fransvo@htsa (Frans van Otten) (12/06/88)
We are way off from the subject intelligence. What is discussed
now is philosophy. Let's get back to the subject.
In my article <607@htsa.htsa> I wrote:
> Besides, there is not just one kind of intelligence.
I remembered I had read something about this (long ago), so I had
to look it up (sorry for the delay, Shannon). Here's the story:
Howard Gardner (Harvard Graduate School of Education) wrote (in
Frames of Mind) about seven different kinds of intelligence. He
includes logical/mathematical intelligence as well as 'spatial
intelligence' (3D-insight). These kinds of intelligence are
measured in IQ-tests. But he also includes physical expression,
intra- and inter-personal intelligence, musical intelligence, and
speech-ability. In his view, a kind of intelligence must be
located somewhere in the human brain, and separately useable.
I want to change my statement: not different kinds of intelligence
exist in the human brain, but more then one 'expert system'.
'Intelligence' is a word with a very broad meaning. I propose the
following definition:
If a [system] can reach conclusions, it is intelligent.
[system] = human being, animal, computer, ...
An intelligent system consists of:
(a). data
(b). algorithm(s) to reach a conclusion based on this data
A simple example: data = 3, 7; algorithm = addition; now this
system can reach the conclusion that the sum of 3 and 7 is 10.
How intelligent the system 'seems' to be depends on the amount of
data and the algorithm(s).
Making the system even more intelligent requires:
(c). ability to update (add/delete/change) the data:
- by the 'outside world' (a 'database administrator')
- by the system itself, based on its own conclusions
Now the system can calculate the sum of every two numbers. Isn't
that intelligent ! Finally, to reach the highest grade of
intelligence the system must also support:
(d). the algorithm itself is data (thus can be changed)
Many Expert Systems contain only (a) and (b). They seem pretty
intelligent. But remember: they *only* differ from my Adding Expert
System in the amount of data and algorithms ! (As how intelligent
would my Adding Expert System have been regarded even a couple of
hundred years ago, let alone in the early Greek times ?)
--
Frans van Otten
Algemene Hogeschool Amsterdam
Technische en Maritieme Faculteit
fransvo@htsa.uucpmarkh@csd4.milw.wisc.edu (Mark William Hopkins) (07/25/89)
In article <2037@cbnewsh.ATT.COM> mbb@cbnewsh.ATT.COM (martin.b.brilliant) writes: * IQ runs in my family. From article <5453@pt.cs.cmu.edu>, by jps@cat.cmu.edu (James Salsman): * Please do not interpolate that idea: if you do, then * you will be running the risk of * * racism ... 1. The notion that one's own ethnic stock is superior. In article <2061@cbnewsh.ATT.COM> mbb responds: * I don't know what to make of that. I think it was sent in anger, * because it doesn't make sense. And it looks like an attempt at a * public insult. I hope it is not. In article <5480@pt.cs.cmu.edu> jps responds: * Goodness, I was certainly not trying to be offensive in any way, * but the logical extention of one's family is one's race, The logical extension of one's family is the whole human race. Nothing less exists. I'm living proof of that. That's the genetic aspect ... The logical extension of one's family is one's culture. And in this day and age the world needs a lot less cultural fragmentation and a lot more concurrence. That's the cultural aspect ... Racism lies in positing artificial genetic boundaries where none exist. Of that you've clearly confessed your guilt. The context makes it clear you are both speaking in genetic terms. And as for intelligence: the intelligence I have over and beyond what is considered normal is SOLELY the result of my conscious efforts and I resent anyone who tries to trivialize the considerable extent of my accomplishment by saying I had nothing consciously to do with it, even the predisposition toward it. And by intelligence, I mean (1) problem-solving ability that is independent of any particular field of knowledge, and (2) the related ability to accquire new expertises in any field of knowledge. "Superior" intelligence is solely the product of individual effort, using techniques which everyone else (who has fluency in at least one human language) can follow. You learn to integrate your emotional and intellectual minds, and you learn to learn things in the context of their use, rather than in the abstract totally shorn away from their defining context as things are too often presented.
