[another_someone]

DoctorBeaver, I would agree with most of the generality of what you say (not least the bit about having different scores on different days), but some of the categories, which are contentions in any case, I would probably have a different opinion to you.

Firstly, although most IQ tests are linguistic/mathematical in nature, British Mensa also uses in its own tests a 'culture fair' test which is more spatial and pattern recognition (intended for people who would not be as familiar with the English language).

You suggested that musical ability was associated with wider artistic ability.  I would disagree with this.  There are also those who associate musical ability with mathematical ability, but this is based upon the mathematical relationships that exist in music, but some sort of mathematical relationship exists in most forms of artistic expression.  In fact, in past centuries there would not have been any distinction made between the aesthetic arts and the philosophical arts.  In modern times, we have moved towards more specialism, and a separation between the aesthetic arts and the philosophical arts, but I believe there is just as much separation between the visual arts and auditory arts (and, if such things was widely recognised, the olfactory arts and the tactile arts).  I accept that there are many people who have a propensity for both music and the visual or auditory arts, but there are also people who have a propensity for music and the sciences (Borodin was a chemist; Feynmen liked to play the Bongos – can't say how musical he was; and Einstein was quoted as saying “If I were not a physicist, I would probably be a musician. I often think in music. I live my daydreams in music. I see my life in terms of music”).

The body-kinesthetic, I would separate out into reaction speed and reaction accuracy.  My own anecdotal observations lead me to believe that reaction speed may be related in some way with IQ (many IQ tests are time limited, and maybe speed of thought and speed of physical reaction are interrelated).

As you rightly say, IQ is only one narrow measure, which is why you have such a plethora of other tests, such a Myers-Briggs, or EQ testing.  They don't have as long an established history to validate them, but they nonetheless do recognise that there are things outside of IQ that should be measured.

And, yes I do realise that I run the risk of teaching my grandmother to suck eggs, and it is not my intention to do such, merely to exchange experiences and views (not that I ever knew if my grandmother did know how to suck eggs, though I do believe my mother used to do so in her younger years).

[DoctorBeaver]

quote:You suggested that musical ability was associated with wider artistic ability

No. I did not say musical ability; i said "musical intelligence involves a person being able to find meaning in sets of musical pitches". That does not infer any kind of actual musical ability.

 

quote:but there are also people who have a propensity for music and the sciences

I did not say otherwise. I think you may have said the above as you misunderstood what I originally said about musical intelligence. As such, the point you raise would have been a fair 1.

quote:Einstein was quoted as saying “If I were not a physicist, I would probably be a musician. I often think in music. I live my daydreams in music. I see my life in terms of music”

It's difficult to know exactly what he meant by that. If my own experience is anything to go by, when I hear or read something that doesn't seem right, it's as if I'm hearing a very bad piece of music, or as if someone has played a "bum note". I don't mean the discordant compositions of Bartok or Schonberg; although they are discordant, they sound right. I'm talking about notes that really do not fit. I get the same "That's not right" feeling.
Elegant & correct solutions to problems, on the other hand, are like my hearing Bach or Mozart. The patterns just seem to fit. It's very difficult to describe it. (yes, I am also a musician)

 

quote:The body-kinesthetic, I would separate out into reaction speed and reaction accuracy. My own anecdotal observations lead me to believe that reaction speed may be related in some way with IQ (many IQ tests are time limited, and maybe speed of thought and speed of physical reaction are interrelated).

Hmmm, I'm not sure about this at all. From my own experience, the 2 are totally unconnected. I used to practice martial arts & knew intelligent people whose reactions were slower than those who were less gifted intellectually. I'm not, offhand, aware of any studies in this area. I'll see if I can find anything.

The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) is concerned with personality types. It isn't intended as, nor can it be used as, a measure of intelligence. There are similarities between the theories of Jungian tests and MBTI.

I'm aware of the Mensa tests. They are, indeed, much broader in scope.

[ukmicky]

http://www.mensa.org/index0.php?page=12&PHPSESSID=6a002dfe124bbd351495c56eb0e955a0

lets see how clever you all are no cheating

i haven't done it yet i'm still stuck on the first question[]



i've created a thread for this, so please post score here


http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=3073
Michael                                      

[DoctorBeaver]

http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/tenper.html

[another_someone]

quote:Originally posted by DoctorBeaver

http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/tenper.html

While I agree that the claim that we only use 10% of our brain is dubious, I cannot say that the site in question actually disproves anything.

What it states, rightly, is that we have no substantive evidence for the claim that we only use 10% of our brain; but a lack of evidence is not the same as proof of falsehood.

It also claims:

quote:Furthermore, from an evolutionary point of view, it is unlikely that larger brains would have developed if there was not an advantage.

But then goes on to say:

quote:This concept is called "redundancy" and is found throughout the nervous system.

I think it reasonable to say that if a system has redundancy, then some of that system is not being used.  It does not mean that the unused parts will never be used in the future – the purpose of redundancy is that one may well need that redundant component at a future time (just as having two kidneys, while demonstrably can survive with only one kidney,  means that we are normally only utilising (at most) 50% of our kidney function, while retaining the other 50% on standby).

We do know that the brain loses a lot of its capacity over time, and thus having a brain that starts with substantial excess capacity would seem a prerequisite for long term survival.

As I said, I am not trying to argue for the 10% claim, only wary about specious arguments trying to support a position, even if I believe their may be some merit in the position being argued for.

One of the big problems about the 10% argument is that the vast majority of the brain has nothing to do with intellectual thought, and so the argument that tries to suggest that we have far more brain available for intellectual thought than we actually use ignores the fact that most of the rest of the brain is trying to do mundane things like visual or auditory signal processing.

It must also be remembered that the human body (including the brain) is a machine, and any machine that is constantly run at 100% load will rapidly fail.

An experiment that might in fact be an interesting example of just this issue of system overload is:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4513904.stm

quote:
In the study, the researchers "switched on" p25 at will in the brain's learning and memory centre, the hippocampus.
In these mice, they found that switching on p25 for only two weeks boosted learning and memory compared to normal mice.
But if the p25 was switched on for six weeks, mice displayed impaired learning and memory in tests.
Physiological studies showed that these mice showed significant brain damage and lost nerve cells in the hippocampus.
But those who had elevated p25 levels for just two weeks had no such effects.
The researchers concluded that short-term production of p25 boosts learning - but long term exposure affects the ability to form new memories.
The researchers, led by Dr Li-Huei Tsai, say the study suggested that the protein was normally beneficial, helping form memories and enable learning.
But if there was too much p25, perhaps because of other changes in the brain linked to dementias, nerve cells can die.

None of this is to say that the 10% figure is valid, but that the brain must have some redundancy built in is inevitable and essential to the long term survival of the organ.