GPA's accuracy reflecting intelligence.

[Rubin0]

Re: GPA's accuracy reflecting intelligence.

I urge you to read this. Your first source is complete hobwash.

http://www.snopes.com/humor/iftrue/kinsey.asp

Just because you find it on the internet, does not make it true.

[Bynary Fission]

Re: GPA's accuracy reflecting intelligence.

I was simply siting resources. I hope you read the other one also. But thanks anyways. I was wrong then. But if you look at what else I have seen, I hope you understand why I thought I was right, and not because I like to make up facts.





~Bynary Fission

[gnr61]

Re: GPA's accuracy reflecting intelligence.

You do realize the Hoosier Gazette is a parody news website....>.>
seriously a little checking up on your sources can't hurt too much.

And thanks for giving me an excuse to post this semi-irrelevant comic:


<3 xkcd

[Bynary Fission]

Re: GPA's accuracy reflecting intelligence.

No, I did not realize it is a parody news site. I know the Onion is, though. And do not insult me. I admit I am wrong, and that's the end of it. You don't need to add a puerile comment or comic to try and incite my anger.

[Rubin0]

Re: GPA's accuracy reflecting intelligence.

I'm honestly trying to to figure out how birth order and IQ has anything to do with any argument you have made thus far. I might be missing something since I just quickly re-skimmed everythng.

[devonin]

Re: GPA's accuracy reflecting intelligence.

Alright, let's see what we can do here.

Bynary: The first article you linked to in support of your claims was not a legitimate source, and the second referred only to there being no support for a claim that many kids make for kids with a lower IQ. It said nothing at all about parents, and nothing at all about anyone having their IQ lower, and thus had nothing to do with your point either.

Further, even if there were a correlation, as was pointed out above: post hoc ergo propter hoc is one of the standard logical fallacies, and you need to properly -prove- a causal relationship before you can claim one.

Reach: Same deal with the correlation. It can exist and still be coincidental, just because its there doesn't mean the correlation is causal. Also, The ratio system says if your intelligence remains constant, your IQ will drop as your chronological age increases, and saying "Well then you switch to deviation" sounds a little like "So then we switch from one set of numbers that suddenly becomes wrong, to a totally new set of numbers that supports the validity of our process"

I'd suggest that any IQ test result you want to cite with reference for yourself ought to only be considered valid for about a year after you take it. I'm of the opinion that the subjective nature of test to test, and the way they interact with respect to mental and chronological age makes it that if you want to justifiably go around telling people about your IQ, you ought to get retested every year. I think that would solve both of our issues with the system yes?

gnr: You're perfectly right to ask to see sources cited when someone is claiming facts you disagree with, but there were better ways to ask to see them. No harm no foul, really, but you were a little more confrontational than you perhaps needed to be, though Bynary, you also took it a little harder than you ought to. Civility is the order of the day.

Rubin0: If you hate to make generalizations about people's ages, then don't make generalizations about people's ages. Also, while it may be true in large parts of the forum (Especially stuff like TGB) that new users have no credibility with the old users, here credibility comes with intelligent and contributory posting, not just being around a long time.

A very well known, even well liked, user from 3 or 4 years of constant forum activity can make their first post in CT, and if it sucks, contributes nothing, is full of fallacy and nonsense, that's where credibility goes away. We've had several people who started posting here who were quite new, and many who pretty much -only- post here, and they have plenty of credibility.

And see, I didn't even put all that in red text. We can solve our issues without the iron fist.

[devonin]

Re: GPA's accuracy reflecting intelligence.

Academic achievement doesn't have the ability to judge a person's intelligence.

What of it? Would you care to expand your view a little? As it stands this is just a someone more wordy version of "No it doesn't"

[Rubin0]

Re: GPA's accuracy reflecting intelligence.

Rubin0: If you hate to make generalizations about people's ages, then don't make generalizations about people's ages. Also, while it may be true in large parts of the forum (Especially stuff like TGB) that new users have no credibility with the old users, here credibility comes with intelligent and contributory posting, not just being around a long time.