dmocsny@uceng.UC.EDU (daniel mocsny) (07/25/89)
In article <3506@csd4.milw.wisc.edu>, markh@csd4.milw.wisc.edu (Mark William Hopkins) writes: >"Superior" intelligence is solely the product of individual effort, using >techniques which everyone else (who has fluency in at least one human language >) can follow. And, conversely, "inferior" intelligence is solely the product of the absence of this individual effort? These techniques you mention, they should be of great interest to people who are attempting to educate the unfortunate people who are as many standard deviations below the mean in "intelligence" as you are above. And where does this "fluency in ... one human language" originate? I doubt the average five-year-old is exerting titanic efforts as she learns to speak. Most children I have seen seem to learn naturally and painlessly, *until* they go to school. I also have a problem with your implication that the child with learning deficits is simply not putting forth an effort. What motivates one person to exert an effort, anyway? I quite agree that learning to think like a digital computer (which is what formal schooling is about, to a first approximation) is difficult for most people, it requires great effort, and I don't minimize the accomplishment of those who (like myself) have weathered their share of same. Nonetheless, even in this highly contrived arena, I have observed little correlation between efforts of my peers and the results they obtain. If you truly have found the "technique" that could erase these distinctions between individual performance, I think that you should have become wealthy from it by now. Dan Mocsny dmocsny@uceng.uc.edu
jwi@lzfme.att.com (Jim Winer @ AT&T, Middletown, NJ) (07/25/89)
| martin.b.brilliant writes: | | * IQ runs in my family. | James Salsman replys: | | * Please do not interpolate that idea: if you do, then | * you will be running the risk of | * | * racism ... 1. The notion that one's own ethnic stock is superior. | Mark William Hopkins adds: | | And as for intelligence: the intelligence I have over and beyond what is | considered normal is SOLELY the result of my conscious efforts and I resent | anyone who tries to trivialize the considerable extent of my accomplishment | by saying I had nothing consciously to do with it, even the predisposition | toward it. ... | | "Superior" intelligence is solely the product of individual effort, using | techniques which everyone else (who has fluency in at least one human language) | can follow. Oh, goody! A bunch of idiots are going to fight to prove my contention that the human race is not intelligent. Jim Winer ..!lzfme!jwi (Usually unable to reply to email outside AT&T) Those persons who advocate censorship offend my religion. Upuaut: a wolf-headed Egyptian deity | Voodoo: the art of sticking ideas assigned as Guidance System | into people and watching for the Barque of Ra. | them bleed. The opinions expressed here are not necessarily
mbb@cbnewsh.ATT.COM (martin.b.brilliant) (07/26/89)
From article <3506@csd4.milw.wisc.edu>, by markh@csd4.milw.wisc.edu (Mark William Hopkins): # And as for intelligence: the intelligence I have over and beyond what is # considered normal is SOLELY the result of my conscious efforts and I resent # anyone who tries to trivialize the considerable extent of my accomplishment # by saying I had nothing consciously to do with it, even the predisposition # toward it.... # # "Superior" intelligence is solely the product of individual effort, using # techniques which everyone else (who has fluency in at least one human language) # can follow. You learn to integrate your emotional and intellectual minds, # and you learn to learn things in the context of their use, rather than in # the abstract totally shorn away from their defining context as things are too # often presented. Excellent! Now all we have to do is program a computer to be fluent in some language, and get Mark to program its efforts, and it will create its own artificial intelligence (no previous predisposition necessary). I wish it were so, but I do not believe it. If the differences among people are due solely to differences in the efforts they exert, how then can we explain why different people exert such widely different efforts? Heredity or environment? Parental effort or predisposition? If we are all born with the same capabilities, why do we express them differently? I agree with Mr. Hopkins's characterization of what intelligence is all about. But I think he was born with an easily integrable mind, and that his parents, friends, or teachers encouraged him to integrate it. In the area of artificial intelligence, I think we have to discover and implement a structure that is suitable for the integration of knowledge in the way Mr. Hopkins described. M. B. Brilliant Marty AT&T-BL HO 3D-520 (201) 949-1858 Holmdel, NJ 07733 att!hounx!marty1 or marty1@hounx.ATT.COM Disclaimer: Opinions stated herein are mine unless and until my employer explicitly claims them; then I lose all rights to them.
