rkts
Joined 19 years ago
Karma
277
Submissions
131
Member since
Aug 16
Recent submissions
Comment · 16 years ago
Comment · 16 years ago
I have not read Stanovich's book but it does not appear to be an appropriate introduction to the subject of intelligence. I suspect you recommend these "newer and better" books because they suit your ideological purposes, not because they are better researched or more informative.
Comment · 16 years ago
There is a lot of data on this question, and it flatly contradicts Asimov's claims. IQ scores correlate not only with academic performance but also with job performance as well as others' intuitive impression of how "smart" a person is. That's why the army gives intelligence tests to new recruits: high-IQ soldiers (and mechanics and carpenters) do better, on average, than their low-IQ counterparts. Other types of tests, such as the hypothetical test devised by Asimov's mechanic, either have no predictive power or are predictive only as far as they correlate with g, or general intelligence, which is currently best measured by IQ tests. The physiological basis of g is unknown, but it is highly heritable and correlates with a number of physical variables such as brain volume and myelination.
If you want to learn more about the subject, I suggest this book, which concisely disposes of these and other popular anti-IQ arguments:
http://www.amazon.com/Question-Intelligence-IQ-Debate-Americ...
Comment · 17 years ago
The combination of IQ and "chutzpah" is the essence of the entrepreneurial personality. If Jews are (for whatever reason) disposed to be high on these traits, it's certainly a sufficient explanation.
Comment · 17 years ago
A related theory (PDF): http://homepage.mac.com/harpend/.Public/AshkenaziIQ.jbiosocs...
Comment · 17 years ago
It's pretty simple. People who think in personal, emotional terms tend to explain the world that way, while people who think more logically/mechanically explain the world that way. That's where religion and science, respectively, come from.
Comment · 17 years ago
Dawkins is a classic yellowist (http://paulgraham.com/say.html). Megawatts of brain power spent on arguing with idiots.
Comment · 17 years ago
Ritalin. Only thing that's ever worked for me.
Comment · 17 years ago
No one has proved that technology won't one day make everyone grow to 6 feet and live 200 years. In fact that could quite plausibly happen. But you'd still be a fool to count on it.
Comment · 17 years ago
Course catalogs tell you nothing. They're stuffed with appealing descriptions of courses which may or may not end up on the schedule, and when they do, may or may not resemble the description in the catalog. Not to mention the teachers' knowledge level; I once attended a cryptography lecture by a professor who didn't know the difference between public and private keys...
Comment · 17 years ago
If you want to learn, then going to a Respected Research University is a waste of time and money. The quality of teaching at such places is often pathetically bad. Prestige comes from research, not teaching, and every dollar spent on research is a dollar not spent on teaching. You'll learn more for your money at a middling state school or private college, in part because these places attract professors who actually like to teach.
Predictable objections:
1. I had some great teachers at RRU: I did too. But they are the exception rather than the rule.
2. You'll make more money with a degree from RRU: The statistics don't support this. Harvard students end up with the same average income as students who get admitted to Harvard but then go to a less prestigious school.
3. You'll meet more smart people at RRU: Yes, but you can find smart people anywhere, and a few years of college classes is as good a filter as any admissions department, at least in technical majors. The kind of people you meet in a topology course is about the same no matter what school you're at.
I think the most important thing is to find a place where you'll fit in and be happy for 4-5 years. Visit a few places, and go with your gut.
See also: http://www.paulgraham.com/colleges.html
Comment · 17 years ago
Zero is not defined to be even. A number is even if it's twice some integer. Zero is twice an integer (namely 0), so it's even.
If you try to bring personal intuition into mathematics, you'll just repeatedly shoot yourself in the foot
I disagree. Intuition should always be foremost in mathematical understanding. You may have gotten a different impression from your math classes, and that IMO is a consequence of bad teaching.
I had a similar problem with accepting that 1/inf = 0
As you should; the statement is false. The limit of 1/x as x->infinity is zero, but there is no x at which the quotient "reaches" zero. In non-standard analysis, if x is positive infinite, then 1/x is positive infinitesimal, meaning it is infinitely close to, but still greater than zero.
That would be an audacious claim, considering the book is rather old and only 200 pages. I recommend it because it is a model of concise and accessible prose, good for laymen (like me) who want to get the basic facts with minimal fluff. As far as I know, none of its main points has been invalidated by intervening research. But I can see why its blunt statements of fact might be unpalatable to some.