Can a really clever guy score really low on a IQ test?

[jsg4z]

How about thinking about intelligence like a computer running Live. We all have one, and the sound coming out of each of our monitors is different, but of course has some things in common too.

The thing that differentiates our sounds is the project file. The thing that defines actions based on other actions and layers and progressions of beats. You can have simple ones and complex ones.

Sure you can be taught by tutorials to make follow actions and change the velocity of midi notes. (teaching)

Sure you can learn to switch on a sweet phaser after looking around enough yourself (studying)

The problem is that we dont start from a blank project, and not all of us have Suite. Genetics are what define those. Maybe some kids do get a blank project and no Live Packs, it may not be because their parents dont teach them well. They just dont have the tools to perform at the same level as the other kids.

Some kids get a project with phat beats, tons of scenes, and Live 8 Suite, and go crazy with it. If they get a good teacher, the possibilities go up even more and maybe a label picks them up. Maybe they sign and play live and get a bunch of hot chicks to party with and maybe those hot chicks come back to his house and they wanna get in the hot tub...but i digress. what were we talking about?

[fishmonkey]

nice analogy, i especially like the hot tub bit...

but still, there's the same issue: who decides whether the music you end up with is great, shit or mediocre???

[Machinesworking]

i would say that genetics and environment play a part...

whether we should make judgments and decisions based on genetics is an ethical question, leading directly to eugenics...

Genetics play IMO a incredibly small role, as is evidenced time and again by blind studies and cases like the mensa parents adopting kids etc. For some reason though people refuse to give it up. I'm certain more studies are done to find the genius gene than to define what amount of roll nurture plays. It's as if a bunch of people who were given great opportunities in life want to justify to a degree the social stratification that happens because of environment by searching for a genetic componant?

The problem is that we dont start from a blank project, and not all of us have Suite. Genetics are what define those. Maybe some kids do get a blank project and no Live Packs, it may not be because their parents dont teach them well. They just dont have the tools to perform at the same level as the other kids.

Again, nature is so far bellow nurture in this it's not even funny. Ask yourself this simple question: what drives you to want to believe that it should be held up as being as important as nature? Why are you comfortable with that train of thought, if evidence has come up that it's not?

[OvertoneZero]

Maybe they sign and play live and get a bunch of hot chicks to party with and maybe those hot chicks come back to his house and they wanna get in the hot tub...but i digress. what were we talking about?

Mommy... where do superstar DJ come from?

[OvertoneZero]

Genetics may not play a huge role, but who has any control over their environment from age 0 to 16ish?

One person gets a lot of time interacting with their parents from age 0 to 3.

Another person gets given up for adoption and spends their first 5 years learning what fear and rejection feel like.

Another gets raised in a closet and consequently can't learn to speak.



Whether genetics or environment create the propensity for 'natural intelligence', I don't think it matters to much pragmatically to us:

My life has become much more interesting since I started running the show, but by the time I took the wheel, the deck was already stacked.

[Machinesworking]

\
Whether genetics or environment create the propensity for 'natural intelligence', I don't think it matters to much pragmatically to us:

In the sense that one is mutable and adaptable to change (nurture, albeit slowly if environmental conditions were rough), and one leaves no room for change (nature/genes), it's a world of difference which way we as a society choose to look at intelligence.

People can and do change. Some people choose for whatever reason, to refuse to believe that or ignore it.

[fishmonkey]

i would say that genetics and environment play a part...

whether we should make judgments and decisions based on genetics is an ethical question, leading directly to eugenics...

Genetics play IMO a incredibly small role, as is evidenced time and again by blind studies and cases like the mensa parents adopting kids etc. For some reason though people refuse to give it up. I'm certain more studies are done to find the genius gene than to define what amount of roll nurture plays. It's as if a bunch of people who were given great opportunities in life want to justify to a degree the social stratification that happens because of environment by searching for a genetic componant?

it's definitely a sticky subject — especially as it is prone to being misused by all manner of bigoted nutbags — but studies comparing siblings, adopted siblings, and twins (identical and non-identical) suggest there is an interaction between heredity and environment... i think the contribution of heredity is way overstated from these studies, but i also don't believe that our material form is inconsequential nor infinitely malleable in a single lifetime...

a quick summary of the heredity stuff is covered here:
http://social.jrank.org/pages/300/Hered ... nment.html

[DrXparaMental]

Men of great analytically logical disposition assuredly can be geniuses of course, but this would be based on their accomplishments in life, not any form of appointed external examination.