markh@csd4.milw.wisc.edu (Mark William Hopkins) (07/27/89)
In article <1696@uceng.UC.EDU> dmocsny@uceng.UC.EDU (daniel mocsny) writes: >In article <3506@csd4.milw.wisc.edu>, markh@csd4.milw.wisc.edu (Mark William Hopkins) writes: >>"Superior" intelligence is solely the product of individual effort, using >>techniques which everyone else (who has fluency in at least one human language >>) can follow. > >And where does this "fluency in ... one human language" originate? I >doubt the average five-year-old is exerting titanic efforts as she >learns to speak. Have you ever actually sat down and try to formulate what was involved in learning a language. If so, you will realise the enormous power it takes to learn it. Nothing even comes close in comparison. The fact that we can do it "effortlessly" is a reflection on the emormous power of our minds that too many people deny in themselves. Nobody, who is fluent in a human language, has the right to even regard themselves as being anything less than gifted. >Most children I have seen seem to learn naturally and painlessly, *until* >they go to school. I also have a problem with your implication that the child >with learning deficits is simply not putting forth an effort. What motivates >one person to exert an effort, anyway? Would it follow from this that most of our learning difficulties, intimidations, and anxieties occur as a RESULT of our education? and of the extensive negative programming too many of us receive as a child? I think so. As for the implication you have trouble with: don't make it. I didn't, you shouldn't. As for "technique", much of what I say above is common knoledge more so than the product of this individual's personal insight.
markh@csd4.milw.wisc.edu (Mark William Hopkins) (07/27/89)
In article <2568@cbnewsh.ATT.COM> mbb@cbnewsh.ATT.COM (martin.b.brilliant) writes: >From article <3506@csd4.milw.wisc.edu>, by markh@csd4.milw.wisc.edu (Mark William Hopkins): > ... that intellligence is not static, that it is learnable ... >Excellent! Now all we have to do is program a computer to be fluent in >some language, and get Mark to program its efforts, and it will create >its own artificial intelligence (no previous predisposition necessary). That's exactly where my current research is heading.
markh@csd4.milw.wisc.edu (Mark William Hopkins) (07/27/89)
* From: Mike Slade <mike%cs.warwick.ac.uk@NSFnet-Relay.AC.UK> * Date: Wed, 26 Jul 89 11:37:04 BST * Subject: Re: Intelligence (was: IQ), Categorization (was: Racism) * Organization: Computer Science, Warwick University, UK * In article <3506@csd4.milw.wisc.edu> you write: * > * > (... even predisposition is not static ...) * * So tell me, do you ever feel frustrated at your _in_abilities? Until recently, but not anymore. Things have changed. * I rank well above average by most criteria for measuring intelligence, but * I often wish I could, say, remember something with more ease or follow a * line of thought faster. Aha! Finally, something concrete I can bury my fangs into. FOLLOWING A NEW LINE OF THOUGHT (say in reading a publication): (Copyright 1989, All rights reserved :-)) Problem: The difficulty lies mainly in the high density of unresolved references to terms and concepts in the literature due to the relative lack of background knowledge. Method: Treat all unresolved references as forward references, and store them in your associative memory. Most people use their stack memory, which is very limited and which is needed for other, more important, tasks such as language comprehension. Forward references can be incrementally resolved as you read on in the literature. Thus, you not only come to understand the line of thought but accquire the background knowledge in the process. Some references are external to the source text, which requires a lateral search in other, related literature. But this can be determined with no major difficulty at "run-time", and can thus guide your search through other literature. And that is an example of one technique on learning how to learn, that I have used (somewhat unconsciously at first) with considerable success. Nothing can easily elude me anymore because of it, though there can be considerable overhead (taxing my patience) in the initial moments as unresolved refereces are accumulated. Warning: the technique is consciously learned, but must be assimilated into your unconscious mind by extensive use. There will be an initial learning curve. * This (current limitations on my abilities) seems to me to indicate that I am * predisposed towards some upper limit to my abilities. How so? * - I have friends that are incapable (i.e. not just lack of confidence, * background knowledge, or whatever) of profound thoughts, problem * solving by abstraction, visualisation, etc. If you can walk or drive, you have visualization, if you can pack items in a box, you have abstraction. If you can make career decisions for yourself, you have the ability to have prfound thoughts. Too many people take too much of their hidden cognitive powers for granted. Even speaking and understanding human language requires all of these skills in considerable magnitude. * Therefore _you_ are predisposed towards being intelligent, because your limit * is probably higher than most people's limit, so it is easier for you to * attain a higher level of "explicit" intelligence. Expertise in any area of knowledge increases as a power of time. Apparent differences lie in who's got a head start, not how far you can go, because even the smallest difference in time are magnified. * In other words someone with a lower intelligence limit would need to put in * more effort to reach your level, if indeed they could at all. * * Comments ? * * Mike Slade * Even the ability to learn is subject to the same power law. Differences exist for much the same reason. But my point throughout all this is that the ability to learn and even to think is, itself, learnable. And that I take all the credit for both what I know and how well I can learn. And that it is a crime for people to trivialize this in anyone -- most of all, in theirselves.
