the kid entry into competitive and elitist high schools. I was one of them and for me, these patterns were def learned, not figured out on the spot.

People caught on after they noticed that these schools aren't filled with GiftedKidz  

-------
i spy on you too

---

For example, in Australia, there are many institutions that train kids to do these patterns in order to pass the Selective Schools Test, which allows the kid entry into competitive and elitist high schools. I was one of them and for me, these patterns were def learned, not figured out on the spot.  

People caught on after they noticed that these schools aren't filled with GiftedKidz  

---

doing thousands of "what number comes next, what picture goes in this box" questions might train you to do those things, but raw intelligence is the ability to do them quickly without being trained. you can be taught how to do those types patterns, but that doesn't help you when the problem is actually novel and not something that most people have seen before.

-------
The moon's phase on the day you were
born was waxing crescent.

---

Quote: from tell me again at 5:11 pm on Sep. 17, 2008

---

For example, in Australia, there are many institutions that train kids to do these patterns in order to pass the Selective Schools Test, which allows the kid entry into competitive and elitist high schools. I was one of them and for me, these patterns were def learned, not figured out on the spot.  

 People caught on after they noticed that these schools aren't filled with GiftedKidz  

---

doing thousands of "what number comes next, what picture goes in this box" questions might train you to do those things, but raw intelligence is the ability to do them quickly without being trained. you can be taught how to do those types patterns, but that doesn't help you when the problem is actually novel and not something that most people have seen before.

---

Duh? Which is why the above method is flawed. Which is what I said.

-------
i spy on you too

The opposite is things that you have to learn.
For example, knowing all about the political system is something you learn, and solving a spontaneous maths problem is raw intelligence- even though you may have had to learn a theory to do it.

I suppose it is intelligence that is very little to do with the ability to memorise, and very much to do with the ability to process.

-------
dont wonder why im not smiling, wonder why you are.

The list goes on and on. Really, intelligence is a broad spectrum.

I bolded the ones which I feel are most likely to make a person IDENTIFIABLE as intelligent to others through normal interaction.

-------
O` tru apothecary!
Thy drugs are quick.
Thus with a kiss I die.

Raw intelligence is processing speed, abstract and creative thought (which lends to higher maths and problem solving), and the ability to create associations through learning which are applicable.

-------
O` tru apothecary!
Thy drugs are quick.
Thus with a kiss I die.