My point is I think, almost identical to everyone else's that feels that IQ tests are a poor barometer for what is genius.

It seems absolutes would have to be thrown out the window for the sake of accuracy in determining such.

In the sense of you as an individual, yes. In the sense of the collective human race, no. Absolutes are there for a reason, it's to define a set of rules in which we all agree. Any individual can disagree with the set of rules, and to a degree they have a right to. What I love about science VS art is science treats everything as a pattern that can be analyzed and documented. Art on the other hand IMO dies a little when you do this.

For instance, to me Peter Christopherson (Coil, Throbbing Gristle) is a much more important artist than Paul McCartney, I would consider his work far more relevant to my music than Paul's. It stands to reason that another person would say I was wrong, and that in the court of public opinion McCarteny is considered far more important. I would argue that it was John Lennon that was the real genius behind the Beatles etc. ad infinitum.

This is far different and subjective than stating that for anybody that uses a computer, the guys that invented the IC chip are genius's. It's why an IQ test for creativity alone is impossible. So what defines a genius in terms of creativity in science is far less subjective than what defines a genius in terms of art. Throw politics in there and it gets creepy at best. The whole "evil genius"routine etc. Anyway we agree that the IQ test is really unimportant, and no, it's not because I scored low on them, it's because I value creativity, ethics, hard work, and people in general far too much to disregard them based on a slower ability to learn etc.

After a day or so's reflection out of the work environment, I think you're right. Highly creative people are pretty much impossible to test in terms of absolutes, and therefore yes, it really does come down to subjectivity. And not always emotionally based subjectivity in light of socially applied accomplishments either. Sometimes the subjective and corrupt nature of power itself can stifle the greatest of geniuses from their rightful recognition. Just look at Tesla back then, and as for now, all the ingenious developments in "free & near zero point energies" that society knows nothing about because of corporate greed. These are the men and women that SHOULD be receiving abundant Nobel prizes. Just this small example itself bars the notion of validating any real measurements based on accomplishments alone.

[OvertoneZero]

\
Whether genetics or environment create the propensity for 'natural intelligence', I don't think it matters to much pragmatically to us:

In the sense that one is mutable and adaptable to change (nurture, albeit slowly if environmental conditions were rough), and one leaves no room for change (nature/genes), it's a world of difference which way we as a society choose to look at intelligence.

People can and do change. Some people choose for whatever reason, to refuse to believe that or ignore it.

I agree that everything is mutable to some degree and it is interesting how there is new research validating ongoing neurogenesis in mature adult brains. Also it gets blurrier when you consider that environmental triggers turn genes on and off.

Maybe we have a much greater opportunity for lifelong development now than at any point in previous history, so we are finding ourselves surprised by the possibilities.

I certainly prefer this point of view. So maybe that makes it more pragmatic.

[jsg4z]

The placebo effect is alive and kicking here. You tell a kid they are a genius or you tell the teachers the kid is a genius or you tell the parents their kid is a genius they will be treated differently. The fact that a quality education is not guaranteed, being labeled as 'worth the effort' is sure to get you further.

So we can take the top 20% of the bottom 99% and give them opportunities that the others will never get. They will strive and succeed because they have been preferentially treated in a system that is collapsing under its own weight. Nice, but not really important.

Its the top 1% or .1% that are at issue. The people that don't need special treatment to succeed. Those are the ones you label as genius and its not about nurture. It is not about creativity, its about intelligence and their ability to understand the world at a different level.

[fishmonkey]

in every field of endeavour there are naturally exceptional people for sure, i have no problem with that idea...

attempting to somehow test and rank people, or to reduce ability to a single general factor (like general intelligence or 'G') is something else though...

[DrXparaMental]

in every field of endeavour there are naturally exceptional people for sure, i have no problem with that idea...

attempting to somehow test and rank people, or to reduce ability to a single general factor (like general intelligence or 'G') is something else though...

Of course, that's the whole problem when it comes down to the psychological nuts and bolts of the issue.

Two perspectives:



Nuff Said



After all the consideration given the fascinating direction of this thread, I watched this movie of all movies yesterday. Unbelievable! ANYONE not familiar with the incredible true story of Robert Stroud, The Birdman of Alcatraz, please I am begging you. SEE THIS MOVIE.

Relative Synopsis: Possibly, genius is a specific recipe, unique to each person garnering the subjective quality. Maybe there is and never will be a test that can accurately gauge and sum it's ingredients. In this sense, all genius is art. Existing or denied, within the mind of the observer.