lee@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu (Greg Lee) (07/27/89)
From article <3549@csd4.milw.wisc.edu>, by markh@csd4.milw.wisc.edu (Mark William Hopkins): >... Have you ever actually sat down and try to formulate what was involved in >learning a language. If so, you will realise the enormous power it takes >to learn it. Nothing even comes close in comparison. The fact that >we can do it "effortlessly" is a reflection on the emormous power of our >minds that too many people deny in themselves. ... Since no one understands the nature of human languages or how they are learned, accessing the effort or power of mind involved is a purely speculative endeavor. One opinion about the matter has the language capacity largely innate and separate from intellectual ability. If that should turn out to be correct, then the accessment might turn out to be: not much effort needed nor much power of mind. There is probably a fallacy of thought embedded in this line of speculation that proceeds from the difficulty of characterizing language and how it is acquired. Suppose one asks: have you ever sat down and tried to formulate the relative motions of two gravitational bodies? Difficult problem. It must be very hard for bodies to learn to behave this way, or they must be wonderfully gifted to be able to learn this lesson. Greg, lee@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu
markh@csd4.milw.wisc.edu (Mark William Hopkins) (07/27/89)
* From article <3549@csd4.milw.wisc.edu>, by markh@csd4.milw.wisc.edu (Mark William Hopkins):
*
* ... The fact that we can do it (learn language) "effortlessly" is a
* reflection on the emormous power of our minds that too many people deny in
* themselves. ...
* In article <4431@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu> lee@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu (Greg Lee) writes:
* Since no one understands the nature of human languages or how they are
* learned...
(... we can make no such definitive conclusions ...)
This is begging the question ...
* There is probably a fallacy of thought embedded in this line of
* speculation that proceeds from the difficulty of characterizing language
* and how it is acquired...
...
* ...It must be very hard for bodies to learn to behave (gravitationally),
* or they must be wonderfully gifted to be able to learn this
* lesson.
* Greg, lee@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu
The fallacy clearly lies in the analogy. Gravitational bodies cannot "learn"
how to interact by different laws of physics (say electromagnetically). Their
"knowedge" is static.
Also:
A computer that simulates gravitational motion is not intelligent. A computer
that simulates human language understanding, generation and accquisition is.
The two-body problem is utterly trivial in comparison.markh@csd4.milw.wisc.edu (Mark William Hopkins) (07/27/89)
There is nothing that IQ tests measure that is built into the architecture
of our brain in such a way as to remain static throughout our lives. It is all
learnable and teachable. That degree of abstraction in our knowledge and in
our ability to learn *is* what characterizes human intelligence.
To assert that IQ is genetic is dangerously wrong for precisely that
reason, that it denies us our human endowment.