A very well known, even well liked, user from 3 or 4 years of constant forum activity can make their first post in CT, and if it sucks, contributes nothing, is full of fallacy and nonsense, that's where credibility goes away. We've had several people who started posting here who were quite new, and many who pretty much -only- post here, and they have plenty of credibility.

Points taken.

[Bynary Fission]

Re: GPA's accuracy reflecting intelligence.

Poated by devonin:
gnr: You're perfectly right to ask to see sources cited when someone is claiming facts you disagree with, but there were better ways to ask to see them. No harm no foul, really, but you were a little more confrontational than you perhaps needed to be, though Bynary, you also took it a little harder than you ought to. Civility is the order of the day.


I understand what you are saying. But since I have been attacked by everybody here, it's hard not to. And as for my second article, you clearly didn't read what I said. I said that it does support much of what I have said in one way or another. The last part does reference how it seems that parents have lower IQ with families/larger ones than parents who have small families or aren't parents at all. Therefore, my statement had some merit to it. There is a correlation, and If I Remember Correctly, Harvard did such a study that proved it (I don't remember exactly, it may have been something else). Please, at least READ what I've posted before making your statements.

~Bynary Fission

[devonin]

Re: GPA's accuracy reflecting intelligence.

The last part does reference how it seems that parents have lower IQ with families/larger ones than parents who have small families or aren't parents at all. Therefore, my statement had some merit to it. There is a correlation

You've got the realtionship backwards. They are suggesting that parents with lower IQs (IE. That -always- had lower IQ) are more likely to have a large family. Not that those who have a large family are apt to end up with a low IQ.

So the correlation is there, but you've fallen afoul of cum hoc ergo propter hoc, by concluding that because low IQ and large families tend to go together, it must be the case that the one (low IQ) is caused by the other (large family) when in fact, the implication is that the reverse is true.

[Reach]

Re: GPA's accuracy reflecting intelligence.

Same deal with the correlation. It can exist and still be coincidental, just because its there doesn't mean the correlation is causal. Also, The ratio system says if your intelligence remains constant, your IQ will drop as your chronological age increases, and saying "Well then you switch to deviation" sounds a little like "So then we switch from one set of numbers that suddenly becomes wrong, to a totally new set of numbers that supports the validity of our process"

I'd suggest that any IQ test result you want to cite with reference for yourself ought to only be considered valid for about a year after you take it. I'm of the opinion that the subjective nature of test to test, and the way they interact with respect to mental and chronological age makes it that if you want to justifiably go around telling people about your IQ, you ought to get retested every year. I think that would solve both of our issues with the system yes?

I didn't say it was causal. However, if a strong relationship exists it isn't likely coincidental (r > 0.5). It doesn't matter even if the variables have very little in common (e.g. icecream sales and drownings). Statistically the relationship is too strong to happen by chance.

I have no idea what you're talking about in reference to the ratio scale. The reason your IQ remains the same until the age of about 16 is because your intelligence increases with your age (up until about 16), but the tests are normed by age group. The reason the scale switches to deviation is because after about 16 your intelligence will not increase, so we can compare you to the population as a whole, rather than to people of your own age. The scales are slightly different (in terms of what IQ they yield) but in terms of rarity of the score it all means the same. If you took a test at 12 and got a ratio IQ score, and then took a test at 18 you might receive a different IQ score but it would correspond to the same percentile (and just for the record, this only applies to ratio IQs above about 130. Below that they follow a normal distribution. For some reason though after that ratio IQs take off exponentially faster than the normal distribution would predict).

Also, only valid a year after you've taken it? This is true for very young children, as the results of IQ testing under the age of about 8 is not reliable, but after that your score will stay relatively stable (within the standard error, as predicted by the confidence interval). The only time this isn't true is if your IQ has been depressed or an inappropriate test was administered (the ridiculous online IQ parade has given IQ tests a pretty bad rep lately. The whole 'I scored 100 on one test and 190 on another online IQ tests are bunk', but on tests that have absolutely no internal or external validity >_>).