Now does that make things clear? That is all I care to say on the topic.leblanc@grads.cs.ubc.ca (David LeBlanc) (07/27/89)
In article <3557@csd4.milw.wisc.edu> markh@csd4.milw.wisc.edu (Mark William Hopkins) writes: #* From article <3549@csd4.milw.wisc.edu>, by markh@csd4.milw.wisc.edu (Mark William Hopkins): #* #* ... The fact that we can do it (learn language) "effortlessly" is a #* reflection on the emormous power of our minds that too many people deny in #* themselves. ... # #* In article <4431@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu> lee@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu (Greg Lee) writes: #* Since no one understands the nature of human languages or how they are #* learned... #(... we can make no such definitive conclusions ...) # #This is begging the question ... # #* There is probably a fallacy of thought embedded in this line of #* speculation that proceeds from the difficulty of characterizing language #* and how it is acquired... #... #* ...It must be very hard for bodies to learn to behave (gravitationally), #* or they must be wonderfully gifted to be able to learn this #* lesson. #* Greg, lee@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu # #The fallacy clearly lies in the analogy. Gravitational bodies cannot "learn" #how to interact by different laws of physics (say electromagnetically). Their #"knowedge" is static. # The mind as a whole is not static, the inate parser probably is. Current linguistic theory states that people are born with an inate parsing mechanism which is then 'fine tuned' by exposure to language(s) to operate for that language(s). Whether this 'fine tuning' sets parameters or learns rules (or some combination thereof), the parsing mechanism remains static. I would say that the fact we learn language 'effortlessly' is an indicater that language acquisition is trivial (and a function of the inate parsing mechanism) rather than "a reflection on the enormous power of our minds ...". David LeBlanc
leblanc@grads.cs.ubc.ca (David LeBlanc) (07/27/89)
In article <3558@csd4.milw.wisc.edu> markh@csd4.milw.wisc.edu (Mark William Hopkins) writes:
#
# There is nothing that IQ tests measure that is built into the
#architecture of our brain in such a way as to remain static throughout our
#lives. It is all learnable and teachable.
Hmmm. IQ tests do measure language ability. Language ability is based on
the inate parser everyone is born with. So, I'd say you're wrong.
#That degree of abstraction in
#our knowledge and in our ability to learn *is* what characterizes human
#intelligence.
I'm not touching this with a 3 meter pole.
# To assert that IQ is genetic is dangerously wrong for precisely that
#reason, that it denies us our human endowment.
True. But to say that everyone is born with the same abilities is probably
just as wrong.
# Now does that make things clear?
Not at all.
#That is all I care to say on the topic.
Too bad. Maybe someone would like to continue the subject.
David LeBlanc
"Holy bat droppings. Somebody's talking about my area of research!"benson@dcdwest.UUCP (Peter Benson) (07/28/89)
In article <3558@csd4.milw.wisc.edu> markh@csd4.milw.wisc.edu (Mark William Hopkins) writes: > > There is nothing that IQ tests measure that is built into the architecture >of our brain in such a way as to remain static throughout our lives. It is all >learnable and teachable. > To assert that IQ is genetic is dangerously wrong for precisely that >reason, that it denies us our human endowment. I have seen studies that note a significant correlation in IQ between twins raised apart. If it is all 'learnable and teachable' then there would be no such correlation. Our human endowment, I surmise, is the exceptional ability for humans to learn new things. In my experience, every human I have met has that ability, although some are quicker than others and some have more persistence than others. I don't know whether the quickness or persistence is innate or learned. Were I to hire someone, I would only care about the end result of these processes. That is, I would rather not hire someone who is slow or easily put off, regardless whether it was a genetic flaw or bad up-bringing. It's hard to estimate in a job interview how quick someone is. If I had hired his or her twin and HE or SHE had been extraordinarily quick, I would be tempted to hire him or her. P.S. I loved the arguments about the percent of genetic material we have in common with chimps and the similiar arguments about how similiar we all are genetically. How similiar are large computer programs using these measures? how similar are different versions of the same program? Especially the one that has the factor of 2 speed up over an earlier version by revising one small loop? -- Peter Benson | ITT Defense Communications Division (619)578-3080 | 10060 Carroll Canyon Road ucbvax!ucsd!dcdwest!benson | San Diego, CA 92131 dcdwest!benson@UCSD.EDU |
andrew@berlioz (Lord Snooty @ The Giant Poisoned Electric Head ) (07/30/89)
Taking a step back from the broohaha, it would be surprising to me if there were NOT quantifiable differences in mean and standard deviation of a given race's "intelligence", measured by any method, like IQ. Before you expostulate over this, let me add that I predicate this statement on the assumptions that: - it is possible to decouple behavioural influences - it is possible to measure in a fine-grained enough way (large menu of tests, sophisticated marking system) I say this simply because of the diversity Nature exhibits. The catch is the attachment of meaning to the measurement method! -- ........................................................................... Andrew Palfreyman There's a good time coming, be it ever so far away, andrew@berlioz.nsc.com That's what I says to myself, says I, time sucks jolly good luck, hooray!