I suppose by taking several tests the estimate of your IQ would become more accurate as the confidence interval shrinks, but it's not necessary at all with good tests.

edit: I think I see what you did there now for the ratio IQ comment. By IQ I was implying strictly your IQ score. The reason this is important is because since it stays stable, it is very predictive of your future ability. People that are smarter at age 10 are smarter as adults.

[Bynary Fission]

Re: GPA's accuracy reflecting intelligence.

You've got the realtionship backwards. They are suggesting that parents with lower IQs (IE. That -always- had lower IQ) are more likely to have a large family. Not that those who have a large family are apt to end up with a low IQ.

So the correlation is there, but you've fallen afoul of cum hoc ergo propter hoc, by concluding that because low IQ and large families tend to go together, it must be the case that the one (low IQ) is caused by the other (large family) when in fact, the implication is that the reverse is true.

Yes, I understand that. I could explain in-depth about it, but from what it seems, you guys appear to be very close-minded and would not be willing to listen to it. I have tried explaining why, but to no avail. With that evidence, I am wrong. But in some cases it is true. Maybe a coincidence. Maybe there is a correlation. Maybe it's a statistical anomaly. There can be any number of reasons.

~Bynary Fission

[eVo_CaNtToUcH]

Re: GPA's accuracy reflecting intelligence.

Seems like whenever somebody refers to an intelligent person they always seem to include their high GPA almost as if the two go hand-in-hand without exceptions. From what I've discovered, what's required to achieve a high (or perfect) GPA can certainly be done by a person with below average intelligence. Their score is determined by their effort.

Now I'm sure you all already knew this, but it seems like many people disregard the relationship and propose that there's a direct connection between a high GPA and a above-average-intelligence person.

For the sake of the poll's accuracy I'm going to assume that above-average-intelligence would encompass everybody in the CT section as they're supposed to express a higher level of thinking.

*poll complete*

I hope this qualifies as a CT thread.

Well to put in my 2 cents I had a 4.0 GPA then i dropped out =(. But as for me both went hand in hand as far as i think and have been told. But i also know that alot of the time they do not. Reason why i think that is because in school you can study and study and study untill you are perfect while being intelligent it is natual it is either there or its not.

[devonin]

Re: GPA's accuracy reflecting intelligence.

Yes, I understand that. I could explain in-depth about it

Then do so. You have to support your claims with hard evidence if you want people to accept or believe them. You haven't, so we don't. As simple as that.

You were pressed for sources to back up your claims, and the ones you provided were a spoof site, and one that several people felt didn't back up what you were saying. It is hardly their fault if on that basis, they don't declare you to be correct.

but from what it seems, you guys appear to be very close-minded and would not be willing to listen to it.

That's pretty close to one of the most serious accusations you can possibly make in the CT forum. I take the intellectual integrity of this forum quite seriously, and if anyone were seriously just ignoring points that you made that were clear, cogent and backed up with reputable evidence, they'd be smacked down for it.

You'll in fact notice that I've already cautioned both you and someone else for being less than civil in this thread. "I could prove it, but I don't want to" doesn't fly here. If you can back up your claims, do so. If you can't, don't post about how nobody listens to you.

I have tried explaining why, but to no avail.

So uh...try again with some number of the other sources you assure us you have?

With that evidence, I am wrong. But in some cases it is true. Maybe a coincidence. Maybe there is a correlation. Maybe it's a statistical anomaly. There can be any number of reasons.

You don't sound quite so sure...

[gnr61]

Re: GPA's accuracy reflecting intelligence.

The remark about "checking up on your sources" may have come off as confrontational and point taken xD
In all fairness though the comic was just something humorous I thought of when I read Rubin's post containing the link to snopes. It wasn't actually a stab at you