jwi@lzfme.att.com (J.WINER) (07/31/89)
> Mark William Hopkins writes: > If you can walk or drive, you have visualization, if you can pack > items in a box, you have abstraction. If you can make career > decisions for yourself, you have the ability to have prfound > thoughts. Too many people take too much of their hidden cognitive > powers for granted. Even speaking and understanding human language > requires all of these skills in considerable magnitude. Your powers of observations are appaling. Find someone at your university who is an actor and ask him/her to help you observe how people walk. What you'll find is that well over 50% of the population cannot properly balance their own bodies while walking. Most adults (who haven't been trained to walk) move very much like toddlers with little regard for their own center of gravity. If an actor can't help you with this, ask a tai chi guru who has been trained to topple people who haven't learned to pay attention to their center of gravity. Similarly, try riding as a passenger instead of driving and watch how the people around you control a car. Again, over 50% of the population does not look where they are going when changing lanes or backing up. Or, if you're too paranoid to ride with someone else, go to one of the racing driving schools and learn for yourself how to really control a car -- then you'll really be scared of the idiots on the road. Putting items in boxes is also known as stereotyping. I agree the human race is very good at this. It does not seem very intelligent, however, but simply corresponds to lazyness and a lack of ability to deal with individuals items. And then ask yourself (or one of the psychology professors at your university) what the big three problems are that take people to shrinks. Surprize! dissatisfaction with the job is one of them! It seems that most people really aren't very good at making career decisions for themselves. And lastly, notice how articulate some of the articles are here on the net. Your presumption that most people can even speak and understand a human language is debatable at best. Premise: The majority of Americans (and the vast majority of the world) cannot walk, drive, make career decisions, or speak and understand any human language well enough to prove anything except a lack of intelligence. The majority are good at stereotyping. You lose on 4 out of 5. Conclusion: you're just not very good at seeing the world around you, but you are very good at stereotyping. I suggest a course in remedial data acquisition. Jim Winer ..!lzfme!jwi (Usually unable to reply to email outside AT&T) Those persons who advocate censorship offend my religion. Upuaut: a wolf-headed Egyptian deity | Voodoo: the art of sticking ideas assigned as Guidance System | into people and watching for the Barque of Ra. | them bleed. The opinions expressed here are not necessarily
jwi@lzfme.att.com (J.WINER) (07/31/89)
Mark William Hopkins writes: > > There is nothing that IQ tests measure that is built into the architecture > of our brain in such a way as to remain static throughout our lives. It is all > learnable and teachable. That degree of abstraction in our knowledge and in > our ability to learn *is* what characterizes human intelligence. > To assert that IQ is genetic is dangerously wrong for precisely that > reason, that it denies us our human endowment. To assert that IQ is actually related to practical intelligence or to the ability to think is dangerously wrong because it contradicts reality. On the other hand what the IQ tests measure probably is genetic to a large extent -- but since it has no relation to the ability to think, so what? > Now does that make things clear? That is all I care to say on the topic. I certainly hope so. Jim Winer ..!lzfme!jwi (Usually unable to reply to email outside AT&T) Those persons who advocate censorship offend my religion. Upuaut: a wolf-headed Egyptian deity | Voodoo: the art of sticking ideas assigned as Guidance System | into people and watching for the Barque of Ra. | them bleed. The opinions expressed here are not necessarily
jwi@lzfme.att.com (J.WINER) (07/31/89)
Mark William Hopkins writes: > > Nobody, who is fluent in a human language, has the right to even regard > themselves as being anything less than gifted. And the gift that we "intelligent" people have been given is wasted. What is the legacy you will leave for your children -- a dying world? Look around you and observe -- the oceans are dying -- how much longer do you think our intelligent race will survive? > >Most children I have seen seem to learn naturally and painlessly, *until* > >they go to school. I also have a problem with your implication that the child > >with learning deficits is simply not putting forth an effort. What motivates > >one person to exert an effort, anyway? > > Would it follow from this that most of our learning difficulties, > intimidations, and anxieties occur as a RESULT of our education? and of the > extensive negative programming too many of us receive as a child? > > I think so. > > As for the implication you have trouble with: don't make it. I didn't, you > shouldn't. > > As for "technique", much of what I say above is common knoledge more so than > the product of this individual's personal insight. You know, if it were common knowledge, people wouldn't be arguing with you about it, would they? Jim Winer ..!lzfme!jwi (Usually unable to reply to email outside AT&T) Those persons who advocate censorship offend my religion. Upuaut: a wolf-headed Egyptian deity | Voodoo: the art of sticking ideas assigned as Guidance System | into people and watching for the Barque of Ra. | them bleed. The opinions expressed here are not necessarily
cam@edai.ed.ac.uk (Chris Malcolm cam@uk.ac.ed.edai 031 667 1011 x2550) (07/31/89)
In article <3558@csd4.milw.wisc.edu> markh@csd4.milw.wisc.edu (Mark William Hopkins) writes: >There is nothing that IQ tests measure that is built into the >architecture of our brain in such a way as to remain static >throughout our lives. It is all learnable and teachable. My knowledge is obviously out of date: I thought that this was still an unsettled research question. Can you supply references? >To assert that IQ is genetic is dangerously wrong for precisely >that reason, that it denies us our human endowment. What human endowment? Where did this endowment come from? And how do we know what it is with such certainty that it can be used to rubbish hypotheses without further argument? -- Chris Malcolm cam@uk.ac.ed.edai 031 667 1011 x2550 Department of Artificial Intelligence, Edinburgh University 5 Forrest Hill, Edinburgh, EH1 2QL, UK
markh@csd4.milw.wisc.edu (Mark William Hopkins) (08/12/89)
Mark William Hopkins writes: * * There is nothing that IQ tests measure that is built into the architecture * of our brain in such a way as to remain static throughout our lives. It is all * learnable and teachable. That degree of abstraction in our knowledge and in * our ability to learn *is* what characterizes human intelligence. * To assert that IQ is genetic is dangerously wrong for precisely that * reason, that it denies us our human endowment. In article <1522@lzfme.att.com> jwi@lzfme.att.com (J.WINER) writes: * To assert that IQ is actually related to practical intelligence or * to the ability to think is dangerously wrong because it contradicts * reality. This is exactly what the quoted text implies.
jwi@lzfme.att.com (Jim Winer @ AT&T, Middletown, NJ) (08/16/89)
> Mark William Hopkins writes: > * > * There is nothing that IQ tests measure that is built into the architecture > * of our brain in such a way as to remain static throughout our lives. It is all > * learnable and teachable. That degree of abstraction in our knowledge and in > * our ability to learn *is* what characterizes human intelligence. > * To assert that IQ is genetic is dangerously wrong for precisely that > * reason, that it denies us our human endowment. > > In article <1522@lzfme.att.com> jwi@lzfme.att.com (J.WINER) writes: > * To assert that IQ is actually related to practical intelligence or > * to the ability to think is dangerously wrong because it contradicts > * reality. > > Mark William Hopkins replies: > > This is exactly what the quoted text implies. Jim Winer replies: What the quoted text says is: "To assert that IQ is genetic is dangerously wrong for precisely that reason, that it denies us our human endowment." I repeat: 1. IQ is genetic, whether static or not. 2. To assert that IQ is actually related to practical intelligence or to the ability to think is dangerously wrong because it contradicts reality. Sorry, but I don't think that your statements imply my statement at all. 3. To assert that the human race, or any individual member of it, because of IQ, is intelligent, is dangerously wrong because it contradicts reality. Jim Winer ..!lzfme!jwi (Please don't email, unable to reply.) Those persons who advocate censorship offend my religion. Upuaut: a wolf-headed Egyptian deity | Voodoo: the art of sticking ideas assigned as Guidance System | into people and watching for the Barque of Ra. | them bleed. The opinions expressed here are not necessarily